Chair /
Président
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington
L)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex PC)
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North / -Nord
L)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer,
Research and Information Services
The committee met at 1005 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr James J.
Bradley): We are going to bring this meeting to order.
We have, first of all, the report of the subcommittee dated
Thursday, December 7, 2000.
Mr Bob Wood (London
West): I move its adoption.
The Chair:
Moved by Mr Wood. All in favour? Opposed, if any? The motion is
carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENT
CHRIS TRIANTAFILOPOULOS
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Chris
Triantafilopoulos, intended appointee as member, Social Benefits
Tribunal.
The Chair:
Under our appointments review today is a half-hour review of
intended appointments from the certificate received on November
17, 2000, selection of the official opposition party, an intended
appointee as member of the Social Benefits Tribunal. It is Chris
Triantafilopoulos. Would you come forward please, sir.
I will inform you, as you may
or may not know, that you have an opportunity to make an initial
statement should you see fit. After that, we commence the
questioning, 10 minutes from each of the political parties
represented around this table. If you'd like to have your opening
statement, we'd be pleased to hear from you.
Mr Chris
Triantafilopoulos: Good morning. I would like to thank
the members of the committee for this opportunity to appear
before you and answer any questions you may have for me. At this
time, I would like to tell you a little more about my work and
life experience, which I believe have prepared me for this very
important opportunity.
Throughout my life I have
been in the business of caring for and understanding the needs of
people. I have dealt with a variety of people from different
social, economic and ethnic backgrounds. This has been an
educational process that has allowed me to learn that each person
has his or her own specific and unique needs and issues.
My early work as a
psychiatric assistant at the Scarborough General Hospital was
very similar in nature to what I believe I will have to do as a
member of the Social Benefits Tribunal. It involved sitting down
with patients, listening to a variety of problems, gathering all
their information, whether it be fact or the truth as they
perceived it, and evaluating the patient's history as it related
to the doctors' reports and the nurses' notes. With this I would
formulate a solution and lifestyle plan which the patient could
follow and move forward with.
In this position I was
required to hold group therapy sessions while I led discussions
and listened to a wide variety of problems. This enabled me to
listen and learn to understand the issues from all sides, giving
me the ability to make the best-informed decisions possible.
Throughout my work experience
as a games consultant and games manager in the charity casinos, I
dealt with people from all walks of life and different
backgrounds. The charity casino gaming industry was found
throughout every community in Ontario. The industry's workforce
came from a socio-economic spectrum. My workforce consisted of
bank managers, chemistry professors, engineers, teachers,
students and new immigrants, among others.
Throughout this casino
experience, I had to resolve disputes by applying the rules and
guidelines that were set out by the gaming commission. I handled
several disputes between customers and dealers and between staff
members. Although these charity casinos were only mini-versions
of the real thing, the industry was a multi-million-dollar
business. My responsibility was to follow ministry guidelines,
maintain good customer service, maintain harmony among the staff
and customers and, of course, run a profitable enterprise. It was
a very challenging position, and I was able to work under
circumstances that were very high pressure. I managed to excel at
this challenge.
My most recent experience has
been with Federal Express Canada. Federal Express puts people
first. This not only includes customers but employees as well. No
matter their particular problem, the company believes everyone
can be rehabilitated. In my supervisory role, I have dealt with
individuals with various drug and alcohol problems. These
employees were given a lot of support within the company to deal
with their unfortunate situations. Through rehabilitation and
education these were eventually resolved.
1010
I am very impressed that a
large employer has a corporate philosophy to put people first. It
proves to me that any large
institution can do so, whether it be a business or a
government.
The last area I would like to
tell you about relates to my involvement with football in the
province of Ontario. I have been both a coach and player for the
past 30 years. During this time, I have been involved in the
operation and management of several football leagues and
tournaments. I currently coach a men's and women's touch football
team. During the past 10 years I have been on the board of
directors of Football Ontario. I also served as vice-president
and chair of youth football for Ontario.
I am currently vice-president
and chair of the tournament committee in the province of Ontario.
These tournaments bring together thousands of people throughout
Canada. The mandate of the tournament committee is wide-ranging.
My responsibilities include negotiating contracts with all
potential tournament hosts, providing field and safety
inspections, enforcing the rules and guidelines of Football
Ontario, dealing with eligibility concerns, as well as chairing
the discipline committee during tournaments.
As chair of these committees,
it has given me great insight into handling disputes. It has
taught me how to listen to all parties involved and to render an
impartial decision at hearings. By doing this I am able to make
an objective and, I trust, fair decision for the disputing
parties. An example of this: on more than one occasion in the
past I have suspended players from my own team. This has
demonstrated to my peers and other colleagues my ability to
render an impartial decision based on the facts presented to me.
I know that I will be able to draw on these experiences as a
member of the Social Benefits Tribunal.
I have learned through my
experience to organize the facts and make decisions based on the
rules and guidelines of the applicable legislation. I have
listened sympathetically to individuals who have difficulty
expressing their views. I have been able to sift through the
facts and apply common sense in making a decision where there
have been strong differences of opinion between the parties. I
have mediated and negotiated an acceptable solution.
In the future, I hope to
bring to the Social Benefits Tribunal the ability to listen and
gather the relevant facts and make sound, constructive decisions
based on the law to benefit the people of Ontario. I consider
this a great honour and opportunity to serve. Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you. We will begin the questioning with the New Democratic
Party, the third party.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault
Ste Marie): Thanks for coming today. I looked over your
resumé and I just listened to your presentation here today,
and I'm still not able to make a connection between anything that
you've done professionally or in a volunteer way that would
prepare you for the very important and difficult work that you
will be asked to do as part of this tribunal.
Perhaps you can help me a bit
more. Have you done anything of a volunteer nature, other than
your football experience, that would help you understand the very
complicated and difficult circumstances that you'll have to sit
and make judgment about once you get this appointment? There's
nothing in your professional life that I can see here, other than
you've talked about addictions and this kind of thing and making
decisions as a football coach to cut people from your team. I
would suggest that it's not quite the same.
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: If you followed my opening statement,
my work experience at Scarborough General Hospital dealing with
psychiatric patients I believe is directly related. A lot of the
problems are similar. You have people with great depression. We
had an individual who had fallen off a ladder at work and hurt
his back and no one could find out what his problem was. The best
that the psychiatrist could do at the time was diagnose him as
being depressed, but he didn't see him as being physically
handicapped, and he was being cut off his benefits as well. I can
see a lot of my work experience at the time being very similar to
what I'd be expected to do.
Mr Martin: I
wouldn't argue with you that there are people in receipt of
assistance in this province who are unhealthy, who have mental
health problems, and there are people on assistance, I'm sure,
because there are people in every profession, who are afflicted
with addictions of various sorts. But I would suggest to you that
the majority of people in receipt of assistance across this
province are ordinary people like you and me who are down on
their luck for a period of time, something has happened and they
need government to work with them to get them through this so
they get on with their lives eventually. That can be quite
challenging. Decisions are being made now at a community level,
based on some of the very narrow criteria this government has
laid down over the last five or six years, that cut them off
completely, and you're being asked, as sort of the arbiter in
those circumstances, to lend some understanding and support.
What in your background,
other than the psychiatric experience-and I would suggest to you
that not all of the folks coming before you will have psychiatric
problems-would give me any comfort to actually agree this morning
to your appointment to this tribunal?
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: I don't know if you know the scope of
what Football Ontario does throughout the province, but we deal
with over 10,000 people in Ontario. Through running my youth
programs and running tournaments throughout the province and the
country, I've had the opportunity and good experience to deal
with a variety of people. A couple in the past who actually
played for me had severe drug problems. Two of them ended up
being addicted to crack cocaine. As a friend, I ended up helping
them tremendously, mentoring and taking them to rehab and making
sure they got the help they needed.
Mr Martin: I
guess I'm just having a difficult time making the connection. I
do understand that this government is now on a track which is
assuming, before anything else, that people who are on assistance
and who've been on it for a while have some kind of an addiction
problem. I suggest to you, from the people I deal with in
my office on a daily basis
back in my community, that that in fact is not the case, that
they're simply down on their luck and looking for some assistance
to get them through a bumpy part in their lives. But it seems
this government continues to make it more and more difficult, and
the only hope we have in many instances that we will get some
assistance for some families-most of the people on welfare these
days who are dependent on the welfare cheque are children-is that
we have somebody on these tribunals who has a broad range of
experience and understanding and will bring to the table some
insight that will help us make sure there's nobody out there left
hungry or unhoused or with less than adequate clothing.
For example, and I want your
opinion on this, what you would decide, this government has
chosen to drop the spouse-in-the-house rule. Do you understand
what I'm talking about?
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: I'm familiar with it.
Mr Martin:
They decided to drop the spouse-in-the-house rule, for example.
That move by this government has been found to be contrary to the
Charter of Rights, and two courts have now decided that that in
fact is the case. But this government continues to plough right
along and send out directives to its various offices that they
should ignore that and continue to cut people off that they find
living with a spouse. What would your position be in that kind of
circumstance, where somebody comes before you, they're caught in
this spouse-in-the-house rule debacle, the courts of the land
have decided that it's against the Charter of Rights, and yet
this government moves ahead anyway and continues to apply
that?
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: Unfortunately, my personal beliefs on
that particular subject-I'd have to wait for the Legislature to
pass law. I'm sure I would be bound by guidelines and the law of
the present legislation. I wouldn't be able to make a decision on
something like that myself.
1020
Mr Martin:
In my view, tribunals are the group that, where there's a
difference of opinion between an applicant and their
representative, sometimes it's us in this place, and the local
office-and in this instance we have a court that has decided one
thing and a government that's bound and determined to do
something else. You are being asked to decide whether this family
will have food to put on the table tomorrow or not. I'm wondering
where you will come down ultimately when that kind of scenario is
put in front of you. Will it be strictly, "I'm here to do the
bidding of the government," or are you there actually as a real
arbiter to look at all of the pieces of the case and make an
intelligent, compassionate and caring decision? Or would you, as
you suggest, simply be guided by the rules and regulations you
have in front of you?
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: I'd like to think so. I'd like to
think I have the compassion, the know-how and the ability to do
what's best for the people of Ontario.
Mr Martin:
Why did you decide to apply for this position, when you really
have, in my view, absolutely no background whatsoever, no track
record of volunteer activity with any groups that would have any
knowledge of the difficulties being faced in this province by way
of poverty?
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: I've always been interested in
community and social services. I would disagree with you that I
have no experience. I could go on about people I've met through
my experiences. One was directly related to the spouse in the
house, a situation and a family I dealt with with a close friend
of mine where there was a mother and six children living in the
house. There were on and off situations where there were men
coming in and out of her life. I've seen it. I can't make a
decision on it because their situation would be totally separate
and specific to their situation. I don't know enough about what
the government has said to make an educated decision on something
like that.
Mr Martin:
Do you know what people make now? Do you know what the levels of
benefits are for people on assistance?
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: Yes, I've read the literature on it.
I couldn't quote it off the top of my head, but I have it.
Mr Martin:
Do you think that's a liveable income for anybody?
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: I can't comment on something like
that, that I haven't experienced myself. Like I said, I've seen
this one family, a mother and six children, although most of them
were grown, which was doing quite well. I don't know what exactly
she got from her kids, but she seemed to be getting by.
The Chair:
Thank you Mr Martin. The government caucus?
Mr Wood:
We'll waive our time.
The Chair:
The government has waived its time. We go to the official
opposition.
Mr Michael Gravelle
(Thunder Bay-Superior North): Good morning. Thank you
very much for being here. I want to pursue a little further your
interest in this position. How did the appointment come about?
Did you seek it or did someone contact you and offer it to
you?
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: Originally I applied with the gaming
commission. A position came up to be a manager, involved with
First Nations. They sent me a letter with some contact names on
it. They said they'd call me, but I just kept pursuing. The girl
I talked to there-I'm not sure of her name-asked me if I had
tried some of the other ministries. She mentioned that there
might be something there, so I ended up contacting the minister's
office and talking to-I can't remember who there. I asked her if
I could forward my resumé and they said, "Sure." Somebody
contacted me from there and I came in for an interview.
Mr Gravelle:
That is pretty interesting. It's a bit unusual, too. In essence,
you were actually trying to get a job with the gaming commission.
It's quite a jump to go from the gaming commission, it seems to
me, to the Social Benefits Tribunal.
Mr Triantafilopoulos: I wasn't
really trying at the time, because I was working. But if I see
something that interests me, I take a shot at it and see what
they have to offer.
Mr Gravelle:
May I ask you, sir, if you are a member of any political
party?
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: No, I'm not.
Mr Gravelle:
You're not. OK. At neither the provincial nor the federal level,
I take it?
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: No.
Mr Gravelle:
I want to pursue your thoughts-you made reference to discovering
an athlete you were supervising who you found out was on crack
cocaine, and you managed to find a way to get some help for him.
That leads us to one of the issues that's pretty interesting
right now with the ministry, which is the very strong push toward
mandatory drug testing that the minister announced in the House a
couple of weeks ago, which we happen to think is very wrong and a
contravention of the Human Rights Code. Mr Norton himself has
made that clear. I'd love to know your thoughts on that in terms
of mandatory drug testing for people on social assistance.
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: I haven't really thought about it too
much. I just leave that to what the Legislature decides and the
guidelines they might want to follow. I really haven't drawn an
opinion on it one way or the other.
Mr Gravelle:
But I think it's a fair question to ask. You are going to be in
an extremely delicate position. One would hope you would be
looking at the people you're dealing with with great compassion.
You've expressed the thought that you will be that way. It's hard
to imagine you wouldn't have any opinions on this. I think it's
fair game to ask what your thoughts are. There are other
questions in that regard, but surely you've drawn some
conclusions about that. I think that's important to ask you.
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: To be quite honest, the first time I
heard about it was when it came out in the papers. I didn't form
an opinion on it one way or the other. I really hadn't thought
about how someone could implement something like that or whether
it was right or wrong. I really didn't decide on it. On policy
issues, we could talk for hours and-
Mr Gravelle:
We've only got 10 minutes; that's why I wanted to ask you.
Obviously it's important for all of us to know what your feelings
are in relation to a number of issues that relate to policy,
because that may have an impact on some of your decision-making,
I would think.
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: The way I see my job on the Social
Benefits Tribunal is basically to decide-I must follow
guidelines, I must follow the law, whatever the Legislature
decides. I can't go against something the government decides. I
find it very hard to draw-
Mr Gravelle:
You don't view yourself as having any discretion. Is that what
you're saying?
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: Well, if the government of Ontario
makes a law that's been passed by a majority, I don't think I
could arbitrarily decide that my views are different and my
discretion is better than the people of Ontario.
Mr Gravelle:
But I do think it's fair game for us to ask for your opinion and
your thoughts of a personal nature. There's an extraordinarily
long backlog in terms of people who are waiting to get their
appeals before the Social Benefits Tribunal, and for many of
these people it makes a huge difference in their lives whether
they're going to get it or not. This backlog is another issue I'd
like your thoughts on. I just think it's fair game to ask
you.
Have you had a briefing from
the ministry? Did they give you a briefing beforehand in terms of
your session here today, to give you some assistance in
advance?
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: Briefly, yesterday. I was surprised
at the whole process. I thought once I had the interview, if I
did well in the interview, I might get a second interview. When
someone called me and told me about this, this was totally a
surprise to me. I didn't know how the whole thing worked. I just
thought I was applying for a job.
Mr Gravelle:
Yes, this is the dreadful part.
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: Oh, no, I don't find it dreadful. I
just thought I was applying for a job. I didn't realize it
was-
Mr Gravelle:
This is a very important part of the process, particularly for a
position such as this. It is important that we have your opinion.
The reason I asked you about whether you were briefed in advance
or not is that I have a suspicion that perhaps they would have
said, "This is the way you should view the job. It's a job where
we have legislation and you simply follow the rules." They
probably told you not to express your personal point of view
about any of the issues you might be asked about. Is that a fair
characterization of what happened at the briefing?
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: Not exactly. I just find that I have
a hard time expressing my personal opinions on the law when I
don't fully understand a lot of the policies that are out
there.
Mr Gravelle:
This isn't law yet. This is a consultation process. You can be
part of that. In fact, that's what I'm asking you. The minister
insists it's a consultation process. That's why I asked you about
your thoughts on whether there should be mandatory drug treatment
for people on social assistance. I just presumed you would have
an opinion on it.
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: No, I really don't, to be quite
honest. I haven't really thought about why it would benefit, why
it would be a good thing to do. Maybe everybody who gets a job
should be drug-tested, maybe they shouldn't. I really haven't
weighed the pros and cons. So for me to give you a decision in 10
minutes, I really can't do it.
1030
Mr Gravelle:
But surely you've thought about it.
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: To be quite honest, I haven't. I
thought, "Oh, that's interesting." I really gave it no more
thought than that.
Mr Gravelle: Are you aware of the
huge backlog in the number of people who are waiting for
appearance before the Social Benefits Tribunal?
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: No, I'm not.
Mr Gravelle:
You weren't told about the backlog? We understand that as far
ahead as August 2000, people are waiting. I presume one of the
reasons you're here is to erase that backlog.
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: I'd like to help to do that but I
really wasn't aware of that.
Mr Gravelle:
OK. Thank you. I'll pass to my colleague.
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky
(Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I must say
I'm somewhat concerned to understand this morning that your
initial interest in pursuing a role in public service was
directed in the area of the gaming commission, that that was your
initial interest, and that because there were no vacancies there,
you considered pursuing what other openings there might be, and
it just happened that the Social Benefits Tribunal appeared. In
my humble opinion, there really isn't a lot of similarity in
terms of the role.
My understanding of the role
of an individual who would serve on a Social Benefits Tribunal is
that you would be a participant on a quasi-judicial body. You
have made some statements in your remarks so far that indicate
you would be prepared to do whatever the legislation would
direct, but you would really appreciate that in your
quasi-judicial role you will be presented with two
interpretations. From the community service manager's
perspective-that would be the local body-they would be saying,
"We are interpreting the law in a particular way," and the
appellant would be saying, "Well, no, I think my rights are being
abridged for these reasons." Then you have the responsibility to
bring your understanding of the law to that decision. So you
really can't be directed from one side more than another. You
have to weigh the merits of both.
I am just a little concerned
that it would be your sense that you would be taking perhaps more
direction or guidance or placing more weight on the legislative
perspective, and we all know in this political reality that's the
government perspective. I am a little concerned that in a
quasi-judicial role you might be less than-biased. Can you
appreciate the point I am trying to make?
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: Yes. I think I understand where
you're coming from. I can't sit on a tribunal without following
some guidelines?
Mrs
Dombrowsky: You must.
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: Yes, of course. I think it would be
great to be able to make the best decision I know how, and a lot
of times I think I may know more than everybody else. But in
reality, a lot of times that's just ego talking. So you really
have to watch yourself and be able to listen thoroughly to people
and take both parties for what they say and sift through
everything and make an educated, logical decision after
consulting with your colleagues, after consulting with the legal
depart-ment. I don't think you can make a decision without having
some sort of restraints and guidelines on yourself.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Wouldn't you agree that in order to be
especially effective in doing that, it would be important to have
some significant background and understanding of the social
issues and the laws that are in place at the present time?
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: From what I understand, the training
is pretty thorough. I will get pretty thorough training and I'll
learn the legislation inside out. I don't intend to go in there
cold. I didn't learn every bit of legislation or read all the
stats before I came in here this morning. There wasn't time. But
I think to do the job I will have to know everything pretty
thoroughly.
The Chair:
That's the conclusion of the time for all political parties. I
thank you very much, sir, for being with us. You may stand down
and the committee will now deliberate.
Mr
Triantafilopoulos: Thank you very much. It's been a
pleasure being here.
Mr Wood: Mr
Chair, I would ask that consideration of this be deferred one
week.
The Chair:
There is a motion made by Mr Wood to defer consideration of the
appointment for one week. All in favour of that? Opposed, if any?
Carried.
Next week we will schedule a
meeting to deal with the consideration of this application.
Any further business for
the committee? If not, I'll accept an adjournment motion.
Mr Spina moves adjournment.
All in favour? Opposed? Carried. Meeting adjourned.
