INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
GARY MCNAUGHTON
CONTENTS
Wednesday 29 November 1995
Intended appointments
Gary McNaughton, Ontario Board of Parole
Paul Godfrey, University of Toronto governing council
John Tory, University of Toronto governing council
Celia Kavanagh, Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Présidente: Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)
*Bartolucci, Rick (Sudbury L)
*Ford, Douglas B. (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
*Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
*Fox, Gary (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)
*Gravelle, Michael (Port Arthur L)
*Johnson, Bert (Perth PC)
*Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)
Leadston, Gary L. (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)
*Newman, Dan (Scarborough Centre PC)
*Preston, Peter L. (Brant-Haldimand PC)
*Ross, Lillian (Mrs) (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
*Wood, Bob (London South / -Sud PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Klees, Frank F. (York-Mackenzie PC) for Mr Leadston
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West / -Ouest PC)
Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1007 in room 228.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
GARY MCNAUGHTON
Review of intended appointment, selected by the third party: Gary McNaughton, intended appointee as community part-time member, Ontario Board of Parole.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Tony Martin): Good morning, everybody, and thanks for coming. You have in front of you the agenda for today and the list of witnesses to come before us. You also have a package that was supplied by the public appointments secretariat on each of the witnesses today. You also have in your package some information that was asked for at the last meeting that was prepared by the researcher. We'll start with our first witness, Gary McNaughton. We have a half-hour for each interview, and each of the parties will get 10 minutes to ask their questions. This morning, on this one, we'll start with the Liberals.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good morning, Mr McNaughton. It's a pleasure to have you here. You're a new appointee, of course.
Mr Gary McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Crozier: The new government, the Conservative government, has established a couple of reforms to the way the parole board would operate, and I just wondered, considering all our concern about public safety -- a lot has been said in the media in the past, reported, about parolees and problems with parolees -- in light of your appointment and the Conservative reforms to the parole board, how you feel and how you feel your role will be on this board.
Mr McNaughton: I think my first concern would be public safety. I have not been briefed on the board, so I can't further comment on that.
Mr Crozier: Well, you must then -- did you apply to be on the board?
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Crozier: Then I assume, or may I ask, since you applied to be on the board, you must bring some personal viewpoints as to our current parole system, or our past one, and what you look for, what you would do, what you might add to the parole board.
Mr McNaughton: I've been in business for 30 years, I've interviewed people, I've made key decisions in business, and have been very successful at it. So for that, I think I can overlook the information given to me and do a reasonable job in assessing the problem.
Mr Crozier: I appreciate your experience in business, but dealing with criminals is hardly a business decision. I'm still trying to get at how you feel personally, what kind of attitude will you bring to the board, and what benefit will your sitting on the board be?
Mr McNaughton: I just don't know how to answer that, because I haven't been involved with the parole board and I haven't read a lot about it. I think in my position that I would bring to the board a benefit in making decisions, suggestions, the way to improve things and to work with the other members.
Mr Crozier: So you have no preconceived attitude --
Mr McNaughton: No.
Mr Crozier: -- towards what the leniency of the board should be, how tough the board should be. You have no preconceived --
Mr McNaughton: Like I said, I think my first concern would be public safety.
Mr Crozier: I don't want to put words in your mouth, but does that mean that you would consider yourself then a tough person when it comes to parolees?
Mr McNaughton: I would be tough, but I'd have to assess the person on the information I have at hand. Yeah, I think tough would be probably my --
Mr Crozier: Thank you.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Good morning, Mr McNaughton.
Mr McNaughton: Good morning.
Mr Bartolucci: Just a couple of general questions. I read your resume and was impressed by it, certainly. Do you have any experience on the police services board in Newbury?
Mr McNaughton: No.
Mr Bartolucci: Have you ever sat on a grievance committee or an arbitration committee?
Mr McNaughton: No.
Mr Bartolucci: Then I'd like to go back to what Mr Crozier was asking, because I think you have some personal strength that you want to say. What are those qualities that you feel you bring to the parole board that will make it better because of your attendance on the board?
Mr McNaughton: Well, I think my community work. I'm involved in minor hockey; I was president there, I was president of the Elks club, I'm a strong Mason, I've been involved on a church board, and through all these things I've seen where you need community support.
Mr Bartolucci: Are you in favour of Bill C-68; are you opposed to Bill C-68?
Mr McNaughton: I'm not familiar with Bill C-68.
Mr Bartolucci: The gun control bill? Maybe by a different title?
Mr McNaughton: Yes. Am I in favour of it? Yes, I am.
Mr Bartolucci: Are you in favour then of the penalties that C-68 outlines in its recommendations?
Mr McNaughton: I'm not familiar with those.
Mr Bartolucci: I'd just like to zero in on one case, and if it's unfair, tell me it's unfair, and I'll understand that. But in Sudbury, you will know, as certainly members of the committee will know, a police officer was killed, Joe MacDonald. I'm a past member of the police services board so I take this murder very heavily within my heart because I know the family. I'm wondering, if you read the release of Clinton Suzack, what fundamental errors do you feel the board of parole made in releasing him the first time?
Mr McNaughton: I have not read it. I'm familiar with the case but not familiar with what they were assessing. What I'd like to say is that they may not have had enough information. I'm not sure of that.
Mr Bartolucci: That's fine. Just maybe one last question, because an error that was made by the parole board was certainly they didn't read the material, and I'm wondering, for hardened criminals, as Clinton Suzack was and is and always will be, can you give this committee the assurance that you will check out every factor when someone comes up for review and take the advice of competent, qualified civil servants who offer recommendations?
Mr McNaughton: I certainly would, because that's part of my reason for being on the board, that I don't do anything unless I do a complete and thorough job.
Mr Bartolucci: Then one final question to that would be, would you agree with the recommendations or the direction stated by staff in deciding whether or not to release someone from the board?
Mr McNaughton: Could you repeat that, please?
Mr Bartolucci: Sure. No problem. Would you use the advice or the recommendation of staff in determining whether or not a criminal should be released?
Mr McNaughton: Yes, I would.
Mr Bartolucci: As the determining factor?
Mr McNaughton: Not as the determining factor. The determining factor would be that plus all the information that I had gone through.
Mr Bartolucci: Thanks very much, Mr McNaughton.
Mr McNaughton: You're welcome.
Mr Crozier: How much longer do we have?
The Vice-Chair: You've got about two minutes left.
Mr Crozier: I have one more then, Mr McNaughton. Since you weren't familiar with the particular case Mr Bartolucci mentioned, has there been a case or a time when you felt the parole board made a mistake and released a criminal prematurely?
Mr McNaughton: No, there hasn't.
Mr Crozier: There hasn't been?
Mr McNaughton: Not to my knowledge. I've not seen it.
Mr Crozier: That's not to say --
Mr McNaughton: That's not to say that it hasn't been done, right.
Mr Crozier: Okay. That's fine.
The Vice-Chair: We'll move on then to the third party and Mr Kormos, if he'd like to ask a few questions.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Well, bless you, Chair.
The Vice-Chair: You have to up to 10 minutes. You don't have to take it all.
Mr Kormos: Let me know when I'm around nine and a half.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. We'll lay the gavel down.
Mr Kormos: Don't lay the gavel down, just let me know. Morning, Mr McNaughton.
Mr McNaughton: Morning.
Mr Kormos: Did you apply specifically for this position or did you just throw in a generic application for any little job that might be sent your way?
Mr McNaughton: No, no. I wanted this parole board.
Mr Kormos: Well, what motivated you to do that?
Mr McNaughton: Because I'm concerned for the community, in our community and all communities, to take more interest in what is going on in the public sector.
Mr Kormos: You're aware that it's a judge's job to sentence?
Mr McNaughton: Oh, yes. Yes.
Mr Kormos: What do you think about judges' sentences?
Mr McNaughton: I couldn't comment on that.
Mr Kormos: You don't want to comment or you have no --
Mr McNaughton: I don't like to comment at all.
Mr Kormos: Well, you've got an opinion on it.
Mr McNaughton: I have an opinion, yes.
Mr Kormos: Well, tell us what it is.
Mr McNaughton: I think the sentences are too light.
Mr Kormos: I trust then that as a member of the parole board, you'd want to rectify that.
Mr McNaughton: No. That would not be my position to do that.
Mr Kormos: Your opinion then, being what it is, how would that affect your role on the parole board?
Mr McNaughton: It wouldn't affect it.
Mr Kormos: How could it not?
Mr McNaughton: Because I'm only going to go by the information that's put in front of me, and it's not my duty to be judge and jury.
Mr Kormos: You agree with the concept of statutory remission, don't you?
Mr McNaughton: I'm not familiar with that.
Mr Kormos: Exactly what is it about your background that makes you an appropriate candidate for the parole board?
Mr McNaughton: Because I've been a strong community leader, strong in business, and I'm interested in the public safety.
Mr Kormos: I understand that. Have you been involved in victims' programs?
Mr McNaughton: No. No, I haven't.
Mr Kormos: Have you been involved with victims of spousal abuse?
Mr McNaughton: No, I haven't.
Mr Kormos: Because you know that any number of people coming up for parole are going to be people convicted and sentenced for having abused their spouses.
Mr McNaughton: Right.
Mr Kormos: You've been involved with the court system?
1020
Mr McNaughton: No, I haven't.
Mr Kormos: The John Howard Society is a volunteer program, huh?
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Where you work with people in the correctional system. Been involved with that?
Mr McNaughton: No.
Mr Kormos: Ever applied?
Mr McNaughton: No.
Mr Kormos: Have you ever met with activists in your community who are concerned about, once again, spousal abuse?
Mr McNaughton: No, I haven't.
Mr Kormos: Have you ever worked with young offenders?
Mr McNaughton: No, I haven't.
Mr Kormos: You've been in courtrooms?
Mr McNaughton: Oh, yes.
Mr Kormos: You've witnessed the process in the courtroom?
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Kormos: What drew you into the courtroom?
Mr McNaughton: I was there as a witness.
Mr Kormos: For the crown attorney?
Mr McNaughton: Right, yes.
Mr Kormos: For the prosecution?
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Were you the victim of a crime?
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Have you ever attended court to testify on behalf of an accused?
Mr McNaughton: No, I haven't.
Mr Kormos: Have you ever provided a character reference for an accused person who might have been convicted?
Mr McNaughton: Yes, I did.
Mr Kormos: What was that circumstance?
Mr McNaughton: That circumstance was a young fellow who got in a car accident and supposedly he was drinking and driving. They wanted a character witness for him.
Mr Kormos: Was he convicted?
Mr McNaughton: He was convicted.
Mr Kormos: He wasn't "supposedly" then; he was drunk?
Mr McNaughton: Well, I guess he was over the legal limit, yes.
Mr Kormos: A friend of yours?
Mr McNaughton: No, he wasn't.
Mr Kormos: Somebody you knew?
Mr McNaughton: Yes, he went to our church.
Mr Kormos: One of your church colleagues. You've been involved in minor hockey. You're the president of the Elks Lodge, right?
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Kormos: A member of St John's Anglican Church.
What sort of criteria do you think a parole board member ought to consider when he considers whether or not to grant parole?
Mr McNaughton: There, again, it would depend on the person and the information that I had in front of me.
Mr Kormos: What sort of things would impress you by a person applying for parole?
Mr McNaughton: I guess I couldn't answer that.
Mr Kormos: Surely you've reflected on it. You have this passion to be a member of the parole board.
Mr McNaughton: I can't answer that.
Mr Kormos: You've never reflected on that?
Mr McNaughton: I would reflect on it when I read the information with regard to the person.
Mr Kormos: When did you make this decision to apply to be a member of the parole board?
Mr McNaughton: It must be two months ago.
Mr Kormos: Some time after June 8?
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Kormos: After the last provincial election?
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Kormos: You had never applied earlier?
Mr McNaughton: No.
Mr Kormos: Why not?
Mr McNaughton: Because I was never offered the position to participate.
Mr Kormos: Because you were never offered the position. Who offered you this one?
Mr McNaughton: Bruce Smith called me and asked me if I would be interested in serving.
Mr Kormos: Bruce Smith?
Mr McNaughton: MPP.
Mr Kormos: Oh. Elected on June 8?
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Friend of yours?
Mr McNaughton: No.
Mr Kormos: He obviously knew you.
Mr McNaughton: We knew each other, but not as friends.
Mr Kormos: He wasn't an enemy?
Mr McNaughton: No, but he knew that I was interested in the community and he wondered if I would be interested, so I put my application in.
Mr Kormos: You knew him before the election?
Mr McNaughton: Yes, but not --
Mr Kormos: Of course.
Mr McNaughton: Yes. I'd met him, sure. I met him at the summer barbecue they have.
Mr Kormos: The summer barbecue?
Mr McNaughton: Yes, they have one in the --
Mr Kormos: The political event?
Mr McNaughton: Yes, the political event.
Mr Kormos: And you had participated in that?
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Kormos: It was a fund-raiser?
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Kormos: For which party?
Mr McNaughton: Conservatives.
Mr Kormos: Of course, because you're a Conservative supporter, aren't you?
Mr McNaughton: This time I was, but I'm not always, no.
Mr Kormos: Please, these people would very much like to know. If you were one but aren't any more, they may have to reflect on whether or not they're going to respond appropriately. You supported your Tory candidate?
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Kormos: You knew him prior to the election?
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Kormos: You knew him subsequent to the election?
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Kormos: You support the goals of this government?
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Or else you wouldn't have supported him, right?
Mr McNaughton: That's right.
Mr Kormos: You wouldn't have been involved in fund-raising for the Conservative Party, isn't that right?
Mr McNaughton: That's right.
Mr Kormos: Among other things, that's what your participation was, this barbecue, wasn't it?
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Now, Mr Smith approached you suggesting that you'd be a good parole board member?
Mr McNaughton: He said there were vacancies on the parole board and would I be interested in applying?
Mr Kormos: What about any other number of positions?
Mr McNaughton: He never mentioned those.
Mr Kormos: What if you crapped out in your application for the parole board? Would there be something else there?
Mr McNaughton: I have no idea. I can't answer that question.
Mr Kormos: Mr Smith obviously thought you had all the right stuff to be a member of the parole board, huh?
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Kormos: And you agreed with him.
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Because it's about time to bring some law and order back into the system, huh?
Mr McNaughton: No.
Mr Kormos: No?
Mr McNaughton: My main thing is that I'm interested. I think there's law and order in the system now, from what I see, but I'm interested and I would like to be given the opportunity to work with the parole board and put forward some -- maybe I'll have better ideas or different ideas.
Mr Kormos: What might those different ideas be?
Mr McNaughton: Because I've never been on the parole board, I can't answer that.
Mr Kormos: But you thought you might have different ideas, okay? Or better ideas?
Mr McNaughton: Not better.
Mr Kormos: Well, you wouldn't want to be just another one of the same. I mean, if you're motivated to be on the parole board, clearly you think you can do a better job than any other or else you'd relinquish the position to somebody else.
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Kormos: So you're confident you can do a better job than the other persons who might be candidates, right?
Mr McNaughton: Yes, I'd say I could.
Mr Kormos: What is it about your views about parole that convince you you could do a better job?
Mr McNaughton: I think I have the aptitude to dig through information, work hard at it and come up with a reasonable assessment of parolees.
The Vice-Chair: Your 10 minutes are up.
Mr Kormos: I thought you were going to tell me when I had 30 seconds left.
The Vice-Chair: You were in full swing there when it came 30 seconds and I didn't want to cut you off because I knew how nasty you can get.
Mr Kormos: Just warming up, Chair.
The Vice-Chair: We'll move on to the government side.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): Perhaps I might lead off with the first question. I might say that I think it's very refreshing to see such an excellent representative of rural and small-town Ontario being put forward for this position. That's an area of our province that isn't always well represented on every board, and I'm very pleased that this name has come forward today.
A number of questions earlier had touched on your work experience, and it's obvious that a number of things you've done would be an asset to the parole board. Is there anything else in your work experience, other than what you've already explained to the committee, that you feel would be helpful to the parole board?
Mr McNaughton: No.
Mr Bob Wood: Thank you. Those are my questions.
The Vice-Chair: Anybody else from the government?
Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): You've basically answered my question in a lot of ways, but what is really your interest in serving on this board? You've mentioned public safety, but could you speak further on that, as to how you feel about how the system works today and where it should be going?
Mr McNaughton: Public safety is my number one concern, but the other thing is that I think maybe a little more in-depth study or review of the parolees who are getting out would be more helpful and maybe no errors would be made, or not as many.
The Vice-Chair: Any further questions from the government side?
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Yes, I'd like to ask a question if I could.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, go ahead.
Mrs Ross: I understand you have some involvement in the community, but I wondered how you felt your community involvement would enable you to fulfil this position on the parole board.
Mr McNaughton: I think I have a pretty good overview of what people are thinking in the community and I think this of course helps you understand how everything is going.
Mrs Ross: Your community involvement's been with, I think I read, hockey associations and --
Mr McNaughton: Yes, and the Elks Lodge, churches. I coach minor hockey.
1030
The Vice-Chair: Any further questions?
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Yes, I have a question here. Mr McNaughton, I read the backgrounder on you here: owner and operator of McNaughton Automotive and Home Hardware and Radio Shack; employee at McNaughton Automotive and Home Hardware; owned and operated several laundromats; auditor for the Ontario Egg Producers' Marketing Board; owned and operated Newbury Superior Grocery Store; owned and operated Glencoe Creamery. In the backgrounder you have: member of the Elks Lodge, Masonic Lodge and Glencoe Rotary Club. So with all these backgrounders you have here, I imagine, seeing you owned these businesses, you were hiring people and getting involved in the community aspect of things, you probably came in contact with people who had been in jail.
Mr McNaughton: Oh, yes.
Mr Ford: You've probably talked to them, experienced a little background on them, found out how they worked in your organization, if you hired them or if you didn't hire them. All I'm asking you, with this background, which I think is good, because you're right down into the heart of the community with people -- and I think that's a good background to have when you're in one of these types of jobs -- and you're concerned with the community, is, what are the greatest strengths you feel you bring to the parole board here?
Mr McNaughton: I think my greatest strength of course is that through business and through all my associations I am able to communicate my skills with other people.
Mr Ford: With this background in your business experience and hiring people and working with them if you did hire them, you maybe have a little insight into what their thinking is, because I know myself I've had a tremendous experience with this type of thing and with the background. I found some to be very positive and others to be very negative. Have you run into this type of situation?
Mr McNaughton: We have many customers now -- I can think of eight or 10 -- who have done time and have come out and they're now good customers of ours and good in the community. We socialize with them all the time in business and they don't seem to be getting in any more trouble, so the system works that way, anyway.
Mr Ford: So you figure you're fully qualified to handle this position?
Mr McNaughton: Oh, yes.
Mr Ford: Thank you. No more questions with myself.
Mr Kormos: I'll use the remnant of the time.
The Chair: No, there's still Mr Newman up.
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Mr McNaughton, with your busy schedule, involved in the community and being the owner-operator of your own business, will you be able to find the required time to visit the various correctional facilities in your region and to attend the required six meetings per month?
Mr McNaughton: That was the one thing I thought about, but I have a son who has taken over, so it gives me the time. That's why I've never gotten involved in anything like this before, because I couldn't get away from business. But now I have my son who runs it, yes.
Mr Newman: Okay, that's fine.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Mr McNaughton, you're in business with a lot of experience in the community, a lot of contacts in the community. From time to time, have you heard people talk about the parole board or the parole system in the province and express concerns about it in any way?
Mr McNaughton: I believe the only time I've ever heard it mentioned was the Suzack case in Sudbury.
Mr Klees: What were people saying at the time?
Mr McNaughton: They thought the parole board did a very poor job.
Mr Klees: When you heard that discussion taking place, what was your view? Did you agree with that?
Mr McNaughton: Yes, I would have to agree that I think it was a poor job done by the board.
Mr Klees: Given that particular situation, had you been on the parole board at that time, how might you have conducted yourself differently?
Mr McNaughton: Given that same situation, I hope that I would have studied the information carefully enough that I would not have made that mistake.
Mr Klees: When you say "studied it carefully enough," what does that mean?
Mr McNaughton: I think, as I read somewhere, that they didn't have enough pertinent information or they didn't study it well enough and they made an error in their judgement.
Mr Klees: Placing yourself into the position of being on the parole board, how would you know when you've got enough information? Not having been there before, you're subjected to basically getting a brief. How would you ensure that you got the information necessary to make a decision?
Mr McNaughton: I think if I went through the information I had and I felt that there was not enough information there to make a decision, I would not make that decision until I got more information from whatever source I had to get it.
Mr Klees: Okay. Just one last question: Apart from this particular case, have you ever heard of any crimes being committed by people on parole?
Mr McNaughton: Yes.
Mr Klees: What is your view? Whose fault is that? Is that something that could be prevented by the system in general? Is it a problem of the courts? Is it a problem of the parole system?
Mr McNaughton: I don't think anybody is going to eliminate the problem 100%. It's impossible. But particularly parolees out -- you're going on the facts you have. Maybe some people are going to be criminals all their life. That's the way it is. But there are always going to be people getting releases who will commit a crime again, the petty theft type.
Mr Klees: If you are confirmed in this appointment, you may find yourself in a situation of being accused of having given parole to someone who ends up committing a crime. How do you defend yourself in a situation like that?
Mr McNaughton: If I did my very best job, had all the information, that's the only way you can defend yourself. It's not always going to be a perfect system, but it should be near perfect if given the proper information.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. That's it. Time is up for the government side. I want to thank you, Mr McNaughton, for coming forward today.
Mr Bartolucci: We have a minute or so left. Can we go back and ask him additional questions?
The Vice-Chair: That's fine.
Mr Bartolucci: I'd like to follow up on what Mr Klees was talking about, because it's something that really is meaningful to the citizens of Sudbury, in fact to the region of Sudbury, and I don't want it to be a political-type thing, because it's too serious for that. You overheard some discussion about the Suzack release and you wouldn't have done the same thing. I mean, you repeated what I said when you didn't know anything about the Suzack case. So I'm going to ask you again, what part of the Wein report would you have accepted with regard to the Suzack case?
Mr McNaughton: I'm not familiar with the Wein report.
Mr Bartolucci: You didn't hear that discussion? Seriously, Mr McNaughton, and I want to be fair to you, how familiar were you with the Suzack case?
Mr McNaughton: I read it in the paper and I heard people talk about it. I have not studied the Suzack case.
Mr Bartolucci: One final question.
The Vice-Chair: That's it. Your time is up.
Mr Kormos: The balance of my time --
The Vice-Chair: Your time is up. Thank you very much, Mr McNaughton. We'll now call on Mr Godfrey to come forward.
PAUL GODFREY
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Paul Godfrey, intended appointee as part-time member, University of Toronto governing council.
The Vice-Chair: Welcome, Mr Godfrey. Please make yourself at home. We'll start with the third party this time. Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: I'm going to begin my scathing attack on Mr Godfrey by trying to elicit from him the confession that he's a member of the Progressive Conservative Party.
Mr Paul Godfrey: I have been since birth.
Mr Kormos: I think it was prenatal.
Mr Godfrey: If you spoke to my mother, she would acknowledge that.
Mr Kormos: Quite frankly, I am surprised that Mr Godfrey has been brought before the committee. He's a Tory. It's apparent. It's no secret. I don't agree with many -- heck, I'll go further than that, not even most; I'll go so far as most -- with most of his political views. There should be no secret about that. I don't agree with the occasions when the Toronto Sun has criticized me or my party. On one occasion, their page 57 photo was far more illuminating that it has been before or since.
1040
Mr Klees: How about page 3?
Mr Kormos: It's no secret that if page 3 weren't there -- Mr Godfrey knows this, and I won't even bother asking him -- it would significantly impact on the circulation of that paper.
But quite frankly, and I'm being very candid and let the chips fall where they may, he's got a background that demonstrates management and leadership in a number of areas. He has been the Metro chair. You look at his CV and he has been involved, as far as I'm concerned and aware at least, responsibly in the leadership of a number of commissions.
Notwithstanding that I don't agree with any number of things that he may have espoused or supported, and notwithstanding that the position -- so what? It smacks of political patronage. So be it. But patronage, when it encompasses somebody who has competence, is not the worst thing in the world.
I am surprised that he has been brought before the committee, in that he's an extremely public person. There are probably parts of his life that aren't public, and they probably should remain that way. I'm surprised that this committee is using its time to make inquiries of somebody like Mr Godfrey.
I have no intention of raising mundane questions that will elicit answers that are not only known to me but to most of the public. I'll leave it at that and reserve the balance of my time, because I'll be darned if I'll give it to either of the other two caucuses.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, thank you, Mr Kormos. We'll move, then, to the government side. Who wants to lead off over there?
Mr Bob Wood: The one question I want to ask Mr Godfrey is this: You've obviously had very wide business experience -- and I share the view expressed earlier that you are a very highly qualified appointment -- what aspects of your business experience do you think are going to be most helpful in your work with the University of Toronto?
Mr Godfrey: I believe my experience, especially in the financial area -- we all realize that we're going through a period of very tough financial times in not only business but all the various institutions that we all admire. Because of that, I think that probably will be the greatest strength I can be to the university as they have not only to manage a limited budget but also to make an appeal to the public at large through any fund-raising to supplement that.
Mr Newman: I have a question for Mr Godfrey. Can you explain why you agreed to serve on the governing council of the University of Toronto?
Mr Godfrey: I was asked by Mr Comper, who's the chairman of the governing council. I was quite surprised to receive a call. I did not accept his and Mr Prichard's invitation immediately. Time is my greatest enemy. There's just not enough time. I'm running a very thriving business in two countries and have a number of outside activities. I sit on a number of outside boards.
It really came down to the situation that I recognized, number one, the importance of the university to the province of Ontario and to Metropolitan Toronto. I am a graduate of that fine institution, and I decided that I was going to squeeze a little bit more into a very busy schedule. It was only after a couple of weeks of deep contemplation and discussions with my family, and the necessity of time being critical, to spend a little time with the university as well.
Mr Fox: I had a question for this gentleman, but you've answered it very capably and, in agreement with Mr Kormos, I will pass. I have no further questions.
Mr Kormos: Yours I'll attribute to expediency; mine I'll attribute to candour.
Mr Fox: You've got us reversed.
Mr Ford: As a member of the University of Toronto governing council, do you think the University of Toronto is managed with efficiency and accountability with their funds? An honest answer on that.
Mr Godfrey: Do you mean to date?
Mr Ford: To date.
Mr Godfrey: I can only tell you from a distance. I do not have a lot of contact with the day-to-day activities of the university. I think that most of the institutions, from my perspective, are doing an excellent job at this point in time. I think that over the years they've been somewhat strapped by the inability to raise funds due to tough economic times.
Mr Ford: I'm talking about the University of Toronto, though. Do you think it's run efficiently in accountability?
Mr Godfrey: To my knowledge they are.
Mr Kormos: Nuts.
Mr Ford: What's that?
Mr Kormos: I said nuts.
Mr Ford: We realize certain aspects I think. We're asking questions for answers here. I notice your extensive background and I'm very impressed with it. One thing I am very impressed with is the B'nai Brith -- you're associated with that -- and the Jewish home. That impresses me. I'm involved in a similar type of thing. Other than that, I have no other questions because I think your background is excellent.
The Vice-Chair: Are there any other questions from the government side? If not, Mr Klees.
Mr Klees: I'll defer to you, Bert.
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Your background is impeccable for this position, Mr Godfrey. You were -- how would I say?-somebody phoned you and asked you if you would serve, and because there's an element of management and of fund-raising and so on, do you feel that you're inhibited because you have been recruited for only part of that, to help the institution manage its funding in the future?
Mr Godfrey: In any task I take on I never feel I'm inhibited from doing anything as long as I get the mandate to go on. My only reluctance to accepting on the spot was the fact of the dedication of the time required. When I decided I could resolve that, I don't think I have any inhibitions, and people who know me will probably realize that once I get on the board.
Mr Bert Johnson: I'm satisfied with that answer.
Mr Klees: You are involved in many things in the community. We continue to see your name associated with various things that are quite commendable. It's always difficult to comprehend how you could add one more thing to your platter. Are you doing this for the money?
Mr Godfrey: I didn't know there was any money connected with it. I think if there were some sort of remuneration, I probably wouldn't have accepted.
Mr Klees: I raised that --
Mr Kormos: It's the 30% tax break he's looking for.
Mr Klees: I make that point. Mr Godfrey, because I think it's important that everyone fully understand, the public more so. Certainly the people in this room know that this is a volunteer position. I think that what we should be doing is expressing our gratitude to you for being willing to give your time to a cause that, particularly over the next number of years, will be very important to this institution and in fact to the province and to those people who benefit from the success of the university. I just want to go on record as saying that. Thank you for being here today.
Mr Godfrey: Thank you very much.
Mr Kormos: Frank, it's going to take more sucking up than that to be a Sunshine Boy.
Mr Klees: What did it take?
Mr Kormos: Give me a break.
1050
The Vice-Chair: Anybody else from the government side? If not, then we'll move on to the Liberal caucus.
Mr Crozier: Mr Godfrey, I feel that now Mr Kormos has raised it, I should explain to you. He said several times how surprised he was that you were brought before the committee. I made the choice on behalf of the opposition party and I made the choice because I think you are well qualified for this position. I think you will add greatly to the governing council of the university.
At the same time, the motives of some people bringing appointees before the committee are different than others. Mine was to give you an opportunity -- and again, I appreciate the time -- to speak to some of the issues that you feel universities face today. It isn't often that we get the opportunity to meet appointees such as yourself, and I don't think we should always bring them before the committee just to grill them. I think you can help us in this short time that you can spend with us.
Mr Godfrey: Thank you.
Mr Crozier: That's why there was no ulterior motive. I think you will be an outstanding appointee.
Mr Godfrey: Thank you. I'm honoured to have the opportunity of appearing in front of you.
Mr Crozier: Thank you. That makes me feel a little better. I felt bad at first when Peter started to go after you.
Universities do face some challenges, and I'm speaking generally, although you'll be specifically involved with one. The powers of the governing council, Mr Godfrey, appear to be more in the general administrative -- appointing of administrative people, teaching staff, that sort of thing. I couldn't see where the council gets too involved in the actual finances of the university. I wondered if you might address that, how you feel you can bring your expertise to that.
Mr Godfrey: I think the universities themselves are going to be dependent upon doing more fund-raising in the future than they ever have in the past, based on the limitations that not only governments can give but also the limitations that have always been on the tuition side of it.
There's always been a gap, especially at the University of Toronto, which is considered one of the great research universities in the world today. If we're going to maintain the University of Toronto as one of the great research centres and schools of learning, it's going to require involving the public and the corporations in making sure that there is a flow of capital dollars into the university in order to do the things that are necessary to keep it as one of the great universities.
I think because of that, the connections with the corporate community in particular, liaising between governments and the university itself, will require individuals who understand not only how the corporate world works but also understand how governments work. I think that's probably the area I can contribute to in that area.
I've had some discussions, when I was asked by Mr Comper to serve, and after I thought about it and agreed, I did sit down with Mr Prichard, the president of the university, to discuss those aspects with him, because it's imperative -- if I'm going to participate, it's not going to be just to attend the odd meeting and put up my hand when the staff bring in a recommendation. From my previous involvement both on the corporate side and on the government side, I'm a hands-on player. That's the only way to be.
The fact is, I think over the next several years, governments will be able to do less. I'm not sure, at the level of the individual student, how much more they can give. So there will always be a gap between what is needed and what they have, and I think that's where the citizens who do have some giving power as far as time and finance are concerned can maintain the University of Toronto as one of the great institutions that it happens to be today and hopefully will continue to be in the future.
Mr Crozier: Thank you, Mr Godfrey. I think someone else has --
Mr Bartolucci: Mr Godfrey, it's good to see you again. Mr Godfrey and I worked on several Association of Municipalities of Ontario committees in the past and I've always, always respected his capability and his candour and his dedication.
Mr Godfrey: Thank you.
Mr Bartolucci: Just one question: Do you believe in public performance appraisal mechanisms for universities, so that they can be rated against each other?
Mr Godfrey: It depends on the guidelines you use for that. I think anybody, any institution, any individual, or any company that receives public funds should have an appraisal. I can tell you, in my own company we do management by objectives and we do an appraisal system afterwards to rate how you do against that, so I have no objection to that.
I think one has to be awfully careful in laying out guidelines for doing appraisals and how public they become, because the situation is, if you get different people using different guidelines in rating institutions or individuals, you can come out with great disparities which in fact can be embarrassing. But if it's carefully handled, I have no objection to that.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Mr Godfrey.
Mr Godfrey: Good morning.
Mr Gravelle: I certainly have no doubt that you will be an incredibly effective contributor in terms of your fund-raising activities at the university. Of course, what I'd really like to ask you about is the National Football League, but that's another thing.
Mr Godfrey: I get a lot of questions on that. Whenever I go out and speak on a specific topic, I get more questions on the National Football League than the topic I speak on.
Mr Gravelle: I've been following that aspect of your career.
Mr Godfrey: It's going to happen, sir.
Mr Gravelle: Is it going to happen?
Mr Godfrey: It's going to happen, definitely.
Mr Gravelle: Okay.
Interjections.
Mr Godfrey: He may give you a different -- but I tell you, it will happen.
Mr Gravelle: I'll talk to you afterwards. I did want to ask you just a couple of questions in terms of the whole state of where universities are at today and the whole education system.
Yesterday in the Legislature, we had an opposition day which was dedicated to the discussion of tuition fees, increased tuition fees, which we're certainly expecting and are very concerned about; I think probably everybody is. You've made some comment related to it.
Obviously there's been chronic underfunding of universities in perhaps the last seven or eight years in particular, but they've continually been underfunded. Tuition fees have been increasing at a remarkable rate in the last five years in particular. How do you feel in terms of the whole tuition fee issue? Students can only handle so much. It's going to be more and more difficult for them to obviously enter university. The fear I think is that it becomes a place where only the élite go. I just want to know whether you have any thoughts or points of view on that issue.
Mr Godfrey: I think there's little doubt that tuition fees will have to continue to rise as government funding is cut back. I think those who can afford to pay probably should pay more. I think, however, for students who are able to qualify, there has to be continuing assistance programs for them. I think there's a balance that you have to reach in any educational institution. I don't think one can make it unbearable for a student to avoid his education because he can't afford it. I think that cripples society in the long term.
But at the same time I think there's a test. That's one area I would really like to look into and get a little bit more knowledge on before coming to an absolute conclusion. When you compare tuition fees in various parts of this country, they vary all over the place. I have a son who goes to McGill University, for instance, and pays $1,500 a year tuition. I find that remarkably low. If the tuition was double that, I'd pay that. I think taxpayers wherever, whether it's in Quebec or anywhere else, who happen to pay that level of subsidy for my child -- I think that's wrong. However, there are probably many on the other side of the ledger who can barely afford to pay and whose child or the student can't afford to pay. I think in those instances, there should be programs for assistance.
1100
Mr Gravelle: It really is an accessibility issue, I think, in that sense.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Gravelle, your 10 minutes are up. I believe the third party is interested in taking up some more of the time that they --
Mr Kormos: Six minutes?
The Vice-Chair: You have just over six minutes.
Mr Kormos: I'm glad you qualified your last comment, because obviously you can afford to pay double that, five times, 10 times that, but when you're working in a factory in Niagara, you can't. Sorry.
Mr Godfrey: I agree with that. That's why I try to say there are two sides to the story.
Mr Kormos: You're undoubtedly familiar with the controversy that has arisen over the course of the last week and a half out of a context at Ryerson here in Toronto, wherein a professor, a part-time professor as I understand it, was identified by the press as having some very unpopular and, to many, repugnant views about the appropriateness of sexual activity between, in his particular context or instance, adult men and young male children, and the subsequent revelation that this part-time journalism professor was a self-confessed prostitute -- he made note of the fact that prostitution in this country is not illegal, and he's quite right.
You witnessed the administration of that institution cover the whole spectrum: at first defend their professor, defending his right to academic freedom and to be free to believe in what he believes in and recognizing that this was important to the integrity of the institution. And you witnessed the transition, the movement from that position as -- and I don't think there's any question in most people's minds that it was a result of pressure from public exposure and public criticism throughout all facets of the media -- to the point where they fold their tents and they say, "Oh, well," some seven, eight, nine, 10 days later, the fact situation really not having changed. We witnessed that same administration then suspending their professor and saying that he will be subject to an inquiry.
What is your view, not about this particular person's views about paedophilia -- that's the long and short of it -- or about his right to be a prostitute in his part-time -- as lawyers and politicians, I suppose we have a certain affinity with prostitutes -- but what is your view of the movement on the part of the administration from one of absolute support and defence of the right of that particular professor to have his views and indeed express them, to one then of abandonment and a position which appears to have been a mere succumbing to increased public pressure, and one in which one journalist in Toronto, one Christie Blatchford, yesterday indicated that notwithstanding she disagreed with what this professor professed, she would -- I'm not using her words -- defend with her -- not her life, but with all her body, his right to say it. In fact, Ms Blatchford indicated this is the first occasion on which she felt moved sufficiently that she would actually sit down and protest, in contrast to her own years some 20 years earlier.
What's your view of the administration's clear transition from one of absolute defence to one of, "Throw this guy to the wolves and cover our own asses," if that's not an inappropriate description.
Mr Godfrey: Mr Chairman, Mr Kormos asks that I not comment on the case but comment on the principle. On the principle of any administrative body making a decision based on additional facts, I guess I believe in the theory that only fools and dead men don't change their minds: fools won't and dead men can't.
The fact is that if new information comes to light and changes the circumstances in which the original hands-off decision was made, then I think that depends on the strength of the new information. As I understand the case, new information was brought to light in that the professor in question acknowledged that he was active in being a male hooker, as he claims.
Mr Kormos: What's your view about the role of -- and almost inevitably it's the media. Do you believe an administration should permit itself to be swayed by what could well be increased media pressure or increased media focus? I'm not asking you to contradict what you just said, because you spoke to the issue of new facts arising. Undoubtedly, that will be the convenient out for those at Ryerson who want to justify how they could be in one position one day and in a contrary position the next. Do you think quasi-public bodies like the governing council of a university should in any way, shape or form permit themselves to be swayed by what might be increasingly vitriolic media exposure or pressure?
Mr Godfrey: I'm somewhat amused by the question regarding the media, mainly because I think that all of us are influenced by information, whether it comes from the media, whether it comes from friends, whether it comes from business associates. I think we're all subject to that. That's the world we live in. An administrative body of a university or a legislative body like we have here or any other legislative body, they'll all be influenced by facts that are brought to light.
I think you and I both know, and in my days in government at Metro, that when a story is suddenly revealed about a certain incident, it sends a different focus, it puts a different spotlight on an issue. Consequently, whether it's politicians or whether it's people on a governing council, we'll all react to information that's brought to light.
The danger is overreaction and the danger is reacting without all the facts. It is difficult for any of us to sit here and take a final and conclusive position on any item of importance without knowing all the facts. I have not been made privy to all the facts in the Ryerson case, so it's difficult for me to draw an absolute conclusion. I would hope that, sitting on a body like the governing council of the University of Toronto, I will continue to make decisions based on all the facts.
I have taken, in my years in public life, many unpopular stands. The media took great shots at me, but I happened to know that the facts were different as enunciated in certain segments of the media.
The Vice-Chair: We're finished with Mr Kormos's time, and in fact we want to thank you for coming forward today.
Mr Godfrey: Thank you very much for the opportunity.
1110
JOHN TORY
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: John Tory, intended appointee as part-time member, University of Toronto governing council.
The Vice-Chair: The next witness is Mr John Tory. Would you come forward.
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chair, I think that Mr Tory, in fact, would like to make an opening statement, please.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, that's fine.
Mr John Tory: Mr Chair and members of the committee, all I want to do by way of an opening statement is to thank you for inviting me here. In all the time I've spent around this building, it's the first time I've appeared before a committee of the Legislature. I'll let you know afterwards whether that's a privilege or a punishment.
But I'm pleased to be here, and I just wanted to spend two minutes telling you a bit about myself, because I think that one of the things, as most of you would know, that happens when you have some involvement in the political process, which I have, over 25 years, is that people come to see you in one context alone and don't really understand perhaps what you do with the rest of your life.
In my own case, I have a family. I'm married to Barbara Hackett, who was a financial executive and has recently set up her own business building houses. I am a silent partner in that business who's expected to remain silent. I have four children, none of whom are yet of university age, but they're all in school.
In my professional life, I was called to the bar in 1980 and practised law over most of the intervening 15-year period, between then and 1995, at the firm of Tory, Tory, Deslauriers and Binnington where I was ultimately the management partner and a member of the firm's executive committee until I took up my present position in February of this past year, which I'll get to in a moment.
I did take four years out of my law practice to serve as principal secretary to Premier Davis and associate secretary of the Ontario cabinet, but other than that I practised law up until 1995. In February 1995, I was asked to take up a job as president and chief executive officer of Rogers Multimedia Inc and president and chief executive officer of Maclean Hunter Publishing.
Rogers Multimedia owns Maclean Hunter Publishing, which publishes about 50 magazines in Canada. It owns a controlling interest in the Toronto Sun Publishing Corp, which publishes about 70 newspapers, many of which you're familiar with, and it owns 100% of Rogers Broadcasting Ltd, which has approximately 20 radio stations and a number of interests in television services, the Canadian Home Shopping Network and so on. The company has revenues of approximately $750 million this year. It has about 6,000 employees. So that is what I do in my business life.
I'm a member of a number of boards of directors: the Toronto Sun Publishing Corp, the Financial Post, Maclean Hunter, Canadian Business Media and so on.
I also have made it a very high priority in my life all the way through, including the time when I was very involved in the political process, to be involved in the community. I have been the co-chair on the boards of a number of community organizations over the years. I have been chairperson of a number of fund-raising campaigns: $2.5 million for the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund; I was the vice-chair of a $7.5-million campaign for Osgoode Hall Law School. I just chaired this spring a dinner which raised $350,000 for the Jerusalem Foundation, and I'm presently co-chairing, with a fellow by the name of Tim Griffin, a $20-million campaign for St Michael's Hospital in Toronto. I'm a member of the national board of the Salvation Army and, as such, am deeply involved with them in a number of their activities and I've also been on the Toronto board for a number of years as well.
When I was a student, I was the president of the student council at Osgoode Hall Law School, the first student ever made vice-chairman of the faculty council, which is the body that runs the Osgoode Hall Law School, and I was, after I left law school, the president of the Osgoode Hall Alumni Association for four years.
I really have found these things to be both extremely fulfilling and very important to me in terms of my life and my career and it's one of those things where, as I say, I probably get more attention, good and bad, for having been involved in the political process and for having been involved in the football world than for some of the things you do in the community, and that's fine with me. It's just that I wanted you to know those things so that you know that I bring to this position, which I didn't seek, some record of community service.
So that's really all I have to say. I'm delighted to answer your questions, sir.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We'll start with the government side, and you have six minutes.
Mr Bob Wood: I think indeed, Mr Tory, you are a very well qualified person for this position. I wondered if I might ask you to explain why it is you've agreed to take on this position, what you hope to accomplish on it and why you feel that you should make this contribution.
Mr Tory: I was approached in the summer -- in the spring actually before -- probably in about April or May by the president of the university, whom I've known for a number of years, when he was dean of the University of Toronto law school and so on, and asked if I would be interested in this and he indicated of course that the appointment would have to pass muster with the government of the day and he asked me if I would be interested and I said yes I was because, first of all, I think the University of Toronto in particular is an institution that is vital to our future economic and intellectual prowess as a province and as a country.
Secondly, I think they need the help of people from the sort of business and professional community, as well as others, to help them both operate in what I would call the new realities of the 1990s. As well, part of that is to raise more money, and as a graduate of the University of Toronto, I guess when you're asked to come back and help these institutions, similar to the way in which I agreed to be the president of the Osgoode Hall Alumni Association, if you feel you can do it within the context of your other responsibilities, I was pleased to say yes, I was interested because I have great respect for Rob Prichard, I have great respect for the university and wanted to try to help.
Mr Bob Wood: Those are my questions.
The Vice-Chair: Any other questions from the government side?
Mr Newman: Mr Tory, I'd just like to know how you see yourself being able to assist the University of Toronto in its fund-raising efforts.
Mr Tory: The one thing I made clear to Mr Prichard and to Mr Comper, when I talked to them, is that I have a campaign that I'm presently involved in that is raising money for a university-affiliated hospital, so in that sense some of the money may well end up in the research coffers of the university.
But I think I can help them in almost any way that they want. I could be involved in sort of the grass-roots aspect of their fund-raising among alumni, because I'm an alumnus of the university, and if they wanted me to be involved in that particular aspect, that would be fine. I think where I'm more likely to be useful to them is in trying to broaden the base of their corporate support and to broaden it beyond those who perhaps think they have a direct interest in the university because they went there or because somebody they were related to went there or somebody they work with, and maybe help them to cause more people in corporate Canada to understand that the University of Toronto is a vital linchpin to our future economic growth and intellectual development and skills-building in Ontario. If every corporation in Ontario or in Canada supported the University of Toronto as, I'll venture to say, its leading university -- and I say that as a graduate of York as well as the U of T -- then the university would be much better off and it would be able to cope with the realities of the 1990s a lot more easily than perhaps might be the case today.
So I certainly think I can be helpful to them on the corporate side of fund-raising and on the more grass-roots-oriented side. I'll do whatever they ask me to do; I just said that I don't want to be wearing out their welcome by showing up in both tasks, for money for St Mike's and the university at the same time. So I suspect my university fund-raising involvement might come a little later in the piece, when the St Mike's campaign is done and the $20 million is raised.
Mr Newman: Good. When is the St Mike's campaign over?
Mr Tory: It's over the next 18 months. Neither Mr Comper or Dr Prichard were concerned about that, because I think there are many other roles, of course, that university governors are expected to play in making sure the institution runs on a businesslike basis and helping with just about anything that is appropriate for a governing council to help with. They're not there to run the university day to day, but they certainly are there to make policy decisions and provide guidance and execute the responsibilities that they're given by the Legislature.
The Vice-Chair: Anybody else on that side?
Mr Ford: Looking at the business experience, do you have to achieve its goals of efficiency and accountability in this position?
Mr Tory: Do I think that's important, or can I help with that? I'm sorry, I didn't understand.
Mr Ford: What backgrounder do you have that gives you accountability for this position?
Mr Tory: I think I've had significant management responsibility probably in three different aspects of my own life. One is when I was here in this building, and I think the responsibilities I carried at that time in the Premier's office and the Cabinet Office were very substantial.
Secondly, I was the management partner of one of the largest law firms in the country, so I understand what accountability and businesslike management and so on are all about.
Thirdly, I'm now running a very substantial corporation with 6,000 employees, so in that sense I think that, combined with what I hope is at least a solid, basic understanding of how universities function -- because I was involved in university life when I attended two universities -- will help me to help them to be accountable and to run things in a businesslike manner.
Mr Ford: This is in the grass-roots aspect too.
Mr Tory: I don't know exactly what you mean by that.
Mr Ford: I see you've got the Salvation Army, Metro Toronto, St Michael's Hospital. Is that in an executive capacity, or is that grass-roots? Have you gone door to door with these people, or just in the executive capacity?
Mr Tory: No, no, I've gone door to door with them and I in fact am very involved in the Salvation Army's door-to-door campaign. It's one of the things I do with them and for them. I do it all as a volunteer, but the answer is yes. But obviously I sit on the boards of those organizations and that is an executive capacity, but I'm being asked to sit on the --
Mr Ford: That's both sides of the --
Mr Tory: Right. I think I understand both sides quite well and have worked on both sides of the fence.
Mr Ford: Okay.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Klees, one question.
Mr Klees: Given the economic realities of the province, obviously there are some major changes that are coming. Do you have a personal vision of the relationship between government and universities as things evolve?
Mr Tory: Yes, I do, in the sense that I think it is fundamentally important that governments, in the broadest sense, provide to the universities a reasonable level of funding to allow them to perform what I think is a vital role that they have to play in both the economic and social development of our society. But having said that, I think that what you determine to be a reasonable level of funding has to be calculated at least partly based on what your means are, what you have available to give them.
1120
I think that others have to start to play a greater role. I think in fact we've lulled ourselves in the country generally into a false sense of complacency about the role that other people have to play in forming a partnership to support universities, whether it's average individuals who graduated -- I think the level of alumni support, for example, for universities in Canada is way lower than it is in the United States. People just don't take that as a part of their responsibility and giving back to an institution from which they took.
I think that corporations, as I said earlier, all have much more of an interest, both a vested interest and a community interest, in supporting universities, and I think that probably the users have to make a greater contribution to the cost of their education.
I heard you talking to Mr Godfrey about that, and again, I think that maybe we should just be a little more imaginative and use the tax system, for example, to a greater extent in order to ensure that users who can afford to pay more should pay more. You don't do that by having a means test; you simply do it by giving people a T4 slip. It's just a crazy idea I have and there'll probably be people blanching in the front row over there when I advance this to you, but give people a T4 slip and say, "Look, the value of the education you received from the taxpayers, their contribution, was this." If you're at a low income level and therefore you don't pay any tax, then you won't pay anything on that. If you're at a high income level, if my children are getting that benefit, then I will pay more, and I'm quite happy to pay more because I think it's vital for them, if they can and if they want to, to get a university education.
So I think that things are going to have to change, but --
The Vice-Chair: I wonder if I could stop you there. We're running out of time, and you'll probably get a question to that effect over here anyway. It seems to be one that's appropriate at the moment.
Mr Tory: I'm in your hands, sir.
The Vice-Chair: So we'll move to the Liberal caucus and continue on.
Mr Bartolucci: Mr Tory, just two questions. One would deal with the Ontario Council of Regents and the Ontario Council on University Affairs. Because of your strong business background, clearly, do you see some day when they'll have to come together and become one council?
Mr Tory: I would say probably yes, although I don't know a lot about it in answering the question. I would also say that I think the universities in this province have to start acting more like partners too, instead of competing with one another, which I think is what often goes on now.
One area I know something about is legal education. There are too many law schools and they're graduating too many lawyers, and I don't just say that because of any self-interest I have; I don't have one any more. I think that's because everybody wants to keep their own law school. No one wants to give theirs up.
We have to start seeing the whole system operating in a much more partnerlike fashion so as to allocate scarce resources, public and private resources, in the best way possible and make sure these universities aren't competing with each other. There's a certain competition that's healthy, so without knowing much about those two bodies beyond some vague recollections I have from the days when I was here, I would have said that that might well make sense and that you could have panels of one body that could consider special issues that are relevant only to the colleges or only to the universities. But when it comes to post-secondary education, you should try to look at it in a holistic way.
Mr Bartolucci: Terrific. With regard to jurisdiction and distance education -- because obviously universities compete with each other -- should there be a defined catchment area for each university?
Mr Tory: I'm sure there's a great deal of background to that issue that I don't know anything about, but if you ask me for my own answer to the question, based on limited knowledge, I would say no. I think people in the country, students in the country have to have the freedom to attend whatever university they are qualified to go to. Again, if you go along with what I said earlier and you start to better allocate your resources so that you won't have a law school within walking distance of every student, then it would be unfair to say, "Well, since there is no law school in such-and-such a place and you live within 50 miles of that university, you can't go somewhere else."
I think people have to have the freedom to go wherever they want to go to pursue their education, obviously within the bounds of the capacity of that institution to absorb them.
Mr Bartolucci: Here's one final question: What's your definition of "distance education?"
Mr Tory: I'm not that familiar with the concept in detail. I presume by that that you're talking about distance education as being something where people don't have to attend the institution in order to study.
Mr Bartolucci: The availability of courses which happens from the university to --
Mr Tory: My definition of it I think is almost boundless in 1995, because with the advent of the technology that I'm very much involved in in my business life, it now makes it possible, indeed desirable, both from a cost standpoint and an accessibility standpoint for disabled people and others who live in rural areas that distance education should be something that has no limitations on it in terms of, if you can deliver it by technology, which you now can to anybody who has a phone line or a cable line into their house, or a satellite dish, you should be able to study. If that's sort of what your question was getting at.
Mr Bartolucci: Beautiful. Thanks very much.
Mr Gravelle: Good morning, Mr Tory. I just want to follow up perhaps a bit more on what you were talking about before the time ran out previously. It's certainly a concern that I have, and we were discussing it with Mr Godfrey as well. It was the whole question of access to post-secondary education by people today and the concern that as a result of clearly what are going to be potentially massive increases in terms of tuition fees, with deregulation on the horizon and the concerns about underfunding, possibly the universities are becoming simply places for the élite.
You were talking about one thing, as you said, that the front bench might not like, but I am just wondering if you want to expand on that or give me any other ideas that you have in terms of how we can make sure that doesn't happen. Because I think it would be a sad thing for our society if that's where we went.
Mr Tory: I don't necessarily want to expand, sir, on my idea, which is just an idea. It's a way in which you can progressively try to make some people pay more than others, those who can truly afford it, based on their taxpaying position.
I guess one of the other things that I sometimes look to as a bit of a model on these things is -- because I believe that equality of opportunity and equality of access to post-secondary education of any kind is vitally important, again, to building the province and to allowing everybody who has the ability and the desire to have that access -- maybe you could look at setting up something like the Trillium Foundation, which is funded, I think, by lottery proceeds and saying that you're going to have a fund there that makes bursaries available to people who have the skills and the desire but not the financial resources.
But I think it's vital that we not put people in a position either where they bankrupt themselves going through university and end up paying it off for the rest of their lives or where they can't get in or don't even bother to apply to get in because they can't afford the fees that are so high.
Another option, I suppose, is to allow people a much longer period of time over their working lives to pay it back. Another option again is to make people like me who did graduate -- I don't know if you could do this retroactively -- pay back the cost of their education over time if they're out working and paying taxes. There's a whole lot of things, but I think we have to be imaginative about it.
Mr Gravelle: Do you consider that one of your roles in terms of the roles you'll be taking on? Will you be putting those ideas forward? Do you see your aim more specifically to work with the governing council of the U of T, or do you see your role in a broader way?
Mr Tory: Look, I'm there to help in whatever way I can. If part of what I can do is to throw ideas on the table that result from my limited imagination on these kinds of things, then I'm happy to do that. But I see my role principally as to help the university run its affairs better and to raise money and encourage more private sector partnerships and generally just improve the excellence of the institution.
You asked earlier, or somebody did, about ranking institutions. One of the magazines I'm responsible for, Maclean's, ranked the U of T number one. I guess the challenge, if that ranking is justified, is to keep it there. So I would say that's what I'm there to help them do, to stay number one.
By the way, they ranked them first before I was appointed to the governing council.
Mr Gravelle: You're not taking credit for that?
Mr Tory: No. I may have to declare my interest next year somewhere or other. I'm not sure how this all works.
The Vice-Chair: Anybody else on the Liberal side who wants to ask a question of Mr Tory?
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Progressive Conservative Party?
Mr Bob Wood: That question could be repetitious.
Mr Tory: That's right. Yes, I have been and, yes, I am and, yes, I will continue to be.
The Vice-Chair: Then we'll move on to the third party.
Mr Kormos: Mr Tory, unlike the previous Tories who were here this morning, your history is one of very active partisan involvement during the course of campaigns; indeed, campaign manager, it would be appear to be, for Brian Mulroney and then Kim Campbell; Ontario campaign chair in 1987.
It appears you sat out the 1995 election with Mike Harris and the Tories here in Ontario. Is it because you didn't think they had a snowball's chance in hell of winning, or you disagreed with their Reform Party policies?
Mr Tory: In fact, I was of some limited assistance to them where I could be. I think it's healthy in political parties and in any organization that there be new people brought in. I certainly have worked in 20 election campaigns, so I don't think I had any shortage of involvement over the last 25 years.
I helped them, to a limited extent, when I was asked to do so. I also felt, quite frankly, that in view of my position now as the chief executive officer of a media company, probably my high-profile days in politics should come to an end, or at least be substantially curtailed, because people might misunderstand those two things together. That, I guess, answers your question as best I can.
1130
Mr Kormos: Again, I have no quarrel with you having been a Tory by name and by religion for a long time, by God, back to law school days, if not earlier.
You talked about users being responsible for paying a greater portion of their post-secondary school education. What do you say to the young people of where I come from, down in Niagara, with among the highest unemployment in all of Ontario and with parents who make far less, quite frankly, even than I do, never mind than what you do, and whose jobs are in great jeopardy? I appreciate your neat little T4 formula, but in the short term -- we're talking about right now and you know what the commitment of this government is in that regard -- what do you say to those young people who simply can't afford any increase in tuition?
Mr Tory: I say to them that I think they should look to us -- and I say "us" in the broadest sense, the political leaders, the corporate leaders, the professional leaders and others -- to find as quickly as possible solutions that do not lie in the simple allocation of government money we don't have to fund the cost of education in such a manner that tuition fees don't have to rise to unacceptably high levels.
I don't happen to believe that even a significant increase imposed now over time would be unacceptably high. I agree with you, there would be people who would still find that burdensome, but if you look at the cost of education anywhere else, I'm not sure that the proportion of the cost paid by the people using the system has risen in parallel with the cost of the system.
But having said that, I don't believe that share should be doubling or tripling so that individual people, including those who are not of means, have to pay four times as much proportionately, but I do think that we can't fool ourselves any longer into thinking that can be paid for with borrowed money. Those same taxpayers, the same people you're talking about who work and don't make very much money are paying the taxes to pay the interest on the debt.
So I guess what I'm saying is, I think we all have to be more creative, not just in coming up with schemes, whether they're crazy ones like my T4 scheme, but coming up with imaginative new ways to raise money specifically for assistance to students who can't afford to attend university. That may be the kind of Trillium fund idea or it may be more fund-raising by universities, which I'm committed to helping with. I don't know, but I think that we have an obligation to be a bit more creative than to say the solution rests in simply taking more government money that we don't have and just allocating it, because everybody says that. The health care system says that, the public school education system says that, and there just isn't the money there.
Mr Kormos: You talked about U of T being rated number one and your commitment to ensuring that it maintains that rating. How do you respond to the proposition that it's the promotion and development of non-Toronto-based universities, universities like Brock, for instance, where you get a far bigger bang for your buck, talking about the costs of maintaining those facilities in smaller communities and where they're far more accessible to students in terms of the cost of living, rental costs, among other things? How do you respond to that proposition as one of the ways of ensuring accessibility to education?
Mr Tory: I'm not an expert on it, Mr Kormos, but I will say I was asked to serve the University of Toronto, so I'm going to go and serve there. Having said that, I absolutely wholeheartedly agree with the notion, and I think it goes back to the comments I made earlier, perhaps when you were out of the room, about how we have to better allocate scarce resources.
I think if you could say we're going to make Brock into a centre of academic excellence in this province for a given field or a given discipline, and really promote it heavily as a place where people should consider going because it is efficient to operate and there are more places to stay and so on, I think that should absolutely be done. Because I think to assume that the solution to our problems again rests in making the U of T bigger and bigger and having more and more things done there, notwithstanding that I want to see it stay number one or be competitive for number one, I'm not sure that's the solution to the problem, to have the U of T in the middle of the city of Toronto become huger and huger.
So I would have no difficulty with the notion that we should find some strategy -- "we" again collectively as a society -- to encourage people -- and you're not going to encourage them to go by saying it's a good idea, you can find cheaper rent. I think you're going to encourage them to go because they see Brock or Trent or Laurentian or Lakehead or Nipissing as a place where they can go to study at the very best level of a certain discipline they're interested in. That's how you'll encourage them to go, in my view, because cheap rent -- I mean, people will find a place to stay in Toronto if they have to find a place to stay here, if they need to come here to study whatever it is they want to study, whereas if the same thing is available at Brock, maybe instead of the U of T, they get some other benefits by going there and Brock benefits too. Everybody wins, I think.
Mr Kormos: But you see, there's a whole lot of folks at Brock who would dispute that it isn't a centre of excellence among a whole lot of other universities in smaller communities.
Mr Tory: If you look at the rankings in Maclean's, U of T and Brock were in different categories. Brock did rank very highly. I'm not suggesting they aren't a centre of excellence; I'm just saying that it may well be you should make that better known to people and in fact encourage people, to say: "If you want to be a such-and-so, this is the place to go. This is the place we're going to allocate our resources to make it the best school for sociology in Canada, and therefore we're going to encourage you to go there."
Mr Kormos: But the competitiveness that you speak of and the desire to maintain status as number one not only breeds but demonstrates a sense of parochialism. Isn't it the responsibility of the University of Toronto to ensure that scarce funds and scarce resources are fairly distributed among all the campuses, all the universities in the province?
Mr Tory: No, I think that's the government's responsibility. I said earlier that I think the U of T and all the universities should be much more like partners. If you were inside my company, I have 60 magazines and they all belong to the same owner but they all compete with each other for advertising business. I pull my hair out some days, saying: "You're all on the same team here. Stop this."
I think the universities do much the same thing. They compete with each other to be the best, which is probably good, but when it comes to financial resources and so on, I'm not sure they should be competing. What they should be doing, in my view, to a greater extent is sitting down as partners and deciding how they can say, "Look, is it sensible for the U of T to try and compete with Brock?" The U of T probably nine days out of 10 could make difficult Brock's life because Brock is smaller and it's not in Toronto. They should be spending much more time as partners around a table sorting these things out.
But if you say to me, "Is it the U of T's responsibility to redistribute scarce resources in the province to make sure Brock has enough?" I would say no, it's not their job. It's the government's job to do that.
Mr Kormos: So your position appears to be -- and I don't want to put words in your mouth -- basically that U of T is out there looking out for its interests and the rest of them are on their own.
Mr Tory: Subject to what I said about them sitting as partners around a table with Brock and with Trent and everybody else. When I'm appointed to the governing council of U of T, they didn't include anywhere in the job description a reference to looking out for the wellbeing of Brock. No offence to Brock or anybody else, but I'm just saying I think the people that run the U of T have a responsibility to the U of T. But I think they also have a broader responsibility to the system to sit at the table as partners with the government and decide how they can run the system and allocate scarce resources in a more efficient and productive manner.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Kormos, your time is up.
Mr Kormos: Not again, Chair.
The Vice-Chair: It went by quickly, I know. You just get right into it.
Mr Kormos: Are you sure there's no bias being demonstrated here?
The Vice-Chair: No, no bias whatsoever. I wanted to thank you, Mr Tory, for coming forward and for your contribution to the committee today.
1140
CELIA KAVANAGH
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Celia Kavanagh, intended appointment as part-time member, Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
The Vice-Chair: Ms Kavanagh, please make yourself at home, feel comfortable. If you want a glass of water, you're certainly welcome to it. Then when you're ready I believe you're going to share with us a few comments, and then we'll get into the questioning.
Mr Bob Wood: I think she means to go directly to questioning.
Ms Celia Kavanagh: Mr Chair, I wasn't prepared to make any opening statement.
The Vice-Chair: That's fine. Since you've been invited by the government party here today, we'll start with them.
Mr Bob Wood: Ms Kavanagh, you've served on this board in the past and obviously have an interest in serving again. I wonder if you'd tell us what it is you think you can contribute to the board by going back on to it and outline very briefly the background that you feel makes you an appropriate person to serve on the board.
Ms Kavanagh: I served my first term on the board in 1985-88, and then I was asked to serve for another three years. So I was actually on the board for six years until 1991, at which point I was advised that six years was the maximum that most people served on boards, which was fine.
Then I received a phone call last December from the current chair of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board asking me if I would be interested in serving again. They have a particular project that deals with abuse in provincial institutions, and he was interested in having someone who had sufficient experience in dealing with board hearings to be able to assist with that project.
I had met him once, but I guess his knowledge of me came from his understanding of recommendations from other board members I had served with, as well as some of the staff who had been with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and who are now dealing with the abuse in provincial institutions project; also, I understand, from having gone back and read a number of my decisions while I was on the board.
Mr Bob Wood: Do you have a particular interest you wish to pursue on the board if you're reappointed?
Ms Kavanagh: This is what I understood would be the main focus of what I would be doing at the board, that I would be, not seconded exactly, but that I would be primarily working on the cases from the project.
Mr Bob Wood: You outlined your credentials in the sense of previous service on the board. Are there other credentials outside of board service that you feel you bring to the board?
Ms Kavanagh: I was called to the bar of Ontario in 1979, so I have a background in law. I understand the legal process, the rules of evidence and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act that apply to board hearings and also, I understand, hearings under the project.
I was an officer with the status of women council for a year and a half, so I came to a much better understanding of the issues involved with battered women, which, I know from discussions with board members a number of years ago, was a difficult concept for many people to understand. I was able to come to the board with that understanding already, so for me it was much easier to deal with those cases.
Also, the cases at the project deal with sexual assault, child sexual assault, always the most difficult cases to deal with, I think board members universally agree. Because the staff understood that, they tried to spread them out in the case load at the hearings so you didn't get a lot of sexual abuse cases, because it was very draining. That was just one of the reasons the chair wanted someone with experience in this area, because that is all the project deals with.
Mrs Ross: Ms Kavanagh, you've mentioned that the reason you've reapplied was because of this special project dealing with abuse. Can you tell me a little more about that and how the initiative is expected to work?
Ms Kavanagh: The project came about as a result of an agreement among the government, the Catholic church and, I believe, one of the training schools. I believe one training school and the Christian Brothers did not join in the agreement, so they are excluded from being protected from being sued. But the government and the church felt this was a much better way to deal with the boys who had been abused while they were at the institution. It simplifies the process for everyone, rather than everybody taking their own case to court, and it certainly keeps the costs down. I think it probably goes faster for the applicants as well.
I understand there was an initial cutoff in June 1992 and that was group one of the applicants, and I understand those applications have all been dealt with. But, as often happens, a lot of these people who have been through the institutions and were abused became lost and only found about this afterwards, and then a number of applicants came after the cutoff date, so they set up a group two. That was the project I was initially to be assigned to. Those hearings, I understand, are still in progress, and there has been discussion about a group three, possibly.
The project staff are also working with the women who were abused at Grandview. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board members are not adjudicating; that is a separate adjudication group. The project staff members are much father afield in dealing with all these issues than the board members are. The board members are dealing just with the victims of the St John's and St Joseph's training schools right now.
Mr Fox: It's quite apparent that you have a lot of experience, but what do you consider the greatest strengths you bring to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board?
Ms Kavanagh: Having been on the board before, obviously I can come up to speed much faster. I understand there have been some policy changes since, but the process itself doesn't really change.
Probably the strongest asset I can bring is coming from a background of having dealt with a number of applicants and all the different things they go through. You're often able to help them bring out what they have gone through because you've heard it so many other times from other applicants; you know which areas. And you have to develop a certain sensitivity to their feelings and be able to deal with them, because they do break down when they're giving their testimony. On occasion, they do have to deal with the fact that the offender is there.
That was always one of the things I felt badly about at hearings, that the applicants were always so relieved after the hearing to find that it was not going to be a painful process, as it was going to court and just being a little cog in a wheel; that they didn't know how much deference we try to provide to applicants. I think that's important to know; to understand the fears they come with to the hearings.
Mr Ford: Ms Kavanagh, you were on this board before, from June 1985 to June 1991. Why did you leave the board?
Ms Kavanagh: Because I was told that six years was the maximum for members to be on the board. That was a policy decision.
Mr Ford: Having served on the board before, do you see any ways the administration might be improved and how you would go about doing that?
Ms Kavanagh: I see from the annual report that there's still the same problem of the backlog, and that was always a concern, I suppose. There was no point in having a hearing until all the material was there for the board members to decide on. When I was at the board before, we developed simplified forms that would go to the investigating police force and to doctors, to speed these up. It was often difficult, because we needed the information provided by the health care workers and the investigating police officers, but they didn't want to take the time to sit down and write out a lengthy report about what happened and the treatment and so on.
The whole point is to help the applicants, and the longer they have to wait, the more difficult it becomes for them. That is always a major thrust of the administrative part of the board, to try to process the applications faster and streamline the process to make it easier to get the information the board members need to make their decisions.
Mr Bartolucci: Certainly your experience is impressive and your qualifications are impressive as well, so just a couple of personal opinions from you, please, if you wouldn't mind.
Would you be in favour of the creation of a specialized family violence court within the criminal court system?
Ms Kavanagh: Family violence, to deal with spousal abuse and child abuse within the criminal court system? I certainly think family violence is different from general violence, and it helps to have the privacy in the sense that family court systems do. I haven't given it a lot of thought, but I think it certainly has merit to deal with family violence issues as separate matters, yes.
1150
Mr Bartolucci: Further opinion: Do you think victims of violent crime should be informed when either the accused or the convicted are released on either bail or parole or their sentences are up?
Ms Kavanagh: Oh, definitely. The fear of somebody coming back and doing it again, even though they know the person's been locked up for life, it's still, "What if they escape?" So I think that for the peace of mind --
Mr Bartolucci: Have you had an opportunity to read Bill 23?
Ms Kavanagh: No, I've only read the reports that have been in the newspaper. I understand that you're talking about the rights of the victim bill.
Mr Bartolucci: Right. If you had to structure a bill, what would be the predominant underlying theme of your bill with regard to victims of crime?
Ms Kavanagh: Mostly going on what I recall, the victims' concern is that somebody pays attention to them, that they have their say, they have their input, and that it counts for something. I think that their emotional injuries after a time become the important part of what they've gone through and that that needs to be addressed, that it's not just, "You are just here so that we can decide whether this offender should be punished or not, you have therefore finished your role testifying in court," or appearing any number of times and being sent home because there's an adjournment, that they're kept a more essential part of the process, because this happened to them. The offender is the one who then gets all the attention; the spotlight is on the offender. I think perhaps addressing their emotional needs more, that they need the helping hand, they need a little bit of stroking, is important and I think that would underline where you would go from there in structuring some legislation.
Mr Bartolucci: Just one final question, Ms Kavanagh. You mentioned backlog before, which is a concern of mine certainly. Would you build in some type of time structure within the bill, if you had that capability?
Ms Kavanagh: I think that's hard to do without putting some requirements on, like that you would have to get the reports back from the hospital, from the doctors, from so on. I don't think it's impossible, but I think it needs a fairly broad-based approach to get all the information required. I certainly don't think it's a problem telling board members, "You have to deal with more cases in a day; you have to get more cases dealt with in a week." But also getting the information, I suppose that is something that the board is constantly looking at.
Mr Bartolucci: Thank you very much for your opinions.
Mr Gravelle: Good morning, Ms Kavanagh. Obviously this is a board that demands a great deal of sensitivity -- and you obviously display those traits, very much so -- because the people have been traumatized and this experience of going to the board itself is probably somewhat traumatizing. You mention how afterwards they're delighted but there's a certain level of fear, and to some degree of course it's probably the same way for the board members. And obviously people are not always happy afterwards. You're also bound by certain regulations that are there.
Moving to the compensation issue, I'm working on the premise that a lot of people do not feel the compensation is adequate in terms of what they've gone through, yet they're grateful for a board such as this to be in place. The delays, I'm sure, are -- aggravating's probably a very polite word for it. But more in terms of compensation, do you have any thoughts in terms of that, whether you personally feel the compensation levels are adequate, and what is generally the reaction of the people who are beneficiaries of the awards in that regard?
Ms Kavanagh: The lump sum limit of $25,000 probably compensates a majority of the applicants who do come to the board. In certain cases, obviously not, when you think of people who are injured for life, Barbara Turnbull being a classic case. I mean, there just is no amount to compensate somebody for that.
Very often, what the applicants would say -- I shouldn't say "very often." On occasion, applicants after the hearing -- and this was even before they knew whether they were going to be compensated or knew how much they were going to get -- would say, "It's not the money. It's just that I'm so grateful to be able to come and have two board members listen to me with all their attention," and they get to be the main focus of the hearing. For a lot of them, it's very cathartic to be able to go and say everything they want to say, and we sit and listen to them. It's a very basic human need. They've gone through the experience, and it's going to be with them for the rest of their lives and it's as fresh in their minds when they come two years later as it was the next day when they gave their story to the police and a year later when they went to court.
Just on that point, some of the hearings came forward fairly quickly from the date of the injury, the assault. It's hard to say why some take so long and some don't. A lot of times they're dependent on trying to get the information from the doctors, and some people just have injuries that are very ongoing and you want to get a handle on what it is before you compensate them.
But there's one way you could deal with them, because you do have an immediate injury, and as to what the long-term effects are going to be, the legislation allows the applicants to come back later. You can't do this in court, but you could do it at the board, and I think that's perhaps one way to speed up the hearings. You have enough to go on, and then if the injury does change or become much worse or whatever, you can --
Mr Gravelle: How quickly are decisions made after -- the board meets; the people have gone to the meeting. What is the normal time frame in terms of decisions being given to the applicant?
Ms Kavanagh: Before I was on the board, the board members used to retire, very often, decide, and then go back in and give their decision right there and then write it up. By the time I got to the board, we were not allowed to give our awards at the hearing. We would always tell them that it was a reserved decision and then we would discuss it. In the vast majority of the cases, the decisions were made right after, before we even went into the next hearing, and the decisions would be written up that day. Some, obviously, were more complicated where it was difficult to make a decision, and in some cases we awaited further information that the applicant was going to provide.
Again, it is another area. I understand there are certain boards where the board members are required to have their decisions done in 48 hours.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll move on to the third party.
Mr Kormos: Morning, Ms Kavanagh. You know that interval and transition houses, shelters for abused women and their children, have in the past, when the funding permitted them to do this, played an active role in assisting victims through the court process and indeed, in those cases where they had access to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, assisting them through that. What's your view of the cutback in funding to these programs which would curtail that type of activity? Is this detrimental to those victims: those women and, in many instances, children?
Ms Kavanagh: I think so. Obviously, it's going to affect them in that sense if they don't have the staff to assist them. But I think the board has tried to be more proactive in getting information out about the board. Certainly transition houses were one area where the posters would be up and there would be applications available and information provided to the staff. The applications would be sent in and then the applications are given to a particular staff member who then is to assist the applicants in filling in the forms and helping them get the information to complete their application. I think, because the interval houses, the transition houses are sort of there, that is an easy way to get those sorts of victims to come to the board.
1200
Mr Kormos: If they're sufficiently staffed to give staff time to address that, as compared to only the crisis scenarios.
Ms Kavanagh: I think there's perhaps a lot that the board could do to simplify that process, to make the information available with the -- "This is what the board does. Here's an application form to fill out. If you need any assistance, you can call the board for help. You will be given assistance over the phone." They could certainly go down to the board, if that's a possibility to have that, and I suppose you could even have -- I know that when I was on the board, I went to a couple of high school law classes and discussed what the board did and got into different issues with the students. That's certainly an outreach project I suppose the board could do: to inform the transition houses that board members would be willing to go and speak to groups or to the staff members or even individually to --
Mr Kormos: Similarly, most, if not all, police forces, again in the recent past, have had officers who were dedicated to assault teams and more specifically to domestics.
Ms Kavanagh: Domestic assault, yes.
Mr Kormos: Domestic assault teams, and these police officers have received training, and hopefully good training -- and in most cases, yes -- and have worked with victims, once again in the context of domestic spousal violence. The reduction in transfer funding is undoubtedly going to impact on police forces, and we've witnessed that in the press reports of that already. The elimination of those specific roles, those dedicated roles: Is that going to hurt victims, further to the crime itself?
Ms Kavanagh: I was aware that all the police forces in Ontario were supplied with information and little cards they could give to victims giving them a little bit of information about the board and the telephone number, and that was available to any victim, not just victims of domestic assault, so I think that would still be there.
Perhaps if police forces have to cut back on their special domestic assault teams, the immediate assistance perhaps is not there, but I think any competent police force should be training their police officers -- all their police officers -- in what facilities are available for victims. Obviously they know to take injured victims to the hospitals, sexual assault victims to specific hospitals, if there are such in the area, that will deal with that issue, and also to advise, in cases of child abuse, of specific resources there.
I think that a large part of the police forces have had to refocus what they're doing with all the people they come in contact with of what the resources in the community are. So as far as that goes, I think they should certainly be aware of how to deal with victims of violence and then what facilities are available for compensation through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board or to the transition houses for women who want to escape a violent situation.
Mr Kormos: I don't know if you're aware -- you probably are -- that the Ministry of the Attorney General is increasingly, rather than hiring crown attorneys, retaining people on contract and, more significantly, simply hiring private practitioners on per diems, which means that the role of, again, crown attorneys in respect of crowns' offices who are trained and dedicated to dealing with spousal violence are becoming rarer and rarer and their efforts are being used in the general field. And, as you know, per diem crowns vary from very good and very sensitive to very bad and very slovenly.
What about the funding? I mean, the fact is that if there's going to be adequate compensation, even within the statutory limits of the present legislation -- is it essential that funding for that program, obviously, that it be maintained?
Ms Kavanagh: Funding for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awards?
Mr Kormos: Quite right and for the administration of the board.
Ms Kavanagh: Now I could be wrong on this, but I understand when I first started that the awards were made out of the consolidated revenue fund and that the administration of the board came from a specific budget from the Attorney General's office.
Mr Kormos: But as you know, this afternoon --
Ms Kavanagh: Oh, yes. Well, we're all waiting with baited breath.
Mr Kormos: I heard the chainsaw being revved up this morning. This afternoon there's massive cuts coming. Is it essential that full funding be maintained for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, if it's going to be affected?
Ms Kavanagh: Essential? I don't think it's essential. I think, like everybody, we all have to do more with less and having been on the board before, I certainly think we could do more with what we have, or had.
Mr Kormos: What are you going to do, tell victims that they should have gotten $2,500, but there ain't enough money to do that, we'll have to settle for a G note?
Ms Kavanagh: Oh, no. If it comes out of the consolidated revenue fund -- I mean it's not a bottomless pit, but it's not limited like the administration budget is, so they're not held up.
Mr Kormos: So you're convinced that nothing this government could do would impact on the board's ability to award appropriate awards within the statutory guidelines?
Ms Kavanagh: Convinced, no. I can't see the future any more than anyone else can.
Mr Kormos: I'll bet you you've thought about it.
Ms Kavanagh: Thought about it? I was never really involved with the financial aspects of the board. I think we were all aware that it wasn't going to go on forever, that there's an end to it.
Mr Kormos: What's your view about the board being peripatetic and accommodating regions of the province?
Ms Kavanagh: That the hearings are held in different parts of the province?
Mr Kormos: Yes.
Ms Kavanagh: That's quite expensive and I understand that the board has been experimenting with, or actually has had, electronic communications with hearings, and specifically I think it was set up to deal with sexual assault victims who did not want to be in the same room as the offender.
Mr Kormos: As the perpetrator.
Ms Kavanagh: Yes. I think that's certainly something that can be explored as a way to decrease administrative costs --
Mr Kormos: As you know, victims of property offences --
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, Mr Kormos. Your time's up again.
Mr Kormos: It's a good thing I started that question --
The Vice-Chair: No, actually your time's up again. We have a few other things to do --
Mr Kormos: I don't know what's going on with this Chair --
The Vice-Chair: -- and it's 10 after 12. I want to thank you for coming before us today. We found your deputation informative and helpful.
Ms Kavanagh: Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair: I would entertain a motion of concurrence with these appointments, if somebody would want to place it.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that motion, Mr Chair.
The Vice-Chair: We will entertain then --
Mr Kormos: One moment, on a point -- concurrence with these appointments implies that they're being dealt with in an omnibus way and, with respect, Chair, that motion is out of order because we have four appointments here and, quite frankly, the mandate of the committee is to deal with respective appointments and an omnibus motion is out of order, in my respectful submission.
Mr Bob Wood: I think we can move what motion we want, but I am quite happy to put myself in the hands of the opposition members. If they want it done separately, I'll do it separately.
The Vice-Chair: Yes, it's not out of order.
Mr Kormos: It's not a matter of moving whatever motion you want. It's a matter of whether that's in order.
The Vice-Chair: It's not out of order; it's in order.
Mr Bob Wood: I think it is in order, but I'll defer to Mr Kormos and move it separately if he prefers.
The Vice-Chair: It's in order and if the committee would agree to going ahead with all four in one package, we can do that, or if you want us to break them out one at a time, we can do that too -- looking at the clock.
Mr Bartolucci: Mr Chair, I don't know if it's an amendment to the motion or however way we want to handle it, but Mr Wood said he would be in favour of individual appointments or decisions and I would ask in this instance that we go with individual concurrences.
The Vice-Chair: Okay.
Mr Bob Wood: I'd be pleased to do that, Mr Chair, and I therefore move that we concur in the appointment of Gary McNaughton.
The Vice-Chair: I would ask you, Mr Wood, to withdraw your first motion and perhaps --
Mr Bob Wood: I withdraw the first motion.
The Vice-Chair: -- then we'll start at the beginning. Maybe you could move concurrence of Mr McNaughton.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that we concur in the intended appointment of Gary McNaughton.
The Vice-Chair: Any discussion?
1210
Mr Kormos: My comments aren't going to be the same with respect to what I anticipate with the three further motions. But Mr McNaughton presents himself as a fine laundromat operator; as a member of the Masonic lodge, and I have every regard for people who would devote themselves to the good service of the Masonic lodge; as a fellow who's been interested in minor hockey; and an outstanding member, I'm sure, of the Glencoe Rotary Club; also a somewhat neophyte but none the less obvious small-town party hack who has every good interest in ensuring that his Tory member got elected, who was contacted by that same Tory member, with no apparent qualifications other than the fact that he attends Tory barbecues subsequent to an election of the local member.
The guy displays no previous interest in the criminal justice system. He displays no interest in doing any research into the nature of the parole board, into the nature of what parole means. He didn't even know what statutory remission was, even though he knows he's effectively been approved by the appointments secretariat of the government and is going to appear before this committee.
Mr Bert Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Chair.
Mr Kormos: This better be a good one.
Mr Bert Johnson: I don't know what statutory remission is either.
The Vice-Chair: That is not a point of order. Go ahead.
Mr Kormos: Thank you. You've got points of information when you've got the floor.
The fellow comes here as effectively a nice guy. So what? There are 11 million nice people out there in the province of Ontario. This gentleman doesn't display any special skills, any unique background, that would facilitate his making decisions about persons applying for parole.
What I find even more dismaying than that, though, is his total lack of interest in preparing in any way, shape or form to assume that particular responsibility. One expects the government to have some interest in seeing people who share its political views in positions on these boards, agencies and commissions. I have no quarrel with that. Indeed, as you heard me say earlier, patronage is a reality of life. But, by God, it should at the very least be accompanied by competence, and I would dispute any patronage appointment that wasn't accompanied by competence, whether it was during the years after 1985 or the years after 1990 or certainly the years from 1995 onward.
I intend, I tell you, to vote against this appointment, not because Mr McNaughton may not be a fine person, but I'm sure there are other positions. He might be a more than appropriate member of the fence-line committee.
I think this man might be a nice person, but running the Newbury Superior Grocery Store and the creamery and whatever else here, having several laundromats -- his responses to questions here, as I said, his lack of interest in preparing himself even for this occasion indicate that he has no real commitment to this position.
Even the paucity of time available to question this person -- and as you can well imagine, Chair, I would have loved to have spent even a few more minutes talking to this gentleman -- reveals that he has a knee-jerk, half-baked sense that somehow he's going to do things better. That's not to suggest that things can't be done better, things always can, and the performance of this government to date indicates that people in Ontario are recognizing that things can be done a hell of a lot better than have been done over the course of the last several months.
I'm sorry, this is an entirely inappropriate appointment for what is a very important board that determines the future of the lives of a convicted person, of the victims -- if it was a crime involving victims -- and of the general community. I don't think there's been any display there of the level of competence one would expect for such an important position.
Mr Bartolucci: I'm going to try not to be very political with this, because I think this is a perfect example of what we do not want to happen in the future.
I think if you had Joe MacDonald's wife here, Nancy Fragomeni MacDonald, I think if you had Franco Fragomeni here, sitting in the audience and listening to the answers to the questions, not only from me or from the members of the opposition but from the members of the government side, they wouldn't be satisfied that this person should determine whether or not he has the right to take the life of a police officer.
That's why I zeroed in on Suzack's case. It was because of not so much the incompetence, because Mr McNaughton is a very, very nice individual and he's probably a very, very dedicated individual, but I honestly don't believe he has the ability to do what the mandate of the Conservative government wants from a board of parole appointee. I would be fearful of the decisions this gentleman would make, not so much because of what he does for a living, but because of his comprehension of the seriousness with which he would have to carry out his duties as an appointee.
I looked at the answers that he gave to Mr Ford and Mr Carr and Mr Newman, and I shook my head. I don't know, I don't want to speak for them on the other side, but they certainly weren't the answers that I would have wanted from the questions I asked. Certainly, he didn't give me the answers, to the questions, I wanted. That tells me that maybe he just doesn't have the answers.
Will he grow into the situation? Well, that's always something we want to give a person the opportunity to do. In this instance, and because of the seriousness of this appointment, of the role, I would be very, very hesitant to give him that opportunity because of the mistakes he might make.
I don't know if this committee is simply just a case of rubber-stamping. If it is, I feel sorry for all of us. I think we ask serious questions. I listened to the questions that were asked on the other side and they were very, very serious questions. I think they wanted serious replies and I don't think they got them, and I don't think we got them. I don't think he was capable of giving them and I don't think he is a capable appointee to this very, very serious position.
I'll be voting against the recommendation, not because he's not a nice guy and not because he's not dedicated, but because clearly he can't handle the role.
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chair, we're certainly not rubber stamps here.
Mr Kormos: It's more like you're a potato-head.
Mr Bob Wood: What I'd like to do is ask that the vote on this be deferred one week.
The Vice-Chair: There's a motion to defer for a week the vote on this.
Mr Bartolucci: To defer the motion without debate, is that correct?
Mr Bob Wood: Only to time.
The Vice-Chair: He's asked for time. He's asked for a week, so we can debate the week piece.
Interjection: I'll second the motion.
The Vice-Chair: It's been seconded.
Mr Bob Wood: I might say, having proposed that motion, I've heard what's been said on the other --
The Vice-Chair: We're only debating the time. We can't debate the actual decision on whether we're going to defer or not.
Mr Bob Wood: Okay, one week.
1220
Mr Kormos: Why a week? Why not a year? The guy's either demonstrated capacity and an interest in the position such that he's something other than a mere small-town --
Mr Preston: He's not talking to time now.
Mr Kormos: I'm talking to time. I said: "Why a week? Why not a year?" Because the guy's not demonstrated any interest, any capacity. I'm concerned about what a week is going to permit the government caucus to do when they clearly would like to speak to their House leader and whip and find out whether it's going to be an embarrassment for them to vote the way their hearts and minds tell them to vote, which is to agree that this guy, although a nice guy, maybe ain't parole board material and that there are a whole lot of other people out there who'd be far better suited.
So I say, heck, I'm not going to support a week's deferral. It might as well be a year, because the only purpose in that is to ask for marching orders, and these people are on a committee here designed to fulfil a responsibility rather than to be little seals and little soldiers for the commandant with the blue book. That's ridiculous.
Mr Klees: I take exception to Mr Kormos waxing eloquent on our motive. I want to just express my view that I would like to have the additional week, and the reason, Mr Kormos, is not to get marching orders. The reason --
Mr Kormos: On a point of order --
Mr Klees: Excuse me. Mr Chair?
Mr Kormos: No, I've got a point of order. The point of order is to discuss the time, not to debate the motion. The motion is for a week. He's arguing on behalf of the week. I queried whether it should be a week or a year. How can you tell people that you can't debate the motion when he's debating in support of the motion?
Mr Klees: Mr Chairman, what I am speaking to is the impugning of motive by Mr Kormos, and I'm suggesting to you that's inappropriate.
Mr Kormos: But true, but true.
Mr Klees: The fact of the matter is, Mr Kormos, the reason that I think it's appropriate for us to have some time, whether it be a week or two weeks, is the fact that this witness was here at our request, and the way that you dealt with him, quite frankly, was about as intimidating an environment as I've ever seen.
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, Mr Klees. Could you speak to the --
Mr Kormos: You should have given me 15 more minutes and he wouldn't have wanted the position.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Klees, would you speak to the time issue so that we can get on with the vote on this.
Mr Klees: I'll speak to the time issue. I feel that it's appropriate for us to have a week so that we can in fact consider the facts before us. I want to ask a question to the Chair. Is it appropriate --
Interjections.
Mr Preston: Mr Chairman, would you please ask respect of the gentleman across the table. He doesn't have the floor, I don't have the floor, but if he's going to continue to yap, so will I.
The Vice-Chair: I would ask that both of you would exercise some restraint. Mr Klees has the floor.
Mr Kormos: I have been exercising restraint, Chair.
Mr Klees: The reason I'm about to ask this question is because it does relate to this issue of deferral. Is it appropriate to have an individual back again before this committee for further questioning?
The Vice-Chair: I don't think it's a question of having the person back; it's a question of when we vote on concurrence.
Mr Klees: A general question, just a general question, Chair.
The Vice-Chair: I'm told that if the committee decides they would like to have the person back, then that's possible as well.
Mr Klees: Very good. Thank you.
Interjection.
The Vice-Chair: Just a second. Are you finished, Mr Klees, on the motion to defer?
Mr Bartolucci, on the time element only.
Mr Bartolucci: That's all I'll speak to. As the Chair, you've asked that that's all we speak to and that's all I will. I'm going to support it because I honestly believe the people on this committee are not stampers and that they have a mind of their own and that if they in fact need the week to do what they have to do, individually or collectively, I don't really care. I'm going to support that because I believe this is a serious enough appointment, and if we're backed into corners we're going to vote along party lines. That's the reality of politics. I think this is far too serious to do that, so I think the week deferral is very much in order and I will be supporting it.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. If there are no other-
Mr Bob Wood: I'd like to speak to that, having moved the motion. We don't need a year to address this and come to a conclusion. I think the more perceptive members on the other side understand that we're not rubber stamps or we wouldn't be asking for a week to take a look at this. I think it's rather unfortunate that some maybe haven't got that message. We need a week to take a look at it and I think that's all the time we need. We'll be back and be prepared to deal with it in a week's time. I'd ask the committee to support that.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. Could we have a vote on that? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion carries.
Mr Bob Wood: I'd like to continue with the motions with respect to the other persons interviewed. I'd like to move that the committee concur in the intended appointment of Paul V. Godfrey.
Mr Bartolucci: Why not all three?
Mr Bob Wood: If the opposition members are satisfied, I'll make all three at the same time.
Mr Bartolucci: All three.
Mr Bob Wood: All three? Okay.
Mr Kormos: No.
The Vice-Chair: No, Mr Kormos is going to disagree.
Mr Bob Wood: No, Mr Kormos doesn't want all three. Okay, Mr Godfrey is on the floor.
Mr Kormos: That's a sloppy way to do things.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Kormos wants to speak to Mr Godfrey.
Mr Kormos: The committee heard what I had to say about Mr Godfrey. He's as Tory a Tory as can be. His relationships and networking with the Tory party are as complex and as intricate as one suspects anybody could ever have. He's another rich Tory. At the same time, he has a great deal of experience. I don't know why he was brought before the committee, because clearly, unless the government members knew something about, again, that private part of his life that I made reference to but was unaware of, there's certainly not a question there of lack of capacity.
After all, he did bring major league baseball to Toronto, and I suspect once we get around to reviewing the campaign contributions when they're finally released, we'll find either Mr Godfrey himself or any number of his companies having gone a long way to financing Mike Harris's revolution. Mind you, that's not to say that Mr Godfrey showed up here with a beard and a beret on his head and a bandolera across his chest, but there you go. It's clearly a Tory patronage appointment but, to be fair, not one without some merit.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I came specifically for this particular appointment, not so much with respect to the person as with respect to the position that the person holds. It's very difficult, I think, for governments to make appointments. I happen to be one of the members who sat last session opposite my good friend from Welland and saw the political patronage that took place with the socialists when they were in power.
Mr Kormos: Andy Brandt.
Mr Stockwell: Well, sure. Yes, you appointed Andy Brandt and 700 dippers. There's always someone who will chime in about Andy Brandt. They appoint one Conservative so they can wash the 700 dippers.
The point, though, that needs to be made is that I believe in political patronage appointments. I believed in it when I sat on that side of the House and I'm going to believe in it when I sit on the government side, because it seems to me that people elect a philosophy, approach, political options, and it seems counterproductive to me that that government would then start appointing people who aren't like-minded thinkers. So we appoint like-minded Conservatives to carry out the plan that we have put into place.
But why I'm here about this particular appointment is that I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be made, but I want everyone to be very conscious. Appointing press or people involved in the press, in my opinion, can be very sticky. They have a voice and a position different than that of the rank-and-file constituent we naturally represent. In fact, in some instances many would argue those people who work in the fourth estate are probably sometimes more powerful than your typical backbench MPP. I might be one of those people who argue that.
So when we do go forward to make appointments on a political basis that to some degree are partisan -- and I don't think there's anybody in this room who will debate the fact that Paul Victor Godfrey happens to be a Conservative, as Richard Johnston happened to be an NDPer, as well as the 600 or 700 NDP hacks they appointed throughout the province on parole boards and so on.
Mr Kormos: Name them.
1230
Mr Stockwell: Well, if you had about three weeks I'd start.
It seems to me that that's something you can do. But I wanted to say to the committee, and I think you should be conscious of this, not specifically this appointment but in future, you should take very long, hard looks at those people who are in the media whom you appoint to boards, agencies and commissions, because as I said and I will say again, the rank-and-file person I like to see appointed is someone who does not happen to have a voice, generally speaking; who doesn't have an opportunity for input over and above what a typical constituent would have. It would meet my purposes to think that those people who are appointed, are appointed because of grass-roots philosophical approaches to Conservatism that don't necessarily lead them to become publishers of newspapers and so on and so forth.
I'm not recommending he not go on; this probably is a very astute appointment. But in the future, when it comes to appointing people from the media, I just think we should take a long, sobering look before we ratify that agreement. I think that seems to be fairly reasonable.
Just quickly, I would never hesitate to appoint, again, Conservatives to agencies, boards and commissions, because the people of this province elected Conservatism; they rejected NDP socialism; they rejected the appointments that they made to the parole boards. With all due respect to my good friend from Welland, I can't count the number of people whom you appointed to police services boards and agencies, and if you had to ask them technical questions about how this particular one works, you would have gotten some absurd, obscure answers. If that would have then not allowed them to sit on the boards, agencies and commissions, not only would they have been understaffed; they would have been virtually empty.
Mr Bob Wood: I wonder if I might speak to this. I think Paul Godfrey is an outstandingly well-qualified person. He's recommended by the board of governors of the University of Toronto, and I think the community and the university are very lucky that he's prepared to come forward and do this.
I think Chris Stockwell makes some good points with respect to caution with respect to people who are involved in the media. Paul Godfrey has been in a position of considerable power in many circumstances, and I'm not aware of a situation where he's abused it.
Mr Stockwell: Oh, I never said that.
Mr Bob Wood: I think in this case we can be quite confident --
Mr Kormos: The suggestion is, you suggested it.
The Acting Chair (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mr Kormos, please.
Mr Bob Wood: We can be quite confident that Paul Godfrey is going to do the right thing for the University of Toronto and for the people of this province. I strongly endorse his appointment.
Mr Stockwell: Just a point of clarification: I was not suggesting he abused power at any time in his life. If that was understood, I certainly wouldn't want that impression left.
The Acting Chair: That's noted. Now, are you ready for the question? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Bob Wood: I would like to move concurrence in the appointment of John Tory.
The Acting Chair: It's been so moved.
Mr Ford: I second it.
The Acting Chair: No seconder required.
Mr Kormos: Mr Tory, once again, who's well-known -- and there's no secret about the fact that he's a Conservative, certainly as long as I've known him, for over 20 years now. He demonstrates some strong credentials and he's another media person that Mr Stockwell refers to, with his Rogers cable show, perhaps now defunct. But none the less, what concerns me is that he was the senior policy adviser to the Prime Minister in the 1988 federal election -- although that federal election was the 1988 one, it was still Prime Minister Brian Mulroney -- and conservative campaign manager in 1993, when the leader of the Conservative Party was Kim Campbell. To be fair, the guy has some blemishes on an otherwise somewhat impressive track record. One would have hoped that he would have renounced his association with that 1993 association -- because he was the campaign manager -- with Kim Campbell and the Tories, one that resulted in but two Tories getting elected --
Mr Fox: What does this have to do with it?
Mr Kormos: -- and demonstrated by that renunciation that he made some grievous errors in judgement by associating himself with those particular people. But here it is; we have a Tory government appointing, in this case, not just a Tory but surely, anybody who would have consented to manage Ms Campbell's campaign -- that's an oxymoron, to talk about the Tory campaign of 1993 -- surely here we have the penultimate hack. Anybody who would consent to be involved in such a pathetic and devious effort at deceit on the Ontario public surely is a Tory hack. So here we are once again, another Tory lined up at this government's trough.
Mr Preston: Mr Chairman, somebody managed Audrey McLaughlin's campaign, somebody managed Bob Rae's campaign, both total flops. That doesn't qualify them or disqualify them for anything.
Mr Kormos: Two members, not 17.
Mr Preston: Pardon me, sir. I have the floor.
Mr Kormos: It was two.
The Acting Chair: I'll remind you I'm the Chairman, so go.
Mr Preston: This gentlemen has impeccable qualifications for the job --
Mr Kormos: That he's rich.
The Acting Chair: Mr Kormos, please.
Mr Preston: -- regardless of his political affiliation.
Mr Kormos: Or how rich his father is.
Mr Preston: I call for the vote, Mr Chairman.
The Acting Chair: At least we accomplished something. Yes, Mr Wood?
Mr Bob Wood: I wonder if I might simply add very briefly, in 30 seconds, to what Mr Preston has said. He's a highly qualified individual. It's hardly a disqualification for public office to have participated in a losing political campaign. I think we're darned lucky to have him.
The Acting Chair: I've been reminded that Mr Preston called for the vote and there's no further debate.
All those in favour of going to the vote? Okay. Now we will then vote on -- I almost lost track -- concurrence with John Tory. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Bob Wood: I'd like to move concurrence in Celia Kavanagh.
The Acting Chair: It's been moved. Discussion? Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: This was a little bit troubling because Ms Kavanagh appears to have a strong background. I suppose the fact that she's a lawyer, in the context of working for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, shouldn't be held against her. She had been on the board for two previous terms; was invited, as she indicates, by the chair, if I recall, to seek renomination to the board; has some strong views.
It's unfortunate in her case, because I think all members of the committee would have preferred to spend a little more time. Her life and her views are not as public, no way near as public, as they were in the case of Mr Godfrey or Mr Tory. It really would have been beneficial. I mean, there was nothing that was revealed during the course of her submissions and the responses to queries put to her that would show her to be anything other than a responsible, committed person who has some creative and progressive views about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and its function.
I'm concerned about how frustrated she's going to become. We note that she was the executive officer of the Ontario Status of Women Council, and obviously throughout the course of her responses here she indicated some very specific concerns about women as victims and about victims of family violence.
I'm concerned about the level of frustration she's going to experience when programs that assist women as victims of violence are increasingly being trashed by the government and when in fact we may find the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board itself suffering from vicious and random cutbacks by the government. It's unfortunate that we didn't have more time to speak with her and canvass all of these areas.
Perhaps that matter, the matter of these limited 30-minute periods, will be addressed in the very near future, firstly by the subcommittee and perhaps then by the committee in general.
The Acting Chair: Any further comments?
1240
Mr Bob Wood: I'd certainly like to endorse her as a highly qualified candidate that I think we're lucky to have prepared to serve on the board. I would then move the question.
The Acting Chair: We were ready for that. Now we have to vote on your call for the question.
All those in favour of calling the question? Opposed? Carried.
All those in favour of concurrence on the appointment of Celia Kavanagh? Carried.
Now we have some subcommittee business to deal with that hopefully we can move along rather quickly on. You have your --
Mr Bert Johnson: Mr Chairman, I have a point of order. I got some information, a memorandum from this committee dated November 17, addressed to members of the standing committee. At the bottom there's a cc to Bob Lopinski, Vic Taylor and David Pond. I can understand David Pond; I can't understand why the other two are cc'd.
The Acting Chair: As far as I know, it's public information. I suppose anybody, within reason, who requests it could receive it.
Mr Bert Johnson: Would my father in a nursing home qualify?
The Acting Chair: Pardon me?
Mr Bert Johnson: I'm just saying that it --
The Acting Chair: I'm trying to interpret it, Mr Johnson. I think you're reasonable. Lopinski's on the research of the Liberal Party. If you don't want him sent that and it's a problem, I suppose then I can go and we'll create the copy and give it to him.
Mr Bert Johnson: There are reasons for nearly everything. I just wondered what the reason is.
The Acting Chair: Give us a break. The government has a lot more research than this side of the room. So all we're trying to do is save some time. Is it a problem?
Mr Bert Johnson: I don't know. I'm just asking.
The Acting Chair: Okay. We'll find out the answer.
Mr Bert Johnson: Thank you.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Acting Chair: Now, the minutes of the subcommittee: Do they have to be read into the record? I have to read the minutes of the standing committee on government agencies subcommittee on committee business.
Mr Bob Wood: Can we dispense with this? We've all got a copy of this and I'm satisfied with it.
The Acting Chair: I'm told I have to read it into the record.
Mr Bob Wood: The committee cannot dispense with the reading of it?
The Acting Chair: For the purposes of Hansard, we're told we have to read it into the record.
Mr Bob Wood: Lead on.
The Acting Chair: Maybe we can look into that too.
Mr Bob Wood: Lead on.
The Acting Chair: Tuesday, 28 November 1995, report of the subcommittee:
Your subcommittee met on Tuesday, November 28, 1995, for the purpose of organization and to consider the selection of the intended appointees for committee review.
Your subcommittee recommends:
1. That each intended appointee being interviewed by the committee be invited to make an opening statement of not more than five minutes and that that time be deducted from the time apportioned to the government party.
2. That the selection of David R. Nash, selection of the official opposition, as member, Ontario Casino Corp board of directors; Evelyn Dodds, selection of third party, as vice-chair, Social Assistance Review Board; and Patricia DeGuire, selection of government party, as member, Board of Parole, central region, be scheduled for December 6, 1995, for 40-minute appointments each with up to a five-minute opening statement to be invited and the time for that opening statement be deducted from the 40-minute interview.
3. That pursuant to standing order 106(g) the following agencies have been selected for the committee to review: Social Assistance Review Board, selection of the third party; Ontario Highway Transportation Board, selection of the official opposition.
4. That a request be sent to the House leaders asking that to the previous request for two days per month to review intended appointments an additional two days per month be approved for the committee to sit for the purpose of reviewing agencies; and that those four days per month be approved in the same week of each month.
5. That the committee will meet on Wednesday, December 13, 1995, to consider the selection of intended appointees for committee review.
6. Re: certificate of November 22, 1995.
It was agreed that the following intended appointees be selected for review:
Selections of the official opposition party:
Agency: Town of Kingsville Police Services Board
Name: William Strong
Time recommended for consideration: one half-hour
Date of consideration: December 13, 1995.
Selections of the third party:
Agency: City of Timmins Police Services Board
Name: Hans Arno Keller
Time recommended for consideration: one half-hour
Date for consideration: December 13, 1995
Selections of the government party:
Agency: Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corporation
Name: David A. Lemmon
Time recommended for consideration: one half-hour
Date for consideration: December 13, 1995.
Agency: Selection Board (Ontario Graduate Scholarship Program)
Name: Dr Flora Ng
Time recommended for consideration: one half-hour
Date for consideration: December 13, 1995.
Is there a mover for those minutes?
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I move it, Mr Chair.
The Acting Chair: Moved by Mr Wood.
There are two items that we should take into consideration on this. Number one is that Evelyn Dodds, the selection of the third party as vice-chair of the Social Assistance Review Board, was not scheduled to be in Toronto on December 6, but will be in Toronto on December 13, so she has requested that perhaps we consider her appearance for December 13 and that we would start at 9:20 in order to allow for that extra person to appear.
Mr Kormos: Speaking to that and to the subcommittee report as a whole: firstly, no quarrel in general with the subcommittee report. Obviously, that's some level of consensus between the three caucus -- whips? Respective whips.
Mr Crozier: Committee reps.
Mr Kormos: My caucus declines to address itself as a whip when I'm on the committee.
In any event, I'll indicate now I have real concern about these 30-minute slots. I appreciate that this is not unprecedented, that this was the design by and large, as I understand it, established by the last government. Clearly, 30 minutes -- especially when, as is suggested, the first five minutes be occupied by a participant addressing the committee and that five minutes be deducted from the government's time -- provides precious little opportunity to talk about what can sometimes be some very important issues.
There were more than a couple of people here today for whom there was mere time-filling by perhaps not just government members but by people from the other two caucuses as well. I saw the government members sitting there polishing apples like mad trying to improve their lot in life with somebody whose lot in life was far more fortunate than theirs.
At the same time, there are going to be people before this committee being appointed to very important positions, sometimes contentious position, not just from a partisan perspective but from a public perspective, positions that are going to have a significant impact on what happens to Ontarians.
I am at a loss to understand why this committee should restrict itself to 30 minutes for any given participant. I appreciate that there's a need to schedule, that there's a need to organize time. You can't have people sitting here cooling their heels while others are being interviewed for a period of 45 minutes or an hour. You've got to schedule.
There are clearly some, quite frankly --
The Acting Chair: Mr Kormos, I might be able to expedite this a bit. It is up to the committee, after recommendations usually by the subcommittee, as to how many will appear and as to the length of time.
Mr Kormos: That's why I'm speaking to this now. Quite right.
The Acting Chair: I was only kind of suggesting that maybe this could be dealt with at the subcommittee.
Mr Kormos: Quite right. It's what I'm getting to, Chair. You're a mind reader too. That's remarkable. How many people around here can read minds?
In any event, the Chair being cognizant, as it is, and sensitive to this particular issue, and recognizing that there can -- quite frankly, it struck me as being unnecessary to have Mr Godfrey here for 30 minutes. His public life, I suppose that's obvious, is very much an open book and a well-known one and a well-publicized one. His personal views similarly tend to be well known. At the same time, there could well have been any one caucus that would have wanted to spend a longer period of time with Mr Godfrey or any other on a particular area or with a particular set of issues.
So it seems to me that there's a great deal of flexibility available as to whether or not a person be here for 15 minutes, 30 minutes or two days, because quite frankly, there are some people who would warrant two days of discussion. So I'm saying this hoping that the subcommittee will address --
1250
Mr Klees: Get to the point.
The Acting Chair: Mr Klees, please.
Mr Klees: Sorry.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. I am hoping that the subcommittee, during its next meeting, will seriously consider the need to be flexible about the period of time and to propose estimated periods of time based on the submissions of respective members of the subcommittee.
As to Ms Dodds, who I understand has to travel here a long distance, it's my respectful submission that it is improper, the subcommittee having not considered her request to be reassigned, but none the less the Chair or the committee being advised of her unavailability -- and I have no quarrel with her unavailability -- I would suggest that the appropriate thing, the proper thing, the correct thing is to simply have the subcommittee readdress her time and place; and obviously she could be readily or easily canvassed as to availability. In other words, I'm suggesting that there not having been a subcommittee decision to have put her on at 9:20 on the day of December 13, it's improper for that to be a part of the subcommittee report as compared to the Chair merely reporting that Ms Dodds is unavailable on the date assigned.
The Acting Chair: It will be dealt with as an amendment to the report.
Mr Kormos: But you see, the subcommittee report has to come before the committee, Chair, in its entirety. The subcommittee has a very important function. You can't have a subcommittee report and say, "Oh well, we'll tinker with it." I don't mean that in a malicious or disparaging way. "We'll shuffle this around and then present that somehow as an amended subcommittee report." The report can only be amended by the subcommittee. That's the nature of a subcommittee report.
So I'm suggesting that in the matter of Ms Dodds you are simply reporting that Ms Dodds is unavailable at the time originally planned for. God bless, she won't be here. But I say then it's for the subcommittee to reconsider the appropriate time and period of time for Ms Dodds to be before the committee. I don't think there's any difficulty in having the matter of Ms Dodds's interview being extended beyond the brief Christmas break that I'm sure will be enjoyed.
Mr Klees: Help, Mr Chair.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. By way of explanation, unlike in the House there's no limit on the time someone can speak, and I think each of us has to --
Interjection.
The Acting Chair: Excuse me. I think each of us has to be given that opportunity, and to try and limit anything often leads to just further -- since he's not listening, I've told you what I think.
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chair, may I have the floor?
The Acting Chair: Yes.
Mr Bob Wood: I am prepared to move an amendment to this report: that Ms Dodds be added at 9:20 am on December 13.
Mr Kormos: Point of order, Chair.
Mr Bob Wood: I would also move that that question be put.
Mr Kormos: Point of order, Mr Chair.
The Acting Chair: I think we have to be democratic here.
Mr Kormos: We've got to be democratic.
Mr Bob Wood: We can't sit here till 5 in the afternoon.
The Acting Chair: Yes, I think that we have to be democratic and I will be.
Mr Kormos: Chair, we will sit --
The Acting Chair: Mr Kormos, please get to the point.
Mr Kormos: These people are reasonably well --
The Acting Chair: The Chair's getting impatient too.
Mr Kormos: The Chair is what?
The Acting Chair: Getting impatient as well.
Mr Kormos: That's why the Chair makes the big bucks, Chair. The Chair's job is to chair; our job is to meet in committee.
The Acting Chair: I am well aware of that, Mr Kormos. Thank you.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. If these people are concerned because it's 1 o'clock -- are they missing their lunch prior to the House sitting?
Mr Klees: We're concerned about wasting time.
Mr Kormos: I raise that as a serious question. We're paid to be here and we'd better be prepared to be here and deal with the issues.
The Acting Chair: What's your point of order, Mr Kormos?
Mr Kormos: Please, Chair, I'm getting to it.
The Acting Chair: No, what is your point of order? Then we'll rule on whether you have a point of order.
Mr Kormos: Chair, the more you ask that, the longer this takes.
The Acting Chair: That's what I'm afraid of.
Mr Kormos: The point of order is that it is inappropriate for the committee to move an amendment to --
The Acting Chair: No, the committee --
Mr Kormos: One moment; I'm not finished my point of order.
The Acting Chair: No, it really doesn't matter. I don't think you have a point of order. You don't have a point of order. Mr Kormos, the subcommittee is recommending to the committee. All that has been done here is an amendment has been made to the recommendation.
Mr Kormos: How can you move a motion to a recommendation when there's been no motion to approve the report of the subcommittee?
The Acting Chair: Because the Chair has ruled that way.
Clerk pro tem (Donna Bryce): Mr Wood did move the report.
Mr Bob Wood: I moved it. I moved the adoption of it and I moved an amendment to it. There was no problem with that.
Mr Kormos: But I'm telling you, you can't do that. The subcommittee prepares a report. If there is going to be a substantial variation to the report of the subcommittee, then it should be done by the subcommittee. We're not talking about an amendment here; we're talking about the subcommittee report.
The Acting Chair: Mr Kormos, I think what is in question then is, what is substantial? I don't think this is substantial. It doesn't change the person; it doesn't change the length of time that we're going to hear that deputant; it only changes the date. I don't think that's substantial. I really would, without any further delay, like to move on.
Mr Kormos: Delay? We're talking about debate here, Chair.
Mr Bob Wood: I move the question be put.
The Acting Chair: I'll take that motion. All those in favour?
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote.
The Acting Chair: Opposed? Carried.
Clerk pro tem : It's not a recorded vote.
The Acting Chair: I had already called the question and asked for those in favour before --
Mr Kormos: Chair, you did not permit an opportunity for anybody to intervene. You're trying to ram this through like a greased pig.
The Acting Chair: The amendment has been moved. I'll pause a little bit before I ask for the question on the amendment. There being nothing else said --
Mr Kormos: Chair, please.
Mr Bob Wood: The question, Mr Chair, has been put. The committee has directed --
Mr Kormos: Chair, you said you were going to pause for a minute. If you're going to pause, you've got to wait for there to be any interventions.
The Acting Chair: I said I would pause for a moment. Let's be less difficult and move on.
Mr Kormos: No, Chair, you be a little less difficult and accommodate the members of your committee.
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chairman, we've voted to put this question.
The Acting Chair: There's a closure motion. We go straight to the amendment. We're going to vote on the amendment at this time.
Mr Kormos: Fine, then --
The Acting Chair: All those in favour? Opposed?
Mr Kormos: Chair, I'm telling you right now, I've asked for a recorded vote.
The Acting Chair: I didn't hear the word "recorded" until just now.
Mr Kormos: Chair, I requested a --
The Acting Chair: Mr Kormos, you're becoming very difficult.
Mr Kormos: You're darn right I'm becoming difficult, Chair, because the Chair is becoming a joke.
The Acting Chair: I don't want to have to call the Speaker in.
Mr Kormos: I resent the Chair abusing its power to violate the privileges of members of this committee. Now, please, Chair. You may well be hungry and want to have your tea and biscuits before you resume participation at 1:30 in the House, but I'm telling you that when you call for a vote, you provide an opportunity for people to indicate that they want a recorded vote.
You had three notices of it. I said "Chair." Indeed, I pounded my fist on the table to try to provide some emphasis to that, and you persisted in calling for a vote. Quite frankly, that's irresponsible. The Chair should be embarrassed about its failure to understand the rules of procedure and to apply them. You may be used to sliding things through without adequate consultation or discussion, but damn it, that's not the procedure that's going to be followed here.
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chair, I move the question be put.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your opinion, Mr Kormos. The Chair is still the Chair, and now I have a motion.
Mr Bob Wood: That the question be put on the main motion.
The Acting Chair: That the question be put on the main motion.
Mr Kormos: Now, Chair, a recorded vote.
The Acting Chair: No, no.
Mr Bob Wood: It's not a debatable motion.
The Acting Chair: All those in favour?
Mr Kormos: Wait, Chair, damn it.
The Acting Chair: Carried.
Mr Kormos: You jerk. And I'll repeat that: Vous êtes un con. I did not have the opportunity to ask for a recorded vote on that; you know it. We're not --
The Acting Chair: Mr Kormos --
Mr Kormos: -- who doesn't understand the rules and procedures.
The Acting Chair: I really don't want to have to call the Speaker.
Mr Kormos: You call on the Speaker as you wish.
Interjections.
Mr Bob Wood: Please put the question.
The Acting Chair: I did.
Mr Kormos: I asked for a recorded vote twice and this Chair declined to permit one, because this Chair would prefer to listen to one of the Tory hacks, one of the backbenchers who is here to try to ram stuff through this committee and avoid a call for a recorded vote, because they're embarrassed about being on the record. Well, that's shameful.
The Acting Chair: Why don't we go to the main motion and have a recorded vote? Would that be okay?
Mr Kormos: That would be fine, Chair. That's all I wanted in the first place. The Acting Chair: This is the subcommittee report, as amended. Okay? We're all agreed? All those in favour?
Ayes
Bartolucci, Fox, Bert Johnson, Klees, Newman, Preston, Ross, Bob Wood.
The Acting Speaker: All those opposed?
Nays
Kormos.
The Acting Chair: Okay, is there any further business? Move for adjournment? Thank you.
The committee adjourned at 1301.