CONTENTS
Wednesday 15 July 1992
Subcommittee report
Appointments review
Nancy Smith
Theodore Jewell
Anne Redish
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Président: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
*Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)
*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND) for Mr Frankford
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND) for Ms Carter
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffier: Arnott, Douglas
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1008 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Robert W. Runciman): Can we come to order, please. I see a quorum. The first item on the agenda is the report of the subcommittee on committee business that's attached to your agenda. Do we have any questions with respect to this or any discussion? If not, we'll move on to the next matter on the agenda.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Consideration of intended appointments.
NANCY SMITH
The Chair: Our first witness, an intended appointment as chair of the Ontario Housing Corp board of directors, is Nancy Smith. Ms Smith, Welcome to the committee. Ms Smith has circulated an additional page with her curriculum vitae. I think all members have copies in front of them. Ms Smith was selected for review by the Conservative Party and we'll begin the questioning with Mr McLean.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): The first question I have is, have you been involved in the housing authorities?
Ms Nancy Smith: Not directly, sir.
Mr McLean: Do you know any of the members who are on the board of directors of the Ontario Housing Corp?
Ms Smith: Do I know them?
Mr McLean: Any of them?
Ms Smith: I'm aware of their names. I know the member from Ottawa, who is Joan Gullen, and I know the present chair, Mr Gerretsen, through my work with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
Mr McLean: Do you believe the qualifications you have for this position -- this is the proposed chair. You haven't been on the commission and you're being proposed as chair. Do you feel you have the qualifications to carry out the duties as chair of that corporation?
Ms Smith: Yes. I think my experience in chairing other bodies and my experience with planning and development, particularly redevelopment of a major municipal non-profit project in my area, is directly relevant, Mr McLean, and I think the other area I would mention is my work in social services over the past 11 or 12 years. I think it's extremely important for different government departments and agencies to work together. Particularly in social services, I've had a major role in encouraging various departments and services to cooperate.
Mr McLean: Did you apply for the position or were you asked to apply?
Ms Smith: I submitted my résumé to the public appointments secretariat and applied in that way. I think you'll find in my résumé I have identified two particular areas, planning and development and social and community services.
Mr McLean: How did you hear about the opening of the position?
Ms Smith: I was asked to attend an interview.
Mr McLean: So you were asked to apply for it.
Mr Smith: It's my understanding that one way of applying for appointments is to put your application into the public appointments secretariat. I was encouraged to do that by my local MPP, Mr Grandmaître, and also by the government minister for the area.
Mr McLean: Thank you. I'll pass for now.
Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): Could you just very briefly tell the committee why you're interested in this particular position?
Ms Smith: I think there are probably two or three reasons. One, I'm convinced that housing is an absolutely critical factor in people's ability to cope, to change other things in their lives that are problematic, and that without adequate housing, nothing else seems to work for people, regardless of what programs they have access to.
I think in terms of personal motivation, I'm always attracted to something where it's possible to make a difference for people. I think the other area is from my background in, particularly, planning and development and social services and community work. I think it's a real opportunity to put those things together in an integrated sort of way and make a difference to a lot of people in this province. I think it's quite an opportunity.
Mr Ferguson: I'm wondering if you could advise the committee on what your views are on tenant involvement in public housing.
Ms Smith: I think of it as self-management, if you like, and I think it's something that can be difficult to make happen. It's something that requires ongoing feeding and watering, if you will. Without tenant involvement, I don't think we can solve many of the problems that have been identified in various housing projects, whether non-profit or private sector, and I think things like tenants' associations are extremely important in that. I'm thinking of everything from minor maintenance to dealing with the changing social composition of Ontario Housing and other tenant bodies, increasing the number of refugees and immigrants, for example, among our tenants.
I have a fair amount of experience in my own area with establishing and, as I said, feeding and watering tenants' associations. I think the only way tenant involvement will continue is if the corporation and the staff have a strong commitment to that and make sure it continues to happen.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): One question that is important to me in terms of understanding how we begin to deal with many of the problems OHC experiences -- problems of crime, drugs, rehabilitation and repair of buildings, security problems, race-related issues and simply management of these problems -- is, what is your recommendation or idea about how we deal with a lot of these ongoing problems in a way that begins to address them in a sustained manner? Perhaps drawing from your experience would be useful.
Ms Smith: As I just said in response to Mr Ferguson, I think tenant involvement is key, but as well, personally, I think the corporation and the housing projects have to reach out to the surrounding community. The surrounding community has to be involved with the tenants. They have to become an integral part of the local community. A number of those things are already being done; for example, sharing community facilities, offering the use of a community room to a group of people who don't necessarily live within the housing corporation.
Staff training and development is critical. Things have changed and the staff have to have an opportunity to change to meet the new challenges. I think the built form is much more important than people appreciate. The type of the landscaping -- the space in the project has to belong to somebody. It has to be clearly defined as belonging to either this apartment or this building or this community group, so that every spot and every unit and every place in the building has somebody who feels it's his area to look out for and to look after.
I think it's a matter of integrating a lot of things, both social and physical, about the housing corporation that will make those things improve. It's not going to happen overnight. The speed of change is really quite overwhelming. I think it's a very big job, but I think a lot of projects are making a good start on it in small ways and I hope I can do something to encourage that at the corporate level as well.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I didn't quite hear who it was who suggested that you should put your application in.
Ms Smith: I put my application in to the public appointments secretariat.
Mr Wiseman: Who suggested it?
Ms Smith: It was suggested to me by two MPPs in my area, the Minister of Housing, Evelyn Gigantes, and my own MPP, Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Wiseman: Bernard, you will not live this down. I guarantee it.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I'll make a note of that.
Mr Wiseman: I'm really interested in your concept of innovative infill where it says that you "negotiated zoning to provide high-density ground-oriented housing in an essentially derelict area close to downtown" and that this "resulted in an addition of perhaps 300 new private sector units and the stabilization of this important residential area." How did you do that? If you can tell me, I would like to know what kind of units resulted, what the density is and its orientation to the other urban plans and so on. I am really interested in how you managed to do that.
Ms Smith: This is an almost feudal area of Ottawa with about 90% of the land owned by one family of long-standing in the community, the Morrison Lamothe families, I guess I should say. There had been a lot of demolition in days when there was no demolition protection. If I recall correctly, roughly 60% of the area was in fact vacant from demolitions of housing stock that dated from perhaps the 1880s. In addition, there were some industrial properties that were part of that area.
1020
It's been redeveloped at roughly 40 units to the acre; ground-oriented walk-up units where everybody has his own entrance, by and large. I believe those were the first units of that type in Ontario. This was 1981, 1982. We in fact down-zoned it from high-rise, which would have permitted perhaps 160 units to the acre. Two things were key: One was that there be something in it for everybody, and the other was that once we had an agreement with the major land owner and the neighbours and the community association and the National Capital Commission and the city of Ottawa, we move instantly to get the bylaws approved.
In those days there wasn't an automatic approval if there were no objections. We got the bylaws through in four and a half months, which I think was critical. People shouldn't have a chance for second thoughts.
The other thing that helped, I think, was that the economy picked up. This was during the recession, 1980-81, in that time. The economy picked up immediately afterwards. The property was all unloaded on the market almost instantly, and in fact it was redeveloped within about a year, so that it moved very quickly from the thought in people's minds to actually seeing the buildings on the grounds, so I think speed is important as well.
I think a certain singlemindedness in the elected representative is also helpful. You need to have a very clear eye of where you're going and get there quickly to successfully manage a project as complicated as that, where you don't really have much control over what's going on.
Mr Wiseman: You mentioned the destruction of the previous buildings from the 1880s. What about the heritage nature of that area?
Ms Smith: Let me be a little blunt about it. It was inhabited largely by immigrants and people working for the two bakeries and a dairy in the area. If it had been a slightly wealthier area, if the buildings had hung on a little bit longer, I think it would have been designated as a heritage district. I remember picking up square-cut nails from the demolition. They really were ordinary but very beautiful buildings.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Allan K. McLean): Thank you. Time has expired; I'm sorry about that. Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chairman, maybe I should declare a conflict of interest right off the bat.
Mr Wiseman: Oh, good. Can I have his time?
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chair, when you were on this side of the table, you asked Ms Smith how familiar she was with the Ontario Housing Corp and she very modestly said, "Not much." But I can tell you that Ottawa-Carleton is very fortunate in having Ms Smith, who was a regional councillor for the city of Ottawa for a good number of years. I know that, especially being recommended by me, she'll be an excellent chair.
Ms Smith, I know you've done a good deal of promoting. You've been an advocate of non-profit housing, co-ops and affordable housing in Ottawa-Carleton. I know in the last five or six years the provincial government has been trying to have municipalities get more involved in non-profit and affordable housing, but they are reluctant to get involved in such projects. Do you think legislation should be imposed on municipalities to provide non-profit or affordable housing? Do you think it should be imposed because they're not willing to come forward?
Ms Smith: So your thought would be that every municipality would have to have a non-profit housing corporation, as, for example, the city of Ottawa does?
Mr Grandmaître: Right.
Ms Smith: No, I don't think that makes a lot of sense. I think municipalities should be encouraged. They are a very good delivery agent for community-level housing. When it works well, you have very good local input and involvement. Your local elected people are quite accessible, and I think it can work quite well. But something like housing needs, if you like, the willing consent of those running it to make it work well. It would be very difficult to think of a successful approach where it would be truly imposed.
If the government wanted to pursue that avenue, the best way to do it would be to work with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and other municipal bodies to come to some agreement with the municipalities. For example, I think it's in Peel -- I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong -- that the municipal housing corporation has in fact taken on the Ontario Housing Corp units in that area. So there are a lot of municipalities that might well be interested, but there's nothing like imposing something to make it unpopular.
Mr Grandmaître: I remember when Chaviva Hosek was Minister of Housing and we introduced a piece of legislation requiring municipalities to impose on developers that 25% of all new units be non-profit or affordable or whatever. It didn't work too well. Municipalities were very reluctant.
Ms Smith: Yes. As a development requirement, essentially through the Planning Act, I don't think the 25% is unreasonable. I say that based on experience in Ottawa-Carleton, where under the fairly broad definition of affordability that currently stands the local development industry is in fact already supplying quite a bit more than 25%. I don't remember the exact figure. I thought 25% was low and the affordability guidelines were rather broad, but I think the current amount is not unreasonable and ought to be meetable.
If nothing else, I think the development industry is finding that it's unable to sell some of its units in the higher price range. That is moving a lot of them to work with municipalities and other planning bodies to come up with more affordable units, particularly ownership units.
Mr Grandmaître: Developers are, again, reluctant to get involved in affordable housing. They like the condominium type of construction and single units or single housing. Do you think this government should improve or put more money into the subsidy of public housing, the rent supplement program? Do you think we should spend more money and enter into some kind of contract with existing units, instead of managing or operating our own projects? Do you think we should get involved in more rent supplement or enlarge the rent supplement program?
Ms Smith: Right now, the mix is roughly 20% rent supp and 80% owned by Ontario Housing Corp. Practically speaking, I think we probably need to continue with a mix. I think it depends on the local area.
If your problem is simply affordability, rent supp makes a certain amount of sense. But my experience is the problem is usually affordability plus availability and I don't think there's any solution to availability except providing at least some units through the various non-profit routes. I think a mixed solution, locally tailored, is what's going to continue to be required. There are some local housing authorities with almost no rent supp and the highest is probably getting up to 28%, something like that.
1030
The Chair: Mr Cleary?
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): No.
The Chair: Mr McLean, you have some time left.
Mr McLean: There are a couple of questions I'd like to follow up on, as I realize the knowledge you have with regard to housing. My colleague Mr Grandmaître raised the issue of the cooperative housing movement. Regarding the certain number of units at the top rate and some at different various rates according to the income of the individual, the problem I see happening is that the upper-rate apartments are not being rented. In some cases, they are higher than what's on the market outside of the corporation. What are you going to do to try and solve that problem? I know of about 30 units in one municipality at the upper rate that are sitting there vacant.
Ms Smith: Perhaps to clarify, it's my understanding that the chair of the corporation will deal with the units actually owned by the province, plus the rent supp agreements. The co-op units per se are in fact handled by another part of the ministry, so I wouldn't be directly involved. It's a difficult problem. The same problem arises in other government services, where it's delivered with some at full fee and some at a subsidized rate. The problem is that you overprice it for the market. The argument on the other side is that you should charge the real full cost and not have any hidden subsidies.
Personally I think the particular co-op corporation involved should be free to alter those rents within a bit of a range as long as the overall outcome of money for the project is the same. So if they're sitting there empty for six months at $800 a month or whatever, I don't think anyone is further ahead. If they could rent them at $750, all of them, obviously everybody is further ahead. Picking a bit from my experience in other service areas, it seems to me that that should be, within a limited range, a possibility for the non-profit corporation.
Mr McLean: Some flexibility.
Ms Smith: Some flexibility. I don't think it can be enormous because, as I say, you have the problem of the public money having been put in and I think you have to be concerned about concealed subsidies.
Mr McLean: But they don't appear to have that flexibility, from what I have observed.
Ms Smith: I believe you're right. I think some flexibility would be warranted. As I say, it would be outside my direct area.
Mr McLean: I'm calling on your expertise in that field. What would we have to do to change that, to allow them to lower the rent, say, $100 a month? These units sitting there have to be heated; it's costing everybody money, as you say.
Ms Smith: I think I would require a greater knowledge of the inner workings of the housing bureaucracy than I have at the moment, Mr McLean. I'm not clear at what level that would have to be changed. It may be just erasing a regulation in a book, or it may require a policy change at a higher level.
Mr McLean: Do you ever think the day may come when we will be subsidizing the individual instead of the apartment, those that are in great need?
Ms Smith: That's kind of like asking if we are going to integrate four government departments. Based on my federal and municipal experience, I don't think we'll ever get to that. That would be almost a guaranteed-annual-income scenario. Personally I don't think we're going to get there. I hope we can see a more simplified administration of all benefits, because at the moment, whether it's day care or general welfare or housing subsidy, it's really quite a mystery to most of the people who are either recipients or service providers. So I think simplification is reasonable. I think a subsidy that is totally attached to the individual is highly unlikely.
Mr McLean: I wish you well. Thank you for attending.
The Chair: That concludes the questioning, Ms Smith. Thank you very much for your appearance here.
Ms Smith: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity.
THEODORE JEWELL
The Chair: The next witness is Theodore Jewell, who is an intended appointee as a member of the Town of Kapuskasing Police Services Board. Mr Jewell, welcome to the committee, sir. Just for the edification of the members: We received some correspondence from the town of Kapuskasing in respect to this appointment and all members received it, I hope. Our clerk also made this available to Mr Jewell this morning, so that he's aware of it and has, I gather, had an opportunity to review it.
Mr Theodore Jewell: Yes, I received a call.
The Chair: You were selected for review by the official opposition, the Liberal Party. We'll ask Mr Grandmaître to begin the questioning.
Mr Grandmaître: This is a new services board and there's been a lot of talk in recent months about the possibility of amalgamating the Kapuskasing police force and the OPP detachment, your next-door neighbours, for five municipalities. From the newspaper clippings and the information I've received, you don't favour such an amalgamation.
Mr Jewell: I have never commented on it.
Mr Grandmaître: You were never asked?
Mr Jewell: I have never commented on the subject. I'm aware of it in the sense that I have been told that such a thing may be in the offing, it's being considered, but beyond that I have never commented on the subject.
Mr Grandmaître: Then what are your thoughts on the possible amalgamation?
Mr Jewell: Any plan which is ill-conceived, badly set forth or hasty, leading to hasty action, I'm unwilling to go along with. Nevertheless, if such a plan were set forth and presented to the board, were I appointed I'd be willing to look at it; but beyond that I have no opinion on it, mainly because it's never been advanced beyond the proposal stage.
Mr Grandmaître: But as a former mayor for 10 years and having chaired the police committee, you must have an idea of what that possibility is and what it would look like once in place, I'm sure.
Mr Jewell: You're quite wrong. May I give you this assurance: that upon occasion when I have come to Toronto to these police governing authorities' meetings, there was some talk then of small municipalities hiring or contracting the OPP to provide the services within the community. It is not clear what this precise plan is which you have mentioned.
I do know that at that time there was much concern within smaller municipalities on two accounts. One was that the costs began very reasonably and the services provided were quite adequate. As time went by, these smaller municipalities at that time found the costs escalating beyond their expectations, sometimes beyond their means to meet them. They also found that sister municipalities also wanted the same contract or a similar contract with the OPP, with the result that the OPP services were spread far and wide.
That's the only consideration I've given to it, but there is no hard and fast plan at Kapuskasing to my present knowledge to do any such thing. I know it's been mentioned as a possibility, but beyond that it doesn't carry much weight at this time. It may later, but not now.
Mr Grandmaître: Do you think it's fair that in your own municipality of Kapuskasing you're having budget difficulties and the possibility of this amalgamation of police forces is costing you quite a bit of money, yet your next-door neighbours are receiving free OPP police services? Do you think this is fair?
Mr Jewell: Do I think what is fair? Could you be a little more specific, please?
Mr Grandmaître: It's costing your people --
Mr Jewell: Some $900,000 a year.
Mr Grandmaître: Absolutely, $1 million, while your next-door neighbour is enjoying the same services and those services are being paid for by 10 million people in the province of Ontario. Do you think this is fair?
1040
Mr Jewell: Yes, and I'll tell you why. In Kapuskasing we have within the boundaries of the community some 37 miles of rural road, and this area must be patrolled and the people therein protected.
Second, for a very long time we have enjoyed a high class of police services within Kapuskasing. The people, to my present knowledge, do not object to paying that money for the service they are getting. It's a very good police force.
When you make reference to the sister communities at Kapuskasing receiving free OPP service, that mainly involves driving along Highway 11. That is the main corridor. That is where these places are built. They're very small. They in fact do not require, nor are they getting, intensive patrolling. You simply drive through the town, as everybody else does.
Mr Grandmaître: But 46 of our municipalities in Ontario are receiving free OPP services while 832 municipalities have to pay for those services. Do you think that's fair?
Mr Jewell: Yes.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, it is fair, is that what you're saying?
Mr Jewell: Yes is what I'm saying, in the sense that very small communities cannot afford to maintain a police force. For example, if you take the villages of Val Rita or Mattice with some 436 people in one and 892 in the other, there's no way they need or should have to maintain a police force. Other municipalities who wish them pay for them. If you wish to have it, then you must pay for it. The others don't have any need for this, they're so very small.
Mr Grandmaître: How did you apply for this position? I know it's a new police services board. How did you apply for it? How did you find out?
Mr Jewell: I knew nothing about it until until Mrs Morel, who had seen it in the local newspaper, drew it to my attention. She told me I should apply. She's also the lady who told me I should become mayor 11 years ago. Then I went downtown and an elderly gentleman, Mr Brouillette, drew it to my attention and told me, "If you apply, I'll back you." Exactly what he meant, I didn't know.
In Kapuskasing there is a coalition of unions. I am not associated with them in any way, yet I respect them. Also there is a citizen's coalition, and one of the ladies there telephoned and asked me if I would let my name stand if I were nominated, and I told her yes. Then I received a call from the ministry asking me to send in a résumé.
Mr Grandmaître: A great deal of attention has been raised on pay equity and equality and openness and freedom of information. All of these great things have been happening in this province for five or six years now, I think. Not only this government but past governments have put a lot of emphasis on pay equity and fairness. What are your thoughts on pay equity and equality and employment equality and fair play?
Mr Jewell: Fair play is something I've always assumed. However, that is clearly a false assumption on my part, but it's something which I think should be expected. We have a right to expect it. In so far as pay equity is concerned, I support that concept. I think it is a good idea. Are you thinking of pay between men and women, equal pay for equal work?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes.
Mr Jewell: I support that concept and I think it should be practised. I think the government's on the right track.
Mr Grandmaître: How about equality? Men and women on your police force: Do you think there is a good balance there?
Mr Jewell: Is there a good balance or should one be achieved?
Mr Grandmaître: Is there a good balance.
Mr Jewell: I believe that women being appointed to the police force should be treated equally as men. Whether there's a balance or not concerning numbers, you may have more men than women, but nevertheless you would certainly give them all equal, fair and right treatment.
Mr Grandmaître: If you believe in fair pay and equality and and all of these great things, how come, when you were mayor, you were refusing to provide French services to 65% of your population? Where is the fair play?
Mr Jewell: What you have just implied in your question is simply not the truth. I believe, sir, that you know better than that. You were in the cabinet at that time.
Mr Grandmaître: I was minister, sir.
Mr Jewell: Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that you are knowledgeable concerning the fact that it was not a case of denying services to 65% of the population; it was a case whereby a bylaw had been written by two of my councillors of that council.
The Chair: Mr Jewell, we don't want to be unfair, but can we make this as quick as possible?
Mr Ferguson: We're here to examine the individual's credentials to the police services board. I'm not particularly interested in his past record as the mayor of Kapuskasing.
Mr Grandmaître: If you read what we're looking for --
The Chair: I think this question is not out of order, and I'd like to encourage Mr Jewell -- it's a question that he should have an opportunity to respond to, and I'd ask him to be as brief as possible.
Mr Grandmaître: We're talking about equality; that's what we're talking about.
The Chair: I'm trying to be fair to the witness.
Mr Jewell: Are you asking me to be brief, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: Yes, I am.
Mr Jewell: I shall be brief, then. The truth of the matter is that nobody denied anybody anything. Indeed, the majority of people in Kapuskasing of the francophone population are moderates. It is they who came forth and said: "What is the fuss about? We are already a bilingual community."
The bylaw to which I have referred was one wherein if you were not French you could not work for the municipal service. That was the flaw in it. That was why that bylaw was taken to the Supreme Court and was quashed. We fought that all the way because it was not fair. For Mr Grandmaître to suggest otherwise is not only erroneous; I'd term it unfortunate.
Mr Grandmaître: I visited your area on a number of occasions and I don't think you're telling the truth.
Mr McLean: I want to start my questioning by asking if you have the support of Mr Wood, your local member, for your appointment.
Mr Jewell: I assume so.
Mr McLean: Do you know if he made any recommendations on your behalf?
Mr Jewell: I'm not aware.
Mr McLean: I'm just going through some of the briefing stuff I have on the new board. What is the makeup of the board? You're probably more aware than I am.
Mr Jewell: The board doesn't exist at this moment. I believe that Mrs Jamieson has been sworn in. In fact, that was in the Northern Times. I believe the mayor has lately been sworn in. It is non-functioning at this point.
Mr McLean: From the information that I have, they had their first meeting on the 22nd of June. That's the information that I have. Who's on the board now? Do you know?
Mr Jewell: Only the two, to my present knowledge.
Mr McLean: The mayor and --
Mr Jewell: Mrs Jamieson.
Mr McLean: And Mrs Jamieson.
Mr Jewell: Yes. I'm not aware that they had had a meeting.
Mr McLean: And it will be a five-person board?
Mr Jewell: It will be a three-person board, as I understand it.
Mr McLean: I see. What is the number of officers in Kapuskasing?
Mr Jewell: When I left office, there were 15 officers on the force.
Mr McLean: Of the 15, how many of those would be female officers?
Mr Jewell: None.
Mr McLean: None.
The town of Kapuskasing opposes your appointment. You're aware of that?
Mr Jewell: Yes, I have this letter here.
Mr McLean: Do you think that will create a problem between you and the municipality?
Mr Jewell: No, I don't. I think what I may be able to do as a member of the board is help strike a balance and, I think, also help to continue the good work that has gone on in the past under the aegis of the police committee of council.
Mr McLean: I understand the mayor has been appointed. From the clippings I have seen, there appears to be a feud between you and the mayor. Is that going to create a problem?
Mr Jewell: Since November 1991 I have only seen the mayor twice. There is no feud going on. If there is, it's one of his creation. That is not criticism of our mayor. These articles that I see in this paper for the first time, that have been photocopied here -- I don't read the local press, so I haven't seen these before and I'm not aware of their content. But if they are negative in any way, then I think it's something to which Mr Piché should answer. He owns the newspaper, you see.
1050
Mr McLean: According to the audit firm, you and the audit firm don't agree. There's been an audit done and you don't agree with the auditors, is that correct?
Mr Jewell: No, that is not correct. Just for clarification, in January our mayor made it quite clear by implication and later by statement that there is a $1-million shortfall. Later it was referred to as a deficit, and this enabled people to think that the past administration had dealt in skulduggery or mismanagement. In fact, the statement was made by the leader that this is because of mismanagement by the last administration.
So I went to the council and pointed out that there is no $1-million shortfall, there is no $1-million deficit. I caused a paper to be written and in it was included the phrase that if Kapuskasing continues on its present course of giving the usual increase, maintaining the total staff, providing all the services and programs we provide -- and they're very generous and rich -- we would have to find another $1 million. Clearly the intent was that we wouldn't continue to provide all these services and so on. That's where the idea came from. There is no $1-million shortfall.
I pointed that out to him, and they persisted in the fact that there was. So I suggested to them then that if this is so and I as former mayor have been misled, let's have a provincial audit. That did not sit well. Then the council involved its own municipal auditors and I explained the case to them and they explained their case to me. I'm still waiting for a reply from the municipality.
Mr McLean: I don't want to dwell on this. I see a conflict between you and the mayor and, on a three-person board, if that conflict continues, it's not going to be good for the town. I know you are there in the interests of the citizens of the town. Are you still prepared to proceed with the appointment knowing that the whole problem lies there with regard to the town?
Mr Jewell: Yes, I'm prepared to proceed with the appointment and I will do my best to avoid conflict. This area over here which you and I have been discussing has nothing to do with the functioning of the police services board. I choose to categorize things and I think the board will too.
Mr McLean: I disagree with you that it has nothing to do with the police services board, because if you and the mayor have a conflict and you're both on the board, it does have a conflict.
Mr Jewell: I see. I must point out to you that I'm in the habit of avoiding such conflicts if I can.
Mr McLean: I hope that is the case. I'm sure it will be.
The budget has been related as $1.3 million.
Mr Jewell: Which budget, sir?
Mr McLean: For the police services board.
Mr Jewell: Is that for 1992 you're talking about?
Mr McLean: For 1991. The budget for 1992 has not yet been approved, but the budget for 1991 was $1.3 million. What is the population of Kapuskasing?
Mr Jewell: It was 10,834 at the last census.
Mr McLean: About $13 per capita. That would be one of the lower ones in the province, wouldn't it?
Mr Jewell: Yes. I must point out to you that while that may seem a great deal of money for the taxpayers to provide, at the same time, 10,834 people, including children, provided $14.1 million to save the mill. Money in that regard is not a problem and never has been at Kapuskasing. Nevertheless, we use it wisely.
Mr McLean: Back in June, the mayor decided to ask the Solicitor General to provide an assessment of how much it would cost to replace the existing Kapuskasing force with an OPP detachment. Do you have any idea what the cost would be to replace that force?
Mr Jewell: I didn't even know that such a request had been made. No, I have no specifics on the subject. It has never been discussed to my knowledge, certainly not within my hearing.
Mr McLean: That's all the questions I have, Mr Chair.
The Chair: We have three questioners from the government caucus: Mr Waters, Mr Wood and Mr Marchese.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Did I hear you correctly that the newspaper articles that were sent down by the town of Kapuskasing -- that the mayor owns that newspaper?
Mr Jewell: Mr Piché owns the Northern Times. These are lifted from the Northern Times. Along the last page there are two from the Timmins Daily Press.
Mr Ferguson: Unbelievable.
Mr Jewell: The second part I've got here, that is Northern Times and the other one is Northern Times. I have not read them, but I can tell by the print. Moreover, the last three are labelled.
Mr Waters: I just wanted to get an understanding of what was happening. This is the same mayor, the present mayor, who has appointed you to the police board previously.
Mr Jewell: Yes. When I first went on council Mr Piché asked me to accept the appointment of chairman of the police committee and I said yes. Two years later, I gather that he was well satisfied with my performance at that time and he appointed me again as chairman of the police committee. Since January there seems to be -- in fact there is -- some stress between us. It is not of a lasting, viable nature. Life is too short for that at Kapuskasing. We don't think the way that is reflected in these articles.
Mr Waters: When you were chair of the police board, there was no great kerfuffle or any major investigations or things into the police board; everything seemed to go well?
Mr Jewell: Never. All went very smoothly and well. I pointed out earlier that we have a highly competent police chief and highly competent policemen on our board.
Mr Waters: In your résumé it mentions that, "It is recognized that there is a reluctance on the part of the elected authorities in Kapuskasing to have a police services board." Could you expand on that statement please?
Mr Jewell: Within two months of the election in 1991, it was made quite clear: "We have always gotten along well without a police services board, and I intend to retain control. There will never be a police services board at Kapuskasing."
Mr Waters: And of course the mayor has appointed himself to be on the police services board as the municipal representative?
Mr Jewell: Yes.
Mr Waters: I just wanted to get this all out. That's all of my questions. Obviously, from your résumé and your background, I think you'd be a definite asset to the board.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you very much, Mr Jewell, for coming forward. I assume you're well aware of the duties of the police services board, or you've had some knowledge of the new board that is coming into effect on January 1.
Mr Jewell: Yes, sir. One of the things I'll have to do is read the Police Services Act. After such a review I think I'll be able to contribute something positive to that board.
Mr Wood: I imagine you are well aware of the fact that the police services board for the town of Kapuskasing was intended to be up and running early in the new year. Are you aware that the provincial appointee, Dennis Turcotte, resigned?
Mr Jewell: Yes, I learned that, I think it was in March or something about that time; certainly in the winter. He had decided not to stand for appointment. Beyond that I have no information. I don't even know why he did it.
Mr Wood: Okay. That's it, Mr Chairman.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr Jewell, it's good to see you again. I met you as a minister last year.
Mr Jewell: That's right. Yes, you did.
Mr Marchese: It's interesting how we meet under different circumstances.
A few minor questions. I'm not in the habit of asking the first one, but other members of this committee are. Are you affiliated to any political party?
Mr Jewell: Yes. I have always been a Conservative. My affiliation with the Conservative Party goes back a long way. We're an old Conservative family for two generations. Beyond that, I have nothing to add. The answer to your question is yes.
1100
Mr Marchese: Another question: Wouldn't teaching be a lot more interesting and exciting, something you might want to do, as opposed to sitting as a member of this police board?
Mr Jewell: Yes.
Mr Marchese: Your answers are too brief.
Mr Jewell: I see. School teaching has its own rewards. Each day is delightful, it's charming, because you can never tell what the young people are going to come up with next. Therefore, there's a certain excitement about it. I've spent a long career living in a world where everything and everybody is young. That's always refreshing.
Mr Marchese: I can see, however, that being a member of this police board will bring a lot of interesting things for you. No wonder you're looking forward to it.
But I wanted to comment on something else. I do believe there is a conflict here. Having control of the media as a mayor is in my view problematic, and being a member of this police services board as a mayor is problematic and conflicting. Do you see yourself as a person who could help strike a balance as one of the reasons why you want to be a board member?
Mr Jewell: Yes. That's why I stated in my résumé that I would expect one of my first tasks would be to come to terms with the other members of the boards, specifically Mr Piché, and thereafter strike and maintain a balance, one whereby the police service would benefit.
The Chair: Any further questions?
Mr Wiseman: I too come from the teaching profession, and I have never heard it articulated quite as well as you just did about the joys of teaching in terms of eternal youth being present in your life. I find you to be a very optimistic person. I think that will be very refreshing in terms of the kind of leadership you can bring the community.
I see you're retired, but I see that is only a word and not an action, because you've just finished a water-efficiency strategy for the province of Ontario. Could you tell me a little bit about how you got involved with that and what that was about?
Mr Jewell: That was last year. A notice came to our town asking that somebody volunteer to sit on that. At that time, Kapuskasing was just finishing a very long period of trauma, given the facts and the difficulties and the anxieties surrounding the mill. The councillors were very busy; indeed, so was I. So I asked somebody else if he'd sit on the thing, and the day he was leaving, there was a problem within his family so I told him, "Never mind, I'll go and do it myself." I'm glad I did too, because it was a worthwhile progressive learning situation. It was very useful.
Mr Wiseman: I also see that you are on the board of regents for Huntington University. Where is Huntington University?
Mr Jewell: Huntington University is one of the federated colleges of Laurentian University. There is Thorneloe, which is Anglican, the University of Sudbury, which is Roman Catholic, Huntington, which is United Church, then there's one other one; I forget what it is. But these are the federated colleges or universities of Laurentian. I sit on the board of regents of one of the universities.
Mr Wiseman: And also you are on the board of directors of Transport 2000. Transportation is a very interesting area of study. What have you learned from being on the board of directors of Transport 2000?
The Chair: Very briefly.
Mr Jewell: I will be brief. I have learned about airlines and airline services. I consider myself an expert on trains and rail services, freight and passenger. I had no idea we had such a powerful bus industry, bus lobby, in Canada and indeed in North America. I'm glad I'm on that board.
Mr Wiseman: Thank you for coming.
Mr Jewell: Thank you for receiving me.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Jewell for travelling down from Kap for your appearance, and I wish you well.
Mr Jewell: Thank you, gentlemen. Good day.
ANNE REDISH
The Chair: Our final witness is an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Heritage Foundation, Ms Anne Redish. Welcome to the committee. Ms Redish, you were selected for a one half-hour review by the government party, 10 minutes to each caucus, and we'll begin with Mr Wiseman.
Mr Wiseman: I have a particular interest in the Ontario Heritage Foundation. As you probably heard, I was a teacher of history. I believe that heritage is multifaceted. It's natural, it's architectural, it's historical, it's cultural, it's all of those things, and the absence of any one of those diminishes us in terms of who we are and how we can relate to who we are in terms of what I see is the whole time continuum of our existence on the planet. So I believe heritage is very important.
I don't know if you were here for the first deputation.
Mrs Anne Redish: No.
Mr Wiseman: She indicated that in downtown Ottawa a large portion of the architectural heritage in one particular area was eliminated. We also know that with Talbot Street, in London, they have torn that down as well. I have in my own community another village that wants a heritage designation, so I've been very much involved in all of this.
My question to you is, from your résumé here, how do you think you can help and what can you do to promote and try to protect heritage in all of its senses in terms of where you'll be in this appointment? A nice short question.
Mrs Redish: I think as a cross-appointee from the Niagara Escarpment Commission my first obligation on the foundation would be to matters of natural heritage and particularly to areas of the Niagara Escarpment. Primarily that's the natural heritage but it also includes other forms of heritage as well, built primarily again, but other forms of heritage.
What can be done to promote them? The Niagara Escarpment funds are, as I'm sure you know, divided into component A and component B and the component B moneys can be used for education, for research grants and things like that, so there is an opportunity there for promoting heritage.
How you choose between one form of heritage and another is a judgement call. Our heritage is everything around us and you expressed it very well. Sometimes I think we don't realize that the chimney stack out there that I can see is perhaps not something we would wish to preserve and we may not consider it beautiful, historic or interesting -- I don't know anything about it; that is just something I can see -- but I think we have to remember it is heritage and we have to make that judgement between whether that is what we preserve or some other item.
1110
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I hope it's appropriate if I ask if you know my friend George Seibel from Niagara Falls.
Mrs Redish: I'm sorry?
Ms Harrington: Do you know George Seibel from Niagara Falls?
Mrs Redish: No, I don't. I'm sorry.
Ms Harrington: He's written several books about the history of Niagara Falls.
Mrs Redish: No, I'm sorry.
Ms Harrington: I just thought he was very well known.
Certainly, I think it's a very heavy time commitment, serving on two provincial boards. How do you feel about that amount of time? Do you feel you can manage that?
Mrs Redish: I think so. I don't think it can be any worse than being a member of town council. I survived that for eight years, one of which I was a member of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, so I think I can cope.
Ms Harrington: The other question I had was with regard to any conflict in representing both the interests of the Niagara Escarpment Commission as well as the heritage board.
Mrs Redish: In a way I think that's what the cross-appointments are there for, to try to clarify situations of conflict between the two bodies and to, I suppose, effect a compromise.
Ms Harrington: Can you see any particular area of difficulty?
Mrs Redish: I can see two possible difficulties. One would be where the foundation might consider a property worthy of purchase by the Niagara Escarpment funds and the commission might consider that the funds would be better saved for some other property. The other is the ruling of the commission that there should not be two residences on one property. I can see a situation where there was a heritage house of some sort, but for some reason the owner didn't wish to live in it and wished to build a separate residence for himself. That might be a case of conflict.
Ms Harrington: Just in closing, I would like to recommend to you the books written by George Seibel. One is the history of the Portage Road -- the 200th anniversary was recently -- a history of the bridges across Niagara and also of the Niagara parks system.
Mrs Redish: Thank you.
Ms Harrington: I think you may be interested in them.
Mr Marchese: In your spare time, of course. I want to welcome you here today, Mrs Redish. I have three or four questions and I'll do them as quickly as I can, because I'd like your feedback on them.
In my experience, I have found that people are not terribly excited about heritage, both within government and outside. What are your views about how we interest people about the importance of heritage to us as human beings?
Mrs Redish: It's a long process. It's like teaching people about the environment. I think there is a change coming. I think the new Ontario Heritage Act will probably help. Eventually, I think it's a matter of education. Things like Heritage Day certainly help and I don't think there's any great thing that one can do, really, to increase an interest. I think it comes slowly.
Mr Marchese: It does indeed. The present heritage legislation has often been criticized for being a bit too inadequate in preserving our heritage. Do you have some ideas about how we do that?
Mrs Redish: I've had a quick look through the new proposals. I must admit I haven't studied them deeply, but I think there are some helpful things in there. I hope they'll make life easier for LACACs and the new heritage committees. I think the most important thing is to get rid of this "After six months you can pull it down." I hope the process in the new proposal will do away with that.
Mr Marchese: Let me ask you one last question. In these tough economic times, is it realistic for the foundation to acquire properties that will obviously require expensive restoration of historical buildings?
Mrs Redish: Again it's a judgement call. Is this building such that if you don't acquire it, it's going to fall to the ground and be completely lost? How essential is it that we retain that building? You can only deal with individual cases. You can't make a broad generalization on that.
Mr McLean: I just have a very few questions for you. I notice your involvement around the Niagara area and the input you've had. Your background is substantial with regard to conservation authorities and all those types of boards and the commission you have sat on.
There's one thing that bothers me and I would like your opinion on it. It has to do with designating of historical sites in a municipality. Councils seem to be reluctant to do it because of the fact they're kind of responsible for the upkeep in a lot of cases. How do you get around having some of these buildings that we know of designated as historical, so they can stay there without putting a burden on somebody?
Mrs Redish: I would hope that a council that owned an historic building would have sufficient pride in it to be prepared to allocate funds for its maintenance. A property that belongs to a private person or to a commercial operation cannot be designated at the moment -- I can't say "can't be" but is very rarely designated against the wishes of the owner.
I noticed one of the things in the proposed legislation is that if a designation goes through and the building loses all commercial value, then compensation will be provided. I think that's something that needs further elucidation in the act or the regulations.
First of all, it says "all value is lost." Does it really mean "all"? Second, there is nothing about where the compensation is coming from. The Niagara Escarpment Commission is looking at the proposal at its meeting tomorrow. This is certainly one of the comments I'm going to suggest we make.
Mr McLean: In Orillia, we have the Stephen Leacock Memorial Home. It's a great property and they have to get funding from the province, from the municipality, plus the tours they have, to try to make ends meet.
The other I know of is an old firehall that was sold to a law firm. The law firm's been there for years and this was the first firehall built. How does the municipality designate that old firehall as a heritage building, when it's already owned by a group of people, to be maintained in its present form? It's rather difficult.
Mrs Redish: It's a difficult situation if you can't persuade the lawyers to go ahead with the designation yourself. My home town is Dundas, which is an historic town in its way, and I find that over the long term -- now, it may take you 10 years -- you can often persuade an owner that he's got something to be proud of and it's worth going ahead.
Mr McLean: Your résumé indicates to me that you have a great knowledge and to put that to work across the province should be a benefit for everyone. Thank you for coming this morning.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Redish. We appreciate your appearance here and wish you well.
The next matter on our agenda is the determination on whether the committee concurs on the intended appointments we've reviewed this morning. We can deal with them on the basis of one motion or individually. How does the committee wish to proceed?
Mr Wiseman: I'll move concurrence.
The Chair: Mr Wiseman moves committee concurrence for all three witnesses. Any discussion? All in favour?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: There are a couple of more items before we adjourn. Our report, as you know, dealing with the Eastern Ontario Development Corp, the community advisory board at the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital and TVO is pretty well prepared. One thing, before we go to the printer, is whether the committee wishes to have it translated into French. We're looking at a cost of between $4,000 and $5,000 to have it translated into French. What is the wish of the committee?
Mr Waters: TVO includes La Chaîne, does it not?
Mr Marchese: Yes.
Mr Waters: So I move that we definitely have it translated into French.
The Chair: Any objection? Any comment on that? We'll do it without a formal motion, then.
The next matter is whether we should meet next week. Mr Grandmaître talked to me earlier and indicated that he doesn't feel we should be meeting. None of the other standing committees are meeting. What's the wish of the committee in respect to this matter? I know we discussed this briefly at the subcommittee and we did not apprise the House leaders of our decision to sit today, because the House leaders had indicated they weren't going to sit. What's the committee's view? Should we follow the practice of the other standing committees and not meet next week?
Mr McLean: The House might not be sitting next week, Mr Chair.
The Chair: It was indicated --
Mr McLean: Things change around here pretty quickly.
Mr Wood: Mr Stockwell said yesterday we were going to meet all summer.
The Chair: As of last night we're meeting next week.
Mr Waters: My concern would be that I wouldn't want to deprive the opposition or indeed ourselves of interviewing someone, so if it jeopardized that scenario then maybe we should meet. Otherwise, I have a lot of work to do.
The Chair: I think there's a consensus that we won't meet. I think the subcommittee should meet. If the House is in session next week the subcommittee will try to get together on Tuesday or Wednesday.
Mr Wiseman: I would hope to be able to define a little more clearly what the agenda for the summer will be, but given the current state of the unknown it's difficult. I hope we'll have it sorted out by the time we meet next week.
The Chair: We should know by next week whether the committee will have any sitting time during the summer as well, whatever is left of it. Meeting adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1123.