ALLEGED BREACH OF CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
ALLEGED BREACH OF CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
CONTENTS
Thursday 11 August 1994
Alleged breach of conflict-of-interest guidelines
Sue Lott
Hieu Truong
Can D. Le
My Nguyen
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:
Hunt, Phillip, legal counsel to board members, Van Lang Centre
Kristjanson, Freya, legal counsel to Sue Lott
Hunt, Phillip, legal counsel to board members, Van Lang Centre
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 0912 in room 151.
ALLEGED BREACH OF CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
The Chair (Mr Ron Hansen): I'd like to welcome everybody for day four of the hearings on alleged breach of conflict of interest.
SUE LOTT
The Chair: Our first witness this morning is Ms Sue Lott. Would the clerk read the oath out, please.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lisa Freedman): Do you solemnly swear 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, so help you God?
Ms Sue Lott: I do.
The Chair: Ms Cronk, the floor is yours.
Ms Eleanore Cronk: Good morning, Mr Chair, members of the committee. Good morning, Ms Lott.
Ms Lott is represented, as was Mr Collins, by Ms Kristjanson.
Ms Lott, as I understand it, you are a constituency assistant to Evelyn Gigantes in her constituency offices in Ottawa.
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: You have held that position, as I understand it, since approximately November of 1990.
Ms Lott: End of November of 1990.
Ms Cronk: Prior to that time, had you worked as a constituency assistant for any other member of the Legislature or cabinet?
Ms Lott: No.
Ms Cronk: All right. With respect to the duties that you have for the minister, generally speaking, what do they entail?
Ms Lott: Generally, they entail dealing with any matter that pertains to provincial legislation that comes to us from within our constituency, which is Ottawa Centre. That could be in the form of individual case work, individual problems, information requests, also requests for meetings, requests for the MPP to attend events in the riding, and without as well.
Ms Cronk: Is the Van Lang Centre in Ottawa located in the Minister of Housing's riding?
Ms Lott: I believe it is not.
Ms Cronk: Do you know what riding it is located in?
Ms Lott: I think it is Ottawa West, but I'm not certain.
Ms Cronk: During the period June 1993 through to June of this year, who else worked on a full-time or regular basis in the constituency office with you in Ottawa?
Ms Lott: From June 1993 to June --
Ms Cronk: Of this year.
Ms Lott: Yes. Audrey Moey, Paul Dewar and myself from June till the fall of 1993. Then in the fall of 1993 both Audrey Moey and Paul Dewar were on leaves of absence, and they were replaced by a woman named Darlene Labrosse and a gentleman named Michel -- I'm afraid I've forgotten his last name.
Ms Cronk: And did either of Audrey --
Ms Lott: Michel Proulx; excuse me.
Ms Cronk: Did either of Audrey Moey or Mr Dewar or both return, following their leaves of absence, to the constituency office?
Ms Lott: They did. Audrey returned on a part-time basis, I think in the end of April -- I'm not quite sure of the date -- of 1994, and Paul Dewar returned in May, the beginning of May of 1994. I'm afraid I'm not too clear about when she became -- she started off part-time and then resumed full-time responsibilities.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. I'll ask her about that as well. As I understand it, her leave was a maternity leave.
Ms Lott: It was, yes.
Ms Cronk: Just so that we're clear, Audrey Moey then was gone on that leave from approximately the fall through till approximately April or May?
Ms Lott: Yes, that's correct.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall when in the fall she left on her maternity leave?
Ms Lott: I think it was the very beginning of September. I think she had some weeks of vacation prior to that, vacation --
Ms Cronk: During the period -- sorry?
Ms Lott: Sorry: vacation leave, and then was off on leave.
Ms Cronk: During the period June 1993 up until Ms Moey's departure on her leave of absence, as between the two of you, who was responsible for scheduling matters related to the minister in the constituency office?
Ms Lott: At that time, I was doing scheduling. Actually, I think I began doing it around July of 1993. Paul Dewar was doing it up until that point, and then I continued to do it on into approximately the end of May of 1994.
Ms Cronk: And I'm interested, Ms Moey, in --
Ms Lott: Lott.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. A good way to start the day.
I'm interested generally in the procedures that have been adopted or put in place by the minister in her constituency office with you and other members of the staff about the frequency of her contact with you and the reporting by you of informational matters to her. So I have a number of questions about that.
Again, dealing with the period May or June 1993 up until June of this year, how often would you meet on a regular basis with the minister?
Ms Lott: The minister comes into her riding on a regular basis, usually on Fridays. There were some days when the Legislature wasn't sitting that she was able to return on Thursdays, but normally it's Friday that she comes into the constituency office, and we set up meetings and events for her to attend well in advance of that.
Ms Cronk: Would you as well, from time to time, speak with her by telephone as need required?
Ms Lott: Very infrequently. I do not initiate calls usually to her during the week. I wait to talk to her about issues when I see her.
Ms Cronk: If a matter of, from your perspective, particular urgency or sensitivity arose, was it your custom over the course of the last year to draw that to the minister's attention immediately by sending her information in Toronto or wherever she might happen to be, or would that wait until her return?
Ms Lott: That would really be a function of, I guess, the urgency or the nature of the matter, but generally I would direct urgent issues to the appropriate staff person in her office in Toronto.
Ms Cronk: Was there during this last year one or more persons in her office in Toronto with whom you routinely dealt on that basis?
Ms Lott: We routinely deal with Rob Sutherland, who acts as a special assistant on constituency matters for Evelyn. There's also a contact in that office who does constituency liaison with us, and her name is Maureen Hall. We deal with those two on a very regular basis.
Ms Cronk: Did you from time to time have contact as well with someone by the name of Marc Collins?
Ms Lott: I only spoke to Marc Collins once that I can recall. Actually, I'll be emphatic about that: I don't remember any other phone call except one conversation I had with Marc Collins at some point in 1993, I think quite early on, maybe around the summer of 1993, and that would actually I think have been the only time I spoke to Marc Collins during that year.
Ms Cronk: Having reviewed some of the documentation, Ms Lott, it occurred to me that although some of the people in the minister's offices in Toronto might not actually know the people in her constituency office in Ottawa, they had a pretty regular course of dealings in writing. Would that be fair?
Ms Lott: Yes, that would be fair.
Ms Cronk: Was that true as between Marc Collins and yourself?
Ms Lott: I faxed quite a bit of information on the Van Lang issue to Marc Collins because it became known to me that he was to be the point person on that. So I was to direct communications that came to our office to him, which I did.
0920
Ms Cronk: How did you learn that he was to be the point person on the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Lott: I don't recall who communicated that to me initially, but I became aware -- it was possibly from Rob Sutherland -- that he was the point person on this issue.
Ms Cronk: Did you, again, as a general matter speak regularly with Rob Sutherland or Maureen Hall? Was there any set time or set procedure for meetings with them or conference calls?
Ms Lott: We do have conference calls, yes.
Ms Cronk: Is there a regular time?
Ms Lott: We try to have them on a weekly basis. We don't always have them. It's usually flexible; it's not always a set day or time.
Ms Cronk: From time to time, did Marc Collins participate in those conference calls?
Ms Lott: No, he would never.
Ms Cronk: If there was a matter that had arisen in the preceding week or information that you had received at the constituency office that you felt should be passed on to Toronto, was that the kind of thing that would have been likely to have been raised in those conference calls?
Ms Lott: Not necessarily, because -- I was aware that Marc Collins was a point person on this and a person to direct specific information, and as this was a Housing matter, I very clearly felt that it should be directed to him and it was not appropriate, necessarily, for it to be the subject of a conference call. It was essentially constituency matters that we dealt with in conference calls.
Ms Cronk: When you say this was a Housing matter, are you referring to issues related to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Lott: That's right, yes.
Ms Cronk: Apart from contact with the minister's staff in Toronto, did you, as a constituency assistant, have regular contact within the last year with Ministry of Housing representatives in Ottawa?
Ms Lott: No, I didn't.
Ms Cronk: Or with the deputy minister's office?
Ms Lott: No.
Ms Cronk: When you became one of Ms Gigantes's constituency assistants, Ms Lott, did you receive any information about or training or briefing materials, for want of a better expression, concerning the conflict-of-interest legislation in Ontario and the conflict-of-interest guidelines introduced by the Premier?
Ms Lott: I was aware of them and I became aware of them because we have constituency seminars from time to time that are put on by the NDP caucus for constituency staff. I do recall that issue being raised at a seminar I would have been at in which there would have been a general briefing.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall the subject matter having been dealt with at more than one seminar, or just one stands out in your mind?
Ms Lott: Just one instance I recall.
Ms Cronk: How long ago was that?
Ms Lott: Within the last two years. I couldn't say exactly when.
Ms Cronk: Did you receive orientation materials or a book, a manual of any kind, of informational materials that you should have on hand as a constituency assistant?
Ms Lott: I don't recall. We might have something in the office. I don't recall seeing it or looking at it. I have not familiarized myself, actually, with the guidelines by reading them myself, no.
Ms Cronk: So you don't remember whether you personally were given a copy, but you might have been.
Ms Lott: No, I don't; no.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall, at any point after becoming the minister's constituency assistant, discussing with her the conflict-of-interest guidelines or, indeed, conflict-of-interest legislation?
Ms Lott: No.
Ms Cronk: Is that a matter she ever raised with you or your colleagues?
Ms Lott: No.
Ms Cronk: Or you with her?
Ms Lott: No.
Ms Cronk: Then, turning to matters related directly to the Van Lang Centre and the issues before this committee, Ms Lott, when was your first contact, as you can now remember it, with Ms Trinh Luu?
Ms Lott: Regarding the issues around the Van Lang Centre or my first contact meeting her?
Ms Cronk: Let's deal with the Van Lang Centre first. When do you remember having contact with her about that centre, first?
Ms Lott: I recall some time early in 1993 -- I'm not sure what month that was -- Trinh coming into the office and speaking with Audrey Moey and myself about the Van Lang Centre.
Ms Cronk: Do I take from what you said a few moments ago that you knew her before that?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: When did you first meet Ms Trinh Luu?
Ms Lott: I thought originally that I'd met her going to the official opening for the Van Lang Centre, which was in the winter of 1992, but I'd actually forgotten that I in fact had met her when she came to an interview for a constituency assistant job in Evelyn's riding office, and I think that would have been probably in 1991.
Ms Cronk: Did you participate in that interview?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Was she offered the position?
Ms Lott: No, she was not.
Ms Cronk: To your knowledge, was she either before that or thereafter offered a position with the minister's office in Toronto?
Ms Lott: Yes, I did become aware of that.
Ms Cronk: Was that before or after?
Ms Lott: That was after.
Ms Cronk: When was that?
Ms Lott: I'm afraid I couldn't tell you if it was the fall of 1992 or not. I'm afraid I don't know.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Leaving aside the exact time, looking back on it, is it in your recollection a lengthy time after she had interviewed for the constituency office position, close in time or much after?
Ms Lott: Not close in time, no.
Ms Cronk: So she wasn't offered a job in the constituency office but subsequently she was offered a position in the minister's office in Toronto?
Ms Lott: Yes, that's right.
Ms Cronk: Did I understand you to say as well that you believe that you saw her at the opening of the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: That, the committee's been told, the formal, official ceremony was in the fall of 1992. Would that be consistent with your memory?
Ms Lott: Yes. I remember it was very cold.
Ms Cronk: Your memory's clear of it?
Ms Lott: Yes, it was freezing.
Ms Cronk: I was going to say, is there some particular reason?
Ms Lott: No, I felt like I was not properly dressed.
Ms Cronk: I was going to say in Ottawa that could be July, but we're talking the fall?
Ms Lott: Exactly. That's right.
Ms Cronk: With respect to the Van Lang Centre issue, you then said, just to put it in a chronological context, that your first memory of dealing with her, that is, Ms Luu, about the matter was early in 1993?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Are we talking the spring or the summer?
Ms Lott: I think it might have been late spring or early summer.
Ms Cronk: Prior to that time, before she came in to see Ms Moey and yourself on or about Van Lang issues, had you come to know her?
Ms Lott: I know that we struck up a friendship, but I don't recall whether that actually came as a result of her coming to us with some concerns she had about the Van Lang Centre. I think it might have been.
Ms Cronk: So it could have been after the spring of 1993.
Ms Lott: Yes, it could have been.
Ms Cronk: From whatever time of its beginning, did you thereafter see her socially from time to time?
Ms Lott: From time to time, yes.
Ms Cronk: Was that true as well of Audrey Moey?
Ms Lott: That's right, I think. We saw her socially together. I remember having lunch on two occasions when Audrey Moey was present.
Ms Cronk: Did you have lunch with her yourself on other occasions?
Ms Lott: No, I didn't.
Ms Cronk: When you say that you recall having lunch with her on two occasions, do you mean in the entire last year or throughout your --
Ms Lott: Throughout our association.
Ms Cronk: How would you describe your relationship with her? Did she become a friend?
Ms Lott: I would say she was a friend.
Ms Cronk: Was she a close friend?
Ms Lott: No.
Ms Cronk: Do you know whether Ms Moey saw her on a regular basis in a social context?
Ms Lott: I'm not aware that she did, no.
Ms Cronk: Then in the late spring or early summer, when she came in to see Audrey Moey and yourself, was that about matters directly related to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Lott: Yes, as much as I do recall of the conversation with her about that, it was about her concerns about the superintendent of the Van Lang Centre.
Ms Cronk: Did she come alone or accompanied by anyone else?
Ms Lott: I'm certain she came alone.
Ms Cronk: Did she provide you or Ms Moey at that time with any background documentation relating to her concerns about the superintendent?
Ms Lott: Yes, she did.
Ms Cronk: Was that your first knowledge of problems at the centre?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: How is it that you were at the opening of the Van Lang Centre in the fall of 1992 if it was outside the riding of the minister?
Ms Lott: The minister will attend housing openings in the Ottawa-Carleton area. They like to have staff people accompany her, and it's not always possible, I think for financial considerations, to have staff out of her Toronto office do that, so constituency staff will accompany her from time to time.
Ms Cronk: Jumping back again to the late spring or early summer, did Ms Luu raise with you a number of concerns or, in your recollection, were they really focused on the superintendent?
Ms Lott: My recollection is of her speaking about the superintendent.
0930
Ms Cronk: And from that point forward, would it be accurate or inaccurate, in your view, to suggest that Ms Luu became well known to the constituency office of the minister?
Ms Lott: Well known in the sense that she did contact our office frequently and she would come into the office with documents.
Ms Cronk: How frequent was her contact with the office?
Ms Lott: I'm afraid I couldn't be very specific with you. There were a number of communications or communications documents that she produced to us. I don't recall how many times she phoned.
Ms Cronk: Okay, I understand what you're saying: It's difficult to know the exact number of times. But looking back over the last year, because it's really only the last year that we're talking about, do you remember her either contacting or coming in to the constituency office often, or are we talking about a couple of times?
Ms Lott: It might have been once a month.
Ms Cronk: And was she a constituent of the minister's in the sense of residing in the minister's riding?
Ms Lott: I understand that she was at that time.
Ms Cronk: When you met with her in the spring or early summer of 1993 about the Van Lang Centre, to your knowledge had the minister met her?
Ms Lott: She would have met her at the opening of the Van Lang Centre, which I guess we've established was in the fall of 1992.
Ms Cronk: To your knowledge, had the minister had any other dealings with her or met her on any other occasion at that point?
Ms Lott: Not to my knowledge.
Ms Cronk: When did you first meet Sharron Pretty?
Ms Lott: I think I met Sharron Pretty when she came into the office with Trinh Luu some time in the fall or winter -- I guess it would have been late 1993, either the fall or the later part of 1993.
Ms Cronk: When Ms Luu had come in to see you in late spring or early summer and expressed her concerns about the superintendent of the Van Lang Centre and provided you, I think you said, with some information and documentation about that, did you pass that along to the minister in the sense of informing her of what had occurred and what you'd been told?
Ms Lott: I think what I did was that we looked at the documentation. It was, I think, a number of briefs, and --
Ms Cronk: A number of --
Ms Lott: I think they were some documents, and we did forward some of that up to the minister's office by fax.
Ms Cronk: In Toronto?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall yourself briefing the minister or relating information to her in one of your discussions with her?
Ms Lott: No, I don't recall.
Ms Cronk: The committee has received evidence, Ms Lott, that in a letter to you and to Ms Moey from Trinh Luu, dated June 29th, 1993, she dealt with some of these matters, some of these concerns. Stopping there, does that help you place the timing of your first contact with her about the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Lott: It could have been around then, yes.
Ms Cronk: In that letter, which I'd be glad to show you if you wish, but I don't think you need to look at it unless you tell me you do --
Ms Lott: Okay, no.
Ms Cronk: -- Ms Luu concludes by asking whether she should write directly to the minister about the issues that were raised in her letter. Do you recall that?
Ms Lott: I don't, but I do recall that we tried to make it very clear to her that if she had issues she wanted to communicate to the minister, she should do so in writing.
Ms Cronk: There's a number of volumes of documents that have been introduced as exhibits before the committee. I'm just going to ask you to look at a couple of them as we talk about this, Ms Lott. Could I ask you to look at exhibit 2 first, tab 11. Do you have that?
Ms Lott: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: Are these your notes?
Ms Lott: No, they're not.
Ms Cronk: Can you identify the writer for me? Do you know whose handwriting that is?
Ms Lott: That looks to me like Audrey Moey's.
Ms Cronk: They appear to relate, just looking at the date at the top, to a meeting with Trinh Luu on July 20th. Do you recall whether you participated in the meeting with Trinh Luu at that time?
Ms Lott: No, I don't recall. If that was July 20th, 1993, I probably was on holiday that month.
Ms Cronk: After Ms Luu had come in and had spoken with Ms Moey and yourself in or about the early summer of 1993 about the Van Lang Centre, when do you next remember her drawing concerns relating to the centre to your attention?
Ms Lott: I don't have a good recollection of the next specific one, but I have a recollection of her coming into the office with Sharron Pretty.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard evidence from Ms Pretty and from Ms Luu that on or about October 28th or October 29th they went to the constituency office in Ottawa and met with Ms Moey and yourself. Does that help you fix it in time?
Ms Lott: Yes, it does, but if it was October 28th, 1993, Audrey wouldn't have been in the office; she would have been on leave.
Ms Cronk: So you think Ms Moey was gone by then.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you personally have a recollection of that meeting?
Ms Lott: I have a recollection of them coming in -- this was not a set-up meeting -- and I think I brought them to the back, where my office is.
Ms Cronk: Was there anyone else present for your discussions, apart from yourself, Ms Pretty and Ms Luu?
Ms Lott: No.
Ms Cronk: Were concerns expressed at that meeting by either or both of them regarding the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Lott: I'm sure there were. What I do recall very clearly is being introduced to Sharron Pretty as a board member, I think.
Ms Cronk: Were you told that she was a tenant at the centre as well?
Ms Lott: Yes, that's right.
Ms Cronk: And were you provided at that time, or did you see at that time, a letter from Sharron Pretty to the minister, or did the issue of a letter to the minister arise at all, that you now remember?
Ms Lott: I don't recall a specific letter. No specific letter comes to my mind, but my impression is that there probably could have been a letter. There were many pieces of communication that were brought into our office, and it would be likely that there would also have been a letter that accompanied their coming to see me.
Ms Cronk: Do you now remember, Ms Lott, whether you provided any advice to them at that meeting about how they should handle or what they should do about the concerns they had?
Ms Lott: The only thing I do recall is that I think I tried to make it clear to them that as a constituency staff person, I personally could not do the follow-up on these issues but that I could convey any letters they wanted to direct to the minister to the minister's office for them. I might have mentioned to them as well that it would be important for them to bring concerns they had to the local regional Housing office, and I might have mentioned Brian Sutherland's name as the general manager.
Ms Cronk: Did you know Mr Sutherland at that point?
Ms Lott: I might have met him on occasion at a housing opening.
Ms Cronk: Perhaps Ms Kristjanson could give you volume 2 of exhibit 1, tab 11. This is a letter dated October 29th, 1993, from Ms Pretty to Ms Gigantes. Do you recall seeing this letter before?
Ms Lott: I don't recall this specific letter.
Ms Cronk: If I could ask you to flip, if you would, to tab 15 of that volume, this is a fax from yourself, Ms Lott, to Marc Collins dated December 21, 1993. Is that your handwriting in the message portion of the fax?
Ms Lott: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And would I be correct in suggesting that your note to Mr Collins indicates that you were passing along to him "another letter related to the problems at the Van Lang Centre from a former board member"?
Ms Lott: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And attached to that fax is a copy of the October 29th letter. Do you have that?
Ms Lott: Yes, I see that.
Ms Cronk: Was it your understanding that Ms Pretty at that time was a "former" board member?
Ms Lott: I guess that shows that I was not really clear of what her status was. I knew she was a tenant, but my impression was that she was also a board member when I met her.
Ms Cronk: Had you been told by anyone that she was no longer on the board?
Ms Lott: I don't recall that, no.
Ms Cronk: And carrying on with your note, it says, "I mislaid this one and it does require a response from Evelyn -- could you ensure that there is a minister's response to this letter? Thanks."
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: By that point in time, were you dealing with Mr Collins on matters related to the Van Lang situation?
Ms Lott: I had been informed that I should direct communications that came to our office to him, yes.
0940
Ms Cronk: With respect to the accompanying letter, the October 29th letter, what is the practice in the minister's constituency office with respect to the receipt of correspondence or documentation? Are you required to make a notation of the date of its receipt or to log it or enter it in any way?
Ms Lott: It's not a fixed science. What we do is that have somebody who deals with correspondence on non-Housing-related issues in our constituency office.
Ms Cronk: I didn't catch the first part.
Ms Lott: Non-Housing-related matters. We do get a large volume of correspondence, and that mostly comes to us through the postal system and we do log that. We also get, obviously, Housing matters through the mail as well. Any Housing-related letter that comes to our office we would fax to the minister's office in Toronto.
Ms Cronk: If it was a letter relating to a Housing matter, would that be logged in any way?
Ms Lott: If it came through the postage system, it would have been sure to have been logged, yes.
Ms Cronk: What if it was hand-delivered?
Ms Lott: Not always, no.
Ms Cronk: Do you keep time records of any kind, by date entry, of material sent to the minister's office in Toronto? That may be a totally ludicrous question, but I just don't know.
Ms Lott: We do actually keep those original documents, because we do have the original after we have faxed it. We'd retain those in an in basket near the fax machine.
Ms Cronk: Do you retain fax confirmation sheets, is what I'm really asking. When you fax something to Toronto, do you keep the --
Ms Lott: No.
Ms Cronk: With the benefit of this particular fax message before you, does it assist you in indicating to the committee whether it was on or about December 21st, for the first time, that from your offices a copy of the October 29th letter from Sharron Pretty was provided to Toronto?
Ms Lott: That's my impression, yes. It concerned me that we would have mislaid a letter, because we pride ourselves on not doing that, but my impression is that I received this letter for the first time on December 21st or thereabouts and then faxed it to Evelyn's office.
Ms Cronk: When you say "received it for the first time," do you mean from Ms Pretty or that you just located it?
Ms Lott: Received it from Ms Pretty for the first time.
Ms Cronk: Well, your note to Mr Collins suggests that you had mislaid the letter.
Ms Lott: Yes, it does.
Ms Cronk: Doesn't that imply that you'd received it at an earlier date and it had been overlooked?
Ms Lott: It's possible, but, as I said, we're very careful about Housing-related letters, that we do not mislay them.
Ms Cronk: I'm not being critical, Ms Lott, I'm just trying to understand the facts here. Would it be fair of me to say that given the language you used in the note to Mr Collins, it certainly suggests that you had it at an earlier time and inadvertently had not passed it on and you were now doing so?
Ms Lott: Well, Sharron Pretty had indicated to me that she had passed the letter to our office previous to December 21st, but, as I said, we could not find that letter and I presumed that I had mislaid it. But it's possible that in fact we had never received it.
Ms Cronk: Do you have a clear recollection one way or the other?
Ms Lott: No.
Ms Cronk: If Ms Pretty has given evidence to this committee that she provided a copy of the letter to your offices at the end of October 1993 or the beginning of November, I take it you wouldn't have any personal reason to disagree with that?
Ms Lott: No, because I do not personally handle every piece of information that goes through our constituency office.
Ms Cronk: Did you become aware also during the fall of 1993 that Ms Trinh Luu had, in writing, requested a meeting with the minister with respect to Van Lang-related matters?
Ms Lott: I don't have any specific memory of a specific letter, no.
Ms Cronk: Or of that kind of request from Ms Luu in the fall of 1993?
Ms Lott: I don't have any specific memory of that kind of request in the fall of 1993.
The Chair: Ms Marland has a question.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Ms Cronk, this is the letter that I pointed out to the committee yesterday we have two versions of. I just wondered, since you're asking Ms Lott about this letter, whether she can confirm which version she recalls, since the format is so different between the two and the only difference is a sentence at the end of --
Ms Cronk: By all means.
The Chair: I think the date it was received was also a question from one of the members of the committee.
Ms Cronk: Ms Lott, if I can try to deal with both those issues, there's evidence now before the committee, based on various copies of the October 29th letter, that there are two versions of this letter. Keep your hand, if you would, please, at tab 11, and flip over to tab 18. If you look at the copy of the October 29th letter at tab 11, you'll see, for example, that the address and phone number of Ms Pretty, the sender of the letter, is in the top right-hand corner. I'm just giving you an example of the differences.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And if you look at the versions of the October 29th letter at tab 18, it's on the left-hand side.
Ms Lott: Yes, I see that.
Ms Cronk: I won't take you through it unless you wish to see it, but there are also differences between the concluding paragraphs in the letters.
Would it be a difficult matter for you to make inquiries for me and find out which copy of the letter was received at the constituency offices and forwarded to Marc Collins on December 21st?
Ms Lott: I could certainly find out.
Ms Cronk: Do you know today, as you sit here?
Ms Lott: No, I don't.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Would you also be able to determine at this point whether there is a date stamp or other recording at the constituency offices of the date when this letter was received?
Ms Lott: I can find that out as well.
Ms Cronk: Just to help you in those inquiries, looking at tab 15, which is where your fax memo to Mr Collins is, the copy of the October 29th letter that appears right after the fax has the initial "AM" in a box in the right-hand corner.
Ms Lott: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: The "AM" entry was by our offices, and that signifies that the copy of the letter in the constituency office materials provided to the committee was this copy. This was attached to the fax, as given to us -- whether it should have been, I don't know, but it was -- and that suggests it was the version with the address on the left-hand side.
Ms Lott: I see.
Ms Cronk: If you could make those inquiries perhaps before you complete your evidence, we'll get the information.
Ms Lott: Okay.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. We were talking about a request in the fall of 1993 by Ms Luu for a meeting with the minister. Whether or not -- excuse my appalling English. Regardless of whether you saw a letter from her in that regard, did you learn that she had requested formally a meeting with Ms Gigantes in the fall of 1993?
Ms Lott: I don't recall that, no.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall Ms Luu outlining again or informing you in the fall of 1993 of continuing concerns that she had with respect to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Lott: Yes, I do recall that.
Ms Cronk: Do you have any personal knowledge of a response by the minister, either to those concerns or to a request for a meeting, to Ms Luu?
Ms Lott: No, I don't.
Ms Cronk: Could you look at exhibit 1, volume 2, tab 14. This is a letter dated December 6, 1993, from the minister to Ms Luu. Do you remember seeing this letter on or about December of 1993?
Ms Lott: I do now, yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you have any discussion with the minister, that you now recall, about the contents of the letter or a proposed meeting with Trinh Luu?
Ms Lott: No.
Ms Cronk: If you look at the second version of the letter, it has a Post-it fax stamp on it suggesting that you received a copy of it? It's "To Sue from Carol."
Ms Lott: That's correct, yes.
Ms Cronk: Would that be Carol Whitehead at the minister's office in Toronto?
Ms Lott: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Would that suggest to you that this letter was sent to Ms Luu from the minister's office in Toronto but a copy was provided to you for information?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It refers in the body of the letter to a compliance review which the eastern regional office of the ministry had undertaken with respect to the Van Lang Centre. Were you aware, in the fall and early winter of 1993, that such a review was being undertaken by the ministry?
Ms Lott: I do recall becoming aware of that, yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you continue to have contact with either Sharron Pretty or Trinh Luu through the winter of 1993, and by that I mean now January through to April 1994, about matters relating to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Lott: They contacted our office, yes.
Ms Cronk: Was that frequent or infrequent, as you now recall it?
Ms Lott: I would say it was fairly frequent, yes.
Ms Cronk: And where they provided you with information concerning the Van Lang Centre or concerns they had, whether orally or in writing, did you pass that information on to Toronto?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Should we conclude that that was transmitted to Marc Collins, for the most part?
Ms Lott: Yes.
0950
Ms Cronk: Do you remember, looking back on it, Ms Lott, having discussions with the minister herself, from time to time, during your meetings with her at the constituency offices in Ottawa about the situation at Van Lang or your continuing contact with Ms Luu or Ms Pretty?
Ms Lott: I don't recall a specific conversation with her, but it is very possible that we did speak about it in passing.
Ms Cronk: Just for example, in terms of the transmittal of information, could I ask you to look at exhibit 2, tab 26. This is another fax coversheet from you to Marc Collins dated January the fifth. Again, is that your note in the message portion?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: In the note it indicates that you were passing further correspondence on to Mr Collins, and if we look at the attached correspondence, it's related to the Van Lang Centre. Is that correct?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: The note indicates, and the attachment confirms, that what you were sending to Mr Collins was correspondence from Ms Pretty relating to documents that she was providing to the minister.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: But, in addition, you're telling Mr Collins in this note that you had also faxed a request for a meeting that had come to the constituency offices from the president of the board of directors to Ezia. Is that Ezia Cervoni?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Is she at the minister's office in Toronto?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. So do I understand correctly that you were relaying the attached documents to Mr Collins but you'd also sent to Ms Cervoni a copy of a letter from the board of directors requesting a meeting. Is that correct?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: If we look at -- sorry to have you jumping around -- volume 2, exhibit 1, tab 16, this is a letter to the minister from the president of the board of directors, a Mr Hieu Truong, dated January 3, 1994. Is this the letter to which you were referring in your message to Mr Collins that you had sent Ms Cervoni?
Ms Lott: It must have been.
Ms Cronk: All right. Had you at that point in time had any dealings personally with any of the other board members at the Van Lang Centre, apart from Ms Pretty?
Ms Lott: No, I hadn't.
Ms Cronk: Had you, apart from any introductions that may have occurred at the official opening of the centre, even met them?
Ms Lott: No.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall in early March of 1994 learning of a request by Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty, a joint request for a meeting with the minister?
Ms Lott: I remember a joint letter from Sharron Pretty and from Trinh Luu.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you, in the same volume, volume 2, to look at tab 26. Again, this is another fax from you, dated March 8, 1994. This is to the attention of Newton. Would that be Mr Newton Vanriel?
Ms Lott: Yes, that's right.
Ms Cronk: He was attached to the minister's office in Toronto?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Attached to it is a letter dated March the fourth, 1994, signed jointly by Sharron Pretty and Trinh Lu. I take it you were relaying this letter on.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And this letter is a request by them for what they described as a "special and urgent" meeting with the minister. Is that correct?
Ms Lott: If that's what it says.
Ms Cronk: Just to help you with that, in paragraph 2 of the letter?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Do you recall discussing this request with the minister?
Ms Lott: No, I don't.
Ms Cronk: If we look at your covering fax -- sorry, perhaps I could ask you to go the next tab, tab 27 -- you appear to have sent a copy of the same letter to Ms Cervoni, this time on March 14.
Ms Lott: Sorry, I have to look at the letter. Yes, it's the same letter.
Ms Cronk: So you'd gotten a copy of the March fourth letter, the request letter, you've sent a copy on to Newton Vanriel and now you're sending a copy to Ms Cervoni, both at the minister's office in Toronto. Is that correct?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And in your message to Ms Cervoni, you indicate that you had been sending all previous correspondence to Marc Collins?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It's in the handwritten portion?
Ms Lott: Yes. I see that, yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you also indicate that Sharron Pretty was becoming so agitated about all of this that she wanted to go to the media?
Ms Lott: I see that, yes.
Ms Cronk: And was that a matter that you discussed with the minister, as you now recall it?
Ms Lott: No, I don't recall discussing that with the minister.
Ms Cronk: When a constituent in the minister's riding or a member of the public, in your experience in the last year, contacts the minister's offices in Ottawa with a concern or a problem or a complaint of whatever kind and says the equivalent of "I'm going to go to the press about this," or "This is of sufficient concern that I'm going to go to the media," or "I'm talking to the media," is that not the kind of thing that you tell the minister about?
Ms Lott: No, not necessarily. We get many people calling us in a very agitated state or people that are making those kinds of threats to us, and we have to evaluate those calls as we get them.
Ms Cronk: Either way then, with respect to this particular suggestion involving Sharron Pretty, I take it you have no specific recollection of having spoken to the minister about that?
Ms Lott: No, I don't. I would've been very concerned and very clearly wanting to pass on that information, though, regarding the Van Lang Centre and her wanting to go to the media to Evelyn's staff in Toronto, knowing that there was a point person up there that had been dealing on an ongoing basis with this matter.
Ms Cronk: Is that why you sent a copy to Ms Cervoni?
Ms Lott: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Do you know now whether there was a reason why you didn't contact Mr Collins directly, or do you know?
Ms Lott: I think that I just wanted to put forward again another meeting request to Ezia, who was the person dealing with scheduling Housing-related meetings in Evelyn's office.
Ms Cronk: Okay. I just want to make sure, Ms Lott, that I understand your own personal practice as you were working for the minister over the course of the last year. If I can use the vernacular, if something came up that was a hot issue, either because it was politically sensitive, in your assessment, or for whatever reason, its gravity, for whatever reason, it was something that was urgent or sensitive --
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- I can appreciate that there might be in the normal course of events either reasons for not contacting the minister directly or difficulty in doing so.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: But would you not pick up the phone or by fax automatically let the minister's office know that this had occurred or that this issue was out there?
Ms Lott: That's what I did in this case, yes.
Ms Cronk: That's what I'm getting at. And wouldn't the intimations of possible media contact about problems in her riding or near her riding fall into that category, that you would relay that information?
Ms Lott: Yes, and under normal practice I would relay something like that to her communications assistant, Anne-Marie McElrone.
Ms Cronk: Okay. And what did you understand Ms Cervoni's position or job function to be?
Ms Lott: She was the scheduling person in Evelyn's office. But I was also aware that she was dealing with Marc Collins on this matter.
Ms Cronk: Now, when you told the committee earlier that during this period of time, that is, now we're into the spring of 1994, you were doing the scheduling for the minister, did part of that function entail expressing views or offering advice to the minister as to which meetings she should attend in the Ottawa area?
Ms Lott: Not on Housing-related meetings, no.
Ms Cronk: Why is that?
Ms Lott: Because she has ministerial staff that are hired for her as the Minister of Housing to deal with those matters and she has a scheduling assistant up there. I also understood that there were people that met regularly and assessed meeting requests related to Housing matters that came to the minister's office.
Ms Cronk: Did you provide the minister, given your familiarity with Trinh Luu and your knowledge of her, with any advice or suggestion as to how she should respond to the request from Ms Luu and Ms Pretty for a meeting?
Ms Lott: No, I didn't.
Ms Cronk: At some point in April 1994, Ms Lott, did you become aware as to whether the minister had made a decision to meet one way or the other with Ms Luu or Ms Pretty?
Ms Lott: I became aware of it when she was back in the constituency office, and I think that was in early June, on a Friday, and I remember her speaking at that point to Audrey Moey, who was doing her scheduling in the riding office, indicating that she wanted to set up a meeting.
Ms Cronk: All right.
1000
Ms Lott: I was passing through the office. I was not sitting in the office at the time, but I do recall hearing her say that to Audrey.
Ms Cronk: And that's just this past June.
Ms Lott: That's right.
Ms Cronk: All right. I was actually back a little earlier in time and my question was: In April of this year, did you at some point learn whether the minister had made a decision whether to meet with Ms Luu or Ms Pretty as a result of this March fourth request?
Ms Lott: No, I did not.
Ms Cronk: All right, just to help you with that, could I ask you to look at tab 33. This is a transcribed e-mail, as I understand it, between Lisa Heaton to Ms Cervoni. It's dated April 14th, 1994. It relates to the Van Lang Centre, and the text of the message suggests that the "minister would like to meet with Sharron Pretty et al of Van Lang Centre and include Brian Sutherland in the meeting" and that "the meeting would be in Ottawa Centre, her riding," and then there's a query about who was going to make the arrangements.
If there was going to be a meeting involving the minister in Ottawa at this point in time, April of 1994, would I be correct in assuming that either you or Audrey Moey, as the schedulers out of that office, would have to know about it and be involved in making those arrangements?
Ms Lott: Once the decision had been made, yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And does this e-mail help you as to whether you learned in mid-April or thereabouts of 1994 as to whether the minister intended to meet with Trinh Luu or Sharron Pretty?
Ms Lott: I don't recall knowing at that time whether there was an intention to set up a meeting.
Ms Cronk: When, then, was the first time that you learned of an intention to set up a meeting?
Ms Lott: As I mentioned previously, when Evelyn was back in the constituency office, and I think that was a Friday in early June. I remember her speaking to Audrey Moey, who was doing the scheduling then, about setting up a meeting.
Ms Cronk: All right. Now, you'll recall that you had previously relayed on to Toronto a copy of the request that had come in from the board for a meeting with the minister that dated back in January.
Ms Lott: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Did you at some point learn the nature of the response by the minister to that request?
Ms Lott: I don't recall, no.
Ms Cronk: All right.
Ms Lott: During the course of the week I would get a number of housing-related meeting requests that I would pass on to her staff in Toronto, so there was always a volume of outstanding ones that I hadn't heard back from.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 35.
Ms Lott: In the same volume?
Ms Cronk: Yes, in the same one again, just to assist in the chronology. There's a great deal of paper here, Ms Lott, so it's easy to forget something.
Ms Lott: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: This is an e-mail message to Ms Cervoni from Ms Heaton. It's dated April the 18th. It appears to relate to the proposed meeting concerning Van Lang and it appears to suggest that that meeting was on hold. Would you agree with me so far?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And then, looking at the handwriting at the bottom, the 19th of April, it to me reads, "Sue -- told her meeting on hold till Ev's looked at background." Is that a fair reading, in your view, of what that says?
Ms Lott: Yes, it looks like that, yes.
Ms Cronk: And would I be correct in assuming that "Sue" was you?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. That suggests to me that there must have been some discussion -- I'm not, again, being critical for your not remembering it -- some discussion with you in April indicating that the minister wanted to meet and that the meeting was then put on hold and that you were told that because she wanted to see some background.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Having that in front of you, does that assist you at all in remembering whether there were discussions about this?
Ms Lott: That is possible, yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember any discussions about it in April, though?
Ms Lott: Not specifically in that month, no. I do recall, though, some brief discussion with Evelyn about the issue of the compliance review and Evelyn wanting to see that at some point.
Ms Cronk: And do you recall when that was?
Ms Lott: No, I don't. I think that was in relation to the issue of setting up a meeting.
Ms Cronk: Did that occur during the month of May or the month of June?
Ms Lott: I don't recall.
Ms Cronk: Did you, before this contact that you've described between Ms Moey and the minister in June, looking back on it, have any understanding about whether the minister was going to meet with anyone connected with the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Lott: I had not heard definitively, no.
Ms Cronk: Did you have any understanding as to whether she was going to meet with anybody? This suggests there was discussion about a meeting that you were told about.
Ms Lott: At what point in time?
Ms Cronk: This e-mail suggests that in mid-April there was some discussion or information provided to you about a possible meeting.
Ms Lott: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And what I'm asking you is, do you now remember having had an understanding before June, in April or May, as to who the minister might be meeting with, connected to Van Lang?
Ms Lott: No, I didn't have that.
Ms Cronk: Or as to whether a final decision had been made?
Ms Lott: No.
Ms Cronk: And then, looking at tab 39 of the same volume, this is a fax transmittal sheet dated April 21st, 1994, addressed to Sue. I take that to be you.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: From Jenny.
Ms Lott: Jenny Lam, who was doing scheduling in Evelyn's office for a time.
Ms Cronk: In the minister's office in Toronto?
Ms Lott: Yes, right.
Ms Cronk: Under the "Comments" section -- I take it the comments at the bottom are from Ms Lam to you.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: The reference on it is, "Latest status on Van Lang -- to meet or not to meet..." Would it be fair of us to conclude from that that at least at this point in time, there was some uncertainty yet as to whether a meeting would occur?
Ms Lott: Yes, it would be fair.
Ms Cronk: Then the remaining entries indicate that: "Ministry has sent reply to S. Pretty's letter. I'll talk with her in a few days to see if the written response eliminates need for meeting. We'll take it from there, depending on their response." Does that assist you in recalling what your own understanding was of a potential meeting in April or May?
Ms Lott: Again, it assists me in recalling that I obviously had some knowledge that they were discussing a meeting.
Ms Cronk: At some point, do you remember speaking with Karen Ridley about that matter?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you do so at the beginning of May or in mid-May?
Ms Lott: That sounds like around the date, yes.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 38, if you'll just flip back. Did you keep any notes personally, Ms Lott, of your discussions from time to time with Trinh Luu or Sharron Pretty?
Ms Lott: No, I didn't. No, only -- no, I didn't.
Ms Cronk: Only?
Ms Lott: No, I'm just thinking that I remember taking notes, I think, the first time that Trinh came into the office. But subsequent to that, no; there were just too many contacts. We have so many contacts during the course of our day that we don't have the opportunity to take notes on every contact and every phone call that we take.
Ms Cronk: The document at tab 38 is yet another e-mail, dated April 21st, 1994, this one from Ms Cervoni to ILS. My understanding is that's "information liaison section." Is that right?
Ms Lott: I don't know.
Ms Cronk: You don't know. I direct your attention to the handwritten notes at the bottom. First of all, did you know a Karen Ridley at the minister's office?
Ms Lott: I had spoken to her on the phone, yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you know what her position was?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I said "the minister's office." I shouldn't have put it to you that way. What position did she hold, as you understood it?
Ms Lott: She took on a scheduling role in the minister's office.
Ms Cronk: This handwritten note -- I direct your attention to the second part of it. Do you see where it begins, May 12, 1994?
Ms Lott: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: It reads: "Sharron called, not happy, said I would talk to ministry staff and get back to her. Called Sue at CO." Do you agree that that's "constituency office"?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: "She will talk to Evelyn to see about setting up a meeting with Sharron, MOH staff" and it's either "her soon" or "how soon"; I can't read that.
Stopping there, do you remember being contacted by Karen Ridley on or about May the 12th, 1994, about the prospect of a meeting with the minister for Sharron Pretty, MOH and MOH staff?
Ms Lott: No, I don't recall that discussion; no.
Ms Cronk: So you have no memory of it.
Ms Lott: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Having regard to the note that I've just read to you, do you have any reason to disagree that that occurred, or are you just simply saying you don't remember?
Ms Lott: What I do recall is that I did speak to Karen Ridley at some point about an outstanding request from Sharron Pretty for a meeting. What I'm confused about is the possibility that when she made that note about getting back to me to set up a meeting with Sharron, MO -- I think it's "with Sharron, MOH staff." I guess I'm not clear about what comes after that.
Ms Cronk: I think it's either "and how soon" or "and her," meaning the minister. I just can't read that.
Ms Lott: Okay.
Ms Cronk: But what I'm saying is, do you have any reason to disagree that this occurred, or are you just telling me you don't remember?
Ms Lott: I do remember having spoken to Sharron -- sorry -- Karen Ridley about some contact that Sharron Pretty had either made directly with myself or with Karen Ridley about the prospect of having a meeting with Evelyn.
Ms Cronk: Were you asked to speak to the minister in that regard, as this note would appear to suggest?
Ms Lott: I don't recall that, no.
Ms Cronk: Again, when you say you don't recall, some people mean by that, "It didn't happen," some people mean, "I don't recall one way or the other."
Ms Lott: I don't recall one way or the other.
Ms Cronk: And then continuing on with the note, it says: "Called Sharron to say Sue would be in touch soon. She feels it's too late. Going to court June 2. Illegal refusal to hand over" -- and it's been suggested that might be "agency"; I don't know what the word is -- "documents. Said I would relay this to Sue." You see that?
Ms Lott: Okay.
Ms Cronk: That's obviously a note by Ms Ridley --
Ms Lott: Yes, okay.
Ms Cronk: -- about a conversation that you had no involvement with, ie, between her and Sharron?
Ms Lott: Yes, that's right.
Ms Cronk: And then the next entry is, "Phoned Sue," and it's been suggested that might be "LM," message. And then there's a note from May the 13th, the next day, and it reads: "Sue -- Evelyn wants to see compliance report before a meeting is set up. Said I would talk to Marc and call her back."
Ms Lott: Okay. That does help my memory in the sense that I did say that I recalled speaking to Evelyn at some point about the compliance review, so it was -- if my memory serves me, it would have been in the context of Evelyn saying, "I would like to look at the compliance report first before a meeting is set up."
Ms Cronk: All right. Then with those two entries in mind, do you now recall speaking to the minister about a meeting and taking from that discussion that she wanted to see the report before a decision was made on that?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And did Ms Ridley at this time, in these discussions, Ms Lott, as you recall events, tell you that Sharron Pretty felt it was too late for a meeting and that the matter had gone to court, or was going to court on June 2?
Ms Lott: Yes, I do remember that.
Ms Cronk: And did she tell you as well the nature of the matter going to court, that is, as indicated at least here in her note, "Illegal refusal to hand over" either agency or something else "documents?" Do you remember her telling you what was going to court?
Ms Lott: I don't remember that, no.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember her providing you with any other details concerning that aspect of it, that is, what was going to court?
Ms Lott: No, I don't.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember being told by her at that time who it involved, who the court matter involved, whether it was Sharron Pretty, directors of the Van Lang Centre, the ministry, the minister?
Ms Lott: I don't recall that, no.
Ms Cronk: Just so that I'm clear, are you saying you don't recall one way or the other or are you saying that she didn't give you any information about that?
Ms Lott: I don't think she gave me any information about that.
Ms Cronk: Looking back on it now and with the assistance of this e-mail in front of you, did you have any knowledge, prior to this point, of Sharron Pretty going to court about any matter relating to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Lott: No, I didn't.
Ms Cronk: Did you pass that information on to the minister?
Ms Lott: I don't recall speaking to Evelyn about the issue of a legal action, no.
Ms Cronk: If you went to the minister, as this note suggests, and asked her about arranging a meeting, and took away from the discussion the fact that she wanted to see some background documentation before the meeting was arranged, and if you did so as a result of a request with Karen Ridley, as this would appear to be suggesting and as I think you've confirmed, and she told you of a legal action in the context of making that request, would you agree with me, in your view, looking back on it, isn't that the kind of information you would have communicated to the minister?
Ms Lott: It's possible, yes.
Ms Cronk: It's contextual for the need for a meeting, isn't it? I mean, it sort of provides a context as to why Ms Ridley was making the request or asking you to speak to the minister?
Ms Lott: Well, her request certainly was outstanding over a number of months.
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Ms Lott: So there was the larger context, definitely.
Ms Cronk: And the larger context relates to the suggestion earlier in the month of April and the e-mails that we looked at about indecision about the meeting, to meet or not to meet, for example, as one of the e-mails suggests.
Ms Lott: That's correct, yes.
Ms Cronk: But I guess what I'm --
Ms Freya Kristjanson: Ms Cronk, could we take a brief recess at this point?
Ms Cronk: Yes. Mr Chair, if that's acceptable to the committee.
The Chair: Are you ready to recess?
Ms Cronk: Yes, we've been requested to recess. That would be just fine.
The Chair: Okay. Recessed for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 1015 to 1030.
The Chair: The committee will come to order and we'll resume the questioning of Ms Sue Lott by legal counsel, Ms Cronk.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Ms Lott, we're still at tab 38. Could I take you back to the sequence of entries in this note, because I may inadvertently have put a suggestion to you that was incorrect. There's no mystery in it. Ms Kristjanson and I have had a discussion, and I think fairly I should go back and go over this again with you. All right?
Ms Lott: Okay.
Ms Cronk: In terms of the sequence under the date of May 12th, 1994, the first entry suggests that Sharron Pretty called the writer, who we understand to be Karen Ridley, and indicated that she wasn't happy and that she would -- sorry, that Ms Pretty indicated to Ms Ridley that she was not happy, that Ms Ridley said that she would talk to ministry staff and get back to Sharron Pretty. Would you agree with that so far?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Then there's really a second entry, although it's not numbered differently, by Ms Ridley indicating that she called you at the constituency office. Correct?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that you indicated to her, I suggest, that you would "talk to Evelyn to see about setting up a meeting with Sharron, MOH staff and" -- it's either "her," meaning the minister, or "how soon." It depends on what that word is. Does that look correct to you so far?
Ms Lott: That's the part -- I don't recall that.
Ms Cronk: Okay. You don't recall which part of it?
Ms Lott: "Called Sue at" constituency office and that I said I would "talk to Evelyn about setting up a meeting with Sharron, MOH staff and her" -- I'm still not clear about that last word again.
Ms Cronk: Yeah, I'm not either. I don't think anything turns on it. It either refers to the minister, "her," or a timing element, how quickly.
Ms Lott: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: My point is this: Would you agree with my interpretation that it looks like she speaks first to Sharron Pretty, then she calls you, if this note is correct, and has a discussion with you, and you say that you'll talk to Evelyn and effectively get back to her. That's the import of that line?
Ms Lott: Yes. I agree that that's what the line says, yes.
Ms Cronk: Then looking at the next line, it says, "Called Sharron to say Sue would be in touch soon." That suggests to me that Ms Ridley then, after speaking with you, calls Ms Pretty back and has a further discussion with her. Is that a fair reading of the note?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that would mean, does it not, that it is in that conversation that Ms Ridley learns from Ms Pretty what's then written down. "She feels it's too late -- going to court June 2 -- illegal refusal to hand over...documents." Do you see what I'm getting at?
Ms Lott: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: Because on that interpretation, it would mean that when she first spoke with you and you undertook to speak to the minister, she may not -- "she" meaning Ms Ridley -- may not have learned yet from Sharron Pretty that there was a court action. And if that's the case, it would mean that you didn't have that information at that point to communicate to the minister.
Ms Lott: That's correct, yeah.
Ms Cronk: And then if we continue on, however, in the entries, it appears that in that second conversation with Sharron Pretty, Karen Ridley said that she would relay that information to you. The last line is, "Said I would relay this to Sue." Do you see that?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And then the next entry is, "Phoned Sue. LM" -- which may mean "leave message" -- and then there's the entry for May 13th. Do you see that?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. So going that far, would you agree with me -- and please tell me if you don't, all right? -- that it looks like Ms Ridley had a discussion with Sharron Pretty, learned she wasn't happy and said, "Look, I'll speak to ministry staff and get back to you." Then she calls you at the constituency office, you have a discussion, you indicate to Karen Ridley that you'll talk to Evelyn and get back to her. Ms Ridley then calls Sharron, learns some additional information, specifically about a legal action going to court June 2nd, and some information about what that involved, and she tells Sharron Pretty that she would relay that information to you, and then she calls you back, but it looks like she doesn't get you and she leaves a message. Would you agree with that so far?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then if we look at the next entry for May 13th, it appears that you do speak with Karen Ridley on that day, and you tell her that Evelyn, meaning the minister, "wants to see the compliance report before a meeting is set up" and that Ms Ridley said that she would talk to Marc and would call you back. Do you see that?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall whether in that discussion on May 13th, because that's the entry that jogged your memory, whether Ms Ridley told you then the information that had been relayed to her by Sharron Pretty, namely, that Ms Pretty thought it was too late for a meeting, that the matter was going to court June 2 and that it involved an illegal refusal to hand over documents? Do you remember if she told you that at that point?
Ms Lott: I wouldn't have taken -- I remember having, the only information having at hand in my discussion with Evelyn being she was not willing or felt that she should set up a meeting without having seen the compliance review.
Ms Cronk: So should I take from that that you don't remember whether Ms Ridley gave you that additional information at that time on May 13th?
Ms Lott: My understanding is that she didn't give me that information at that time.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember that she didn't?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Would you agree with me that, at least in terms of what Ms Ridley said to Ms Pretty, she was suggesting to her, Sharron Pretty, that she would relay the information to you?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You're saying that you remember that she didn't?
Ms Lott: No, I'm saying that she didn't relay that information to me at that time.
Ms Cronk: All right. Meaning May 13th?
Ms Lott: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Did she subsequently?
Ms Lott: Yes. I do remember having a subsequent conversation with her about Sharron Pretty indicating to her that it was past the point of a meeting being useful, since she had launched some kind of legal action.
Ms Cronk: When was that discussion?
Ms Lott: I don't recall that date.
Ms Cronk: Was it before June, when you told the committee that you learned of the proposed meeting?
Ms Lott: Yes, it would have been before June.
Ms Cronk: All right. So in that second discussion, let's focus on that one for a moment, between yourself and Ms Ridley, did she provide you with any detail about the nature of the action?
Ms Lott: No, she didn't.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember whether she told you there was some suggestion of illegal denial of access to documents?
Ms Lott: I don't recall that.
Ms Cronk: Again, you're saying you don't recall one way or the other, or you recall that she didn't say that?
Ms Lott: I only remember a legal action, where you're taking away an understanding of a legal action, not any specifics.
Ms Cronk: Not any specifics?
Ms Lott: No.
Ms Cronk: Okay. So do I take from that that you have no recollection of having been told who it involved or anything else about the nature of a legal action?
Ms Lott: That's right.
Ms Cronk: All right. So that some time between May 13th and around the beginning of June -- because I think you told me it was around the beginning of June that you learned of a proposed meeting, is that right?
Ms Lott: Yes, that Evelyn indicated when she was in the constituency office that she wanted to set up a meeting.
Ms Cronk: All right. So some time in that intervening period, those two weeks, you had a second discussion with Karen Ridley and you learned there was some kind of a legal action initiated by Sharron?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Was it your understanding that it related to the Van Lang matter?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you have any understanding as to whether it related to the Ministry of Housing or the minister?
Ms Lott: No, only that it related to the Van Lang Centre.
Ms Cronk: Did you, when you learned that information from Ms Ridley, tell the minister about it?
Ms Lott: I don't recall speaking to Evelyn about that, no.
Ms Cronk: Again, when you say you don't recall, do you remember one way or the other?
Ms Lott: No, I don't.
Ms Cronk: All right. So it's possible that you did, but it's possible that you didn't?
Ms Lott: That's right.
Ms Cronk: These conversations with Ms Ridley, we know at least one of them took place on May 13th, unless Ms Ridley's note about that is wrong. I take it you have no reason to believe that or to suggest that.
Ms Lott: To disbelieve it, no. That's right.
Ms Cronk: Then we know there's a second one some time between May 13th and the beginning of June. In that period of time, did you hear from Sharron Pretty?
Ms Lott: Yes. I did get a phone message from her, and I phoned her back.
Ms Cronk: All right. Could I ask you to look at tab 48, please. Do you have that?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: This is, I've suggested and other witnesses have -- they of course don't know, because it's not their document, but they have agreed thus far that it appears to be a photocopy of the front and back of a telephone slip.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Is that what it is?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It was a message that you received that a call had come in for you from Sharron Pretty?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: It's dated May the 19th -- I take that to be 1994?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
1040
Ms Cronk: All right. Without reading the phone number that appears on the front page of the telephone slip, could you just read to the committee what that says.
Ms Lott: It says "June 2nd" on the left-hand side under the number. "Marc getting compliance report. Board has gone against" -- now, that's hard to read. I actually do have the original.
Ms Cronk: Do you have it here with you here?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Could I see it, please?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It looks to me like where you started to write the word "corporations" and it got crossed out and wrote "Corporations Act."
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: We're just looking at the original. Could you tell the committee what the front of it says, please.
Ms Lott: It says, "June 2nd," and then on the right-hand side it says, "Marc getting compliance report," and then beneath that, "Board has gone against" -- and it looks like "complan" -- I can't really read that, but then I have "Corporations Act."
Ms Cronk: Would that be "compliance," perhaps?
Ms Lott: Could be, yes.
Ms Cronk: And is there anything further, apart from the phone number on the front of it?
Ms Lott: No, just some doodling.
Ms Cronk: What does it say on the back?
Ms Lott: On the left-hand side it says, "Crown attorney," and then it says, "It had gone further than" -- and I've scribbled out what was "having a" -- and then beneath that it says, "past the point of a meeting" -- that's my short form for meeting -- "being effective, but that Karen Ridley told her she thought it was still important that a meeting occur."
Ms Cronk: All right. And is that your handwriting on both the front and back?
Ms Lott: Yes, it is.
Ms Cronk: Are those notes that you made during the telephone conversation with Sharron Pretty?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Do you have an independent recollection of this discussion?
Ms Lott: I only recall, during the course of that discussion, that she mentioned the issue of a legal action.
Ms Cronk: And with this telephone slip in front of you, would it be fair of me to suggest that she gave you some details about that legal action?
Ms Lott: I don't think that would be fair to suggest that.
Ms Cronk: Okay. June second, for example, would that not relate to the legal action?
Ms Lott: It could, yes.
Ms Cronk: You're saying you're not sure.
Ms Lott: I'm not sure, no.
Ms Cronk: And "board has gone against Corporations Act" -- doesn't that suggest that she --
Ms Lott: Yes, it does.
Ms Cronk: -- related that to legal action?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: So it's in that sense that I meant that she provided you some details.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And then on the back of the note, she was also telling you that she thought events were past the point of a meeting.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I take to be a meeting with the minister --
Ms Lott: That's right.
Ms Cronk: -- being effective? She was questioning the utility of meeting with the minister at that point?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And then she was relaying to you that Karen Ridley had told her, Sharron Pretty, that she, Karen Ridley, thought that it was still important that a meeting take place?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And clearly something was said about a crown attorney?
Ms Lott: That's correct. Yes. There's a notation there.
Ms Cronk: Suggesting, would it not, that something was said in the context of your discussion about the legal action relating to the crown?
Ms Lott: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: All right. Again, there's no mystery or magic to this. Ms Lott, have you been informed that that telephone discussion between Ms Pretty and yourself was taped?
Ms Lott: I wasn't at the time. No.
Ms Cronk: Subsequently, have you learned that?
Ms Lott: Yes, I have.
Ms Cronk: And I take it from what you just said that you didn't know it was being taped during the course of the discussion?
Ms Lott: No, I didn't.
Ms Cronk: And have you been provided with a copy of the transcript of that discussion --
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- and had a chance to read it?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And have you reviewed it?
Ms Lott: Yes. I would like to see it again, though.
Ms Cronk: That is -- do you have a copy? -- exhibit 5. Is this the transcript that you reviewed?
Ms Lott: Yes, it is.
Ms Cronk: All right. And for the benefit of the committee, exhibit 5 should be the version of the transcript prepared by your counsel's offices. I'd just like to ask you a few questions about this conversation.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: First, does the transcript, having had a chance to review it, in your view represent an accurate rendition of what was discussed between Ms Pretty and yourself on May 19th?
Ms Lott: Well, I certainly can't verify as to its accuracy, but I wouldn't disagree that it reflects the general nature of a conversation we had.
Ms Cronk: All right. I understand what you're saying, that you're not in a position personally, not having prepared the transcript --
Ms Lott: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: -- or heard the tape --
Ms Lott: Yes, that's right.
Ms Cronk: -- to verify in every detail its accuracy.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: But you're accepting that it reflects the conversation?
Ms Lott: That's right. The only thing I would suggest: Are we only dealing with, I guess, the first conversation, and the second conversation --
Ms Cronk: I just going to put that to you. Does the transcript suggest that there were in fact two conversations between you on May 19th?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. We'll come to that and I'll take you through it. All right?
Ms Lott: Okay.
Ms Cronk: Just dealing then with the first transcript, the portion of the transcript dealing with the first telephone conversation, if I could ask you to look at the -- we should look first at the first page.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It appears that you called Sharron Pretty. Would you agree?
Ms Lott: Yes. I was returning her call.
Ms Cronk: All right. Her call being the one reflected in your telephone message slip?
Ms Lott: That's right. Exactly.
Ms Cronk: And then over on page 2, the first lengthy paragraph, about halfway down the page, attributes the following comments to you and to Ms Pretty, and I'd like to review them with you. You understand that "L" refers to your voice, and "P" to Ms Pretty's?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: This is a comment attributed to you: "Okay. Now I am confused because my last, uh, conversation with Karen about this, my understanding was that, and I have to say I've been waiting for direction from her staff in Toronto on this, ah is, was that you did not want a meeting because you're launching a, a legal action and that it was too late to have a meeting at this point."
"Ms Pretty: And she, she urged me to.
"Ms Lott: Is that not in fact true, or?
"Ms Pretty: Well yes. It's going to court.
"Ms Lott: Yeah. Okay.
"Ms Pretty: It's, it's going to be, uh, the, the crown is pressing charges against, uh, the board members."
And then you say "Okay." Ms Pretty says "For..." and you say, "So has that, has that already commenced?" And she says: "Well, the everything is, is, wh -- wh -- pardon me, ready and waiting. It's supposed to happen on June 2nd as a first hearing."
Okay, stopping there for a moment, it appears from this, Ms Lott, that you first raised with Ms Pretty your understanding that she was launching a legal action and that she, Sharron Pretty, had expressed the view that it was too late to have a meeting at this point.
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And I take from it that that's confirmation of what you've told the committee of your recollection, that Ms Ridley had in fact told you that, that there was a legal action.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And implicitly, or I suppose explicitly, that it was Ms Pretty who was launching a legal action.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that it was clearly connected with Van Lang because it was related to the utility of having a meeting with the minister.
Ms Lott: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And then Ms Pretty is telling you that Ms Ridley urged her to have the meeting. Is that correct?
Ms Lott: Yes, she is telling me that.
Ms Cronk: And Ms Pretty went on to tell you that it was going to court, that the crown was involved and was pressing charges against the board members.
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: So you learn from that line first that the crown is involved and is proceeding to press the matter, press charges, and that those charges are against the board members. Is that fair?
Ms Lott: That's what she said.
Ms Cronk: So you're getting additional information here that you didn't have before.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And would you agree with me that your telephone message slip is consistent with some of that in the sense that it records you wrote down the words "crown attorney"?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And you also wrote down that the board was not complying with the Corporations Act, so there was a reference to the board at Van Lang.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And then she also mentions a court date and tells you that everything was ready and it was supposed to happen as a first hearing on June 2. So now you learn the date, right?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And over on page 3 the conversation continues as follows:
"Ms Lott: That has been, you've got a hearing date. Is that right?
"Ms Pretty: Yup.
"Ms Lott: Okay. Well then, if you're in, in, in the process of a legal action, it would be very difficult for Evelyn to meet on this one.
"Ms Pretty: Mm-mm.
"Ms Lott: That would put her in a, in a potentially difficult position...
"Ms Pretty: Mm-mm.
"Ms Lott: -- as the minister."
So what you're saying is: "That would put her in a...potentially difficult position as the minister. So you're, did she make you aware of that?
"Ms Pretty: No she didn't.
"Ms Lott: Okay.
"Ms Pretty: No, this is the first time I have heard of this.
"Ms Lott: But you didn't indicate to her that you didn't want to have a meeting because of the decision to launch a court action?
"Ms Pretty: Well, I...
"Ms Lott: That was her clearly impression.
"Ms Pretty: I, I, I said to her that I, uh, felt that it had gone further than, you know, just having a meeting with Evelyn. Evelyn had had plenty of time to have a meeting with me and with Trinh Luu before this and she hadn't. So, um, you know, it was...
"Ms Lott: Mm-mm.
"Ms Pretty: I felt it was past that point.
"Ms Lott: Mm-mm, okay."
Just stopping there for a moment, would you agree with me that this text suggests that you told Ms Pretty that because of what she had just told you -- namely, that the legal action involved the crown pressing charges against the board members, that it was ready to go and there was a hearing date and that it was June 2; she'd just told you all of that -- that because Ms Pretty was in the process of a legal action, it would be very difficult for the minister to meet with her on the Van Lang matter? Is that fair?
Ms Lott: Could you repeat your question?
Ms Cronk: I'm not sure I can. Let me try it a different way.
Ms Lott: Okay.
Ms Cronk: She told you a number of things. I'm suggesting to you that you were getting additional information about the court action in this conversation, and the additional information included the fact that there was a court date on June 2, that the crown was involved, thirdly, that the crown was pressing charges, and fourthly, that it was against the board members of Van Lang. And you appear from this text to have then said to her, in light of that part of the discussion: "Well, then, if you're in the process of a legal action, it would be very difficult for" the minister "to meet on this," meaning, I suggest, very difficult to meet with you on the Van Lang matter, given those facts.
1050
Ms Lott: I don't agree with the part that it was -- that I was making connections of all those three events. I was concerned only because I heard that it was a legal action.
Ms Cronk: I see.
Ms Lott: I didn't have any specific knowledge of what the implications were of all those individual items she was presenting to me.
Ms Cronk: I understand what you're saying to me. All right. So when you said to her, "Well, then, if you're in the process of a legal action, it would be very difficult for Evelyn to meet on this one," should I take from that that the fact of a legal action being in progress was itself enough for you to say it would put the minister in a very difficult position to meet on this?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Right. So you didn't have in your mind any implication about the involvement of the crown or the fact that there was a fixed court date or the fact that it was against the board; you were reacting to it's a legal action and that's going to make it real -- "very difficult," in your words, "for the minister to meet."
Ms Lott: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Then you went on to say that that would put her, meaning the legal action, I take it -- is that what you're saying to me?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- would put her in a potentially difficult position as the minister. Correct?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And again, are you saying that the fact of the legal action without all of the other details she'd given you was enough for you to be saying that's going to put her in a potentially difficult position as the minister on a meeting?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: So as far as you were concerned, that was enough to give rise to that potential difficulty?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Again, you're talking about whether it's going to be possible for the minister to meet in the circumstance, the circumstance being there's a lawsuit?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Then you go on to say, did Ms Ridley "make you aware of that?" In effect, you're saying to Ms Pretty: "Did she make you aware of that? Did Ms Ridley tell you that?" Am I right so far?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Her reply is no, Ms Ridley didn't tell me that. "No she didn't." Right? She goes on to say, in effect "This is the first time I'm hearing about this." Right? Have I got the temper of this right?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then you go on to inquire and push her a bit and say, "But you didn't indicate to her that you didn't want to have a meeting because of the decision to launch a court action?" Right? And you say and you sort of emphasize that by saying "That was her clear impression," that was Ms Ridley's clear impression. Am I right?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Again, what you're emphasizing there was that it was your understanding that she didn't want to have a meeting because of the decision to launch a court action. Again what you're talking about is the fact of a court action, without more.
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Then she says to you that she told Ms Ridley: "I said to her that I felt it had gone further than, you know, just having a meeting with" the minister. "Evelyn had had plenty of time to" meet "with me and with Trinh...before this and she hadn't," and then her voice sort of trails off. Right?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: She confirms that she felt it was past that point, and I take that to be the point of having a meeting. Am I treating this fairly so far?
Ms Lott: Yes, I think you are.
Ms Cronk: And then on the back of the telephone slip that you wrote, you confirm that she told you in this conversation that she thought it was past the point of any effective purpose in having a meeting. Is that correct?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then we go over to the top of page 4. Just to read it to you again, and then we'll look at it, Ms Pretty says: "But she, she urged me, she said, uh to, she was going to try anyway, and uh, she said she felt it was important that I do meet with her and, and so I was waiting."
And you say: "I see, okay. That was the last, your impression of the conversation.
"Ms Pretty: Mm-mm, Mm-mm.
"Ms Lott: Okay, well, as I said, I'm, uh, not the final arbiter on this one. I have to get direction from her staff in Toronto. So I will get back to them. But the, uh, fact of the matter, I think the bottom line here though is, if there is in fact legal action that's been commenced at this point, then that's going to make it very difficult to Ev, for Evelyn to have a meeting."
Just stopping there for a moment, based on the language that appears here, the text here -- and I take it you have no quarrel that this is accurate, so far, of what had been said.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Based on this language, what you appear to be saying was: "Look, I don't make the final decision on this. I'm not the final arbiter on this. I have to get direction from her staff in Toronto, but I'm telling you that the bottom line is that in fact if there's been a legal action that's been commenced at this point, then that's going to make it real difficult for Evelyn to meet with you." That's really what you're saying here, right? Again, it's the fact of the legal action having been commenced, without more, at least in your mind.
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And then you go on to say: "That just puts her at a, in a legally, a very awkward position. We, uh, anybody who's involved in a, in a process of some kind of a legal action that would involve the provincial ministry would uh, you know, we can't set up a meeting in those cases."
Then Ms Pretty says: "It doesn't...involve the provincial ministry. It involves the board of directors."
And you say, "But it, it's a crown attorney..."
Ms Pretty says, "Right."
And then you say, "...that's involved."
So what you're really saying -- you get interrupted a bit, but you're saying, "But it, it's a crown attorney that's involved." Right?
And then she says "Yes."
And you say, "Yup and that's, that's provincial."
Now, stopping there for a moment, in the middle of the page, what you appear to be reiterating, saying again, is the fact that a legal action having been commenced puts her, the minister, in a legally very awkward position.
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: That's what you were saying?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then you go on, and I suggest you introduce something new at this point. What you say is: "Anybody who's involved in a...process of some kind of a legal action that would involve the provincial ministry would, you know, we can't set up a meeting in those cases."
And she says, "It doesn't...involve the provincial ministry. It's the board of directors."
So just stopping there for a moment, you seem to be suggesting, "If it's a legal action involving a provincial ministry, we can't do a meeting." Right? And she says, "But wait a minute, it's not the provincial ministry, it involves the board." And you reply, "But it's a crown and that's provincial."
Am I putting the right tone on that portion of the conversation?
Ms Lott: No, because it puts a tone that I have a sort of special legal knowledge of the significance of the crown attorney, I guess I would say of the significance of the crown attorney, and I don't. I was just noting these words as she said them to me, but I was still responding to the issue of the fact of a legal action that I had been informed about.
Ms Cronk: Okay. I'm not trying to attribute to you any specialized legal understanding here, Ms Lott, but it is important what was in your mind at the time -- in my view it's important -- and what you were indicating to Ms Pretty.
Ms Lott: I know, and that's what I'm trying to convey to you too, yes.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. The words appear to suggest that you thought it was relevant that there was some provincial connection and the fact that the crown was involved was a provincial connection, that that was enough to be a problem.
Ms Lott: Yes, that was the only connection I was making.
Ms Cronk: But you were also, to be fair to you, saying, "Look, I don't make the final decision, that's up to Toronto, but this is what I think." Right?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then over on page 5, the discussion continues and in fact Ms Pretty sort of raises it.
She says, "I don't know all the legalities there..."
And you say "Yeah."
She says, "But hum um."
And then you say, "I certainly don't know them either. But that's my understanding at this point...
"Ms Pretty: Hm.
"Ms Lott: that it would put Evelyn in a potentially difficult position."
And then Ms Pretty goes on to say, "I think she's in a, kind of a pretty tight spot right now if she doesn't talk to us.
"Ms Lott: Well, as I said, I, I don't, you know I'm not, I don't give legal advice to the Ministry of Housing.
"Ms Pretty: No. I know.
"Ms Lott: By any means.
"Ms Pretty: I'm just letting you know what the reality is here."
And you respond, "Mm-mm."
If I suggest to you that what you're saying to Ms Pretty at this point is that you don't provide legal advice to the Ministry of Housing and that you don't know all the legalities, in the same way that she was saying that she didn't know all the legalities, but you reiterate to her your own understanding and that was that it would put Evelyn in a potentially difficult position to meet, is that a fair interpretation of it?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: So as far as you were concerned, the fact that there had been a legal action commenced was in your view sufficient that it would put Evelyn, the Minister of Housing, in a potentially difficult position and might make it very difficult, to use your words, for her to have a meeting with Sharron Pretty.
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And again, as far as you were concerned, the fact that a crown attorney was involved was some provincial connection.
Ms Lott: It was vague in my mind. It's just the provincial connection that I was making.
Ms Cronk: Then over on page 6, you indicate that you would get her staff, meaning the minister's staff, to talk to her, is that correct?
Ms Lott: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And then the conversation essentially concludes? I'm sorry, I think you've got to say yes or no for Hansard.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then there's a second conversation. It looks to me as if Sharron Pretty calls you back. Is that what happens?
Ms Lott: Yes, within a very few minutes or within minutes.
Ms Cronk: Within minutes?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And in that second conversation, if we look at page 7, she, it appears to me, is communicating to you something that she regards as being quite important and a key issue -- that's her language, not mine -- that it was very important and a key issue and that she'd neglected to tell you in the first call. Is that right?
Ms Lott: Yes.
1100
Ms Cronk: And in the first lengthy paragraph in the middle of the page, what she is telling you in that is -- it reads as follows:
"And that is when you, when you said that, that, um, you know, Evelyn can't intervene at this point because it's gone to court and everything else. The thing that I should have thought of at the time to tell you, is that, uh, what has gone to court is, is problems that the board has, um, has gone against the Corporations Act. But we want to meet you and discuss, uh, problems with the compliance review, and uh, and uh the access issues, the core issues that we've always been trying to, to meet with Evelyn and discuss, and, and ah, you know, that's your responsibility."
So stopping there for a moment, if I suggested to you that what Ms Pretty was saying was that, "Look, if you're telling me that the minister can't intervene at this point because it's gone to court, you should understand that what's gone to court is problems with the board and problems with the Corporations Act, and what we want" -- meaning Ms Sharron Pretty wanted -- "was to meet and discuss the compliance review, access issues," what she called the core issues with respect to Van Lang that she'd been trying to meet the minister on for some time, right?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And she asserts that that's the responsibility of the minister; that's your responsibility?
Ms Lott: She's saying it's my responsibility, but --
Ms Cronk: Sorry. Did you understand her to mean you personally?
Ms Lott: I wondered if at the time she thought that that was my responsibility, yeah.
Ms Cronk: Oh, I see. And then you are recorded as having replied as follows: "Yeah, but," and then there's a square-bracketed indication meaning that there's laughter on the phone, ascribed to you.
Ms Lott: Yes. I didn't -- I don't recall. If there is laughter there, it was not laughter that I was making light of our conversation. I was taking it very, very seriously. It was probably nervous laughter, or a frustrated laughter.
Ms Cronk: All right.
Ms Lott: I had spoken to her at some length just minutes before, and I thought I had outlined, you know, in a number of different ways my concern about the difficulty of setting up a meeting, and then to have her phone back within minutes was certainly surprising and a bit frustrating.
Ms Cronk: She's pushing, isn't she?
Ms Lott: Yes. Yes.
Ms Cronk: And she's saying: "Look, you got the facts wrong. This law suit involves the board and the Corporations Act, and we want to meet with Evelyn, and what we've been trying to get a meeting on are the core issues: access issues, the compliance review."
Ms Lott: Yes, and if I might also say, I guess my other frustration was that I felt again that my role here was that I was going to take down her outstanding concern about still not having a meeting, but that I had no part in making that decision and that I had affirmed to her that, yes, there would be a follow-up there and somebody would get back to her about that, about that still being an outstanding issue in her mind. I had felt that that was clear and that she had understood that when we ended the conversation, that that was my role, that it was clear that I was going to be following up on that and somebody would be responding to her. So I was confused as to why she was still calling me back and starting to relay more information to me. It was not clear in my mind as to why she would be doing that.
Ms Cronk: Wasn't she just trying to push the point of a meeting? Wasn't she trying to persuade you it was okay for a meeting to go forward?
Ms Lott: But I had already made it clear to her that I was not the person that would make that decision, that I would only convey the question of having a meeting back to the people that would make that evaluation, that I didn't make that evaluation.
Ms Cronk: Well, could it be simply that Ms Pretty understood that if you were going to communicate the information and that that would have a bearing on whether a meeting took place, she wanted to make -- there's a couple of ways I could say this to you, but she was essentially providing you with information that she hoped would favourably influence a decision about a meeting: that she wanted to meet on something different.
Ms Lott: Possibly. I guess we're probably speaking now as to her motives, and I can't suggest to you as to what those would be.
Ms Cronk: That's fair. That's fair, Ms Lott. Okay, after she tells you this, whatever her reason and however frustrating it was for you, you were then recorded as having said as follows:
"Yeah, but [laughter] the, the fact of the matter is though, Sharron, when you're dealing with the provincial minister, and you're dealing with somebody who's launching a court action that involves the province of Ontario, that just creates a scenario that makes it very difficult for a provincial politician, ministers of the crown to get involved. It's not a question of, you know, we don't want to do it. It becomes a question of, uh, she might not be able to, to set up a meeting."
And then Pretty says, "You don't know that for sure yet."
And you say: "I don't know that for sure. But that's what I am warning you about. And that's what I'm going to talk to her staff about."
Now, just stopping there for a moment, was that your view that you just expressed in that passage to Ms Pretty?
Ms Lott: Yes, but my view is really -- it essentially shows my limited understanding of legal action and of legal issues. I was trying to ascertain in fact whether a court action could possibly be a federal court action as opposed to a provincial court action, and in that sense, making the connection of whether, if it was provincially related -- and, again, I reiterate that I don't have any legal background here, which is evident from what I'm explaining to you, but this was my thinking. I was making the connection between what was a provincial legal matter and establishing that, being that provincial politics being Evelyn's purview and she being a provincial politician.
Ms Cronk: I see. With that context in mind, what you said to Ms Pretty was that somebody who launches a court action that involves the province of Ontario sets up a scenario or a situation where it's "very difficult" -- again, your words, "very difficult," not mine --
Ms Lott: That's right, yes.
Ms Cronk: -- for a minister of the crown to get involved. That's all you were saying.
Ms Lott: Yes, yes. That's right.
Ms Cronk: What I'm suggesting to you is that was your view at the time. That's the way you expressed it.
Ms Lott: That's right, yes.
Ms Cronk: You'd previously said to her that the connection with the province, as you saw it, was the fact that a crown attorney was involved.
Ms Lott: That I was not also clear about as well. She had told me about a crown attorney and I guess I had understood that there are provincial crown attorneys as opposed to, you know, a federal crown attorney. Again, this points to my lack of knowledge of legal matters.
Ms Cronk: Ms Lott, I should make clear to you that -- you are not legally trained, as I understand it, right?
Ms Lott: No, not at all.
Ms Cronk: That may be a blessing. Some would regard it as a blessing, some wouldn't. You have not attended law school? You haven't had any particular even informal training in legal matters?
Ms Lott: That's true. That's right.
Ms Cronk: I'm not, by my questions, suggesting that you do, all right? But I do think it important that the committee understand what you were saying to Sharron Pretty and at least what you, as one of her constituency people, thought at the time when you learned this.
Ms Lott: Yes. That's right.
Ms Cronk: What I'm saying to you is that when you talked about a court action involving the province of Ontario, you'd already told her that because it's a crown attorney, that's provincial. That's what you meant by the provincial connection, wasn't it?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then over on the next page, page 8, Ms Pretty says: "Okay. Well I just wanted to clarify what the meeting, what..." You say: "It goes beyond at this point of being an issue of want and don't want. It's, it becomes an issue of what prevents the minister from doing it."
So stopping there for a moment, what you were saying there, I suggest, is that there are circumstances in which a minister could be prevented from doing it, meaning having a meeting, and that this, a legal action commenced in the courts, might be one of them.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then carrying on, Ms Pretty says, "Well, I felt it was important for you to understand..." Ms Lott: "Sure." Ms Pretty: "if you didn't already, what I was calling about." Then you say, "No, I understand what you are saying..." Ms Pretty: "What the meeting is about."
To read your sentence fairly, in full, you say, "No, I understand what you are saying and there is a difference there in the issues that you want to meet her about." Ms Pretty says, "Exactly."
So stopping there for a moment, you were acknowledging to her what she told you, and that was that she wanted to meet for a different purpose.
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Then you say, "But there's still there, it's still a perception of a minister meeting with a group of people that have launched a legal action..." Ms Pretty: "Mm mm." Your reply: "that involves the province of Ontario." Right?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: That's the exchange.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do I fairly take from that that what you were saying was, in these circumstances, where a legal action has been launched that involves the province of Ontario -- and the only thing you've said in this conversation that suggested an involvement with the province of Ontario was the fact that it was a crown attorney -- that you were saying that that's a perception problem and that may prevent a meeting?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Should I take from that that in your mind at the time, rightly or wrongly, with or without legal training or expertise, what you were saying is the perception of a meeting in these circumstances may prevent the minister from attending?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: That's what you were telling Ms Pretty?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Now, was that your view at the time?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then you conclude the conversation by saying, "Somebody'll get back to you very, very definitely." Right?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Have I read that transcript in my questions to you fairly, Ms Lott?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Is that what the conversation represented?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And do you know whether after that conversation, somebody did get back to her from the minister's office about a meeting?
Ms Lott: I understand that there was a decision made, but it was not conveyed to me.
1110
Ms Cronk: Okay, you've got to help me with that. How do you know it was made if they didn't tell you?
Ms Lott: Because I understood that there had been a decision when Evelyn came down to the constituency office and indicated that she wanted to set up a meeting.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. And that was later; that was at the beginning of June, you said.
Ms Lott: That's right, yeah.
Mrs Marland: I couldn't hear that last answer.
Ms Cronk: I said that was later, that was at the beginning of June? I think you said that --
Ms Lott: Yes. That's when I learned it, yes.
Ms Cronk: Okay?
Mrs Marland: Thank you.
Ms Cronk: Did you bring your conversation with Ms Pretty to the attention of the minister after those two calls on May 19th?
Ms Lott: I don't recall.
Ms Cronk: And again, when you say that you don't recall, are you saying you don't recall one way or the other?
Ms Lott: That's right.
Ms Cronk: I assume, Ms Lott, that in coming to give your evidence before the committee, you have replayed these events in your mind, perhaps more than once?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Would that be fair?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And have thought back on what was or wasn't said --
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- what did or didn't occur?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And would I be fair in suggesting that you've also probably reviewed, and absolutely properly, any number of documents about this?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And discussed it with counsel and tried to remember what occurred and what didn't?
Ms Lott: That's right.
Ms Cronk: All right. And having done all of that, recognizing what this transcript suggests of your conversation with Sharron Pretty, would you agree with me, and please tell me if you don't, that that's the kind of discussion that you probably would have brought to the attention of the minister?
Ms Lott: No, I don't agree with you on that.
Ms Cronk: All right, you're going to have to explain to me why.
Ms Lott: The reason being that I had been informed about the legal action already by her staff in Toronto, so I took from that an understanding that there had been discussions at her staff level in Toronto about that issue in relation to the issue of a meeting.
Ms Cronk: Assuming that that's --
Ms Lott: And they were the proper and appropriate people to be speaking about that and to be dealing with that factor involved in a decision to have a meeting or not have a meeting.
Ms Cronk: And in fairness to you, we know that you did have those discussions with Karen Ridley, so you knew that someone connected with the minister's office in Toronto had information about this.
Ms Lott: That's correct. I had discussions with her in terms of the fact that I was at that point still doing scheduling in the riding office and would be the one to relay to around a decision to have a meeting, had it been made in the minister's office.
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I'm sorry to interrupt. Are you saying that conversation was after this phone call or before? I didn't --
Ms Cronk: I understood it was before. Is that correct? With Karen Ridley?
Ms Lott: Sorry, which conversation are you referring to?
Mr Murphy: Yeah, well, this is my confusion.
Ms Lott: I know; it's --
Mr Murphy: You said you had a conversation with Karen Ridley, and I guess I'm wondering whether you're referring to the one you had before, or is this a different one after you talked on the telephone to Sharron Pretty on the 19th?
Ms Lott: Well, it would have been the discussion where I learned from her about the legal action.
Ms Cronk: So does that mean you're talking about the one around May 13th and then subsequently?
Ms Lott: After.
Ms Cronk: I think what Mr Murphy may be getting at, if I understand your evidence thus far, is that you've told the committee and we've talked about the phone discussion you had with Ms Ridley on or about May 13th.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: That's the one in her notes.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And then you told the committee that between then and the beginning of June, when you learned of the meeting, you had another conversation with her, right?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And I think the question is, did you have this conversation with Ms Ridley before or after this discussion? Did you have the second discussion with Ms Ridley before or after your discussion with Sharron Pretty on the 19th of May, or do you know?
Ms Lott: I think I probably had it in the intervening days before the 19th.
Ms Cronk: Before the 19th.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And are you saying to me that because this was something that should be handled out of the minister's Toronto office, and because you knew that they knew about this, you think it's not probable, unlikely, improbable, that you would have raised it with the minister yourself?
Ms Lott: I think it is less likely that I would've in that case.
Ms Cronk: So you're not saying you didn't, you're just saying that it's less likely because of those circumstances?
Ms Lott: Because of those circumstances, yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. I'm obliged to put to you, Ms Lott, assuming all of that's true in the way that you're now telling the committee, and there's certainly support on the documentation for the calls that you've described -- all right? -- assume that you had in your mind that Toronto knew about this, Ridley was on it, you'd had this conversation with Pretty, but that's not your job, that's their job. I'm saying to you, you've got a woman pressing for a meeting. You now have considerably more detail about the nature of that legal action than you ever had from Karen Ridley, based on what you now recall, and you don't tell the minister?
Ms Lott: Again, I was not the one to make the assessment about, because that didn't mean anything more to me except that she had said, "I have launched a legal action," and for me that was the key piece of information that I wanted to ensure was at the minister's staff level.
Ms Cronk: Okay. And in fairness to you, are you telling me that you didn't tell her or just that you don't remember doing so?
Ms Lott: I don't remember doing so.
Ms Cronk: And you're not going to accept from me a likelihood scenario because you think, given the circumstances you've described, that it was less likely than otherwise that you would have raised it with her.
Ms Lott: That's correct. That's correct. Yeah.
Ms Cronk: I understand that. Did you at any point, however, before the minister's meeting -- because we know then that a meeting did take place on June the 10th with Trinh Luu. You're aware of that.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And we know as well of the meeting of course on June 17th.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: That's why we're all here. Did you at any point, before either of those meetings, discuss with the minister what you'd said to Sharron Pretty, that is, that the fact of a legal action in progress might make it very difficult for the minister to meet and that there was also the issue of a perception that it would put a minister of the crown in a difficult position to meet? At any point before those meetings, did you tell the minister that or have a conversation with her about it?
Ms Lott: No, I didn't.
Ms Cronk: And again, I'm obliged to ask you this, Ms Lott: You knew at some point in time that the minister was about to go to a meeting with Sharron Pretty in the month of June. Right?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You knew in advance of the meeting?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You knew she was going to have a meeting with Trinh Luu?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You knew in advance of the meeting?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You knew that they had been pushing for a meeting for many months?
Ms Lott: Yes, I certainly knew that.
Ms Cronk: And in the case of Trinh Luu, you knew that she'd been doing that perhaps even longer than Sharron Pretty, in so far as you were aware, since back in the fall. Right?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And the minister's about to go into a meeting with Sharron Pretty, and you've had a discussion with Sharron Pretty where you've expressed some views about potential problems associated with that meeting, and you don't tell the minister that?
Ms Lott: Well, that assumes that there is no context here within which I operated, and that's not true. The context I operated in, in her constituency office, was that I was very well aware that there was a contact point on this matter, and there had been for months, in the minister's office, and that was Marc Collins. I also knew that those people met on a regular basis around the sort of regular, scheduled meetings that they had around housing-related issues or housing meetings, so I was comfortable and I thought it appropriate that that issue that lay with her staff was being dealt with by her staff, as they are competent to do.
Ms Cronk: Did you talk to Marc Collins about it?
Ms Lott: No, I didn't.
Ms Cronk: Did you talk to Karen Ridley about it further?
Ms Lott: After the --
Ms Cronk: May 19th talk.
Ms Lott: No, I didn't.
Ms Cronk: Did you talk to anybody on the minister's staff to tell them that you'd had this discussion and the views that you'd expressed to Sharron Pretty?
Ms Lott: No.
Ms Cronk: The only reason I'm putting these questions to you, Ms Lott, is because arguably this goes to the expectations of the people who attended the meeting and what they understood about the meeting, particularly Sharron Pretty. All I'm saying to you is that you had expressed, to a woman who had been dealing with your constituency office, some views, whether they were right or wrong, whether they were legally sound or not, as to whether this was going to be a difficult thing for the minister to do, and you'd made some suggestions to her as to why. I'm just saying, did you tell anybody in Toronto about it or anybody connected with that meeting before the minister walked into the meeting?
Ms Lott: No, I didn't.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Did you have discussions with the minister, Ms Gigantes, at any point prior to the June 17th meeting about what was going to occur at it or what was going to be discussed or who was going to be in attendance?
Ms Lott: No, I didn't.
Ms Cronk: Did you have any involvement in arranging that meeting?
Ms Lott: No, I didn't. At that point there was a transition period where I was no longer doing the scheduling, after or around the sort of last week in May.
Ms Cronk: And Ms Moey's back on the scene --
Ms Lott: That's right.
Ms Cronk: -- and she's involved. Right?
Ms Lott: Yes, she's full-time, yes.
Ms Cronk: And she goes to the meeting.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And you don't.
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And "Thank you," she says, exactly; I don't mean to be facetious about it, but you're not at the meeting.
Ms Lott: No, I'm not.
Ms Cronk: Ms Moey is.
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. After the meeting, did you have any discussion with Ms Gigantes about what had occurred at the meeting, at any point?
Ms Lott: No, I did not.
Ms Cronk: To date.
Ms Lott: No.
Ms Cronk: And did you at any point, Ms Lott, have any contact with the crown attorney or anyone connected with the crown attorney's offices in relation to the actions that Sharron Pretty had commenced?
Ms Lott: No, I didn't.
Ms Cronk: To your knowledge, did anyone in the constituency office of Ms Gigantes?
Ms Lott: Not to my knowledge, no.
Ms Cronk: And to your knowledge, did the minister or anyone in any way connected with her?
Ms Lott: Not to my knowledge, no.
1120
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Those are my questions, Ms Lott, if the caucus members want --
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Mr Chair, before the questioning starts, I didn't want to interrupt the commission counsel's questioning of Ms Lott, but you may recall yesterday that during my cross-examination of Mr Brian Sutherland I inquired about why the memo made on June 17th, immediately after the meeting, was not included in his more detailed statement of July 14th, and he admitted that it wasn't in there. I asked him why. He said because he didn't think it was relevant or important, I think were his words.
I also asked him, was it to be circulated? I've got the Hansard here. Sutherland says, "It was going to be circulated to people who had been actively involved with the file." Can I ask commission counsel -- it becomes particularly important because Marc Collins indicated he'd never seen the document. Can commission counsel find out for us who was in the loop and received the copy of that extended statement? I think it becomes important before we can question -- for instance, if I were going to ask questions of --
Ms Cronk: I'd be glad to do that, Mr Callahan.
Mr Callahan: If I were going to ask questions of Ms Lott, I might ask her, but I suspect that it would be more appropriate to ask it of Ms Moey because she was at the meeting and also, I suppose, a person who could be considered to be involved in the file. So I would appreciate it if we can get that as quickly as possible, to determine who was in the loop, who saw the expanded document that was created by Mr Sutherland.
The Chair: Okay, fine. Thank you. I'm going to be starting off with --
Ms Cronk: Sorry, Mr Chair. May I pursue that with the witness? I think I've been asked to do that.
The Chair: Okay. I thought you were going to have to check that out.
Ms Cronk: I'm going to do it right now and right here, if that's okay, sir.
The Chair: That's fine. Go right ahead.
Ms Cronk: Ms Lott, could you look please at exhibit 1, volume 3, tab 90. This is the document that Mr Callahan is talking about. It's an e-mail from Steve Shapiro to Brian Sutherland dated Friday, June 17, 1994. Have you ever seen this before?
Ms Lott: No, I have not.
Ms Cronk: Did you see it in the course of preparing to give your evidence before this committee?
Ms Lott: No, I did not.
Mr David Winninger (London South): Point of -- oh, sorry. Not to confuse the matter further, but I understood yesterday when Mr Callahan was questioning Mr Collins, he asked him whether he had seen tab 90, and I thought Mr Collins said he had, but when he was asked about the later document of July 12th, he said he hadn't seen it.
Mr Callahan: That's right. That's why I want to find out if Mr Collins is in the loop.
Mr Winninger: I thought the question here was about the later document.
Ms Cronk: I may have misunderstood. Are you talking about the July 14th document?
Mr Callahan: July 14th, tab 103; that's the expanded document.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry; I misunderstood.
Mr Callahan: I just want to find out who's in the loop with the know of that document. I think it's important.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Tab 103: This is the document Mr Callahan was talking about a moment ago. These are notes relating to the June 17th, 1994, meeting with the Van Lang board. The committee has heard that they were prepared by Mr Brian Sutherland. Have you ever seen these before?
Ms Lott: No, I have not.
Ms Cronk: Did you see them during the course of preparing to give your evidence before the committee?
Ms Lott: No, I did not.
Ms Cronk: So you've never seen them in your life?
Ms Lott: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you at any point have any discussion -- you said earlier that you knew who Brian Sutherland was because very early on, in fact back in June 1993, as I understood your evidence, you've suggested if either Ms Luu or Ms Pretty had concerns, they might want to be in touch with the MOH offices.
Ms Lott: Yes, I understood that they would have a relationship with issues that might be arising in terms of the management at the Van Lang Centre, as they were the regional Housing programs office.
The Chair: Excuse me. Counsel has a few words.
Ms Kristjanson: Are you finished with this line of questioning, Ms Cronk?
Ms Cronk: No, I just have another question.
The Chair: Oh, I thought you wanted to jump in.
Ms Kristjanson: After Ms Cronk is finished.
Ms Cronk: Did you at any point have any discussions with Brian Sutherland about his attendance at the June 17th meeting?
Ms Lott: No, I did not.
Ms Cronk: Or his recollections of that meeting?
Ms Lott: No, I did not.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Those are my questions.
Ms Kristjanson: Just to ensure that your examination is complete, you had asked us, and I have made inquiries at the constituency office, with respect to whether or not the October 29th, 1993, Sharron Pretty letter was received or logged in that offices. I have received information that the October 29th letter was apparently logged as received on November 2, 1993. There does not appear to be a clear record as to whether it was immediately faxed on to the ministry staff. And apparently the address on the copy in the constituency office has an address on the right-hand side, at the top of the letter.
Mrs Marland: Through you, Ms Cronk, since I'm the person that's asking the question about these two different versions of the same letter, does that then confirm that you're identifying that the letter was received on the third of November --
The Chair: November the second.
Mrs Marland: -- sorry, the second of November, and it's the one that ultimately has the Deputy Minister of Housing's "received" stamp on it?
Ms Cronk: Do you understand the question, Ms Lott, or should I take you back?
Ms Lott: I am confused.
Ms Cronk: All right. Could I ask you to look at exhibit 1, volume 2, tab 18. The first attachment, as distinct from the first document, at tab 18 is a copy of the October 29, 1993, letter. Do you have that?
Ms Lott: I've got January 11 --
Ms Cronk: Keep flipping the pages. The first attachment is the October 29th letter, and you'll see that this one has a date stamp of December 22, 1993, in the top right-hand corner?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And the address is on the left-hand side. What's being asked of you, as your counsel has just indicated, is that the constituency offices where you work have confirmed that the copy of the letter that was logged as received on November 2, 1993, has the address -- did you say on the right-hand side?
Ms Kristjanson: That's my information.
Ms Cronk: Would you agree, Ms Lott, that that suggests that you didn't receive this copy of the letter, because the address is on the left-hand side, but rather received a copy of the one appearing at tab 11, which has the address on the top right-hand side?
Ms Lott: It would suggest that.
Ms Cronk: That the version at tab 11 would appear to be the one received on November 2?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Okay. But does that also mean that when you came, on December 21st, to send to Marc Collins a copy of the letter, saying that you had mislaid it -- this is tab 15, and if you'll look at that one, it's got the address on the left-hand side -- that you at some point also got a copy of it and sent that one along to Marc Collins on December 21st.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: So it looks like you had both at the constituency office at different points in time, and we know at least that the one that went to Marc Collins is the one with the address on the left-hand side.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Is that sufficient?
Mrs Marland: So is there an answer as to -- the letter that's at tab 18 is the one with the deputy minister's stamp on it, with not only the address on the other side but a slightly different signature, if you compare them, and also a different final paragraph. I think what we need to know is, the letter that was received at the deputy minister's office --
Ms Cronk: May I try to help?
Mrs Marland: Did Ms Lott send that letter? Where did this letter come from, I guess is the question.
Ms Cronk: I understand. I just want to make sure I do before I get us into more trouble on this.
The copy of the letter that has the deputy minister's date stamp on it at tab 18 is identical to the version of the letter that also appears at tab 15. The addresses are both on the left-hand side and the concluding paragraphs are the same. Ms Lott has just told you and the rest of the committee that the version of the letter that she sent to Marc Collins is the one attached to her fax at tab 15. What you do know from the witness is that the one at tab 15 went to Marc Collins, and I just don't know if it's fair to ask the witness to do a line-by-line comparison, but that appears to be the same as the one at tab 18.
Mrs Marland: No, I agree. I don't wish to ask you to ask the witness to do a line-by-line comparison, but since there seems to be a routing from the constituency office of this letter to various people, I'm just wondering if the constituency office recalls when the second version of the letter came. I mean, where did the second version of the letter come from? Why do we have two versions of the letter in circulation, is my question.
1130
Ms Cronk: I see, all right. I'm going to ask you to make a further inquiry, through your counsel, Ms Lott. What the committee's been told thus far is that the version at tab 11, which has the address in the right-hand corner, was logged as received on November 2, and there's no record as to whether it was faxed immediately on to the minister's offices in Toronto. Are you with me so far?
Ms Lott: Yes, I am.
Ms Cronk: Okay. We know there's a second version of the letter, and it appears from what is at tab 15 with your fax that that second version was sent by you to Marc Collins on December 21st.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Could you make inquiries and inform the committee if there's any record at the constituency office of when that second version was received in it, whether it's logged or otherwise, and if so, whether this December 21st fax is the first time that it was sent to anybody in Toronto.
Does that cover it, Ms Marland?
Mrs Marland: Ms Cronk, the reason this is significant is that we have been told in evidence that this is the letter that Evelyn saw and had pulled because she was concerned about it. If we're talking about this letter being pulled, in evidence, we have to confirm which letter it was and maybe the fact that it was pulled and started going in different routes because of the importance of it in the opinion of the minister and/or her staff. We need to know which letter it was. I think I've asked the question, but that's the reason: because this letter has already been referred to in evidence as being a significant letter.
Ms Cronk: Would you agree to get answers to the questions that I've just asked through your counsel?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Thank you.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Could I just clarify a point Ms Marland just said? She said that we've heard evidence that Evelyn pulled the letter. I believe if we refer back to the evidence that Mr Collins gave, it would imply that the minister herself didn't pull the letter, because he gave testimony that correspondence normally only goes to the minister at the point of signature, so it wouldn't be the minister herself personally pulling the letter. Counsel can correct me, but I believe Mr Collins may have implied that it was he himself who pulled the letter.
Ms Cronk: I thought he'd said that, actually.
Mr Sutherland: Yes.
Mrs Marland: Also, the first reference to this letter was either Ms Luu or Ms Pretty, who said that they had been told that Evelyn had pulled the letter. I think where the letter went has been referred to by more than Mr Collins.
Mr Sutherland: Fair enough, but I just wanted to bring that point out as well.
Ms Cronk: I should say, Ms Marland, that I understand the concern you're raising, and I'll make whatever inquiries I'm in a position to make to see if clarification can be obtained.
Those are my questions.
Mr Callahan: Mr Chair, I had asked counsel earlier about determining who had received the expanded document prepared by Mr Sutherland on July 14th. I would presume there is a logged-in entry as to who received it, and I presume that's the way we would find it out; I would hope that that's how we're going to find out. My recollection -- we haven't got the Hansard yet -- is that Mr Collins said he'd not seen it, and I'd like particularly to have the logs of the minister's office or of Mr Collins's office searched to determine whether or not he did receive it.
The Chair: Okay? Now we'll start with Mr Owens again.
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Thank you, Chair. Ms Lott, I'm going to be brief with you and perhaps I'm going to repeat some questions that counsel has already asked you, but I think some of these issues bear repeating and reinforcement.
Did I understand you to say that you've been working for Evelyn for three years?
Ms Lott: Since the end of November 1990.
Mr Owens: And did I understand you to be Evelyn's case worker? Is that how you described yourself?
Ms Lott: Well, I'm a constituency assistant. We divvy up the tasks in the office. I have done case work on occasion; I have also done scheduling. I am now doing case work once again.
Mr Owens: Right. I understand from your testimony that you said you hadn't seen documents or manuals in the office with respect to conflict-of-interest guidelines. Is that correct?
Ms Lott: That's right.
Mr Owens: I guess, in my role as caucus chair, and having an understanding of the constituency training sessions that have been planned, would it be fair to say that the conflict-of-interest guidelines as put out by the Premier have been mentioned on more than one occasion, in your experience, at these training sessions?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Mr Owens: And would it be fair to state that not only have they been mentioned in plenary session but there have also been regional workshops where conflict-of-interest guidelines were discussed as well?
Ms Lott: Yes, that is.
Mr Owens: Given the difficulties that Evelyn had earlier in the mandate, would it be fair to say that conflict of interest and knowledge around issues like that probably have a more heightened relevance to you because of that experience?
Ms Lott: Yes, because they did point out to us that we had to be particularly careful in a minister's office.
Mr Owens: That's right. In terms of the telephone transcript, I guess the taping was done without your knowledge. Is that correct?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Mr Owens: So there would be no reason for you to act in a different manner than you would normally act with any other constituent.
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Mr Owens: I'd like to ask you, with regard to your understanding of the kind of conversation that you had with Sharron Pretty -- there was a note and a question counsel asked with respect to you laughing, and you indicated that you took this issue quite seriously and that it was more of a nervous laugh. Would it be fair to say that Sharron Pretty either did not understand what you were trying to explain to her, or she chose not to understand what you were explaining to her, with respect to the difficulties around the meeting?
Ms Lott: I can't speak as to her motives, but certainly I think I made it clear to her what my position was on a number of occasions during the course of the first conversation. I don't know if that's answering your question or not.
Mr Owens: No, and I can appreciate that you wouldn't want to ascribe motives to anyone.
Ms Lott: But I certainly was confused as to why she continued to ask me.
Mr Owens: Again from my understanding of the way things work in constituency offices, would it be fair to say that Sharron Pretty was, with respect to this issue of charges -- it didn't matter to you whether it was a Criminal Code offence or a provincial offence or a parking ticket -- treated in the same consistent manner that you would treat any constituent?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Mr Owens: In your three years of experience in the office of Evelyn Gigantes, have you ever had any other constituent come in with a problem that they made you aware was the subject of either a court case or a tribunal?
Ms Lott: I don't actually recall.
Mr Owens: Nobody came in to complain about a parking ticket that they felt was unjustified or --
Ms Lott: We've certainly had that, yes, and we've had people also mention that they were in a constituency-related case that they had a lawyer engaged on. We've had calls like that.
Mr Owens: In your conversation in this transcript you indicate that it's not your job to provide legal advice for the Ministry of Housing. Is that correct?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Mr Owens: In terms of your responsibility vis-à-vis the minister's office or the legislative functions of the minister, is it your view that it is not your job to make the decisions, with respect to meetings of this nature, of whether the minister or the MPP should take a meeting like this?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
1140
Mr Owens: That you simply inform the persons who make that decision of the request for the meeting and the nature of the request and whatever background may be relevant to that request?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Mr Owens: So just to reinforce, you had absolutely no role in approving or determining that a meeting was necessary in this situation?
Ms Lott: That's right.
Mr Owens: Thank you.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Thank you, Mr Chair. Ms Lott, I have a few questions, and some of these questions from me relate to how people attempt to solve problems, recognizing that there are no magical solutions or set formulas about how they do that. But I'm interested to know what Ms Trinh Luu communicated to you about the problems with the superintendent and how she tried to solve those problems. Did she communicate to you that she talked to a number of the board members, any board members, and how often did they do that? Did she talk about that?
Ms Lott: I don't recall specific conversations, but in light of your question about that, I would've urged her, in a matter that related to a problem she had with the superintendent, that it was appropriate to bring that to the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre.
Mr Marchese: To your knowledge, did she do that?
Ms Lott: I don't recall. I don't know specifically if she did or not.
Mr Marchese: She came back several times, obviously, to the constituency to talk to you about that, and presumably the problems were always the same and you presumably continued to tell her that she should try to work with the board members to try to resolve that. But you have no recollection of what she might have said about how her conversations went with respect to any of the board members?
Ms Lott: I know she was frustrated overall with her dealings with some board members, yes, but I'm not aware that she had any technical function in presenting herself at board meetings on a regular basis.
Mr Marchese: Sharron Pretty obviously did the same thing in terms of communicating her problems, and I wondered, did she communicate to you how she might have tried to solve the problems with the board before coming to you?
Ms Lott: I don't remember, really, details of our conversations, to be honest with you, because the contacts were quite frequent and during the course of a long period.
Mr Marchese: But in general it's probably safe to say that you advised them, as you said earlier, that you could probably not work on the problem, but you would send their correspondence to the ministry people --
Ms Lott: That's right.
Mr Marchese: -- and also that they should bring the issues to the regional office.
Ms Lott: Yeah. I also wanted them to be very aware that they should send correspondence or cc correspondence to the regional Housing office as well.
Mr Marchese: And presumably they did that but were continually frustrated, and they came back to you continually to try to look for solutions.
Ms Lott: That's right.
Mr Marchese: And you continually tried to urge them to go back through those processes. Is that correct?
Ms Lott: Yes, and I also indicated to them that if they wanted to bring correspondence to the attention of the minister, I would be happy to forward that on to her office in Toronto.
Mr Marchese: Just referring back to the discussion you had with Ms Pretty, you were at some point frustrated with her second call in particular because you had the sense that somehow she expected you to solve the problem.
Ms Lott: That's true. I felt that she was portraying me as somehow being a source of a resolution of this, and I was trying to convey to her that all I could do was to communicate further her outstanding concerns about wanting to have a meeting with Evelyn.
Mr Marchese: I get the impression that you were awfully frustrated or felt the pressure to do something.
Ms Lott: I felt pressure, yes.
Mr Marchese: But it's also quite clear that you didn't give in to the whole sense of that pressure, because you had some serious questions about the legal problems that were there.
Ms Lott: Yes, the issue of a legal action.
Mr Marchese: I was interested in our legal counsel talking about why you didn't tell the minister. Having been a minister, I have some insights, but I'm going to make some assumptions here. You had discussion with Karen Ridley, and you say: "Now I am confused because my last conversation with Karen [Ridley] about this, my understanding was I was waiting for directions from her. It was that you did not want a meeting because you were launching a legal action and it was too late to have a meeting at this point."
Ms Lott: Yes.
Mr Marchese: Can I make the assumption here, and correct me if I'm wrong, the reason why you might not have told the minister is because you made an assumption, in discussion with Karen, that they were all very familiar about the problems with this legal matter and that as far as you were concerned, you didn't necessarily have to have yet another discussion with the minister, that they were all in the loop? Is that a possible assumption?
Ms Lott: Yes, it is. Yeah.
Mr Murphy: There's an assumption built into that question which actually isn't factually correct, because I think you said another discussion with the minister about this, and I'm not sure there's been established in evidence that there was any discussion between this witness and the minister about the meeting related to the court case.
Mr Marchese: That was not the -- I did not mean to assume that somehow you had had other discussions with the minister. All I'm saying is that, given that you were having discussion, at least with Karen, the previous day, you had assumed that she is in the loop in the ministry's office, with Marc Collins presumably, and that you didn't have to necessarily communicate anything further about this.
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Mr Marchese: Just one final question: When Miss Pretty talked about, "We want to meet with you and discuss the problems with the compliance review and the access issues, the core issues that we've always been trying to do, to meet with Evelyn and discuss, you know, that's your responsibility," did you have a judgement about that as to whether or not, given that that's what she wanted to talk about, perhaps the minister could meet if that is what she wanted to talk about?
Ms Lott: No, I didn't make that assumption. No.
Mr Marchese: I'm making an assumption here that you simply said: "This is a legal problem. Therefore, even if she wants to talk about other things, it's safe not to talk about arranging a meeting at this time." Is that correct?
Ms Lott: That's right.
Mr Marchese: Thank you, Ms Lott.
The Chair: Okay. Are you going to put the rest of the time in the bank?
Mr Marchese: Yes.
Mr Callahan: Are they in a credit position, Mr Chair?
The Chair: Yes, no deficit.
Mr Callahan: Is it red time?
The Chair: Okay. Miss Marland or --
Mr Sutherland: I'm sorry --
The Chair: Oh, I made a mistake again. I'm supposed to --
Interjection: We move, you lose.
The Chair: Yes, I know. Every time I want to go around there. Okay.
Mr Callahan: That's why Margie had us move, so we'd confuse you, you see.
The Chair: Mr Chiarelli.
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Thank you, Mr Chair. Miss Lott, you probably heard the testimony of Dr Tang last night, that he stated very clearly that he thought --
Ms Lott: Excuse me. I did not hear the testimony of Dr Tang.
Mr Chiarelli: Well, perhaps I'll indicate to you what I remember him to have said. He stated very clearly, I think on three occasions, that he was under the impression the meeting of June 17th with the minister was set up so that the board, or representatives of the board, would have a chance to explain their side of the story. It surprised me that he said that, particularly in view of the fact that over this period of about a year there were very extensive communications between Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu, with the constituency office, the minister's office, the people from the Ministry of Housing, and the only communication I'm aware of between members of the board and the constituency office is a letter of January the third where Hieu Truong was asking for a meeting. Are you aware of any other discussions, communications, with any members of the board? In particular, did you personally know any members of the board?
Ms Lott: No.
Mr Chiarelli: You had never met them?
Ms Lott: No.
Mr Chiarelli: Are you aware that anybody in the constituency office -- Paul Dewar, Michel Proulx, Darlene Labrosse or Audrey Moey -- had ever met any members of the board?
Ms Lott: I can't comment on that.
Mr Chiarelli: Okay. I have another question for you.
Ms Lott: I have no knowledge of who they would know.
Mr Chiarelli: I would like to refer you to exhibit 1, volume 1, tab 6. There is a series of informations which were sworn against a number of persons, some directors and I think former employees of the board --
Ms Lott: Excuse me, could you give what it is again?
Mr Chiarelli: Sorry, it's exhibit 1, volume 1, tab 6. In particular, I refer you to page 14, which is the information sworn against My Nguyen. It indicates there that his address is [information deleted] Piccadilly Avenue. Do you see that?
Ms Lott: Mm-hmm.
1150
Mr Chiarelli: Can you confirm to me that [information deleted] Piccadilly Avenue is an address within Ottawa Centre?
Ms Lott: I'm afraid I can't. I don't know all the streets in Ottawa Centre.
Mr Chiarelli: As the member for Ottawa West, I can tell you that it's on your side of the boundary.
Ms Lott: Okay.
Mr Chiarelli: So that he in fact is --
Mr Callahan: Does that help you at all?
Ms Lott: I know very many streets. I don't know every one.
Mr Chiarelli: He in fact is a constituent in Ottawa Centre.
Very quickly, I want to refer you to exhibit 1, volume 1, tab 2, which is a copy of the Premier's guidelines. On page 5 of those guidelines, section 24 --
The Chair: The clerk has asked me if we could refer to the page but don't give the address, because it is there, or telephone numbers, if at all possible.
Mr Chiarelli: Okay. I thought it was relevant to establish residence as a constituent.
The Chair: Well, if it's possible.
Mr Chiarelli: Mr Chair, what I was trying to establish is the fact that one of the accused persons, at least one of the accused persons, is a constituent of the minister, and I was going to refer the constituency office manager to section 24 of the guidelines, which states:
"Where a minister's constituency office undertakes activities in which members normally engage on behalf of constituents, ministers shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that their office as minister is not used to further the interests of the constituent."
The hypothesis I'm putting forward is that this particular accused person, as a director and as a person who was subject to a compromise possibly involving the court case, in fact is being assisted by the minister. The minister is in fact advancing the interests of that particular constituent if the court case is not proceeded with. And I simply wanted to establish the fact that indeed this particular accused person is a constituent and an accused person.
Mr Sutherland: Could I just --
The Chair: I've got legal counsel over there first.
Interjection: They can turn the time off.
The Chair: It's been off.
Ms Kristjanson: No, the witness cannot answer this question. She wasn't at the meeting. We don't have any evidence other than, Mr Chiarelli, that this person --
Mr Chiarelli: I believe she ought to have been able to answer the question as to whether or not this address was in the riding.
Interjection: Why is this material?
Mr Sutherland: Could I ask a question?
The Chair: Okay, Mr Sutherland.
Mr Sutherland: And I ask for some clarification from legal counsel. Mr Chiarelli is putting forward a hypothesis --
Interjection.
Mr Sutherland: He's putting forward a hypothesis, but it would seem to me he has failed to establish one point, and that is, was there any connection between this person who is a constituent and the constituency office? It would seem to me that that point would have to be established first before you can say you have an actual hypothesis here of a potential conflict.
The Chair: I'm going to wind up letting Mr Chiarelli go ahead. Legal counsel here is listening and --
Mr Chiarelli: I incorrectly used the word "hypothesis," Mr Chair.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, may I have a point of order?
The Chair: Yes, Mrs Marland.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, my point of order is --
Mr Sutherland: I'm sorry --
The Chair: Wait a minute, I've got to go back to Mr Sutherland.
Mr Sutherland: Could I have some comment from legal counsel on that? That's what I was seeking.
Mrs Marland: Well, I'd like to place my point of order.
The Chair: Is it on the same point of order?
Mr Sutherland: That's fine. I'd just like my clarification first and then go ahead.
The Chair: We'll get a clarification first, okay?
Mr Chiarelli: I withdraw my hypothesis now.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, my point of order has to do with what is happening at this point in this hearing. We are now sliding into the kind of mode that we are in in our normal committee meetings, where we banter back and forth and we correct each other and we say, "What's that relevant?" or whatever, all the things that we do. I think frankly that we have behaved very well for three days in this hearing, considering the normal format of our committee hearings.
Mr Callahan: I think we should get a raise.
Mrs Marland: What is starting to happen now is that all our concerns are getting a little elevated and we're starting to listen to each other's questions and starting to interfere.
The Chair: Could you get to the point of order.
Mrs Marland: The point of order is that in your opinion, do you think that we should now start questioning our other colleagues' questions --
Mr Marchese: They are just raising questions.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Marchese.
Mrs Marland: Do you think that we should be, as members, starting to question what evidence other colleagues are trying to extract, and not just "for clarification." I've no difficulty with us asking points of evidence to our counsel, but I think what's happening is exactly that, that we're starting to question why Mr Chiarelli is asking this question, or I will be, or I may question why you're asking it.
The Chair: Mrs Marland, could we -- we've got to get on with the hearing.
Mrs Marland: Exactly.
The Chair: Legal counsel, did you have a comment?
Interjection.
The Chair: No, you've had -- okay, we're all set to go. Mr Chiarelli, I'm turning the clock back on.
Ms Cronk: I think he's withdrawn the question.
Mr Chiarelli: I withdraw my hypothesis and I simply want to summarize the fact that the witness has acknowledged that in that particular tab 6 with respect to My Nguyen, that there's a particular address assigned to that particular accused person, number 1. Number 2, I wanted to draw her attention to paragraph 24 of the guidelines and get that on record. I have done that. Thank you very much, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Okay. Mr Murphy.
Mr Murphy: Thank you. I think, Ms Lott, you told us in response to a question to Mr Owens about the seminars and conflict-of-interest guidelines that one of the lessons you learned, that you had to be particularly careful when you were working for a minister.
Ms Lott: Yes.
Mr Murphy: Then he referred you to, you know, calls about parking tickets and court cases and he didn't ask the follow-up questions, which I assume when you get those inquiries for assistance you say no.
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Mr Murphy: And the reason you say no is because it's improper for a minister to be seen to be getting involved in those kind of things.
Ms Lott: It depends on the nature, you know, of the issue, but generally any time I'm aware of something, that I hear some kind of legal action, a red flag goes off in my mind and I am very clear to redirect somebody from our office.
Mr Murphy: Do you know, can you think of a situation other than the one we're here for where a court case has been involved and that you have got involved in the situation?
Ms Lott: In which I have gotten --
Mr Murphy: Yes.
Ms Lott: Sorry, I didn't hear you. In which I have gotten involved?
Mr Murphy: Yes.
Ms Lott: No, I can't recall.
Mr Murphy: Does that mean there isn't any that you --
Ms Lott: Well, we deal with many, many cases in a constituency office during the course of a week and even during the course of a day.
Mr Murphy: Yes, I understand, but there isn't one now that you can remember you got involved in?
Ms Lott: No.
Mr Murphy: I think you also told counsel that you basically didn't tell anyone about the May 19th phone call with Sharron Pretty in the minister's office or the minister herself. Correct?
Ms Lott: Could you repeat that question?
Mr Murphy: You know your May 19th phone call with Sharron Pretty? We went through the transcript?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Mr Murphy: Remember that call?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Mr Murphy: I think your evidence was that you didn't pass on the contents of that telephone conversation to anybody in the minister's office or the minister herself?
Ms Lott: I'd have to recall again what her question was to me specifically. I'd understood that it was, did I speak to the minister about it? I said no.
Mr Murphy: Oh, I think you were asked whether you spoke to Marc Collins and whether you spoke to anybody in the minister's office, and I thought you said no.
Ms Lott: I guess that's correct, yes. I guess I did say that.
Mr Murphy: Do you have page -- do you have that transcript there?
Ms Lott: The May 19th telephone call?
Mr Murphy: Yes.
Ms Lott: Yeah.
Mr Murphy: Can you turn to page 7 of that. Do you see just right down at the bottom -- can you see? -- and it says: "I don't know that for sure. But that's what I am warning you about." That's referring to that it might be a problem to meet. "And that's what I'm going to talk to her staff about." You see, it says that right there.
Ms Lott: Yeah.
Mr Murphy: So does that mean that what you told Sharron you were going to do, you didn't do?
Ms Lott: No, I don't share your conception of that at all.
Mr Murphy: Well, am I correct in my reading of that that you were indicating to Sharron Pretty that you were going to talk about the problem that a court case presents to a meeting with the minister to the minister's staff? Is that what you're indicating to Sharron by saying that?
Ms Lott: That's what the transcript says, but then as I said, you know, I can't verify as to the complete accuracy of this transcript.
Mr Murphy: You have nothing you can tell me now that would say that this isn't accurate.
Ms Lott: No.
Mr Murphy: I guess I just -- well, thank you.
1200
Mr Callahan: I'd like to go back to the June 10th. I want to just clarify your evidence. On the June 10th meeting at the constituency office when Trinh Luu came, who was there?
Ms Lott: Sorry, could you be more specific about that?
Mr Callahan: Well, who was in the constituency office at that time when Trinh Luu paid a visit to the constituency office?
Ms Lott: Well, it would be the three staff people that work full-time in that constituency office.
Mr Callahan: Who else?
Ms Lott: So at that time it would have been Paul Dewar --
Mr Callahan: Who else?
Ms Lott: -- and myself and Audrey Moey.
Mr Callahan: Is that it?
Ms Lott: That's all that I recall.
Mr Callahan: Well, I have to tell you, we heard evidence that there was smoke coming from a room -- I think this is right -- on the 10th of June meeting.
Interjections: No.
Mr Callahan: It's not the 10th? When was it?
Ms Lott: That could have been the minister meeting with --
Mr Callahan: All right. Okay, I'm sorry, I just wanted to clarify that. The other thing is, did you ever discuss the matters that Mr Murphy has told you about of the telephone conversation with Sharron Pretty, did you ever discuss that with Audrey Moey?
Ms Lott: I don't recall discussing that with her.
Mr Callahan: Did Audrey Moey ever discuss with you what went on at the meeting of the 17th of June, 1994?
Ms Lott: No.
Mr Callahan: Did you ever ask her about it?
Ms Lott: No, I didn't.
Mr Callahan: So you have absolutely no information about that? Okay.
Ms Lott: No.
Mr Callahan: All right, we'll bank the rest of it.
Mrs Marland: Ms Lott, does the minister come to her constituency office regularly to meet with constituents?
Ms Lott: Yes, she does.
Mrs Marland: How long would it take normally for a constituent to get an appointment?
Ms Lott: Well, it can take a long time. It can take a long time if the request is on a housing-related matter, because she gets numerous requests and those are evaluated in her Toronto office. It can also take a long time on a non-housing-related matter as well, sometimes a couple months because --
Mrs Marland: Could it take --
Ms Lott: If I could just finish my answer, we get a large volume of requests that come to us because Evelyn is the only government MPP east of Kingston. So we get requests --
Mrs Marland: No, my question was about constituents.
Ms Kristjanson: The witness is answering your question.
Ms Lott: I just want to give context here. We get requests from outside of Ottawa Centre almost as frequently as we get from within the riding.
Mrs Marland: My question was about a constituent. That's why I was interrupting you. I asked you how long it would take a constituent to get an appointment with the minister in her office.
Ms Lott: Well, it varies. The volume of requests we get sometimes is heavy and other times it's lighter.
Mrs Marland: Would it sometimes take a year?
Ms Lott: It's possible, yes. It is possible.
Mrs Marland: Why do you think you didn't schedule a meeting with Trinh Luu in a year?
Ms Lott: As I indicated to counsel and to previous questioners, it was not my decision to make the decision around the setting up of a meeting with the minister.
Mrs Marland: She was a constituent.
Ms Lott: Yes, but she was bringing forward to me a housing-related matter, and as I clarified, I don't make that evaluation about decisions about housing-related matters with the minister; I get direction from her staff.
Mrs Marland: Is there a diary kept of the minister's appointments at her constituency office?
Ms Lott: Yes, there is.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, I'd like to ask Ms Cronk if we may have that diary entered as evidence before this hearing. I'm asking it because of --
Mr Winninger: Point of order.
Interjections.
Mrs Marland: Oh, you are funny, you guys, you are so funny.
The Chair: I have three points of order.
Mrs Marland: As soon as you get nervous you start raising a point of order.
Mr Winninger: I guess I had my hand up first, for obvious reasons. If indeed this diary is to be made an exhibit -- and I'm in the hands of counsel's advice on that, I suppose, as are other committee members -- I would hope that before that excerpt is made available to Mrs Marland and the committee that all other non-relevant notations would be deleted from the record. That was my point, Mr Chair.
Ms Cronk: Could I just make a comment? I don't mean to be offering an unsolicited interjection at this point. I would be glad to respond as quickly as we possibly can to any requests for information or further documentation from every committee member, and I would be pleased to speak further with Mrs Marland about this and discover how this could be done and for what purpose.
But I do have to say, and I say it with the very greatest of respect, that you have given me a deadline of tomorrow night to complete this hearing. We have six witnesses left to do today. I say this to no particular individual, but I share with you my concern that if discussions during this time, as distinct from with the subcommittee, continue in here I will not be able to do that for you. I say it with absolutely no disrespect to anyone, let alone the person now asking the question. I'm just saying to you that I'm available for those kinds of discussions whenever you'd like me to be, but I wonder if we could pursue them at the subcommittee leave. We've done one witness this morning.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, I was just going to ask Ms Cronk, if the clock isn't running, if it's possible to have that diary brought to the hearing.
The Chair: Ms Cronk said we could discuss that at the subcommittee.
Mrs Marland: All right. Ms Lott, you said that on October 29th Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty came to a meeting at your office.
Ms Lott: I indicated that I was never clear about the actual times and dates of their appearing in our office but I did recall that in the fall, some time later in 1993, Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty came into the office. That's correct.
Mrs Marland: There were three people who came to your office: Trinh Luu, Trinh Tran and Sharron Pretty.
Ms Lott: I don't recall that.
Mrs Marland: You don't recall three people coming to meet you at your office?
Ms Lott: No. I recall Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu coming to my office.
Mrs Marland: The 29th of October? You don't recall that? The 29th of October, 1993?
Ms Lott: No, I don't. That's right.
Mrs Marland: It's interesting, because we've had evidence from two witnesses who gave us that date that they came to the office.
Ms Kristjanson: I have to object to this. The witness has been quite clear in her testimony with Ms Cronk and also just in reply to your question that she does recall these two individuals attending at the office. I don't know that she did not agree that it was a meeting, but she's unable to locate the date. Would you just move on in your questions.
Mrs Marland: Okay. Ms Lott, do you recall if, the day those people whom I've identified came to you with their concerns and their lengthy letter, the minister was in the office?
Ms Lott: No, I don't recall. If it was on a Friday, it would be very possible that she would be in the office and very likely that she would be --
Mrs Marland: If I read to you from the evidence we've received, that one of the witnesses has told us -- it's Ms Luu's evidence, actually. She said: "We were talking to Sue. I was excited at the time" etc, etc.
Ms Kristjanson: Could you just stop for a minute. If you are going to read evidence, I would like to have a copy of the transcript and I think a copy of that transcript should also be shown to the witness, if someone else has a copy of the transcript to refer to.
Mrs Marland: Certainly, I'd be happy to.
Ms Cronk: Give me one sec; I'll get a copy.
Mrs Marland: It's Monday, August 8, the afternoon sitting, page 1340-2.
Ms Lott: Which part do you want me to read?
Mrs Marland: The last paragraph, the statement by Ms Luu.
Ms Lott: Okay, I've read it.
Mrs Marland: It's reported that Ms Luu said, "I didn't notice that, but Sharron later on told me that Evelyn was sitting in the room beside, smoking, and she did greet Evelyn." This is suggesting that Sharron saw Evelyn in the room next door, smoking, and greeted her before she left, which would suggest that the minister was there at the same time that they were there. Whether you can confirm the date is the reason I'm asking for the minister's schedule, and I think it's a fair request.
1210
Ms Cronk: To assist Ms Marland as well, October 29th, 1993 -- I've just looked at my calendar -- was a Friday.
Mrs Marland: Thank you. Is Ms Gigantes normally in the constituency office on Fridays?
Ms Lott: Yes. She comes in at the end of every week, and we set up meetings on Fridays, normally.
Mrs Marland: Would you agree that it's possible that this testimony is correct?
Ms Lott: It's possible, but I cannot confirm testimony from another witness. That is her testimony; that's not mine.
Mrs Marland: It's possible that because October 29th was a Friday, when you check the minister's calendar you may be able to confirm that she was in the office that day?
Ms Lott: That's possible, yes. She is in and out of the offices, I should add, on Fridays. She is in and out of the office often, because we often have events that she attends outside the riding office.
Mrs Marland: Oh, I understand, and that's why we need her diary; the reason we need her diary is that I understand she may have been in and out of the office on the Friday the 29th of October.
You have agreed that you did meet with Ms Luu and Ms Pretty, that they came to your office. What you are not able to confirm for us is when that happened.
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Mrs Marland: But both those witnesses have told us it was the 29th of October. I would suggest to you, Ms Lott, that that was a very important date for those two women and it's possible that their recollection -- the fact is that they have a recollection of a date, and it is correct that you have no recollection of which date they met with you, correct?
Ms Lott: As I said before, I don't remember particularly what date that was. I had many communications from both Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty individually and dropping material off, so I have a faulty memory of --
Mrs Marland: That's fair. It's our understanding that they came to meet with you on October 29th and then subsequently dropped a letter off on November 2. In fact, the evidence says "a few days later." In the middle of that page, if you want to look at it, under Ms Luu's testimony, it says:
"That's why October the 29th Sharron and I 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.... I would put it October 29th because that was the date when I went to see Sue for a request to see Evelyn." And I'm saying to you, Ms Lott, to see Evelyn as her MPP.
Your evidence this morning is now that you have checked the logging of these letters and you have confirmed in your evidence this morning that the letter was received November 2, which I'm suggesting to you is a few days later.
Ms Lott: If I might just say that I don't share your interpretation that Trinh Luu entered the office to see Evelyn Gigantes as her MPP. I had made it clear to her early on, the discussion I have recalled, that we could not deal with this matter in the constituency office and that I would have to forward it on to Evelyn's office in Toronto.
Ms Kristjanson: I just have to clarify. Ms Lott obviously did not make those inquiries this morning. You had just said that Ms Lott had clarified that it was received on November 2. She's been sitting in here the whole time. I directed inquiries to be made. I simply wanted to make that clear for the record.
Mrs Marland: Through you, Mr Chair, to the counsel for Ms Lott, did you confirm that there was a letter logged as being received in the constituency office on November 2, a letter from Ms Pretty?
Ms Kristjanson: Certainly. You had just attributed that confirmation to Ms Lott, and I wanted to make it clear for the record that that information was provided to me based on information from the constituency office but that had not been conveyed to me by Ms Lott directly.
Mrs Marland: So when you speak, who are you speaking for?
Ms Kristjanson: That information I am putting on the record, I'm putting it on as counsel for Ms Lott, that that was information provided to me by the constituency office -- simply a clarification.
Mrs Marland: So, Ms Lott, you now know that the letter was received in the office on November 2. You know that the testimony of Ms Luu was that you had suggested to Sharron that she put her concerns in writing, and she came back and delivered a letter to Sue a few days later. I'm suggesting to you, if the meeting wasn't October 29th, November 3 couldn't have been a few days later. Just one final --
Ms Kristjanson: I could not find a question in that sort of long statement. Ms Lott, did you wish to make a response, however, to what was just put to you or not?
Ms Lott: Could you repeat that question?
Ms Cronk: Excuse me, Mr Chair. I understand the exchange that's occurring here, and if a question hasn't been put, there's nothing for the witness to answer. If there's something to be pursued, I have the right of re-examination, but I think we should get on with Ms Marland's questions. If she didn't put a question, there's nothing to be answered.
Mrs Marland: This morning you have, Ms Lott, been referred to exhibit 1, volume 2, tab 26.
Ms Lott: Did we have reference to this this morning? Okay. I don't recall discussing this this morning.
Mrs Marland: Maybe counsel could help us. Ms Lott says she doesn't recall being asked about this exhibit this morning.
Ms Cronk: It's my recollection -- it's only my recollection at this point, Ms Marland -- that I put to the witness that she had sent a copy of this letter both to Newton Vanriel and Ezia Cervoni, and that we discussed it with her. I took her to the page. I don't know -- but I certainly put and obtained confirmation that a copy of the March 4 letter was sent, I thought you told me, Ms Lott, by you to both those individuals. I just don't remember if we went to the piece of paper or not.
Mrs Marland: Thank you. I'll continue my questions.
Ms Lott, this is a covering page for a fax of March 8 from you to "Newton." In it you say, in the message part: "Newton -- This is the latest missive from Sharron Pretty re the Van Lang Centre. Could you call me about this? Thanks." Could you tell us, Ms Lott, what you mean by "the latest missive," what that language means, why that language was used?
Ms Lott: "Missive," in my understanding, is a form of written communication. It could be a letter. I don't know the actual dictionary definition of "missive" but I would understand it to be a form of written communication that is sent, and that would be my description of another piece of written communication that we had received from Sharron Pretty in the office.
Mrs Marland: Okay. I'll take you to tab 28, two tabs further on in the same volume. This is a fax cover from you to Marc Collins, and the message says: "Marc -- I keep passing these letters on to you from the Van Lang Centre. Could you call me about this?" Is there some reason, Ms Lott, that in the one you refer to it as "the latest missive," and you've just said that that's a communication -- why you wouldn't have used the word "missive" again to Marc Collins or why you wouldn't have used the word "letter" to Newton? In all the other communications that we have as evidence you are referring to "these letters" and "letters." Is it possible that on March 8, when you used the term "missive," you were getting a little frustrated about all the correspondence and all the phone calls you were receiving on this matter from Sharron Pretty?
Ms Lott: I don't think you can presume any state of mind from the use of a word. I vary my language quite a bit.
Mrs Marland: Thank you. That's all my questions, and I'd like to bank the rest of my time, Mr Chair.
Mr Owens: How much time are we talking about banking here?
The Chair: One minute and eight seconds.
Mrs Marland: From today's 15 minutes, correct?
The Chair: Yes. Okay, Ms Cronk.
1220
Ms Cronk: Ms Lott, I just have one or two questions. Just to follow up on something that Ms Marland is asking you about, do you personally have any recollection, as you sit here today, whether the minister, Evelyn Gigantes, was in her constituency office on either Thursday, October 28th, or Friday, October 29th, 1993?
Ms Lott: I'm afraid I don't, no.
Ms Cronk: We'll make inquiries and get the extracts, but it would be your expectation, I take it, that she would have been there on Friday the 29th, at least unless some other event --
Ms Lott: Generally. I mean, there certainly have been cases a number of times over the last couple of years when she has not been able to be in on a Friday.
Ms Cronk: I understand, but unless it was one of those situations, she normally would have been in?
Ms Lott: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And were there also occasions during the past year when she was in her constituency office for one reason or another on the Thursday of a week?
Ms Lott: Yes, there were actually a couple of occasions when the House wasn't sitting where she was able to return into the constituency on a Thursday. She would maybe make it in in the afternoon sometimes.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. There's one further area of questioning and it relates to your discussion on May 19th with Sharron Pretty. The questions I put to you that were then pursued were about why you hadn't told the minister about the conversation and what you understood was the information already on hand at the minister's offices in Toronto. To be both fair to you and fair to the evidence, I just want to make sure that I understand one particular aspect of it. All right?
You told me, as I understood it, and I think you confirmed in further questioning, that it was a fair assumption that issues relating to the legal issues around a meeting were in the minds of the minister's staff in Toronto?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And you certainly knew that they had details of the legal action, right?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Okay. I suppose my point, in part, to you is this: that whatever the minister's office in Toronto knew, the fact that there were legal issues associated with having a meeting of that kind was, from and after May 19th, in the mind of Sharron Pretty because you put it there. Do you understand what I'm saying? You raised with her in that discussion that having a meeting of that kind might put the minister in a very difficult position. You said that in conversation?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And you raised the issue in that conversation that although you weren't a lawyer, that you didn't give advice to the Ministry of Housing, you were suggesting there might be legal difficulties associated with the meeting, but you weren't the final arbiter on it. Is that correct?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And it was in your mind at the time and you assumed it would be dealt with by the minister's people in Toronto because they already knew about the legal case, correct?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Would it be fair of me also to suggest to you that that aspect of that kind of a meeting was in Sharron Pretty's mind following your conversation with her because you talked about it?
Ms Kristjanson: Ms Cronk, are you asking the witness to speculate upon what was in Sharron Pretty's mind? Because if that's the case, she can't answer.
Ms Cronk: Let me rephrase the question. I'm saying to you that from and after that conversation with Sharron Pretty, the fact of your suggesting difficulties associated with that meeting was known to Ms Pretty, and that is an objective fact you can confirm because you told her in the conversation, right?
Ms Lott: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Okay. And what I'm suggesting to you is: Would it not have been, given that Sharron Pretty knew that objectively, because you told her that -- was that not something that it might have been useful for the minister to know before she went into the meeting, in your mind?
Ms Lott: But she had already had that knowledge of a legal action in a conversation with a member of the minister's staff in Toronto. There had already been that subject matter of a legal action brought up in a conversation with the minister's staff.
Ms Cronk: I'm expressing this badly. Can I try one more time, and if you disagree, just tell me, all right? What I'm suggesting to you is that information was provided to Sharron Pretty, a woman who was going to be potentially meeting, as you understood it, with the minister, and then you came to find out that the meeting was going to take place, and you told me you knew about the meeting in advance. Am I right so far?
Ms Lott: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Okay. I'm just saying to you: In your own mind, because you can speak about your own mind, wasn't it relevant, mightn't it have been helpful, for the minister to know that you'd had a discussion with one of the people who was going to be at that meeting in which it had been said that there were difficulties in the minister attending that meeting, or that there might be legal problems associated with it? Wasn't that something that might have been useful for the minister to know or at least relevant for her to know?
Ms Lott: It's possible, yes. But I don't recall.
Ms Cronk: And in so far as you were aware, no one in the minister's office in Toronto knew about that because you hadn't told them about your discussion with Sharron Pretty, right?
Ms Lott: I'm getting confused again as to when I knew what, and what we've already established.
Ms Cronk: Okay, I'll leave it. Thank you. And Ms Lott, please understand, I'm not being critical of you. I'm just trying to understand what people did or didn't know when they walked into that meeting and what it means. Okay? Thank you very much. Those are my questions.
The Chair: Ms Lott, I'd like to thank you for coming before the committee. A safe trip home.
Ms Lott: Thank you.
The Chair: Would you like to break for 10 minutes to get some notes? Actually, can anybody see coming back for 1 o'clock -- grab a quick lunch?
Mr Murphy: Yeah. We'll say 1 and it'll be 1:15.
The Chair: The Chair will start at 1 o'clock. We're recessed until 1 o'clock.
The committee recessed from 1226 to 1312.
HIEU TRUONG
The Chair: Our next witness is Dr Hieu Truong. Can the clerk read the oath.
Clerk of the Committee: 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?
Dr Hieu Truong: Yes, I do.
The Chair: Welcome, Doctor, to the committee. Would Ms Cronk continue on.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Good afternoon, Dr Truong.
Dr Truong: Good afternoon.
Ms Cronk: Dr Truong, as I understand it, you are a director of engineering for the Royal Canadian Mint here in Ottawa. Is that correct?
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And you have held that position for close to 16 -- is it 16 or 17 years?
Dr Truong: Close to 17 years.
Ms Cronk: I understand that you gained your PhD in engineering from New York University in 1971.
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: You moved to Ottawa in 1978 and began working at that time for the Royal Canadian Mint.
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: It is also my understanding, sir, that you are now and have been in the past active in the Vietnamese community in Ottawa.
Dr Truong: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Indeed, I understand you've served as president of an organization called the Vietnamese Canadian Buddhist Association.
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Did your association with that organization have something to do with the way in which you came to be involved with the Van Lang Centre?
Dr Truong: Yeah, I think it has something to do with my association of the Van Lang Centre. As president of the -- past president because I'm no longer president -- as past president of the Vietnamese Canadian Buddhist Association, with the ability to provide leadership to the community, some tenants of the Van Lang Centre approached me late in the spring of 1993, the beginning of summer 1993, to be on the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre because problems were growing up already at that time at the Van Lang Centre.
What the particulars, I'm not aware of, but they say that they have difficulties at the centre and they like to see strong leadership moving over and give a fresh look, a fresh go over at the centre. I did not want to be involved, but since people feel that I can do something for the centre, I accepted to join the board of directors.
Ms Cronk: Did you also at that time know Dr Can D. Le?
Dr Truong: I knew Dr Le for some time, on official events, but I never had any association with him before. And that was my first time that we worked together.
Ms Cronk: When you went on the board of the Van Lang Centre?
Dr Truong: Yeah, when I was on the board of the Van Lang Centre, right.
Ms Cronk: I understand that that occurred -- that is, that you went on the board at the beginning of August, 1993. Am I right on that?
Dr Truong: Yeah, exactly; August the fifth.
Ms Cronk: It is also my understanding, based on other evidence that the committee has heard, that a number of other new directors went on the board at the same time, including two tenant representatives, one of whom was Sharron Pretty. Can you confirm that that is correct?
Dr Truong: Yeah, I guess that's correct, I guess two tenants who were nominated by the interim committee of their association, because they haven't got any bylaws yet, any constitution to nominate the tenant association. They're working on that. So Sharron Pretty and another person, Mrs Tran, were the interim representatives of the tenants on the board.
Ms Cronk: Right. Well, leaving aside whether their status was interim or permanent, and the reason I put it that way is I take it you will of course remember that there is some debate about that, at least in the minds of Sharron Pretty and, I take it, other directors on the board as to what the status was, so could we -- am I right in that? There's at least a debate about it?
Dr Truong: Yeah, that's correct.
Ms Cronk: So setting that aside, I take it you do recall and are confirming that Sharron Pretty and one other tenant representative came on the board at the same time as you did, on August the fifth, 1993.
Dr Truong: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: At that time as well, as I understand it, you assumed the presidency of the Van Lang Centre. Is that also correct?
Dr Truong: I was elected president.
Ms Cronk: But it was at that time?
Dr Truong: That time exactly. Right.
Ms Cronk: Am I also correct that Dr Tang at that time came on as a new director of the board?
Dr Truong: Yeah, I guess Dr Tang was new also at that time.
Ms Cronk: Is it the case that at that time Sharron Pretty, as a new director, also became a vice-president of the organization.
Dr Truong: Yeah, she became vice-president also at that time.
Ms Cronk: Now, at the time that you came on to the board in August, did you know a woman by the name of Trinh Luu?
Dr Truong: No, I guess I did not know Mrs Luu. I met her once at the grand opening of the centre, some time back, I guess in '92 or something.
Ms Cronk: All right. At the time that you came on as a new director, Ms Luu was still in the employ of the Van Lang Centre as project manager?
Dr Truong: Yeah, I guess she was still in the office at that time. Right.
Ms Cronk: Subsequently, the committee has seen that a letter dated September 3, 1993, from Ms Luu was delivered, in which she resigned her position as project manager of the centre. Do you recall that?
Dr Truong: Yeah, I guess she tendered her resignation around that time to go back to law school, or to go to law school rather.
Ms Cronk: Was that letter submitted to you in your capacity as president?
Dr Truong: Yeah, she brought it to me as president. Right.
1320
Ms Cronk: Could I just stop and go back and ask you something I should've asked a moment ago, Dr Truong. How large, approximately, is the Vietnamese community in Ottawa?
Dr Truong: Well, I guess its number -- I never get a true whole number, but I would imagine between 3,000 and 4,000 people.
Ms Cronk: What would you estimate its size to have been back in the summer of 1993, when you went on the board?
Dr Truong: About the same size, about 3,000 or 4,000 people.
Ms Cronk: In your experience and given your involvement with the community, is it a closely knit community or is it widely diverse?
Dr Truong: Well, that's a difficult question to answer, but I've got to say that almost everybody knows somebody, because 3,000 or 4,000, you know, you meet them at different social events. You get to know everybody by face and by name.
Ms Cronk: When you came on the board of the Van Lang Centre in August, did you have any clear understanding from the tenants who had approached you to serve on the board as to what the difficulties were at the centre, or were you simply aware that there were problems?
Dr Truong: I guess the problem was made known to me in the sense there is a conflict between the manager at that time, Ms Luu, and the superintendent, Mr Tung Nguyen.
Ms Cronk: And when Ms Luu submitted her letter of resignation to you on September the third, did that issue also figure in some of the comments that she made in that letter?
Dr Truong: Yes, definitely. It was in the letter that she said she has some difficulty with the superintendent and she'd be glad to talk to me about her difficulty with the superintendent.
Ms Cronk: All right. Now, Dr. Truong, the committee, as you know, is charged by its mandate to investigate and determine matters related to a meeting in mid June of this year, June 17th, 1994, held with the Minister of Housing, Evelyn Gigantes. Did you attend that meeting?
Dr Truong: Yes, I was at the meeting on June 17th.
Ms Cronk: I'm putting the question to you on that basis because that is the mandate of the committee. It is not the mandate of the committee to inquire into the accuracy or inaccuracy of many of the concerns that were expressed in 1993 and subsequently about the Van Lang Centre. Do you understand that?
Dr Truong: Right. Yes, I know that.
Ms Cronk: Similarly, it is not the mandate of the committee to inquire into the adequacy or the inadequacy of responses made by anyone to those concerns. Do you understand that as well?
Dr Truong: Right, yes.
Ms Cronk: So I'm going to put a number of questions to you, Dr. Truong, that are intended to give you an opportunity to outline for the board your knowledge of events during the course of six or seven months, but not in any detail. I propose to do it rather quickly, and if you need to see any of the documents that relate to it, just let me know. Otherwise, I don't propose to do that, but simply to speak to you about events over a six- or seven-month period of time. Would that be acceptable to you?
Dr Truong: Yes, that's fine. Right.
Ms Cronk: All right. Is it correct, Dr Truong, that following your receipt of Trinh Luu's letter of resignation in September, in the next several months you were dealing on a regular basis with Sharron Pretty in her capacity as a co-director on the board?
Dr Truong: Yes, I guess you can use the word "co-director." She was my vice-president, yes.
Ms Cronk: And you were both directors.
Dr Truong: Oh, yes. Right.
Ms Cronk: And prior to coming on the board, had you known Ms Pretty or met her?
Dr Truong: No, I guess before coming to the board I had never met Ms Pretty. My first time was on August the fifth.
Ms Cronk: When you came on the board and assumed the presidency of the centre, did you take steps to acquaint yourself with the background of the centre or the history of how the board had functioned in the past?
Dr Truong: Yes, I have asked to see some documents. I have asked the secretary at that time, Dr Can Le, to brief me on the financial position of the centre, on the organization of the centre, and on the outstanding problems that faced the centre at that time.
Ms Cronk: Did you review the minutes of past meetings of the board?
Dr Truong: Frankly, I did not.
Ms Cronk: Did you, by virtue of your discussions with Dr. Can D. Le, learn of concerns expressed by Ms Trinh Luu in May and June of 1993 regarding a number of matters, the superintendent being one, but a number of matters relating to the centre?
Dr Truong: No, I did not discuss those concerns, because at that time -- I guess when I joined the board, Ms Luu did not approach me or did not bring to my attention any problems, so I felt that it was not, you know, my responsibility at that time yet to stir up problems or to bring contentious problems. So I just didn't ask any questions.
Ms Cronk: All right. Then after you did go on the board -- and we've heard that the board met regularly, on a monthly basis. Is that correct?
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And did you attend most, if not all, of those meetings during the last year?
Dr Truong: Yes, I attended all the meetings last year.
Ms Cronk: All right. Starting really from August of 1993 forward?
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. Let's take the time period of August through to the end of December 1993. How would you describe your working relationship on the board with Sharron Pretty?
Dr Truong: I guess at the very beginning Sharron Pretty seemed to be a very nice person, but very quickly it degenerated into some kind of mistrust between her and the whole board, to the point where, by the end of the year, I felt very uncomfortable with the attitude of Sharron Pretty on the board.
Ms Cronk: Did you, in the course of that, also become aware of differences between Ms Pretty and Dr Can D. Le?
Dr Truong: Yes, I became aware of that, because in all the meetings, Mrs Pretty kept on having verbal interchange or discussions on little points of nothing, really -- with Ms Pretty. That was at that time, you know, "It's the secretary who did that; I don't like it," "The secretary did that," and so on, "Has got too much power," and so on. Yes, I was aware of that.
Ms Cronk: So I take it that there were exchanges. Would it be correct of me to assume that they weren't unilateral pronouncements, that they were exchanges between Dr Can D. Le and Sharron Pretty at the board meetings?
Dr Truong: Oh, yes, both ways, and I tried to mediate many times.
Ms Cronk: So that by the end of December, you, as I understand it, were uncomfortable with her role on the board. You were aware that there were difficulties between she and Dr Can D. Le that were certainly figuring in the board meetings, if I could put it that way --
Dr Truong: Right.
Ms Cronk: -- and there seemed to be difficulties with the board as a whole. Is that a fair summary?
Dr Truong: Yes, exactly. May I add the following thing? As an experienced manager and as the president of the board, I felt it was my obligation to stop all those bickering and go on to the real business of the board, which is to look after the financial position of the corporation and to look after the safety and the happiness of the tenants.
So I guess at Christmastime, while taking the opportunity to call Ms Pretty to wish her a happy new year and merry Christmas, I asked her, you know, what can we do to get back on track and to leave aside all the differences and the quarrels? I asked her bluntly, "Sharron, I'll need your help to resolve the situation, because we cannot go on for ever like this on board meetings whereby you and Dr Le keep on quarrelling."
I asked her, "Tell me what I should do in order to solve the problem." She paused for about five, 10 seconds, and she said, "The source of the problem is Dr Le." I said, "Why do you say so?" She said, "He has too much power." I said, "Well, what do you think that makes you say he has got too much power?" Well, there was no answer to the question.
So as the president of the board, I felt that something needs to be done in order to resolve the problem and I told Ms Pretty, "All right, I would like to give all of us another chance to get back on track, to deal with the business of the corporation and to do the right thing." Also on that occasion, I was surprised at the visit of Mr Brian Sutherland on December 30th.
Ms Cronk: Could I stop you there and just back up a bit, sir? Then during the course of the fall, did you learn that Sharron Pretty had written to Evelyn Gigantes, the Minister of Housing, expressing a number of concerns with respect to the centre?
Dr Truong: I wasn't aware of those letters, no.
Ms Cronk: Were you aware, or did you become aware, during the course of the fall that Trinh Luu had written to the Minister of Housing requesting a meeting with her about matters related to the Van Lang Centre?
Dr Truong: No, I wasn't aware of that either.
Ms Cronk: Were you aware at that time that during the fall -- sorry, the late fall, specifically during the months of November and December 1993 -- Ms Pretty had met with representatives of the Ministry of Housing, in particular Mr Brian Sutherland, to discuss matters related to the Van Lang Centre?
Dr Truong: I was not aware of those meetings.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard evidence from others, Dr Truong, that an effort was under way in late November, early December, of 1993 to remove Sharron Pretty as a director from the board. Is that the case?
Dr Truong: Well, I don't think that that information is correct from my point of view, because as president of the board, I never had the intention to remove Sharron Pretty from the board.
1330
Ms Cronk: Leaving aside your personal intentions, Dr Truong, was it suggested in around that time frame, that is, November or December of 1993, that the tenant representatives on the board be replaced by two other tenant representatives identified by the tenants' association?
Dr Truong: I guess from that point of view -- I wouldn't call it an attempt. It was the fact that the tenant association elected their own executive, and they know that they were invited to be on the board of directors and they should have two representatives on the board. So they indicated that they want to have the two people on the board, which means to say that those two former representatives of the tenants, Ms Pretty and Mrs Tran, should move over to leave room for those two new representatives who are duly elected.
Ms Cronk: And would you agree with me that there evolved some debate or controversy about, from Ms Pretty's point of view, the authority of the board to proceed in that fashion and the legality of the efforts to change the tenant-directors? Just without getting into the merits of it, is that correct?
Dr Truong: I don't know whether there was an effort or not, but I guess there was a contentious point whereby she would continue to be on the board as tenant-director.
Ms Cronk: And was she asked to step down and is it correct that she declined to do so and remained on the board?
Dr Truong: Yeah, that's true.
Ms Cronk: And do I have the time frame correctly, that is, the latter part of November or the beginning of December, in and about that time?
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: So if I understand what you're telling the committee, as president of the corporation, is it correct that right up until the end of December 1993, you did not personally know of the correspondence between Ms Pretty and the Minister of Housing or her communications with representatives of the ministry in Ottawa?
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And is it also your evidence that as at the end of December, you did not know of Ms Trinh Luu's correspondence to the minister and the expression by her of concerns?
Dr Truong: That's correct. I did not know that.
Ms Cronk: And then you mentioned a few moments ago that Mr Brian Sutherland attended a board meeting on December 30th, 1993. Is that correct?
Dr Truong: Right. It took me by surprise.
Ms Cronk: Why is that?
Dr Truong: Because he came unannounced. He knew the date of the board meeting and then at the right time, there was Mr Brian Sutherland. It took me by surprise because I would expect that, as president of the board, Mr Sutherland would have called me and tell me why he's there and who invites him. But I guess as the meeting opened, I was told that he was invited by Mrs Pretty, and Mrs Pretty never told me anything about inviting Mr Sutherland to the board meeting.
Ms Cronk: What significance, if any, did you attach to the fact that he was there?
Dr Truong: As president of the board, I was a little bit flabbergasted that a senior official of the Ministry of Housing was at the board meeting without telling the board of directors he's coming. But I take it on the positive side. I said that's good, that at least I would be hearing the position of the Ministry of Housing regarding the Van Lang Centre, and also it would be an opportunity for us to show the real truth.
Ms Cronk: The real truth about what?
Dr Truong: In the sense that I knew Mrs Pretty was writing the ministry officials, because I got one copy of one letter she wrote to the president of the tenant association. I'm glad to see Mr Sutherland, because there would be an opportunity for us, as a board, to listen to the concern of the ministry.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard evidence, Dr Truong, that on December 20th, 1993, Ms Pretty wrote to the president of the tenants' association regarding the effort to remove her as a director from the board and expressing concerns about that. Is that the letter you're referring to?
Dr Truong: Exactly, that's the letter. Then I start to realize that, well, I guess Ms Pretty has been writing or is writing to the Ministry of Housing.
Ms Cronk: Was that because the letter, on its face, indicated that it had been copied to representatives of the Ministry of Housing?
Dr Truong: I guess it was copied. Exactly. I got a copy and the Ministry of Housing got a copy.
Ms Cronk: At least, then, from that point, that is, from the time of your receipt of that letter of December 20th, you knew there had been contact between the ministry and Ms Pretty about matters related to Van Lang.
Dr Truong: I knew there was contact because of that letter. How much of a contact and how often, I did not know.
Ms Cronk: All right. Is it also fair to suggest to you, Dr Truong, that throughout the fall of 1993 Ms Pretty had been expressing, at a number of board meetings, concerns she had about Van Lang -- again without getting into what they were, unless you feel we need to do that, and I'm inviting you not to -- concerns about the direction of the Van Lang Centre, its staff and its management practices and issues related to her ability to access information? All of that was being raised with her from time to time during the fall?
Dr Truong: I guess I would have to put it in the proper perspective, those concerns. Ms Pretty was never specific in telling me exactly what concerns she has got. Definitely, on the access to information, I felt at that time that was not really important because whatever she ask, she have got it. Therefore, to me, to bring up the question of access to information was secondary, because I felt that was an excuse to speak up. She ask for the minutes, she got them. She got them before the board meetings; she got them after the board meetings.
She addressed her concern about the superintendent being incompetent, and I have difficulty with that also, in the sense that if the superintendent is very incompetent I would have heard from many tenants, many tenants, but she's the only one who is telling me that he's incompetent. As an experienced manager, as a person responsible on the board, you've got to listen to your vice-president, you've got to listen to your director, but also you've got to make use of your good sense, common sense: Where is the truth?
Ms Cronk: Leaving aside the merits of the concerns that were being expressed, do I have it that you were aware throughout the fall of 1993 of some of those issues being raised by Ms Pretty?
Dr Truong: Yes, I was aware of those issues, but I thought they were resolved -- perhaps not to Ms Pretty's satisfaction.
Ms Cronk: In the sense of being resolved, do you mean by that that there was discussion of them and you felt a conclusion was reached, or are you really saying that you felt they were without merit?
Dr Truong: The problems were discussed, but the solutions were never accepted by Ms Pretty. It was discussed at board meetings, but she never accepted those discussions.
Ms Cronk: So in that sense, by the end of December I take it they weren't resolved.
Dr Truong: You can say it that way, you know, if we don't have a common ground. That's true.
Ms Cronk: Is that fair?
Dr Truong: That's fair.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Then, as you've indicated, Mr Sutherland attends the meeting on December 30th, and the committee has heard evidence that he addressed the board and spoke about a number of things at that meeting.
Dr Truong: I guess Mr Sutherland was there, and at that moment we asked him what could he do, from the ministry point of view, to resolve our problem? Because we were not exactly sure of the concern put forward by Mrs Pretty to the Ministry of Housing, because definitely Mr Sutherland wouldn't show there just for fun or just to say hello to us; he must be there because somebody is telling him something. So we asked him the question, "What is the real purpose of your being here?" and he says, "We have two core issues to address."
Ms Cronk: And did he identify those?
Dr Truong: Yeah, he identified those two core issues. Number one was the access of the tenants to Van Lang Centre and number two was the participation of tenants to board matters.
Ms Cronk: Did Mr Sutherland also suggest at that meeting that in the future, for the next several board meetings, representatives of the Ministry of Housing would be available to attend the board meetings?
Dr Truong: Yes. I guess at that time, as president of the board, for a few seconds I feel very awkward, because all of a sudden here is Ministry of Housing suggesting that an official of the Ministry of Housing sitting at every board meeting, which seems to be odd to me. But I guess for the positive aspect of the proposal, I took it positively and I say, that's great, because that would be helping to solve the problems we have on hand and it would be good also for the ministry to know what we are doing. I feel that as president of the board, we are a responsible group and that we are conducting the business of the corporation like any Canadian corporation.
1340
Ms Cronk: Would it be fair or unfair of me to suggest that really at that point in time -- you, for example, told the committee about the concerns you had about Sharron Pretty's functioning at the board level and how the board meetings were going. You've also indicated that you had by that time become aware of conflicts between Dr Can D. Le on the one side and Sharron Pretty on the other. Would it be fair or unfair of me to suggest to you that by that time, the end of December 1993 and continuing into January, there really was considerable antagonism and acrimony at the board level? It was not functioning well?
Dr Truong: Let me put it in the other direction. We had our last meeting of the board on December 30th and the next meeting would be at the end of January, so we've got one month really whereby there was no contact between the board directors. But that gave me time to think about the whole situation, because with the visit of Mr Sutherland, with the board the way it was, as president of the corporation, I need to do something. I definitely need to do something as a responsible person of the corporation.
Ms Cronk: What did you do, Doctor?
Dr Truong: At that time, I remember all the statements made by different people from the very first session I was president. At that time, Mr My Nguyen, who was the treasurer, asked the board to consider to let him relinquish his position as secretary of the board and become only a member of the board at that time, when the financial statement or the auditing statement was in. And Dr Can Le at that time also say that he would like to be a member only of the corporation at the end of the year and he would relinquish his position as secretary.
Ms Cronk: May I just stop you there. Did you then set about a reorganization of the board?
Dr Truong: Yeah. During the short time I had at Christmas time, with the visit of Mr Sutherland also then, and with the board not running too well, as president of the board I've got to make some changes. Definitely, that's for the good of the corporation, I decide at that time to make the change.
Ms Cronk: And as a result of the changes that were made, is it the case that Dr Can Le ceased to be secretary and that you assumed that position?
Dr Truong: I guess I have to say I demote myself, if I can use that word, and become secretary, because I feel that perhaps the whole corporation need a new look at its business and it needs to get on with the business.
Ms Cronk: And Dr Tang became president?
Dr Truong: Yes, Dr Tang become president. I ask him to take the post of president, right.
Ms Cronk: And Sharron Pretty ceased to be vice-president?
Dr Truong: Yeah, Sharron Pretty ceased to be vice-president.
Ms Cronk: So that board reorganization, was it put in place by the end of January?
Dr Truong: I think so. At the meeting at the end of January or the beginning of February, we make the move to change the whole board.
Ms Cronk: Is it also the case that at the beginning of January, within some three or four days of Mr Sutherland's involvement at the board meeting on December 30th, the board wrote to Evelyn Gigantes and requested a meeting with her?
Dr Truong: Yeah. I sense at that time something serious developing, because as president of the board I felt that things may be getting out of hand, and the ministry may have only one side of the picture and it's about time for us to get the other side of the picture in.
Ms Cronk: Is that why you wrote to the minister?
Dr Truong: That is why I wrote to the minister, right.
Ms Cronk: And was the letter from you?
Dr Truong: It was a letter from me. Exactly.
Ms Cronk: Perhaps Mr Hunt could assist you by providing you with volume 2 of exhibit 1, tab 16. Is this the letter you sent the minister, Dr Truong?
Dr Truong: Exactly. That's the letter sent by me.
Ms Cronk: Do I understand you to be saying that the purpose of the letter, from your point of view, as its author and as president of the board, was to seek an opportunity to present to the ministry, through the minister, what you felt to be the other side of the story?
Dr Truong: Exactly. I like the minister to know the other side of the story, because I felt at that time that there is only one side representation of the whole story and that side must be coming from Sharron Pretty. I was not aware, at that time, of the involvement of Ms Luu. I was not aware of her involvement.
Ms Cronk: When you say you weren't aware of her involvement, do I take from that that when you wrote this letter to the minister, you did not know either that Ms Luu had written to the minister herself seeking a meeting, in the fall, or that she was in discussions with Sharron Pretty about concerns at the Van Lang Centre?
Dr Truong: Right. I wasn't aware at all, totally unaware.
Ms Cronk: All right. We'll come to this in due course, but it's my understanding, based on evidence before the committee, that a reply to this letter was forthcoming from the minister at the end of March 1994, by letter directed at that point, I believe, to Dr Tang as president, indicating -- I think it was to Dr Tang; it may have been to you, but either way, to the board -- that the minister was not in a position in the near future to meet at that time. Am I right in that?
Dr Truong: Exactly. The minister also say in that letter that she's confident that the ministry officials are helping the Van Lang Centre resolving its problem. That was March, and the minister must have known at that time that the ministry officials have attended several board meetings with us already.
Ms Cronk: When did that begin, Dr Truong?
Dr Truong: Mr Sutherland attended the board in December. Mr Clement attended the board in January. I think we had another board meeting in February with Mr Shapiro and Mr Clement, and I know that Mr Clement attended the board in March. Whether that attendance is before or after the letter I received from Mrs Gigantes, I don't know. I forget.
Ms Cronk: May I return to the question I put to you a few moments ago, and that had to do with how the board was functioning at the end of December, the end of January. You've told the committee that as president you did two things: First you reorganized the board, effective by the end of January, you believe, and secondly, you wrote to the minister and requested a meeting. Both of those were actions you took in the month of January.
Dr Truong: Right, because I'm interested in getting actions and getting solved and resolved and we move on with the business of the corporation. I'm not interested in quarrelling and petty fights between a board director -- between two board directors.
Ms Cronk: And is that how you regarded the concerns that Ms Pretty was raising?
Dr Truong: Yes. At that time, as president -- when I was secretary, I regard it as a petty fight between two directors.
Ms Cronk: And to return to the question that I was asking you, is it fair of me to suggest that by the end of December, towards the end of January, before the new board structure went into place, there was very considerable acrimony and antagonism evident at the board level in terms of its functioning? And I suggested to you that it was not functioning well.
Dr Truong: Well, I have attended many board meetings elsewhere, being management board, and having attended several management meetings at different corporations and so on, I have to say yes, we didn't function well. And definitely the board directors, some of them forget their role as board directors; perhaps they don't know their role and their responsibilities. And I guess that's to be expected because only a few members of the board are managers or have management experience. Some of them -- Ms Pretty herself admitted that she got no management experience whatsoever. These things, you know, are bound to happen when you have people of different backgrounds on to a board.
Ms Cronk: There were other people on the board who didn't have any management experience in addition to Sharron Pretty, to be fair.
Dr Truong: Exactly. That's what I say. With so many different members, different experience, therefore you're bound to see those things.
Ms Cronk: And the difficulties between Dr Can Le and Ms Pretty that you had observed and that you were seeing on the board were reciprocal, if I can put it that way?
Dr Truong: Yes, very reciprocal. You know, one take a stab, the other one return the stab, and we try to mediate between the two.
Ms Cronk: And the further suggestion that I was putting to you was that there was, for that and perhaps other reasons, considerable acrimony and antagonism evident at the board level around that time.
Dr Truong: Well, I guess the acrimony or the antagonism come from some of the attitudes of Ms Pretty herself.
Ms Cronk: Excuse me, Dr Truong. I'm sorry to interrupt you, sir, but I didn't ask you for the cause of it. Can we deal first with whether the fact is correct.
Dr Truong: The fact is correct, very correct.
Ms Cronk: There was considerable antagonism and acrimony at the board level.
Dr Truong: Exactly, yes.
Ms Cronk: And again leaving aside the causes, because we could be here for a long time if I have to fully deal with everyone's perspective on that issue, you had a problem?
Dr Truong: Yes, we had a problem.
Ms Cronk: All right. And you tried to deal with it in at least two ways: by writing to the minister to seek a meeting, and secondly, by putting measures into place to reconstitute the board. Is that fair?
Dr Truong: Exactly.
1350
Ms Cronk: Thank you, sir. And is it also the case that throughout this period of time, happening at the same time, the fall of 1993, the Ministry of Housing had undertaken a compliance review with respect to the centre?
Dr Truong: Yes, the ministry did that.
Ms Cronk: As president of the board, I take it you were fully aware that that was occurring?
Dr Truong: Yeah, I was fully aware that was occurring.
Ms Cronk: And the committee has heard that at a meeting of the board on February 8, 1994, the results of the compliance review were presented and that a Mr Bill Clement and Steven Shapiro were present for that purpose at the board meeting.
Dr Truong: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: Were you also present at that meeting?
Dr Truong: I was present. I was very interested in the result of the compliance report, because as secretary of the board at that time, it is my responsibility to carry out the business of the corporation and to change the things that need to be changed.
Ms Cronk: Would it be fair or unfair of me to suggest that following the reorganization of the board of directors and following the results of the compliance review, regrettably, the situation did not improve and difficulties continued on the board?
Dr Truong: You're completely right. The interesting thing to note to the committee, though, that before it was a fight between Ms Pretty and the secretary; now it becomes the fight between Ms Pretty and Dr Le.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. I didn't understand that, sir. Meaning that he's no longer secretary?
Dr Truong: Yeah. Before that she talk about the secretary only, but now that I become the secretary, it's no longer the secretary who is at the source of the problem.
Ms Cronk: I see. It remains, from your perspective at least, however, an issue between Dr Can D. Le and Ms Pretty?
Dr Truong: Exactly. Yes.
Ms Cronk: So you're saying that it wasn't, in your mind, associated with the status of office, the position of the individual.
Dr Truong: Yes. It has nothing to do with the corporation. It has nothing to do with the office of the secretary. It is a personal problem.
Ms Cronk: As you understood it?
Dr Truong: As I understood it.
Ms Cronk: That was your view?
Dr Truong: That was my view. Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Can you confirm for me that also in March 1994 Sharron Pretty wrote to Brian Sutherland of the Ministry of Housing and on at least one occasion a copy of that letter was provided to the board or came to the attention of the board, in which she raised a series of concerns, some of which related to Dr Can Le, some of which did not?
Dr Truong: What's the date of that letter again?
Ms Cronk: There are two, as I understand it, and please give me your knowledge of the matter: March 1 and March 20, 1994. Were you aware of that, that she'd written to Brian Sutherland with those concerns?
Dr Truong: I don't know whether it is addressed to Brian Sutherland or somebody, but I know that at one board meeting -- she wrote to the president. The letter I saw was written to the president.
Ms Cronk: Of the corporation?
Dr Truong: Of the corporation.
Ms Cronk: As distinct from your having seen any letter to Mr Sutherland?
Dr Truong: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: I see. Mr Hunt, if you could assist, I'd be grateful: Exhibit 2, tab 36. Do you have that, sir?
Dr Truong: Yeah, I got it in front of me. We're talking about tab 36, right?
Ms Cronk: March 20th, 1994, a letter from Sharron Pretty to Mr Brian Sutherland, and attached to it are a number of other documents. The first attachment, if you can go over a couple of pages, is a second letter dated March 20th. It is addressed to the board of directors and it is from Sharron Pretty. Is that the letter to the board that you're talking about?
Dr Truong: Right. Exactly.
Ms Cronk: And am I correct that in that letter Ms Pretty raises a number of concerns, some of which have nothing to do with Dr Can Le but raise issues relating to the management practices at the centre?
Dr Truong: Yeah, but I guess that's Mrs Pretty point of view. Mine may be different.
Ms Cronk: I understand, sir. Again, I'm not asking you about the merits of it. I'm simply suggesting to you that in this letter to the board a number of issues are raised, and they're not all specific to Dr Can D. Le. She's raising some pretty fundamental issues, whatever your view of them, whatever her view of them, concerning the operations of the centre. Isn't that the case?
Dr Truong: That's the case, but I'd like to take 30 seconds to address the two questions, which I think are independent of whether Dr Le was there or not. It was the access issue and the tenant participation. It is my understanding, with the visit of Mr Sutherland, that we have taken care of those two issues. That's why, to me, even though they are raised they are not relevant, because it was confirmed by Mr Sutherland that those issues were addressed by the board already.
Ms Cronk: Should I understand from that then, sir, that with respect to those issues you felt there was nothing further to be addressed by the board --
Dr Truong: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: -- and therefore they were not?
Dr Truong: They were not? We pay attention to those things all the time, because this is what we have been doing since I join the board. They have been addressed constantly, even today.
Ms Cronk: Beyond those two issues, again without getting into all of the details of it, as I read it she's raising a number of issues and suggesting that she wants a dedicated board meeting to be held on March 29th as an opportunity to discuss them in detail.
Dr Truong: Right.
Ms Cronk: Did you at some point towards the end of March or early April learn that she had written to Brian Sutherland with respect to some of these matters as well?
Dr Truong: No, I wasn't aware of that.
Ms Cronk: Also with respect to the month of March 1994, did you learn at that point, Dr Truong -- recognizing that you're now secretary of the corporation, I have assumed from that that correspondence that came in to the centre would be drawn to your attention.
Dr Truong: Exactly. Every single piece of mail.
Ms Cronk: Did you learn in the spring that Ms Luu and Ms Pretty had written jointly to Evelyn Gigantes requesting a meeting with her?
Dr Truong: No, I wasn't aware of that.
Ms Cronk: When did you learn of that?
Dr Truong: Just at the committee hearing.
Ms Cronk: In matters leading up to this hearing?
Dr Truong: No, I think I learned about it during the hearing right here.
Ms Cronk: Leaving aside what paper you were viewing before you came here.
Dr Truong: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: You're saying to me that you did not know at any point during the spring of this year that Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty had jointly written to the minister asking for a meeting.
Dr Truong: I have no knowledge whatsoever.
Ms Cronk: I see. During the month of April 1994 did you come to learn that Ms Pretty and Ms Luu had -- let's just deal with Ms Pretty first -- sworn a number of informations under the Provincial Offences Act of Ontario relating to allegations of infractions of the Corporations Act involving then current or former directors of the Van Lang Centre?
Dr Truong: I was not aware of that either.
Ms Cronk: When did you become aware of that?
Dr Truong: Somehow, I think I misunderstood the whole thing, because there were rumours circulating among the tenants that the board is going to be taken to court, and I was laughing my head off, not knowing exactly what was going on, because I felt there is no reason why we should be taken to court. Even some tenants asked me, "Are you going to be taken to court?" I said: "For what reason? Who's taking me to court for what?" So I was totally unaware of what's going on.
Ms Cronk: At what period of time were there rumours circulating with the tenants about the board being taken to court?
Dr Truong: I would think around April or May, because somebody asked me the question, "Are you going to be in court?" I said, "For what?"
Ms Cronk: Did you make any inquiries about that or did you just dismiss it as idle rumour?
Dr Truong: I just dismiss it, because I never believe that something is happening.
Ms Cronk: From the time, Dr Truong, of your discussion with Sharron Pretty at Christmas time and the occasion of New Year's, the end of December, beginning of January, when you spoke to her about the difficulties at the board, through until the end of March 1994, how would you describe your working relationship with her on the board, your own working relationship?
Dr Truong: My own? Still very good, because I never had a problem with Sharron Pretty. I was interested in seeing her point of view, I trying to accommodate her point of view, I trying to accommodate her so that I can coax her back to behaving herself on the board, because as an experienced manager I know that sometimes you should handle people a different way, and my way was to say: "Come on, Sharron, what can I do for you? Let's be on the board together. Let's have fun together."
1400
Ms Cronk: Were there occasions, Dr Truong, when Ms Pretty suggested to you or informed you that she found the atmosphere of the board meetings and the attitude and behaviour of some of the other directors towards her as being intimidating?
Dr Truong: Well, Sharron -- after a while you get to learn about her. She use big words some of the time. You know, she use the word "intimidating" many, many times at board meetings. I ask her one time, "What about the board, about us being so intimidating?" You know, she use the word, which I never understood.
Ms Cronk: Do I understand from that that the answer is yes, that she did make you aware, by talking about it at the board, of her feelings of intimidation at the board level?
Dr Truong: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: And that went on for a lengthy period of time.
Dr Truong: No, I guess she mentioned it, you know, a couple of times, but afterwards, she was so mad that --
Ms Cronk: Well, over a couple of months.
Dr Truong: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: With respect to your first actual awareness of charges having been initiated by her, given that you had dismissed the concerns the tenants were expressing as unfounded, when do you now recall first learning that informations had been sworn or charges initiated by Ms Pretty?
Dr Truong: When we get close to the date of June the second, I think it became pretty much clear from Mrs Pretty that we were being charged on June the second or the third.
Ms Cronk: In fact, Dr Truong, was there not an article which appeared in the Ottawa press on June 1 by James Wallace concerning the Van Lang Centre and the board? Do you remember that?
Dr Truong: Yeah, Mr Wallace in fact contacted me before he wrote the article.
Ms Cronk: Did you speak with him?
Dr Truong: I spoke to him, yeah.
Ms Cronk: And during the course of that discussion, was any mention made of charges or a legal action or proceedings?
Dr Truong: I do not recall whether he mentioned any charges or not. He said he's got some information in a brown envelope regarding some irregularities at the board. And to me, the word "irregularities" has got a stronger connotation than anything else. I like to know what are the irregularities, because at that time, as secretary and treasurer of the board, I do not know of any irregularities in terms of financial aspects of the corporation or management of the corporation.
Ms Cronk: Do you have any recollection, sir, as to whether he mentioned the legal action or legal proceedings or charges?
Dr Truong: I cannot recall.
Ms Cronk: Is it not the case that after publication of those articles, there was very specific indication that charges had been initiated?
Dr Truong: Yeah. I think when we saw the newspaper article, I guess on June the second, we don't believe it either. In fact, we wrote a statement to say that we had no court action.
Ms Cronk: Yes, and you sent that statement to the tenants in the building.
Dr Truong: Right, exactly, because we never believe it.
Ms Cronk: So are you saying to me that you did see the Wallace articles, at least, in Ottawa, an article by Mr Wallace, and although you took note or saw the fact that it made mention of charges, you still didn't believe it?
Dr Truong: We still didn't believe it.
Ms Cronk: And isn't it the case that Sharron Pretty had been saying for some time to tenants and to the office assistant at the Van Lang Centre, for example, and perhaps even to some of the directors, that charges had been initiated?
Dr Truong: No, she didn't say that. She said, "We take you to court." But to me that was an empty threat, taking to court, I can say to anyone, "I'll take you to court."
Ms Cronk: So that I understand, she didn't use the word "charges" but she said something that indicated that the directors were being taken to court.
Dr Truong: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: And she'd said that in advance of the Wallace article appearing, had she not?
Dr Truong: Right, exactly.
Ms Cronk: And you dismissed that. You didn't believe it.
Dr Truong: Yeah, I dismiss it, just like a form of empty threat.
Ms Cronk: And you also dismissed the content of the Wallace article when you saw it.
Dr Truong: I wouldn't use the word "dismiss." I was uneasy about its contents of the article.
Ms Cronk: And you didn't believe it.
Dr Truong: No. Well, I guess I couldn't recall whether in that article he mention any court action or not, but he mention four other points which really were at the crux of his article.
Ms Cronk: I may have misunderstood, Dr Truong, but I thought I heard you say just a few moments ago that you had seen mention in the article of the charges but that you didn't believe it.
Dr Truong: Right, exactly.
Ms Cronk: Is that correct?
Dr Truong: Yeah, yeah.
Ms Cronk: So you dismissed that. You didn't think that was right at the time.
Dr Truong: Well, since we have no summons and Mrs Pretty never told us the charges, we said maybe empty threat.
Ms Cronk: You dismissed it. You didn't think it was right.
Dr Truong: Right.
Ms Cronk: And then, as I understand it, moving forward in the chronology, is it correct that a letter was received by the board from Mr Bill Clement of the Ministry of Housing, dated June 9, inviting the board to attend a meeting with the minister?
Dr Truong: Exactly. I got that.
Ms Cronk: I'd like you to look at that, if you would, sir. That's volume 3 of exhibit 1, tab 68. Do you have that, Dr Truong?
Dr Truong: I've got it.
Ms Cronk: This letter is addressed to Dr Tang as president. Do you recall, however, as secretary of the corporation, being asked by him to deal with the matter?
Dr Truong: In fact, I saw the letter before Dr Tang. As secretary of the board, as I say, every piece of mail went through me. Yeah, when I saw that, I instructed right away the office assistant to make copies of that and to give them out to all directors.
Ms Cronk: And did your instructions encompass Sharron Pretty?
Dr Truong: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You're quite sure about that?
Dr Truong: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I'm obliged to tell you, Dr Truong, that Sharron Pretty has given evidence before the -- well, let me back up. To your knowledge, were your instructions carried out?
Dr Truong: Yes. In fact this Xerox copy was sent to all directors, with other documents.
Ms Cronk: To your knowledge, was a copy of it provided to Sharron Pretty?
Dr Truong: Yes, to my knowledge, it was done. It was hand-delivered to Ms Pretty.
Ms Cronk: Ms Pretty has given evidence before the committee that she did not learn of this letter or indeed of the proposed meeting with the minister until on or after June 13th when she received a copy of a notice to the directors calling a meeting of the board of directors for June 15th to discuss the summons received by board members and the meeting with the Minister of Housing. She has also indicated to the committee that it was only after she got that notice, the notice of the June 15th meeting, that she picked up the telephone and spoke with you and learned from you of the intended meeting with the minister, and at that point, and only at that point, did she become aware of it. Just to be fair, I want to make sure you understand all of what's behind the question when I ask it. With that evidence in mind, are you clear in your recollection that in fact she was given a copy of the June 9 letter with the other directors?
Dr Truong: Yes. I ask at that time -- I guess the events did not take place exactly the way it was put across right now. In fact I was at the office -- I couldn't remember whether at lunchtime or at 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock -- and also then Sharron Pretty came down to the office and asked whether I know of a meeting with the minister and I say, "Yeah, don't you have your copy of the invitation by the ministry?" She says, "No." Well, I got a copy in front of me right there on the desk of the office assistant because that copy couldn't be delivered to another director, a tenant-director of the board; she was away on vacation. I say: "Look, her copy is here. Why don't we make you a copy of that invitation" to give to her right there.
Ms Cronk: Are you saying you were there when it was given to her?
Dr Truong: No. Upon my instruction, it was given to her before, but then she came down later on to say she hadn't got a copy, so more or less, I gave her a second copy.
Ms Cronk: And when you say that your instructions were carried out the first time, are you assuming that, or do you know that?
Dr Truong: I gave instructions and I asked the office assistant whether that was carried out, and she say yes. And I asked her who carried out the instruction, who delivered and how it was delivered, and she said it was the acting superintendent who hand-delivered the whole thing to Sharron Pretty.
Ms Cronk: Is this the same superintendent about whom Ms Pretty had been expressing concerns over a matter of some time?
Dr Truong: No, no. He was on leave of absence at that time. That was his replacement.
Ms Cronk: So this was a different --
Dr Truong: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: I see. And did you attend the meeting of June 17th with the minister?
Dr Truong: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: What did you understand its purpose to be?
Dr Truong: I guess the purpose of that meeting for us as a whole board, including Sharron Pretty, was to present to the minister our side of the story. That's all. Maybe our side or our version and Sharron's version, because I like to hear Sharron's version also in front of the minister.
Ms Cronk: Your version of what?
Dr Truong: Of the events, of the problems of the Van Lang Centre, and I was interested to hear also Sharron Pretty's version in front of the minister.
1410
Ms Cronk: Is it the case that prior to going into the meeting on June 17th, the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre had issued a notice which was provided to all directors with a resolution calling for a meeting on Sunday, June 19th, at which time a vote for the removal of Sharron Pretty as a director was to be considered?
Dr Truong: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you as secretary of the corporation participate in the deliberations that went into the making of that decision?
Dr Truong: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do I have the timing correctly that that notice was out before the meeting of June 17th?
Dr Truong: Definitely, yeah.
Ms Cronk: If I could just ask you if you would -- if I can find it -- look at tab 66.
Dr Truong: Of the same volume?
Ms Cronk: Yes, same volume. Is that the notice?
Dr Truong: Yeah, that's the notice.
Ms Cronk: After you received the letter from Bill Clement dated June ninth indicating the proposed meeting with the minister on June 17th, did you speak with him in advance of the meeting about either its purpose or the matters to be discussed at it?
Dr Truong: No. I did not discuss those things, no, not with Bill Clement or with anybody at the Ministry of Housing.
Ms Cronk: You did however speak briefly with Mr Clement as I understand it about the meeting with respect to who should attend it?
Dr Truong: Well, I have asked Mr Clement whether he would attend the meeting or not. He says, "No, I will not attend the meeting. That's a high-level meeting. It will be my boss, Mr Sutherland."
Ms Cronk: Did you have a discussion with Mr Clement after receipt of the June ninth letter in which he stated to you that all directors including specifically Sharron Pretty were to be invited to the meeting?
Dr Truong: Yeah, yeah, and in fact she was invited.
Ms Cronk: So you did talk to him between June the ninth and June 17th?
Dr Truong: Right.
Ms Cronk: But as I understand what you said, you didn't talk to him about either the purpose of the meeting or what was to be discussed at the meeting.
Dr Truong: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: Is that right?
Dr Truong: Yeah, that's correct.
Ms Cronk: Didn't you want to know that?
Dr Truong: I'm sorry?
Ms Cronk: Didn't you want to know that? Weren't you curious about why the minister was coming to meet with you and what was to be discussed?
Dr Truong: Well, I took it, you know, as a visit, whereby we requested the visit a long time and perhaps the minister, having found time now while she is in Ottawa, she'd like to meet us. That was to me -- that was my thinking of the situation at that time, not being aware of any seriousness which has been develop elsewhere or under the action by Sharron Pretty.
Ms Cronk: By that time, that is, by June the ninth when you got the letter from Mr Clement informing you of the meeting --
Dr Truong: Right.
Ms Cronk: I take it the meeting was welcome to you?
Dr Truong: Exactly. Oh, yeah, we were glad, because how many times do you get a chance to meet the minister?
Ms Cronk: Right. This was not exactly an everyday occurrence.
Dr Truong: No.
Ms Cronk: Indeed, to be fair to you and the other board members, you had sought a meeting and it hadn't worked out. It wasn't held in the spring.
Dr Truong: Right.
Ms Cronk: So this was big news.
Dr Truong: Oh, definitely big news.
Ms Cronk: By that time, you were also aware, because of the Wallace articles and the other information in the centre, that Ms Pretty had initiated charges and that a number of people had been implicated in those charges, namely, a number of directors, right?
Dr Truong: Right.
Ms Cronk: That's what the Wallace articles said.
Dr Truong: Right.
Ms Cronk: Were you, before you went into the meeting on the 17th, served with a summons in that court case?
Dr Truong: Let me reconstruct the events, because I think I heard about the court case, the charges, on the second or the third, but my golly, by the fourth, I hadn't got any summons yet. So I laughed my head off. I say: "Yeah, I was right. It was empty threat again." That's why I was so bold. I was writing to the tenants. I say, "We got nothing wrong done." I was so bold at that time. And then I was advised by a friend, you know, that: "This is not an empty threat, this is serious. You are being charged." Now, how does he get that information, I do not know, but when he told me that I'm being charged, from a friend, I took it more seriously. And then truly enough, two or three days after, here comes my summons.
Ms Cronk: And did that occur before the meeting with the minister?
Dr Truong: Let's see. I think I got my summons on the 13th or 14th. I have definitely, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Ms Cronk: So you knew going into the meeting with the minister on Friday the 17th of June that those charges, contrary to what you had originally thought, were real?
Dr Truong: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: And that you personally had been named in at least one.
Dr Truong: Definitely, yeah.
Ms Cronk: It is also a fact, is it not, that when you went into the meeting there was then pending before the board a resolution for the removal of Sharron Pretty as a director?
Dr Truong: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And the scheduled board meeting to deal with that was two days later, on the 19th?
Dr Truong: Right.
Ms Cronk: With that in mind, did it occur to you when you went to that meeting, Dr Truong, that it might have something to do with the press article, the Wallace article, or the charges referred to in it?
Dr Truong: No, I never thought of that meeting being related to the press articles or the court case, no.
Ms Cronk: It didn't occur to you?
Dr Truong: Didn't occur to me, no.
Ms Cronk: Did you tell Mr Clement, when you were speaking with him, of the pending motion to remove Sharron Pretty as a director?
Dr Truong: Yeah. I guess all about actions or to these -- at the board level we always sent a copy to Mr Clement. Yeah.
Ms Cronk: All right. At that point in time, I think you've said to the committee that you did not know of the letters that Ms Pretty had sent to Brian Sutherland, but you knew of the concerns that she'd raised directly with the board.
Dr Truong: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: And a copy of the letter that she had sent to the board was copied to the Minister of Housing, was it not?
Dr Truong: Say it again, please?
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. Isn't it the case that a copy of the letter that she sent to the board of directors was sent to Evelyn Gigantes --
Dr Truong: Oh, yeah.
Ms Cronk: -- the Minister of Housing?
Dr Truong: Yeah, yeah.
Ms Cronk: Also, as I recall, to Mr Sutherland?
Dr Truong: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: And that's the latter part of March?
Dr Truong: Right.
Ms Cronk: So, going into the meeting, you know, based on the information available to you, that a copy of a letter has been sent to the Minister of Housing outlining a number of concerns by Ms Pretty with respect to the Van Lang Centre?
Dr Truong: Right.
Ms Cronk: Did you know all of the people at the meeting, Dr Truong?
Dr Truong: No. I guess at the meeting -- well, I guess definitely the members on the board, I know them all. I guess the minister brought along two other assistants.
Ms Cronk: Had you met either of them before?
Dr Truong: No, first time.
Ms Cronk: Were they introduced to you at the meeting?
Dr Truong: Yes, they were introduced to me at the meeting.
Ms Cronk: Do you now know who they were?
Dr Truong: I wouldn't recall their names until I guess a couple of days, when I heard them so often on the committee that I know their names.
Ms Cronk: Was Mr Brian Sutherland present?
Dr Truong: Oh yeah, Mr Brian Sutherland was there, because I knew he was coming. I asked Mr Clement, and he said, "I will not be coming but my boss will be there."
Ms Cronk: Ms Pretty was there?
Dr Truong: Yeah, Ms Pretty was there.
Ms Cronk: And the minister, of course?
Dr Truong: Oh yeah, definitely.
Ms Cronk: When you went to the meeting, did you expect that Sharron Pretty would be there?
Dr Truong: Yeah, I expected her to be there because, you know, I felt that, you know, she wouldn't miss the opportunity. Neither would I.
Ms Cronk: I didn't hear that, sir?
Dr Truong: I say she wouldn't miss the opportunity. Neither would I.
Ms Cronk: That's something you had in common?
Dr Truong: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: How long did the meeting last?
Dr Truong: To the best of my recollection, we started about 11:30 and we finished around -- before one o'clock.
Ms Cronk: Did you keep or make any notes yourself during the course of the meeting?
Dr Truong: No, I didn't make any notes because I didn't think anything serious would come out of that.
Ms Cronk: Did you notice whether anyone left the meeting at any point during the course of the meeting?
Dr Truong: No, there was nobody leaving the --
Ms Cronk: Did you notice anyone else making notes at the meeting?
Dr Truong: I know that Sharron Pretty was writing like mad. She was sitting next to me. I know that Dr Le jotted down some notes; maybe Dr Tang.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall seeing anyone else make any notes? Mr Sutherland?
Dr Truong: The assistants made some notes too, definitely one of them; I can't remember which one but, you know, I guess she was the secretary perhaps of the meeting for Ms Gigantes. She took notes.
Ms Cronk: Was the minister making any notes that you saw?
Dr Truong: No, the minister didn't take any notes. I guess Mr Sutherland -- I couldn't recall.
Ms Cronk: Who led off the meeting? How did it start?
Dr Truong: Dr Tang, I guess, thanked the minister for coming to meet with the board of directors.
Ms Cronk: Had the board of directors prepared any materials for use at the meeting?
Dr Truong: Yeah. I guess, if you're used to being an experienced manager, when you're faced with a crisis you got to brief your boss. Definitely Ms Gigantes is higher up on the ladder. You got to brief her. So we prepared those notes -- as an experienced manager.
Ms Cronk: Did you regard the situation at that point as a crisis?
Dr Truong: Well, I guess a minor crisis because the minister wouldn't meet with you without a crisis.
1420
Ms Cronk: So the fact that she was coming to see you about, as you understood it or at least as you interpreted it, concerns that had been raised in the past about the Van Lang Centre was a minor crisis. You were going to a meeting with the minister to deal with those issues.
Dr Truong: Right. I felt that the minister and the ministry were misinformed about the whole situation. They have got a one-sided story and we as a board, the rest of the board besides Sharron Pretty, act as responsibly -- we don't want to bother the ministry in Toronto. We work closely with the ministry officials in Ottawa briefing them all about our situation at Van Lang, and the feedback we got from the ministry officials in Ottawa is that, you know, we are following all the guidelines put forward by the ministry, so therefore we have done nothing wrong.
Ms Cronk: Did you prepare then materials to brief the minister?
Dr Truong: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And were those materials provided to the minister at the meeting?
Dr Truong: I guess at the very end of the meeting Dr Tang handed over those -- that briefing.
Ms Cronk: Who prepared it?
Dr Truong: It was drafted by, I guess, Dr Le but it was thoroughly discussed by Dr Tang, by myself, thoroughly discussed and we go over many, many points, and we made a lot of questions on that.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look, Doctor, at tab 80, please? Are those the briefing notes that were prepared for use at the meeting with the minister?
Dr Truong: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And is this the document that was provided to her at -- I think you said towards the end of the meeting?
Dr Truong: Yes, at the very end of the meeting.
Ms Cronk: The very end of the meeting.
Dr Truong: The very end, yeah.
Ms Cronk: I take it then that the discussion at the meeting didn't follow what's in this briefing note. This was just provided at the end.
Dr Truong: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: All right. And this was a meeting with the minister that had been some time in coming, given that the board had requested it the previous January.
Dr Truong: Yeah. We never thought she would be taking out arbitration after three months, but then all of a sudden by May, she's coming.
Ms Cronk: Right. And it was by that time, you had written at the beginning of January, this was mid-June, so you're now going to have a chance to meet with the minister.
Dr Truong: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: Right. And had you ever attended a meeting with a minister of the crown of Ontario before?
Dr Truong: Not with a minister -- I have to think about it. Like, I have met so many ministers, not with a minister of the crown of Ontario, with a lot of federal ministers.
Ms Cronk: All right. This was a matter of some importance?
Dr Truong: Yes. Very important.
Ms Cronk: And would it be fair of me to suggest that it was also a matter of some considerable seriousness in the sense --
Dr Truong: Definitely.
Ms Cronk: Yes?
Dr Truong: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Right. And was that because at least in part many of the concerns that had been expressed about the centre were of a serious nature?
Dr Truong: Well, I think that's a perceived conception only because, in my mind, to somebody it must be a very serious matter, but for me, as secretary of the board, being assured, I mentioned myself that we have followed all the guidelines of the Ministry of Housing, I felt that, you know, the board hasn't done anything which goes beyond or beside the guidelines, so I feel comfortable all along that the corporation has moved along the right direction.
Ms Cronk: And would it be fair or unfair of me to suggest -- and I could certainly understand why this would be the case if it was -- but would it be fair or unfair of me to suggest that this was also a matter where both pride and honour and reputation were involved because some of the allegations that had been raised went to some of those issues?
Dr Truong: I guess you mentioned three important words, "pride;" what else was that?
Ms Cronk: Honour.
Dr Truong: "Honour" and --
Ms Cronk: Reputation.
Dr Truong: "Reputation." Reputation is more. The word "pride" I can put aside; "honour" I can put aside; "reputation" of the corporation, that's important.
Ms Cronk: Well, then, on a personal level as well, wasn't it at least possible in your mind before you went to that meeting that having regard to some of the allegations and concerns that had been expressed and the matters that had flowed between Dr Can Le and Sharron Pretty that there was some issue of personal stature involved for the individuals who sat on the board?
Dr Truong: Personally, again as an experienced manager, the duties of the manager is to the corporation for whom he works or serves. So the reputation of the corporation to me is more important than my personal pride or my honour because, if I do something wrong, I better get off there.
Ms Cronk: I wasn't suggesting that you treated your own personal interest ahead of those of the corporation.
Dr Truong: Right.
Ms Cronk: I didn't mean to imply that at all. What I'm saying to you is that going into that meeting, you knew the seriousness of some of the allegations that had been made.
Dr Truong: Yes, definitely. Yeah.
Ms Cronk: And I am correct, am I not, that some of them did deal with issues of personal reputation and integrity, given the nature of the allegations, without getting into them?
Dr Truong: Right. "Integrity," that's the word. Definitely.
Ms Cronk: So that going into the meeting, it was serious for that reason as well?
Dr Truong: Yes, definitely. For me personally, "integrity" is the word. Yeah.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. I chose badly.
Dr Truong: Yeah, right.
Ms Cronk: On the concept and off the word. Is it not also the case that you were certainly aware that the charges were real going into the --
Dr Truong: Oh, yeah, by that time the charges are real.
Ms Cronk: And would it be fair of me to suggest that the situation had accelerated somewhat because of that? Quite a serious step had now been taken?
Dr Truong: By whom?
Ms Cronk: Sharron Pretty, in initiating the charges.
Dr Truong: Oh, yeah, oh, yeah, oh, yeah.
Ms Cronk: Was it your objective at that meeting to explain and put forward and provide detail to the minister of the board's position on all of this?
Dr Truong: No. I guess the objective which the corporation, or as the board of directors said, is not related to the charges. We just want to put forward to the minister that as managers of the corporation, we are doing our job right, we are responsible for the corporation and we're managing the corporation as it should be, without any doubt. And that was our objective to meet with the minister. I personally and I think the rest of the board, excluding perhaps Ms Pretty, we were not concerned about the charges.
Ms Cronk: All right. And were you, with all of those other factors in mind and all of those other circumstances that applied before you went into the meeting, interested in accommodating the wishes of the Minister of Housing and ministry officials at that meeting?
Dr Truong: No. I didn't expect to accommodate the ministry wishes, no. I think at that time, you know, we went in there very open-minded. We don't even know what we're to discuss. We know only that we agreeing to talk about Van Lang Centre, and our objective was to present to the minister our side in the sense that we want to tell the minister that we are managing the corporation properly and the allegations against us which are not proper. That's all.
Ms Cronk: Was the subject of the charges brought up at that meeting, Dr Truong?
Dr Truong: No. I don't recall that it was brought up. No, I don't recall. I'm sorry, I should change that. No, I guess I'm mixing the newspaper article and the charges. Okay. All right.
Ms Cronk: Let me ask you again. Was the subject of charges, the charges that had been initiated by Sharron Pretty, brought up in the meeting on June 17th?
Dr Truong: No, I guess the matter was not brought up.
Ms Cronk: Was there any discussion at that meeting of legal proceedings, legal action or a court case?
Dr Truong: Everyone knew that there was a court case. Oh, yeah.
Ms Cronk: I understand, but was there discussion at the meeting of that?
Dr Truong: It was inferred to, but not the mention per se.
Ms Cronk: In what way was it inferred?
Dr Truong: Oh, that's a long story, if you want me to start on that one, in the sense that it was inferred to when -- I'm just jumping to the end of the whole conversation, right, in a sense that all of a sudden on my right-hand side, Sharron Pretty says, you know, "It's in the hands of the crown attorney." At that time, I look at her and I was really surprised that, you know, she mentioned the word "crown attorney." But I'm just jumping, you know, events now.
Ms Cronk: That's fine. Was that the first time that there was an inference at the meeting, as you understood it, to legal proceedings?
Dr Truong: Right.
Ms Cronk: Was it close to the end of the meeting, did I hear you say?
Dr Truong: Very close to the end of the meeting.
Ms Cronk: About how much longer was there to the meeting after that comment was made?
Dr Truong: Five, 10 minutes.
Ms Cronk: Are you saying that at no time prior to that during the course of the meeting was mention made of legal proceedings, charges, a legal action, a court case, any of those words or that concept, even by inference, until five or 10 minutes before completion of the meeting?
Dr Truong: Exactly. Yeah.
Ms Cronk: Was there not at the beginning of the meeting, Dr Truong, an indication by the minister or an acknowledgement by the minister that she was aware of certain developments, including, among other things, the proceedings initiated by Sharron Pretty?
Dr Truong: Frankly, I don't recall.
Ms Cronk: When you say you don't recall, do you mean that it didn't happen or that you don't recall one way or the other?
Dr Truong: It's blank up here.
Ms Cronk: Does that mean you just don't know?
Dr Truong: No, I wouldn't say I don't know. I just don't recall.
Ms Cronk: You don't recall one way or the other?
Dr Truong: One way or the other. Yeah, exactly.
1430
Ms Cronk: Do you understand the difference?
Dr Truong: Oh, yeah, yeah. "One way or the other" means not at all; that's what it is. I don't recall at all whether she speak about it, that she talk about it or not.
Ms Cronk: So she might have; you just don't know.
Dr Truong: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: Then, when the topic was raised, by inference, at the end, towards the end of the meeting, five to 10 minutes from the end of the meeting, please tell the committee as best you can exactly what you recall the discussion to have been.
Dr Truong: I guess the first part about the whole meeting was I did not expect the minister to bring up new ideas to the meeting because, you know, that's a dead horse we're beating around for so long, about two -- what do you call it now? -- concerns. The dead horse was beaten so long that there's nothing new about the whole thing. Then the minister very carefully chose her words to say that she would like us to consider an option whereby we would sit down with an independent party to try to iron out our differences and see whether we can't understand each other and work with each other again. That was something very refreshing coming from the minister to propose that, because we had not thought of that solution.
Ms Cronk: What did you understand the solution to be?
Dr Truong: It was to sit down with a third party, a mediator or a conciliator, to go over our differences and to try to resolve our differences.
Ms Cronk: Was that the minister's proposal?
Dr Truong: That was the minister's proposal, and I found it very refreshing, because I didn't have that idea. Neither did the rest of the board, I think, have that idea.
Ms Cronk: Was it an idea that was acceptable to you?
Dr Truong: I think we jumped on the bandwagon right away. We're too glad to find a solution to the problem.
Ms Cronk: Was there, in the context of that suggestion being made by the minister, discussion or mention made of possible outcomes of that kind of a meeting?
Dr Truong: If I can recall her words or her thought, as I say, the minister chose her words very carefully. She said, "Sharron, I don't want to pressure you, but think about it. If you feel that the differences are resolved, would you reconsider your position?" if I can recall her words properly.
Ms Cronk: "Sharron, I don't want to pressure you. If you feel" --
Dr Truong: -- "that your concerns are resolved, addressed, would you reconsider your position?" To think about it today, the minister never mention about our position, because I guess we didn't launch any action against Sharron.
Ms Cronk: Was there, in the context of that remark, any explanation by the minister of what she meant by Sharron Pretty's "position"?
Dr Truong: I guess at that time my concern is not with the court case at all, because I know it's there. My concern is to get back to the business of the board and make sure that we don't have any more petty discussions or a war going on at the board level.
Ms Cronk: Sorry, Dr Truong, I didn't make my question to you clear. I said that when the minister said that to Sharron, "If you feel your concerns are resolved, would you reconsider your position," when she said that to Ms Pretty, was there an indication by the minister of what she meant by Ms Pretty's "position"?
Dr Truong: No.
Ms Cronk: What did you understand her to be referring to?
Dr Truong: I guess that she's mad against us. You know, she's not participating at board activities, she's antagonizing everybody, she's saying bad things about us in the press.
Ms Cronk: Are you saying, Dr Truong, that when that remark was made by the minister, you thought that she was referring to Sharron Pretty's general attitude and behaviour with the board?
Dr Truong: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: How then was there in this part of the conversation an inference with respect to legal proceedings?
Dr Truong: This is where I was surprised, in that kind of conversation and mood, all of a sudden on my right-hand side, after the minister say, "Reconsider your position," I heard the word "crown attorney" being uttered. So I look at her because it comes as a surprise to me that, you know, the crown attorney is in the picture now. And she said, "Now it's in the hand of the crown attorney." Now I couldn't --
Ms Cronk: Who said that?
Dr Truong: Ms Sharron Pretty.
Ms Cronk: In response to what?
Dr Truong: To the fact that the minister says, "Reconsider your position."
Ms Cronk: Are you saying, then, that although you understood the minister to be referring to something different in respect to "position," Ms Pretty responded with reference to the charges?
Dr Truong: Exactly. That's why I still remember the jolt I got, because I looked at her right away. She was sitting right on my right-hand side.
Ms Cronk: And did the minister make any reply to that statement by Ms Pretty?
Dr Truong: No, I don't think she made any statement. I don't recall really. I was too surprised by the "crown attorney" statement that I guess whatever follow afterwards I didn't pay attention.
Ms Cronk: Was there any clarification offered at that point by the minister as to what she had meant in the remark that she'd made?
Dr Truong: No, I don't recall that the minister tried to elaborate more on that.
Ms Cronk: Did you jump in and say: "Wait a minute. I don't think that's what the minister's talking about. I think she's talking about the way you've been behaving at the board"?
Dr Truong: I think I did say, "What crown attorney?" -- something like that.
Ms Cronk: That's a little different. Did you say to Ms Pretty at that point: "Wait a minute. She's not talking about the charges. She's talking about what you've been doing with the board all these months"?
Dr Truong: No, I didn't say that to her, no.
Ms Cronk: Was there in the context of that discussion a suggestion made by anyone around the table that if this further meeting was held in which a conciliator or a facilitator might participate, and if Ms Pretty's concerns were worked out to her satisfaction, she might not have to pursue her case?
Dr Truong: I guess these are perceived conclusions of other people, but I don't think that in my mind anything of that nature came up, really.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall that suggestion or words to that effect being used?
Dr Truong: No.
Ms Cronk: Dr Truong, I want to be very clear about this. Do you recall, in the context of the proposal for a further meeting, it being suggested to Ms Pretty, in one form of language or another, that one possible outcome of that meeting might be that her concerns would be worked out to her satisfaction or resolved and that she might not have to pursue the case?
Dr Truong: What was the question now?
Ms Cronk: Do you recall that being said, sir?
Dr Truong: You see, the word "case" has come up so often lately that truly I got to say that the word has been used in some context, yes.
Ms Cronk: At that meeting.
Dr Truong: At that meeting.
Ms Cronk: In the context I just put to you.
Dr Truong: It could be.
Ms Cronk: It was.
Dr Truong: It could be.
Ms Cronk: Was it?
Dr Truong: I say it could be because, as I say, I cannot recall everything at that meeting.
Ms Cronk: I'm suggesting to you it was. Are you saying it wasn't or just maybe --
Dr Truong: You're suggesting to me it was. I say it may be, yeah.
Ms Cronk: And that was a clear -- and who said that?
Dr Truong: I cannot recall who said that.
Ms Cronk: Was it one of the directors?
Dr Truong: I just can't recall.
Ms Cronk: You can't recall one way or the other.
Dr Truong: I can't recall. You asked the question, "Who said that?" I say that I can't recall who said that.
Ms Cronk: One way or the other? You just don't remember?
Dr Truong: I just don't remember, yes.
Ms Cronk: Was any response made by Ms Pretty to the suggestion of a meeting or the suggested outcome of the meeting?
Dr Truong: Well, at that time, really, when that proposal was made, I was interested in having a date to sit down with her. That was my interest at that time.
Ms Cronk: Did she make any response? Did Sharron Pretty say anything --
Dr Truong: She was not committed to the meeting. I can't see in her mind, you know, whether she would accept or not accept. She was unsure herself. We pressed her for a date, and she was pretty nervous at that time because I think a lot of people were looking for a date, including myself, and she was pretty nervous at that time. That I can recall. She couldn't come up with a date.
1440
Ms Cronk: Did you attribute that to nervousness or simply an unwillingness on her part, at that very moment, to agree to a date?
Dr Truong: I guess both: nervousness and unwillingness to meet to resolve the problem.
Ms Cronk: Did she, based on what you observed, seem to be nervous at that point in the meeting?
Dr Truong: I guess I would have to say that Ms Pretty was pretty tense during the whole meeting.
Ms Cronk: Pretty upset?
Dr Truong: It was tense.
Ms Cronk: Tense during the meeting?
Dr Truong: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: And in fact, at one point at the meeting there was a fair amount of tension evident. Wasn't that the case?
Dr Truong: Oh, yeah, yeah.
Ms Cronk: And that included tension between Ms Pretty and yourself?
Dr Truong: Yeah. I think she used some words, I think "intimidating" or something, and I ask the question, "Is the fact I talk to you is intimidating?" because this isn't the first time she used that word. She used the word before during board meetings, and I just want to show to the minister this is the kind of things I got to deal with when I meet with -- she keep on saying I'm intimidating her, and her remark was that, "How come they're so abusive and aggressive?" Now, I was surprised. How can I be abusive in front of the minister? She would have intervened.
Ms Cronk: Ms Pretty said that to you.
Dr Truong: Yeah, she said to me that I was abusive and aggressive.
Ms Cronk: Did Ms Pretty seem to you to be under pressure at that meeting?
Dr Truong: I wasn't under pressure. I don't know whether she perceived me to be under pressure or not. I don't know.
Ms Cronk: Sorry. You were --
Dr Truong: I was not under pressure.
Ms Cronk: I was talking about Sharron Pretty. Did she seem to you to be under pressure at that meeting?
Dr Truong: Does she be under pressure? I think definitely, because we asked for a date, she come up with a date. I guess in that case she was under pressure.
Ms Cronk: You're saying that she came up with a date at the meeting?
Dr Truong: No, she cannot come up with a date.
Ms Cronk: Cannot or did not? She didn't provide a date.
Dr Truong: She didn't provide a date, right.
Ms Cronk: That's different, isn't it? She just didn't give a date.
Dr Truong: Well, I guess to me she cannot or did not. Maybe there is slight subtleties which I cannot make a difference but, yes, she didn't have the date.
Ms Cronk: And she seemed to you at that point to be under some pressure.
Dr Truong: Oh, yeah, definitely, because all eyes are on her to come up with a date.
Ms Cronk: And were all eyes on her at the point where the possibility of a meeting and its outcome were discussed?
Dr Truong: The outcome of the meeting?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Dr Truong: No, I guess the meeting was suggested to have a conciliator. Now, if you suggest a meeting, you suggest a conciliator, a mediator, you cannot guess at what the outcome would be.
Ms Cronk: Yes. We've talked about one of the suggestions that was made to Ms Pretty about a possible outcome, and what I'm saying to you is, was it at that point in the meeting when all eyes were on Ms Pretty and it seemed to you that she was under some pressure?
Dr Truong: Yes, I guess she was under pressure to come up with a date for the meeting.
Ms Cronk: And was the pressure to come up with a date for the meeting at the same time in the point of discussion when it was being suggested that this meeting be held and when there was mention of one possible outcome of the meeting? Was that all happening at the same time?
Dr Truong: You keep on referring to the outcome of the meeting --
Ms Cronk: Let's just focus on the time for a moment, Doctor, so that I'm clear. We've got three things here. One, you've told me that there was a proposal that a further meeting take place with a conciliator or a mediator, and you've told the committee that that was refreshing to you because you hadn't considered that idea.
Dr Truong: Exactly, exactly.
Ms Cronk: And then secondly you said that there was some pressure for a date, or at least it seemed to you -- I don't want to put words in your mouth -- that Ms Pretty felt pressured about coming up with a date.
Dr Truong: Right, yeah.
Ms Cronk: And you said at first that she couldn't come up with a date and then you agreed with me that it may simply have been that she didn't come up with a date.
Dr Truong: Exactly. Yeah, yeah.
Ms Cronk: All right. But it's at that point in the meeting that she seemed to you to be under some pressure?
Dr Truong: Right.
Ms Cronk: Previously, you had been aware of tension on her part?
Dr Truong: Right.
Ms Cronk: And I'm asking you, was it at that point when there was discussion of a possible date for the meeting and the possibility of holding such a meeting, that there was also discussion of a possible outcome of the meeting?
Dr Truong: Well, I guess I have a difficulty to guess what the intention is behind the "outcome" words really, because my concept at that time was the outcome of the mediating meeting. Now, I think what you referred to perhaps is something else, and I haven't got any thought about it right now.
Ms Cronk: No. I'm sorry, Dr Truong, we're misunderstanding one another. You told me a few moments ago that -- excuse me just for a moment. Excuse me, Dr Truong. I wanted to make sure that I was right about something you said a little bit earlier so that I didn't misstate your evidence to you. I understood you to say a few moments ago that in the context of talking about that possible meeting, it was suggested that if the meeting took place and Sharron Pretty's concerns were worked out to her satisfaction, she might not have to pursue, I suggested to you, her case. I thought you said that it could be that that was said, so I thought we'd agreed on that.
Dr Truong: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I'm asking you, do you remember whether there was discussion of that kind at the point in the meeting when the other two matters were being discussed? Is it exactly around that time? That is, you're talking about the meeting, you're talking about the possible involvement of a conciliator, you're talking about a possible date, and it seemed to you that she was under some pressure at that point. Is it then that this suggestion was discussed? Are you with me or am I --
Dr Truong: I think you mentioned "suggestion" and I think you mentioned the word "case." I tried to link the two together, whether "suggestion" means the case or not. I don't know the answer.
Ms Cronk: You also said to me a few moments ago, Dr Truong, that you guessed that the minister didn't ask the board to reconsider its position because "we -- you said "we," meaning, I take it, the board -- "didn't launch any action against Ms Pretty." I take it you mean legal action in the sense of a court case.
Dr Truong: Exactly, legal action, yeah.
Ms Cronk: Because the board certainly had launched action against Ms Pretty in the context of proposing a resolution for her removal as director.
Dr Truong: Right, exactly. You're right there.
Ms Cronk: At the time that it was proposed that a further meeting take place, was there discussion of the board's intention to remove Ms Pretty as a director?
Dr Truong: We still had the intention to remove Sharron Pretty as a director because we were supposed to meet on the 19th to discuss the matter.
Ms Cronk: Yes, you still had that intention.
Dr Truong: Yes, still had that intention.
Ms Cronk: My question to you, sir, is this: Was there discussion, at the time that the potential for a further meeting was raised, of the board's resolution or intention to remove Sharron Pretty as a director?
Dr Truong: I don't think that there is a correlation, whether Sharron Pretty would be removed as a director or not. There is no correlation there in the sense that the meeting that was suggested was more with the problems or concern of Ms Pretty vis-à-vis the corporation. Whether there is any inference to the court case or not, I cannot be specific. My mind wasn't on the court case at that time.
Ms Cronk: Dr Truong, I didn't ask you that, sir. What I asked you was, in the context of the discussion of a possible meeting, was there discussion of the board's intention to remove Sharron Pretty as a director?
Dr Truong: Say that again, please?
Ms Cronk: At the time that the meeting was being discussed, the possibility of a further meeting, was there discussion about the board's intention or its resolution to remove Sharron Pretty as a director? If you don't remember, please just indicate.
Dr Truong: I just don't remember, really.
Ms Cronk: Was there, at any point during the meeting, that you do now remember, discussion about removing Sharron Pretty as a director?
Dr Truong: I have difficulty understanding the question.
Ms Cronk: Okay. There was a resolution in place. The board had called a meeting for June 19th. You're the past president; you're now the secretary. You know what that means. There's going to be a board meeting, you're going to vote on whether she's in or she's out, right?
Dr Truong: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I'm asking you whether, at the meeting on June 17th with the minister, that matter was discussed.
Dr Truong: It was referred to, I guess, some time. I couldn't recall in what context, but everyone knew, you know, that she's -- will be some action by the board against her, yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And did the minister make any reference to the removal of Sharron Pretty as a director?
Dr Truong: I don't think so.
1450
Ms Cronk: All right. Dr Truong, I'm obliged to put to you that there has been evidence before this committee that during the course of this meeting it was proposed to Sharron Pretty and to the other directors present at the meeting that consideration be given to a further meeting to see if all of you could work together towards a resolution.
Dr Truong: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And it is Ms Pretty's evidence that in the course of that it was suggested to her that she might speak to the crown attorney, that a possible course of action was that she should speak to the crown attorney and either reconsider her court case or drop the charges, and that the board would defer or postpone her removal as a director. Did that happen, sir?
Dr Truong: I think that if I read the press, a lot of --
Ms Cronk: No, no, excuse me.
Dr Truong: I cannot recall that. Okay, let's put it this way.
Ms Cronk: Well, that's the answer I want --
Dr Truong: All right.
Ms Cronk: -- not what you've read in the press.
Dr Truong: All right. Okay, sorry. I can't recall that.
Ms Cronk: When you say you don't recall, are you saying you don't recall one way or the other?
Dr Truong: I don't recall one way or the other, yes.
Ms Cronk: So it could have --
Dr Truong: It could have.
Ms Cronk: -- you just can't remember.
Dr Truong: Exactly, yes.
Ms Cronk: And do you recall any further discussion about a crown attorney, other than what you've told the committee?
Dr Truong: Another crown attorney?
Ms Cronk: Any further discussion about the crown attorney, other than the one comment by Sharron Pretty that you've brought forward to the committee?
Dr Truong: I know the one Sharron Pretty mentioned, which crown attorney -- you know, that would keep on being repeated a couple of times.
Ms Cronk: Was that the only reference to it?
Dr Truong: That's about the only time, really, the "crown attorney" words were used. I'd say, yes, that a few minutes after she pronounced those words, you know, the words "crown attorney" came up a couple of times.
Ms Cronk: All right. Could you go to tab 93, please, of whatever exhibit it is. I have one more question for you, Doctor. Do you have that?
Dr Truong: Yeah, I've got it in front of me right here.
Ms Cronk: This is a memorandum from Trinh Luu to another individual dated June the 19th, 1994. It is referring to a meeting held, or at least an event, on Sunday, June 19th. That's two days after the board meeting with the minister.
Dr Truong: Right. Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall seeing Ms Pretty and Ms Luu on Sunday, June 19th?
Dr Truong: Oh yeah, definitely.
Ms Cronk: And was that at the Van Lang Centre?
Dr Truong: Yeah, it was at the Van Lang Centre.
Ms Cronk: Did the scheduled board meeting, that is, the one scheduled to deal with the removal of Ms Pretty, go forward, or was it called off?
Dr Truong: Well, as I recall the events right now, it's rather a comedy really to me in the sense that, as secretary of the board, I was going to that meeting, and at the very last minute I realized that nobody's going to be at the meeting. So I forgot completely about the whole thing.
I told the office assistant at that time, you know, that there would be a meeting. When I learned there was no meeting, I forgot to call her up to say there's no meeting. So I forgot about completely the whole thing. I was going to go to the meeting, but then I was told not to go to the meeting.
Ms Cronk: Did you go?
Dr Truong: At the end I did, because then I sat down having lunch with Dr Le and he asked me, you know, whether the office assistant knew about the whole thing. I said, "My goodness, I forgot to tell her the whole thing is called off."
Ms Cronk: And when you got there, who was there?
Dr Truong: I call up the office and she says, "Yeah, you got people here waiting for you." I say, "Who's there waiting for me?" She said, "You know, the reporters, I guess, are calling to hear -- Pat Dare and Dave Rider and -- "
Ms Cronk: Excuse me, sir. Do you remember them being there, two male reporters?
Dr Truong: Yeah, oh yeah. Oh yeah.
Ms Cronk: And was Sharron Pretty there?
Dr Truong: Yeah. Then I say, you know, "Oh, in that case I better go there."
Ms Cronk: And did you go?
Dr Truong: Yeah, I went there. It was about 3:30. I was a bit embarrassed.
Ms Cronk: When you got there, were the two male reporters there still?
Dr Truong: Yeah, they were there.
Ms Cronk: Had you ever met either of them before?
Dr Truong: No, not before.
Ms Cronk: Was Sharron Pretty there?
Dr Truong: Yeah, Sharron Pretty was there.
Ms Cronk: Was Trinh Luu there?
Dr Truong: Yeah, she was there.
Ms Cronk: Was there a tenant by the name of Michael Séguin there?
Dr Truong: Yeah, he was there. I was surprised too that he was there.
Ms Cronk: Did you know Mr Séguin? Did you know him as well?
Dr Truong: Oh yes, I know Mr Séguin.
Ms Cronk: And did you, in the course of -- I assume some discussion took place among you after you arrived.
Dr Truong: Oh, yeah. A lot of things took place, you know.
Ms Cronk: And during the course of the discussion, did you say that there was an agreement at the meeting with the minister on the Friday that the board would postpone the decision to remove Sharron Pretty in exchange for her dropping the charges?
Dr Truong: I don't recall having said all those things.
Ms Cronk: Let's just deal with that thing, okay?
Dr Truong: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: Did you say, while you were there, that there had been an agreement on the Friday, at the meeting with the minister, that the board would postpone the decision to remove Sharron in exchange for her dropping the charges?
Dr Truong: I don't recall having said that.
Ms Cronk: Okay. And when you say that you don't recall, it's just important for me to understand what you mean by that, Dr Truong, so there's no debate about it later. Do you mean that you don't recall one way or the other, or are you saying you didn't say it?
Dr Truong: I don't recall one way or the other.
Ms Cronk: I take from that, sir, that it's possible that you did say that.
Dr Truong: It would be very strange if I said that, because I knew the implication, and I would not put it in that context.
Ms Cronk: Was it your understanding, Dr Truong, when you left that meeting on Friday with the minister that an agreement had been reached that if the board postponed the decision to remove Pretty as a director, she would drop her charges?
Dr Truong: No. That is definitely not the case, not the situation.
Ms Cronk: That was not your understanding
Dr Truong: This is not my understanding, definitely.
Ms Cronk: Was it your understanding that that would be considered as potential actions by the board on the one hand and by Pretty on the other?
Dr Truong: No, because I was going to the meeting at 2:30 to discuss the removal of Sharron Pretty. I was going to do that. That's why I have the office assistant report to me to open up the meeting room.
Ms Cronk: Why would you be going to be a meeting on the Sunday to remove Sharron Pretty if you understood that there was agreement to hold another meeting to try to work out your difficulties?
Dr Truong: The fact that really the Sunday meeting was never discussed on Friday the 17th. It was never discussed, so to me when I left the meeting on Friday with the minister, in my mind -- and in fact also that I was going to the meeting on Sunday. What are we going to discuss on Sunday? In my mind, I know that we were going to discuss the removal of Sharron Pretty.
Ms Cronk: But surely, Dr Truong, you didn't expect that another meeting would take place with Sharron Pretty with a conciliator or a facilitator to try to work out your difficulties and reach your resolution if you kicked her off the board on the Sunday?
Dr Truong: I was naïve in that sense that I thought, you know, those two things can go in parallel. Yeah.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Is there anything else, doctor, that you'd like to tell the committee about the meeting on June 17th that I haven't asked you about?
Dr Truong: No, I guess you have asked quite a few questions on that.
Ms Cronk: I sure have. Thank you very much, sir.
Could we take a short break before we carry on and before the caucus starts its questions?
Interjection: Yes, that's fine.
Ms Cronk: Could we take just five minutes before then, please?
The Chair: Okay. Have a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 1457 to 1512.
The Chair: We'll start rotation with Mr Chiarelli first.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you, Mr Chair. Dr Truong, we've heard over several days that there was no fixed agenda for this meeting -- at least, there was no agenda in writing -- and various people came to the meeting with different understandings perhaps as to what would be achieved at the meeting.
Therefore, it's probably understandable that different people at the meeting were focusing on different remarks and perhaps reacting to them differently. You were asked by counsel to try to recall the words of the minister towards the beginning of the meeting, when she was talking about trying to resolve differences or mediate differences. You had indicated that the minister had asked Sharron Pretty to reconsider her position. I believe counsel was trying to find out from you what you meant by that. What was the minister intending to communicate when she used those words, if in fact she used those words?
Then you said very quickly, while you were explaining that, "I guess she didn't ask us to reconsider our position because we didn't launch any action against Ms Pretty." I took that to mean, when you said that, that the reconsideration the minister was talking about included some aspect of legal action and I think, in subsequent questioning, you said the action referred to legal action. Am I correct?
Dr Truong: Yes, I guess I didn't think of the question of the removal of Sharron, I was thinking more of the legal actions. We didn't bring any action on the court against Sharron.
Mr Chiarelli: And that's why she didn't use "reconsider" to your side of the dispute.
Dr Truong: Right.
Mr Chiarelli: She only used that to Sharron Pretty's?
Dr Truong: Yes.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you. One other short, quick question: You mentioned that Sharron Pretty, on several occasions, I think at least two, mentioned the words "crown attorney." Am I correct?
Dr Truong: Yes.
Mr Chiarelli: At any time, when she mentioned those words, did Ms Gigantes or Mr Sutherland or anyone else mention that it would be improper to speak about a court case or anything involving a crown attorney, or were the words just spoken and then you went on to other subjects?
Dr Truong: Yeah, I guess nobody, you know, looked into the whole thing under that point of view and nothing was mentioned whether it would be improper or not. No.
Mr Chiarelli: So nobody corrected her that that should not be discussed at the meeting?
Dr Truong: That's correct. Nobody corrected her.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you.
The Chair: Any other questions? Mr Callahan.
Mr Callahan: Just a short one. I was curious: When committee counsel was referring you to tab 93, and maybe your counsel could refer you to it --
Dr Truong: Yeah, I have it in front of me here.
Mr Callahan: Do you have it before you?
Dr Truong: Right.
Mr Callahan: And she read to you or asked you if there was an agreement at the meeting with Evelyn on Friday, June 17th, '94, that they would postpone the decision to remove Sharron, ie, the board, in exchange for her dropping the charges, your answer sort of left me in doubt. You used the words, "I knew the implication." What did you mean by that?
Dr Truong: Well, the fact that, as I say, I learned just before the 2:30 meeting that there was no meeting --
Mr Callahan: No, no, no.
Dr Truong: I know what you mean. And we discussed in the sense that when I learned that the reporters were there and that Sharron Pretty was there and Ms Luu was there -- at that time I was with Dr Le, and it was clear that I wasn't to discuss the whole thing with the reporters.
Mr Callahan: Well, no, but your answer -- maybe I didn't put the question clearly enough. Counsel suggested that you had said at that meeting that -- I won't go with the agreement about the meeting, but she talked about "in exchange for her dropping the charges," and counsel asked you if those words were used. Your response was, "I knew the implication." Can you explain to me, what implication did you know? Did you know that dropping the charges was perhaps something that shouldn't be done, that shouldn't be discussed?
Dr Truong: No, that's not what I meant. What I mean to say is that when I went to the meeting on Sunday the 19th to meet the reporters, I was not supposed to discuss the court case at all.
Mr Callahan: All right, but I still don't understand what you meant by, "I knew the implication." I get the feeling that someone discussed with you the implication of a discussion of that type being inappropriate. Is that correct?
Dr Truong: Rephrase your question again, please, Mr Callahan.
Mr Callahan: Counsel said to you, at tab 93, that this is supposed to have been said by you: "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, '94, that they" -- this is the board -- "would postpone the decision to remove Sharron in exchange for her dropping the charges."
Committee counsel went through the first part with you and then through the second part, as I recall, and the second part was, "to remove Sharron in exchange for her dropping the charges." She said, "Did you say that?" and your answer was -- I noted it -- "I knew the implication."
Did someone tell you that the implication of your having discussed the question of dropping charges would perhaps put you in difficulty with the board?
Dr Truong: No, no. I think it's the wrong context. You know, the word "implication" that I've used is understood by you. I think what Ms Cronk was saying was, "Was it said or was it not said?" I said that when I went to the meeting on the 19th, I knew the implication that I should not discuss that.
Mr Callahan: You knew the implication what?
Dr Truong: On the 19th, when I went to the meeting, that I should not discuss the whole thing.
Mr Callahan: Well, I got it that you were talking about the implication --
Dr Truong: No, no.
Mr Callahan: You're saying that's not the case?
Dr Truong: No, no. Referring to the 19th of June meeting, at that time I knew the implication that I shouldn't talk about the court case at that time.
Mr Callahan: But that wasn't what you were being asked.
Dr Truong: Well, maybe I misinterpreted Ms Cronk's asking the question.
Mr Callahan: Maybe counsel will, in reply, try to clear that up, because that's not the impression I got.
1520
Mr Murphy: I just have one question. I imagine this, the issue we're here for, has garnered a fair amount of press coverage since June 1 in the Ottawa area.
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Mr Murphy: I would think that obviously, as the president until recently of the Van Lang Centre, that would be of great interest to you.
Dr Truong: I don't know whether it's great interest or great pain.
Mr Murphy: Fair enough -- exactly -- but it was certainly something you'd follow.
Dr Truong: Well, to be frank with you, I did not read all the articles.
Mr Murphy: But you've read some of them?
Dr Truong: Some of them, right.
Mr Murphy: Have you since, for example, the meeting on June 17th read some of the articles in which the minister has talked about what happened at that meeting?
Dr Truong: I was shown a few press articles, and I can tell you that whatever the press reported or said that she said wasn't said at the meeting.
Mr Murphy: Have you read quotes from the minister as to what the minister said she said at the meeting in those press reports?
Dr Truong: Yeah, I have read a few quotes from the minister, and I was surprised, because those quotes are new to me and they were not at the meeting. She must have said it after the meeting.
Mr Murphy: Thank you. Those are my questions.
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Sir, you told us earlier about the ministry starting to attend your board meetings, and you told us that you were quite surprised about that; it was very irregular.
Dr Truong: Exactly.
Mr Harnick: And in fact you were upset by it.
Dr Truong: Up to a certain point, yeah.
Mr Harnick: And you knew that it was Sharron Pretty who caused that to happen. Is that correct?
Dr Truong: I knew at that meeting only that Mr Sutherland was there at the invitation of Ms Pretty.
Mr Harnick: And you weren't happy about that.
Dr Truong: Yeah. Not so much because he was in there; because Mr Sutherland did not follow the protocol, neither did Ms Pretty follow the protocol.
Mr Harnick: And you were aggravated with her because of that. That's fair to say.
Dr Truong: No, I wasn't aggravated. I said she didn't have experience working in boards.
Mr Harnick: You weren't happy with her, anyway.
Dr Truong: Exactly.
Mr Harnick: All right. And then the next thing that happens, around the end of May, the beginning of June, you start to hear rumours about a court case.
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Mr Harnick: And you thought that was laughable; you laughed about it.
Dr Truong: No. I wouldn't say I laughed about it. Can we use the word --
Mr Harnick: This is before you were served.
Dr Truong: Can I use the word "smile" instead?
Mr Harnick: All right. You smiled; you really didn't treat it very seriously.
Dr Truong: Exactly.
Mr Harnick: And then the next thing you know, you open up the paper and you see an article in the Ottawa Sun by Mr Wallace making all kinds of allegations about the non-profit housing corporation. Is that correct?
Dr Truong: No. I guess before that I got an inkling that something's coming up, because Mr Wallace called me at work and asked or said something which I didn't like very much.
Mr Harnick: And that made you upset.
Dr Truong: No, it didn't make me upset. As I say, the truth of the fact is that Mr Wallace says that "I got information in a brown envelope," and I say, "Who gives you that brown envelope?" He says, "That's my privilege," and he says I've got irregularities at the centre. I was upset when I heard the word "irregularities," because then I say: "Mr Wallace, I invite you to meet with me at the Van Lang Centre. Whatever documents you want to see I'll be more than glad to show to you, because I think we are running a clean operation here. We are running within the guidelines of the ministry. Please, you're welcome to see me and discuss the matter any time."
Mr Harnick: But, sir, you weren't happy with the article that was in the paper, were you?
Dr Truong: Oh, no, I was not happy. No.
Mr Harnick: And again, you would attribute those facts that ended up in the paper with Sharron Pretty, would you not?
Dr Truong: No. Today I have a different perception of the whole thing, because I know that Ms Luu is a participant in this thing. I did not know at that time.
Mr Harnick: Then the next thing that happens is that you're served with court papers, right? Around that time.
Dr Truong: I'm sorry, sir. Don't raise your voice, please.
Mr Harnick: Around that time you were served with court papers, in June, the middle of June.
Dr Truong: Right.
Mr Harnick: And you weren't happy about that?
Dr Truong: Are you happy when you get court papers yourself?
Mr Harnick: Sir, you just answer my questions. We'll get through this much more easily.
Dr Truong: I'm sorry, sir. If you ask questions in a nice way, I would answer in a nice way.
Mr Harnick: I'm trying to be as nice as I can.
Dr Truong: That's fine.
Mr Harnick: And when I ask you about being not happy with receiving court papers, the answer is no, you weren't happy?
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Mr Harnick: All right. In fact, you knew that Sharron Pretty had been the person that initiated those charges. Is that correct?
Dr Truong: Yes, to a certain point; I'd say to a certain point.
Mr Harnick: Then you spoke to a friend and found out that this was serious, it wasn't something to smile about.
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Mr Harnick: You became pretty furious with Sharron Pretty at that time, didn't you?
Dr Truong: No.
Mr Harnick: You were pleased with her?
Dr Truong: I was not pleased with her, but I was not furious either.
Mr Harnick: It was with this atmosphere in mind that you then set up a meeting on June 19th to remove her from the board, correct?
Dr Truong: No, I guess that is not the most fair. You know, you have to behave in responsible way when you are board directors. Don't forget, we are running a corporation here.
Mr Harnick: No, that's not my question. After you were served with the charges and you'd received the court papers, the next thing that happened was that you set up a meeting of the board to remove her.
Dr Truong: Let me think about the chronological events. I think we set up the system to remove her before we were served with the court papers.
Mr Harnick: We can check that. At any rate, then you had the meeting with the minister, and you went to that meeting, and Sharron Pretty was there and she was sitting beside you.
Dr Truong: Right.
Mr Harnick: At some stage during that meeting, you said that Sharron was unsure, that "We were pressing her for a date" and that she was very nervous.
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Mr Harnick: I think you described it that she was under great pressure.
Dr Truong: To come up with a date? Yes.
Mr Harnick: I think you also said that all eyes were on her.
Dr Truong: Yes, that was true.
Mr Harnick: And that includes the minister's eyes.
Dr Truong: I didn't look at the minister at that time. I looked at Sharron Pretty at that time.
Mr Harnick: In fact, everyone at that meeting wanted to resolve this problem, did they not?
Dr Truong: I think everyone would like to see a peaceful end to this dilemma that has been going on too long.
Mr Harnick: And it couldn't be done without Sharron Pretty agreeing?
Dr Truong: Definitely she's a partner; she's got to go along.
Mr Harnick: At some stage, when she was under pressure and everyone was asking her to make an agreement --
Dr Truong: No, no, not to make an agreement, just to agree to a date to sit down with a mediator.
Mr Harnick: That's when she turned to you and complained that you were being aggressive with her, isn't that correct, at that stage in the meeting?
Dr Truong: Yes, I was asking for a date, and she told me I was aggressive.
Mr Harnick: You were pressuring her.
Dr Truong: No, no, I was not pressuring her. I say, "What's the date?"
Mr Harnick: Sir, yesterday we heard evidence from your colleague Dr Tang. He's your colleague on the board, is that correct?
Dr Truong: Yes, he's our president.
Mr Harnick: Dr Tang told us that no agreement was made with Ms Pretty at this meeting. But what he said was that an arrangement was made whereby he believed that she would not pursue the case and that you would postpone the meeting to remove her. Now, that's what he told us. You told us that you had no recollection of those events.
Dr Truong: I guess you got to be fair in this treatment --
Mr Harnick: Well --
Dr Truong: No, hold on a second. Let me --
The Chair: Let the witness answer.
Dr Truong: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'd like to have my turn to answer that question. We were six or seven sitting at that meeting. Each one of us has a different view of the outcome of the meeting and how the meeting proceed. Dr Tang may have his point of view; I am entitled to my own point of view.
Mr Harnick: That's exactly what I'm trying to sort out here. You told counsel that you didn't remember an agreement or an arrangement being made.
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Mr Harnick: You had no recollection.
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Mr Harnick: But if Dr Tang says that an agreement or an arrangement was made at the meeting to drop the charges and to postpone the meeting to remove Sharron Pretty, we can rely on what Dr Tang tells us, can't we?
Dr Truong: I guess what Dr Tang says stand by him, what I say stand by me.
Mr Harnick: We can believe Dr Tang's evidence, can't we?
Dr Truong: Definitely, you can.
Mr Harnick: Thank you.
Mrs Marland: Dr Truong, you have told us a number of times this afternoon about your experience. You said, "I was asked to go on the board because they needed strong leadership." You said, "As an experienced manager" and so forth. I'm just wondering, with the background and experience you have, what you would mean by your statement: "I was coaxing her back to behaving on the board. Let's have fun together."
Dr Truong: Don't try to put more connotation to the words I used, in the sense that -- I know maybe I have perhaps expressed myself a little bit loosely in that regard. What I'm trying to say only is that if you have someone working with you and someone getting mad at something, you've got to talk to that person and to bring that person back within the fold.
Mrs Marland: Well, Dr Truong, I'm using your words. I'm not using --
Dr Truong: I'm sorry. Perhaps I say I apologize for using the words a bit loosely.
Mrs Marland: Excuse me. I'm only using your words. Some other words you used this afternoon are, "We're conducting the business of the board like any other Canadian corporation." Are you familiar with the Corporations Act?
Dr Truong: Yes.
Mrs Marland: Is there a requirement in the Corporations Act to have directors' liability insurance?
Dr Truong: Yes.
Mrs Marland: Does the Van Lang Centre have directors' liability insurance?
Dr Truong: Yes, today.
Mrs Marland: When did they get directors' liability insurance?
Dr Truong: I couldn't recall the date exactly, but it was reported on the minutes of the meeting about two months ago.
Mrs Marland: So you've only had directors' liability insurance for two months?
Dr Truong: We have some problem getting that director liability. We were aware. We try, but we have difficulty getting it.
Mrs Marland: No, I'm not asking you about the difficulty; I'm asking you how long you've had it. Would you agree that your answer just indicated that you've had directors' liability insurance for two months?
Dr Truong: Exactly.
Mrs Marland: Thank you.
Mr Phillip Hunt: In fairness, Mr Chairman, if there's a reason why it's only been there for two months, I think the witness is entitled to explain that.
The Chair: Yes.
Dr Truong: Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you, Mr Hunt, for intervening on my behalf. We had difficulty obtaining the directors' liability in the sense that at the very beginning we sought directors' liability insurance, but then the company that was going to give it to us agreed, except that they're waiting for the financial report of the construction phase, which we had difficulty getting it.
Mrs Marland: That's fine. I only had one question. I was trying to establish how long you'd had it; I wasn't interested in why you didn't have it.
Dr Truong: We have sought, but we couldn't get it.
Mrs Marland: I'm trying to establish how long you'd had it, and your answer is that you've had it for two months. There have been reasons. You've explained the reasons why not.
When you say that you are conducting the business of the board like any other Canadian corporation and yet that board has been in existence for over two years and they have not had directors' liability insurance, I think it begs a question, which is this: Have you been paying legal fees out of the operating budget of the Van Lang Centre for legal actions against members of the board?
Mr Hunt: I'm trying to recall the terms of the summons, Mr Chair, but that is one of the subject matters of the informations in the Provincial Offences Act matters.
The Chair: I've got the clock stopped. Can we have just a two-minute pause here?
The committee recessed from 1534 to 1535.
The Chair: Ms Cronk, we're back on.
Ms Cronk: Mr Hunt, it's at tab 6. Could you take a look at it? I don't read it that way, but we should be clear about it before the question is ruled on.
Mr Hunt: Thank you, counsel. I have had an opportunity to review the text of the informations during the recess, and I was incorrect with the position I took before. But had I had the opportunity to reach that, the alternative ground for my objection is, simply put, that the question, to my mind, goes wholly beyond the terms of reference of the inquiry. On matters of that nature, I defer to you, but I do make the objection on that ground, recognizing that the previous ground is not supported by the information.
Ms Cronk: By way of advice to the committee, generally speaking I think Mr Hunt's point is well taken in the sense that the accuracy or inaccuracy of any of the allegations made against the corporation or the directors and the adequacy or inadequacy of any responses is generally beyond the terms of reference.
My concern is this: that I've indicated to you that there are credibility issues in this hearing. Ms Pretty has asserted certain facts. I take the question to be an exploration of whether one of those facts is correct that bears on credibility, and in that sense only, I would suggest you should allow it, but the merits of it shouldn't be pursued any further than that.
The Chair: I rule, on your advice, we limit it to that.
Mrs Marland: Dr Truong has told us about his strong leadership, and he's an experienced manager. He's told us why he was needed on the board. I'm simply trying to establish the credibility of those statements.
He also tells us that they conducted the business of the board like any other Canadian corporation. My questions are suggesting that not any other Canadian corporation that conducts their business under the Corporations Act would operate for two years without directors' liability insurance. And the question has been raised in evidence prior to now that legal fees have been paid out of an operating budget.
My question to you again, Dr Truong, is, do you think, with your strong leadership and experience as a manager, that you have been responsible to the taxpayers of this province, for a corporation which is supported substantially by taxpayers' money, by causing anything to be out of an operating budget that perhaps should not have been out of that budget?
Dr Truong: On point number one on directors' liability, I like to tell you that I join the board about a year ago. You mentioned that we don't have directors' liability for two years. I cannot defend my position when I was not on the board for the first year.
Mrs Marland: So you're saying it's not your problem for the first year --
Dr Truong: No, no. I didn't say that.
Mrs Marland: Excuse me. You can answer the question when I'm finished asking it. I think your evidence today is that you've been on the board since last August, and that is one year. Your answer now is that anything prior to that isn't your responsibility?
Dr Truong: To a certain sense that's correct, because if I was not on the board, I cannot be responsible for actions before I was on the board.
Mrs Marland: Would you have a concern for the Van Lang Centre corporation operating at the taxpayers' expense without directors' liability insurance for their board members?
Dr Truong: I had great concern. That's why I worked to obtain it and now we obtained it.
Mrs Marland: Thank you.
1540
Mr Sutherland: I just have one question for you, Mr Truong, and that is, Mr Callahan, in his question, was making reference to tab 93 and references in there about "in exchange for dropping the charges." Do you recall as to whether the minister at the meeting on June 17th used that terminology, "dropping the charges"?
Dr Truong: I don't think she used that terminology.
Mr Sutherland: Okay, thank you.
Mr Owens: Dr Truong, you stated in your testimony that Sharron Pretty used language like "intimidation" before the meeting on June 17th. Is it your view that that was a word that she used a lot?
Dr Truong: Oh, yeah. She used that word quite often, and some other words, you know, big words. Yeah.
Mr Owens: In terms of the context in which she used words like "intimidation," was it your view that the language was not appropriate or in your view that any intimidation had happened?
Dr Truong: Yeah, you know, she just used those words sometimes I guess in the course of normal conversation and at the end you don't even know where you stand, because she used them too freely.
Mr Owens: Were you the only person that was on the receiving end of words like that?
Dr Truong: No, no, I wasn't on the receiving end. I heard them only. I guess I was on the receiving end one time only, in front of the minister, but I guess she used them against other board directors.
Mr Owens: You stated at the very end of the meeting that it was your view that Sharron Pretty felt pressured to come up with a date for the following meeting. Didn't the minister then tell her that she didn't have to feel pressured to come up with a date at that point?
Dr Truong: Uh, yeah, I guess the minister not only say for the date but, you know, she can think about even the idea of a mediator. Not just the date, you know, the idea of a mediator. She can think about it too; she can refuse it.
Mr Owens: Is it your view that the minister did not try to pressure Sharron or make her feel pressured during the meeting, and did she not tell her again, in your view, that she did not have to answer questions or feel pressured to do anything right away?
Dr Truong: Yeah, she repeated many times that Sharron doesn't have to answer the questions and should take her time to think about all those things.
Mr Owens: So it would be a fair statement to make that the minister did not do anything to put pressure on Sharron Pretty at that time of the meeting.
Dr Truong: I don't think that the minister put pressure on either side of the board, really. She was conducting the meeting in a very soft way, very much in choosing her words carefully so that they are not misinterpreted by either side and I felt good about the meeting because there was no pressure.
Mr Owens: So your testimony now is that you felt good after the meeting. I guess without raising the concern of counsel, can you tell me what your view of the other participants at the meeting at the end -- what was the tone of the room at the end of the meeting? Was there a positive or optimistic tone? Was it an angry tone?
Dr Truong: I think it was positive and optimistic, because, you know, the fresh idea came up that we are going to sit together, resolve our problems with a mediator. That mediator -- even it was considered not from the ministry, it was somebody come from outside completely. That was a good idea and I think a lot of people came out of the meeting very happy in the sense, you know, "Here is another opportunity, another way to solve the problem," and we did not realize that it degenerated today until this committee hearing.
Mr Owens: You were there for the entire meeting?
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Mr Owens: Counsel has asked you this question and I'm going to repeat it perhaps in a different way. At the meeting of June 17th with the Minister of Housing, Evelyn Gigantes, did the minister at any time, at the beginning, the middle or the end or after the meeting had broken up, ask Sharron Pretty to drop charges?
Dr Truong: The word "drop charges" I don't think was mentioned at all at the meeting. Now, I have heard that word "drop charges" since then many times all over the place, to the point whereby I become confused who used what and when and where.
Mr Owens: Was there any discussion using language like the word "deal"?
Dr Truong: No. I don't think the word "deal" was ever used at all.
Mr Owens: Was it your understanding then at the end of this meeting that what was hoped to be accomplished at a subsequent date to be named, a resolution with respect to court issues, as I understand them to be, tenant access and participation, were those the two core issues?
Dr Truong: Would you repeat that statement again?
Mr Owens: Tenant access and tenant participation, are those the two core issues that were raised?
Dr Truong: Yeah, those two issues seemed to be the main issue, the tenant access to Van Lang.
Mr Owens: Access and tenant participation.
Dr Truong: Yeah, tenant participation, right.
Mr Owens: So was it your understanding that those were the two issues that at a future meeting, a date to be named, with no pressure put on Sharron Pretty to set a date, those were the two issues to be resolved?
Dr Truong: Exactly.
Mr Owens: And I'm going to ask you one more time, just to make sure that I'm clear and this committee is clear. At any time during this meeting, at the beginning, the middle or the end of the discussion or as the meeting was breaking up, did the minister ask Sharron Pretty to drop the charges? Did she ask Sharron Pretty to go to the crown prosecutor to drop the charges?
Dr Truong: She did not.
Mr Owens: Was there any discussion of the charges at this meeting?
Dr Truong: No, there was no discussion of charges.
Mr Owens: Thank you, Chair.
Mr Marchese: Mr Truong, you said that you are an experienced manager, and as a result of that, you listened to the concerns of Mrs Pretty on a regular basis and solicited her to come and talk to you about the problems; is that correct?
Dr Truong: You used the word "solicit her to come to discuss with me." Whenever I got the chance to talk to her, I like to ask her, you know, what can we do to make her feel more comfortable on the board.
Mr Marchese: All right, but that doesn't get to solving the problems. Obviously she brought problems to you and the board, and you said they were discussed at the board a number of times but you never reached a common ground.
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Mr Marchese: But in your view, you made many attempts to try to solve the concerns that she raised?
Dr Truong: Oh, yeah, not only through discussions at board meetings but also through a radical change of the reorganization of the whole board to try to solve the problem with Sharron Pretty.
Mr Marchese: From her own evidence, we got her view that the board never listened to her concerns, and as a result of that of course, she was taking her concerns beyond the board to be dealt with.
Dr Truong: Well, I guess she forgot the fact that we reorganized the board just because she mentioned to me over Christmastime that the cause of the problem is Dr Le. So having taken that as a clue to do something about Dr Le, I talked to him and we trade all the -- well, I shouldn't use the word "trade." We change all the positions on the board so that we have new faces and let's try to make a start again at the whole board.
Mr Marchese: Did you at any point feel that she was satisfied with the answers that she was getting from you and/or the other board members?
Dr Truong: I remember at one time I says, "Sharron, I am a man of action; watch for action," just Christmastime, before I make the change of the board, because you see that, to me, making the board working is more important than my own title of president. I demote myself from the presidency to take the role of secretary, suggesting business.
Mr Marchese: At one point, in response to counsel's questions, you said something that was interesting to me. You said she used the word "intimidated," that she was intimidated by you or all of you or some of you, but I think at some point you said, "Do you realize that we are intimidated by you?" Did I actually hear you say that?
Dr Truong: Say it again, that last one.
1550
Mr Marchese: I believe I heard you say, in response to a question the counsel asked, that Ms Pretty was saying she was intimidated by you.
Dr Truong: Yeah, very often.
Mr Marchese: I think I heard you say you were intimidated by her.
Dr Truong: Oh, yeah, I think --
Mr Marchese: Did I hear that correctly?
Dr Truong: To make it worse, she intimidate the whole staff. They are scared of her, right now.
Mr Marchese: Well, how does she do that? How could the whole board, or some of you or all of you, be intimidated? What happened?
Dr Truong: Well, I think I would use the word she "harassed" the staff to the point whereby I'm told that whenever they, the staff, saw her, they just shiver, tremble, because she said that: "We'll take you to court. We'll take you to the police. We'll take you all kind of things." We remind her, even right in this meeting, that board members should not abuse the human right of staff.
Mr Marchese: So what was your reaction when you felt intimidated or some members felt intimidated by her?
Dr Truong: We remind her in writing that board members should behave in a civilized manner and should act and talk nicely to staff, even in writing in the minister meeting.
Mr Marchese: At some point in the meeting of June 17th, you said that she turned around and said, if I remember correctly, "How come you are abusive," or "aggressive?" Was that the word you used?
Dr Truong: Right, right in front of the minister.
Mr Marchese: Could you recall for me the context of that? What did you say, or what did you say that got the two of you to react in that way?
Dr Truong: I couldn't remember what leads to that remark from Sharron Pretty, but I think it revolves around the fact that we were so happy with the new proposal put forward. I was happy because, you know, this is a fresh idea for me which I never thought of before, and here's a chance for us to finish the year or to finish our term together in a nice term, and if at the meeting she can be convinced that we are doing the right things, I'd like to have that date, and I guess perhaps I was pressing a bit too much for that date.
Ms Cronk: Excuse me, Mr Chair. Mr Hourigan and I are not sure yet whether the witness has said that members of the board felt intimidated by Ms Pretty, as distinct from members of the staff. He may wish to clarify that.
Mr Marchese: All right. The question I was asking for clarity from him was whether or not he felt intimidated or whether he said, "We felt intimidated by her."
Dr Truong: I'm glad that you brought up the thing, because I can tell the committee that Ms Sharron Pretty intimidate and harass the staff of Van Lang Centre.
Mr Marchese: I heard that. But I was asking at the board meeting on June 17th the context, and you were beginning to explain and you were saying you were happy about the resolution of it and you were asking for a date or looking for a date. Did you prod her? Did you somehow make her angry for her to react that way?
Dr Truong: No. I guess I asked, you know, "What's the date?" That's why when she said I was intimidating her, I was surprised. That's why I asked the minister, "Do you think that I'm intimidating Ms Sharron Pretty?"
Mr Marchese: Thank you.
Mr Owens: Just a quick question: Mr Harnick asked you a question with respect to newspaper articles, and I believe it was your response to the question, "Had you read the newspaper articles? Did you agree with what the minister had said in the newspaper" --
Mr Harnick: That was Mr Callahan.
The Chair: Through the Chair there, Mr Owens.
Mr Sutherland: It was Mr Murphy.
Mr Marchese: Continue.
Mr Owens: Sorry, it was Mr Murphy asked. Opposition: They all look the same. The question is with respect to the newspaper articles that Mr Murphy had asked the witness, or asked Dr Truong: Had he read the articles? Did he agree with the statements that the minister had made in the articles? My question is, have you read all the newspaper articles?
Mr Harnick: He said he didn't.
Dr Truong: No, I did not.
Mr Owens: And are you sure that when you answer the question that you were surprised by what you read the Minister of Housing saying, are you thinking -- should you not have been referring to another party, Sharron Pretty? In the articles, are you sure that it was the Minister of Housing that you read more surprised at what she said and didn't agree with?
Dr Truong: No. I guess during the interview with the legal counsel, Ms Cronk, I was shown a few paper clips from Windsor, Toronto. You know, we in Ottawa, we're far from those places. And I read a few statements by the minister which truly were really new to me that were reported in those newspapers.
Mr Owens: I'm not sure which articles and what was new about the --
Dr Truong: I cannot tell you which article, but by local newspapers, not from Ottawa.
Mr Owens: It's all right.
Ms Cronk: Are you asking me to get into it?
Mr Owens: No. Thank you.
Ms Cronk: Dr Truong, I have just a few remaining questions for you. In questioning, forgive me, by someone -- Mr Harnick -- the date on which you were served and other board members were served with the summonses in respect of the informations laid by Ms Pretty was somewhat uncertain. Could I ask you to look, please, at tab 77 of volume 3 of exhibit 1. These are, for the benefit of the committee, expurgated minutes of the special meeting of the Van Lang board on June 15, and over at page 2, Dr Truong, I just want to draw your attention to the first paragraph. Recognizing that this is a board meeting held on June 15th, it would appear that court summonses were received by all six of the named directors at least by June 15th. Would I be right in that?
Dr Truong: Yes, exactly, yes.
Ms Cronk: And that included yourself, sir. Is that correct?
Dr Truong: Yes, exactly. Right, yeah. By the 15th of June we had received the summons.
Ms Cronk: Yes, thank you. In light of a number of questions that you've been asked, Dr Truong, on behalf of the committee as a whole, I'd like to make sure that I understand what your evidence is, in two respects. First, you understand, sir, and I wish on behalf of the committee to make this reassurance very clear, that there are no allegations against you in this matter at all and you have served, I take it, as a volunteer director of this board for the time of your involvement. Is that correct?
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. And in that context, I take it, it would be fair to suggest you had a very troubled situation to deal with and that involved not only Dr Can D. Le and Sharron Pretty but the board as a whole and from time to time your own relationship with one or both of them. Would that be a fair overall suggestion?
Dr Truong: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. And with respect to what happened at the June 17th meeting when you left, when you left that meeting, Dr Truong, did you think that Ms Pretty would be proceeding with her charges?
Dr Truong: I was left the impression she will proceed with her charges and we will go ahead with our meeting on the 19th, but we will also have the mediation meeting. All three will go together.
Ms Cronk: So that you thought she'd proceed with her charges, you'd proceed to remove her and you'd also proceed to have a meeting to try to work things out.
Dr Truong: Right, exactly.
Ms Cronk: Can you help me, then, as to why you felt good about the meeting when you left?
Dr Truong: Because I would like to make sure that Sharron Pretty is not going to leave us in a mad, you know, tense state of mind, because we know that we're going to finish our term by July, and I'd like to make sure that, you know, when we serve on the board together, we can have the term on a common ground.
Ms Cronk: And you told one of the members of caucus who was questioning you, and you told him this several times, and I understand your evidence on it, that at no time during the course of the meeting did the minister ever mention the phrase, "drop charges," or "dropping charges." Do you recall that evidence?
Dr Truong: That's correct, that's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. My question to you is this: Did anyone else at the meeting make reference to that phrase or that activity, dropping charges?
Dr Truong: The -- what phrase, first? I cannot recall whether anyone used the word "drop the case" or not. I cannot recall that.
Ms Cronk: All right. More particularly, did Mr My Nguyen, who was a director present at the board meeting, make mention of dropping charges?
Dr Truong: I cannot recall, really. I cannot recall.
Ms Cronk: And so you cannot recall?
Dr Truong: I cannot recall.
Ms Cronk: Again, I need to know what you mean by that. You can't recall one way or the other?
Dr Truong: One way or the other. That's correct. I cannot recall at all.
Ms Cronk: In particular, did Ms Pretty ever use that expression during the course of the meeting?
Dr Truong: I don't think so. I don't think she used that phrase.
Ms Cronk: Was there discussion at that meeting about the possibility that she might not have to pursue her case or her action?
Dr Truong: It could be that perception in the mind of a few people, but in my own mind I think she will.
Ms Cronk: You expected that she would?
Dr Truong: Yes.
1600
Ms Cronk: All right. Was there discussion at the meeting of the possibility that she might not have to pursue her case or her action?
Dr Truong: That's correct, a possibility. That's correct, yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And finally, will you look at tab 93 for me, Dr Truong? And just before I come to that, so that I'm clear about this, I anticipate that this committee will hear evidence that the Minister of Housing said not once, but several times during the course of the meeting, both to Ms Pretty and to others, but in particular to Ms Pretty, that she was not to feel pressured at the meeting.
Dr Truong: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall that?
Dr Truong: Yes, she said that several times.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall specifically she said it several times?
Dr Truong: Yes, yes, she said, you know, that, "Don't feel pressure to answer," or, you know, to do something.
Ms Cronk: Did she also say to Ms Pretty and to the other board members: "Take your time. You don't have to decide anything today"?
Dr Truong: She said that many times. Yes, she said that many times.
Ms Cronk: All right. And looking at tab 93, you were asked some questions about this by myself and then by Mr Callahan, and I want to make sure that I understand what your evidence is. Did you, on June 19th, to Sharron Pretty -- sorry, in the presence of Sharron Pretty, in the presence of Mr Séguin, Trinh Luu and two reporters, say that there was an agreement at the meeting on Friday with the minister that the board would postpone the decision to remove Sharron in exchange for her dropping the charges?
Dr Truong: I don't think that, you know, I ever said that. I don't recall saying that.
Ms Cronk: All right. Because you told me earlier, I thought, that it could be; you weren't certain.
Dr Truong: Well, as I say, I don't think I have said that and I don't recall having said that.
Ms Cronk: And when you left the meeting, it's your evidence to the committee that you thought the board was going to go ahead and remove her and that Sharron Pretty was going to go ahead and drop the charges. Is that --
Dr Truong: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: Is that what your evidence is?
Dr Truong: Yeah, yeah, because at 2:30 on the 19th I was there -- I was going to be there, you know, to discuss and vote on her removal.
Mr Sutherland: Sorry, counsel, could I just have a clarification? In the question you just asked, did you say it was Mr Truong's belief, after leaving the meeting on June 17th, that they were going to go ahead with the removal and Sharron was going to go ahead with dropping the charges?
Ms Cronk: No, I didn't, no: "with the charges." I didn't mean to say "dropping."
Mr Sutherland: Going to go ahead with the charges?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Mr Sutherland: Okay.
Ms Cronk: That's what I intended to say. Let me be clear about that.
You're telling the committee that when you left, as far as you were concerned, the board was going to go ahead and remove Sharron Pretty and she was going to go ahead with her charges.
Dr Truong: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: All right.
Dr Truong: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Okay? And if then this committee hears or has already heard evidence from other people at that meeting who say that it was their understanding that an agreement was reached that the board would not remove her as a director and she would not proceed with her charges, but drop them, are you saying that that didn't happen and that that's not right? Or are you just saying your understanding --
Dr Truong: No, what I'm saying is that my understanding is completely different because on the 19th I was all set to go to the meeting at 2:30 to -- and in fact I instructed the office assistant to open up the meeting room for the meeting.
Ms Cronk: I understand. I think you've made it quite clear to the committee what your own understanding was.
Dr Truong: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I just need to know if you're taking it further than that. Are you saying, "That's what my understanding was, and that's the way it was; other people are wrong if they say something different," or are you just saying, "That's my understanding"?
Dr Truong: Well, I don't say the people are wrong, but my understanding is that, you know, this is the way it was.
Ms Cronk: All right. Let me touch --
Dr Truong: I didn't say that the people were wrong.
Ms Cronk: This is the difficulty I'm having. Right?
Dr Truong: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Because Mr Harnick specifically put to you that it was Dr Tang's evidence last evening, as it was --
Dr Truong: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- that an arrangement was entered into at that meeting on June 17th that the board would not remove or would postpone the decision to remove Ms Pretty and that Ms Pretty would not proceed with her charges. You're saying that your understanding was exactly the opposite.
Dr Truong: Exactly. Exactly the opposite in the sense I did not come out of that meeting with the perception that the whole thing is going to be resolved by exchanging or trading. No, we are going to go ahead with everything.
Ms Cronk: But I take it from what you said to Mr Harnick, and please make any comment on this you wish, you're not saying to this committee that Dr Tang is wrong.
Dr Truong: I didn't say that. I say he's entitled to his opinion, to his thinking, and that's why in fact he was telling me -- I met him at about 1:30 on the 19th -- not to go to the meeting because there was no meeting, and I was going to go ahead with the meeting.
Ms Cronk: I see. Thank you. Those are my questions, Dr Truong. Thank you very much, sir.
The Chair: I'd like to thank you, Dr Truong, for spending the last, what, three days down here in Toronto. It will be great to get back home. Without your evidence there, this committee wouldn't function. Thank you.
Ms Cronk, you have a few comments on the length of sitting tonight, to give the committee members an idea.
Ms Cronk: If at all possible, I would certainly like to proceed to complete the evidence of Dr Can Le and Mr My Nguyen, and if the committee can deal with that, I'd like to press on. If that takes a great deal longer than I anticipate, I'll tell you.
The Chair: The committee will be recessed for 10 minutes.
The committee recessed from 1606 to 1621.
Report continues in volume B.
Report continued from volume A.
ALLEGED BREACH OF CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
CAN D. LE
The Chair: Our next witness is Dr Can Le. Welcome to the committee.
Dr Can D. Le: Thank you very much, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Legal counsel here will be asking you questions right after we affirm the oath.
Clerk of the Committee: 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?
Dr Le: I do.
The Chair: Ms Cronk, your witness.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Dr Le, good afternoon.
Dr Le: Good afternoon.
Ms Cronk: Dr Le, as I understand it, you are a senior economist with Industry Canada in Ottawa.
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And you have held that position, I understand, since approximately 1989. Is that correct?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And prior to that, you worked with the Ministry of State for Science and Technology as a senior policy analyst in economics?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And at some time, as I understand it, around 1989, that ministry, or at least the part of it in which you worked, was renamed and became known as Industry Canada.
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And I understand that you also hold a doctoral degree which you obtained in economics from the University of Toronto in 1979.
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And that you moved to Ottawa in 1973, where you have resided since, continuing to date.
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Dr Can Le, I have a number of questions for you concerning matters related to the Van Lang Centre, it'll come as no surprise to you -- I understand you've been here since at least Tuesday and you're aware of the proceedings --
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- and a number of questions specifically concerning a meeting held with the Minister of Housing, Evelyn Gigantes, on June 17th, 1994. It's my understanding that you attended that meeting. Am I correct in that?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Dr Can Le, at the outset, I wish to reiterate, as I have with other witnesses, that the committee is aware that in respect of the Van Lang Centre and its board of directors and management practices over the year 1993, through into June of this year and prior to the spring and summer of 1993, various allegations or concerns were raised at various times by Ms Trinh Luu, Ms Sharron Pretty and, in addition, from time to time a tenant by the name of Michael Séguin. Can I stop there for a moment? Are those facts substantially correct?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And at various points there were responses to those allegations or concerns by one or more members of the board of directors or by the board acting as whole. Am I right in that?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You among them?
Dr Le: Mm-hmm. Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you understand, sir, that this committee's work is not concerned with the accuracy or inaccuracy of any of those allegations or of the adequacy or inadequacy of any of the responses made by any of the involved parties?
Dr Le: I understand that.
Ms Cronk: Do you understand as well, sir, that there are no allegations made against you in respect of this hearing whatsoever?
Dr Le: I understand that.
Ms Cronk: All right. In that context, Dr Le, I wish to ask you a number of questions about your historical involvement with the Van Lang Centre leading up to the meeting with the minister in June of this year, but if it's agreeable to you, I propose not to refer to very many documents unless you feel that you need them, and in that case please just tell me that and I will attempt to find whatever document it is that you wish to refer to. Would that be an agreeable way to proceed?
Dr Le: Yes, that will be all right with me.
Ms Cronk: All right, thank you. Dr Le, as I understand it, your involvement with the Van Lang Centre, unlike the involvement of some of the other directors from whom the committee has already heard or will hear, goes back a little bit further in time and that you were actually involved in incorporation of the National Capital Region Vietnamese Canadian Non-Profit Housing Corp. Is that correct?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: As I understand it, over the course of time there emerged a controversy -- perhaps too strong a word -- but certainly a difference of opinion as between yourself and Ms Trinh Luu as to what the objectives and corporate objects of that corporation were. Would that be a fair way of describing it?
Dr Le: I wouldn't say so.
Ms Cronk: Okay. In what respect am I inaccurate?
Dr Le: As I remember it, the difference that I had with Ms Trinh Luu was particularly with regard to the performance of the superintendent.
Ms Cronk: Did there not come a point in time, Dr Can Le, without getting into the details of it, where there was a debate between you or a difference of opinion between you as to your vision for the corporation, as distinct from what she thought it should be?
Dr Le: There has never been a debate like that between Ms Trinh Luu and myself.
Ms Cronk: By that do you mean there's never been a discussion?
Dr Le: I don't recall any such discussion besides her concerns about the performance of the superintendent.
Ms Cronk: I see. I want to make sure I understand, sir. Are you saying that you're not aware that Ms Luu has expressed concerns about the direction of the Van Lang Centre and its corporate objects as distinct from what she thought your perspective on those issues was? You're not aware of that?
Dr Le: Well, she made known her concerns following her disagreement with me and with the rest of the board with respect to the performance of the superintendent. But what I was trying to say is that her primary disagreement with me is with regard to the performance of the superintendent. The other issues are secondary issues.
Ms Cronk: I see. All right. Well, perhaps this would be the best way to go about this: Could I ask, Mr Hunt, if you would show the witness, please, volume 1 of exhibit 1 and tab 4, which is the Statement of Selected Background Facts. Thank you.
Dr Le, this is a document entitled Statement of Selected Background Facts that was prepared by counsel for the committee in an effort to provide an introductory backdrop to the work of the committee this week. Could I ask you to look at paragraph 1, please. It indicates in that paragraph that: "The National Capital Region Vietnamese Canadian Non-Profit Housing Corp...was established in 1990 under the Corporations Act...as a corporation without share capital. Its objects include (a) the provision and operation of non-profit residential housing accommodation, recreational facilities and commercial space or appropriate buildings exclusively for persons of low income; and (b), the provision of social services to `poor senior citizens and to refugees, immigrants and Canadians of Vietnamese origin who are exclusively of low income. Such services are incidental to the provision of housing accommodation.'"
Does that paragraph accurately set out the objects of the corporation established in 1990?
Dr Le: That's correct.
1630
Ms Cronk: Thank you. As I understand it, again just dealing with your own early involvement with the Van Lang Centre, a group of volunteers came together to work on the establishment of a non-profit housing facility in Ottawa pursuant to the objects of the corporation. Would that be a fair way to describe it?
Dr Le: If I can have permission from the Chair, I would like to take just a couple of minutes to go back before that, before the incorporation of the corporation, because that will give you a historical perspective on how the corporation came about, if that is all right with the Chair.
The Chair: Legal counsel's leading the questions.
Ms Cronk: That's fine, sir. Tell the committee what you'd like to tell.
Dr Le: First of all, I would not like to take much time from committee members, because I know that you're pressed for time. Just to make it very short, back in 1982 when I had the opportunity to go to Montreal to attend a community event, I became aware of the severe issues that the senior citizens of our community were facing at the time. I became aware of cases of nervous breakdown, of depression, of attempt suicide, even suicide among the senior citizens. I felt very, very sorry for them, because that remind me of my parents who passed away a long, long time ago, and each time I heard about this story, I remember about my parents and what would happen to my parents if they were in the same situation.
So when I came back to Ottawa, I discussed the idea with some of the senior citizens and some of the volunteers in our community, and we decide to first help them set up the Vietnamese-Canadian Senior Citizens of Ottawa-Hull. That's the first step. That organization is still existent until now. As a matter of fact, it's one of the most active organizations in the Vietnamese community in the national capital region. That organization has served well our senior citizens.
Following the establishment of that organization, we came up with the idea -- we became aware of the idea of establishing a low-cost housing project for the senior citizens and we approach the Ministry of Housing for guidance and support to bring this about. And at the same time, we decided to also include families with a modest income and small children with a modest income as well, because it will be very boring for the senior citizens just to live by themselves. So this is how the idea came about.
And at the same time, while we approach the Ministry of Housing for guidance and support on this, we proceed with the incorporation of the organization. And while we were doing that, we were advised by the Ministry of Housing that in the object of the corporation, we should not mention just senior citizens and families with small children and modest income from the Vietnamese community, because they said that that would be not consistent with the policy of the ministry. So therefore we decided to make the object of the corporation more general than what we originally set out to do.
So I just want to ask you to bear in mind that the target group of our project at the time was senior citizens in the Vietnamese community, and also families with small children and a modest income. And also, we would like to open the project to people of other ethnic origin, because we felt that that would be the best way for us to promote integration and social harmony.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, Dr Le. That's very helpful. Thank you.
With that in mind, am I right that you remained very involved on a personal level and were very much a participant in seeing that vision result in the opening of the Van Lang Centre in 1992?
Dr Le: That vision was not my own vision; that vision was share throughout the community, particularly by the senior citizens' association at the time, and as a matter of fact, the first application to the Ministry of Housing was submitted by the association and not by myself.
Ms Cronk: I didn't mean to suggest, sir, that the vision was exclusively yours, and perhaps the question was badly phrased. All I meant by it was, can you confirm to the committee that you personally remained involved and were an active participant in bringing forward those ideas until the time of opening of the Van Lang Centre?
Dr Le: I confirm that.
Ms Cronk: In that respect, and again I don't wish to ask you any questions about the details of it, but did you, over the course of time in 1993, become aware that Ms Trinh Luu had raised an issue concerning the issue of targeting seniors for the Van Lang Centre, that there was a difference of viewpoint between the two of you on that issue, or is that something that you never became aware of?
Dr Le: I became aware of that concern when Ms Luu wrote to the board of directors, if I remember correctly, on April 20th, or thereabout, of 1993. Among other things, particularly she was concerned about the performance of the then superintendent. She went on to elaborate on other issues, but as far as I'm concerned, at that point I think that the other members of the board at the time shared this view with me that Ms Luu's primary concern was with the performance of the superintendent.
Ms Cronk: Leaving aside what other directors of the day may or may not have felt, that was your view, I take it, at the time.
Dr Le: That was my view.
Ms Cronk: All right. Just so that we're clear, Ms Trinh Luu worked at the Van Lang Centre first on a contract basis and then on a full-time basis, as I understand it, from approximately the end of July 1993 through to the end of August -- I'm sorry, from July 1992 through to the end of August 1993, when she left to commence studies at law school in Ottawa. Is that correct?
Dr Le: She was employed as a contract employee for the first two or three months and then after that she was appointed as acting manager of the project until the time when she left to go back to school in September of 1993.
Ms Cronk: Am I right with the time frame? It was really from July of 1992 up until the end of August 1993, when she left to go to law school.
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. Throughout that entire period of time, were you serving as secretary of the corporation?
Dr Le: Yes, that's correct.
Ms Cronk: We have heard from Dr Truong that in the latter part of January 1994 there was a reorganization of the board of directors of the centre which had the result, among others, that you ceased to be secretary and he assumed that position.
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: From that point forward, you remained, I take it, to date a director of the corporation but not an officer. Is that correct?
Dr Le: I remained a director of the corporation until last Sunday.
Ms Cronk: This Sunday immediate past?
Dr Le: That's right, when there was an annual general meeting of the membership, at which point I informed the membership that I was stepping down as a director. So I'm no longer a director.
Ms Cronk: I see. Does Dr Truong continue as a director of the organization -- I should have asked him that, but I didn't -- to your knowledge?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. May we come back then to the events of 1993, Dr Le, and then 1994. You've indicated to the committee that in April of 1993 you became aware of a letter than Ms Trinh Luu wrote to the board at the time outlining concerns which you felt were primarily focused on the superintendent but that in the letter she raised a number of other issues as well.
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: All right. Would it be accurate of me to suggest that over the course of the next several months, including through the months of June and July, Ms Luu raised a number of concerns in correspondence with the board and expressed a number of, made a number of allegations and brought them to the attention of the board before she resigned and left in the early part of September?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: At the time of her resignation, on or about September the third, the committee has heard that she submitted a formal letter of resignation and that in it she again expressed a variety of concerns.
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: We have also heard that in August of 1993, Ms Sharron Pretty became a director and vice-president of the corporation and Dr Hieu Truong became president and director of the corporation. Is that correct?
Dr Le: That's correct.
1640
Ms Cronk: And when Ms Pretty came on the board in August, and from that time forward, would I be correct in suggesting that because of your role as a director and secretary, you began to work with her on a regular basis at the board level.
Dr Le: I would like to go a couple of months before that, because in the spring of 1993, following our survey of tenants' satisfaction in which Miss Pretty made a comment to the effect that she would like to speak to the board regarding the survey, that is, result of the survey -- so that was the first time when I call her in my capacity as secretary and I spoke to her, and she had very, very good comments about the maintenance of the centre as well as the performance of the superintendent. And I -- subsequently I found that Miss Pretty seemed to be active, seemed to have quite a few initiatives that she would be able to contribute to the organization. So I invite her, together with two other tenants, to serve on an ad hoc committee, ad hoc tenants' committee, to support the board of directors, because at the time there was no tenants on the board of directors.
In that capacity, I had the chance to work with Miss Pretty until I encourage her to join the board, and subsequently she was nominated by the interim executive committee of the tenants' association as their representative on the board.
Ms Cronk: All right. Thank you for that, Dr Le. Am I right, then, that from the time that she came on the board in August of 1993 forward, because of your continuing position as both a director and secretary of the corporation, you were dealing with her on a regular basis in those capacities.
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. And you were serving as a volunteer director of this organization at that time?
Dr Le: All the time.
Ms Cronk: Exactly. And Ms Pretty was a tenant nominee to the board, along with another tenant representative, from August 1993 forward.
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And without getting in again to the merits of it in any way, there, over time, emerged an issue, did there not, as to whether her original appointment to the board was intended to be interim or temporary or of a greater term? There was an issue over that. You don't have to get into what it was. Is that right?
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Then in the context of what was happening at the Van Lang Centre in the fall of 1993, you continued on as secretary and Ms Pretty was serving as a director.
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did you, over the course of the fall, become aware that she, Ms Pretty, had written to the Minister of Housing, Evelyn Gigantes, in the latter part of October expressing a number of concerns regarding the Van Lang Centre.
Dr Le: I was not aware of that.
Ms Cronk: All right. When did you first become aware of that?
Dr Le: I believe some time by the end of the year. She wrote something to the board of directors, or to the president of the tenants' association, and she copied the letter to the Minister of Housing. So at that time we became aware that she start to make her concerns known to the ministry staff as well as the minister.
Ms Cronk: So you were not copied with or provided a copy of that letter by Ms Pretty, the October 29th letter.
Dr Le: I don't recall so.
Ms Cronk: And similarly, did you, on or about the beginning of November or in the weeks following that, become aware that Ms Trinh Luu had herself written to the Minister of Housing requesting actually a meeting with the minister about matters relating to the Van Lang Centre?
Dr Le: I was not aware of that.
Ms Cronk: At the time, did you know that Ms Trinh Luu and Ms Pretty had together met with representatives of the minister's constituency office in Ottawa and asked for a meeting about matters related to the Van Lang Centre?
Dr Le: I didn't know that at the time.
Ms Cronk: All right. Now -- I'm sorry, you did not?
Dr Le: I did not know about that at the time.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard that in the month of November or early December of 1993, there was an effort or an initiative undertaken with a view to removing Ms Pretty from the board as a director. Do you recall that?
Dr Le: I recall that as an action by the tenants' association. As you know, previously they had an executive committee and they didn't have the bylaws. But I believe it was the end of, to the latter part of 1993, the association membership approved their constitution and also they elect their first executive committee. And, as a result, they also elected two persons as nominees to the board of directors of the centre.
Ms Cronk: My question -- and, again, I thank you for that background, Dr Le. My question, however, wasn't directed to who had undertaken the initiative in the sense of whether it was the tenants' association or the board or someone else. But now that you have raised it, it is a fact, is it not, that Dr Truong wrote to the tenants' association at the beginning of November 1993 and inquired of them who they wished their future tenant representatives to be, and that it was in reply to that letter that individuals other than Ms Pretty were named? Do have I those facts correct?
Dr Le: That's correct, because Dr Truong, as well as the board, became aware that the tenants' association just approved their constitution and also elected their executive committee, and therefore the board would like information from them, from the association, as to whom they would like to nominate to the board of directors, whether they would like to retain the current nominees or whether they would like to nominate new ones.
Ms Cronk: Leaving aside who did what or how that all started, Dr Le, my only point was you were aware, I take it, of the initiative to remove Ms Pretty in November or December. You knew it was happening. You were on the board.
Dr Le: I wouldn't use those terms, because it would be up to the tenant association to decide whom they would like to nominate to the board of directors. Now, if they decided to retain their current nominees, then there would be no issues. But on the other hand, if they'd like to nominate new ones, this would be entirely up to them. So I would not term it as an attempt to remove Sharron Pretty from the board of directors.
Ms Cronk: Wasn't Ms Pretty asked to step down from the board and didn't she decline to do so on or about the month of November or December 1993?
Dr Le: I wouldn't say that she was asked to step down. We were informed by the tenants' association that they would like to have two nominees to the board, and that information was presented to Ms Pretty. It would be up to her to decide whether she still represented the association, whether she would still sit on the board as a representative of the tenants' association. But she was not asked to step down, as it would be up to her to decide what course of action she should take.
Ms Cronk: Well, when you say that, Dr Le, should we understand that you did not ask her to do so? You didn't ask her to step down; that's what you're saying.
Dr Le: I don't recall either myself or anyone else asking her to step down, because it would be up to the tenants' association to decide on that question.
Ms Cronk: Well, sir, all I'm suggesting to you is, you're not really in a position to tell the committee what others may or may not have asked you to do. All you can say is that you didn't, is that right? You did not ask her to step down.
Dr Le: I don't recall so.
Ms Cronk: In December, on or about December the 20th, she wrote to the board of directors on this specific matter, as I understand it, and indicated effectively that she would not step down and that she intended to carry on as a director. Do I have that right? Apparently not. What did I get wrong there?
Dr Le: I don't know --
Ms Cronk: Could I show you the letter? Would that be of assistance, Dr Le, if I showed you the letter?
Dr Le: I had recalled that there was such a letter from Ms Pretty, but at a meeting before that, she indicated that she would step down. She even expressed her appreciation for the opportunity to serve on the board. So we thought at the time when she became aware of the decision of the tenants' association she would take it on herself to step down from the board of directors. But I think that apparently she changed her mind after that meeting.
Ms Cronk: I see. Is it at least right, then, sir, that at some point on or about December the 20th, 1993, she wrote to the board of directors and indicated that she would not be stepping down?
Dr Le: That would be correct.
1650
Ms Cronk: When you said a few moments ago to the committee members that you learned of Ms Pretty having corresponded with the Ministry of Housing on various issues, it was after you'd seen a copy of that letter and realized that it had been copied to the ministry. Did I hear you say that?
Dr Le: That would be the first time that I became aware that Ms Pretty started to make her concerns known to the ministry.
Ms Cronk: And by that letter, did you also learn that she was raising some concerns related to yourself and your role as secretary?
Dr Le: I think that that stemmed from the fact that she first expressed --
Ms Cronk: Excuse me for interrupting, Dr Le, and I don't mean in any way to cut you off if there's something you wish to say to the committee, but I didn't ask you what it stemmed from. Did you learn from that letter that she was raising some concerns directed to your role as secretary as well?
Dr Le: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. I don't mean in any way to be rude, sir. If there's something that you wish to point out to the committee, please do so, but if we could -- I'll try to make sure my facts are correct and I invite you to tell me whenever they're not, as you have been. Okay?
Dr Le: That's fine.
Ms Cronk: As a result of becoming aware of a copy of that letter, was it at that point that you first understood that Ms Pretty had been dealing outside the board with some of these concerns?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And by that time, that is December of 1993, were you also aware that Ms Trinh Luu had been in correspondence and had been meeting with representatives of the minister's constituency office about a variety of concerns?
Dr Le: I did not know that.
Ms Cronk: When did you learn that, Dr Le?
Dr Le: Just in the last couple of days, when I became aware of the material that was made available to committee.
Ms Cronk: Skipping ahead to March of 1994, did you learn at that time that Ms Trinh Luu and Ms Sharron Pretty had written a joint letter to the minister outlining concerns?
Dr Le: I didn't know that until the last couple of days.
Ms Cronk: All right. So are you saying then, until this hearing and these proceedings commenced, really in the last week or so, you had no knowledge of Ms Trinh Luu having expressed concerns of that kind to the minister and the minister's constituency office?
Dr Le: I had no idea that Ms Luu would get together with Ms Pretty to go to the minister's riding office to discuss their joint concerns about the corporation.
Ms Cronk: I see. So you only learned that during the course of the evidence here this week?
Dr Le: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: I see. And at any time were you provided with correspondence, in the spring of 1994, from Trinh Luu to any of the Ministry of Housing offices in Ottawa or the minister's offices or the constituency offices outlining concerns on her part with respect to Van Lang?
Dr Le: I never received such a thing.
Ms Cronk: Do I understand you to be saying then, or is the effect of that, Dr Le, that after Ms Trinh Luu left the employ of the corporation of the Van Lang Centre, you had no idea of her involvement in any of this until this week?
Dr Le: I had no idea. I knew that she may have helped Ms Pretty from time to time to forward Ms Pretty's concerns, but I had no idea that she would write together a letter to the Minister of Housing and she would go to the riding office of the minister to express her own concerns, because my understanding or belief was that the concerns were just Ms Pretty's concern.
Ms Cronk: I see. I think I understand what you're saying. You didn't know that Ms Luu, on her own behalf and under her own name, had been dealing with ministry officials or the minister's office expressing concerns, but you did know that she had been speaking with, and from time to time advising, Ms Pretty?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: I see. I understand now, sir. Thank you. And in that connection, was it your understanding then, until recently, that the concerns that were being expressed were those exclusively of Sharron Pretty and not Trinh Luu's?
Dr Le: From the material that we received from Ms Pretty, I became aware that the issues of concern that Ms Pretty put forward to the board directors seemed very much like the issues that Ms Trinh Luu brought to the board's attention before. I think that even the language seemed to be very much the same, to the extent that you can see that they are identical.
Ms Cronk: I see. And with respect, then, to the events that you were aware of at the Van Lang Centre, if we could just move forward in time, it has been indicated to the committee in the evidence of a number of other witnesses that by the point of January of 1994, if not earlier, but certainly by that point, there had developed, for whatever reason, a considerable amount of acrimony and antagonism at the board level. Would you agree with that?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that antagonism and acrimony concerned, can you confirm, both yourself and Ms Pretty and various views that each of you had about issues that were being raised and about each other?
Dr Le: I remember distinctively that the very first concern that Miss Pretty brought forward to the board was about the superintendent's performance and that, to me, is a very strange coincidence, because that is exactly the issue that Miss Trinh Luu brought to the board's attention during the summer of 1993.
Ms Cronk: That may be, Dr Le, but that wasn't really the question I asked you. May I ask it again? What I was suggesting to you was that when this acrimony and antagonism developed, some of it concerned specifically yourself and Ms Pretty and your respective viewpoints on various issues that were arising. In other words, I'm saying that you and she had difficulties at the board level, certainly by that time, by January of 1994.
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And some of the difficulty that had arisen also involved other board members.
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And is it also correct to say that the board at that point was not functioning well?
Dr Le: Well, we managed to go on with the operation of the organization because we had to serve the interest of tenants first. There have been difficulties with regard to Miss Pretty's participation on the board but, as a whole, I think the board just went on to operate.
Ms Cronk: Is it not the case that the difficulties that had arisen were interfering with the conduct of business in an efficient and constructive way at the board level? There were problems.
Dr Le: Yes, I admitted there were problems and the effectiveness of the board could have been higher had there not been this kind of disagreement between Miss Pretty on one side and the rest of the board on the other hand.
Ms Cronk: To be fair, Dr Le, some of the issues involved Ms Pretty on the one side and the rest of the board on the other, but there were other issues that involved you on one side and Ms Pretty on the other. Isn't that in fact the case? Or did you not see it that way?
Dr Le: Um, it was true to some extent, because Miss Pretty keep on blaming me for keeping the superintendent in the corporation and I think that that's the main reason why she became so much in disagreement with me.
Ms Cronk: Whatever its cause, is it correct that some of the issues of concern seemed to be focused on you and Ms Pretty?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And is it also the case that on December 30th, 1993, Mr Brian Sutherland of the Ottawa offices of the Ministry of Housing attended a board meeting and addressed the board?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And that one of the things that came out of that meeting was an offer by Mr Sutherland for representatives of his offices to attend Van Lang Centre board meetings over the next several months?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And did you regard the presence of Mr Sutherland at that board meeting of any particular significance?
Dr Le: I welcomed the presence of Mr Brian Sutherland there, because I felt that if we had an official from the ministry at the board meeting, then the ministry would become more aware of the true issues that the corporation was facing at the time. So I welcomed Mr Sutherland's presence at the meeting.
Ms Cronk: Did you also see it as an indication or a signal that Ms Pretty had been in correspondence with the Ministry of Housing and had been presenting her views to them?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And as a result of that attendance, the committee has heard that on January the 3rd, 1994, the board wrote to Ms Gigantes and requested a meeting with her?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And were you involved, as a director, in that decision at the time?
Dr Le: Yes.
1700
Ms Cronk: And from your perspective, what was the purpose of requesting that meeting?
Dr Le: The purpose of the meeting at the time was to let the minister know what the true issues of the corporation are at the time, because we were alarmed that if the ministry and the minister did not have an opportunity to have a face-to-face meeting with us and if the ministry and the minister just received representations from Ms Pretty, they would get a very biased view on the true situation.
Ms Cronk: And the committee has heard in other evidence that at the end of March 1994 the board received a reply from the Minister of Housing indicating that she was not then in a position to commit to meeting with you in the near future, or words to that effect?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Can you also confirm, Dr Le, from your own involvement that the Ministry of Housing undertook a compliance review with respect to the Van Lang Centre in the summer of 1993?
Dr Le: The ministry took the step to conduct this review at our request, at the request of the board of directors in the spring of 1993.
Ms Cronk: Well, just to deal with that suggestion, do you recall, in your capacity as secretary of the corporation, receiving a letter from Mr Bill Clement of the Ministry of Housing in the latter part of May 1993 in which he addressed certain of the concerns that had been raised by Ms Luu and suggested that one of the things he could offer was a compliance review?
Dr Le: That didn't happen at the same time as our request was put forward to the Ministry of Housing staff, because at the time when we were in the process of assessing the performance of the superintendent, it was suggested at the board that perhaps if we could get the view of the ministry, that would give us a more balanced view on the performance of the superintendent. So therefore I myself got in touch with ministry staff to request that.
Ms Cronk: To request a compliance review?
Dr Le: Yes. We did request that.
Ms Cronk: Oh, I see. And are you saying then that Mr Clement's letter was in response to a suggestion that had first come from you on behalf of the corporation?
Dr Le: Yes, something like that, because the two events could have taken place at the same time. But I remember distinctively that at one of the board meetings we decided to call on the help of the ministry in the evaluation of the performance of the superintendent, and the ministry responded to us at the time that they were not in the position of reviewing the performance of personnel of the corporation; however, they could help us in reviewing the efficiency of the corporation with regard to the management, security, safety of the building, as well as with the financial aspect and the admission of tenants.
Ms Cronk: And that review, as I understand it, was undertaken in the summer of 1993?
Dr Le: The review was started in August and it lasted until November of 1993.
Ms Cronk: And the technical aspects of that review were not completed until December of 1993. Isn't that correct? Or do you remember?
Dr Le: That's not totally correct, because the technical aspects of the review was conducted in early August and I remember that I wait for the comments from the ministry on the technical aspects of the building in order to give me some more, er, views on the performance of the superintendent. And I remember one day I wait for a call from the ministry staff regarding their findings, and finally Mr Clement called me up and he said that things seemed to be okay with the ministry as far as the technical aspects were concerned. So I was very relieved that at least we got a confirmation from the ministry.
Ms Cronk: From your point of view, then, as I understand it, the compliance review was completed when?
Dr Le: The preliminary results of the technical part of the compliance review were made known to us in August, I think within a couple of days from the time when the ministry staff did their review, but --
Ms Cronk: I think the difficulty is I'm not being sufficiently precise in my question, Dr Le. Leaving aside when you may have been informed of preliminary results or even final results in an oral or verbal fashion, do you know when, from the ministry's perspective, they had completed all work necessary to sign off on that compliance review? I'm suggesting to you that was December of 1993. Do you know?
Dr Le: If you talk about the final report of the compliance review, I would say February 8th of 1994.
Ms Cronk: That's when it was presented to the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre. Correct?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And Mr Bill Clement and Mr Steve Shapiro were in attendance at the meeting?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And I'm simply asking you, do you know when from the Ministry of Housing's perspective -- I'm using the phrase "sign-off," but what I mean by that is from their perspective all that was necessary had been done for a fully finalized compliance review. Do you know when that was from the ministry's perspective?
Dr Le: I wouldn't know from the ministry's perspective because I think it is an internal affair of the ministry, but in early 1994 we were told that the ministry had completed the compliance review and that the minister would like to send the staff to talk to the board about the results, and that meeting took place February 8, 1994.
Ms Cronk: Right. And as I understand it, the ministry was actually in a position to present the results of the compliance review to the board in December of 1993, but there was a reorganization of the board of directors, as we talked about a few moments ago, in progress or being considered and, in the result, the compliance report was not reviewed with the board until the February 8th meeting. Is that right?
Dr Le: That could have been that way.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Just to finish off on the compliance review, is it correct, as certain of the documents filed with the committee suggest, that the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre had as a board certain concerns with the results in the compliance review and ultimately wrote to the ministry to set some of those out?
Dr Le: Could you repeat the question again?
Ms Cronk: Yes. If you know, can you confirm that the board of directors had some concerns about the results set out in the compliance review and wrote in the spring of 1994 to express some of those concerns?
Dr Le: It was not much of a concern --
Ms Cronk: Excuse me, Dr Le, and again I'm sorry to interject. I'm not asking you to comment on whether it was minor or major. Were there some concerns from the board that were expressed to the ministry?
Dr Le: I wouldn't use the choice of words that you have just used.
Ms Cronk: I see.
Dr Le: I'm sorry if I have to say that. Normally, when corporations receive the compliance review from the ministry, we would have the responsibility to write back to the ministry to tell our side of the story. That's the normal course of action. It is not something that arose out of a major concern with the review at all.
Ms Cronk: I see. I wasn't intending to be taken as characterizing the seriousness of the concerns. I'm simply wishing to establish that the board did communicate in the spring of 1994 with the Ministry of Housing its response to the compliance review and in doing so expressed some concerns with it.
Dr Le: Yes, I would agree to that.
Ms Cronk: I don't want you to do so if you think it's an unfair characterization. Could I ask you to look at exhibit 2 -- perhaps Mr Hunt could help you -- tab 40, please. Do you have this, Dr Le?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: This is a letter dated April 11, 1994. I don't think it's actually been directed to the attention of the committee before, but it's under the signature of Dr Tang. It may have been last evening. It's addressed to Brian Sutherland of the Ministry of Housing and it deals with the compliance review and sets out certain comments of the board with respect to it?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. And some of those express some concerns as to the accuracy and completeness of certain of the information that was available to the ministry.
Dr Le: That's correct.
1710
Ms Cronk: Thank you. And in that sense, the board did communicate with the ministry and provide its comments and response on the compliance review, including the expression of some concerns as set out in that letter.
Dr Le: That's right. Our response was a very positive way. We appreciate the compliance review, and we were ready to take whatever corrective action that they suggested.
Ms Cronk: And also, at about the same time, the spring of 1994, did you become aware that Ms Pretty had been in contact with the Ministry of Housing in Ottawa to express a series of concerns again with respect to the Van Lang Centre, including concerns with respect to your own previous role as secretary and related matters? Leaving aside what the details of that were, did you become aware of that in the spring?
Dr Le: I was not aware of that at all.
Ms Cronk: I'm talking now about Sharron Pretty?
Dr Le: I'm not aware of the fact that Miss Pretty wrote to the ministry raising concern about the compliance review or the result of.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. I didn't put the question clearly enough, Dr Lee. I'll try again. In the spring of 1994, specifically during the month of March, there's information before the committee suggesting that Ms Pretty wrote to Brian Sutherland at the Ministry of Housing in two letters, dated March 1 and March 20, expressing concerns with respect to the Van Lang Centre, some of which were concerns about your prior role as secretary and a variety of issues that she had concerns about. Did you become aware of that correspondence and those concerns?
Dr Le: Could you help me out on this? Because I can't recall having seen such a letter.
Ms Cronk: Absolutely. Could you go to tab 42, please, of exhibit 2. That should be a letter dated April 15, 1994.
Mr Hunt: Yes, we have it.
Ms Cronk: Thank you very much. Dr Le, the document at tab 42 is a letter dated April 15, 1994. It appears to be on your personal letterhead. Is that correct?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: It's addressed to Ms Sharron Pretty and it appears to have been signed by you. Is that right?
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And does it indicate in the first paragraph that you received from Dr Tang a copy of a letter dated March 20, 1994, which she had addressed to the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre, in which she made various allegations against you in your capacity as secretary of the board of directors of the centre?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. And just dealing with that correspondence by her for the moment, in this letter do you respond to those allegations as contained in that letter of March 20?
Dr Le: I did.
Ms Cronk: And would it be fair of me to suggest that you were providing your response and denying the allegations of improper conduct, for lack of a better expression; you were setting out your version of the facts.
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. Now, at about the same time as her letter to the board of directors dated March 20, Ms Pretty wrote to the Ministry of Housing in a letter dated March 20, and she had earlier written in a letter dated March 1 -- in this book, if you flip back to tab 33, you'll see a copy of the letter of March 1. It's very lengthy, Dr Le, 20 pages in length, and a copy was sent to Mrs Gigantes, the Minister of Housing -- at page 20 -- and a copy to two other individuals connected with the minister's offices in Toronto. That's the March 1 letter. Then if you turn to tab 36, there is a second letter from Ms Pretty addressed to Mr Sutherland, dated March 20, and again copied to the Minister of Housing and to two individuals, a Mr Marc Collins and a Mr Newton Vanriel, in the minister's offices in Toronto. That's the March 20 letter. Do you remember seeing or being informed of these letters?
Dr Le: I have never seen these two letters, never informed of the existence of these letters.
Ms Cronk: Until just now?
Dr Le: Until just now.
Ms Cronk: I see. So that as I understand it, Ms Pretty did not provide you with a copy of these letters nor inform you of their contents.
Dr Le: She did not.
Ms Cronk: But you did receive, not from Ms Pretty but from Dr Tang, a copy of the letter that she wrote to the board of directors on March 20.
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And in that letter, she did set out, as we discussed a moment ago, a series of concerns and allegations, and you responded to those in writing in your letter of April 15.
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Right. And I neglected to ask you this before, but in fairness to you, I should do so. Earlier on, back in 1993, in June, when Ms Trinh Luu had written expressing a number of concerns to the board of directors, did you respond at that time in writing to her concerns?
Dr Le: I did not respond to her in writing at that time, because the situation was so acrimonious, so tense, in the office that I just did not have the time to respond to a very, very lengthy letter from Ms Trinh Luu.
Ms Cronk: And when you say you didn't respond, do you mean that you didn't respond in detail?
Dr Le: I didn't respond in writing, but I may have discussed the contents with her.
Ms Cronk: I stand to be corrected, Dr Le, but I thought you had written a letter to Ms Luu denying the allegations but not providing any details at that time of the nature of your response. Do you remember doing that?
Dr Le: I remember sending a letter, just one line or so, to Ms Luu, denying all the allegations, because I just didn't have the time to deal with all the points that she raised. I was so busy with the operation of the centre at that time.
Ms Cronk: If I could ask you to turn to tab 10 of exhibit 2, is that the memo you sent?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: My only point in reviewing this with you, Dr Le -- as I understand it, you responded to some of the early concerns expressed by Trinh Luu in this memorandum by denying them. That's what your letter says.
Dr Le: She raised similar concerns to me and toward the other members of the board before, and I tried to talk to her, to explain to her my point of view, but that didn't help at all, so she continued to write allegations about me, and I was so exasperated that I just couldn't go on responding to every piece of correspondence that she sent me. I wouldn't have the time to do that.
Ms Cronk: I understand. I wasn't in any way being critical; I just wanted to confirm that on this occasion you did respond in writing and you recorded formally that you denied her allegations.
Dr Le: At the advice of my legal counsel.
Ms Cronk: Fine. And similarly, in fairness to you -- the only reason I'm bringing this out is that the committee has heard from Ms Pretty and Ms Luu about a variety of letters that they sent and I want the committee to know about the ones that you sent -- you responded in mid-April of 1994 to the allegations, of which you were then aware, by Ms Pretty to the board of directors concerning your conduct.
Dr Le: Ms Pretty?
Ms Cronk: Yes. In April, the concerns had been expressed by Ms Pretty in a March 20 letter to the board of directors.
Dr Le: Oh, 1994. I'm sorry.
Ms Cronk: And you responded at that time in the April 15 letter that we saw.
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Did there come a time in June or prior thereto of 1994 when you became aware that Ms Pretty had initiated charges under the Provincial Offences Act with respect not only to yourself but a number of other then current or former directors of the Van Lang Centre?
Dr Le: I became aware of that following the appearance of the article in the Ottawa Sun.
Ms Cronk: When you refer to the article, the committee has heard that there were two articles by Mr James Wallace, one in the Ottawa Sun and one in the Toronto Sun, both on June 1. Is it to those articles that you are referring?
Dr Le: I became aware of the Ottawa Sun article.
Ms Cronk: All right. And was that the first time that you had any information available to you of charges or legal action initiated by Ms Pretty in respect of you or any of the other directors?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Had you heard anything from tenants at the centre about the suggestion or rumour that Ms Pretty had commenced proceedings?
Dr Le: I didn't hear anything from the tenants, but I heard from Dr Hieu Truong the previous day, just before the appearance of the article.
1720
Ms Cronk: On May 31?
Dr Le: I don't recall exactly when, but it was shortly before the appearance of the article, that charges may have been laid against us.
Ms Cronk: When you heard that from Dr Truong and saw the article by Mr Wallace, what was your view of that? I don't mean of the merits of the charges, but did you accept at that point, upon reading of the article, that charges had been laid or proceedings initiated by Ms Pretty?
Dr Le: Yes. I presumed that the information given in the Ottawa Sun regarding the charges is correct, because otherwise, they wouldn't have invent it in the first place.
Ms Cronk: At what point were you served with a summons in respect of those proceedings?
Dr Le: I believe between the 10th and the 14th of June.
Ms Cronk: Before you attended the meeting on June 17th with the Minister of Housing?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard that by letter dated June 9 Mr Bill Clement of the Ministry of Housing wrote to Dr Tang, as president of the corporation, and indicated that the minister would be available for a meeting on June 17 and requesting that all directors be informed of that. Do you recall learning of that shortly after the date of that letter, being informed of the meeting?
Dr Le: I do.
Ms Cronk: What was your understanding as to the purpose of the meeting, or did you know?
Dr Le: I was very pleased with the response from the minister to the effect that she would meet with us, because we had been waiting for this chance for the past few months, and finally we had our chance to meet the minister to present to her our side of the story.
Ms Cronk: Is that what you thought the purpose of the meeting was?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You'd earlier received a letter that you told me you knew of in which the minister said she wasn't in a position to meet. That was the end of March?
Dr Le: Something like that.
Ms Cronk: Yes. And now there's a letter coming in from Mr Clement saying June 17 the minister is available for a meeting with you. Did that come out of the blue, was that unexpected for you?
Dr Le: I thought at the time only that finally the minister was able to make time available to us.
Ms Cronk: I see. Did you, in your mind, make any connection between the fact that the Wallace articles had appeared on June 1 and the setting up of the meeting with the minister?
Dr Le: That didn't suddenly come to my mind, because our concern up to that time is that we really like to have a chance with the minister to present to her our view. So that came to my mind, that finally we got our chance.
Ms Cronk: Were you concerned to learn that Sharron Pretty had commenced proceedings?
Dr Le: I was not so much concerned as I was disappointed. I was disappointed that Sharron would go to that extent, because I remained convinced that we have done everything we could to help her discharge her duties as a director. I was --
Ms Cronk: Sorry. You'd done everything you could to what?
Dr Le: I said that I felt, and I still do, that we have done everything we could to assist her to discharge her duties as a director, to carry out her duties as a director, so I was shocked that she would go to that extent, to lay charge against us.
Ms Cronk: Dr Le, did you see this as a matter of an issue relating to Ms Pretty's ability to discharge her duties as a director, or did you recognize her concerns as being larger than that in raising some pretty fundamental issues concerning the Van Lang Centre?
Dr Le: I was not aware of her concerns about the major issues because it's still vivid in my mind that during the first month or so following her joining the board, she raised the question of performance of superintendent. The reason she gave us at the time was more or less identical to reason that Ms Trinh Luu gave us before.
Ms Cronk: I'm getting the impression from what you're saying, Dr Le, and I'd ask you to comment on it to tell me what you do mean, that you regarded the difficulties with Ms Pretty as having to do with her carrying out her role as director, as distinct from her raising issues of concern with respect to the operation of the Van Lang Centre. Am I understanding you correctly?
Dr Le: I think that she keep on shifting her position. One week she would raise the question about superintendent, and next week she would raise the question about another thing, so we didn't really know where she stood.
Ms Cronk: Dr Le, can we agree that in Sharron Pretty's letter of March 20 to the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre, again without dealing in any way with the accuracy or the inaccuracy of the allegations, what she was raising included some matters of basic concern relating to the Van Lang Centre and the way it was being run?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. And they weren't directed or focused or concerned with the way she was functioning as a director, were they? Wasn't she raising some pretty basic issues for discussion?
Dr Le: Yes, she did.
Ms Cronk: Then when you came to June of 1994 and learned of the suggestion of a meeting with the minister for June 17, did you yourself pick up the phone and speak with Bill Clement of the Ministry of Housing or anyone else connected with the ministry concerning the purpose of the meeting?
Dr Le: I did not.
Ms Cronk: All right. Did you have any discussions with any of the other directors as to whether they had, or whether they had any more information available as to what was to be discussed at the meeting?
Dr Le: I don't recall I spoke to anyone about that, because my assumption was all the time that finally we had the chance to meet the minister to present our view.
Ms Cronk: Our discussion on this started when I asked you your reaction, in effect, to learning of the initiation of charges of Sharron Pretty, and you had indicated that you learned of that in Mr Wallace's article. Once you did know that charges had been initiated, did you regard that as an acceleration of difficulties between the board and Ms Pretty?
Dr Le: I didn't think of that that way. I was shocked, was extremely disappointed, but other than that, I didn't give any further thought because we haven't received at the time any summons.
Ms Cronk: And you indicated that you thought you were served with a summons around June 14, certainly before you went to the meeting on June 17?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And by the time you were served with the summons, you certainly knew this was real?
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: All right. Again I'm not asking you for any comment on the merits of the charges at all. I'm saying, with respect to the Van Lang board and its relationship with Sharron Pretty, did you regard it at that point as an acceleration of the difficulties?
Dr Le: I didn't see it that way. I think that somehow Sharron decide to go ahead with the charge, and here is our chance to meet the minister. I didn't make the connection between the two.
Ms Cronk: My question wasn't directed to that, for the moment. I did ask you that earlier. But what I'm asking you now is, did you think, in terms of Sharron Pretty's role on the board and the board's relationship with her, that once you knew that these charges were for real -- you thought they were, you accepted they were when you read Mr Wallace's article, because you told us that, but you absolutely knew it when you got served with the summons. Right?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. And what I'm asking you is, did you in your mind at that time think the situation had gotten worse?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And one witness has suggested to the committee, for example, that by the time of the June 17 meeting, it was, to his way of thinking, a minor crisis. Would you agree with that characterization?
Dr Le: Which one is the minor crisis?
Ms Cronk: The situation, the entire circumstances by that time. I take from that that it was a very serious situation.
Dr Le: I think it was serious, because if somebody had take the effort and the time to lay the charge, it must be serious.
Ms Cronk: That was your view, I take it, at the time?
Dr Le: It was my view at the time.
Ms Cronk: It was.
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And is it not the case that the board regarded the matter as being of sufficient significance and were sufficiently concerned about the allegations attributed to Ms Pretty in the Wallace articles that on June 13 a notice went out with respect to a -- I'm sorry; I should get this right. The board was sufficiently concerned about it when they read the article and considered the allegations being made by Sharron Pretty that they issued a notice calling for a special meeting of the board on June 19th for the sole purpose of removing Ms Pretty as a director. Is that right?
Dr Le: To me, the reason for the decision to call that special meeting was that finally we were convinced that there's no way that we could persuade Sharron Pretty to work together with us.
Ms Cronk: That you could what? I'm sorry, I just didn't hear you, sir. That you could --
Dr Le: The reason why -- this is in my belief -- the board finally decided to call this meeting to deal with Sharron Pretty's presence on the board is because we were convinced, after the appearance of the article, that Sharron Pretty has gone too far. We had been trying to make all kind of accommodations to her, but yet to no -- without results. So we decided that we had to take a positive step to rectify the situation.
1730
Ms Cronk: And it was more or less the straw that, to use the colloquialism, broke the camel's back.
Dr Le: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: And it was the triggering event for that resolution?
Dr Le: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: And that meeting was scheduled for June the 19th, two days after the proposed date of the meeting with the minister?
Dr Le: Exactly. It was not so much of the charge itself, but the allegation that she made in the article.
Ms Cronk: I understand. I think my question to you had been that the board was sufficiently concerned by the -- perhaps I'll leave it there. In any event, the triggering event was the articles, what was contained in them and that meeting was set for June 19th.
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And what you're saying to me is the allegations set out in the article, in addition to the charges, were the problem.
Dr Le: I would consider the allegations more serious than the charges themselves.
Ms Cronk: That was your --
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: But you were certainly -- you were not unconcerned about the charges.
Dr Le: Oh, certainly I was concerned about the charges.
Ms Cronk: And did you participate in the preparation of briefing notes for presentation to the minister at the June 17th meeting?
Dr Le: I did.
Ms Cronk: And in fact were you the principal author of them?
Dr Le: I would say that I prepared the first draft, following the discussion among the board members except Miss Pretty, so I had some ideas about what we should put in the briefing notes, when I had to prepare the first draft to present it to the rest of the board for consideration.
Ms Cronk: I take it Ms Pretty, as a director, wasn't told that the other directors were preparing these briefing notes. Is that right?
Dr Le: That would have been the job of the secretary of the board, but we assumed all along that it is useless, pointless, to ask Sharron to participate in any of our activities, so we didn't expect that Miss Pretty would sit down with us to prepare the briefing notes, because she had been away from the board for quite some time, from early on, starting from the new year.
Ms Cronk: She'd attended meetings in January and February, had she not?
Dr Le: She didn't attend the meeting on January 24th. She may have been at the meeting of February 8, but other than that, I think that right up to the end of the term, she rarely showed up at our board's meetings.
Ms Cronk: There were a number of special as well as regular board meetings held throughout the spring, were there not?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And is it your memory that Ms Pretty attended none of those meetings in March, April -- March and May?
Dr Le: She came in for just 10 minutes at one meeting. I don't recall which one. There was one meeting where I was planning to respond to her concerns that she directed to me, but I was disappointed that she stayed for just 10 minutes and she left, so I didn't have a chance to discuss this issue with her.
Ms Cronk: For example, Dr Le, again, to be as accurate as we can in the facts, it's my understanding that Ms Pretty was at the February eighth board meeting, that she attended part of the March 29th meeting, that she was in correspondence with Dr Tang about her inability to attend, or her decision not to attend, a meeting in May and that she was also in correspondence, recorded in the minutes, about a meeting of the board called on June the third, so she hadn't just gone away and wasn't communicating.
Dr Le: She was in communication with us, but somehow she purposely avoid meeting with us.
Ms Cronk: Well, forgive me, sir, are you in a position really to be saying that to the committee, that she purposely avoided doing that?
Dr Le: I'm sorry, I take it back. I was not in a position to say that. But what I'm trying to say was that she was away from a lot of meetings with the board.
Ms Cronk: Okay. And for that reason, are you saying that she was not told of the board's intention to prepare briefing notes for presentation to the minister at the June 17th meeting?
Dr Le: I wouldn't even be in the position to say that, because I think that if there's a notice of meeting that should be sent out, that would be the job of the secretary of the board.
Ms Cronk: Do you know whether she was told?
Dr Le: I didn't know anything about that.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you -- sorry, I had it, and then I closed the book. I think it's volume 3 of exhibit 1, at tab 80, I believe. Were these notes provided to the minister at the meeting on June 17th?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: At what part of the meeting do you recall that they were provided?
Dr Le: I believe towards the end of the meeting.
Ms Cronk: And was there discussion throughout the meeting of some or more of the matters outlined in the briefing notes?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And what was the purpose of the briefing notes, as you saw it?
Dr Le: The briefing note is just to summarize for the minister's information the background on the issues and also our view of the issues.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Could I have a moment, sir?
Sorry, Dr Le, I was inquiring whether there was an inconvenience to the committee if I continued past this time in an effort to complete the questions that I had for you. Unless you feel that you need a break --
Dr Le: No.
Ms Cronk: -- I propose that we continue and try to complete this?
Dr Le: Yes, please do.
Ms Cronk: All right. It is the information before the committee that there were nine people at the meeting on June 17th and that they included four directors in addition to yourself, among them Sharron Pretty, namely, Dr Tang, Dr Truong, Mr My Nguyen and Ms Pretty. Am I right in that?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Is that your recollection?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did you know the balance of the people at the meeting?
Dr Le: Yes. No, I mean I didn't know them personally, but I know that there were other people at the meeting.
Ms Cronk: All right. Who did you know of the remainder at the meeting?
Dr Le: I had met with Brian Sutherland before, and of course I have met the minister before, but the other two staff members, I didn't meet them before.
Ms Cronk: And did you subsequently learn that they were Ms Audrey Moey and Ms Beverlee Bell, or do you know?
Dr Le: I learned afterward. As a matter of fact, at the end of the meeting, I presented myself to them and --
Ms Cronk: Introduced yourself?
Dr Le: Yes, that's right.
Ms Cronk: And were they all there from the commencement of the meeting to its conclusion, or did anybody leave during the course of the meeting?
Dr Le: They were all there for the whole duration of the meeting.
Ms Cronk: When do you recall the meeting starting?
Dr Le: Roughly about 11:30, 11:35.
Ms Cronk: And how long did it last, as you remember it?
Dr Le: I think it lasted until 1 o'clock or so.
Ms Cronk: So about an hour and a half?
Dr Le: Something like that.
Ms Cronk: And the committee has heard that it was held at the Rideau Centre at 10 Rideau Street in Ottawa. Is that right?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And how do you recall the meeting starting?
Dr Le: The meeting started with Dr Vinh Tang saying something to welcome the minister and to thank the minister for her time to sit down with us, and then he start to go over some of the points of the briefing notes.
Ms Cronk: And did the minister make any introductory comments?
Dr Le: Yes, I think so. I think the minister did also make some introductory comments.
Ms Cronk: In the course of those introductory comments was there any reference to the proposed action by the board to remove Sharron Pretty as a director?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: What do you recall the minister saying in that regard?
Dr Le: The minister said something to the effect that she was aware of the issues, and then she asked the participants whether the removal of Ms Pretty is the only solution to the problem.
1740
Ms Cronk: All right. Did you make notes during the course of that meeting, Dr Can Le?
Dr Le: I did.
Ms Cronk: And did you notice anyone else doing so?
Dr Le: I thought Ms Pretty was making notes and Ms Audrey Moey also made some notes.
Ms Cronk: Anyone else?
Dr Le: I didn't see anyone else making notes at the time.
Ms Cronk: Could you turn to tab 81 of volume 3 of exhibit 1, please. Sorry, wrong tab -- tab 84. Do you have that?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Are those notes which you made during the course of the June 17th meeting?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Are they all of the notes which you made at that meeting?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Is your recollection, Dr Le, of what occurred at this meeting dependent on these notes or do you have an independent recollection of matters discussed at the meeting as well?
Dr Le: This is all I have.
Ms Cronk: And in terms of your memory of it, what I'm asking you is, are you relying solely on these notes or do you have in your mind an independent recollection of what was discussed at that meeting?
Dr Le: I rely mostly on these notes.
Ms Cronk: Mostly on these notes. All right. According to these notes, Dr Le -- well, first, you've dated them, you've entitled them, "Meeting with Evelyn Gigantes," and then you've recorded the persons in attendance either by full name or by initials. Correct?
Dr Le: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Am I right?
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And then the first entry reads, "Aware of the issues." Who's speaking then?
Dr Le: The minister was aware of the issues. She said that she was aware of the issues.
Ms Cronk: All right. And did she explain what she meant by that?
Dr Le: Well, she said something to the effect that she's aware of the issue related to the Van Lang Centre.
Ms Cronk: Did she indicate whether she was aware of any action taken by Sharron Pretty or the charges that had recently been referred to in the press?
Dr Le: I don't recall whether she made that specific, but I vividly recall that she mentioned about the removal of Sharron Pretty from the board of directors.
Ms Cronk: You're referring now to the second entry, which reads, "Is the removal of Sharron Pretty the only solution to all the problems"?
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: All right. So you don't have a memory of her saying anything about any action by Sharron Pretty in whatever context in her introductory remarks?
Dr Le: I don't recall she mentioned any specific things about the issue beside the ones I put down there.
Ms Cronk: Okay. So you just remember what's here in terms of the introductory remarks?
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: All right. And when you were writing these notes, Dr Le, were you attempting to write them down in the sequence in which they were mentioned or did you, like some of us do, sort of write them all over the page as it occurred to you?
Dr Le: I wrote them out as time went on, went by.
Ms Cronk: In the sequence, in the order in which they were mentioned?
Dr Le: Yes, exactly.
Ms Cronk: And would it be fair of me to suggest, having regard to their length, that first they're more or less in point form?
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And that clearly there was a great deal of discussion at the meeting, as it lasted, you've told us, an hour and a half, that is not recorded in these notes.
Dr Le: I think that we spent a lot of time to discuss about project management, about the compliance report, about Sharron Pretty's concerns.
Ms Cronk: Yes, and what I'm suggesting to you is, given the brevity of the notes, and I say that without any criticism -- I'm just observing that they're not that long -- that clearly, if it was a meeting that lasted an hour and a half, there's a great deal of discussion that went on at that meeting that is not recorded in your notes. Would you agree?
Dr Le: I was selective at the time in the sense that I just put down the key points of discussion. I didn't put down everything, otherwise I would have used up to five, 10 pages.
Ms Cronk: Right. So the answer is yes, there was a great deal of discussion at the meeting that isn't recorded in the notes?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. And if I could ask you to look at the next entry, there's a dash and it says, "Survey of tenants -- no one complains except SP." Do you now recall who was speaking then?
Dr Le: That's my words. When we talk about the issues related to the centre, I mentioned about the survey of tenants just for the information of the minister.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall whether it was your words or is it possible that it was Dr Tang?
Dr Le: It looks very much like my words.
Ms Cronk: All right. Have you, for the purposes of giving your evidence before the committee, been provided with and reviewed a copy of notes made at the meeting by Audrey Moey?
Dr Le: No.
Ms Cronk: You have not seen those?
Dr Le: I note that such notes, I mean, exist, but I didn't take a look to see what was there.
Ms Cronk: Did you look at Sharron Pretty's --
Dr Le: No.
Ms Cronk: -- when they were provided to your counsel's offices? You didn't look at those?
Dr Le: No.
Ms Cronk: All right. Could I ask you now, if you would, please, to go to tab 81 and could you leave one page at tab 84; just leave your hand at 84, your own notes, and go to tab 81, if you would please.
The document at tab 81, Dr Le, I anticipate the committee is going to hear are the notes made by Audrey Moey at the meeting. I'm going to suggest to you, as we look at your own notes, that there are a number of consistencies between your notes and Ms Moey's, but that there's also a great deal of information contained in Ms Moey's that's not in your own.
Dr Le: It's okay.
Ms Cronk: Dealing with the point of the "survey of tenants -- no one complains except" Sharron Pretty, that's found in your notes at the fourth line.
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look in Audrey Moey's notes at about halfway down page -- well, in my copy there's a circled 4 at the bottom. That's a photocopying glitch, but there's a 4 at the bottom. I'm sorry, Dr Le. If you go to the second page of these notes, flip physically to the second page, you'll see at the bottom, in a circle, the number 4. Do you see that?
Dr Le: Circle? Page 2?
Mr Murphy: The top of ours, crossed out; 2 out in.
Ms Cronk: All right. May I just approach you, Dr Le, and see what your copy looks like. I may be working with my old set. Sorry, I have an older version of it. This may be a little bit more time-consuming. Sorry, it's at your page 1, Dr Le, of Ms Moey's notes.
What I'm suggesting to you is that your notes indicate, in the fourth line, someone referring to a survey of tenants and the entry "no one complains except S.P." You said that you thought that was a comment that you made.
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: I'd ask you to look at the middle of page 1 of Audrey Moey's notes and you'll see, after the first introductory paragraph it says, "Vinh Tang -- President." Do you see that?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: If you look down to the third paragraph, it says, "Survey of services -- tenants -- no complaints except from S. Pretty." Do you see that?
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: According to Ms Moey's notes, that appears to be a comment made by Dr Tang as opposed to yourself.
Dr Le: It could have been.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember, one way or the other?
Dr Le: Because Dr Tang was making introductory notes at that time, so I think it could have been his words.
Ms Cronk: You'd have no reason to dispute that?
Dr Le: No.
Ms Cronk: You'd agree with me that that entry in her notes and your own is substantially similar?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Looking at your own notes, in the next entry it refers to, "Project Management," and then there's a colon and it says, "not adequate," and immediately below that, "Supt: has a role larger than usual." Am I reading that correctly?
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall who was speaking at that time, whose remarks those were?
Dr Le: I think it could have been the minister's words.
Ms Cronk: In that regard, if you look to the second-last paragraph at page 1 of Ms Moey's notes, there's the initials "Ev." Would you accept it as a reasonable suggestion if I suggested that referred to Evelyn Gigantes?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then the entry reads, "Project management -- turned over four times in 18 months -- unusual that superintendent has larger role than `project manager.'" Do you see that?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: That appears to be substantially -- at least, the subject matters are the same as what you've recorded in your notes.
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And your recollection that that was the minister speaking is consistent with the entry in Ms Moey's notes attributing those remarks to the minister.
Dr Le: Right.
Ms Cronk: Right. Then the next entry in your notes is an asterisk and it says, "entered" -- I that to be "apartment" -- is that correct?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- "without authorization." Who was speaking then?
Dr Le: This was made by Sharron.
Ms Cronk: All right. That's a comment you think that was made by Sharron Pretty?
Dr Le: Yes.
1750
Ms Cronk: Again I'm going to suggest to you that that's an area in which there's consistency between your notes and Ms Moey's, if you'll give me a moment.
Mr Callahan: Page 3.
Ms Cronk: Thanks. If you take a look at the entry beginning with "S. Pretty" on page 3 of Ms Moey's notes, there's an arrow; it says: "Super wasn't supervised, therefore took on `power' eg sexual harassment/Sun article -- never" -- I think it's "reprimand"; then " -- Entered her apartment without her permission." Again, there's some degree of consistency between your notes and Ms Moey's?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. But what this comparison also illustrates, does it not, Dr Le, is according to the entries in Ms Moey's notes, there's a considerable amount of discussion that took place between the time of Ms Gigantes's remark recorded in your notes concerning "project management" and "superintendent," and then Ms Pretty's comment?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. So as you indicated yourself to the committee, all you were doing was making notes of various topics as they were discussed?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: But certainly not all of them?
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And the next comment in your notes is " -- Board refused to listen." Do you see that?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And the next entry is, "Access, tenants' participation -- no free, democratic." Can you tell me, looking at the notes, who you think was speaking there?
Dr Le: I think it's still Ms Pretty.
Ms Cronk: In respect of all three of those remarks?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: If you look at page 3 of Ms Moey's notes, further down the page in another comment attributed to Ms Pretty, does it read: "not democratic, people kept in the dark. Tenants' association has not met since last fall"?
Dr Le: Correct.
Ms Cronk: So again there's some degree of consistency between your entry and Ms Moey's?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then the next entry you have is, as I indicated, "Access, tenants' participation -- no free, democratic" -- I'm sorry, that's one we just looked at. Yours refers specifically to the topics of access and tenant participation?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And hers in that entry do not?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And then your final entry on that first page is, "Employees reporting directly to the board: creates problems." Who's speaking there, do you know?
Dr Le: I believe it was the minister who was talking then.
Ms Cronk: Is it also possible that it may have been Mr Brian Sutherland?
Dr Le: I couldn't recall exactly who was speaking at the time.
Ms Cronk: And if you look further at Ms Moey's notes at page 3, she indicates that Ms Gigantes asked Ms Pretty to "be more specific" about her "concerns regarding tenant participation and access." Do you see that, middle of the page?
Dr Le: Page 3?
Ms Cronk: Yes, of Ms Moey's notes. Halfway down the page it says, "Ev" --
Dr Le: Yes, I found it.
Ms Cronk: -- and it says, "Be more specific."
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Immediately above that there's a comment attributed to Sharron Pretty, "Big concerns re: tenant participation and access." Do you see that?
Dr Le: That's right, yes.
Ms Cronk: Then continuing on in Ms Moey's notes, over to page 4, the comment is attributed to her, "There's a breakdown in board members' ability to work together." Do you see that?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Now, there's nothing in your notes about either of those comments, but do you remember the minister asking Sharron Pretty to be more specific about the concerns that Ms Pretty had said were "big concerns...tenant participation and access"? Do you remember he asking for details of that?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember it or are you just relying on Ms Moey's notes?
Dr Le: I remember now.
Ms Cronk: At page 4, the next comment attributed to the minister is the suggestion that there'd been "a breakdown in board members' ability to work together." Do you recall the minister saying that?
Dr Le: No. It escaped my attention at the time.
Ms Cronk: All right. Again there's nothing in your notes about that?
Dr Le: No.
Ms Cronk: Continuing down on page 4, the next comment attributed to the minister in Ms Moey's notes, beside the initials "Ev," it looks like it's, "To the board," -- there's an arrow -- "Can these things be resolved without legal proceedings and removal of directors?" Do you see that?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall the minister saying that?
Dr Le: I can't say, one way or the other.
Ms Cronk: I take it you don't recall it?
Dr Le: I don't recall it.
Ms Cronk: But you're not saying it didn't happen. You just don't remember it?
Dr Le: I just don't remember it.
Ms Cronk: And the next line is, "S. Pretty -- doesn't think she can work with this board." Do you recall Ms Pretty saying that?
Dr Le: It's possible.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember?
Dr Le: I don't remember it exactly, but I think it is possible. It's quite possible.
Ms Cronk: You have no reason to disagree with Ms Moey's notes, then, I take it?
Dr Le: No.
Ms Cronk: But nor can you give any indication as to whether it in fact occurred, because you don't remember?
Dr Le: I could not.
Ms Cronk: Is that right?
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Looking to the next comment attributed to the minister -- this is in Ms Moey's notes, still on page 4 of your copy. Do you have that?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: " -- Can board meet to discuss the two major concerns and focus on resolving these questions in accordance with ministry guidelines?" Do you recall the minister saying that?
Dr Le: I recall the minister made the point to the effect that the board should get together to discuss two core issues of concern.
Ms Cronk: Just dealing with the comment immediately above first, the comment of the minister as written down by Ms Moey, "Can these things be resolved without legal proceedings and removal of directors," you've indicated you don't recall that being said but you're not saying that it wasn't said, you just don't remember it. Do I have that right?
Dr Le: I just don't remember it.
Ms Cronk: All right. Do you recall any discussion at the meeting, by anyone, concerning "legal proceedings," "a court case" or "charges" at any point during the course of the meeting?
Dr Le: I don't recall exactly in those terms, but I do recall that the minister mentioned about two core issues of concern, and I wrote down in my note, "Access to the tenants and tenants' participation." That's vivid in my mind, but all the other things I don't have a vivid memory at this time.
Ms Cronk: I accept that and I understand what you're telling me, Dr Le. I'm going to ask you some quite specific questions and ask you if you remember certain issues being discussed. The question I just put to you was, do you remember any discussion at the meeting by anyone concerning "legal proceedings," "charges" or "a court case"?
Dr Le: I remember that Sharron Pretty mentioned something along those lines, but other than that, my mind did not recall those things exactly, you know, who said what.
Ms Cronk: Would you agree with Ms Moey's note at page 4 suggests that there was reference to whether "these things" could be resolved without legal proceedings and the removal of directors, and that if that note is accurate, there was reference to legal proceedings? Would you accept that from me: If this note is accurate, there was reference to legal proceedings?
Dr Le: Yes, because exactly what it says here.
Ms Cronk: If this is accurate, it means there was discussion at the meeting about legal proceedings. You'd agree? Do you understand what I'm putting to you, Dr Le? All right. You're just not in a position to comment.
Dr Le: Again, I have difficulty with your choice of the word. I would say that whether these words were mention or whether there was a discussion around these words, in my mind there's a distinct difference between the two cases. It could have been that these words were mention by somebody; that's one thing. But whether or not there's a discussion around these words is another thing.
Ms Cronk: So you're distinguishing between the concept of a discussion and the concept of someone mentioning something?
Dr Le: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: What does the concept of a discussion mean to you?
Dr Le: The concept of discussion means to me that there will be an elaboration of an idea. It's not just one time mentioning of the word and that's it. I wouldn't call that a discussion.
Ms Cronk: What is a discussion to you?
Dr Le: I just said to you that a discussion involves an elaboration of a point.
Ms Cronk: With another person? Is it an interplay, a dialogue between two or more people?
Dr Le: It could have been one person discussing an item.
Ms Cronk: I thank you for that clarification, because I want to make sure that I don't fail to get your evidence because I'm not using the right word when I ask you the question. Do you recall mention at the meeting by anyone of "legal proceedings," "charges" or "a court case"?
Dr Le: My memory doesn't serve me well in this aspect, I'm sorry, because at the time when the minister mentioned about two core issues, my mind became fixed on those two issues, so I tend not to pay attention to the other things. So I cannot confirm one way or the other.
1800
Ms Cronk: Would you turn back to page 3 of Ms Moey's notes, please. According to her notes, the point in the meeting at which Ms Pretty said that her big concerns were tenant participation and access was some time, and perhaps some significant time, before there was any mention of "resolution without legal proceedings and removal of directors." Do you see what I'm saying?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: So are you saying that from the point at the meeting when there was identification of tenant participation and access, you weren't really paying attention to the discussion thereafter?
Dr Le: No. I was saying that there had been many, many issues discussed at the time, but my mind was concentrating on the core issues, which I wholeheartedly agreed. So I didn't recall anything else to the extent that I could affirm with you one way or the other.
Ms Cronk: So that when I asked you if there was any mention of "legal proceedings" or "a court case" or "charges," are you saying to me that your recollection of what was mentioned is not sufficient to permit you to answer the question one way or the other?
Dr Le: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: All right. Do you remember at any point during the course of that meeting, Dr Le, anyone using the term "drop the charges" or "dropping the charges" or making the suggestion that charges should be dropped?
Dr Le: No.
Ms Cronk: Anyone?
Dr Le: No.
Ms Cronk: Do you have any recollection of Mr My Nguyen doing so?
Dr Le: No.
Ms Cronk: Or of Ms Pretty doing so?
Dr Le: No.
Ms Cronk: Or of the minister doing so?
Dr Le: No.
Ms Cronk: Do you have any recollection of any discussion at that meeting of a "crown attorney" or "prosecutor"?
Dr Le: Yes, I remember that, because that I see was said by Sharron, because she sat just beside me.
Ms Cronk: What do you recall being said in that regard?
Dr Le: She mentioned something about crown attorney.
Ms Cronk: Yes, but do you remember what she said?
Dr Le: Not exactly, but I think that she mention something in which she used the word "crown attorney."
Ms Cronk: Do you remember the context?
Dr Le: Perhaps, and this is just my interpretation in hindsight, but the time when she talk about "the action."
Ms Cronk: She was talking about the action?
Dr Le: Yeah, something like that.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember what she said in that regard?
Dr Le: No.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall any suggestion at that meeting of a further meeting among the board members and Ms Pretty to discuss things further?
Dr Le: Yes. I remember vividly that that was a suggestion of the minister.
Ms Cronk: In what context was that suggestion made?
Dr Le: It was the context of a suggestion of the minister to the effect that we should concentrate on the two core issues and there should be a meeting of the board, the whole board, on those two core issues.
Ms Cronk: And did she, the minister, also suggest that perhaps a facilitator or a third party, someone from the ministry or someone else, might be involved in that meeting?
Dr Le: Yes, she did.
Ms Cronk: Did the minister suggest any possible outcomes of that meeting?
Dr Le: I think that the minister just put forward those two core issues and suggest that the board get together at another date to discuss those core issues, and if there's agreement or if those two core issues are resolved at the meeting, perhaps there is no need for other actions.
Ms Cronk: And did she explain what she meant by "other actions"?
Dr Le: She left it at that. I remember that she left it at that, that there's no need for further actions. I don't remember that she elaborate exactly what she meant and I don't think that anyone pursue her to ask her to explain.
Ms Cronk: What did you understand her to mean?
Dr Le: My understanding at the time -- and I remember that I paraphrase what she said by saying that I felt that it's a very good suggestion and very positive. I also suggest that let bygone by bygone and let us forget about whatever happen in the past and look forward to the future. I think it only in that sense that I make the comment. I didn't refer to any particular action.
Ms Cronk: But when she said that, what did you understand her to mean when she referred to "other actions"? What did you think she was talking about?
Dr Le: It could have been a number of things, because the disagreement between the rest of the board and Ms Pretty is on a number of things. I really didn't pay more -- I mean, I didn't spend any more time to think exactly what she meant, because when she mention, "Let's forget about what happened in the past and let's get together to look at the two issues" that she identified, and I believe that Ms Pretty agree also to those two issues --
Ms Cronk: To the two core issues?
Dr Le: Yes, that's right.
Ms Cronk: Just coming back to what you understood the minister meant by "pursuing other actions," are you saying to me that, first, the minister didn't explain what she meant by that, she didn't elaborate? Am I right?
Dr Le: She did not, as I recall.
Ms Cronk: Nor did you or anyone else ask, to the best of your recollection, what she meant?
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And that you do not have a clear memory of what you understood her to mean, but looking back on it, it could have referred to the difficulties between Sharron Pretty and the board?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Is it correct that those difficulties included the charges that had been initiated by Sharron Pretty and the proposed resolution by the board to remove her as a director?
Dr Le: Yes, if you consider these difficulties in their totality, of course it would include those things.
Ms Cronk: Yes, but you're really saying that there was no explanation of that, that you remember, that you could help the committee with as to what was meant by it.
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: To put it to you squarely, Dr Le, was it suggested at this meeting by the minister to the members of the board and to Sharron Pretty that if you had a further meeting with the involvement of a facilitator or a third party to try to work out your differences and to arrive at a resolution, it might not be necessary for either of you to pursue other actions? Is that what she said?
Dr Le: She didn't say that.
Ms Cronk: To the best of your ability, would you tell the committee, please, what you remember the minister saying.
Dr Le: To the best of my ability, I recollect that she said: "So you agree that these are the two core issues? Why don't you get together and we, on our side, will send a person from the staff and perhaps an outside facilitator from the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, ONPHA, to facilitate the meeting. If there's an agreement on these two issues, then there's no need for other actions." That's what I recall.
Ms Cronk: Was there, at any point in the discussion, a suggestion by the minister or by anyone else that Ms Pretty go and speak with or consider speaking with the crown about her action?
Dr Le: I don't recall that.
Ms Cronk: When you say you don't recall, unfortunately that sometimes means you don't recall one way or the other and sometimes it means it didn't happen. Which are you saying?
Dr Lee: It was not registered in my mind.
Ms Cronk: So you have no memory of that?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: One way or the other?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Was there at any point, either by the minister or anyone else at that meeting, at any point during the meeting, any discussion of Sharron Pretty withdrawing her action or dropping her charges?
Dr Le: I don't recall that.
Ms Cronk: Again, one way or the other, or are you saying it didn't occur?
Dr Le: One way or the other.
1810
Ms Cronk: Was there, in so far as you were concerned, an agreement reached at the meeting between the board and Sharron Pretty to meet again for the purpose outlined by the minister?
Dr Le: That's my understanding.
Ms Cronk: And was it your understanding that there was agreement that if you all met again, the board would defer or postpone its proposal to remove Sharron Pretty as a director and she would drop her charges?
Dr Le: That's not my understanding. My understanding was that there was an agreement in the identification of the two core issues and that we would get together to discuss these two core issues. That's it.
Ms Cronk: Was it suggested by anyone at that meeting, Dr Le, that if there was agreement to get together for this further meeting to work towards a resolution, that the board on the one hand would defer action with respect to the removal of Ms Pretty and Ms Pretty, on the other, would not proceed with her charges for her case?
Dr Le: There was no such discussion.
Ms Cronk: By anyone at any time?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Because you understand, of course, I assume, Dr Le, that Ms Pretty has given evidence under oath before this committee that during the course of that meeting, the minister proposed to her repeatedly, on a number of occasions, that she drop her charges. You understand that?
Dr Le: I understand that.
Ms Cronk: And I take from your evidence that you have no recollection of that occurring?
Dr Le: I have no recollection of that happening.
Ms Cronk: And she has also given evidence before this committee that the minister suggested to her, during the course of the meeting, that she speak with or consider speaking with the crown about withdrawal of her charges. That also is quite different from what you're telling the committee: You'd agree?
Dr Le: I agree, but don't remember such a statement made by the minister.
Ms Cronk: And when you say that you don't remember it, are you saying it didn't happen, or you don't remember one way or the other?
Dr Le: It didn't happen.
Ms Cronk: It did not happen.
Dr Le: It did not happen.
Ms Cronk: I see. So you're clear about that, although not about some of the other aspects.
Dr Le: It's possible, yes.
Ms Cronk: What's possible?
Dr Le: I mean, I could be clear on some issues and not clear on other issues.
Ms Cronk: I understand. I'm just asking if that's the situation on this particular feature of it.
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: So you're saying that that did not occur?
Dr Le: That did not occur.
Ms Cronk: And Ms Pretty has also told this committee that she felt under considerable pressure at that meeting and felt intimidated at that meeting. Did she at any point say or do anything which to you indicated that she was under pressure or feeling tense?
Dr Le: I didn't notice any pressure on her part because she was sitting right on my left. I didn't see her in a tense mood at all.
Ms Cronk: Was it not the case that the meeting at points did become very tense, Dr Le, or did you not feel that?
Dr Le: It was not tense as such. Towards the end of the meeting, when we had all agreed to the suggestion by the minister to get together to discuss the two core issues, the mood of the meeting was: "Let's take positive step to go beyond the suggestion. Let's set a date." Then I think that at that point in time we were ready to go ahead to set up a date where we can get together. I think that at that time, Ms Pretty felt that she was not in a position to fix up a date for the meeting right there.
Ms Cronk: And was there agreement on a specific date to meet?
Dr Le: No, no. I think that that was left to Dr Hieu Truong and Ms Pretty to come back with agreement on the date.
Ms Cronk: Dr Le, isn't it the case that there were moments in that meeting where tensions were running quite high?
Dr Le: I would say it's quite high -- I remember that at some point in time Dr Truong said something and Ms Pretty took exception to it, but I wouldn't characterize that as a quite highly tense moment.
Ms Cronk: Were you conscious of tension in the room at various times?
Dr Le: As a matter of fact, no. I felt very much at ease. I felt the mood of the meeting was very positive. The minister was very much at ease. I thought at the time that we all agreed on what course of action we should take as a group.
Ms Cronk: What was that?
Dr Le: The meeting to discuss the two core issues.
Ms Cronk: What did you think was going to come out of that meeting?
Dr Le: Well, I think that the outcome of that meeting was that the board would get together seriously to discuss the two core issues that the minister had helped identify and which we had agreed to. I think that's all that we could hope for.
Ms Cronk: What did you think was going to happen with respect to the removal of Sharron Pretty from the board in the meantime?
Dr Le: Definitely I felt that if there was such a positive step agreed upon by everyone concerned, then it would not be necessary for the board to proceed with its plan to remove Ms Pretty from the board.
Ms Cronk: What did you think was going to happen to the charges initiated by Ms Pretty in the meantime?
Dr Le: I didn't give much thought to that, because I thought that that was entirely up to Ms Pretty to decide. But on our part, at least personally, I felt that if we had agreed to the principle of getting together, then there's no need to go ahead with the decision to remove Ms Pretty from the board. So I tend to think of just on our side what we had planned to do, and I felt that it was not necessary.
Ms Cronk: You gave no thought at that point to what Ms Pretty might do, if anything, with respect to the action on her side, that is, the charges she'd initiated?
Dr Le: I gave no thought to what she might do, because I felt very positive about the meeting.
Ms Cronk: Well, did anybody ask her about that at the meeting or propose to her what should happen with respect to that?
Dr Le: I don't remember that. No, I don't think anyone asked her about it.
Ms Cronk: When you say that you knew of the core issues that the minister had helped identify, you'd known of those two core issues for months, hadn't you, Dr Le? They'd been identified in correspondence months before this meeting, in exactly that language?
Dr Le: No, no, because over the months, starting from the fall of 1993 until then, a number of issues had been identified by Ms Pretty, and as I said to the committee earlier, she tended to shift her position, her focus, from one issue to another.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, sir. I am listening. I just had to get a piece of paper. She shifted her position from one issue to another?
Dr Le: Yes, that's right.
Ms Cronk: Is it not the case that on March the 20th when she wrote to the board of directors -- a copy of which letter you saw -- she specifically referred to tenant access and participation and to those being the core issues, or do you remember?
Dr Le: I don't remember that she identified those as core issues. She did identify those issues, but on the other hand, before that she identified other issues.
Ms Cronk: Yes, I understand. But in terms of the correspondence from Sharron Pretty of most recent date of which you were aware before you went into that June 17th meeting, Ms Pretty had talked about core issues, tenant access and tenant participation; in fact, she'd done so in the following language. She'd asked for a dedicated board meeting on March 29th; that it be solely devoted to the resolution of the "two core issues of access and tenant participation." Isn't that so?
Dr Le: I didn't remember it that way. All I remember is that she identified many, many issues, and these are the two among those issues that she has identified. I think it was only at the meeting with the minister that we agreed among the board that yes, these are the two core issues.
Ms Cronk: I see. Are you saying that it was only with the minister's help at the meeting that the board acknowledged that those were the two core issues?
Dr Le: I would say that the minister helped us focus on these two issues more than what we had been able to do before that.
1820
Ms Cronk: Did you at any point personally during that meeting, Dr Le, feel pressured in any way?
Dr Le: Oh, no. I was very much at ease.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, you did say that, that you felt relaxed and at ease.
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Is there anything further about the June 17th board meeting that you would like to -- I don't mean "board meeting"; the June 17th meeting with the minister -- that you would like to indicate to the committee?
Dr Le: No, I don't have anything else.
Ms Cronk: And do you now recall any discussion after the meeting with any other of the board members regarding what had occurred?
Dr Le: No, no, because I thought that we had a common understanding that those are the two core issues and we should move ahead to set up a date to meet with Ms Pretty.
Ms Cronk: Didn't the other directors, excluding Sharron Pretty, go and have lunch together after the meeting on June 17th?
Dr Le: As a matter of fact, I invited Ms Pretty to join us for lunch.
Ms Cronk: Ah, did you?
Dr Le: Right after the meeting I stood up and I said, "Sharron, let's forget about the past. Let's get together for lunch just to make sure that we have listened to the minister and we take positive steps," but she said that she had other commitments.
Ms Cronk: And did you have lunch with the other directors?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did you discuss at that lunch what had occurred at the meeting? Or what the minister had said?
Dr Le: We discussed only the outcome of the meeting to the extent that we wonder when we are going to get together with Ms Pretty to discuss, because personally I felt very positive about the meeting and I think that the other directors might have felt the same way.
Ms Cronk: Did you discuss with them specifically what the minister had said at the meeting?
Dr Le: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you subsequently?
Dr Le: No, no.
Ms Cronk: Was there a time when you learned, at any point, that Dr Tang's understanding of what had been agreed upon at the meeting may have been different from your own?
Dr Le: Could you repeat the question?
Ms Cronk: Was there a time after the meeting, at any point, when you learned that Dr Tang's understanding of what had been agreed upon may have differed from your own?
Dr Le: No.
Ms Cronk: I'm almost finished, Dr Le, you'll be glad to know, with my questions. Did you while you were here this week listen to the evidence of the proceedings before the committee?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Including the evidence of Dr Tang last evening?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And the evidence of Dr Truong today?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Thank you very much, sir. Those are my questions.
Dr Le: Thank you.
The Chair: Dr Le, if you wouldn't mind, some of the committee members have said they've only got one or two questions and then we can take a half-hour break and then you can step down from the stand and you're done.
Dr Le: Thank you.
The Chair: Would you rather go that way or take the break and come back for five minutes?
Dr Le: It's up to you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Okay. Ms Marland.
Mrs Marland: Thank you, Mr Chair. Dr Le, I'd like to draw your attention to your own notes of the meeting and the very last notation you have: "Let all tenants know about this discussion," and -- you've got a plus sign -- "the result."
Mr Hunt: Mr Chair, if we could just have a moment to get the page. Thank you.
Mrs Marland: Could you tell us, since these are your notes, what you meant when you wrote the words "plus the result," what you meant by "the result"?
Dr Le: I think, um, this was a suggestion from the minister.
Mrs Marland: What was the suggestion?
Dr Le: To let all the tenants know about this discussion and the result, which is a common understanding that we'll get together to discuss the two core issues.
Mrs Marland: So you're saying that this refers to the minister speaking, this last note of yours?
Dr Le: To the best of my knowledge, yes.
Mrs Marland: You told Ms Cronk earlier this afternoon that you were concerned about the charges. Is that right?
Dr Le: Yes.
Mrs Marland: You also told Ms Cronk, I believe, that you did not disagree with Ms Moey's notes of record of the meeting.
Dr Le: That's some of the points that we went over, I think?
Mrs Marland: That's right.
Dr Le: We didn't have the time to go through the whole thing.
Mrs Marland: Correct, but the notes that you went through, you agreed with.
Dr Le: Yes.
Mrs Marland: In those notes that you went through, there is the note where it says, "Ev -- to the board -- can these things be resolved without legal proceedings [and] removal of directors." Do you want to find that? Do you have that now?
Dr Le: Yes.
Mrs Marland: So you said you were concerned about the charges. You've told us that you don't disagree with these notes. These notes refer to the minister saying, "Can these things be resolved without legal proceedings and removal of directors?" And yet now you tell us that you do not have any recollection of legal proceedings being discussed.
Dr Le: I'm sorry. I may have misstated, but when I said that I generally agree with the substance of the recording by Ms Moey, I wouldn't be able to say that, yes, this is what the minister said because my recollection does not allow me to put that in an affirmative way.
But I believe that I said at the time I generally agree with the substance of these notes, but I cannot say that I agree with the exact wording of who said what.
Mrs Marland: Would you not agree that if you went into a meeting where you were concerned about the charges that at that point when the charges are discussed you would have some recollection of it being discussed?
Dr Le: With all due respect to you, Madam Member, I was saying that I did not take the charge lightly. That's one thing. But on the other hand, I was not so much concerned about it that I would take those with me to the meeting to the extent that that would preoccupy my thinking at the time, because I was just thinking that the best thing we could achieve is to get together with Ms Pretty to discuss the common issues of concern. That was foremost in my mind.
Mrs Marland: Were you relieved, Dr Le, when the meeting was over?
Dr Le: I indicate to the committee that I felt very much at ease right from the start. I was very enthusiastic at the end of the meeting. I felt very much positive that now that we have a common understanding, let's move ahead, let's forget about the past. So I felt very much elated about the meeting.
Mrs Marland: And did you feel that way because "the past" included the charges; now everything was over, let bygones be bygones, and now the charges were going to be dropped? Is that why you felt relieved, because now those were in the past?
Dr Le: Not particularly, because the disagreement that we have had with Ms Pretty has been going on for so long that if we could achieve an understanding with her, at least on this particular point, that would more than compensate whatever energy we have spent over the months on the disagreement with her.
Mrs Marland: If you're saying "not particularly," would you agree, but in part?
Dr Le: I would say so, because that didn't come to my mind, because I felt very much enthusiastic about the whole thing. So the charge is just something that didn't occupy my focus at all.
Mrs Marland: One final question. You did agree with the questions from Ms Cronk that there was accuracy in Ms Moey's minutes of the meeting in those areas that she took you through and compared you with?
1830
Dr Le: I did agree to the overall tones of the meeting, to the substance of the meeting, but not to the specific items that were discussed at the meeting. I could not say that I agree with the particular words that Ms Moey use to record the meeting.
Mrs Marland: Ms Cronk took you through specifics in your notes of the meeting and Ms Moey's notes in the meeting and compared them, and you agreed that they were in sequence and were the same.
Dr Le: That's correct.
Mrs Marland: That's what I thought. So would you now agree that if Ms Moey's notes were the same as yours, it's quite likely that all Ms Moey's notes would be correct?
Dr Le: I wouldn't say that.
Mr Harnick: Sir, you would agree that Ms Moey's notes refer to the "resolution without legal proceedings." That's what they say. You'd agree that that's what they say?
Dr Le: That's what hers say, yes.
Mr Harnick: Dr Tang, whose evidence you heard last night, told us very clearly that there was an agreement and that the agreement was that legal proceedings be discontinued in exchange for the meeting for the removal of Sharron Pretty as a director being deferred.
Mr Owens: I don't think he said that.
Mr Harnick: He described it as an arrangement, as opposed to an agreement, but that's what he told us last night. And you disagree with both of those people that that's what happened?
Dr Le: I wouldn't comment on what other people had to say to you.
Mr Harnick: Just your point of view is different.
Dr Le: If you characterize that that way. All I'm saying to the committee is that personally I felt very much elated at the meeting because finally we have been able to get an agreement with Sharron to sit together with her to discuss the two core issues. That is all I said.
Mr Harnick: No. That's not what I'm asking you. I just want to know whether it's clear to you that your understanding is obviously different, about what happened at the meeting in terms of the charges and the deferral of the meeting to remove Sharron Pretty, than Ms Moey's and Dr Tang's. Are you aware that there's a difference of opinion between you and Dr Tang and Ms Moey?
Dr Le: All I can tell you is that I felt that there was an agreement to sit together to discuss the two core issues. I cannot comment on how different my view is from other people's view.
Mr Harnick: All right.
Mrs Marland: Would you bank our time, please, Mr Chair?
Mr Sutherland: Dr Le, if I can refer back to your notes again, I want to pick up on the question Ms Marland asked you about your notes on the very last line on page 2, or the last two lines. Ms Marland referred to that it said, "Let all tenants know about this discussion, plus the result." Ms Marland didn't indicate what is in the notes after that. Could you please read what is on the page after "result"?
Dr Le: What do you mean? Which page?
Mr Sutherland: On page 2 of your notes of the meeting.
Dr Le: That's all I have. My notes are just two pages.
Mr Sutherland: On page 2, at least in my copy, it says, "Let all tenants know about this discussion, plus the result," which is what Ms Marland said. Then I see a colon, and then it says "a" -- and then it looks like an insert -- "special board meeting." That's what it says there?
Dr Le: Yes.
Mr Sutherland: So is it a fair assumption to assume the reference to "the result" is the special board meeting?
Dr Le: The result of the meeting --
Mr Sutherland: Would be another special board meeting to talk about the core issues.
Dr Le: Exactly.
Mr Sutherland: Thank you. Dr Le, were you born in Canada?
Dr Le: I was born in Vietnam.
Mr Sutherland: When did you come to Canada?
Dr Le: I came here in 1963.
Mr Sutherland: What were your reasons for coming to Canada at the time?
Dr Le: I was fortunate enough to obtain a scholarship from the Canadian government.
Mr Sutherland: Dr Le, you are a successful person in your career. You have a PhD. You mentioned to us earlier that you have a very strong commitment to seniors in the Vietnamese community.
Dr Le: That's correct.
Mr Sutherland: That because of circumstances you were aware of regarding your own situation and your own family members, your parents, you became very committed to trying to provide affordable housing to Vietnamese seniors?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Mr Sutherland: Okay. You are aware that both in some of the documentation that's been provided to this committee and in terms of letters that were sent to you, both Ms Pretty and Ms Luu have described you in some of your activities as being a dictator. Given that you have this strong commitment to seniors and to trying to provide non-profit housing to seniors in your community, I would like you to tell the community how you feel about that accusation that you were being a dictator.
Dr Le: I think that being a dictator and being a volunteer at the same time is a little bit inconsistent.
Mr Sutherland: And why is that?
Dr Le: Because when you volunteer you have to work with other people.
Mr Sutherland: So you believe you have to work in a consensus form?
Dr Le: Exactly.
Mr Sutherland: You've obviously indicated that you've given many volunteer hours to the Vietnamese community over the years.
Dr Le: And to the public at large as well.
Mr Sutherland: And to the public at large as well. Thank you.
If I could just turn back to a few other issues, you mentioned earlier that as the meeting was going on, you felt positive about the meeting. What made you feel positive about the meeting?
Dr Le: The reason why I felt positive was I was bothered by the disagreement that we have had with Sharron Pretty over the months, because I felt that initially I invited Sharron to sit down with us, to serve the common interests of the tenants. And she did have some very positive contribution. We listened to her. For example, when she mentioned that all the posters, the notices in the building, should be in both English and Vietnamese, we felt right away that it was an excellent suggestion and we took the step to implement it right away.
Mr Sutherland: So you're indicating to the committee that some suggestions that Ms Pretty made as a director for changes were definitely implemented by the board?
Dr Le: Not as a director. Before she became a director.
Mr Sutherland: Okay, when she was a tenant, then.
Dr Le: Yes.
Mr Sutherland: Thank you. Going back again to the June 17th meeting, you said you were positive about the meeting because you felt you were getting close to kind of resolving some of the -- or moving forward. How was the tone of the minister at the meeting?
Dr Le: I think she behaved in a very compassionate and calm -- this is the way I have known of the minister over the years.
Mr Sutherland: Could you describe that as conciliatory, or a mediating, facilitating role?
Dr Le: Exactly. Over the last several years, I have come to know of the minister, to respect her tendency to embody the three characters that Canadians are known over the world.
Mr Sutherland: And what are those three characteristics?
Dr Le: These three characters are generosities, modesty and sincerity, and I think that she embody all these three characters.
Mr Sutherland: Was it your sense that the minister was trying to take sides at this meeting?
Dr Le: Not at all.
Mr Sutherland: Did you get any sense that the minister was trying to pressure anybody at the meeting?
Dr Le: Not at all.
Mr Sutherland: I believe -- let me just catch my breath to phrase it. As far as you can recall, was there any reference to the term "a deal" being made by the end of the meeting? Did anyone mention the term "a deal"?
Dr Le: I don't recall that.
Mr Sutherland: I think that's my questions for now.
1840
The Chair: Mr Johnson, did I see your hand up?
Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Yes, you did. Thank you. Because I won't get a chance to ask you questions later, after this evening, I want to ask you just some basic questions about both the notes taken by Ms Moey and by yourself. I understand -- or at least there's an understanding among the committee members, I think, that there's a chronology to Ms Moey's notes and your notes that is very similar. You took your notes through the period of time of the meeting and you did not jump all around. I think that was indicated by legal counsel, that that was the case.
But as I've examined these notes, it becomes aware to me that there are issues that are repeated throughout the course of the meeting. Legal counsel indicated that there was a big space of time between your notes of -- and you've actually jotted it down twice -- "access" and "tenants' participation." You'll see on your first page near the bottom that you do mention access and you do mention tenants' participation, and then on the second page, at the very top, you say, "Core Issues of Concern -- access to the tenants" and "tenants' participation" again. If I look at Ms Moey's notes, I see that that has been mentioned actually four times in her notes. Obviously, that would indicate to me that that was one of the major topics of consideration through the course of that meeting. Would you agree with that?
Dr Le: Yes, I do.
Mr Paul Johnson: And that was discussed more than once by more than one or two people in that meeting?
Dr Le: I do.
Mr Paul Johnson: Thank you very much.
Mr Winninger: I'm sure you'll be relieved to know that I only have one question for you. While you were perhaps a little unclear and your recollection did not permit you to recall certain aspects of the June 17 meeting, when counsel for the committee asked you very directly whether you recalled the minister asking Sharron Pretty to drop charges or to talk to a crown attorney, you were very clear in your answer: You said it didn't happen. Is that correct?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Mr Winninger: Thank you.
Mr Callahan: I understand that there was a special meeting called for June 19th, in advance of that meeting with the minister, which was to consider the question of Sharron Pretty being put out as a director. I just give you that as background information. That was correct, wasn't it?
Dr Le: You mean, the meeting following the meeting with the minister?
Mr Callahan: Yeah. There was a meeting scheduled for the 19th, isn't that right? Now, as far as you were concerned, when you left the meeting on the 17th, there was no doubt in your mind that that meeting was not going ahead, isn't that right?
Dr Le: That's my understanding.
Mr Callahan: So anybody who thought that meeting was going ahead was mistaken.
Dr Le: I think we may have had different understandings of the outcome of the meeting.
Mr Callahan: I want to get this clear. As a result of what you heard at the meeting of the 17th, one thing was at least perfectly clear: that because of what had been discussed and the elation that you left this meeting with, the meeting of the 19th was going to be shoved off. Isn't that right?
Dr Le: That's right.
Mr Callahan: Okay. I know you've been asked a lot of questions about what was said here. If I just put this to you -- just listen for a second. "We talked about a whole range of ways the board could resolve its differences. One of the questions was whether or not the board could resolve its differences without the courts." Does that sound familiar?
Dr Le: In the overall tone of the meeting, yes.
Mr Callahan: No. Does that question sound familiar, the way I've put it?
Interjection: He said yes.
Mr Callahan: Did you say yes to that?
Dr Le: I'm sorry, I can't --
Mr Callahan: I'll read it to you again. "We talked about a whole range of ways the board could resolve its differences. One of the questions was whether or not the board could resolve its differences without the courts." Do you remember that being said, or something to that effect being said?
Dr Le: I don't remember that.
Mr Callahan: Let me help you out. That's a response that was prepared for the Minister of Housing to respond to a question in the House. This was a briefing note to her, which said, "Did the issue of the court case come up?" and that was her answer. Now, does that help you?
Dr Le: I was not aware of her answer in the House.
Mr Callahan: No. I'm asking you, does that sound like something that was said at that meeting? I'll read it again for you: "We talked about a whole range of ways the board could resolve its differences. One of the questions was whether or not the board could resolve its differences without the courts." Do you remember that being said or something very similar to that being said during that meeting on June 17th?
Dr Le: I don't recall that being said in those exact terms.
Mr Callahan: But something like that. There was reference to the courts, how the matter could be resolved without having to go to the courts. Is that right?
Dr Le: No.
Mr Callahan: All right, just finally, one further thing. You say no to that. Mr Sutherland was at this meeting, wasn't he? Was Mr Sutherland there?
Dr Le: Yes, he was.
Mr Callahan: I refer you to a note which we were told was prepared as a total outline of the meeting of June 17. It's referred to it at tab 103, and I'd like you to look at page 3 of that note. I'd like you to look at two paragraphs and tell me whether or not this is what you recall of the meeting. It's certainly what Mr Sutherland recalled of the meeting because he put it together afterwards.
"As the meeting wound down the atmosphere appeared to improve and the minister again appealed to all of the members to reconsider their positions and to meet again with a fresh approach to problem-solving."
Does that sound familiar?
Mr Hunt: Before the witness answers, Mr Chair, perhaps Mr Callahan could also draw the witness's attention to when the document was prepared.
Mr Callahan: It was prepared on July 14th, 1994. I hope that wasn't being taken out of my time.
The Chair: No, I made sure not.
Mr Callahan: Okay. Does that sound familiar to you?
Dr Le: Yes.
Mr Callahan: It does. "With a fresh approach to problem-solving." You agree that that sounds familiar.
"Ms Pretty expressed surprised about this recommendation and again referred to the many issues that she had raised that had not, in her opinion, been dealt with satisfactorily."
Do you remember that, Mrs Pretty raising that issue? Yes or no?
Dr Le: It's possible. I can't confirm with you one way or the other.
Mr Callahan: Okay. We'll go to the next paragraph and then I'm finished with you.
"The minister stressed the importance of starting anew with an objective approach to problem-solving and that this would be a positive approach to correcting problems at the non-profit project."
Does that sound like something that was said? If you don't know, tell me.
Dr Le: I'm sorry. It takes me some time to read this through.
Mr Callahan: While you're doing that, let me just suggest to you that what happened at this meeting was that there was discussion about deferring the decision on the directorship being revoked on Mrs Pretty. There was also discussion, I suggest to you, that the core issues would be discussed at a later date, but there was also an understanding that Mrs Pretty would go away and think about whether she would withdraw the charges or at least not proceed with the charges. Is that a fair statement of what the result of that meeting was?
Dr Le: I wouldn't say so.
Mr Callahan: You wouldn't say so?
Dr Le: I would not say so, because my --
Mr Callahan: What part of it's not correct?
Dr Le: You have used so many words that I just could not recollect in my mind.
Mr Callahan: All right. There was an agreement that the consideration of her being removed from the directorship would be delayed? Was that discussed?
Dr Le: It was not discussed in that term. It is discussed in its totality.
Mr Callahan: Never mind. I'll bank the rest of it.
Mr Murphy: Dr Le, thank you for coming here. I just have a couple of questions. You gave what I thought was a very nice description of the minister. I guess I may have just missed it. I'm just wondering if you said how long you've known Minister Gigantes.
Dr Le: I have known of the minister for the last several years, to the same extent that I have known of other politicians in the national capital region, such as Mr Richard Patten, Peter Harris, Mike Hough, Marlene Catterall and so on.
1850
Mr Murphy: I guess I missed it. Did you ever meet Minister Gigantes before June 17th?
Dr Le: I have met her on the official event of the community from time to time.
Mr Murphy: I think you told counsel that there was a lunch of the directors after the meeting on June 17th. Do you remember that?
Dr Le: It was not a lunch of directors. Right after the meeting, I suggest to Sharron that she may want to join us to go to a Vietnamese restaurant, and mentioned that specifically, and she declined the offer.
Mr Murphy: That's fair. What I guess I'm trying to get at is, who else was there at that lunch?
Dr Le: Just the four of us: Dr Hieu Truong, Dr Vinh Tang, Mr My Nguyen and myself.
Mr Murphy: I think you told Mr Callahan that it was clear to you in any event that the meeting on the 19th, which was dealing with the removal of Sharron Pretty, was not going ahead when you left the meeting on the 17th. Am I right in that?
Dr Le: That's my understanding, because of the positive outcome of the meeting.
Mr Murphy: Did you share that understanding of what was going to happen at the 19th with the other --
Dr Le: It was my understanding.
Mr Murphy: No, I understand that, but did you share what is your understanding, that the meeting on the 19th wasn't going to go ahead, with the other directors you had lunch with after the meeting with the minister?
Dr Le: Yes.
Mr Murphy: So you told the other directors who were at that lunch that you're not going to meet on the 19th?
Dr Le: I did not tell them anything, but I think that we got a common understanding that this is a fresh look that the minister suggests and we accept that as a very positive suggestion.
Mr Murphy: Did you say that at the lunch?
Dr Le: No. We didn't say anything about the meeting because we felt very much elated, happy.
Mr Murphy: I guess I'm just a little confused, because you said you had a common understanding. How did you know it was common if you hadn't talked about it so you could share what each of you understood? Maybe I'm confusing it, and I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but if you could just help me out.
Dr Le: I think that just by observing how people behave, you know, you can roughly tell how they feel. We walk out of the meeting room happy, laughing, smiling.
Mr Murphy: So it was your sense that all four of you, by the way you came out of the meeting, had the same conclusion, which was that you weren't going to go ahead on Sunday because there had been, at least in your mind and the others, a happy result from the meeting.
Dr Le: We felt very much that there was no need to go ahead meeting.
Mr Murphy: I think you also told counsel and perhaps others as well that the charges wasn't much in your mind at the June 17th meeting. I think I wrote down here you just didn't give it much thought or didn't give much thought to it perhaps. Do you remember saying that about the charges in the 17th meeting?
Dr Le: No. I was saying to counsel to the committee that I thought that the charge was serious, because any charge is serious. I did not take it lightly.
Mr Murphy: Were the charges on your mind going into the 17th meeting?
Dr Le: Not at all. Not at all, because we had been waiting for this meeting for long.
Mr Murphy: So the charges weren't even something you were thinking about going into the meeting with the minister?
Dr Le: Not at all.
Mr Murphy: Do you remember on the 15th that the directors met in a directors' meeting two days before you met with the minister? Do you remember that?
Dr Le: Yes.
Mr Murphy: That was the meeting in which I think you decided as a board to hire a lawyer to defend the charges brought by Sharron Pretty through the crown against you. Do you remember doing that?
Dr Le: Yes, I think so.
Mr Murphy: Okay, fine. Thank you. And do you know whether you or one of the other directors had talked to the lawyers before you decided at that meeting to hire them?
Dr Le: I don't think that was necessary, because our legal counsel has been Soloway, Wright right from the start of the project.
Mr Murphy: I understand. I was just wondering if you or somebody, one of the other directors, had talked to your lawyers about the charges before you agreed to hire them as your counsel to represent you. Do you know?
Dr Le: It's immaterial because we have retained Soloway, Wright, Victor as our legal counsel right from the start, so I assume that if there's anything which needs legal counsel, they will be our counsel.
Mr Murphy: I understand why you'd say that. I'm just trying to find out from you whether you, or whether you know if some other director, talked to your lawyer about the charges before the June 17th meeting.
Dr Le: I didn't, no, because I was not secretary at the time; I was not president.
Mr Murphy: Okay. So let me break this up. You didn't talk to a lawyer about the charges before the June 17th meeting.
Dr Le: I did not.
Mr Murphy: Do you know if any other director who was charged talked to a lawyer about the charges before the June 17th meeting?
Dr Le: I don't know.
Mr Murphy: So you don't know whether one of the other directors did?
Dr Le: That's right.
Mr Murphy: Okay. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Ms Cronk: Dr Le, I only have one or two further questions for you and then we're complete, and I neglected to ask you this before and for that I apologize. It has to do with the resolution of the board to hold a meeting on June 19th to remove Sharron Pretty as a director. Okay? Are you with me, what I'm talking about?
Dr Le: That is a proposed resolution for consideration.
Ms Cronk: Quite right. I stand corrected.
Dr Le: At the June 19th meeting.
Ms Cronk: I stand corrected. That's just the subject matter that I want to direct your attention to. Is it correct, based on your recollection of events, that the decision to do that, that is, to introduce that proposed resolution, did or did not stem from the James Wallace article on June first?
Dr Le: I think that if you paraphrase my thought before, the James Wallace article was the last straw that broke the camel's back.
Ms Cronk: Had Mr My Nguyen also threatened to resign if Ms Pretty was not removed as a director?
Dr Le: I don't recall that he threatened to resign, because he never threatened anything. My Nguyen is such a person that he doesn't threaten anyone with anything.
Ms Cronk: Had he suggested he was going to resign if she wasn't removed?
Dr Le: I don't think so. He never said it to me.
Ms Cronk: So you had no information or understanding that he was considering resigning if she did not get removed as a director?
Dr Le: No.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember being interviewed by counsel to the committee for the purposes of giving your evidence here on or about July 22nd, 1994?
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Were you interviewed by anyone else with respect to your anticipated evidence before the committee, except of course by your own counsel?
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Yes. You spoke through your own counsel, but did anybody else interview you? Did you sit down and talk about your evidence with anyone else before giving it, apart from counsel of the committee and your own counsel?
Dr Le: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you discuss it with the other directors?
Dr Le: No, not in specific terms.
Ms Cronk: Just in general terms?
Dr Le: No, I think that we mentioned about the trip to Toronto and so on and so forth; we watch on TV, what we saw.
Ms Cronk: And I understand, Mr Le, and I certainly understand why, you have very great regard, I take it, you've indicated to the committee, for the minister, both as a minister and as a Canadian.
Dr Le: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And you indicated that she, in your view, represents some of the attributes that I take it you most regard among us all as Canadians.
Dr Le: That's right.
Ms Cronk: I also understood you to say that you thought she came to the meeting to help mediate a resolution of a difficult situation where there'd been a history of differences for some considerable period of time. Is that fair?
Dr Le: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And would it be fair of me to suggest that you would not want to see the minister caused any trouble as a result of her efforts on your behalf and on behalf of Ms Pretty at that meeting on June 17th?
Dr Le: That hasn't entered in my mind. What I tell the minister, I have been feeling like that for years.
Ms Cronk: I understand, sir. Thank you very much for coming to assist the committee.
The Chair: Dr Le, I'd like to thank you for coming before the committee. Without your testimony, it would not add enough body to the report that we will be writing. I think you have the record at two and a half hours without a break. We appreciate that and we will have a break now. Now, since you're finished as a witness, you can talk to anyone.
Dr Le: Thank you very much, Mr Chair.
The Chair: This committee will recess until 7:30.
The committee recessed from 1859 to 1950.
The Chair: I see, Mr Winninger, you have a point of order.
Mr Winninger: Yes, I've got a brief point of order, Mr Chair: Earlier this afternoon, when Margaret Marland was examining a witness, Hieu Truong, I believe his name is, she was questioning him in regard to the Corporations Act and she said, "Are you aware or are you not aware that the Corporations Act requires non-profit corporations to have legal liability insurance?" After a point of order was raised, I believe that matter died.
I felt a little unsettled at the time, but not being intimately acquainted with corporate --
Mrs Marland: This actually isn't a point of order. I know what you're going to say, but it's not a point of order.
Mr Winninger: Well, can I complete it at least?
Mrs Marland: Of course, if you want to use up time.
Mr Winninger: Briefly, not being intimately acquainted with the corporations law, I did ask the clerk to contact our legislative researcher, who in turn contacted Avrum Fenson, who is himself a lawyer and Rhodes scholar and he arrived shortly thereafter --
The Chair: Okay, can you get to the point?
Mr Winninger: -- with the information I required. The fact of the matter is that the Corporations Act, he assures me, does not require that non-profit corporations have legal liability insurance. The fact of the matter is that in order to get funding from the Ministry of Housing for a non-profit corporation, you do have to have a certificate that your insurance is in place. But I felt, for the benefit of the committee and the people who follow these proceedings, that the member, as critic for Housing for the Progressive Conservative Party, should be aware of it and I wanted to clarify the record on that.
The Chair: It's not a point of order, but a point of information. I thank you.
Mr Callahan: I'm certainly glad he did that. I learned something tonight.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, I'm entitled to respond. If you want me to say point of order in order to preface it --
The Chair: I'll say it's a point of information; okay.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, I'm very appreciative of the little presentation we've just had from someone who is a lawyer, because I'm not a lawyer and I never pretend to be, but what you've just told us gives me in fact more ammunition than I had before, because I understood that there was a requirement for insurance for boards of directors of non-profit housing corporations and what you've just told us has confirmed it. So I thank you very much for your work this afternoon to confirm that I was right in the first place.
The Chair: Mr Winninger, maybe you can give a photocopy of the report to Ms Marland.
MY NGUYEN
The Chair: Mr Nguyen, I'd like to welcome you to the standing committee here. The clerk is going to administer the oath before we get started.
Clerk of the Committee: 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?
Mr My Nguyen: Yes, I do.
The Chair: Okay, Ms Cronk here is our legal counsel, and I'll hand the floor over to you.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Good evening, Mr Nguyen. Thank you for agreeing to appear in the evening before the committee. To Mr Nguyen's immediate left is Mr Phillip Hunt and as well Mr Harold Geller, who are representing Mr Nguyen tonight.
Mr Nguyen, as I understand it, you reside in Ottawa.
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Where do you work?
Mr Nguyen: I work at NTI, which is Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, I think for the benefit of others you're going to have to repeat that again.
Mr Nguyen: Yes, Nunavut -- do you want me to spell it?
Ms Cronk: Yes, please.
Mr Nguyen: N-U-N-A-V-U-T.
Ms Cronk: And the second word?
Mr Nguyen: Tunngavik, T-U-N-N-G-A-V-I-K, Incorporated.
Ms Cronk: Is that firm in Ottawa?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And what position do you hold with that firm, Mr Nguyen?
Mr Nguyen: I'm a director of finance for the organization.
Ms Cronk: How long have you held the position of director of finance?
Mr Nguyen: For two years.
Ms Cronk: As I understand it, you hold a bachelor of science degree, a masters of business administration degree and you're also a chartered management accountant. Is that correct?
Mr Nguyen: A certified management accountant.
Ms Cronk: I beg your pardon, sir; you're a certified management accountant. And how long have you worked with the firm where you are currently employed?
Mr Nguyen: About six years.
Ms Cronk: Thank you.
Mr Harnick: Excuse me, we are having difficulty hearing and I wonder if we can have the --
Mrs Marland: Lapel.
Mr Harnick: -- lapel mike.
The Chair: Okay, could we get one of the technicians to do that?
Ms Cronk: We'll get you another microphone.
Mr Nguyen: Okay.
Mrs Marland: Just continue. Continue to --
Interjections.
The Chair: No, no, just wait. Just --
Mr Sutherland: Put the mike on.
The Chair: -- put the mike on.
Interjection.
Mr Harnick: Bob, I'm a day older.
The Chair: Okay, we'll recess for one minute.
The committee recessed from 1956 to 1957.
The Chair: Okay, Ms Cronk, will you continue your questioning.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, Mr Chair. Mr Nguyen, I had asked you just before we took a short break how long you had been employed at the firm where you are currently engaged as director of finance. Could you just repeat your answer, sir?
Mr Nguyen: About six years.
Ms Cronk: About six years?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And as I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you have been associated with the Van Lang Centre in Ottawa since its opening.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And indeed, prior to that, were you also involved with the corporation responsible for the creation of the Van Lang Centre?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: All right. And have you served in the past in the capacity of director of that corporation of the Van Lang Centre?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: When did you first become a director?
Mr Nguyen: When the corporation was incorporated, I believe in 1990.
Ms Cronk: In 1990?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And are you still a director today, sir?
Mr Nguyen: No, not any more. Until the last AGM, last week on Sunday.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, sir. I just want to make sure I understood that. You were a director for the last year until Sunday last?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And the committee has heard that last Sunday, as it happens, the Van Lang Centre board -- or corporation, excuse me -- had its annual meeting of members?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And I take it that one of the matters that was dealt with at that meeting was election of a board of directors?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And you ceased to be a director at that time?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: During the period June 1993 until August 7, 1994, were you a director of the Van Lang corporation?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: I'm using the wrong name there, but of the Van Lang Centre, the board.
Mr Nguyen: That's right, yes.
Ms Cronk: And as I understand it, you did as well, from time to time, hold a position as an officer of the company?
Mr Nguyen: Yes, as treasurer of the corporation.
Ms Cronk: And when did you serve as treasurer of the corporation?
Mr Nguyen: Until January 1994, I believe. From the beginning until January 1994.
Ms Cronk: All right. And the board has heard, Mr Nguyen, that in January of 1994, the then president, Dr Hieu Truong, together with the balance of the board, decided that a reorganization of the board would be appropriate and that one of the results of the reorganization was that Mr Truong step down as president and was replaced in that office by Dr Tang. Is that correct?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And the committee has also heard in evidence that up until January of 1994, the secretary of the corporation was Dr Can Le.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And that in January, upon the reorganization, he stepped down from the position of secretary and that was assumed by Dr Hieu Truong.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And was it at that time that you retired from the position of treasurer?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And who assumed that role from January 1994 forward?
Mr Nguyen: Dr Truong would assume both positions, secretary-treasurer.
Ms Cronk: So Dr Truong took on both responsibilities?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And can you help us: Were those changes effected towards the end or the beginning or the middle of January 1994?
Mr Nguyen: I couldn't remember, between that, what meeting in January 1994; I couldn't remember exact date, whether on January 24th or 25th or -- I couldn't remember.
Ms Cronk: All right, thank you. Towards the latter part of January, whenever the normal board meeting was held?
Mr Nguyen: That's right. That's right.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. And did you remain a director following that board reorganization?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And were you a director through the time period mid-January 1994 until the end of June of this year?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And in your capacity as a director -- perhaps I should back up and say, Mr Nguyen, the committee has heard evidence from a variety of witnesses concerning the functioning of the board and various events involving Ms Sharron Pretty and Ms Trinh Luu during the period June 1993 thorough to the end of May 1994. I don't propose to review those with you in detail at all, but may I ask you about a number of selected events, very briefly?
In your capacity as director and treasurer during the spring and summer of 1993, did you become aware of concerns being expressed about the Van Lang Centre by the then project manager, Ms Trinh Luu?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard that Ms Luu continued throughout the summer to hold her position as project manager of the Van Lang Centre until September the third, 1993, when she submitted a letter of resignation to the president.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And in that letter of resignation, is it correct that she expressed a number of concerns again about the Van Lang Centre?
Mr Nguyen: I didn't -- I read the letter briefly. I couldn't remember exact content of the letter.
Ms Cronk: All right. So you don't --
Mr Nguyen: But I knew that she resigned to go to law school. That's all I remember.
Ms Cronk: And did she leave in that month, that is, the month of September 1993, leave her employ and go to law school?
Mr Nguyen: I believe so.
Ms Cronk: All right. And in August 1993, when you have indicated you were still on the board, is it correct that a tenant of the Van Lang Centre, Ms Sharron Pretty, came on to the board as a director for the first time?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And she was appointed to and accepted at that time the office of vice-president of the corporation?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Did you thereafter, in your capacity as a director, participate in normal meetings of directors with Mrs Pretty, or Ms Pretty?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And was that true throughout the entirety of the fall of 1993?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And did there come a time in the fall of 1993 when you became aware that Ms Pretty was also expressing concerns about the Van Lang Centre?
Mr Nguyen: Um, that's correct.
Mrs Marland: I'm sorry. I'm just wondering if we could move the microphone to the right lapel and if Mr Nguyen could speak without his hand in front of his mouth. It's just very difficult to hear.
Ms Cronk: Mr Nguyen, would you mind doing that? Thank you. It's important that all the committee members be able to hear your evidence.
Mr Nguyen: Okay.
Ms Cronk: Thank you very much, sir.
You'd indicated to me that there did come a point when you became aware of concerns being expressed by Ms Pretty?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And can you, looking back on it now, help me approximately as to what time frame that was, just approximately?
Mr Nguyen: Honestly, I couldn't remember exact date, but I knew that Mrs Pretty wrote various letters to the board expressing concern about Van Lang Centre. But I couldn't remember the exact time frame. I knew that -- I remember she wrote a lot of letters to that effect.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Well, in the fall of 1993 there's evidence before the committee that Ms Pretty wrote directly to the Minister of Housing, Ms Evelyn Gigantes, at the end of October 1993 by a letter dated October 29th, Mr Nguyen, in which she expressed a number of concerns. Did you, as a director, become aware that she had done so?
Mr Nguyen: No, I did not.
Ms Cronk: Subsequently, based on the evidence before the committee, Ms Pretty also entered into discussions with, or had discussions with, representatives of the Ministry of Housing in the months of November and December 1993 concerning a number of issues that were of concern to her. In your capacity as director or otherwise did you become aware of that before the spring of 1994?
Mr Nguyen: I did not.
Ms Cronk: We have also heard in evidence, that is, the committee has heard in evidence, that Ms Pretty wrote to the board of directors on December 20th, 1993, with respect to the issue of her suggested removal, or the suggested withdrawal by her as a director of the corporation. Are you familiar with that event?
Mr Nguyen: Yeah, I knew that she was not selected or elected again as the representative of the tenant association somewhere in that area, in that time frame.
Ms Cronk: All right. And with the date of the letter that I've suggested to you, does that help you in indicating to the committee when you first became aware of concerns being expressed by Ms Pretty in written form to the board of directors regarding various matters relating to the Van Lang Centre?
Mr Nguyen: Well, as I said to you before, she wrote a lot of letters and I couldn't remember which one is which. I knew that she complained a lot in her letters. When I saw the letters, a lot of letters, I got confused and I just can't remember which one's which now.
Ms Cronk: I completely understand, sir. Would I also be correct in assuming that you were a director and serving as treasurer of the corporation throughout the entire period of time that Trinh Luu was employed at the centre?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Would I also be correct in assuming that by virtue of that fact, you came to know her in the sense of dealing with her from time to time in her employment capacity?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Did you become aware, towards the end of the fall of 1993 or in the winter of 1994, that Ms Luu, notwithstanding her departure for law school, had written to the Minister of Housing herself, requesting a meeting concerning matters related to the Van Lang Centre and herself expressing a number of concerns relating to the Van Lang Centre?
Mr Nguyen: I did not know of that event.
Ms Cronk: Did you ultimately become aware of that?
Mr Nguyen: I knew it the last couple of days through the hearing.
Ms Cronk: Prior to commencement of the hearing, did you have any knowledge of that matter?
Mr Nguyen: None whatsoever, no.
Ms Cronk: I see. Then in the latter part of November, beginning of December of 1993 -- and I'm seeking your confirmation and an understanding of what you were aware of during this period of time, so if I suggest anything to you factually that you feel is not correct, please indicate that to me. But towards the end of November, the beginning of December 1993, did you become aware that as a result of either inquiries made of the tenants' association or actions taken by the tenants' association -- I'm not seeking to characterize it -- that Ms Pretty had been asked to withdraw as a director?
Mr Nguyen: I don't recall that event. I just remember during our board meeting, again, probably some time in December, we got a letter from the tenant association, I believe, saying that she's not re-elected as the representative of the tenant association. That much I remember, but I don't remember who asked her to withdraw her directorship.
Ms Cronk: You have no knowledge of that.
Mr Nguyen: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you attend board meetings of the Van Lang Centre on a regular basis?
Mr Nguyen: Not quite, because in my job I travel a lot. So I missed a few meetings.
Ms Cronk: Were you at the December 30, 1993, board meeting?
Mr Nguyen: I believe so, yes.
Ms Cronk: Was Mr Brian Sutherland of the Ministry of Housing in attendance as well at that meeting?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Did he address the board at that time about a number of issues?
Mr Nguyen: Yes, he did mention some issues; yes.
Ms Cronk: Had you met Mr Sutherland before?
Mr Nguyen: No, that was the first time I had met him.
Ms Cronk: Did you know by virtue of the events at that meeting that he was a senior representative of the Ministry of Housing from Ottawa?
Mr Nguyen: Well, he was introduced as a manager of the Ministry of Housing. That much I know, but I don't know how senior he was.
Ms Cronk: Thank you; I understand. I'm interested as well, Mr Nguyen, in your firsthand observations and your impressions as to how the board was functioning throughout the latter part of the -- well, really, the fall of 1993 through and up to the end of December. It has been suggested in other evidence before the committee that by that time, whatever it's cause, and I'm not inviting you to comment on its cause, there was considerable acrimony and antagonism evident in the functioning of the board.
Mr Nguyen: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Is it also correct that part of that antagonism and acrimony centred on difficulties that had emerged between Dr Can Le and Ms Sharron Pretty?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Is it also true that part of the difficulties were related to Ms Pretty's interactions with the board as a whole and vice versa, if I can put it that way?
Mr Nguyen: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: It wasn't just Dr Le and Ms Pretty; it did concern the board as a whole.
Mr Nguyen: That's correct.
2010
Ms Cronk: Am I also correct in my understanding that it was in the same time period, that is, either the month of November but certainly by the month of December 1993, Ms Pretty had adopted the practice of taping board meetings?
Mr Nguyen: That's right. That's right.
Ms Cronk: Would it be appropriate or inappropriate for us to conclude that that caused some of the other directors some discomfort?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: It was a source of difficulty at the board level, wasn't it?
Mr Nguyen: That's right. We did mention to her that we feel uncomfortable with the tape she brought to the meeting.
Ms Cronk: Did she thereafter tape a number of the board meetings that she attended that you were at?
Mr Nguyen: Yeah, I knew that she taped one board meeting, but I couldn't remember how many meetings she taped.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Do you remember her doing it on more than one occasion, though?
Mr Nguyen: I couldn't remember that.
Ms Cronk: Is the one meeting that you do remember the December 30th meeting? Because I think you indicated that she did tape that one.
Mr Nguyen: Probably. I'm not too sure.
Ms Cronk: You said probably?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. You're not sure. That's fine. By the end of December, given that state of affairs at the board level, would it be a fair characterization in your view if I were to suggest that the board was not functioning well and indeed the difficulties that had arisen of the kind that I've described to you were interfering with the ability of the board to effectively accomplish its business on an ongoing basis?
Mr Nguyen: That's right. That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Was that of sufficient concern to the board that a reorganization was undertaken, of the kind that we talked about a few moments ago, in January of 1994?
Mr Nguyen: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. Is it also the case, and were you aware as a director, that in the early part of January 1994 the president of the corporation wrote to the Minister of Housing, Evelyn Gigantes, seeking a meeting with her for the board?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: That was a matter I assume that was discussed at the board level and a common decision was taken to do that?
Mr Nguyen: Yeah, I believe we discussed we wanted to meet with the minister to explain to her about the operation of Van Lang Centre.
Ms Cronk: Right. Is that what you understood the purpose of the request was?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: The information before the committee suggests that towards the latter part of March 1994 a reply was forthcoming from the minister's office, actually from the minister herself in writing, in which it was indicated that at that time she could not commit to a meeting in the near future. Were you made aware of that?
Mr Nguyen: That's right. That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Were you present at a meeting on February the eighth, 1994, Mr Nguyen, when the results of a compliance review undertaken by the Ministry of Housing with respect to the Van Lang Centre were discussed?
Mr Nguyen: I couldn't remember that one.
Ms Cronk: Were you aware throughout the fall of 1993 that a compliance review was in progress?
Mr Nguyen: Yes, the compliance review was mentioned several times during some board meetings, but again, I cannot remember which board meeting it was mentioned.
Ms Cronk: All right. What is your understanding as to what caused that compliance review to be undertaken?
Mr Nguyen: I believe because first Trinh Luu complained about the superintendent --
Ms Cronk: I'm having trouble hearing you, sir.
Mr Nguyen: I believe the first thing is because Trinh Luu complained about the superintendent's performance and then Mrs Sharron Pretty complained of the same thing. I think that because of that we had a compliance report done. Again, I'm not too sure, but that's my recollection.
Ms Cronk: All right. Because of concerns expressed both by Ms Luu and Ms Pretty regarding the superintendent's performance?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Can you help me, and if you can't, please just tell me, but if you can, can you help me as to whether the compliance review was first proposed by the Ministry of Housing or was it requested in the first instance by Dr Le, or do you know?
Mr Nguyen: I couldn't remember. All I know is it was mentioned that it's standard procedure for the Ministry of Housing to conduct a compliance review of the centre. That much I remember. I couldn't remember who initiated that compliance review.
Ms Cronk: All right, thank you. Is it correct, as some evidence before the committee would suggest, that after the compliance review was discussed at the board level on February 8, 1994, in due course, in approximately April of 1994, the board wrote to the Ministry of Housing setting out a number of comments with respect to the compliance review, some of which were favourable and an expression of appreciation, some of which identified concerns that the board had with the review? Were you aware of that as a director, that that had occurred?
Dr Nguyen: I couldn't remember that, no.
Ms Cronk: You don't remember that?
Mr Nguyen: No, I don't remember that.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Do you remember any discussion at the board level after the results of the compliance review were made known as to what further action, if any, the board should take with respect to it?
Mr Nguyen: Yes, I remember Dr Le mentioned about the compliance review, about the result of the review, and at that time I remember the compliance review was quite positive with respect to the performance of the superintendent.
Ms Cronk: All right. And did you at that approximate time period, that is, the spring of 1994, become aware of concerns that Ms Pretty had relating to the compliance review or that she was at least raising issues concerning it? Or do you remember?
Mr Nguyen: I don't remember.
Ms Cronk: Okay. That's fine. The committee has also heard, Mr Nguyen, that in March of 1994, Ms Pretty on two occasions wrote to Brian Sutherland, the MOH representative who you had met, I presume, at the December 30th meeting because you were both there, that she wrote to him on two occasions expressing concerns with respect to the Van Lang Centre, and that she also wrote to the board of directors in the latter part of March 1994 identifying, in the latter letter, issues that she wished discussed at the board level that were of concern to her.
First, were you aware of her correspondence with Brian Sutherland of the Ministry of Housing in that regard?
Mr Nguyen: I think so, yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you now recall being made aware, as a director, of the letter that she'd written to the board outlining issues that she wished to have discussed and concerns that she had about the Van Lang Centre?
Mr Nguyen: It's that she sent so many letters, I couldn't remember which one is which, you know.
Ms Cronk: All right. Would it help you at all if I suggested to you that in her letter to the board, which was dated -- I'm glad to show it to you if you like -- dated March 20th, 1994, she asked for a board meeting on March 29th to be held, dedicated to a discussion of what was described in her letter as the fundamental core issues of tenant access and tenant participation? Does that help at all, the idea --
Mr Nguyen: I have to look at the letter. I couldn't answer that question.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Mr Hunt, it's in exhibit 2 at tab 36. Mr Nguyen, there are a number of documents at this tab, but the first, there is an attachment. Just to count the number of pages in, it should be three pages in in your copy. It's a letter dated March 20, 1994, to the board of directors.
Mr Nguyen: Tab 36, you said?
Ms Cronk: Yes. There are a number of documents there, and you're looking for the letter dated March 20. It's exhibit 2, March 20, 1994, a letter to the board of directors.
Mr Nguyen: March 20th, you mean.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. What did I say? It doesn't matter if I was wrong. I mean March 20, and it is signed by Sharron Pretty, page 2. Do you remember seeing this letter before?
Mr Nguyen: I may have.
Ms Cronk: That's okay. You don't remember one way or the other?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: That's fine. The committee has also heard that in April of 1994, Ms Pretty swore a number of informations in which she alleged infractions of the Corporations Act in a number of ways by some of the then directors of the corporation and some former directors of the corporation. You are aware that she did so, I take it?
Ms Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And indeed one of those informations related to yourself, did it not? Or do you recall?
Mr Nguyen: I couldn't recall that. In April 1994, you said?
Ms Cronk: In April of 1994, Ms Pretty initiated charges that led to -- she swore a series of informations that led to charges against six directors of the corporation including --
Mr Nguyen: I wasn't aware of that, I don't think.
Ms Cronk: You weren't aware of that?
Mr Nguyen: No.
Ms Cronk: Sorry, are you saying you weren't aware that she had done so in April or that you're not aware of the charges?
Mr Nguyen: I'm aware of the charges but I'm not too sure in April. I thought --
Ms Cronk: I see.
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Leaving aside the timing of it, would I be correct in assuming that at some point in time you learned that charges had been initiated by Ms Pretty and that they included an information or a charge initiated by her in relation to yourself?
Mr Nguyen: Well, I was only aware of that when I saw the article in the Ottawa Sun about the charge. That's when.
2020
Ms Cronk: All right.
Mr Nguyen: Before that I wasn't aware of any charge.
Ms Cronk: Okay. And there was an article that appeared in the Ottawa Sun on June 1, 1994, under the byline of Mr James Wallace. Is it that article to which you refer, or some other?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: That one?
Mr Nguyen: That's right, yes.
Ms Cronk: And do I understand you to be saying, then, that it was from that article that you first learned that charges had been initiated of some kind?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And subsequently did you receive a summons in relation to a charge relating to yourself?
Mr Nguyen: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And do you now recall when you received that summons?
Mr Nguyen: I believe in the weekend the police came to my house and gave me that summons, but I couldn't remember exact date.
Ms Cronk: All right. Now, the Wallace article appeared, was published, on June first, and just jumping ahead for a moment, you understand, of course, that the work of this committee is concerned with what occurred at a meeting held with the Minister of Housing on June 17, 1994?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did you attend that meeting?
Mr Nguyen: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Before you attended that meeting, had you been served with the summons?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: So I take it, then, that when you went into the meeting on June 17th, you knew, first from the Wallace article, that there were a number of charges, apparently, that had been initiated by Ms Pretty?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And you certainly knew that one of them involved yourself, because by then you had received the summons.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And the committee has also heard that on or about June 9, 1994, the board received, through a letter directed to Dr Tang, a letter from Bill Clement of the Ministry of Housing. Now, had you met Mr Bill Clement, or do you know him?
Mr Nguyen: Yes. I met him a couple of times, yes.
Ms Cronk: In the letter it was indicated that the Minister of Housing would be available for a meeting with all members of the board on the 17th of June. Did you become aware of that on or about the time of that letter being received by the Van Lang Centre?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And do you recall now how you learned of the proposed meeting with the minister?
Mr Nguyen: I believe Dr Tang called me and told me that we would meet with the minister next week, on Friday, I believe.
Ms Cronk: All right. And what did you understand had generated the meeting?
Mr Nguyen: I asked Dr Tang, "What's the meeting all about?" He said, "I don't know." So I thought we'd just meet with the minister and tell our side of the story, because Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu told so many things about us. So I think that's the chance for us to tell the minister our story. That's basically it.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last part.
Mr Nguyen: That's basically it. That's all I can say.
Ms Cronk: Did you know personally at that point that concerns had been expressed by Trinh Luu about the Van Lang Centre to the minister?
Mr Nguyen: No, I did not.
Ms Cronk: So when you said a moment ago that you thought it was so that you could have an opportunity to present your side of the story with respect to concerns by Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu, I take it at that point in time you were only aware of those by Sharron Pretty?
Mr Nguyen: No. What I mean is because Trinh Luu had written a letter before, cc the minister and ministry. So during that time we already express our desire to meet the minister and to tell her about our operation and our side of the story.
Ms Cronk: Did you know then at that point that Trinh Luu had written the minister a letter of that kind?
Mr Nguyen: No, she wrote the letter criticizing Can Le, but she cc'd two letters to the official of the Housing.
Ms Cronk: I see, and Trinh Luu did that.
Mr Nguyen: Yeah, a lot of letters like that.
Ms Cronk: I see. So as you remember events, you understood that the purpose of the meeting on June 17th was to afford an opportunity to the board to really respond to some of that or at least set out your version of events.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Related both to Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu's previously expressed concerns?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And did you as a board get together and talk about how you were going to approach that meeting or what would be discussed at that meeting?
Mr Nguyen: Well, yes, we did have a meeting, I believe, two or three days before the meeting with the minister to discuss about the meeting with the minister, about the briefing of the minister.
Ms Cronk: All right. And was it decided at that meeting that briefing notes should be prepared for the minister?
Mr Nguyen: That's right. That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And did you participate in their preparation?
Mr Nguyen: Not quite. Dr Truong and Dr Le and Dr Tang prepared that briefing, and I would have some input in that one, but I didn't prepare that briefing.
Ms Cronk: Did you see them before the meeting? Did you see the briefing notes before the meeting?
Mr Nguyen: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you see them at the meeting?
Mr Nguyen: At the meeting with the minister?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Mr Nguyen: Yes. That's how the briefing notes were --
Ms Cronk: If I showed -- I'm sorry, I don't mean to cut you off.
Mr Nguyen: That's how the briefing notes were handed out.
Ms Cronk: At what point during the meeting were the briefing notes handed out?
Mr Nguyen: Towards the end of the meeting when people started to leave, I believe.
Ms Cronk: All right. Would you recognize the notes if I showed them to you again?
Mr Nguyen: The notes?
Ms Cronk: Yes. Would you be able to identify the briefing notes?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Mr Hunt, it's in exhibit 1, volume 3, at tab 80.
Are these the briefing notes, Mr Nguyen, that were provided to the minister?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Prior to the meeting with the minister you told me that the board got together and talked about how to approach the meeting or issues to be discussed at the meeting.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Was there any discussion in which you participated or of which you were aware at that time about actions to be taken or potentially to be taken in respect of Sharron Pretty as a result of the allegations reported in Mr Wallace's article?
Mr Nguyen: No.
Ms Cronk: Was there some suggestion at that time, that is, before the meeting with the minister, that she should be removed as a director?
Mr Nguyen: Well, that was decided I think a week before that.
Ms Cronk: A week -- I'm sorry, I forgot my time frame. So a week before the meeting with the minister, what was decided?
Mr Nguyen: We decided to remove Sharron Pretty from the board of directors.
Ms Cronk: What caused that decision to be made?
Mr Nguyen: Many reasons, but the most recent event leading to that one was the article in the Ottawa Sun whereby she made some very serious and outrageous allegations against the board members of Van Lang Centre. That, I think, was the main factor to reinforce our decision or determination to remove Sharron Pretty from the board.
Ms Cronk: So that really triggered the decision? That was the main factor?
Mr Nguyen: I believe so, yes.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard that by a notice dated I believe it's June the eighth, 1994, a proposed resolution was formulated by the board calling for the removal of Ms Pretty as a director and notice was provided of a board meeting to be held on June 19th for the purpose of dealing with that matter. Does that accord with your recollection of events?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you support the view that Ms Pretty should be removed as a director as a result of, at least in the main, the allegations made by her in the June first Wallace article?
Mr Nguyen: Yes, very much so.
Ms Cronk: In fact, had you expressed the view at that time that you yourself would consider resigning if she was not removed?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Should I conclude from that that you felt very strongly about what it was suggested she'd said in that article, about the allegations she'd made?
Mr Nguyen: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: I also take from what you said that you regarded those allegations as -- I think your word was "unfounded"?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You said something else about them.
Mr Nguyen: It's quite outrageous.
Ms Cronk: Outrageous?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Did you make your views that you would resign if she was not removed known to your fellow directors?
Mr Nguyen: I remember I mentioned it to the office assistant, but I couldn't remember if I mentioned it to somebody else.
Mrs Marland: I'm sorry, was that to the office assistant?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: But he can't recall if he mentioned it to anyone else.
Coming next, then, to the meeting of June 17th itself, Mr Nguyen, I don't think there's any issue about the fact that it was held at the Rideau Centre in Ottawa. Is that correct?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It's the current information before the committee that there were nine people in attendance; that in addition to yourself, from the board of directors Dr Truong, Dr Le, Dr Tang and Sharron Pretty were in attendance?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: The minister, obviously, was there?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
2030
Ms Cronk: In addition, was Mr Brian Sutherland there?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall there being two others as well at the meeting?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Who were they?
Mr Nguyen: I don't know their name, but I know one was secretary of the minister because she took notes. The other one, I don't know. I know she's from the office of the ministry, but I don't know the name.
Ms Cronk: What time did the meeting commence, Mr Nguyen?
Mr Nguyen: I believe 11:30. I was a bit late, four or five minutes late, so I believe it started at 11:30.
Ms Cronk: How long did it last?
Mr Nguyen: Until close to one o'clock, I believe.
Ms Cronk: You said you were about five minutes late. Did you get there in time, before it started?
Mr Nguyen: When I came there people already sit down, but it wasn't started yet, no.
Ms Cronk: So you got there before any discussion began?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Did anyone leave the meeting at any point during the meeting?
Mr Nguyen: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you make any notes during the course of the meeting of what was discussed at the meeting?
Mr Nguyen: No, I didn't.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall whether anyone else did?
Mr Nguyen: Yes. I knew Sharron took some notes and Dr Le took some notes. That much I remember.
Ms Cronk: Okay. How did the meeting begin, Mr Nguyen?
Mr Nguyen: The meeting begin when the minister -- I couldn't know the most exact event how it started, but I believe the minister opened remarks and then Dr Tang briefed the minister on the background of the centre. After that, Dr Truong said something, but I couldn't remember exactly what was being said.
Ms Cronk: Did the minister make any introductory remarks, remarks apart from pleasantries, and did she say anything by way of introduction that you remember?
Mr Nguyen: I could not remember anything.
Ms Cronk: Did the minister say anything at the beginning of the meeting, that you now recall, that indicated an awareness on her part of the pending proposal to remove Sharron Pretty as a director?
Mr Nguyen: I know that was mentioned but I'm not too sure whether at the beginning of the meeting, in the middle or at the end. I'm not sure about that one, but I know she mentioned about she knew about what was going on, about the removal of Sharron Pretty is pending, but I couldn't remember when she said that.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall whether there was any indication by her that she was aware of the legal action or legal proceedings initiated by Ms Pretty, or the charges initiated by Ms Pretty?
Mr Nguyen: I believe so. I believe when she mentioned about the removal of Sharron Pretty she also mentioned about probably the court case or whatever; I couldn't remember.
Ms Cronk: You don't remember?
Mr Nguyen: No, but I know those two issues were mentioned.
Ms Cronk: You know that the two issues were mentioned but you can't remember what she said?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you, though, in looking back on it, associate some remark about those two matters by the minister towards the beginning of the meeting?
Mr Nguyen: I know it was mentioned but I could not recall when was it, at the beginning, at the middle or the end of it. I could not confirm that one.
Ms Cronk: Would I be correct if I suggested to you that a variety of matters were discussed during the course of the meeting?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: I would like to ask you about some of those. Was there, during the course of that meeting, any discussion by anyone about the prospect or possibility of Sharron Pretty dropping the charges she had initiated?
Mr Nguyen: As I mentioned to Bill the other day, I remember that a proposal was put forward with the option in there whereby the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre postponed the removal of Sharron Pretty. As I said at first, I could not remember the exact wording of whether it was removal or whatever, but I understand that the option was there that we're going to meet with Sharron Pretty to discuss that proposal or to talk about some of the issues she brought, like the tenant participation, the information or whatever.
I understand that the proposal is to meet with Sharron Pretty to resolve the differences among Sharron Pretty and the other board members. And then we agree -- not agree, but there is the option, I should say the option, that perhaps the board would postpone the removal of Sharron Pretty and the court case -- again, and I said to Bill I couldn't remember the exact words of what was being said, whether court would be delayed or not proceed with the charge, but I couldn't confirm that one.
Ms Cronk: And who made that proposal?
Mr Nguyen: I could not remember who put the proposal but I know the minister said about the option, "It's there."
Ms Cronk: And what was the option that the minister was referring to?
Mr Nguyen: I think I recall, if I've got it correctly, the minister said that the option's available whereby the board and Mrs Pretty will get together and try to resolve the differences between themselves.
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Mr Nguyen: That much I remember. My perception was that we would postpone the removal of Sharron Pretty, and perhaps she was going to proceed with the charge. But again, I could not remember the exact wording of what was being said and who said what. But that's my understanding.
Ms Cronk: All right. Now I must be sure that I understand. Do you recall who suggested that -- was it "the" option or "one of the options" available? Was there more than one option being discussed?
Mr Nguyen: I think the option, not options.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, I'm just not catching that.
Mr Nguyen: I think that's the option.
Ms Cronk: One?
Mr Callahan: Singular.
Mr Nguyen: I believe so, yes.
Ms Cronk: And was the option that the board and Sharron Pretty would try to resolve their difficulties --
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: -- and would meet for that reason?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And was it also part of the option that was discussed that the board would postpone the removal of Sharron Pretty as a director and the court case would be delayed, dropped or not proceeded with?
Mr Nguyen: That's right. My perception is like that, but I could not remember the exact wording of what's being said.
Ms Cronk: All right. So you can't say precisely whether the words "drop the court case" were used, but your understanding was that what was being proposed as the option, identified, at least in part was that the court case would not proceed?
Mr Nguyen: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember the minister identifying that as the option?
Mr Nguyen: Probably, yes.
Ms Cronk: Probably yes?
Mr Nguyen: Probably yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall that coming up once or more than once during the course of the meeting?
Mr Nguyen: I believe once.
Ms Cronk: And did the board members, any of them, respond to that suggestion?
Mr Nguyen: I believe Dr Truong asked Mrs Pretty about the date when we can meet to resolve the differences.
2040
Ms Cronk: That's Dr Truong?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Should I take from that that there was an indication by Dr Truong that the board members were prepared to meet?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Did you agree with that?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you understand the other directors to have agreed to that?
Mr Nguyen: I believe so, yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you understand Ms Pretty to have agreed to that?
Mr Nguyen: She was reluctant, I believe. She always like that anyway. I believe she had to ask for advice from somebody else. I don't know, but she said --
Mr Callahan: Sorry. I didn't hear that last part.
Ms Cronk: He believes that she had to ask advice from someone else, but he doesn't know.
Mr Nguyen: That's why she could not agree with the date right away.
Ms Cronk: Did she agree to the idea of the meeting, though?
Mr Nguyen: What do you mean, "the idea"? Can you be more specific?
Ms Cronk: Yes. Did she agree to meet? Did she agree to the idea of a meeting, as distinct from a date for the meeting?
Mr Nguyen: I would say in principle, yes, because when Dr Truong pushing for the date, she just says no, she have to check her agenda or calendar or something to that effect. But in principle, I think she agree with the meeting, but she could not find the date.
Ms Cronk: In so far as you were concerned, Mr Nguyen, was an agreement reached at that meeting on June 17th that there would be this further meeting among the board members and Sharron Pretty to try to resolve your difficulties, and that the option discussed in that connection was that the board would postpone the removal of Sharron Pretty as a director and the court case initiated by Sharron Pretty would not proceed?
Mr Nguyen: I don't call it an agreement. I only can say we try to meet with her in the near future, but we have to look at the date to resolve the differences or to address issues she's concerned with.
Ms Cronk: In so far as you're concerned, Mr Nguyen, at the meeting was it agreed, and I don't mean by that in writing or anything, but as far as you were concerned, was there a meeting of the minds around that table that the board would not proceed to remove Sharron Pretty as a director and the court case initiated by Ms Pretty would not proceed at that time?
Mr Nguyen: Not quite, because we agree to meet first. Without meeting, that cannot be resolved, I don't think.
Ms Cronk: And there was no agreement as to a specific date for that meeting, is that correct?
Mr Nguyen: No, that's right.
Ms Cronk: But the board meeting, when the removal of Sharron Pretty was going to be discussed, was scheduled for two days later, on the 19th.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: What did you understand, based on the discussion around the table, was going to happen about that meeting?
Mr Nguyen: I remember right after the meeting, I got hold of Dr Tang or Dr Truong and said, was the meeting on Sunday still on schedule? He said yes. So I believe that the meeting on Sunday was still on.
Ms Cronk: Did you have any understanding based on the discussion around the table and your discussion with the other directors at the June 17th meeting as to whether or not there was an intention to proceed with the resolution to remove her as a director?
Mr Nguyen: I'm not too sure about that. I knew the meeting was still on, but I don't think we confirm that the meeting still on to remove Sharron Pretty or not. I could not confirm that one. But I knew at that time that the meeting was still on for that Sunday.
Ms Cronk: In your mind, based on the discussion that occurred at the June 17th meeting, was the idea of this further meeting between the directors and Sharron Pretty to try to resolve things connected with the option identified of the board not proceeding with the removal of Sharron Pretty and the Pretty court case not proceeding?
Mr Nguyen: That's my understanding, yes.
Ms Cronk: That being the case, would you agree with me, Mr Nguyen, that had the meeting proceeded on the 19th, on the Sunday, and had Sharron Pretty been removed as a director, that concept of how matters were to go forward would have been frustrated?
Mr Nguyen: Could you put the question again?
Ms Cronk: Yes. That being the understanding that you had, would you agree with me that if the board meeting on Sunday the 19th proceeded, if it went ahead and at that meeting Sharron Pretty was removed as a director -- because of course the meeting could have gone ahead without her removal.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: That's one scenario. Another scenario is, the meeting goes ahead on Sunday and she's removed. What I'm suggesting to you and inviting your comment on is that had that occurred, the proposal discussed at the June 17th meeting as to how things were to go forward in the future could not have come to pass.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Because one of the underpinnings of it, based on what I think you're telling the committee, would have been removed.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: That's a fair way to put it?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: When you left that meeting, based on the discussion around the table, what was your understanding as to what was going to happen with those charges that had been initiated by Sharron Pretty?
Mr Nguyen: Could you phrase the question again?
Ms Cronk: Yes. When you left the meeting, based on what had occurred around the table, what was your understanding as to what was going to happen with those charges initiated by Sharron Pretty?
Mr Nguyen: I believed she would still proceed with her charge.
Ms Cronk: Was that subject to what might or might not occur at this further meeting among the parties, among you all?
Mr Nguyen: That's right, that's correct.
Ms Cronk: Now, it's been suggested in some evidence that the committee has heard that the suggestion of Ms Pretty dropping the charges or not proceeding with the charges or the case was made a number of times at the June 17th meeting, more specifically that the minister suggested to Sharron Pretty several times that she either drop the charges or reconsider the charges. Do you recall those suggestions being made by the minister to Sharron Pretty?
Mr Nguyen: No. No, I don't.
Ms Cronk: When you say that, do you mean that you don't recall the minister using language of that kind?
Mr Nguyen: All I remember, as I said before, and I say it again, is that the option was put forward, but I don't remember specifically about what was being said or encourage her to drop the charge. I know that option was put forward.
Ms Cronk: Who put that option forward?
Mr Nguyen: I believe the minister mention about the option.
Ms Cronk: Did she mention that option more than once?
Mr Nguyen: I don't think so.
Ms Cronk: You don't think so. Once it had been mentioned once, was it picked up by others around the table and repeated? What I'm saying to you is, was it discussed more than once, once it got identified as an option?
Mr Nguyen: Probably. All I remember is Sharron said, "It is in the hand of the crown" or something to that effect.
Ms Cronk: Who did she say that to?
Mr Nguyen: She said it to all the people, I guess.
Ms Cronk: What was in the hands of the crown? What did you understand her to be referring to?
Mr Nguyen: She referring to the charge, I believe.
Ms Cronk: All right. Was there any response by anyone made to that remark?
Mr Nguyen: I believe minister say something, but I couldn't remember exact wording. But I believe what was said is something about, "If you're satisfied with" whatever. No, I couldn't remember exact wording of that.
Mr Murphy: I didn't hear that.
Ms Cronk: He can't remember the exact wording. Could you just repeat what you said, Mr Nguyen?
Mr Nguyen: Yes. I said I couldn't remember the exact wording of what's being said.
Ms Cronk: Did the minister make some response, though?
The Chair: Let him answer, and then Mr Harnick.
Mr Nguyen: Respond to what Sharron said?
Ms Cronk: Yes, did she make some response? I recognize that you said you can't remember what it was, but did she make some response?
Mr Nguyen: I believe she did make some response, in a very general way, but I could not remember exact words.
2050
Ms Cronk: Mr Harnick, could I ask you to hold your question, sir, for a few moments, if you don't mind. Thank you.
Could I ask the witness to be shown exhibit 1, volume 1, please. Mr Nguyen, I'm going to ask you to look at a newspaper article with me. It's at tab 7, and if you'll just give me a moment, I'd like to make sure I get the right one there for you. There are a number we could look at, but why don't we look at page 52, which is in my book an article by Dave Rider of the Ottawa Sun. It's entitled, "Gigantes Accused of Court Conflict." Do you have that one?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It's 52 in my book, in the top right-hand corner; tab 7, page 52. If you look to the fifth paragraph down, Mr Nguyen, it says, "Pretty said Gigantes attempted to defuse the situation by suggesting she ask the crown to drop the charges in exchange for the other directors not following through on a threat to kick her off the board."
Stopping there for a moment, is that what happened at the meeting?
Mr Nguyen: I don't believe so, no.
Ms Cronk: What is it about that that you think is incorrect?
Mr Nguyen: What I believe is incorrect is that what you said is suggesting she ask the crown to drop the charge. I don't think that is correct.
Ms Cronk: So should I take from that that no one at the meeting, particularly the minister -- because that's what this paragraph is suggesting, that the minister said it. It's your memory of the meeting that the minister did not suggest that Ms Pretty ask the crown to drop the charges?
Mr Nguyen: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Did she, however, ask Ms Pretty to consider herself withdrawing the charges or not proceeding with them?
Mr Nguyen: I couldn't remember that either.
Ms Cronk: Was that not part of the option that you've described?
Mr Nguyen: I said the option is not to remove her, but as I said before, I could not remember exact wording of what is being said. But to my understanding, the option was there.
Ms Cronk: So it was your understanding that was the option that was placed on the table.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And then the next paragraph reads, "On two or three occasions, (Gigantes) said, `Let's deal with this without going through the courts.'" Stopping there, did Ms Gigantes say that?
Mr Nguyen: I can't remember that. I don't remember that.
Ms Cronk: When you say you don't remember that, are you saying it didn't happen, or are you saying, "I don't remember one way or the other"?
Mr Nguyen: I don't remember one way or the other.
Ms Cronk: Does this help your memory? Please tell me if it does or it doesn't. Did the minister say, "Can this be resolved without legal proceedings?"
Mr Nguyen: Again, I don't remember one way or the other.
Ms Cronk: Did the minister say, "Can these things be resolved without legal proceedings and removal of directors?"
Mr Nguyen: Again, I could not recall that, no.
Ms Cronk: One way or the other?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: So I take it you're not saying that she didn't say that, but simply you don't remember.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Carrying on with this article, Ms Gigantes is then asked, I take it by the reporter, to comment on that in some fashion, and she says, "Gigantes said yesterday she only laid options on the table and did not pressure either side to take any action."
And then there's a quote attributed to the minister and it says, "I said (talking to the crown) is a possibility and I presume it is, but I don't know,' she said." Did the minister say that at the meeting?
Mr Nguyen: Probably that in response to what Sharron mentioned, as I said before, the mention about dropping the charges in the hand of the crown. Probably that is what was her answer. Probably that was her answer to that step, the last step.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember that clearly, or at this point are you reconstructing about that?
Mr Nguyen: Not quite clearly, but vividly.
Mr Callahan: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that.
Ms Cronk: Not quite clearly, but vividly?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Should I understand from that you're saying to the committee that the minister did say that, or you think it's probable that she said it?
Mr Nguyen: It probable she said that. I cannot be 100% sure that she said that. Put it that way.
Mr Callahan: What percentage can he be sure?
Ms Cronk: The night's not over, Mr Callahan. Can I just complete this, sir? Thank you. That's unfair of me. I didn't mean that the way that it sounded.
Mr Callahan: That's all right. No problem.
Ms Cronk: Can you describe your level of certainty with respect to that remark? How certain are you that the minister said that?
Mr Nguyen: Fifty-fifty. Is that okay?
Ms Cronk: Fifty-fifty. I don't want to take you through all of these articles, because there is a large number of them, but could I ask you to look at one from the Windsor Star dated June 21, 1994, entitled, "Gigantes' actions to be reviewed." That's in my book at page 49: same tab, page 49. Do you have that, sir?
Mr Nguyen: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: In the middle column at the bottom there's a discussion of what the Premier said about this issue, and then over in the top right-hand column it seems that outside the Legislature, comments from Ms Gigantes were obtained, and it is suggested there -- this quote is attributed to her: "I suggested if that were possible, perhaps the board would be willing to back off and think again about an action which they had proposed to bring forward...to have her removed, and it might be it would not be necessary for some other actions to proceed on her side."
Stopping there, do you remember the minister saying that or words to that effect?
Mr Nguyen: To that effect, but I could not remember exact words. But to that effect, yes.
Ms Cronk: When you say that an option was identified, as you've described it, and you've explained what you understood the option involved, is this the description of the option, or was this also said?
Mr Nguyen: To me, this one is an option by itself.
Ms Cronk: This is an option by itself?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Is this what was said on the issue at the meeting, or was this also said about the option? Do you understand the distinction I'm making?
Mr Nguyen: Yeah. I think the word "option" also mentioned together with this one.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. I didn't catch that, Mr Nguyen.
Mr Nguyen: I think the word "option" was also mentioned.
Ms Cronk: What I'm trying to understand -- and forgive me; I think it's me. You've explained to the committee the proposal that was discussed, the option, and you said you thought it was an option, the option that was discussed.
Mr Nguyen: That's right, yes.
Ms Cronk: And you've explained to the committee what your understanding was of what the option was.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And in describing that to the committee, you indicated that you understood it to be that there would be a further meeting where the parties would come together to try to resolve their differences, and that part of the option that carried with that was that the board would postpone the removal of Sharron Pretty and the court case initiated by Sharron Pretty would be delayed or not proceeded with, but you weren't sure of the exact language. Have I got that right?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Okay. What I'm saying to you now is that this is a quote attributed to the minister about what she says she said at the meeting. Do you remember her saying this? That's the first question.
Mr Nguyen: As I said, I could not remember one way or the other.
Ms Cronk: Okay.
Mr Nguyen: I know the option is put forward but, like I said, I couldn't remember exact wording of that option or what's being said, who said what.
Ms Cronk: Looking at this language now, does that language capture the option that was described at the meeting?
Mr Nguyen: That's right. It sounds like, yes.
2100
Ms Cronk: The reason I ask you that is because some people might interpret the language in this quote in the press article as suggesting a possibility that the board would be willing to back off and think again about an action which they had proposed to bring forward to have her removed as a director, but there's no identification, there's no indication of any action to be taken or not to be taken by Ms Pretty. Do you see what I'm saying?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And that, I suggest, at least to me, and I ask you to comment on it, is different than what I understood you to be saying before.
Mr Nguyen: Well, what I -- what I interpret from this one is that it -- maybe it would not be necessary for some other action to proceed on her side. That I interpret as the court case not to proceed, or whatever.
Ms Cronk: I see. So, to be fair, Mr Nguyen, and -- excuse me for a moment, sir. To be fair to you, Mr Nguyen, are you saying to the committee that there was discussion of an option at the meeting, that it was at the June 17th meeting, that it was tied to a further meeting among the parties?
Mr Nguyen: I don't think there was discussion. The option was put forward, but I don't remember that discussion of that option.
Ms Cronk: Okay. There was an option identified?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: All right. Now, there seems to be -- different people have a different understanding about the word "discussion," but an option's identified, it's articulated, it's on the table.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Okay?
Mr Nguyen: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And that option is tied to a further meeting among the directors and Ms Pretty?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And did you clearly understand from the words that were used at the table, whatever the precise language was, because none of us were there and you were -- we can't go back; none of us ever get there -- whatever the precise words were, did you understand that the option was that the board would defer or postpone the removal of Sharron Pretty and the court case would be delayed or not proceeded with?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: That was your understanding of it.
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Was there any discussion, beyond what you've already told me, about a crown attorney, the crown or a prosecutor at that meeting, June 17th meeting?
Mr Nguyen: No. No, I don't.
Ms Cronk: And just so that I'm clear about the aspect of a suggested agreement, in so far as you are concerned, when you left that meeting, I understand you to have said that there was no agreement that the board would withdraw or postpone the removal of Sharron Pretty --
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: -- and Ms Pretty would refrain or her court case wouldn't go forward, but that was the option on the table.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: But there was no agreement that that should occur.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: But there was an agreement for a further meeting?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: No specified date was agreed upon.
Mr Nguyen: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: The directors at the table, other than Ms Pretty, signified, either in what Dr Truong said or in the case of the others by, I take it, their silence, that they were prepared to meet.
Mr Nguyen: Yes, that's right.
Ms Cronk: Did Ms Pretty say anything about that?
Mr Nguyen: No, she just cannot have the date, that's all.
Ms Cronk: All right. It has also been suggested in evidence that the committee has heard, and elsewhere by Ms Pretty, that she was pressured at that meeting and that it was said to her a number of times that she should drop her charges or reconsider or consider dropping her charges. Based on what you observed at the meeting and everything that was said at the meeting, did you perceive that Ms Pretty was being subjected to pressure at that meeting?
Mr Nguyen: I don't think so, no.
Ms Cronk: Did the minister say during the course of the meeting, either to Ms Pretty or to the group as a whole, that you were not to feel pressured and were to take your time before deciding?
Mr Nguyen: Yes, I believe the minister said something like, "You don't have to answer me now, you can answer later," or to that effect, but I don't think the minister pressured her to give answer right away.
Ms Cronk: I just want to be careful about the language here. As you remember it, was the minister saying, "You don't have to answer me now," which is --
Mr Nguyen: "You don't have to answer it now," but not "me." I don't remember exact wording.
Ms Cronk: I just thought we'd better --
Mr Nguyen: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: Yeah. So was that a comment directed, as you recall it, to Ms Pretty or to the directors as a group?
Mr Nguyen: You mean that question?
Ms Cronk: Yes, that you shouldn't feel pressured; that you don't have to agree now; take your time.
Mr Nguyen: That to Miss Pretty.
Ms Cronk: And was that said by the minister?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: On one occasion or more than one occasion?
Mr Nguyen: I believe maybe a couple of occasions.
Ms Cronk: And was that in relation to any particular matter?
Mr Nguyen: The one in relation to the option, and the other one in relation to something else, but I could not remember what it was. Probably on, I believe, on one occasion when Ms Pretty mentioned about the superintendent has too much power and then the question was put forward to her, "What power does he have?" or something to that effect, and then the minister said, "You don't have to answer the question now," for example --
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, I didn't meant to cut you off.
Mr Nguyen: I think for that occasion also.
Ms Cronk: And was it said also in the context of agreeing to a date for the further meeting?
Mr Nguyen: That's right, yes.
Ms Cronk: So that's at least two and possibly three occasions when you remember it being said?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: The first in relation to the option?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: The second in relation to a specific date for the proposed further meeting?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And the third in relation to the discussion -- possibly in relation to the discussion about the superintendent that you've just described.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Did you, as the meeting unfolded, Mr Nguyen, have any sense of tension in the room?
Mr Nguyen: I don't think so. I don't think that everybody -- I don't think there was any tension in there.
Ms Cronk: You didn't feel that yourself?
Mr Nguyen: No, no.
Ms Cronk: And didn't observe it in others?
Mr Nguyen: I know that Ms Pretty a bit nervous, but I wasn't aware with the tension in the room, no.
Ms Cronk: She seemed a bit nervous?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did she, at any point during the course of the meeting, say or do anything that led you to conclude that she was feeling under some pressure?
Mr Nguyen: No, I don't think so.
Ms Cronk: Did she, at some point during the course of the meeting, remark to Dr Truong that he was speaking or behaving towards her in a way she didn't like or that was inappropriate?
Mr Nguyen: Probably on one occasion and for what Dr Truong said, she was a bit upset, I believe.
Ms Cronk: Yes, and was that towards the beginning or the end of the meeting?
Mr Nguyen: I think at beginning of the meeting, yes.
Ms Cronk: At the beginning of the meeting?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And at what point during the course of the meeting was this discussion of the option and the further meeting identified?
Mr Nguyen: I believe towards the end, but I'm not too sure.
Ms Cronk: Can you approximate for me how much before the end of the meeting the discussion began?
Mr Nguyen: Probably in the last half-hour, but again, I couldn't confirm that.
Ms Cronk: You're not sure?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Did the discussion take very long?
Mr Nguyen: About 10 minutes, five minutes maybe. I'm not too sure.
Ms Cronk: About five or 10 minutes, you're not too sure?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It's been suggested by one witness before the committee that this topic came up about 45 minutes into the meeting and consumed the discussion time for the balance of the meeting. Was that your recollection?
Mr Nguyen: You mean the option we discussed for 45 minutes?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Mr Nguyen: I could not remember that one or not.
Ms Cronk: Are you saying you --
Mr Nguyen: I could not remember that.
Ms Cronk: You don't remember it that way?
Mr Nguyen: No.
Ms Cronk: All right.
Mr Callahan: I think I heard you say that the option took place, I thought, during the first 45 minutes. I think that's where the -- he may have misunderstood the question.
Ms Cronk: Let me put it again, Mr Callahan. So that we're clear, Mr Nguyen, I want to make sure that I state the evidence to you accurately. One witness before the committee has said that about 45 minutes into the meeting -- that is, after 45 minutes --
Mr Nguyen: Oh, I see, yes.
Ms Cronk: -- had been consumed with other things --
Mr Nguyen: Oh, I see.
Ms Cronk: -- the discussion of the option commenced, or the kind of option that you're describing, and that it then consumed or it took the balance of the meeting, that that was really under discussion for perhaps as much as 45 minutes. Is that your memory of the meeting?
Mr Nguyen: I may agree with the first section, that after 45 -- I mean, the discussion after 45 minutes after the start of the meeting, but how long would it take I could not -- I don't remember.
Ms Cronk: All right.
Mr Nguyen: I don't remember how long it took to discuss that option.
2110
Ms Cronk: Well, was it discussed right -- whenever it began, did it then consume the balance of the meeting, or did the meeting progress on to other topics?
Mr Nguyen: Because right after the option was put, after that we're talking about the next meeting. Dr Truong asked Mrs Pretty about the date and that's -- it would be about five or 10 minutes we discussed about that date right there.
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Mr Nguyen: So that if you consider that as a part of the option, then you're probably right, but --
Ms Cronk: Right. Did the meeting then conclude after possible dates were discussed?
Mr Nguyen: Again, I don't remember that.
Ms Cronk: Okay. What was the mood of the meeting at its conclusion? Do you recall?
Mr Nguyen: I can only speak for myself.
Ms Cronk: What was -- how did you feel about how it had gone?
Mr Nguyen: I feel good after that.
Ms Cronk: Why did you feel good?
Mr Nguyen: Because I thought the minister now know our side of the story, because she have our briefing note and we present to her our case. I was happy for that.
Ms Cronk: Was it your assessment of what occurred at the meeting in so far as the minister is concerned that she was attempting to mediate the differences between the board and Ms Pretty?
Mr Nguyen: Yes, I agree with that.
Ms Cronk: Did she attempt to create an atmosphere of conciliation in so far as you are concerned?
Mr Nguyen: Yes, I agree.
Ms Cronk: Was that true throughout the meeting?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did there come at any time in the meeting a point when you felt that she was really urging you as a -- I don't mean you personally, but the board and Ms Pretty to come to terms with this and to accept the option?
Mr Nguyen: No, because agreed that we -- I should not have said, "We agree," but we would meet in the next, another meeting to resolve the differences.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Excuse me. Do you recall at the end of the meeting before it broke up, Mr Nguyen, in the context of the discussion about the further meeting, yourself addressing any remark to Ms Pretty?
Mr Nguyen: Yes, I remember what I said. Again, not exactly word for word, but what I said was that two outstanding issues still has to be resolved, one being the removal of Sharron Pretty and the other one was the court case. But, again, I could not remember exactly what I said, but to that effect. I just -- that's it.
Ms Cronk: To whom did you say that?
Mr Nguyen: I said it in general to all the people.
Ms Cronk: To the room?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you at any point address Ms Pretty and say that you were interested in a yes or no answer from her concerning her intentions with respect to the court case?
Mr Nguyen: No, I did not.
Ms Cronk: Did you ever look at her or, without looking at her, address a remark in her direction that you wished her response to that part of the option?
Mr Nguyen: No, never.
Ms Cronk: As I'm obliged to say to you, Mr Nguyen, in fairness to you, that she has given that evidence before the committee, so are you saying that that did not occur?
Mr Nguyen: That did not occur.
Ms Cronk: Did you in fact say anything to her about any aspect of the option?
Mr Nguyen: No, that's the only thing I said, which I just said. That's the only thing I said.
Ms Cronk: Let me be sure I understand it: I understood you to say that you said at the end of the meeting that there were two --
Mr Nguyen: Outstanding issues.
Ms Cronk: Outstanding issues?
Mr Nguyen: Which need to be resolved.
Ms Cronk: Which need to be resolved.
Mr Nguyen: The removal of Sharron Pretty.
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Mr Nguyen: And the court case.
Ms Cronk: And did you understand that that was going to occur, that that was an option that was to be taken up at this further meeting?
Mr Nguyen: That's right. That's what I understand.
Ms Cronk: At the conclusion of the meeting, did you have any private discussion yourself either with Sharron Pretty or the minister?
Mr Nguyen: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you join your fellow directors for lunch?
Mr Nguyen: Yes, briefly, a quick sandwich, yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you talk about what had happened at the meeting and how it had gone with the minister?
Mr Nguyen: I remember we -- I just asked them if -- as mentioned, I asked them if the meeting on Sunday was still on, and his answer was yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you have any discussion over the course of lunch as to what was going to happen at the meeting on Sunday?
Mr Nguyen: Probably briefly, but I'm not -- I don't know exactly, but probably I imagine we would still proceed with the meeting on Monday -- on a Sunday -- and they said, "Yes, we still proceed with that one."
Ms Cronk: Well, did you go to a meeting on Sunday of the board?
Mr Nguyen: No, I believe on Saturday night -- I could not remember who called me -- Dr Tang or Dr Le called me and said the meeting on Monday was cancelled because a reporter of the news would be there. So we don't want to talk to the reporter, I guess.
Ms Cronk: Did you just say "the meeting on Monday" or "the meeting on Sunday"?
Mr Nguyen: On Sunday.
Ms Cronk: On Sunday.
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: So you got a call and it was either Dr Tang or someone else and you were told it was off because a reporter was going to be there.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: So did you go or did you --
Mr Nguyen: No, I didn't go there.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Do you, looking back on that June 17th meeting, Mr Nguyen, recall any discussion about a deal or the use of the word "deal"?
Mr Nguyen: No, I never recall that word.
Ms Cronk: All right, when you say you don't recall, are you saying that that didn't happen or you don't --
Mr Nguyen: That didn't happen. I never heard that term "deal" before.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Just finally, Mr Nguyen, and this is my last question, could I ask you to look at, again, exhibit 1. I think it's tab 4, volume 1. Sorry, it's tab 6; I apologize. You'll see that they're numbered in the top right-hand corner.
Could you look at page 14, please. Without reading any portion of this out -- I'm not asking you to do that -- is this the information that concerns you?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Was a copy of this served upon you with a summons?
Mr Nguyen: Yes, that's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right, and there's an address in it. I don't want you to indicate what the address is, but can you confirm whether that is your address?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Do you know what riding you live in?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: What provincial political riding is it?
Mr Nguyen: I believe Liberal -- no, Mrs Gigantes.
Ms Cronk: Ms Gigantes's riding?
Mr Nguyen: Probably, yes.
Ms Cronk: Was that the case in June of this year?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, sir. Those are my questions.
Mr Paul Johnson: Mr Nguyen, I would just like to revisit just some of the questions that legal counsel has just asked you, and she's asked you very many. I know that you did keep no notes of this meeting of June the 17th, 1994. Is that correct?
Mr Nguyen: I didn't take any notes.
Mr Paul Johnson: So all of the statements that you've made today are entirely from your best recollection or memory of events that occurred at the meeting on that day. Is that correct?
Mr Nguyen: That's correct.
Mr Paul Johnson: I will say that legal counsel did show to you some text that has references to the meeting, but other than that, everything that you've spoken about has been from your memory. Is that right?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Mr Paul Johnson: In the context of the minister's comments, and I don't care to get into the minister's comments per se, but in the context of the minister's comments, would you say that the minister was very conciliatory and in that respect she took no sides, she was neither on the side of one interest or the other and that she left you with the impression that she was there to mediate a difficult situation?
Mr Nguyen: That's correct. That's my impression, yes.
Mr Paul Johnson: Also in the context of the minister's comments, would you say that she was not particularly angry, she was relaxed, she was in a favourable mood and indeed she didn't try to pressure anyone into making any decisions with regard to anything at the meeting of June the 17th?
Mr Nguyen: That's right; that's correct.
2120
Mr Paul Johnson: Now, with regard to your recollection of the meeting on that day, you left that meeting with the understanding that one thing for certain that you would agree to -- and you will of course confirm this, yes or no -- was that the minister had suggested that a following meeting would be in order for the board members, all the board members, to get together to once again discuss the issues that had not been resolved at this meeting on June the 17th? Was that your understanding of what was to happen next?
Mr Nguyen: Yes. That's right.
Mr Paul Johnson: So as a result of the meeting of June the 17th, would you agree that the purpose of the minister meeting with the board members, all the board members, and that includes of course Sharron Pretty because she at that time was a board member, was to bring what appeared to be a difficult situation together in order to resolve some problems? Would you agree that was an important part of that meeting?
Mr Nguyen: Yes, I do. Yeah.
Mr Paul Johnson: Now, one thing that I just wanted to make clear in my mind, and I'm sure all the other committee members are interested, is, again, the time of the meeting when it was discussed, when those comments that the minister made that everybody seems so keen to understand to be factually correct. I know there are some differences of what those comments were, so I don't want to get into those, but with regard to the time in the meeting that that notion or that idea was raised, I understand that you're not entirely clear -- I've given the questions as they were posed to you by legal counsel -- at what point that was. Correct me if I'm wrong, but one thing I thought I heard you say was that this didn't go on any longer than five or 10 minutes. Is that right?
Mr Nguyen: I believe the option, yes --
Mr Paul Johnson: To the best --
Mr Nguyen: To the best of my knowledge, yes. The option --
Mr Paul Johnson: The option: That's the word, the operative word, "option."
Mr Callahan: I don't think, to be fair -- Mr Chair, that was not what was said in evidence.
Mr William Hourigan: To be fair, I don't think that's what was said either, and also, the witness also indicated that there was also a discussion about timing for a meeting and all of that and said that, when it's added to the other time, reached a time that was closer to the estimate that was provided to him. So I don't think that was exactly what the evidence said.
Mr Paul Johnson: I stand corrected. I must say -- and I will check the Hansard, of course -- I thought I heard him say that it was about five to 10 minutes.
Mr Hourigan: I think that was corrected subsequently, Mr Johnson.
Mr Paul Johnson: Okay. Very good. I will defer.
Mr Sutherland: Thank you. Mr Nguyen, you have stated that you believe the minister put an option on the table, but you've also said that she never used words like "drop the charges" or to that effect. I guess the question --
Mr Hourigan: Sorry, Mr Chair, if I can just interject again, that was not his evidence. He said he couldn't recall one way or the other whether those terms were used.
Mr Sutherland: Okay. So he couldn't recall one way or the other. I guess I want to just pursue this a bit then. What is it that makes you think the minister put an option on the table?
Mr Nguyen: I believe the reason she put an option on the table is to somehow mediate the dispute between Sharron Pretty and the rest of the board members.
Mr Sutherland: Okay. Let me try and be a little clearer then. What is it that makes you think that the minister put the option on the table that in exchange for the board not removing Sharron Pretty as the director, Sharron would drop the charges?
Mr Nguyen: Could you phrase the question again?
Mr Sutherland: Sure. I guess what I want to know is, what is it, from -- you've stated that the minister put an option on the table, and you kind of further stated that you thought the option the minister put on the table was that in exchange for the board not removing Sharron Pretty as a director at the already scheduled meeting for Sunday the 19th, Sharron would drop the charges. I guess what I'd like to know is, what was it that left you with that impression that that was the option the minister put on the table?
Mr Nguyen: Well, as I said, the option was put forward but I don't remember the exact wording of what was being said.
Mr Sutherland: Okay, so what you're saying is, then, you don't remember the exact wording the minister used.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Mr Sutherland: Okay.
Mr Nguyen: But I understand the option to that effect here.
Mr Sutherland: Okay, so is it possible --
Mr Callahan: Just a second. He was finishing the answer.
Mr Sutherland: Okay, go ahead. Sorry.
Mr Nguyen: I said that I understand the option to that effect.
Mr Sutherland: Okay. Given the fact that you don't remember the exact wording, then, is it fair to assume that possibly the minister did not put such an option on the table but that it was just your interpretation or assumption?
Mr Nguyen: That's my understanding, but I cannot answer that question.
Mr Sutherland: Okay. Let me continue here. Last night during testimony, Dr Tang told us that he thought the minister had offered a deal but when looking back at it said that he had simply assumed that's what the minister had meant. Just to reiterate, then, isn't it true that it is not clear to you what the minister said and what her exact words were?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Mr Sutherland: Okay. So it's quite possible that you may have the same interpretation as Dr Tang?
Mr Nguyen: That's probably correct, but that's my interpretation.
Mr Sutherland: Okay. Let me just pursue one other question too. You have said that at the meeting on the 17th, again, that the minister had put this option on the table, in effect, in exchange for Sharron agreeing to drop the charges the board would agree to drop its effort to remove Sharron as a director, yet you also believe that the meeting on the 19th was still on. It would seem that both couldn't exist. If the minister had put that option on the table and the board said it would not remove Sharron as a director in exchange for her dropping the charges, then --
Mr Nguyen: We did not agree with that one.
Mr Sutherland: What's that?
Mr Nguyen: We did not agree like that, I don't think.
Mr Sutherland: I'm sorry, I didn't --
Mr Nguyen: We did not agree not to remove Sharron Pretty; we agreed to the next meeting.
Mr Sutherland: Okay. I guess my question is that it would seem to me that the meeting on the 19th would not be occurring, then.
Mr Nguyen: No, it was still on, I understood. I just knew the meeting wasn't on on Saturday, the day before the meeting.
Mr Sutherland: Okay, so even though you have stated that you believe the minister put this option on the table, that in exchange for Sharron agreeing to drop the charges the board would agree to drop its attempt to remove Sharron as a director on the 19th, you left the meeting on June 17th believing the meeting on the 19th was still on?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Mr Sutherland: Okay. That's it for me.
Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Just very quickly, did the minister ask Sharron Pretty to drop the charges?
Mr Nguyen: No, I don't think so.
Mrs Mathyssen: Did the minister ask the board not to drop Sharron Pretty?
Mr Nguyen: No, she did not.
Mrs Mathyssen: Is that why at the end of the meeting you said there are still two outstanding issues that have not been resolved, one, the removal of Sharron Pretty and the removal of the charges, because that had not been discussed?
Mr Nguyen: That's correct.
2130
Mr Callahan: That's not correct.
Interjections.
Ms Cronk: All right. He didn't say it wasn't discussed. He said it wasn't resolved. The way you put the last question was, that wasn't discussed.
Ms Mathyssen: Okay. I asked if the minister asked that Sharron Pretty drop the charges and he said no, so she didn't ask it. I wanted to be clear on that.
Mr Owens: Just one quick question. Would it be fair to say that because you are one of the individuals who was charged and going to court and involved in a legal proceeding at some time to be determined, it was your hope that the charges would be dropped as a result of the resolution of the two core issues? Would that be fair to say, that it was your hope?
Mr Nguyen: I myself don't believe that the charge would be dropped. I don't think Sharron Pretty would do that, myself.
Mr Owens: I guess my question is, in terms of formulating the somewhat interesting conclusions that you've come to with respect to this meeting: Is it not fair to say that because you are charged and are to appear in court, it is your hope or it was your hope, at the end of that meeting and at some future date, with the resolution of the two core issues, that those charges would be dropped that had nothing to do with anything that took place at the meeting? Would that be fair to say?
Mr Nguyen: Not quite. No.
Mr Owens: Not quite?
Mr Nguyen: Mm-hmm.
Mr Owens: Is that yes or is that no?
Mr Nguyen: No.
Mr Chiarelli: Mr Nguyen, again several questions about the June 17th meeting at which Minister Gigantes was present. I believe you said towards the end of the meeting your evidence was that you brought up the question of outstanding issues and you mentioned one of the outstanding issues as being the court case. I believe your testimony was earlier that Sharron Pretty said something like, "The matter is in the hands of the crown attorney." She used the words "crown attorney." I believe you recounted Sharron Pretty saying words like that.
I want to ask you, with respect to those two statements, which were made in the presence of the minister: Did anyone say to you or suggest to you or to Sharron Pretty that, "These matters should not be discussed," or, "We can't talk about the crown attorney," or, "We can't talk about the court case"? Was there any comment made about whether Sharron should have mentioned the crown attorney or whether you should have mentioned the court case?
Mr Nguyen: I don't think so.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you.
Mr Callahan: Just very briefly: It must be an awesome experience to be in the presence of a minister. Would that be right?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Mr Callahan: You'd never been in the presence of a cabinet minister, provincially anyway, I'll bet. Would that be fair to say?
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Mr Callahan: So it's kind of a heightened experience. Is that right? You were concerned; you're in the presence of the Minister of Housing. Is that right?
Mr Nguyen: What do you mean? Explain it.
Mr Callahan: Well, it's not like sitting --
Mr Harnick: It's a big experience.
Mr Callahan: Yeah, it's a big experience.
Mr Nguyen: Not quite, to me. No.
Mr Callahan: Did it not make you apprehensive, this being the Minister of Housing, that if she said something it would have more of an impact than if I said something to you, me as just a humble MPP?
Mrs Mathyssen: Not more than most.
Mr Callahan: No, but let's say --
Mr Nguyen: We didn't expect anything when we came to the meeting.
Mr Callahan: I guess what I'm trying to get at is, you've gone through a meeting with the Minister of Housing, and we've heard from other witnesses, many of your colleagues, that when the minister arrived they looked upon her as being there, finally, after all this asking, and she was going to solve all their problems. Is that a fair statement?
Mr Nguyen: No.
Mr Callahan: You didn't anticipate that she was going to solve all your problems?
Mr Nguyen: No.
Mr Callahan: Well, your colleagues said that.
Mr Nguyen: Honestly, I don't think that. I don't think so.
Mr Callahan: Well, did your meeting with the minister -- surely it must have had a more heightened experience than, say, meeting with one of your friends. Is that a fair statement?
Mr Nguyen: Sure.
Mr Callahan: Okay. So the minister's sitting there and the minister was chairing the meeting, was she not?
Mr Nguyen: I'm not too sure who was chairing the meeting.
Mr Callahan: We've heard evidence that she was chairing the meeting. She probably was running the meeting. Is that right?
Mr Nguyen: I don't know. What do you mean, "chair"? I mean, they didn't formally say, "I'm the chair of the meeting." No, she didn't say that, so I don't know.
Mr Callahan: No, but didn't she at the outset of the meeting say, you know: "I know all about your problems. I've gotten a briefing on the problems you're having. I've got a briefing on the court charges that are outstanding"? Did she not say that?
Mr Nguyen: Probably she did. I couldn't remember --
Mr Callahan: Yes. So she was chairing the meeting, I suggest. When you say she didn't bring pressure on you, I can accept that, but what I'm saying is that you've got the Minister of Housing there. It's a little different than having just one of your friends there, right?
Mr Nguyen: Sure. I agree, yes.
Mr Callahan: Right. So she doesn't have to be using pressure at all. Just her presence would be certainly -- not frightening, but certainly command respect. Would that be right?
Mr Nguyen: Well, I don't feel any pressure, myself.
Mr Callahan: Well, I guess I'm being rhetorical. If you weren't excited by that, then I guess the previous witness who attributed -- I can't think of the spectacular words, but -- that's fine. Thank you very much. I appreciate your answers.
Mr Nguyen: You're welcome.
Ms Cronk: I don't want this to come as a shock to Mr Callahan, but there might be the odd person who would share the witness's views on some of those questions.
Mr Callahan: Well, that could be, that could be. I can hardly wait. I'm trying to figure out what those three words were. I've got to look through Hansard.
Mr Harnick: Did you go over your evidence with anyone before you came here today?
Mr Nguyen: What evidence are you talking about?
Mr Harnick: The testimony you've just given. Did you go over this with anybody before you came here today?
Mr Nguyen: No, I just sit in that room and watch the hearing on the TV.
Mr Harnick: Did you go over it with your own lawyer?
Mr Nguyen: No.
Mr Harnick: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: Ms Marland, do you have any questions?
Mrs Marland: Did you discuss with Dr Tang, Dr Truong and Dr Le or any one of those gentlemen what you would all say when you came to the hearing?
Mr Nguyen: I don't think so. No, I don't.
Mrs Marland: You don't think so?
Mr Nguyen: No.
Mrs Marland: Or you didn't?
Mr Nguyen: No, I don't. I didn't.
Mrs Marland: So are you saying that you came to this hearing having not discussed anything to do with the June 17th meeting since the meeting?
Ms Cronk: With those individuals.
Mrs Marland: Sorry; with those three individuals.
Mr Nguyen: You mean for this hearing? Could you phrase the question again?
Mrs Marland: Did you discuss the June the 17th meeting, since the meeting, with the three other members of the board that I just named?
Mr Nguyen: Yes, we did talk about that. Yes.
Mrs Marland: And when did you talk about it?
Mr Nguyen: Right after the meeting, we chat about that one. Then later on during the -- well, it has been how many months now? Sure, we talked about that.
Mrs Marland: So did you talk about it in preparation for coming to this hearing?
Mr Nguyen: No, we did not.
Mrs Marland: Thank you.
Ms Cronk: I have just one question for you, Mr Nguyen, and it is because I am unclear as to what your evidence is to the committee. With respect to the meeting of June 19th, at which the removal of Sharron Pretty was to be discussed, do I understand your evidence to be that when you left the meeting on June 17th, you were of the understanding that that meeting was going to go forward?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Was it also your understanding that the motion to remove Sharron Pretty was going to be dealt with at that meeting?
Mr Nguyen: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then Saturday night, as I understand your evidence, you received a phone call indicating that the meeting was not going forward.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And therefore the motion to remove Sharron Pretty was not going forward.
Mr Nguyen: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Was it in your mind at least a possibility that the meeting could go forward without the issue of her removal being dealt with?
Mr Nguyen: No. I believe the meeting was still on to deal with the issue, but whether the decision about removing her or not, that I'm not too sure. But we were discussing about that motion, but I don't believe that we said, "Yes, we will remove her or not remove her."
Ms Cronk: I see. Thank you. Mr Nguyen, I want to thank you for coming before the committee to give your evidence. Thank you.
Mr Nguyen: You're welcome.
The Chair: Mr Nguyen, I'd like to thank you there for the evidence that you gave us to help the committee on their deliberations. Thank you.
Mr Nguyen: You're welcome.
The Chair: And a safe trip home.
Mr Nguyen: Thank you.
The Chair: We'll be meeting tomorrow at 10 o'clock. I got it correct tonight.
Mrs Marland: What time is it tomorrow?
The Chair: It's 10 o'clock, and a short subcommittee meeting right now. This committee's adjourned until 10 o'clock.
The committee adjourned at 2141.