CONTENTS
Wednesday 12 February 1992
Appointments Review
Peter Herrndorf
Paul LaFleur
William Robert Wightman
Judy L. Rebick
Fayne Bullen
Robert McMurdo
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président(e): Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président(e): McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Elston, Murray J. (Bruce L)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND)
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)
Substitution(s)/Membre(s) remplaçant(s):
Abel, Donald (Wentworth North/-Nord ND) for Mr Wiseman
Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mr Elston
Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND) for Mr Hayes
Farnan, Mike (Cambridge ND) for Ms Carter
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
Clerk pro tem / Greffier ou Greffière par intérim : Carrozza, Franco
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1006 in committee room 2.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Resuming consideration of intended appointments.
PETER HERRNDORF
The Chair: We have a quorum. I am going to call the meeting to order. We can get under way.
We will welcome our first witness today, Mr Peter Herrndorf, who is the intended appointee as a member and chair of the Ontario Educational Communications Authority. Welcome, Mr Herrndorf, to the committee. We appreciate your appearance. You have been selected for a one-hour review. The way that works is that each party caucus has 20 minutes allocated to it to ask questions and receive responses. Do you have anything you would like to say at the outset?
Mr Herrndorf: Mr Chairman, I have no opening statement but I do want to say that I am very pleased and honoured to be here this morning and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: We will lead off with Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Herrndorf, welcome to our committee. As you know, TVO has been a very special topic for a number of months and I would like to ask you what are your thoughts on TVO in general and also your thoughts on La Chaîne française.
Mr Herrndorf: Let me start with some comments about TVO. My reason for being interested in this position really has to do with the fact that, in watching TVO over many years, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the organization. I think the work they do both on the educational side and the broadcasting side is exemplary and it is an organization that all Ontarians should be proud of. I can elaborate on that, but let me deal specifically with the question of La Chaîne.
I read with enormous interest the testimony given in December, I think, by members of the board and some of the executives from TVO about La Chaîne. I was particularly fascinated by the eloquent defence of La Chaîne made at that hearing, the perspective that La Chaîne has become an indispensable part of the life of francophone Ontario, the fact that it has become, if you will, a forum for francophone Ontario, that it provides role models, that it provides education for everyone from preschoolers up. I was very taken by that testimony.
I have also been fascinated by the fact that three successive governments, the Davis government through Susan Fish, the Peterson government and now the Rae government, have either initiated La Chaîne, financed La Chaîne or supported La Chaîne, and that has been paralleled by the board of directors. So I am impressed both with the support La Chaîne has and with the quality of the work that La Chaîne has done in a relatively short period of time.
I am also aware of the fact that there is an ongoing debate about the resources that should be devoted to La Chaîne: in fact, there is a school of thought that La Chaîne, at the moment, does not have adequate resources; there is also clearly a school of thought that says La Chaîne has a disproportionate amount of resources. I am not really in a position to judge that and I will not, I think, until I am there; at that point I will take a look at that. I think it is a very important initiative that has been taken by the province of Ontario and by TVO.
Mr Grandmaître: I am very pleased to hear you say that La Chaîne/TVO is an indispensable service, especially La Chaîne to the francophone population of this province. I do agree with you that a lot has been said in the last couple of months about its operation. I know that a new boss means a new approach, a new vision. I am pleased to hear you say that you want to take a second look at the operation of La Chaîne. But does that mean, sir, that you do not expect major changes? I know it is hypothetical. Need I ask you this?
Mr Herrndorf: I think my approach would probably work in two phases. The first phase would be a period of time in which I talked and listened to almost everyone involved with TVO. That clearly is employees, the board, volunteers, the friends of TVO, independent filmmakers, and I would want to spend a lot of time sorting through what all of them have to say about TVO.
The second phase would involve my working with my colleagues at TVO, and I think it is inevitable that there would be new directions, changes. But I would not want to do that until I had a very clear idea from that constituency, or number of constituencies, and I felt that I knew a lot more than I feel I know now. I think you can assume that at some point in the process TVO would make changes, hopefully improvements, head off in different directions, and I think that is healthy for an organization. The organization has had the same management for six years. It think it is inevitable that there would be changes, much as there will be changes where I work now when my successor comes in.
Mr Grandmaître: Can I get the assurance from you today that if any changes are brought about, especially to La Chaîne, you will consult with the francophone population?
Mr Herrndorf: You have my guarantee on that. My style is to consult widely, and on an issue like La Chaîne, it think it is even more important.
Mr Grandmaître: Good. I will pass for now, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Mr McGuinty, did you have any questions at this time?
Mr McGuinty: Not right now.
The Chair: Mr McLean?
Mr McLean: As chair, you will be the chief executive officer. Is that your understanding?
Mr Herrndorf: Yes, if confirmed by this committee, I would be chair and chief executive officer.
Mr McLean: The directors receive an honorarium of $175 a day, and the vice-chair gets $200. What is your salary going to be?
Mr Herrndorf: Let me respond to that by indicating that my salary would be in the deputy minister range. My understanding is that it is the practice for officials in the government to limit their comments on this to the kind of range they fall into, and I would certainly prefer to do that.
Mr McLean: And who has directed you to do that?
Mr Herrndorf: In my conversations with the government, the point of view I was given was that this was practice and had been practice for many years, that officials simply indicated the kind of range they were in, and I have so done.
Mr McLean: There used to be a time when we would know exactly what they were paid. It used to be advertised, and we would all know exactly where everybody was at. That was back in the good old days. Now we do not seem to know what anybody is getting and it is pretty difficult to find out what the staff does get paid.
Out of the 15 members on these councils, have you had any dealings with them in the past?
[Failure of sound system]
Mr Herrndorf: I have not. During my time at the Canadian Broadcasting Corp, I worked extensively with the advisory committees which, to some degree, were similar to this. So that is the limit of my experience with councils of this kind.
Mr McLean: The videotapes that were made were sold; they were cost recovery to non-profit educational institutes across the province. How has that program worked out?
Mr Herrndorf: I think I am not the best person to tell you that at the moment. The next time I am here, I would be happy to run through that in detail, but that is simply asking for experience that I do not have yet. Incidentally, I do not mean to duck you on this. I come having, I hope, a reasonable amount of general information about TVO, but in terms of the specifics, I am just not in a position to comment at this point.
Mr McLean: Okay. The previous chair had indicated there was inadequate government support. I am wondering whether the American commercial competition is a serious problem for TVOntario.
Mr Herrndorf: I can only give you my perspective at this point. I would hope that TVO would not worry too much about competition from American commercial networks. My hope would be that TVO would be, if you will, a dynamic alternative to the commercial networks, that it does its educational work, both in the schools and in broadcasting, it does so with very high-quality work and through that develops a loyal audience. But if the question is, should TVO compete with the American commercial networks, my answer would be no.
Mr McLean: How do you feel the government can help TVOntario to meet the challenges which are posed by commercial broadcasting, in your own endeavours, now?
Mr Herrndorf: The challenge in broadcasting, I think, does not necessarily come from the commercial broadcasters. It comes from a rapidly changing environment; first of all, remarkable changes in technology over the course of the last 10 years. That has made life difficult for broadcasters. It has meant that in a place like Ontario people have remarkable choice that they did not have 10 years ago. It is just a very different environment.
Given the economy, given the needs of international competition, skills training, TVO has, if anything, an even more important role to play, but it is within that rapidly changing broadcasting environment that it has to function. Whether that means additional resources, as the previous management argued, I cannot judge at this point. But there is no question that there are a lot of pressures on TVO. Again, the next time I am here I will be in a much better position to judge that.
Mr McLean: I would like to hear your comments with regard to the percentage of the budget that it is indicated goes to La Chaîne and the English broadcaster?
Mr Herrndorf: This the point that I was making before to your colleague. To me the issue divides into two parts. The first part is the importance and validity of La Chaîne, and from my point of view the case has been made very strongly. I think La Chaîne is a great success story for the people of Ontario.
In terms of the allocation of resources, I pointed out to your colleague that that is the question I have to get a better handle on. It is fascinating to me that in the two and a half weeks since I have been nominated for this position I have heard passionate appeals on both sides of this issue: passionate appeals from supporters of La Chaîne who feel that it is underfinanced and I dare say equally passionate views about the fact that it gets too much of TVO's resources. The one thing I do know from my experience as a broadcaster is that if you are creating a network, La Chaîne or any other kind of network, it requires a critical mass of resources. One of the things I hope to do in the first few months is take a look at the way those resources are allocated between the two networks.
1020
Mr McLean: One final question, Mr Chair. Could the broadcasting needs of Franco-Ontarians be met by one integrated network?
Mr Herrndorf: I read through a lot of the testimony around that subject over the course of the last four or five years. I have read the views of elected representatives, the views of board members and the francophone community management and there does seem to be a strong view that, given the range of obligations that the English portion of TVO has in educational terms, in broadcasting terms, the needs of the francophone community would not be able to be met by a single channel. As I said, three governments in succession, the Davis government, the Peterson government and the Rae government, have all subscribed to that view.
Mr McLean: Thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: With Mr McLean's permission I am going to take up his last two minutes. I have some difficulty with that, as you know, with respect to La Chaîne.
Mr Herrndorf: Yes, I do.
The Chair: People would paint me and others in a certain colour, which I disagree with. We are talking about responsible use of tax dollars and I have some difficulty, when you look at your predecessor saying La Chaîne was created for political reasons, and also when you look at the fact that you say it is a tremendous success story, when you are attracting about 180,000 viewers for an average of two and a half hours a week, and it is chewing up 32% of the budget. So I think the question of whether the needs of both language groups can be met through one network -- and we are talking about public dollars here -- is a valid one and obviously you are going to take it into consideration. But I am a little concerned that you go in with, it seems to me, a foregone conclusion in terms of describing it as a great success story. You know my views on this anyway.
A couple of things; I raised this with your predecessor too. I found, in my 10 or 11 years around this place, that a lot of Ontarians simply have no idea what is going on in the Legislature of Ontario. They are not familiar with the workings of committees like this, the responsibilities of members and the functioning of Parliament. I suggested to Mr Ostry the whole question of something like Inside Albany, which we catch on PBS, so that there is an effort by the educational network to educate Ontarians about their own Legislature.
I was watching TVO the other night and I saw a show called Between the Lines, which is produced by TVO in collaboration, I gather, with other provincial agencies. But it is a federally oriented show, dealing with federal issues. I found it a fascinating and enjoyable show. With your background in the electronic news field, it seems to me that this is the sort of thing that perhaps you could be taking a look at. I know, as a legislator, I am bringing people here who are totally surprised when they see this building, how it functions, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. I think you could perform a very worthwhile role as an educational network in informing the people of Ontario about the operations of this place.
Mr Herrndorf: Let me just make a comment. I happen to agree with you completely. It is the only criticism of programming I will make here this morning, but I have been surprised by the fact that TVO, over the last decade, has not covered the work of the provincial government and the Legislature. This is not something that I converted to yesterday afternoon. I really feel that the issues surrounding the Legislature and the government are so important that they just need much more airing.
The Chair: I am glad to hear that.
Mr Farnan: I will ask a couple of questions and then pass to my colleagues. First of all, I want to welcome you, Peter, and it is nice to see someone as young as ourselves with --
Mr Herrndorf: That is the nicest thing anybody has said to me this week.
Mr Marchese: He is speaking for himself.
Mr Farnan: Peter, I will only ask a couple of general questions for the record. Could you comment in terms of your background and the goals of TVO and how they mesh?
Mr Herrndorf: I will just spend a few seconds in terms of my own background. For many years I worked in public broadcasting; 17, 18 years I worked in public broadcasting. I worked as a journalist. I worked as a producer. I worked as a program department head. I ended my time at CBC by being the vice-president and general manager of the English radio and television networks.
In the last eight years I have been the publisher of a magazine, Toronto Life. In my spare time, although my wife questions that description, I have done a great deal of volunteer work. At the moment I am chairman of the board of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Ottawa-Hull. I have been chairman of the board of the Stratford Festival and the Canadian Stage Company. I have done a lot of that kind of volunteer work and I have tried to do some public policy work. I was involved, for example, in the pay equity deliberations five years ago with the Ontario government. I have been, for the last six months, involved in the Premier's Council on Economic Renewal and I have done quite a lot of work on the educational side with the University of Western Ontario, the University of Toronto, York University, oddly enough the University of Kansas in Lawrence. In a curious way, all of those experiences seem to dovetail perfectly into TVOntario; the level of interest in education and the fact that I have a five-year-old and a 10-year-old. Having a five-year-old and a 10-year-old kind of concentrates the mind around the need for education and the role that TVO plays in education. The background in broadcasting, I think, dovetails well with the kinds of public service imperatives TVO has, and the work I have done in the arts again coincides very well with some of thrusts of TVO.
My sense about TVO is that there are, let's say, three or four things that need to be done. First of all, to build on strength: They have very real strengths in programming and very real strengths on the educational side and I would like to build on that.
Second, I think it is very important that the finances of TVO be managed prudently, particularly at a time when, as we all know, we are going through a tough economy and it is important that the provincial government and our subscribers understand that the money is being very carefully dealt with.
A couple of other things I would stress in terms of my goals: I think it is very important to broaden the base of support for TVO, and by that I mean not that TVO suddenly have a dramatic increase in its ratings; I mean that there be a broad base of support in every part of this province for TVO and that the membership base go up.
Finally, I would like to see TVO begin to do an even better job in terms of self-generated revenues. I think it is very important that, in terms of international sales, the sale of curriculum programming to the US, underwriting by foundations and corporations, TVO do its bit during these tough times to make sure the resources are there.
Those would be some of the things.
1030
Mr Farnan: Basically I think you have answered my supplementary. I was going to follow up by asking you about the corporate goals. They include improving TVOntario's financial position and operating effectively, efficiently, a balanced budget, etc. I think what I liked about your response was the balance between the creativity, the programming, the management and the fiscal responsibility. Just on that fiscal area, in this extensive background are there particular periods of time when you had hands-on fiscal responsibility?
Mr Herrndorf: Yes, when I was vice-president and general manager of the English networks I had a responsibility for a budget of $350 million and I was responsible for 6,000 to 7,000 employees. I had to make sure we met that budget month after month, year after year. In the last eight years the responsibility not just for meeting the budget but for making sure that our investors got a reasonable return on their investment was really my responsibility. That is very much a hands-on responsibility. So both my experience in the public sector and my experience in the private sector was very much hands-on in terms of financial management.
Mr Farnan: Mr Chair, I had a couple of other questions but I know my colleague is champing at the bit and wants to get in on the action, so I will defer.
Mr Marchese: Mr Herrndorf, welcome here.
Mr Herrndorf: Thank you.
Mr Marchese: I want to say you will be inheriting an institution that has had a very good reputation not only here in Ontario but in Canada and I think in many parts of the world as well.
One of the questions I was going to ask had to do with your vision of TVO. I think you have touched on that in part. I do not know whether you had some other thoughts about the vision, but if you have answered it then I have already heard that. The other part connected to the vision is the mandate of TVO. I know the ministry has been interested in reviewing the mandate of TVO and I wondered whether you are thinking of reviewing the mandate as a way of perhaps evolving.
Mr Herrndorf: One of the things I hope to do almost immediately is meet with the board and the staff of TVO and review the mandate, review the legislation under which TVO operates. My sense, so you know, at the moment is that in looking through that legislation, I think it is a very effective piece of legislation in terms of giving TVO direction. It is both quite supple and quite precise at the same time. My sense is that the legislation is effective legislation, but despite that I want to review it completely and I want to have those discussions with the minister, the board and the staff to make sure that we are on the right wavelength.
In terms of the vision, something I said to the Chairman earlier, I do not want to sound like George Bush when he talks about the vision thing, but I also feel it is a little presumptuous to sit here before I have set foot in TVO and to start talking about vision. My style, again, is to consult widely, to work with a lot of different people and then hopefully through that process to begin to develop a revised vision.
Mr Marchese: I should say, Mr Herrndorf, that in general a lot of people have high expectations of people when they enter into these jobs and they almost expect you to have a vision before you enter into it, but I understand the comment you are making about getting into the job, understanding what is there and developing the vision as you go along.
Mr Herrndorf: My sense of TVO is that it is a very pluralistic organization. It is a creative organization. I think particularly in those kinds of organizations, the pluralistic, creative organizations, it is very important to make sure you have the range of opinion before you launch forth.
Mr Marchese: I want to touch on some of those aspects very shortly. About La Chaîne, I want to offer a contrary view to what Mr Runciman and others were saying. I am particularly interested in maintaining French programming, through La Chaîne in particular, particularly committed and devoted to the idea of preserving and promoting francophone culture in Ontario, which I believe La Chaîne does. That is a philosophical, personal statement I make about my commitment to it. I know you have commented on that but I thought I would share that with you. If you have some statements, I do not mind hearing about that again.
Mr Herrndorf: I think I have covered my response to La Chaîne.
Mr Marchese: The other point I want to raise very much connected to that is, what is your commitment to issues of multiculturalism and anti-racist work through TVO English programming and La Chaîne as well?
Mr Herrndorf: I am not sure how personal to be. I guess I will be. My family came to this country from Europe after the war. In the best sense we are immigrants, and proud to be immigrants in this country. It has always been important to me that this society provide opportunities for this remarkable cross-section of people we have and that this society believe in affirmative action for people who do not have those opportunities immediately. I am a supporter of pay equity and I was when I was involved in it as an issue at Queen's Park. My sense is that it is very important for TVO to be not only sensitive to issues that have to do with multiculturalism and women's issues. I think TVO, because of the nature of organization it is, has to program sensitively about those issues as well.
Mr Marchese: I want to understand your style of management, if you could describe that, so that I could get a good sense of how you will relate or want to relate to other board members and to other staff you will obviously have to work with.
Mr Herrndorf: I guess you would describe my style -- or more particularly my colleagues over many of the places I have been would describe it -- as being collaborative. I tend to take a long view. I tend to be quite tenacious in pursuing those goals. My sense is that, generally speaking, the places I have worked have been happy, creative shops; I think sometimes wondering whether my tenacity might be more than I can handle, but, as I say, generally happy, creative shops.
Mr Marchese: My other question has to do with the relationship to the minister or the ministry. My experience is that chairs of different institutions contact us when there is a crisis, sometimes a financial crisis and sometimes when there is a real problem that has emerged. Do you intend to connect to the minister or the ministry on a much more regular basis as a way of talking about the goals of TVO and how you can work together with the ministry on the mandate and on other areas you think TVO should get into?
1040
Mr Herrndorf: It is a fascinating balancing act that I think the chairman of TVO has to do. On the one hand, of course, as a crown corporation, it does operate at arms' length, subject to the legislation, the memorandum of understanding and CRTC licences. It is the board that really has to make judgements about TVO. On the other hand, and this is what I want to stress, I think it is very important for TVO not only to have close relations with the minister, but I also think it is very important that on major public policy initiatives there should be a tremendous amount of harmonization between the two. The minister and I have already spoken about that, and my instinct, and I think hers, is to make sure that it is not a relationship that suddenly develops fruit when there is a crisis. It is much better if in fact this is an ongoing relationship and it works effectively.
Mr Marchese: I wish you luck, Peter.
Mr Herrndorf: Thank you.
The Chair: Any other member of the government caucus? You have four minutes left, if anyone has a question.
Mr Farnan: I want to ask a question. I suppose it has been answered, but maybe there is some elaboration you can make upon it. Your predecessor, Mr Ostry, had initiated an agreement with Japan's public broadcasting company, and I think in earlier responses you indicated this was one matter in which financial advances could be made by TVOntario. Is there any elaboration on that as to potential markets you see that have not been tapped and that are there for some pioneering work to be done?
Mr Herrndorf: I became familiar with the senior executives from NHK at the public broadcasting conference that was held in Toronto in November.
The Chair: It was not in Cleveland.
Mr Herrndorf: No, it was not in Cleveland. We can get back to that. This is new management of NHK. They are not quite as interested in playing with -- what struck me about the senior executives from NHK, and it was the president of NHK and the managing director, was the commitment they had to TVO. At that time I was simply there watching this process, and they were clearly very committed to NHK. It is a three-year co-production arrangement.
NHK is the major broadcaster in Asia. The fact that they have carved out this relationship with TVOntario as opposed to other options they might have had I think is an indication of the respect they have for TVO, but I think it also opens up tremendous opportunities for TVO and for Ontario. Asia is the burgeoning market in the world. I think there are tremendous opportunities for the sale of programs, co-productions and joint ventures of all kinds, and NHK is a very good organization to be hooked up with. They really are an international powerhouse. I think Asia represents a great opportunity.
I think the other place that represents a great opportunity is Europe. Again, TVO has good relationships with not only France and Germany but interesting relationships with Holland and Belgium. I think there is a possibility of an evolving relationship with several of the broadcasters in Britain.
All of these represent opportunities for the sale of programs, potentially the sale of educational materials, joint ventures, and I think those are very good opportunities.
The Chair: Mr Frankford, you have 30 seconds.
Mr Frankford: I will pass.
Interjection.
Mr Jackson: Do you like baseball?
Mr Herrndorf: Do I like baseball? Yes, unfortunately I do.
Mr McGuinty: Mr Herrndorf, first of all, one of the concerns shared by many people sitting on bodies which are reliant on government funding is that there may be cutbacks in these times of economic restraint. I am wondering if you have received any kind of assurance from any member of government or from the Premier that there will be no cutbacks.
Mr Herrndorf: Let me be absolutely categorical. I asked for no such assurance and I received no such assurance. At the time I discussed this job with the government I, like everyone else in this province, understood the economic realities that were facing Ontario. Also, as a result of the role I have been playing through the Premier's Council on Economic Renewal, I just felt that it was inappropriate at that point to ask for such a commitment, and of course I did not receive it. I have to say as a rider that once in the job I hope to be a forceful advocate for TVO in these matters, but in terms of the period when the job was being discussed, there was nothing of that kind.
Mr McGuinty: You would, I am sure, be aware that TVO has suffered a blow to that wonderful intangible we call goodwill recently and a lot of that was a result of spending that originated with your predecessor. I am wondering, first of all, why you want to put your head into this wringer and, second, if you fully understand the demands that are going to be placed upon you. I have reviewed your CV and it is very impressive, but I do not think you have had a position that is going to be as public as this one; by public, I mean that my reading of the public is that they are going to want to know what your salary is -- I noticed there was some reluctance on your part today to disclose that specifically -- and they are going to want to know what your expenses are. I am wondering if you are prepared to deal with that.
Mr Herrndorf: Let me respond to the first part of your question. Not only do I think this job is more public but I think it is also more complex. During the discussions about the job I began to do some charting of the TVO environment, and the TVO environment is quite simply one of the most complex environments I have seen. I actually did an environmental chart, looking at the various elements that make up the myriad communities and constituencies TVO has, and it is very complicated.
As for the question of why I would like to do it, there are two reasons. First, I think TVO is a great organization and I think it is tremendously important to the people of Ontario and I hope that through my efforts and the efforts of my colleagues we can enhance that organization. Second, it is an absolutely fascinating challenge, particularly at this time, with the kinds of changes in the broadcasting and educational environment, this particular time in TVOntario's life. It is an extraordinary challenge and it is a challenge I hope I can meet.
In terms of scrutiny, my sense is that through most of my career I have had a good deal of scrutiny. Certainly during the years at CBC I had a lot of scrutiny. I have also worked in the last eight years for an organization that within the magazine industry is known as one that is notoriously cheap, that we watch our pennies very carefully. I think it has been a very good training ground.
Mr McGuinty: Would you feel put upon, as if your privacy were being infringed, if somebody asked you specifically, "Mr Herrndorf, as chairman of TVO, what is your salary?"
1050
Mr Herrndorf: Listen, I have answered the question before. The ground rules under which I accepted this job were that I was completely open about the range within which this job fell, and that is public record. But I have to tell you that I am a professional. I come from a job in which I was professional; I go to a job in which I am professional. I am not a career public servant, and as such, it is a matter of some privacy. I have to tell you honestly that I would prefer to keep it on that basis.
Mr McGuinty: Let me just pursue that a little bit. It has been my feeling that sometimes fairness does not come into play in some of these matters in public life as politicians.
Mr Herrndorf: This is John Kennedy's line: Life is not fair.
Mr McGuinty: Yes, perhaps. I am somewhat intrigued. I can understand where you are coming from with saying you are a professional and you believe certain things should be held private, but I am just relating to you that I think there is generally a public expectation that they should know that.
Mr Farnan: Mr Chairman, on a point of information.
Mr Marchese: A point of order.
The Chair: Point of information, clarification, whatever, go ahead.
Mr Farnan: I think the record should show that the salary is basically accessible through the freedom of information. It is a range of salary and that is as things are. I think the pursuit of that line of questioning really is not very helpful.
The Chair: That does not sound like a question to me. It is a point of view and it is out of order. Go ahead, Mr McGuinty.
Mr Marchese: But, Mr Chair, if I can again on this.
The Chair: On what?
Mr Marchese: On this point.
The Chair: That is not a point. I just said it was not a point of order. Go ahead, Mr McGuinty.
Mr Marchese: But on a point of information, Mr Chair, if you would allow me.
The Chair: I will allow you a question, not a statement.
Mr Marchese: Under the freedom of information and privacy legislation no one is compelled to give exact salaries.
The Chair: That sounds like an interjection, which is not relevant and not a point of order. Go ahead, Mr McGuinty.
Mr McGuinty: You can correct me if I am wrong, Mr Herrndorf, but I do not recall ever asking you what it is that you are going to be paid. I recall talking about public expectation and what you would do if someone were to ask you that.
Mr Herrndorf: Let me just say as a last comment that I think you will find in our dealings over a number of years that, if anything, I will err on the side of too much disclosure in terms of TVO. As I say, it has been my understanding about this job that disclosure is limited to a range and I would be happy to talk to you about it after this. You may very well be able to persuade me that the approach I am taking is not the right one.
Mr McGuinty: No, I am just wondering where your mind is at in terms of that issue, that is all, Mr Herrndorf.
On another matter, I was talking about the difficulties TVO was facing at the present time as a result of activity in the chairman's office and expenditures made or authorized by your predecessor. What is your plan specifically to restore confidence in TVO? I think it was two weeks ago I was watching the acting chair, I believe, on a special program.
Mr Herrndorf: Yes, on the TVO viewer show.
Mr McGuinty: Exactly, and dealing with that issue and making efforts to assure the viewers that there was going to be some kind of a change, that things were being tightened up. I am wondering what you intend to do, because as I understand it, there is a fair reliance by TVO on public funding.
Mr Herrndorf: Absolutely.
Mr McGuinty: I understand it is $4 million or something like that.
Mr Herrndorf: Yes, and as I said earlier, it is absolutely essential to the future of TVO that both the government and those members, those subscribers, believe in the integrity of our financial processes.
I guess the thing I will do on the first day I am there is to begin a quick review to make sure that the procedures, the practices that are in place, are good enough. In that process, I will be discussing them with the Provincial Auditor. I would like to get the Provincial Auditor's perspective on that because he has done a lot of work in this area, specifically, of course, in relation to TVO. I would like to get the perspective of David Galloway, the former chair of the finance committee, and Jim Head, the current chair of the finance committee of the TVO board, and get their sense of it. But it would be an immediate priority to satisfy myself so that I can go out here publicly and say, "I am satisfied that in fact we have the procedures and practices in place and that your money is being well spent and well managed."
Mr McGuinty: I understand you would do that, Mr Herrndorf, internally; you would make those kinds of inquiries and findings. But what about the public perception, and how would you convey that?
Mr Herrndorf: For example, three days after I start I will be going on that same TVO program you talked about and fielding phone calls from viewers, from subscribers, and I will convey those points. Over the course of the next year, my hope is to visit most of Ontario and to make those points in communities across Ontario and to make sure that people have confidence in TVO.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr Jackson, did you have a question?
Mr Jackson: Just a brief question, if I might. It has to do with the concept of the expansion of French-language services. This is more a labour question and how you envisage handling the concept of last hired, first fired when La Chaîne is in expansion and you are in a restraint mode for your overall programs. I know I had a conversation with Mr Ostry two years ago about this challenge. Technically it meant, within the collective agreements, that you had to lay off the francophones first because they were the largest single group of new hirees.
Mr Herrndorf: Yes.
Mr Jackson: How are you going to approach that without undermining the integrity of your French-language programming and yet not have the trade unionists all over you?
Mr Herrndorf: The short answer to your question is that I am not sure yet. I have been in conversation with the leaders of the unions at TVO. I will be meeting with them literally the first day, and that will be part of what we have to talk about, because the conundrum that you point out is absolutely correct. Somehow we have to work our way through that.
Mr Jackson: As my daughter approaches French immersion -- she is already addicted to Polka Dot Door -- I expect to see continued good things in your children's French programming in this province.
Mr Herrndorf: I have two children in French immersion, so I understand.
Mr Jackson: Thank you very much.
Mrs Marland: Mr Herrndorf, you have obviously realized, from some of the questions this morning, that you face a very big challenge. You mentioned meeting with the Provincial Auditor, and when your appointment is endorsed by this committee you are walking into a situation that has an extremely damning auditor's report outstanding.
I am the person who initiated those questions in the House, and when I did, I asked the questions almost hoping the information I had was wrong. As you know, the questions I had ended up being the tip of the iceberg in terms of the information that then outflowed from the auditor's report.
1100
My concern is that TVO cannot survive without the public subscriptions and that the credibility of TVO as a whole was put at risk because of all the things in this report, everything from internal mismanagement and lack of financial overview to all the other details which I will not recall now because I know you are very familiar with them. But my concern, when you talk about getting the board's sense of it, which is what I think you said a few moments ago, is that after the Provincial Auditor's report came out and very clearly delineated all the areas of major concern, the present board at TVO then endorsed your predecessor, the chairman at that time. I do not think the current board has a sense of the gravity of that auditor's report. I am sure you have read the board's public endorsement of Mr Ostry, so I am a little bit concerned that you are going to take the board's sense of it when the board seemed to be very insensitive to the gravity of what the Provincial Auditor was saying. He actually was saying it is a mess, that there are grave areas of omission and that the public was not represented or protected by the practices that were currently going on in TVOntario.
Mr Herrndorf: It is a much larger subject, in terms of my responding to you. One of the difficulties I have coming to this fresh is that I have to be in a position where I hear all sides of this. I know the Provincial Auditor is somebody who is highly regarded and who has done a report. I also know that David Galloway, who I mentioned earlier, who is the president of Torstar Corp and was the chairman of the finance committee for a number of years, does not totally agree with everything that is in the auditor's report. One of the things I have to do is to sift through this. I have to hear all those perspectives. The pledge that I make to you is that I will be very much my own man in terms of those judgements. I will not be unduly swayed by what has gone before.
Mrs Marland: Am I out of time?
The Chair: You have another three minutes.
Mrs Marland: Thank you. I am encouraged, of course, to hear you say you will not be unduly swayed by what has gone before. But I hope, when you say that Mr Galloway does not totally agree with the auditor's report, that when you are on the inside of TVO and look at the auditor's report, you will recognize that the auditor's report was not done by one individual. It is so crucial to the public to have the security of knowing that the Provincial Auditor is doing his or her job in whatever ministry-related agency, board or commission in Ontario with total lack of bias and being totally committed to the professionalism of that responsibility.
My concern is that when you are dealing with people who were on the board of TVO and who do have a bias, that separation is made by you. If I were on the board, naturally my bias would be to the board and to the people associated with it. The Provincial Auditor has no bias. The public's confidence in the whole system -- Mr McGuinty mentioned the $4 million the subscribers give. I am very concerned about the $67 million or $70 million the taxpayers give, apart from the public subscription. TVO actually gets upwards of $80 million minimum from the taxpayers in this province, through voluntary subscription of $3 million to $4 million, and the rest of it in funding directly from the government. I hope that when you go in, you will commit to an unbiased investigation from your perspective and recognize where everybody is coming from.
Mr Herrndorf: Absolutely.
Mrs Marland: I know you probably would like to go in and be Mr Popular and be accepted, because it is tough to go into these jobs with existing boards and existing senior staff and administration.
Mr Herrndorf: I think the circumstances of this one may make it more difficult to go in and be Mr Popularity, so I agree with you. I have to say I agree with you totally about the credibility of the organization. It is absolutely indispensable, given the way the organization is funded.
The Chair: Thanks very much. That concludes the time we have allocated for this, Mr Herrndorf. We thank you for appearing this morning and wish you well with the challenges that lie ahead.
Mr Herrndorf: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.
Incidentally, I have to tell you that in the last week I have read all the transcripts of --
The Chair: Mr Herrndorf, Mrs Marland, if I could ask you to perhaps carry on the conversation, and we will --
Mrs Marland: That is fine. We can find other places to talk.
PAUL LAFLEUR
The Chair: Our next witness is Mr Paul LaFleur. Mr LaFleur, would you like to come forward, please, and take a seat. Welcome to the committee.
Mr LaFleur: Good morning. It is a pleasure to be here.
The Chair: Mr LaFleur is an intended appointee as a member of the Regional Municipality of Halton Police Services Board. This is a half-hour review, 10 minutes to each party. You were selected for review by the third party, so I am going to look to Mr Jackson to lead off.
Mr Jackson: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Welcome, Paul.
Mr LaFleur: Good morning, Mr Jackson.
Mr Jackson: I wanted to share with you that we had the opportunity to interview Susan Eng two weeks ago as part of a more full program of review of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board and so on. Several questions were asked about the nature of her appointment. She confirmed that she had been contacted by the Premier's office for the position and had in fact been contacted by the Premier's office for the chair's position. So I wanted to get into the concept of your interest in and your application for the position, if I may. Can you share with the committee how you happened to make application for the position?
Mr LaFleur: I was called to the bar in 1987 and have been a practising lawyer in Burlington since that time. Indeed, I have been practising or working in Burlington since 1985, and I shared some concerns about public policy. I was born in 1952. I became of age during the sixties. I protested --
Mr Jackson: I am sorry. We do have your résumé. I was asking how you came to make the formal application. I should have been more explicit. Were you contacted or did you contact the appointments secretariat?
Mr LaFleur: The contact was from my office. I wrote a letter expressing an interest in serving on the police services board.
Mr Jackson: Okay. They contacted you back and asked you for a complete résumé?
Mr LaFleur: They asked me for a résumé, yes. I think Andrew Mackenzie called me, or it might have been one of the other people from his office. I am not sure who it was.
Mr Jackson: We have a copy of your letter to Andrew Mackenzie. In it you note, "I currently practise some criminal law and, if required, I will cease practising in the area of criminal law." Was that a matter of a discussion you had with Mr Mackenzie prior to writing that letter or was this your own perception that there may be a conflict?
Mr LaFleur: I wanted to avoid any potential conflicts. I thought if it was a conflict, I would cease to practise in the area of criminal law, and I have indicated in the letter that I would do so.
Mr Jackson: We have a report before us from the appointments secretariat, and on page 12 of that report it indicates, "What would be the response if you discovered, in reviewing an intended appointee's background, a probability of conflict of interest?" We are then advised by the appointments secretariat that no formal process exists. "However, the following actions could be taken." At any time was this matter, the nature of the conflict, discussed, during the interview or at any time during the appointment secretariat's screening process?
1110
Mr LaFleur: No. I just think that defending people in criminal court, where you have potentially adverse interests with the police officers, is potential conflict. I think anyone can recognize that.
Mr Jackson: Yes. I respect you for identifying it. What I am concerned about is that the protocol is that, where no formal process exists, people in the Ministry of the Solicitor General should have discussed it with you, and apparently they did not.
Mr LaFleur: They did.
Mr Jackson: I just asked you if there was any conversation with Mr Mackenzie regarding this issue of the conflict.
Mr LaFleur: I believe there were two or three conversations with Mr Mackenzie.
Mr Jackson: What understandings were achieved in those conversations?
Mr LaFleur: I indicated in writing that I would be prepared to forgo the portion of my practice that deals with criminal law.
Mr Jackson: Did they indicate that would be a condition they would apply, or that this was just a consideration? I am trying to ask who told you that this is what you should do.
Mr LaFleur: I think it was by mutual agreement.
Mr Jackson: Okay. Did you seek any legal opinion or did they offer any on that point?
Mr LaFleur: The only legal opinion I got was my own.
Mr Jackson: Okay, no problem. The point has been made that there are several examples in the Legislature of people who might profit after the fact of an appointment. The thesis goes something to the effect that, although you may separate yourself from the practising of criminal law, you put yourself in a very attractive position with criminals to do criminal law in that you now have had a two-, four-, six-year appointment to the police commission and have specific insights into police procedures, the nature and the efficacy of certain forensic testing, that all this insight would be made more acutely aware to you and that it could potentially afford you an opportunity which other criminal lawyers are seldom given in this province. Was that ever discussed, any aspects of life after your opportunities to serve on a police board?
Mr LaFleur: I do not believe it was.
Mr Jackson: If I might, I want to move to an article which -- you had the opportunity to defend Steven Olah in the Fritch murder. There was some public commentary about the use of videotaping. Although I might even agree with some of your comments as it relates to the family, I was concerned about the fact that the newspaper article -- and this is well back in the fall, before your interview -- refers to the fact that "LaFleur, who also happens to be a candidate for the Halton police services board, plans to make an issue of police handling of videotaped evidence if he is appointed by the government." I was quoting directly. My concern is your predisposition to going into a police board with a rather firm and stern view of police procedures, in the sense that you are actually bringing with you your criminal/legal perspective to the work of the police board. How do you respond to that?
Mr LaFleur: I was somewhat dismayed to discover that the police services board and, indeed, the Halton regional police do not have a policy regarding videotape and what they do with the videotapes. This is the age of videotaping things that happen that can be potentially very damaging.
I would like to relate that issue back, Mr Jackson, because I know you feel very strongly about it as well, to the rights of victims. I just thought it was inappropriate for the police -- I guess it was crown's office, actually, that released it, but it ultimately came from the police department. December 20, five days before Christmas, we have Mrs Fritch and her family -- and I believe I said that in the article -- watching on tape, describing how their husband and father was killed. I can think of many examples, and I discussed this with a number of the officers. An eight-year-old at school could say to the young Fritch child, "I saw the guy who killed your father on TV."
I think you have to demonstrate a clear public policy in releasing the videotape, and if there is a clear public policy in doing so, or a need, I would be all in favour of it. I do not think there is any public policy here in dictating that, and indeed there is no policy that I am aware of. I have spoken to a couple of senior officers on the force and they have told me that had never occurred to them.
Mr Jackson: I would agree with you on the point that there is some consternation about the crown attorney's office and less so with the police, who felt that they were able to do so in so far as the crown attorney's office had released the videos, but we will leave that for the moment.
I just wanted to discuss with you, if I may, the issue of employment equity. Again, this report talks in detail about employment equity and it identifies five groups: women, persons with disabilities, visible minorities, francophones and natives. In an examination of your application, you do not seem to fit comfortably into any of those, on the face of it. I understand there were quite a few applications for this position. Do you have any idea why perhaps your appointment would have come forward, when in fact it is not part of the employment equity guidelines?
Mr LaFleur: I am not a francophone?
Mr Jackson: Your résumé does not indicate that you are fluent in French-language services.
Mr LaFleur: Well, my father came from Gaspé, my grandmother lives in Quebec City. I certainly am a francophone and I speak French, although I speak family French. I have never been formally educated in French, but I can tell you, Mr Jackson, that the blood that flows through my veins is French blood.
Mr Jackson: That is very good to hear.
Mr LaFleur: My father would be very taken aback if I did not tell you that. I do not know much about the process. I just applied and I was given an interview, and here I am.
Mr Jackson: My final question has to do with the interviews. One of the comments on page 8 in this document on the process simply says that if the equity issues are not complied with, it goes on to say, "However, since the policy goals of the government may, in fact, be different from the policy goals of the opposition parties, the political aspect of any appointment is an inherent and necessary one." Given that this is an open admission by the appointments secretariat, we will ask you what we have asked everyone: Are you a member of a political party?
Mr LaFleur: Yes.
Mr Jackson: And that is?
Mr LaFleur: The New Democratic Party of Ontario.
Mr Jackson: Can I ask you --
The Chair: No, you cannot. Sorry, the time is up. We will move on to Mr Farnan. This is just a half-hour review. Thank you, Mr Jackson.
Mr Farnan: I would like you to comment on the general principles of the Police Services Act.
Mr LaFleur: I think the police services should reflect the community and its goals and wishes for a safe and secure environment for people to live in. I think probably most of the committee will not know that in Halton the police chief is Chief Harding, who is probably one of the best police chiefs in Ontario. I support a lot of his policies and programs. He is very open and accessible. I also support his goal of more community-based policing as being a goal that is enviable and attainable.
Mr Farnan: A couple of issues have been prominent. Do you have any views on the political activity of police officers?
Mr LaFleur: I guess in one regard you would like to have everybody who lives in a free and democratic society have his own rights to the political process. I can remember having a discussion with a judge about his not being on the voters list and how he could not vote in the election, and I thought that was such a fundamental freedom that we have all fought so hard for.
I do not really have an opinion one way or the other about that. I accept there is argument on both sides there. One of them is that he may stop a candidate whom he may have some personal animosity for, and I suppose that may come out. On the other hand, I guess they have a right to participate in the democratic process. So I think there are two sides of the coin; I could not prejudge that issue one way or the other, in all honesty.
1120
Mr Farnan: With regard to the use of deadly force by police officers, Chief Harding, whom you referred to earlier, has a campaign to have section 25(4) of the Criminal Code repealed. You are probably familiar with that. Are you familiar with this issue and do you have any comment on it?
Mr LaFleur: I am not as familiar with the issue as I would like to be. That is a fairly recent development by Chief Harding. I think the police should be controlled and should play by the same rules as everyone else, so I would probably favour removal of the use of deadly force exceptions.
Mr Farnan: You commented on community policing. Would you like to elaborate on that, if you have any insights? It is indeed true that the Halton force has been a pioneer in this area under the leadership of Chief Harding. Would you like to comment on community policing and perhaps some vision you might have for it?
Mr LaFleur: Community policing is really an outreach program. I think it demystifies the policy officers and makes them and the citizens of the community communicate. It is a lot easier to talk to a police officer when you see him. We have some on mountain bikes in downtown Burlington, or walking a foot patrol. That is the type of stuff you see in the movies these days. You never seem to see enough of that, I think, in real life. Get to know the people you are protecting. I think that demystifies it. I think if we get more interaction between the community and the police officers, we will have a better police force.
Mr Farnan: As to the future of the Halton regional police force, a blueprint has been drawn. How do you see that blueprint?
Mr LaFleur: I have not read the blueprint, to be honest with you. I just know that I have a great deal of respect for the Halton police force, both as a citizen of Halton as well as a practising attorney in the area. I think they are doing a good job now and I do not think there are any dramatic changes that I would anticipate. I do not know what the report says about changes, but that is the best I can answer that question for you.
Mr Farnan: I would just like to finish with a comment. When we are talking about providing opportunities for groups, francophones, etc, within the force, it would not mitigate against non-minority groups being presented as candidates. I think perhaps there may have been a little bit of a misunderstanding in the way the question was presented. I am not sure if Cam actually intended that. I know he did not, but I would like to make it very clear that obviously I think the purpose of this is to make sure we get the best people at every level, whether it is as police officers or as commissioners.
Mr Marchese: Some quick questions, M. LaFleur. One of the things you talked about in terms of community-based policing is something that is of interest to me and that will help a great deal in terms of the relationship that is built between police and communities. That in itself will not deal with some of the race relations problems that might exist between communities and the police force. I think the black community, in particular, has some strong feelings about this.
Beyond community-based policing, I think more needs to go on, and I am presuming that you would agree there has to be a great deal of race relations training that has to happen from the bottom all the way to the top, and I would presume that you are committed to that.
Mr LaFleur: Yes. There are a number of recent immigrants to Canada living in Halton, and I know from experience that they have some problems understanding the police and their role in society when they come from a different country that has a totally different role. It may be necessary for the police officers to be aware of that. I can think of one person who actually thought lawyers were paid for by the government and they were not in his favour, and he was worried that the police officers were like the police officers in the country he came from. Police officers have to be aware of that.
I also think the force should reflect the community in the cultural, social and ethnic makeup of the community. I think Chief Harding is on board 100% on that. I look forward to working with him on that.
Mr Marchese: As much as I am interested as the others in terms of finding the best candidates, I am particularly committed to the whole idea of employment equity because, traditionally, the groups that were identified have been excluded from positions of responsibility. That is something I want to see continue to be developed, so that we do see women in the force and in positions of responsibility, so that we do see visible minorities as policemen or women, and also in positions of responsibility, and natives and francophones as well. That is the whole notion of employment equity that I think we need to work at aggressively, otherwise the principle will not mean anything. What do you think?
Mr LaFleur: I agree with that. I think Chief Harding is in support of that as well. He has been one of the leaders of the police chiefs of Ontario, in my estimation, and certainly in the minds of others. The community is the police force and the police force is the community, and it ought to reflect that. We ought to work towards that goal. I certainly have no problem with that whatsoever.
Mr Marchese: Okay. Thanks.
The Chair: Nothing else on the government side? Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: Just a few short questions. And if I may, I know Mr Jackson has a number of questions, so I would like to relinquish my time to Mr Jackson, because none of my members have any questions.
Mr McGuinty: That is for future considerations, of course.
Mr Grandmaître: Absolutely, in exchange for future consideration.
The Chair: I thought you had already looked after that.
Mr Grandmaître: As a practising attorney in the Halton area, Mr LaFleur, and having a preset mind, I think you understand your community very well and you understand the responsibilities or the functions of the police services board. Do you see your appointment as a popular one or unpopular?
Mr LaFleur: Mr Jackson referred to the article in the paper. I have been quoted in the paper on a number of occasions. I received a half dozen phone calls about that, about what I said in the paper, all supportive of me, indicating that I am relatively well liked by all members of the area, including the police, including the bar in Halton. I have discussed the matter with a couple of what I consider to be people who have some standing, such as Mr Kerr, the former member, and he supports my application. The mayor of Burlington supports my application. I have not heard anybody say they do not support my application.
Mr Grandmaître: You will soon find out.
Mr LaFleur: I guess you discovered not everybody voted for you too, and that was somewhat disturbing.
I suppose not everybody would support me, but there are a number of lawyers who are active in it, and I do know a little bit about the criminal justice system. Maybe a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, but I happen to think that I am not going to prejudge a lot of the issues. I happen to know how the system operates from start to finish. I have got the picture in the courtroom. I have got the picture on the doorstep, the scene of the crime, after the court, the victims. I understand those issues very well. I am not going to spend any time trying to figure out the problems that are out there. As far as the solutions are concerned, I think I have to work within the system to do those.
Mr Grandmaître: Having a preset mind, though, do you not think you will be perceived as, "We've got to be on the lookout for this guy"?
Mr LaFleur: Preset on what particular matter?
Mr Grandmaître: Well, knowing the system. Simply the fact that you have been around and you know. You feel very confident that you will be a competent member of this police services board. I think you do have a preset mind about policing and your community.
Mr LaFleur: I do not think I have all the answers or all the solutions to all the problems in life. I discovered that a long time ago.
Mr Grandmaître: No, because you would be elected if you did.
Mr LaFleur: I cannot prejudge. I have to trust my judgement on things. I guess we all bring our background and that is how we arrive at our decision-making process. But I am not going to run the police department or anything like that. That is not my function on the system. I am one member of a five-member board.
Mr Grandmaître: Just a word of caution, I have tried and I have failed, so good luck to you.
1130
The Chair: Mr Jackson, a little over six minutes.
Mr Jackson: One of the trends we are noticing in the applications coming before us, and we have 130 different boards and we see the routine applications, is that there have been some appointments that are clear on the face of them, such as a woman who had worked in a rape crisis centre or in a shelter and was now having an opportunity to serve on a board.
We are seeing a lot of trade unionists and I have read your résumé with interest, that you have a trade unionist background, which is great, but there are some considerations for our police services board as they relate around the trade union question. Several police officers in the last municipal election said they were going to vote for Walter because they thought he would be more supportive of the labour issues at the police board, and since Walter and our mayor are NDPers I am not surprised that he would look favourably upon your application.
But I now want to tie this back into the interviewing process. I understand that you were interviewed, as you said, by Andrew Mackenzie. I called Andrew this morning and he told me that there were 15 to 20 applications for the position, that they were short-listed to four, and that there were two women and two men who were phone-interviewed. Now, I know Andrew Mackenzie because I have worked with him. He is Bob Mackenzie's son, and I have worked with him on some challenges in the Hamilton area with the trade unionist movement, as he is a prominent trade unionist. Do you think it is coincidence that Andrew Mackenzie did your interview and presented your selection? You have a lot of commonalities in your biographies, from party membership to trade affiliation.
Mr LaFleur: I can tell you I had never met Andrew Mackenzie or ever heard of him, never knew him until he phoned me. I have subsequently met him on a couple of other occasions, including this morning; he showed me where the room was and stuff. But he called me. I never even knew who he was. I mean, when he called I recognized the name, but do not forget now that I had only been in Burlington since 1985, so I do not know much about the Mackenzie dynasty.
Mr Jackson: Five years may be an important date for the duration of that dynasty.
The point I want to suggest to you is that my colleagues in the first party have talked about community-based police services, and you will know that Halton has been able to provide those services because it has removed more officers from positions and has perhaps the highest ratio of civilian support services. This has caused a double-edged sword in our police services board, because on the one hand that is where we get the money to extend our community-based programming with police officers, because we are using a lot more civilian personnel at a lot fewer salary dollars than some service boards that are staffed by police officers who are on the higher pension and the higher benefits and the higher salaries.
It is one thing to say we will be supportive, but last night in the paper we just had to drop $9 or $10 million from the budget of our local police services board. I am just concerned that perhaps you may be predisposed to look at salary grids over service delivery. I wonder if you wish to comment about that area, because it is at the crux of how we are able to afford to provide extended community-based servicing, because we are able to hire paraprofessionals as civilian support staff in very large numbers in our police services board.
Mr LaFleur: I think we have to look at cost-effective policing. It has to be justified and cost-effective. If it is working with the existing officers, because ultimately they are the ones that are out there on the point, and I think we can work with them and give them the support and assistance they need in order to achieve the goal. Other than that, it has to be cost-effective. If that is one of the ways of achieving it, with the cooperation of the police and the cooperation of the community, because you have to have those people who want to do that type of work too, then I think it is a goal that should be looked at.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, I appreciate Mr LaFleur's candour and appreciate his presence here today before the committee. Thank you.
The Chair: Thanks very much, Mr LaFleur.
Mr Farnan: Can I ask a question?
The Chair: No, you have used up your time, unless some other party wants to give you time. There is a minute and a half left.
Mr Farnan: It is just a brief question that follows up on what Mr Jackson was saying. The Ontario Police Commission has a real stress on training for police services board members. Are you willing to cooperate with that kind of training and to make yourself available for that kind of training by your provincial board?
Mr LaFleur: Absolutely. I would look upon it as personal growth. That is one of the reasons I am applying.
Before I go, I would like to thank the committee for allowing this opportunity to speak to you. It is a new process for me. I do not usually apply for many things. I also took the opportunity of bringing my wife Linda here and I want to thank her for coming and introduce her to the committee. I also took the opportunity of inviting the press here because I think it is important that the people of Halton get to understand the process and some of the things that were talked about here today.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr LaFleur. We appreciate your appearance. We wish you well.
WILLIAM ROBERT WIGHTMAN
The Chair: Our final witness for this morning is Mr William Wightman, the intended appointee to the Huronia Historical Advisory Council. Mr Wightman, would you like to come forward, please. Take a seat. Welcome to the committee, sir. You have been selected for a half hour review by the third party. Mr McLean, would you like to lead off?
Mr McLean: Welcome, Mr Wightman. Are you familiar with Huron Park?
Mr Wightman: Yes, I have been around it very frequently, since I was in high school, as a matter of fact.
Mr McLean: There is supposed to be a member from the University of Western Ontario on the advisory council, is that right?
Mr Wightman: My understanding is there has traditionally been one since 1964, yes.
Mr McLean: What is your interest in it? Are you retired now or are you still teaching?
Mr Wightman: No. I suppose I could answer that at three levels.
The Chair: I am wondering if I could encourage the other members, if they want to carry on a conversation, to do it elsewhere. I think it is very distracting to both the witness and the questioner.
Mr Wightman: I suppose the first thing is that if you are a university professor, your chance to play your role in the community is somewhat circumscribed, because half the community expects you to say something brilliant and the other half expects you to fall on your face, and neither one really wants to trust you with anything very serious. So an opportunity like this falls within my professional competence. It is, as far as I am concerned, an excellent chance for me to serve Ontario or, if you would like, to serve Ontario historically. The third thing is, quite frankly, that Huronia is an area which I grew up having contact with -- so have my children -- and I would look forward to the experience.
Mr McLean: Do you have a summer home there?
Mr Wightman: No, my summer home is on Manitoulin, actually.
Mr McLean: What is your interest in Huronia? You live in London?
Mr Wightman: Yes. I am an historical geographer. My prime field of interest is Ontario before Confederation, and although my interest does not extend back to the French period in all that much depth, it is certainly there. I think I have a better-than-average lay knowledge of the Huronia site dating back to the 1940s, the things that were written at that time and some of the earlier.
The second thing is that since the mid-1970s I have been particularly interested in the northern part of our province. A recent book, about 1980 I guess, on the historical development of Manitoulin Island ties into this, because of course it was closely tied administratively at some stages with Penetang and the establishment, and then later with the development of that part of the countryside.
1140
Mr McLean: A lot of history there. I was born and raised on the old Penetanguishene Road and still own a farm on it, so I am well aware of the history. Are you aware of any recommendations that the advisory council has made to the minister? Have they made any in the last four or five years that you are aware of?
Mr Marchese: Any recommendations?
Mr McLean: Yes, that is what their job is, and I am wondering what they are.
Mr Wightman: In that respect I suppose you can say that in their support of and promotion of the recent market analysis, 1990, and also in their very strong contribution -- Pleva being one, I believe; Mr Delaney being another -- into the document we call the vision for the establishment, they made rather remarkable input, as a matter of fact. Reading through the minutes, which is what I have been doing on occasion, I find that a long argument over stoplights stymied me. I did not know where we were coming from or going on that one. I think some of their work with reference to the refocusing of the establishment is extremely important.
Mr McLean: Did they have input into what took place at the naval establishment?
Mr Wightman: Having seen preliminary drafts of the report that were pretty well scrawled up in two or three sets of handwriting, I believe several people had contributed considerably to what the consultant company was told. I read Dr Pleva's copy of the draft and I was really quite interested in seeing what the marginalia were. I have known his handwriting for a long time and it was not all his.
Mr McLean: I do not know who recommended that they leave the air-conditioning out of that new place, but it is going to be replaced this year, I understand, through the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. They are fulfilling a commitment to put that in, if I understand.
Mr Waters: No comment.
Mr McLean: Have you been in the new facility?
Mr Wightman: I have not, actually. To be honest with you, for the last four or five years my wife and I -- we are co-authors on a book on northwestern Ontario -- have been going and living in canvas west of Sault Ste Marie as of May 24 and not coming back until Labour Day, so the open season has been very largely lost. I guess the last time I was on the site was when I had occasion to go to Port McNicoll to visit an old friend there. I dropped down through the site, but I did not have time; I was trying to get back to London the same day.
Mr McLean: I would like to hear your comments with regard to promoting tourism. They are great facilities. I understand that some of the bus companies are trying to work in two-day tours where they can stay overnight. What would you like to see happen so that we could get more facilities there for tourist attractions? Is there anything that you have in mind that you would like to accomplish?
Mr Wightman: One of the points is that although we have these concepts, and we share with the Americans as well on Great Lakes circle tours, the problem is that on the Georgian Bay circle tour, which is via the Chi-Cheemaun to Manitoulin, around by Sudbury and down, or done the other way, no one ever goes to the Georgian Bay shoreline because they are either coming out from Toronto or going back to it. I do not know how you get around that one. Let's say that is a problem that is going to take a good deal of thinking.
Another thing is that, by chance, by happenstance, if you like, the two prime resources in that area, Ste-Marie-Among-the-Hurons and the establishment -- I do not wish to sound critical because I do not mean it that way, but my own impression is that it is like trying to compare an orange with a bicycle chain; I mean, they are not the same thing. There may be questions as to whether they can be marketed together or need to be marketed separately. If you look at the establishment, or establishments, I think the move to emphasize the naval half is very good because that was indeed the way the British military saw it. When it became a land-based military establishment it grew very quiet, not a great many things happened and an awful lot of people essentially vegetated there from what, 1830 to 1856? Something like that.
I note at the same time that very little has been made of the importance of that establishment, not just at the time of the War of 1812 but afterwards, in the administration of the upper lakes, whether that involved fur, Indian affairs or the simple movement of people. The fur trade out of Penetanguishene, I know from my own documentary work, controlled things right up through to the Sault. It was the traders there who spawned people elsewhere.
Perhaps the notion that also needs to be built is the notion of the Penetang community, which was quite varied. There were a lot of French Canadians who came down with the traders from Drummond Island and so on and based the community, or were the community. There were the fur trade and the military all going on there at the same time, right up into the near-Confederation years.
Mr Waters: Obviously I do not have to ask you if you know anything about the site; I think that has been quite well established. Mr McLean hinted or talked about the reports to the minister. Do you see your strength -- because when I look at your CV, I see a lot of strength in history -- putting pressure on more frequent reports to and more discussion with the ministry as to the establishments and Ste Marie?
Mr Wightman: Here you catch me of course in my weakness, in that, other than one or two members of the council, I am not particularly familiar with its membership.
Mr Waters: But would you be [inaudible] to the council?
Mr Wightman: Yes, I think I would.
Mr Waters: I will only ask one other thing, and that is, out of all of this, which is so unbelievable I am amazed, what would you pick as the strong point you would be bringing with you to assist Huronia?
Mr Wightman: The first thing, although it is not most recent, is that I do have experience in this kind of capacity. I have been a member of the board of governors for the University of Western Ontario. I have just stepped down from the board of governors, or at least the governing body, for the London Symphony Orchestra. I have worked with the library and museum system of the city of London in that same capacity. So the kind of thing I work with is not going to be totally novel.
I am not a novice either in -- I do not know whether you would so call it -- the art of advertising, but back about 1978 I complained loudly about the way Western was being advertised, as a kind of cross between a gymnasium and a large swimming pool with the occasional lecture on the side, and was promptly chosen by the president to head up revision of the whole liaison package. So marketing things is not new to me either.
Academically, my greatest interest has always, to date at any rate, centred on Georgian Bay and Lake Huron, so I am quite familiar with the marine side of things. I have one publication, I guess it was about 12 months ago, a full review of all the Canadian steamships and steamer routes above Sarnia, and of course places like Penetang, Midland and particularly Collingwood.
Mr Waters: You probably have some charts I could use.
Mr Wightman: I might; I have most of those. Academically, my interest in the upper lakes is pretty well established. Recently I have been doing a fair amount of work with Indian groups and also with the Attorney General's office on some of the land claims stuff. I find that fascinating as well.
Mr Waters: I have one other question. Because Mr McLean and I both represent half of Huronia, one of the things that I find fascinating about Huronia -- being in the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation myself, I have been racking my brains to figure out a way to draw people off the water. Georgian Bay is probably one of the most populated areas for pleasure boating there is in the province. We have two key tourism attractions, both accessible by water, and yet we do not seem to be able to draw people off the lake. I was wondering if you had any ideas. I know it is not a fair question at this time, but it is something I would not mind hearing.
1150
Mr Wightman: What if you went to -- I cannot remember what exactly they call themselves -- the Great Lakes yachting or touring club?
Mr Brown: The Great Lakes Cruising Club.
Mr Wightman: After all, both Gore Bay and Tobermory on the north side of Manitoulin have been capitalizing on holding their prime event every year. Gore Bay has a population of 750 people and there must be about 4,000 turn up that weekend. The harbour is just stuffed with power boats and sailboats. They are usually looking for someplace new to go. Unfortunately, a lot of them are tied to the habit of start in Chicago, go to Mackinac, go from Mackinac along the north channel, which they of course enjoy, and then come down, curving either through the Strawberry channel and down to Tobermory or perhaps getting as far as Collingwood. Why not encourage them to make Penetang and Midland the other end of the route?
Mr Waters: The best harbour on the bay, right?
Mr Wightman: I have heard that said, yes.
Mr Waters: I think that was one of the reasons it was chosen.
Mr Wightman: They have their own magazine and they do their own publicity. They come to town and they certainly spend, if the community is on its toes.
Mr Marchese: I am presuming that many of the sites that are there would be of interest to many people in Ontario, to Canadians and other people, Americans presumably. Do you know how many people come through the area? Are there many people who visit?
Mr Wightman: Do you mean boating or do you mean visiting the area?
Mr Marchese: Visiting Ste Marie or the historical naval and military base, Huronia in general.
Mr Wightman: What are we talking about, 220,000 visitors in 1990 for Ste Marie? The figures for the establishments are not as high because they have not been going as long. They have not received the same publicity in the school system, for example. I think we are now beginning to benefit at Ste Marie in the same way my children did, in that I was there as a kid and therefore, when they grew up, I took them. I do not know how much higher you could get that. I do know, from what I have done in northwestern Ontario in recent years, that there have been very considerable retreats in the numbers of tourists, just absolute numbers. Beyond that, I do not know.
Mr Waters: Can I get a quick supplementary?
The Chair: Sure.
Mr Waters: Would you be in favour of enhancing the school program at Ste Marie and the establishments?
Mr Wightman: Probably. To be honest with you, I do not know the school program in real detail, as it runs now. I know that if it was running when my children were in public school or the junior end of high school, it was not through that program that they got to know the site. They did through their parents. I do not feel competent to comment, I really do not.
Mr Marchese: You commented on marketing or advertising. You talked about some of your experience. Would you say that we have marketed the area or those sites well or badly, or have not done as good a job as we need to do and that is one of the areas that obviously you want to pursue?
Mr Wightman: Yes, the one thing that struck me when I read the terms of reference for the council was that on the one hand we were talking about two distinct sets of sites and at the same time we were talking about almost anything else that applied to the larger scene of what was being called Old Huronia. I think the three points mentioned were Barrie, Collingwood and Orillia. You know, a place and an area are not the same thing. I am not at all sure that the concept of the overall advantage of Huronia, which is obviously quite a proper philosophy and quite an appropriate thrust in tourism, can be marketed at the same time that you are trying to market -- because that is summer/winter recreation, that is a whole pile of things -- at the same time as you are trying to point out the importance of two elements of cultural history.
Mr Farnan: What would be the percentage of repeat visits to this area and what could be done to get those return visits? I think the most successful tourism areas are those that can bring people back after having an initial experience.
Mr Wightman: I was rather surprised at what a proportion of the figure the return visits for Ste-Marie-Among-the-Hurons was. I had not anticipated that it would be that high. I began to appreciate why when I began to look at where these people came from, because there is a tremendous regional interest. That is what really shows up. It is the amount of regional and local support that really swells that return figure.
If you could get that kind of return out of people who are setting out on a Friday afternoon from Toronto, let's say, not quite sure where they are going but they know they are going to stop at Cookstown and do a little antique shopping, and they are going to stay in Barrie that night because they have a favourite hotel, you could begin to generate first-comers in that sense. My guess is that if they had a good time, the next year they would be back with their next-door neighbours or their relatives or something of the kind. It strikes me as being an excellent opportunity to work on the Toronto market because it is even within a day's travel if you want to get up in the morning.
Mr Farnan: There are a few places in southern Ontario besides Toronto.
Mr Wightman: That is true. Unfortunately they are not all armed with Highway 400 heading straight for them.
Mr Brown: I guess I have some interest in this just because of one of the asides you had -- well, not just because of one of the asides but because I happen to be the MPP representing Manitoulin.
Mr Wightman: I had that idea. It seems to me I have seen your picture rather recently in the paper.
Mr Brown: I also happen to have gone to Western and happen to have a degree in history from Western.
Mr Wightman: There we go.
Mr Brown: So there you go. Many of the questions that are revolving around here from Mr McLean and Mr Waters are questions that are asked in my riding about things in my riding and they seem to be, how do you get people to stop and how can you get people interested in the local history, etc? We have had a lot of questions about tourism and how history can play into that, how you can popularize history, and at the same time maintain the integrity of the history. I for one am occasionally dismayed, maybe more than occasionally, by the representations about what an era might have been like; it is perhaps a little bit more attractive to the tourist to portray it that way rather than what really went on. I would like to hear some of your views.
Mr Wightman: One of the things that would come quite naturally to me is a tendency to argue against anything that misrepresents, if you like, or destroys, the integrity of the experience. I have seen, like yourself I am sure, a good number of examples of this kind of thing done well in the United States, but I have also seen some of the most incredible things portrayed as history.
I do not see myself as being alone in that. I would think that people chosen for this particular committee bring to the job a number of skills I do not have that I can work with. Perhaps my particular strength is being able to say, "No, we can't quite do it that way if we're going to," but I know exactly what you are talking about. There is no doubt about that.
Mr Brown: There is always this difficulty in history, between popularizing it to the point that it appears interesting and in false generalization. What I guess I am looking for is a commitment that we would popularize it but maintain its credibility, because both things have to happen. If people do not understand it, do not know anything about it, that is bad too. One of the things I think we in this province have been very bad at over the years is talking about what Ontario really has been, how we developed in this whole period. Unfortunately many people understand some American states far better than they happen to understand our own heritage.
Mr Wightman: Yes, I think that is true. I am also a great believer that hands-on representation, if you like, or visual representation, not only for youngsters but for adults, is an excellent way to bring some of this home to them. You can bring a lot of technology, for example, home to people this way because they can simply stand there and see how it works or run the handles or do something of that kind. I do not think that has to be limited to museum presentations. I think a lot of that can virtually be relics of the past right there in front of you. You can walk through the door and you can see and understand the limitations, that there was no glass in those windows, and there should not be. Yes, I understand all right.
The Chair: Mr McGuinty, do you have any questions of the witness?
Mr McGuinty: No.
The Chair: That really concludes the questioning then, Mr Wightman. We much appreciate your appearance here today and wish you well.
Mr Wightman: Thank you. Like most university professors I like to talk, so I have enjoyed myself too.
The Chair: Thanks again and good luck. That does it for this morning, members. We will break and we will be back here at 2 o'clock.
The committee recessed at 1201.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1406.
JUDY L. REBICK
The Chair: Our first witness this afternoon is Ms Judy Rebick, who is an intended appointee to the Ontario Judicial Council. Ms Rebick, would you like to come forward, please, and have a seat. Welcome to the committee. This is a half-hour review, with each party having 10 minutes to pose questions and hear your responses. We are going to begin with Mr McLean.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee, Judy. You are a busy woman. Can you tell me how you believe you have time to serve on this very important Ontario Judicial Council?
Ms Rebick: I have spoken to Doris Anderson, who is an outgoing member of the committee, and the time involved, as she told me, is that there is a half-day-a-month meeting and then there is reading time, and I definitely feel that I can devote that much time. It is an area of a fair bit of priority for me. I think it is a very important position and I am very honoured that the Attorney General has asked me to serve on it. I can make the time to do it. I actually think that my time is flexible.
Mr McLean: This will be reviewing the appointment of judges and that type of thing?
Ms Rebick: Yes, that is right.
Mr McLean: Some years ago you were a very vocal supporter of Dr Morgentaler. I am wondering if your ability in dealing on this council will be impaired by the strong stance you took at that time.
Ms Rebick: I am not sure I understand the question.
Mr McLean: If a judge was brought before the council on a complaint that he was malicious and biased in his judgement against Dr Morgentaler, how would you demonstrate an impartial stance in your deliberations as a council member?
Ms Rebick: I think everyone in society has strong views on various issues. When you are on a council like this you are required to put aside any personal strong views you might have to look at the facts of the situation and judge them impartially. I think I am quite able to do that.
Mr McLean: Can you describe for me your perspective on Canadian society and the legal system today?
Ms Rebick: How much time do I have?
Mr Jackson: Thirty words or less, Judy.
Ms Rebick: I think we need fundamental reforms to our judicial system. There is a strong feeling in large groups of society that the judicial system is not fair to them. I speak here of women. Many women who deal with the judicial system as victims of violence feel that the judicial system is not sufficiently sensitive to their needs in the situation. Many minorities and aboriginal people also feel that there needs to be a fundamental reform so that they can get a fair shake.
In the short form, I would like to see some fundamental changes in terms of affirmative action in appointing judges, in terms of a more accountable system of appointing judges, especially with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I feel that our judges have more and more power in society and that it is necessary to make them more accountable in various ways. So I would like to see some pretty important reforms to the system.
Mr McLean: There has been a study done entitled Court Reform in Canada. Have you had an opportunity to review that study or have a look at it?
Ms Rebick: No.
Mr McLean: Should the government formally adopt an affirmative action program for appointments?
Ms Rebick: Yes, I believe they should.
Mr McLean: I have a letter here from an individual who wanted to hire somebody and he wanted to make an application. He was told that they would look more favourably upon his application if he hired a woman. Is that part of the --
Ms Rebick: I am sorry, but could you repeat that? I did not quite understand that.
Mr McLean: He would have a better chance of getting funding to hire somebody if he hired a female.
Ms Rebick: Is this an employee of the government?
Mr McLean: No. It is an individual who wanted to hire somebody and wanted to get some funds from the government. It was indicated that if he hired a female he would have a better chance of getting the money. Do you agree with that stance?
Ms Rebick: I cannot comment on the specific situation but I certainly agree with contract compliance, that is, that employment equity plans should be part of the conditions under which the government grants contracts to companies. If that is what is involved here, then I would not word it in the way you have worded it, but I certainly think the government could use its funding or contract powers to ensure that employment equity occurs in the companies to which it is giving money. So yes.
Mr McLean: So then if the letter was reversed and said, "We would provide you funding if you hired a male," would you find that acceptable in the same situation?
Ms Rebick: I did not say that I found the letter acceptable, because I have to see the letter. I do support contract compliance. I support the government using its funding powers to ensure that companies are implementing employment equity. The problem we have in our society is that women, minorities, disabled people and aboriginal people have faced discrimination over the years and employment equity is about changing that and giving them, a fair shake. If the government can use its funding powers to do that, I strongly support that.
Mr McLean: Then where does equal rights for all come in? You are saying it is not equal rights for all.
Ms Rebick: I think the Supreme Court of Canada has been very clear, and it is a view that I agree with, that equality does not mean treating everyone the same way. Putting a ramp up to the Legislature is not treating everyone the same way. It is taking a special measure to ensure disabled people have access. Similarly, with men and women, treating them the same way does not ensure equality. We have to take, for example, measures like child care, pregnancy leave and training for women who have been out of the workforce. These are special measures to ensure that women and men can ultimately be equal. So equal rights for all, to me, means understanding that certain people are starting back from the starting line, if you want, and need some special help to catch up.
Mr McLean: One final question then. Rights for victims: Can you give me your opinion on that?
Ms Rebick: I do not have strong views on that issue. I would like to learn more about it. Certainly the area where I have been most involved is in terms of victims of sexual assault, and I have been involved in consultations with the Department of Justice on the importance of recognizing the special situation of victims of sexual assault. Now we have a draft bill at the federal level which actually does recognize the rights of the victim in the bill, and I am very supportive of that bill. In general, I would not want to express an opinion right now.
Mr McLean: How much time do we have left?
The Chair: About three minutes.
Mr McLean: I will use one more of them and I will leave my colleague a couple. The compensation board: I was here when we were dealing with that commission at one time with regard to paying out compensation for people who were abused or hurt. Do you have any views on how that board is operating today?
Ms Rebick: I am not familiar with it.
Mr McLean: Thank you.
Mr Jackson: About four years ago, I took a resolution to the house with respect to comments by a Justice Vannini and his offensive commentary in his court rulings and asked for certain reforms to occur immediately with respect to judges and their selection and their training. The Attorney General of the day said that was not his purview. The current Attorney General has indicated he did not feel it was his mandate to be proactive in that regard. I disagree with both gentlemen and I wonder how you feel about judges who are currently on the bench whose language in their verdicts is sexist and inappropriate, and to what extent you would advocating for changes. Then I have a follow-up question to that.
Ms Rebick: I have been involved in advocating for mandatory judicial education on issues of sexism and racism. I think that it is very important. I reject the arguments of the Justice Minister and the Attorney General that it violates judicial independence. I think there is an inherent bias, as Bertha Wilson has said, of sexism in our judicial system, and mandatory education is just a way of changing that bias. So I am very strongly in favour of that and also in terms of appointment of judges. I believe that especially higher court judges should go through some sort of public appointment process. I do not want to see the kind of circus they have in the United States but, on the other hand, we do not know anything about our judges when they are appointed and they have a lot of power right now.
Mr Jackson: Your current appointment is coming from the Attorney General, who disagrees with me on this point and who may not totally share your opinions. I notice in your bio that you were an NDP candidate in the Oriole riding and I assume you have maintained your membership as a good party member. To what extent will you be able to maintain your independence when so many people are counting on you to bring this new approach to this panel when in fact your relationships are very strongly linked to the current Attorney General? I think that is a fair question to ask given the concerns I have for judicial reform, which I try not to make partisan, but you are caught in a partisan question.
Ms Rebick: Not really. I am the president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. As such, I am required to be non-partisan in my role, and I have been quite non-partisan. I have been critical of the NDP government on a number of issues and I have no problem being critical on this issue. I feel very strongly that we need judicial reform. If the Attorney General does not agree with that, it will not prevent me from expressing my views.
Mr Jackson: I will send you some information on victims' rights bills because, again, the government does not agree with the position as it relates to women who are victims of violence. So I will send that information to you in the hope that you can see its context in terms of judicial reform.
Ms Rebick: I appreciate that.
Mr Farnan: I was interested, Judy, in your comments in terms of -- I do not know whether you would phrase it this way -- education for the judiciary. Recently, visiting England, I was interested to learn that there was some form of education, in terms of the judiciary, in trying to find not just a sensitivity, but also a balance in sentencing so that there was a more even reflection across the country. Indeed, in terms of the corrections system, it was educating judges on the value of community corrections and so there was a more even application across the country. Could you elaborate more on your thoughts in terms of reforms or improvements that might take place within that area?
Ms Rebick: I believe we need a lot more education of the judiciary, particularly in these modern times, if you want, and that particularly education in relation to sexism and racism should be mandatory, because part of the problem we have now is there are educational programs available but they are voluntary. The judge decides himself or herself whether to attend. The problem with that is, of course, probably the judges who are the worst offenders do not want to attend. They do not recognize themselves that there is a problem.
I think that under the rubric of independence of the judiciary has been a lot of excuse-making for not appreciating the necessity of more education and better education for judges. Again, I go back to the point I made before, which is, with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the way it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, judges have become very powerful figures in society. I believe society and governments have responsibility to ensure that there is a fair application of the law, and that means, I think, ongoing education. As you point out, to make sure that there are some sort of national standards as well is important.
Mr Farnan: I think you already mentioned in your earlier response that the appointment of more women to the judiciary will have an effect in terms of making the judiciary as a whole more sensitive.
Ms Rebick: Yes, that is right.
Mr Farnan: I see your proposed appointment to this position as a very significant one and I put it in the context of the Canadian Bar Association's task force study Court Reform in Canada. You are probably familiar with this. It reported public confidence in the legal system was declining significantly and the task force argued that the reason for this decline was a widespread perception that the legal system treated women, the poor and visible minorities unfairly.
To put that in the context of education, there is education for the judiciary. Are there other areas of education? My own perception is that an education of the public has to take place in order for the judiciary to respond to the sense within the community. I really believe that very often the judiciary reflects the thinking of the society. I am wondering what your views are in terms of public education and its effect on the judiciary.
1420
Ms Rebick: If I could just comment on the confidence question, when the Attorney General asked me if I was interested in this appointment, I started to talk to a number of women who work with victims of violence through rape crisis centres and I said, "Do people complain when there's a problem?" What they said was, "No, they don't, because they don't think they have a chance of being heard." This is one of the reasons why I have decided to accept the appointment. I think that by appointing me, a strong advocate of women's rights, it is more likely women will feel they will get a hearing if they do have a problem with a judge.
In terms of education, I certainly agree with you. Obviously my life is devoted to making changes like that. Public education will affect everyone in the public, including the judiciary, but again, because the judges have so much power in their hands, I think it is a priority to do education in relation to judges and crown attorneys as well specifically. While there has been a lot of work in that area, I think there has to be more.
The last point you raised is affirmative action. The composition of the bench just has to change if people who feel outside the establishment of the society are going to feel that their voices are heard in court. I think that is really important.
Mr McGuinty: Ms Rebick, you will be called upon, as a member of the Ontario Judicial Council of course, to review intended appointees. As I understand it, you will be getting a name from the Attorney General and you will be asked to make comments. What in your opinion makes a good judge?
Ms Rebick: What makes a good judge?
Mr McGuinty: Yes.
Ms Rebick: Obviously a knowledge of the law is part of it, but for me what makes a good judge is an understanding of the experience of different groups of people in society so that you can be fair. Very often the way we are socialized, particularly if you are a member of an élite or privileged group in society, is that you tend to think that your view of the world is reality for everyone. To be fair, which is ultimately the fundamental quality that a judge needs, a judge has to understand that different groups in society experience different realities.
If you are a poor black person living in Toronto, your reality is very different than if you are a middle-class judge living in Forest Hill. Sensitivity to the different realities faced by different classes in society, men and women, different races, is an important point that I would look for in a judge.
Mr McGuinty: Those are, if I might call them, impediments which come about as a result of all of us leading sheltered lives to one extent or another. Can those all be compensated for through education?
Ms Rebick: In part they can be compensated for through education, but I think also, which is why you need the affirmative action as well, you need those different sensitivities on the bench so that the people you are relating to on a day-to-day level as your peers are not all the same as you. I think you need both sides of it.
Mr McGuinty: I am wondering if you have any concerns about the dual roles you will be playing. First, you will be there as a member of the Ontario Judicial Council to consider individual candidates fairly. On the other hand you will be, I am sure, continuing as the strong advocate on behalf of certain causes. I am wondering if a candidate who is to be considered by you will have any concerns.
Let's take an example. Let's say you feel it is time, and you have been advocating this and you have been on the circuit and you have been speaking to this issue and you feel very strongly about it, that we have more of a certain group on the judiciary, but there is a candidate coming forward and he or she does not belong to that group.
Ms Rebick: I know the reason the Attorney General wishes to appoint me is because I am a strong advocate for women and, as I think everyone has recognized, there is a bias against women, if you want to put it that way, or sexism in the court system. So I assume my role is to help counter that bias in the other direction.
Are you asking me if a male judge was put in front of me, would I automatically say no? No, I would not. I would look at that person's qualifications. If you are asking me, "Would I be more favourable to a woman appointment?" yes, because I think we need more women on the bench. But again, if there was a woman appointment before me whom I did not think had the qualifications of a judge or I did not think met the criteria that I talk about in terms of fairness and sensitivity, I do not think I would automatically approve her because she was female.
Mr McGuinty: To use your example -- you picked the example of a man and a woman -- if a man was being considered and you felt it was high time we had a woman, how would that affect your consideration of the matter?
Ms Rebick: It depends if there were also women being considered.
Mr McGuinty: As I understand it, they only put one name forward at a time.
Ms Rebick: Oh, I see. I think I would have to look at who the man was and what his qualifications were and his sensitivity in the areas I talked about. I do not think I would automatically say, "There should be more women, therefore I'm not going to approve a man." No. I have actually, even in my professional life, hired men.
Mr Grandmaître: If you were qualified and you were before the Ontario Judicial Council and you were finally appointed, do you think your appointment would be perceived as a fair one?
Ms Rebick: As a judge?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, to become a judge. If you were appointed, do you think your appointment would be perceived as, "This appointment was fair and this woman is fully qualified"? Do you think your appointment would be perceived as being a fair one, because of the fact that you have been an advocate for women for a good number of years, and for the right reasons? Do you think the people in Ontario would perceive your appointment as a fair one?
Ms Rebick: It is a very hard question to answer since I do not have any legal background or a single qualification that would make me a judge.
Mr Grandmaître: Let's say you have all the qualifications.
Ms Rebick: I would venture to say that if I had all the qualifications to be a judge, I probably would not be in the position that I am in as president of NAC. You know, one's life experiences do shape one's activities. Somehow I think if I were a lawyer and got into the position to be appointed as a judge, I would not be the president of NAC. So it is a very hard question to answer. If you are saying to me, "Can a person be a good judge who is an advocate?" I would say yes and I would point to Rosalie Abella as the example of that.
Mr McGuinty: I have another question or two, Ms Rebick. I am just wondering, do you see any potential for difficulties arising from being both a reformer and a person who will be considering appointments? It would seem to me, following from that, that you may find this restricts your ability to act as a strong advocate and a reformer. I am wondering why you want to get into this.
Ms Rebick: That is a fair question and I did think about that. I spoke again with Doris Anderson and she told me that basically the only restriction it places on you is not to comment on cases that are before the courts that may come to judicial council, because as I understand it the judicial council is not only involved with appointments but also with complaints against judges. In my case, my focus is really at the federal level. In any case, I rarely comment on Ontario issues unless it is something that is fairly high profile, if you want.
1430
Mr Jackson: That is too bad.
Ms Rebick: Thanks. We do have an Ontario regional representative, so I think what I would do is basically not comment on judicial issues in relation to Ontario as much in my role as president of NAC and leave that to Ontario regional rep so that it would avoid any problem that way. But Doris Anderson has written, even as she was a member of the judicial council, about judicial issues in Ontario that did not impact on her position in council.
The reason I decided to do it is because I do feel so strongly that judicial reform is such an important part of ending violence against women and of ensuring a fair treatment in the society. I felt that by being on the judicial council I would understand better a lot of the issues involved and the sort of practicalities of it and also that frankly there is somewhat of an old boys' network in the judiciary and by having someone strong like myself, who is an advocate for women's rights, hopefully it could balance it the other way.
Mr McGuinty: Yes. I could understand that. It just seems to me that as a reformer yourself, what you would be doing here is considering these in a kind of a plodding manner, if I might use that word. You are going to be reviewing them on a one-by-one basis. You seem prepared to go along with that and recognize the frustrations inherent in that, and if I understand you correctly, you understand it will impose some limitation to some extent on your ability to comment on the matters that appear before you and maybe on the Ontario scene generally.
Ms Rebick: Yes. I would have a discussion with the Attorney General and the Chief Justice about that just to be clear about it.
Mr Marchese: You raised the point that the judicial system has a role to play in how it deals with violence against women. You do not think that is the ultimate solution. Obviously you see it as one arena for bringing more fairness and justice to women and reducing, at least through that, the violence against women.
Ms Rebick: Yes. I think the judicial system is only one part of the solution to violence against women. I do not know if we have time for me to give my whole speech about violence against women, but we are talking at every level: education, community, political, etc. The judicial level is just part of that. It is a very important part. As I say, the more I talk to grass-roots legal workers, what we are finding is that an awful lot of women just do not want to use the court system. I think that is tragic and we have got to change that.
Mr Jackson: Building on that point, judges by their casualness are not essentially guilty, but by allowing crown attorneys and defence attorneys to give very lenient terms for early release and bail terms, judges are not necessarily just on that. But they certainly are an integral part of the process. Ultimately the inquest is going to show that Nina de Villiers would be alive today if certain precautions were taken by the justice of the peace, or it could have been a judge just as easily. But there was this casualness at that level. It is a very integral part.
It is not just the attitude of the final decision by the judge in the sentencing, but also the terms of early release and bail. That is where the system is confrontational, adversarial and the judge ultimately acts as the arbiter on the victim's behalf. We have case after case of victims of violence, women whose public safety is very much put in jeopardy because of the sloppy terms of early release, and the judges get to say, "That's not my job."
I am hopeful that you are prepared to start moving there because there are jurisdictions in North America where they are making those clear statements that there is a role for the judge to impose that social condition of safety for the victim as an important component. It is not embraced by this government of Ontario. The concept is being followed through in the review that is going on with the C-89 committee hearings next week, I believe it is, at the federal level.
Ms Rebick: Yes.
Mr Jackson: I have been watching those with interest, and that hits that point about where the judges can move the parameters of the responsibility a little further. We are not doing it in Ontario, but they are doing it on the national bench level.
Ms Rebick: I think the new rape law also talks about that in terms of permission on questioning in terms of the woman's sexual history and the role of the judges in making sure that the history is not introduced except in extraordinary cases. I think it is a similar kind of thing there.
Mr Jackson: Or a judge saying, "I will accept that as a victim's impact statement." The judge has a tremendous amount of authority in this area. It is not in vogue, as it were, as a judicial procedure in this province, but it has to become more so, because it is intimately tied to terms of early release or bail, which flows from the victim's ability to feel safe in her own community. This is what the de Villiers inquest is going to ultimately show.
Ms Rebick: I will watch that carefully.
The Chair: Ms Rebick, thanks very much for appearance today. We appreciate it. Good luck.
Ms Rebick: Thanks very much.
FAYNE BULLEN
The Chair: Our next witness is Fayne Bullen. Would you like to come forward, please, Mr Bullen. Mr Bullen is an intended appointee to the University of Toronto Governing Council. Welcome to the committee, Mr Bullen.
Mr Bullen: Thank you.
The Chair: You have been selected for a half-hour review by the government party, so I am going to look to a government member to lead off the questioning. Mr Waters?
Mr Waters: Good afternoon, Fayne. I might as well put it on the record, because I know Al will probably ask the question, so you might as well tell them what your party affiliation is, Fayne.
Mr Bullen: Maybe I should let Al tell them what my party affiliation is. He has done everything that was possible to keep me out of this place, three times, even to the extent of bringing Bill Davis up two days before the election to throw some goodies around too.
Mr Waters: You would not have done that, Al.
Interjection: It was Davis's fault.
Mr Waters: So obviously --
Mr Bullen: Obviously, yes, sure. I am a card-carrying member of the NDP.
Mr Waters: And somewhat of an activist at that, right?
Mr Bullen: Well --
Mr Grandmaître: Could you clarify that?
Mr Jackson: Because we are keeping score. It is four for four today. We were marking the post as you walked in.
Interjections.
Mr Waters: Then maybe we should go back, because I happen to know that at least one or two of those other ones were not --
Mr Jackson: There is a lot of disenchantment in your party.
Mr Waters: Fayne --
Mr Farnan: I think we have heard enough.
Mr Bullen: Probably because I --
Mr Waters: This is almost as bad as some of the members we have had in from other parties. I can recall a certain gentleman who ended up at the LLBO.
What do you bring with you in your past life that would assist you in this appointment?
Mr Bullen: You have a résumé in front of you, and I certainly do not believe I am here today because I am affiliated with the NDP. As Al will tell you and everybody in Orillia will tell you, I am a very activist type of person within the community and somebody who in both the education field and the social field, in many things I have worked to create a much better community, for instance, starting up a community credit union and non-profit housing, Simcoe legal services clinic, and the list goes on and on. You name it and I have participated in it, in Ontario or in the community.
Mr Waters: I have no questions; I just enjoy seeing you. I do not get a chance to see you often enough. So I will turn it over to one of my colleagues.
1440
The Chair: Mr Frankford, do you have a question?
Mr Frankford: Do you have any specific thoughts about what you would like to do in this position in relation to the University of Toronto?
Mr Bullen: I have been associated with the education field for many years. I have been a high school teacher both here in Toronto at George Harvey Collegiate Institute and in Orillia for nearly 30 years. I taught the summer course at the University of Toronto in the college of education for three years, teaching the history methodology course. Actually I did take my education qualifications through the faculty of education at the University of Toronto, and I took some other courses. Obviously education is something I am intensely interested in and I believe I can bring that perspective and that interest and commitment to the job here.
Mr Frankford: Do you know at this stage what the position will actually involve?
Mr Bullen: I did have a meeting with the chairman of the governing board and he outlined some of the procedures and expectations, yes. Not that I know everything, of course. We are all in a learning mode when we get to things like this.
Mr Frankford: Are there any particular strengths or weaknesses of the University of Toronto you would like to concentrate on?
Mr Bullen: When I met with Mr McGavin, we talked about being involved with the student side of things. I would like to be associated with a committee that deals with students' events and see what can be done.
Mr Frankford: In terms of entrance to the university or --
Mr Bullen: Entrance, problems, complaints and so on. Being a type of person who has been associated at the grass-roots level with people, certainly listening to and responding to students' concerns would be one that I mentioned I think I could bring to it.
Mr Frankford: Do you have any strong opinions at the present time about tuition fees?
Mr Bullen: In the best of all worlds, it would be really nice if education fees were not a barrier to education, but given the present realities, I think we have to have some form of fees.
The Chair: Any other member of the government party at this point? Then we will move on to the official opposition. Do we have a member who would like to pose a question? Mr McGuinty?
Mr Grandmaître: A very qualified person.
The Chair: All right. Then we will move on to Al McLean.
Mr McLean: Being we have lots of times --
Interjections.
Mr McLean: I have worked so hard to keep Fayne from Queen's Park, as he said, and we have seen all these names on the list, and I could not believe when Dr Frankford picked you out to interview. I was more surprised than anybody, because we have been on the same platform on many, many occasions.
But I do have some questions, Fayne. At the University of Toronto they have cut 155 faculty positions to keep the school's deficit at $20 million. What measures would you recommend in reducing the U of T deficit?
Mr Bullen: One certain measure is that I offered to come down here free of charge. I am volunteering my service to the board of the University of Toronto.
It is a difficult question to answer and I think I have to get more into it before I could recommend any specific measures as to how they could cut costs. I was listening to a comment by two economists -- and we know John Crispo, a friend at the University of Toronto here who is in the field of political economy, is suggesting his salary should be cut. I would have a lot of hesitation in cutting the salary of John Crispo at all.
Seriously, I do not know. I would have to learn more about it before I could comment in detail.
Mr McLean: There was one thing that happened a while back and I would like your views on it. They attempted to lease a parcel of land to developers, Huang and Danczkay, to raise funds. They were intending to put up a 10-storey hotel on the U of T campus. Do you think universities should sell or lease lands as a means of offsetting the low government funding?
Mr Bullen: The University of Toronto is a rich property holder and certainly there are considerations and times when it might want to exchange, sell, bits of property in order to carry out its program. Just as it buys, it should be empowered to sell if it is economically feasible to do so.
Mr McLean: My understanding is that the University of Toronto is the only university that does not have one body dealing with administrative and another one dealing with academic affairs of the university. Would you be looking at making it the same here at the University of Toronto as at other universities?
Mr Bullen: My understanding of the setup of it is that the governing body is divided into a number of various committees and what you are asking in your question here about one body is achieved by its committee system. The same purpose is achieved through that committee system.
Mr McLean: It is a unicameral structure and the faculty association has consistently argued for a separate body to deal with the academic affairs, which would receive a greater degree of representations than the one on the governing council.
Mr Bullen: My understanding is that there is a faculty committee and there is also a financial and administrative committee and there is a students' affairs committee, and those three committees meet separately and decide different functions and make recommendations to the governing body, which in the long run makes a final decision. For a university of this size, that seems a very feasible type of setup. It is just like your setup here. You are doing the committee work here for one aspect of it, and that is good.
Mr McLean: The Ontario Federation of Students has long opposed the position of raising tuition fees. They are still very adamant about that. I believe that in -- I forget. I was going to say Focus 90. What was the name of that book that was put out in March 1990? It had a lot of commitments in it, and one of them was that tuition fees would be frozen or lowered. Since then they have gone up 8% in some cases. What are your thoughts with regard to the increase in tuition fees?
Mr Bullen: That is a second time around with me on this question, you know, Al. Anyway, in addition, I have been at conventions where a resolution was made and strong representation was made not to increase tuition fees. As I said, in the best of all worlds, it would be nice not to have to use fees as a means of determining who would access university education, but we are given, in these times of constraint and others, the necessity to pay your way. You just asked me a question, how would the university meet its budget and what measures? It would be really premature of me to come out and say, "I'm going to go out there and say, `Let's cut fees out completely.'"
Mr McLean: Would you go out there and say that we should be frozen?
Mr Bullen: I am going to say I am going to have a look at it and see the pros and cons before I make a decision.
Mr McLean: I do not have many more questions, but I have one. Our friend Don Evans -- you know him well -- was always very critical of other governments making political appointments. I often wonder how he feels today when we have seen the amount -- I see nothing wrong with them. I agree with them. I think that is the objective of governing, but I find a problem when one person says that we should not have them and then we go ahead and make them. What would Don say today if he knew you are sitting here getting this appointment? Would he agree with it?
Mr Bullen: Allan, you see nothing wrong in it, number one.
Mr McLean: I never did.
Mr Bullen: The second factor is that I think I am here because I am the best person for the job here, and second, they are getting me very cheaply. They get me for nothing. It is just another volunteer work. Would you want the job?
Mr McLean: Not with what I am doing.
Mr Bullen: I will change with you any time.
Mr McLean: You tried it three times.
Mr Bullen: I remember it was 33% to 35% of the votes.
Mr McLean: That is right. Anyhow, we run good campaigns. We had a lot of fun and we were very good friends. I appreciate your coming in. Thank you, Dr Frankford, for inviting him.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Bullen. We wish you well.
1450
ROBERT MCMURDO
The Chair: The next is a bit of a change from your schedule. You will note that James Cayford was originally scheduled and cannot be here today, so we are moving up to the next witness who I understand is present, Robert McMurdo.
Mr McMurdo, would you like to come forward, please. Welcome to the committee. Mr McMurdo is an intended appointee as vice-chair of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. He has been selected for a half-hour review by the government party. I am looking to the government members for someone to lead off with Mr McMurdo.
Mr McLean: Can I have a point of privilege for 30 seconds, Mr Chairman? I want the members to know, and I did not want to bring it up when Mr Bullen was before us, that his two sons and his wife have also got jobs with the government within the last year.
The Chair: That is not a point of privilege.
Mr McLean: That is a pretty good point and I did not make it before.
The Chair: Does anyone on the government party wish to lead off?
Mr Marchese: We pass, Mr Chair.
The Chair: All right. I am looking to the official opposition. Mr McGuinty, would you like to lead off?
Mr McGuinty: I need a few moments, Mr Chairman, before I can ask questions.
The Chair: Mr Brown, are you prepared?
Mr Brown: No.
Mr Jackson: Let me start then. Robert, welcome. Is it safe to say that workplace health and safety is a mixed bag in this province?
Mr McMurdo: No question.
Mr Jackson: There are a several agencies and I do not want to say "competing," but there are several groups that are funded differently and propose to suggest that they are in a good position to advise the government and various sectors about workplace safety and occupational health. Recently one or two of those groups have had their provincial funding withdrawn. What is your comment about that? What concerns would you have about that?
Mr McMurdo: Would you care to identify those groups, Mr Jackson?
Mr Jackson: I was afraid you were going to ask me that, Robert. Does industrial accident prevention ring a bell?
Mr McMurdo: No. If you are referring to Industrial Accident Provention Association, which is Russ Ramsay's organization, it is well funded by our agency.
Mr Jackson: Okay. There is another one then that I am looking for. I do not have my briefing note in front of me.
Mr McMurdo: I am sorry; I cannot help you there because certainly the mandate of Bill 208, as you are probably aware, was to oversee the existing delivery organizations, which we have continued to do.
Mr Jackson: Okay. Let me move into an area which flows from that piece of legislation and the vision implicit in that legislation. There has been some controversy in the past about people on the shop floor being empowered to make decisions to shut down certain operations and that has some pretty dramatic effect. There was considerable debate about whether or not these shutdowns or work stoppages, for the reasons outlined, for safety, may be frivolous or unwarranted and that these might by coincidence be occurring at a time when there is legitimate labour unrest occurring or negotiations. Can you speak to this committee about any of your experiences or your views in this area and whether or not that element of the legislation is working?
Mr McMurdo: To answer the last part of your question first, I think that element of the legislation is working. I happened to be on the Bill 208 formative committee when the government was putting Bill 208 together. That was certainly one of the concerns of the management side of the debate.
I think it has proven to be the case since January 1991 when Bill 208 became effective that there have been no examples of indiscriminate shutdowns of plants because, as you know, the legislation now calls for a certified worker representative -- we will get into that in a minute -- and a certified management representative on a joint health and safety committee. With the revisions that ultimately flowed in Bill 208, those two parties must make that decision jointly. In other words, one party cannot shut down the plant. I guess it is that simple.
Mr Jackson: If I understand, you are currently a member and are ascending to the position of vice-chair?
Mr McMurdo: I have been a director on the management caucus since the inception of the agency. Unfortunately our vice-chair of management, resigned for health reasons as of December 31. I in turn was approached and asked whether I would consider filling out the balance of his order in council, which flowed through until October 1993. I indicated that I would be pleased to do so.
Mr Jackson: I do not have it in our notations. When was your original appointment?
Mr McMurdo: My original order in council for myself was a three-year OIC dating back I believe to September or October 1990.
Mr Jackson: Unless we have been getting other indications, Mr Chairman, I can continue.
The Chair: You are fine.
Mr Jackson: I am not fully conversant with your mandate. Forgive me for that. I would assume that issues of risk are brought to your attention and that from time to time you may be called upon to pass certain judgements. Are there some outstanding issues that you believe are not being taken seriously whether it is by the government or some arm of government, or do you have any of those concerns you wish to share with this committee at the moment?
Mr McMurdo: I do not. I think our mandate under the agency is clear. It is the overseeing and delivery of occupational health and safety programs for all facets of industry in this province, and I think we are getting a handle on it. You alluded to this in your previous remarks about the various delivery organizations that exist out there. In fact, I just came from a meeting with the Construction Safety Association of Ontario, which is the second-largest funded organization that we oversee. It is apparent that there is a lot of duplication of effort and we are striving and I think frankly making some headway into the amalgamation and consolidation of some of the services that are out there.
Having gone through financial budget reviews with all those organizations in the past 14 months, I am the first to admit that the duplication of effort is somewhat astounding. We as an agency are taking strides to consolidate some of those services and better spend the dollar and utilize it for occupational health and safety purposes.
Mr Jackson: If I were to rephrase that question a little differently it would be, are there areas that are being presented to you through these organizations that fall under your umbrella? Are there areas that are of particular concern to you where the records for workplace health and safety are not being addressed?
Mr McMurdo: I think the answer to that is no. I am satisfied. I have been involved in occupational health and safety through the construction industry for many, many years. Having had a chance to talk to all of them now, I think frankly they are doing the best job they can.
Mr Jackson: I am sure we are going to have enough time for all the questions. Finally, the area of asbestos in schools, does that fall under your mandate as it relates to teachers and the environment in which they are teaching, which would have excess asbestos?
Mr McMurdo: Only to the extent that asbestos removal falls under our area of jurisdiction under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, but asbestos as it exists in a building such as this is not our mandate.
1500
Mr McLean: I have a couple of questions. There appears to be a lot of concern now with regard to stress, people wanting to be pensioned off because of stress in the workplace. Are you getting many of those applications or people bringing it before your board?
Mr McMurdo: No. That is more in the purview of the WCB.
Mr McLean: I am talking about health and hazards in the workplace. If stress is not a hazard I do not know what is, but it is a very important item. I am asking you if you have had any people bringing to your attention that they feel it is part of a --
Mr McMurdo: I am with you now. Certainly the IAPA has had situations such as you are describing. I think it is fair to say that it is a new phenomenon in the workplace that is being recognized as a compensable type of injury. It is my understanding that they are designing programs to hopefully try to eliminate stress in the workplace. There are many types of stress, as you and I know. I think the answer is yes, they are being addressed.
Mr McLean: I have had policemen come to me who have indicated that they have had to retire. They were taking early retirement because of the stress. That can get to be a pretty touchy subject. A lot of people perhaps could feel the same way, even members of the Legislature.
Mr McMurdo: I am sure.
Mr McLean: Anyhow, we will pass. I was here when Elie Martel and I were sitting on the committee dealing with the previous administration's Ministry of Labour with regard to the workplace health and safety act. Is Mr Martel involved in it now?
Mr McMurdo: No, he is not.
Mr McLean: I thought he was.
Mr McMurdo: No.
Mr McLean: He is in the environmental aspect, I guess, is he?
Mr McMurdo: I do not have the answer to that.
Mr Waters: I have seen him off and on, but I never asked.
Mr McLean: This is one of his major committees. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Mr Marchese: In 1991 the Workplace Health and Safety Agency released a study on the 12 agencies that it had commissioned around safety and accident prevention associations it is responsible for. The study was very critical of the associations in five major areas. The associations offered over 500 programs which were often duplicated and uncoordinated. It says:
"The associations failed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of the programs they offered. Many of the associations targeted their programs to management. The study suggested that this bias was inconsistent with the spirit of Bill 208, which called for cooperation between management and labour. The 12 associations had contact with only about 50% or 60% of the workplaces for which they were responsible and the associations failed to conduct up-to-date surveys in order to ensure they kept in touch with the needs of Ontario workers."
That is quite a highly critical view of an agency that has received over $15 million from the Workers' Compensation Board to spend on these associations. Can you comment on these criticisms, and in your view, what can be done to make the associations more effective contributors to occupational health and safety in the province?
Mr McMurdo: If I can just correct one comment you made there, that study did not embody us. We actually precipitated the study of the agency, as I alluded to when I think I was talking to Mr Jackson. We detected very early in the game that there was a lot of duplication, that there were morale problems and that there were criticisms in the SPR report of some of the delivery organizations being heavily staffed at the management level. We are currently conducting a review of all these agencies individually.
In fact, my counterpart, Paul Forder, and I just got back from North Bay yesterday, having visited with the Forest Products Accident Prevention Association and the Mines Accident Prevention Association. I think it is fair to state here today that we are of the opinion that to save some money, to economize in services being provided by those associations, strong consideration be given to establishing one natural resource safety association comprising pulp and paper, forestry products and mine accident, locating them in the north, where all the action is. Through consolidation we are going to eliminate an awful lot of administrative duplication -- computerization-wise, general administration, accounting and so on, and also in the delivery of the programs.
To answer your question, I think I can assure you we are taking steps to correct the criticisms that were contained in that SPR report, one of our top priorities at the agency.
Mr Marchese: In terms of the suggestion about how to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs, are you putting something in place to do that?
Mr McMurdo: Again, part of our mandate, we think, is to consolidate a database such that all constituents in the province who are involved in occupational health and safety, and that of course includes pretty well every industry you can think of, will have one central database to go to, the agency's, to provide all of us with statistics that will indicate whether a certain industry is doing a better job than others. In our studies to date of the agencies, we have found that some have a far better handle on how effective they are than others do. We are starting to identify that now.
Mr Marchese: Just another question.
The Chair: You have time.
Mr Marchese: We realize that unorganized workers are not represented in the agency. Is that something you are addressing?
Mr McMurdo: You are quite correct that unorganized workers are not represented on the board of the agency. However, as an example, this morning we met with a bipartite board, which happened to be the pulp and paper people. They have a fully bipartite board, management and organized labour, but all their committee structures below the main board of the pulp and paper association are bipartite in a manner such that the unorganized people have representation. For example, the current president of the association happens to be from Kimberly-Clark's Huntsville pulp and paper plant, an unorganized plant, but his floor people are fully represented on the committee in that area of the province. So the unorganized are being represented, as an example.
Mr Duignan: I was just wondering, in your opinion have this agency and act strengthened the enforcement of health and safety regulations?
Mr McMurdo: We are not an enforcement body, as you know, but I think it is a step in the right direction. At least we have organized labour and management at the same table. I think it is fair to say that over the 14 months the rage and rhetoric have quieted down somewhat and we are now getting on with the job we are there to do, putting partisan interests aside. We are not the policeman -- the Ministry of Labour is still the policeman -- but I think the cooperative effort is starting to take a proper form and we are starting to get things done. That is the important thing, in my mind.
Mr Duignan: Finally, the current state of the training and accreditation programs -- I know it is not to begin till later this year. Is that on target?
Mr McMurdo: We are a little behind target, but based on a meeting that was held yesterday, I suggest that we probably should be kicking off the certified worker training in July of this year. What we will do is target the high-hazard industries initially. It is such a large job to complete that we will probably look at the high-hazard industries initially and target them for the initial training.
Mr Duignan: Any estimation of the completion time?
Mr McMurdo: It is tough, because the numbers are mind-boggling when you consider the number of certified worker representatives who are going to be required in the workplace, anywhere from 150,000 to 200,000, and it is quite an intensive training program. My guess is that it is probably going to be protracted over a two- to three-year period.
1510
Mr Waters: As a person who was involved with all of this way back when, I have a couple of questions. Part of your mandate was establishing a small business advisory committee. How is that going?
Mr McMurdo: It has not been ignored, but I guess I must be very frank with you: We have had so many other what we call higher-priority items, that has not yet been established. However, having said that, on our management caucus in particular the small business interests are well represented through Bruce Stanton, and Judith Andrew of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Their interests are being well represented, I can assure you.
Mr Waters: The other thing is that I can recall going through all of this and having management say it was another waste of its compensation dollar and the cost was going to be prohibitive and everything else. I always argued against it. As you have said, you have gone through 14 months and basically settled in. Do you think this is going to be something that will be better for business in the long run and probably a savings in workers' compensation?
Mr McMurdo: Oh, yes. I am from private industry and I have no hesitation in saying yes, it will be, because occupation health and safety reflects in the bottom line. There are thousands of examples of it. We have people in organized labour who do not think Bill 208 is a very good idea. We have people from business who do not think it is a very good idea. But those positions are starting to soften. I think there is a big job to be done, an enormous mandate under Bill 208. If we can succeed, it is going to be reflected in less pain and suffering in this province and thousands and millions of dollars saved in WCB costs, costs of hospitals and right down the line, and, I might add, in the bottom line in business profit-and-loss statements as well.
Mr McGuinty: I want to pursue something raised by my colleague Mr Marchese. I do not quite understand how unorganized workers receive representation. In the agency there are 20 directors sitting on the board, I gather, and as I understand, it none of them are there specifically to represent unorganized workers, while more than half of the workers in the province could be categorized as unorganized. Do you see that as a deficiency?
Mr McMurdo: I did at one time; I do not now. You are quite correct, our board at the agency is comprised of only organized labour representatives on the labour caucus. We do have representation, however, in our management caucus, representing businesses that do employ other than organized labour. The example I cited of our meeting this morning with the pulp and paper industry satisfies me certainly with it and, I might say, with construction safety, which we also have met with in the last day or two, that the unorganized worker in both those industries does have a voice at the table.
Mr McGuinty: It is the management table, though, is it not?
Mr McMurdo: No. For example, with pulp and paper, branch district 9, which covers the Huntsville area, even though the directors on the pulp and paper safety association are from organized labour, below them is a working committee, occupational health and safety committee, joint health and safety committee, comprised of a number of people. They form a branch committee in that area. Kimberly-Clark's plant in Huntsville, for example, which is unorganized, has two floor worker representatives on that committee. They do have the opportunity to provide input into the process and programs, which then flow back up to the main board of directors of the pulp and paper. That is one example.
Mr McGuinty: Do you see it as any kind of a perception problem?
Mr McMurdo: Certainly there is no question it is a perception problem, but I think that over the last 14 months that perception problem has been broken down, because the big argument during the formation of Bill 208, when it came to the representation on the board of directors of the agency, was how the unorganized were going to be represented. There is still some of that out there, but I think those barriers are now being broken down.
Mr Brown: As someone who survived Bill 208 in the good old days when we were going crazy with that bill, I fondly remember some of the arguments. You talked about the certification of the worker representatives. How is it going from the other side, where we are certifying management people, or do these people take exactly the same course?
Mr McMurdo: Exactly the same course.
Mr Brown: Is the time frame absolutely the same then?
Mr McMurdo: The time frame logically should be the same. We on the management caucus are of the opinion, and I think the labour caucus is starting to share this opinion, that logically in a workplace of 20 people or more, where there is a worker representative and a management representative required, does it not make some logic that those two people take the course at the same time? The thinking is starting to come around in that direction. It is not quite there, but it is starting to come around.
Mr Brown: I recognize the enormity of the task you are confronting and I am wondering to some extent -- I am looking for the right way to phrase this -- when we will see better health and safety in the workplace. When will we see an improvement in the statistics? When are we going to see lower WCB claims, fewer people being injured, fewer people being killed, fewer claims? What is the time frame?
Mr McMurdo: I hope as quickly as possible. That is a pretty general statement. I think this year, based on some of the statistics we have seen already, you are going to see better results. That is hard to gauge because some of the better results are going to be a result of the economy. There will not be that number of people working in the workforce. The man-hours will not be there. I think in construction, for example, you are going to see fatalities in the last year, 1991, at the lowest point in some 20 years. How much of that is reflected in the state of the construction economy, in less people working? I would like to think that in 1991 it was probably to a great extent the efforts of the industry to improve occupational health and safety, because the industry was humming along pretty well and that is where I came from. It is certainly not humming along right at the moment, but I think we are getting results.
Mr Brown: Is there a process of being able to measure that?
Mr McMurdo: Someone else asked that question. We are now in the throes of providing a proper database through the agency so that people will be able to -- the difficulty in all industries over the years has been -- Procter and Gamble could tell you how many tubes of toothpaste it was going to sell in a given year with deadly accuracy, but to predict the number of fatalities and occupational health type of accidents in so difficult an industry, we have to get a better measure. That is what we are currently working on.
Mr Brown: Do you see the overall budget remaining static or decreasing for your organization?
Mr McMurdo: I would like to see it increase, but under current economic conditions that may be an optimistic forecast. It is interesting to note, though, that back 10 years ago we were expending in occupational health and safety in this province, funding the associations, approximately 3% of total WCB assessment dollars. Now, 10 years later, we are spending about 2.3% of assessment dollars. In other words, the amount of real money as a percentage has gone down in 10 years as opposed to going up.
Mr Brown: What has it done in real dollars, not expressed as a percentage? Has it kept up with inflation?
Mr McMurdo: I would suggest no. I do not have the figures in front of me, but I would suggest it has not; a little bit of the argument we used when we were presenting our budget to Management Board this year, I might add.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr McMurdo. We appreciated your testimony.
Mr McMurdo: Thank you for your time.
1520
The Chair: Members, the next matter on the agenda is dealing with concurrences with appointments. We can deal with these in a block or individually, and we may want to do them on an individual basis because we have dealt with so many appointees today. Again, I would advise you that if any member requests a delay in a vote, we are obligated to honour that, but it would have to be dealt with tomorrow. That is the lengthiest delay possible.
I am looking for a motion in respect to Mr Herrndorf's appointment as member and chair of the Ontario Educational Communications Authority. Do we have a motion to concur with that appointment by Mr Marchese?
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, I would like to do that, but could I ask a question? I would like to move them all as a block, if people are agreeable with that.
The Chair: I had an indication that there was a wish to deal with them individually, so that is why I am proceeding in this way.
Mr Marchese: Very well, then. I move concurrence.
The Chair: We have a motion to concur with Mr Herrndorf's appointment. Any discussion on that motion? All in favour? Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Moving on to Mr Paul LaFleur, intended appointee as a member of the Regional Municipality of Halton Police Services Board, do we have a motion to concur with that appointment? Moved by Mr Waters. Any discussion on Mr LaFleur's appointment? Mr Jackson.
Mr Jackson: I think I raised a series of questions and concerns for the committee, but the one I really wish to focus on has very little to do with Mr Paul LaFleur and more to do with the question about what constitutes a conflict of interest. As I was quoting from the appointments secretary's own memo to this committee, I was distressed to learn that matters of conflict of interest had no -- I do not have it in front of me, but I think I quoted directly the words that "no formal process exists."
I want to separate the appointment from the process, because I am concerned more about the process here. I had certainly been notified by members of the community about concern over this conflict of interest, and Mr LaFleur has indicated as a lawyer that he felt he may be in a conflict of interest, yet the thing was left open-ended. That concerns me.
Obviously we are discussing the impotence of this committee, but we should also be recommending that the process has a deficiency if nobody is dealing with this man's conflict of interest. There were three things that could happen, if you read from the document. I tried in the limited time I had to discuss whether or not any of these activities were occurring.
First of all, in the application he made reference to how, if called upon, because there is a conflict of interest, he would refrain from law, but that is not a condition or a requirement and no one has set that out. I think we need to be guided a little more on this legal question. I am not a lawyer, but I think it is fair to ask what the implications are for decisions being made where there could be a potential conflict of interest, and what its implications are.
I do not have a difficulty that he is a card-carrying NDP or that he has only lived in my community five and a half years or with his trade unionist views. He is entitled to those. But we are dealing with the issue of conflict of interest, and it flows from his own application and his own letter to the appointments secretary. So I do not think we should just blithely pass this one. I think we should be asking the question. I know we are going to vote on it and it is going to get approved; that is a given. But I am uncomfortable and I want to be on record as saying I am a member of this committee -- I am not subbed in here; I am a regular member of this committee -- and I am very concerned that we have no mechanism to deal with this.
We have the subject of an inquiry occurring 20 feet from this room on a conflict-of-interest guidelines matter, yet it seems that on matters of an appointment, a substantive one, we do not have any way of tying that down. Maybe other members wish to discuss it, but it is what is at the nub of my frustration and concern here.
The Chair: Okay. We have Mr Farnan first and then two other members who wish to speak.
Mr Farnan: I think conflict is always a matter of concern, whatever body one is dealing with. But let's look at the ramifications of a decision. Would we exclude all lawyers with similar backgrounds as a result? I think it is incumbent on any individual in any forum to decide when conflict is there, whether it is pecuniary or otherwise.
I am not unsympathetic to the idea that built into the process of appointments there might be a brief notation as to the area of conflict. I think that makes sense across the board, but I do not think it makes any sense to hold up the appointment, which I believe to be basically a very sound appointment.
I think all members on the police commission, and in this case it is an appointment to a commission -- let's say it is an individual who ran a crisis shelter and matters come up surrounding that crisis shelter. There are matters of conflict. So one could project conflict to any member of the police commission and not just to this individual with this background. I would perhaps be supportive and sympathetic towards Mr Jackson's suggestion, if what he is saying is that there be a notation in the future for all members appointed to agencies, boards and commissions. At the same time, I do not think it should be a deterrent to processing this application today.
The Chair: Mr Duignan, Mr Waters and Mr Marchese have expressed an interest in saying something.
Mr Duignan: Actually, I have to declare a conflict here, and I will not be participating in the debate or the vote.
Mr Farnan: An excellent example of the point I was making.
Mr Waters: I think that tomorrow you are going to have Ms Phillips come in before the committee, and maybe you can enter into some of this discussion at that point. I did not hear everything that was said this morning by the witness because I had been called out for a moment or two, but I believe the witness was more than forthright in saying he felt so strongly about this position that he was willing to give up that part of his practice.
Mr Jackson: If required.
Mr Waters: If required. Okay.
Mr Jackson: That is my point. I am not questioning the motive.
Mr Waters: I do not think it warrants holding up the appointment. If we feel as a committee that there is some sort of potential problem that could come before us that might be greater than this one -- and looking at what you are saying, there could be something that could be a far bigger conflict than this person, who is very open about it -- I think maybe it is something we should talk over with Ms Phillips to find out how they deal with it. Then, if need be, we can always make a recommendation as a committee that this be addressed.
Mr Jackson: That is more the direction I am looking at.
The Chair: We will go to Mr McGuinty, then to Mr Marchese.
Mr McGuinty: I do not have as much faith in changing the process here as perhaps other members do, so I am going to focus on the individual who appeared before us. I do not recall -- I may have been out of the room at the time, but I understand, Mr Chair, that he himself acknowledged that there was a conflict.
The Chair: Potential.
Mr McGuinty: A potential conflict.
1530
Mr Jackson: And that was his own legal opinion?
Mr McGuinty: I am concerned by the fact that in his letter he said that if required, he would cease practising in the area of criminal law. I am going to speculate that Mr LaFleur is saying that for a very good reason; that is, he relies on some practice in the area of criminal law in order to earn some income. There is nothing wrong with that at all; I did that myself for a few years. So it is a real conflict. It is not something he can drop out of hand.
I think if this committee was going to deal with this properly and if it was going to recommend the appointment of this gentleman to the police services board, then it ought to do so by making it a requirement that he not practise criminal law. I do not know if we have that authority or if there is any means available to us or any mechanism to follow up on this. If we cannot do that, I do not think we are fulfilling our responsibility by saying: "Okay, there's nothing we can do. We'll just let him go ahead anyway, and to heck with the conflict."
The Chair: As Chair, I see nothing wrong with an amendment which would indicate that we concur with the appointment, subject to Mr LaFleur withdrawing from all criminal law activities. If that is what you are trying to aim at, I would certainly entertain an amendment to that effect.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chair --
The Chair: No, we do not want to get out of order. Mr McGuinty has proposed this; I want to give him an opportunity. Or would you rather reflect on it for a moment?
Mr McGuinty: I will reflect on it.
The Chair: Okay. Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: Yes, it is useful for them to reflect on it, because my personal feeling is that this lawyer is stating an opinion. It could be out of guilt perhaps more than real conflict. I do not know that he has a conflict in fact. The fact that he practises criminal law does not create a conflict by and in itself. The fact that he may have been critical of a judge or the police does not create a conflict. I think the conflict is when he has to make an opinion where he may have been directly involved with the case. That is an automatic conflict, in my view. But to deduce from his practice and his views that therefore he may have a conflict, I do not see that correlation.
So my immediate thought on this is that there is no conflict except when the member, in whatever matter he is dealing with, perceives that he has been directly involved and then makes his own judgement as to whether or not that constitutes a conflict. That is the way I would see it. At the moment I do not have any problems, but I do not mind deferring this until tomorrow for us to consult with others -- all of us, I suppose -- in terms of what other opinion we might get. At the moment, I am quite willing to proceed, but a deferral would be quite acceptable to me to consider a few other things or consult a few other people.
The Chair: We will allow a little more discussion. I think you moved the motion, did you not?
Mr Marchese: Sure we can.
The Chair: If it is a consensus, sir, you could withdraw the motion. We can defer it until tomorrow. Mr Jackson.
Mr Jackson: Listening carefully to the comments on this, I think the point is appropriate that as a committee, no one has come forward to enlighten us on that legal point. I have had complaints from my community about the point. I have had conversations about the nature of how the conflict would work. In the brief time allocated during the interview, I alluded to the special access to inside information on the details of police procedures with efficacy and the validity of certain investigative procedures that are entered as evidence in a courtroom, and that this is not privy information to defence attorneys.
We are talking about a person who is bound by his legal, professional oath to do all in his power to get that criminal off. That is his mandate. This makes him unique, and different from a crown attorney who is there to represent the crown, the state, Her Majesty and to protect the citizens. This person's role is to get the criminal off. The adversarial system functions because the two go head to head and each has a little warrior going into court for them.
Whether it is drug investigations or the quality of the material of the forensic tests that occur, this is the kind of detailed information shared with me about how this is a conflict. I did not raise the issue of conflict; it emanated from the gentleman's own application. The lady who is going to come to us tomorrow to talk about the appointments commission in her own brief deals with the issue of conflict. It is a matter that is out there for consideration, and they leave us wanting as a committee, because they do not have a mechanism for us to discuss it.
I would like someone from the Attorney General's office to come forward. My fear is that we have said there are no conditions on this appointment so he is not required by anyone -- he has been interviewed by Andrew Mackenzie on behalf of the Solicitor General. It was recommended to the Premier, who has signed the order-in-council appointment for referral to us. So everybody said yes. Everybody has been discussing conflict, but no one has said whether it exists or not. I have to record a negative vote on that issue, whether or not he is an appropriate appointee because no one gave me the true legal answer.
That is what I feel is wanting in the process, and that report does not address it. It just says it will be an informal process and it should be discussed with the individual, but if something does happen -- we are dealing with matters of the criminal justice system and a person's special access as his appointment to that board. That is all I am really pleading for at this point.
Mr Frankford: It seems to me, a non-lawyer, that a conflict of interest is when one has duties and obligations that conflict. I think, without going into all the details of what he might find, as a lawyer he would have a professional obligation to his clients and, at the same time, as a member of the police commission he would have a clear duty to that board and to the community, so I think it becomes self-evident in this case. I presume that any number of the appointments can have things where there is conflict to a greater or lesser extent. He might want to declare a conflict if the police commission wanted to make some property deal which affected the value of his house, say.
There was another situation that arose in this committee a few weeks ago that was mentioned but did not give rise to any discussion: Mr Wolfe, who was appointed to the Royal Victoria Hospital board, and was also on the board of the Barrie Community Health Centre. In this case he personally said he was willing to look into it and he was prepared to resign from the health centre if there was a conflict. The matter was left at that.
I am not sure in my mind whether there is a conflict or not. I think it would be interesting, for a start, to see if there is any self-evident conflict or if this would only apply to certain circumstances coming up. I would certainly be quite interested to go back and follow up on that one to see: Was there a conflict? Is he going to follow through on that? How is that going to be resolved? Presumably with any number of the people we hear, one might think of some circumstances in which other aspects of their lives, either boards or political obligations or whatever, could conflict with the position they have been nominated for.
Mr McGuinty: I think it is important we not lose sight of this particular case. I cannot agree with Dr Frankford when he says the possibility or the likelihood exists in all appointments that there will be the potential for conflicts. I think this is a clear-cut case. I do not think we can just drop it and say, "Let's just pretend it doesn't exist." I think we have to address it.
When you are on the police services board you are involved in a special relationship with the police and the police are in the business of laying charges. If you are defending clients in criminal law you are in the business of defending against police charges. You cannot somehow have a connection with the laying of charges and at the same time have a connection with the defending of those very charges. So it seems to me on the face of it patently there is some kind of a conflict. I do not offer that as a legal opinion because I do not consider myself to be expert in the area. But I think there is a very real issue here and it has to be looked at more closely before we can go ahead and concur with his appointment.
1540
Mr Marchese: I do not know that it is clear-cut. I frankly believe there is no conflict, but I do not want my comments to prevent the process of finding out whether or not there is one -- at least people want to be convinced there is not -- and if there is, how to deal with it. I am generally a process person so I agree with the other members that for the benefit of clarifying this, having someone come to talk to us about it so we can ask those questions would be useful. Carol Phillips may be one of them. Cam talked about the idea of having someone from the Attorney General's office come as well. Perhaps through the Chair we might arrange for that, if it is possible, for tomorrow. For the sake of process I think we should do it. Someone might want to come and talk to us briefly about that. I am quite willing to accept that as a part of the process.
The Chair: Mr Waters, I am advised, made the motion. If he wants to withdraw his motion and defer it until tomorrow, we certainly have Ms Phillips before us, and we can attempt to try and get someone from the Solicitor General's office to briefly appear. Again, because of the time constraints, under the standing order we can only defer this until tomorrow and deal with it then. If we do not deal with it then it will automatically come into force within a period of time.
Mr Waters: I have no problem with deferring, but I will not be here tomorrow so I would like to leave you with a couple of thoughts on it. Then I will withdraw my motion and allow for the deferral. One of the thoughts is, is a doctor who sits on a hospital board in conflict? It is my understanding we were to get people from different backgrounds in the community to set up a police services board and they would not be dealing directly with the criminal element within the community; they are to offer some guidance to the police in generalities. I do not think they go in and say, "On case number da-da da-da da-da, we want you, the police, to do this." This not what I see as the function of the police services board. I will defer, but because I will not be here I just wanted to make those statements.
The Chair: Mr Waters is withdrawing his motion. We will have Ms Phillips before us from 10 to 11 tomorrow. I have asked the clerk to talk to the Solicitor General's office to see if we can have a representative from that office with us from 11 to 11:30. At that time hopefully we will have someone. If we do not, we are simply going to have to make the decision based on the responses we get from Ms Phillips.
Mr Waters: Should we have to make the decision without, I do not think we should leave the topic and drop it at that point. I think there is enough interest by the members of this committee that if we cannot get anyone from the Solicitor General's office here tomorrow, somewhere down the road we would like to have that person attend.
The Chair: That is part and parcel of this whole discussion with Ms Phillips, because we want to get feedback from her and give her our feedback. As part of the process we will be making recommendations, I hope. This is one area we could, perhaps should, cover.
We need another motion for William Wightman, to concur with his appointment to the Huronia Historical Advisory Council.
Mr Waters moves that the committee concur in the appointment of William Wightman.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Mr Abel moves that the committee concur in the appointment of Judy Rebick as a member of the Ontario Judicial Council.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Mr McLean moves that the committee concur in the appointment of Fayne Bullen to the University of Toronto Governing Council.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Mr Duignan moves that the committee concur in the appointment of Robert McMurdo as vice-chair of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: That is it. We can forget about the last item on the agenda. The meeting is adjourned. We will see you at 10 o'clock.
The committee adjourned at 1547.