CONTENTS
Wednesday 31 January 1996
Intended appointments
Elizabeth Greville, Pension Commission of Ontario
Gary Nadalin, City of Guelph Police Services Board
Robert Nicol, City of Owen Sound Police Services Board
Melody Lundstrom, Consent and Capacity Review Board
Douglas Maund, Town of Orangeville Police Services Board
Walter Burton, Town of Tillsonburg Police Services Board
Christopher Henley, Ontario Transportation Capital Corp board of directors
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)
*Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
*Ford, Douglas B. (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
*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:
Churley, Marilyn (Riverdale ND) for Mr Laughren
Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L) for Mr Bartolucci
Beaubien, Marcel (Lambton PC) for Mr Bert Johnson
Brown, Jim (Scarborough West / -Ouest PC) for Mrs Ross
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1010 in committee room 1.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
The Vice-Chair (Mr Tony Martin): Ladies and gentlemen, we'll start the proceedings this morning, seeing as we have somebody from each of the three caucuses here.
ELIZABETH GREVILLE
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Elizabeth Greville, intended appointee as member, Pension Commission of Ontario.
The Vice-Chair: This morning we'll start with an interview of an intended appointee selected by the Liberal caucus, Elizabeth Greville, intended appointee as member, Pension Commission of Ontario.
Thank you for coming. Please make yourself comfortable. There's water and glasses just in front of you there that might be helpful. You have the privilege of an opening statement if you'd like, but you don't have to. We normally start with a rotation of questions, but if you have something you'd like to start off with for a couple of minutes, we have an agreement with the Conservative caucus that it will come out of their time.
Ms Elizabeth Greville: Yes, I would just like to make some brief opening remarks, if that's all right.
The Vice-Chair: Sure. That would be super. Go ahead.
Ms Greville: Basically what I'd like to do is to outline briefly my reasons for seeking this appointment to the pension commission. As you all know, sweeping amendments were made to the Ontario Pension Benefits Act in 1987. As part of these changes, the commission was given major new regulatory powers. Since then, the commission has been building a reputation among its stakeholders for professionalism and responsiveness in discharging its responsibilities under the act. I'm attracted by the prospect of membership in such a dynamic agency and believe that with my training and experience I can serve the public by making a substantive contribution to the commission's work.
First, my general professional training: As you know, I'm a qualified lawyer and, as such, understand the principles of fairness, impartiality and conflict of interest and how to apply them as a member of a quasi-judicial body.
Second, my specific experience in the pension area: Pension and the legislation governing it is a complex field. To work effectively as a member of the commission I believe requires both detailed technical knowledge and solid practical experience in applying the act to the operation of pension plans.
I have gained extensive technical and practical knowledge through nearly 15 years' experience in the pension field, both in Canada and in the UK. My principal focus has been as a consultant to management and boards of directors of domestic and multinational clients in both the public and private sectors. I have advised on all aspects of pension plan design, funding, trusteeship, investment, administration, as well as legal and compliance matters. My experience covers defined benefit plans, defined contribution plans, group RRSPs and other forms of retirement savings.
In addition, through active participation in a variety of professional and industry associations, I maintain a pipeline to emerging issues of concern to pension plan sponsors, employees and their advisers. Currently, for example, I hold executive positions in the pension and benefits section of the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Pension and Benefits Conference. I've also served as a member of the legal advisory committee to the pension commission itself.
In summary, I believe I am well served and qualified to serve on the commission and look forward to playing a significant role in the work of this agency.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We'll continue with questions from the government caucus. Mr Leadston.
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): I hope you don't mind if we're rather informal, if I call you Elizabeth.
Ms Greville: That's fine.
Mr Leadston: You certainly have a very extensive background in this particular field, and I'm interested in knowing what your opinions are with respect to pensions, how they serve the citizens of Ontario and the firms and the people who invest in pensions, obviously, for their futures. I'd like your opinion in terms of the commitment to that and the assurance that an individual or firm would have in terms of the pensions that they're contributing to.
Ms Greville: I think a lot of the confidence that companies and their employees have in the pension arrangements probably comes back to how effectively the plan design matches up with the business needs and the particular profile of the employee group. I think a lot of the difficulty at the moment is that many defined benefit plans were established in the 1970s, when career patterns looked more like long-service employees working for individual companies. Of course, what's happened is, as we know, with downsizing and significant changes both in business and in employee mobility patterns, defined benefit plans have come in some cases to serve less well the environments for which they were originally designed. So I think to the extent that companies and employees are dissatisfied with the kinds of arrangements they have, it's because they haven't been able to adapt them as well as they might like to the changing conditions.
The act does play a role in that, because the thrust of the Pension Benefits Act is really towards the regulation of defined benefit plans and tends to work best while plans are ongoing and not too much is happening in respect of those plans. When you try to change the design of your pension arrangements by partially winding up plans or totally winding up plans, you then get into a lot of the complex issues that the Pension Benefits Act causes frustration around.
Although obviously the role of the commission is to administer the act as it currently stands, it also has a responsibility, as you know, to make recommendations to the minister for change, and I think the pension commission can assist some of the problems that we're seeing in maintaining pension coverage both by continuing to expedite its hearings processes, where I think it has made good strides, but also in terms of areas where the legislation might be changed to improve coverage without necessarily having to open up the entire act.
For example, looking at what provinces like Manitoba and Quebec have done to establish a much simpler form of a prequalified defined benefit plan offers an interesting model, and also one of the other frustrations that employers face, because many of them do have employees in a number of provinces, there's the difficulty, as you know, that pension legislation in each province is different. The Canadian Association of Pension Supervisory Authorities' multilateral agreement has been on the table for some time. That would enable more reciprocity and uniformity among the pension legislations of the different provinces and would make it easier and more cost-effective for employers to sponsor plans and also deal with employees moving from province to province.
In summary, I think pension plans can work very well if they're suited to the environment, but I see some areas where the act needs perhaps to make it a bit easier to balance the interests of the business and its employees to help that effort.
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): I'll call you Elizabeth too. My name's Doug Ford. In your own words, how do you see the role of the Pension Commission of Ontario in light of declining enrolment?
Ms Greville: As I was saying to your colleague, although the commission at the moment has to administer the act as it currently finds it, one of the advantages that the commission has and needs to capitalize on is that its members are industry professionals and specialists. In its mandate, its quasi-judicial role of conducting hearings and hearing certain applications, it really has a lot more expertise than many judges do where pension matters go to court in order to deal with issues and problems under its jurisdiction that arise under the act. So I see the pension commission hopefully continuing to build on its reputation for responsiveness in hearing these applications and dealing with them, but also looking for areas where it can perhaps make recommendations to the minister to streamline different provisions of the act or different policies and procedures to make it more attractive and cost-effective to operate pension plans.
1020
Mr Ford: Do you feel they're effective?
Ms Greville: Pension plans?
Mr Ford: No, the commission.
Ms Greville: The commission. As I say, I've spent 15 years in the industry, and certainly when the pension commission was first set up with its new powers in 1987, there were a number of glitches that needed to be dealt with. Certainly, when I talk to fellow lawyers, other professional advisers who appeared before the pension commission, you do tend to get much better reports and a lot of appreciation of steps that the commission has taken to improve its procedures and processes.
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a question. What do you see as the most important component of the pension commission, the administrative side or the quasi-judicial side?
Ms Greville: I guess from my standpoint really, the quasi-judicial side is the key direct activity, because on the administrative side, as you know, the commission appoints a superintendent and the superintendent and his staff are responsible for the day-to-day administration, enforcement, regulation of the act. Because the superintendent and his staff have to deal with all the different pension stakeholders, it's the commission's role as an independent, impartial, quasi-judicial body to hear appeals from decisions that the superintendent has taken and hear other applications. So I think it's in that impartial mode, quasi-judicial mode, removed from the day-to-day administration. The commission has to be there to decide among the stakeholders when cases are brought forward.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good morning and thank you for allowing us to call you Elizabeth. It's much more comfortable.
Ms Greville: No problem.
Mr Crozier: You were the selection of our party to appear, and I thank you for taking the time. The selection was made not so much because it's evident that you're highly qualified for this position with your experience and all of your background, but what you can come to the committee and in the short time we're given perhaps give us some advice that can be carried on beyond that.
You mentioned, interestingly, that not always do judges make the correct decisions. I wonder if it has any reference to or if you would comment on the fact that recently of course the government decided that in the case of the public service pension plan that it was going to treat it differently than private plans are treated. It went to court. The government lost. And now we find that the government said, "Well, we'll take care of that; we'll change the law."
But more basic to the whole question is, in that instance, would that be one of those cases where you felt the judge made the wrong decision, and secondly, would you care to comment on the whole idea of the winding down of plans and who is entitled to the funds and that part of the issue?
Ms Greville: I won't try and comment on the specific case, obviously, but in terms of the broader considerations around the partial windup and total windup provisions of the act, as you know, they have been one of the biggest sources of frustration to employers and employees probably since the act was introduced.
Rather than trying to decide whether the judge made the wrong or right decision, I think one of the difficulties is that really the whole thrust or 99% of the thrust of the 1987 legislation was geared to protecting the interests of plan members. That was the real plank of the legislation.
The partial windup and the windup provisions, as you know, there are special so-called grow-in rights and other things that come into play that give accelerated benefit entitlements to employees affected by the windup. Those accelerated entitlements don't apply to the members who may remain in an ongoing part of a partially wound-up plan.
One of the fundamental difficulties with particularly the partial windup provisions is, first, the act is not as clear as some people would like it to be on what constitutes a partial windup. There are phrases, as came up in the OPSEU situation, like, "a significant number of employees being affected." What does that mean? With other cases that are before the courts, there are various interpretations trying to come up with what "significant number" really means. So the first problem, as I say, is there is a fair bit of discretion that the superintendent has in deciding whether or not a partial windup has occurred.
The second problem with I think the partial windup provisions and the accelerated rights is that you also bring into play the funded position of the plan, because if under the terms of the plan employees are entitled to surplus on a total windup, then the regulations have been interpreted to say that they're also entitled on a partial windup to a share of the surplus if they're affected by that windup, because you have to have the same rights in a partial windup as you do in a total windup.
So, the difficulty that that presents, particularly if you have plans, which you do, where because of changes in business circumstances you can end up with not only one but several partial plan windups, you end up with a situation where, say, the first time a partial windup is declared the plan is in surplus, the employees going out at that point you may say get a windfall that the remaining employees, or on a future partial windup the other employees, wouldn't get.
So I think that this whole matter of equity in treating employees on a partial windup is something that the current act doesn't deal with very well, because, as I said, the way in which it comes about that employees going out under a partial windup would end up having a share of the surplus at that moment in time comes about simply because of wording in the regulation that's very general.
Mr Crozier: I would hope, then, that in your duties, and they're listed here, "The duties of the commission are to...make recommendations to the minister in respect of pension plans," perhaps you could follow through on that.
Ms Greville: That is an area, yes.
Mr Crozier: A very basic question, maybe it goes to this: Do you think, in your quasi-judicial mode, that there should be any difference between the way an employee is treated in a pension plan in the public service as opposed to private business?
Ms Greville: My personal opinion is, if the act covers the public and private sector, there shouldn't be a difference. The act binds the crown.
Mr Crozier: That's a very simple answer. I trust that you'll pass that recommendation on to the minister.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning.
Ms Greville: Almost my namesake, but not quite.
Mr Gravelle: Yes, exactly. They were asking if we were related earlier.
I'm just curious about what your opinion is on the concept of benefits being locked in. I guess the principle of basically locking them in till retirement, it's certainly not difficult to understand why that principle's in place, and it makes sense, but we are in an environment -- and certainly just from a point of view of people coming into my constituency office, people have come to me and they've been in a situation where they were leaving a position and wanted to get their pension benefits and weren't able to get them because they were locked in. I think we obviously are in an environment now where people are in more desperate straits at times and from their point of view it seems like, "Gee, I should be able to have it."
As I said, I think one can understand the logic of having it locked in. But I'm curious as to your opinion on that, as to whether or not you would think there should be some flexibility or more flexibility put in the system. I guess as it presently stands now, it's only in extreme -- and I don't know what those extreme circumstances are whereby they would release those funds, but I'm curious --
Ms Greville: It's usually in the case of terminal illness.
1030
Mr Gravelle: That does make sense. But what is your thought on that? Those people who have come to me, and obviously I have no influence in any way at all in that situation and I have to tell them that, are desperate and they very much need it and they view it as their money. They don't want to wait, so it becomes one of those things where you personally feel very badly about it. On the other hand, that's the way it works.
Ms Greville: Yes. I think again, as we were saying earlier, in all the 1987 amendments a major thrust was this business of protecting the interests of employees, and the locking-in provisions were seen to be part of that. I guess in terms of the way the legislation currently stands, my view would be that if that part of it was going to be rethought, then other aspects of the legislation would have to be rethought as well.
The difficulty is that if you've already got a pension plan in place that's subject to the act, then the locking-in provisions apply. For employers who don't now have a plan or have wound up their pension plans or are otherwise phasing them out, then obviously there are other forms of retirement savings arrangements that one can implement for employees who don't have the locking-in kinds of provisions like group RSPs and different kinds of profit-sharing and other arrangements.
I understand the economic hardship issue that can be caused by the locking-in provisions, but I do think at the moment it's an integral part of the act. We have had some experience with other kinds of plans, thinking through guidelines that the employer might draw up allowing employees to make withdrawals while in employment. For example, in different kinds of profit-sharing plans, it's not unusual to allow withdrawals in certain cases of economic hardship and illness and so on. The difficulty with the economic hardship one is coming up with suitable rules. Nevertheless, if the minister was to decide that this was an area of worthwhile investigation and was looking to the commission to provide advice, I think, as I say, with some of the work that has been done in coming up with guidelines for other kinds of plans, that's a possibility.
The other model, or semimodel I guess, that we have on the question of access to money that an employee has accumulated, there have been a couple of situations on the life insurance side where the CLHIA, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Agency, the umbrella agency for life insurance agents, has, for example, enabled AIDS sufferers to borrow against their life insurance entitlements and things of that nature. So there may be some creative ways for freeing up some of that money.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have some familiarity with the pension commission. I've read the résumé. This nominee is outstandingly qualified to serve on it. I do note that she was chosen or nominated by the selection committee of the pension commission itself, which is a highly appropriate way to do this process. She appears here in stark contrast to some of the dogs that the Tories have dragged here over the last several months, some of the Tory hacks who have been mindless and disinterested in others, other than in their devotion to Mike Harris's Reform Party Ontario. I'm not going to waste her time or the committee's time with any questions. I wish her well and I'm confident she will serve the province in an outstanding way.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Greville. Your being here today was quite helpful.
GARY NADALIN
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Gary Anthony Nadalin, intended appointee as member, City of Guelph Police Services Board.
The Vice-Chair: Welcome, Mr Nadalin. Please make yourself comfortable. Do you have an opening comment you'd like to make?
Mr Gary Nadalin: Yes, I've prepared a brief statement which really summarizes some of my community involvement, which I think has applicability here in terms of determining my suitability for the police services board.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to meet with you regarding my desire to serve on the Guelph Police Services Board. I understand that I have an opportunity at this point to provide the members of the committee with a brief overview of my experience and qualifications to serve as a public appointee.
My name is Gary Nadalin, I'm 44 years of age and I've lived in the city of Guelph for the past 20 years. I have been with the University of Guelph for the past 17 years in a number of positions but most recently as the director of community relations. This position is relatively new but one that has some bearing on my candidacy for the board.
As a director it is my responsibility to develop, direct and monitor our relations with the broader local community, including the city of Guelph and Wellington county. Through regular contact with key community leaders and meetings with city and county officials, I have been able to coordinate some of the university's activities within the local and regional areas and to enhance the university's relationship to the Guelph community.
I also advise the president and senior administration on local issues and strategies on community initiatives that will affect the university. Through this position I have regular contacts with community leaders and opinion makers within various sectors of the community, such as business and industry, labour, municipal and regional government, local boards of education, the cultural community and the professions.
In terms of my community affiliations I am currently a director of the board of the Guelph Chamber of Commerce, a director on the downtown board of management, a member of the citizens' committee for the performing arts centre, the chair of the board of the Guelph civic centre, a member of the Guelph convention and visitors' services board, a member of the council at Dublin Street United Church, a captain for the annual cancer fund-raising drive, a Big Brother and a Rotarian.
What all this suggests is that I have a number of contacts within the community, and through my involvement both at the university and outside I also have a very good feel for the community issues and the role that such things as the police play in community life.
Personally, I believe that everyone has a responsibility towards the community in which we live. My community involvement is based on the simple premise that the quality of life is determined by the amount of time that people devote to active community involvement. Guelph is the community I have chosen to live in and the community in which my wife and I are raising our family. It is a vibrant, caring, diverse and relatively prosperous community.
Through my community involvement, and probably better than most citizens of Guelph, I have an understanding of some of the issues that face our community, including controlled growth, sustained economic prosperity, retention of the quality of life that we now enjoy and the maintenance of a safe, respectable and clean municipality.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We'll lead off this round with the Liberal caucus.
Mr Gravelle: Obviously you have a very interesting and important and valuable background in Guelph and obviously you sought the appointment, and I'm curious as to how that process went about. Did you literally seek the appointment? I notice you did talk to somebody from the minister's staff. Were you approached by them, sir?
Mr Nadalin: I was originally approached by people in the riding, the constituency office, who asked me if I would be interested in serving on the board. It was something I had not considered before but considered at that time and as a follow-through consequently applied for the position.
Mr Gravelle: If I may ask you, were you involved in the election campaign of June 1995?
Mr Nadalin: No, I was not involved in the campaign.
Mr Gravelle: Your background reads very impressively in terms of your involvement in the community, and obviously I'm curious, if you can give me some of the ideas you have in terms of the police services board if you have, obviously, some concepts or ideas of what you might want to bring forward or bring to the police services board that would change things.
I note there's a female chief of police. That's an encouraging thing, isn't it, for the town, and obviously there have been some changes. I note too that they seem to be administratively in pretty good shape in terms of some of the plans they have put in place. But in more of the overall sense of what you see needs to be done in the community, can you give us an idea of what that might be, or some of your ideas?
Mr Nadalin: Yes. As you accurately note, we have a female police chief, which we're very proud of, and certainly in terms of her responsibilities she's looking at a long-range strategic plan and trying to look at changing some of the structure of the police services in Guelph.
Primarily I think one of the issues that confronts her right now is providing for more front-line officers, and that involves a pretty substantial restructuring. I think there was an attempt last year to try and do that, not as successfully as I think she wanted to, but I think that planning goes on and I agree with that process. I agree with shifting the role of the police, putting more of the emphasis on front-line officers and maybe decreasing the amount of administrative work that's required.
1040
I also believe in the concept of community policing, but I don't believe very many people understand what that means. It's not simply a question of adding on services to existing services or putting police on bicycles or those kinds of things. It's a question of visibility; it's a question of communications; it's a question of involving more of the community at various levels, maybe doing some of the things that police officers and staff do right now through volunteer efforts, for example, and providing more of an outreach and an understanding within the community of what the police service is all about and what it does within that community. That whole public relations-community relations role is an intriguing aspect and one that will require some attention in the future.
Mr Gravelle: I'm from Thunder Bay and they moved into community policing in a really positive way in our city. It has been really interesting just seeing the results in terms of the community itself once they do understand and start to relate to how the communication improves and the whole relation between the police and the community. It works, and it seems to be something that's happening in more and more communities. But it also costs some money to do it. It's very interesting.
I had no other questions. Bruce or Richard, do you have any?
Mr Crozier: The question of money: As my colleague has just said, some of these things cost money and recently in the expenditure area it would appear as though police services funding may have been cut in that it's all rolled into one envelope now rather than a per-household grant that was given to police services previously. Are you concerned about the funding for police services in Guelph in particular?
Mr Nadalin: I'm concerned about the funding as it applies in a number of areas. I think the challenge in front of us obviously right now is the fact that government funding is being cut in a number of sectors and the challenge is particularly, in terms of police services, to try and keep that quality of police services up when confronted with the reductions in funding.
I think there are a number of ways that we can look at doing this. I'm not altogether unopposed to what the minister has decided to do in reviewing, for example, police services and the role of police services boards and those kinds of things -- I think that's certainly appropriate -- and probably looking at different equations in terms of how the funding will take place in the future.
I don't have a specific answer to how that should be done, but I would be remiss if I didn't say I have a concern about the quality of policing. I want to make sure that it stays the same, despite the fact that we do have a challenge in terms of how we fund police services in the future.
Mr Crozier: Were you aware or are you aware and subsequently does it concern you that when it comes to questions of funding, and a lot of us are concerned about accountability, if there is a difference of opinion between the police services board and its budget and the municipal council, that then goes to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services and essentially someone outside of the community who has even less accountability than an unelected appointee to the board decides what that budget is going to be? Is that of any concern to you?
Mr Nadalin: I'm aware of that. I'm not aware of how the process works entirely, but I would hope in the way it's referred to the board, OCCPS, that some of the perspective from the municipality becomes clearer and some of our -- I would assume, for example, that the position of the police services board would be reflected in those discussions. As I said, I'm not exactly sure how that board works, but it would be my hope that some of those issues are raised and reflected in how the decision finally is made.
Mr Crozier: I certainly share that hope with you, not only in Guelph but in other boards as well.
Further to that, of course, there are changes in the Arbitration Act. Again, the decision for funding on your police services may be totally out of your hands in that the community has to show, among other things, whether it can afford the cost of the police services board budget that's being proposed. It may be the Ontario civilian commission that makes the decision on the one hand or it may be an arbitrator on the other hand.
The difficulty you're going to have is going to be challenging, I think, to still provide the same level of service, and perhaps, as we all want to do, maybe even improve it, and yet do it within the financial constraints that are going to be put on you as a board member. You're going to be expected, on one hand, to provide protection, safety for the community, yet on the other hand, you're going to do it with one or both hands tied behind your back. Your challenge certainly is a formidable one.
Mr Nadalin: Absolutely, and I recognize how daunting a task it will be, but as I said, I hope, and it is my desire, that those issues are dealt with at the local level. I would not want to see them go beyond that. I feel confident, based on my community experience, that there are solutions we can find within the municipality rather than having to go outside for decisions and arbitration.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Following on this question, in terms of living with frugal dollars and in terms of the police forces and their responsibilities as a response to the federal government's legislation on the new gun registry laws, have you had a chance to explore any of that or do you have any views concerning that?
Mr Nadalin: Very briefly, and my comments are limited, but I do overall agree with the principle of the legislation. My concern regarding the legislation is how effective it's going to be in fact, and whether through gun registry we stem the flow of guns, the transportation of guns across the border, guns being provided to the criminal element.
I don't know if that necessarily will result from the legislation that has now been passed and will be put into place over the next few years. As I said, in principle I agree with the legislation and what it hopes to achieve, but I do have some concerns about the effectiveness of that legislation and whether it will in fact result in a reduction of illegal use of firearms in this country.
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): As a woman quite concerned about equality for women, and I'm sure many of us feel the same way, I'm very proud of the Guelph experience in appointing the first woman as the chief in all of Ontario. Congratulations on that. You didn't have anything to do with it personally, did you?
Mr Nadalin: I can't say thank you or take any credit for that.
Ms Churley: But you're representing Guelph today, and we're very proud of that.
On that note, I want to ask you a question about employment equity. As you know, this government repealed the NDP Employment Equity Act, which I was very proud of. There were concerns expressed, and indeed the Conservative government viewed it as a quota law.
Interjection.
Ms Churley: Well, yes. I have the floor now.
Mr Kormos: During the election and afterwards.
Ms Churley: It wasn't a quota law. In fact, many of our supporters were very angry at us because it wasn't a quota law. We all agreed that people should be hired on the basis of merit.
Previous to the NDP Employment Equity Act, the police had their own employment equity within the Police Services Act. This government decided not just to repeal our employment equity bill but also to repeal the employment equity provisions of the Police Services Act, which quite frankly really disappointed me, because the police had shown leadership in this issue for years before others did and led the way.
My question is, obviously you can't do anything about putting that back, but what are your views on employment equity and how would you see your police services board ensuring that there are employment equity provisions made to replace the ones that have been removed?
Certainly in my riding in Toronto, we still have a huge problem. There's a big Chinese community -- and others -- which is underrepresented. There are obviously other problems with some ethnic groups in terms of compelling them to join the police force. We know there are deep-seated systemic problems as well. I'm just wondering what your views are and how you would see dealing with it.
1050
Mr Nadalin: First of all, it's difficult for me to comment on the experiences in other municipalities and other ridings but I believe that the police services function should be reflective of the community. I agree with that wholeheartedly and support it.
I also believe that we have a unique situation in Guelph, having a female police chief, that I'm confident will result in more of an awareness of those issues in terms of equity. To be honest with you, I cringe sometimes at legislating changes such as equity, because I don't feel that the general population really understands it and does, as you say, view it as a quota system, fairly or unfairly.
Ms Churley: When some people tell everybody that it is a quota, yes.
Mr Nadalin: Yes, but there is a perception of that. My view and my hope again is that a lot of these issues can be resolved within the municipality and within the police services and the board working with police services to accomplish that, and I believe we are going in that direction. I think there is a sensitivity to that issue. I would indicate to you, based on what I know of the police services board, that that is a balanced board. It does reflect the community and there are enough people on that board who have a variety of views regarding this particular issue that you will see some creative tension, shall we call it, but also an awareness of the issue and trying to deal with it. But again I strongly believe these are issues that should be dealt with within the confines of the municipality and that police services should reflect the composition of our citizenry within Guelph.
Ms Churley: Can you say that you personally are committed to ensuring, while you sit on the board, that that issue be addressed?
Mr Nadalin: I'm committed to making sure that the police service of Guelph reflects the needs of the community adequately and that everyone within the community feels that they're represented by their police force.
Mr Kormos: Thanks for coming here this morning. Again, I should tell you right off the bat you're clearly going to be approved for appointment to the police services commission in Guelph. You have qualifications that surpass those of a whole lot of people who have been trotted before this committee by the government.
What's interesting, though -- I've got to note this, in that I haven't seen a single woman nominee to a police services board during the course of this government's appointment. That's quite interesting.
Ms Churley: They've been taken off of them.
Mr Kormos: That's a remarkable thing. There is of course the inference that could be drawn that the Tories don't believe women are competent enough to serve on police services boards because up in Ottawa -- oh, you'll like this -- this government fired four members of the Ottawa-Carleton police services board illegally and they're going to get their butts sued off. Talk about a government that's interested in saving taxpayers' money. They're going to get drawn through the courts and the litigants are going to win because of the zeal that this government had to dump women off the police services board and replace them, albeit with one more woman -- that's right. There is one woman appointee.
Ms Churley: Three men and one woman.
Mr Kormos: Three men and one woman. So that's going to be an incredible lawsuit that's going to cost the taxpayer a fortune because of the zeal that this government has to attack women on police services boards.
You were approached by somebody in the constituency office?
Mr Nadalin: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Who was that?
Mr Nadalin: One of the assistants to our member of provincial Parliament.
Mr Kormos: Do you know why they would have contacted you?
Mr Nadalin: I would suspect because of my community involvement and my profile within the community.
Mr Kormos: You suspect that or did you know that these people were -- there's nothing wrong with them soliciting interest in these appointments. That's part of the job of the local member --
Interjection: Thank you very much.
Ms Churley: We didn't do that.
Mr Kormos: -- to try to find competent people, and I give this government credit that for once it appears they found one in the personage of you.
What sort of things, when you were contacted, were you told you would be bringing to the board that the government would be wanting?
Mr Nadalin: The initial request came to me asking if I was interested. I had no idea of how the police services board worked or the composition or what was involved in it, but I was also, as I said, known to people within the constituency office, and I'd also worked with our member of provincial Parliament, Brenda Elliott, on a number of community related activities prior to her election. I will admit that I have a deep respect for her and her ability. Also, I think I was known not only to Brenda but to her staff as being someone who is involved in a number of community boards and commissions and well known within the community. Also, as I've indicated in my opening statement, because of my involvement with the university and also on community boards, I have a number of contacts in various sectors of the community. So they felt that that would be appropriate.
Mr Kormos: Are you filling a vacancy that exists already, do you know, or are you replacing a member whose term expires?
Mr Nadalin: My understanding is that there were two vacancies on the board. I understand that one of the vacancies was as a result of an expiration of term, and the other person had been removed from the board.
Mr Kormos: That's interesting. It could be another one of those Ottawa scenarios where there's more litigation. The lawyers will love it. Because what they did down in Niagara -- you'll love this one too -- they dumped two women, once again two women, Adelle Tanguay and Melva Snowling, both of whom were held in high regard by the police department, by the police services board, by the regional appointees, and the government never even talked to the chair of the commission or any of the commission members, any of the police services board members, any of the regional appointments. They didn't even consult with those people prior to dumping Melva Snowling and Adelle Tanguay, they were so zealous to dump women off police services boards.
You've talked about policing and the need for the police force -- I assume you're referring to the police force -- to be a microcosm of the community it serves. Do you believe the police services board should similarly be representative of the community it's serving?
Mr Nadalin: I don't know if the police services board, given the size of our board, can be reflective of the community, of all aspects of the community. What I would expect is that they are aware of those community views and bring those forward and try to represent the community as much as possible.
Mr Kormos: But you surely don't share the view of this government that women aren't competent enough to serve on police services boards?
Mr Peter Preston (Brant-Haldimand): That's not the view of this government; that's your words.
Ms Churley: Why are kicking them all off?
Mr Kormos: I'm sorry, your actions speak far louder than words, gentlemen. You're illegally firing women to replace them with male Tory hacks.
Do you share this government's view that women are incompetent to serve on the police services board?
Mr Nadalin: No, I don't. But as a matter of fact, I think I might be the only male on the police services board if I'm appointed.
Mr Kormos: Obviously, they've got to get a foot in the door, and I'm proud of the previous appointments. Looking forward to seeing your work in Guelph, sir. Thank you kindly.
Mr Newman: Good morning, Mr Nadalin. One of the key responsibilities of a police services board is to establish policies for effective management of the police force. Given your volunteer experience on the board of management and the strategic economic planning group, do you have any management suggestions at this time for the police services board of Guelph?
Mr Nadalin: Not any more than I've already indicated. I think I'd like to see the transition where we try to reduce the administrative workforce, if you will, on the police service side and put those resources into front-line officers. I also think we're looking at a police service that probably could use not so much a bit of an overhaul, but certainly some reflection in terms of the management side, in terms of strategic planning and looking at what the goals and objectives are going to be down the road. There's a challenge in front of this community, given the fact that the growth potential for Guelph is pretty significant over the course of the next 10 or 20 years.
Mr Newman: What's the population now?
Mr Nadalin: Right now we're at approximately 90,000, but that's projected to shoot up to about 120,000, and our projections on the police services side don't indicate that we're going to match that in terms of our current ratio. So there is a challenge there, and I think that has to be reflected in the way the police services does its business, how it's accountable, but also the structure of police services in general.
Mr Newman: Are you familiar with some of the initiatives of Police Chief Lenna Bradburn, who, I might add, is a graduate of Midland Collegiate Institute in the great riding of Scarborough Centre, which I represent? I know they're very proud of her back at Midland Collegiate. Are you familiar with some of her initiatives?
Mr Crozier: We won't hold that against you.
Mr Newman: Even though I went to R.H. King, but that's okay.
1100
Mr Nadalin: Yes, I am. As I mentioned off the top, I'm familiar with her desire in terms of restructuring, her desire in terms of reorganization, and her attempt to try to do that through the implementation of a buyout package last year which, unfortunately, wasn't as successful as she wanted it to be.
But what I'm also pleased about and what has happened with Chief Bradburn is the fact that in her community, the community awareness of police services has shot up dramatically, not only because of the fact that she's a woman, but also because I think in the last year she has had maybe something in the range of 160 speaking engagements in the community and beyond. And so she's out there speaking to groups -- service clubs, Rotary, Kiwanis, those kinds of things -- and making them familiar with some of the issues and actually taking on much more of a public relations role than had been previously the case.
Mr Ford: As the director of community services at the University of Guelph, how do you feel that the police services board can serve the community of Guelph?
Mr Nadalin: Again, I think the police services board should be representative of the community generally. It has to be aware of the community values and the community views. It has to be representative of all the members of the community. We have a number of people who have various expertise on the board, management expertise and legal expertise and other types of expertise, and who bring that forward as we discuss some of the issues that are going to be coming forward, particularly this issue of budget, with the city. We're going to be getting into a pretty heated debate, I would suspect, in the next little while regarding the size of the police services budget for the coming year, and trying to balance that with the reduction in provincial assistance and grants.
You asked me how the police services board could --
Mr Ford: How the police services board can serve the Guelph community. Are you happy with them right now?
Mr Nadalin: Personally, and again my view is somewhat limited, but I think they have been rather hidden within the community perspective. I don't think much of the community understands what the police services board is and what it does.
Also, I think there has to be more of a public relations campaign to make the community more aware of what it does and try and get people to come forward with their comments. That could mean doing different things: staging meetings differently, inviting people to attend the public aspects of those meetings and trying to be more active in soliciting views from the community.
Mr Ford: So with your appointment, you believe you would be more active in this area to make the community aware of what's going on?
Mr Nadalin: Yes.
Mr Ford: Good. I have another question. Could you tell us a little bit about your role in the community itself, in the Guelph community, your community involvement?
Mr Nadalin: As I've indicated, I sit as a director of the chamber of commerce. I'm on the board of the downtown board of management.
Mr Ford: How long have you been on these boards?
Mr Nadalin: The chamber of commerce board, I've been on for two years. The board of management, I've been on for five years. I've been a member of Rotary for approximately two years. I've been the chair of the civic centre board for approximately three years. Most of that community involvement has taken place within, I would say, the last six or seven years, in total.
Mr Leadston: Your background in the community of Guelph obviously has been quite extensive in what I would call marketing the community and promoting the community and strengthening the community. In your role as a member of the police services board, is there any one major initiative or examples of initiatives that you may introduce or may have the board consider in terms of promoting the visibility between the services board and the police service, the personnel themselves? Is there any thrust or any initiative that you have given any thought to?
Mr Nadalin: I think, as Mr Ford indicated, it's all in terms of public relations and awareness. I'm not familiar with how, for example, meetings of the police services board are staged, but --
Mr Leadston: You'll be busy.
Mr Nadalin: They'll be busy, I'm sure. But I'd like to see if there is a way of providing more community involvement within the actual meetings. I'd also like to think that members of the board could be more visible within the community, and looking at speaking engagements to service clubs and other groups, because those opportunities exist and we've never, at least from my perspective, heard from them unless there's a particular issue that gets play in the press. I think there's more behind the scenes that could be done, and I'd like to think that I could bring that perspective forward as well as being representative of a number of constituencies and a number of issues that are going to be coming forward.
Mr Leadston: Well, you'll be part of a zone made up of other area police services boards, and there will be frequent meetings with fellow commissioners in other zones. They're wrestling with some of the same concerns. There will be tremendous input from other services boards that have been doing some very innovative things that you can share and network and take back.
Mr Nadalin: Yes, I agree. I think there are going to be some challenges ahead of us. For example, within Wellington county there's a possibility that we may absorb some of the other police services that exist within the county under one. If that's the case, I think that's an excellent opportunity to do some of the public relations activity that I'm talking about and broadening it beyond simply the city of Guelph into the region and into the county as well, because police services has a role not only in the city but outside.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Nadalin. We've appreciated your coming here today. Your being here has been helpful.
ROBERT NICOL
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Robert F. Nicol, intended appointee as member, City of Owen Sound Police Services Board.
The Vice-Chair: We'll call forward Mr Robert Nicol. Welcome. Make yourself comfortable.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I think Mr Nicol does have a statement.
The Vice-Chair: When you're ready, you can begin with your statement. We'll be beginning this round with the New Democrat caucus when you're finished.
Mr Robert Nicol: Good morning. I'll just take perhaps a few minutes to give you a brief introduction about myself, my background and my experiences to help you understand why I feel I'm qualified to serve on the police services board in Owen Sound.
I was born and raised in Owen Sound. Upon graduation from high school, I came down here to Toronto to attend Ryerson in a business course. I graduated from that course in marketing, and at that time I accepted employment with one of the major banks, a short career there, and then went on to work for a pharmaceutical company, which took me to Windsor. I worked down there for a couple of years, met my wife. At that time, she and I decided that I'd like to get into a business of my own and go back to my home town.
About 18 years ago I started my own business. I'm an insurance broker, and I'm a real estate broker as well. I operated that business, and that business grew. About 10 years ago, I split the real estate part of it off and bought a franchise and just a year ago sold that business. So I'm no longer active in the real estate business, just the insurance business.
I've been involved as a board member and president of a number of organizations in the community over the years. I'm a Kiwanian, past president, and also served as a lieutenant governor for Division 10 of eastern Canada and the Caribbean. I'm past president and a past board member of both minor hockey and minor baseball in Owen Sound. I sat on the business advisory committee for Georgian College, which is the local campus of a community college. I'm a past president of the Owen Sound and District Real Estate Board as well. Currently, I'm the president of the Owen Sound and District Chamber of Commerce. I sit on the board of management for the downtown improvement area. I'm also a member of the Owen Sound economic development and tourism advisory board.
I've had a considerable amount of involvement with many different civic organizations and groups through my business and other organizations. I feel I've learned a lot about working in that type of situation, as a board; not only that but as an employer, with a business that I started on my own and now has 21 associates. So I'm here to present myself to you today.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We'll start with the New Democrat caucus.
1110
Mr Kormos: Once again, you should know that you're going to be approved; there's no issue with that. Indeed, your work with Kiwanis, with minor hockey, is in itself impressive because Kiwanis is involved in all sorts of community activities as well as with young people, which is highly relevant, mind you, to some of the considerations that a police services board has to undertake. You're up in Bill Murdoch's riding, aren't you?
Mr Nicol: Yes.
Ms Churley: Don't ask him development questions.
Mr Kormos: I like Bill. Bill is cut very much from a different cloth than most of his colleagues here in the Legislature.
Mr Nicol: We had to send someone similar to Eddie Sargent, to follow in his footsteps.
Mr Kormos: He was when he was a member of the opposition before 1995 and he is now. I have a lot of regard for him and I consider him a friend.
In the insurance brokerage industry, one of the crises being faced by brokers now is the phenomenon of insurers cutting brokers free, using their placement of their companies with brokers as a way of controlling the intake of insureds. Has that been a problem up in Owen Sound as it has in the rest of the province?
Mr Nicol: I'm not certain if I understand that question. Maybe it isn't a problem in my area. You're saying that people are stopping their --
Mr Kormos: Some brokers are down to one insurance company here in Toronto and in other parts of the province.
Mr Nicol: Oh, I see.
Mr Kormos: Of course they can't advertise that. It's a real catch-22. It's a real dilemma.
Mr Nicol: I would say that problem is more apparent in the larger centres than it is in the smaller communities. We have the fortune of dealing with a lot of smaller farm mutual companies in our area and that gives it a lot of broad base and so we don't have the same difficulties, plus especially with automobile insurance we don't have the same difficulties in a small community that you have in Toronto.
Mr Kormos: Or Niagara. Or London, or Windsor, or Ottawa. It's just come up in those places. Again, although the government is introducing the insurance companies' version of an I've-died-and-gone-to-heaven insurance plan, because again the industry picked this government's pocket and essentially what Sampson's going to be releasing is the OMEGA plan -- that's obviously a different committee. What sort of things do you think you have to contribute to a police services board, and I guess in particular to Owen Sound's?
Mr Nicol: As someone who moved back to Owen Sound because I appreciated the quality of life in a small town, I think certainly the police services board plays a very important role in that. We sometimes take for granted what policing does for us and sometimes we blame them when something doesn't just suit them, but in fact I think the police are a very important friend to the community. Through my work in Kiwanis and other groups, I've had the opportunity to touch base with a lot of police activities. As an example, our Kiwanis club got involved with a bicycle rodeo safety program where we encouraged safety and we sponsored it and funded it and worked at it and so on. Out of that, through discussing with one of the officers who looks after that area in Owen Sound, it was identified that it was important to get kids wearing bicycle helmets. So myself and another business owner who is in the sporting goods business jointly put together a program where officers in the community would ride around on their bicycles. If they spotted a child with a helmet, they would give them a free T-shirt. It was just one thing that we could do.
Mr Kormos: Beats the heck out of pepper spray.
Mr Nicol: They don't use the term in Owen Sound any more, "police force," because it has the wrong connotation. Force isn't what it's all about. What's important is that police officers should be able to resolve conflict, find solutions and help to prevent crime rather than simply address it. We're still pretty fortunate in Owen Sound not to have high levels of crime.
Mr Kormos: What drew you to placing yourself as a nominee for this position?
Mr Nicol: Because I'm in the insurance business perhaps, I see the element of crime and the effect it has on people, the impact of break-ins and vandalism and so on. I do feel it's a very important part of the community. I felt it was something I would enjoy, be interested in and bring the type of experience that would help.
Mr Kormos: You had your attention drawn to the ad in the paper, I trust?
Mr Nicol: In fact, when the former chair of the police board resigned -- it was known in the community that he had resigned and that it created a vacancy -- at that time I expressed an interest. I did some research and found out whom I should contact and sent a letter at that time requesting information and expressing an interest. That was, I believe, back last August. I was told that until the new government was formed, new cabinet and so on, there wouldn't likely be a placement. So I had expressed interest and applied long before the ads were in the paper.
Mr Kormos: That was August 1994?
Mr Nicol: August 1995, I guess it was.
Mr Kormos: Because the election was in June 1995.
Mr Nicol: Well, all right. It was back in the summertime. It was before the election.
Mr Kormos: Okay, fair enough.
Mr Nicol: Yes, it was when your government was still in power.
Mr Kormos: At that point, we could hardly be spoken of as being in power any more than a police force could be spoken of as --
Ms Churley: Peter, don't digress here. Get on with it.
Mr Kormos: Well, it was the end of the mandate, for Pete's sakes, Marilyn. Let's be candid about these things.
And you submitted your name then?
Mr Nicol: I sent a letter expressing my interest and asking for information, yes.
Mr Kormos: Fair enough. And then what resulted in your obviously being selected by whatever selection process there was in this round?
Mr Nicol: The only process further to that letter that I sent expressing my interest, presenting my credentials, at that time was that I had a telephone interview with some people from the government agency and then the next thing, I received a letter advising, "Here's the process and your name has been approved by the minister and you may have to meet with this committee."
Mr Kormos: Interestingly, and you might have picked up some of this from the last person who was here, our discussions with him, this government has been dumping women left and right from police services boards and by and large replacing them with men, other than one woman out of four new appointees at the Ottawa-Carleton, leaving the irresistible conclusion -- I mean, one is irresistibly drawn to the only inference -- that this government doesn't think women are competent to serve on police services boards. You don't share that view, do you?
Mr Nicol: I have no idea who else applied for this position, and if any of those women had as good qualifications or better than myself I would be disappointed if they had selected me over that person simply because I was a man.
Mr Kormos: That's refreshing to hear, because you are indeed a bright light among some pretty dim bulbs here in the government benches at Queen's Park with that type of insight.
What sort of goals do you have for the police services board and policing in general in Owen Sound? Obviously you've been involved in a whole lot of things. You know what it's like to be appointed to a committee or a board and you go there with something of a personal agenda. You want to leave something behind when you've completed your work, whenever that happens to be. So what sort of agenda do you have? What sort of goals do you have?
Mr Nicol: I don't have a strong personal agenda. I think it's important for the police services to further entrench themselves as part of the community, not to be seen as a separate sort of stand-by-themselves force to be dealt with. I would like to work with an assistant. I might add that I think the police services in Owen Sound are excellent. The officers and the way the policing is carried on is great. So it's not a situation of it's broken and needs fixing. I just simply want to bring my experience and work with, to improve upon, what is already there in a very positive way.
Mr Kormos: Obviously we've seen police under attack, if only by virtue of Bill 26, in terms of the low regard that the government holds for them. Are you committed to maintaining policing levels in Owen Sound or do you buy into the proposition that there are simply going to be fewer police officers and those who remain will have to pick up the slack?
Mr Nicol: I'm committed to the concept of providing the same level of police services as all other services. The big challenge is how is it going to get paid for now.
Mr Kormos: You got it.
Mr Nicol: And I think this is where people and police services boards perhaps need to go to the community and say, "If the police need, say, a particular piece of equipment, let's do a fund-raiser." We have a hospital foundation in our community that goes out and raises money for equipment for surgeons to use. Why not do the same thing for police officers? Really it has to do with good health, policing, as well. I think those are the challenges and that's the direction the police services boards have to move, realizing that if there's a need in the community that policing has, let's go out and find where those funds can be raised. I know in our community we're a very generous bunch.
Mr Kormos: But it's a pretty desperate situation when cops are called upon to do bake sales --
The Vice-Chair: Mr Kormos, your time has elapsed and we're going to move on to the government caucus for questions.
Mr Nicol: Sorry, I couldn't hear your question.
Mr Kormos: I just said it's pretty desperate and a pretty sad reflection on leadership within the government, or lack of it, when cops are called upon to conduct bake sales or set up lemonade stands to buy police cruisers without so much regard --
Mr Nicol: I'll do that. The citizens will do that, not the police officers.
1120
Mr Ford: Mr Nicol, welcome this morning. I have to commend you for your community service and your fellow Kiwanians. I was giving them a speech yesterday, approximately 50 of them, and they gave me a little presentation.
Interjection: Graft; you'd better declare it.
Mr Ford: One of our friends across the board here seems to think all women should be on the police force, 50-50. Well, there's a disproportionate number of men incarcerated across this country and I think it's probably on the basis that they select that board that way. Anyway, Mr Nicol, how will your business management experience be of assistance to this board?
Mr Kormos: What a stupid thing to say.
Ms Churley: What a stupid thing to say.
Mr Ford: It's a stupid thing. Everything Mr Kormos says is intelligent. So I'll get back to you, sir. How will your business management experience be of assistance to this board?
Mr Nicol: I think that a police services board has to be operated just as a business. There have to be efficiencies, there has to be ingenuity and leadership and through my business background and my involvement with other community organizations, I've had enough opportunity to develop some of those skills and I feel I can bring them to the table when it comes to the board.
Mr Ford: Good. I think with your background of community experience, you'd be well aware of the many things going on in your area anyway.
Mr Leadston: Bob, you grew up in your community and you're familiar with it and established a business practice and involved in community activities. Obviously you know the police force services personnel well. Is there any one initiative or is there any particular challenge that's unique to Owen Sound that you may wish to address as a member of the police services board?
Mr Nicol: I don't know of anything that would be considered to be unique to Owen Sound. I suspect that the challenges for the Owen Sound police are the same as they are right across this province. Certainly we are very fortunate in Owen Sound to enjoy what I would call -- because it's a small community -- a high quality of life. Crime and the involvement of police in that community to maintain that is that much more important to me and so I would like to do everything I can to see that the police have everything they need to do their job effectively and to help them have direction in doing it.
Mr Newman: As a representative of your community, what do you feel are some of the concerns of Owen Sound with respect to policing?
Mr Nicol: I think there's a concern that certain elements in the community see the police as their enemy, as opposed to someone who can help them and work with them. We've had a few situations that involved youth and I was absolutely horrified at the attitude that this was -- this took place at a fall fair, where a group of kids started to push and kick police officers. I couldn't believe that in Owen Sound something like that happened. That's not what happens in Owen Sound, that happens in Toronto and Windsor and places like that.
The initial reaction of course is, "Well, gee, that's not right, those kids need to be dealt with," but you have to get to the problem -- what's causing them to feel that way? -- and try to find something that you can do in the community, create a different impression. The police aren't there to hassle them, the police aren't there to stand in their way of a good time.
Mr Newman: So with your example of problems with youth at that particular time, what would you suggest the police do to enhance the image or people's perceptions --
Mr Nicol: I think they've already done a lot. They've gone to schools, they've spoken to schools. They've talked about policing and what it's all about and what their role is and what they need from the community. They've tried to communicate with the youth to overcome those kind of problems, to hopefully lead to elimination, would be ideal, of those kind of situations where youth perceive the police as --
Mr Newman: Are there any other groups they've worked with, other than the youth?
Mr Nicol: The police, from what I've seen, have worked with a lot of groups. They've worked with the women's crisis centre, they've worked with service clubs, they have an officer who is a community service officer -- I believe is his title -- and this gentleman is just tremendous. He's done a wonderful job for the community in terms of getting out there and bringing the voice of the police and working to -- he was the gentleman I set up the bicycle helmet program with. Anybody comes to him, he's great. He's come to different groups that I've sat on for assistance.
There was a citizens-on-patrol program set up where citizens patrolled around just in their cars at their own expense and their own time, just watching for problems in the evening and so on, and if there was a problem they had radios. They needed money in order to buy hand-held radios, so there have been a lot of initiatives taken, as there should be.
Mr Patten: Welcome, Mr Nicol. Given the regulations it seems more and more that police are under these days which confine, it seems to me, the very roles of the police services board, what kind of influence do you think you can have related to the effectiveness of the police, in terms of what they do, how they do it?
I have another question which I'll follow up on related to community-oriented police forces, because you sound like that's your orientation and you've used a few examples that illustrate how police can get involved in your community. And yet, there seems to be a prevailing capital-C sort of Conservative view of: "Boy, our police have to be tougher and they just have to be straighter and never mind all this nonsense, weepy, socialist stuff, of being involved in the community. We have to dump that sort of thing."
And yet, you sound like you think the police services should be more in tune with the people in their community, more involved, and that they should be working hand in hand in many ways. Would you comment on that?
Mr Nicol: The police services, as I've said, are very involved in our community and I suppose, regardless of what government legislation is passed, police services have to enforce the laws as they are presented to them at the local level. They can't decide that they know best. That's probably always been the case, but certainly it's a case of knowing your community. If a police services board knows its community, it should be able to address how to take those laws and apply them in the situation that they have in their own community. If they don't know what's going on in their community, if they don't have their hand on the pulse of the community, they wouldn't be able to effectively do that -- the board, the chief and all of the officers, as far as that goes.
Mr Patten: You mentioned one program. Do you have any other ideas in terms of the sorts of things the police may do or promote -- and this isn't confined just to the police officers themselves -- but that you would promote in terms of activities that the community may entertain in conjunction with the police?
Mr Nicol: Anything that a police board can do that is a positive thing; they have to deal with very tough issues and I don't think there's any question that the police officers today have to be tough individuals because they take a lot of abuse and they have a tough job, so no one can take away from that. There'll always be, from my perception, an undesirable aspect to policing that they have to live with. But if they can continue to work in our community to be perceived as the friend of the community by getting involved in youth groups, a presence there.
I sat, for a short period of time, on a committee that looked at forming a boys' and girls' committee and a representative from the Owen Sound police services sat on that committee, who had done a lot of leg work and so on. So that's what they're doing and that's, I think, the continued effort that has to go on. No, I don't have any new, specific initiatives at this particular point I can suggest to you that are going to change the police services board because of my presence.
Mr Patten: What's the number one challenge that you feel the police are facing in Owen Sound?
Mr Nicol: Certainly, the financial considerations are there and I've already, I think, addressed that with Mr Kormos in that the community has to solve these problems. The community has to look to ways to see that the police can get the necessary tools they need to do their job. I'm certainly more than willing to help out in that respect, to see that our policing doesn't suffer as a result of the difficult economic times we live in today.
1130
Mr Patten: Do you have OPP or do you have your own police force?
Mr Nicol: There is an OPP detachment that works out of Owen Sound, but the Owen Sound police force looks after the city.
There is talk, and that's something else I just recently heard, where the chief of police in Owen Sound indicated he thought that maybe Owen Sound should be looking at amalgamating its police services with other municipal police services in the area. I don't know that that was initiated from the board or just him personally, but we're hearing a lot about that in terms of also amalgamating communities. So I suspect there are going to be a lot of changes coming down the pipes in the next year or two.
Mr Patten: One report that was leaked recently suggested that the OPP was going to lose close to $100 million and therefore a large number of officers. If you had fewer officers for the OPP, what would be the impact on your police force in Owen Sound?
Mr Nicol: I don't know if policing in the city would be directly impacted by the reduction in police officers with the OPP and I don't know to what extent there would be a reduction in OPP officers out of Owen Sound or other detachments in Grey and Bruce counties.
The Vice-Chair: No further questions? Okay. Then we thank you, Mr Nicol, for coming before us today and want you to know that your being here has been helpful.
MELODY LUNDSTROM
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Melody Lundstrom, intended appointee as member, Consent and Capacity Review Board.
The Vice-Chair: The next interviewee is Ms Lundstrom. Please make yourself comfortable. You wish to make a statement, so any time you're ready, please proceed.
Ms Melody Lundstrom: Honourable Chairman, honourable Vice-Chairman and honourable members, good morning. My name is Melody Lundstrom and I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today. At this time I would like to make a brief statement outlining my qualifications and why I would like to serve on the Consent and Capacity Review Board.
I am a lifelong resident of Thunder Bay, as are my parents and my grandparents before them. I've worked for approximately 15 years in the general insurance industry as an independent broker, a claims examiner and a branch accountant for a major insurance company in Thunder Bay.
During that time I obtained my associateship in the Insurance Institute of Canada, and since then I have obtained a business degree at Lakehead University and have also successfully completed many of the course requirements for an insurance fellowship and towards a minor in political studies. I am currently employed part-time for a general contractor in Thunder Bay, which allows me great flexibility with regard to my working hours. Therefore, I have ample time to serve the community.
I have volunteered or joined many professional and community groups and clubs, such as the local chapter of the Insurance Institute, the executive of the Little League Baseball Clubs in Thunder Bay and the Lake Superior Freestyle Ski Association, along with involvement with minor hockey and other groups. It is within these groups that I have served in positions of secretary, treasurer, vice-president, director and others, and have met a wide range of people within my community.
Throughout the past 10 years especially I have become increasingly aware of what changes can occur in the personalities of rational, thinking people due to such things as depression and various medications. I have briefly seen how judgements may be altered either temporarily or permanently, and I've witnessed friends seeking help for their loved ones and have seen the effects of suicide and illnesses such as manic depression.
It is with these experiences that I have developed a strong concern for afflicted individuals and their families, therefore I was very pleased and honoured to be nominated by the chair of the Consent and Capacity Review Board to be on this board. It is my desire to serve my community while broadening my understanding and compassion for fellow human beings. I have the time available. I am a good listener. I have the concern and interest to be involved with the citizens of my area. I eagerly look forward to the opportunity to become the new community member on this board and am committed to working very hard to learn more about the review process.
I will provide a fair, unbiased, compassionate, fresh perspective and will listen carefully to all of the views that are presented so that I may make the best informed decision possible and uphold the objectives of this board. Thank you for your time and your consideration.
Mr Leadston: Good morning, Melody. It's a relatively friendly group, so relax. I take it that you're fairly knowledgeable or at least have had some opportunities to look at the Consent to Treatment Act and I'm interested if you would give me your impressions on what the act proposes, and whom does it protect in the community?
Ms Lundstrom: As I'm learning more and more, I have spoken to the chair and I've just begun to be familiar with some of this. I have looked into a little bit of it. It's my understanding that the Consent to Treatment Act is set out to form a framework that will protect and give guidelines to the treatment for people, to have the right to have medical treatments within the health profession. It protects the rights of the individuals so that they are able to make an informed choice regarding their treatments.
They have to be mentally capable so that they are able to make an informed choice. If they're not able to understand what's going on or what their problems are, it's difficult for them. And they have to have the right to make binding decisions, so if they become incapacitated later on or unable for some reason to make it, if they've expressed wishes, they need to be protected so that they're able to have those views --
Mr Leadston: So the role again, and I think you demonstrated that in your opening comments, is a lot of empathy and sensitivity to these citizens in your community, and their protection.
Ms Lundstrom: I think the board's a very serious one when you're looking at people having their rights possibly infringed on if they're not able to judge or make their own decisions. So my understanding of the board is to put in place, if people are being exposed to a position of being maybe involuntarily detained or put into an institution, somebody has to make -- you know, judging. Besides just the doctors, somebody has to be looking out for those people's interests.
Mr Bob Wood: Would you describe briefly for the committee what steps you've taken to prepare yourself for this position since you became aware that your appointment was going to be made?
Ms Lundstrom: Since I became aware of the appointment I started looking into the legislation, but as I'm learning and starting to delve more into it I find that there's more and more to find because I'm just beginning to touch what's involved with it. I've discussed and met with the chairman, I have gone to two hearings just to be exposed to the types of things that it would hear and I've started to look into the acts that pertain to it.
Mr Bob Wood: I know you haven't actually participated as a board member at any hearing. Do you have any thoughts as to what factors would be important to you in making the decisions that the board has to make? Do you have any opinion of that as to what you think is going to be important to you as a member of the board, what kind of evidence, what kinds of impressions?
Ms Lundstrom: I think it is very important to just be compassionate and understand the people's rights as the law pertains to them and as the community would expect people to be protected. It's important that somebody listens to the people and their views. It's my understanding that on the board there is a lawyer to look out for the legal aspects; there is a psychiatrist or another health official, depending on the nature, to look out and explain the medical aspect of it. So as a community member my understanding is to be a fair, unbiased participant in listening to try to determine if the people are capable, if that's the process; or, if they're coming in front of the board, obviously the reason is they need to have an assessment done on some parts. We have to listen objectively to all sides to determine if there's a need for it.
1140
Mr Bob Wood: Have you, in your work, ever had occasion to deal with expert evidence? In your work in the insurance field, have you ever had to deal with expert evidence?
Ms Lundstrom: Minorly, while I was an insurance adjuster. I was just beginning in the examining process, so there are always expert witnesses when it comes in. There have been legal opinions and things like that with regard to general insurance claims but nothing within a medical -- well, statements, I suppose, a little minorly with regard to bodily injury as it relates to car insurance or things like that, but that's not related in this aspect.
Mr Ford: I'd like to ask a question. Have you ever worked in any capacity in a hospital administration or anything like that concerning this type of thing?
Ms Lundstrom: Not at all.
Mr Gravelle: Good morning, Melody, and welcome. Did you fly in this morning from Thunder Bay?
Ms Lundstrom: No, I flew in on Monday evening so that I'd have a few minutes to meet with the Chair and get myself familiar.
Mr Gravelle: The only reason I ask is because I was told by somebody who did fly in that it's minus 43 Celsius this morning in Thunder Bay. No wind chill, just minus 43 Celsius --
The Vice-Chair: That's balmy, isn't it?
Mr Gravelle: -- which of course, as you know, when it hits minus 40, it really is minus 46 Fahrenheit, you realize.
Ms Churley: You guys are so tough.
Mr Gravelle: We're quite proud of that.
Certainly, as you may know, you were a selection by the opposition party to come down and speak to us, and I just want to assure you that this is really an opportunity for us to get a better sense of how you feel, in your position on the board, you can work in a positive way. Earlier you used the word "compassion," and I think that's the important thing in deliberations in terms of people such as yourself who put their names forward for this. Obviously it's important to recognize that there's a great deal of confusion and I think misunderstanding around people with mental illness and everything else and probably it's a process that needs to be worked on.
Let me begin by just saying that I am touched by your personal sense of involvement in this. I really would like, if you're comfortable, to tell me and tell us a little bit more about why it is that you are drawn to this and what it is you hope to truly get out of this in a personal sense, because you seem very personally committed to this being an important position for you.
Ms Lundstrom: I've always had compassion and feelings for the people of my area. Having been brought up there, that would be natural for anybody in the area. I feel it's always important that people's rights are protected as the law states and as set out. So when people are put in a position of having treatments forced on them that maybe they don't want -- although we may or may not personally agree with their choices -- if the law sets out that they're able to make that decision, I think that right has to be protected. People have the right to live their own lives to the extent that they're able to make those decisions.
I've had minor exposure, personally, to a few instances. When I've talked to different people and the situations they've faced, I just feel for them. I think that it's an important issue, I have the time and this has certainly become interesting to me as I start to look more and more into it. So I'm very committed to doing the best that I can on the board, if that answers your question.
Mr Gravelle: Do you feel that there's an educational component too in terms of your position when you're formally on the board, in terms of educating people as well -- not just in Thunder Bay, obviously. There does seem to be a lack of understanding. I don't want to speak harshly of anybody, but certainly things happen in the community where people tend to take a harsh stand.
Certain incidents have happened in Thunder Bay which you're probably familiar with as well, and there's a reaction often in a community which is to treat people or to speak more harshly in terms of how people should be treated. My sense of that is that we need to be more understanding and tolerant of what it is that puts people in difficult circumstances. I feel that certainly part of my role is to some degree to preach that tolerance and understanding of people who are in circumstances that are difficult.
Do you feel there's any role in terms of your position on this board, once you're in the position formally, to educate, to get out there in the community and talk to people about what this position is?
Ms Lundstrom: I don't think my position is that of a forward educator. I think that's best left for the educators and the professionals in that field, although I do feel strongly that the people's rights have to be upheld as the act sets out, and I'll become more and more familiar with the terms of that.
People have the right to privacy, and I don't think being on this board would give me the right to try to promote issues. I think that would be outside of the realms, as I see them at this point -- perhaps as I learn more and more of my role -- but at this point I don't view it as that at all.
Mr Gravelle: I guess I just meant in a more general sense. Just simply what you've said here strikes me as being sensitive and concerned about those people.
The committee studying the changes in the legislation is coming to Thunder Bay later this month. Are you aware of that? The committee studying the changes to the Advocacy Act and consent to treatment will be in Thunder Bay I think on February 12.
Ms Lundstrom: I don't know if I was aware of the exact date. I did hear that it was coming and that there are changes with Bill 19, I think.
Mr Gravelle: I hope you have an opportunity to attend it, because it will probably be interesting.
Ms Lundstrom: I'm certainly interested in attending.
Mr Gravelle: With submission.
Ms Lundstrom: I wouldn't want to miss it, I think. As I go through this process, I'm very interested naturally in any changes and in what the public perceives, although we're not in a position, the way I view my role, we're not there to make the decisions and to set the policies; we're just there to uphold.
Mr Patten: In the city I live in, Ottawa, there was a case reported recently, as a matter of fact this past week, of someone who snatched a woman's purse and ended up beating her very badly until she died. Of course, the community was quite upset that this person was involved in spending time in a hospital and that the hospital couldn't retain this person, who they felt needed some continued treatment, and in fact the family was pleading and said, "We've known for a long time that he's badly needed treatment and could not get it."
Given that kind of backdrop, what do you think the role is of the board which would be responsible for considering whether someone should be detained against their will in order to receive treatment because they're considered to be too violent? These are very sensitive issues because you're over and against the rights of individuals, and that's why you have the panel. But there seems to be more of an outcry from the community that these panels should be a lot tougher or should begin to lean a little bit more on the side of protecting the public. What are your views on that?
Ms Lundstrom: I think again that people have a right to protection as the legislation and you people set it out. The board in itself isn't in a position to make the policies; we have to uphold what's written. I think as a board we have to objectively listen to all of the sides presented, both from the people who want the afflicted person out or detained, and we have to carefully listen to everything and make a judgement based on the laws and the acts that are before us, whether or not we personally agree with them.
In some cases, if there is no evidence to show that the person has to be detained other than a feeling, it's up to, I think, the professionals presenting the cases to make it evident. I think the act, from what I'm just beginning to learn, sets out requirements -- for instance, if it's evident that somebody's going to cause personal harm to themselves or others, for just one example, there has to be evidence or strong cases submitted so that these people can be detained. I think the act puts out for that, as I'm just beginning my understanding on it. I don't think it's in the community interest for anybody to be put out when you know that they're going to do something, but their rights are protected, and if there isn't a case strong enough put forward to prove that they should be detained, I don't know what can be done. I'm just learning.
1150
Ms Churley: First on the weather, I just got back from the Yukon, and it was cold.
I am very impressed with your résumé -- I've read through it -- your work and your community involvement. I'm also very impressed with your desire to get involved in your community, particularly on this level, and impressed when you state in your objective that you want to increase your awareness of various health conditions and how individuals are affected with regard to their wellbeing in the community due to their health conditions.
In listening to you today, you've also given some very good answers in terms that I think you're speaking from the heart, what you really feel, which I must say is really refreshing at these committee hearings. People do get nervous and quite often come prepared or ill-prepared or whatever, but often I think, sometimes at least, say what they think people want to hear, and I believe you're being really honest in your response.
I do have a few questions around your background, which I think is important. This is, as you yourself clearly understand from what you said, a very complicated board. From looking at your résumé, it just appears to me that you've had almost no experience in this field. Even in terms of your volunteer work, I can't seem to see any indication that you've dealt with seniors and the disabled, and that in fact you do have a learning curve here. I just wanted to ask you if you've had any kind of life experience in this area that isn't reflected in your résumé. I don't expect you to go into any kind of detail about your personal life or anything, but any kind of indication -- I guess I'm curious as to your interest in this and what from your own life you can bring to it.
Ms Lundstrom: Without going into a lot of personal background and details, I think on a broad level, as most of us, we've faced loved ones who, whether because of age or whatever, faced conditions that have required somebody to make a decision for them or dealing with difficult aspects. I think everybody's been affected by that to some degree. I have seen and talked with, during the process, friends and people who have tried to look out for their loved ones' best interests and have them brought before a medical process. But sometimes it's very hard to get treatment when the person feels there's nothing wrong with them. So there needs to be the process, and I think this board is put out so that people can present evidence, so that people can be protected from wrongdoing to themselves or others when maybe they're not in a position to make that decision.
I don't have a strong background in a lot of these areas, but I certainly am compassionate. I'm certainly interested and feel for the people. And as a community member, it's my understanding that we have the health professionals on the board to bring that perspective in, we have the lawyers on the board to bring that perspective in, and I'm just representing -- not "just"; it's an important "just" -- but representing the community as a member, a peer more or less, of the community. It's somebody just without those types of backgrounds.
Ms Churley: Having said that there's going to be legal counsel and health professionals to give advice, do you see your role as being an advocate? I'm not quite sure from what you're saying, therefore, when you talk about the experts there, which I agree is very important, to give advice, but at the end of the day, as a board member, you're going to have onerous responsibilities in dealing with particular individuals, and the board at the end of the day is going to have to make some very, very important decisions.
I guess that's my problem, in terms of how you seem to view the board, that you can rely a lot on the expert opinions, but I'm not quite sure what you're saying about how you see your role -- as an advocate or what?
Ms Lundstrom: I don't know necessarily as an advocate. I think my role is to listen to all of the evidence, without having to deal specifically with the expertise and hearing objectively the views and the concerns of the evidence put forward. I don't have the absolute background but I think that's to my advantage.
Ms Churley: Okay, that's fine. You've touched on this before as well. I think my colleague has a question.
Mr Kormos: You left the very clear impression that it was the chair of the board who was either sponsoring or in fact solicited your application for this position. I think that's a valuable source, people who have been active on the board, a valuable way to identify people who would be capable of contributing. So I think that speaks highly in your favour.
Just a couple of things. I appreciate here you are not on the board yet, not performing any of these roles and appearing in front of this committee, perhaps with a little bit of trepidation about what sort of things they're going to ask, but I would tell you this: There has been a significant amount of research done in testing the ability of lay people, as compared to professionals, to determine the dangerousness, particularly with respect to the release of people being held at the Lieutenant Governor's pleasure, having been found not guilty of a criminal offence. The data seem to illustrate clearly that lay people are as capable, their capacity to predict violent behaviour or a non-recurrence is as good as any board of professionals.
So I would urge you not to -- I don't trust lawyers or psychiatrists.
Ms Churley: He is a lawyer.
Mr Kormos: I'm a lawyer and I know too many psychiatrists and I have good reason for telling you that. I would encourage you to be strong on the board, and use your life experiences and your insights because -- this is just my opinion -- I think the reason you're there is because oftentimes too much power is placed in the hands of the lawyers, the doctors, when in fact it's just real people who can make healthy and valid and important decisions.
I would also encourage you to use your experiences to maybe help our communities understand what's happening in terms of both the quality or level of treatment, because of course things have changed dramatically, even in the last 25 years, in mental health treatment. It's easy to regard some of the stuff that was happening even 15 years ago as downright barbaric, but it was the high-tech treatment of the day.
I tell you this because mental illness of course impacts -- there isn't a family I don't think in this province who hasn't been impacted, in one way, shape or form, be it a neighbour, a family member, oneself, what have you, and ill people and people with disabilities, it seems to me, are going to be in need of, yes, because Ms Churley talked to you about advocacy, and it wouldn't offend me at all to see you pushing the envelope a little bit in terms of being, yes, an advocate for the mentally ill. That certainly wouldn't offend me and I suspect it wouldn't in any way violate the rules that you're going to be expected to operate under.
I do want to put this in context. I just want to tell you about one of my constituents, Stella Mae Williams, who was 48 years old in December of last year. She had suffered from mental illness all of her adult life -- hospitalizations, and again had graduated over the course of 28 years through any number of treatment protocols as they developed new pharmaceuticals and new approaches and attitudes.
She was getting a disability pension. She'd raised a daughter who is a mother in her own right, had two little grandkids. Things were starting to come together for her, and she was working for almost the first time in her adult life, only 10 to 15 hours a week. But things were starting to come together after being plagued by mental illness all of her adult life, and working 10 to 15 hours in a laundromat, that income being subsidized by a modest Family Benefits Act pension.
Three weeks before Christmas she got a letter from the local Community and Social Services office telling her that she didn't meet the new guidelines in this new Ontario for a disability pension; she wasn't disabled any more. She simply couldn't handle that -- the prospect of losing her small apartment, the prospect of not being able to buy her grandkids some small gifts -- and she killed herself three days after getting that letter, left behind her daughter and two little grandkids and a couple of pieces of stuffed furniture, some clothing and some knick-knacks, and a very poignant suicide note that her family let me share.
You see, she felt that there was no room for her in this new Ontario. She received a very loud and clear message that there's no room for the Stella Mae Williamses of the world in this menacing and dangerous Ontario insistent on cuts and axing and hatcheting to generate a 30% tax break for wealthy people.
I think about Stella Mae Williams often. I don't think there's a day that's gone by since her family shared her death with me that I haven't reflected on it, because any number of the things that I do here at Queen's Park remind me about the fact that -- you know, her daughter only had two hours with her in the funeral home, because that's what a welfare funeral is in Ontario. There's no headstone on the grave, which is why I committed last week when I was here my per diem, which is $100-plus tax-free for every member of this committee, to develop a fund in Welland to buy a modest headstone for Stella Mae Williams's grave.
So I would encourage you, yes, to be an advocate, to use your judgement and your sense of fairness and compassion and to stand firm in the face of professionals, who may not always be right and as often as not aren't. So I wish you well in this job.
Mr Bob Wood: I'd like to touch on one point that was made a couple of minutes ago which I think is important. You're there to make an independent decision. You're going to be faced with legal experts and medical experts and so on, and what they're going to say is important. But at the end of the day you have to form your own independent decision and stick with it, and if your instinct says something is right, do it.
Ms Lundstrom: I've no problem with that, absolutely.
Mr Bob Wood: I didn't think you did.
Mr Leadston: Mr Chairman, it was mentioned earlier about the hearing in Thunder Bay. I've taken the liberty of copying the agenda for that day. It is Monday 12 February, and I have provided this for you, Ms Lundstrom. There are at least a dozen community organizations who will be presenting on that date and I just want you to have this so you have a date and time.
Ms Lundstrom: Thank you. That'll be interesting.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for coming before us today. Your being here has been helpful. Good luck in your future work.
That's the agenda for this morning, folks. There will be a brief subcommittee meeting right after this. We'll give you two minutes and then we'll come back in and start the subcommittee.
We expect you back here at 2 o'clock sharp.
The committee recessed from 1203 to 1403.
DOUGLAS MAUND
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Douglas Maund, intended appointee as member, Town of Orangeville Police Services Board.
The Vice-Chair: We start the afternoon by calling Mr Douglas Maund to the podium. Are you going to have an opening statement of some sort that you'd like to offer, or do you just want to go into questions and answers?
Mr Douglas Maund: Well, by way of an opening statement, I think all I would say is that I'm pleased to have an opportunity to meet with you today and talk about the appointment to the Orangeville Police Services Board. Briefly, all I would say is that I feel I applied for the position after it was advertised because I have enough associations in my professional life and in my community involvement that I could bring something to the board, and that I've always found the issue of policing an enormous area of public trust because of the balance of the public safety aspect and civil liberties which has always interested me as a lawyer. So that's why I'm here today and I'd be happy to assist you with any questions you might have.
The Vice-Chair: Good, thank you. We're going to start the questions this afternoon with the Liberal caucus.
Mr Patten: Yes, welcome, Mr Maund. You have an impressive background, legal background and support services for government. My first question would be, how come Perrin Beatty is not on your reference list?
Mr Maund: I think the references got cut off there.
Mr Patten: Oh, that's why, eh?
Mr Maund: I'm sure he might say a few good things about me, if you were to ask; I would hope so.
Mr Patten: Oh, I'm sure he would.
Ms Churley: Well, let's go check that out.
Mr Patten: All right, we'll make a phone call. Mr Maund, in Orangeville, what is it that you see as being the first and most important thing for the police services board to address?
Mr Maund: In this day and age I suppose the issue of managing scarce resources is there, it's irresistible; and I've struggled with that in that past in other institutions that I've been able to serve on, such as Dufferin Area Hospital and other local agencies like that.
Obviously, police budgets are under great review and the town of Orangeville, two of whose members of council, including the mayor, serve on the services board, takes a very active interest in the money in terms of capital expenditure and so on. So that would have to be priority one, to make sure that the most cost-effective but safe policing can be provided.
I have a particular interest in domestic family violence issues, as one of the founders of Family Transition Place, which is the shelter for the victims of domestic violence in Dufferin county, and in the past year assisted Hillside House to lecture to all the police forces in our area about domestic violence and to make sure that the protocols are well and truly kept. I would want to make sure that that initiative is sustained in training programs.
Mr Patten: By the way, has Hillside been affected by some of the cuts that were made?
Mr Maund: I think they're concerned about it, but I'm not aware to date whether they have, to be honest with you. I'm not a member of the board. I do some legal work for the members of that community who need family law lawyers.
Mr Crozier: It's good to have you here. You mentioned the financial challenges and I'm really interested in this area because I've served on our local police services board back in my home town. We all, each of us in this business, have to live by our statements, so I can't help but ask for your opinion in view of the fact that the government, leading up to the election last June, said that they would not reduce funding in the areas of public protection. And yet, with the changes in municipal funding and putting it all into one envelope, so police services are now rolled into that and may be threatened to some extent, depending on how municipal councils are able to meet the challenge; and we've had some word that there may be cuts in the OPP as well.
But keeping that in mind, and understanding that the budget isn't totally in your control as a police services board member, in that it goes to town council and that if there is disagreement, it goes to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, and it may be taken out of your hands. Also, considering the fact that the arbitration rules have now changed and that ability to pay is one that's paramount in that, how might you face this financial challenge in view of the fact that -- and what's your opinion when the government said it wouldn't touch that kind of funding, but in fact it has?
Mr Maund: I'm not sure I'm entirely qualified to answer that question yet, not being a member of the board and not having struggled with the budget process. I do know the players on the existing board and the history over the years and I know they've got a great relationship with the town in terms of coming to the mutual accommodations to find savings where it was necessary.
Obviously, public safety comes first and I would rely on the mayor, who is not exactly non-vocal on these issues -- if she were to feel that she was under some constraint that would make it difficult to fulfil her mandate, I'm sure she would raise that in the appropriate quarters politically. As a member of the board though, I would struggle to try to make sure the budget was as cost-effective as possible and to try to reach an accommodation with the town. I don't believe it's ever gone to the appeal stage in its history. I would hope to continue that.
1410
Mr Crozier: Good. One of the main responsibilities the police services board has is to appoint officers to the police services. How do you see your role in that process of appointing officers to the police services?
Mr Maund: Well, there is already in the mission statement of the Orangeville Police Services Board a very good protocol, I believe, with respect to having as broad a base for attracting officers of different backgrounds, different races, sexes; that sort of approach. I think any services board has to try to find the best-qualified people to be part of your force, and small-town forces -- I've been a member of this community now about 25 years -- traditionally had a problem attracting quality officers because they couldn't pay what the big metropolitan forces could. But there are other, more attractive ways to get first-rate constables from other forces, if it comes down to that, and one of them is lifestyle. Living in a place like Orangeville, Ontario, has a lot of advantages, I would think, just in terms of everyday life, raising a family, and also police work. It's a more gentle type of police work than they might face in a big city.
To answer your question, I think that it would be my responsibility to make sure that they try to attract the best-qualified candidates with the best experience.
Mr Crozier: So would that mean, when you mention "process," that as long as the process is there that if the chief, for example, went through that, then came to you in all likelihood with a recommendation as opposed to the board members getting involved in the actual hiring process? Is that the way you see it?
Mr Maund: As I understand the mandate, it's sort of a delicate balance between not doing the chief's job -- which obviously you're not empowered to do -- but making sure he has done his job, that he has the best selection of candidates. I suppose the board would have the authority, if they felt he was fishing in too small a pool, to say, "Well, have you considered these type of candidates from another area?" Again, I haven't been exposed to that because they do those type of personnel matters in camera, but I would be looking forward to learn.
Mr Gravelle: Good afternoon, Mr Maund. Certainly your involvement with the founding of Hillside House, the transition centre, and your interest and your concern about domestic violence is certainly an encouraging and positive thing to hear in terms of somebody with those interests on the police services board. I don't want to seem patronizing, but obviously it's more than commendable; it's obviously a great concern in our community.
The new policy on wife assault that was brought down I guess under the former government: I presume you're familiar with it?
Mr Maund: I am.
Mr Gravelle: I would almost think you would probably have been involved to some degree not so much in the formation, but were aware of it. I'm just curious as to your comments on that and whether you think it's been obviously something that needed to come forward and if it's being implemented the way that you would think it should be and you'll be watching it yourself as a member of the board.
Mr Maund: Categorically, that policy has been followed by all of the police forces in Dufferin county. I know that as a person who also practises law there as a part-time crown attorney from time to time and defence counsel.
It's interesting, it was generally conceded at the time that the guidelines were brought in, three or four years ago, that we had protocols of our own from the time that Family Transition Place, or Hillside House, was founded. One of the first things we did, the founding committee, was reach out to the local police forces and try to establish guidelines in terms of zero tolerance, that the charge would be laid. The crown attorney was one of the main actors in making sure that that happened. That, frankly, has been my experience in Dufferin county as a practising lawyer.
Mr Gravelle: This is before the provincial standard was in place?
Mr Maund: Well before the standards. So I totally am in accord with those standards. I think that we have a long way to go in training but the attitudes have changed so much. I found in the training we did with the officers last year, they were very receptive. It was almost night and day to the attitude, if you will, that 20 years ago one would see. It's not said in any critical way of the officers, but we've evolved and learned that this is a very serious issue and they have a great role to play in alleviating it.
Ms Churley: This is a very friendly, informal place. I hope you don't mind if I call you Doug.
Mr Maund: Not at all, ma'am.
Ms Churley: I won't go so far as to say Dougie. Not that informal.
Mr Maund: My mother called me that when I was bad, so I appreciate that.
Ms Churley: When I looked at your résumé and saw who you worked for, I must admit I thought, "Oh no, another old Tory hack," because there have been a few of these before the board with very little or no experience in this area, but I was very pleased to read your résumé. I am very impressed with your qualifications and will have no problems whatsoever recommending you. However, my vote wouldn't have an influence anyway, you're going to be on the board, but I want to let you know that I'm very impressed with your background, for what it's worth to you.
Mr Maund: Thank you, Ms Churley.
Ms Churley: I have many focuses, but one of my areas as critic and also expertise is around women's issues and equity issues, and I'm really pleased to see that you've been involved with the Elizabeth Fry Society and your comments about domestic violence.
One of the problems with this government, and of course in my view there are many, but there's lots of evidence that they have been systematically, it seems to me, kicking progressive women off police services boards, in most cases having extensive backgrounds in the domestic violence area, and replacing them predominantly -- and I can prove this -- with businessmen who, in many, many cases, do not have the background at all.
I'm giving you that information for the record, obviously, but also for you to know that you're probably, in my view from what I see, going to be one of the few people on the boards with this interest and expertise. I'm really pleased to see that you have an interest and background in those areas.
I wanted to specifically ask you, I presume you know about the situation with the Orangeville Police Services Board, I think it was a couple of years ago, when there were two female officers who were pregnant and who had asked to be assigned to desk duty and were denied that right. They were therefore released from service, while at the same time policemen, some of whom had back injuries and other problems, were assigned to desks while they recovered from whatever, and it was just a clear case of discrimination. I believe it was corrected over time.
Mr Maund: It was.
Ms Churley: I just wanted to hear your comments, what you know about that and what your position is on correcting these kinds of imbalances and discrimination in the system.
Mr Maund: I think the chief of police is no longer with the force. He's retired. He's on record as doing a massive mea culpa about that. This is not appropriate what happened. It was a mistake. It was acknowledged as such, and I think the services board members that I spoke to were determined that something like that wouldn't happen again.
You must remember, in a small community such as ours, we're closer to the ground than they are in the city. These officers were friends of mine. We play baseball together and we're raising families together. So, not only is it sort of contrary to policy when something like that happens, but it's just not fair. It was acknowledged as unfair by my friends in the community. It was a mistake and I'm quite keen to make sure that something like that would never be repeated.
Ms Churley: What's the size of the police force in Orangeville?
Mr Maund: There are 24 members; four female constables I believe at present and three civilians.
Ms Churley: Just one last question before I turn it over to my colleague, because I'm sure he has some interesting questions for you. I think you touched on this previously. In my view the Police Services Act was quite progressive years before many other sectors of our society in terms of having its own employment equity within the Police Services Act, and this government repealed it along with -- added it to repealing the NDP Employment Equity Act. I'm just wondering if you perceive systemic problems within the system. What would you do, given that there is no longer any law around employment equity? How would you see addressing it if you perceive it or see it to be a problem?
1420
Mr Maund: For our local force I do not see it to be a problem. I've reviewed their protocols with respect to equality of opportunity. I think most police officers that I know would have been in support of Bill 8, given their philosophical approach in that they believe in equality of opportunity.
Ms Churley: Well, so do we, actually. That's a lie that it was a quota bill. But anyway --
Mr Maund: If you were to talk to them, as I did, rightly or wrongly, I think that's what local officers would say. Again, I had the advantage of knowing them as friends or as people in the community as well. I don't see systemic barriers within this force as it's constituted to equity, in fact. A lot of female cadets came on line in the late 1970s when I first started practising law in that area and they integrated within the force naturally and did whatever duties had to be done. So I guess I feel that, if it becomes a problem, obviously I would like to think I'm sensitive to it.
Ms Churley: Just before I close, I would like to say I'm glad to hear and I believe that you are sensitive to it. But I have to tell you that all our studies showed -- and I can assure you that the NDP didn't bring in such a controversial bill that has been twisted in many ways to sound like it was something it wasn't for the fun of it. We did our research. We looked at where systemic discrimination was taking place and there is absolutely no doubt about it. Federal studies, in fact, when the Conservatives were in power in Ottawa -- study after study shows that there is within particular sectors of society, including policing and other areas where all other efforts, including education and many other efforts, didn't work.
My concern is that now, with no structure in place, we will see some of the gains that were made over the years deteriorating, and I would like to know that you will be keeping your eye on that. Because with nothing in place right now -- this government says it's going to bring something into place -- but with the gap there I am very concerned that we will go back to the bad old days when there was absolutely nothing in place to help equity along, and studies show that you do need something in place. So that's my concern.
Mr Maund: Perhaps I'm an optimist. I would hope we would never go back to those days.
Mr Kormos: Mr Maund, I have absolutely no interest in posing questions to you. Let me explain what happens.
This is an important thing, Chair. Once again we have Mr Maund here, and we go round robin, basically, in choosing which of the potential appointees appears before the committee and I appreciate he was chosen by the third party. But this has come up several times already now where it's clear that people are eminently qualified to do what they're seeking to do. There's no self-interest being served, because they could do any number of things with their time. The problem is that all we get is the name and the position being sought or applied for.
If we received CVs or the applications as they're prepared for us in time for this committee at the point in time when we were considering who was to be called before the committee, we'd avoid some of these unnecessary trips here to Toronto, we'd avoid taking up people's time with what is trivial and meaningless stuff.
Our purpose is to clear out the dogs. There have been more than a few dogs dragged through this committee room too.
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Haven't had any.
Mr Kormos: As a matter of fact, one of the earliest ones actually withdrew his application after the questioning. That one barked all the way down the hall.
But Chair, really, it seems to me that if we had access to the applications and the CVs or the personal histories, we could avoid having people like Mr Maund here and so many others who have been here, again, whose qualifications aren't in question.
To say that he's a Tory is trite. Maybe it's presumptuous as well, but I'm sure Perrin Beatty wouldn't have hired somebody who wasn't a little bit partisan. But, so what? The issue here isn't patronage. Patronage generates people of incompetence in these boards, agencies and commissions. I apologize to Mr Maund, as I have to other persons appearing before this board under similar circumstances, and I hope we can redress this even this afternoon in terms of policy. Enjoy the police services board, if you can.
Mr Maund: Thanks, Mr Kormos.
Mr Ford: I have a couple of questions here, but they've already been answered, but I would like to relate to the civic activities you've been doing, and I feel that you've got a tremendous amount of experience being associated with Big Brothers. I've done that myself so I relate very strongly with these.
Founding member of steering committee for Hillside House, a transition centre for the victims of domestic violence: Up until last year, I and my team had painted the whole place, women's shelters, so I know where you're coming from.
Member and chairman of the board of governors, Dufferin Area Hospital: Well, I'll have to come back to you again and say, yes, I was a member of a board for 12, 14 years. I was chairman of the capital fund-raising committee and I also worked as an executive director there. So I know how hard you have worked on these areas. All I can say to you is, I am for your appointment.
Mr Leadston: Doug, like my colleague, I too was past president and founding member of our Big Brothers Association. We developed the camp up in the Hockley Valley for fatherless boys in the province, and it certainly was and still is a very rewarding and enjoyable experience to have been involved in that segment of society.
I don't necessarily share the views of member Kormos in that I think it's rather important and significant that people of your stature do take the time for public service and do take the time to come before the legislative committee and vet your résumé and your background.
I think that's very important because it enhances the process of government. It enhances the community that you represent and you personally, and also enhances the position that you will be placed in as a member of the police services board. So I think it's a very positive thing in the sense that this interviewing process takes place.
Your experience with the law and with the judicial system, and particularly with Big Brothers -- and I realize that Orangeville is a smaller community than some of the other communities in the province -- are there enhancements that the police services board and the police services personnel and your involvement with the community, particularly Big Brothers, is there any type of educational model or system that you might undertake or consider to have the police and the police services board and the community networking in any particular way?
Mr Maund: My prejudice coming from a small community, and I feel fortunate to do so as well, is that when there's a need you fix it. That's how Hillside House happened. Nobody imposed Hillside House on us. A couple of us got together, family lawyers, members of the women's centre, and we got it done. We raised our own money. We put it up. We did it because we had to do it, and everything else flowed from that. Obviously, the government helped later on, but that was generated.
With respect to local issues, policing issues dealing, say, with young offenders, one of the officers of our force, I'm quite proud to say, started something called the bridge program for when children don't have a place to live; they've had an argument with their parents and they're on the street. That's a problem everywhere. They raised some funds and they have a place where these kids can go now, for example. It doesn't relate to Big Brothers, but the officers have to deal with these young people in the middle of the night, and in a smaller centre there just aren't that many places, so the bridge program has filled that gap. But it was done as a volunteer group within our community, started by one officer and his friends, and I'm very proud of that.
What the services board basically does is support them, of course not with money because there isn't money for them to throw at it, but gives them moral support and organizational support and publicity. It's those type of things that you really have to support, as a member of a board and as a member of a community. That's one example I think is worthwhile.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for coming before us today, Mr Maund. Your being here has been helpful.
1430
WALTER BURTON
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Walter Burton, intended appointee as member, Town of Tillsonburg Police Services Board.
The Vice-Chair: Next to come before us this afternoon will be Mr Burton. Do you have an opening comment you'd like to make?
Mr Walter Burton: Mr Chairman, thank you for the opportunity of being here. You'll have to bear with me, I'm suffering from the final stages of the flu. I have a few remarks I'll make.
The Tillsonburg Police Services Board was one of the last of the municipalities to accept a police services board, and I believe that was December 31, 1991. In response to a newspaper ad and due to government process, I was accepted and appointed to the police services board and was elected first chair in February 1992.
The first order of business for the board was to give the board a direction, structure, mission statement and procedural bylaws to achieve the direction of the Ontario Police Services Boards. The second was to place the chief of police firmly in charge of the police service and change the attitude from a police force to a police service, with no interference from any member of the police services board or formal council. All I'm suggesting there is that sometimes in municipal forces, this type of thing happened, and we saw this as one of the things that needed to be changed and changed very quickly.
The next major hurdle was to give the police a proper police station that they could conduct their daily operations from; this was very much needed, and with cooperation of council this was achieved.
The new board consisted of a chairman, vice-chairman, executive committee, human resources, and plant, property and equipment. We established the board in that direction so we didn't have everybody doing everything, but as the committees came together, we at least could make it function. The Tillsonburg police services board become an active member of zone 4 of the Ontario Police Services Boards and the Tillsonburg police service has established a strategic plan.
That gives you a little bit of background. That may not sound like a great deal of achievement, but it was. Those are basically my comments.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We'll start the questioning with the New Democratic caucus and Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Ms Churley has deferred to me.
Ms Churley: Yes, for a change.
Mr Kormos: My maternal grandparents are Tillsonburg-Delhi people, so I spent a whole lot of my life there, at least on Sundays, on tobacco farms.
Mr Burton: Your back still aches when you think of Tillsonburg.
Mr Kormos: Yes, that's right. Obviously, you've been active in the community in a variety of roles, you've performed on any number of boards. You have previous experience on this specific police services board. What's the makeup of the board now? What size board is it?
Mr Burton: It's five: three appointed and two from council.
Mr Kormos: What's the size of the police force?
Mr Burton: It's 33, with nine civilian dispatchers, so 24, which is a chief deputy and executive assistant.
Mr Kormos: And of course in that community I suspect there's still increased demands on policing, depending upon the season, or is that no longer the case?
Mr Burton: It is the case, not to the extent that it used to be previously. Where we probably at one time had an influx of French Canadian workers, it's now offshore workers, and it isn't the problem that it used to be.
Mr Kormos: As I believe you heard me indicate to Mr Maund, who was speaking to us before you, this committee process, in my view -- other people may not agree with me -- is designed to help screen out people who are unsuitable for a particular appointment. You were called upon by the government to come here. In my view, it's redundant to have somebody whose obvious experience, as portrayed in your résumé --
Mr Bert Johnson: Point of order, Mr Chair: Is that relevant to the subject?
The Vice-Chair: Mr Johnson, Mr Kormos has the floor and he can use it to put his thoughts on the record with regard to whatever point that comes before us.
Mr Kormos: As with Mr Maund, I apologize to you, I suppose. You came up to Toronto for the day. So be it. I just wish, Chair, that if we had these sorts of résumés or CVs prior to the identification of people we wanted to call to the board, we might become a lot more efficient and not waste everybody's time. This gentleman, in my view, is a suitable appointment, not the sort who has to be scrutinized or interrogated or questioned, and I have every intention of supporting his appointment with enthusiasm. I'm not going to waste his time and the committee's time by posing padded questions to him.
The Vice-Chair: Ms Churley, do you have any questions?
Ms Churley: No.
The Vice-Chair: Then we'll move on to the government caucus.
Mr Bob Wood: I might say before I get to my question, which is a simple one, that many of us do find it helpful to have some of these appointees come forward to get some flavour from the elected people about what they think should be done on these boards. While some may feel that your time is being wasted here, and you may indeed come to that conclusion yourself by the time this is over, we hope we may be able to give you some flavour of what we think should be done on these various boards when you're out in the field doing the actual work.
What's the number one thing you'd like to accomplish in your upcoming term, assuming you're confirmed in this position on the board?
Mr Burton: You can see that we have achieved quite a little bit. Unfortunately, in the past two years we didn't get down to the thing of community policing that we should have. All people, regardless of who they are, need some direction, and I feel that in the absence -- not that I'm any super person or whatever. Financially and budgetwise we got those things, for the most part, under control. We have yet a responsibility to the community to get on with our strategic plan to involve the community in the planning of what the police service should really be, and I'm sorry to say that in the past two years we have not achieved that. We established the strategic plan, but we now have to implement that strategic plan.
Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I quite realize that the board is not responsible for policing per se, but it's certainly responsible for the direction of policing, and it's my opinion that the chief of police is certainly responsible for the police service. We have not achieved with the community the public relations and the attitudes that we should have, and I see this as one thing.
The second thing, of course, is the budget restraints and reforms, and each day that seems to be a furthering challenge. We don't have a problem with council because we realize that we have to cooperate with council, because it's a very difficult situation. Council is providing us the money and we're providing the service, so you have to work together to achieve this.
We have two problems: one, to make our strategic plan work with the community, and the second one is, within the confines of the money and budget we have available and what makes sense, to provide these services to the community.
Mr Ford: When was the last time, Mr Burton, you were on this police board?
Mr Burton: Two years ago.
Mr Newman: I just want to ask what goals you had in mind for the board.
Mr Burton: I think I've expressed a great deal of the goals we have for the board, and I think for the most part they're working. Right now we don't have a board per se because the three appointed members are all gone, so I've got to or someone's got to get back and get it together and achieve the very things -- the Police Services Act spells out very clearly what your responsibilities are and what we have to do, and it's just a matter of getting back to what's there and make it work.
Mr Leadston: Walter, in view of the fact that there are three absent board members, are there any particular challenges facing your community? We've heard from a number of individuals who will be going on various police services boards throughout the province, and each area is quite unique, facing difficult challenges. Is there any particular challenge that you feel the police services board is going to face in your community?
Mr Burton: One of the major problems or opportunities, whichever it turns out to be, for police services boards in Tillsonburg is that we're located at the bottom of Oxford county, which is a restructured county, and second, we're at the tail end of Haldimand-Norfolk politically, and we also are involved with Elgin county. If Oxford county is the person who restructures the force, you have to understand the unique position of Tillsonburg, and it comes up every day in discussions in hospitals. Obviously, it's going to be a problem when we come to a county police force, and if there is one area we are going to have to come to grips with, it's going to be county policing.
1440
I don't think it's an insurmountable task, but if you're asking what the major challenges are for the police services board in Tillsonburg, that is going to be one of them. Do we fit, do we become part of? But remember what I'm saying: We are not part of Oxford county politically -- federally yes, provincially no -- and it's difficult to tune in to Haldimand-Norfolk, which is a region, and Elgin is really basically the same thing that was there before. We're not without our problems, but to prioritize, that's probably the major one we have. But it's not an insurmountable problem.
Mr Leadston: With your experience and background, particularly your experience previously on the police services board, I think they're going to be well served in having you back on the commission.
Mr Burton: Thank you, and it's a big job. You may say it isn't a very big job, but if you take your job seriously -- and fortunately most of our persons have -- there are major challenges there.
Mr Leadston: I appreciate your comments, because I served once as a police officer and then ended up for six years as a member of the police services board, vice-chairman and chairman, and it was a daunting, difficult, time-consuming task. I daresay it's not a role that's suitable for everyone.
Mr Burton: Then you understand the constable who's been there for 25 years versus the person we just hired from Peel region, sort of thing; the difference in attitude is dramatic. This is part of the board's opportunity to work with the chief to work these things out, in early retirement etc. There's a ton of things to do, and to prioritize them all and list them for you -- I'm sure you must know as well as I.
Mr Patten: Mr Chairman, might I point out that I believe the format is somewhat dated in the description of the responsibility of the board in our notes. It refers to one of its responsibilities as having to establish an employment equity program, which I believe is no longer required and was rescinded. I'd just point that out.
Walter, nice to meet you. I see your long list of responsibilities and voluntary activities in your community. You were the chairman for just one year, was it?
Mr Burton: No, I was chair for two years, and then I resigned to go on the hospital restructuring committee in Oxford county, which I've spent a great deal of time with.
Mr Patten: You were saying that all the appointed ones had gone. Did they resign of their own accord?
Mr Burton: Because of the pressures of the restructuring in government, one of our members who would normally have become immediate chair is now resigning, and the second person has not been reappointed at this point. What I'm suggesting to you is we're coming in with probably a new slate.
Mr Patten: These are the challenges of the smaller communities.
Mr Burton: These are the challenges or opportunities, whichever way you take it.
Mr Patten: Yes. Given your background and your experience, there's one area of board responsibility that is not often focused on at the beginning, and it's in the crime prevention area. What are your thoughts and views in terms of what the board might be able to do in relation to the community, the police officers themselves, in terms of encouraging or doing something on the preventive side of crime?
Mr Burton: That's a very broad question. I think what we do is keep the officers updated with all the most local videos and updates at the police college and whatever. We have a very active Crime Stoppers program in town. I'm not personally satisfied that we shouldn't have high school students as members of the Crime Stoppers program, and that's one I'm will continue to promote, because I believe these kids have the inside track, if you want to call it that.
Crime prevention is a very, very difficult circumstance, but I think we're well looked after in that regard. That's more of a chief of police service thing. I have no grandiose ideas of how we're ever going to eliminate this, but I do believe we're pretty much tuned in as to crime prevention, with the exception perhaps of what I'm saying -- that I don't know that we have enough communication with the youth of the community at this point, and Crime Stoppers is one place allowing the kids to express themselves.
Mr Patten: What is the area requiring the greatest amount of attention by your police force?
Mr Burton: I think restructuring the police from the force to the service and taking care of just some of the issues that you're talking about. It's very difficult, when you have a constable of 25 years versus the one who has just come in, to direct them in the direction they need to go, but I think the youth of the community need some guidance. They don't need to be persecuted or prosecuted; they need to be given guidance and training.
Mr Patten: Do you have youth officers?
Mr Burton: Yes, we do, and we're active in the community program -- the community service officer -- but we have a tendency, or at least the administration has a tendency to leave the same person in that position. I think that the younger persons -- younger officers and newer officers -- should shift in these capacities, because they communicate better with the kids.
Mr Gravelle: Good afternoon, Mr Burton. I just am curious as to what your position might be on a couple of issues, in particular the federal gun control legislation. I know it's obviously been controversial in a lot of ways and I know a lot of people on the forces don't necessarily agree with it, although the police chiefs supported the legislation, so I'm curious as to your opinion on it.
Mr Burton: My particular opinion is, actually, I don't think it's going to eliminate the basic problem that it was established to do. I'm a duck shooter and deer hunter and all this sort of thing, and I have all my guns and whatever but, quite frankly, have disposed of them because I'm not totally in favour of the registration, although something needs to happen. If this is phase one in having it happen and it's a commonsense -- I'm not sure it's a commonsense approach; I'm sorry to use those words over here. That just slipped out.
Mr Gravelle: There is some common sense.
Mr Burton: But something has to be done, and if this is phase one in a process, I have no preconceived notion. I don't think we've fought it very hard. The area of concern of course is when you go to register all these firearms. I don't know who's going to pick up the tab on this one, but it's going to be extensive.
Mr Preston: The taxpayer.
The Vice-Chair: Any further questions? If not, the government caucus has two minutes left if there are any further questions from that side.
Mr Bob Wood: We will waive.
Mr Preston: If Mr Kormos agrees with it, I can't think of a single question that I could possibly ask.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, Mr Preston, duly noted.
Thank you, Mr Burton. We appreciate your taking the time, and your being here has been helpful.
1450
CHRISTOPHER HENLEY
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Christopher Henley, intended appointee as member, Ontario Transportation Capital Corp board of directors.
The Vice-Chair: Welcome, Mr Henley. Do you have an opening few comments you'd like to make or are you wanting to just go into the questioning?
Mr Christopher Henley: I have a few brief remarks, if I may. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Chris Henley and I am currently a vice-president in corporate finance and director of Canaccord Capital Corp, one of Canada's larger independent and employee-owned investment dealers. I am appearing before you today in respect of my name being put forward as a candidate for a position on the board of directors of the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp.
In respect of this appointment, I would like to apprise the members of the committee of my extensive involvement in the project financing arena, dating back to 1983. In this regard, I have also lectured on the subject at Scotiabank corporate banking seminars from 1989 to 1992. Additionally, I have advised both corporations and governments in respect of infrastructure and privatization initiatives and have worked as an investment banker since 1987. In particular, in relation to the infrastructure side of my work, I spent approximately four and half years advising one of the short-listed consortiums on the Northumberland Strait crossing project, and for way of the committee members' edification, that's a 13.5-kilometre bridge currently being built to connect New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
During my investment banking life, I have also completed assignments for both corporations and governments, and managed and executed the full spectrum of services including the placement of debt and equity, both privately and publicly, and in respect of mergers and acquisitions, both friendly and hostile. I believe this experience will assist me in discharging my duties as a member of the OTCC board, should my appointment be confirmed by this committee.
Finally, I would like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to present my credentials. I look forward to answering your questions and hopefully serving the government in this capacity.
Mr Preston: Mr Henley, what do you see as the mandate of the OTCC?
Mr Henley: I have had some conversations, in the past few days and earlier in December when I was asked to consider this appointment, with members in the minister's staff and also with the Chair of the committee. My understanding of the mandate of OTCC is to look at infrastructure projects such as Highway 407 and to discharge my duties as a member of that board of directors and effectively to look out for the best interests of the corporation in respect of infrastructure projects in the province. That is what I anticipate being my role as one of the members of that board.
Mr Ford: Why have you expressed an interest in and agreed to serve on this board?
Mr Henley: From my own personal standpoint, it's an area, as I mentioned, that I have experience in. I've done a fair amount of work in this area, in particular the financing of projects both private and public. As a result, I would like to bring this experience to play on behalf of the government and in respect of advancing further projects in Ontario.
Mr Newman: Are you familiar with some of the powers of the OTCC?
Mr Henley: Generally. I wouldn't say I'm an expert on those.
Mr Newman: In general, can you expand upon that?
Mr Henley: The powers? First of all, cabinet can issue policy directives to the board. The board, in discharging its own mandate, would take those and apply its own judgement in respect of discharging its duties and acting in its fiduciary capacity, but keeping in mind that there are directives that could be issued.
From the power standpoint directly, they have the power to levy tolls in respect of projects such as the 407 and to arrange financing, if that is deemed necessary, from either a private or a public perspective, depending on the circumstances at the time.
Mr Leadston: I'm interested in particularly your background in providing not only financial but strategic advice to a number of companies and your experience from a global picture. I'd be very interested in your thoughts on user fees as they relate to transportation.
Mr Henley: I guess from the perspective of tolls, it's my understanding that when OTCC was formed this was one of the ways that OTCC will effectively recover the cost of financing. I am a supporter of tolls as long they improve the infrastructure, because I believe that good infrastructure creates good economic opportunity and it's important to growth in the economy. Tolls are an important way for the government to finance new infrastructure without impacting its current fiscal situation.
Mr Preston: Just a very short one again: Do you see a place for privately owned toll roads?
Mr Henley: To be quite honest, as part of the board, from my own standpoint on the board, I would have to see what the proposals were and judge them accordingly at the time. I don't think it's possible to say offhand that there is a general principle that works in every case. It really is site-specific and project-specific.
Mr Patten: This is an informal committee, Christopher. I can see by your background that your direct life experience has immediate relevance to the responsibilities of the corporation. Are you familiar with Highway 416?
Mr Henley: Not really, to be quite honest.
Mr Patten: It goes from Highway 401 to Ottawa. Ottawa is a little tiny town east of Yonge Street.
Mr Henley: I'm familiar with that.
Mr Patten: Ostensibly, the purpose of providing this corporation was to facilitate the political mire that tends to occur, and one of the references and examples in our briefing note related to the corporation was, for example, Highway 407, which has been kicked around for 43 years, maybe 45 years, something in that neighbourhood. Likewise, in terms of Highway 416, in the area where I come from, people are saying that a major road like Highway 401 to the nation's capital still having a two-lane highway, a very unsafe road, was something in need of being rectified for sure. One government would move on it and the next one would say, "Hang on a minute," and then the next one would say, "It's back on the table again." Likewise, it's been going on for a long time. I gather the commitment for funding is there.
What are the advantages you see of a corporation, as you look at this right now, and what is it that drives you to say, "Boy, I can hardly wait until I get on this corporation to make my contribution by doing X"? What would that be?
Mr Henley: As someone who lives in Oakville and commutes every day, I think it's pretty evident, at least from my own experience, that the capacity, at least on the QEW, for example, is stretched and as a result it results in a fair degree of congestion, to say the least, and is not productive to the Ontario economy. From my standpoint, if toll roads can be put in place and give me the choice to determine whether I would take the QEW or some other toll facility, I would be happy to pay the toll to reduce the amount of time I spend commuting to and from my place of work. That's one of the advantages I see in terms of toll roads for people in Ontario, and that of course would have an impact on the economy itself.
1500
Mr Crozier: Welcome to the committee, Mr Henley. One of the reasons, in fact it probably was the main reason, that you were selected by our party to appear here, was to get some further insight into the actual operation of the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp. I see by your résumé that your firm was formed to provide strategic and financial advisory services to both public and private corporations. Is there an example of where you've provided that sort of strategic and financial advisory service in the province of Ontario? There were a couple of examples given, Hibernia, I think, and one other one, but what about in the province of Ontario where you've provided that service?
Mr Henley: I think the other one was in Ontario, and that, if I remember correctly, was Armbro.
Mr Crozier: ASCo?
Mr Henley: No. I assume you have a copy of my résumé. Is that correct?
Mr Crozier: I do, yes.
Mr Henley: Armbro Enterprises Inc -- it's a public company on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
Mr Crozier: Oh, I see, okay. Right. That's a public company. I took the public sector to be government.
Mr Henley: No, I have not provided those services to government.
Mr Crozier: Oh, you have not. So you don't provide those services to government.
Mr Henley: No, and just so that you are aware, the company that I have now joined as of the end of 1995, early 1996, and am becoming a partner in, we are basically an equity house that provides financing to what I would call microcap, which is less than $10 million total market cap, and small cap, which would be characterized as $10-million to $400-million emerging-growth, for want of a better term, new-economy-type companies in the resource and technology sectors.
Mr Crozier: That's fine. I was a little concerned if you were providing it in the public sector as to how you would carry out your private duties in connection with your public, but there would be no conflict, would there?
Mr Henley: No, I don't see a conflict.
Mr Crozier: That doesn't surprise me; I just wanted to clarify it.
Frankly, then, beyond that and with the background information that has been provided to us -- as I said, a little bit like my colleague, the information I have at hand now, provided by legislative research, gives me some good information on the operation of the Transportation Capital Corp, so I really have no further questions.
Ms Churley: Welcome to the committee. I have a personal question to ask you, I hope you don't mind. I have a copy of your résumé. Are you from Newfoundland?
Mr Henley: Yes, I am, originally.
Ms Churley: Where were you born?
Mr Henley: In St John's.
Ms Churley: You may have guessed by now that I too grew up in Newfoundland. That's why I ask. I should start asking you now, do you know So-and-so down the bay, right?
Mr Henley: Exactly. And then we can both commiserate on the fact it's a small world.
Ms Churley: Right, except I'm a New Democrat in Ontario and you might want to ask me how that happened, eh? You're a Tory from Newfoundland and there you go.
I feel that from looking at your résumé you're eminently qualified for this position. I do have a question to ask you that may seem to be coming from left field, so to speak, a little bit. Have you any background at all in environmental matters? I ask you that because I'm not fully aware of many of the issues that you would deal with, but I do know that more and more you can't mention transportation planning without environmental concerns becoming a part of that. I think that is going to happen more and more over the years, as we're getting more and more studies that show we have, in particular in this general area, grave problems with CO2, and of course there are a whole bunch of other issues around transportation issues. I'm just wondering if you have any background at all or if you're aware of some of those issues that I expect will keep coming up?
Mr Henley: In my previous work in respect to the Northumberland Strait crossing project, just for the committee's information, one of the issues that arose with that project was an environmental concern. After the original proposals were submitted and a short list was agreed upon by the federal government and the two provincial governments, there was approximately a three-year hiatus in respect of an environmental assessment review process.
During that process there was ongoing work in respect to the financing in the future of the process and the project, but that was one of the issues that we clearly had to deal with. It was an issue that we had to deal with from a process standpoint but also in respect of dealing with the financial markets and allaying any concerns they may have.
I guess secondarily I would note that when I worked for the present chief executive officer of BP Canada, I did corporate development work and one of the projects, in fact two of the projects, which I'll mention from an environmental perspective, I was based in St John's, Newfoundland. I had a long-distance relationship as it were and I was involved in the exploration offshore for our lands at the time and also involved in the establishment of the Hope Brook gold mine, both of which involved environmental issues and I dealt with the negotiations on those from both a federal and a provincial standpoint.
Mr Kormos: Once again, Mr Henley, we've been addressing this all day. The manner in which people get called to come here is that we go round robin, each caucus selects one, and as it was, you were selected by the official opposition. We've spoken to that.
We're going to be talking later, I hope, about that because all we had was a name and the position being sought and had we seen your CV or your résumé prior to today, I have no doubt that there would be no rational reason to have asked you to come here. You're eminently qualified and I'm going to support your appointment and credit the last government for its creativity in developing this corporation, and trust that appropriate credit will be given by the current government to the last government for the creation of that corporation.
But I do want you to meet my staff. I've got Ezia Cervoni here and Claudette Therrien and Peggy Dobrin. They're down here to see which Tory members are on committee. You see, they're unionized and so while these fellows are still on committee here, they're going to be going talking to their staff, telling them about things like job security, vacations, seniority rights and so on, which I think is kind of neat. To organize the Tory backbench staff would be something that would bring a little bit of justice to that workplace. Thank you kindly.
Mr Henley: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Henley, we appreciate you coming today and we found your being here to be quite helpful.
Mr Leadston: Point of order, Mr Chairman: I'd like some clarification from the clerk. In terms of the comments and questions by various members of the committee -- you know, we have them commenting about wasting the time of individuals coming down here to appear before the board and yet a great deal of wind is spent in senseless commentary. Isn't it the mandate of the committee to ask appropriate questions of the applicants that pertain to the position they're going to fill?
Mr Kormos: We are not going to use your cheat sheets.
Mr Leadston: I'd like some clarification from the clerk.
The Vice-Chair: It's my understanding, Mr Leadston, that each caucus is given a certain amount of time, allocated three ways to put on the record whatever they feel appropriate re questions or comment or whatever.
1510
Mr Leadston: So it's quite appropriate if I wanted to give the ingredients to my favourite recipe, that I could spend the time? It wouldn't be very productive; it wouldn't be very enlightening. I think it's more appropriate that we spend the time to talk about the candidates' capabilities and their background.
Mr Preston: Gary, it doesn't matter. He doesn't care how much he wastes time. It's his time to waste, and he does a good job of it.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, so we'll move on, then, to some further business so we can all get on with our busy lives and that which we feel is important to us.
Mr Kormos: Thank you for the floor. I appreciate that we're ahead of time, and that will be appreciated by everybody. As you know, members of this committee are all MPPs. They all earn the base salaries of MPPs, which translate to around 65 grand a year. Most of the government members earn pay in addition to that, by virtue of being parliamentary assistants or being Chairs or Vice-Chairs, what have you. In addition to the salaries, people who sit on these committees, as you know, when the House is not sitting, receive a per diem of $76 tax-free, plus another $27-a-day food allowance.
I have been extremely critical of the government members for telling poor people, unemployed people, people on welfare that they have to live for a whole month, in terms of food, on less than what a member of this committee gets by way of a per diem for one day, $90 versus $103, tax-free.
In view of that criticism, as I indicated last time I was here, I would not normally fill out my member's committee expense report. However, I did last week, and I indicated clearly that the $103 was going to be put into a trust fund to buy a gravestone for Stella Mae Williams, who died at the hand of this government.
Today I'm indicating as well, because of the incredible concern that's been raised by people with AIDS and people concerned about people with AIDS, about the impact of this government's hospital-closing policy on places like the Wellesley Hospital, I am going to be filling out the committee expense report. I'm going to be making sure the money gets sent to AIDS Toronto People with AIDS Foundation, 399 Church Street. I would urge other members to do the same. It seems repugnant to me that a government can impose such hardship on so many people yet avail themselves of the luxury of a tax-free daily perk in excess of $100 when so many others out there are suffering at the hands of this government. Thank you for the floor, Chair.
Ms Churley: On another matter, I don't sit on this committee. I've been subbing last week and this week. Last week I asked at the last meeting for a profile of police services boards across the province. I wonder if I could ask if we have any knowledge as to when that report will be available; if I could also ask, because I don't officially sit on the committee, if I could be notified when the report comes forward so I can attend the meeting when it's discussed.
The Vice-Chair: The request has been made. We will notify you.
Ms Churley: I just wanted to formally request, since I'm not on the committee.
The Vice-Chair: We're not sure when it will come, because we don't know. But certainly when it comes, we'll let you know. Okay?
We'll move to concurrence, then, on the appointments of today. Will somebody move.
Mr Bob Wood: I'd like to move concurrence on the proposed appointment of Elizabeth Greville.
The Vice-Chair: Are there any comments on the appointment?
Mr Kormos: Question.
The Vice-Chair: Question? Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: I just called the question.
The Vice-Chair: Oh, question. I'm sorry. Okay. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those opposed? Carried.
I would entertain a motion for concurrence on Mr Nadalin.
Mr Bob Wood: So moved.
The Vice-Chair: Any comment or debate? If not, all those in favour of the appointment will raise their hand. All those opposed? Carried.
Mr Crozier: Mr Chair, would you consider a motion for concurrence on the remainder: Mr Nicol, Ms Lundstrom, Mr Maund?
Mr Kormos: Please, Chair, if that requires consent, I am not going to consent to that. Unfortunately, there are some that have to be addressed. I appreciate your interest.
Mr Bob Wood: I will move concurrence on Mr Nicol.
The Vice-Chair: Any comment or debate on Mr Nicol?
Mr Kormos: If I may, there was one comment -- and he was very candid and sincere when he talked about the need to develop community fund-raising to finance or fund policing. I appreciate that that was his response or what he perceived to be a practical response to difficulties imposed by a government that cares less and less about law and order and justice and the safety and security of people in their communities.
But I do want to indicate that, notwithstanding I'm supporting him, I am concerned about a person who is going to be part of a police services board who endorses or buys into the concept of -- what have you -- bake sales or raffles to pay for police cruisers or to pay police officers' salaries. I think that's an incredibly dangerous thing. It's very much in tune, mind you, with the sentiments and the direction of this government, but I think it's a very dangerous thing. I think it trivializes this important public service and I think the government should be very conscious of that trivialization, the devaluation of public service by police officers, among others, when police services boards have to contemplate, as I say, bake sales or raffles to fund the operation of the police services.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comment? If not, all those in favour of the appointment will raise their hands. All those opposed? Carried.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the proposed appointment of Melody Lundstrom.
The Vice-Chair: Any comment or debate? All in favour of the appointment? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the proposed appointment of Douglas Maund.
Mr Kormos: I once again am going to make it quite clear that I think Mr Maund is an excellent appointment to the police services board, but I want to take the discussion of this so that I'm not caught up in some sort of procedural pettifoggery at the balance of these concurrence motions and prohibited from talking about the issue that I raised during our conversations with Mr Maund, among others. I think Mr Crozier was addressing that when he sought his, I suppose, omnibus approval of the balance of persons. Frankly, none of the others are in any way objectionable either, beyond Mr Maund, neither Mr Burton nor Mr Henley.
I appreciate that the government has an interest in trying to showcase good appointments. I understand that. There's no quarrel with that interest, the fact that it's there. But this committee has very limited time available to it in terms of the number of days that it meets. You know the difficulty in scheduling and getting access to time so that people can be brought through the committee to be questioned and interviewed and have their quality or their capacity or their qualifications determined.
In that regard it seems to me -- and again, I was candid and sincere when I spoke about Mr Maund and the fact that had we had his résumé, his CV, prior to today -- we would not have called upon him to appear before this committee. There are a whole lot of appointments going on and not all of the appointees can be interviewed, and I think it's important, yes. What do I think the goal and the purpose of this committee is? It's to avoid bad appointments. The good ones speak for themselves. The fact that they're Tories, as it appears, by gosh, Mr Maund might be, so be it. I have no quarrel with that because quite frankly he strikes me as a Progressive Conservative and not a reformatory, and in that regard very much out of sync with the policies of this government.
Ms Churley: That's true.
Mr Kormos: Section 106(g), if you'll check the standing orders, I think paragraph 1 -- there are paragraphs 1 and 2, if I remember them correctly, particularly paragraph 1; I hope I'm not confusing this; the clerk could perhaps check the section -- provides that the committee is to receive not just the names of the appointees passed through cabinet by virtue of order in council, but a copy of the application and their résumé. So it seems that the rules in fact provide for or facilitate that résumé and the application being delivered to the committee, not just on the day that the person is interviewed but when the names of the persons basically being considered for appointment are given to the committee.
I'm hoping that you, Chair, could make sure that policy is maintained, and we can go a long way to avoiding wasting a lot of people's time, in particular that of the public that comes here -- some have long distances and come at great expense and inconvenience -- and we'll clear out the obvious good appointments and address the ones we might have some concerns about. Those are the appointments that should be scrutinized.
1520
The Vice-Chair: If I might speak to that --
Mr Kormos: Am I right about the section, by the way?
The Vice-Chair: Yes. You're on the right section.
Mr Kormos: It's been a while since I looked at that.
The Vice-Chair: I've had a look at it. Just by way of some brief comment, I understand. It's always helpful to have as much information as one can in making decisions about bringing people forward. There is a small résumé put together, you'll recall, that goes out with the package we get from cabinet after the appointments are made that is sent to the whip of each caucus and one package to a researcher in each caucus. If you're saying that's not enough, that you in fact want more, then we'll have to have a look at that and see if that's possible. The only concern here is the amount of paper that flows then.
Ms Churley: It's the timing.
The Vice-Chair: That's right. The timing also becomes critical in that we receive this usually on Monday morning, and then, when the House is sitting, meet as a subcommittee on Tuesday at noon or shortly after noon, at 1 o'clock, and then we're into committee on Wednesday morning. So what I was told when we looked into this initially, the timing in getting the kinds of résumés you're looking for perhaps may not be -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Mr Kormos: Please, Chair. Let's use Mr Burton for an example. There's one page, which is the standard form, which indicates Standing Committee on Government Agencies Review Information Form. That's provided modestly in advance of a person appearing here to be interviewed. Attached to that is the résumé or CV that applicant obviously used as part of his overall application package. In Mr Burton's case it's a one-pager; in Mr Henley's case it was a three- or four-pager. These things were available to the government months ago. They've been sitting around for a long, long time.
As you know, delivered to this committee on a regular basis is a list of all the intended appointments by the government from which the subcommittee chooses the persons to appear. I'm saying that the same public appointments secretariat application form with the attached résumé or CV should accompany that list of intended appointments, which is what you and other members of the subcommittee rely on to pick who you want to appear in front of the committee.
It's a little more paper, I acknowledge -- my apologies to the trees, but we should be using recycled paper anyway -- but it'll save a lot of time and I don't think it's an overly onerous task to impose. Otherwise, this committee is perpetually dancing in the fog and has no focus and less relevance.
Mr Bert Johnson: Mr Chair, I have a question.
The Vice-Chair: If I might, just for clarification, the researcher tells me that this discussion was had in the previous government, and the decision at that time was, in the interest of enough but not too much, that the certificates were accompanied by a short bio that was taken from the CV. What you're saying at this point in time is that that's not enough.
Mr Kormos: Quite right, and I don't care if the committee did it under the last government. If that decision was made then, I think time has proven it to be a wrong decision and we should do it the right way now.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, we're going to take that under advisement. We may have a short discussion about it in subcommittee next week to see if we can come up with something that is doable and we'll get back to you.
The question on Mr Maund then.
Mr Bert Johnson: No, my question was a little bit of the history about it. I'm not running for the leadership of my party yet, but when I do, I want to make the kind of nonsense that is.
Mr Crozier: We'll support you.
Mr Bert Johnson: I wondered, if we've been doing this for five years this way, then why all of a sudden do we want to change it? If this was good enough for an NDP government to grandstand on over the last five years, then why change it?
Ms Churley: Maybe this is a smarter committee.
Interjection: Because it might be better.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Leadston.
Mr Bert Johnson: Maybe a little while ago --
Interjections.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Leadston has the floor.
Mr Leadston: I find it rather interesting that the honourable member is requesting additional information when in fact today on two occasions, and in previous meetings, he was asking questions of the applicants and the information was contained in the information that we were provided by the staff. So it puzzles me. Obviously he's not reading the documents that he has currently but wants, in addition to that, more information.
Mr Kormos: Point of order, Chair: What is this man smoking?
Mr Leadston: Player's Light.
The Vice-Chair: Not a point of order.
Mr Crozier: Mr Chair, members of the committee, as a member of the subcommittee and acting as an arbitrator in this, I frankly think if the information's available and the persons send in a résumé, which would be more helpful in selecting those, I agree totally -- not totally; I have to be careful -- I agree with Mr Kormos that there are several of those who were called who very well might not have been called, had we known that. So let's take it under consideration.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, will do. On the question of Mr Maund, all those in favour of the appointment will raise their hands. All those opposed? Carried.
Mr Bob Wood: I would like to move concurrence on the intended appointment of Walter Burton.
The Vice-Chair: Any comment? If not, all in favour of Mr Burton's appointment? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Bob Wood: I would like to move concurrence on the intended appointment of Christopher Henley.
The Vice-Chair: Any comment? All in favour of the appointment of Mr Henley? Opposed? Carried.
We'll move to consideration of the subcommittee report that you've received.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
Mr Bob Wood: I would like to move adoption of the subcommittee report. But before doing so, I'd like to draw to the attention of members that there's a typographical error: On the third line the date, March 6, should read March 7. So I'd like to move that amendment, so to speak, and move the adoption of the report and further move that the reading of it be dispensed with.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. All those in favour of adopting the report of the subcommittee will so indicate by raising their hands. All those opposed? Carried.
Thank you very much. We'll see you back here next Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock sharp.
The committee adjourned at 1527.