ALLEGED BREACH OF CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
CONTENTS
Monday 8 August 94
Alleged breach of conflict-of-interest guidelines
Trinh Luu
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
*Chair / Président: Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
*Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud ND)
MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton ND)
*Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex ND)
McClelland, Carman (Brampton North/-Nord L)
Morin, Gilles E. (Carleton East/-Est L)
Sterling, Norman W. (Carleton PC)
Sullivan, Barbara (Halton Centre L)
*Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND)
Villeneuve, Noble (S-D-G & East Grenville/S-D-G & Grenville-Est PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Callahan, Robert V. (Brampton South/-Sud L) for Mr McClelland
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L) for Mrs Sullivan
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC) for Mr Villeneuve
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND) for Mr Dadamo
Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC) for Mr Sterling
Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L) for Mr Morin
Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND) for Mrs MacKinnon
Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND) for Mr Wessemger
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Colin D. McKinnon, counsel to Ms Trinh Luu
Clerk / Greffière: Freedman, Lisa
Staff / Personnel:
Cronk, Eleanore, counsel to the committee
Hourigan, William, counsel to the committee
McLellan, Ray, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 0908 in room 151.
ALLEGED BREACH OF CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
The Chair (Mr Ron Hansen): I'd like to bring the committee to order. I'd like to welcome everybody to the committee, and I see some new faces on the committee. Welcome to the standing committee.
I'm going to read the terms of reference. The subcommittee has had about four or five meetings and has agreed upon the subcommittee reports, as you can find filed there with you, so I'm going to read the terms of reference.
"On Thursday, June 23, 1994, by order of the House, the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly was authorized to conduct an investigation into allegations of breach of the conflict-of-interest guidelines made against the Minister of Housing in connection with her attendance at a meeting with the board of the Van Lang Centre in Ottawa on Friday, June 17, 1994, as follows:
"The committee shall commence public hearings on the matter on August 8, 1994, and shall conclude such hearings no later than August 11, 1994, and shall meet from August 14, 1994, until August 18, 1994, for the purpose of writing a report on the matter and that with the agreement of the House leader of each recognized party the dates specified may be amended;
"The committee may, through a Speaker's warrant, compel any person to attend before it to give evidence under oath and to produce any document required. Witnesses may be represented by counsel if they choose;
"The subcommittee shall be authorized to retain and direct legal counsel;
"The subcommittee shall meet to determine organizational matters by unanimous agreement at least two weeks prior to August 8, 1994. In the absence of unanimous agreement of the subcommittee, such matters shall be referred to the House leaders to be determined.
"The committee may not inquire into the merits of any proceeding currently pending in any court or comment in its report on the guilt, innocence or liability of any party."
Everyone has the subcommittee reports in front of them. Eleanore Cronk, who is sitting to the left of me, of the law firm Fasken, Campbell, Godfrey, was retained to act as counsel for the committee. She is being assisted by Mr Bill Hourigan, seated to her left.
The committee shall sit from 9 am until 6 pm on each day of the hearing. Upon request of legal counsel, the committee will sit beyond 6 pm.
Counsel shall brief the committee between 9 am and 10 am on Monday, August 8, 1994.
Each party will be afforded a five-minute opening statement on the first day of public hearings, if desired.
It was agreed that background information with respect to the Van Lang Centre and the alleged problems is not relevant to the inquiry per se, but would have to be put forward into evidence to some degree to establish facts relevant to the various meetings.
It was agreed that a Speaker's warrant be issued to Daniel Burns, Deputy Minister of Housing, for all of the documents in the control, possession or power of the Ministry of Housing that relate to the committee's terms of reference with respect to the Gigantes inquiry.
It was agreed that the participation at the hearing of legal counsel for the witnesses would be confirmed to representation of their client's interests and, in accordance with past practice of the committee, this would not extend to cross-examination nor examination of their own witnesses.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Is that "confirmed to" or "confined to"?
The Chair: Confined. I'm sorry.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Just a point of order, Mr Chair: Are you going to read all the minutes of all the subcommittee meetings?
The Chair: No. I'm just about finished. These are just the basics here.
Mrs Marland: That's fine. Thanks.
The Chair: Legal counsel will advise committee members if their questions to witnesses are inappropriate.
The Chair shall use a stopwatch to keep track of the time that each caucus uses for their questions and caucuses shall be able to bank their time and use unexpected time for questioning of other witnesses.
All organizational matters shall continue to be determined by unanimous agreement of the subcommittee.
All witnesses will be administered an oath.
Mr Callahan: Is that "unexpected" or "unexpired"?
Ms Eleanore Cronk: "Unexpended."
Mr Callahan: Okay.
The Chair: These reports are deemed adopted.
Each witness will be called to the witness table; the clerk will administer the oath; legal counsel will conduct her examination; each party will ask their questions; each party will be informed of the time they have available for questioning and they will also be told if they have any time banked; legal counsel will conduct any re-examination.
I'd like to introduce Eleanore Cronk, and the floor is yours.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, Mr Chair. Mr Hourigan and I wish to commence our involvement in the proceedings this morning by providing you with a brief overview of the nature of the hearing as we understand it, and of the evidence that we anticipate you will hear over the course of the next several days.
As the Chair indicated a few moments ago, the investigation and hearing in this matter were authorized by an order of reference of the Legislative Assembly on June 23, 1994, and he read for you the exact terms of the order of reference.
By the terms of that order of reference, the jurisdiction of this committee for the purposes of this investigation and hearing is confined to matters relating to the attendance of the Minister of Housing, the Honourable Evelyn Gigantes, at a meeting with the board of the Van Lang Centre which occurred on June 17, 1994, in Ottawa, and matters related to allegations of breach of the conflict-of-interest guidelines in connection with the minister's attendance at that meeting.
As the committee is aware, the conflict-of-interest guidelines were introduced in December 1990 by Premier Bob Rae. The purpose of the guidelines, as stated in the guidelines, is Page 1, purpose, conflict-of-interest guidelines."to increase public confidence in the integrity of government" and for that purpose the guidelines "impose upon cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants more stringent standards of conduct than those imposed by existing conflict-of-interest legislation and policies."
The guidelines also set out certain "Fundamental Principles," and they are entitled that in the guidelines. Among the fundamental principles set out in the guidelines are the following:
"4. Ministers shall at all times act in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny.
"5. Ministers shall perform the duties of office and arrange their affairs in such a manner as to maintain public confidence and trust in the integrity of the government."
The guidelines apply to cabinet ministers, including, in this case, the Minister of Housing, Evelyn Gigantes. As appears from the "Purpose" section of the guidelines, they are intended to impose standards of conduct upon cabinet ministers which are more stringent than those imposed by existing relevant legislation and policies.
There are a number of provisions of the guidelines which may be relevant to the matters which you, committee members, are going to hear during the course of this week. I will be providing you, for your ease of reference, with another copy of the conflict-of-interest guidelines this morning, but I'd ask you to take note of sections 20, 22 and 24 of the guidelines as you consider the evidence that you will be hearing and deliberate on the matters that have been referred to you under the order of reference. I don't propose to read those sections but, again, I would ask you to bear in mind sections 20, 22 and 24.
I will also be providing you shortly this morning with a copy of an extract from Hansard relating to remarks made by the Premier, Bob Rae, on December 12, 1990, when the conflict-of-interest guidelines were introduced in the Legislative Assembly. We suggest that you may find it useful as well, when you come to consider the guidelines and how they may or may not apply in this case, to have regard to what the Premier said upon introduction of those guidelines, which included the following statement:
"First, I consider it essential to establish certain fundamental principles. It is...our governing principle that we must at all times act in a manner that will not only bear the closest public scrutiny but will go further and ensure public confidence and trust in the integrity of government....
"As committed as I am to the establishment of guidelines and codes in legislation on ethics in government, I realize all too well that nothing we commit to writing can substitute for common sense and a well-developed sense of public duty."
I'd like to address now for a few moments, if I may, the scope of the investigation and the hearing that has been referred to the committee for consideration. As you know, as appears from the order of reference, the subject matter of the investigation and the hearing to be conducted by this standing committee is concerned with allegations of breach of the conflict-of-interest guidelines made against Ms Gigantes in her capacity as Minister of Housing in respect of a particular matter; that is, in connection with her attendance on June 17, 1994, at a meeting with the board of the Van Lang Centre in Ottawa.
As members of the standing committee may be aware, there has been some recent controversy surrounding the Van Lang Centre in the sense that allegations have been made by a number of individuals regarding management practices and operations at the centre and relating to members of its board of directors and staff. In addition -- and it is important to recognize this from the outset, in our submission -- there have been various responses to those allegations and those expressed concerns made by affected individuals, including comments from time to time about the centre by representatives of the Ministry of Housing and the minister's office or the minister herself.
In our view, that is, Mr Hourigan's view and mine as counsel to this standing committee, for the purposes of what has been referred to the committee for determination, that is, having regard to the terms of the order of reference which establishes the authority and jurisdiction of the committee in this matter this week for the purposes of hearing evidence, much of the history relating to the Van Lang Centre and concerning the allegations and concerns that have been expressed regarding it, regardless of the source of the person expressing those allegations or concerns, is irrelevant to the matters at issue in this hearing and is outside the scope of the terms of reference. It follows, therefore, that consideration and determination of the merits of those allegations, concerns, responses and comments is, generally speaking, irrelevant and beyond the scope of the terms of reference of this inquiry.
It is, however, necessary, in our submission as your counsel, for the committee to do three things this week. This first is to understand how it came about that the Minister of Housing attended the meeting on June 17, 1994, with the board of the Van Lang Centre in Ottawa; secondly, to ascertain the expectations of the persons attending the June 17, 1994, meeting with the minister and the purpose and the background to the meeting; and thirdly, to assess the allegations of breach of the conflict-of-interest guidelines which have been made against the Minister of Housing in connection with her attendance at that meeting.
0920
Members of the committee, what Mr Hourigan and I are suggesting to you in these opening remarks is, first, that there is considerable information, much of it in the public domain -- not all of it, but much of it in the public domain -- relating to allegations about the history of the Van Lang Centre and including responses by affected people to those allegations, including representatives of government. We are saying to you this morning that on our reading of the terms of the order of reference, much of that information is irrelevant to the task before you and, in general terms, a determination of the merits, the accuracy or inaccuracy of those allegations, the accuracy or inaccuracy, the appropriateness or inappropriateness of responses to those allegations is beyond the scope of the terms of reference in this case.
Having said that, we're also saying to you that there are three tasks before the committee this week, as I have just outlined. In order to accomplish those tasks, and for those limited purposes only, a general understanding of some of the history of the Van Lang Centre and of the allegations and concerns expressed regarding it, its management and operations, and of the responses and comments made concerning those allegations and concerns is both relevant and necessary to the work of the committee.
It's also important in this context, in our submission, from the outset of the hearing, and it may be useful to committee members -- indeed, we hope it will be so -- to have an understanding of the role of counsel to the committee this week as we seek your permission to introduce evidence before you. In our view, the role of your legal counsel in this matter is entirely a neutral one. It is our obligation to assist the committee in its fact-finding function; that is, in the investigation part of your mandate, as established by the order of reference, relating to the allegations which have been made against the Minister of Housing. In order to do so, it will be necessary for us to call evidence before the committee which is intended to assist you to determine what in fact occurred at the meeting of June 17 and whether those facts, once you determine them as a committee, establish in your view a breach or breaches of the conflict-of-interest guidelines.
This is a matter, in some respects, in our submission, unlike certain other inquiries or investigations that from time to time have been undertaken by this standing committee or other standing committees of the Legislative Assembly relating to allegations of potential breach of conflict-of-interest rules, whether they be guidelines or legislation. I make that statement to you for this reason: This matter, the matter before you, is different, arguably, from some of those other cases because in some of those other cases in the past there has been an admission by the involved government representative -- the minister -- of a breach or breaches of the guidelines or relevant conflict-of-interest rules. What followed then in those cases was that, first, there was an admission in some of them of a breach of the guidelines, and then it became the task of the investigating committee to determine what the facts were surrounding the breach and what the consequences were of the breach.
That is not what you will be confronted with this week, based on what we anticipate the evidence to be. In this case, in contrast, the Minister of Housing has stated in the Legislative Assembly that she did not breach the conflict-of-interest guidelines. Others have alleged that she did so. In these circumstances, therefore, what is at issue in this investigation and hearing is, first, what in fact occurred at the meeting of June 17, 1994, and in the days leading up to it, and secondly, what are the consequences of those occurrences.
On behalf of the standing committee, we have interviewed a number of witnesses from whom we will be asking the standing committee to receive evidence. In addition, Mr Hourigan and I have reviewed numerous documents relating to the Van Lang Centre, including many directly related to the June 17 meeting.
On the basis of those interviews and that document review, we anticipate at present that there will be differing accounts of what occurred at the June 17 meeting, including in particular as to what the minister did or did not say or do at that meeting. If this is the case and that is the nature of the evidence you hear, it means that credibility issues may arise during the course of this hearing, and the standing committee will be required to make a determination on all of the evidence as to which version or versions of events it concludes to be most probable. Thereafter, the committee must consider whether a breach or breaches of the conflict-of-interest guidelines occurred.
In that context, and recognizing that it is likely that credibility issues will arise, it is the obligation and responsibility of your counsel, as counsel to the committee, to put before you evidence relating to the meeting of June 17 and the events leading up to it and to do it in a neutral and comprehensive fashion. To do this, and to assist the committee in understanding the evidence and in assessing it, it will be necessary, and I underline this, for us to test the reliability of the recollections of various witnesses concerning the June 17 meeting. This applies to all witnesses.
The allegations that have been made in this case against the Minister of Housing are serious in nature. Similarly, the allegations made concerning the management and operations of the Van Lang Centre are of a very serious nature and call into question the activities of a variety of individuals. I say again in our opening submissions to you this morning that the allegations relating to the Minister of Housing are the very subject matter of this hearing and investigation and therefore are directly relevant. The allegations made against other individuals concerning the management and operations of the Van Lang Centre and the adequacy or inadequacy of responses to those allegations are generally irrelevant to this hearing and are not the subject matter of the hearing before you, save only to provide a general context to the committee to help it determine the three issues I have outlined for you.
We wish also to comment at the outset of the hearing on the significance to the work of your committee of certain legal proceedings now pending in the courts. The order of reference, as the Chair indicated in quoting from it this morning, makes it clear that "The committee may not inquire into the merits of any proceeding currently pending in any court or comment in its report on the guilt, innocence or liability of any party."
That provision, in legal terms, as the committee members will certainly be aware, is a fundamental legal constraint on the scope of the inquiries which may be made by this committee. It is important to note that the language of the constraint applies to the merits of any proceeding currently pending in any court. Accordingly, no questions can be put to any witness by your counsel or by any other person, including by any member of this committee, in our submission, concerning the merits of any proceedings now pending before any court. That restriction, in my submission, extends to any questions regarding the facts relied upon to assert such proceedings, or alternatively, to defend them.
Based on the information that is available to us, I anticipate you will hear evidence that there are two different types of proceedings now pending in the courts and I wish to identify them for you now so that you can take these facts into account in posing your questions of witnesses.
There is, as we understand the anticipated evidence, first a civil proceeding between the first project manager of the Van Lang Centre and certain current or former members of the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre regarding her termination of employment with the centre. We anticipate that you will hear in evidence that the first project manager of the centre was a woman by the name of Trinh Tran. I am therefore indicating to you our information that there is a legal proceeding of a civil nature relating to termination of Ms Tran's employment pending now in the courts.
Secondly, there are proceedings involving alleged infractions of the Corporations Act of Ontario by certain current or former members of the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre now pending in the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) pursuant to informations sworn under the Provincial Offences Act. We anticipate you will hear in evidence that these proceedings were initiated originally by Ms Sharron Pretty, a director of the board of the Van Lang Centre and a tenant-resident of the Van Lang Centre, and in the case of one information, by Ms Trinh Luu, a former employee of the Van Lang Centre.
0930
To assist you at this point, if I may, with the names of certain of the relevant parties, we will be asking the committee to receive evidence both from Ms Trinh Luu and Ms Sharron Pretty, and I anticipate that you will be hearing from them today. Ms Trinh Luu was the second project manager of the centre; Ms Trinh Tran the first. Ms Sharron Pretty is a tenant-resident of the centre and a current director of the centre.
I'd like to comment also at this time on the evidence to be introduced before the standing committee by us as your counsel. Evidence will be introduced before the standing committee in two ways.
First, the committee, through the Chair, will be asked to hear the oral evidence of a number of witnesses. At this time, Mr Hourigan and I anticipate that approximately 12 witnesses will be called to give evidence before the standing committee. As you will appreciate, however, as the hearing progresses, although I don't currently anticipate that this will be the case, it may be necessary to ask you to hear evidence from additional witnesses.
We will also be introducing a number of documents to be filed with you as exhibits relating to the background to the matters at issue; that is, the background to the June 17, 1994, meeting and relating to the meeting itself. I'd like to talk to you for a moment just about the documentation because it's going to be provided to you, if you will receive it, within the next few moments.
There are four volumes of documents that we will ask you to receive. The first I will ask be marked as exhibit 1 or received as exhibit 1 by the Chair. It consists of three volumes of documents. So it's exhibit 1, three volumes. That exhibit contains documents that will be referred to by one or more witnesses during the course of their evidence before the committee and which relate directly to the June 17, 1994, meeting or events leading up to it.
Volume 1 of that exhibit is a collection of other materials relating to the work of this committee. For example, it contains a copy of the order of reference; it contains a copy of the conflict-of-interest guidelines; it contains a copy of the statement of the Premier, Bob Rae, on December 12, 1990, in the Legislative Assembly upon introduction of the guidelines; it contains a copy of various informations that have been sworn and are now pending in the Ontario Court (General Division), and matters of that kind.
Exhibit 2, in one volume, contains copies of various documents relating to the background of the Van Lang Centre and certain of the allegations or concerns expressed from time to time by various individuals regarding the centre and concerning responses to certain of those allegations and concerns.
It's important for members of the standing committee to bear in mind, in our submission, as I know you are aware, that not all of the facts relevant to the June 17, 1994, meeting will come before you from any one witness. The facts will emerge from the evidence as a whole as you hear it during the course of this week.
As you will appreciate, some of the witnesses have direct evidence to give concerning the June 17 meeting because they were present at the meeting. Others were not, but others were involved in arrangements leading up to the meeting, in discussions as to whether there should be a meeting and as to its purpose. For that reason, it is important to recognize from the outset that only after all the evidence is heard will the committee members be in a position to determine what led up to the meeting of June 17, 1994, what occurred at the meeting and what the consequences of it are.
For this reason it is important, in our view as your counsel, for the members to recall from the outset, as I know you are aware, that it is important for members to keep an open mind on the matters at issue in this investigation and hearing until all of the evidence has been heard and the committee members have had an opportunity to deliberate concerning it. This is particularly important, in our submission, because based on the information currently available to us we anticipate that you may very well hear, as I have said, conflicting versions of what occurred at the June 17 meeting. If that occurs, it means, as I said earlier, that there may be credibility issues for this committee to assess; and if that is the case, where credibility issues are before you for determination relating to witnesses, it is most important that all of the evidence be heard by committee members and that only then a determination be made.
Included among the documents in exhibit 1, volume 1, which I'm going to ask you to receive now, is a document at tab 4 entitled Statement of Selected Background Facts. I wish to comment on this document and its purpose.
The document has been prepared by Mr Hourigan and myself, as your counsel, based on all of the information and documents available to us concerning the matters at issue. It has been reviewed and commented upon by legal counsel for a number of the witnesses where they are represented by legal counsel. It's being distributed as I speak.
It is important to understand its purpose, because I'm going to ask the committee members to take a few moments and, if the Chair agrees, to read the document and to ask that we rise for that purpose, to give you an opportunity to do so. The purpose of this statement of selected background facts is to provide committee members with an overview of certain of the background facts relating to the Van Lang Centre and relating to matters leading up to the June 17 meeting. Perhaps I'll just wait a moment while it's being distributed.
Mr Callahan: I'd like to ask a question and I guess it's in two parts. You've indicated we can't ask questions about pending actions. I can understand that quite clearly.
The two questions I want to find out about:
As you know, one of the allegations here is that Ms Gigantes, directly or indirectly, suggested to Ms Pretty that she withdraw the charge under the Corporations Act. If that's the case and if a finding were to be made in that regard, first of all, are you telling us that we could not question her on that, because it would be very important in terms that it might very well constitute reasonable and probable grounds for a charge under subsection 139(3) of the Criminal Code, ie, "...every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, (a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence...."? Of course a judicial proceeding does include a matter before a court, judge, justice, provincial judge or coroner or before a tribunal by which a legal right or legal liability may be established. That's my first question. Are we precluded from pursuing that?
The second question is: If we were to conclude, at the end of these proceedings, that in fact the minister had, directly or indirectly, or at least that there was reasonable evidence that she had directly or indirectly attempted to obstruct justice on the basis of that section, would we be allowed to put that in our report or would we be prevented from putting that in our report? In my understanding of what you say about the terms of reference, we're only entitled to report on the question of whether or not her actions, as found as facts by this committee, constitute a breach of the guidelines of the Premier. I guess what I'm getting at is that if we make a finding of that type, are we precluded from putting it into our report, and in fact at that point in time do we become within the framework of a couple of judicial decisions such as Starr and others and no longer able to comment and the matter then becomes a matter for police investigation?
Ms Cronk: May I respond, Mr Chair?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. On the first question, the remarks that I made in the overview that I was giving the committee members of pending proceedings were intended to underscore that the restriction contained in the order of reference relates to the merits of any proceeding now pending in any court. The exact language, to be precise, is that the committee may not inquire into the merits of any proceeding currently pending in any court.
Mr Callahan: So we can certainly pursue the questions, obviously, of whether or not the minister, directly or indirectly, tried to have the charges under the Corporations Act withdrawn? We can pursue that? All right. Okay.
0940
Ms Cronk: Indeed. And indeed it's my advice to you that this is part of the very subject matter and purpose of this inquiry so that the fact of the charges and what the minister did or did not say in relation to them, so long as it doesn't deal with the merits of the charges or the defence, may be questioned upon. Indeed I can say to you and to the other committee members that it would certainly be my intention to do so with a number of witnesses.
Mr Callahan: Okay.
Ms Cronk: On the second question, dealing with what might be said by the committee ultimately in its report, there's a second part, as you of course understand, to the restriction contained in the order of reference and it is that the committee cannot comment in its report on the "guilt, innocence or liability of any party." As I read that, that would indeed preclude any suggestion or finding in the report of any liability under and any legislation or any particular law of general or specific application against any person, be it the minister or anyone else.
Specifically what is before this committee to determine is whether there was a breach or breaches of the conflict-of-interest guidelines by the minister in relation to a particular event, a meeting on June 17, 1994, in the context of what led up to it and how it came about, nothing more.
Mr Callahan: Just so I'm clear and I think the other members of the committee are clear, if we were to find, after hearing the evidence, that there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the minister had in fact obstructed justice or attempted to, we would not be able to report that to the House. That would be the matter of a separate investigation, perhaps by the police or the crown attorney's office. Is that correct?
Ms Cronk: Generally, that is my advice to you. There can be no conclusion relating to liability under a statute of provincial or specific application. That includes the statute you've named or any other. What is at issue is whether the guidelines were complied with or not.
Mr Callahan: Does this committee have the ability under the terms of reference, even though they can't put it in their report, to recommend, if that were the case, that the matter be proceeded to further investigation by the police or the crown attorney? Would we have that authority under the terms of reference or generally, as members of the Legislature, if we came to the conclusion that there were reasonable and probable grounds for a criminal charge to be investigated and laid? Would it preclude us, as members of the Legislature and this committee, from in fact directing that those proceedings be taken or at least recommending them to whomever would take them?
Ms Cronk: There are two issues in my mind with respect to the question that you're asking. The first is whether it's within the jurisdiction of this committee, under the terms of the order of reference, to be deliberating as a committee on whether there are reasonable probable grounds about anything. The issue is whether there was a breach or an infraction of the conflict-of-interest guidelines. So I'd ask you to bear that in mind.
Your mandate for the purposes of your review this week is specific to those guidelines. That being the case, the prohibition and the restraint that applies is there can be no expression of liability, guilt or innocence in the view of the committee with respect to any party including the minister, and that applies to all legislation.
Mr Callahan: In the report?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Mr Callahan: It doesn't preclude us from asking those questions, though. All right, thank you very much.
Mrs Marland: A brief question: Would it be possible, through the clerk, to have a copy of Ms Cronk's opening statement later on this morning? The second question to Ms Cronk is, in your opening statement, I think you referred to Ms Pretty and Ms Luu having laid charges. I thought it was the crown that laid the charges and they just provided some evidence. I would like to know which is the correct way to refer to that.
Ms Cronk: If I can clarify that, if I said that, I certainly misspoke myself. What I intended to say is that informations were sworn that proceedings were generated initially, as I understand the evidence, by Mr Pretty in respect of certain individuals alleging infractions of the Corporations Act and that one of those informations was initiated originally by Ms Trinh Luu. I anticipate that you will hear evidence that a number of informations were sworn initially by Sharron Pretty and that a further information was completed initially by Ms Trinh Luu. As to what involvement the crown attorney at that point or thereafter had, you will hear evidence about it, but informations were sworn by Ms Pretty in respect of certain of the current and former board members of the Van Lang Centre.
Mrs Marland: And the crown lays the charges. Is that a way to refer to it?
Ms Cronk: Once the informations are sworn, it goes before an officer of the court, a justice of the peace, and the process of the administration of justice and the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) is triggered and is engaged. The role of the crown is another matter.
Mr David Winninger (London South): I just wanted to confirm with counsel to the committee: There is indeed one charge currently before the courts, and in addition a civil proceeding?
Ms Cronk: Actually, I anticipate what you're going to hear in the evidence is that there are seven informations outstanding, that there are six charges involving six individuals, that there is a seventh information involving one of the original six, so that there are six persons who are identified and against whom it is alleged that they have committed infractions of the Corporations Act. In that sense there are six informations, plus a seventh involving one of the same individuals. Those are all in the nature of alleged provincial offences under the Provincial Offences Act. In addition to that, there is a civil proceeding, of which we are aware, relating to the circumstances surrounding employment termination of the first project manager of the centre. There is more than one charge.
Mr Callahan: Just a supplementary: I assume that offences in breach of the Corporations Act are in fact quasi-criminal offences.
Ms Cronk: They are provincial offences under the Provincial Offences Act.
Mr Callahan: But they are also quasi-criminal offences.
Ms Cronk: The reason I answered it the way I did is because many lawyers take a differing view of that. What I can say to you, what is the fact, is that it is alleged that there were breaches of the Corporations Act. That is, if true, an offence under the Provincial Offences Act, and informations under the Provincial Offences Act have been laid. What has been alleged, as I understand the evidence, are provincial offences relating to infractions of the Corporations Act which are now pending in the Provincial Division of the Ontario Court of Justice.
Mr Callahan: But just so it's clear, you have to delineate those from civil actions. It's not a civil action.
Ms Cronk: That's correct.
Mr Callahan: It's being held in a criminal court.
Ms Cronk: That's correct.
Mr Callahan: In fact, it is a quasi-criminal offence.
Ms Cronk: The reason, again, that I responded the way I did is that some lawyers take a differing view of that expression, but they are certainly not civil proceedings. They are to be contrasted to that and they are pending in the criminal division of the Ontario Court.
Mr Callahan: Because they have penalties that are in fact quasi-criminal penalties.
Ms Cronk: In one instance they do, and in another there's a legal issue about that. They involve fines and/or the possibility of an imprisonment with respect to one of the informations.
The Chair: If that's it, we'll take a 10-minute recess till 10 o'clock.
Ms Cronk: Mr Chairman, if I might have one moment simply to speak to the statement of selected background facts, I would be very grateful for that.
The Chair: Okay, fine.
Ms Cronk: For the assistance of committee members, and I hope that's been responsive to your questions, tab 4 of exhibit 1, volume 1, which you've now been provided, is the document entitled Statement of Selected Background Facts. I want to point out to committee members that what's important about that document and its purpose is that it is not intended to set out a full chronology of all the facts relating to the Van Lang Centre but simply to point out some of the material facts which we anticipate you'll hear about at evidence. That is going to be put to various witnesses during the course of their evidence and they will be asked to verify the accuracy of the facts in the statement.
If the committee members would take an opportunity now to rise and to review the document, then I would like to speak with you about the rest of the documentation when you return.
The Chair: This committee recesses until 10 o'clock.
The committee recessed from 0949 to 1003.
The Chair: I'm going to bring the committee to order. Mr Callahan has a procedural question, I believe.
Mr Callahan: Yes. I want to ask committee counsel one more question, just to clarify something. Miss Marland talked about the question of the informations laid under the Corporations Act. It's my understanding that Miss Pretty in fact did lay some 40 charges, including one of fraud, on April 6. The crown considered those charges and in fact, on April 25, 1994, elected to intervene and prosecute six of those charges. The fraud charge was not proceeded with because they felt they did not have sufficient evidence to prove it. Would that be correct? I don't want to leave the impression that perhaps, as Miss Marland asked, this was something done individually by Miss Pretty.
My understanding was that although she laid them, the crown, in investigating them, decided to intervene, which is a process they can take on themselves, and in fact the crown is prosecuting the charges, vetted those they felt they could not prove and didn't proceed with the fraud charge, because although they felt there was something there, there wasn't sufficient evidence to pursue it. Is that an accurate statement?
Ms Cronk: Based on my understanding of the evidence that you'll hear, Mr Callahan, I can confirm some of those facts. If you turn, in exhibit 1, volume 1, to tab 6, you'll find a copy of the informations that were actually sworn on April 25, 1994. You will be hearing evidence. I will be asking questions of a number of witnesses about these informations, the fact of them and the nature of the charges -- not the merits of them, of course -- and you'll see from these informations that there are six that were sworn by Ms Pretty on April 25, 1994. Towards the back of that tab -- the pages are actually numbered in the top right-hand corner -- if you look at page 17, you will see an information completed by Ms Trinh Luu. That is the seventh to which I referred. All of them deal with alleged infractions of the Corporations Act, and it was for that reason that when Ms Marland asked me the question, I used the language that informations were sworn on that date.
I understand that you will hear -- you'll appreciate, Mr Callahan, that I'm being careful in my response, because as your counsel I don't wish to be in the position of giving evidence, but I anticipate that you will hear from one or more witnesses that during the month of April 1994 there were ongoing discussions between a representative of the crown's offices and Ms Pretty or Ms Luu, that that involved a trained person in the crown's offices, not a provincially appointed crown attorney, but that ultimately the advice of a crown attorney was sought and that the result of seeking that advice was that these informations went forward. It is my understanding that you'll hear evidence that there was initially consideration being given to a larger number of charges and that these are the ones the crown offices then determined to become involved in and these did go forward.
I hope that clarifies that there was certainly involvement with the crown's offices. There was, as you point out, a determination, on consultation with the crown attorney, that the crown would prosecute the informations before you, and they are being prosecuted by the crown's offices: those informations set out at tab 6; no others of which I am currently aware.
Mr Callahan: Just so I'm clear and the other members are clear, on April 6 the charges were brought to the attention of the crown attorney but not laid and over that period of time from April 6 to April 25 the crown considered whether it was appropriate to pursue those, and as a result of that the informations were laid on April 25 and the crown is now looking after the prosecution of those charges.
Ms Cronk: As to the dates when the crown's offices were first consulted, as to the length of time over which they considered the matter, I would suggest, Mr Callahan, that it would be appropriate to wait to hear the evidence of the witnesses. But I can certainly confirm, as I did a moment ago, that the informations at tab 6 are being proceeded with, based on the information available to me, and that that is being done now by the crown's offices, following consultation with a crown attorney in the month of April 1994.
Mr Callahan: So it's not a private prosecution.
Ms Cronk: It is not, and if that was taken from my remarks, I didn't intend to suggest that. But I'm also saying to you that with respect to the number of originally proposed charges, the timing of discussions with the crown's offices and whether they were deliberated upon for that length of time or not, you should hear from the witnesses, not from your counsel.
Mr Callahan: Fine. Thank you very much.
Ms Cronk: You're welcome.
The Chair: Okay. Are we ready to proceed with the opening remarks?
Ms Cronk: Almost.
The Chair: Almost? Okay.
Ms Cronk: Almost completed, Mr Chair; that's right. If I may take the time of the committee for two further brief remarks, this is actually designed to help you with the paper. I hope it may ultimately prove to be the case that it is assisting you with the paper.
With respect to the Statement of Selected Background Facts at tab 4 that is now before you as volume 1 of exhibit 1, I have said to you, and I would just like to emphasize again, that that statement is not intended to be a comprehensive chronology of all events relating to the Van Lang Centre. It is not. It is intended to highlight for committee members in a neutral fashion, without any descriptives or subjective commentary, facts that may be of assistance to you in understanding the background during the period -- and I'd like perhaps to suggest you make a note of the time frame -- May 1993 up to and including April 1994.
As you will appreciate, as we come closer in time to the June 17 meeting, some controversy over events and involvement of various people may arise, and for that reason that Statement of Selected Background Facts does not deal with anything that occurred after April 1994. That you will hear in evidence. So I ask you to bear that in mind when you read that Statement of Selected Background Facts. The intention is to proceed through the background with various witnesses by asking them to review and verify the facts set out in that statement.
As to the balance of the documents that I'm going to ask you to receive, there are two more volumes to exhibit 1. I'm going to ask that they be given to you now. There is also a fourth volume, exhibit 2, and I explained to you earlier what's in those documents. There are a number of documents in exhibit 1, volume 3, that I wish to draw to your attention at this time, so perhaps I could wait while they're distributed to you, and then I will show you where to find them.
1010
Mr Callahan: While they're passing that out, I note the information you have here was probably prepared prior to today. Can I inquire as to whether or not Ms Pretty is any longer a director of the corporation, or has she been in fact discharged by a meeting of the board of directors? I understand that a meeting took place today, while she's here, that she was discharged as a director.
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Why don't we hear this in the evidence and get going?
The Chair: Yes, I think we're jumping ahead here.
Mr Callahan: It wouldn't be in here, because it's --
The Chair: This is a question that you can ask, Mr Callahan.
Mrs Marland: You can ask questions.
Mr Callahan: Thank you, Charlie, thank you, Margaret, for your help and assistance.
Ms Cronk: Perhaps if we could turn, then, to the documents.
Mr Harnick: Almost Friday; we're going to be finished by then. You're the ones who complained we weren't getting enough time. Now let's get on with it.
Mr Callahan: All right. Okay, Charlie.
Ms Cronk: In volume 3 of exhibit 1, may I draw the following documents to the attention of the committee. I'm not suggesting that you read them now, but I wish you to be aware of the fact that they're there. At tab 80 are briefing notes of the Minister of Housing dated June 17, 1994. That's at tab 80 of volume 3 of exhibit 1, which we don't have yet on the right hand of the room but it's coming. They're briefing notes dated June 17, 1994, and I anticipate that you're going to hear in evidence that those notes were provided to the minister at the meeting of June 17 by certain of the directors of the Van Lang Centre. The documents that I'm drawing to your attention now relate specifically to the June 17 meeting, and it may simply be a shortcut for the committee members through some of this paper.
At tab 81 are found handwritten notes prepared by a Ms Audrey Moey concerning the June 17, 1994, meeting. Ms Moey is a member of the constituency office staff of Ms Gigantes in Ottawa. I should tell the committee that there were nine people, as I understand the information you're going to receive, in attendance at the June 17 meeting. Some of those individuals made notes at the meeting; some of those people made notes shortly after the meeting; some of those people made notes at a lengthier point later, subsequently after the meeting. All of those notes of which we are aware are contained in volume 3. At tab 81 are the notes of Audrey Moey.
At tab 82 are handwritten notes of Dr Vinh Tang, one of the directors of the Van Lang Centre, who was present at the meeting. At tab 83 are the notes of Brian Sutherland of the Ministry of Housing offices in Ottawa. Mr Sutherland was at the meeting. At tab 84 are notes prepared by Dr Can D. Le, one of the directors of the Van Lang Centre, who was present at the meeting. At tab 85 are notes prepared by Sharron Pretty, subject to the response to Mr Callahan's questions, one of the directors of the Van Lang Centre; certainly she was on June 17, and of course she was at that meeting. At tab 103 are additional notes prepared by Brian Sutherland of the Ministry of Housing offices in Ottawa on or about July 14 of this year concerning the June 17 meeting.
In addition, the committee members may wish to make note now of the following documents. At tab 106 is a statement by the Minister of Housing, Evelyn Gigantes, dated today, August 8, concerning the June 17 meeting and the events leading up to it. That's at tab 106, a statement by the Minister of Housing dated today.
At tab 86 are typewritten notes prepared by Sharron Pretty concerning her recollection of the June 17 meeting.
Mr Callahan: Sorry, what tab was that?
Ms Cronk: At tab 86.
The Chair: Is there an index in the front?
Ms Cronk: Yes, there is.
The Chair: Okay, there's an index in the front, Bob.
Ms Cronk: Those notes I understand to have been made after the meeting on June 17.
At tab 87 is a memorandum from Sharron Pretty, dated June 23, again concerning the June 17 meeting.
The committee should also be aware that seven days before the meeting giving rise to the allegations against the Minister of Housing, on June 10 of this year, a meeting took place between the Minister of Housing and Ms Trinh Luu that was also attended by Ms Audrey Moey. Remember, I said a moment ago that she's a member of the minister's Ottawa constituency office staff.
At tab 70 -- these are all still in volume 3 -- is a document prepared by Ms Trinh Luu concerning that June 10 meeting.
At tab 72 are handwritten notes prepared by Audrey Moey concerning the June 10 meeting. Those are notes by Ms Moey of the June 10 meeting between the Minister of Housing and Ms Trinh Luu.
The other documents in volume 3 are of course relevant as well, but I draw those particular documents to your attention because they relate directly to the June 17 meeting and because they are either notes prepared at, shortly after or at some point thereafter by various persons who were involved in the meeting.
Mr Chair, that does conclude my introductory remarks to the committee, and I understand that you may wish to hear from caucus members by way of an opening statement.
The Chair: Fine, thank you. Another thing is that as we go through and the witnesses come forth maybe you can give a little background of what sections we'll be in, which will help all the committee members as we're going along to guide them through.
What we have now is five minutes on opening statements from each of the three caucuses, and I will start in a clockwise fashion. As witnesses come forward and there are questions, I will be rotating. I will start with the Liberals first and then the Conservative Party and then the New Democratic Party in rotation after each witness. You won't be the first one to ask the questions, but you'll be able to hear some of the other questions coming out. From the Liberal caucus, do we have a spokesman? Mr Chiarelli.
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I'll start and I'll share my time with my colleagues. I will be very brief. First of all, I want to acknowledge, particularly when this particular committee has been brought together on such short notice, the very professional and efficient and, if I may say, caring way that the special counsel and the clerk, Lisa Freedman, and the Chair of the committee, Ron Hansen, have performed and assisted the committee. It's been very professional, very helpful, and I think it helped to set the tone for the next two weeks.
I do want to acknowledge as well the very unfortunate situation and experience that a number of the witnesses find themselves in, first of all having to come before this committee and deal with what is essentially a political issue when in fact they were interested in trying to make a non-profit housing corporation work much better, particularly with respect to Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu, who, I am sure, would much rather not be here and try to solve the problems in a productive, positive way. But unfortunately we do have this hearing -- it is restricted in scope -- so we appreciate the fact that they are here and they are being very cooperative.
I also want to acknowledge the level of cooperation on the part of all the parties, the NDP, the Conservatives and the Liberals. A lot of decisions have had to be made over the last number of weeks and they've been made, by and large, in a climate of cooperation and agreement, with several exceptions, and I'd like to highlight two of those exceptions. That is, in particular, the refusal on the part of the government side to permit some additional time to examine witnesses, perhaps as little as one extra day. I am hopeful that as we get into the week, the three parties and the special counsel may be able to come to an agreement on providing that additional time.
The other comment I would have is the non-appearance of the Premier, who basically initiated this particular hearing without being asked to do so in the Legislature by the opposition parties and who has subsequently refused to come and indicate or describe how he would interpret his own guidelines. The Premier, as you would be well aware, is the only arbiter and decision-maker with any recommendations that we can make. In fact, any recommendation we make, the Premier could choose to ignore. I think it would have been very helpful to the committee to have the ultimate judge and arbiter of the Premier's guidelines here to explain, as has happened on previous occasions where Premiers have come before this type of committee.
I would indicate that I hope the general climate of cooperation will continue throughout the next two weeks.
1020
Mr Callahan: Tim, did you want to say something? Is there a minute left?
The Chair: About 30 seconds.
Mr Callahan: In thirty seconds, I'd just say that I understand the legislative counsel had recommended that these hearings last longer than they have, and I join with my friend in saying they should. I think it's most important that this committee be heard, because the nature of the evidence may very well be not just one of perhaps conflict-of-interest guidelines, and I think it's important for the public to have an opportunity to air the evidence in this matter and hear it.
Mrs Marland: Today we are embarking on a very expensive voyage, and the expenses are being paid by the taxpayers of Ontario. This is one sailing which never needed to leave shore. It is unforgivable that this tremendous expense is necessary because a number of people simply did not do their jobs. We will find it quite a rough sea at times, I am sure, as different versions of the same event are tossed out while everyone is scrambling to repair their lifeboats.
Our mandate, as has been said, is to investigate allegations of breach of the conflict-of-interest guidelines by the Minister of Housing in connection with her meeting with the board of the Van Lang Centre on June 17, 1994. On that matter I have an open mind because, in any case, it would be up to the Premier to make the final decision, and he has already told the Legislature that he does not think his minister did anything wrong. He also declined to attend these meetings to explain his own guidelines.
So why are we here at sea wasting time and money, in some people's opinion? I believe that when and if the public's trust and confidence have been placed at risk because of certain actions by government, the public then has an absolute right to know the truth. I believe we must expose a government if it enabled a system to deny certain rights to two of its citizens.
Whether we deal as legislators with the rights of two or the rights of 2,000, it is of paramount importance to protect those rights, and I will fight, along with Mr Harnick, my colleague, passionately for this principle.
The two citizens I speak of, Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty, did not seek personal gain or publicity, as events leading up to the June 17 board meeting will clearly show. They simply wanted to ensure that the Van Lang Centre was competently managed, that it provided housing to those who most needed it, regardless of the applicant's ethnic background, that it was publicly accountable for the government subsidies it receives, and that it complied with the government's own policies.
These two strong and intelligent women had both the courage and the tenacity not to give up trying to obtain help from an inefficient bureaucracy in order to remedy serious problems in the common interest of all tenants and taxpayers. For two years I have been asking this Minister of Housing to get her ship in order, to tighten the ropes, close the hatches and stop the taxpayers' dollars, in millions, from floating out to sea.
The Provincial Auditor identified serious problems with the non-profit housing program in his 1992 report. He mentioned the lack of hundreds of operating agreements and the $200 million that was lost because of paying too much for land purchases and construction. I understand that the Van Lang Centre still does not have an operating agreement, among many other discrepancies.
On this voyage, we will hear about the denial of access for a constituent to a meeting with her MPP until after someone else's evidence caused the crown to lay charges against four present board members of the Van Lang Centre.
We will also learn how Trinh Luu, who at this point had not laid charges yet, came to Toronto at her own expense in May to meet with my staff only after the Ministry of Housing had not resolved the problems that had plagued the Van Lang Centre for 14 months. The minister's own staff told us the minister could not meet with Trinh Luu because the matter was before the courts. Trinh Luu is a constituent of Evelyn Gigantes and had requested a meeting with her for eight months.
The question we must ask is, why only after the crown laid charges based on Ms Pretty's evidence did a meeting with Ms Luu finally take place? Because my office asked for it? I doubt it.
Trinh Luu asked that I not raise the case in the Legislature until after we had dealt with the minister's office. That is exactly what my staff and I did, away from the harsh light of the Legislature and the media. My executive assistant, Mora Thompson, telephoned Marc Collins on May 27, 1994.
So now we have to ask, why did the minister attend a board meeting in private session with the person, Sharron Pretty, who had laid charges and the four other board members who were charged? Why is she now meeting with Ms Pretty after two of her staff, Sue Lott and Marc Collins, have said she could not touch the case because it was before the courts?
Only the minister knows that answer as to why she would attend a meeting between five parties who would be in court together. Only Sharron Pretty knows how intimidating it was to attend a meeting with a minister of the crown and to be the only person in the room on one side of the issue versus eight people on the other side. Only the minister can tell us if this was at least an abuse of her powers.
Finally, is this voyage necessary? Yes, to learn the truth. By what star do the Minister of Housing and her staff navigate, and why have they been fogbound for so long? We hope we will learn the answers.
The Chair: Mr Sutherland.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Thank you, Chair. Just before I make comments, I too want to compliment legal counsel and her associate for their work in this. I do believe they've handled it in a very professional manner.
I also want to indicate to everybody that this committee is sitting beyond normal hours. We've added two hours every day. We've also given legal counsel the option, if they want to sit past 6 o'clock, to do so. So there has been much accommodation on providing extra time so that we can hear everything from the witnesses.
Mr Chair, these hearings are about a minister who was just doing her job. On June 17, the Minister of Housing met with Van Lang's board of directors to try to help them put aside their personal differences, differences which had brought their work to a standstill. The minister knew Van Lang's history. The non-profit had gone through four project managers in 18 months, had serious administrative problems, and was plagued by personal conflict. She knew the ministry had been working with the non-profit for months to help the board clear up its administrative problems. She knew about the different factions that had developed on the board, and that the conflict was escalating at a rapid pace.
As the Minister of Housing, she knew that if the board breaks down, it can't make the decisions it's responsible for, it can't ensure the non-profit is operating the way it should. Ultimately, the board was unable to function effectively, and that's when the minister felt it was time to get involved.
The minister was asked by all parties, on several occasions, to meet on this issue. She waited until the ministry had done what it could to solve Van Lang's administrative problems, but the board was still crippled by the personality conflict. She then agreed to a meeting to try and help members get to a place where they could start resolving their differences.
On June 17, the minister simply tried to mediate between the two factions that had developed on the board. We believe the evidence will show the press coverage following the meeting focused on the minister's attempt to help the group resolve its dispute. There was no mention of conflict of interest until the opposition began throwing around allegations that the minister was trying to interfere in a court case. Then the issue took on a life of its own.
We wonder what the opposition reaction would have been if the meeting had been successful, if the meeting with the minister had brought both sides in this dispute together. Would we say she was in a conflict then?
1030
We believe the evidence will show that according to the Premier's guidelines, there's no conflict of interest here. The minister did not at any time talk to a judge, police officer or prosecutor; neither did her constituency office staff. No other ministry or tribunal was involved, and even if you're looking at the principles the guidelines are based on, there is still no conflict.
The minister simply offered to help the board, allowing the members themselves to determine how they wanted to proceed. She was not acting on behalf of any special interest or any constituent; she was acting on behalf of the best interests of Van Lang's residents, the people who would ultimately be affected by what happened with the board, the people she is responsible to as the Minister of Housing.
The meeting was not held to discuss a court case. It was held to see if the board could put its differences aside long enough to try and deal with its problems.
We believe the evidence will show the minister didn't pressure Sharron Pretty to drop her charges under the Corporations Act, and in fact the minister made a point, on several occasions throughout the meeting, of saying that there was no pressure to immediately resolve the issues at hand. There was no pressure for Sharron Pretty to respond to any questions. There was no pressure to even set a time for another meeting. The minister was excruciatingly careful on this point. This was a time to talk, not a time to make decisions.
The government agreed to these hearings because we believe in open public process. We know that there's more opportunity for questions, contacts and real discussion in committee, but the value of the work done in committees is compromised when we waste time digging for dirt. Many of the facts of this case are already on the table. They've been in Hansard and they've been in the papers.
The minister was just doing her job. The Minister of Housing did what we expect our ministers to do. She showed leadership. She tried to solve a problem. Her motivation was clear. She was working in the best interests of the residents of Van Lang, and after all, that's her job.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sutherland.
Mr Callahan: On a point of clarification: Procedurewise, it was my understanding that committee counsel, when we started out in these proceedings, indicated that, because along the way there may have to be findings of credibility made, we not make a decision in advance. That last speech tells me that this member has already made up his mind. I wonder if I can ask you, should that member now withdraw from this hearing because he's not able to independently listen to the evidence and decide on questions of credibility?
Interjections.
Mr Callahan: Well, counsel suggested that to us, and you've just given us a reiteration or an iteration of what you believe, so how can you possibly sit on a committee and assess credibility without being tarnished by the fact that you've already made up your mind?
The Chair: I'll ask legal counsel. Eleanore, would you mind?
Ms Cronk: Mr Callahan, I think it would be completely inappropriate at this point or any later point for me, as your counsel, to presuppose the state of mind of any member of this committee. I have every confidence that members of the committee will allow us to begin the evidence and to hear it, and if in due course there is some concern on your part about that, that's not a matter for legal advice but by determination of this committee. I would hope that every member would be prepared to hear the evidence with an open mind, starting now.
TRINH LUU
The Chair: I'd like to call the first witness, Ms Trinh Luu. I'll have the clerk administer the oath.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lisa Freedman): Do you affirm that the evidence you shall give to this committee touching the subject of the present inquiry shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Ms Trinh Luu: Yes.
The Chair: Ms Cronk.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, Mr Chair. Good morning, Ms Luu.
Ms Luu: Good morning.
Ms Cronk: I just wish to begin by identifying the counsel who appear on your behalf for the benefit of the committee. Mr Colin McKinnon and Mr John Dempster appear on behalf of Ms Luu this morning and are seated to her immediate left.
Ms Luu, just before we begin, there's one more housekeeping matter, if I might be permitted to deal with it.
Mr Chair, I wonder if I could ask the committee to receive as exhibit 3 a document entitled Schedule of Involved Persons. This has been prepared by Mr Hourigan and myself really as an aide-mémoire to the committee in an effort to assist you as you hear the evidence as to who various individuals are who have signed a variety of documents.
Sorry for that interruption, Ms Luu.
Could that be received then as exhibit 3, Mr Chair? Thank you.
Ms Luu, I'm a fair distance away from you in this room and I'll do my best to ensure that my voice is loud enough for you to hear me, but if at any point you cannot, would you indicate that to me. Similarly, because we are a little distance apart, I wonder if I could ask you to keep your voice up as well so that those at this end of the room will be able to hear you.
May we also have this agreement, at the beginning of our discussion, Ms Luu: If you do not understand at any point any question that I ask you or you wish a moment to reflect upon it, would you let me know that? Thank you.
As I understand it, Ms Luu, you currently reside in the city of Ottawa.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You are a second-year law student at the faculty of law, the University of Ottawa.
Ms Luu: I will begin my second year this fall.
Ms Cronk: You've just completed then, I take it, your first year of studies at the faculty of law?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: As I understand it as well -- if I can be permitted simply to lead you through some of the early background, please correct me when I get these facts wrong -- you came to Canada in approximately 1988. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: In 1989, as I understand it, you worked for part of the year at an organization known at the Vietnamese Canadian Federation in Ottawa?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did you, while working with that organization, have occasion to meet an individual by the name of Dr Can D. Le?
Ms Luu: Yes. I knew him by then.
Ms Cronk: Who did you understand Dr Can D. Le to be?
Ms Luu: Pardon me?
Ms Cronk: Who did you understand Dr Can D. Le to be?
Ms Luu: He is a veteran volunteer. He's very active in community work and he's quite a prominent figure in our community.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, Ms Luu, I lost the last part of that. He's quite a prominent --
Ms Luu: He's quite a prominent figure in our community, and he initiated a lot of projects. He applied for funding for a lot of projects.
Ms Cronk: And you first met Dr Can D. Le approximately when?
Ms Luu: When I started to work as an administrative assistant at the Vietnamese Canadian Federation. That would be in March 1989.
Ms Cronk: As I understand it, in 1990 you commenced studies at the University of Ottawa, studying sociology. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you ultimately obtain your degree in sociology from that university?
Ms Luu: I did.
Ms Cronk: When was that?
Ms Luu: In April 1992.
Ms Cronk: During the summer of that year, did you have occasion to begin working at the Van Lang Centre in Ottawa?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And when exactly was that?
Ms Luu: It was in July.
Ms Cronk: I wonder if I could ask the clerk to provide to Ms Luu -- you have in front of you actually three volumes of documents; one of them should be entitled exhibit 1, volume 1. Ms Luu, I wonder if you could put that in front of you, if you would, please. If you turn to tab 4 of that volume of exhibits, you'll see the document that you've heard me refer to before the committee this morning as the Statement of Selected Background Facts. Do you have that?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look, if you would please, at paragraph 8 of that statement, found at page 3, which reads:
"In July 1992, Ms Trinh Luu began working at the Van Lang Centre. In September 1992, she assumed the position of acting property manager of the centre. On or about January 1, 1993, she became property manager and held this position until September 3, 1993, when she resigned from her employment effective September 8, 1993, to return to school. Ms Luu recently completed her first year of studies as a law student at the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa."
Can you tell the committee, Ms Luu, are the facts in that paragraph substantially correct?
Ms Luu: Yes, they are correct.
Ms Cronk: As I understand it then, having commenced your employment with the Van Lang Centre in the summer of 1992, you worked first as the acting property manager of the centre?
Ms Luu: No. When I started in July 1992 it was on a contract employment, and I was asked by Dr Can Le to prepare the financial statements of the capital phase.
Ms Cronk: The capital phase of construction of the project?
Mr Luu: Yes, of the centre.
1040
Ms Cronk: And shortly thereafter you became the acting property manager?
Ms Luu: Yes, when I was working there, the first property manager, Mrs Tran, quit, so I was there. I was working in an office opposite to her office. So Dr Le just asked me to unofficially assume her functions. I did that for a week and then the position was opened for competition. I applied and I got the job.
Ms Cronk: As I understand it, then, for approximately one year, that is, from the period of approximately September 1992 until September 1993, you served either as the acting project manager or as the full-time project manager of the Van Lang Centre. Do I have that correctly?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: In addition, as indicated by paragraph 8 of the statement of background facts, you commenced your studies as a law student in the fall of 1993.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Based on what you've just told the committee, you assumed the position of acting property manager following a competition from which you successfully emerged as the successful candidate and you were replacing Ms Trinh Tran, the former property manager. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. Had you personally known Ms Trinh Tran or dealt with her at any point?
Mr Luu: No, I saw her only when I started the job in July, because we were in separate offices and I worked independently from her job. I was looking at the capital phase files. I knew her only by then, but before that I never saw her or knew her personally.
Ms Cronk: Could you look at paragraph 7 of the statement of background facts as well? You'll see that it concerns a Ms Trinh Tran and it suggests in that paragraph that she served from February to August 1992 as the first project manager of the centre and that, effective on or about August 24, 1992, she resigned her position as property manager and left its employ. It goes on to deal with what occurred after her resignation, specifically that at the time of her resignation she expressed a number of concerns relating to the management of the Van Lang Centre and that she later commenced civil proceedings against the corporation, alleging wrongful termination of her employment.
Are you in a position, based on your own knowledge of the matter, to indicate whether the facts in that paragraph are substantially correct?
Ms Luu: Yes, they are.
Ms Cronk: Similarly, with respect to the statement of background facts, paragraphs 1 to 4, Ms Luu, you'll see there that there is an introduction set out concerning the Van Lang Centre itself.
Ms Luu: Excuse me, what page is that?
Ms Cronk: Starting at page 1.
Ms Luu: Oh, 1 to 4.
Ms Cronk: Paragraphs 1 to 4 concern the Van Lang Centre itself. Would I be correct in assuming that once you began your employment at the Van Lang Centre you became familiar, if not immediately, then shortly thereafter, with certain of the history relating to the centre and its opening?
Ms Luu: Yes. I should say that eight months after I took over from Trinh Tran I became aware of the legal documents that state the purpose for which the project is created. It was in June 1993 that I obtained a copy of the letters patent and only then did I realize what the project was developed for.
Ms Cronk: All right. And that occurred in June 1993.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. When you first began the job, however, I take it that you familiarized yourself with the centre and the date of its opening, that kind of thing?
Ms Luu: No, not at all. When I took over I knew nothing about housing and I did not take the job. I did not apply until the last day. Dr Can Le and other board directors encouraged me. They said, "This is an on-the-job learning, so don't worry, you'll be fine." So I applied. I got it and it was really an on-the-job learning process and the more I learned the more I found out about the problems at the centre.
Ms Cronk: All right. Based on having worked there for the period of time that you did, Ms Luu, can you confirm to the committee, as suggested by paragraph 3 of the Statement of Selected Background Facts, that the centre opened in approximately June 1992?
Ms Luu: Yes. I know the first batch of tenants moved in starting July 1, 1992, so this is when the operating phase starts.
Ms Cronk: Is it also correct -- and please tell me if it is not -- as suggested by paragraph 3, that it was opened as a non-profit housing project on a site jointly developed with an organization known as City Living of Ottawa?
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: And is it a 70-unit apartment building on lands, as I say, jointly developed by those two organizations?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: With respect to the actual operation of the Van Lang Centre, I take it that was a matter that you learned about over time once you began working there. Is that fair?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Who hired you at the Van Lang Centre, Ms Luu?
Mr Luu: Three board members interviewed me.
Ms Cronk: And who are they?
Ms Luu: They were Ngoc Tran, Liem Deong and My Nguyen.
Ms Cronk: At the time you started to work at the Van Lang Centre, what position did you understand Dr Can Le held with the corporation, if any?
Ms Luu: He was the secretary. That was his title, but he's really the main driving force of the project.
Ms Cronk: During the course of the first several months of working at the centre, did you work with Dr Can Le from time to time?
Ms Luu: I worked under his direct supervision and we talked every day. We were very close.
Ms Cronk: During the first several months of working at the centre, how would you describe your relationship with Dr Can Le?
Ms Luu: Very good.
Ms Cronk: And did you at that point have any direct dealings with the board of directors of the centre? I'm talking now about the fall of 1992.
Ms Luu: Yes. I saw other board members at board meetings, but I reported to Dr Le on the day-to-day operations of the centre. He used to call in every day at the end of his workday and ask, "So what's happened? Is there anything new?" and then I started to report what happened at the centre.
Ms Cronk: Was it part of your job responsibility, Ms Luu, to attend board meetings at the centre?
Ms Luu: I understand so, because it was only at board meetings that I could report to the board what happened regarding the daily operations of the centre, the difficulties I encountered, the tenants, problems with the tenants, basically on the daily management operations at the centre, and I have to report to them monthly.
Ms Cronk: During the first several months of the fall of 1992, that is, after you first began to work at the centre, did you develop any concerns about the centre, or did the fall progress relatively uneventfully?
Ms Luu: I developed my concerns over the superintendent's qualifications and performance right one week into my job. I realized that at that time the centre did not have any fire safety procedures, no instructions on fire safety to tenants, and we had a constant problem with the fire alarm system. I found out that I didn't know anything, nor did the superintendent. He didn't know anything, he didn't speak English, and he totally relied on me. So I asked him whether he took any course in fire prevention --
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, Ms Luu, to interrupt. I don't mean to be rude. The details of the concerns about the superintendent I know are important to you, but for the purposes of the committee perhaps I could just ask you -- you've told the committee you developed concerns about the superintendent. Did you at that point, in the fall of 1992, bring those concerns to the attention of the board and Dr Can Le, or did that happen later into 1993?
Ms Luu: I immediately brought my concerns to Dr Le in our daily conversations and Dr Le instructed me to enrol him in a fire prevention course for building superintendents, and I did.
1050
Ms Cronk: And did there come a point in time when your concerns about the superintendent intensified or became even greater than they were initially?
Ms Luu: Yes. It was at the end of December when I started to wonder where he was every day. I was locked in my office, I didn't see him and I didn't have any daily schedule for him, so I asked the superintendent to produce his daily maintenance schedule and he refused to do so, so I reported my problem to Dr Le. Dr Le didn't seem to push him to comply with my request, so at the board meeting of January 27 I looked into the management plan, I looked carefully at both our job descriptions, and I compiled a list of what I understand a superintendent is supposed to do in the building. That document was entitled Interpretation of the Superintendent's Job, according to the management plan, according to his job description. I submitted it to the board and I sought assistance from the board to help me solve the issue of the super's insubordination in not submitting a daily maintenance schedule to me.
Ms Cronk: All right. That took place towards the end of January, January 27, 1993?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Would it be fair then, Ms Luu, to say, leaving aside the details of your exact concerns with respect to the superintendent, that you did have the concerns you've mentioned and you brought them to the attention of the board and sought guidance on them by the end of January 1993? Is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes, that was the first official time I expressed my concerns to the board.
Ms Cronk: And thereafter, that is, from and after the end of January 1993, did you also develop -- again, without telling me what they were at this moment; we can come back to that -- did you also develop a number of other concerns relating to the centre?
Ms Luu: Yes. I dealt with the superintendent first. I saw that he had problems. I reported to my supervisor, Dr Le, and I started to realize that Dr Le was reluctant to take any action against the superintendent. I asked Dr Le to encourage the super to take an English course and Dr Le didn't seem to push the super to take any courses, so I started to realize that there was something -- I don't know why Dr Le did not use his influence as the board secretary and as our direct supervisor to push the superintendent to improve his skills or his language.
Ms Cronk: Were your initial concerns then focused on the superintendent?
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: And subsequently, did you come to be concerned personally with respect to Dr Can D. Le and his response in dealing with the situation?
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at paragraph 11 of the statement of background facts, if you would, please. It is suggested in that paragraph, Ms Luu, as you will see, that throughout the spring and early summer of 1993, you developed a number of concerns regarding the Van Lang Centre. Just stopping there for a moment, is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It is also suggested in that paragraph that in mid-June 1993 you had communications with Mr Brian Sutherland of the Ministry of Housing offices in Ottawa, relating to certain of your concerns with respect to the Van Lang Centre. Is that statement correct or incorrect?
Ms Luu: It is.
Ms Cronk: Who did you understand Mr Sutherland to be?
Ms Luu: I understand that he's the big boss at the regional office.
Ms Cronk: In this paragraph, the concept of "big boss" is defined as the regional manager of the eastern regional offices of the Ministry of Housing. Did you then know what his official title was or did you just understand him to be the senior person at that office?
Ms Luu: I inquired with the Ministry of Housing, because I was dealing with Mr Bill Clement and I wasn't satisfied with his response. So I said, "Okay, I'm not satisfied; I will go higher," and then I inquired with the Ministry of Housing and I know that Mr Clement's boss is Mr Sutherland.
Ms Cronk: Who was Mr Clement? How was it that you were dealing with him?
Ms Luu: Mr Bill Clement is our housing administrator. He is the closest official that deals with us from the Ministry of Housing.
Ms Cronk: When you say that he is "our housing administrator," are you referring to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: When you indicate that "He is the individual who most closely was dealing with us," again do you mean the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: At what point did you begin to deal with Mr Clement of the Ministry of Housing? When did you first start to have dealings with him?
Ms Luu: It all began in March 1993 when the superintendent's probation period ended and I was supposed to file a performance evaluation for the superintendent. I did that. I followed all the rules approved by the board and drafted by Dr Le, but he voided my report because it was damaging for the superintendent's employment, because I recommended that he be terminated. So he voided my report. I wrote to the board. I asked for feedback on my report. Nobody said anything. I exhausted my arguments, I wrote and wrote, and all board members did not respond to my requests, to my letters. They just sat back and they let me fight against Dr Le. I wrote, I put it in writing, and I found that it had come to a point that I should let Mr Bill Clement know about the situation.
Ms Cronk: And did you do that in the spring of 1993?
Ms Luu: Yes. I started to --
Ms Cronk: Perhaps we could just deal with the time frame first. I don't mean to cut you off, Ms Luu, but if I could just make sure I understand your evidence as we go. So do I have it then that in the spring of 1993, you dealt with Mr Clement about your concerns with respect to the superintendent?
Ms Luu: Yes. It was on May 3.
Ms Cronk: May 3, 1993?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: In the following month, as suggested by paragraph 11 of the statement of fact, did you communicate at that point with Brian Sutherland, again about your concerns relating to the superintendent?
Ms Luu: Not until June 16.
Ms Cronk: In that communication on June 16 with Mr Sutherland, were you raising at that time concerns about the superintendent?
Ms Luu: Yes, the superintendent's problems and Dr Le's problems.
Ms Cronk: Were they much the same kind of concerns that you'd earlier raised with Mr Clement?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Once you had raised those concerns with Mr Clement, did he respond formally, in so far as you were aware, to the issues that you had raised?
Ms Luu: Yes, he did.
Ms Cronk: When was that, if you now remember?
Ms Luu: On May 14 he visited the centre and I showed him a memo in which Dr Can Le asked me to perform certain areas that were deleted from my amended job description. I said to Mr Clement, "This is pressure, and I understand now why the former property manager said she was given pressure by Dr Can Le to quit." So Mr Clement was really concerned and he asked me: "Who is the president? What is the president's name?" and I gave him the president's name. On May 21 or May 27, the board president received a letter from Mr Bill Clement urging the board to become actively involved in the resolution of the problems and reminding the board of the respective roles played by the manager, the superintendent and the board.
Ms Cronk: Did you see a copy of that letter following its receipt at the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Yes, because it was faxed to the centre and I saw it.
Ms Cronk: All right. Could I ask you to look at exhibit 2, which is I think one of the volumes in front of you, Ms Luu. It should say "Exhibit 2" on the front of it. Sorry, it's a little confusing.
Interjection.
Ms Cronk: Apparently you don't have it yet. Sorry about that. The clerk has informed me that exhibit 2, and I apologize for this, Ms Luu and members of the committee -- the final copying and binding is still being done. I thought that was distributed earlier. May I, Mr Chairman, have leave to approach the witness and show her a document?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms Cronk: These documents will be before the committee very shortly. Ms Luu, I'm going to show you --
The Chair: Wait until you get there, because the mike won't pick it up.
1100
Ms Cronk: Ms Luu, I'm just going to share your microphone for the question so the committee can hear me. I'm showing you a document dated May 21, 1993, and it is expressed to be from Mr Bill Clement, described as housing administrator of the Ministry of Housing, and it is addressed to a Mr Ngoc Tran, president of the National Capital Region Vietnamese Canadian Non-Profit Housing Corp. Is that the letter to which you referred just a moment ago?
Ms Luu: Yes, it is.
Ms Cronk: Is that the response from Bill Clement that you indicated was faxed to the centre?
Ms Luu: That is.
Ms Cronk: You indicated just a moment ago to the committee that Mr Clement had urged in this letter --
The Chair: Sit down.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, Mr Chair. I hope not to be here that long, sir, but thank you.
Mr Callahan: I think you just earned your name: Mr Chair.
Ms Cronk: In this letter, you had indicated to the committee that Mr Clement had urged the board to work to try to resolve these difficulties?
Ms Luu: To become actively involved, because they didn't do anything.
Ms Cronk: To become actively involved in the problems that had arisen?
Ms Luu: In the process; to become actively involved in seeking a resolution that serves in the best interests of the building board, staff and tenants.
Ms Cronk: You're referring in that regard to the last paragraph of Mr Clement's letter?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Right, and is there mention also in this letter, Ms Luu, of a compliance review?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: What, as you understood it, was Mr Clement proposing or suggesting in that regard?
Ms Luu: I understand, from my meeting with Mr Steve Shapiro and Mr Brian Sutherland in Osgoode on June 16 -- I met them in the afternoon, and Mr Shapiro said to me, "You know, what we are doing is that every two years we carry a compliance review at all projects, so we would do that in September." I said, "Why not do that sooner here at our project?"
Ms Cronk: All right. Stopping there for a moment, that was in June of when?
Ms Luu: June 16.
Ms Cronk: Of 1993?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Now we're a month earlier than that. We're into May of 1993 in Mr Clement's letter, right?
Ms Luu: Oh, I see.
Ms Cronk: What did you understand that Mr Clement was commenting upon with respect to a compliance review?
Ms Luu: What I understand from his comments here is that the purpose of the compliance review is to ensure that the board, the corporation, complies with the ministry's guidelines and with the various procedures set out in the manuals and directives.
Ms Cronk: May I take this back? Thank you. Excuse me, Ms Luu, for a moment.
Ms Luu, the copies of exhibit 2 are just being bound, but should you wish to look at it -- I'm not asking you to, but should you wish to look again at this letter or any others that I refer to, the clerk can provide it to you.
Again, just dealing, then, with the letter that was received from Mr Clement, in so far as you were concerned, did you understand that the possibility of a compliance review was being raised at that time? That's May 1993.
Ms Luu: From what he said in the letter, I understand that there would be a compliance review, but I don't know when.
Ms Cronk: All right, and had you ever heard of that before? Did you know what one was?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: All right, and was that explained to you either by Mr Clement or subsequently by Mr Sutherland and Mr Shapiro in the discussion that you indicate you had in June?
Ms Luu: The first time I heard about that it was from Mr Clement's letter and then from Mr Steve Shapiro, who I met at the June 16 Osgoode meeting.
Ms Cronk: Who did you understand Mr Shapiro to be?
Ms Luu: I know that he's Mr Clement's boss and he's between Mr Sutherland and Mr Clement.
Ms Cronk: The middle boss?
Ms Luu: Middle boss.
Ms Cronk: Was that the first time that you dealt with Mr Shapiro?
Ms Luu: That's it.
Ms Cronk: You said that it was at a meeting at Osgoode. Was that a meeting related to the Van Lang Centre or some other kind of meeting that you attended?
Ms Luu: It was an ONPHA conference.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the first part.
Ms Luu: Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association conference in Osgoode. It was a regional conference. Mr Sutherland and Mr Shapiro dropped in at the end of the day just to deliver a speech.
Ms Cronk: Did you meet and speak with Mr Shapiro that day?
Ms Luu: Mr Shapiro approached me, and he just came to me and he said, "Are you Trinh?" I said yes. He said: "I received your report this morning. I was reading it." Then I started to explain the problems I was having. He said: "Unfortunately, Trinh, this is internal. We can't do anything. We can't remove the superintendent unless the board requests us to do so." I insisted. I said: "But no, this is a one-man show. This is illegal. This is contrary to the Corporations Act, to the board of directors' guidelines." Then Mr Sutherland passed by and he said, "What's that, a one-man show?" Then he said we would set up a meeting with the board.
Ms Cronk: Had you ever before met Mr Sutherland?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: Had you ever before met Mr Shapiro?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: When you said that Mr Shapiro referred to your report, was that your letter to Mr Sutherland of June 16?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did I understand you to say earlier that it was in that letter that you raised your concerns concerning the superintendent and Dr Can D. Le?
Ms Luu: Yes. I wrote a 23-page report on each of them.
Ms Cronk: That was around June 16, and you sent it to Mr Sutherland?
Ms Luu: I went to the ministry's office, to Mr Sutherland's office, and I submitted it to his secretary in the morning. Then, at 1 pm I went to Osgoode and I met both of them there.
Ms Cronk: So it happened that you met them by accident on the very same day.
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: I see. I take it that it was by accident.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you provide a copy of those reports dated June 16, 1993, to anyone else connected with the Ministry of Housing or the Minister of Housing at that time?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: To whom?
Ms Luu: Not at that time; one day later. On June 17 I went to see Ms Sue Lott and Ms Audrey Moey at Mrs Gigantes's constituency office.
Ms Cronk: Sorry. Just so we're clear on the names, did you say Ms Audrey Moey?
Ms Luu: Yes, Audrey and Sue.
Ms Cronk: And Sue?
Ms Luu: Sue Lott.
Ms Cronk: And Sue Lott.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Had you ever met with either or both of those women before?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Was that in relation to the Van Lang Centre or other matters?
Ms Luu: Well, it was related to social events that were held in the community. I first met Sue and Evelyn at the opening ceremony in November 1992. Oh, I first met Sue when I first applied for a job at Evelyn's constituency office.
Ms Cronk: All right, you've told me quite a bit there. Can I just take it slowly to make sure I understand?
Ms Luu: Okay, yes.
Ms Cronk: I take it, by June of 1993, you had personally met the Minister of Housing, Evelyn Gigantes.
Ms Luu: June 1993? No, I personally met with Evelyn in November 1992.
Ms Cronk: On what occasion was that?
Ms Luu: It was at the opening ceremonies of both projects.
Ms Cronk: By "both projects," are you referring to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: And the Scotthill Centre, the City Living building across.
Ms Cronk: Was that an official opening ceremony for both?
Ms Luu: Yes, it was.
Ms Cronk: At that point in time, November 1992, did you know Audrey Moey or Sue Lott? Had you met either of them before that?
Ms Luu: I saw Sue, and I saw Sue coming with Evelyn. I knew Sue when I first applied for a job as a case worker, I believe back in 1991. I was interviewed by Sue, by Paul Dewar and by Beverlee Bell.
1110
Ms Cronk: Do I take from what you're saying, Ms Luu, that you applied for a job with Ms Gigantes's offices?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: When was that?
Ms Luu: It was a long time ago. I think that it was before I went to my undergrad studies, or it was during my undergrad studies, so it should be some time in 1991.
Ms Cronk: Was that a job position in respect of her offices in Ottawa, that is, her constituency offices, or her offices in Toronto?
Ms Luu: I had no idea. I heard from Ngoc Tran, the former board president, that there was an opening at Ms Gigantes's office for a case worker, so I just applied.
Ms Cronk: Did you obtain the job?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: I take it you didn't go to work for Ms Gigantes then?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: Then or later?
Ms Luu: Later, yes. Later I was offered a job. I went to interview and I got the job.
Ms Cronk: When was that?
Ms Luu: It was in December. It was right after I met Sue at the opening ceremony, and Sue said: "Oh, Trinh, we were looking for you. Where are you? Oh, your contract will end at the end of December. We have another job offer more interesting than that. Are you interested?" At the time I was, so an interview was set up and I went to interview at 10 Rideau Centre, where Sharron went to the meeting later on. It was in December.
Ms Cronk: Of 1992?
Ms Luu: Right.
Ms Cronk: Did you accept that offer?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry; did you accept the job?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you go to work for Ms Gigantes?
Ms Luu: I accepted the offer and then I declined. I thought it over and I learned that the job would be in Toronto and at the time I didn't want to move to Toronto. I had a brother who would be coming in February from a refugee camp, so due to a change in my personal plans, with regret, I had to decline the job. I wrote a letter of refusal and I sent it to Ms Eileen Quinn.
Ms Cronk: I take it then that during the course of both the opening ceremony with respect to the Van Lang Centre and additionally, because of your prior application for a job with the minister's office in 1991 and the offer of a job opportunity in December 1992, you'd had some dealings with members of her constituency offices prior to June 1993?
Ms Luu: That's right.
Ms Cronk: In those connections had you met Sue Lott?
Ms Luu: Yes. Sue and I and Audrey went out for lunch very often.
Ms Cronk: When you say Audrey, to whom are you referring?
Ms Luu: Audrey Moey.
Ms Cronk: When you say that you went out to lunch very often, did that include in the fall of 1992?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And as well in the spring of 1993?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: When you say "very often," what do you mean by that, Ms Luu?
Ms Luu: Sometimes they called and said, "Trinh, how about going for lunch?" I said, "Okay, yes." It would be -- like, we were on a very close basis, we were very close, and if they wanted to inquire about the community's activities or wanted to learn about any event or, you know, who is who, I would readily chat with them.
Ms Cronk: During the six months beginning January 1993 through to the middle of June 1993, approximately -- and I'm just asking you for an approximation -- how many times would you have had lunch with Ms Lott or Ms Moey or both in that regard?
Ms Luu: It would be more than two or three times; let's say three times at least.
Ms Cronk: All right. You indicated to the committee that on June 17 you went to Ms Gigantes's constituency office?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: In Ottawa?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: For what reason?
Ms Luu: To tell Sue and Audrey my problems.
Ms Cronk: And when you say your "problems," do you mean problems related to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you meet on that day with either Ms Lott or Ms Moey?
Ms Luu: Yes, I met with both of them. I called Audrey. I said, "Audrey, I want to see you, I want to see you and Sue." She said, "Okay, you can come any time." I said, "I have problems over here." She said, "Okay, just come in." Then I just came at 4, I think, 3 or 4, at the end of the day.
Ms Cronk: Is the Van Lang Centre, as you understand it, in Ms Gigantes's riding in Ottawa?
Ms Luu: No, I didn't know whether it's in her riding or in somebody else's riding and I'm not interested; I wasn't interested in finding out at that time.
Ms Cronk: Why did you go then to see Sue Lott and Audrey Moey?
Ms Luu: Because they were my friends, because they came to the centre and they had lunch with me, because I know that Evelyn is the Minister of Housing, and because I had declined a job offer with Evelyn and I felt guilty about that. I felt so bad about that, you know. You accept it and then you decline and you cause inconvenience to the minister.
So I said: "I can do a better job here. If I don't go to Toronto, I can contribute a lot more at the centre." They all said: "Okay, fine, Trinh. We don't blame you." So we are in a very good relationship and I don't see why I shouldn't tell them of my problems.
Ms Cronk: Did you then personally live in Ms Gigantes's riding?
Ms Luu: Live? Yes, I suppose so. I'm living in a downtown area. Yes, I should be in her riding because I receive her newsletter very regularly.
Ms Cronk: Did you go to see Ms Moey and Ms Lott in June 1993 because you lived in Ms Gigantes's riding or because you knew them and had this relationship with them, about the Van Lang Centre and other matters?
Ms Luu: At the time, just because Evelyn is the Minister of Housing.
Ms Cronk: And these were people you knew and had dealt with before?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: At your meeting with them on June 17, did you outline your concerns regarding the superintendent and Dr Can D. Le?
Ms Luu: I brought the whole file that I submitted with Mr Sutherland. I brought it. I made a copy and I brought it with me and I left it with Sue and Audrey. We talked for one hour and a half and Sue and Audrey thanked me for the information and they said they would take a look into that; they would do the follow-up.
Ms Cronk: Had you at that time, Ms Luu, on any occasion had any discussions with the Minister of Housing concerning the Van Lang Centre, apart from its opening?
Ms Luu: No, not at all.
Ms Cronk: And did you, at the meeting on June 17 with Ms Lott and Ms Moey, request them to do anything?
Ms Luu: No. I just explained, "Here are my problems and this is a situation that should be rectified, so I'll just let you know and see what you can do with it." They took the initiative to tell me that they would do the follow-up.
Ms Cronk: What did you understand them to mean by that? What did you think was going to happen?
Ms Luu: Afterwards, Sue told me that she has let Evelyn's people in Toronto know about the problem and I heard she mentioned Marc. I didn't know his last name, and later on I assumed that it should be Marc Collins.
Ms Cronk: And that was some time after your meeting on the 17th?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: All right. Could I ask you to look at paragraphs 13 and 14, if you would, please, of the statement of background facts. In paragraph 13, it confirms, Ms Luu, that you wrote a letter to Mr Sutherland on June 16, 1993 -- and you've told the committee that you did that -- and it indicates that you submitted a document with that letter which you described as a report concerning certain activities at the centre. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And the balance of the paragraph indicates that among the concerns expressed by you in your letter were issues relating first to the superintendent, secondly to alleged improper behaviour by members of the board and thirdly to alleged conflicts which had emerged among various members of the board, the corporation and the superintendent. Did you raise those concerns in that letter and report to Mr Sutherland?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did, and those concerns were raised in light of the information I got from the ONPHA training sessions I attended on May 29 and June 16.
Ms Cronk: Was it those documents, that is, your letter of June 16 and the accompanying report, that you left with Ms Lott and Ms Moey on June 17? Are those the documents you left?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then in paragraph 14, it indicates that in your letter to Mr Sutherland you requested that his offices carry out an investigation of what you termed in your letter, what you described as the carriage of office of the board of directors, and you requested that his offices make appropriate recommendations in terms of guidance and orientation to directors. Is that statement accurate?
Ms Luu: Yes.
1120
Ms Cronk: And did Mr Sutherland in due course acknowledge your letter?
Ms Luu: Yes, he did.
Ms Cronk: And when was that?
Ms Luu: The letter was dated July 2 and I got it on July 7.
Ms Cronk: Paragraph 15 of the statement of facts, Ms Luu, concerns Mr Sutherland's response, and it indicates that he did so, as you've just suggested, by letter of July 2, and that he pointed out in that letter that the allegations which you had made were serious in nature. Did he say that?
Ms Luu: Yes, he did.
Ms Cronk: And did he request you, as suggested by paragraph 15, to keep Mr Clement of his offices informed?
Ms Luu: Yes, he did.
Ms Cronk: And in the months following July 2 did you in fact do that; that is, did you keep Mr Clement informed of matters that were of concern to you relating to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did, but at every attempt of mine to inform him he kept saying, "Oh, Trinh, I can't do anything; it's internal," and I was really frustrated at that response.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry? You were frustrated at that response?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: We'll come to that. I gather then that you did deal with Mr Clement over the following course of time?
Ms Luu: Yes, following the spirit of the letter by Mr Sutherland, but Mr Bill Clement declined to listen to me or to receive more information on new incidents that occurred afterwards.
Ms Cronk: You've told the committee -- just to make sure that I understand the sequence of events, Ms Luu -- that you at a meeting towards the end of January had gone to the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre for direction with respect to the superintendent. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And that you in June had written to Mr Sutherland expressing your concerns, that you'd earlier communicated with Mr Clement about them in May. Have I got the sequence right?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you at any point before writing to Mr Sutherland or going to the constituency office of Ms Gigantes in June bring your concerns again to the attention of the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: When did you do that?
Ms Luu: It was in my report number 1. There was a series of communication of letters I wrote to the board and I didn't get any answer. I first submitted my official written report to the ministry on May 31, and I addressed it to Mr Bill Clement, Mr John Séguin and Mr Mike Komendat because I deemed that those are maintenance concerns that they should be informed of.
Ms Cronk: And during the month of June 1993, did you bring your concerns to the attention of the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look, please, at paragraph 16 of the statement of background facts. It indicates that in a letter dated June 21 from you to the then president of the centre, a Mr Ngoc Tran, you expressed certain concerns regarding the operation of the centre.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Is that an accurate statement?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did those concerns relate to the performance of the superintendent of the centre, his qualifications for his position and, as well, relate to certain activities which you alleged the secretary of the corporation had entered into?
Ms Luu: Yes, and the activities of the board as well, because at that time I learned that I have to look into the bylaws, the incorporating bylaws of the centre. I found out that: "Oh, here is your role, Mr President. You have to call the meetings; you have to chair the meetings; you have to set up the agenda, and in case of a balance of votes you are entitled to a second vote." He didn't know about that. When I called him I asked him whether he has a copy of the incorporating bylaws and he said, "No, it was only Dr Can Le who did that."
I pointed out to them that this is serious, you know, our board is not operating legally and properly, and I insisted on a board meeting because since March 1993 they excluded me from any board meetings so that I couldn't voice my concerns any more and I insisted on an internal solution.
In my letter to Mr Ngoc Tran I said: "Everybody else has listened to me. Mr Bill Clement has spent two hours with me; Mr Brian Sutherland has written to me, why not my full-time employer, the board of the Van Lang Centre?"
Ms Cronk: When you say that you expressed the view at that time to Mr Ngoc Tran that the board was operating illegally, should I take from what you're saying that you thought it was operating not in accordance with proper procedures?
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: That's what you mean in that context when you use the word "illegally."
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And you brought those concerns to his attention at the end of June 1993?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: So at that point in time you had both written to Mr Brian Sutherland and provided a copy of your report and letter to him as well [as] to the constituency offices of Ms Gigantes?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: You're now writing to the board of directors and expressing your concerns. Did you provide a copy of that letter to Ministry of Housing officials?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: And when was that?
Ms Luu: I cc it at the same time when I send it to the board. Every piece of correspondence I sent to the board, I cc it to Mr Sutherland, Mr Bill Clement, you know; I went down the list. So all the -- Mr Lance Clark, the development consultant. I cc it to every level of authority I come to know of.
Ms Cronk: You said a few moments ago, Ms Luu, that you had suggested that the matter be dealt with internally. Did I hear that correctly?
Ms Luu: Yes, because I thought, "Oh, I haven't addressed the president." I wrote to Dr Can Le because I thought that he was the dominant figure in the centre and he was taking care of everything. So I wrote to him and then I realized: "Oh, here is the president. He has the final authority, so I should address him as well. I should pin him down to his own responsibility."
Ms Cronk: If it was your hope at that time, Ms Luu, that the matter would be dealt with internally, why at that point were you both writing to and providing copies of documents to Mr Sutherland and to the constituency offices of the minister?
Ms Luu: Because when it came to Bill Clement, according to the spirit, according to the letter by Mr Sutherland -- I have to go back earlier than that. When I wrote to Dr Can Le and to the board and nobody answered, nobody reacted whatever to my reports, the board members were frustrated, and I understood at that time that there was a friction between board members and they were frustrated because they said they came to board meetings, they voiced their concerns, but none of their comments, none of their concerns, were recorded by the secretary. He was recording on board minutes and they said: "Trinh, you are fighting against him. We are fed up. We just sit here and we wait until we can resign." I said: "Okay. If you don't do anything, I would go to the Ministry of Housing," and Diep Trinh said: "Yes, go and seek Bill Clement's advice. Maybe he can offer you some advice. Tell him that here we have a problem because of the superintendent's incompetence and because we get stuck in a lawsuit by the former property manager who happened to sue on the same grounds. Go and see him and see what he says."
So when I went to see him, he did not resolve the problems, and when Mr Sutherland replied in his letter dated July 2, he asked me to keep Bill Clement informed. I went to see him and he said, "It's internal, Trinh." I couldn't do anything.
Ms Cronk: All right.
Ms Luu: So I have to think of what other internal solutions I have. "Talk to the board president." That why I did.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at exhibit 2, at tab 5. I think you now have a copy of that.
Ms Luu: Tab 5?
Ms Cronk: You have a copy, but I apologize to the committee. The copying was a little delayed. You should have a copy of it there, tab 5. For the benefit of you, Ms Luu, and the committee members, this document is a letter dated June 21, 1993, expressed to be from you to Mr Tran, president of the board of directors. That's at tab 5 of exhibit 2. Is that the letter that you sent to the board president with respect to your concerns?
Ms Luu: Yes, it is.
Ms Cronk: And does it indicate that a copy was provided to representatives of the Minister of Housing, as you suggested a few moments ago?
Ms Luu: Yes, cc board members: Brian, Bill, John, Mike.
Ms Cronk: When you say "Brian," Brian Sutherland?
Ms Luu: Brian Sutherland, Bill Clement, John Séguin, Mike Komendat.
Ms Cronk: And in the second paragraph of that letter, Ms Luu, did you raise with Mr Tran, the president of the board of directors, the possibility of turning your concerns into a matter of public concern?
Ms Luu: That's true. That was the first time I threatened to go to the media.
Ms Cronk: And did you provide a copy of that letter or communicate its contents or any part of its contents to the constituency offices of Ms Gigantes?
Ms Luu: I can't remember.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab number 6 of the same volume of documents?
Ms Luu: Oh yes, I did, because this was included in my report number 2, and I filed my report number 2 with you and Audrey as well.
Ms Cronk: When you say report number 2 --
Ms Luu: Yes, this is an appendix in my report number 2, this letter of June 21, so I submitted it to the constituency office as well.
Ms Cronk: When did you prepare a second report?
Ms Luu: I started to write on August 23 and I submitted it in early September or late August.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab number 6 of exhibit 2?
Interjection.
The Chair: We're going to recess for 10 minutes until the exhibits are distributed to all the members here.
Mr Callahan: I was going to suggest that.
The Chair: Fine, we'll recess for 10 minutes.
The committee recessed from 1132 to 1149.
The Chair: If I can have your attention, legal counsel would like to take a break right now for the one hour for lunch. We'll come back at a quarter to 1. At 25 to 1, in room 110, the subcommittee will meet. Okay? We'll recess until a quarter to 1.
The committee recessed from 1150 to 1301.
The Chair: We'll resume the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. We have Ms Trinh Luu, who is our first witness.
Our legal counsel, Ms Cronk, would like to advise the committee on some procedures that we should be aware of, if you wouldn't mind, from our subcommittee meeting.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Mr Chair, members of the committee, my advice has been sought on a matter of procedure relating to the hearing and I wish to put the nature of my advice on the record so that all committee members and other interested members of the public are aware of it.
The issue concerns the departure from time to time, for reasons, of members of the committee from the hearing room during the course of evidence. Because this is a hearing where, as I indicated in my opening remarks to the committee, I anticipate, although of course I am not giving evidence in that regard, that you the committee members will hear conflicting or potentially conflicting evidence with respect to the June 17 meeting, thereby giving rise to credibility issues, requiring the committee ultimately to make a determination as between versions of events, in a hearing of that kind, it is particularly important that all persons who participate in the decision of the committee have heard all of the evidence. For that reason, I have advised the committee and offered as my advice that members of the committee should be present throughout the entirety of the evidence of the witnesses if they intend to participate in the decision of the committee and its deliberations. I wanted to put on the record the nature of my advice to you, sir, and to the subcommittee in that regard. May I now continue with the witness?
The Chair: Yes, you may continue.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Ms Luu, we were speaking before the luncheon break of events towards the end of June 1993. In particular, just to refresh your memory of where I believe we were in the course of our discussion, you had indicated to the committee that you had by letter of June 21, 1993, communicated to the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre certain of your concerns relating to the centre, and you had also outlined for the committee the contact you had had earlier that month both with Brian Sutherland of the Ministry of Housing offices in Ottawa and with Ms Sue Lott and Ms Audrey Moey of the constituency offices of the Minister of Housing in Ottawa. Do you recall the context of our discussion that we were having before lunch?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. I had asked you, when we were without the relevant paper, and we now have it here, whether you had communicated or spoken with members of the minister's constituency office about your letter to the board of directors of June 21, 1993, outlining your concerns. Could I ask you in that regard to go to exhibit 2. You should now have a copy of exhibit 2. It's a separate volume of documents.
Ms Luu: Yes, volume -- ?
Ms Cronk: There's only one volume. It's exhibit 2, tab 6. At that tab, Ms Luu, appears a fax cover sheet which appears to be from you to Sue and Audrey. First, I take it it is from you?
Ms Luu: Yes, it's from me.
Ms Cronk: And is it to Sue Lott and Audrey Moey of the minister's constituency offices in Ottawa?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It's dated June 29, 1993, and has attached to it a letter addressed to "Dear Sue and Audrey," dated on the same date, June 29. It appears to be from you. Can you confirm that it is?
Ms Luu: Yes, it's from me.
Ms Cronk: And is this -- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. It is?
Ms Luu: Yes, it is.
Ms Cronk: And is this a letter that you sent to them informing them of your letter to Mr Ngoc Tran, president of the Van Lang Centre, of June 21, 1993?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did you identify in this letter the outstanding issues, from your perspective, relating to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: You made in this letter, as I read it, and I ask you to confirm whether this is the case, rather serious allegations about the conduct, as you perceived it, of Dr Can Le.
Ms Luu: Yes, because this is the first time I mentioned the omission in the board minutes. At the time I used the word "falsification," which is rather heavy, because I didn't have any legal knowledge at the time, and in my perception, when you omit to record something you have the intention to falsify a certain document, so I used the word "falsification."
Ms Cronk: You also referred, I suggest, to, among other issues identified, incompetency of certain staff at the centre. You also alleged what you called "illegalness" and invalidity of certain actions taken by the secretary of the corporation. Am I right?
Ms Luu: Yes, because I learned from my ONPHA training sessions that directors have no individual authority. Everything should be decided at the board meeting, which is legally constituted, and should be recorded in board minutes. All these decisions on the superintendent's performance were not recorded at that time.
Ms Cronk: Would you agree with me, Ms Luu, that the issues that you were raising and the allegations that you were making were quite serious?
Ms Luu: Yes, they were.
Ms Cronk: In the letter, as I understand it, looking at page 2 and your concluding paragraph, you sought the advice or the opinion of Sue and Audrey, that is, Sue Lott and Audrey Moey, as to whether you should formally write to "Evelyn." Is that correct?
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: Did you mean by that Evelyn Gigantes?
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: And did you receive any response from the minister's constituency office regarding that aspect of your letter, that is, the suggestion or the inquiry as to whether you should write to the minister?
Ms Luu: Not in writing, but they kept phoning me and they said they were doing the follow-up. Marc Collins presumably is following all this stuff.
Ms Cronk: You were told that?
Ms Luu: Yes, from Sue.
Ms Cronk: Sue Lott?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Did you follow up yourself with Ms Lott?
Ms Luu: This was in June, right? Yes, we talked on the phone and I kept her updated with whatever happened after that.
Ms Cronk: If I could ask you to go next to tab 7 of exhibit 2, this appears to be a follow-up, handwritten note. Is it from you to Ms Sue Lott?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It is also dated June 29, 1993, and you explain in it, as I read it, what you meant by the allegation you had previously made of "mismanagement of public funds." Is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes. The reason I faxed the letter and all this to Sue and Audrey was because they requested me to fax a copy of the bill of the legal fees incurred by Trinh Tran's lawsuit that Can Le charged back into the operating funds, because I was the only one who found out that this board had no directors' liability and all the legal fees were charged back into the operating budget. Bill Clement, when I first informed him of that, was genuinely alarmed and said: "No, you can't do that. You have to get directors' coverage."
Ms Cronk: All right, if I could stop you there just for a moment --
Ms Luu: Yes, sure.
Ms Cronk: I don't wish to interrupt you, but just so that you understand, it's important for the committee to have a general understanding of what occurred over this particular period of time, but unless there's some particular matter that you wish to bring to their attention, I'm not sure that they need to know all of the details.
Ms Luu: Okay.
Ms Cronk: Would it be fair to say, based on what you've just told the committee, that you sent to Ms Lott and to Ms Moey a number of documents that you wished them to review and be aware of?
Ms Luu: At their request. They called me and they said, "Trinh, send us a copy of that legal bill."
Ms Cronk: And you sent it to them?
Ms Luu: Yes, and then I included that letter.
Ms Cronk: You also refer in this handwritten note of June 29 to having asked Mr Clement for a copy of the compliance review. Do you see that in the last paragraph?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Had you at that point asked him for a copy of it?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
1310
Ms Cronk: Did you understand at that point that a review was going to be undertaken by the ministry?
Ms Luu: Yes, because in his May 21 letter to the board president he mentioned that we can carry out a compliance review, and I got the whole package. There was one copy for me, there was one copy for Ngoc Tran, one copy for Dr Le, and I saw that he enclosed the compliance review. He put a small note on the envelope addressed to Dr Le and he said, "Here is the compliance review." So I thought I could ask him for a copy to see what that is.
Ms Cronk: All right. If I could ask you to look at paragraph 18 of the statement of facts, maybe you could just put that in front of you beside the exhibit book. Do you have that, Ms Luu?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: In paragraph 18 of the statement of background facts it's suggested that, as you've already indicated, "In May of 1993 representatives of the Ministry of Housing...suggested that a compliance review regarding the management and operations of the Van Lang Centre...might be conducted," and you've indicated to the committee that that was the case. Am I right so far?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It goes on to suggest that that review was in fact initiated in August 1993 and the final results of it were presented to a meeting of the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre at a meeting of the board held on February 8, 1994. To the best of your knowledge, are those facts correct?
Ms Luu: Yes, they are.
Ms Cronk: Now, I recognize, Ms Luu, that by February 1994, when the compliance review was presented to the board of directors or discussed with the board, you by that time had left the employ of the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You were not therefore participating, directly or indirectly, in meetings of its board.
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you, however, personally become aware of the contents of the compliance review?
Ms Luu: Yes, I was.
Ms Cronk: Did you review a copy of it?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: If I could ask you, if you would, please, to look at -- I'm trying to find the paragraph I want to ask you to look at. It's paragraph 19. Is it fair to suggest that you had certain concerns regarding the findings in the compliance review?
Ms Luu: Yes, I had.
Ms Cronk: Did you agree with all of the findings in it?
Ms Luu: Not quite so. There are contradictions in the findings. There are statements that conflict themselves, and there was the whole portion on maintenance, with questions left unanswered.
Ms Cronk: So you were not entirely content yourself with the findings in it?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: And did you express concerns about it later in 1994?
Ms Luu: Yes, in the letter dated March 4 I co-signed with Sharron I wrote to Mrs Gigantes, and we both emphasized the need of a special and urgent meeting because we came to the realization that the compliance review is questionable and we believed that the ministry's staff have turned a blind eye to the problems at the centre.
Ms Cronk: That was later; that was in your letter of March 4, 1994.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right, perhaps we could come to that in a moment then. If I could ask you again just to turn your mind back to the summer of 1993 and all of this correspondence you'd entered into with first Mr Sutherland and the constituency offices of the minister and as well with the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre, did you, in the month of August or in the early part of the fall, receive any reply either from the Ministry of Housing or from the constituency office of the minister regarding the concerns that you'd raised?
Ms Luu: I believe that following Mr Sutherland's letter dated July 2, Mr Steve Shapiro and Mr Bill Clement came down, visited the centre and attended a board meeting with the board, but that meeting was not recorded. There were no minutes and I was not informed of the contents nor the results of the meeting.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to turn to tab 9 of exhibit 2, the next tab in the book of documents that you have. This is a letter that appears to be from Steve Shapiro to Mr Ngoc Tran, president of the Van Lang Centre, dated July 9, 1993, and it refers to a meeting that he, that is Steve Shapiro, and Bill Clement had with Dr Can Le and Mr Trinh. Do you see that?
Ms Luu: Yes. This is the first time I've seen this letter.
Ms Cronk: Right now?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: I see. To the best of your understanding, was the meeting that you referred to a moment ago, among Mr Shapiro, Mr Clement and the board, held in July?
Ms Luu: Yes, it was on July 7.
Ms Cronk: Did you speak with them at any point yourself when they were at the Van Lang Centre in that regard, either Mr Shapiro or Mr Clement?
Ms Luu: Just casual talk, where we just greeted each other, and then they went to have a meeting, and I knew that I had to leave, so I just gathered my stuff and I left.
Ms Cronk: In your various letters that you wrote in June 1993 to the parties we've identified, Ms Luu, you've indicated that you agreed with my suggestion that a number of the concerns you were raising were quite serious in nature.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: A number of them concerned specifically allegations that you were making about Dr Can D. Le.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did Dr Can D. Le respond to those allegations?
Ms Luu: He did not respond to my series of letters questioning this and that. He finally submitted to me I think on July 9, because on July 10 the board finally met with me, and again that board meeting was not recorded, no minutes produced. So on the eve of that meeting Dr Le met with me just to probe me, to see how I felt and in what mood I would come to the meeting. He gave me a letter I think in which he denied every allegation I made.
Ms Cronk: In fairness to Dr Can D. Le, would you look at the next tab, please, in exhibit 2, tab 10.
Ms Luu: Yes, that was it.
Ms Cronk: This is the letter you were referring to?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: It's a letter dated July 9, 1993, addressed to you from Dr Can D. Le?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: In it he indicates that he "categorically deny each and every one of the allegations which you have made against me"?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you speak further with the minister's constituency offices over the summer of 1993 regarding your concerns before you left the employ of the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did. I was at the baby shower party, Audrey's baby.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, you were where?
Ms Luu: Is that a baby shower?
Ms Cronk: It could have been. Did somebody have a baby?
Ms Luu: Yes. Audrey was pregnant.
Ms Cronk: I'll bet she had one, then.
Ms Luu: Yes. So we were at her -- is that a baby shower?
Ms Cronk: Yes, that's correct.
Ms Luu: Yes, the word slipped my mind; I didn't know whether that was correct. So we were at that baby shower party. I met Evelyn, I met Sue, I met Beverlee, I met the people that used to meet. I did not say anything to Evelyn yet, but I talked at length with Sue, and I said: "Oh, you know we have Sharron Pretty now, and she is the tenant-director. She is fighting hard, and she is doing her job very well." That was in August, before I left for school. So whenever we met we always referred to the troubles at Van Lang.
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Excuse me, Mr Chair, can you just clarify who Hugh is for me?
Ms Cronk: Yes. Did you refer just a moment ago to Hugh?
Ms Luu: Sue.
Ms Cronk: Sue Lott?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Murphy: Okay, sorry.
Ms Cronk: Just so that we're clear, it's difficult to hear in parts of this room, Ms Luu. When you attended this baby shower in the month of August 1993, I take it from what you've said that the minister, Evelyn Gigantes, was present?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Ms Sue Lott was present?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: It was for Audrey Moey?
Ms Luu: Yes, it was a surprise party for her.
Ms Cronk: Yes, and you mentioned as well that someone by the name of Beverlee was there?
Ms Luu: It was at Beverlee's place.
Ms Cronk: Beverlee who?
Ms Luu: Beverlee Bell's place, her house.
Ms Cronk: All right. Who did you understand Beverlee Bell to be?
Ms Luu: I met her when she first interviewed me for the first job I applied for with Evelyn. Remember? So I knew that she was working with Evelyn, but I didn't know what her position was. At that time, she seemed to be one of the constituency staff. But I understand that she has moved to work at the 10 Rideau Centre office.
1320
Ms Cronk: In fact I understand, Ms Luu, that Beverlee Bell, as you indicate, is connected with the Management Board of Cabinet and works in coordinating functions at 10 Rideau Street, the Rideau Centre in Ottawa. Can you confirm that or do you know?
Ms Luu: I don't know.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Thank you. So in the month of August 1993, you attended this social function and saw these individuals and, I take it, had some social discussions but nothing in any depth about what was occurring with respect to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: No, because it was the beginning of Sharron's term and what I found is that Sharron was doing her job and she was speaking out against whatever she found irregular at that time, and I was leaving for school. I think that was when I had already left. My last physical day at work was August 21, so it must be late August.
Ms Cronk: When did Ms Pretty become involved, to the best of your knowledge, with the board at Van Lang?
Ms Luu: Her first board meeting was on August 5, 1993.
Ms Cronk: And did certain other individuals come on to the board for the first time?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did that include a Dr Hieu Truong?
Ms Luu: Dr Hieu Trong; Dr Vinh Tang; Mr Bao Tran, the director who resigned five days afterwards; Mrs Ngoc-Lan Tran --
Ms Cronk: And Ms Pretty?
Ms Luu: -- and Ms Pretty.
Ms Cronk: Had Ms Pretty served on the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre prior to that at any point?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: Had Dr Truong served on the board of directors at any point prior to that?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at paragraph 9 of the statement of background facts? It's at page 3, paragraph 9.
Ms Luu: Okay. I have it.
Ms Cronk: This paragraph lists a number of individuals whom it is suggested became or served as directors of the Van Lang Centre from and after August 5, 1993. Can you indicate to the committee, based on your own knowledge, whether the contents of that paragraph are accurate?
Ms Luu: Yes, they are.
Ms Cronk: It suggests that Ms Pretty and Mrs Ngoc-Lan Tran were nominated at that time, that is, on August 5, 1993, to the board of directors of the corporation as representatives of the Van Lang Centre Tenants Association. Can you confirm from your own knowledge whether that was the case?
Ms Luu: Well, it was always told so by Dr Can Le, but I did not know whether those were the proper procedures to be followed. I don't know.
Ms Cronk: Was Ms Pretty, however, a tenant-nominated representative to the board?
Ms Luu: I don't know.
Ms Cronk: Okay. She was a tenant at the time?
Ms Luu: She was a tenant-director and she was elected to an interim committee at the first tenant association meeting to be part of a committee in charge of drafting the bylaws and the constitution of the tenants association. But to my knowledge, I did not see any document that says that Ms Pretty was nominated by the tenants association to the board.
Ms Cronk: I see. So you're confirming that she came on the board on August 5 and that she was in fact a tenant at the centre, but you are unable to confirm a nomination by the association. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: Did she at that time, that is, on or about August 5, to the best of your knowledge, also become vice-president of the Van Lang board?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And Dr Truong, did he become president at that time?
Ms Luu: Yes, he did.
Ms Cronk: Now, neither Dr Truong nor Ms Pretty had ever served on this board before, but I take it both assumed the positions of president and vice-president notwithstanding that they were newly appointed board members. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did Can D. Le remain on the board?
Ms Luu: Yes, he did.
Ms Cronk: You, I take it, were virtually completing your work with the centre, because you've indicated your last day on the jobs was August 25 and I take it thereafter you went off to law school.
Ms Luu: But at the first meeting, on August 5, I was there.
Ms Cronk: All right. And towards the end of that month you completed your last day at the Van Lang Centre and then began your studies at law school in the latter part of August, the beginning of September?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: At the time that you left the centre, did you submit a formal letter of resignation to the board?
Ms Luu: Yes, on September 3.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 13 of exhibit 2. Can you tell the committee whether this letter, dated September 3, is your letter of resignation to the board?
Ms Luu: Yes, it was.
Ms Cronk: Do you, in that letter, again outline certain concerns that you had regarding the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did. This time I added a very important concern, and that was when I found out about the vision Dr Can Le held about the development of the project. That's why I mentioned the erroneous vision, and that this erroneous vision results in misdirections in every area of management. Everything was done to accommodate that vision and the superintendent's incompetence, so I thought that was a very important warning on my part to the board.
Ms Cronk: And you outlined your concerns in that regard in this letter?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: If I could ask you to look at page 5, paragraph 19, of the statement of background facts, Ms Luu.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It's referring to your resignation letter of September 3, the document that we've just looked at, and it suggests that you expressed a number of concerns as outlined in paragraph 19 in your letter of resignation. Can you confirm that the facts in that paragraph are substantially accurate?
Ms Luu: Yes, and I would like to emphasize the erroneous vision I found out about the development of the project, because that was important.
Ms Cronk: And you added that, as you indicated, in your resignation letter. You raised that for the first time.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: So that I'm clear as to what you mean by that, I take it from what you've said that you had formed the view, by the time that you wrote your resignation letter, that Dr Can D. Le's vision of what the centre was all about was not as you thought it should be.
Ms Luu: Yes, and that was the second time. The first time I raised concerns over that vision was in my report number 2 dated August 23, and that letter was addressed to Brian Sutherland. I did not have time to polish my letter, and I remember very clearly that I put in my concluding paragraph that more evidence would be produced on this erroneous -- I termed it "scary" -- I said on the scary vision held by Dr Can Le over the development of the project. So this was the second time I mentioned that vision.
Ms Cronk: In your letter of September 3 was the second time.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you in fact deliver another report to Mr Brian Sutherland on or about August 23?
Ms Luu: I started to write on September 14, but I was busy with school work and I couldn't complete that report, but I submitted that report to Sue Lott.
Ms Cronk: I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying, Ms Luu. You told me a moment ago that you prepared a second report to Brian Sutherland dated August 23.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Do I understand you to be saying that you continued to work on it and that by September 14 it had not been sent to Mr Sutherland?
Ms Luu: No. The September 14 report was my third report, but it was unfinished and it was unsent to Brian. It was addressed to Brian but it was unsent to Brian, and I submitted it to Sue, but the second report was sent to Brian.
Ms Cronk: So on or about August 23, you wrote to him again and delivered your letter expressing your concerns with respect to the centre.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm, supported by evidence, by documents that I attached.
Ms Cronk: Supported by documents that you provided him.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And then you prepared a further report in the month of September, but it was not completed and you didn't deliver it to Mr Sutherland, although you did give a copy to Ms Lott at the constituency office of the minister. Have I got it right this time?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: In your report in August you raised the issue of your concern concerning Dr Can D. Le's vision for the centre.
Ms Luu: Yes, and I raised the issue of Dr Le's coming to the board and providing the board with false information on the funds allocated for staff hiring and the false information he provided regarding the superintendent's probation. It was based on false information that we found out later, on May 12, 1994.
1330
The Chair: Can I just break in for a minute? Mrs Marland.
Mrs Marland: It would be helpful, Ms Cronk, if, when we're seeing these letters for the first time and you're familiar with them and Ms Luu is familiar with them, you could identify the paragraph. In this case there's been a reference to Dr Can Le's "vision," and it's in this resignation letter. I'm trying to skim through it fast and then move to another tab in order to keep up with you. If I want to refer back to that letter, it's helpful if I know right away where the paragraph is.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, Ms Marland. Ms Luu, just in response to the request of Ms Marland, in your letter of September 3 could you point out to her the paragraph in which you raise the issue of vision for the role and future of the centre?
Ms Luu: Paragraph 5. Number 5.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. In particular, do you raise that matter in the last sentence of that paragraph?
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: So that I understand what the situation was in the early fall of 1993, Ms Luu, you had left and had started your studies at law school. Your employment with the centre was over, correct?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: By that point in time, Sharron Pretty had just come on the board as a new director and had been appointed vice-president of the corporation. Had you come to know her at all at that stage?
Ms Luu: She used to come down and talk to me when I worked there, but we really talked about the problems at the centre in April 1993, April 29, 1993, when she called me and she left a message on the answering machine complaining about the superintendent's unauthorized entrance into her apartment. I let her know that I no more supervised the superintendent, and she was concerned. She went down and she talked to me and I broke down and I cried. She saw me crying, and I said that I was experiencing a lot of problems with Dr Le with the management of the centre. Then I learned that she was led into a false pretence by Dr Le to write a positive letter on the superintendent's performance, which he sent to Mr Bill Clement to gather positive remarks on the super during his probation, during the time when I wrote his evaluation report.
Ms Cronk: After that initial discussion with Ms Pretty in April 1993, did you thereafter talk to her from time to time about the concerns that you had regarding Van Lang?
Ms Luu: Yes, but not in specific details. At that time she was approached by Dr Le to serve on an advisory committee to form a tenant association, and I encouraged her to do so, because I believed that she might make a difference.
Ms Cronk: Over the course of time before you left the employ of the Van Lang Centre, Ms Luu, had you and Ms Pretty become friends?
Ms Luu: In the terms that we talked and I expressed my concerns over the problems that were there.
Oh, yes, I mentioned to her that we had for the past year not complied with the ministry's guidelines in referring to the OCRHA list for every second deep-core vacancy. When I learned of the faulty selection process on August 4 -- I learned it from Bill -- I immediately took rectifications and I contacted Ms Janet McCredie, the director of tenant placement at OCRHA, asking her to refer me two names because at that time we needed to fill two shallow-core vacancies.
Ms Cronk: I just want to make sure that I don't get more lost than I already am in this answer, Ms Luu, through no fault of yours -- mine. Could we just concentrate for a moment on the discussions you were having with Ms Pretty? My question to you was, over the course of time after April 1993, did you and Ms Pretty become friends?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did you talk to her from time to time about a variety of your concerns relating to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Yes, especially after the August 26 meeting, when Sharron found out that Can Le has provided false information to the board.
Ms Cronk: When you say the August 26 meeting, that was a board meeting, I take it, attended by Ms Pretty, of course, not yourself.
Ms Luu: No, not me.
Ms Cronk: Right. And you, I take it then, discussed with her what had occurred at the August 26 board meeting?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And from time to time thereafter during the fall, although you had left to go to law school, did Ms Pretty keep you informed and speak with you about what was happening at the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Yes, she did, on a regular basis.
Ms Cronk: Would it be fair to say, Ms Luu, that over the course of the summer and in particular into the fall of 1993, you and Ms Pretty both frequently discussed the concerns that you had had and continued to have and the concerns that she had about the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: And you did so on quite a frequent basis?
Ms Luu: Yes, whenever she learned anything that she found out that wasn't the truth provided by Can Le, because she only found out when she talked to me. She said: "Oh, Trinh, he said that and that and that. Is it true?" And I said: "No, it's not true. Look into that document. That document is not true."
Ms Cronk: Did you then suggest to her from time to time documents that she should look at to pursue her inquiries further?
Ms Luu: That's true. We realized the need for documentation in September. I told Sharron to document everything and I did it on my part too.
Ms Cronk: Were you by that time really more or less working as a team on these issues?
Ms Luu: Not quite so, because what I advised her at the time is to work with the board. I said: "This board is new. Talk to the president. Maybe he understands. Just because you didn't know him, maybe he would be more firm. So talk to him." And only when she have exhausted every resource, every recourse with the board, then we realize that this board is together in every area and we would waste time dealing with this board. That's why she went to see Evelyn. She submitted that letter on October 28.
Ms Cronk: Perhaps we can come to the events of October, but you said a few moments ago to the committee, in the context of discussing another meeting that you were at, that you were of the view that Ms Pretty was doing her job correctly and that she was "watching" events. Did I hear that correctly?
Ms Luu: No. She was watching events? No.
Ms Cronk: Did I misunderstand? All right. Did you in the course of the fall work with her closely in the sense of speaking with her about what was happening at the Van Lang Centre and about her concerns?
Ms Luu: I did not initiate all the conversations, but Sharron called me, and I found out that it was very important for me to help her, because what she revealed was very important. She told me about meetings where a Somali family was discriminated and was imposed an unusual condition, and how Can Le procrastinated in offering them an apartment and finding excuses to get rid of them. And he kept on insisting that seniors should be selected. I thought this was very important, and I have to talk to Sharron on how to deal with all those problems.
Then whenever she encountered a difficulty, a roadblock, she called me and she said, "Trinh, they didn't let me look at this document and that document," and I said: "Oh, that is contrary to the Corporations Act. You should go to the board and you should insist with the board that that is illegal. Bring the Corporations Act with you." I got one and I made a copy and I gave it to her. So she went to the board, she brought the Corporations Act, she cited the provisions word for word, and they passed a resolution saying that, "No, that's not what we are doing. You have to submit a memo. Every information should be processed by Can Le. You should go through the secretary to obtain information on the corporation."
Ms Cronk: It's my understanding, Ms Luu, that those events that you've just described happened in the mid to late fall of 1993. Would that be correct, based on your recollection?
Ms Luu: Yes, they occurred during September and October.
Ms Cronk: And during that period of time, I take it, you did try to help her and did offer her advice when she sought it from you?
Ms Luu: Whenever she let me know of a certain event, to the best of my knowledge, whatever I know, whatever I have learned from my employment there, I offered her advice. I said: "Oh, you know, I went to ONPHA training sessions and I learned that the first thing every director or every manager has to do is to read the incorporating documents and to read the Corporations Act. That is the legislation that governs non-profit housing." She said: "I didn't have those copies. Can Le didn't provide me with the letters patent." So she got the letters patent from me.
1340
Ms Cronk: And did that continue throughout the fall?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And as well into the winter and spring of 1994?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And by that time, really, Ms Luu, so that I understand the situation, would it be fair to say that Sharron Pretty's concerns about the Van Lang Centre were more or less your concerns, and your concerns were more or less her concerns?
Ms Luu: Yes, we have similar concerns.
Ms Cronk: And you continued to deal with her about those issues on a frequent basis right through that year, up until the spring and the summer of this year?
Ms Luu: When we decided that: "Oh, Sharron, let's stop it. Let's ask for a board meeting where I can go to the board meeting and I can produce the evidence and we can talk to this board and we say, `This is what we have done wrong and let's stop this.'" So we tried an internal solution. First I advised her to go to Bill, exactly the way I did: "Go to Bill, Sharron. Let Bill know about it." Sharron was frustrated. She said, "Bill said it's internal; he couldn't do anything," and I said, "So write to Brian." So I advised her exactly what I have done before. I said: "Put it in writing, Sharron. Write to them. Let them know about your concerns." And when she tried and she failed, I said, "Write to Evelyn." That's what she did.
Ms Cronk: All right. May I deal with each of those? When you refer to "Bill," do you mean Bill Clement?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And when you refer to "Brian," are you referring to Brian Sutherland?
Ms Luu: Yes, Brian Sutherland, and Evelyn Gigantes.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. And you indicated that Ms Pretty wrote a letter, I think you said on October 28. Could I ask you to take a look at volume 2 of exhibit 1, at tab 11. Tab 11 of volume 2. There's a lot of paper here.
This is a letter dated October 29, 1993, Ms Luu. The date's a little difficult to see, but it's addressed to Ms Evelyn Gigantes, Ministry of Housing, and if you look under where the address appears, there's a date of October 29, 1993. Do you see that?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Is this the letter that you were referring to that Ms Pretty wrote to the ministry?
Ms Luu: Yes, she did write this letter.
Ms Cronk: All right. This is a lengthy letter that Sharron Pretty signed. Leaving aside the details of what is in the letter, Ms Luu, did you assist Ms Pretty in preparing this letter to the minister?
Ms Luu: No, I did not. This is October 29. October 28 they held a meeting where they passed a resolution to ask her to go through Can Le for every information. So I said: "Oh, this is serious, Sharron. Let's go and see Evelyn. Let's go and ask Evelyn for a meeting." That's why October 29 Sharron and I, we went to see Sue, and I understand that Sue might have told Sharron to put it in writing or something like that, and Sharron came back and she wrote this letter which she hand-delivered to Sue a few days later. But she said, "I would put it October 29 because that was the date when I went to see Sue for a request to see Evelyn."
Ms Cronk: Right. And when you refer to "Sue," are you referring to Sue Lott?
Ms Luu: Sue Lott.
Ms Cronk: All right. And did you go with Sharron Pretty to see Sue Lott on October 28?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: And did you meet with anyone else from the minister's constituency office, or Ms Lott alone?
Ms Luu: We were talking with Sue, and I was excited at the time because I obtained the copy of the Corporations Act on October 27, so: "Oh, I have found the law here. Let's show Sue that this is the law and this board is defying the law." So we brought the Corporations Act. Sharron went there. She told her story. Sue was concerned. She might have advised Sharron to put it in writing. We insisted on informing Evelyn of these events and insisted on a meeting with Evelyn. And when we left -- I didn't notice it, but Sharron later on told me that Evelyn was sitting in the room beside, smoking, and she did greet Evelyn.
Ms Cronk: This is on October 29?
Ms Luu: The 29th, yes. It was a Friday, and that was when Evelyn used to come back from Toronto.
Ms Cronk: Right. Is it then your evidence to the committee, Ms Luu, that on October 29, you and Sharron Pretty requested, through Sue Lott, a meeting with the minister?
Ms Luu: Yes, we did.
Ms Cronk: And it was suggested to Ms Pretty that she put her concerns in writing?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And when this letter had been prepared by Ms Pretty, you've indicated that you did not participate in its preparation.
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you see it before it went to the minister?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you discuss its contents with Sharron Pretty?
Ms Luu: I just said to her, "Put it in a very concise form so that she won't have waste of time while reading your letter, because you know all my reports were long, maybe they didn't read them, so put your letter very short," but she came up with four pages, I think.
Ms Cronk: And did she discuss with you, before she sent the letter, the issues that she was going to raise with the ministry in this letter?
Ms Luu: She has discussed it. She has discussed all those issues before, earlier, with me when she found out about those. Whenever she found out about everything she called me and she said, "Trinh, I found out about this and that." So I already knew that she was going to talk about all this because these are the things that happened to her, that she found out.
Ms Cronk: Did you subsequently see this letter and have an opportunity to review it, Ms Luu?
Ms Luu: Later on I saw it but I didn't review it.
Ms Cronk: Have you, to date, read it? Have you read it now?
Ms Luu: Yes, of course.
Ms Cronk: What I'm suggesting to you is at some point during the course of -- either later in 1993 or in 1994, did you see a copy of this letter and read it?
Ms Luu: Yes, she showed it to me.
Ms Cronk: That was after it had been sent to the minister, I take it?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Am I correct when I suggest to you that in the letter itself there is no request made of the minister for a meeting, or do you recall? If you don't, that's fine.
Ms Luu: She requested an investigation, so I must be the one who requested the meeting, because we talked orally with Sue and the idea was to let Evelyn know. So it must be logical for me to insist that the only way for Evelyn to know is to unite our concerns, because I said: "Sue, look, I'm not the only one who said that. Here comes Sharron and she found the same thing. So we are serious and maybe we can unite our voices, and Evelyn must be aware that this is serious.
Ms Cronk: Did you yourself, after that meeting on October 29 with Ms Lott, write to the minister?
Ms Luu: Me? Writing with Ms Lott to the minister?
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. After the meeting with Ms Lott on October 29, did you personally write to the minister about these matters as opposed to Ms Pretty?
Ms Luu: Yes. I wrote to Evelyn on November 8.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 12, same volume.
Mr Callahan: Was the meeting not on October 28? You said the meeting on the 29.
Ms Cronk: I beg your pardon. The meeting was on October 28 and the letter was dated October 29. Mr Callahan corrects me.
Ms Luu: Yes, after the meeting.
Ms Cronk: The next document, at tab 12, is dated November 8, 1993. Is this a letter that you prepared?
Ms Luu: Yes. It was from me and I prepared it after a lot of research, because I was determined at that time to find out who was accountable for this situation. So I called Ms Karen Inselsbacher. She was an articling student at the time with the MOH legal services, and I wanted to find out whether the ministry had legal obligations towards the project. I found that no, they have none. So I re-read all the materials I had gathered during my employment there. I read the MOH administrative manual, on-file materials, everything, and I compiled my arguments here, and basically I was telling Evelyn: "Look, this is an issue under your jurisdiction. This is your responsibility. This is a housing project, and if the Ministry of Housing has no responsibilities, keeps saying that it's internal, we don't intervene, but at the same time keeps pouring down money into that project. So please tell me who is responsible." So I was quite tough.
If the Ministry of Housing has no responsibilities in the administration of the program, who else would, one may ask? This is the first time I wrote officially to Evelyn and it was tough.
1350
Ms Cronk: Did you ask the minister in this letter for a meeting with her?
Ms Luu: I think I did.
Ms Cronk: To help you, Ms Luu, if you could look at the first page of the letter, the first --
Ms Luu: Oh, yes, "A meeting be accorded in order for us to directly voice our concerns to you," and I insisted on the meeting, "Please talk to us and examine the evidence," because at that time I have gathered enough evidence and my knowledge has increased. I became aware of the situation and I realized what was wrong and I started to gather evidence and I wanted Evelyn to look at the evidence I have.
Ms Cronk: At that point, that is, at the time you wrote this letter, were you content with the response and involvement of the minister's constituency office in response to your concerns?
Ms Luu: No, not at all. I even questioned the discrepancies in the positions adopted by Mr Clement and Mr Sutherland.
Ms Cronk: Ms Luu, I'm sorry to interrupt. My question was directed to the minister's constituency office, not the Minister of Housing and my question was, at that point were you satisfied with the response or interaction you were having with the constituency office?
Ms Luu: Well, personally, with Sue and Audrey I'm always happy because they are concerned. They listen. They received information I gave them and they always promised that they would take care and they would do the follow-up, so I'm quite happy with them.
Ms Cronk: You referred a few moments ago to Mr Clement.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Do I take it, then, that you had concerns about the response or interaction that you were having with the Ministry of Housing individuals?
Ms Luu: Yes, and I mentioned my questioning about their different positions outlined in my August 23 report -- when I directly questioned Mr Sutherland, "Why did you tell me that and whenever I came to Bill and Bill said, `No, no, no, I'm sorry, Trinh, it's internal,' so could you explain that to me?" So he did not. In here, I said it again. I reiterated that issue with Evelyn, Mrs Gigantes. I said, "A clarification by the Ministry of Housing on the discrepancies revealed through the actions and positions of the RHPO officers."
Ms Cronk: And did Ms Gigantes in due course reply to this letter?
Ms Luu: Yes, she did, one month later, and I found that was very positive and very prompt action on her part.
Ms Cronk: All right. Could I ask you to look at tab 14 of the same volume. There's a letter at this tab, tab 14 of volume 2, dated December 6, 1993.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Is this the minister's response to your letter?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And you regarded it, you said a moment ago, as prompt?
Ms Luu: Yes, and I'm very pleased about this letter and I thought: "Oh, Evelyn has listened to me. I'm particularly pleased at her promise that, `I will contact you once I have the report and let you know if other actions appear necessary.'" So what I thought at that time is that, okay, the compliance review is in progress; what I do is just to sit back and wait for Evelyn to get back to me.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look, if you would, please, at paragraphs 23 and 24 of the statement of background facts, Ms Luu. That starts at the top of page 7. Do you have that?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: In paragraph 23, it is suggested that in the months following early November 1993, Ms Pretty and yourself, either acting alone or together, made a variety of allegations relating to the Van Lang Centre and its management and communicated them to representatives of the Ministry of Housing or the constituency offices of the minister. Some of those allegations, it is suggested, were expressed orally, while others were expressed or communicated in writing. Is that an accurate description of those events?
Ms Luu: If I remember well, I did not write anything after that November 8 letter to Evelyn because, like I said, I just sat back and I waited for the compliance review report. So it must be Sharron who kept going on with all her complaints and her allegations. And whenever I had a chance to talk to Sue Lott or Audrey Moey -- and on various occasions it was Sue or Audrey who initiated the conversation. They would call me and ask me to attend a social event or to attend a campaign launch for an NDP candidate, and during those telephone conversations inevitably they asked about Van Lang Centre, and I kept them posted on what happened currently, what I heard from Sharron. I let them know.
Ms Cronk: During those discussions you relayed to them the information that Ms Pretty was giving you.
Ms Luu: Yes, and at every occasion I insisted on meeting with Evelyn. I said, "I have gathered all the evidence and I want Evelyn to look at my evidence," on three occasions I remember, on February 25, March 24, April 28, and those followed my November 8 letter. I insisted because the compliance review came out on February 8, but I heard nothing from Evelyn, as she promised in her December 6 letter, and I was concerned.
Oh, yeah, and on March 4, I co-signed a letter with Sharron, and that was the first time we raised doubts about the compliance review findings, and we insisted again on a special and urgent meeting with her.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look, just on that issue, at tab 25 of volume 2? At tab 25, there's a letter dated March 4, 1994.
Interjection: Exhibit 1 or 2?
Ms Cronk: It's volume 2. It's exhibit 1.
Ms Luu: Yes, I've got it. That was our letter.
Ms Cronk: When you say "our letter," was that a letter written by Ms Pretty and yourself to Ms Gigantes, the Minister of Housing?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Is it in that letter that you requested what you described a moment ago as a special and urgent meeting?
Ms Luu: Yes, we did.
Ms Cronk: In that letter, do you specifically raise concerns relating to the compliance review?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I direct your attention to the top of page 2.
Ms Luu: That's true. Second page: "We also have many important and pressing questions regarding the findings of the compliance review, the ministry's funding of the centre's operations, and the understanding of the access and tenant participation issues."
I focus on Evelyn's two major policies, because from what I gather from my ONPHA training sessions, I know that the ministry is focusing on the issue of accessibility to housing and tenant participation, where tenants can have a say in decisions affecting their daily life at the centre.
I was concerned because I saw those two major policies did not materialize at this project, and I saw Evelyn's policies are at stake, and I'm concerned and I want to warn her. I said: "Maybe she doesn't know what her staff is doing. Maybe she doesn't know, so I have the responsibility to keep her informed, to make her aware of the gravity of the situation."
Ms Cronk: Is this then, Ms Luu, the second time that you had directly written to the minister about these matters?
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: And between the period December 6, 1993 -- at least that is the date of the minister's letter to you. I assume you received it some time shortly thereafter. Would that be a correct assumption on my part?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Between the date of your receipt of that letter in December 1993 and the time of your writing on March 4, 1994, your further letter to the minister, had you personally had any communication with her about this matter, that is, the matters related to Van Lang?
Ms Luu: I attempted once, but the circumstances did not allow me to do so, so I dropped that. It was on March 10. On February 25, Sue Lott called me and asked me to attend a social event at the NDP headquarters. It was around the block. I was studying for exams, but I said I would go and I would bring my file on the deviation of the original mandate so that I can show it to Evelyn. I did bring my file, but there were many people there and I could not show it to Evelyn. But I talked at length with Sue on the problems at the centre.
Ms Cronk: On the problems relating to the centre?
Ms Luu: Yes. That was on March 10. So I attempted, but I could not.
1400
Ms Cronk: Did you mention the date of February 25 a moment ago?
Ms Luu: Yes. That was when Sue called me and asked me to attend the March 10 meeting, and Sue found that it was a good idea. She said, "Yes, it must be a good idea that you talk to Evelyn, so just come and talk to her."
Ms Cronk: All right, then if I could just back you up, Ms Luu, so that I'm clear on the chronology. My question was directed to the time between December 1993, when the minister sent her response letter to you, and March 4, when you and Ms Pretty wrote -- both of you were writing to her again at this point. In that period of time, had you had any communication with the minister yourself about any matters related to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: Had you, during that period of time, had any communications yourself with members of the minister's staff in Toronto?
Ms Luu: In Toronto? I talked to Karen Inselsbacher on October 29 and she called me back on November 9.
Ms Cronk: And when you refer to her, are you referring to an articling student in the legal services branch of the Ministry of Housing?
Ms Luu: At the legal services. Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Did you at any point, up to March 4, 1994, at any point up until then, Ms Luu, that you now recall, have any contact personally with any representative of the minister's own office in Toronto about matters related to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: No, not at all. I didn't know anyone.
Ms Cronk: And did you, during that period of time -- that is, from the beginning of December 1993 through until the beginning of March 1994, when you and Ms Pretty again wrote to her -- have any contact or discussion with anyone at her constituency office about the Van Lang Centre apart from the discussion that you told us about with Sue Lott later, on March 10?
Ms Luu: Apart from the conversation with Sue Lott? No. No.
Ms Cronk: And similarly, again during that same period of time -- we're talking about approximately three months: December, January and February up to the beginning of March -- did you personally have any further communications or discussions with any representative of the offices of the Ministry of Housing in Ottawa concerning matters related to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Excuse me, it's from December to January --
Ms Cronk: The beginning of December 1993 up until your March 4 letter is sent.
Ms Luu: No. No.
Ms Cronk: All right. So really, then, if I understand it, in terms of your own involvement in these matters, you received a reply from the minister towards the beginning of December 1993 --
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: -- and you had no further communications personally with any of the minister herself, the Ministry of Housing staff in Ottawa or her constituency office staff or her staff in Toronto prior to sending your letter of March 4?
Ms Luu: Except the one with Sue Lott.
Ms Cronk: Yes, and that was March 10?
Ms Luu: That was on February 25 and March 10.
Ms Cronk: Sorry. All right. Thank you. And on February 25, when Ms Lott called and asked you to attend this social function, did you speak with her then about Van Lang issues or was it only on March 10 that you did so?
Ms Luu: I did speak with her on the problems at Van Lang, right, in February. That was when Sue said, "It would be a good idea for you to talk to Evelyn," and I said, yes, I would bring my access file with me, and she said, "I look forward to have a chat with you on March 10."
Ms Cronk: I see. I've misunderstood that. Thank you very much. Did Ms Pretty keep you informed during those months -- that is, December, January and February -- as to events at the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Oh, yes. They were important events.
Ms Cronk: Did those important events include the reporting by representatives of the Ministry of Housing to the board of directors at Van Lang concerning the results of the compliance review?
Ms Luu: No, that was on February 8, and you were asking me about the period between December and January.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. In the months of December, January and February --
Ms Luu: Okay. February.
Ms Cronk: -- I take it Ms Pretty was in frequent contact with you and was keeping you informed?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And of the events that occurred in those months that you regarded as important, was one of those the reporting on the compliance review by Ministry of Housing officials in February?
Ms Luu: Yes. The second one, after the failed attempt to remove her from the board.
Ms Cronk: And when was that?
Ms Luu: That was in November, on November 25.
Ms Cronk: At that time, as you understood it, was there an effort to have Ms Pretty removed from the board of directors at the centre?
Ms Luu: Yes, and the attempt was illegal, improper.
Ms Cronk: Again, when you use the word "illegal," what do you mean by that?
Ms Luu: Because it was against the procedures outlined by the Corporations Act. The Corporations Act said that only the corporation's membership can remove a director, but here this board did not set up any membership. They are, at the same time, members and directors. The Corporations Act said that to remove a director you should obtain one third or two thirds -- I don't remember; one third or two thirds -- of the vote at a meeting called by the members and stated beforehand with a notice given 10 days earlier, with the agenda setting that that meeting is to remove a director. But here they didn't proceed that way. Sharron walked into the meeting and they said, "You are no longer on the board because the tenant association did not acknowledge you as their representative any more."
Ms Cronk: When you say, then, that you regarded that effort as being illegal, I take from the explanation you've just given that you understood it to have been done other than in compliance with the relevant corporate statutes.
Ms Luu: And I base my --
Ms Cronk: Is that right so far, just so that I understand?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Is it on that basis that you're describing it as illegal?
Ms Luu: That's on another basis, on another authority. Another source of authority that I base on is a letter from the corporation's legal counsel that was intercepted by a supporter of mine that showed that Dr Le has sought legal advice with our corporation's legal counsel on how to remove Sharron, on directors' access to information. The corporation's legal counsel proved that Sharron is right, I'm right, he's wrong. "You shouldn't do that because of those provisions in the Corporations Act. In order to remove Sharron, you should do that and that and that."
So I combined that letter from our own corporation's legal counsel. That letter was concealed, was withheld, by Dr Le from the board. Nobody was aware of that letter when it accidentally came into my knowledge.
Ms Cronk: Right. So as far as you were concerned, based on that information and your understanding of the relevant corporate statutes which govern the matter, it was an improper attempt to remove Ms Pretty.
Ms Luu: Yes, it was.
Ms Cronk: And that effort in November of 1993 you regarded as an important development, just as you regarded the reporting upon of the compliance report in February of 1994 as an important development. Do I have it correctly?
Ms Luu: Yes, and I would like to add another incident regarding Dr Le's defiance of rules and legislation right following Mr Sutherland's visit to the board on December 30, where the board all rushed on to justify with Mr Sutherland that: "No, no, we don't remove her. Her status is still in question. We would seek legal counsel and see whether it's proper to remove her, but right now she's still on the board."
So that was on December 30. Three or four days later, January 3, Dr Le issued a notice to tenants saying that "We thank Ms Pretty for her contribution on the board, and now that we have new tenant representatives, she's no longer needed on the board." So I interpreted that as a serious defiance of legislation, of Mr Sutherland's concerns expressed at the December 30 meeting. That was an important event.
Ms Cronk: Were you personally at the December 30, 1993, board meeting?
Ms Luu: Pardon me?
Ms Cronk: Were you personally at the December 30 board meeting?
Ms Luu: No, but I listened to the tapes.
Ms Cronk: When you say you listened to the tapes, was that board meeting taped, to your knowledge?
Ms Luu: Sharron started to tape board meetings at the November 25, when she realized that there was a need for her to compile an accurate account of what happens at the centre in order to protect herself and in order to produce evidence of the inaccuracies in the board minutes and of the problems at the centre.
1410
Ms Cronk: In so far as you are aware, were the other directors aware that she was making tapes of those meetings?
Ms Luu: Yes. She did it right in front of them.
Ms Cronk: So your information of what occurred at the December 30 meeting, I take it, is based on your review of those tapes and your discussions with Sharron Pretty?
Ms Luu: Yes. She let me know; she kept me informed. She was very relieved that when she saw Brian, she was so happy. She said: "Oh, Trinh, Brian walked in unexpected. You know what happened? He said that he would send the staff to monitor this board." So we were all relieved. But the next meeting, Brian said at the December 30 meeting that, "Okay" --
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, Ms Luu, could I just interrupt you there for a moment?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: With respect to the December 30 meeting, your understanding of what occurred is based on what Ms Pretty told you and your review of the tapes of the meeting. Do I understand that correctly?
Ms Luu: That's true. Yes.
Ms Cronk: Could I bring you back then to March of 1994 when you personally are again involved? You've written to the minister on March 4. Did you receive a response from the minister to that letter?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: At the time it was written, did you prepare the letter or did Ms Pretty or did you do it together?
Ms Luu: We did it together. We cosigned it.
Ms Cronk: And did you follow up on that letter when you had not received a response? Did you, for example, speak to her constituency staff?
Ms Luu: Yes. I spoke to Sue Lott on March 24, and Audrey called me on April 28, so I spoke to her again and Audrey said, "Did you write her?" I said: "Yes, I did. I put it in writing and she didn't answer me, Audrey. I'm still waiting for her promise, because she said that she would get back to me once she has the compliance review, and it has been two months, three months, and I haven't heard from her. The situation is getting worse and we found out that there were coverups and we really want to make her aware of all this, and she didn't answer."
Ms Cronk: From your point of view, Ms Luu, were you continuing to ask in that period of the spring for a meeting with the minister?
Ms Luu: I must say that I lost all hopes starting May 19.
Ms Cronk: All right, let's take it before May 19. After you've sent your letter of March 4, throughout the balance of the month of March and the month of April 1994, from your perspective, were you continuing to request a meeting with the minister?
Ms Luu: Yes, and my last request was on April 28.
Ms Cronk: And on April 28, to whom did you make the request?
Ms Luu: I talked to Audrey Moey. I was studying for my exams, and she called me and she said, "Trinh, would you like to go to Elizabeth Arnold's campaign? She is an NDP municipal candidate." Then inevitably, like usual, we touched on the Van Lang Centre, and then I kept her informed of the situation. Audrey came back from her maternity leave and she said: "Oh, my God, I thought it was resolved, and when I came back I saw a lot of documents. I couldn't believe that." I said, "Yes, it's going on, like that," and I insisted on a meeting with Evelyn, and I didn't know why Evelyn didn't answer it to me. I was very tough. I said, "I don't understand why Evelyn has to sacrifice her reputation for Can Le's. This is only one person who did something wrong; it's not the whole community," and I wanted to make Evelyn aware of that. She doesn't have to be afraid of being seen like backlashing on an ethnic community. No, this is only one person. I'm not against the community.
Ms Cronk: When you say that, Ms Luu, that was your perspective on what was happening at the time?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: That was in your mind.
Ms Luu: That, and I picked that up from Sue Lott, because I talked to Sue on March 10 and Sue said, "You know, Trinh, Evelyn should be very cautious, because, you see, it's not good for us to be seen as backlashing on an ethnic group." And I said: "I am having a lot of hard time to make my point to everyone that this is not the whole community. This is because of this so-called community leader who fostered that kind of misconception among my community that I feel a need to speak out so that my community would know this project is not reserved for Vietnamese only."
Ms Cronk: Ms Luu, you've told me again a great many things, and it's helpful, in the course of your last several answers, and I want to make sure I understand what you've told the committee. You have said in the last few minutes that you spoke with Sue Lott on March --
Ms Luu: On March 10.
Ms Cronk: Let me just ask the question -- on March 10 and March 24, and that you spoke with Audrey Moey on April 8 and April 28, 1994.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Should the committee take from that that you held a number of discussions in the spring of 1994 with those two representatives of the minister's constituency offices?
Ms Luu: Yes, and I did offer a solution as well. I said --
Ms Cronk: Excuse me, Ms Luu. I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. I will give you an opportunity to explain that to the committee, but I just want to make sure I have the sequence of events correctly.
Ms Luu: Okay.
Ms Cronk: So you had a number of discussions during that period of time, at least with Ms Lott and with Ms Moey. Were there others as well in the month of May with members of her constituency office staff?
Ms Luu: In the month of May?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Ms Luu: No. It was Sharron who talked to Karen Ridley and Sue Lott in May, not me.
Ms Cronk: All right. You then personally had those discussions in the months of March and April?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Were those discussions by telephone?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you tape any of those discussions?
Ms Luu: I did.
Ms Cronk: Did you do so with the knowledge of the other person on the telephone?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: Why is that?
Ms Luu: First, I taped it for my own information, because I used to relisten to the tapes. I listened to what Sue or Audrey said, and I found that every conversation I had with Sue or Audrey, they always said, "Oh, I would get back to you in a few days, Trinh," and then I waited and I didn't hear anything. So I analysed it for myself to see whether the ministry is willing to intervene or not.
Secondly, the reason why I taped is I realized there is a need for documentation given the circumstances, the circumstances where there are discrepancies in positions adopted by the MOH officials, there were inaccuracies in the board minutes, there were people lying, there were coverups. So there is a need for me to keep an accurate and truthful record of what happened in order to produce the evidence to whoever I want to. If I want to produce the evidence with the board, I should be able to say: "This is true. I tape, and this is what is going on."
Ms Cronk: I understand, Ms Luu, the reasons that you've described to the committee as to why you felt it important and useful to make tapes of the discussions. My question to you was, why did you not indicate to the other party to the conversation that you were doing so?
Ms Luu: Why should I tell them? I didn't have to, because this is for my own information and I don't have any intention to divulge it in public except internally, like at board meetings or within the ministry itself.
Ms Cronk: Just one final question, perhaps, before I could ask the Chair if we might take a short break. Did your efforts throughout the months of March and April and through to the beginning of May 1994 continue with the purpose of arranging a meeting with the minister?
Ms Luu: Through May 1994?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Ms Luu: I didn't get in touch with them. I lost all hope after the April 28 conversation I had with Audrey, because she promised to get back to me in a few days. I said to her: "Audrey, I have my last exam tomorrow and then I would be free. Please feel free to call me." She said, "Yes, I would, I would call you on Monday," and then she didn't call. So why should I persist any more with all these requests for a meeting, because whenever I insisted people said, "Okay, we would get back to you." As I said, I taped three times and three times I got at the end of the conversation: "You would hear from me soon, Trinh. I would get back to you." But I heard nothing, so I lost all hope.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: We can just take a five-minute break. We'll recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 1418 to 1433.
The Chair: We'll resume the hearing.
Mr Callahan: Just to ask a question, we've heard that all these meetings were --
The Chair: I would let counsel finish first.
Mr Callahan: Oh, all right. I thought maybe we could save some time if they taped the meeting of the 17th of June. Then it's all over.
Ms Cronk: I just can't do it to you, Mr Callahan. I can't make you wait. I anticipate the evidence will be that there's no tape of the June 17 meeting.
Mr Callahan: That's too bad.
Ms Cronk: I can tell you, sir, that if there is, I'm unaware of it. Ms Luu of course was not at the June 17 meeting.
If I could return, then, Ms Luu, to the events of April and May 1994 -- that's the period of time we were discussing -- you told the committee just before we broke that during the month of May 1994, at least the early part of May, you personally, as distinct from Sharron Pretty, did not have any contact with members of the minister's constituency office about matters related to the Van Lang Centre. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: But you also indicated to the committee that Ms Pretty did, in so far as you are aware, have contact at that time.
Ms Luu: Let me think. She talked to Karen Ridley. Karen Ridley called Sharron on May 3.
Ms Cronk: Were you present for any of those discussions?
Ms Luu: No, because she left a message on Sharron's machine and I heard the message from Sharron afterwards.
Ms Cronk: To your knowledge did Ms Pretty tape any of the telephone discussions in which she participated during the months of April and May 1994?
Ms Luu: Yes, she did. She started taping in November, like I said, at board meetings and she taped all her conversations with the ministry officials, I believe, in December, January, all along.
Ms Cronk: Apart from the discussions which you have mentioned to the committee with Ms Lott and Ms Moey in the months of March and April, did you or Ms Pretty take any other steps in April 1994 concerning matters related to the Van Lang Centre and your concerns about the centre?
Ms Luu: Yes, we did. We explored legal recourses.
Ms Cronk: What do you mean?
Ms Luu: We read the Corporations Act. I have the dates here with me. On November 12, 1993, I went to see the justice of the peace, and I was advised to come back a week later bringing with me a witness who could corroborate my story.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, what date was that?
Ms Luu: November 12.
Ms Cronk: Subsequently, Ms Luu, without getting into the details of it in any way, did you or, to your knowledge, Ms Pretty swear informations concerning alleged infractions of the Corporations Act by various directors of the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Yes, we did, and only after we had written to Ms Marilyn Churley, the minister of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, on the advice of the JP.
Ms Cronk: For what purpose did you write to her?
Ms Luu: Because there is a provision in the Corporations Act saying that to pursue with a charge under the untrue statement you have to keep the minister informed. So the JP looked at that provision and she said, "You have to write to the minister."
Ms Cronk: Excuse me one moment, Ms Luu. You did write to Ms Churley in that regard?
Ms Luu: Yes, Sharron and I did; we co-signed that letter.
Ms Cronk: Ultimately, did you receive a reply?
Ms Luu: Yes, we did.
Ms Cronk: When was that?
Ms Luu: I can't remember the date. Let me take a look at my Chrono. We wrote on November 18, right after our trip to the JP, November 19 or 18. I can't remember when we got a reply. It must be in January, I think.
Ms Cronk: In January 1994?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And were you informed at that time by that minister, that is, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations at the time, that the Corporations Act did not provide her ministry with the authority to intervene and resolve disputes with respect to issues under the Corporations Act?
Ms Luu: Yes, and she advised us to exhaust internal solutions first before taking any legal proceedings, and we did, because she referred us to one of her staff, Mr Ron Hartlen. So I called him immediately because she said there are other remedies available in the act, that you can use those remedies without taking legal proceedings. So I called Mr Ron Hartlen. We talked, and he sent me a letter in writing outlining those remedies. When we looked at those, we said: "Oh, we did all of them. We tried them all, and nothing worked."
Like he said, you can call an emergency meeting, you can call a member meeting. That's what Sharron did: She called an emergency meeting to deal with the issue of denial of access to directors of a corporation's documents. Nobody came. Two days later they held a meeting telling her, "You are no longer on the board." That was in November. So we tried everything.
Ms Cronk: All right. As I understand it, Ms Luu, you received information from a Mr Hartlen, who at the time was with the compliance, companies branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, identifying for you some of the remedial sections of the Corporations Act. Am I right in that?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And is it to that communication that you were referring just a moment ago?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that was in, as I understand it, January of 1994. Am I right in that?
Ms Luu: Yes.
1440
Ms Cronk: We're now talking about the time frame of April, 1994. During that month, did you and Ms Pretty complete informations alleging infractions of the Corporations Act?
Ms Luu: Yes, we did, only after we found out that all those available remedies have been tried out in vain, so we had no other option but to go back to the crown. So we went to the JP and the JP saw our voluminous binders and files and she said, "Okay, I have talked to the crown and the crown is willing to review all the evidence with you, so go and see the crown," and she referred us directly to the crown and the crown who takes our case is Louisette Girault.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to turn to volume 1 of exhibit 1, Ms Luu, to tab 6 of that book of documents? Do you have it there?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: There are a series of informations set out at this tab. Are these the informations completed by Sharron Pretty and, in one case, yourself in April of 1994?
Ms Luu: Yes, they were.
Ms Cronk: And it's my understanding that these informations relate -- first that they were sworn on or about April 25, 1994. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: And that there were seven in total, six of which were completed by Ms Pretty, one of which was completed by you.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And they allege infractions of the Corporations Act against a number of then current or former directors of the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Yes, and against a former employee.
Ms Cronk: And a former employee?
Ms Luu: Yes, six of them.
Ms Cronk: And the persons against whom the charges were laid starting -- the pages are numbered for the benefit of the committee in the top right-hand corner. The first information found at page 2 is in respect of -- I'm going to mispronounce this and I apologize in advance. Is it a Mr Bui?
Ms Luu: Ms Bui. That's the former office assistant.
Ms Cronk: If we go next to page 5, that is an information in respect of Dr Hieu Truong. He was at the time president of the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre as I understand it. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes, he was.
Ms Cronk: And at page 8, we see -- they're numbered in the top right-hand corner, Ms Luu -- another information, this relating to a Mrs Lan Tran.
Ms Luu: This is the former tenant-director.
Ms Cronk: And if we go next to page 11, do we see there an information relating to Dr Vinh Tang?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: As I understand it, he was the immediate past president of the Van Lang board of directors.
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: And at page 14, we see the fifth information relating to -- is it a Mr My Nguyen?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And he also at the time was a director of the Van Lang board of directors.
Ms Luu: At the time he was the treasurer.
Ms Cronk: Page 17, the sixth information, this is one completed by you. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: Page -- I'm sorry, the page again.
Ms Cronk: Page 17, it's the sixth information.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: This is one completed by you?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It relates to Dr Can D. Le?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Finally, if we turn to page 20, there's a seventh information completed by Ms Pretty relating also to Dr Can D. Le. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: These were completed, as you've indicated, on or about April 25, 1994 and just --
Ms Luu: Hmm.
Ms Cronk: Is that correct?
Ms Luu: These were laid around March because on March 17, we got an appointment with the crown. Sharron and I went to see the crown and she said, "Okay, we will look at your evidence and we will get back to you on April 8." On April 8, Ms Girault let me know that, okay, we can proceed with two charges, the denial of access to information and the charge of making an untrue entry in the board minutes. At the time, only Sharron proceeded with her charges and she did that on April 25.
Ms Cronk: Do I understand then that discussions were held by you and by Miss Pretty with representatives of the crown's office in the month of March 1994 concerning these matters?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And when you say that the charges were laid at that time, do you mean by that that you were in discussions with the crown's office?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Is it correct that it was April 25 when the informations were actually sworn?
Ms Luu: Yes, by Sharron.
Ms Cronk: Yes, and similarly by yourself, it was during the month of April 1994?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Towards the end of April.
Ms Luu: Oh, my charge was already laid during March, but Sharron has to relay her charge because we need to retype it. There were some mistakes in the wording, and Ms Girault wanted us to redo the charges. So Sharron has to retype the whole information and she has to relay them.
Ms Cronk: There may be some confusion, Ms Luu, with the term "laying of charges."
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And I want to be very clear about what your evidence is. As I understand it, you and Ms Pretty were in discussions with representatives of the crown's offices during the month of March 1994. Correct?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: But the informations found at tab 6, which I have just reviewed with you, were actually sworn on or about April 25, 1994.
Ms Luu: That's true, yeah.
Ms Cronk: And during the month of March 1994, you've indicated -- and you remember we looked at a joint letter that you and Sharron Pretty sent to the minister dated March 4.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And if I could just review the timing of some events that occurred and then I have a question for you.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: You have told the committee that the results of the compliance review conducted by the Ministry of Housing were discussed with the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre on February 8 and that you subsequently personally saw and reviewed a copy of the review document. Am I right so far?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: That's February 8. On March 4, you and Sharron Pretty co-author a letter to Evelyn Gigantes in which, by the language that you used, you were requesting a "special and urgent meeting" with the minister. Am I right so far?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It is several weeks later, six to eight weeks later, that these informations are actually sworn on April 25, but during the month of March you're in discussions with the crown's offices. Am I correct so far?
Ms Luu: There is a difference between the two courses of action we were taking at the time, because we were dealing with the ministry. We were asking Evelyn to grant us a meeting so that we can show her evidence related to the core issues, what we call core issues, the accessibility to housing and tenant participation. We were aware at the time that the denial-of-access issue was not satisfactorily intervened by the minister and the only way for us to have it resolved is to go to the crown.
When we went to the crown, the crown said: "Okay, I can proceed with the charges under the Corporations Act, but I can't deal with the difficulties you have with the ministry regarding the core issues, the accessibility to housing. You have to go back to the ministry to have those resolved."
So our requests are distinctly made with the minister to have her look at the evidence we have on the core issues, but at that time, we lost any hope that she would intervene or the ministry staff would intervene in order to have this board comply with the Corporations Act, and we realized that was beyond their control. It was a legal matter and they couldn't do anything. So it was in the hands of the crown, and the crown is the only ultimate authority to decide whether to proceed with the charges or not.
Ms Cronk: So that I understand, are you saying, Ms Luu, that there were two matters proceeding in tandem at the same time --
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: -- and that you and Ms Pretty were pursuing with the minister, by your letter of March 4 for example, a meeting with her to discuss what you describe as the core issues relating to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: And those core issues are the responsibility under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Housing.
1450
Ms Cronk: And there is reference in many of the documents before the committee to what's described as the core issues. Would you tell the committee, please, what you mean by that term.
Ms Luu: I focus on the two major policies promoted by the minister, that is, the accessibility to housing accommodations regardless of ethnic background, race, marital status, and the second issue she promotes is the promotion of tenant participation. I understand that Evelyn's policy is to reach, by the end of 1995, for projects that are already operating, to fill their board with at least one third of the residents. One third of the board of directors should be tenants, should come from the tenant body.
Those are her two major policies, and we expressed our concerns related to those major policies because we have here a racially discriminatory tenant selection process that has been, and is still, promoted by Dr Can Le in person and by this board in general. What they want is to turn this project into an exclusively Vietnamese project. I can prove that because I have compiled --
Ms Cronk: Ms Luu, if I could just stop you there; again, if at any time you think it's important or you wish to complete an answer when I've stopped you, please indicate that to me. But just so that the evidence is clear with respect to the questions I'm asking, when you allege a racially discriminatory tenant selection process, I take from what you've said that what you mean is that from your perspective and based on what you knew, you felt that there was a preference being given to strictly Vietnamese candidates. Is that what you mean when you say "racially discriminatory policy"?
Ms Luu: Strictly Vietnamese candidates and Vietnamese seniors.
Ms Cronk: All right. And more specifically, relating to the issues that you were pursuing with the minister, is it not correct that in many of the letters sent by Sharron Pretty or yourself to the minister or to representatives of the Ministry of Housing in the fall of 1993, the issue of access to information relating to the corporation was also raised?
Ms Luu: Was also mentioned?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It was also raised. It was expressed as a concern, was it not?
Ms Luu: Yes, that's true.
Ms Cronk: And with respect to that issue, that is, access to information, as distinct from access to living as a tenant at the centre, with respect to access to information, you've told the committee that you were making inquiries about that as early as October 1993 with an articling student in the legal services branch at the Ministry of Housing. Am I right in that?
Ms Luu: No, that's not correct. At first we thought that issue of denial of access to information could be solved by the ministry as well. That's why Sharron went to see Bill Clement and expressed our concerns, and Sharron put that in her October 29 letter. But when we received no response and when Bill Clement kept saying, "Oh, Can Le has the right to keep all the information because he's the secretary of the board," we found it very strange, and when we obtained the Corporations Act we realized that this is under the Corporations Act and the ministry is reluctant to intervene because it's already there. It's a legal issue and they won't intervene. So we stopped seeking assistance regarding the access to information issue because we already took legal recourse. But when I talked to Karen Inselsbacher, the articling student, I was trying to find out the legal obligations the ministry might have towards the project.
Ms Cronk: But in addition, am I not correct that on October 29, 1993, you spoke to her, that is, to Karen Inselsbacher, and raised or alleged violations of the Corporations Act? That was part of your discussion with her as early as October 29, 1993, was it not?
Ms Luu: Yes, probably.
Ms Cronk: All right. Well, in fairness to you, could you look at tab 13 of exhibit 1, volume 2. Do you have that, Ms Luu?
Ms Luu: Oh, yes. This is the first time I saw it.
Ms Cronk: What I had suggested to you, and you had disagreed with it and I'm suggesting it to you again, is that as early as the end of October 1993 you had given consideration to the issue of what you saw as violations of the Corporations Act; that is, to the access to information act.
Ms Luu: Yeah. I might not remember, so I might have mentioned that to her.
Ms Cronk: Well, this memo suggests that you did, doesn't it?
Ms Luu: Yes. Oh, yes, because it was right on October 29, and that was the day after the board meeting when they passed a resolution denying her access, and that was our uppermost concern at the time.
Ms Cronk: All right. So that I understand it, you had considered this issue and had had a conversation with her about it at the end of October.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: You then told the committee that in January of 1994 you entered into correspondence with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and received some information from representatives of that ministry concerning the Corporations Act and the remedial sections under that act?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And then in March, two months later, you're in discussions with representatives of the crown's offices concerning the allegations that you were making about infractions of the Corporations Act. Correct?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And it's at the end of April 1994 -- that is, on or about April 25, 1994 -- that informations are actually sworn by Ms Pretty and yourself.
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: Is that the sequence of events with respect to those charges?
Ms Luu: Yes, and those sequence of events, we did not totally control them because we acted as we went along and we acted on what we learned. Like, when we went to the JP, we didn't know that we had to write to Mrs Churley. When we wrote to her, we didn't know that there were other remedies. So we just went along whatever we can find. Whatever options we can find, we just explore them.
Ms Cronk: Right. You'd also written to the minister on March 4 with Ms Pretty requesting an urgent meeting, and that followed some three weeks after presentation to the board of directors of the results of the compliance review. Was it because of the results of the compliance review that you wrote that letter to the minister?
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: And thereafter, during the month of March or April, were you contacted or informed in any way as to whether the minister was considering a meeting with you or Ms Pretty?
Ms Luu: During March and April?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Ms Luu: I talked to Sue, I talked to Audrey, and I discussed the compliance review findings with them. Actually, on March 24 -- and I talked to Sue because the day before, Sharron detected a very serious deficiency that might cause a safety hazard to the tenant safety.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry again to interrupt you, but just so that you're clear on what my question is: Leaving aside the compliance review, my question was, during the month of March or April 1994, were you contacted about or were you informed that the minister was considering a meeting with you or with Ms Pretty?
Ms Luu: No. What I heard from Sue and Audrey is that, "We would get back to you," they would get back to you, yes. And Sue found that it was a good idea that I should come into the picture now, because I said, "They can't exclude me because I know too much, and with my knowledge I can help solve the problems." And I pointed out the fact that Dr Le is relying on the fact that the board directors are new, nobody is aware of anything, and he misled the board on a lot of serious issues concerning the operations of the centre. I said, now that I know, what I want is the ministry's support to arrange a meeting, to support us to have a meeting for Sharron and I to come to the board and produce the evidence and make everybody face reality so that we can identify the problems and take remedial action.
Ms Cronk: So you were looking both for a meeting with the minister and a meeting with the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre.
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: All right. And do I understand you to be saying to the committee that no one on behalf of the minister informed you during the month of April whether consideration was being given to her actually having a meeting with you or Sharron Pretty?
Ms Luu: No. That's why I need to tape and listen to my tapes, and when I relisten to my tapes, my impression, my feeling, is that -- what I got from Sue and from Audrey is that the ministry is reluctant to intervene, because the last conversation I had with the ministry's constituency staff was the one I had with Audrey, and Audrey said, "Trinh, there is one thing you and Sharron don't understand, is that once the project was built, the ministry has no more responsibility over that project." And I said, "That doesn't strike me as rational at all because somebody should be made accountable." And Audrey said, "Yes, the board." I said: "But who is checking on the board? The board should be accountable to whom? Here you give them the money and you don't ensure that the policies are implemented and you resent intervention, so where is the control?"
1500
Ms Cronk: After you and Ms Pretty, on April 25, swore the informations which you completed with respect to the Corporations Act, did you inform anyone at the minister's constituency office that you had done so?
Ms Luu: First I would like to clarify on one point: Sharron swore the information and she proceeded with the charges, but I did not because at that time I was studying for exams. There was a mutual agreement between me and Ms Girault that I would reconsider and I would proceed with my charge whenever I have time to think about it, so only Sharron proceeded. On April 28 I informed Audrey, I said, "The last thing I heard from Sharron is that she has taken legal action."
Ms Cronk: Did you explain -- I take it you mean Audrey Moey?
Ms Luu: Yes, Audrey Moey.
Ms Cronk: Did you explain to Ms Moey the nature of the legal action taken by Ms Pretty?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: What specifically do you recall telling her in that regard?
Ms Luu: I might have told her that they denied her access and she went to the crown. I might have, you know, explained to her -- I don't remember.
Ms Cronk: You don't remember what you told her?
Ms Luu: If I had the transcript here I would remember what I said to her. Oh, I remember. I just told her that the last thing I heard from Sharron is that she has taken legal action. I didn't say anything about the crown. If I can, I can look at the transcript and I would know what I actually said to her.
Ms Cronk: Do you have a clear recollection in your own mind, Ms Luu, as to when, if at all, you first told any representative of the minister's constituency office about the nature of the legal action taken by Ms Pretty?
Ms Luu: Yes. I talked to Sue right on October 29. I explained to Sue, because we brought the Corporations Act with us. I explained to Sue, I said, "Look, Sue, there are provisions that say if you do that you would be fined and you would be charged for such an offence." So that's how I informally let Sue know about possible actions, possible remedies under the act.
Ms Cronk: Did you tell Ms Lott, on April 29, that charges had been brought or that informations had been sworn by Sharron Pretty?
Ms Luu: No, because at that time we didn't do anything yet.
Ms Cronk: Well, the informations had been sworn on April --
Mr Murphy: Are you talking about October or April?
Ms Cronk: Sorry?
Mr Murphy: Are you talking about October 29?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I thought she said April 28.
Mr Murphy: She's talking about October 29.
Ms Luu: No, October 29.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, Mr Murphy. I'm sorry. Let me ask you the question. It must be getting late in the day. I apologize. Let me understand.
Did you personally tell any member of the constituency office about the nature of the legal action taken by Sharron Pretty after those informations were sworn and, if so, when?
Ms Luu: I'm not sure. That's why I have to tape people so that I can look at what I said. But I think I first mentioned that Sharron has taken legal action to Audrey and it was on April 28, but I can't remember whether I elaborated on the nature of the charges or not.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember doing so at any subsequent date?
Ms Luu: That was on April 28.
Ms Cronk: Yes. After that, do you remember elaborating on the nature of the legal action taken?
Ms Luu: After that I spoke to Marc Collins on June 2.
Ms Cronk: At any point during the month of May, do you recall elaborating on the nature of the legal action taken by Sharron Pretty to any representative of the minister's constituency office?
Ms Luu: No. I thought that I didn't talk to either Sue or Audrey after April 28.
Ms Cronk: Did you, after Ms Pretty had sworn those informations and you had completed your own, speak to anyone at the Ministry of Housing offices in Ottawa and inform them of those actions?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you, after the informations were sworn, speak to anyone at the minister's offices in Toronto and inform them that that action had been taken?
Ms Luu: Yes, with Marc Collins on June 2.
Ms Cronk: And during the month of May?
Ms Luu: No, I didn't talk to anyone -- well, any staff member at the ministry, during the month of May.
Ms Cronk: Did you, during the month of May, speak to representatives of any member of the opposition party concerning the legal action taken by Ms Pretty?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did. I went to see Ms Mora Thompson, Ms Margaret Marland's aide, right here in this building, on May 25.
Ms Cronk: Did the issue of the legal action taken by Ms Pretty come up during that meeting?
Ms Luu: Yes, yes, it did.
Ms Cronk: Did you tell Ms Thompson the nature of the legal action taken?
Ms Luu: Yes, I said, "Sharron has proceeded with charges, but I haven't." Because, like I said earlier, starting at the end of April and especially when I read that article by Elizabeth Payne in the Citizen -- it was an article outlining all the problems and the difficulties the Ministry of Housing is encountering and all the criticisms mounted by the opposition parties -- I read that and I said, "This is us," because at that time I was really frustrated. I had all the evidence that I compiled with pain and energy and time and in good faith. I went to the right persons and no one was paying attention to me.
I insisted several times. I did not get the minister's attention, so I said: "Okay, so they don't want to listen to us any more. So here are the persons who share the same concerns. I might try them and see how they can help us to address all our concerns." I saw that article but I was studying for exams, so I just put it off my mind.
Then, May 3, Karen Ridley called Sharron and then Sharron informed her of the charges and Karen Ridley said, "Okay, we will try to set up a meeting for you to see the minister and Sue Lott will take care of that." That was on May 3. Sharron waited for a week. Nothing happened, so Sharron called Sue and Sue said, "I'm sorry" --
Ms Cronk: Excuse me, Ms Luu. Were you participating in that phone discussion between Ms Lott and Sharron Pretty?
Ms Luu: No, it was their private conversation. How can I take part in that?
Ms Cronk: Well, you weren't, as I understand.
Ms Luu: No, I didn't know until later. She told me.
Ms Cronk: Do I understand your evidence to be that on May 3, as you understand it, Ms Pretty spoke with Karen Ridley of the minister's offices and informed her at that time of the charges?
Ms Luu: Yes, Karen called Sharron, asking her whether she had received the minister's letter, and if she had further concerns, "Please feel free to contact me at such number."
Ms Cronk: I was asking you about your meeting or discussion with Mora Thompson, which you told me was on May 25.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Was that a meeting or a telephone discussion?
Ms Luu: It was a meeting and I was recounting the events that led to that meeting, what made me come to see Mrs Marland's staff. So May 19 we learned from Sue that, "Sharron, you are involved in a legal action and that would put Evelyn in an awkward position to talk to you, and it would put Evelyn in an awkward position to talk to anyone involved in a legal action with the ministry." But then I said, "Sharron, we wrote, we co-signed that letter, but you are the only one who is involved in a legal action. I'm not. I did not proceed with my charges yet. So why didn't Evelyn listen to me? She owed me a meeting. I requested a meeting. I can insist on a meeting again."
1510
That sent me off to Mora Thompson. I went to Mora. Because I was frustrated, I wanted to someone to listen, I called Mora and Mora said, "Okay, could you send me your documents, whatever evidence you have?" I said: "No, I can't, because I don't feel comfortable leaving all the documents and then, who knows, you would send them around. I'm responsible for that, and Sharron won't feel happy if I leave them with you." I said, "Could you send someone here in Ottawa to listen to our story?" She said no, and I said: "Okay, I'll go to you. I'll try."
So I went to see Mora and then I spent about two hours telling her our story, our frustration, everything. Then Mora said, "Trinh, normally what we do is that when people come to us with problems with housing, I used to deal with Marc Collins. Let me talk to Marc and let me find out whether Marc can talk to Evelyn so that they can arrange a meeting for Evelyn to meet with you," because Mora and I both agreed that now we have the minister who hasn't seen my evidence yet. I feel it's imperative for me to keep her informed. So I went back --
Ms Cronk: Can I stop you there, just for a moment?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You came then, I take it, to Toronto and met with Mora Thompson.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: During the course of that meeting, you've told the committee, you informed Ms Thompson of the nature of the legal action that had been taken.
Ms Luu: Yes, and I made it clear that it was only Sharron who was involved. I was not, so I can't insist on a meeting with Evelyn.
Ms Cronk: Did you tell Ms Thompson at that point that the legal action related to alleged infractions under the Corporations Act?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Did you tell her against whom the informations had been sworn?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: So you told her who and what.
Ms Luu: I might not have told all the names, but I said against board members.
Ms Cronk: Did you also suggest to Ms Thompson during that meeting with her that if the concerns that you had and that Ms Pretty had were solved internally, the charges could be withdrawn?
Ms Luu: No, I didn't say that. I said: "What we want is that we want to see Evelyn. We want Evelyn to take a look at the evidence." But I do not know whether Sharron is willing to withdraw the charges. I'm going to see Mora but I'm not representing Sharron, because Sharron is involved in a legal action, and at that time, Sharron was so frustrated that she gave up everything and she didn't care any more. She didn't care about insisting on meeting with the minister any more. I didn't know whether she would be willing to drop or not, so I didn't speak for her.
Ms Cronk: I want to be clear about this, Ms Luu, so that there's no confusion between us: As I understand it, you did not personally attend the subsequent meeting held on June 17 between the minister and members of the board of the Van Lang Centre. Am I right in that?
Ms Luu: That's true. I did not.
Ms Cronk: You did, however, have a meeting -- and we'll come to it -- yourself during the month of June with the minister.
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: What I am suggesting to you is that earlier than either of those meeting, that is, on May 25, 1994, at a meeting with Mora Thompson you indicated -- I'm asking -- did you indicate to her at that time that if the concerns could be solved internally the charges can be withdrawn?
Ms Luu: I might have touched on that. I can't remember. But there is an option. If it's solved satisfactorily and if the ministry intervenes, maybe Sharron can reconsider. I don't know. But of course there are options, that we can drop the charges, especially my charge. I told Mora: "I have a charge pending and I haven't proceeded with that charge yet. If I find that my request has been met, I might drop that charge." I felt sure about my charge, but I'm not sure that I would feel that way about Sharron's charges, because they were her charges, and she didn't tell me to say anything to the Conservative Party, so I don't know.
Ms Cronk: You had one information which you had completed at that point. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: I have another possible fraud charge which I laid on May 17 with Ms Girault, and she promised that she would contemplate that. So at the time when I went to see Mora, I told Mora that the crown is contemplating a fraud charge against Dr Le.
Ms Cronk: At that time, that is, the time that you actually met with Ms Thompson, you had completed one information, but you had had discussions about a possible fraud charge. Is that right?
Ms Luu: I submitted the information and I haven't got any feedback on whether the crown would proceed with that charge or not.
Ms Cronk: Mr Chairman, I'd like to ask you if the committee would receive, as exhibit 4, a copy of certain handwritten notes which I understand to be notes of a discussion held between Ms Luu and Ms Mora Thompson on May 25, 1994.
Mr Murphy: Mr Chair, if I can, I don't want to preclude where the legal counsel is going, but there was a reference to a May 19 meeting. I'm wondering, are you planning on going back to that, something about a conversation between Sue and Sharron and with this witness involved? I thought I heard that, and I just didn't hear who was there and not there and who was party to it.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, Mr Murphy. I'll clarify that now. As I understand what you've said, Ms Luu, there was a discussion on May 19 between Sharron Pretty and Sue Lott. Is that correct, May 19?
Ms Luu: May 19. Yes.
Ms Cronk: I thought you told me that you did not participate in that call?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: All right. Similarly, you told me that there was a discussion between Sharron Pretty and Karen Ridley, as you understand it, on May 3?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm, previously to that.
Ms Cronk: Do I understand correctly that you did not participate personally in that call either?
Ms Luu: How could I? I just listened to the message afterwards.
Ms Cronk: Okay. When you say you listened to the message afterwards, you had discussions with Sharron Pretty about that?
Ms Luu: Yes. I advised her to call her back.
Ms Cronk: All right. So in respect of the May 3 and the May 19 discussions held by Sharron Pretty with Karen Ridley and Sue Lott, you have no personal knowledge about what was said during the course of those discussions?
Ms Luu: Until Sharron told me afterwards.
Ms Cronk: Thank you.
Mr Murphy: It might be helpful to hear from this witness what Sharron advised her happened at those meetings.
Ms Cronk: Could I take that under consideration, Mr Murphy, in the context of the questioning I'm asking and deal with this matter first?
Mr Murphy: Absolutely.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Ms Luu, could I ask you to look at the notes that I have provided you and look at page 3. They're numbered in the top right-hand corner. I should tell you --
Mr Callahan: Could somebody read the entire note for us? I have no idea what the thing says.
Mrs Marland: In fairness, Ms Thompson is here to translate her handwriting, if needed.
Ms Cronk: Ms Luu, I don't propose to try to translate all of these entire notes on behalf of someone else who's the author, but I understand these notes, as I've indicated, to relate to your discussions at your meeting with Ms Thompson on May 25. Looking at page 3, about a third of the way down, you see the entry beginning, "Can Le wouldn't reveal corporate documents, even though required by Corporations Act." Do you see that?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember discussing that with Ms Thompson?
Ms Luu: Yes. Oh, yes. I should have mentioned him, Can Le. I should have mentioned his name.
Ms Cronk: And in the next entry, "Wrote to Churley, who said, try to solve internally" --
Ms Luu: "Court action...last resort," something like that.
Mr Murphy: "Should be last resort."
Ms Cronk: "Court action should be last resort." Was that what you took from the correspondence that you received from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations?
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: And then in the next line, "Gave min" -- minister -- "a year to rectify situation before" --
Mr Murphy: "Went to court."
Ms Cronk: I think it may be "went to court." Do you see that?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you tell Ms Thompson that you had given the minister a year to rectify the situation before going to court?
Ms Luu: That might be how I interpreted all my attempts to have the ministry intervene and take a look at the evidence I have.
Ms Cronk: Do you, with these notes before you, have any recollection of having said that to Ms Thompson?
Ms Luu: Without any taping I can't remember.
Ms Cronk: Did you tape your meeting with Ms Thompson?
Ms Luu: No.
1520
Ms Cronk: Do you have any reason to disagree that that was said by you to Ms Thompson?
Ms Luu: Well, I am not sure about the words "a year," because you have to re-count, you have to count back from the date when I first approached and the date when the charges were laid to see whether it fits the period of the year or not. So there is the accuracy of the period of time to be discussed here, and I'm not sure because I didn't make that calculation. But I emphasized the fact that I gave them so many opportunities to take a look, to intervene, but nobody was listening to me.
Ms Cronk: And whether it was a year or a shorter or longer period of time --
Ms Luu: It should be "a long period of time."
Ms Cronk: Well, with these notes in front of you, leaving aside the issue of the length of time, do you have any reason to disagree with the recording made here that you indicated to Ms Thompson that you had given the minister a period of time "to rectify situation before went to court"?
Ms Luu: Well, taken in that sense, I won't disagree. That's true.
Mr Callahan: Could I just get clarity there? I read that to mean that she'd already given them a year. Is that what we're --
Ms Cronk: Yes. That's the proposition I've tried to put to the witness, Mr Callahan.
Ms Luu: Oh, yes, I remember now. I counted it a year, because I started work the first day, when I filed my first report, June 19, 1993, and when I went to see Ms Mora Thompson it was a year later, May and June. So that must be why I said a year.
Ms Cronk: The year's about right, isn't it?
Ms Luu: Yes. If I started back from the first day I wrote to Brian, that would be a year.
Ms Cronk: And in the next line, it's recorded, "If solve internally, charges can be withdrawn." Do you see that?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you tell Ms Thompson that?
Ms Luu: Yes, that's true, because if the ministry had intervened earlier when we first inquired about the charges, when we were not so determined to go ahead with the legal action, we would have dropped them. But we were only determined to go ahead with the legal action when we saw that the ministry was reluctant to intervene, and this board still defies everything and we decided to let the system teach them a lesson.
Ms Cronk: Well, Ms Luu, in an effort to understand that, at the time that you saw Ms Thompson on May 25, there were charges outstanding, formal informations that had been sworn by Ms Pretty.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And an information that had been completed by you, although because of your studying arrangements, you've indicated that you had an arrangement with the representative of the crown offices that it was not to proceed immediately, that you would reconsider it. Correct?
Ms Luu: That's true. I can withdraw it any time I want.
Ms Cronk: Did you in that context suggest at the time that you met with Ms Thompson that if matters could be solved internally, those charges, that is those that were then pending, could be withdrawn?
Ms Luu: Yes, that's true.
Ms Cronk: So that was a matter that you had in your mind, something you had thought about, at least at the time that you met with Mora Thompson.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Just while we're on that page, Ms Luu, could I ask you to look please at the top of the page. Perhaps in fairness, we should go back to the bottom of page 2. The entries there in the fourth-last line from the bottom indicate, if I'm reading them correctly, "Sharron is asking for a board meeting to expose Can Le's lies." You had told the committee a few moments ago that you were seeking a meeting with the board, as was Sharron.
Ms Luu: That has been our main and only purpose since March.
Ms Cronk: In the next line it reads, "She has confronted Can Le," and then I have difficulty with the next line, "Every" -- it may be month, "mo" -- "since March, has requested a meeting but board has dodged it." Do you see that?
Ms Luu: That's exactly the truth. I think since March 20 she wrote. She said: "Okay, this is the time that the truth should be exposed. I have the evidence. Let's have a board meeting. Let's confront reality." They didn't want that, so at the board meeting of March 29 she said it again, and at that meeting she threatened to go to the media. April 15, she wrote again, second request; May 2, she wrote again, third request; May 20, she wrote again, fourth request; June 3, she wrote again, fifth request; June 15, sixth request.
Ms Cronk: Do I take it then that the entries I've just read to you at the bottom of page 2 are matters that you disclosed or informed Ms Thompson about? You told her those things?
Ms Luu: Pardon me? I didn't catch it.
Ms Cronk: Are the notes accurate?
Ms Luu: Yes, they are.
Ms Cronk: Did you tell her those things?
Ms Luu: They are in the sense that I recollect it.
Ms Cronk: And then at the top of page 3 --
Mr Colin D. McKinnon: Ms Cronk, I wonder if I could just interrupt a moment.
Ms Cronk: Yes, Mr McKinnon.
Mr McKinnon: In that to some extent you're embarking on cross-examination of the witness with respect to the meeting, it might in fairness be appropriate to allow the witness to read the entirety of the notes and then proceed with your questions.
Ms Cronk: I take your point. I have no objection to that, Mr McKinnon. I wonder if I could have a moment.
So that there's no misunderstanding, through no one's fault, Mr McKinnon -- it certainly was not intended to create any unfairness to the witness -- these notes were not provided to me until later today, but that was not through any lack of cooperation on anyone's part. So I've only recently seen them myself.
Mr Chair, I wonder if we could afford the witness an opportunity to review these notes over the next five or 10 minutes.
The Chair: Okay. We'll have a 10-minute break.
The committee recessed from 1526 to 1549.
The Chair: Okay, we'll resume the hearing. Ms Cronk, carry on.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, sir. Ms Luu, we were looking at page 3 of the notes which I understand to be those of Mora Thompson regarding your meeting with her on May 25, and I was about to ask you to look at the top of page 3 in which it indicates:
" -- Evelyn's office said would arrange meeting.
" -- But now, since have gone to court, min cannot do anything.
" -- But wanted to talk to min" -- minister -- "re compliance review (by Ministry" of something "Relations)."
Then the next line, "Did tell Evelyn, will go to media and court if don't get her help -- but no response."
Did you make that statement to Mora Thompson?
Ms Luu: Which one?
Ms Cronk: "Did tell Evelyn, will go to media and court if don't get her help -- but no response."
Ms Luu: We didn't tell Evelyn; we did tell her staff. And I think I mentioned that at the conversation I had with Sue Lott right after the sump pump incident, so that was on March 24, I said Sharron was frustrated and she said that she would go to the media. I said, "Wait, wait, Sharron. Give Brian a chance," and I would give Evelyn a chance. I would talk to Sue. "You call Brian and read out to Brian that letter of December 21 when you mentioned the stench in the elevator to him. Let's give the ministry a chance."
So I talked to Sue and I informed her that Sharron, at that time, was already determined to go to the media, but I was the one who prevented her from doing so.
Ms Cronk: And that was in the month of March 1994?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: At any time, did you, as this statement suggests, tell the minister or her staff that either you or Sharron Pretty would go to court if you didn't get her help?
Ms Luu: I didn't say that, but Sharron said that in her letter dated March 1 to Brian Sutherland, her 20-page letter report. She said, "If I find that my time has been wasted again, I will go to the public and turn this" -- something like turning this into a matter of public concern or going to the media, and she said that right in her letter to Brian.
Ms Cronk: Did you understand that to be a reference to going to court?
Ms Luu: I remember Sharron mentioned that to Brian. At her meeting with Brian on December 9, she said: "Look, there are only two recourses left to me. That is to go to the media and to take legal action, and really, you don't want that, do you?" That's what she said to him. But on December 9, at her meeting with Brian, she already mentioned taking legal action as a possibility.
Ms Cronk: Were you at that meeting with Mr Sutherland and Ms Pretty on December 9?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: So in making that statement, you're relying, I take it, on what Ms Pretty has told you.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And with respect to Ms Pretty's letter of March 1, that was a letter to Mr Sutherland?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And that letter, I suggest, makes reference to going public.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm. I think it's on the last page.
Ms Cronk: In fairness to you, in exhibit 2, at tab 33 -- this is exhibit 2, tab 33.
Ms Luu: Which one?
Ms Cronk: Exhibit 2 has one volume, tab 33.
Ms Luu: Okay. I got it.
Ms Cronk: You have that?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: As you pointed out, this is a 20-page letter from Sharron Pretty to Mr Sutherland.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at page 19, the second-last paragraph, which reads, "This is my last attempt...." Do you see that? It begins with those words.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: "This is my last attempt to request the ministry's response to my concerns, intervention and positive actions. If I find out that my time has been wasted again, that all my reports, complaints, actions were undertaken in vain, why should I come to you any more? If no action is taken, then the public at large should really learn about what happened."
Is that the reference that you were alluding to a moment ago?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Would you agree with me, Ms Luu, or do you remember, that there is nothing specifically in this letter of March 1 to Mr Sutherland in any way suggesting that informing the public at large about what had happened might include court proceedings? That is nowhere mentioned in this letter.
Ms Luu: I don't know what she had in mind, but she must have meant going to the media. But I know from what she told me following the meeting she had with Brian on December 9 -- she said, "Look, I have only two options, going to the media and taking legal action, and I'm sure that you don't want that, do you?"
Ms Cronk: All right, well, Ms Pretty will be here and we can ask her about that. With respect to your own personal involvement, just so that I'm clear, did you at any time inform, as this notation would suggest, either the minister or any member of her staff that you or Sharron Pretty would go to court, as distinct from the media, if you did not get the minister's help?
Ms Luu: Let me remember the conversations I had with Evelyn's staff. No, I wouldn't say that on my behalf, because I -- I wouldn't say that for Sharron, because I know what she was feeling at the time, but at the time I was still persisting. This was in March. If it was before April -- so I was still insisting on a meeting with Evelyn, although we proceeded with the legal actions, but we didn't know what the crown would say, you know, and whatever options are offered to us, we just take it, explore it, but we don't know whether it would lead to a certain result or not. At that time I wasn't determined to take court action on my part. On Sharron's part, I don't know. She might be determined at that time, but not me, because I still insist on having Evelyn meeting with me and taking a look at my evidence.
Ms Cronk: So you did not tell the minister or her staff that.
Ms Luu: I did mention to Bill Clement, and I know when that was. It was right after the August 26, 1993, meeting when I learned that Can Le has provided false information to the board regarding the funds allocated for staff hiring and the information regarding the superintendent's probation requirements. I called Bill. The meeting was on Thursday. I called Bill Friday. It was one of those social contract days so they did not work on that day. I called again on Monday and I checked with Bill and Bill said, "Trinh, you know as much as I do how much has been allocated for a property manager's salary." And I said: "Oh, Bill, I can't imagine Can Le having the nerve to lie to the board like that. I will go to the media, Bill." That was when I was outraged and I told Bill about that. When I reported that to Sue, Sue said, "Did you say that to him?" because Sue wanted to confirm from me, "Did Bill realize that it was serious, that you were actually threatening him that you were going to the media?"
Ms Cronk: The distinction I'm making, Ms Luu, is this: You told the committee earlier, indeed immediately told me when we looked at the letter, that you had raised the possibility of going to the media early on, indeed, in the summer of 1993, and --
Ms Luu: With the board.
Ms Cronk: Yes, and you've just provided another example to the committee of when you did it, this time in a discussion with Bill Clement.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: What I was talking about, however, was the suggestion contained in this notation of having told the minister, and I added the words "and her staff," because of what you said a few moments ago.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: So may I repeat the question to you: I take it that what you have said at committee is that you personally did not at any time tell either the minister or members of her staff that you would go to court if you didn't get her help.
Ms Luu: I would say Sharron would do that. I warned them that Sharron would take legal action, she would go to the court and she would go to the media if there is no action taken. I warned Sue. I warned the ministry over that.
Ms Cronk: When did you tell Ms Lott that Ms Pretty might go to court?
Ms Luu: March 24, right after the sump pump incident. I remember I said to Sue, "Oh, Sharron was so frustrated," and she said: "What shall we wait for? Just go to the media." I said to Sue, "You see, Sue, Sharron has no loyalty to Evelyn and nothing can prevent her and other tenants to go to the media." And if they did so, I had no other choice but to join them and corroborate the findings. Yes, that's what they said. That's what I said.
Ms Cronk: Do you, Ms Luu, have a clear recollection of having told Ms Lott that on March 24?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: And you're saying that you recall having raised with her the possibility both of going to the media and going to court?
Ms Luu: I did not remember saying anything about court charges, but I did remember very clearly that I warned her that Sharron was talking about going to the media.
Ms Cronk: All right. I understand that, and I'm sorry if my questions are confusing. So I'll try to make it clearer.
There were several times when you told representatives of the minister's constituency office about the possibility of Sharron Pretty going to the media. Am I right in that?
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: One of them, for example, is the March 24 discussion with Sue Lott that you've just described.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: You're nodding yes? Sorry, yes?
Ms Luu: Oh, yes.
1600
Ms Cronk: Another was a discussion on April 28 that you've told the committee about, and both of those --
Ms Luu: April 28?
Ms Cronk: April 28. You said that earlier this afternoon.
Ms Luu: I talked to Audrey.
Ms Cronk: Yes, and during that discussion --
Ms Luu: Oh, yes. Sorry. At my conversation with Audrey I mentioned that the latest I heard from Sharron is that she has taken legal action. Yes.
Ms Cronk: What I was suggesting to you is that there were several times when you raised the possibility of the matter being brought to the attention of the media. One of those occasions was March 24. Another occasion was April 28. Do I have it right so far?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm. That's true.
Ms Cronk: All right. And I am suggesting to you, and I'll put it to you directly, that contrary to the notation contained in Ms Thompson's notes, at least in so far as you are concerned, at no time did you, Ms Luu, tell the minister or representatives of her staff that if you didn't get her help, you would go to court or Miss Pretty would go to court. You never said that.
Ms Luu: I never said that I would initiate court action or going to the media myself but I would be compelled to do so if Sharron and Michael Séguin or the tenants wanted to do so. I had to join them.
Ms Cronk: May we distinguish it this way? Could you put the media and references to the media to one side for the moment and just think about the prospect of going to court? What I am suggesting to you is that you personally never suggested to the minister or to members of her staff that either you or Sharron Pretty would go to court if you didn't get her help. Now, isn't that right?
Ms Luu: Let me think about it.
Ms Cronk: Okay.
Interjection: I think that's not what she said --
Mr Harnick: It's not what she said earlier.
Ms Luu: Would you say it again? I'm confused at the last sentence.
Ms Cronk: Yes. Let me rephrase it. I'll say it to you again; it may be the way I'm putting the question. Did you personally ever tell the minister or members of her staff that if you didn't get the minister's help, you or Sharron Pretty would go to court, as distinct from going to the media? Did you ever tell the minster or her staff that?
Ms Luu: No, I didn't tell the minister. Well, I didn't talk to her in person. I did not tell the ministry staff directly so, but I remember vividly that Sharron did so to Brian, and I did not, because I might realize that this is a matter that is out of their control, because it's governed by the Corporations Act. As I understand from the letter from Miss Marilyn Churley, it was governed by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Corporations Act is out there as a self guide, you know, self guide for the board to operate, and it looks to me like the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations have no jurisdiction on the provisions, on the charges or any provisions related to the act.
Ms Cronk: I understand. Thank you, Ms Luu. Could I ask you to look now at page --
Mrs Marland: Just a technical question of you, Ms Cronk: Tab 33 that you've just referred to, the March 1 letter from Ms Luu, my copy ends at page 19. It then goes to the appendix. I just wondered how many pages I'm missing.
Ms Cronk: You're missing one and we'll get it for you tonight, Ms Marland. I apologize for the photocopying error.
Mrs Marland: So it's just the signature page.
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Mrs Marland: Thank you.
Ms Cronk: It's page 20 that you're missing, Ms Marland. We'll get a copy of that.
Could you look at page 4, Ms Luu, of Ms Thompson's notes, please.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Just a little better than halfway down the page, you'll see the word "charges" underlined. Do you see that?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then there are two entries to which I'd like to draw your attention. The first is "illegally refusing access." It says:
"charges:
" -- illegally refusing access to insp of corp documents to a director," and then, "C has a hearing -- June 2," and then there's another entry with a dash saying,
" -- pending
" -- knowingly making a false entry in board minutes (crown considering fraud charges) -- if take that action, cannot disclose evidence."
Ms Luu: Oh, that's true.
Mrs Marland: Ms Cronk. Excuse me interrupting.
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Mrs Marland: Just for accuracy, I just confirmed with Miss Thompson, that "C has a hearing," the C is actually a bracket.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, Ms Marland. So "(has a hearing -- June 2)," and then the balance of the entry that I just read to you. Did you discuss that with Ms Thompson, those matters?
Ms Luu: Yes. I let her know that Sharron's charges have been proceeded. We have a first hearing date for June 2. The charge I laid, I hang on to that. It wasn't proceeded yet. It was pending. At the time, the crown was considering a fraud charge. That's why I can't disclose the evidence related to that fraud charge.
Ms Cronk: All right. So you outlined for Ms Thompson the nature of the charges that Ms Pretty had initiated and, as well, your own with respect to the allegation of making a false entry.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And you raised as well the issue of the crown considering fraud charges.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, Ms Luu. Could I ask you then to turn to a new document, if you would, please. In volume 2, tab 53 -- this is exhibit 1. Tab 53 of volume 2, exhibit 1. Do you have that, Ms Luu?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm. Yes.
Ms Cronk: I'm not sure that we're looking at the same document. I think you might be in the wrong exhibit.
Ms Luu: A memo to Mr Taber.
Ms Cronk: I think you're in the wrong exhibit book. You need volume 2, exhibit 1.
Ms Luu: Oh, I'm sorry. I've got it the other way around.
Ms Cronk: Perhaps Mr McKinnon can help you.
Mr McKinnon: What tab is it?
Ms Luu: Volume 2, exhibit 1.
Ms Cronk: Tab 53.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. This is an article under the byline of James Wallace entitled "Gigantes Ignores Scandal: Director."
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: There is a similar article, also by Mr Wallace, that appears at the next tab, tab 54. Did you on or about the first of June see these articles in the press?
Ms Luu: Yes, I saw it on the first of June.
Ms Cronk: Did you personally have any discussion with Mr Wallace prior to the appearance of these articles about matters related to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: No. I never talked to him and I never knew him. It was, let me see, on May 31, the day before the article, at 10 pm Sharron called me and she said: "Oh, Trinh, guess what? A reporter by the name of James Wallace just talked to me and he asked me about the problems at the centre, and I said, yes, that was true, and so on and so forth." And then the next day we heard about it, the next day at 8:30 or 8. So early in the morning Sharron called me and she said, "Oh, Trinh, you know, it was in the news." So it was totally unexpected to us.
Ms Cronk: And then you did tell the committee earlier that on the second of June, the day after these articles, you had a discussion -- that is, you personally had a discussion -- with Marc Collins of the minister's offices.
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Did you call Mr Collins or did he call you?
Ms Luu: When I came to see Mora she said, "Okay, let me talk to Marc and I'll get back to you, Trinh." That was on Wednesday. Friday, May 27, Mora left a message on my machine saying, "Trinh, it looks like you are going to get the meeting you want, so call me back on Monday and I will give you details of Marc's commitment to Evelyn's meeting with you."
I called Mora on Monday and Mora told me: "Yes, I talked to Marc and he seemed to find the idea of me having a meeting with Evelyn would be the best solution. So I'll let you know, so if he calls you or if you call him, just let him know that I was told that I was expecting an arrangement to see Mrs Gigantes and I was supposed to talk to you."
That was on Monday, and I waited; nothing happened on Monday. So on Tuesday, the 31st of May, I guess, I called Mr Collins's office. I left a message. On June 2 he called me, and I went home and found his message, so I called him back.
1610
Ms Cronk: Okay, thank you, and did you reach him? Did you speak with him?
Ms Luu: Yes, we did, actually.
Ms Cronk: Okay, and did you speak about a possible meeting with the minister?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Based on your discussion with Mr Collins, what did you understand was going to occur with respect to a meeting with the minister?
Ms Luu: First of all, at the beginning of the conversation Mr Collins seemed to resent the idea of having a meeting with Evelyn. He said that when there is a legal action pending it is very awkward for Evelyn -- I refer to Evelyn as Evelyn -- to talk to anyone involved in the project. First he said, "Oh, there is a legal action, so there is no point in meeting." I said: "But the legal action involves Sharron only. I'm not involved, and I want to see Evelyn." Marc said, "But you know it's awkward for Evelyn's position to talk to anyone regarding the project when there are legal actions pending." I insisted, "But I want to see Evelyn just to show her the evidence I have, and I feel that it is the minister's responsibility to be aware of the information and to receive the information in order to identify the problems and to take appropriate actions."
So as we talked and talked and Marc said, "Okay, let me keep the facts straight: So you are such-and-such, and you are involved in such-and-such," he said, "Yes, we are aware of the problems, and we have been in contact very regularly with the regional office." That is Brian's office. I said, "Yes, you got in touch with them very regularly, but I think that they did not give you the full picture, and I have here all the evidence that shows that this board is still defying housing rules and legislation in spite of the compliance review's recommendations and findings."
Finally, he said, "Okay, I want the ministry and I want Evelyn to look at your evidence." Then he thought back, and he said maybe it would be better not for Evelyn to look at the evidence; maybe it would be somebody else who is involved and not the minister to get directly involved. I said: "Well, whoever. Just let me have somebody to talk to. Send me a lawyer or send me anyone from the ministry, because my concern is to show the evidence, to have the evidence being looked at by the minister." I insisted, and I said: "I have very damaging evidence; none of you have. You lack information, Mr Collins, and I accumulated all this evidence for the past year." I insisted, and nobody is listening to me, nobody has listened to me: "Look, just listen to me for 10 minutes, 15 minutes. If I said something wrong, well, Evelyn can dismiss it." This "Oh, you are talking nonsense" is wrong. But Evelyn has nothing to lose --
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, may I stop you there for a moment?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Would you like some water, Ms Luu? Would you like a glass of water?
Ms Luu: Okay. Thank you.
Ms Cronk: During the course of that discussion, Ms Luu, with Mr Collins, was any mention made of the charges then pending with respect to the Corporations Act?
Ms Luu: Yes. Marc inquired about the different legal actions. First he inquired about Trinh Tran's action, and he said, "Is it still ongoing?" I said: "Yes, it's still ongoing. It's a civil court case." Then he said, "So, what about Sharron Pretty?" I said: "Yes. It's not a civil action. Sharron has laid charges with the crown, and the crown has prosecuted the board." He said, "Against the whole board or against certain members only?" I said: "Against certain members, because there were old and former boards. The former boards were not involved."
Ms Cronk: Did you tell him the nature of the charges?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did, in detail, and I said that we had a hearing date that was today, June 2. When I talked to him, actually we went back from the court, and I told him that none of them has been served a notice, so another hearing date was issued and it would be for July 21 -- no, June 16. June 2 -- June 16, yes.
I told him -- oh yes, I remember now -- when that article appeared, I called Mora and both of us said, "Oh, it's out in the paper now." Then Mora said, "Has Marc Collins called you yet?" I said, "No." That was on June 1 and he didn't get back to me until June 2. Mora said, "I want you to call Marc and let him know that, because he might think that while he was arranging a meeting for you to see Evelyn, you were going to the media, and that was not considered an act of good faith. So I want you to talk to Marc and tell him that."
So I told him that, and he inquired at least twice as to who went to the media, and I said, "I don't know." He said, "Who went to see Margaret Marland?" I said, "I did." He said, "Well, you know, it's not very political to do that." I said: "I'm a plain citizen. I'm not a politician. Whoever listens to me, I went to expose my concerns. I went to see you. I cc'd all my letters, Sharron cc'd all her letters to you, `Marc Collins, policy adviser.' We heard nothing. There was no action. What do we do?"
Ms Cronk: Was this the first time that you personally had spoken to Mr Collins?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Or heard from him in any way about these matters?
Ms Luu: I heard about his name, Marc, from Sue a long time ago, last year when I was involved.
Ms Cronk: But this was the first time you'd had any direct contact with him yourself?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did Mr Collins give you any indication during the phone call on June 2 about whether he would take the matter up with the minister?
Ms Luu: Yes. He said, "I will talk to Evelyn tonight," and I said: "So you will get back to me? When can I expect to hear from you?" I learned to ask that every time I got in touch with the ministry. He said: "Very shortly, Trinh. I promise, very shortly either you will hear from me or you will hear from Evelyn herself. Give me a few days."
Ms Cronk: After you had told Mr Collins about the pending legal actions and had described the nature of them to him, did he make any comment about the possibility of a meeting with the minister?
Ms Luu: Yes. He said that -- well, no, he didn't say actually that, "We would arrange a meeting with you," but he said, "I will talk to Evelyn and you will hear from Evelyn." Can I look at my transcript? I have a transcript of that conversation.
Ms Cronk: Yes, if you wish. What did you understand was going to happen after the conversation concluded?
Ms Luu: I had no expectations at all. I should say that I lost any hope. I did it because of Mora and I did it because while there were hearings and open options just go with it, but -- we stopped expecting things.
Ms Cronk: By that time, Ms Luu, as I understand your evidence before the committee, you personally had been seeking a meeting with the minister from at least November 1993 --
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- and you personally had made a number of requests, both to her staff and in writing to her for a meeting?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And Ms Pretty had also done so?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do I understand then that the first time you had any contact from anyone from the minister's office about an actual meeting with her during the months of March, April, May or the early part of June was this call with Mr Collins on June 2?
Ms Luu: Yes, and that was a meeting for Evelyn to see me, not with the board. I didn't ask Evelyn to see the board.
Ms Cronk: Was there any discussion during that call with Mr Collins as to whether Ms Pretty would attend the meeting?
Ms Luu: No, because it was a meeting I requested for Evelyn to see me, only me, not Sharron or anyone else. I mentioned: "Okay, so you found the excuse. You provided the excuse that because Sharron is legally involved nobody can talk to her. So how about me? I'm not involved. Talk to me."
Ms Cronk: After that phone call with Mr Collins, were you contacted about a meeting with the minister?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: By whom?
Ms Luu: By Audrey; Audrey Moey.
Ms Cronk: Audrey Moey of the minister's constituency staff?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And when did that occur?
Ms Luu: It was on a Wednesday, it should be Wednesday the 8th.
Ms Cronk: That's June 8?
Ms Luu: Yes. She called and she said, "Trinh, Evelyn is going to meet with you on June 17." I said, "Oh, Audrey, that's too late because things are rushing on and this board is mounting the pressure for Sharron to quit." And I said: "It's critical. I can't wait for another two weeks. How about this Friday?" Then the next day, on Thursday, she called and she said, "Okay, Trinh, you will see Evelyn on Friday, this Friday," and that is Friday, June 10.
1620
Mr Murphy: There's been reference to a transcript of this call with Mr Collins and some other references to transcripts throughout the evidence of this witness. I haven't seen them in here. I assume some decision has been made by you in that regard about why or why not, and I'm wondering whether it would be of some use to have them, or is there a legal problem that I'm unaware of? What is the status relating to --
The Chair: I'll let Eleanore explain that, and I know she's got some of them here.
Ms Cronk: Mr Murphy, perhaps the shortest way that I can describe this is, there are a number of transcripts that have been made available to us as your counsel. There are a number of audiotapes of which we are aware. The transcripts were provided to us and were prepared by others for a number of material conversations. Our offices, that is, Mr Hourigan's office and my own, prepared the transcripts to confirm the accuracy of what was contained on the audiotapes.
It was my judgement and remains my judgement, unless it's the request of the committee, that there is no need for those transcripts to come before you so long as the oral evidence of the witnesses involved in the conversations is fully before you with respect to relative matters in those discussions, and it's my intention to pursue that with each and every witness.
I can say to you that not all of the transcripts -- there is a large number of tapes involved, both of board meetings and of telephone discussions. That's why I put the questions to Ms Luu I did, so that the committee would be aware that those tapes existed over a period of time. We're talking about a large number of audiotapes; not all of them have been transcribed by our offices, and I am not in a position to confirm the technical accuracy of the original transcripts provided to us.
Mr Murphy: Am I then to assume, for example -- there are obviously two parties and two relevant parties to a lot of these conversations, some of whom are going to be witnesses here to the other part of a conversation. Have their counsel or have they been provided access to the transcripts ahead of time, or not?
Ms Cronk: Where the conversation is a material one, and that is with respect to representatives of either the minister's constituency office or her offices in Toronto, counsel for those witnesses have been provided a copy of the transcripts, as prepared by our offices.
Mr Murphy: And are those, for example, available to be reviewed by members of this committee, or are we essentially subject to what you think as appropriate that we should see?
Ms Cronk: If that is the wish of the committee. Again, my approach to the matter and my suggestion to you is that so long as you have the oral evidence of the parties before you fully with respect to the nature of the discussions held, there is no need for the transcripts to be before you, it being implicit in what I'm saying that if there's any inconsistency on a material matter, you will certainly hear about it from me.
Mr Murphy: I don't want to waste any more time in the committee with a witness. Maybe it's an issue that can be discussed further in subcommittee.
The Chair: Okay, fine.
Mr McKinnon: Just a point of information arising out of that, Ms Cronk: My client is referring to a transcript prepared by herself, and I've just learned now that you've prepared transcripts from tapes and provided them to other counsel, and I'm wondering if I could have access to those.
Ms Cronk: Perhaps it's a matter that you and I can discuss at the end of the day, Mr McKinnon, rather than taking the committee's time now.
Mr Chiarelli: Mr Chair --
The Chair: Mr Winninger did have his hand up.
Mr Winninger: Just for the sake of clarification, I assume now that there is a transcript of an audiotape of a conversation that Ms Luu had with Marc Collins of the ministry. Is that a fair assumption, since she referred to a transcript?
Ms Cronk: Yes, there is.
Mr Winninger: Okay, thank you.
Mr Chiarelli: I would make a very strong suggestion that either the Chair or committee counsel make a decision that those transcripts will be available on request of any committee member to review. I'm not suggesting that you make copies for everybody if they're very extensive, but I think in the interests of getting all the facts out, because we're substantially a fact-finding committee at this particular point, that those transcripts be made available to everybody, particularly if they're made available to counsel of various witnesses.
I think that they are certainly relevant to members of this committee, should we request to see them. I would strongly urge that the Chair or counsel make them available or, alternatively, that the issue be set on the agenda for a subcommittee meeting to be held in the very near future.
Ms Cronk: So that my position is clear, Mr Chiarelli, I take no objection to the committee members having access to the transcripts. I was trying to explain why they had not been put before you as exhibits, because I knew the witnesses were going to be called to speak to you in full about the discussions. If that's the committee's wish, of course they'll be made available.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you.
Mr Callahan: Mr Chair, I know we normally refer things to the subcommittee, but I notice we have Marc Collins as a witness tomorrow. I for one -- I can't speak for the other members of the committee -- would like right now to request transcripts of at least the witnesses who are coming up tomorrow, and then the subcommittee can make its decision about other witnesses.
The Chair: I agree. Some of them haven't been checked over, so they can't certify them as correct.
Mr Callahan: The only reason I say that, Mr Chair, is it's fruitless to throw at us a lot of information tomorrow when we're in the middle of hearings and expect us to get any meaningful content out of them. It's a couple of trees that could have been saved. I'd like to have them at a time when I can sit down and go through them and make my own judgemental value as to whether or not I feel they're valuable in examining Marc Collins, Sue Lott and any other witness for whom there are transcripts.
Ms Cronk: Again, just to respond to that, Mr Callahan, so that we're clear, there are transcripts prepared by our offices, that is, offices of your counsel, with respect to some of these discussions. Those I'm in a position to provide to committee members whenever sought, now or at any later time. I'm also saying to you that there are other transcripts, the accuracy of which I cannot verify. Those discussions or conversations that appear to be material have been transcribed. One of them is the discussion with Marc Collins. If the committee members wish a copy of that transcript, it can be made available.
Mr Callahan: I would ask for that now, and Sue Lott, if one is available, and Audrey Moey, if it's available. I consider them to be three of the most significant witnesses in this entire event.
Mrs Marland: Ms Cronk, has your office done a comparison between transcripts that you received of the audiotapes and the transcripts which your own office has done from the same audiotapes?
Ms Cronk: For selected discussions, we have, Ms Marland.
Mrs Marland: For some of them.
Ms Cronk: Yes, we have.
Mrs Marland: In the case of Marc Collins, for example?
Ms Cronk: That has been done.
Mrs Marland: Was there any difference between the transcript you received from someone else and the transcript that your office did from the same audiotape?
Ms Cronk: Of a minor nature, yes.
The Chair: Mr Winninger.
Mr Winninger: I agree with the request that transcripts be provided, both as prepared by your office but also the original transcripts that have been referred to. Could I just ask whether those transcripts of, I guess you could call them, telephonic conversations or in person include any with Mora Thompson?
Ms Cronk: They do not, sir.
Mr Winninger: But as I understand it, you have undertaken to provide transcripts to those who request them of what you've prepared and also copies of transcripts that you have in your possession that were prepared by others.
Ms Cronk: Actually, what I had suggested was that if committee members wish to see the transcripts which I am in a position to give some testament to as to accuracy, which are the ones provided and prepared by our offices, I'd make those available at any time to the committee. I'm in the hands of the committee. If they wish access to all of these documents, of course they will be made available.
I'm suggesting to you, sir, though, that there are only some of these that are in any way relevant, that we're talking about a large number of audiotapes, a large number of transcripts. The accuracy of many cannot be confirmed by us as your counsel. The accuracy of some we are in a better position to confirm. It's the latter category that I was suggesting to provide to you. They include the discussion with Marc Collins, the discussion with Sue Lott and a discussion with Audrey Moey. I'm in a position to provide those on that basis. I'm saying to you, sir, there is a large number of transcripts and audiotapes here and some of them are completely irrelevant.
Mr Winninger: But just to be perfectly clear, you are saying that for those members of the committee who request not only to see the transcripts prepared by your office but also transcripts provided to you and in your possession, they can be made available for inspection.
1630
Ms Cronk: I'm in the hands of the committee. If that's your wish --
Mr Winninger: That's what I would ask.
Mr Callahan: I'd move it as a motion, Mr Chair.
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Just supplementary to David's question, in terms of us gaining an understanding of what's available, can we have a listing of the tapes, some kind of index? Is that available? Are they catalogued in any way?
Ms Cronk: I can certainly provide to the committee a listing of the transcripts of which I'm aware, which have been provided to us. What I'm again pointing out to the committee is that some of those transcripts bear, for example, on board meetings of the Van Lang Centre that aren't material to your considerations. So I'm now in some confusion as to whether I'm being asked to make copies for those committee members who seek them of each of these transcripts. If that's your wish, of course that will be done, but I am saying to you that there are some of these that are directly relevant to the matters before you and some aren't, and I need to know whether you're asking for all of them or some of them.
Mr Murphy: I'm prepared and more than happy to accept counsel's judgement as to relevance, so what I'd like to do is move a motion that we be provided access to both counsel's transcripts and the witness's transcripts of those conversations deemed relevant by counsel, and that that be made available as soon as reasonably possible to all committee members.
The Chair: But only requests through the counsel of which ones people want rather than printing everything up for each member.
Mr Murphy: Well, no.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, could I suggest that this matter we can discuss before we adjourn tonight rather than take the time right now. Frankly, for myself, I'm not interested in having volumes of paper, of transcripts. If during the evidence in chief there is some question that isn't able to be confirmed by our counsel with the witness and there is then a necessity to refer to a tape, then I would be interested in the tape, but I'm not interested in either the audiotapes or the transcripts of those tapes if my counsel is confident that she has been able to get the facts on the table from her witness or our witness. I'm saying that certainly I'm not interested in volumes of material.
The Chair: Let's have a five-minute sub meeting as soon as we take our next break and discuss it.
Mr Murphy: That's fine.
The Chair: Okay? Okay. Carry on then.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Ms Luu, we were discussing the contact which you received concerning a meeting with the minister. You had indicated that Ms Moey had contacted you in that regard, had originally indicated to you that the meeting would be held on June 17, but at your urging, I take it, there was a response coming to you after that that the meeting would be moved to June 10. Did I understand that correctly?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And during your discussions with Ms Moey did you suggest, or did she, that Sharron Pretty attend the meeting or was it your understanding that the meeting would strictly be between yourself and the minister?
Ms Luu: No, there was no mentioning about Sharron. It was a meeting for Evelyn to see me, just Evelyn and me.
Ms Cronk: And what did you understand the purpose of it to be?
Ms Luu: They didn't say the purpose of that meeting was for what, but to my understanding -- well, I was insisting for a meeting to show Evelyn the evidence, so I guess at that meeting I would have the opportunity to do that.
Ms Cronk: Where was the meeting held?
Ms Luu: It was at Evelyn's constituency office.
Ms Cronk: Was it in fact held on June 10?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Who was present at the meeting?
Ms Luu: Evelyn, me and Audrey.
Ms Cronk: How long did the meeting last?
Ms Luu: From 3:30 to 5 pm, one hour and a half.
Ms Cronk: Did you make notes at the meeting?
Ms Luu: No. I was talking.
Ms Cronk: Did you see anyone else making notes at the meeting?
Ms Luu: I saw Audrey coming with a pad of notes, but she was sitting right beside me and I was talking to Evelyn so I didn't take a look at her. I didn't know whether she took notes or not.
Ms Cronk: To your knowledge, did the minister make notes at the meeting?
Ms Luu: No. She was listening.
Ms Cronk: After the meeting had concluded, did you subsequently prepare notes of your recollection of what had been discussed at the meeting?
Ms Luu: Yes. I typed it in my computer.
Ms Cronk: And did you review those notes for the purposes of giving your evidence before the committee?
Ms Luu: Yes. I did that on July 15, when I received a call from Mr Hourigan. I said, "So I should make it into an official statement," because right up to that time I didn't see any point of producing that statement, because nobody asked me. All the focus was on Sharron and not on that meeting.
Ms Cronk: And before coming here today to give your evidence to the committee, did you review those notes?
Ms Luu: I just typed them into sentences, because when I type them in I just, you know, throw them not in organized sentences, but then I put verbs and do all the editing and the wording.
Mr Winninger: Excuse me. There was a name the witness mentioned that she --
Ms Cronk: Mr Hourigan.
Mr Winninger: Hourigan. Thank you.
Ms Cronk: Did you review the notes for the purposes of giving your evidence here today?
Ms Luu: Yes. I just put it into an official statement.
Ms Cronk: And after you had done that, did you read them again before you came to give evidence here today?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at volume 3 of exhibit 1 at tab 70. Too much paper there. You're looking for volume 3. Perhaps Mr McKinnon can help you find it.
Mr Luu: Seventy-three?
Ms Cronk: Tab 70 of volume 3. To the best of your recollection, when did you prepare these notes, Ms Luu?
Ms Luu: I prepared them right after my meeting with Evelyn. That was on Friday, so it would be on Friday night.
Ms Cronk: Are these the notes that you prepared of your meeting with Ms Gigantes?
Ms Luu: Yes, but not in polished sentences like that, just the facts, like "Documents presented to Evelyn," and then I cited all the stuff. I put aside the documents in chronological order that I showed to Evelyn. That's how you saw my pack of documents when you made copies of them at your first interview with me.
Mr Chiarelli: We're having a bit of trouble on the audio. Perhaps the witness could move a little closer to the mike, or perhaps the technician could raise the volume.
Ms Cronk: Ms Luu, maybe we could take it one question at a time. I know it's difficult because you've got these legal binders in front of you, but could I ask you if you could be as close to the mike as you can.
Ms Luu: Okay.
Ms Cronk: When you prepared these notes -- you've indicated to the committee that you did so on the Friday night after your meeting with Ms Gigantes but not in as formalized a way. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: That's true. Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did you subsequently prepare them in a more formal fashion after Mr Hourigan of our offices contacted you for an interview?
Ms Luu: Yes, because I had the intention at that time to submit my statement to you.
Ms Cronk: Do these notes, to the best of your recollection, accurately record what was discussed by you with the minister at your meeting with her on June 10?
Ms Luu: Yes, they do.
Ms Cronk: When you arrived at the meeting, Ms Luu, did anyone comment to you about Sharron Pretty's absence, about the fact that she was not there?
Ms Luu: At the meeting on June 10?
Ms Cronk: Yes. When you arrived at that meeting, did anyone comment on that to you?
Ms Luu: No, because everybody was expecting me alone to see Evelyn.
Ms Cronk: When you say that everybody was expecting that, that was your understanding, I take it, that the meeting was to be with you alone?
Ms Luu: Because I asked for a meeting for me to see Evelyn, and I knew at the time that Sharron couldn't meet with her because of the court case.
Ms Cronk: How did you know that?
Ms Luu: From Sue Lott's conversation with Sharron on May 19 and from the conversation I had with Marc Collins.
1640
Ms Cronk: You took from your discussion with Mr Collins that Ms Pretty could not meet with the minister?
Ms Luu: Yes, and from Sue Lott on May 19. That had become very clear. That's why I insisted that: "Look, I'm not involved. Talk to me."
Ms Cronk: And what did you discuss with the minister at the meeting on June 10?
Ms Luu: First of all she said, "Trinh, what can I do for you?" I prepared that statement so I set it down. I believe that it is the minister's responsibility to receive the information related to the problems at our centre, because only when you receive the information, you identify the problems; only then could you take appropriate actions to remedy the problems. I said, "With or without Can Le here, I would say exactly the same things because this is the truth."
I prepared at home a number of documents that I put in chronological order, because right before I went to see Evelyn, the day before, the board issued a notice to call a meeting to remove Sharron on June 19. I deemed that event very important, so I put together the documents in chronological order, in order to make my point to the minister that this is how this board is treating a fellow director and answering to the non-Viet tenants' concerns.
Ms Cronk: When did you understand that was to happen, or when was it proposed that it was to happen, the removal of Ms Pretty?
Ms Luu: The day before. I met Evelyn on June 10, so Sharron received that notice on June 9.
Ms Cronk: Was that a notice of action that had already been taken or of action that was proposed to be taken by the board?
Ms Luu: It says: "Notice to call a meeting on June 19. The purpose of the meeting is to pass a resolution to remove Sharron Pretty from the office of director." It says that meeting is "a members' meeting."
Ms Cronk: When was that meeting to take place?
Ms Luu: On June 19. The date of the notice was June 8 and Sharron received it on June 9.
Ms Cronk: Did you take with you to the meeting with the minister the documents that you had prepared?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Did you show her some or all of those documents during the course of the meeting?
Ms Luu: Yes. I flipped through them and showed them. I led her through numbers (1), (2) and (3), as I put it here in my statement. First, I showed her the court docket proving that charges were laid and a hearing date was issued and then the description of the charges. I read the provisions of the charges and what Sharron had laid as information in those sheets.
Ms Cronk: Did you show that to the minister?
Ms Luu: Yes. She was right here so I just flipped it to her. I just showed her, like that.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 71 of the same volume of documents? That's volume 3. There's a handwritten note on the front page. Is that your note?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: The note indicates "documents shown to Evelyn June 10, 1994." Are these documents which you showed to the minister during the course of your meeting with her?
Ms Luu: Let me check with my statement. What tab is my statement?
Ms Cronk: Your notes are at tab 70 and the documents are at tab 71.
Ms Luu: I put them in order exactly in this way, first the court docket, so they are not in order here.
Ms Cronk: May I have it first? Are these the documents that you showed to her?
Ms Luu: Let me take a look. The first one, yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Is the first one the --
Ms Luu: The second one, the June 3 minutes, yes.
Ms Cronk: I apologize these pages aren't numbered, but if you flip about halfway through the documents you'll find, first, a notice to tenants dated June 6, 1994. Each document or attachment is separated by a white piece of paper. Then expurgated minutes of a meeting of the board held on June 3, 1994, and I'll come to those in a moment, Ms Luu. Then a document -- on the top left-hand side of the page it says "Ministry of the Attorney" -- dated June 2, 1994.
Ms Luu: I have trouble following you. I was just checking the documents. Could you repeat? Because they are not in order, you know. You started with which one, please?
Ms Cronk: The third document in this bundle. The third separate document, Ms Luu, is a document that appears to be a copy of a court notice dated June 2, 1994. Do you recognize this document?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: What is it?
Ms Luu: It's a court docket.
Ms Cronk: Did you show that to the minister at the meeting?
Ms Luu: Yes. She did make a copy of this.
Ms Cronk: The minister did?
Ms Luu: Yes. At the end of my meeting, she asked for this and the notice of the board to remove Sharron. She said, "Can I have a copy of these two documents?" I said yes and Audrey went to make copies for her.
Ms Cronk: Did she keep a copy of those two documents?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: So the first of them was this court docket?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Does it refer to the information sworn by Ms Pretty --
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- against the various directors of the Van Lang Centre --
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- as well as other unrelated proceedings?
Ms Luu: No, just a description of the charges laid by Sharron, not the rest, because I brought only the charges laid by Sharron only.
Ms Cronk: There are some names indicated here, I take it, that have nothing to do with the charges brought by Ms Pretty, but the ones that she brought against the directors are also named there.
Ms Luu: There was a description of the charges.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, I'm just looking at the docket form itself, Ms Luu. If you look at the right-hand column, there's a list of names. What I'm suggesting to you is that in that list are the names of the directors of the Van Lang Centre against whom Ms Pretty brought her allegations. There's also the names of some individuals on unrelated matters, other court proceedings. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes, that's correct.
Ms Cronk: And you left a copy of this document, at her request, with the minister?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: If you turn to the second-last document --
Mrs Marland: Just a on a point, Ms Cronk -- I'm sorry to interrupt -- the document that you're just leaving, because it is so small, can you tell us what it says at the top of the column of the dates that are preceding the names?
Interjection: "Date of offence."
Ms Cronk: Ms Luu, I don't know if you can help Ms Marland with that, but if I might be permitted to assist the committee --
Mr McKinnon: It says "date of arrest," in fact. It's taken from the criminal precedent.
Ms Luu: That's the date of the offence.
Mrs Marland: Thank you.
Ms Cronk: I think it actually says "date of off," and then "arrest," offence or arrest. There are dates that appear before the names of the Van Lang board of directors. Just to confirm, Ms Luu, perhaps to assist the committee, going down that list of names, am I right that Mr -- again, I apologize if I'm mispronouncing this -- Bui is one of the individuals?
Ms Luu: Yes, Ms Bui.
Ms Cronk: Ms Bui?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Dr Can Le?
Ms Luu: Four counts.
Ms Cronk: And Mr My Nguyen?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Dr Vinh Tang?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Ms Lang Tran?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And Dr Hieu Truong?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Those are the directors against whom charges were brought?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Callahan: Can you direct me to the dates on which those incidents occurred?
Ms Cronk: I think it was clarified, Mr Callahan, that that column refers either to a date of offence or a date of arrest.
Mr Winninger: This may be premature, but earlier, when I asked the counsel about the number of charges outstanding, I recall that the total was six. Are there some of these charges listed on the docket that have since been withdrawn?
Ms Cronk: Just to help you with that, if you look at the actual informations contained in volume 1 at tab 6, I believe you'll find that four of the charges are of the same information. So if you count the number of informations, in fact you're talking six informations sworn by Ms Pretty, one by Ms Luu, to various counsels.
If we look then, again, to the back of the second-last document at this tab, Ms Luu, you indicated --
Interjection.
Ms Cronk: The second-last one.
Ms Luu: This one?
Ms Cronk: Yes. You indicated to the committee that when you went to that meeting with the minister on June 10, you were aware of the notice that had been provided to Ms Pretty of an intended resolution by the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre to remove her as a director at a meeting to be held on June 19.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Is this the notice to which you refer?
Ms Luu: Yes, it was.
1650
Ms Cronk: Is this the second document, a copy of which you provided to the minister at the meeting?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you provide a copy to the minister at the meeting of any other documents?
Ms Luu: No. Well, I didn't provide it. I just showed her and she requested that these two documents would be copied.
Ms Cronk: Did she request any others?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: During the course of the meeting, was there discussion by you with the minister about the court docket, document or the outstanding charges laid by Ms Pretty?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did. I have to start with the charges because I have to go through the documents chronologically in order to make my point that, yes, there was a court case, yes, there was a court date, there were charges laid, and yet this board is still denying that there was any court case and there were any problems at all.
They issued a notice to tenants misinforming them, saying that there was no court case, the allegations were unfounded and the board is seeking legal action. At the same time, they issued another notice. Both notices were received by non-Viet tenants on the same day. In the second notice, they said, "Okay, we got the letter you co-signed, you supported Sharron and we invite you to a meeting with the board."
I pointed out to Evelyn that the non-Viet tenants were scared because they got two notices, one inviting them to a board meeting to listen to the board and the second one on the same day saying that the person you are supporting, we are seeking legal action against her, so that is an act of intimidation. I have to put those documents in chronological order in order to make my point to the minister -- make my point on tenant participation to the minister.
Ms Cronk: Who did most of the talking at this meeting, Ms Luu?
Ms Luu: I did.
Ms Cronk: Were you sort of briefing the minister?
Ms Luu: Yes. I was taking my chance.
Ms Cronk: And did you take her through a large number of documents?
Ms Luu: Oh, yes. I went through these, as I stated in my statement here. I briefed her on all these things and I even read out to her two passages from Brian Sutherland's statements of his surprise visit on December 30, and that was at the request of Sharron in the wake of a failed attempt to remove her from the board. I read out to her what Brian was saying on his concerns if there was a lack of an open and fair process, and then he said if there are board directors who are forced to resign in frustration, who are threatened to resign, that is a sure sign that there is a problem in the building.
Ms Cronk: Just dealing, Ms Luu, with the court docket and the informations referred to in the court docket, what, if any, discussion took place at the meeting about it?
Ms Luu: What, if any -- oh, the minister asked me whether that was a civil court case and I said no, and I briefed her on the mechanism of how a private citizen can lay an information with the JP, and the crown proceeds with the prosecution. So I said, "This is not a civil court case, this is prosecuted by the crown."
Later on I added that the crown is contemplating a fraud charge against Dr Le, and I briefed her on why that charge came up, and I showed her the assessment. I didn't bring it; I didn't show. I just told her how Dr Can Le provided false information to the board in order to pass the incompetent superintendent into permanent status without meeting his probation requirements.
I said that is a fraud charge that is contemplated by the crown right now, and the crown has all the evidence. I said there are possible charges coming up.
Ms Cronk: When you showed the minister the docket form and told her about the charges, did she indicate to you one way or the other whether she already knew about them?
Ms Luu: No, she didn't say anything, and I explained to her how the charges came up. I briefed her on the related provisions in the Corporations Act, and I told her how the board denied Sharron the information she needed, the free access to information, and how they passed a resolution to make Sharron go through Can Le for every information she needs about the corporation, how she went to board meetings bringing the Corporations Act with her, citing word for word each provision, and how they still ignored that.
Ms Cronk: And you told the minister about that at the meeting?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Did you know then, while you were at the meeting, when the next court appearance was in respect of those charges?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did. That's why I put it on the court docket that the new court date is for July 21.
Ms Cronk: When you say you put it on the court docket, there's the date?
Ms Luu: Oh, no. June 16.
Ms Cronk: If you look at the docket form at tab 71, the date June 16 appears. It's crossed out and it later says July 21. Was that on the document when you gave it to the minister, or did it say June 16?
Ms Luu: It must be another copy, because I have a lot of copies of this court docket and I kept adding on the new date whenever there is a new hearing. So it might be not the exact copy, but it was the court docket that I gave to her. So it should be the one with the June 16.
Ms Cronk: As far as you knew, that was the next scheduled court appearance?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you know when you went to the meeting with the minister on June 10, Ms Luu, that a meeting with the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre with the minister was being planned?
Ms Luu: I did not learn about that until Audrey took me aside and said, "You know, Trinh, Evelyn wants to see you first, because she's going to meet with the board."
Ms Cronk: And when did Ms Moey take you aside and tell you that?
Ms Luu: At the end of the meeting. We sat at a porch of the constituency office, and Audrey expressed her concerns and her frustration over the situation and she said, "You know, Trinh, I fought very hard for this meeting," and she -- well, I don't want to say that. She pointed to Paul Dewar and she said, "You know, I argued with him. He said, `What's the use of seeing Trinh?' and I said: `Are you afraid? She has documented a lot and she has a lot of documents and she knows a lot. Why shouldn't we meet with her? Are you afraid of finding out?'"
Mr Callahan: Who was complaining? I didn't catch the name.
Ms Luu: Audrey and I had a private conversation after the meeting.
Mr Callahan: And who is complaining?
Mr Murphy: You said someone was pointed to.
Ms Luu: Who is complaining?
Interjections.
Mr Murphy: Are you referring to Paul?
Ms Luu: To Paul? Oh, Paul Dewar?
Mr Sutherland: Who is doing the questioning, Mr Chair?
Mr Callahan: Well, we're just trying to get a clarification, Mr Sutherland. You may not be interested, but I am.
Ms Cronk: Paul Dewar?
Ms Luu: Paul Dewar.
Mr Murphy: And who is he?
Ms Luu: Paul did not complain, he just --
Ms Cronk: Did you know then who Mr Dewar was?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And who is Mr Dewar?
Ms Luu: He's the son of Marion Dewar, and he was the one who interviewed me at the first job.
Ms Cronk: Does he work for the Minister of Housing?
Ms Luu: At that time he went back to his job. I understand that he went for one year at teaching college and then he went back for the summer. I just saw him then and I said, "Hi, Paul," and he said he finished his studies. So he was there.
Ms Cronk: Did Ms Moey tell you during that discussion that you had with her at the end of the meeting when the meeting with the board was being planned, when the minister was intending to meet with the board?
Ms Luu: I can't remember.
Ms Cronk: And that was the first you'd heard of that?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did she indicate whether Ms Pretty was expected to be at that meeting?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you discuss with the minister at the June 10 meeting the resolution to remove Sharron Pretty as a director of the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Discuss the resolution?
Ms Cronk: Sorry. You provided her with a copy of the notice from the board --
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- that is a resolution --
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- to vote on the removal of Sharron Pretty as a director?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you discuss that with the minister?
Ms Luu: I made a lot of comments on that. I said, "I challenge the legality of the board's action." I said, "This board doesn't set up membership, and they try to remove Sharron, and after they sought legal advice with the corporation's legal counsel and they learned that there should be two thirds of the membership, the approval from two thirds of the membership, to remove a fellow director. That's why they proceeded with a member meeting. They called it a member meeting, but it was they themselves as directors removing their fellow director under the disguise of members, because they are the members and they are the directors." And I said, "This is illegal," because no director can remove any fellow director. Only the membership can do that, and they don't have any membership, so it's improper.
1700
Ms Cronk: Did the minister make any comment about that issue, that is, the proposed removal of Ms Pretty?
Ms Luu: No. She just listened in silence.
Ms Cronk: You indicated that the meeting lasted from about 3:30 to 5, about one and a half hours, is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: How much of the meeting was devoted to a discussion concerning the court docket and the pending legal proceedings?
Ms Luu: As much as I can tell her what the nature of the charges are and who is charged. I said, "Can Le is charged; Can Le has four counts because of what and what." And I said, "The crown just looked at the date of the memo Sharron has to file and the crown took it that on that date Can Le has committed an offence of preventing her from openly inspecting the documents." So I said, "That's how Can Le came up with four charges, while the other directors, each of them has one charge, because one of them called the motion and everybody else supported the motion."
Ms Cronk: So are we talking about a length of time, the minutes that it took you to describe it to her, the couple of minutes at the meeting?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Similarly, with respect to the proposed removal of Sharron Pretty, did that discussion take a couple of minutes at the meeting as well?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: How did the minister respond to the information that you provided her at this meeting?
Ms Luu: Then I proceeded to the core issues, because this is the evidence I wanted her to take a look at. I have this file with me. This is the brief on deviation from original mandate. I have all the briefs, I have all the documents, and as I talked, I flipped through the documents. I showed her the letters patent and I said, "You know, eight months into my job I realized that this is a vital document that every director and every manager has to familiarize with before taking office." And I said --
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry to interrupt.
Ms Luu: I'm sorry.
Ms Cronk: That's all right. Excuse me for interrupting. I don't do it with any disrespect, but rather than getting into the detail of each of the other topics that you discussed with the minister, should I take from what you were about to say and also from your notes that you reviewed with her a large number of other matters at the meeting as well?
Ms Luu: Yes, including the evidence, the letter that I obtained from my friend who is one of my supporters, and that letter is living proof of Can Le's dishonesty to his fellow directors, because he withheld that information. He did not report back to his fellow directors on the results of his discussions with the legal counsel on the directors' access to information and how to remove legally a fellow director.
Ms Cronk: All right, so you reviewed with the minister a large number of the concerns that you had, is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And you showed her a number of documents, or referred to them, that you felt supported your concerns?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: After you had done all of that, after you had taken the minister through all of that, how did she respond, if at all, to what you were telling her?
Ms Luu: She asked me to read the letters patent to her twice, and I did. Then she said, "This building is not for seniors only." So she listened when I tackled the proof of Can Le's -- I don't know how to say it, the document that Can Le withheld from the board. She didn't say anything. She just remained silent. Then I showed her my report number 3, where we have more documents showing the irregularities concerning the circumstances in which the super was hired and how he was pushed into permanent status based on false information as well.
Ms Cronk: So you reviewed a number of things with her.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did she give you any indication at the meeting about what if anything she was going to do about what you'd told her?
Ms Luu: Only when I asked her. Oh, yes, and then when I went through that, she stopped me and she said, "Did Bill Clement know about this?" Then I reached down in my bag, the black bag that I drag with me all the time. I said, "Report number 1, report number 2, report number 3. Bill knows all about it. But he refused to listen to me, and I don't trust Bill. I think that Bill is covering up for Can Le."
Ms Cronk: Did you tell the minister that?
Ms Luu: Yes. Then she said, "Did Brian know about it?" Then I pulled the 20-page letter report written by Sharron, and I said, "This is what Sharron informed Brian, insisting on Brian looking at the evidence, and no one listened." Brian has turned a blind eye to a meeting where Sharron was removed from her title and where an improper decision on staff issues was decided under the item of "miscellaneous."
Ms Cronk: Did the minister, to you, seem concerned about what she was hearing?
Ms Luu: Yes, she was genuinely concerned. Finally she said, "This is really messy." I said, "It wouldn't have been that messy, Evelyn, if you had listened to me and Sharron a few months ago." Then we just chatted. At that time I think Beverlee came in or she just passed a note or something --
Ms Cronk: Beverlee?
Ms Luu: Beverlee Bell. She just came in, and then Evelyn asked me, "Would you like to sit on a committee, Trinh, a health committee or something like that?"
Ms Cronk: Before the meeting concluded with the minister did you ask her to do anything?
Ms Luu: I didn't ask her to do anything. I said, "So what do you think you would do, Evelyn?" She said: "Well, I don't know. I'm not a lawyer." She said, "Can I have a copy of the" --
Mr Murphy: She'd be a great Attorney General.
The Chair: Will you let the witness answer, please. She's losing her line of thought there.
Ms Cronk: The minister said she was not a lawyer?
Ms Luu: Yes. I said, "So what do you think you would do, Evelyn?" I was exhausted, you know. I had talked too much. I said, "Okay, so what do you think you would do, Evelyn?" She said: "Well, I don't know. I'm not a lawyer." She said, "Can I have a copy of the" -- at that time, she wanted a copy of the court docket and the notice to remove Sharron.
Ms Cronk: Did she give you any indication when you would hear from her?
Ms Luu: Oh, yes. I asked, "So when can I expect to hear from you, Evelyn?" She said, "Two weeks."
Ms Cronk: I'm getting the impression, Ms Luu, that you often asked that at the end of the meetings you had with people. Did you ask the minister that as well?
Ms Luu: Yes. I learned throughout my experience. I always ask, "When can I expect to hear from you?"
Ms Cronk: How did the meeting conclude? How did you feel when you left the meeting?
Ms Luu: I felt very relaxed. Evelyn was very relaxed too. We chatted on Can Le. What did she say? She said: "You learned a lot, Trinh. You know a lot." I said: "You see, even somebody in the learning process like me would find out about the wrongs. That's why I left for school." I said, "Now that I'm no more a property manager, could you let me serve on the board?" She laughed and she said, "I understand why Can Le didn't want you on the board, Trinh." I said, "He's a dictator." I spoke ill about him, you know, and I expressed my concerns about his control and his dictatorship and his dishonesty, his lies, his coverups, his misleading the project into --
Ms Cronk: You went through your concerns with respect to Dr Can Le.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Could I just ask you to step back and to think back about the whole of this meeting, Ms Luu. Would I be correct in suggesting to you that, first, you covered a great deal of ground with the minister at this meeting, you took her through a considerable number of your concerns?
Ms Luu: Yes, as fast as I could.
Ms Cronk: Yes, I have no difficulty believing that.
Ms Luu: I didn't go through all the documents; one, two and three were just the first three. I showed her vital documents like the management plan where Can Le rewrote his rough copy.
Ms Cronk: You took her through a number of documents and a number of your concerns?
Ms Luu: Yes, in the two --
Ms Cronk: In the course of that -- perhaps if you could just listen to these questions for a minute.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I just want to make sure I understand what occurred at this meeting, all right? By my count, based on your notes, you talked to the minister about at least 10 or 12 different topics, different concerns.
Ms Luu: Yes, I touched on everything I could.
Ms Cronk: You showed her a vast number of documents and explained to her what you thought was important about them. Am I right so far? Is that fair?
Ms Luu: Yes. It's not in the sense that she actually saw anything, you know, but I just had the files with me.
Ms Cronk: You were flipping through it and telling her what you thought was important.
Ms Luu: Yes, and she knows that they were there.
Ms Cronk: All right. And among the topics discussed was the court docket, which you showed her, and the pending charges.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: In addition, among the topics discussed was the board notice to remove Sharron Pretty and the resolution that was to be dealt with on June 19.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And the only two documents that the minister requested a copy of were those two, the notice and the docket?
Ms Luu: Yes. I told her that this board still defies housing rules. I said how a second deep-core vacancy was not reported to OCRHA, and it was just in June, and how those two deep-core vacancies go to both seniors on the centre's list, and how one of them applied from subsidized housing from Montreal and how the board has increased the deep-core vacancies to 61 from the mandatory 53.
Mrs Marland: Was that "from Montreal"? Was that answer "from Montreal?"
Ms Cronk: I didn't hear that.
Ms Luu: I said there were two deep-core vacancies at the time, and this board did not report the second deep-core vacancy to OCRHA, to fill it with OCRHA, the local housing authority list, but they filled them all with two seniors on their list and one senior applied from subsidized housing in Montreal.
Mr Callahan: Can I just get a clarification? I thought I heard that the minister had offered her a seat on a health committee or something. If I'm correct, could you perhaps find out where that occurred within the totality of the conversation? What was it related to?
Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I think, in fairness, that Mr Callahan can ask his questions in cross-examination rather than interrupt the flow of Ms Cronk's evidence in chief.
The Chair: I think if you get Hansard you can circle that for a question.
Ms Luu: I can answer that.
Mr Callahan: The witness wants to answer that.
Mr Owens: Can we maybe get an idea from counsel how much more time she expects? I think we're all getting a little bit tense.
Ms Cronk: I just suggested to the Chair that we take a short break. I can tell the committee that obviously it has gone a little slower than I predicted today would be the case, but for entirely understandable reasons. I will be about 10 or 15 minutes more with Ms Luu.
I had indicated to the Chair that I would be in your hands as to whether you wished to sit late tonight. If you wish to do so, I'm prepared to commence with the next witness after your questioning of this witness, but we are behind where one would have hoped to be at this stage.
The Chair: Okay, we'll call for a 10-minute break and we'll discuss it with the subcommittee.
Mr Callahan: I think the witness wanted to answer, though, Mr Chair.
Ms Luu: It was at the end of my briefing and we were relaxing. Beverlee just came in and Beverlee said something to her and she said, "Oh, Trinh, would you like to sit on that committee?" I can't remember what committee.
Mr Callahan: Did the minister say that?
Ms Luu: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. A recess for 10 minutes.
The committee recessed from 1713 to 1740.
The Chair: The recess being over, we'll start back. Ms Cronk, the witness.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Just before you start, we had a subcommittee meeting, and the transcripts -- we're going to discuss that tomorrow at our next subcommittee meeting. Okay, Ms Cronk.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Ms Luu, after your meeting with the minister on June 10, were you again in touch with representatives of the opposition parties?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did you speak again with or communicate again with Mora Thompson?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to go to exhibit 1, volume 3, tab 73. This appears to be a memorandum from you to Mora Thompson dated June 11, that is, the day after your meeting with the minister. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did you send this memo to Ms Thompson?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: And were you reporting to her on what occurred at your meeting with the minister?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: How is it that you came to do that? Had you been asked to do that or did you just send her this?
Ms Luu: No, because Mora knew about the developments I was having with the ministry, and when I had that meeting with Evelyn, I called Mora and I thanked her. I said, "Well, it was under your pressure that finally I got that meeting, and I said I would let you know what the results are." So this is what I did.
Ms Cronk: And in this memorandum, did you express any view to Ms Thompson or indicate any intention about making the matter more publicly known?
Ms Luu: Yes, because after that meeting I was trying to guess what Evelyn would do. I remember she said she would get back to me in two weeks and I deemed that that was too late. It was June 10 I met with Evelyn, and I reported back to Sharron and to other non-Viet tenants because they knew that Evelyn was meeting with me and they were very disappointed when they heard that, oh, Evelyn would get back to me in two weeks -- Sharron would be gone this Sunday. So they said, "We are determined to go ahead with the media," and I had no other choice but to go with them, as I have warned Sue many times before.
Ms Cronk: When you refer to the other non-Vietnamese tenants, are you referring to a Mr Michael Séguin, is it?
Ms Luu: Michael Séguin, Sandy Moreau, Helen Farr, Mary Rose Clancy; one more, Philippe Carrière. Sharron herself. There were just a few non-Viet tenants who were interested in having the situation addressed and who were aware of the problems at the centre, and they already wrote a letter of support for Sharron on June 1. They saw the article and they were interested in having the matter made public. So when I reported back to them that, okay, "I went to see Evelyn and Evelyn said that," then they were disappointed. They said: "So what shall we do? This is totally oppressive and undemocratic and we should let the media know that our non-Viet representative, Sharron, is going to be removed from the board."
Then on June 13 -- I don't know whether I submitted --
Ms Cronk: Just before we leave this memo, did you in fact go further in this memo and ask Ms Thompson to have the matter raised in the House?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Had you determined then, at that point, to take this matter public in the sense of disclosing it to the media?
Ms Luu: Yes, because we all were determined to -- we all decided that we should go public with our story.
Ms Cronk: And by "all," did that include Sharron Pretty?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Throughout the memo to Ms Thompson, you refer several times to "we": "We would like you to raise it in the House. In the meantime, we will send you by fax...." "We have no other means to reveal the truth but to make it public." Who is the "we" that you're referring to?
Ms Luu: "We" is me, Sharron and the other non-Viet who co-signed with us on the letter sent to the media dated June 13.
Ms Cronk: If you turn to tab 110 in the same volume, much later on, there's a second memorandum here expressed to be from you again to Mora Thompson. Did you send this memo as well?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did. June 15: Is that the one?
Ms Cronk: June 13, at tab 110. Did you send this memo to Ms Thompson as well?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And by it, were you providing her with additional information?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And at tab 111 there's a memorandum dated June 15, 1994, again from you to Mora Thompson. Did you send her that memo?
Ms Luu: Yes. As soon as we learned that there was going to be a meeting, that the board was going to have a meeting with Evelyn, because we didn't learn until June 14. When I sent that memo it was June 13 and we were collecting signatures. June 14, Sharron learned from the board that they would hold a meeting to discuss the future meeting with the minister on June 17, and Sharron was still confused because she didn't know what meeting that was. Were they referring to a meeting that they already had with Evelyn or that would be a future meeting or what? We didn't know until June 15. We clarified and we knew that would be the June 17 meeting with the board.
Ms Cronk: And how did you learn that --
Mrs Marland: I'm sorry to interrupt. My tab 111 is not printed at all, so I wondered if anybody had one.
The Chair: Tab 111 is missing?
Ms Cronk: You have no document at 111?
Mrs Marland: It's here, but it's not --
Mr Harnick: It's very faint.
Mrs Marland: We can't read it. Neither Mr Harnick nor I can read it.
The Chair: I'll see about getting another copy made.
Mrs Marland: Thank you.
Mr Callahan: Mine's as clear as a bell.
Ms Cronk: We'll get you replacement pages, Ms Marland.
Ms Luu, just so that I understand, how did you first receive confirmation of the intended meeting on June 17? Ms Moey had told you at the meeting on June 10 that there was going to be a meeting with the minister.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: When did you receive confirmation that it was to be held on June 17?
Ms Luu: I didn't receive that. Sharron did.
Ms Cronk: So when you told me a moment ago that Ms Pretty learned of it on June 14, I take it that's what she told you?
Ms Luu: Yes, she told me and she showed me the document.
Ms Cronk: What document?
Ms Luu: The board's notice for a meeting called on June 15. The board said that the meeting was to discuss the summons received by board directors and the meeting with the minister on June -- no, they didn't say on June 17 -- the meeting with the minister. That's why we didn't know what that meeting was for and when that was for.
Ms Cronk: And when you say in the second sentence of the first paragraph, "It is understood this will include Sharron," I take it that "this" refers to the June 17 meeting?
Ms Luu: Yes, we assumed so because nobody said anything. I said, "Nobody said anything, so I think, Sharron, you could go."
Ms Cronk: So was that an assumption you were making?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Had Ms Pretty received a notice from the board of the intended meeting with the minister?
Ms Luu: Yes, she did.
Ms Cronk: To your knowledge, had she been contacted by anyone from the minister's constituency office to confirm the meeting?
Ms Luu: No. On June 14 she received the notice from the board first and she called me and she said: "Trinh, what do they say here? I don't understand. What meeting was that? They already had the meeting with Evelyn, or they were referring to a future meeting?" I said: "I don't know. Call the board president and ask." So she called Hieu Truong, the secretary. She inquired with him, and he said, "Oh, didn't you receive the notice by Bill Clement?" She said, "No, I didn't get that." So she went down to the office and Hieu Truong provided her with the notice, a letter by Bill Clement to the board. I don't know where that is.
Ms Cronk: Informing them of the meeting with the minister?
Ms Luu: That's true.
1750
Ms Cronk: There's a letter dated June 9, 1994, from Mr Clement to the president of the board, Dr Hieu Truong, informing Dr Truong of the meeting. Is it that letter you're referring to?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Could you look at tab 68, please? Same volume. Sorry, I said it was to Dr Hieu Truong; it's to Dr Vinh Tang.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Dated June 9. Is this the letter you were referring to?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did Sharron Pretty know of your memos to Mora Thompson?
Ms Luu: Yes. I told her of what I did.
Ms Cronk: And did she share the view at that point, as you understood it, that the matter should be taken to the media?
Ms Luu: Yes. We were all determined to go public.
Ms Cronk: And in this memo of June 15 to Mora Thompson, found at tab 111, you proposed quite directly that the matter be raised in the House on June 20, that is, the Monday after the meeting with the minister?
Ms Luu: Yes, because Mora talked to me previously and she said that I did tell Marc that if no action was taken, we would raise it in the House. So he was aware that this is quite serious. So I kept Mora informed of the progress I had with the ministry, and when I learned that it would be another two weeks before I knew whether Evelyn would take any action or not, I was disappointed. I told Mora and she said, "Okay, we can raise that in the House." I said, "Okay, if you do that, let me have some time to compile my brief, because I don't want to splash it in the public with that one," you know, without me being prepared, without us being fully prepared to go to the public.
Ms Cronk: During the period June 10, that is, after your meeting with the minister, Ms Luu, up until June 17, when the meeting was held by the minister with the board, did you personally have any contact with any member of the minister's staff in Toronto or Ottawa?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you have any contact with any representative of the Ministry of Housing during that seven-day period?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: Or with the minister herself?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: To your knowledge, did Sharron Pretty?
Ms Luu: Sharron? No.
Ms Cronk: In so far as you are aware, was the minister's staff in Toronto or Ottawa informed at any point prior to the meeting on June 17 of the decision which had been reached to take the matter public in the sense of going to the media?
Ms Luu: I'm sorry. Could you say it again?
Ms Cronk: Yes. Did you tell her? To the best of your knowledge, did you or Sharron Pretty inform the minister's staff?
Ms Luu: No, not at all. There was no use in informing them of our final action, because they knew that. We already warned them.
Ms Cronk: And in respect of the June 17 meeting itself, you told me earlier today that you of course were not at it. You didn't attend it personally?
Ms Luu: No, I did not.
Ms Cronk: Did Sharron Pretty in the end attend?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did you accompany Ms Pretty to the place of the meeting?
Ms Luu: Yes, because it said that it would be a half an hour meeting, and I said, "Okay, it's only half an hour, so I can wait for you outside."
Ms Cronk: And did you do that?
Ms Luu: Yes, because she didn't know the place, and I went there for my interview in December. I knew the place, so I showed her around. I was waiting for her in the mall.
Ms Cronk: Did you help her to prepare for the meeting in any way?
Ms Luu: No, because we didn't know what the purpose of the meeting was. I just said, "Bring your brief of denial of access with you, Sharron," because we saw that in the board's notice. They said they were going to have a meeting on June 15 to discuss the summons received by board members. So I said, "I don't know what they are going to discuss, but bring that with you, Sharron." So she just brought the brief of denial of access to information with her.
Ms Cronk: And did you meet with her at the conclusion of the meeting?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Should the committee conclude from that, Ms Luu, that your knowledge of what occurred at the meeting of June 17 is based on what Ms Pretty told you?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You have no firsthand knowledge of that.
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 86 of volume 3? Do you have that?
Ms Luu: Yes. Sharron's press release.
Ms Cronk: This is a statement or a document which I anticipate the committee will be told was authored by Sharron Pretty. Did you help her prepare it?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you review it with her when she was preparing it?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you discuss it with her in any way after its preparation?
Ms Luu: No. Oh, yes, after, yes, because she showed me afterwards.
Ms Cronk: It appears to have been sent to Peter Farley, Mike Harris's press secretary.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you review it with her before it was sent to Peter Farley?
Mrs Marland: Varley with a V.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Did you review it with Ms Pretty before it was sent?
Ms Luu: She read it to me on the phone, and at that time we were under pressure and I said "Okay, if that is the truth, that is what happened at the meeting, so you just wrote it down because I knew no better than you did." I didn't know about what happened so she just read it, and I said, "Okay, that's sounds fine."
Ms Cronk: Did you discuss with her on the phone what should be in it?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 98?
Mr McKinnon: I think it's also at 87, Eleanore.
Ms Cronk: Is it?
Mr McKinnon: Yeah, right after the one you're looking at.
Ms Cronk: Well, we're missing some and we've got surplus of others.
Over on tab 98, this is a second document, Ms Luu, which I understand has been authored by Ms Pretty dated June 23, 1994, addressed to -- I take it it should be Mr Peter Varley. Did you help Ms Pretty prepare this document?
Ms Luu: Yes, in putting the chronological account with her, because I have a fax machine at home, and she said, "I should come to your place." She called me and she said, "I should write another statement, Trinh, because I saw what happened in the House today and there is a need for me to provide more accurate and truthful information." She said, "I need to fax it," and I said, "So why don't you come to our place," because it was late in the night. So she came to my place and she said, "I wanted to provide more information and I have the documents with me." I helped her reconstruct with a chronological account. But anything that is related to what was said during the meeting was totally from Sharron because I had no knowledge whatsoever of what was said.
Ms Cronk: Had it been suggested to you at some point that you personally would meet further with the minister that morning on June 17 before the meeting with the board?
Ms Luu: No. I understand that's it. I got the meeting with her. She has seen my evidence and my role is finished, is over.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 85? These are handwritten notes. Have you seen these notes before?
Ms Luu: Yes. She showed it to me.
Ms Cronk: I anticipate that the committee will hear that these notes were prepared by Sharron Pretty in part during the course of the meeting on June 17 and in part at a later time. Were you with Sharron Pretty when she prepared any part of these notes?
Ms Luu: No. I was with her when she came out of the meeting and we had lunch for roughly an hour or so, and I said: "Did you take notes, Sharron? So what happened?" She said: "Oh, it's very disappointing. Everybody from Evelyn to the board, they all begged me to drop the charges." I said, "Did you take any notes?" She said yes and she showed me this page. I said, "It's important, so you have to rewrite what happened at the meeting," because she said, "This is all I could take at the time, because I wasn't talking, I was listening, and it was Evelyn and other people who said, so I could take them. But when I was talking and I was interacting with other people, I couldn't take any notes." I said, "So you have to take those notes too."
Ms Cronk: When you say that she showed you the notes, how many pages of notes did she have at lunch?
Ms Luu: Just the first page.
Ms Cronk: And did you discuss with her what she should put in the balance of her notes?
Ms Luu: No, I did not. She recounted to me who said what. I said: "Oh, you said that? You should take it down. Put that in writing. Take notes on that."
1800
Ms Cronk: Did she show you the balance of the notes after they'd been prepared?
Ms Luu: I can't remember. Yes, some time afterwards, because right after that we were interviewed by reporters; yes, on Sunday, I think.
Ms Cronk: Did you in fact see reporters on that day, that is, June 17, the day of the meeting?
Ms Luu: No, we talked to reporters after the meeting, but we didn't see anyone on that day.
Ms Cronk: Did you personally talk to any reporters that day?
Ms Luu: Yes, when Pat Dare called Sharron and he called me.
Ms Cronk: Mr Patrick Dare?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you speak with Mr James Wallace that day?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: To your knowledge, did Sharron Pretty?
Ms Luu: My knowledge of --
Ms Cronk: To your knowledge, did Ms Sharron Pretty speak with James Wallace that day, June 17?
Ms Luu: Sharron Pretty? No.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to turn, please, to tab 88. This appears to be a fax, Ms Luu, from you to Mr Wallace dated June 17.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you send it to him on that date?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you do that on your own initiative or had you been in touch with Mr Wallace?
Ms Luu: I did it on my own initiative because since the June 1 article we were so happy we said, "Oh, at least somebody has listened to us." So we said, "Okay, Mr Wallace seems interested in our story, so let's keep him informed of what happened."
I talked to him on June 3. June 2 we had the court date and we went there and we were very disappointed because nobody showed up; we learned afterwards that was because none of the defendants had been served notice. I called the crown's office and I couldn't reach anyone. Sharron suggested: "Call James. Maybe James can put in a word and they would get back to you."
So I called James on June 3 and I explained to him: "I have a problem here. There was a court date but nobody showed up and nobody could provide me information." James said, "Let me call their boss and see if anybody is around to answer you." Then he inquired about the problems. I said I made a commitment with the ministry -- no, the ministry made a commitment to meet with me, because that was on June 3 and I talked to Marc Collins on June 2. And I said, "I can't say anything to you right now because I made that commitment with Marc Collins."
Ms Cronk: Did you speak, Ms Luu, to Mr Wallace between June 10 and June 17, before you sent this?
Ms Luu: No, no. I just spoke to him -- let me remember -- on June 3 and it was when I sought his assistance to get in touch with one of the crown counsel to inquire about the absence of the defendants at the June 2 court hearing. He started to inquire about the problems, and I said I had a commitment so I couldn't say anything.
Ms Cronk: From the period June 10 to June 17?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Did you speak with him?
Ms Luu: Yes, because he knew that I might inform him of the meeting I was going to have with Evelyn. He said, "Could you let me know of the results?" I said, "Sure, I will let you know."
Ms Cronk: Did you speak with him after that meeting and inform him at any point of a board meeting with Evelyn Gigantes?
Ms Luu: I did not speak, but I faxed those memos to him right after the June 10 meeting I had with Evelyn. I faxed to him and I said, "This is the result of the meeting I had." I think I faxed the same contents as I did to Mora.
Ms Cronk: You faxed to Mr Wallace a copy of your memos to Mora Thompson?
Ms Luu: Yes, I just changed their names and I just faxed it over.
Ms Cronk: That would be your memo of -- there were three. Which of those did you send to Mr Wallace? There was one of June 11, one of June 13 and one of June 15. We've looked at all three of them.
Ms Luu: Okay. I sent to him right after the two meetings, so it would be June 11, after the meeting of June 10 -- June 11 or June 13 -- and the one right on June 17. This is the one.
Ms Cronk: Let's see. This memo refers, in the first paragraph, Ms Luu, to the one-and-a-half-hour meeting between Ms Gigantes and the board and it makes a comment about it. If you had not spoken with Mr Wallace between June 10 and June 17, how did you know he knew about that meeting?
Ms Luu: I did speak to him, maybe; I can't remember, but I informed him of the meeting, either by fax or by phone.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember speaking to him, one way or the other?
Ms Luu: That might be likely.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, are you reconstructing now or do you remember whether you spoke to him?
Ms Luu: I can't remember, because during that period we had so many new events and we were busy collecting information and pondering our next move, what would we do, you know. But I must have talked to him or I must have faxed to him, because I didn't keep track of my memos to him after June 10. Between June 10 and June 17 I didn't remember how many memos I faxed to James, but I'm sure that right after the two meetings I faxed to him.
Ms Cronk: And you sent him a copy of the memo that you sent to Mora Thompson.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: The first paragraph of your memo to him of June 17 is a discussion of what occurred that very day at the meeting with the minister. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Would it be fair to suggest to you that all of what you've said with respect to that meeting in this memo to James Wallace was based on what you'd been told by Sharron Pretty?
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: You had no personal knowledge of any kind as to what was or was not said or what did or did not occur at that meeting?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: At what time of day did you send this to Mr Wallace?
Ms Luu: Send what? Send which one?
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry?
Ms Luu: Send which memo?
Ms Cronk: The June 17 memo that we're looking at.
Ms Luu: Oh, right on Friday afternoon, because the meeting concluded at 1:30. I had lunch with Sharron, so it must be before 4.
Ms Cronk: I take it then, Ms Luu, because you were not at the meeting of June 17 yourself, that you're not personally, of your own knowledge, in a position to confirm the accuracy or the inaccuracy of the information which you provided to Mr Wallace in this paragraph.
Ms Luu: No, I got it from Sharron and I just relayed what Sharron said to me to James.
Ms Cronk: You also sent a copy of this memo to Mora Thompson, I take it, from the handwritten note on the bottom.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you indicate to either Mora Thompson or Mr Wallace when you sent this fax to them that you had not been at the meeting with the minister or that your information was based on what Ms Pretty told you?
Ms Luu: They knew that I wasn't at the meeting.
Ms Cronk: You told them that?
Ms Luu: Yes, because they knew that I had my meeting with Evelyn on June 10, and this is the meeting with the board, so I was not in the picture.
Ms Cronk: Did you also speak in the days following the meeting again with Ms Thompson?
Ms Luu: In the day following the meeting?
Ms Cronk: Sorry, in the days following the meeting.
Ms Luu: Oh, in the days following the meeting. Yes, because of the news articles. I said, "Oh, so we are in the news again." I found that exciting and I sent the clippings to her, because it came from the Ottawa Citizen and I knew that she didn't have that over here.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to turn to tab 101, please. It's the same volume, volume 3, tab 101. Do you have that? It's tab 101 of volume 3, same volume. This is a memorandum dated July 10, 1994, to Dave Rider.
Ms Luu: July 10? I don't have it here.
Ms Cronk: Are you in volume 3 of exhibit 1?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: This is a memorandum dated, at least in my copy of the exhibit, July 10 to Dave Rider of the Ottawa Sun. It appears to be from you.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you send Mr Rider this?
Ms Luu: Did I send this to him? Yes.
1810
Ms Cronk: Did you continue then to remain in touch with the media about these matters at various times after the meeting on June 17?
Ms Luu: Yes, because Dave Rider expressed concerns in learning more about the problems here and he took the time to listen to me. So I said, "If you listen to me, I can provide you with all the evidence, and based on that evidence you would know that we were speaking the truth and we were not afraid to go public, and you can publish our story."
Ms Cronk: Did you also on June 19, Ms Luu, attend a meeting together with Ms Pretty at the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Was that the meeting that originally had been scheduled to deal with the issue of her removal as a director?
Ms Luu: Yes. It wasn't a meeting, because it was Sunday. Sunday morning Pat Dare called again and asked Sharron whether there would be a meeting proceeding with her removal in the afternoon and she said, "I don't know," and she said, "Okay, I would ask Vinh Tang," so she called the board president, Vinh Tang. She inquired about that and she said: "Anyway, Pat Dare and Dave Rider will be here and, Trinh, you have to go public now. We all go public, so I need you there. You should come too." So I went there.
Ms Cronk: Was there any meeting of any kind at which the issue of Ms Pretty's directorship was dealt with?
Ms Luu: No, there was no meeting. We were in the meeting room and Dave and Pat were there and they talked to Michael Séguin, to Sharron, to me. The office assistant was in her office and Pat inquired with her whether the board was coming or not. She said, "Yes, they are," but finally we waited, let's say, from 2 to 3:30, something, and then Dr Hieu Truong showed up.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look, if you would, please, at tab 93. Did you send this memorandum to Mora Thompson on June 19?
Ms Luu: Yes, and to James Wallace too.
Ms Cronk: In this memorandum are you describing what occurred at the June 19 meeting at the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Luu: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: With Dr Truong?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Does it accurately record, to the best of your recollection, what he said at that meeting?
Ms Luu: Yes. Michael Séguin was there, Sharron was there, Dave and Pat Dare were there. When he showed up, Pat showed him the notice to remove Sharron and Pat said: "I'm here because of that. So what happened? What is going to happen?" Dr Hieu Truong turned to Sharron and said: "I understand that at the meeting with the minister there was an agreement that you drop the charges and we would postpone the notice to remove you, we would postpone the meeting to remove you." Sharron said, "No, I had not agreed to that," and only then did I learn from Hieu Truong that he said that there was such an agreement and I was shocked. That's why I reported here that he said that there was an agreement and I put three points of exclamation after that.
Ms Cronk: Who was present, as you recall it, when Dr Truong made that remark?
Ms Luu: Michael Séguin, Sharron, Dave Rider, Pat Dare, me and Sharron.
Ms Cronk: You've said earlier that there had been a discussion with Mr Dare on June 17, the day of the meeting. Do you recall that?
Ms Luu: Yes. Right up to the meeting when we came back around 3, 3:30, Pat called Sharron first and then Sharron must have given him my number, so he called me too.
Ms Cronk: Were you present when Ms Pretty spoke with him?
Ms Luu: No, we were at our own places.
Ms Cronk: So you don't know what she did or didn't tell him?
Ms Luu: No.
Ms Cronk: Ms Luu, you'll be glad to know those are my questions. Thank you very much.
Ms Luu: Thank you.
The Chair: Do we want to start rotation now or take a short break?
Mr Callahan: No, start the rotation.
The Chair: Okay. Mr Callahan, you're up first.
Mr Callahan: What I found very interesting was tab 93. Patrick Dare is a reporter with the Ottawa Citizen?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Callahan: And you're telling us that in the presence of Pat Dare, Dave Rider and Michael Séguin, "We confronted him with a lot of uneasy questions." That's what you're saying. "He said, to his understanding, there was an agreement at the meeting with Evelyn on Friday, June 17...that they would postpone the decision to remove Sharron in exchange for her dropping the charges." Is that precisely what was said?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Callahan: I'd like to take you to tab 71 and I'd like you to look at the court docket list. Maybe because the counsel prepared or arranged to prepare these documents, can someone tell me whether the words, "Call Jeanne" and it looks like "227-1150" mean anything to anybody?
Ms Luu: I can explain that.
Ms Cronk: You can or cannot?
Ms Luu: I can.
Ms Cronk: Apparently it does to the witness.
Mr Callahan: What was that?
Ms Luu: It was June 2 and it was the first appearance and nobody showed up. We were very disappointed because we were expecting -- we didn't know, so we thought, "Oh, the board might be there." We didn't see anyone, so on June 3 -- oh, no, right after the hearing where nobody showed up, I went to see the JP counter and I inquired. I said, "How come that nobody showed up?" So they gave me the number of Jeanne, you know, the court administrator, and Jeanne said, "I will find out and I will let you know tomorrow."
Mr Callahan: So I take it that on the date that they were scheduled for court, which was the first date up, they didn't show up.
Ms Luu: No.
Mr Callahan: Also, I notice that --
Ms Cronk: Sorry to interrupt, Mr Callahan. Just to assist you, Mr Callahan, you may wish to clarify. I don't know whether there's any evidence yet before you as to whether they had been served by that date.
Mr Callahan: In any event, I think it still remains they didn't show up, whether they were served or not. We can get at that, I guess, later on.
I'd like to also go to tab 85. How much of those notes at tab 85 were made up in your presence, if you look at the two pages of handwritten notes?
Ms Luu: None was made in my presence.
Mr Callahan: I thought you said part of it was, that Sharron had --
Ms Luu: No. The first page was made by Sharron during the meeting. I was not at the meeting, so I didn't know of them. And the second part of this second page was made the next day, on Saturday.
Mr Callahan: Were you present when that was made?
Ms Luu: No. She showed me on Sunday.
Mr Callahan: So you weren't present for the making of any of those notes?
Ms Luu: No.
Mr Callahan: Just one more and then I'll yield to my friends. The item that you sent to James Wallace, which was from you, you've indicated was made up very shortly after the meeting that Ms Pretty attended. Is that right?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Callahan: Did you and she discuss this or did you just simply write down what she told you specifically about the words "All beg Sharron to drop the charges"?
Ms Luu: That's what my impression -- that's what she said to me right after the meeting.
Mr Callahan: Finally, when you were offered the job at the end of the June 10 meeting, as you were relaxing, a job on the health board, how did that come up? Was that just sort of a gratuitous throwaway by the minister?
Ms Luu: Well, I think that was casual chatting, you know, between me and the minister. It has no relevant importance at all.
Mr Callahan: We'll have to decide that, I suppose, but how did it come up? Did you ask her for a job?
Ms Luu: No.
Mr Callahan: Or did she just offer you a job?
Ms Luu: No. I guess that was brought up, because she said, "Trinh, you learned a lot." She seemed really amazed at my knowledge of housing projects. I think it might strike her mind at that time that maybe Trinh would be active sitting on a volunteer board or something like that, because she said, "Oh, I understand why Can Le didn't want you on the board, Trinh." So that was casual chatting. It was not a job. I thought it was a volunteer -- you know.
1820
Mr Callahan: But you didn't ask for it, she volunteered it.
Ms Luu: No, and I didn't see anything irregular about that.
Mr Callahan: Did you ask for it, is what I'm asking you. Did you ask for it, or was it volunteered by the minister?
Ms Luu: No, I did not.
Mr Callahan: You didn't ask for it, it was volunteered by the minister. Is that what you're saying to me?
Ms Luu: No, I didn't ask for any volunteer job. I was there. My purpose was to talk about the evidence.
Mr Callahan: Okay. I'll yield to my friend.
The Chair: Mr Chiarelli.
Mr Chiarelli: Ms Luu, as you're probably aware, this is a very important matter for a lot of people and, as counsel indicated, there are probably some very serious questions of credibility of witnesses. I'm sure that you're aware by now that some people might look very unfavourably at the fact that you taped a number of telephone conversations without telling the people at the other end of the phone that in fact they were being taped. Could you tell the committee why you feel there was nothing wrong by doing that?
Ms Luu: I have never learned that you should tell somebody that you are taping them during a private conversation. I didn't know that it was wrong, and I did it for my own information and I did it for my own reference and I did it with the intention to keep track of an accurate and truthful account of what happened, because I have experiences with people that I talked to who changed their stories afterwards. I didn't want that to happen, and if that happened, I could, you know, relisten to my tapes and analyse things and see why they did that or, you know, what did I say and what they say? So I didn't see anything wrong at all, and I did not have any intention to use it in a public inquiry like that.
Mr Chiarelli: Is that also why you kept very detailed notes of all your meetings and conversations with various people from time to time and --
Ms Luu: Yes, because when we realized that this is serious -- there are serious, pervasive problems plaguing the centre for two years, and I was the first one who succeeded to establish the link between the problems in management with the racially discriminatory tenant selection process. With the evidence I gathered so far I can establish the link between all the wrongs, all the problems at the centre with a certain individual, and I want to expose that. I want the board to know how wrong things are, and I can only do that with evidence. If I can't come up with evidence, how can I say: "Can Le, you did things wrong. You did that or that"?
Mr Chiarelli: Again, in the notes that Mora Thompson took down after discussing these issues with you, you indicated here, and I think I'm quoting, "Gave minister a year to rectify situation before went to court" and "If solve internally, charges can be withdrawn."
These are notes, and you indicated that you agreed that you made the statement about withdrawing the charges. Did you see the laying the charges and your involvement in that as a lever to get the ministry to respond, or did you basically give up at that point, in your own mind, on getting any substantive responsibility back from the minister or response back from the ministry?
Ms Luu: I won't look at it as a lever to pressure the ministry to take any action at all, but I look at it as extra options that are available to me and Sharron to have the problems rectified. We know that the denial of access to information is not right, and that issue can only be addressed by the crown, because the ministry refused to intervene and they might have legal grounds. They don't have any legal obligations to do so, so they can refuse that.
Mr Chiarelli: If I can change subject slightly, on June 2 you had a telephone conversation with Marc Collins, the minister's policy adviser, and you stated that he said it would be very awkward and, you suggested, impropriety on the part of the minister to meet with anybody where these Corporations Act charges would or could be discussed. You went on to say then that he set up a meeting, or helped set up a meeting, with the minister and one of the minister's assistants to get a briefing from you on these very charges.
Did you not think there was anything inconsistent with, on the one hand, Marc Collins saying it's improper for the minister to deal with these issues or talk to anybody about it while there are charges pending, and then on the other hand setting up a meeting at which she would be exposed to court dockets and all kinds of information and background concerning the court case?
Ms Luu: Yes, I found it very inconsistent. That's why I -- that is my purpose when I tape conversations I had with the ministry staff because I want to relisten to it and see what they said, and when I transcribed -- I made a transcript of that phone conversation -- I marked off the passages that I found inconsistent. I made my own notes on the transcript.
Mr Chiarelli: In any discussions with any staff at the constituency office or in the ministry, were there any comments made to you about the directors who had been charged under the Corporations Act?
Ms Luu: Any comments on the directors?
Mr Chiarelli: In other words, had anybody in the constituency office received phone calls of complaint about the charges having been laid or about to be laid? Did you get any feedback from the constituency office that the directors were concerned?
Ms Luu: No, I don't know. If there was any, not of my knowledge; I don't know.
Mr Chiarelli: I don't have an awful lot of time left, but I do want to address one item more generally because I don't have the time to go into the specifics.
When you look at the selected statement of facts on page 12, paragraphs 43 and 44, it indicates that on April 25, 1994, Ms Pretty swore a number of informations under the Provincial Offences Act, and 44 says, "On or about the same time Ms Trinh Luu swore an information under the Provincial Offences Act."
We heard you give evidence that in late February, March and into April, you had no expectation of a meeting with the minister or anything substantive happening in terms of a solution. Would you say that the ministry became more responsive and action-oriented after the informations were sworn by Sharron Pretty and after they became aware that charges had been laid? Did the ministry staff and the constituency staff become more responsive, ie, Marc Collins or anybody else?
Ms Luu: Yes, I would think so, because the first time they heard about the court charges, about the legal action, was from me when I talked to Audrey Moey on April 28. Audrey was really, really concerned, and just a couple of days later, May 3, Karen Ridley called Sharron and asked Sharron to call, to feel free to contact her if Sharron has more concerns. So I can assume that maybe because of the court charges, the legal action, the ministry has become aware of the gravity of the situation.
Mr Chiarelli: So you received information from three people on staff, Marc Collins, Sue Lott and Audrey Moey, that there was concern about the minister dealing with any matters while the court cases were pending? That was your impression as well?
Ms Luu: Not with Audrey; with Sue and with Marc. We learned from Sue on May 19 that because of the court case the minister couldn't talk to Sharron, and I learned from Marc on June 2 that it would put Evelyn in an awkward position to talk to anyone about anything related to that project.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you. I'll pass the mike over to Mr Murphy.
1830
Mr Murphy: If I can, I'm going to just put a few conclusions that I've reached to you and see if you'll agree with them or not.
My sense is that you have quite good relationships, and probably would call yourself a friend, with Audrey Moey, Sue Lott and perhaps even Bev Bell. I think you went to Audrey Moey's baby shower, right?
Ms Luu: Yes. Yes, Audrey and Sue and me, we were pretty close.
Mr Murphy: And did that continue up until recently, or does it still continue?
Ms Luu: I don't know. I haven't heard anything from them since all this incident, but I do believe that we are still friends because they were very supportive of my efforts. They listened to me and they did a good follow-up and I understand that they are just Evelyn's constituency staff, so they have no direct commitment nor authority over the problems at the project.
Mr Murphy: And my sense from what you've been telling us is that Audrey Moey and Sue Lott, and perhaps Beverlee Bell, were sympathetic to you and to Sharron Pretty's concerns and that the ministry officials in the Ottawa area, in any event, were more sympathetic with the other views expressed by the balance of the board at the Van Lang Centre. Would that be fair?
Ms Luu: I am sure of what Sue, Audrey or Beverlee might be thinking about Sharron's and my own efforts, but I'm not sure what the rest of the people think of the board because I have no direct contact with them. I don't know.
Mr Murphy: And is your sense that of the people you know, the three you mentioned, that they are sympathetic, they were sympathetic to your views?
Ms Luu: Yes. They try everything they could.
Mr Murphy: Right. And they were arguing with the minister's office here in Toronto and the ministry to get your views expressed? Was that your sense?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Murphy: By June 10 of this year, is there any doubt in your mind that Audrey Moey, Sue Lott, Beverlee Bell, ministry officials, Marc Collins or the minister herself have any doubt that there are charges pending under the Corporations Act that are not civil, that they're fully aware of the fact that those are out there and are pending between members of the board; and secondly, if I can put so long a question, that they at that point understand that that creates a problem for the involvement by the minister in the issue? Is that fair, by June 10 that all of those people have that understanding?
Ms Luu: Yes. Yes, I would think so.
Mr Murphy: And that's, obviously, as far as you know.
Ms Luu: June 10?
Mr Murphy: Yes, as far as you're aware. I mean, your understanding of events leading up to that point is that they are all aware (a) that there are charges -- by June 10, that there are charges that are not civil in nature. Correct?
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Mr Murphy: And that they are aware that there are now difficulties involved --
Ms Luu: And they saw the evidence.
Mr Murphy: -- with the minister's involvement because of those charges.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Murphy: And yet, none the less, there is a meeting involving those very parties which the minister attends on June 17.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Mr Murphy: Thank you. Those are my questions. I appreciate the time.
The Chair: Mrs Marland.
Mrs Marland: Thank you, Mr Chair. Is it 20 minutes?
The Chair: Yes.
Mrs Marland: Ms Luu, I described you earlier today in my opening statement as being strong, intelligent, courageous and tenacious.
Ms Luu: Thank you.
Mrs Marland: And I also asked you earlier today if you would mind if I asked you a couple of questions about your background, because I think it's important for this committee to understand what your background is and where you were coming from. It is fair to describe, as you have to me personally, that you are a Vietnamese boat person?
Ms Luu: Yes, I was.
Mrs Marland: And how long have you been here now?
Ms Luu: It would be six years in October.
Mrs Marland: So what you endured to get to your chosen country probably has in turn given you some of the strengths that you now have in terms of being courageous and strong and tenacious.
Ms Luu: Yes, I guess so.
Mrs Marland: And you obviously were born with intelligence.
Ms Luu: Thank you.
Mrs Marland: What I'm wondering is, you had an experience when you were an employee of the Van Lang Centre, and then after that experience you changed careers. In fact, you went into law. Does that have anything to do with the kind of country you came from and the kind of experience you had as an employee at the Van Lang Centre, that you chose law?
Ms Luu: Yes, a lot, because I came from Communist Vietnam, a country where there is no law at all. Former lawyers just go unemployed. As far as I understand, there is still no establishment of a legal system or any academic subjects such as law being taught in universities. When I came here I was amazed by the democratic principles that prevail in western societies, and when I was employed there I was shocked when I realized that these are people who came here at the age of 19, as students, who spent their whole productive years here and who --
Mrs Marland: I don't want to interrupt you more than I have to, but we're desperate because we only have 20 minutes.
Ms Luu: Yes. I might be digressing.
Mrs Marland: The fact that you were employed by a Vietnamese organization and you saw things in that organization that were wrong, did that upset you very much because you're very proud of being Vietnamese, you're very proud of the Vietnamese community in Ottawa and you saw something that was very wrong and you wanted to correct it? Would it be fair to say that is true?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mrs Marland: Is it also fair to say that you did really see Ms Gigantes socially? First of all, you went for an interview for a job in her office. Maybe you didn't see her at that time --
Ms Luu: No.
Mrs Marland: -- but you saw her at showers in her staff's home; you went for lunch with her staff.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Mrs Marland: Would there be any doubt at all that Ms Gigantes would know who Trinh Luu was?
Ms Luu: I don't understand your question.
Mrs Marland: If Ms Gigantes had a request from her staff for a meeting with a Ms Trinh Luu, there wouldn't be any doubt that Ms Gigantes would know who you are.
Ms Luu: No.
Mrs Marland: She had mixed with you socially. You mentioned another time where there was a launch for an NDP candidate's political campaign.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mrs Marland: Did you feel that -- well, first of all, Ms Gigantes is your own MPP. Correct?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mrs Marland: If you had to go for help to your own MPP -- it happened to be that she was also the minister, but do you feel that the minister dealt fairly with you when you asked for eight months for a meeting? Were you satisfied with how the minister dealt with the grave and serious problems by just referring the staff, as a solution, to those grave and serious problems?
Ms Luu: No, I'm not. I'm not satisfied. That's why I kept wondering why Evelyn didn't answer me. When I got her letter dated December 6, I was very relieved. As I said earlier, I just sat back and waited for the compliance review and waited to hear from her, but when I realized that it might not come from Evelyn I still thought like that. I said, "Maybe it's because of her staff; her people didn't want her to get involved and she listened to her people." And here the simple solution is that I'm here and I offered her my story but she didn't take a look at my story. She didn't show any interest in seeing the evidence.
For a minister I think that is very important, because here you have a plain citizen and on top of that somebody you know, somebody you know that has integrity. She said to Sharron in the meeting of June 17, when the board started to discredit me: "Trinh has a lot of integrity. She is very intelligent and she has a lot of documents. She gathered a lot of documents and I have seen them." So I gather from that that we still think highly of each other. But if I have to judge Evelyn in her capacity as minister, I must say that I was very disappointed because, given the friendship and the knowledge we had of each other before, given the closeness with her --
Mrs Marland: The kind of relationship that you had with Evelyn Gigantes was more than the average Ontario citizen with their MPP in terms of the fact that you did socialize together.
Ms Luu: Yes, I would say so. Yes.
1840
Mrs Marland: There was some reference this afternoon about a concern about a backlash on the Vietnamese community. When some of the evidence was brought out earlier today, you were talking about the concerns that in fact what was going on at the Van Lang Centre, while it was opposite to the policies of the Minister of Housing's ministry itself, was also of concern to you because you saw it as a form of reverse racism.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Mrs Marland: How do you feel the Vietnamese community reacts today in Ottawa to what's going on with the Van Lang Centre? Do you think that you see support for Dr Can D. Le or do you think that the Vietnamese community now understands what it is you were trying to do and why it is that you never gave up?
Ms Luu: I'll pick up the last part of your question. I feel very pleased that now everything is in the open, is made public, members of my community now understand what the objectives of the project are, and their attitude and their response is very cautious. They listen, they must be watching the news, and they make their own judgement. I have a lot of support from certain individuals who hold very influential positions in the community as well.
Mrs Marland: I want to give some time to my colleague Mr Harnick, but I want to just confirm one other question. This very important meeting on October 28, 1993, where you and Sharron met with Sue Lott in the constituency office, you have described that the door was open to an office next door and that someone was smoking in that room but during your meeting with Sue Lott that you didn't realize who was in that next room. We all know that Ms Gigantes smokes, but at the time of your meeting you were going over in depth all of the concerns that you had.
Ms Luu: Yes, both of us.
Mrs Marland: So what was it, as you left that meeting, that twigged for you that Ms Gigantes was in the next room and could well have heard your concerns in person? Not that you're not someone that she doesn't know; she would perhaps even recognize your voice because she knows you so well.
Ms Luu: She knew it was me, yes.
Mrs Marland: Were you fairly confident when you left on October 28, some nine months ago now, that Ms Gigantes had to have heard at least some of the concerns that you and Sharron were trying to bring to their attention?
Ms Luu: Yes, because when we left and Sharron said, "Oh, Evelyn is in the office," I said, "That's good." So she must have heard us, because we were animated, we were excited about the Corporations Act.
Mrs Marland: I will ask Dr Can Le this last question, but have you any idea why Dr Can D. Le destroyed your documentation about the work of the superintendent and the other material records of the centre, the board meetings? Have you any idea what was his motive to destroy records and to protect that particular superintendent?
Ms Luu: I can see readily two motives. First of all, the lawsuit by the former property manager, launched by Mrs Trinh Tran, because in her statement of claim she said that she had difficulties working with this guy because he is incompetent. In his statement of defence, Dr Le said, "No, the superintendent, at all material times, the corporation expressed satisfaction over his performance." All of a sudden I didn't have anything against that super nor Can Le. I found out the same thing.
I was forced to produce a favourable evaluation report on the super's performance one day after the board met to approve the evaluation procedures. Can Le said, "You should write your report in consistency with the corporation's statement of defence." I said: "I can't do that, because you are forcing me to lie, first. Secondly, I care for the safety of my tenants, and if I certify that this guy is qualified and I didn't urge him and nobody was -- everybody was covering up for him, so what happened to our tenants' safety?" So that's the first motive.
The second one -- well, I don't know whether I should say that. I think that it's a matter of false pride because I think personally that Dr Le must -- like I said, his erroneous vision, I would call it, the erroneous vision on the development of the project, was how the end was perpetuated by himself. So I really --
Mrs Marland: It was like a little empire-building for him as an individual?
Ms Luu: Yes, I would say so, of Dr Le.
Mrs Marland: Thank you. Mr Harnick.
Mr Harnick: Very briefly, I have two questions, Ms Luu. First of all, you told us earlier that you had been given a job by the, I gather, Ministry of Housing and that the job was a job, if you had taken it, that you would have had to go to Toronto to take up whatever duties.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Harnick: Who offered you that job?
Ms Luu: Ms Eileen Quinn.
Mr Harnick: Eileen Quinn?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Harnick: And did she say how much money you were going to be paid?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Harnick: How much money were you going to be paid?
Ms Luu: Thirty-nine thousand.
Mr Harnick: Thirty-nine thousand. Did they give you any kind of letter confirming your employment? Was there any documentation?
Ms Luu: Yes, they started to send me the -- what do you call that? The forms that you have to fill in, in order to become a staff member at the ministry's office.
Mr Harnick: I see, okay. That's my first little area that I want to deal with.
The second area is this: You've told us that Sue Lott and Audrey were friends of yours, they were very supportive and in fact, you attended on them and told them your story. You provided them with your documentation; you sent them carbon copies of letters that you had sent to the minister and her staff. You had in fact met with the minister's staff. You had provided them with all of the documentation, and then you had the big meeting with the minister on June 10, 1994. Up to that time you had spent really almost a year and a half pumping out correspondence, trying to tell your story to all of these people. Correct?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Harnick: When you sat down with the minister on June 10, 1994, was it as though you were telling the story to the minister for the first time, and all of this came as a great surprise to her? Or are we to understand that in fact her staff does brief her and her ministry personnel does brief her, and that all of this was something she was very familiar with?
Ms Luu: Yes, that's why I found her question, "Did Bill Clement know about this?" very, very shocking, because that's why I started to pour on the reports. Because if Bill Clement had sat down with me and listened to me, I wouldn't have requested a meeting to see Evelyn, and I was talking to her right here.
Mr Harnick: But was the minister aware of all of this, or was this as though she had heard the story for the first time?
Ms Luu: Yes, she was aware of all this because, according to a conversation Sharron had with Sue Lott on December 2, Sue said, "Yes, I talked to Evelyn about this and Evelyn had decided to pull your letter out of the regular channel, and she decided to assign this matter to Marc Collins, and Marc was not very happy with the way the regional office is responding to the problem." We have that transcript too.
Mr Harnick: So she was well aware of it. Did you ever get the impression, because she was well aware of it and that she had people who were working directly in her office dealing with it, that in fact she was involved with this issue herself, or did you get the impression that she had just delegated everything and that it was going to go away?
Ms Luu: I really don't know.
Mr Harnick: Did she ever give you any impression?
Ms Luu: No, because I did most of the talking and she listened attentively. She didn't say anything so I don't know.
Mr Harnick: Okay. Thank you.
1850
Mrs Marland: Is there any time?
The Chair: Yes. You've used 16 minutes and 40 seconds.
Mrs Marland: Ms Luu, you heard me also say earlier today that if certain people had done their job, we could've avoided this very expensive, costly hearing as a burden on the taxpayers of Ontario.
Ms Luu: That's true.
Mrs Marland: You agree with that statement?
Ms Luu: Yes, I completely agree with that.
Mrs Marland: Do you also agree that if there had been two women who were a different ability and a different personality than you and Sharron Pretty, two things might've happened -- somebody with less courage and strength than you and Sharron Pretty would've given up long ago?
Ms Luu: That's true. Nobody would endure whatever we have gone through.
Mrs Marland: So why didn't you give up? Because you wanted to protect your community and make something right that you saw was very, very wrong?
Ms Luu: Yes, because we think that this is worth fighting for. This is a good cause, and I was in a position to know about this. If I give up, nobody else knows about this, and the intimidation will go on, Sharron will suffer and the tenants would never enjoy an open and fair and democratic process at this centre. I want to rectify the wrongs, the problems.
Mrs Marland: Good for you.
Mr Harnick: Ms Luu, at the end of your meeting on June 10 with the minister, the minister volunteered to you that, "This is really a messy problem we've got ourselves into," and you then said to her, if I understand your evidence, "It would not be such a messy problem if you had been listening to us."
Ms Luu: A few months ago.
Mr Harnick: A few months ago. What did the minister say to that?
Ms Luu: Nothing.
Mr Harnick: She was sort of left speechless? Is that fair to say?
Ms Luu: She didn't say anything. I don't know, but she didn't say anything.
Mr Owens: Isn't this called leading the witness?
Mr Harnick: Pardon?
Ms Luu: She didn't say anything.
Mr Harnick: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the answer because Mr Owens was going to try and give it for you. Could you repeat what you said?
Ms Luu: She said, "It's really messy," and I said, "It couldn't have been that messy, Evelyn, if you had listened to me and Sharron a few months ago," and she didn't say anything.
Mr Harnick: Was that just the end of the meeting, right then and there?
Ms Luu: Yes, it was towards the end.
Mr Harnick: Did she just sort of turn around and walk away at that stage, or was there anything else said?
Ms Luu: Let me remember the sequence. When was that, when I asked her, oh, yeah, "What are you going to do about that? What would you do about that, Evelyn?" and she said, "Well, I don't know; I'm not a lawyer."
Mr Harnick: All right. Thanks.
The Chair: Kimble? Mr Sutherland?
Mr Sutherland: Mr Winninger.
The Chair: Okay, Mr Winninger.
Mr Winninger: Thank you, Mr Chair. Ms Luu, we've heard that your acquaintance with the Housing minister goes back to late 1991, when you first met at the opening of the Van Lang Centre. I believe that was your evidence?
Ms Luu: No, not 1991. I started on September 8, 1992, as the acting property manager.
Mr Winninger: No, I'm sorry, you were asked earlier in the day when you first met the Housing minister, and I believe your evidence was that you met the Housing minister at the opening of the Van Lang Centre in late 1991.
Ms Luu: No, in 1992; November 1992.
Mr Winninger: Okay, and after that you saw the minister on one occasion at the shower for the baby of Audrey Moey.
Ms Luu: There were other occasions in between, like she was there at our Tet festival, our community Tet festival.
Mr Winninger: And you also saw her at an NDP meeting that you described took place on March 10, but I don't believe you spoke with her then.
Ms Luu: Well, we just spoke, and she said, "So, Trinh, how is law school?" You know, that casual stuff.
Mr Winninger: Small talk.
Ms Luu: Yes. But I saw she was busy and I couldn't produce -- you know, I have to go through hours and hours and the atmosphere was not convenient to do that so I dropped that idea. But I brought my file with me.
Mr Winninger: So the main occasion when you had the opportunity to discuss the allegations you had made was the June 10 meeting of this year?
Ms Luu: That's true.
Mr Winninger: But meanwhile you enjoyed what I would infer was a very friendly relationship with her staff. You've described that you saw them on a few occasions. You had lunch with them on at least three occasions.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Winninger: You mention that as early as May 1993, you had written to Mr Clement, who you described as the "small boss."
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm, May 31.
Mr Winninger: Was it May 31?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Winninger: You had written to Mr Clement, who you described as the "small boss," I take it at regional housing, detailing some of your allegations in regard to the conduct of the superintendent, the conduct of Dr Can Le and also allegations regarding procedural irregularities. In response to that letter to Mr Clement, we heard from you earlier today that you received a visit, you received correspondence and you received communications, not only from Mr Clement but also from Mr Shapiro, who you described as the "medium boss," and Mr Sutherland, I guess, who was the big boss. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: Not after May 31. After May 31, I stopped seeing Bill because Bill didn't respond to my request, Bill didn't listen to me any more. That's why I filed that report on June 16 with Brian and I brought that report, on June 17, to the attention of Evelyn's office. So it couldn't be said that Evelyn came to deal with me directly since June 10, 1994, but I wrote to her in person on November 8 and she wrote me back.
Mr Winninger: Yes, I do know that. You said you were quite impressed with the promptness of her reply.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Winninger: I take it that because of your own conclusions as to the response of the Housing ministry at that point, you had some conversations with Ms Pretty as early as October 1993 regarding sending a letter to the minister. In fact, you co-wrote that letter with her, did you not?
Ms Luu: That was in March, on March 4, 1994, when we did not -- oh, that was when the compliance review was out.
Mr Winninger: I'm sorry. On October 29, you indicated that you had written a letter --
Ms Luu: No, that was Sharron's. It's not my letter.
Mr Winninger: You didn't co-write that letter with her, then?
Ms Luu: No, I wrote with Sharon on March 4, 1994.
Mr Winninger: I see. There was no mention in Ms Pretty's letter, to your knowledge, of October 29 requesting a meeting. It was November 8 when you personally wrote to the Housing minister. In the course of your letter you requested a meeting, as you put it, to directly voice your concerns.
Ms Luu: Yes, on November 8 I put that and I said I wanted to have a meeting with the minister in order to have her examine the evidence I had supporting my allegations.
Mr Winninger: What in fact the minister responded with in her letter of December 6, acknowledging your letter but including a statement that she would contact you after the compliance review report was in, and in fact that compliance review report was presented to the board, I understand, on February 8, 1994.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Mr Winninger: Following the presentation of that report, you co-authored a letter with Ms Pretty, March 4, and you've mentioned that, in which you detailed some of your concerns regarding the compliance report. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes, and I would like to add something, because just after the compliance review was out, I was waiting for the minister to give me that contact, because she promised, "As soon as the compliance review is out, I will contact you." I waited and I didn't see anything. We realized that this is important, the compliance review has problems. We waited. We didn't see anything. That prompted our March 4 letter.
1900
Mr Winninger: You mentioned your request for a meeting that you made on April 28 with the minister.
Ms Luu: Prior to that, I started to -- okay, so I requested a meeting on November 8. She said, "Wait, let me see the compliance review."
Mr Winninger: Yes, right.
Ms Luu: Then the compliance review was out. I heard nothing, so we were getting impatient. The compliance review has problems, so we wrote on March 4. We heard nothing. February 25, before that, I had already talked to Sue, insisting on a meeting.
Mr Winninger: But by April 25, Ms Pretty had already sworn out some informations.
Ms Luu: Yes, she did.
Mr Winninger: It was at that point that there was some concern expressed by Ms Gigantes's staff that when criminal charges have been laid, consideration for a meeting with you might be problematic. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes, and there was a little difference between Sharron's moods and my feelings at the time, because Sharron wanted to go to the media earlier than I did. Sharron wanted to go right in March. I tried to prevent her and I said: "Wait, Sharron, give Brian a chance. I'll talk to Sue." That's why I talked to Sue again on March 25. At that time, Sharron was determined to go to the media. I decided later on.
Mr Winninger: But your evidence was that the ministry was reluctant to intervene in the face of those court charges.
Ms Luu: They were reluctant to intervene into matters that were under that jurisdiction. The charges -- they can't intervene. What about the core issues? What about the faulty selection process? What about the OCRHA quota? What about tenant participation?
Mr Winninger: Fine. Meanwhile, though, you made contact with Mora Thompson of the Conservative caucus. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: I did that only when I told myself: "That's it. I won't try any more with the ministry. I will turn to other resources." I saw that April 23 article by Elizabeth Payne and I saw all the troubles and I thought, "This is our story and we need to tell our story."
Mr Winninger: According to Mora Thompson's notes, if this problem was solved internally, you thought that at least the charge you laid might be withdrawn but you couldn't speak for Ms Pretty, I believe your evidence was.
Ms Luu: I think if you look at those notes, you will see that they were taken right after the item referring to Marilyn Churley's letter and my statement that I had given the ministry one year, to rectify the situation. What I was commending at the time is that. So you see, I tried everything I could.
Mr Winninger: I heard your evidence earlier and it was very thoroughly gone into by committee counsel.
Ms Luu: This is what she put down. This is not what I had in mind at the time.
Mr Winninger: But that's what was noted and that's Mora Thompson's reflection of the conversation highlights that you had with her.
Ms Luu: That must be what she got from me, but what I was saying at the time is that, you see, if these were solved internally, these charges could not have existed today.
Mr Winninger: Meanwhile, while you were informing Mora Thompson and perhaps others of the criminal charges, it wasn't part of your conversation with Ms Gigantes's staff at that stage?
Ms Luu: Because nobody asked.
Mr Winninger: No one asked.
Ms Luu: If you look at the transcript, I was the one who made long tirades and my interlocutor just listened, very annoyed. So what can I say? I just said, "There is legal action." Nobody inquired about that.
Mr Winninger: Eventually, on June 2, you spoke with Marc Collins, who we understand is a policy adviser to the minister, and he again expressed some reluctance regarding a meeting with the minister after charges have been laid. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Winninger: Eventually, a meeting was arranged on June 10th, and you've provided the committee and others with an account of your meeting with the minister. During the course of your account -- and perhaps you have it in front of you now -- you said that you did most of the talking, Ms Gigantes listened attentively, and you told her your belief that it was her responsibility to receive information to accurately identify problems and take appropriate action.
Then at the end of this document you say that you "left the meeting feeling relieved and hopeful and convinced that the minister is no doubt compelled to take action against the wrongdoers now that she had seen the evidence and received information on the gravity of the situation."
Ms Luu: Yes --
Mr Winninger: Then you went on to say that you "had finally succeeded in forcing the minister to face reality," and so on.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Winninger: It was your evidence, I believe, that you were told by the minister that it would take two weeks for her to get back to you in connection with the evidence and discussions that you presented on June 10th; is that correct?
Ms Luu: I said, "What are you going to do?" She said, "I don't know; I'm not a lawyer." "When can I hear from you?" She said, "In two weeks." I don't know what she's going to do in two weeks, but the feeling I had at the meeting was my personal feeling which was not shared by Sharron and by other non-Viet tenants, because when I came back, I came out of that meeting, I went to them and said, "This is what she said, this is what I said, this is what she promised." They said: "That's too late, we won't wait, we have to go to the media. Would you join us?" I said, "Yes, I would." That's why we produced our letter, we co-signed it.
Mr Winninger: But contrary to the sense of comfort that you reflect in your notes of June 10th, which were prepared, you said, in the evening -- and I would ask whether there is a document of your rough notes that were taken at the meeting.
Ms Luu: No, because I type it on my computer.
Mr Winninger: Okay. So, anyway, the very next day you're writing to Mora Thompson, and we have the June 11th memo before us saying that the staff had ignored your evidence, that you did not reveal coverups in the compliance review --
Ms Luu: Excuse me, which tab is that?
Mr Winninger: Pardon?
Ms Luu: Which tab is that?
Mr Winninger: Which --
Ms Luu: The tab you are referring to.
Mr Winninger: Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps there's so many --
Ms Cronk: Which document is it?
Mr Winninger: This is the June 11th memo to Mora Thompson from Ms Luu, tab 88. I think it was 100 -- 89? Sorry, that's not --
Ms Luu: That is not the meeting I had with Evelyn, that was the meeting Sharron had.
Mr Winninger: Oh. I may be able to help you with the exact tab. It's tab 4 --
Interjection.
Mr Winninger: Pardon?
Ms Cronk: Seventy-three.
Mr Winninger: Seventy-three? Okay.
Ms Cronk: We're talking about the June 11th memo to Mora Thompson?
Mr Winninger: That's correct. It's the memo in which you quote the minister as saying this was very messy.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Winninger: In any event, you go on to say during the course of that, "We have no other means to reveal the truth but to make it public." So you decided, I guess, virtually overnight that you were no longer comfortable and that you were now going to go public with this; is this correct?
Ms Luu: That's true.
Mr Winninger: You do agree that the minister did listen attentively to your concerns --
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Winninger: -- that there was an undertaking by her to get back to you in two weeks and that you left on amicable terms?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Winninger: Okay. Next, June 13th, another memo to Mora Thompson, and in the course of this memo you thank her for her messages. So I gather there was some ongoing communication between you and Mora following the June 10th meeting; is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes.
1910
Mr Winninger: Again on June 15, you write to her and indicate that if the issue is raised in the House on June 20, that would be fine and that you would compile the necessary brief.
Ms Luu: Mm-hmm.
Mr Winninger: You indicate that you'd like to have a courier to pick up some more files and documents. So I gather you were in very close communication with Mora Thompson of the Conservative caucus throughout this period of time; is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Winninger: You taped many conversations that took place both in person and over the telephone. Did you tape any of your conversations with Mora Thompson?
Ms Luu: No, I did not.
Mr Winninger: Was there a reason why you taped other conversations and not your conversations with the PC caucus?
Ms Luu: Because she's not in the picture. She's not the Ministry of Housing staff. I have been dealing with the Ministry of Housing staff and I need to document on the Ministry of Housing staff, so why should I tape Mora? I didn't see any reason why I should tape her, because I understand what I was communicating to her. I trusted her, because she promised to listen to us and I shared my concerns with her. Here is someone who listens to my concerns and I have no doubt not to trust her.
Mr Winninger: After the June 17 meeting of which you express no direct knowledge but you indicate that you had spoken with Sharron Pretty after that meeting, and subsequently in the afternoon I think you faxed a memo to Mr Wallace of the Sun relaying to him what Ms Pretty had told you of what had ensued at the morning meeting, you indicated some familiarity with her rough notes, that you had seen her rough notes, but you indicated that at first she showed you page 1 of those notes. Is that correct?
Ms Luu: Yes.
Mr Winninger: But later there was page 2 and page 3 of those notes added, and those were the notes that pertain to conflict of interest and pressure to drop charges and so on. Were you involved in the preparation of pages 2 and 3 of those notes?
Ms Luu: No, not at all.
Mr Winninger: Do you know why she had one page of notes from the meeting and then pages 2 and 3 were then added?
Ms Luu: Yes, because right at the meeting she said that she knows that it would last only for half an hour. Evelyn was talking, so she thought that Evelyn must do the talking most of the time and no one would have a chance to say anything. And she did. According to what Sharron told me, Evelyn just acted like the chairman.
Mr Winninger: If you had an hour --
The Chair: I'm sorry but your time's run out.
Mr Callahan: You had me on the edge of my chair.
The Chair: Bob here has got two questions.
Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'd like to ask Ms Cronk's opinion. Since my executive assistant, Mora Thompson, has become through her work with Ms Luu in trying to resolve the problems at the Van Lang Centre -- Ms Thompson's handwritten notes have been part of the evidence as of now, this afternoon, and in the cross-examination, there has been inference in what Ms Thompson meant when she wrote her notes. So my question to you, Ms Cronk, is, that gives me some concern on behalf of Ms Thompson and her professional career, because I know Ms Thompson. I know the kind of notes she takes because she's worked with me for five years. My concern is that if there is an inference that Ms Thompson meant one thing and Ms Luu, in relating something to her, meant something else, it's very difficult for Ms Thompson to protect what her understanding was when she took these notes without being able to say that herself.
The questions that Mr Winninger was just asking, there was the inference all along about the fact that it was the Conservative member and the Conservative, Mora Thompson, and I have a concern for the fact that although Ms Luu has referred to Elizabeth Payne's article in the Ottawa Citizen which talked about the problems in non-profit housing in the province, because -- I haven't actually read the article, but I understand it talks about Mike Harris and his opinion about what's wrong with some of the non-profit housing programs in the province.
When Ms Luu contacted -- she read this article. She phones Mr Harris's office. Mr Harris's office actually referred her to Norm Sterling's office, because she was from Ottawa, who in turn referred her to me, and Ms Luu's referral to my office in fact had nothing to do with our partisan alignment. It was simply that -- we happen to be Conservatives, but I feel that Ms Luu didn't even know who we were when she started to make the calls after the article that she read in the paper.
But now Ms Mora Thompson's notes have become a very important part of the evidence this afternoon, not more important than any other part, but they on their own have become an important part. So I'm wondering if you would consider it necessary for Ms Thompson to answer questions on her own notes.
Ms Cronk: It may be a matter, Ms Marland -- the best way that I can respond to it is a matter that I would like to give further consideration to. I do not regard evidence from Ms Thompson to be necessary because the witness has not, as I understand it, denied any of the relevant contents of the notes that were examined on. Had that occurred, then I would have asked the committee myself to hear from Ms Thompson as a necessary witness.
Having said that, if there is some unfairness that would be worked by not permitting her to testify, that's an entirely different matter and I would like to consider that. And if that is the committee's wish and avoiding unfairness would be accomplished by permitting her to testify, that would always be my recommendation.
Mrs Marland: Thank you.
Mr Callahan: On that same point, I would have thought that it would have been acceptable to have an affidavit of -- we're not going to get through these witnesses, and I think we're running out of a lot of time. I would think an affidavit would probably suffice.
But the one I would like to ask about is -- and I notice they are not on the list for witnesses -- Michael Séguin, Pat Dare and Dave Rider. I look at their evidence as being critical. They are personally present when Hieu Truong, the secretary, states -- according to Trinh Luu: "We confronted him with a lot of uneasy questions. He said, to his understanding, there was an agreement at the meeting with Evelyn on Friday, June 17, 1994, that they would postpone the decision to remove Sharron in exchange for her dropping the charges."
That is the very meat of this committee hearing, and I find it really bizarre that those three witnesses are not on the list of witnesses, because if what took place -- if Hieu Truong did say that, we can call them and we can all go home.
The Chair: I'm going to break in. Mr Callahan, then you should appoint you as a subcommittee member, because the subcommittee were the ones that went over with legal counsel --
Mr Callahan: Well, no, Mr Chair, with --
The Chair: No, no, but I think you should discuss that.
Mr Callahan: Well, Mr Chair, with respect, I was not on the subcommittee. Legal counsel has indicated that she has gone through the witnesses that she felt were relevant. It may very well be that these three slipped through the cracks.
Interjection.
Mr Callahan: Oh, I'm sorry. Well, I'm told by my colleague that the subcommittee did not have access to the item that's under tab 93, and, I mean, that's pretty clear. It says these people were present when Hieu Truong made that statement.
Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Ask him if he made that statement when he comes before the committee.
1920
Mr Callahan: That's fine, but the very fact that those three people were present -- if it's irrelevant, and I think it's most relevant --
The Chair: Mr Callahan, there are a couple more questions to go on here. Ask your rep at the subcommittee meeting tomorrow to bring this issue up and we can discuss it there.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr Chair, perhaps legal counsel has a comment to that.
The Chair: Well, I can let Ms Cronk answer that, but --
Ms Cronk: It would be my advice to the committee, Mr Callahan, that you hear the evidence of Dr Truong, who is to be called as a witness in this matter, before any inferences or conclusions are drawn by anyone as to the import of the document or of its contents.
I can say to you, sir, that then or at any other time, if there is need or relevance in calling an additional witness, I would be pleased to discuss that with the subcommittee and call whatever witnesses are necessary. But to make that determination now or to draw any conclusions or inferences from the evidence that you've heard today before you've heard from Dr Truong -- it might be better not to do that and to hear from him first.
Mr Callahan: The only difficulty, Mr Chair, and I'll leave it, is that if that happens, Dr Truong is coming on so late in these proceedings -- we've only got till Thursday. If we have the undertaking of all members of this committee that if it becomes necessary to extend, assuming Dr Truong denies it, to call evidence, to call these people, that the committee itself will agree that these three witnesses should be called -- we're trying to get at the truth of this matter, and if Trinh Luu says that's what happened, she was there, she's been called, and certainly Pat Dare and Dave Rider -- I have no idea who Dave Rider is, but Pat Dare is a member of the press.
Ms Cronk: So is Mr Rider.
Mr Callahan: Is he also? And Michael Séguin -- I think those witnesses should be before us, maybe by way of rebuttal, but I want some undertaking from the committee that they will extend the sittings if necessary to bring those witnesses forward.
The Chair: Have your subcommittee member bring it forward. Ms Cronk, I think you have a couple of questions so we can dismiss the witness. It's been a long day.
Mr Chiarelli: If I may, Mr Chair, on a point of order: There's nothing that this committee can't deal with that the subcommittee can deal with. If a motion were to be made at this committee to compel a witness or to ask for a witness we have the authority to do so. So I don't think it's necessarily correct simply to say, "Refer to a subcommittee." I think it's totally appropriate for anybody on this committee to suggest potential witnesses.
Mr Callahan: I think counsel indicated that too. She indicated we were at liberty to do that and I so move, Mr Chair, that this committee --
Interjections.
The Chair: Can we finish? We'd like to finish with the witness.
Ms Cronk: Sorry, there is some re-examination by me, Mr Callahan, of the witness.
Ms Luu, I don't have very many questions for you but I want to clarify a number of the answers that you gave to members of the committee. I'm not sure that I understood them.
First, with respect to the April 28th discussion that you have said that you had with Audrey Moey of the minister's constituency offices, I thought you told the committee earlier this afternoon -- and please correct me when I get this wrong, if I do -- I thought you had told the committee that you told Ms Moey during that conversation that Sharron Pretty was taking "legal action." That was the phrase that you used. Do you recall that?
Ms Luu: Yes. I remember saying to her that the latest I heard from Sharron was that she has taken legal action.
Ms Cronk: Yes, and then this afternoon, and it may have been a misunderstanding on my part, late in the day, I thought you said in an answer to a question you were asked by the committee that the first time that the minister's constituency office staff heard about "court charges" was when you told Ms Moey all about them on August 28th. My question to you is this --
Ms Luu: April 28th, not August 28th.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. You're talking about the same conversation, April 28th.
Ms Luu: Yes, yes. I think that was the first time that the constituency staff heard about the actual charges being laid.
Ms Cronk: On April 28th.
Ms Luu: Yes.
Ms Cronk: My point to you is this: Did you in fact use the word "charges"? Did you in fact provide any details about Sharron Pretty's legal action to Ms Moey in that conversation? I thought you had told me you had not.
Ms Luu: No. I think I said -- what I said was that, "The latest I heard from Sharron is that she has taken legal action."
Ms Cronk: And did you explain what you meant by that to Ms Moey or not?
Ms Luu: No. No. I have the transcript, so you can check and see, but I remember I said that.
Ms Cronk: Then I was also confused about one other point, and it has to do with your discussion with Mora Thompson on May 25th and the notes that are now an exhibit before the committee and what you told the committee about that. We had a lengthy discussion about it, so I just want to make sure I understand what your evidence is.
Could you look again at page 3, please? With reference to the notation, "If solve internally, charges can be withdrawn," I thought you had told me at the end of your evidence this afternoon -- you did indicate earlier in your evidence today that you could not speak for Sharron Pretty, that you didn't know what her intentions were with respect to the charges that she had initiated.
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: And in the context of your discussions with Mora Thompson, I took from that that you weren't purporting to speak for Sharron Pretty.
Ms Luu: That I was --
Ms Cronk: You weren't suggesting that you were speaking for Sharron Pretty in your discussion.
Ms Luu: I was suggesting that I was speaking for Sharron? No, because when you questioned me on this, I had a hard time to remember how this links with the two previous statements I have, because I can't remember and I don't have any minutes or tapes or transcripts to back up my memory. So what I took from this is that if you relate it to the two earlier statements, what I must have said is that, you see, it has been dragging on for almost a year, and if it had been solved internally, those charges could have never existed.
Ms Cronk: I asked you to look as well at page 4 and the discussion of charges set out on page 4. The question I'm putting to you, Ms Luu, is this: that when you were speaking about charges with Mora Thompson, as indicated by her notes, what you were telling her about was not just the charge you had initiated but all the charges that were outstanding.
Ms Luu: That's true.
Ms Cronk: And there is nothing in these notes to suggest that when you told her, as you acknowledged to me that you did, that "If solve internally, charges can be withdrawn" -- there's nothing in these notes that would suggest you were speaking only of the charge that you had initiated.
Ms Luu: I would never have said that if solved internally, charges can be withdrawn, because I won't use the words "can be." What I said is that what I might have said at the time is that if this had been solved internally, we would never have proceeded with the charges, because we were exploring and we didn't know how to go about the charges.
Ms Cronk: But when you were speaking about the withdrawal of charges, you were talking not only about your own but the charges you described to her, which included Sharron Pretty's as well as the one you'd initiated.
Mr McKinnon: That's not what she said.
Ms Luu: I didn't say that. I said, "Look, I am here and I'm insisting to have a meeting with Evelyn, because right now I am not involved legally," because the charge I have laid was there but I did not activate it and I didn't proceed with it and actually it was proceeded only on June 16, after I had the meeting with Evelyn. I said, "Look, I'm not involved legally and it's valid for me to talk, to insist on a meeting with Evelyn, because I'm not involved and I can withdraw the charge whenever I want, I can drop the charge whenever I want" -- my charge, not Sharron's charges, because I didn't speak for her.
Ms Cronk: I understand. I'll leave it there. Thank you. Those are my questions.
The Chair: Okay. Ms Luu, I'd like to thank you for coming today before the committee. It's been a long day and it's been a hard day for you, so we really appreciate your presence here. Thank you.
Mr Callahan: Before we adjourn, I have a motion, and I wish it to be voted on.
Mr Sutherland: Mr Chair, a point of order.
Mr Callahan: I haven't even put the motion on the floor. How can they have a point of order at this point? Are you psychic?
Mr Sutherland: Mr Callahan has indicated he wants to move a specific motion regarding issues. You will recall that the subcommittee had agreed that dealing with issues would be dealt with by the subcommittee, and it was my understanding that that was also pointed out this morning in what you have referred to. I guess I want to know whether he can make this motion, since it is in the purview of the subcommittee, or whether this has to wait until the subcommittee reports back. I'd ask for a ruling on that, Mr Chair.
Mr Owens: We should dismiss the witness first so she can go home.
Ms Cronk: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. You can leave now.
1930
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, I'd like to add a comment to that. Without getting your ruling first, my sense is that the committee member could do that if he wants to. But my sense of it, without dismissing his suggestion, is that it's a bit premature. The subcommittee has worked relatively well, in my experience there, and all of the members have been cooperative, as far as I know. We've taken counsel from legal counsel, and then the subcommittee makes a decision based on those discussions.
I would ask Mr Callahan not to put that motion, because I don't think it's necessary today, and deal with that as we go. My sense is the subcommittee will meet tomorrow. Based on the review of legal counsel and the discussion that you will have at subcommittee, this can come back tomorrow, if necessary, but I think it's premature.
Mr Callahan: Mr Chair, legal counsel told us at the outset that if any member of this committee considered that other witnesses were appropriate and needed, she had no difficulty with us asking that they attend. Now, my difficulty with leaving it till tomorrow is that Mr Séguin happens to be physically challenged. He lives in Ottawa. If he's to come, it's going to mean that we're going to have to get him here and I don't think it's something that should be left.
I'm suggesting that it's quite clear -- and it may be that counsel probably knows a lot more than I do about what Mr Hieu Truong's evidence is going to be, but it seems to me that these witnesses would be very short witnesses. It would be simply a matter of: "Did you hear? Were you present at this meeting on June 19? Did you hear Hieu Truong, the secretary, make the statement that at the meeting on June 17 there was a discussion about dropping the charges?" End of case.
I'm going to move the motion, Mr Chair. I think I'm entitled to, under the rules, and I think if you take advice from the clerk, you'll find I am.
Interjection: Well, you're going to lose.
Mr Callahan: Maybe I'll lose, but if I lose, then it's a question of these people being prepared to try to hide the truth.
Mr Sutherland: Mr Chair, I had a point of order. Could I ask for a ruling on that before anything else proceeds?
The Chair: I think you're right on that. If I want to read back, if I can find it here --
Mr Callahan: Perhaps I could refer it to the subcommittee informally and they can deal with it. But I want a motion here to refer it to the subcommittee. I so move.
Mr Marchese: Refer it to the subcommittee.
The Chair: Okay. Does everybody agree that we refer this to the subcommittee?
Mr Callahan: Can I specifically say what I'm moving to be referred to the subcommittee? I'm moving that Michael Séguin, Pat Dare and Dave Rider be invited to attend as witnesses at the sittings of this committee and that this matter be referred to the subcommittee.
The Chair: Everybody in favour of that? Anybody opposed? Unanimous.
Mr Chiarelli: I have a question.
The Chair: Yes, Mr Chiarelli?
Mr Chiarelli: Can we get an understanding now as to when we will have a subcommittee meeting next?
Mr Marchese: Tomorrow.
Mr Chiarelli: When tomorrow?
The Chair: One will be at 8:45 tomorrow morning, 15 minutes before our regular meeting. If you want to have one tonight --
Mrs Marland: I'd like to suggest, Mr Chairman, if I may, that we have a subcommittee meeting right now, because if we start off tomorrow late -- we're already four hours behind. I think it would make sense for us. I'm willing to have the subcommittee now. A quarter to 9 means we'll be starting at 9:30 and we delay everybody tomorrow.
Mr Murphy: Mr Chair, just the scheduling, if I can. We had originally hoped to deal with Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty today -- obviously, we're only getting to Trinh Luu -- and there were five or six witnesses scheduled for tomorrow. I'm wondering if commission counsel has a sense, given the realities of what has happened today, of what point she sees us getting to tomorrow and in fact whether we'll even reach Dr Hieu Truong.
The Chair: Mr Murphy, I was talking to legal counsel in the hall. She has some good news for us to discuss at the subcommittee meeting.
Mr Murphy: But I want to hear before I come back to the meeting tomorrow, and I ain't going to the subcommittee meeting. I'm sure the witnesses would know and the public who are watching on television would like to know.
Ms Cronk: What I communicated to the Chair earlier, Mr Murphy, was that I was going to request, given that we were behind schedule today, that the committee consider sitting late tomorrow evening to hear additional evidence.
I can tell you that the witness you heard today, quite apart from the length of time it took to obtain the evidence, of course has a great deal of background on these matters and provided a framework for the committee that I hope the committee will find useful that won't be necessary from other witnesses.
What I'm saying to you is I hope we can pick up some time with some of the witnesses on this list. I have of course been concerned about the time constraints for some time now and I've made that known, and I'm suggesting that one way to assist with the matter is that we sit late tomorrow evening. Beyond that, I haven't had a chance yet to reassess how many of these people we will get through tomorrow, but I'm going to do that tonight.
Mr Murphy: Just so I can get it right, you have previously suggested, if I can use that phrase, that further opportunity for sitting perhaps on Friday would be helpful. Is it your sense yet that the suggestion continues to be a helpful one, given the fact that we are as much as four hours behind schedule?
Ms Cronk: My views are still the same, that we're going to require more time than was originally set. If we sit in the evening late tomorrow night, we may accom plish some positive contribution to that.
The Chair: Yes, Ms Marland?
Mrs Marland: If I may, when our counsel asked that we ask the subcommittee for additional time because, as she saw it, in her best estimate last week she already knew that she would need Friday morning -- in light of what's happened today and in view of the fact that our last witness, for three hours, is the minister, as the schedule shows, I am wondering whether the government representative on the subcommittee would be willing to go back to his House leader and make the request again. Or is he quite happy to shorten the time of his minister, which frankly I would not be happy with? I think we need the time with the minister.
The Chair: Ms Marland, we can discuss this in the subcommittee.
Mr Sutherland: Exactly. Mr Chair, it is for the subcommittee to discuss. I know Ms Marland and Mr Murphy are trying to make their political points here, and that's fine, but it has to be discussed at the subcommittee.
The Chair: I think we can discuss that.
Mr Chiarelli: When is the subcommittee meeting?
The Chair: Right now. So we'll adjourn until tomorrow at 9 o'clock sharp.
The committee adjourned at 1938.