CONTENTS
Wednesday 28 October 1992
Appointments review
George S. McMenemy
Fayne Bullen
Meena Dhar
Ernie Sandy
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Président: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)
*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Mr Ferguson
*Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND) for Mr Wiseman
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1009 in room 228.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Consideration of intended appointments.
GEORGE S. MCMENEMY
The Chair (Mr Robert W. Runciman): Our first witness this morning is George McMenemy. He's an intended appointment as a member of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Welcome to the committee. This is a half-hour review, with 10 minutes allocated to each caucus. Would you like to say something briefly before we begin?
Mr George S. McMenemy: No.
The Chair: All right, fine. Your review is the selection of the official opposition. We'll ask Mr Grandmaître to begin.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Am I the only one, Mr Chair, without a CV?
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): No, I don't have one either.
Mr Grandmaître: You don't? In that case, would the appointee briefly give us his background.
Mr McMenemy: Could you speak up just a little bit more? I think you asked me for my background, is that correct?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes.
Mr McMenemy: I've been a member of the glaziers union since 1969 in Hamilton. I've been in construction since I was 10 when I worked for my father in the summers. I've held practically every position in my local in Hamilton, except for recording secretary. I've been involved in our training trust funds in Hamilton and provincially. I've been involved in apprenticeship training, both locally in Hamilton and provincially. I'm on the Ontario Glaziers Trust Funds, which handles vacation pay, pensions and health and welfare plans. I'm a member of the Ontario council of the Canadian Federation of Labour as a vice-president. I've been appointed to several committees through our international. I'm a certificate-of qualification-holding glazier.
Mr Grandmaître: How familiar are you with Bill 40?
Mr McMenemy: I'm familiar with Bill 40.
Mr Grandmaître: What are your thoughts on Bill 40?
Mr McMenemy: I think that would be rather hard to judge today, seeing as Bill 40 is not legislation; not yet anyway.
Mr Grandmaître: No, but we were told that no major amendments would be accepted, so what are your thoughts about it now?
Mr McMenemy: I think Bill 40 is a piece of legislation, obviously put forth by the NDP, that is intended to promote a better cooperation in Ontario between all parties in the economy of Ontario. That's my belief of the intent of the bill and that's my personal belief also.
Mr Grandmaître: I know the government has been talking about building or creating partnerships between employees and employers in the labour movement. At the present time, I think the way is the other way around. Employers are very concerned about Bill 40. I don't know how accurate their survey is, or what the impact of Bill 40 will be on Ontario, but they're saying there's a possibility that we might be losing between 200,000 and 300,000 jobs in Ontario if Bill 40 goes through unamended. What are your thoughts on that possibility?
Mr McMenemy: I think the original survey was done under the discussion paper or white paper on it. I don't know if there has been a survey done since the amendment to the amendment, I guess if you want to use that, on whether there will be that job loss. I'm not really sure if there is going to be a job loss of that amount, or if there will be a job loss, period. I would tend to think that surveys can be slanted to get whatever opinion you want, good, bad or indifferent. I personally do not believe there will be, and I have also not read any other studies or heard any information that it is a correct figure or an incorrect figure or anything. I don't know. I don't see it happening.
Mr Grandmaître: Do you agree with me that it will be easier for unions to be put in place?
Mr McMenemy: No, I don't. No matter how easy the legislation is to become a union member, if you do not want to become a union member, you will not become a union member, or the union will not be successful. I really don't believe it will be as disastrous as everybody is led to believe.
Mr Grandmaître: Also, the possibility that -- as you say, it's not legislation yet, so it's a possibility -- scabs will be totally prevented from replacing unionized workers, do you agree with this?
Mr McMenemy: The lack of replacement workers has already been covered in the construction sector of the industry. We have lived with that since 1978, when provincial bargaining became effective. From my own experience, we have never had replacement workers in the construction sector. When we're on strike, the province is shut down.
The reason for that in the construction sector is that if there is, for lack of a better word, a principled company whose employees go on strike, it's shut down. If there's an unprincipled company, for lack of a better word, it could continue working, so that's why there was, I guess, no-replacement-worker legislation in the industrial, commercial and institutional, ICI, sector legislation in 1978; or anti-scab labour, whatever you want to call it.
Mr Grandmaître: So what you're telling me is that you're in total agreement with Bill 40 as it is written now.
Mr McMenemy: I'm not really sure I could say I'm totally in favour of Bill 40 as it's written now, because it's not legislation yet. It's a proposal. There could be amendments. I understand Mr Mackenzie said there wouldn't be any more amendments. I understand the NDP has said that, but we don't know. To comment on something that is still potentially changeable, I think, is a little bit premature on my part.
Mr Grandmaître: But I said "the way it's written now."
Mr McMenemy: The legislation attempts, in my opinion, to hit all aspects of Ontario fairly, whether they be worker, whether they be management, and it attempts to create a level playing field, as it is written now.
Mr Grandmaître: I'll pass for now.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Welcome to the committee this morning. Are you a management or a labour --
Mr McMenemy: Labour.
Mr McLean: You're a labour appointment.
Mr McMenemy: Correct.
Mr McLean: The Ontario Labour Relations Board administers the labour act and administers different jurisdictions.
Mr McMenemy: Correct.
Mr McLean: Are you familiar with the different jurisdictions? The one I want to zero in on is the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.
Mr McMenemy: Well, I'm appointed as a labour sides person for the construction sector. I would seriously doubt that I would be on those cases to any great degree, because my expertise is in the construction sector. Therefore, no, I don't think I would sit on those unless there was an emergency.
Mr McLean: I see. So there's probably somebody appointed from the teachers' federation.
Mr McMenemy: I would guess so. If it's anything similar to the construction sector, there are management appointees to sit as sides people and labour appointees to sit as sides people with their background to have input into the board to get a decision that's fair and just, coming from both ends of the expertise.
Mr McLean: Are there many hearings before the board now with regard to problems to do with organizing?
Mr McMenemy: I'm not aware of any right now, not currently.
Mr McLean: You'll be considering applications with regard to lockout of employees and employers.
Mr McMenemy: I'm sorry?
Mr McLean: You'll be asked to consider applications with regard to lockouts.
Mr McMenemy: Yes.
Mr McLean: What do you foresee as the biggest challenge?
Mr McMenemy: On a lockout?
Mr McLean: Lockout.
Mr McMenemy: I think lockouts right now are part of everyday labour relations in Ontario, unfortunately.
Mr McLean: Do you think there will be more of them once Bill 40 is passed?
Mr McMenemy: My personal opinion is no, there will not be.
Mr McLean: Do you think there will be more organizing take place once Bill 40 is passed?
Mr McMenemy: Personally, no, I don't think there will be much more organizing than is done right now or has been done in the past.
Mr McLean: I guess I should ask you, for information purposes, with regard to a free vote for members.
Mr McMenemy: Members have a free vote currently under the legislation.
Mr McLean: In the legislation now, anybody who wanted to organize could have a secret ballot to vote on.
Mr McMenemy: A secret ballot is a portion of the existing act, currently.
Mr McLean: There has been a lot of discussion in committee, and I haven't been on the committee, only one day, because that's not my area of jurisdiction. But I have observed from some of the reports I have seen where they're asking to have a free vote. Why are they asking, if, as you said, it's already there?
1020
Mr McMenemy: Under the legislation right now, if you go for a representation vote, I assume that would be classified as a free vote. Again, these comments are based under the legislation we have right now.
Under the act, if you obtain a certain requirement for an automatic certification, there isn't a free vote, but if there is a challenge to that certification or application by the employees, yes, there is a free vote after there's a board hearing and whatever else. But there is a free vote provision in the act currently.
Mr McLean: Just a couple of quick questions, then. Are you self-employed?
Mr McMenemy: No.
Mr McLean: Who do you work for?
Mr McMenemy: I work for the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 1795, Hamilton.
Mr McLean: You just work strictly for the union, then. You don't work at any plant.
Mr McMenemy: No. I'm a business manager of a union. Correct. I'm a full-time employee of that local.
Mr McLean: Fine. Thank you.
Mr Waters: To get this straight, your name is being put forward by the provincial building trades council to replace Clive Ballentine, I understand, and you are a labour nominee to the board, which is standard practice with the board.
Mr McMenemy: Yes.
Mr Waters: I'm amazed, so I'm going to ask it, because usually my cohorts across the way ask it and I wouldn't want them to be disappointed: Do you now or have you ever belonged to any political party?
Mr McMenemy: Yes, I have belonged to the federal Liberal Party and the provincial Liberal Party.
Mr Waters: Why is it that the Labour Relations Act contains separate provisions respecting the construction industry? Can you explain why you're held separately from the rest?
Mr McMenemy: The construction industry and construction workers think differently and act differently. The whole business is different from institutions or hospitals, whatever. It's one of the only occupations I'm aware of that, as soon as the construction worker starts that job, he's working himself out of a job, because upon completion of the job, he's more times than not laid off. It's the rather transitory nature of the business. You could have 10 employers in one given year or you could have one. Right now, you could have none.
It's just different thinking. The contractors we deal with, instead of going after one, two or three contracts like Stelco would, we'll say, our contractors could bid on 50 contracts in the course of the year and get three. It's just a completely different thinking system, a process, and everything is --
Mr Waters: Is there still a lot of hiring out of the union halls?
Mr McMenemy: Yes.
Mr Waters: So that's still going on. That would also lead to why you'd be separate, whereas most people who are unionized elsewhere are with one employer.
Mr McMenemy: Correct, and they're hired through the personnel department. Our employers request X number of persons through our hiring hall.
Mr Waters: I have a couple more questions. I just didn't know whether any of my colleagues were up or not. Okay. When are construction industry grievances arbitrated? If your hiring practices and everything are different and you're held differently with the labour relations class, where do you arbitrate grievances?
Mr McMenemy: The process we have in our collective agreement is that if we can't settle internally, between myself, our committee and the employer, it's referred to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the act, which is now 126 of the act. There's a pre-hearing with a labour relations officer to try and cut quickly to the problem and see if we can resolve the problem quickly, as opposed to referring the grievance to the panel, which is where I --
Mr Waters: The last question would be about the efficiency, I think, of the board. Do you feel the board deals with judicial disputes and that efficiently at the present time?
Mr McMenemy: I can only speak from my personal experience. Yes, I have found the board to be very efficient and very quick with its decision and very thorough with its decision. That's only from my experience.
I have had a lot of experience at the labour relations board on grievances and certifications; not so much like a problem grievance but more a collection of delinquent health and welfare contributions and stuff like that, a tremendous amount of organizing stuff at the board.
Mr Waters: Those will be all my questions at this time.
The Chair: Fine. No additional questions from members of the committee? Mr McMenemy, that concludes your review before the committee this morning. We appreciate your appearance and wish you well.
Mr McMenemy: Thank you very much.
FAYNE BULLEN
The Chair: The next witness is a familiar face before the committee, Fayne Bullen. Mr Bullen is an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board. Welcome back, Mr Bullen.
Mr Fayne Bullen: Thank you, Mr Chairman. It seems I'm a favourite person of this committee. I enjoy being here anyway.
The Chair: You were selected for review by the official opposition. We'll give you a minute or two, if you'd like to make some comments before we begin the questioning. If not, we'll move right into questions.
Mr Bullen: I'm prepared to answer questions, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: All right. I'll ask Mr Grandmaître to begin, then.
Mr Grandmaître: Maybe you should become a member of this committee. I'm all alone; I have a hard time to find a sub, so maybe you should join us permanently.
Mr Bullen, I know that OMERS is a great organization. I was a member of OMERS for 13 years, I guess, and I know it's a great organization. What is your real interest in becoming a member of the board?
Mr Bullen: Interest alone is not a factor that gets anybody on to the OMERS board.
Mr Grandmaître: Well, that's a good start, you know.
Mr Bullen: It is a start, of course. I'm saying it's not the only one. As a municipal councillor, one is always concerned about the pension benefits of the people who work for and contribute to the pension plan as municipal employees. That's one factor.
I understand that in order to be appointed by the government to that board, you first of all have to be an elected representative on council. I happen to have known the mayor of Etobicoke. We were friends as teachers and also on the Ontario Education Association, where I served as president at one time, and he also is president. Bruce Sinclair's term is up. He called me and told me he was recommending me to be a member of that board. It seems that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs was interested in having somebody outside the major metropolitan centre sitting on the board. A number of things came together, and here I am before you today.
Mr Grandmaître: Being a councillor in Orillia, did you know that if you were to become an elected member of the federal government or the provincial government, you couldn't transfer your OMERS pension plan to the Ontario government or the federal government? Did you know that?
Mr Bullen: I as an elected member?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes.
Mr Bullen: First of all, those efforts are behind me. I did make an effort to become an elected member.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, I've noticed, a few times.
Mr Bullen: Those efforts are behind me, so I don't have that worry any more.
Mr Grandmaître: But my question really is, do you think this is fair? Maybe I should declare a conflict of interest, Mr Chair, because I've been trying to transfer 13 years of OMERS into my provincial plan, the Legislative Assembly retirement allowances plan. I was told very recently, after a number of attempts, that no, this is impossible. Yet, OMERS being a great organization, its pension is portable just about everywhere else except at the federal and provincial levels. Do you think this is fair?
Mr Bullen: Well, OMERS by definition, is the Ontario municipal employees' pension, and unless you change the definition of the term, you are asking to step outside the limits of it.
1030
Mr Grandmaître: No, not exactly. What I'm saying is that pension plans in Canada, not only in Ontario, are portable.
Mr Bullen: Should be fully portable, yes.
Mr Grandmaître: What do you think of that?
Mr Bullen: Nominate me, and I'll take it up with my colleagues on the board.
Mr Grandmaître: You're already nominated, and all I need to do is congratulate you. What about the Ontario investment fund? I know that your people are not interested in becoming one of the founding members of the OIF. Why is that?
Mr Bullen: You're talking about whether the government should be --
Mr Grandmaître: Whether OMERS should invest moneys in the Ontario investment fund.
Mr Bullen: First of all, if we go back to the history of the use of pension funds by the government that used to more or less occupy the government side here, it's not new to say that pension funds are being used for the benefit and the interests of the government of Ontario. But the main purpose of a pension fund and of a board of directors is to use the pension fund so as to maximize the returns and create the best pension returns for the people who put their money in there. The board of directors will be guided by this, and if maximization of the returns would be achieved by that form of investment, why not use it? It certainly is a decision that the board of directors would have to make.
Mr Grandmaître: I suppose OMERS doesn't have any confidence in the investments of this provincial government, or future ones. They're not interested in becoming members of this OIF. Has OMERS lost confidence in this government?
Mr Bullen: I'm not at present sitting on OMERS, and I can't answer for what decision it made, but certainly there wouldn't be a stick over OMERS voters saying, "You must do that." I think it would be one of the considerations and the options they would have.
Mr Grandmaître: It's purely voluntary. The Treasurer said the government is seeking your support; not only your support, but the teachers and Ontario Hydro pension funds, the Ontario hospital pension plan and so on and so forth. But I've received maybe 400 or 500 letters from members of OMERS saying no way OMERS should get involved in this Ontario investment fund. I thought you knew more than I did about it.
Mr Bullen: If the returns from that form of investment would maximize the benefit for members, should the OMERS board not consider that?
Mr Grandmaître: I'm asking you the question, because you'll have to make those decisions.
Mr Bullen: And in my question back to you, I've given you the answer, saying that the interest of OMERS is to maximize returns.
Mr Grandmaître: So if the OIF would be a good place to invest, you would invest?
Mr Bullen: Certainly.
Mr McLean: I'm curious: When we're talking about OMERS funds, what contribution do the employees make into their pension as municipal employees?
Mr Bullen: A regular contribution. I couldn't tell you the exact percentage. I haven't studied that.
Mr McLean: What percentage do you pay into the teachers' fund?
Mr Bullen: Generally, it's about 6% that people pay.
Mr McLean: I think ours is 9%.
Mr Grandmaître: Ours is 9% but OMERS is 6%.
Mr McLean: I'm looking for information. Is the teachers' pension based much the same as OMERS?
Mr Bullen: Allan, I'm an ex-teacher now. Look at my grey hair.
Mr McLean: Fayne, you're getting a pension cheque, and you know how much it is. I'm curious: If somebody put the same number of years in as a municipal employee, would he get the same percentage of pension, or are they totally different?
Mr Bullen: Of course, again, the percentage of benefits you get would be based on the experience of the fund, but I think in a short answer, yes, it is more or less the same.
Mr McLean: The assets of the pension I guess is about the third largest on the table that I have, like about $14 billion?
Mr Bullen: Yes.
Mr McLean: The teachers' federation is $24 billion. The use and the availability of the government to invest those funds, as there has been some indication: Do you agree with that proposal?
Mr Bullen: That's a question I had been wrestling with just previously to your taking over, and I think I answered that question.
Mr McLean: What was the answer?
Mr Bullen: The answer is that OMERS' interest, the pension board interest, is mainly to maximize the return for the benefit of the people who put their money in there. Everything has to be taken into consideration, and the OMERS board would have to look at, first of all, security of investment, the maximization of return and to look for the interest of the people who put their money in there.
Mr McLean: What's your main objective with regard to your duties as a member of the OMERS board?
Mr Bullen: Allan, you know my dedication to anything that I take on. I do it very well. The other thing is the overall interest. Anybody on the board is a trustee for the moneys put in by the contributors to the fund -- that's one -- and, again, we have to look at the best interest to make the best return for them. Okay?
Mr McLean: Your son was just here watching you. I don't know whether you knew it or not. He must work around here.
Mr Waters: No, couldn't happen.
Mr Bullen: Well, you can't keep talent down, Allan.
Mr McLean: I remember sitting with you on the campaign trail for about three different elections, and you were always against patronage appointments. What has changed your position?
Mr Bullen: I want you to demonstrate patronage, Allan. I'm telling you here that where talent exists, it ought to be used: the maximization of return and benefits.
Mr McLean: You've done about 10 times better than any other administration that I've seen. There's no point going into all those funds. You've two sons who are now working for the government, haven't you?
Mr Bullen: No, I don't believe so. I think Tim is working for Dan Waters. Do you qualify that as working for the government?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Mr Grandmaître: Dan who?
Mr McLean: And the other one is working for Energy?
Mr Bullen: I would have thought it was the Ministry of the Solicitor General.
Mr McLean: It is? I wasn't sure.
Mr Grandmaître: Have you got a list, Al?
Mr McLean: There's quite a list, anyhow. This will be a paid position now, won't it?
Mr Bullen: No, Allan.
Mr McLean: Is this volunteer?
Mr Bullen: It's volunteer, yes.
Mr McLean: I thought it was $192 a day, according to the book that I've seen. You're saying that it's not?
Mr Grandmaître: No, it's a paid position.
Mr Bullen: It's a paid position?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes.
Mr Bullen: Okay. Anyway --
Mr McLean: You can't let on you didn't know.
Mr Bullen: You can see my interest, because I didn't ask the question of whether it's paid or not. Certainly the money is not the crucial interest to me.
Mr Grandmaître: That's what the government is saying, too: Money is no object.
Mr Bullen: And you believe them, don't you?
Mr McLean: If we were getting Fayne's pension, we wouldn't have to worry about the extra dollars. Anyhow, I wish you well, and I know that your other appointment to the U of T -- how is it going, by the way? Is it challenging and interesting?
Mr Bullen: As I just answered to somebody, the university board, the governing council, is a very neck-stressing type of activity. It means sitting on the governing council, and also I selected being on the university affairs board. There is a board of about 52 people on the governing council, and about 26 people or so on the university affairs. I think if you ask the people who sit on those boards, I have, in the short time I've been there, made my contribution. I'm known and recognized for what I have been doing.
1040
Mr McLean: How many meetings have you had, Fayne? Has it been heavy?
Mr Bullen: Well, it's the average of two meetings a month, and sometimes I also sit on what's called a striking committee. So there have been some additional meetings to that.
Mr McLean: Right. Thank you.
The Chair: First I have Mr Frankford and then Mr Waters wants equal time to respond to Mr McLean.
Interjection: You're giving up, eh, Allan?
Mr McLean: I want to keep him as a friend.
Mr Bullen: He loves to bring me here.
Mr McLean: The next appointment he gets, I'll invite him.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): That's right. Next time he comes before us, he'll be your friend for sure.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): As was pointed out over there, participation in the Ontario investment fund would be voluntary, and I note your response that your mandate is to get the best return on investment. As Mr Grandmaître said, there has been a considerable amount of correspondence about the Ontario investment fund. What I have read into it is either a misunderstanding or a rather dogmatic belief that government can't possibly invest correctly and that the investment policies of OMERS will always be for the best decisions in the best of all possible worlds.
I wonder if I could, since you will now be in a position of influencing the investment decisions of a very substantial capital fund, just raise one or two broad issues around investment. I've read in OMERS that one of its objectives is to have 15% of its portfolio in real estate, and what I read was that it hadn't achieved that objective yet, but this was still stated as an objective. Do you have any thoughts on how they should balance their portfolio and whether they should be that much in real estate at the present time?
Mr Bullen: As we all know -- and I'm involved with some real estate too, personally -- real estate is a good inflation-hedger type of thing. The value remains there even in the worst of times, and certainly, as we know, this is an excellent time to buy and a bad time to sell. But it seems there are good investments and there are bad investments in real estate, and I think the OMERS board is aware of that. For instance, it would be a foolish time to go into office blocks right now. It may not be a bad investment to go into the acquisition of land or into the acquisition of shopping malls or something. It all has to be looked at.
Mr Frankford: If you look at the OMERS real estate report, it does seem as though it's primarily in commercial real estate, and I think you can also see that in their equity portfolio they're quite heavily into Bramalea, so --
Mr Bullen: I'm not in a position to know all the inside of this factor yet, but Bramalea, there may be a good possibility there for investment, but I cannot be firm on this. You have to look at the portfolio and see what it is.
Mr Frankford: Okay, but when you're on the board you obviously will be looking very closely at the portfolio of the different equities that are held.
Mr Bullen: Yes.
Mr Frankford: Okay. Can we move into another investment area, and what I personally would consider ethical investments. If you look at the portfolio, and the most recent one I have is their annual report from last December, 5.31% of their foreign equities were in the Philip Morris tobacco company -- $41 million. Do you have any thoughts about whether that is the sort of investment you would like to see?
Mr Bullen: This has to be balanced against what I consider to be the major objective. The major objective, as I stated before, is to maximize return benefit. There are certain factors that would ameliorate that. For instance, the government policy has been that we would scale down investments in South Africa until things changed. We've got to respect those sorts of things.
There hasn't been a firm decision yet that there would be no investment in tobacco or smoking. We know the negative effect of smoking, but still there isn't a legislative direction that there should be no investment in tobacco or the tobacco industry.
Mr Frankford: I would say there's something of a legislative direction in that the Ministry of Health will be taking measures to discourage smoking, and this is not something that's being taken likely.
Mr Bullen: Certainly, a wise investor would say that you don't put a large amount of your portfolio into the tobacco industry if later on the effort would be to downsize the industry. So it wouldn't maximize return to do that.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Allan K. McLean): Other people want to ask questions.
Mr Frankford: Okay. So in their small equities capitalization fund, you would be uncomfortable with $6 million invested in Rothmans?
Mr Bullen: I would look at it and see, because there is a factor to be looked at.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Waters.
Mr Waters: I was going to let Ms Carter go first.
The Vice-Chair: It doesn't matter; you're both on the list.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I think we've covered the ethical side of investing. I'm very clear that you put the maximization of returns first, and that's fair, but do you feel that there's a social responsibility there, too, to use that money in a way that helps Ontario to be a prosperous society and which therefore benefits all its citizens?
Mr Bullen: I certainly think so, but it would take a secondary position to maximizing returns for the benefit of the people who put their money in there.
Ms Carter: Yes, but as I say, obviously if the economy as a whole doesn't hold up and this organization has very large sums of money to invest, so that it can make some impact on the total situation, do you feel any responsibility to invest in ways which help to strengthen the economy?
Mr Bullen: Certainly, and as I said earlier, it was my recollection that this was done by the Bill Davis government and it was done by the John Robarts government. It was done by the governments in the past; they used the pension fund to support the development of Ontario. I don't see why this government should do anything differently, but it's not the government that makes the decision about it. It's the pension board that will make the decision.
Ms Carter: But would you feel any responsibility, as a member of the board, to look at that as one factor when you're deciding what your portfolio will be?
Mr Bullen: I want to be very clear on this. Yes, I feel some responsibility but not the primary responsibility; the primary responsibility is to look after the people whose money is put in there.
Ms Carter: Of course, remembering that if the economy collapses, then we're not able to pay our pensions anyway.
Mr Waters: I just wanted to get back to a couple of your statements, Mr Chair.
The Vice-Chair: Are you going to ask him if he's got a membership?
Mr Waters: I think we can all assume that he has held a membership in one of the three political parties that are prominent in the province, but I can also recall that shortly after the election -- Mr Bullen and I have been colleagues for a number of years -- he asked me to recommend his sons for a job, and I turned down that.
Mr Bullen: That's right.
Mr Waters: I refused because I didn't know his sons. Now I can tell you that he should be very proud, because in a short period of time his sons have made a very big name for themselves within caucus, and they're doing very well. In fact, I went from a person who wouldn't recommend them to a person who actually hired one of the twins.
Mr Grandmaître: Frankly, you're very cheap on salaries.
Mr Waters: I am, you know. I make them work long and hard for it. Whom have you spoken to about serving on the board?
Mr Bullen: So far, as I've mentioned, Bruce Sinclair, mayor of Etobicoke, was the first person who called me about it. I went into the OMERS office and spoke to a director on OMERS and met a number of the board of directors. Certainly, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has spoken to me about it.
1050
Mr Waters: Thank you, that will be all my questions.
The Vice-Chair: Thanks for appearing.
Mr Bullen: May I just add that your recommendation of me to sit on two committees, however, is not what the government is recommending. They are asking me to give up the university board, that I forsake that position.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chair, can I ask a question? Who asked you to resign?
Mr Bullen: I think it's part of the policy of the public affairs committee.
Mr Grandmaître: It's a policy? Mr Chair, we've had people sitting on a number of boards and committees. Thanks for the information.
MEENA DHAR
The Vice-Chair: Next is Meena Dhar, the intended appointee to the Ontario Municipal Board. Welcome to the committee this morning. This is a half-hour review. If you have any opening remarks, we usually divide whatever time is left between the three parties. If you have a couple of opening remarks, fine. If you haven't, we'll go right into questions.
Ms Meena Dhar: The only remark I have is that I'm very happy to be here. I believe you do have my résumé in front of you, so I'll be happy to answer any questions. I understand this is a very important part of the process of appointments, so I'm glad to be here.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. You were selected by the official opposition, apparently.
Mr Grandmaître: Looking over your CV, you're well qualified to be a member of a great organization. I know your chairman always calls it a great organization, a great board. Having all this experience in community and neighbourhood planning, urban planning, what are your thoughts on the OMB, its role and its future role? How would you like the OMB changed to reflect the realities of 1992?
Ms Dhar: I agree with you. I've always believed that the Ontario Municipal Board is a very credible and extremely well-respected institution.
Some of the issues facing government today are with respect to economic growth and development and with respect to the environment. I think the Ontario Municipal Board plays a key role in both of these.
In terms of how it might change in the future, there are many thoughts about it. I think because of the commission that's being appointed, there's a lot of talk and discussion going on about planning and development reform in Ontario. Some of the issues that have come up have to do with faster turnaround, and looking at appeals, what are some ways of streamlining what happens at the board. If you like, I can go into a little detail there.
Mr Grandmaître: Sure, fine.
Ms Dhar: Some of the issues have been, does everything have to come to the board or are there alternative ways of dealing with disputes? Can they be mediated in other ways so that there aren't such lengthy hearings? Because, of course, delay means loss of revenue and delays development.
The other issue that has come up is how the Ontario Municipal Board is going to look at issues respecting the environment. There's some talk of combining the appeals under the Assessment Review Board with the hearings that come up under the Ontario Municipal Board so that there isn't duplication and all of these issues are looked at together. I see the board doing more of both of those.
Mr Grandmaître: Good answer.
At the present time -- I shouldn't say at the present time. Planning has always been a very critical element at the municipal level, and at present Mr John Sewell and Mr Dale Martin are involved in speeding up the process. As you pointed out, the process should be speeded up. My question is about backlog. Your chairman appeared before this committee complaining about the backlog and the number of new members who should be appointed to erase this backlog. As a municipal employee -- you're still with the city of Toronto?
Ms Dhar: Yes, I am.
Mr Grandmaître: What has been your past experience as far as backlog is concerned?
Ms Dhar: With the Ontario Municipal Board?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes.
Ms Dhar: It varies. Towards the last few years of the 1980s, there was a tremendous amount of development dealt with by municipalities, particularly in the city of Toronto, so there was of course a lot of development happening. As a result, like in any very urban environment where there are a lot of different interests, there were lots of disputes about development, so many more applications got referred to the Ontario Municipal Board, and I believe the waiting period was somewhere upwards of one year.
Some applications were dealt with a bit more expeditiously if they had federal or provincial grants for social housing that were going to run out, but other than that it did take a long time.
Mr Grandmaître: I've had the same experience with the OMB. Because of this backlog, some people -- I'll be very honest -- some politicians have put a lot of pressure on the OMB to speed up the process or the hearings. What are your thoughts on this kind of pressure being exercised by politicians?
Ms Dhar: It's a worthwhile thing to speed things up. There's no doubt about that. I don't know what pressure has been put, but in my discussions with the chairman and in other discussions that have gone around the province, everybody agrees that there should be other ways of dealing with the appeals. Particularly in complex issues, for instance, it may be possible to narrow the issues, to scope them a bit so that everything doesn't get dealt from the first principles. There are many things that people agree upon, so the area of dispute can be narrowed and that could speed up the hearing.
So a slightly different process of conducting the hearing: I think that's a worthwhile thing to pursue and I know the chairman is looking at those types of ways of doing things. Perhaps now that the Ontario Municipal Board is now under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, which is a ministry concerned with municipal matters, and the board is a municipal board, there is a genuine feeling that something should be done about streamlining and speeding up approvals, and I think it is happening.
Mr Grandmaître: You wouldn't feel pressured if I were to write you when you become a member to use your influence and speed up a constituent of mine? You wouldn't feel offended?
Ms Dhar: I don't think it would be my place to receive such mail in the first place, but --
Mr Grandmaître: No, but if I was to write to you.
Ms Dhar: I would take it to the chairman and ask him to deal with the matter.
Mr Grandmaître: Knowing Mr Kruger, I know what he'd do with my letter.
1100
There's been a lot of talk about intervenor funding. Do you think intervenor funding, as far as the OMB is concerned, would be a good thing?
Ms Dhar: Frankly, I have not given it too much thought. I know there is the Intervenor Funding Project Act and that in many environmental issues funding is provided. I was reading through Mr Sewell's commission's recommendations and one of the things he had said is that this matter should be given some consideration.
The issue, of course, is who pays for the intervenor funding. I know, just working in a municipality, that municipal councils are not too happy about funding people to oppose them and that's been a bit of a problem. Their view is that we have an adequate staff. Now, this is a very big municipality, of course, but that's where many of the complex issues occur. The staff is there; in fact, part of the job of the staff is to involve the community in every aspect of whatever goes on at all different stages. So once council makes the decision, should they really be stuck with the cost of paying people to oppose them? That's one issue that's come up.
The other issue is that if the developer is asked to pay the cost, then it begins to add to the cost of development and gets passed on, in the end, to the consumer.
There are many questions that are unanswered. I think what the Sewell commission is saying is that if there is a very complex issue of a larger public interest, much more than just the individual application, then in those cases it might be advisable to think about how intervenor funding might be provided because, if it's a citizens' group, they do not have access to a lot of money. I know there are a whole lot of problems that need to be resolved.
The Acting Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): Thank you, Mr Grandmaître.
Mr McLean: The appointment process has been discussed. Back in 1988, it was a standard three-year term for appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. What is the standard term of appointment now to the OMB?
Ms Dhar: It's three years.
Mr McLean: What is your background? I haven't got your background. Are you a lawyer?
Ms Dhar: No, I'm not. I have a degree in architecture and a master's in urban planning. I have about 17 years of experience in municipal planning, the last seven years in a fairly senior position as a manager.
Mr McLean: So you've appeared before the OMB on many different occasions.
Ms Dhar: I have appeared several times.
Mr McLean: Have you lost a few times?
Ms Dhar: I've never lost.
Mr McLean: Well, that's interesting. Mr Cooke, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, had made some comments with regard to trying to change the approvals for official plans, to try to get that process -- there's hundreds of them, zoning bylaws. What is your opinion on that? How could that be changed to get rid of a whole bunch of those approvals as necessary? I think I read in the paper that municipal council is going to be able to do that. What is the update on that?
Ms Dhar: My understanding is that that recommendation is not coming from the minister. Perhaps it's a recommendation that's come out of the reform of planning and development in Ontario, from the Sewell commission. I think what the Sewell commission is saying in broad terms is that the province should spend its time making policy and developing strategic plans, providing information in an advisory function to municipalities, instead of doing all the approval of their various applications, because it's a very cumbersome process. The commission is advocating that municipalities, both upper and lower tier, should have the responsibility of approving their own plans and considering amendments to them. Then, of course, in case of dispute or objection, the whole matter can come before the Ontario Municipal Board.
Mr McLean: That's one of the recommendations this committee made in the review we have done with regard to the OMB. We should consider some sort of penalty or disincentive for municipalities which fail to update their official plans expeditiously, as a means of reducing appeals to the OMB. That's one of the recommendations this committee had made. Another one being recommended is that the Attorney General consider removing assessment and minor variance appeals. Would you agree with that recommendation: take minor variances away from the jurisdiction of the OMB?
Ms Dhar: I don't know much about the assessment appeals, but in terms of the minor variances, the only question in my mind is that if they are taken away from the Ontario Municipal Board, what is being recommended is a separate body at almost every regional level to review such appeals, which of course means creating more appellant bodies. I'm not sure whether that actually saves time. Maybe it does.
Mr McLean: I'm not sure I remember the comments you made to the previous questions with regard to extending intervenor funding. Do you agree with that? What is your view of extending intervenor funding?
Ms Dhar: I think what I was saying is that I think there are some problems that need to be addressed with intervenor funding in terms of when it should be provided, for what kinds of disputes and who should pay the cost of intervenor funding. What I was saying is that in my experience, municipal councils are not too happy about providing funds to fight them. What is being discussed is that perhaps municipalities should provide grants to groups just for their development, not just for fighting municipal councils and their decisions. So that becomes a bit of a problem. If the costs are awarded to the developer, then that again increases the cost of development. There have to be some answers to those questions, I think, and there are ways of doing that, I'm sure.
Mr McLean: Are you aware of what happened here lately? A letter was sent to the chairman with regard to trying to proceed with an OMB approval, to get it higher on the list. Are you familiar with any other types of organizations that write the chairman? Is this a continuing thing that's going on? I don't know.
Ms Dhar: I'm not aware. Of course, I'm not at the board right now, so I wouldn't know.
Mr McLean: I'm sure the chairman briefed you this morning on that very question, that you would be asked that. He probably briefed you on what the answer should be.
Ms Dhar: No, he didn't brief me. I actually read this in the paper and I read his name. I think what he said was that he was going to deal with the matter as he felt appropriate.
Mr McLean: Yes. I think he said in the Sun that it wouldn't make any difference whether he got a letter or whether he didn't.
Ms Dhar: I think that's what he said.
Mr McLean: I think it would be poor judgement on anybody's part to send a letter to the chairman to ask for that. However, he likes his job too and he's not going to comment too tough on that one.
The number of applications, the waiting period and the workload of the OMB, has that been decreased from what it used to be, 13 or 14 months? They wanted to get it down to seven months. Are you aware? Not being on the board, I'm sure it would be difficult to know, but I was just curious if you were aware of the workload.
Ms Dhar: I think it's still about 12 months plus.
Mr McLean: Thank you for appearing. I wish you well.
Mr Frankford: There's always a great deal of interest in the OMB in my riding of Scarborough East. You've discussed intervenor funding, but do you have any other thoughts about improving accessibility to the OMB by residents' groups and individuals and also helping them to make the best case?
Ms Dhar: Just in my experience, I feel the OMB is a very accessible institution. In the hearings I have attended, the board members really try to make people feel that their views are going to be heard, that they are interested in public participation. They will even have their meetings in the community. They will set aside specific times to hear members of the community and extend the dates if necessary.
There is always this issue of cost, because not everybody can hire a lawyer and pay him lots of money to defend his cases.
1110
In my discussions with the chairman, as well as what Mr Sewell is talking about, there may be other ways of mediating in the community, like if there is a dispute, to see whether an independent arbiter like the OMB can help to mediate some of those conflicts at an early stage. Some cases may not need a full hearing; in other cases it might get narrowed down to a point that there may be only one or two things that are in dispute, so the hearing can be a lot shorter and can be much more focused.
Part of it also is that this could be a sort of way of educating the community about how best to present its case, because people often feel that they are appearing before the board as if it's a rerun of the entire council meeting. I don't think that's what the board is there for.
Mr Marchese: I want to welcome you here today, Meena. I read very recently, two months ago, Crombie's report, Regeneration: Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City, and found that to be a fascinating read. You probably read much of it. It was very long. I read 350 pages of it; I think it was 450 pages, or 500. Mr Crombie argues that traditionally urban planning has suffered from an overriding preoccupation with economic growth. He says, "In contrast, the ecosystem perspective adopts a holistic approach to the planning of human settlements, one which integrates environmental, social and health concerns into urban planning."
There are a number of other reports coming from different ministries that speak to the same issue, where they talk about land use planning, adopting an ecosystem approach which recognizes the interaction of air, land, water and living organisms, as well as the interaction between the built and natural environments.
I don't know to what extent we are taking into account these questions as we adjudicate on certain matters. If we are, that's great. If we're not, do you believe that this is something we should be doing, or that at least members should be addressing in some way or other?
Ms Dhar: I think it's unavoidable. I think everybody has to address the environmental issues. By the way, I did not read the whole thing. I have been preoccupied reading Metropolitan Toronto's official plan and the city of Toronto's official plan, which have all just recently come out. What I'm trying to say is that both of those plans take very much that approach, that you cannot compartmentalize this issue of planning in terms of managing urban growth and change, but the environmental issues are going to be looked after by somebody else.
In fact, the main thrust of both of those plans is that whatever change happens -- which must happen, and it's good -- must take into account all the environmental issues, and that means policies regarding waste reduction and in terms of intensification, to ensure that there is energy conservation, that there is water conservation, that there are policies about protection of the natural aspects of the environment and actually saying which are the sensitive areas and which are the natural areas that need protection. All those things are part and parcel. In other words, they are an integral part of all planning and not seen as something that's done afterwards or taken into account.
Ms Carter: I was very happy to hear that last part. Obviously you're very well qualified because you've been a planner with the city of Toronto for a long time and you've obviously moved up in that, but you also have a lot of volunteer experience. I understand that you even received the Women of Distinction Award in Toronto for your services. Do you feel that the kind of experience you had as a volunteer is relevant to this position?
Ms Dhar: I think it is. As a municipal planner, you see, you never make any decisions; you make recommendations.
Mr Grandmaître: That's news.
Ms Dhar: But in your volunteer work, very often -- and this is a good experience -- on the board of directors, for instance, you do get a chance to make policy decisions.
A lot of my work has also been in conflict resolution -- I've done a lot of workshops -- and I think that would be useful at the board. I think also my understanding of the community perhaps makes me more sensitive.
Ms Carter: I see you've worked with low-income families, for example, and women's groups. I don't know whether I'd call that a worm's eye view, but it certainly is different from the view from the top you get maybe in other respects. Do you feel that gives you a different line on what the consequences of planning might be than you'd otherwise have?
Ms Dhar: I think so, although I have been at variance sometimes with -- I mean, I have to put on my planning hat, but I think even then it does give an insight into what it's like to be at the other end.
Ms Carter: And whether you're creating real communities or whether you've just created something that may look nice on paper and is technically very clever but not so practical for people?
Ms Dhar: That's true.
The Chair: No further questions? Ms Dhar, that concludes the review and your appearance here this morning. We appreciate it and wish you well.
Ms Dhar: Thank you.
ERNIE SANDY
The Chair: Our final witness for the morning is Mr Ernie Sandy. Mr Sandy is an intended appointee as a member of the City of Orillia Police Services Board. Mr Sandy, would you like to come forward and take a seat, please? Welcome, sir. If you'd like to make a brief comment, a minute or two, feel free. If not, we'll get right into the questioning. Any comment, or would you like to move on to the questioning?
Mr Ernie Sandy: I would like to simply state that I am proud of this opportunity for the police committee, and I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank the official opposition for appointment. I don't know who that is, but nevertheless, thank you. I welcome this opportunity to serve on the Orillia police commission, or whatever the official title may be, because it will give me an opportunity to learn the insides of what goes on on the police commission, and with that knowledge I can transfer back to my community, or communities, to know what the police commission is all about, I guess. I got a phone call last night to help set up a police committee again back where I come from, Christian Island, so in essence this will be very beneficial to me.
Mr Grandmaître: Talking about your background, you were chair of the Beausoleil First Nation Police Committee.
Mr Sandy: Yes.
Mr Grandmaître: Can you tell me what this police committee was all about?
Mr Sandy: I guess in essence what we were trying to do was to establish -- well, we have established it. There is a native police force on Christian Island. Christian Island is actually a first nation, and what we essentially are trying to do is guide the actions of our police force.
Mr Grandmaître: You had an actual police force?
Mr Sandy: Yes, there is a police force. They're constables, I guess, special constables, and essentially our mandate was to guide them in their actions, much like the police commission would do.
Mr Grandmaître: What was the responsibility? When you say "guide them," what's your main responsibility? Did you hire these people? Did you give them a mandate?
Mr Sandy: Yes. Part of our duty was to hire them and also, the other end of the scale, to fire them if need be. That's part of the mandate.
1120
Mr Grandmaître: How many constables are part of this?
Mr Sandy: We have three. Prior to my leaving we had two, but we had recently hired a third one. It was a process that we as a committee went through.
Mr Grandmaître: Were these constables armed? Did they carry a weapon?
Mr Sandy: Yes, they do. They go through the same training that the OPP go through at Aylmer, Ontario. So they're essentially qualified to carry arms.
Mr Grandmaître: I see. They were trained through the OPP college or the Aylmer --
Mr Sandy: Yes, in Aylmer, Ontario. They have the same training as OPP, Ontario Provincial Police.
Mr Grandmaître: What are your thoughts on job action? It's on everybody's mind at the present time. Everybody is very, very concerned, because we have grown, in the province of Ontario or as Canadians, to respect police officers, police forces. I'm a little disturbed, a little concerned about what's going on at the present time, especially in Metro, and now it's spreading right across the province of Ontario because of some major changes in the police act. What are your thoughts on what's happening right now?
Mr Sandy: I may not be totally familiar with all the issues, but somehow the police are detached from society and I think we need to bring that back into the realm of our people, be it native or non-native. I think it's somehow alienating itself from the community or from society. We have a tendency to have fear for our police, which is not justifiable, because they're fathers and family people. This probably relates to a question later on, but I think we have to give them more exposure to the community. They have to be friends of the community. That's essentially what I'm trying to say.
Mr Grandmaître: I realize what you're saying. They have to be better trained and be part of or involved in their community, much more than they are now. I realize this, and this is, I suppose, one of the reasons most municipal forces at the present time are creating new community police committees. They're inviting people to participate, and also police officers to be better seen in the eyes of the citizens.
But right now, some major changes are taking place: for instance, any time a police officer draws his gun, he would have to write a report, and the use of force and so on and so forth. Do you think we're tipping the scale too much?
Mr Sandy: I'm reasonably familiar with the current situation in Toronto. One would have to think that with the size of Toronto, there may be some justification in being able to draw your gun in the event of being in danger of your life. My own personal view is that to have to fill out a report every time you draw a gun may be a little, as you say, tipping too far over into constraint on the performance of an officer.
To put that into perspective, I think in some cases -- it would have to fit geographically. Out in municipalities that are a lot smaller, Orillia, for instance, if we had to compel the officers to fill out a report every time, I don't know how extensive it is. But to fill out a report every time they drew their gun would sort of hinder their performance and take them away from their duty.
Mr Grandmaître: Second guessing. I think it's very dangerous, personally. Do I have more time?
The Chair: You're fine. You've got another three minutes.
Mr Grandmaître: Let's go back to Orillia, more specifically. How familiar are you with the composition of the police force in Orillia?
Mr Sandy: I took the opportunity yesterday to visit the chief inspector, Francis Smith. He gave me a rough idea, rough statistics of the makeup of that police force, so I have those figures. I don't have them on me right now, but I have the figures. I'll probably learn more about it as I become acquainted.
Mr Grandmaître: But you are familiar with Orillia, though?
Mr Sandy: I am familiar with Orillia, yes. We live just outside of Orillia.
Mr Grandmaître: Do you think the Orillia Police Force really reflects the composition of the city?
Mr Sandy: Yes, I do.
Mr Grandmaître: Do you think municipal councils should have more of a say in police budgets? After all, they're paying 80% of it. Do you think they should have more representation on the police services board?
Mr Sandy: Yes, I do.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, you do?
Mr Sandy: Like representation from whom?
Mr Grandmaître: Municipal councillors, for instance, because after all, they're paying the shot. I don't know if you know it or not, but a police services board can table a budget and city council has very, very little recourse to turn down that budget. Did you know about this?
Mr Sandy: I'm not familiar with the overall municipal government structure for that. That's something I would learn in due course.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you.
Mr McLean: Maybe I can just follow up on that. Welcome to the committee, Mr Sandy. I think Ben had indicated that 80% of the police budget is paid for by the city, 20% by the province, and the province has three appointments and the city has two. I guess what he was trying find out is whether you think that is fair, or should it be the other way around, the city have three and the province have two?
Mr Sandy: I believe that's a fair equation.
Mr McLean: Three for the province and two for the city?
Mr Sandy: Yes, because primarily my representation for the city of Orillia -- we can narrow it down to tax payments. My representation on the Orillia police board will come in the form of education taxes from my people into the city of Orillia, and that would justify a vested interest in the police.
Mr McLean: Do you pay taxes in the city of Orillia?
Mr Sandy: We pay taxes in Orillia in the form of education, a tuition agreement.
Mr McLean: But yourself, do you pay --
Mr Sandy: No, I pay taxes outside of Orillia: Rama township. That's part of the province. Indirectly, the education is where we would pay taxes, tuition agreements. So it would be part of the contribution.
Mr McLean: Who asked you to apply for this appointment?
Mr Sandy: Actually, it was me. I submitted my name to the appointments committee about nine months ago, and I was glad to get this one.
Mr McLean: To the appointment committee where at?
Mr Sandy: Here in Queen's Park.
Mr McLean: Oh, through the book you had.
Mr Sandy: Yes.
Mr McLean: I see you have three references. They're pretty good references.
Mr Sandy: Yes. Thank you.
Mr McLean: I know Fayne Bullen. I know Roger Pretty. I know Dennis Bailey. They're all NDP candidates.
Mr Bradley: Not NDP candidates? I'm surprised to hear that.
Mr McLean: I'll bet you are. Some of the guidelines for serving on boards in police services across the province are knowledge of the community, involvement in the community, doing things within the community. What is your involvement in the city of Orillia?
1130
Mr Sandy: My involvement with the city of Orillia, other than shopping, is native representation; there's a lot of people living in Orillia. If I sit on the police services board, I think we'd have someone to overlook, you know, native people coming into Orillia.
Mr McLean: So you think there should be somebody on the board?
Mr Sandy: I strongly believe so. It's to have representation with diversity.
Mr McLean: Are you familiar with the information and privacy act?
Mr Sandy: Not to a great extent, but I've heard of it.
Mr McLean: What about the employment equity proposals we've talked about with regard to the police force? Do you think the number of females and the number of males in the Orillia police force is in line with what there should be?
Mr Sandy: Yes.
Mr McLean: Good. Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish you well.
Mr Marchese: I just have one question. I was interested in the question Bernard Grandmaître asked with respect to the use of firearms and having to make a report if you draw a gun in public. I forget the words M. Grandmaître used about second-guessing and how dangerous it is.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, for the police officer.
Mr Marchese: Right. I think you were in agreement more or less with that opinion. I have a difficulty with that. My opinion is that if I draw a gun in public and I have to make a report on that, it's not a big deal for a police officer to report why the gun was pulled out in public.
I'm not going to ask for your view, but my view is that if the police have to use the firearm, he or she will use it. If the policeman or policewoman is put in a situation where the firearm has to be used, I don't think the police person will say: "I'm not going to draw it now because I'm going to have to file a report, and this is serious. I'd rather get killed or get shot than have to write a report." Surely, if you draw the gun, there's a reason for it. If you have to defend yourself, you will use it, and you make a report based on that. Is that a big deal? Is it a big problem for the police officer to do that?
Mr Sandy: May I comment on that? I'm not saying the choice should be between filing a report and using a gun. Obviously, an officer would draw his gun when the situation arises. He would not be in his right mind, to put it that way, to say, "Should I or shouldn't I?" The question arises from this. What seems to be the problem in Toronto? Why are they having a dispute over it if it's no problem?
Mr Marchese: The point is that this is the regulation we've passed. It appears the police officers are saying this is a serious problem for them, that it's a health and safety issue. I don't see it that way. I think you were agreeing with M. Grandmaître who was saying that it's a problem. I'm saying it's not a problem. I'm saying, why is it a problem for the police officer to write a report if he or she draws a gun?
Mr Sandy: That's what I'm asking.
Mr Marchese: Oh, I see. I misunderstood you, because when M. Grandmaître asked that question, you said it would be a problem for the police.
Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): That was my understanding too. What do you think? That's what we want to know.
Mr Grandmaître: They shouldn't have to write a report? Is that what you're saying?
Mr Sandy: They shouldn't have to report. Like I mentioned, it's a hindrance to their performance.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you.
Mr Marchese: Why? I don't see that it's a hindrance. Why is it a hindrance?
Mr Sandy: Instead of being out carrying out their duties, they're in their office filling out reports. You don't see any problem with having a report, is that it?
Mr Marchese: No, I don't see any problem with that. I don't see what the health and safety issue is all about. I really don't see it. We're saying that if a police officer is to draw his gun, we'd like to know what public circumstances forced that individual to do that. I think it's a public accountability mechanism, and I think it's all right for the police to do that, but they're opposed to it.
The Chair: Ms Carter, you had a comment or question?
Ms Carter: I'll just pursue that same question for another minute. Did you know that some police forces in Ontario, and I believe elsewhere, are already doing that, are writing reports, and that it's not perceived as a big problem?
Mr Sandy: I don't want to be interpreted as saying there's a problem with it or there's no problem with it. If procedure calls for justification and accountability, by all means.
Ms Carter: If I were a policeman, which I don't think I'm ever likely to be, but if I were faced with a situation of real danger, I don't think that the fact that I might have to write a report would cause me to hesitate. I don't see that as such a big deal. Anyhow, we're talking about Orillia here. Do you think the police ever have to draw firearms in Orillia? Does it happen?
Mr Sandy: I certainly hope not, but given the circumstances, I don't see why they can't. They shouldn't let filing a report be a hindrance.
Ms Carter: I see that in Orillia your local police chief is already moving in the direction of neighbourhood policing and good relations between the community and the police and so on. They're actually looking at using bicycle patrols rather than driving around in cars. How do you feel about that whole attitude?
Mr Sandy: I feel that's very good for public relations, once again, to take away this barrier, this feeling about police. I think foot patrols are very good, as we've come to identify police cruisers as some sort of threat to our security. I think bicycle patrol and that type of thing is very good. It's good to be close to our officers.
Ms Carter: So hopefully, in an atmosphere like that, we won't be looking at much weapon-drawing anyhow. Do you have any particular feelings about when the police are called in on a domestic dispute or something of that kind? Do you feel that police have a responsibility there, say if a husband and wife are having a row?
Mr Sandy: As keepers of the peace, I believe they have some sort of responsibility to ensure safety.
Ms Carter: You feel that the police should protect a wife from her husband if it seemed to be necessary?
Mr Sandy: Oh, very much so. "Limited force," I guess, would be the phrase I'm looking for. As keepers of the peace, order and good government, I believe he or she has a responsibility for that. Ms Carter: I see you've been the police committee chairperson of this Beausoleil First Nation Police Committee. Could you tell us some more about that?
Mr Sandy: One of the other ideas behind it is to ensure that there is more training for our police constables; there is always continuous training. It was a very grass-roots type of police force. There were people from the community. Both officers were from Christian Island.
Ms Carter: Is that an improvement on the kind of policing that, presumably, you had earlier, where it wasn't native people themselves involved?
Mr Sandy: It was definitely an improvement.
The Chair: Nothing further? Mr Sandy, that concludes your appearance before the committee. Thanks for coming down today. We wish you well.
Mr Sandy: Thanks very much.
Interjections.
The Chair: Okay, the meeting isn't over yet. We have to have a motion in respect to the witnesses who appeared before us today. Is it the wish of the committee that we deal with them in one motion?
Mr Waters: So moved.
The Chair: Mr Waters has moved concurrence in the intended appointments that have been reviewed by the committee this morning. Any discussion?
All in favour? Opposed? Motion carried.
I remind the subcommittee that we have a meeting. We could do it now, if you wish. Al, do you want to stay around?
Mr McLean: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. The other thing is to mention the new agenda, because there were some problems last week in terms of the agenda. The remainder of this session will be coming out to you in the mail this week, maybe even today. Meeting adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1142.