Intended
appointments
Mr Stephen Pengelly
Ms Jacquelyn Fraser
Ms Lorraine Bortolussi
Mr Carman Myles
Mr William James
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
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 Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Clerk pro tem/ Greffière par intérim
Ms Susan Sourial
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 0936 in room 151.
The Chair (Mr James
Bradley): We have a sufficient number of people to begin
today. For the purpose of Hansard, I'll declare the meeting
underway.
With the permission of the
committee, I would like to have us pause for a moment of
remembrance for Al Palladini, who passed away, most
unfortunately, yesterday, a good colleague of ours in the Ontario
Legislature, a man who we all know was revered on all sides of
the House and by so many in the province. It might be appropriate
if we were to rise for a moment of silence in his memory.
The committee observed a
moment's silence.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair:
We have some housekeeping matters to deal with in the committee
today as well as regular business. We have first of all the
report of the subcommittee on business dated Thursday, March 1,
2001.
Mr Bob Wood (London
West): I move its adoption, Mr Chair.
The Chair:
Mr Wood has moved its adoption. Any discussion? All in favour?
Opposed? The motion carries.
We have another circumstance
where we have a letter from an individual who has withdrawn. The
letter reads as follows:
"This is to inform you that
one item included in the February 9, 2001, memorandum has been
withdrawn, and, therefore, should not be considered.
"The item is as follows:
"Ministry of Natural
Resources
"Niagara Escarpment
Commission
"Orville Brown."
That letter is from Peter
Allen, general manager, Public Appointments Secretariat. That has
been withdrawn for the purpose of the committee.
We have another person who is
unable to be with us and we require unanimous consent for an
extension. This is Robert Brechin, and he is out of the country
at the present time. Do I need a motion on this? If I have
unanimous consent, we could delay that to the next meeting of
this committee.
Mr Wood: I
would ask unanimous consent for an extension of the time period
by 30 days.
The Chair:
All in favour? Thank you kindly. That is passed.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
STEPHEN PENGELLY
Review of intended
appointment, selected by the official opposition party: Stephen
Pengelly, intended appointee as member, Town of Greater Napanee
Police Services Board.
The Chair:
Our first appointment this morning is Stephen Pengelly, intended
appointee as member, Town of Greater Napanee Police Services
Board. You may come forward, please. As you are probably aware,
you are entitled to make a statement to the members of the
committee, an initial statement on any subject you wish. Welcome
to the committee, Mr Pengelly.
Mr Stephen
Pengelly: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Good morning, members
of the committee. I thought that by providing some opening
remarks I might be able to answer some basic questions about who
I am and what my community involvement has been in the past few
years, including my involvement with policing.
I am a resident of the town
of Greater Napanee. I live in the rural part of the municipality
approximately 15 kilometres south of the town of Napanee in what
used to be South Fredericksburgh township. My family and I moved
to our current home last June, and prior to that I lived in what
is now the west end of the city of Kingston and what used to be
the township of Kingston.
I've had an interest in
community policing for about 10 years, ever since the province
initiated the concept and encouraged citizens to form local
community policing committees to provide advice to police
services.
I attended the inaugural
community policing meeting hosted by the local detachment of the
Ontario Provincial Police and became a member of the Kingston
township community policing committee in 1992. Eventually, I
became an area committee chair-in Kingston township we were
divided into four areas-and eventually secretary to the township
committee.
In 1994 our committee helped
to organize a very successful community policing conference at
the Royal Military College. As a result of the synergies created
by that first conference, the Community Policing Advisory Council
of Ontario was established. I was a founding member of CPAC.
In 1995, a group within CPAC
felt that it was important for community policing committees to
be able to confer with one another and to share best practices.
The advent of the Internet provided the means to facilitate
such communications, and we
set about to create a Web site which would permit community
groups to engage in such communication and the sharing of ideas
and success stories related to improving community policing and
community safety.
We created a Web presence
known as the Community Policing Information Network-CPInet is how
it's known-and the response to our initiative was very positive.
We incorporated CPInet as a not-for-profit organization and, in
addition to providing a forum for community-to-community
discussion, we were also able to host initial OPP, RCMP and Metro
Toronto presences on the Internet. Each of those policing
agencies eventually created and moved to their own sites.
In 1996 I travelled to
Washington with one of the other CPInet founders to make a
presentation to the FBI and the US Department of Justice on the
nature of our initiative and the successes to date. At that time,
the FBI was searching for a means to interact with local
communities and was very interested in the work which we had done
in this province. The Department of Justice was similarly
interested in community policing initiatives and was also quite
interested in our work. Both organizations expressed their
gratitude for the experience, advice and assistance we were able
to provide them.
In 1996 I was approached to
become a member of the Kingston Police Services Board. I agreed
and was appointed in June of that year. I was elected chair of
the board in November 1996 and served in that capacity until May
1997, when I resigned from the board due to a change in
employment which required me to be out of the city of Kingston
five days a week and thereby prevented me from attending and
chairing meetings.
I became aware of the vacancy
on the Greater Napanee board by reading an advertisement in the
local paper inviting interested persons to submit an application
to the Ministry of the Solicitor General. I submitted an
application because I have a continuing interest in policing
issues generally and community-based policing in particular, and
I had hoped my experiences in those areas might be helpful as the
new board is formed and begins to discover its role.
I am a member in good
standing of the Law Society of Upper Canada. I remain a founding
member of the Community Policing Advisory Council of Ontario and
I act as its legal adviser from time to time. I am a former
member of the governing board of St Mary's of the Lake Hospital
in Kingston, which is now known as Providence Continuing Care
Centre. I am president of the Kingston chapter of the Kidney
Foundation of Canada and I'm a member of the board of directors
of the Eastern Ontario branch of the Kidney Foundation. I am a
member of the board of directors of the Ontario Safety League and
a member of the executive committee of that organization as
well.
I continue to act as the
voluntary president of CPInet and, although I've not listed it in
my written comments here, I am also a former school council chair
and acted in that capacity for about three years, and co-chaired
for a year as well in the local school area in the city of
Kingston. I worked on a committee with what was then the
Frontenac county board in developing its school council policy
back in 1996, I believe.
I'd be pleased to attempt to
answer any questions you have for me.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Pengelly, and we'll begin with the
official opposition.
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky
(Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Good morning,
Mr Pengelly. I'm curious, with the address on your letterhead as
RR1, Bath, Ontario, that you would be a resident of the town of
Greater Napanee.
Mr Pengelly:
I have a Bath address and an Adolphustown phone number and I pay
my taxes to the town of Greater Napanee.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: It's one of those curious areas in my
riding, but a beautiful part of it, to be sure.
Mr Pengelly:
Just for geographical purposes, I'm about 4 kilometres west of
the power plant on Highway 33.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: OK. I drove by it yesterday. Very good.
Your name is familiar to me.
Was it a few months ago that I read you were employed by the
Kingston General Hospital?
Mr Pengelly:
I was doing some work for the Kingston General Hospital as a
consultant.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: As a consultant.
Mr Pengelly:
I was doing some advocacy on their behalf.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Advocacy to?
Mr Pengelly:
To the province, to the Ministry of Health, in particular.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I think the paper said you were a
lobbyist.
Mr Pengelly:
I think that's what they said, yes.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: So you're that person.
Mr Pengelly:
I am that person, yes.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: OK. The name was familiar and now I know
why.
With regard to an appointment
to the police services board, you do have significant experience
with municipal police services boards. Are you familiar with the
significant differences serving in a community where the services
are provided by the Ontario Provincial Police?
Mr Pengelly:
I am familiar with some of the distinctions. Perhaps the largest
is that there's no budgeting responsibility, and the two parties
to the contract which exists are the municipality and the police
service-the OPP in this case.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Certainly I have heard at this committee and
also within my riding that an issue for municipalities, from time
to time, has been their lack of direct input to some of the
administrative personnel who manage police issues within a
municipality. Are you familiar with those sorts of challenges
that municipalities now deal with when they engage the services
of the Ontario Provincial Police?
Mr Pengelly: Clearly, in a
situation such as the Greater Napanee Police Services Board, the
board will have to work closely with the municipality, because
one of the responsibilities the board has, as I understand it, is
to participate in the selection of the senior administrator, I
guess, for the local detachment, who is the detachment commander.
As I also understand, there is a municipal representative on the
board, or will be-perhaps the mayor, if the mayor decides to
fulfill that role-and another citizen appointment. So there are
three members of the board. Clearly it will be perhaps not a
challenge but a responsibility of the board to develop an
appropriate method of liasing with the municipal council to
ensure the council's view is also represented in the board's work
and in providing oversight and some policy direction to the local
detachment of the OPP.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Are you aware of the challenges rural
municipalities have, now that they are fully responsible for the
cost of policing within their municipality-the challenges that
has presented? Just this week, I had a meeting with municipal
representatives who very effectively shared with me their concern
and their question about their ability to continue to offer the
same level of police service at an affordable price.
Mr Pengelly:
I am certainly aware of the issue. In a former capacity, I was
very familiar with that issue. It's an ongoing issue. I guess one
of the things a police services board has to do is ensure there
is adequate and effective policing notwithstanding the financial
challenges the municipality has to face. That's not to say those
challenges should be ignored; they shouldn't. Obviously a
municipality's capacity to pay for a contract is very important,
but I think the board's focus needs to be on ensuring that public
safety is maintained and that the work of the service is at a
level that provides what is required by law, which is adequate
protective policing.
0950
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Are you a member of a political party?
Mr Pengelly:
I don't think I'm a card-carrying member at the moment, but I've
certainly been associated with the Progressive Conservative party
of Ontario for many years-I think since I was about 16.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: That concludes my questions.
The Chair:
We will go to Mr Martin of the third party.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault
Ste Marie): Just to follow up on the last question,
you've had quite an interesting, I would think, and long history
of involvement with the Progressive Conservative party,
particularly in government. It says on your resume that you were
the executive assistant to the finance minister and Deputy
Premier for a time.
Mr Pengelly:
That's correct. For about two and a half years. Prior to that, in
another lifetime, I was legislative assistant to Premier
Davis.
Mr Martin:
You've served on the school board, and you've been on the police
services board in Kingston. Given the array of possibilities to
serve out there, and given your political connections, why would
you pick being part of this particular organization at this point
in time?
Mr Pengelly:
For me that's a simple question to answer. I live in the
community, and I have an obligation as a citizen of the community
to put back into the community what I can. Secondly, I have a
long-standing interest in policing issues. So it was a pretty
simple thing for me. I opened up the Napanee Beaver one day and
there was an advertisement and it said where to apply, so I
applied.
I guess another factor was
that I really enjoyed the time I spent on the city of Kingston
Police Services Board but didn't really get a chance to finish in
that role, in that I had to take my leave because of my changed
employment circumstances.
Mr Martin: I
note in your resume that you are president of CPInet Inc and also
legal adviser to the community policing advisory council.
Mr Pengelly:
If I could just expand on that, what that usually involves is
that when they have a proposed change in their bylaws, they send
it to me and ask me to comment on it. That's perhaps the extent
that-
Mr Martin:
The legal adviser one, you mean?
Mr Pengelly:
Yes.
Mr Martin:
OK. But you have CPInet in employment history. Does that mean
it's-
Mr Pengelly:
No, it was always a voluntary role.
Mr Martin:
And it still is?
Mr Pengelly:
Yes, it is.
Mr Martin:
Do either of them present any kind of conflict of interest for
you?
Mr Pengelly:
I don't think so. CPInet operates on its own now. It continues to
provide a forum for discussion. It's being used by other public
safety and public service oriented organizations at the moment. I
couldn't imagine that it would provide a conflict. If it did,
obviously I have an obligation as a solicitor to declare any
conflicts and not participate in situations where-
Mr Martin:
Given your professional capacity, are there any other
circumstances where you might find yourself in conflict-people
you might represent?
Mr Pengelly:
I've never done any criminal law, and it would be inappropriate
and probably unlawful to participate in this kind of activity if
one were a practising criminal lawyer. I've also never been a
crown, so I've had nothing to do with criminal law. I can't
imagine, doing primarily public advocacy, wills and estates and a
little bit of corporate work, that I'd get into a conflict
situation. Again, if I did, I'd have an obligation to declare it
and step away from it.
Mr Martin:
You don't have any involvement with clients who would have, say,
proprietary interest in hotels or bars or casinos or any of that
kind of thing?
Mr Pengelly:
Not that I'm aware of, no.
Mr Martin:
OK. Certainly, the whole area of policing is not without some
challenge these days out there.
Mr Pengelly:
Absolutely.
Mr Martin: One of the challenges
that's being dealt with at the moment is the whole question of
accountability. You have the police services board, but you also
have organizations like the SIU that have to come in. In both
instances, there seem to be, from time to time, some quite heated
differences of opinion on various subjects between the policing
associations and those bodies charged with accountability. What's
your view on where all that's going, and where do you think it
should end up?
Mr Pengelly:
Personally, I believe that an SIU function is probably
appropriate. There should be some oversight of the operational
aspects of policing as well as the policy aspects. As I
understand the roles of police services boards, their focus is on
policy direction and, in the case of municipal police services
boards, budgeting to ensure that there's adequate and effective
police services. But as far as operations are concerned, a police
services board, probably appropriately, should have very little
role in the ongoing operation of police activities. As a
consequence, if there is to be public accountability, there needs
to be some other agency, and the SIU at the moment is that
agency.
Mr Martin:
Were you aware of some of the goings-on in the Toronto area not
so long ago under the rubric of the True Blue campaign by the
police association, where fundraising was being done in a way
that was interpreted by some as lending to the possibility of
intimidation or perhaps some influence giving-out or
whatever?
Mr Pengelly:
I'm certainly aware of those activities. I read about them in the
newspaper, but beyond that, I don't live in Toronto, so what
happens in Toronto is not that significant to me. I apologize to
those of you here who represent Toronto.
Mr Morley Kells
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore): We're used to it.
Mr Martin:
If a police association becomes involved, for example, in trying
to exert influence where local elections are concerned,
supporting candidates who are police-friendly versus candidates
who are not seen to be, and that was to flow over into other
areas of this province, including the one that you're going to be
on the police services board for, what would your position be on
that?
Mr Pengelly:
I guess I'd have to wait and see whether or not that happened.
I'm not a municipal councillor and I have no plans to become a
municipal councillor. It would seem to me that if there was that
kind of activity, it would be focused on those sorts of
representatives. I'm interested in participating in the community
as a member of the police services board. I would not be elected.
The members are not elected to that position, they're appointed.
From my standpoint, personally, it would be significant, it would
be important, but in terms of whether or not, and how, I get my
job as a member of the police services board, I don't think it
would have any impact at all, unless there was something that was
illegal or grossly inappropriate that was happening.
Mr Martin:
We had an appointee by the government before us who was
successful in his appointment, Al Leach, who, when asked the
question whether an association should be involved in that kind
of behaviour or activity, suggested that it was just like any
other union and what they do outside their workaday world in
terms of involvement in political matters was OK by him. Would
that be your position?
Mr Pengelly:
I might differ somewhat. I think a police service is quite
different from a construction union. It provides an essential
service to the community and, as a consequence, the police
service and the members of the police service have different
responsibilities to the community. So I would personally perhaps
differ from what you described as Mr Leach's views.
1000
Mr Martin:
Just one other question, if I might. There's been a new adequacy
and effectiveness standards regulation introduced by this
government. It went into effect on January 1 and will have some
bearing on the work of associations such as the one you're a
candidate to join here today. Are you familiar with these
standards and, if so, do you have any comment on them?
Mr
Pengelly: I'm familiar with them generally. I've had a
look at the legislation and regulations and new requirements
under, I think it was, reg 399. The challenge, I expect, will be
the challenge of putting together all of the documents that are
required under the new regulations. Perhaps that's an area where
I can be of some assistance.
Two of the things that have
to be developed by police services boards under the new
regulations in a rural setting and an OPP contract setting are
policies, and there's a second item which is escaping me at the
moment. But my drafting capacity might be of some use in
preparing the documentation. It's the business plan. I've done
business plans and I've written policy before, so I might be able
to be of some assistance in that regard. But those are certainly
going to be challenges for every police services board,
determining their role and determining what appropriate policies
will be.
The Chair:
The government party now.
Mr Wood:
We will waive our time.
The Chair:
The government party has selected to waive its time, so this
concludes the interviewing. Thank you very much, Mr Pengelly, for
appearing before the committee.
JACQUELYN FRASER
Review of intended
appointment, selected by the official opposition party: Jacquelyn
Fraser, intended appointee as member, Environmental Review
Tribunal.
The Chair:
The next person to be dealt with, as an intended appointee as a
member of the Environmental Review Tribunal, is Jacquelyn Fraser.
Ms Fraser, please come forward. As we indicated earlier, the
person who is an intended appointee has an opportunity to make an
initial statement if she or he wishes to do so. Subsequent to
that, there will be questioning by each of the parties. In this
case, we will be starting with the New Democratic Party, the
third party. Welcome to the committee.
Ms Jacquelyn Fraser: Thank you
very much. I was waiting patiently in committee room 1 and
wondering when people were going to start showing up. Anyway, I'm
glad I found the right room.
Good morning. My name is
Jackie Fraser. I'd like to take this opportunity to tell you a
little bit about my background and why I think it qualifies me
for this exciting opportunity at the Environmental Review
Tribunal.
I grew up on a dairy farm
in Huttonville, which is a small community that is quickly being
lost to the urban sprawl of Brampton as we speak. Growing up on a
farm within the urban fringe really raised my awareness of
environmental issues, and land use planning issues especially,
which led me to go on to study resources management at the
University of Guelph. Summer jobs included the Ministry of
Agriculture and Food, as it was called then, the Stewardship
Information Bureau and the Credit Valley Conservation Authority,
where I did stream rehabilitation work on the upper Credit.
While completing my
bachelor of science degree in agriculture, I became interested in
pit and quarry rehabilitation and went on to do a master of
science degree in land resources management. My thesis focused on
the rehabilitation of Dufferin Aggregates, Milton quarry, which
is located on the Niagara Escarpment just north of Milton.
After graduating, I worked
for ESG International, which is an environmental consulting firm
based out of Guelph. At ESG, I worked on a variety of projects,
ranging from pipeline routing studies to public consultation,
environmental impact assessments, sub-watershed studies and pit
and quarry rehabilitation projects. During this time I was
appointed to the Niagara Escarpment Commission as a member at
large. I really enjoyed my time as a commissioner and learned a
great deal about the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development
Act, as well as the appeals process, which of course constitutes
about half of the workload at the Environmental Review
Tribunal.
I currently work for the
Aggregate Producers' Association of Ontario, or APAO for short,
as their environment and resources manager. I really enjoy this
job. The aggregate is an exciting one to be part of. They've come
a long way in the last 10, 20 to 30 years, with a lot of exciting
environmental and rehabilitation initiatives within that
industry. To give a quick example, we operate a program funded
solely by tonnage fees from the producers themselves that goes to
rehabilitating sites which were abandoned prior to the Aggregate
Resources Act and mandatory rehabilitation. Many of you may have
read about the great rehabilitation work that is going on at
Dufferin Aggregates' Milton quarry. There was a big article on it
in the Toronto Star last summer. They are not the only ones doing
exciting and innovative rehab work.
My role at the APAO is to
assist the aggregate industry in environmental issues, such as
understanding and complying with environmental regulations. Along
with the Ministry of Natural Resources, I monitor official plan
reviews to ensure that there is "regard for" the provincial
policy statement on aggregate resources management. I also
organize workshops on environmental issues, pit and quarry
rehabilitation and community relations.
Through this job, as well
as through my past consulting experience, I have become very
familiar with the full range of environmental legislation in
Ontario, from certificates of approval under the Environmental
Protection Act to permits to take water under the Ontario Water
Resources Act, the Environmental Bill of Rights, and the
Environmental Assessment Act.
On a personal note, I
volunteer on the Canada Trust Friends of the Environment
Foundation as well as the Ontario 4-H Foundation. Being a good
farmer's daughter, I was an avid 4-H participant in my youth.
Before leaving the Niagara Escarpment Commission, I was selected
to serve on Ted McMeekin's environmental advisory committee as an
adviser on Niagara Escarpment issues. We just had our first
meeting last night. I recently left the Ontario Trails Council
and I'm about to join the Bruce Trail Association.
In summary, my academic
background, employment experience, and experience on the Niagara
Escarpment Commission have provided me with the skills and
knowledge required as a member of the Environmental Review
Tribunal. I think I'm qualified for this appointment and I am
very excited about embarking on this new challenge. Thank you
very much. I look forward to any questions.
The Vice-Chair (Mr
Bruce Crozier): Thank you, Ms Fraser. We're now open for
questions.
Mr Martin:
You were appointed to the Niagara Escarpment Commission in 1998?
Is that when you served?
Ms Fraser:
In 1997. Three years ago, anyway.
Mr Martin:
Yes, 1998 to 2000. You're leaving that now to take on this
position. Any reason why?
Ms Fraser:
It's definitely a promotion, I guess, a jump ahead. My three-year
term was up and I wasn't reappointed; I was appointed to this
position instead. I think it's a new opportunity and it's going
to be an interesting experience.
Mr Martin:
Why weren't you reappointed?
Ms Fraser:
That's a good question. I don't know whether it was moving me
forward or what the exact reason was. That wasn't made known to
me.
Mr Martin:
The tribunal you're going to be appointed to, in my
understanding, will be a court of next recourse if there are
differences of opinion re a decision that's made at, for example,
the Niagara Escarpment Commission level. If a group or an
applicant disagrees with the decision, they will take it there
and you will get to be the final arbiter on those things.
Are you aware of the group
called the Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment, CONE?
Ms Fraser:
Yes.
Mr Martin:
And its grading of yourself in terms of its report card?
Ms Fraser:
Yes.
Mr Martin:
Why would they not see you as somebody supportive of some of what
they see as the healthy development of that escarpment?
Ms Fraser: Just for the whole
committee to understand, the Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment
is an umbrella organization, sort of a watchdog group over the
commission. They put together a report card, I believe it was
maybe a year ago. They took 10 issues that there had been a
recorded vote on and you got a check mark if you voted in favour
of staff or an X if you voted against staff. Then they tallied it
up and you got a mark out of 10. My mark was out of eight because
I was absent for two of the issues. I had voted against staff on
three different issues so that came out a C. I believe I got a
C+. They gave me the plus, so they must have liked me a little
bit.
1010
There is a reason why there
are 17 members sitting around a table voting. There are things
that the act doesn't always anticipate happening. One of the
examples that jumps out at me is, there was a maple syrup
production facility and it wasn't strictly listed in the act as
agriculture. But, quite frankly, it's agriculture as far as I'm
concerned and as far as the impact on the environment is
concerned. So it was one of those things that didn't fit the
cookie-cutter mould and that's when you need a 17-member
commission to make decision like that. Having said that, the
17-member commission isn't there to create policies on the fly,
but there are certain situations that don't always fit the
mould.
Also, to go back to that
report card, eight commissioners received Fs because they always
voted against staff. I believe there were seven who got As
because they always voted in favour of staff and there were only
two of us who got neither A nor F. I was actually quite proud
that the two of us were the ones making decisions at the
commission.
Mr Martin:
In your resumé it says that you worked for the Aggregate
Producers' Association of Ontario.
Ms Fraser:
Yes. I still work there. That's my job right now.
Mr Martin:
Will that create conflict for you?
Ms Fraser:
Yes, certainly when cases come up that involve any of the members
or even non-members, any aggregate producer, I would not deal
with those cases.
Mr Martin:
How much of the work of the Niagara Escarpment Commission is in
the area of dealing with people who want to develop quarries?
Ms Fraser:
It's interesting, because when I joined the commission I was
working for an environmental consulting firm and I had to declare
conflict of interest more often then than I did when I moved to
the Aggregate Producers' Association of Ontario. There has been a
recent flush of them but, on average, maybe once every two
meetings I was declaring a conflict. It was not a large
proportion of the workload by any means.
Mr Martin:
Your political affiliation?
Ms Fraser:
None at all.
Mr Martin:
You had mentioned that you weren't reappointed but this
opportunity was presented. How was it presented to you? How did
you find out about this?
Ms Fraser:
I was appointed to the Niagara Escarpment Commission by Ted
Chudleigh and with that connection-he was an old baseball coach
of mine when I was a kid. I knew my appointment was coming up and
so I contacted him about whether I was going to be reappointed.
He was the one who told me no but he had this other, better
opportunity for me. So I was quite excited about that.
The
Vice-Chair: We'll move on to the government caucus.
Mr Wood:
We'll waive our time.
The
Vice-Chair: Then to the official opposition.
Mr James J. Bradley
(St Catharines): I've left the chair, as members would
know, for a reason. I'm the environment critic of the official
opposition so I'll have questions in that capacity. The Chair
will continue to be as objective as he always is.
I must first of all express
a concern that by working for the Aggregate Producers'
Association of Ontario there cannot be impartiality. I know
you've said that you are going to declare a conflict and not vote
on and not take part in this, but to have a person from the
aggregate producers' association on an environmental tribunal
boggles my mind, to be sure.
Would you understand why
environmentalists would be concerned that you are appointed to a
position where you will be making decisions that affect the
environment in this province and that those decisions will have
not short-term implications but long-term implications?
Ms Fraser:
I can certainly understand the perception, and perception is
reality when it gets out there. However, I'm the environment and
resources manager for the APAO and my job is strictly in the
environmental area. I think it's one of those things where on the
surface an environmentalist might think, "Oh, my God, pits and
quarries. Aggregate producers, they're rapists and pillagers of
the environment." But that clearly is not the case. It's
something that is an interim land use. It's a clean process. It's
a necessary commodity in society and I think the industry has
really come a long way in improving their environmental
outlook.
Mr
Bradley: However, when you work for an employer of that
kind, because I've had experience with this a number of years
ago, your job, in essence, is to do the work of the employer. You
represent the position of the employer in this particular case.
The concern would be that permeating the decisions made by the
environmental tribunal, we're going to see a pro-development-I
won't say "anti-environment," as that would be unfair to say. But
the concern would be expressed that we'll see a pro-development
bias, keeping in mind that once the decision is made, it's made
forever in many cases. Would you comment on that?
Ms Fraser:
I guess I don't see myself in that way. I don't see that there
would be a pro-development bias with regard to my decisions. I
don't see that.
Mr
Bradley: You also had a position-and you might wish to
speak about this a bit-where you were a resource technician with
ESG International, formerly known as Ecological Services for
Planning. One of the situations you were involved in was the
pre-construction soil
monitoring for a Union Gas pipeline project. It appears as though
you've been a consultant for business throughout and that's been
the primary focus of your career to this point. Would that be a
fair characterization?
Ms Fraser:
At ESG, in fact, I worked both for private industry as well as
municipal governments. Things like watershed studies and whatnot
were done for municipal governments and conservation authorities,
and things like environmental impact assessments and pipeline
routing studies, of course, for private interests.
Mr
Bradley: When you were on the Niagara Escarpment
Commission, there were two points of view for people on the
Niagara Escarpment Commission. One is that on a
situation-by-situation basis you simply make those decisions,
which again have long-term implications, or you believe in the
implementation of the plan. Where would you place yourself when
you were on the commission?
Ms Fraser:
I believe in implementation of the plan. Certainly at the
Environmental Review Tribunal that would be my job as well, to
uphold those various acts that I'd be dealing with. However,
having said that, and further to the earlier question about the
C+ mark, certainly there are outstanding situations. Those
situations where I was seen as voting against staff and maybe
perceived as voting against the plan were those rare situations
where something doesn't fit the cookie-cutter mould and you have
to think in terms of impact, what kind of impact is this going to
have. Something like a maple sugar bush, quite frankly, is not a
concern to me. With things like that, sometimes you have to use
your head and there's a reason why we have humans doing things
like that.
Mr
Bradley: The reason I look at these kinds of tribunals,
again I go back to the fact that it's long-term. I look at the
Niagara Peninsula-this is a bit off of that over which you would
have jurisdiction, but you may have-we had beautiful farmland in
the Niagara Peninsula, a wonderful rural area. It now looks like
suburban Cleveland as you drive along the Queen Elizabeth
Highway. Highway 8, which used to be a beautiful drive, has now
got subdivisions and development all over the place. It's
something that was unique and you can't replace. You can't tear
up those subdivisions and now have that farmland exist. It's been
allowed to happen, and it's been allowed to happen for a number
of years, not for just the last six years. I worry about the same
thing on the escarpment. Could you tell me how you voted on the
Vineland Estates proposal?
Ms Fraser:
That was my second meeting as a commissioner and I voted in
favour of it. I need to qualify that a bit. I voted in favour of
it because I thought it was good for agriculture, it was a good
promotion of the winery industry down there, which I think is
doing a fabulous job and I'm very excited about where that has
gone. Just as an aside, had I not got this job at the APAO, I was
going to go back and do a Ph.D. degree on agricultural land
preservation, so you've certainly hit my passion there. Looking
back-I'm going to be very honest and frank-I would have changed
my vote, because knowing now what I didn't know at my second
commission meeting, the precedent that may have set, I would have
changed my vote. I'll be honest on that one.
Mr
Bradley: The government overruled the commission on that
and I agree with the government decision and have said so
publicly. The government similarly overruled a subdivision in the
same municipality that was going to be permitted. I agree with
that decision by the government. I commend Mr Sterling as a
member of cabinet for likely having a say in that.
Ms Dombrowsky, I think,
wants to ask a question or two, so I'd better yield the floor to
Ms Dombrowsky.
1020
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I only have one. I could not help but note
in your remarks and your comments that you have indicated that
when you consider a particular issue or situation, you consider
the impact that it will have. It would be important for me to
understand the impact on the economy. Is that the impact you're
considering or the impact on the environment? I've got to think
that perhaps if your considerations reflected consideration of
the environment, you might have rated better than a C+.
Ms Fraser:
Yes, impact on the environment, definitely. The Niagara
Escarpment Planning and Development Act is an environmental act,
as well as all the acts that I would be looking after at the
Environmental Review Tribunal. Again, the C+, that report card,
it was an interesting way it was done, and the Vineland vote was
one of the three that were against; another was the maple sugar
bush and another was a farmer who had two roads criss-crossing
his farm so he couldn't get a farm retirement lot because those
were considered prior severances. I'm not a big fan of farm
retirement lots or any severances, but I felt he was in a bad
situation where he had two roads go through his farm and suddenly
he wasn't allowed to have a farm retirement lot like his
neighbours could have. Those were the three situations. I talked
about the first two enough; I think that third one, the farm
retirement lot, I would give my reasons for that as well.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I have to say, though, I do share the
concern of my colleague in that your employment is with an
industry. It certainly is in the better interest of your employer
to look very openly, with maybe even more than an open mind, on
development proposals that will ensure the continued viability of
aggregates and quarries. I'm not personally opposed to aggregates
and quarries, but as my colleague has indicated, the Niagara
Escarpment is certainly a unique feature in our province. I've
taken the drive that he's talked about and I'm very saddened to
see the kind of development that has unfolded there. I'm certain
that it has had, some would say, a very positive impact on the
economy, but I don't know that we could say the same thing about
the impact on the environment. Once it's lost, it's lost
forever.
I appreciate the remarks
you've offered today to the committee and thank you very much for
that clarification.
Mr
Bradley: Is there any time left?
The Vice-Chair: You have
approximately a minute.
Mr
Bradley: There is an obsession-my good friend Bob Wood,
the member for London South-it used to be called, but it's now
got a different-
Mr Wood:
West.
Mr
Bradley: London West now-when he was on the infamous, as
I call it-he would say "famous"-Red Tape Commission, they had an
obsession with timelines; that is, if you don't get this decision
by this time and if this isn't done by this time, the world will
come to an end for business. I want to say to Mr Wood I
understand that concern. However, do you feel it would be better
to take longer to make a decision and perhaps violate those
guidelines than it would be to simply rush through a decision in
order that you can meet those guidelines that are important to Mr
Wood and some of his colleagues on the Red Tape Commission?
Ms Fraser:
I'm trying to remember my reading of how long I'm given to make a
decision at the tribunal. I believe it's a month-I believe it's
60 days or something along those lines. I guess all my life I've
been pretty used to meeting much tighter deadlines than that and
I would hope that within a month I could make a decision. Of
course, if it's some sort of situation that I can't, I don't even
know what kind of leeway I would have in that scenario. The most
important thing at the end of the day is to have made the right
decision, quite clearly, but I would hope I could do that within
60 days.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you, Ms Fraser. We appreciate your
attendance today.
LORRAINE BORTOLUSSI
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Lorraine
Bortolussi, intended appointee as vice-chair, Workplace Safety
and Insurance Board Appeals Tribunal.
The
Vice-Chair: That leads us to move on to the next
selection, which is Lorraine Bortolussi.
Interjection.
Mr Wood:
Mr Chair, we could deal with a couple of concurrences, if
desired, while we're waiting.
The Chair:
I see the intended appointee here. The next person is, as
mentioned, an intended appointee as vice-chair, Workplace Safety
and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, Lorraine A. Bortolussi. You may
come forward. As you may be aware, you have an opportunity to
make an initial statement to the committee on any subject you
wish, and then we will commence the questioning subsequent to
that with the government members and go on rotation. Welcome to
the committee.
Ms Lorraine
Bortolussi: Good morning, Mr Chair, members of the
committee. I'm pleased to be here as an intended appointee to the
Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.
I recognize the very
important work that the tribunal does in dealing with appeals by
both employees and employers from final decisions of the
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. I understand that the basic
premise of this scheme is to provide a no-fault insurance system
for work-related injuries and diseases that is funded by
employers' premiums.
I was born and raised in
Sault Ste Marie. I attended the University of Western Ontario and
was registered in the honours English program there. I was
accepted to law school after two years of undergraduate studies
and attended at University of Ottawa for my bachelor of laws. I
completed my bachelor of arts degree by taking summer courses at
Algoma University in Sault Ste Marie. I therefore obtained both
degrees in 1982. I make this point because at my interview with
the chair of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal
I was asked by Mr Strachan whether that was a typographical
error. I assured him that it was not.
I have been in private
practice for 17 years. In the last eight or nine years I have
restricted my practice to family law. My practice is largely a
Supreme Court practice. My office is located such that I am
almost equidistant from the Newmarket, Toronto and Brampton
courts where I practise, although most of my work is in Newmarket
and Toronto. I practise in association with two other lawyers,
who also practise only family law.
My work days consist mainly
of advising people of their rights and obligations on the
numerous issues which arise on the breakdown of their
relationships and then attempting to resolve these issues by way
of agreement or by preparing their case and presenting it to a
court for determination. I take my role as an adviser, a mediator
and an advocate very seriously because I understand that my
professional advice and representation in these cases affects my
clients' lives so totally and in a way which touches everything
that is important to them, and usually everything they've worked
for and believed in to that point in their lives. My objectivity
and my integrity in providing counsel to them can never be
compromised.
In this area of practice,
that is, family law, I deal regularly with approximately 18
different statutes and at least four different sets of rules of
procedure and their corresponding forms. I believe in keeping
current and competent, and attend approximately 10 full-day
continuing legal education courses each year, including our
biennial national family law conference. I am currently enrolled
in the mediation workshop at the Harvard Law School in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, for the week of June 11 to 15 this year.
My five years of
adjudicative experience on the Licence Appeal Tribunal has been
very rewarding. As a member of the tribunal, I have received
training and experience as a member sitting alone and as a member
of a tripartite panel. I have adjudicated appeals under the
Highway Traffic Act of administrative licence suspensions, motor
vehicle inspection station licences, mechanics' licences,
suspension of personal drivers' licences for medical or other
reasons, and suspension or sanction of commercial operators such
as big transport truck carriers.
I wrote the first decision
under the administrative licence suspension legislation in
December 1996. The appellant in that case won his appeal and got
the suspension lifted. This decision, I believe, led to
amendments to the legislation.
1030
In the latter part of my
tenure on the Licence Appeal Tribunal, I was assigned mainly to
the long transport truck carrier cases. These hearings usually
took between five and nine days each and were usually presented
to the board on appeal by very experienced and competent counsel
for both the appellants and the ministry. For most of these
hearings I sat as the presiding member, meaning that when
assigned I would chair the hearing and write the decision.
Throughout my adult life, I
have always been involved in my community and have volunteered my
time and skills to various boards and organizations, usually for
those underprivileged and in need of support. My service on this
tribunal as a part-time vice-chair would allow me to continue to
serve the people of Ontario by applying my legal skills and
training and my adjudicative experience in a productive and
concrete way.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for the initial statement. We begin with the
government members.
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): Thank you, Ms Bortolussi, for
appearing before the committee. We know you have some excellent
credentials that will bring your expertise to a very professional
approach in dealing with cases before this tribunal.
Ms
Bortolussi: Thank you, Mr Spina.
Mr Wood:
We'll waive the balance of our time.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Good morning, Ms Bortolussi, and thank you
for coming this morning.
I'm sure in your research
that you did prior to considering a role with the tribunal you
understood the significant workload attached to it. By the way,
I'm most impressed that you spend a significant amount of your
time with continuing education courses in your profession.
This is a part-time role
and what I would like to understand from you is, are you
prepared, are you aware of the significant commitment that this
will be and that it might mean that you may not be able to
continue some of those other activities and pursuits because of
the significant workload? We are talking about several thousands
of cases that are on the docket and must be dealt with.
Ms
Bortolussi: I am aware of the caseload and one of the
reasons this position appeals to me is that because of the length
of the hearings on the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which were days
in a row, that was becoming much too significant to carry on my
practice and take five to nine days in a row away from the
practice and then write the decision. I understand these hearings
are shorter, and I can accommodate that quite easily. My intake
in my personal practice is really up to me and I do have two
associates who work closely with me, so I can balance all of that
quite easily.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I'm sure you have been given the chart of
the pattern that seems to be evolving in terms of the numbers of
cases that come to this tribunal for adjudication. Perhaps a
descriptor that I would use is that they have increased
exponentially. So the number that you are considering at this
time in terms of caseload, several thousand, could significantly
increase. That is something you are prepared to address and
commit to?
Ms
Bortolussi: I am prepared to commit to the estimate of
the number of hearings that I would be expected to take on in a
month, and they wouldn't be a thousand at a time, so I think over
time I can make a significant contribution and get the decisions
out quite expeditiously after I hear them.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Of course all of this could be moot if the
proposed changes occur and there is one supertribunal. But maybe
one of the other members here might pursue that.
Mr Bruce Crozier
(Essex): Good morning. We appreciate your appearing here
today, and not so much as I reviewed your qualifications and
experience but more to the point of the tribunal and its
role.
It's just been mentioned
that there is some review of the future of this particular
tribunal in that it may be rolled into what's referred to as a
supertribunal, one that would take on the responsibilities of the
Ontario Labour Relations Board, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal,
the Education Relations Commission and the College Relations
Commission. I'd like your opinion as to the expertise that may be
required in each of these individual tribunals, compared to what
might be encountered if you were a member of a supertribunal, one
that had to handle all these issues.
Ms
Bortolussi: I don't think I can answer that. I
understand that supertribunal is being looked at. I'm prepared to
take on what is being spoken about today, but I don't think
that's within the ambit of my knowledge.
Mr
Crozier: Perhaps I can ask it a different way. Do you
bring something in your experience and your understanding of
workplace safety issues to this tribunal that would uniquely
qualify you to be appointed to this tribunal?
Ms
Bortolussi: Probably the best I have to offer is my
legal training, my adjudicative experience, but I am also, I
think, a very objective person on these issues because I have no
really strong views for either employer or employee. So I'd bring
that objectivity as a vice-chair.
Mr
Crozier: Just one further question. As I say, I would
have liked to have pursued the supertribunal, but I understand
your reluctance to do that.
Perhaps we can generalize
this, but when an appeal gets to a tribunal, prior to that, one
would presume that the particular circumstance has been given
every consideration by perhaps an individual to begin with when a
claim comes in, right up to having been reviewed by maybe
committees within the bureaucracy itself. So all these decisions
have been made, all the evidence has been reviewed, probably
several times over, and then it comes to the tribunal. One might
normally think, what's the point? It's been looked at. Presumably
a negative opinion has been given all the way up. What happens at
the tribunal level? What is it that would trigger you to say, "Maybe this hasn't been
given its consideration"? Or is this just something you kind of
feel within, once you review all the evidence?
Ms
Bortolussi: No, any decision that would be made would be
based on the evidence. I'm not completely familiar with the
legislation and the rules and so on yet, but I do understand that
the tribunal can request further information and consider it.
It's essentially a new hearing. In my experience on the Licence
Appeal Tribunal, there are some very significant things that had
not been considered. That's the function of the appeal.
The Chair:
We'll now go to the third party.
Mr Martin:
I note, first off, by your resumé that one of the people
you've referred to in terms of references is Mr Palladini. I'm
assuming from that that you at least know each other or perhaps
are friends. My condolences this morning if there was a
relationship there of some closeness.
Ms
Bortolussi: Thank you very much.
1040
Mr Martin:
I want to note as well how pleased I always am when somebody
comes forward from the town that I represent, of which I am so
proud-
Ms
Bortolussi: As am I.
Mr Martin:
-to offer themselves in some capacity to serve the public. So
thanks for doing that as well.
I also want to note that
you've been quite upfront and honest with us here-and this
doesn't always happen, so it's fairly significant-in terms of
your obvious political affiliation. It's in here. We don't have
to ask you about it; we know about it. That is, to me, an
indication of some integrity in terms of your application and
what it is you hope to do in this appointment if it should be
approved by this committee this morning.
However, I have some real
concerns about the WSIB and its impact on the lives of
individuals and families across this province. It's a most
significant organization. I think you probably know the history
of it. It was put in place many years ago because there was a
circumstance where workers injured on the job were taking
companies to court. If they won, the penalties were so high that
they often put those companies out of business, or workers had to
put themselves into bankruptcy simply to bring the case forward.
It wasn't a win-win for anybody; it was lose-lose all over the
place. So at that time, the government, in its wisdom, decided
that a different approach would probably be more helpful. They
set up the Workers' Compensation Board, to give workers an
opportunity to make appeal for assistance or for some help, and
also to allow industries to deal with those very difficult
circumstances in a way that saw them continue to operate and
contribute to the economy of their communities.
I get the feeling these
days that the pendulum has swung somewhat, by way of some of the
changes that are being made to the WSIB and some of the panels
that are now operating that are more favourable or sympathetic to
the business side of things. There's a sense that somehow,
because of decisions that were made over the years on behalf of
workers who were injured, business was being affected in a most
negative way. What's your view of all that, having looked at this
probably because of your work with families and family law and
understanding how the issue of income is so central to any help
that families might have?
Ms
Bortolussi: I am very sensitive to the human element.
I'm not sure that I'm familiar with the decisions you're talking
about, but I can assure you that any decision I would consider on
such an appeal would be based on the evidence presented.
I understand that actually
something unique to this tribunal is that if the evidence is
equal on both sides, for the employer and the employee, the
worker is favoured. So hopefully the decision would go in favour
of the worker if that happens to be the case. But it would be a
matter of looking at the facts and applying the law, because
under statute, we have very limited authority. It's really not a
policy-making decision.
Mr Martin:
I'm assuming that you would understand, as I left off in my
question, given your background in family law and working to help
families have justice done, that the issue of income is huge.
Ms
Bortolussi: It is huge.
Mr Martin:
Where injured workers are concerned, there is a high degree of
poverty that results because a person can't go back to work,
can't participate in the workplace in the same fulsome way
they've done before, and the opportunity for retraining and
getting in at some other level, given sometimes the age of the
worker, is an issue here. Is that something you think should or
would or could influence you or be part of some of the
decision-making you will make in this role?
Ms
Bortolussi: The person bringing the appeal would have to
fit the criteria under the act to ensure that the injury or
disease was related to the employment and so on.
Mr Martin:
You've been asked already about the long waiting list and how we
deal with that, I believe. Some of those long waiting lists are
there because people who have been injured and have not had just
redress continue to appeal. They're just not going away. They
can't. They have families to support and lives to live.
In my office, one of the
biggest caseloads we have is working with injured workers who
want us to intervene on their behalf to see if we can get a
different response. I would guess that a big chunk of the
caseload of the community legal clinics around the province is
working with appeals of Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
decisions, not to speak of the Office of the Worker Adviser and
some of the injured workers' groups out there that advocate. It's
becoming quite the industry, to be honest with you. I certainly
have a perspective on that. What would yours be?
Ms
Bortolussi: I think you're going to be disappointed,
because I don't know why that is. But I do know that the appeal
to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal is final.
I have been told there is a target and a schedule as to how the
backlog at the tribunal
is going to be dealt with, and that they are on schedule. So I'm
looking forward to contributing to that.
If I took a step back and
had to assess why there are so many, I don't know.
Mr Martin:
Are you aware that the government introduced a code of conduct
for representatives who come forward to speak on behalf of
injured workers? Do you understand that in many instances the
reason injured workers would turn to representatives, who might
be a bit more aggressive or who might not fit the classic image
of a person who would come and make an appeal, is because they
can't afford lawyers and they've run out of alternatives? So they
come forward with the best they can muster, and sometimes they
and their representatives might not be perhaps as cultured in
presenting a case. They certainly see this introduction of a code
of conduct as a slap in the face, as another obstacle for them to
get beyond.
Given how personal all this
is to them, what would be your view, what would be your take on
somebody coming before you to make a case perhaps not being as
learned in the law and the ways of tribunals, trying to represent
some injured worker?
Ms
Bortolussi: I have absolutely no problem with that,
because obviously there is a need to allow that. The legislation
allows that. I would think the code of ethics isn't there to
target someone who perhaps doesn't know the formalities or isn't
as learned in the law or anything like that. I think it's to
prevent real abuses, dishonesty. Frankly, lawyers have a code of
ethics, but we're trained in that and we're well aware of it.
I don't think a layperson,
paralegal, representative or even someone who appears in person
would be denied their hearing simply because of who they are. I
think the code of ethics addresses conduct which, by any
standard, would not be acceptable and would impede a fair
process.
1050
Mr Martin:
Although you probably understand that many lay folk out there
sometimes look on the art of the legal profession with some
cynicism, given the representation they often see. I guess the
most obvious example for me was the O.J. Simpson case. If you
have the best of lawyers and they can put up a case that somehow
fits within the parameters and avenues-if you can get a good
lawyer, you can win any case. That's the sense that's out there,
it doesn't matter what the case.
These folks coming before
these tribunals without any real legal background, trying to make
a case, are just doing their best to perhaps fit something into
an argument that may be seen by some as inaccurate. Nevertheless
it's the case they're making. Do you understand what I'm
saying?
Ms
Bortolussi: I do. I experience that in my practice where
people represent themselves. I think I can honestly say that
people who do represent themselves get more leeway than a lawyer
would. Having that sort of experience behind me, I think I would
be sensitive to that and would hope that someone appearing before
me would come away with that.
Mr Martin:
Thank you very much.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you for appearing before us today.
CARMAN MYLES
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Carman Myles,
intended appointee as public-at-large member, Niagara Escarpment
Commission.
The
Vice-Chair: Next is the review of the appointment of Mr
Myles. Good morning, sir. Make yourself comfortable. You've been
here for a few minutes, so I take it you understand that you're
allowed some opening comments if you choose, and then we'll move
to questioning.
Mr Carman
Myles: Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I
have a short introduction I would like to read to you.
I was born and raised on a
farm on the Bruce Peninsula, where I currently reside with my
wife and three children. I am self-employed, operating a retail
business on Highway 6 in Ferndale.
As you are aware from
reading my resumé, I am a licensed electrician. My work as
such has taken me to many parts of Ontario and even as far away
as Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. In Tumbler Ridge I was a job
foreman in charge of electrical, telephone and hydro services for
a new community built to house the employees of Denison Mines and
Teck Corp. This was a huge responsibility to undertake, as there
were many men to supervise and my employer was located in London,
Ontario. It was an experience that gained me a lot of confidence
and the ability to deal with a vast, wide variety of people.
Following this, I was
electrical foreman for the building of the Northern Treatment
Centre in Sault Ste Marie. Next was a large addition to
Maplehurst correctional facility in Milton, Ontario. As you can
see, hard work and long hours are not a burden to me.
These experiences enabled
me to see beyond the gates of Wiarton as a teenager and into my
30s, but I was drawn back to the peninsula to raise my family. I
wanted my children to have the opportunity to live in a rural
area where they could see trilliums and lady's slippers growing
in our front yard. Living here has given me the opportunity to
teach them to tap a maple tree and make maple syrup outside in
the bush and has allowed them to experience the Outers program at
our local high school. With two sons in minor hockey, I was soon
elected to the minor hockey committee, where I have served for
nine years, the last two as president.
As part of my municipal
experience, I have served on committees of finance and personnel,
property and parks, waste management, recreation, the arena
board, roads, and the planning advisory committee. Serving on
these committees was my responsibility as a councillor for
Eastnor township and, following this, as deputy reeve of Eastnor
township. I was elected chairman of the Lion's Head and district recreation
committee for two terms in succession during my time on council.
During this period, this committee represented the three
townships of Eastnor, Lindsay and St Edmunds and the village of
Lion's Head. I served on council during the time that a new
zoning bylaw was drafted and implemented for the township of
Eastnor. In addition to this, I participated in the process of
updating the Bruce county official plan.
To prepare for amalgamation
of these four communities, it was necessary for a transition
board to be formed, and I was elected to represent Eastnor
township as a member of this board. The transition board's
responsibility was to combine these three townships and one
village into one new municipality. In the next term, I was
elected the deputy mayor to represent this newly formed
municipality of the northern Bruce Peninsula.
I feel my municipal
experience has given me a solid base to enable me to be an asset
to the Niagara Escarpment Commission. The committee I was
appointed to that would best prepare me for the Niagara
Escarpment Commission would be the planning and advisory
committee, which I served on for a period of six years. This
committee had two roles, the first being to hold public meetings
for rezoning applications and making recommendations to council,
the second being the committee of adjustment, which was a
decision-making body for minor variances and reviewing NEC permit
development applications.
My time on council has
given me the insight to be open-minded in my decisions and to
look at all sides of any relevant issues. I feel these qualities
would be beneficial as a member of the Niagara Escarpment
Commission. I realize I have only indirect knowledge of the
actual workings of the commission, which would be beneficial
because I have no prejudices except maintaining the escarpment in
as natural a state as possible. I would like other children to
experience nature as my children have, and if the NEC is not
protected, this may not be possible.
Mr. Chairman and committee
members, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Myles. For the record, I guess
I should have said at the outset that you are appearing as the
intended appointee as the public-at-large member for the Niagara
Escarpment Commission. Now that we have that on the record, we
can move to the parties, and we'll begin with the official
opposition.
Mr
Bradley: I have left the chair to ask questions again on
this matter in my capacity as the environmental critic for the
official opposition. I'll commence my questions as following.
Sir, you are replacing an
individual who was given an A rating by the Coalition on the
Niagara Escarpment. I understand that the person, Carol Reaney,
who received that A, was prepared to continue to serve but was
not re-appointed to the commission. What message do you think
this sends to the people who want to protect the Niagara
Escarpment lands, when a person who receives an A from the
Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment and who wishes to continue to
serve, is not permitted to be re-appointed? What message do you
think that sends?
Mr Myles:
I was unaware of what you've just stated about her being rated an
A+. I don't really have an opinion on why or what message it
would send. I don't know if there is a-if she has problems at
home-you said she wanted to be back on?
Mr
Bradley: She was prepared to continue to serve on the
Niagara Escarpment Commission.
Mr Myles:
Yes, I don't have an opinion on it because I haven't talked to
Carol in a couple of months.
Mr
Bradley: Fair enough. Mr Murdoch, who is the member for
the area which you represent, when he was asked by the media to
comment on the fact that your predecessor in this position had
received an A, said something to the effect, "I'll have to have a
word with her after that." Was Mr Murdoch instrumental in your
appointment?
Mr Myles:
No. About three years ago, I guess, when I was on council, I put
my name forward to be on the commission. At that time I was not
selected. Then sometime last summer or last fall, Mr Murdoch was
at one of our council meetings and I indicated again that I would
still put my name forward if he should ever need somebody.
Mr
Bradley: Do you think that Mr Murdoch supported your
application?
Mr Myles:
Yes.
Mr
Bradley: Mr Murdoch did support your application,
yes.
One of the issues that
confronted-more Grey county than Bruce-but that confronted the
area for a number of years was the number of severances which
were given to people. Some people suggested severances were given
willy-nilly by local municipal people. You're a person who has
served municipally. Did you notice a lot of applications for
severances when you were in municipal government, and were you
instrumental in granting those severances?
Mr Myles:
For new lot creation?
Mr
Bradley: Yes, sir.
1100
Mr Myles:
I can't remember any new lot creations in the municipality where
I was-
Mr
Bradley: That you were in, yes.
Mr Myles:
I can't remember any being granted new severances. I don't
remember any right now.
Mr
Bradley: What is your general opinion of severances
being granted in terms of farm lots? Someone once described it as
"death by a thousand cuts" when severances are provided. We know
at the local level it's Barney down the street or Judy in the
next lot who you have to deal with at that time and it becomes
difficult when you're on a municipal council to turn them down.
What is your general opinion of applications for severances?
Mr Myles:
You'd have to look at each case, case-by-case. It depends where
it is located. You might grant some, you might not. It depends on
all kinds of circumstances-if you're chopping up farms or
whatever. It would be case-by-case. It's too general a
question.
Mr
Bradley: Bill Murdoch, the MPP who recommended you, or
at least supports your appointment to the Niagara Escarpment
Commission, introduced a bill in the Ontario Legislature that
would call for the abolishing of the Niagara Escarpment
Commission. Do you believe the Niagara Escarpment Commission
should be abolished?
Mr Myles:
Not really, no. I don't understand the act. I have not read the
act. I haven't followed the plan a lot. If you ask me six months
from now, I'd maybe have an opinion, but right now I
wouldn't.
Mr
Bradley: What I guess he is proposing, to be more
definitive-and you're a person who comes from a municipal
background-is that responsibility for the Niagara Escarpment be
turned over to local councils. I once sat on a local council.
Those are the people you go to church with, they're the people
you're in the service club with, they're your next door
neighbours, and when you have to make a decision, it becomes
difficult. How are you going to deal with decisions when you have
another business person in your area, a farmer or someone of that
nature, who wants to deviate from what would normally be accepted
as the Niagara Escarpment plan position? Are you not going to
feel pressure from those folks who have elected you over the
years or people who know you in the area to allow development to
take place?
Mr Myles:
No. I think that's why it's going to be nice if I get appointed.
There are 17 members on that council instead of five. It's going
to be easier to stick together on the commission. The pressure of
people-the plan is there for protection; we're just there to
maintain it. If we follow the plan, the act, I don't think
there's going to be much problem.
Mr
Bradley: There are people who would like to have-and I
hate to use brand names-the Escarpment Hilton, the Escarpment
Holiday Inn, the Escarpment Howard Johnson's. There are others
who would like to have wonderful restaurants all over the
escarpment. Others would like to have estate homes in the
Escarpment. As you know, it's referred to as a biosphere reserve
by the United Nations. When you're finished with it, it looks
like a hodgepodge of development. What would your opinion be of
applications for ski resorts, hotels, restaurants and, shall we
say, accommodation? What would your opinion be of that?
Mr Myles:
I would not want to prejudge any applications, but on a
case-by-case basis, again, like I said earlier. But once you send
the equipment in to start excavation, there's no turning back.
Once development starts, there is no turning back, putting a tree
back or anything. You've got to give everything very, very
careful consideration.
Mr
Bradley: I think most people would certainly agree with
that, that it is forever.
Mr Myles:
A long time.
Mr
Bradley: It's unlikely you're going to tear down the
hotel and plant trees again; not totally impossible but it's
unlikely that's going to happen.
I think it's fair to say
that there has been a significant body of opinion in Grey and
Bruce counties that has not been favourable to the Niagara
Escarpment Commission. If you ask where much of the opposition to
the commission has come from, it has come from some vocal people
in the area. That doesn't mean everyone, by any means, but some
vocal people in the area. How are you going to wrestle with that
attitude that is quite prevalent at the end of the
escarpment?
Mr Myles:
I can only speak for our own municipality but the Niagara
Escarpment-I don't know the dollars but it's got to be in the
millions, maybe hundreds of millions, that it brings in in
tourism. What brings that in is the escarpment and its natural
beauty, so there's not a lot to wrestle with there. If that's
gone, like I said, it's gone forever-everything's gone.
Mr
Bradley: We have a circumstance where the government has
actually overturned some decisions because the development
appeared to go too far and the consequences were great. By the
way, I want to be on record as agreeing with the government
overturning those, and if the government members wish to quote
that anywhere, they can quote that anywhere they wish to because
I'm on record as saying it. But I heard you say that you would,
on an individual basis, entertain these applications for
development. So is it fair to say-I don't want to mischaracterize
what you've said-that you would not eliminate the possibility of
a hotel development, a skiing development or an accommodation
development of some kind-a culinary school, for instance-on
escarpment land? Would it be fair to say that you would keep an
open mind on that and not automatically reject those
applications?
Mr Myles:
I couldn't form an opinion until I've seen the application in
front of me. There's three areas, I understand: core, buffer,
transition. All those three areas have to be protected, some more
than others, but I'd have to wait until I've seen each
application.
Mr
Bradley: The reason I ask-this is not a pejorative
question, not a question to be difficult with you, but in the
past there have been some people appointed who have had fights
with the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Have you or any members
of your family had any applications before the commission, any
battles with the Niagara Escarpment Commission? It's a general
question I ask.
Mr Myles:
No. My family and myself do not own land on the Niagara
Escarpment. No battles.
Mr
Bradley: Do you have a political affiliation?
Mr Myles:
With a provincial party at this time? No.
Mr
Bradley: Have you ever had a political affiliation?
Mr Myles:
Yes. Prior to changing the ridings around, 1997-98, I think.
Mr
Bradley: And would you be Progressive Conservative?
Mr Myles:
Yes.
Mr
Bradley: The answer was yes?
Mr Myles:
Yes.
Mr Bradley: Thank you. Not that
that's a surprise; I'm not holding that against you. It's a
question we routinely ask, and I can assure you that if that side
over there is in opposition someday, they'll be asking that
question about applicants who come before the committee.
The
Vice-Chair: On that note, Mr Bradley, the time has
expired. We'll move to the third party for questioning.
Mr Martin:
Thank you very much. I find it interesting that on one hand you
say you haven't read the act and you don't know the act, and yet
in answer to some questions you seem to have some fair degree of
knowledge around some of the issues that are presently out there
with regard to the escarpment. Given that, perhaps you could tell
me again why it is that you want to be appointed to this
commission if you haven't done any background in terms of the act
and how it's governed and what it is that you would be called to
do as member of that commission.
Mr Myles:
I'd like to be appointed to be a member of the commission to
represent really just our municipality, the public at large of
our municipality, is the way I look at it, from our area. I
realize that the commission runs from Tobermory to Niagara Falls.
I have to lot to learn. I am willing to learn that, and six
months from now expect to know more about the southern part. I
think I can contribute to the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
Mr Martin:
What, in your view, are some of the major challenges confronting
that commission right now?
1110
Mr Myles:
I don't know if I'd have an opinion on that right now because,
like I said, I'm coming to this committee without prejudice, open
minded. I can't think of any right now.
Mr Martin:
So you don't know the issues that could-
Mr Myles:
No, I do not.
Mr Martin:
Even though there's been just a ton of ink on the issues before
the commission over the last number of years and battles royal,
probably, up in your area, or at least close by.
Mr Myles:
Pardon me?
Mr Martin:
Battles royal-
Mr Myles:
I don't think there have been battles.
Mr Martin:
-between various interests up in that part of Ontario. You're not
aware of what the major issues are?
Mr Myles:
No. I can't think of any major battles up in my area.
Mr Martin:
The fact that you personally come from an involvement and
ownership of a strip mall-you own a small strip mall?
Mr Myles:
Very small. It's 62 feet long, 40 feet wide. It has three bays in
it, three offices, yes.
Mr Martin:
OK. Any sense in you that that would influence in any way your
decision-making or bring you into conflict in any way with any of
the issues that might come before the escarpment commission?
Mr Myles:
No, none whatsoever.
Mr Martin:
Your background in driving truck and operating heavy equipment,
do you still have any connections at all with any of the
companies you worked with there that would perhaps be looking at
developing quarries or anything of that sort?
Mr Myles:
No. That was with my cousin. That was just a job after school,
the first year or two, until I moved to London.
Mr Martin:
OK. That's all the questions I have.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Myles. Thank you for attending
this morning. Oh, wait a minute.
Mr Wood:
We will waive our time, which you've already done for us. Thank
you for moving ahead.
The
Vice-Chair: But it happens so regularly, Mr Wood, I
guess I prejudged. But I guess I should give you that opportunity
and I'm sorry. I apologize.
Mr Wood:
We will waive our time.
The
Vice-Chair: OK. The government has officially waived
their time. Thank you, Mr Myles.
WILLIAM JAMES
Review of intended
appointment, selected by the official opposition: William James,
intended appointee as member, Ontario Judicial Council.
The
Vice-Chair: Next we will call the intended appointee as
a member of the Ontario Judicial Council, William James,
please.
The Chair:
Good morning, sir. You will have, of course, the opportunity to
make an initial statement. I know that you're a shy person and
you may not want to, but you have that opportunity. We welcome
you to the committee, first of all, this morning. You didn't have
to go through a snowstorm or anything of that nature. That's good
news. We do welcome you and if you wish to make any statement at
all about anything, you get that opportunity to do so. We just
subtract the time from the government, that's all.
Mr William
James: Thank you, Chairman. It's a pleasure for me to be
here.
By trade, I'm a geologist.
I think that makes me a layman for this type of job. I was born
in Ottawa, February 5, 1929. I attended U of T, where I got a
bachelor's and master's, and a PhD in geology at McGill. I also
have an honorary LLD from Queen's.
I am currently the chairman
of Inmet Mining, whose head office is located in Toronto. I'm not
on as many boards now but I'm still on Air Canada, Inmet Mining,
Teck Corp, Templeton Growth Fund Ltd. That's about it.
Following graduation I went
to Elliot Lake, where I was a geologist and a miner, just a
hundred miles east of the Soo. I was there for two and a half
years and then went to Kerr Addison Mines, where I was a
geologist. Most of the mines closed down in Elliott Lake in about
1960. They went from about a dozen down to three or four. I was
at the Lacnor mine there and also at the Rio Algom after Lacnor
closed. I went to Kerr Addison, which is east of Kirkland Lake
and just over toward the Quebec border. I was there for a year doing
underground mapping. I joined my father's firm, James, Buffam and
Cooper in 1961 and was there until 1973, when I became president
of Kerr Addison Mines Ltd, which was controlled by Noranda. Then
I became executive vice-president of Noranda in charge of mining,
smelting and refining at their annual meeting in 1974. I stayed
there until 1982, when I went to Falconbridge as president and
chief operating officer. The next year I also became chairman and
CEO. I stayed there until Powis came back and bought me out there
again. Fortunately I had raised the price considerably in a
fight. They paid another billion and they didn't need me around
after that.
For a short period of time
I went back with my father, who had an office in Commerce Court
North. He was 95 at the time. He was a geologist too, but he
wasn't doing much consulting; he'd go down and read the
newspaper. He had a fellow there who was 80 years old, Herb Cox,
a great mining engineer from Queen's. Herb was going to throw in
the towel, so I took over that chair and stayed there until
December 14, 1990, when I became president and CEO of Denison
Mines.
Denison had a pretty
difficult time. They'd had considerable write-offs and
considerable reclamation problems up in Elliot Lake, and those
were difficult years. But we got the reclamation cleaned up and
we got everything cleaned up great. In fact, they established
such a good cleanup team that they're going around doing it now.
They've worked up in Algoma and so on.
Then I went to Inmet. In
the mining business it's easy to go into ventures that aren't all
that good and don't turn out as good as they look originally.
They had had some difficult times too. I went there in September
1996 as president and CEO, and I stayed there until the end of
the millennium, the end of 1999. They got a new fellow to take
over in 2000. Now I am chairman, but that's only a part-time
job.
On the next page I've got
some of the boards I was listed on. There are a lot of mining
companies and financial companies too, the Bank of Commerce, and
also ones in Newfoundland and so on, such as Fishery Products. I
was also on the Olympic Trust.
I was on the Ontario Round
Table on the Environment and Economy, Mr Chairman, I think while
you were minister, and a fine minister at that. I enjoyed that
very much, and I stayed on through to Ruth Grier, who took your
place there for a while, and I enjoyed that very much. Obviously
they had representatives from the business world as well as the
NGOs. I was one of the representatives from the business world.
It was good to get the people together talking-the NGOs and so
on. We used to go to Ottawa doing the same thing and dealing with
them. You've got to interface, you've got to talk on these
things. So that was good.
I probably haven't done
nearly as much public work as you fellows and maybe not as much
as I should, but I've been on the board of St Mike's hospital. I
was on from 1988 up to about a year and a half ago. I'm now on
the foundation campaign cabinet. They're having a large
fundraising campaign, and I'm going to be very active in that. I
was also on the board of the University of St Michael's College
foundation for a few years. I was also on the Olympic Trust for a
while. I'm a member of the Association of Professional Engineers
of Ontario, the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, the
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum
Engineers.
1120
I ski every weekend up on
Collingwood. There are no members from Collingwood here, I don't
think, but it's a great place to ski.
That's about it. I look
forward to joining this committee. I'm very interested in it.
I've got an extremely high regard for the judiciary. I think
they're fair, balanced and impartial, and they dispense justice.
To me, the committee ensures that that high standard will be
maintained. I'd be honoured to participate in that as a lay
member.
I have considerable
experience on governance. I don't have too much on what some call
discipline; I don't know whether I do or not. But I have a fair
amount on governance on these various ones, and I was not a
yes-man on the various boards I was on. I usually take a fairly
active role in what I think is best.
When I went up to Elliot
Lake I was making $400 a month and I was supposed to get $500. I
had a couple of kids then, and another born in Elliot Lake. I
took a drill and went underground, because I wanted to make a
little more money and, gosh, I was making $1,000 with a drill.
Then I became a shift boss. I've worked through all levels of
people and all strata and I get along fine with them. I get along
great with the unions. I get along with all those members up in
Sudbury, and they're great friends of mine, personally-Elie and
Rodriguez and so on. We get along all right.
I will be glad to try to
answer any of your questions. I look forward to this. It would be
a challenge.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your initial remarks. I don't know
whether anybody would dare ask any questions. We're going to
start with the third party, and that will be Mr Martin from Sault
Ste Marie.
Mr Martin:
I appreciate your coming today.
Mr James:
It's an honour.
Mr Martin:
I recognize that Elliot Lake is not far from Sault Ste Marie; I
lived in Elliot Lake for about six years, from 1975 to 1981, the
second coming of all the activity and growth. Certainly your
name-they remember you up there.
Mr James:
I hope favourably.
Mr Martin:
Yes. You have quite a reputation. As I look at your resumé
and hear you this morning-
Mr James:
Well, the mayor, George Farkouh, has done a tremendous job
resurrecting that town and getting the retirees up there. There's
a tremendous spirit in that town. There were no shacks there.
There were over 20,000 people, and then all the mines closed
down. It's just a beautiful town. We had a 1,100-square-foot
house. We first lived in
a trailer park up there. But 1,100 square feet-and you put down
$1,000.
Mr Martin:
I get the feeling, though, that you won't be going back to reside
in that community any time soon. When I look at your resumé
and hear you this morning, you're a very busy man.
Mr James:
Yes, but I'm all through these things now.
Mr Martin:
When you recognize, as you said, that your father still went in
to work at 95, it doesn't surprise me that you want to continue
and be part of whatever you can do to improve public life, so we
appreciate that.
As you know, there is a bit
of a debate going on today in terms of the judiciary and where
they come down. There is a sense in some quarters that they're
too lenient, and in other quarters there are people who believe
they are not progressive enough in terms of the kind of
sentencing that goes on-for example, the issue of restorative
justice, which you hear talked about, and alternative sentencing
scenarios that are being promoted, particularly in First Nations
communities, where they take a different approach to justice.
There was a private
member's bill tabled in the Legislature last year that suggested
judges' decision-making needed to be exposed more publicly and
that reports needed to be produced that would tell us which
judges were more consistently coming down on the side of being
harder versus those who are being softer. What is your view of
all that?
Mr James:
On First Nations? You mentioned First Nations having their own
system?
Mr Martin:
Yes.
Mr James:
I'd have sympathy toward that, I think. But do the lay members
really get involved in this type of thing? I thought it was more
on misconduct and so on. Do the lay members on this committee get
involved in that?
Mr Martin:
What I'm getting at, Mr James, is there is some suggestion that
there should be, I suppose, more involvement by the general
public in the decision-making of judges. The private member's
bill that was tabled here was a move, I suppose, to expose the
pattern of decision-making by certain judges, given that there
are people out there who are critical that our judges are too
soft.
Mr James:
I personally don't see anything wrong with listing the decisions
that judges made, just as you might list the decisions an MPP
made and how they voted on certain issues in the Legislature. I
think you have to be accountable and you have to stand up and be
reasonably satisfied with the decisions you did make and that
they stand for scrutiny.
Mr Martin:
But you don't think that would in any way affect a judge's
ability to be impartial and to carry out their job in terms of
the law of the land and the Constitution?
Mr James:
No. You mean that his decisions would be listed as to whether
they're lenient or too-
Mr Martin:
That judges would then begin to sort of look at the stats to see
how they're doing: "Maybe I've got to have a couple more on that
side, just to stay in favour." You don't think that would affect
the impartiality of the judicial system in some significant
way?
Mr James:
No. Each decision the judge makes is known, isn't it?
Mr Martin:
It is.
Mr James:
All you're doing is listing them and adding them up. I see
nothing wrong with that.
Mr Martin:
Even though the legal society out there and many of the judges
have come down very critical of that-
Mr James:
Is that right? First, I might also add that I'm not sure what the
complete job description of this committee is. If they go as far
as recommending that all the decisions be listed, I don't know if
that's within their job description. Is it?
Mr Martin:
No, it's not.
Mr James:
If it's not, I'd leave it for somebody whose job description it's
in.
Mr Martin:
Let's then cut to the chase. What's your position right now? Do
you have a position on the judiciary and whether they're being
too lenient or too tough, personally?
Mr James:
I think, as far as gangs and so on, that they're toughening up.
In that regard, I think that's a very good thing. By and large, I
think the judiciary is doing a good job and they're showing the
right amount of leniency or whatever.
Mr Martin:
My last question: why, with all the things you're involved in and
the things you've done-
Mr James:
These are "ex." That whole list there is "used to be."
Mr Martin:
So you're looking for something else to do now.
Mr James:
Yes, I'm looking for something else to do, and this looks like
you're dealing with a highly intelligent, great group of people.
I think it would be very challenging. It's very challenging with
this committee too, I might add.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your questions, Mr Martin.
Mr Wood:
In doing the oversight of any group of people, do you think it's
helpful to have clear performance standards which are regularly
monitored for compliance?
Mr James:
On any group of people?
Mr Wood:
Yes.
Mr James:
Yes.
Mr Wood:
Do you think that would apply to judges as well? Do you think
that would be usefully applied to judges as well?
Mr James:
I don't have a problem with it. I just don't know that it's
within the jurisdiction of this committee.
Mr Wood:
No, I'm just asking your opinion.
Mr James:
I have no problem with standing on your record. I think it's an
important thing.
Mr Wood:
I'm talking a little more about having the standards clearly
defined, and then regularly monitoring the performance standards
to see whether they're being met.
Mr James: Yes.
Mr Wood:
You think that's a good idea?
Mr James:
Yes. They do it in industry all the time.
1130
Mr Spina:
As someone who was born and raised in northern Ontario, I was
also familiar with the famous Bill James. I want to assure you
that the definition of the responsibility really falls within the
disciplinary mode of the council, as you had assumed. It is
strictly disciplinary and not to evaluate whether the sentences
of the judges are too harsh or too lenient. But the comment and
the question Mr Wood brought forward, I think, is an important
element the council has to be conscious of, and that is the
criteria of the performance of judges as well as other people
within the judiciary.
Thank you for bringing your
name forward, sir. We wish you well, should you be appointed.
The Chair:
Now we go to the official opposition.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Good morning, Mr James. First of all, I
would like to say how very much I have appreciated your lively
presentation here at the end of a rather long morning.
Mr James:
Thank you. You'll probably be glad when that one's over too.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: It has certainly been informative, but also
entertaining, I must say.
I would like to know your
understanding of the term "judicial misconduct." What kinds of
things would you be considering? That is part of the mandate of
what you will be doing as a member of this council. So what is
your understanding of "judicial misconduct"?
Mr James:
Judicial misconduct, as I would understand it, is maybe when
remarks are made on the bench that are not appropriate. It might
be behaviour of the judge that's not appropriate. It would be
those types of things: inappropriate remarks or actions.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Can you give me an example of remarks that
are inappropriate?
Mr James:
If there was a racial remark, I consider that inappropriate.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: All right. You have indicated in your
remarks this morning as well that you are of the opinion that the
judiciary in the province at the present time is fair, balanced
and impartial. I certainly appreciate, and for the most part
would agree with, that observation. You've already indicated on a
previous question that you think it would be appropriate that
there be an accounting of the cases heard by a judge. But as
you've also indicated, if the judiciary is fair, balanced and
impartial, can you perhaps explain why there would be the need
for that? If there was that type of reporting, might there be
some undue public pressure on a judge who would have a record
that might be considered too lenient or, on the other hand, that
might be considered too stringent? Do you not think that there
might be some public pressure brought to bear on the judge in
that role?
Mr James:
If they are fair, impartial and reasonable, I think that will
show up in the record.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Then why do we need a report card?
Mr James:
You don't know until you get the report card, possibly. This'll
show up. If all that is so, then it shows and there's not a
problem. I don't understand the problem if that comes out in the
accounting.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Certainly there is a concern within the
profession that undue public pressure would be brought to bear on
a system that they would say is, as you have described, fair,
balanced and impartial already.
I do thank you, though, for
your observations on that matter. I'll hand it over to my
colleague Mr Crozier, and I thank you very much.
Mr
Crozier: Good morning, Mr James. Just a little further
on that same issue. You've made the comments you have, as Mrs
Dombrowsky has pointed out, and you've agreed, though, with Mr
Wood that it would be reasonable to have standards set and have
the judiciary judged against those standards. Who do you think
should set those standards?
Mr James:
I don't know. To give a thought on that right off the bat might
be a little premature. But I think the senior judiciary should be
involved and maybe the Attorney General's department. I don't
know. Maybe the Attorney General, senior judiciary, and maybe
people throughout the judiciary, the front-line judges who are
making the decisions. So I think it should be a fairly broad
spectrum, and maybe even lay people should be in it to see what
they think. I think you would want to have a fairly broad group
to make that decision.
Mr
Crozier: I would just comment and ask a kind of
rhetorical question: might it not be very difficult for that
group, although they may set the standards, to set standards that
everybody would agree with?
Mr James:
Do they really set the standards or do they make a decision
on-I'm not quite clear how this would work.
Mr
Crozier: That maybe has answered my question.
Mr James:
Yes.
Mr
Crozier: That's kind of my point. It's very simple to
make the statement that you think standards should be set and
that they should be judged by it, but it's a huge question as to
how these standards will be arrived at. I have, unlike you-you're
a lawyer?
Mr James:
No, I'm a geologist.
Mr
Crozier: I'm glad to hear that.
Mr James:
I'm nothing sophisticated like lawyers.
Mr
Crozier: I'm glad to hear that. Not being a lawyer, I
would say, for example, that maybe these standards could be
judged-the opportunity is there for either side in a case to
appeal it if they don't think the judge who has made a decision
has applied a particular standard in their mind, and you go on
and someone else looks at it. Would that normally be the case, do
you think?
Mr James:
You can always appeal. You can do that now. I don't know what the
difference would be.
Mr
Crozier: Anyway, that will make for great conversation
as we go on. I haven't the slightest doubt in my mind that you
won't approach this appointment to the judicial council in the very best way. I am
curious, though: in your wide experience, do you know any judges,
personally, who are on the Ontario Court of Justice?
Mr James:
I met one, but I forgot his name. That are on right now?
Mr
Crozier: This isn't a trap; I'm just curious as to
whether you do or not.
Mr James:
No, it's not a trap. I renovated a house beside a gentleman who
went on to commercial court. He was a great guy, too, but I've
forgotten his name right now. I did know him, and he's on there
now.
Mr
Crozier: Judges have to be very careful, I suppose,
about their social life and business life because of the very
position they hold. I was just curious, in your wide
experience.
I wish you well, sir. I
don't know exactly who calls people before our committee.
Sometimes it isn't always the people who are sitting right here
at the table, and I see you were called by the official
opposition. Whoever it was who put your name on the list, I'm
sure pleased they did because I've enjoyed your attendance.
Mr James:
Thank you very much, Mr Crozier. That's a pleasure to hear.
Mr Martin:
On a point of order, Chair: I was wondering if we might have
unanimous consent, given your position on the board of Air
Canada, to ask you some questions about Air Canada?
The Chair:
I think I'll rule that out of order.
Mr James:
My Templeton growth fund wasn't doing that well. I used to get a
lot of questions on that too.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr James. It's hard to repress from time to
time, as we know. As for your contention that you're not
sophisticated, Mr James, I look at your BA and MA from the
University of Toronto and your PhD from McGill and the background
that you have, so I think members of the committee would agree
there's a sophistication there that isn't hidden by your great
sense of humour. I thank you very much for being before the
committee today. We've enjoyed having you before the committee,
sir.
1140
Mr James:
Thank you very much, Chairman. It's been a pleasure to be here
and to meet the members of the committee. It's my honour.
The Chair:
We have now completed the discussions concerning each of these
individuals. They have appeared before us and we have had a
chance to question them. It now comes to the time when we have a
vote on these. I have to see if Mr Crozier is going to be back
for the vote in just a moment. Anyway, I will now accept any
motions in regard to the intended appointees.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence re Mr Pengelly.
The Chair:
We have a motion for concurrence for the appointment of Mr
Pengelly. That was our first appointment this morning and it was
to the Town of Greater Napanee Police Services Board. Any
discussion, first of all, on Mr Pengelly's appointment? If not,
I'll call a vote. All in favour? Opposed? The motion is
carried.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence re Ms Fraser.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair:
OK. A recorded vote has been asked for the appointment of
Jacquelyn Fraser, intended appointee as member, Environmental
Review Tribunal. We have a request for a recorded vote. First of
all, any discussion of this appointment?
Mr Martin:
Even though I appreciate the sincerity of the applicant, I have
some very serious concerns re the whole question of the conflict
of interest. This isn't just on the commission; this is on the
tribunal that oversees the commission that rules on decisions
that are made by the commission. I think that you have to have
people on those kinds of tribunals who have absolutely no taint
of any sort where the possibility of conflict of interest might
be concerned. I just think that there's too much in this instance
by way of her personal employment. If you apply that very
directly to what's going on with the commission and some of the
work that it needs to do and some of the very difficult
discussions that are ongoing in that part of Ontario, I cannot
and will not be supporting this application.
The Chair:
Any other discussion of this appointment?
Mr
Crozier: Just to add to that, we won't be able to
support this appointment either. I think that it would be so much
more fair if appointees to these types of boards, commissions
and, as Mr Martin has pointed out, particularly a tribunal that's
going to review the decisions, perhaps, of the commission, should
be totally at arm's length and have absolutely no connection with
anyone who would have a vested interest. I would have thought
that the government would make sure that the appointee in fact
doesn't have to declare a conflict of interest, because when you
do you really take a voice off that tribunal. I don't know
whether every attempt was made to find someone who could be at
arm's length in this situation. I certainly do not dispute the
character or the qualifications or anything else of the
appointee. Quite frankly, it's the government I'm addressing my
comments to in that I don't believe they should have ever put
this appointment forward in the first place.
The Chair:
Any other comment from any member of the committee? If not, we've
had a request for a recorded vote.
AYES
DeFaria, Kells, Spina,
Wood.
NAYS
Crozier, Dombrowsky,
Martin.
The Chair:
The motion is carried.
The next appointment was an
intended appointee as vice-chair, Workplace Safety and Insurance
Appeals Tribunal: Lorraine Bartolussi.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence re Ms Bartolussi.
Mr Martin: I think Ms
Bortolussi will make a good appointment, given her background in
family law and her understanding of the very important issue of
income where families are concerned and some of the answers that
she gave to some of the questions that I put to her this morning.
So I, on behalf of our caucus, will certainly be supporting that
appointment.
The Chair:
Any further comment? If not, all in favour? Opposed? Motion
carried.
The next appointment is
intended appointee as public-at-large member, Niagara Escarpment
Commission, Carman R. Myles.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence re Mr Myles.
The Chair:
Concurrence has been moved by Mr Wood.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair:
A recorded vote has been requested. Any discussion?
Mr Martin:
Again, I'm not comfortable with this appointment. On one hand, I
feel somewhat disappointed that Mr Myles in coming before us
today was not made aware or brought up to speed on the actual act
itself that governs this commission and didn't seem to have any
knowledge of some of the very difficult debates and discussions
that are going on at that commission. Yet, on the other hand,
when asked some questions of some specificity, he seemed to have
some understanding of some of the things that are going on there.
That led me to believe that perhaps we aren't hearing and seeing
all that's present there.
This is a very important
beachhead where managing the environment of this province is
concerned right now. What we do with the Niagara Escarpment,
given its very high profile politically, not only in the
communities that surround it, but in the city of Toronto, will
set some standards, will be a bit of a benchmark. So I think we
have to have people on those commissions who understand what the
job is, understand what the issues are and bring to it an
objectivity that will lend to, in the long run, some wise
decisions being made that are balanced and ultimately intelligent
in terms of the sustainability of anything that happens in that
area.
As I said before, what that
says in terms of other things we might do across this province,
where a concern for the environment and an understanding of how
important a healthy environment is to any sustainability we might
have, where our ecosystem is concerned and life in general and
the support of communities is paramount. So I won't be supporting
this appointment this morning.
The Chair:
Any further comment?
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I will not be able to support this
appointment, either.
Mr
Crozier: We.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: My colleague has indicated I should be
saying "we." I do believe that Mr Bradley, in his questions to Mr
Myles, made some valid points. I was very disappointed that Mr
Myles was perhaps not provided with the background that he should
have had so that he might have been better able to respond. He
did indicate on a number of occasions that he didn't have an
opinion. I've got to think that someone, even if they had the
background material that I've had, would have had an opinion on
some of those issues.
Additionally, I am
disappointed that an individual, a young woman, whose performance
was viewed as exemplary by those people who are particularly
interested in the Niagara Escarpment region and had given her an
A rating, who has indicated that she would be willing to continue
to serve in that role, is no longer invited to participate or
invited to be a part of that very important body. So we are
replacing someone who is very highly regarded by those who are
particularly interested in issues that relate to the Niagara
Escarpment and the act that regulates its management. She has
demonstrated that, is recognized for that and is now being
replaced by someone who has no opinion yet on many important
issues that were brought to the conversation this morning. So I
will not be able to support this appointment.
The Chair:
Any other comment? If not, there's been a request for a recorded
vote.
AYES
DeFaria, Kells, Spina,
Wood.
NAYS
Crozier, Dombrowsky,
Martin.
The Chair:
The motion is carried.
We are now at the
conclusion of this meeting. Is there anyone who has any business
they'd like to raise?
Mr Wood:
Yes, I'd like to move concurrence re Mr James.
The Chair:
That's a very good idea. Yes, we have one more appointment, and
Mr Wood was kind enough to move concurrence in the appointment as
a member of the Ontario Judicial Council of William James. Any
discussion, first of all? If not, I'll call the vote. All in
favour? Opposed? The motion is carried. Thank you, Mr Wood.
Mr Wood:
You're welcome.
The Chair:
Any other business to come before the committee? If not, I'll ask
for an adjournment motion.
Mr Spina:
So moved.
The Chair:
Mr Spina has moved the adjournment of the meeting. All in favour?
Opposed? Carried.
