INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
ROBERT WELCH
CONTENTS
Wednesday 10 September 1997
Subcommittee reports
Intended appointments
Mr Robert Welch
Ms Carol Fletcher-Dagenais
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président
Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
John R. Baird (Nepean PC)
Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)
Brenda Elliott (Guelph PC)
Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur L)
Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Bert Johnson (Perth PC)
Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Frank Miclash (Kenora L)
Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1005 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The standing committee will come to order.
We have two subcommittee reports to deal with. The first one is dated August 27, in which Carol Fletcher-Dagenais was selected for review.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I move adoption of the subcommittee report dated Wednesday, August 27, 1997.
The Chair: You've heard the motion for adoption. Carried? It's carried. Thank you for that.
The second one is dated Thursday, September 4, in which Dominic Giroux and Edward Takacs were selected for review.
Mr Baird: I move adoption of the subcommittee report dated Thursday, September 4, 1997.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. All in favour? Opposed? Carried. Thank you for that.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
ROBERT WELCH
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Robert Welch, intended appointee as vice-chair, Ontario VL Corp Ltd board of directors.
The Chair: Members will know that Mr Welch was selected for review way back on June 30. The previous standing orders said that is too long a period for review, so we need to have unanimous agreement by the committee to have this review today despite that. Is there unanimous agreement on that? Good.
Mr Robert S.K. Welch is an intended appointee as vice-chair of the Ontario VL Corp board of directors. Mr Welch is no stranger to this place, as all of you know. He's had a very distinguished career as a parliamentarian and has made a major contribution to public life in this province. If I could be so bold and call you Bob, we welcome you here this morning.
Mr Robert Welch: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Our tradition is that you can make any opening comments you'd like to make, or we can move directly into the questions.
Mr Welch: I have no opening comments.
The Chair: Then we'll start with the official opposition.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thanks very much for the opportunity. Welcome, Mr Welch, to the committee. The description given by the Chair is very accurate. Mr Welch is actually, even though he's of another political party, probably a mentor of mine in terms of politics. He gave me a lot of advice over the years; I had the pleasure of serving with him from 1977 to 1985.
I well recall that you were the minister in charge when the Wintario circumstances arose, when that was implemented by government. It was looked upon then, I recall you saying, as a very minor intervention, a very innocent intervention. Part of the money could go to matching dollars for charities and so on. What would be your view now, Bob, of the proliferation of gambling opportunities, not just here in Ontario but that governments are getting into throughout the country? I even see it throughout North America.
Mr Welch: There certainly has been an evolution in this type of activity. Perhaps the emphasis one would place on this activity at the time of its introduction, that is, the time when the House was asked to consider the establishment of the Ontario Lottery Corp -- at that time there was a single $1 ticket and people were casting that more in the light of entertainment. Also, there was great emphasis at that time with respect to the fact that there were some attempts on the part of the government of the day to identify the proceeds from that particular activity and to reinvest them in the community through sports and fitness, recreation and cultural activities and capital programs. The well-known Wintario grant program was established at that time.
Even in the early days of that corporation it became obvious that people were looking for a little more excitement than just the $1 ticket. You remember how things evolved with the introduction of other games and the scratch instant games and so on. We have, as you have pointed out, a very interesting development in this whole area now, generating considerable amounts of money. I guess it remains for people to say whether or not it has left the purely entertainment area. Certainly we've gone a long way, as you will understand, from the $1 Wintario ticket.
Mr Bradley: The proceeds in those days were all kept in Ontario, as I recall. It was Ontario-generated, by and large, and it was kept in Ontario. Do you have a concern, with such things as the casinos, that a substantial portion of the profit is going outside the country now?
Mr Welch: I'm not familiar with what that would be. I serve, as you know, as a member of the Ontario Lottery Corp. The lottery corporation has nothing to do with the casino operations.
Mr Bradley: I'm thinking of the charity casinos now.
Mr Welch: And we'll have nothing to do with the charity casinos.
Mr Bradley: I guess I'm going to ask you what your opinion is of that.
Mr Welch: Of the charity casinos?
Mr Bradley: Yes, of the potential for profit of operators going outside of the country.
Mr Welch: Are you talking about the new gaming halls that are being proposed?
Mr Bradley: Yes. I don't call them gaming halls -- gambling joints.
Mr Welch: Certainly the Ontario Video Lottery Corp Ltd, on which board it has been suggested I might serve, will have to deal with these particular establishments, because the whole operation of the video lottery program will come within the purview of this board. The involvement of the corporation which is the centre of our attention today is really with respect to the establishment of that particular program, the procurement of those machines, the entering into agreements with the gaming halls.
I've read someplace that each of these gaming halls would have a maximum of 150 of these machines, along with gaming tables. Great emphasis is being placed on the proceeds going to charity, because they are being introduced to replace what I guess have been called the roving Monte Carlos, if that's the proper terminology, to bring some discipline in this particular area and to enhance the proceeds that will be going to charities. The figures I have read, and I'm sure you have as well, are that we move from a situation at the moment where there is about $10 million from these roving Monte Carlos or whatever they're called, and there is some projection that that will now reach about $180 million in money actually going into the coffers of legitimate Ontario charities.
Mr Bradley: There is a concern that video lottery terminals will eventually be permitted in bars and restaurants. When I say restaurants, of course most restaurants today are licensed establishments so they would be eligible for them. Would you be in favour of the introduction of video lottery terminals into bars and restaurants in the province? That's mindful of the fact that there are some at present that if the police wish to crack down on, they could crack down on and eliminate, but this will be legitimizing them. Would you be in favour, with the sanction of government, of the introduction of video lottery terminals in bars and restaurants in this province?
Mr Welch: Keeping in mind that the shareholder, both of the Ontario Lottery Corp and, through the Ontario Lottery Corp, the new corporation, is the people of the province as represented by the government: the government is the shareholder. That would be a determination that ultimately would have to be made by the shareholder; in other words, to put it another way, a matter of government policy.
It is my understanding -- and was it not in Minister Eves's statement of a year or two ago? -- that at the moment the government policy has restricted the introduction of these machines to racetracks and to these charity gaming halls. I sense they wanted to have some experience with respect to the operation of these machines in these locations, which seem to be an environment where there was this type of gaming activity going on, before they came to any conclusion with respect to the expansion into other types of premises.
Along with that, I have read -- maybe it was during the time of the Legislature's consideration of Bill 75; I am not sure of the source of this -- that if the decision were to be taken for the further expansion of these machines, they would be in controlled situations, definitely restricted with respect to age, carrying with it the added discipline, if one can use that word, that people would be placing their licensing at risk if they didn't follow pretty strict rules.
I return to the fact that it's my understanding that there has been no decision taken with respect to the next phase, pending the outcome of the experience they will have with respect to the racetracks and the gaming halls.
Mr Bradley: With the information you have now, would you say you would oppose the introduction into bars and restaurants, since that would increase opportunity drastically for people to have access to these machines?
Mr Welch: I'm sorry, what was the verb you used?
Mr Bradley: From your answer, may I draw the conclusion that you would be opposed or not opposed to the introduction into bars and restaurants, under restricted circumstances, keeping in mind that that means the access to gambling opportunities increases tremendously?
Mr Welch: No, my answer to that question would be that if it was a policy decision of the shareholder that they so expand, it would be the responsibility of the lottery corporation to make them available under strict conditions as far as the agreement was concerned.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good morning, Mr Welch. You are eminently qualified for this, I believe, and there's no doubt in my mind that you will be confirmed, but I have a great deal of concern about video lottery terminals.
I'm interested in the term "shareholder" that you've used. The word the government likes to use occasionally with the public is "partner." Do you feel that the government, because it is the government, has the right on behalf of the shareholder to act by introducing slot machines to 44 permanent sites in Ontario without consulting the shareholders?
Mr Welch: I think the shareholder has that opportunity by virtue of the amendments that were made many years ago to the Criminal Code.
Mr Crozier: I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I only have less than a minute. I draw from that that the shareholder has the opportunity to respond several years down the road after these slot machines have been introduced around the province.
Mr Welch: I'm a great believer in the fact that there's always an accounting in our system and that, whether we refer to them as "shareholder" or whatever, there's an opportunity for consultation. I call those things that happen every four years very important consultations with the people.
1020
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Mr Welch, good morning. I usually ask people who appear before us about their political affiliation, past or present. I don't think I have to do that with you. But let me say, as on other occasions --
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Be consistent.
Mr Silipo: I try to be consistent, Mr Guzzo. We can't say that of everyone, but we try our best.
I want to concur with those who believe that if we're going to have this process and this system in place, you're certainly eminently qualified to be there.
I just have one question, and that is around the issue of the location of the various casinos. As you know, there's some controversy in some areas, in some communities here in Metropolitan Toronto, in the east end in particular, about that. The latest statement from the minister is that a municipality that's identified as a potential host for a mini casino isn't required to accept one. However, in a situation where that happens, the operator who has been selected by the province would have the right to build a facility anywhere within a 40-kilometre distance of that municipality. I'm just curious how you see yourself, through the board, dealing with these kinds of situations, which undoubtedly are going to continue to be present.
Mr Welch: As you would know, that whole procedure was adapted through the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, under which ministry the Gaming Control Commission operates. It was my understanding, just as you have stated, that they went through a process of inviting proposals and have come to some type of short list, and I think that's been part of the information which has been provided to you. I suppose the most straightforward answer to all of that is that we would be obliged to deal only with those particular establishments that were legally authorized or licensed, and whatever procedure has to be followed to do that, I would assume we would respond in a positive way only if they had the clearance from the Alcohol and Gaming Control Commission.
Mr Silipo: So it's that commission that's going to have the final say about where they're located as opposed to -- okay.
Mr Welch: I think that was part of the earlier process. The first process was to locate places throughout the province, and then the next was to invite proposals with respect to the operation in clusters, I think it was.
The Chair: Do the government members have any questions or comments?
Mr Baird: First, thank you for coming in and for your presence here today. We appreciate your taking the time to come in and for your willingness to serve with the video lottery corporation subsidiary. I wonder if you could tell us what you've learned, as you've been a member of the lottery corporation board since 1994, I understand.
Mr Welch: Interestingly enough, as you can tell by the lack of hair and the colour of my hair, I can in fact go back even further than that, because I was the minister who brought in the legislation in the mid-1970s for the establishment of the Ontario Lottery Corp. We've learned a great deal with respect to this type of operation, as I responded to the member for St Catharines in that regard.
Coming back on to the board, as you point out, has provided an interesting opportunity to review the developments and the growth. I've been tremendously impressed with the emphasis on matters of integrity and efficiency with respect to the operation of the lottery corporation. I'm quite satisfied that over the years the people of the province have been well served by the corporation.
The Chair: If there are no further questions or comments, Mr Welch, thank you for coming before the committee this morning. On a more personal note, it's good to see you again.
Mr Welch: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I've been very pleased to see you.
CAROL FLETCHER-DAGENAIS
Review of intended appointment, selected by the official opposition party: Carol Fletcher-Dagenais, intended appointee as full-time member, Board of Parole, eastern region.
The Chair: Ms Fletcher-Dagenais, we welcome you to the committee this morning. Are there any opening comments you'd like to make?
Ms Carol Fletcher-Dagenais: I did prepare some opening comments, if I may. I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you. It was last November that I appeared before this committee in consideration for my part-time parole board appointment, and I wanted to just review briefly what I said at that time. To begin with, I have a masters degree in applied criminology, which I received from the University of Ottawa, which followed an honours bachelor of arts in sociology with a legal studies minor from the University of Waterloo.
Before, during and following the completion of my academics, I have continued to pursue roles and occupations that reflect my interest in criminology. I have gained experience in crime prevention from Halton Regional Police Force and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police headquarters in Ottawa. As well, I undertook a masters practicum within the office of the then Solicitor General of Canada, assisting the adviser responsible for CSIS and the RCMP. This experience was invaluable towards the completion of my thesis, which centred on the whole area of Canadian agencies dealing with counterterrorism.
I have volunteered to work with young offenders and had the opportunity to give seminars to the offenders at the federal institute at Collins Bay.
While at the University of Ottawa, I began working on Parliament Hill as a constituency assistant. This led to a position with the then Minister of Immigration, who at the time was overhauling the Immigration Act, an undertaking that I participated in as we defined the various criminality provisions important within such legislation. I was also charged with advising the minister on particular cases, including those with a criminal interest. Decisions were rendered after careful consideration of the Immigration Act and all other relevant factors.
For the past 10 months, while maintaining my own small business, I've been serving as a part-time member of the Ontario Board of Parole. Working in a field that I prepared for during several years of post-graduate study, as well as in the professional roles I have undertaken, has been very rewarding. Should the committee concur, I look forward to continuing and enhancing my function at the board in the near future.
The Chair: We'll begin with the third party.
Mr Silipo: I will start with my traditional question about political affiliation. Are you now or have you been a member of any political party?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: Yes, I'm a member of the federal Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, as well as the provincial Progressive Conservative Party.
Mr Silipo: As you've already noted for us, you're moving, if this appointment is approved, and I don't see any reason it wouldn't be, from a part-time to a full-time position on the board. Could you tell us a little bit about your experience? Our notes talk about the comment you made when you appeared here last about how you would balance the two criteria you have to apply. I'd be interested in hearing about your experience as you have gone through whatever number of hearings you've been involved in.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: At the very beginning, I had the benefit, before I even started training, of observing the members who have been seasoned there, who had had the experience for a number of years. I learned a great deal from watching them. Everybody has their own style, so the more people you watch in this role -- I think you can pick up interviewing techniques, what to ask for, what to centre on and that sort of thing. But each case is different, and I think I learned that when I was dealing with immigration cases, that each case has to be looked at on its own merit.
Every time I do a hearing, I'm learning more. I'm following this very closely in terms of the issues that are coming out. I feel that the experience in the last 10 months will be invaluable towards taking on a full-time position which will also include case review work, as well as deciding on appeals and that sort of thing. I think the fact that I've had this part-time experience in the last 10 months is going to be very important towards this position.
Mr Silipo: It must be a fairly delicate balance to have to try to strike between the two criteria of reintegration into the community and protecting the safety of the community. What kind of factors go into your assessment of that? How much, for example, does credibility of the person appearing before you play? How do you go about gauging the application of that test?
1030
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: It's a twofold process. Number one, we start with reviewing all the paper we have on the individual. With respect to the circumstances of the offence, we receive the judge's reasons for sentencing, we receive risk assessment tools, sometimes psychological reports. We have an idea of their criminal background and the circumstances surrounding why they're there. We know how long the sentence is. We also have the benefit of speaking to the offender themselves. After all that is brought together, a decision is rendered based on, first, whether they'd benefit from this integration, and also whether we think they would be a manageable risk within the community.
I don't believe I would release somebody whom I considered shouldn't be living in my own neighbourhood or community. I think the people of Ontario would respect that.
Mr Silipo: One other question. Looking at the statistics, one conclusion that can be drawn is that the board has been getting tougher with respect to the issue of granting parole. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, I suppose, depending on your perspective.
What I'm interested in hearing from you, though, is how much of that change you would attribute to the tone and the attitude that the current minister has set in terms of trying to project an attitude of getting tougher with crime. Whether or not he's successful, let's leave that aside. I'm not asking you to enter into that political debate. But to what degree has the board been influenced by the kind of attitude and approach that the minister, obviously speaking on behalf of the government, is setting out?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: It's a very good question. When I go in to do hearings during the day, I don't go in with the mindset that I'm going to go in with a very tough approach and that I have to live up to that perception that people have. I go in thinking: "This is a case. I'm going to be fair, reasoned and review all the materials available to me and render a decision." My daily work with the board hasn't been skewed by a perception that's been promoted either in the press or at Queen's Park. I go in based on the facts and I make a decision based on the facts.
The Chair: We move to the government members.
Mr Baird: I have no questions. I'm impressed by your background and the knowledge and experience you've gained, not just in your postsecondary education but as a part-time member of the board. I wish you the very best.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: Thank you, Mr Baird.
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): I just want to follow up on Mr Silipo's questioning on the parole board that you were associated with. Has there been a high percentage of cutbacks on parole?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: No. I think the change to two-member quorum happened even before I was appointed to the part-time position, so I think budgets have been adjusted that way. Are you saying monetary cutbacks to the parole board?
Mr Ford: I'm talking about monetary cutbacks, facilities for room there for prisoners, different things of that nature. I don't know whether they have accelerated the parole or cut it back. I would like to follow up on what Mr Silipo was saying about, why did they do that or what is going on in that parole system right now as of today? Are there cutbacks? Are they giving less parole or what's going on?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I briefly looked at the projected estimates, and obviously I don't have any direct role in setting these estimates, but I understand that there was going to be a slight increase in money dedicated towards that. I'm not sure whether there's been a great change in the last few months in this area. I've never experienced anything as a parole board member that would constrain me in doing my duties with respect to the budgets that have been allowed to each of the offices.
Mr Ford: Yes, but is it fact that they are cutting back on paroles?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: The number of paroles granted?
Mr Ford: Yes.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: Yes, the number of parole grants certainly has been reduced.
Mr Ford: Why is that? We are an ongoing system and there are fluctuations in the system and rules and regulations. I'm just curious.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I think a number of factors go into that. Certainly within the institutions feedback has come back that some people think: "Why should I even apply? I've got a short sentence." Parole is a very structured system wherein if you change your address, if you stop attending the work you're supposed to be attending, you can find yourself back in, to the end of your final warrant expiry. If you're released at the end of your eligibility date, you don't have that type of structure and oversight over you, so a lot of the inmates are declining to even go forward for parole because a lot of them don't want that structure over their head.
Mr Ford: I'm just relating that to some states, stateside, that if a prison population gets overcrowded they issue more paroles. I just wonder what the thinking is behind that. If you're a criminal and you create havoc in the community or you commit a crime, do you build more jails or do you find other ways and means? What are we doing? That's all. I'm always curious about that.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I would never entertain release based on a purse budget or anything like that.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): I think the question Doug was asking -- if not, it's a question I want to ask -- is, are we getting tougher on parole? That's basically it. I don't want to hear that we're not granting paroles because people aren't asking for them. I want to hear what we're doing as far as granting paroles is concerned. Are we tougher on it now than we were two years ago, a year ago?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I made it quite clear when I was here before, when I was asked questions with respect to my view of the criteria -- you have that in front of you -- that the people who have been appointed to the parole board, including myself, make it quite clear that if there's any question between deciding on a parole and that there is any element of risk I have a concern about, I will not grant parole.
I can tell you in the last 10 months, I'm not aware of any of the grants that I have signed off that have come back at me. I'm pretty proud of the work I've done and that my colleagues have done in the last number of months, and I think the figures will speak for themselves.
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): Thank you for coming down, and welcome to Queen's Park. I believe it's not your first time here.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: We're neighbours.
Mr Lalonde: Just about, yes. I was trying to find out what the address was. Anyway, how long have you been a part-time parole board member?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: Following my appearance here in November 1996. I think the order in council was signed shortly after that.
Mr Lalonde: You indicate in your CV that you have a small business. Do you intend to continue that business?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I also have two hockey players, and they're very busy at the rinks all the time. I haven't made a decision whether I'm going to continue to -- I'm in the Clarence Creek arena a lot, as you know, Mr Lalonde. I'm not sure whether I will be continuing that business or not.
Mr Lalonde: Because this is going to be a full-time job, and you will be asked to travel all over Ontario, I believe.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I'm not certain of my travel commitments, but certainly it is a full-time job, and you'd be on call if they need to get a hold of you with respect to any warrants that have to be issued and that sort of thing. I realize the time commitment.
Mr Lalonde: Yes, because the former member, who was also from our area, was asked to travel all over Ontario. This is why I was asking. If you intend to continue operating your small business, it's going to be pretty tough to get a full-time job.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: Yes, I tend to agree with you, so I may be winding that down.
Mr Lalonde: Mr Silipo asked whether you belong to or are affiliated with any political party. You said yes. In what capacity?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: As you are aware, Mr Lalonde, I am president of the federal Progressive Conservatives in Glengarry, Prescott, Russell, and I also serve on the executive provincially.
Mr Lalonde: I was not aware.
Mr Guzzo: You had no idea. Trust me, your office would have known that.
Mr Lalonde: We've heard a lot about youth violence, that the Young Offenders Act is not severe enough at the present time. With the fact that you have two young kids, what is your view on the youth violence that we are going through at the present time in small municipalities as much as urban municipalities?
1040
Mr Guzzo: He means outside of hockey. He doesn't like talking about violence in hockey.
Mr Lalonde: There isn't any.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: This is of great concern to me, because at the level that I'm serving now, we see the graduates of the youth system on a regular basis. It's so disheartening to see 19-year-old young men in front of me who have spent years in the youth system. I think different approaches should be entertained. I've had the opportunity, as I said, to work with some of the young offenders while I was studying at the University of Waterloo. I think new approaches should be tried to deal with this problem.
Especially in our area, Mr Lalonde, as you know, the youth unemployment rate is quite high. There are a lot of opportunities for these young people to be in trouble. I have expressed my opinions to your colleague Mr Boudria on that fact, with respect to the youth unemployment rate, which is directly linked, I think, to the fact that this is happening in our area.
Mr Lalonde: As a member, I don't know how far you go when you make recommendations. Do you know if the parole board is in the position to make recommendations to the government so we could have activities to get the kids off the street?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I'm not certain in what capacity the parole board would be involved in reviewing treatment programs. I think there's an entire ministry dedicated to reviewing this. But certainly we've been involved in participating in seminars and dealing with our colleagues in the correctional system to talk about what treatment plans are available and that sort of thing, so we don't work in a vacuum, but I don't know at what level we'd be involved in promoting any sort of youth program when we're at the parole board dealing with adult offenders.
Mr Lalonde: As you probably know, we had two places in our area that were like halfway houses for youth. The government has eliminated all those homes we used to have. I thought these homes were playing very important roles in putting the kids back on the right road.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I've worked at a halfway home for young offenders, as I referred to earlier. As I said, I'm seeing the graduates who have been inside and outside these halfway homes for youth. I think there's always room to try new approaches. That's my own personal view. As I said before, I think the kids walking the streets of Hawkesbury unable to find work and not in school is a big problem in our area, and I think there should be some attention paid to that at all levels of government.
Mr Lalonde: The kids are more a problem than the adults in our area because of the lack of jobs for the kids.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: Absolutely: 25% are unemployed in our area.
Mr Lalonde: Would you support the photo of a person on parole being published, especially in a small area?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I guess this is topical, considering the situation in Toronto recently with the rapist and all this going on. I think the community should be aware. Certainly as a mother I would be very concerned if I knew there was somebody in the area and I wasn't forewarned to take special precautions, if I knew there was somebody in my area I had to be more protective of my children because of. However, it's a very difficult issue, and I realize there are other issues involved with respect to somebody being reintegrated into the community and having a fair shot. There has to be a balance struck and there has to be a line drawn with respect to this situation. I don't think we should have the Journal de Vision publishing parolees in the Rockland area every day, no.
Mr Lalonde: I do believe, because of what happened last year in Bourget -- there was a kid on parole who set fire to houses. Nobody knew he was living in that area. Until we caught the young gentleman, nobody knew he was on parole. If the people in the surrounding area had known he was on parole, they would probably have been able to stop him after the first incident.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I can tell you that local police forces know who is on parole in their communities. There is a system in place where they are alerted.
The Chair: If there are no further questions or comments, that concludes the interview with Ms Fletcher-Dagenais. Thank you very much for coming before the committee.
Is the committee prepared to deal with concurrences?
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): I move concurrence in the appointment of Robert Welch as vice-chair of the Ontario VL Corp Ltd board of directors.
The Chair: You heard the motion. Does anyone wish to speak to the motion?
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Yes. I certainly want to state on the record that obviously Mr Welch is a man with a remarkable reputation in this province and has contributed a great deal. On behalf of Mr Bradley -- Mr Bradley is fairly outspoken about the people he likes and dislikes, as I think we all know -- he wanted me to put on the record that indeed Mr Welch is somebody who should be supported in this appointment.
Mr Baird: I think we're very privileged that Mr Welch has agreed to accept the appointment to continue to serve the people of the province.
The Chair: Are you ready for the question? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried unanimously. Thank you for that.
Further concurrence?
Mr Ford: I move concurrence in the nomination of Carol Fletcher-Dagenais as a member of the Board of Parole, eastern region.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Any comments?
Mr Preston: I asked Ms Fletcher-Dagenais about parole grants. We have been very careful about the people who have been put on the parole board. From her answer, I think the parole board is getting a little tougher. Some 60% of paroles were granted under past governments, and today 35% get parole. I think that speaks to people like her, who are going to examine the situation and make sure that only the deserving get paroled.
Mr Silipo: I wasn't going to say anything on this, but given Mr Preston's comments, if I were to use that as the reasoning upon which to make my decision, I would have to oppose this appointment. I don't think it's a question of the government appointing or not appointing people who are getting tougher; it's a question, as the witness before us clearly said, of looking at each case and deciding how best to apply the criteria that are there. It's upon that basis, in listening to Ms Carol Fletcher-Dagenais and hearing about her experience, that I certainly am prepared to support her appointment as a full-time member.
Mr Lalonde: Based on the professional experience that Ms Fletcher-Dagenais has and also the fact that she is a mother of two boys, I think she is fully qualified for the position. I would support that too.
Mr Preston: I have a rebuttal to Mr Silipo. He said exactly what I said, that we're putting on people who are making sure that only the deserving get parole. I think that was my last statement, which agrees 100% with yours.
The Chair: I don't believe what I just heard, but let's get on with the business. The motion has been put. Are you ready for the question?
Mr Baird: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Baird, Elliott, Ford, Gravelle, Guzzo, Bert Johnson, Lalonde, Preston, Silipo, Stewart, Tascona.
The Chair: It's carried unanimously.
Any further business? You know we have a meeting next week with two people to appear before the committee.
The clerk is going to hand out a very brief paper which gives the changes to standing order 105; it details the changes that affect this committee only, just in case you want to read it. If there are any questions, we could deal with them next week.
Thank you very much. We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1050.