INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
DAVID HORROX
CONTENTS
Wednesday 17 June 1998
Subcommittee report
Intended appointments
Mr David Horrox
Mr Douglas Lawson
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur L)
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth PC)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North / -Nord PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce PC)
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1002 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Ms Frances Lankin): I call the meeting to order. The first item of business is to accept the report of the subcommittee dated Thursday, July 11. If you take a look at that, you'll see that it's a bit unusual in its timing, in that it sets out approval for interviewing Mr Douglas Lawson today. Mr Lawson was selected by the Liberal Party. He was not available next week but he was available this week so, given that we had a short meeting, it made sense. With the committee's agreement, we will accept the subcommittee report. Could I have a motion to that effect?
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Could I just preface my motion by saying, Madam Chair, that I believe you said May 11 in your opening remarks. I think you meant June 11.
Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): She said July.
Mr Grimmett: Okay, she was thinking about July. We're going to have a fun subcommittee meeting today talking about July.
The Chair: If I said July and didn't mean May, it must be June.
Mr Grimmett: Sorry, I wasn't listening very well either.
The Chair: Well, you caught that I got it wrong. My apologies. It is the subcommittee report of June 11. Could I have a motion to adopt it, please.
Mr Grimmett: So moved.
The Chair: Thank you. Is there any debate? All those in favour, please indicate. Opposed? That's carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
DAVID HORROX
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: David Horrox, intended appointee as member, Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.
The Chair: We'll now move to appointment reviews. The first intended appointee is Mr David Horrox. Mr Horrox is an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal. Mr Horrox, if you have any opening comments, we would be delighted to hear from you, and then we would begin questioning with the Liberal party.
Mr David Horrox: Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to meet with you this morning. I shall briefly outline why I am interested in the position of member of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal and my qualifications for this appointment.
When I saw the advertisement in the Globe and Mail, I immediately applied, believing that the position would be challenging, of service to the people of Ontario, and one that would utilize my successful work experience, education, and personal belief and practice in fair, unbiased and transparent public administration.
My background includes 24 years' experience with the federal government, working both at the officer level and in management, administering social and labour legislation. During that time, I developed solid administrative abilities and quasi-legal knowledge. Over the years I appeared as departmental representative before various tribunals, such as the Canada Labour Relations Board, the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the Public Service Staff Relations Board and in criminal courts as a witness-in-chief for the department. In addition, I worked with the Department of Justice counsel preparing cases.
Bill 96 provides for a member mediating, where possible and appropriate, to resolve disputes as one means of expeditiously processing tribunal business. My experience in this particular activity, I believe, would be useful to the tribunal.
One of the things about which I'm proudest of my time in the federal government was the exemplary performance of my staff, who judiciously balanced the rights of both employees and employers while administering the Canada Labour Code in a fair and effective manner. Time does not permit me to list their accomplishments.
My experience as a public school trustee and chairman of the Scarborough Board of Education is relevant to the position. Among other things, I conduct the hearings pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act on recommendations for expulsion, some of those hearings being highly challenging, particularly since students' legal counsel sought to test the newly developed zero tolerance policy on violence and weapons possession. And from what I've heard, there may be some lively hearings under Bill 96.
I'm currently employed as a professor at the school of business at Centennial College in Scarborough. I would welcome the opportunity of serving as a member of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, should the committee see fit to confirm me, and would welcome any questions and comments from the members.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Horrox. We'll begin with the Liberal Party.
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Welcome, Mr Horrox. The position you've applied for is a full-time position. Is that your understanding as well?
Mr Horrox: Yes, it is, Mr Cullen.
Mr Cullen: I listened with interest to your opening remarks. I served on the Ottawa Board of Education for six years and had to be involved in some of those hearings as well. They were quite something.
The position you're going into is a change to responsibilities that ordinarily rested with the courts, so we're seeing a shift in the means of resolving landlord-tenant complaints to the tribunal. There is a whole history in terms of procedure, in terms of case law, all of that. How do you see that fitting in? Do you see the tribunal recognizing the previous standards set by the court system? Landlord-tenant disputes have been around ever since the first cave was rented out.
Mr Horrox: I think the new tribunal would have to take into account precedents and areas touching the current legislation. I don't think you can ignore a whole body of precedents. Certainly, they could be drawn upon and would be drawn upon. Obviously, in terms of procedures, the new tribunal will develop some itself, which will have an effect on matters before the tribunal. In answer to your question, yes.
Mr Cullen: One of the new areas that we think is going to create a fair amount of business for the tribunal is that part of the act that allows the landlord and tenant to negotiate minor capital changes, security measures, services etc. This is where we see the potential, where something needs fixing and is not being done and the landlord says, "I'll do it for you, but you're going to have to pay for it." There's going to be a lot of that happening. How do you see the tribunal dealing with those kinds of issues?
Mr Horrox: I think in two ways. One would be the information aspect of the tribunal. I believe it's incumbent on any member of a tribunal to clearly outline the rights and obligations of any person appearing before the tribunal in a matter under dispute. Second, I think the broader educational aspect could be carried out by the ministry at large, in terms of informing those who come under the act of their rights and obligations.
A third area would be to deal fairly with both sides as they appear before you. As a public servant administering social and labour legislation for 24 years, I was very much aware of the right to balance the needs and interests of all parties covered by the statute, and as a member of the tribunal I would endeavour to do that.
Mr Cullen: You said there's a requirement to treat all parties fairly. Very often you will find that one of the parties will be well represented through legal representation and the other party will not be, and likely it would be the tenant. How do you see balancing that?
1010
Mr Horrox: In several ways. The first is to inform tenants who may not be aware that they have the right to be represented by counsel or someone else of that right. They may not be aware of that.
Mr Cullen: They may not be able to afford it either.
Mr Horrox: Yes, that's right, they may not be able to afford it. Beyond that, I think that a member of a tribunal wants to get at the truth of the matter. There's nothing wrong with assisting one of the parties before him or her if he believes they should be informed of certain aspects of the legislation. Obviously, a member cannot start to argue the case for one side or the other, but I see that there's a role here for the member to assist parties, to clarify questions, to clarify answers and so forth, so that you have a reasonably balanced presentation of the facts before you.
In cases where one of the parties may have difficulties with the English language, I see no wrong with assisting that person, for example. Obviously one of the purposes of moving this legislation under a tribunal is to get away from some of the constraints of a criminal court. Certainly I would see the analogy between this tribunal and the Small Claims Court, where a judge in a Small Claims Court is fairly widely able to explore the issues with the parties and get at the truth in a way that a judge in a criminal court would not be allowed to do.
Mr Cullen: Landlord-tenant is not criminal court, it's civil court, but I get the point you're making.
One of the protections the government has brought in with this bill in recognition of the kinds of doors it's opening, with the ability to negotiate repairs and what might portend from that, and also the fact that rents only go up when the apartment becomes empty -- vacancy decontrol, basically -- is the notion of the fines for harassment.
I would suspect that because of the nature of your clientele, tenants are, by and large, low-income. There are some high rollers, but most of them are low-income. Most of them won't have a good understanding of how the system works. Landlords, because they're in the business and they can write off the legal costs, will have legal representation. You mentioned that you see the role of the member to assist in these things. Would you see the evolution of the equivalent of a duty counsel to help those who are underrepresented? You can't both assist and judge at the same time. Do you see a role for the equivalent of a duty counsel for those tenants who need representation?
Mr Horrox: Quite frankly, I haven't given any thought to the position of a duty counsel. What I do see here is a role for the ministry offices. I mentioned in my comments about the exemplary performance of my own staff in the federal government. One of the things we set out consciously to do, as far as it was humanly possible to do it, was to help everybody who walked through the door of our office. Whether it's by way of guidance, referring them to a lawyer, referring them to some other level of government or whatever, it's to help them.
I would see that there's a role here for ministry offices to advise tenants; in other words, I would see part of their role to assist people who may be going before a tribunal. I guess I'd have to think more about the idea of the duty counsel, but certainly I believe that it's necessary that information about the statute, how the tribunal functions and so on goes forth, and there's certainly a role for the ministry offices in that regard. The creation of 1-800 numbers and that sort of thing would be beneficial as well.
The Chair: Last question, Mr Cullen.
Mr Cullen: The last question has to deal with the whole notion of harassment. From time to time you are likely to see a pattern of activity from one particular landlord or another. Most landlords are fine. I want to underline that fact. But we have a landlord-tenant act. We've had this business because from time to time there are disputes and from time to time there are bad tenants, there are bad landlords.
But where you see a pattern developing of harassment coming from one particular building or one particular landlord, do you see therefore an opportunity for the board to apply the provisions of the act, to take the initiative? It may not be just one tenant; it may be a series of tenants who do not come together but who establish a pattern that there is harassment going on in the building, that repairs aren't done unless rent increases are agreed to, that people are being forced out to accommodate higher rents. Do you see a proactive role for the tribunal to defend the provisions of the act against harassment?
Mr Horrox: I'm not sure I see a role for the member of the tribunal in that regard, but generally believing that it's better to be proactive where problems emerge and try to head them off before they become bigger problems, I certainly think there's the possibility of another employee of the ministry intervening with a particular landlord. It would almost be some kind of mediation. In effect, you're saying to the particular landlord: "We've had these cases come before us. It's not in your interest or in our interest to continue with this high number of complaints. What can we do to resolve it?"
As I mentioned earlier, the act does provide for mediation on particular matters before the courts, but I don't see anything that precludes an initiative, where there's a clear pattern of abuse of the statute, for that type of activity to take place. I don't think it's appropriate, quite frankly, for a member of the tribunal to do it, but information along that line could be funnelled to others who would take up that particular task. I think in the long run it would save everybody some time, money and irritation.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Good morning, Mr Horrox. I just want your views on several aspects of the new Tenant Protection Act. This government has claimed on many occasions, and still does, that there is very little new rental construction in Ontario. They argued that vacancy decontrol, which is what they have instituted, will encourage builders to re-enter the market. What is your view on that?
Mr Horrox: I guess the argument that the ministry or the government is making is the classic argument that competition encourages people to build, in this case, and therefore there will be competition in the marketplace as additional buildings are built. In this particular case, not being familiar with the number of units being built anywhere, I couldn't comment with any degree of authority at all. I do think it's something, now that it's been enshrined in legislation, that you'd really have to look at, say, over a five-year period to see what does happen.
As a general comment, I would say that sometimes -- it's been my experience in government at any rate -- when statutes are amended, sometimes the worst fears do not come to fruition. An example of that was in the Canada Labour Code, when it was amended to provide for employees refusing to work in situations where they considered the work to be dangerous. There was a big hue and cry at that time that employees would abuse that right.
It was my experience, both working as an officer and management with the federal Department of Labour, that with a few notable exceptions, employees were very responsible in exercising that right, and the fear of employers that they would be put through their paces and would lose money by people frivolously refusing to work simply did not come about. So I would have an open mind on the particular subject, as to whether the legislation will do what it wants to do.
Mr Marchese: Sure, and I appreciate the latter comments. I appreciate your comments on the competition component of the argument you're making.
Vacancy decontrol plainly means that when somebody moves and you move into another unit, the same building or a different unit, the landlord has the ability to raise rents according to his wishes, however much he or she thinks they can get out of the apartment. In New York we discovered that in 1971, when they removed vacancy decontrol, the average rents increased 52%. There was no new construction. The claim was that there would be a whole lot of new construction happening as a result of removing rent controls.
Decontrol is just one component of removing rent controls -- not entirely, but halfway there. The intended effect of what these folks want to do didn't work in New York. We believe vacancy decontrol will increase rents and will not in any proven way show that this will create more construction. Do you have an opinion on what I just said?
Mr Horrox: I've read the material relating to rental housing and rent controls. There are arguments on both sides. I remember reading a Swedish economist, whose name I forget now, saying that the easiest way to destroy a city, short of bombing it, was to impose rent controls. So there are two different views in this particular area.
Mr Marchese: There are indeed. I remember that view, yes.
Mr Horrox: A comment I'd have further to that is that when rent controls were imposed back in 1975, I believe, after the 1975 provincial election by a Conservative government, inflation at that time was running at 18% and 20%, and clearly rents in some cases were spiralling out of control. Some 22 years after that, we live in a low-inflation environment and the social conditions are somewhat different. Just how this would play out over the next five years may be different than it has in the past, but as I said in my answer to your last question, I've got an open mind on it.
1020
Mr Marchese: We could spend time on just that one probably for the 10 minutes, but I want to move on to other income information, other questions.
There's a section in the new act -- I believe it's 200 or 230, but I think it's 200 -- where they now say that they've put protection into the act so that those who could become victims of landlords when income information is used are protected by a second part of that section, so there's an A and a B section. The first part says you can use income information as a landlord, but the second part says you can't discriminate on the basis of income information. So they say, "You see, we're protecting the tenants."
My view is that the landlord will use the first section, which says it's legal to use income information, and the second part, which prohibits them from discriminating on the basis of income, will never be used. The tenant will never know whether or not they've been discriminated against because the landlord's not going to say, "Oh, you're on welfare," or "Oh, you're only earning $15,000 or $20,000 or $22,000 and we're not going to rent it to you." They're going to use the information, not rent, and you as a tenant can never prove, when they come before you, that there was discrimination based on income information. I've got a problem with this and wondered whether you have a view on that.
Mr Horrox: I would answer by saying that what's put in the statute may pretty much mimic what's going on now in the marketplace with respect to rents. As to whether that situation would be altered under this new legislation, I'm not really sure. People obviously working with this legislation, and perhaps yourself as an elected representative with more experience in that area, could comment more accurately than I could on that. Certainly, I suppose there's the possibility of that happening.
Going back to my comment about workers not abusing the right to refuse dangerous work, what will play out over the next five years is a scenario in which people either abuse that, as landlords, or it's minimal and those exceptions to the rule are dealt with on an ad hoc basis.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: That was 10 minutes?
The Chair: That was.
Mr Marchese: You're kidding?
The Chair: I'm serious.
Mr Grimmett: Good morning, Mr Horrox, and welcome. Two weeks ago we had Mr Puta-Chekwe in here. He's now the chair of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.
Mr Marchese: That's what I wanted to ask him.
Mr Grimmett: I'll ask the question for you. I'm sure it'll be put in the same way.
We have actually with us a quote that we managed to get from Mr Puta-Chekwe. This was in regard to keeping cases moving and dealing with backlogs. I'll be brief in reading it here: "In the case of full-time members, I think what should be made very clear from the outset is that if there is a backlog that I find intolerable, in accordance with rules that have been stated clearly in advance, then I will not hesitate to go to the minister, if need be to the Premier, and ask for a revocation of the order in council" appointing the member. "You have to be that firm. If you aren't, things will become lax, backlogs will build up and the whole situation will become intolerable."
My question to you is: In your past experience, have you had to deal with these kinds of deadlines? Are you confident that you can provide oral or written decisions that promptly?
Mr Horrox: Yes, I am confident I can do that. I agree with the substance of the comments. Backlogs have got to be dealt with quickly. I understand there's some level of backlogs. I don't know what the backlogs are, but certainly I think new appointees should be prepared to work extra hours and so forth to try to reduce those backlogs.
I think very strict requirements should be put on tribunal members to render decisions and, where requested, put them in writing; issue those decisions in writing. I've seen various tribunals take a year to issue a written decision with no clear reason as to why it should take that long. So certainly whatever requirements are put into place, and allowing for the exception where maybe some research has to be done or whatever to come up with a decision, I have no problem with those time lines being put in place. In fact, I think for the proper processing of the tribunal business, they're essential.
Mr Grimmett: Along that line, I wonder if you had any thoughts somewhat similar to what Mr Cullen had said. A lot of the people presumably who would come before this tribunal would not be represented by counsel. Do you have any thoughts on how the process might be made simple enough so that both landlords and tenants would have the confidence going in that they would be able to work their way through the hearing without having difficulties with the process?
Mr Horrox: There's an education role for the ministry itself through its own district offices educating landlords and tenants as to how the process would work. I don't see anything wrong, as a tribunal member, should I be appointed to the position, of clarifying at the outset of any hearing how the procedure should work and so forth.
Above all, as a member, you should be looking at the possibility of mediation. I'm not sure, not having worked with this legislation, how many of these things could be mediated, but certainly before they get to the tribunal stage, there should be a very careful assessment made as to which ones can be mediated. That would save time and money for everybody and process the tribunal business quicker.
The Chair: Thank you very much for joining us today. We'll be dealing with the motion for agreement with the appointment at the end of this morning's session.
DOUGLAS LAWSON
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Douglas Lawson, intended appointee as member, Ontario Arts Council.
The Chair: Could I ask Mr Lawson to come forward, please. Welcome. It's nice to see you again.
Mr Douglas Lawson: Madam Chair, very nice to see you.
The Chair: If you have any opening remarks, we'd be pleased to hear from you. Then we will begin questioning with Mr Marchese or Mr Kormos.
Mr Lawson: I want to thank you for this opportunity, particularly because the process that this committee embarks upon is extremely important. Others may have a different view, but I can tell you that my view is that it is an excellent opportunity and an appropriate process. I look forward to it.
By way of a little background, you should know that I was born in Windsor and I still reside in Windsor. Frankly, I only left Windsor to go to University of Western Ontario for law school since there wasn't a law school at the University of Windsor at the time I went to law school. My education at Western was in the early 1960s. After I graduated there, I went right back home and was hired by the McTague firm, of which I now am the chairman. So I'm pretty stuck in the mud really in terms of my scope of where I reside and work, but I enjoy it thoroughly.
I was mentored there by a person some of you would know, the late Charlie Clark. Charlie said a lot of things to me, but one of the things I remember very well is the importance of what you owe your community. I won't belabour that other than to say that my interest in things outside of law that relate to volunteerism and so on really came from that sort of mentoring. I can tell you that it was very, very good advice and it's one of the reasons why I'm here today.
I'm a corporate commercial lawyer. Our firm has about 40 persons employed in it. I'm the chairman of the firm and the senior partner.
I thought I might give the committee a minute on some of my outside interests, which I think do reflect upon the questions of the day today. In particular, I was lucky enough to be selected as the president of the Windsor Chamber of Commerce back in the early 1980s. That led to an opportunity that I thoroughly enjoyed -- that was in 1984 -- being the chairman of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. It got me down to Toronto. It made me understand a little better how big business and small business work, and even understand a little bit about government at that time because the chamber always interfaced with government.
In the health area, as some of you may know, I became the chair of the Essex County District Health Council in the late 1980s, something that, when I got into it, I didn't really know very much about but enjoyed thoroughly. That led to the formation of the Association of District Health Councils which I helped steer and was its first chair in 1990. That was the federation that all DHCs belonged to, and helped with health issues from a community perspective in interface with the government in terms of planning issues.
1030
Elinor Caplan asked me to serve on the Orser commission, which she did very tactfully, because had I known how much time it was going to take I probably would have still said yes, but it was an interesting couple of years in the early 1990s. I got involved in a regional planning report where I chaired a regional planning commission, made some recommendations to the government of the day in 1993 and 1994, and then in 1996 was appointed to the Health Services Restructuring Commission, which I am still a member of and thoroughly, thoroughly enjoy.
I have an education interest and I serve as the vice-chair of the University of Windsor. If things go according to plan, they tell me that in a couple of years I may end up as chair of that university, and it would be a great honour if I did.
My interest in arts -- and I will then stop -- has been long-standing. Certainly from a participating standpoint, I like to go to Shaw and Stratford and the Windsor Light Opera, which I do every year. I studied music for 10 years and I still play the piano. I have a violin that I play at home but I don't get it out.
I have a great interest in the visual arts. My interest probably stems from my mother and father. My direct experience has been with the Art Gallery of Windsor, which as you know has been through a very interesting transition, moving into malls and out of their then-current home. I represent them as legal counsel but, more importantly, I've tried to help guide some of that experience. It has been fascinating, I might say.
But even things like Art in the Park in Windsor, which attracts one out of every three people and is sponsored by the Rotary Club, raised half a million dollars. I'm active in that every year. I love photography, and I don't just mean candid photography but I actually take pictures and get them framed and that kind of thing, which I also consider amateur art in my case.
If appointed to the arts council, I hope to bring some community and business perspective. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Lawson. We will begin with the New Democratic caucus.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I think you're an ideal candidate. The last person I was involved with interviewing was Linda Frum, who's now on the arts council. They don't have a whole lot of assets or budget in any event to deal with.
I've got to tell you something. As I say, I think you're an ideal candidate. I can't vote on this committee but --
Mr Marchese: That's why he thinks you're ideal.
Mr Kormos: No, even when I was still a member of the committee I would have said that. But you put down: "1992, awarded by the Governor General of Canada the commemorative medal for the 125th anniversary of the Confederation of Canada." I've got to fill you in on the background of that. I mean, I've even got one. Ms Lankin got one. Mr Marchese got one.
The Chair: Is that some reason to devalue the worth of the medal?
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Is this patronage?
Mr Kormos: No, no. Let me flesh this out. That was one of the biggest scams ever pulled off. What happened is that every MP and every MPP across the province could submit 25 names of people who they wanted to receive the medal. I could have named my dog, Charlie.
Mr Marchese: Charlie too?
Mr Kormos: If I had been so inclined. I just wanted to spill the beans behind that medal.
Mr Lawson: I heard similar stories, I must say.
Mr Kormos: It was a partisan public relations exercise. As I say, I remember every member of the Legislature, the opposition party, 25 names. Bingo, they got the medal with no screening. Again, you've got so many other qualifications, but I just wanted to spill the beans on that because some of the other folks here weren't around in 1992 and weren't able to participate in it. It was a really crass political sort of thing, but they did share it with the opposition, so what the heck. But I'm urging Mr Marchese to support your appointment here.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, do you have any questions?
Mr Marchese: Just to tell you, he's got a bias. He's a lawyer, as you know, and he also has a keen interest in photography as well.
Mr Lawson: I didn't know that.
Mr Marchese: He might want to tell you after the interview.
Mr Kormos: I should mention that I don't know very many corporate lawyers. I know a whole lot of criminal lawyers, for very special reasons, but I've never had occasion to use a corporate lawyer. But I kind of figure they're okay.
Mr Marchese: I just want to thank you for coming.
The Chair: Do you have any questions of the witness? If not, we can economize with some time here.
Mr Marchese: I have a question. I have a keen interest in the arts and I really believe there is a role for government in the arts. If you've seen the funding cuts made by them, it's pretty serious stuff. In 1994-95, while we were still in, the budget for the Ontario Arts Council was approximately $43 million. By the end of their term it will be down to more or less $25 million. It's a serious cut. I believe if the government isn't playing a big role in the arts, the arts will be in trouble. There's no doubt some will survive, but many won't. I just wanted to know your feelings on that.
Mr Lawson: I am a great supporter of the arts. One of the ways to support the arts is money, and I agree with that, but I don't think that's the only way. Frankly, I've listened to some things Mr Jackman has said, as the new chair, and I've got to tell you I concur. There are ways which other segments of the community need to step up to the support of the arts, and I don't think it's as simple as handing out government grants. They should continue. They should be encouraged. That's one of the things he said to me when he spoke to me and asked if I had an interest. He said, "We need to encourage business; we need to encourage the community; we need to encourage local municipal councils; we need to encourage all sorts of other parties to come to the support of the arts." I think he's right when he says, "We don't want to diminish the arts but we need to partner to make it happen."
One of the things I noticed that has happened, apart from funding cuts, is that there's been an approach for matching. In other words, where there are government funds, there's a matching process that is asked be solicited from the various communities and groups. I'm very much in favour of that. I really think that helps. I'm extremely sympathetic to the arts but I think it needs to be done more partneringly.
Mr Marchese: I hear you and I'm extremely worried about it. This government supports this very much, of course. I like Mr Jackman. He's a fine man. I don't disagree with the view that we should try to involve businesses as much as we can, and to do more. Obviously, a whole lot of people in this society are competing for those few bucks that are out there and I think you know that.
Mr Lawson: Yes.
Mr Marchese: Everybody's going to the same sources for the few bucks that are available. The few bucks that might be available from some millionaires will go to the big institutions, and I think you're aware of that. The little cultural organizations are not going to be able to compete for those bucks. I'm not sure whether you agree with this, but I have profound worries. Governments like France and Italy and others have a strong governmental role, and culture has an important role in governments. Not even that, they're one of the most important ministries in those governments. Here, they're the least important.
I am profoundly worried about the direction this government is moving in, and the direction Mr Jackman and you seem to be moving in, because it will encourage further cutbacks of moneys from government and encourage this kind of activity, which in my view is not going to lead to positive things for culture in this province. Any response to that?
Mr Lawson: I do have a response. The big and the small question is always a question -- not just in arts. I'll just go back to my own experience. It was a huge question in chambers of commerce, because you have small business and you have huge multinationals. When you are an association or a government and you are supporting that myriad of interests, large and small, there is always a dichotomy between the two. So I agree with you that it is a concern. I hope, and this is my own personal view, that concern can be addressed by the arts council. You have to look beyond the dollars to see the number of people, the number of organizations and the number of communities that are benefited by the arts.
One of the things I hope would continue to happen is that of the 300-odd communities that are being supported by the arts council -- and I think there are almost 2,000 artists, and there are some very small artists, and at least over 800 organizations -- that could continue and perhaps be expanded. I really think that's important.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: We ran out of time.
The Chair: Unfortunately some of your time was used otherwise.
1040
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Thank you, Mr Lawson, for coming forward for this appointment, because you have a tremendous amount of calibre in terms of the amount of ammunition you can provide to this position. I don't mean to put it in that sort of aggressive way.
I was interested in my colleague's comment about his great interest in the arts. I didn't know whether to get him a new set of Crayola crayons. That's a cheap shot, Rosie. He talked about cuts to the arts, but last year there was an additional investment of over $16 million put into the arts. That helped over 1,000 artists and over 650 various service organizations.
I was interested in your involvement in Windsor. As an alumnus of the university, I was privileged to see the success of Art in the Park. I watched it start in its fledgling stages, and then as it grew into the success it is now; also, some of the big challenges that the gallery in Windsor faced with the onslaught of casino ideas.
I was interested in your comment about getting other partners involved in the funding of arts and cultural services. What incentives do you think an arts council could consider to try to get more corporate involvement and private sector involvement in the arts?
Mr Lawson: The one that is most obvious to me is some sort of system where, for each dollar or two dollars or whatever number of dollars are granted, there needs to be some local fund-raising or local matching, or there needs to be a local foundation created that would match, that sort of thing. Most larger arts organization, and the Art Gallery of Windsor is one of them, have a separate foundation, and most of them are supported, if they're large enough, by the local municipality.
I think there's some major responsibility to continue to do that at the municipal level; I think there's a major responsibility of corporations to step up and help match grant funds; and I think the federal government has some responsibilities as well. It's a four-sided or five-sided problem, and you have to balance them all and use them all in a way that's effective.
Mr Spina: In reference to Mr Marchese's comment about how other countries have a substantial investment in the arts and culture and so on, if I compare Europe, being more or less the cradle of culture and arts and so forth through the centuries in various eras -- I look at North America, Canada in particular, and what I see by comparison is a very young, fledgling emphasis on culture. Would you say we still are striving to achieve the level they have in the European context? We don't have Greek ruins and Roman ruins to preserve, with millions of tourists coming to visit annually to help pay for the support of that, but there are a number of other things we can try to work towards developing. Is there something we can do to help educate our public to support culture and the arts?
Mr Lawson: It's a continuing battle. North Americans, in my view, are not as sophisticated in the arts as the Europeans. I think it's partly heritage; I think it's partly that we're a very new country. But that's no excuse.
For example -- and I can only go back to my own experience -- one of the things that will hopefully happen in Windsor and I hope in other communities is that we can get the art gallery back downtown. You need to go down to the heart of a city, where people are going to be, where tourists are going to be, where families come for entertainment or meals and that sort of thing. That's one of the reasons you need to be really vigilant about exposing the arts to people. It's a battle; it's tough. You've simply got to get the profile up high so people see it in very visible places.
Mr Spina: Do you think you can get Mike Hurst to give the convention centre over to the art gallery?
Mr Lawson: You never know.
Mr Spina: Thank you, Mr Lawson, and I wish you well.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I want to say that I did not receive the Canada 125 medal, and I would have been delighted to have done so. I'm sure Mr Lawson was proud to get it. Certainly the people in Thunder Bay who received it were very pleased to receive it.
Mr Kormos: You're an MPP and they never put you on their list?
Mr Gravelle: I was not put on the list, obviously.
Mr Lawson, good morning. If I can pursue to some degree the tack taken by Mr Marchese, there's an agreement that the private sector has a role to play, and you mentioned municipal councils as well. With the difficulties the municipal councils are now facing in terms of funding, it's unrealistic to expect them to perhaps contribute more than they already do. Do you not agree that there is a point past which it's also unlikely to expect the private sector to support the arts? They'll simply go so far, and there is a point where the private sector, if you say to them, "Gee, we think you should be supporting the arts" -- do you agree that there is a point and that the government has to make clear that its role in terms of funding support is very strongly there?
Mr Lawson: I think there always is a point. For example, it would be obvious to probably everybody in the room that if there was no support from the arts council or the government for the arts in this province that's unacceptable, and I think that is unacceptable.
The question is, what's the point? I've got to confess that I am not sophisticated enough, because I haven't been on the arts council, to know where that point is or even really focus on it, except to say that while the funding has been cut -- it's cut back to about the level it was 10 years ago, and there has been inflation since then. But it if you go back to the history -- I know a little bit about the history of the arts council -- it started at $600,000 in the 1960s. I don't think that was acceptable either, but it was better than zero.
Yes, there's a point. I don't know what the point is, but the arts absolutely deserve substantial support from government and from other sources.
Mr Gravelle: It's pretty clear that the private sector is very supportive of the arts, and I think we even support partnerships. There is a study I recommend you look at, which really makes a pretty clear distinction as to what point that is, and to have that expectation of putting more pressure on the private sector seems wrong.
There are some who believe that ideally the government would prefer that the private sector does fund the arts. There's a belief that indeed it should be the private sector that is funding the arts. Would you subscribe to that?
Mr Lawson: No, I wouldn't. The argument I like to make when I hear that one made by others -- I know you weren't making the argument; you were simply raising it -- is that there's an economic benefit to funding the arts. In fact, the work that has been done that I've read shows that the return is greater than the amount invested. Forget that you like art and support the arts and culture. If you want to justify it on an economic basis, you can do so, and I think that's a very strong argument.
Mr Gravelle: That's one of the things that troubles those of us who have watched these cuts take place. We have seen organizations, quite frankly, very much in survival mode, particularly the not-for-profit organizations, the small organizations that are really in survival mode. The facts you state are absolutely true. When the funding under the previous government was $42 million, $50 million came back just in tax revenues. It has always seemed strange to me, and when you relate it to the funding levels now, they really are at 1974-75 funding levels when you take into account the inflation.
That's why we're troubled. There's a real economic benefit and there's no question about the tourism attraction, yet the government, by making the major cuts they have made, have put a number of organizations in the position where they are literally in survival mode or can't survive.
I guess the question I really have is, do you support an increase in funding to the arts council? Is that something you would advocate?
Mr Lawson: I can't agree with that, because I frankly don't know. I really have not got into looking at the history. I know there have been some cuts. I have an open mind.
Mr Gravelle: That's fair. May I ask you about the peer assessment? As you know, the Ontario Arts Council is arm's length, and I think we all agree that's as it should be. The awards are frequently are given out by juries of peers. There has been some talk and some speculation that indeed the government may move towards making some appointees to those peer-assessment juries who aren't necessarily peers, members of the board themselves. Have you heard anything about that, and what do you think about that possibility?
1050
Mr Lawson: I haven't heard a thing about it, so I'm not familiar with it. My gut reaction is that peer assessments make sense. In all the professions, and that includes the legal profession and others, review by peers is an appropriate way to deal with a lot of matters. That's my inclination, but I don't know the issue. I'm sorry.
Mr Gravelle: In the recent budget, there was the announcement of the cultural attractions trust fund, which in essence is more of a loan program, and the arts endowment fund as well, which of course is the matching dollars, and then you feed off the interest. I think the larger organizations find that attractive, as many of them have their own foundations. Clearly, for the smaller organizations it might be difficult to raise the money, because more and more organizations, with the cuts in funding, have cut staff, and a lot of people who are artistic directors are also fund-raisers.
Would you support some support for organizations to have fund-raisers as part of their staff, in that the move seems to be expecting more and more support on a private fund-raising basis? Would you support some kind of funding for that, for organizations to have fund-raisers?
Mr Lawson: Actually I don't agree with your premise. I don't think that the two announcements you refer to necessarily prejudice or need to prejudice the smaller arts organizations. I've seen this problem in a lot of places, including my home town. What you can't have is a foundation on every corner raising money, and I think that's the issue you're really referring to.
Mr Gravelle: That's right.
Mr Lawson: What we've done, and I know other cities have, including Vancouver and so on, is that we've created the Greater Windsor Community Foundation, with is the foundation for all large and small member agencies. The United Way has done the same thing. Some innovative thinking can go on here in the arts community, where the large can protect and help the small in a joint way, and that's the kind of thinking that I think should go on.
The Chair: Last question, Mr Gravelle.
Mr Gravelle: You're talking about the arts endowment fund being for the community of Windsor, and the arts organizations are a part of it. Is that what you're saying?
Mr Lawson: No. The arts endowment fund is for all of the arts in Ontario, but somehow you've got to get membership in that and access to it and participation and joint fund-raising with big and small, and I think there's a way to do that.
Mr Gravelle: Do you think the government should be playing a more positive role in terms of its attitude about arts and culture?
The Chair: There's anarchy in this committee. This is the last question, but make it quick, please.
Mr Gravelle: Those of us who are critical of the government believe they have devalued the arts. They do not value the arts, but they could play very much a leadership role and a very positive role. Do you agree that indeed the government itself should be out there proudly saying, "We are very proud to support the arts and here's why"? We don't believe they've done that in any real fashion, and I think that's hurt the arts community in a very real way.
Mr Lawson: I'm a great booster of the arts. I don't have a view that's contrary to either yours or the government's. My view is that we should simply do our best, increase participation and get the private sector involved. I thought the two funds that were announced this year, I've got to say, when added to the $25 million in grants, were a very significant step forward, not backwards.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Lawson. We appreciate your time here with us today.
We'll move to concurrence. Are there any committee members who wish to deal with these two intended appointments separately?
Mr Cullen: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. We'll deal first of all, then, with Mr Horrox. Could I have a motion for concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Horrox as a member of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal?
Mr Grimmett: I so move.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Grimmett.
Is there a debate?
Mr Cullen: We will be supporting this appointment, but I think there's something to take away from today's session with Mr Horrox. Mr Horrox, when asked about how the tribunal should conduct itself in terms of dealing with the clientele that will go before the tribunal, mentioned on more than one occasion the need for the ministry to ensure that there's public education, the need for the ministry to ensure that there are appropriate resources, in some instances, to do with mediation etc.
The success of the so-called Tenant Protection Act will depend upon the amount of resources devoted to this long-standing issue. You can't get away from it. Landlord-tenant problems have been around since the dawn of time. We should have a fairly straightforward, simple way of dealing with it, and the government has produced this new system to do so. But the fact remains that you can't expect the tribunal to do the job if it doesn't have enough resources. If public education, if the support for the tribunal is not there, the system will not work.
I think there's a lesson to be learned here and I'm hopeful that the government side will ensure that there are sufficient resources to make this thing work. I have to tell you that we have a crisis in affordable housing in Ontario. There's going to be more pressure put on our system dealing with disputes, and we should be forewarned.
The Chair: Any further debate?
Mr Stewart: I'm requesting a recorded vote, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Moving to the vote, all those in favour of the motion for concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Horrox, please indicate.
Ayes
Cullen, Fisher, Gravelle, Grimmett, Marchese, Newman, Spina, Stewart.
The Chair: That's unanimous. Carried.
May I have a motion of concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Douglas Lawson as a member of the Ontario Arts Council?
Mr Grimmett: I so move.
The Chair: Mr Grimmett, thank you.
Is there any debate?
Mr Marchese: Just to say for the record that the cuts this government has made to the Ontario Arts Council are a tragedy, in my view. I hear what Mr Lawson says. I think he's a person very interested in the arts and I respect that. I just hope he remembers once he's there that the little cultural organizations that thrive all over Ontario, not just in the cities, are an important part of who we are as a people and that they will suffer indeed.
He says he doesn't believe it should be that way. I'm just making the point while he's still here that I believe it will be that way, and I urge him while he's there to look at that as the funds are dispersed around the Ontario arts endowment fund. I remind him that the cultural attractions trust fund will go to the big organizations, obviously, and the little ones will suffer unless he's there to protect them.
Mr Gravelle: I'll be supporting Mr Lawson as well, but I also want to express some concern that this government is making it very clear that they believe the private sector should be even more involved. Mr Lawson made reference to that, and I think that when he's talking to his colleagues out there, he will find that many of them are feeling under extreme pressure as a result of that.
The concerns we have are that the smaller organizations in particular -- all organizations are suffering. Even the large organizations are under a tremendous amount of pressure. There has been a real impact. Those that get supported by the Ontario Arts Council -- and there are other funding concerns outside the Ontario Arts Council as well that we could talk about at some length.
Mr Lawson is obviously someone who is very sincere and I've heard some very fine things about him previous to his coming to our meeting today, but I want to express those concerns, concerns we've expressed inside and outside the Legislature on a regular basis. The local community groups in the arts, culture and heritage sector are telling us how difficult it is for them to carry on.
The Ontario Arts Council is an extremely important funding body. I believe their funds should be increased to reflect that. The fact is that they're now at 1974-75 funding levels. It has been very difficult for small organizations, and I do not believe the cultural attractions trust fund and, for that matter, the arts endowment fund, unless there is some real creativity, will be able to be accessed in an easy way by the smaller organizations and certainly individual artists. I want to make sure that is on the record.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Any further discussion?
Mr Stewart: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Recorded vote. Moving to the vote, all those in favour of concurrence in the intended appointment of Douglas Lawson as a member of the Ontario Arts Council?
Ayes
Cullen, Fisher, Gravelle, Grimmett, Marchese, Newman, Spina, Stewart.
The Chair: It's unanimous. Carried.
May I just make a procedural comment? While members are well within their rights to ask for these motions to be split, if they are dealt with together you are still able to speak to each of the appointments. It's not necessary to split the motions and votes solely for the purpose of speaking to the appointment. It's obviously of interest if there is a desire to have a negative vote. I just put that out, but it's within your rights.
I'll indicate that the next time we come together, questioning will begin with the government caucus.
I ask members of the subcommittee to stay behind for just a few minutes so we may deal with the question of whether there will be committee hearings in the month of July.
Is there any other business? Seeing none, adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1100.