CONTENTS
Wednesday 10 March 1993
Appointments review
Richard D. Schneider
Paula Klein
Alexander Adam
Melvin Irwin Rotman
Paul Kelly
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 ND)
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Mr Ferguson
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND) for Ms Carter
Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND) for Mr Wiseman
Sola, John (Mississauga East/-Est L) for Mr Grandmaître
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC) for Mr Stockwell
Villeneuve, Noble (S-D-G & East Grenville/S-D-G & Grenville-Est PC) for Mr McLean
White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Mr Wiseman
Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND) for Mr Marchese
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1008 in room 230.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Consideration of intended appointments.
RICHARD D. SCHNEIDER
The Chair (Mr Robert W. Runciman): I'm going to call the meeting to order, Ms Murdock, gentlemen, and we'll get under way with our first witness this morning, Richard D. Schneider, who is an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board. Mr Schneider, would you like to take a seat, please. Welcome to the committee.
Mr Richard D. Schneider: Thank you.
The Chair: This, as you've probably been advised, is a half-hour review, with 10 minutes allocated to representatives from each of the three parties, and your review is a selection of the Conservative Party. Before we begin the questions, do you have any brief comments you'd like to make?
Mr Schneider: No, sir, I don't.
The Chair: All right. Mr Villeneuve, are you prepared to lead off?
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Thank you, Mr Schneider, for being with us this morning. You are familiar with the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board?
Mr Schneider: Yes.
Mr Villeneuve: Being a barrister and solicitor, you have been practising law for a number of years?
Mr Schneider: Six years, yes.
Mr Villeneuve: Lieutenant Governor's warrants are always of concern. Could you express your personal opinions on the granting of LG warrants and what reservations, if any, you might have?
Mr Schneider: First of all, sir, as you know, the Lieutenant Governor is now formally out of the system and these matters are handled by the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board. I'm not too sure I understand your question in terms of the granting of warrants.
Mr Villeneuve: Do you feel we should be scrutinizing closer approvals for warrants that would allow incarcerated people to basically revert back to the public? Do you have concern over families of victims, families of people who may be incarcerated and granted LG warrants?
Mr Schneider: Naturally, as a member of society, I have concerns about anybody being released back into society after he's committed an offence. Clearly the amount of concern will vary directly with the severity of the offence. I don't mind answering the question, but my personal views, I think, shouldn't be a part of my role on the board. In fact probably the most difficult thing about this particular role is to set aside my personal views and try to apply the law as objectively and as fairly as I can to somebody coming before the board.
With respect to the role of victims in the process, as you know, there's no formal process for a victim to be a party to the proceedings and, naturally enough, victims are very concerned. I guess the most appropriate conduit for their voice to be heard is through the Attorney General who, upon application, would be made a party to any proceeding. I guess that's the vehicle to get the victim's voice into the process.
Mr Villeneuve: You specifically stated that you wanted to apply the law as opposed to your own personal beliefs and convictions. Are they a bit different from the law?
Mr Schneider: They may be on a case-by-case basis. I don't believe I have any particular aberrant view or bias or perspective with respect to the process in general. I was just trying to say that I think one of the most difficult things, and clearly one of my tasks in the capacity as a legal member of the board, would be to set aside any personal bias or perspective that I did have on a case-by-case basis, try to set that aside and apply the law, as I understand it, objectively.
Mr Villeneuve: You're satisfied with the law as it stands pertaining to Lieutenant Governor's warrants?
Mr Schneider: I think in general yes, I am personally. I don't know whether that would ever be relevant, my own personal view, but as I see it now I think I am satisfied. Of course, there are always procedural snags and snarls that have to be worked out. This current legislation's only a year old and no doubt the system will run more smoothly in the future from a mechanical perspective. But in terms of the process, the legislation as it stands, for the most part I'm happy with it.
Mr Villeneuve: As I'm sure you're aware, many of our good criminal lawyers use or attempt to use the fact that the suspect or the accused may have psychiatric problems at the time the offence occurred and, lo and behold, sometimes shortly after incarceration these are considered to be no longer relevant. I guess this is where Lieutenant Governor's warrants come into play. That's an area that is of concern to us as parliamentarians because we often have pressures brought about. The victims of crimes particularly lose track of where the perpetrator is.
I guess maybe we'll touch on another subject, that of publishing the name and photograph of a sex offender who may be released. Would you be in favour of that personally?
Mr Schneider: Again, I don't mind answering the question. I don't know that my personal perspective is particularly important --
Mr Villeneuve: I would like your personal perspective.
Mr Schneider: -- but my personal perspective is that this is not an appropriate thing to do. First of all, when we're talking about somebody who has been found not guilty or not responsible by virtue of mental disorder, the public has rightly or wrongly decided, through its legislators, that the law should be that these people are not responsible, and they have been acquitted. I don't think that to publish their names or photographs or something in a community is appropriate.
Mr Villeneuve: Regardless of the way victims or families of victims may be in that immediate area and may be targets?
Mr Schneider: I think that concern is a concern that the board would have to address itself to in considering whether this person should be released into the community in the first place. You have to remember that the reason somebody has been found not criminally responsible -- that test has very little to do with the test that's applied in releasing this individual into the community. The first test has to do with his culpability or his blameworthiness as a result of his mental disorder.
When he comes before the review board, the question, keeping in mind society's need to be protected from dangerous people and the mental condition of the accused and a variety of other factors, has to do with whether this individual should be released and whether he is a suitable candidate for release, and, if he is to be released, what supervision, if any, should be accompanying his release.
I think the victim's concerns are the same as the concerns of the society at large, and the responsibility of the board is to ensure as best it can that people who remain a danger are released in such a way that that danger is at its lowest.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you, Mr Schneider.
The Chair: We'll move on with Mr Frankford and Ms Murdock.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Looking at your résumé, you're doubly qualified, as a psychologist and a lawyer.
Mr Schneider: Yes.
Mr Frankford: Could you elaborate a bit on your career?
Mr Schneider: I'm a forensic psychologist. My first career as a psychologist was, for the most part, at forensic services at the Calgary General Hospital, which is a facility in Calgary very similar to Metfors here in Toronto. At the same time, I was teaching at the University of Calgary.
Since I was called to the bar here in Ontario, I have remained most active with the same sort of individual, just in a different capacity. So it seems as though for a number of years I have been involved with the same group of people, but I was doing different things with them.
Mr Frankford: It sounds as though you're rather uniquely qualified.
Mr Schneider: Probably, at least statistically.
Mr Frankford: Yes. Then I see that you've published very extensively. I see that one of your publications in the Canadian Journal of Criminology was predicting violent behaviour -- oh, a review actually.
Mr Schneider: Of John Monahan's book?
Mr Frankford: Yes.
Mr Schneider: Yes, Dr Monahan wrote a very worthwhile text on the prediction of dangerousness and was underlining the importance of addressing factors which typically aren't addressed in assessing dangerousness. Typically, the focus is on the individual, and that of course is only accounting for a certain percentage of the variance in predicting someone's behaviour. To a large extent, it has to do with where that individual is going to be living, the environment that he's going to be functioning in.
In other words, you could take -- theoretically, anyway -- two identical individuals, clinically speaking, and put them into two quite different environments and your prediction of dangerousness would be quite different depending on the situation that you placed the individuals into. That's one of the biggest parts of his book, and that's what the review was about. I was merely underlining for clinicians the importance of addressing those aspects that Monahan identifies in predicting or attempting to predict dangerousness.
1020
Mr Frankford: In your experience working in this field, I guess particularly as a lawyer, is this something that you would like to bring into this position when you're appointed?
Mr Schneider: As a member of the board, yes, in questioning psychiatrists or in reviewing psychiatric evidence, I'd be most interested in hearing about what information the psychiatrist is taking into consideration when he's offering a view as to dangerousness. I think it's extremely important in any assessment to have some sort of idea where this individual is going to be going or returning to in the community. What support he'll have, who he's going to be in contact with and those sorts of variables are extremely important, and that would be directly from the sort of thesis that Monahan puts forth.
Mr Frankford: So that would be everything from knowing what the family is like to knowing where in the province someone's going to be living?
Mr Schneider: That's right; whether he has suitable means of employment and income, what sort of supports he has and whether he's compliant with any follow-up medication or treatment, that sort of thing. Those are all important factors in assessing how well someone's likely to do in the community, if released.
Mr Frankford: In your experience, is this something which has been taken into consideration in the past or is it something that has been neglected?
Mr Schneider: I've never been a board member before. I've never been privy to their deliberations, so I can't help you with the extent to which those variables have been taken into consideration. Certainly, it's a variable experience before the board, and questions of those sorts are asked to greater or lesser degrees, depending on the panel and the individual you're representing.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): You have a very impressive CV here; it's commendable. I noticed in your letter that you said you hoped your unsolicited introduction was not presumptuous. First of all, I wish to say that, with those kinds of qualifications, I don't think anything would be presumptuous at all on your part. But what really interested me is that much of your publication and your work has been with the schizophrenic area.
Mr Schneider: Yes.
Ms Murdock: I have a Friends of Schizophrenics association in my riding. We have regular conversations because of the perception of the disease and how they are handled in terms of institutionalization. I'm wondering what your views are on that and how you would utilize your knowledge in that area in your position on the board. I know it's a broad question.
Mr Schneider: I'm not too sure if I've got the question. Of course, only a very small number of those who have been diagnosed as schizophrenic would end up before the board. Statistically, they're going to be a very small minority and not particularly representative of the schizophrenic population as a whole. Of course, the problems that they have are the same as those that schizophrenics in general have, but typically compounded 10-fold by virtue of their difficulty with the law, their propensity to commit violent acts and that sort of thing.
As you know from your experience in your riding, schizophrenics and the families of schizophrenics have a very difficult time. I think that individuals who show up before the board and also have the diagnosis of schizophrenia have that much more difficult a time in adjusting. I have a feeling I'm not following your question.
Ms Murdock: From what the parents are telling me, in many instances they do appear with increasing frequency because of their violent behaviour before boards, and, in reality, much of the problem could be reduced with medication.
Mr Schneider: Those would be the mental health review boards.
Ms Murdock: Yes, but also because of the violent behaviour they end up in criminal situations where the disease is not understood. I just wanted to know how you would, if the situation arose in a hearing before you, utilize your background information to ask the right kinds of questions to --
Mr Schneider: I'm not too sure. I suppose there's some chance that I may have some insight in terms of anticipating the problems likely to be encountered by a schizophrenic before the review board and, to that extent, may be able to ask questions or raise issues that would --
Ms Murdock: Do you feel they would have to be institutionalized?
Mr Schneider: Schizophrenics?
Ms Murdock: Yes.
Mr Schneider: Just as a generic? No, not at all.
Ms Murdock: As a generic.
Mr Schneider: Well, as you know, most schizophrenics aren't institutionalized.
Ms Murdock: No. A totally different question here: In terms of having a layperson on the board, how important do you feel that is?
Mr Schneider: I think it's extremely important, because often lawyers and doctors are sort of removed, in a sense, in that their day-to-day business deals with extremes within the community that clearly the everyday person doesn't experience. I think that having a layperson on the board is very useful in that it can temper the decision of the board with the valuable everyday, commonsense community input.
Ms Murdock: Okay. Thank you very much.
The Chair: We'll move on to Mr Cleary.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Yes, thank you, Mr Schneider. By the looks of your CV here, you've been a very busy individual for many years and I think you're in the right business and that will probably continue when you're appointed to this board. As we read and listen to media reports daily, we hear of possible weaknesses in the system. Do you feel there are adequate safeguards for the public?
Mr Schneider: As I indicated earlier, my personal view is that the legislation as it stands now is for the most part adequate. Again, I don't have the statistical information to back this view, but I suspect that the difficulties are -- in other words, the highly publicized cases, when things clearly seem to have gone wrong, I would like to think, and I hope I'm right in saying, that those are still very much in the minority and any system of prediction like this, particularly when you're trying to predict human behaviour, has got a certain margin of error. Clearly, when you're dealing with individuals like this and the potential dangers, when something does go wrong or when there is an error, as infrequent as it might be, there's a great potential for devastating results and, of course, the incident's going to be highly publicized. But I'd like to think that these are relatively rare occurrences, and I may be wrong in that.
Mr Cleary: Maybe you could give us your opinion on Bill 30. Are there any possible changes you would like to see?
Mr Schneider: The Bill C-30 that came in last February?
Mr Cleary: Yes.
Mr Schneider: Again, for what it's worth, my personal view is that the legislation as a whole is a step forward. There have been a number of changes that have been very positive; at least that's how I viewed it in my capacity as defence counsel. There's now a code of procedure that handles most aspects of dealing with the mentally ill in the criminal justice system; that didn't exist before. So, where there was a lot of convention, that's now been replaced with legislation and I think, to that extent, there's a lot more clarity in the system and it should function an awful lot more smoothly.
Mr Cleary: I think my colleagues have a question.
1030
Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I see, according to the mandate of the review board, you have to take into consideration the following factors: the need to protect the public from dangerous persons and the possible reintegration of the accused into society. Which one of those is pre-eminent, in your opinion?
Mr Schneider: I think clearly the need to protect society from dangerous individuals is the most significant factor. If I recall, there are four factors, really: taking into consideration the need to protect society from dangerous persons; the mental condition of the individual; the reintegration of the accused into society; and the accused's other needs.
The board must then make one of a variety of possible dispositions, depending on balancing all those factors. I think the objective is to try to protect society from dangerous individuals and, at the same time, do that in the least restrictive manner in terms of the accused and just be careful that his reintegration is gradual and only done when all of the evidence suggests that the likelihood is that he is no longer a significant threat.
But to answer your first question, I think clearly the protection of society has to be the foremost concern.
Mr Sola: When you talk about reintegration, how about in the case of repeat offenders? They've been hitting the headlines pretty regularly lately. After a multitude of transgressions, they get rereleased into society and then, as you said before, you wind up with a tragedy, usually an avoidable tragedy.
If it came down to the nitty-gritty of where it was a little bit iffy as to how it was possible to reintegrate an accused into society as opposed to somehow stepping on some of his civil liberties, would you be more inclined to protect the interests of the public or to protect the civil liberties of the repeat offender?
Mr Schneider: I don't like to think that one has to necessarily compromise the other. In other words, I don't think the process has to step on anybody's civil liberties. Clearly, when one's dealing with repeat offenders, the board would have to exercise extreme caution and only reintroduce or reintegrate an individual back into society under extremely well-thought-out and strict conditions. It's difficult to answer in general; these things vary on a case-by-case basis. But naturally one who has been before the board and released and reoffended and is before the board again, with each return before the board I would expect the board is going to be that much more careful before it makes any step towards reintegrating an individual back into society. I think that's about as far as I can take that one.
Mr Sola: How about with a view to paedophiles? They have been hitting the headlines as well. What I'm worried about is the fact that if we lean over backwards too much for people who have proven through repeated offences that they will not change, because of our bent towards civil liberties, somehow we will allow our judgement to be clouded and actually force the general public into almost vigilante action in order to protect itself, which is happening with the police boards releasing pictures and names of people being supposedly reintegrated into society. I'm wondering, if a situation arose like that, what would be your priority: protection of the public or reintegration of the person?
Mr Schneider: Clearly, again the board's foremost concern is the protection of society. I've never been privy to any board deliberations, but I'd like to think that at no time the board has made an effort to lean over backwards in order to release somebody it had any significant concerns about with respect to public safety. I'd like to think -- I might be wrong -- that these tragic situations where people have been released and have reoffended are very, very rare occurrences. Again, I don't have the statistical data to back up that hope.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You are a defence lawyer?
Mr Schneider: Yes.
Mr Bradley: Have you ever, to this point in time, represented someone before the board who has had his or her conditions loosened or lifted and then that person has gone on to commit a crime?
Mr Schneider: No, I have not.
Mr Bradley: How many people generally would you say you have represented before the board?
Mr Schneider: Before the board?
Mr Bradley: Yes, or on a Lieutenant Governor's warrant.
Mr Schneider: Probably, over the years, close to 50.
Mr Bradley: I look at your very impressive credentials, and no doubt you are aware, or at least we as elected representatives are aware, that the public is ill at ease with what it considers to be a loosening of the system in favour of those who have perpetrated crimes as opposed to those who have been the victims of crimes. There is a concern that people are being let out and then end up committing crimes, often when this could have been avoided by consulting a number of people. One set of people who could be consulted is the family. How much weight should be placed on the opinion of the family of these individuals, as opposed, for instance, to psychiatrists and psychologists?
Mr Schneider: As I indicated earlier, there is no formal way to make a victim or the family of a victim a party to these proceedings. The appropriate vehicle is through the Attorney General, who would be a party to most proceedings; at least they will be made a party upon application.
I think it's important to get that information, but only when it's relevant and admissible. In other words, if the Attorney General brings in evidence in the form of victim impact statements or concerns from family members and can show that it's relevant to an issue which the board has to decide and that it would be admissible with respect to other rules, then clearly that evidence has to be heard. I can envisage other situations, however, where what the victim or the family of the victim may have to say, although it may be important in a sense, may not assist the board with the decision it has to make, in that it isn't logically probative of any of the issues that are in dispute before the board.
I can see situations where input from families and victims might be extremely useful and relevant, but I can also envisage situations where it may not be particularly helpful; not that it's unimportant, but it may not be particularly helpful to the deliberation of the board.
The Chair: That concludes your appearance here this morning, Mr Schneider. Thank you for coming down. We wish you well.
Mr Schneider: Thank you, sir.
1040
PAULA KLEIN
The Chair: The next witness is Paula Klein, who is an intended appointee as a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Welcome, Ms Klein. Would you like to make any brief comments before we get on with the questioning?
Ms Paula Klein: No.
The Chair: Okay. Your review was a request of the official opposition Liberal Party. Mr Bradley will begin the questioning.
Mr Bradley: My first question is, how did you learn that this position was open, and who approached you and suggested that you apply for the position, if anyone?
Ms Klein: I was approached about a year and a half ago by the former vice-chair of the board. A colleague of mine at the time from the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic had been working with him around issues of the board, and I met him under those conditions.
Mr Bradley: With your knowledge of the board and its mandate and its operation, have you drawn a conclusion, one way or the other, about the adequacy of compensation that is available to victims in the province? Stating it more bluntly, are victims in this province at this time compensated adequately for the crimes perpetrated against them?
Ms Klein: I'm not sure how you ever put a dollar figure on the experience of being victimized.
Mr Bradley: I know, but that's what the board has to do.
Ms Klein: Yes, it does, but in terms of deciding how much one's pain and suffering is worth, that's a very difficult kind of answer to give. I think what's most important is that there is acknowledgement by society that a crime has been committed and that whatever compensation is available based on the given circumstances of society at that time be taken into consideration with what kinds of awards are given. I just don't know what "adequate" would ultimately mean.
Mr Bradley: If one were to have studied the board and the role it has played -- I'm not suggesting that you have or haven't, but if you had done so, you might be aware of the average payout from the board. I was just trying to get a judgement about whether you feel that is adequate, because certainly the people who approach me as an elected representative who have been victims of crime don't always believe it's adequate.
Ms Klein: My understanding is that the average award is around $6,500, and I believe 80% of the awards are given for pain and suffering and the rest go for various expenses and loss of wages. To me, $6,500 doesn't sound like a lot of money, yet it may be significant for those who really need the money for therapy or for some kind of compensation. Again, what seems most important is that there is some acknowledgement by society that a crime has been committed; it's often, at least in my experience, the only societal acknowledgement to individuals that there has been a crime committed against them. I suppose if we had a lot more money, raising the awards would be appropriate.
Mr Bradley: With almost all agencies, boards and commissions of government there is a problem of a backlog of cases. One would suppose logically that if we increased the number of staff and so on, it might be better in terms of turning over those cases, although a lot of people say that wouldn't be the case. Do you have any ideas about how we can make this a more expeditious process than it is at present, where people have to wait a significant period before they are compensated or before a decision is rendered on their compensation?
Ms Klein: I don't know a lot about the specifics of how the board is operating at this point. My sense about backlog is that a backlog in any agency is going to increase as more applications are made; I don't know how much a backlog would be affected by the increase in awareness of the board so that there's an increase in applications. I think there's a lengthy process of sending all the various materials; there's quite a bit of information which is requested and an application can't actually be processed until all that information is there. But I don't know how it's dealt with right now, so first I would need to know what they are already doing to expedite the process.
Mr Bradley: In a case in November 1982, the board panel rejected a widow's application for compensation for the grief she suffered as a result of her husband's murder, on the grounds that she failed to establish her grief and that it constituted a genuine mental disorder. Do you believe that people should be compensated for grief and sorrow or only for the physical or easily recognized psychological effect of a crime? Should grief and sorrow be part of the compensation package?
Ms Klein: Grief and sorrow probably are part of the psychological impact of a crime. I don't know what the policies are around grief and sorrow when it's not the actual victim; I would have to find out what their policies are on that. I don't think a lot of psychological effects of victimization are necessarily apparent.
Mr Bradley: Do you believe there should be a mandatory period of time within which a case must be dealt with? I guess I'm getting back to workload and to the fact that the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act may or may not be amended to extend the limitation period from one to two years. There's a one-year limitation on filing an application for compensation, and many people have said this is unrealistic, given that the judicial process requires about 12 months to dispose of a case. Do you think it would be advisable for the government to amend its legislation to permit people to bring a case before the board even after a one-year period, or should they be confined to that one-year period?
Ms Klein: I'm sorry. I didn't understand the relationship between how long it takes to make the application and how long --
Mr Bradley: I guess there is not a good relationship, so maybe you could just answer the second question. I'm trying to get two questions. You have to understand, we have 10 minutes to ask questions of people in this committee. It's appalling, but we have 10 minutes.
Ms Klein: So in terms of getting through the cases once they're there.
Mr Bradley: Both. First of all, do you think there should be a limit on the period of time within which a person should be expected to have a case dealt with? That's first. The second question is, do you think a person should have more than a year to file an application to the board?
Ms Klein: With regard to the first question, my primary experience has been working with female victims of violence, and in my experience working with them, I don't know whether a year is a reasonable amount of time for them to be psychologically or sometimes physically able to make that application, although I do understand that in many of those cases an extension may be permitted. I don't know about other forms of crime at this point, so I would have to think more about that.
Mr Bradley: The reason I say it is that one of the things that comes to mind is that in some of these sexual abuse cases, the person, when the abuse initially takes place, may be very reluctant, may wish to just block it out of his or her mind, yet we now see people 10 and 20 years later coming to grips with it and being able to give testimony and so on. My understanding would be -- Mr Pond may be able to help us on this -- that under the present act those people could not get compensation without some special provision from government.
Ms Klein: The way the act has been written right now, I understand that it's a one-year limitation. However, in cases such as the ones you are describing, extensions have been made. I would think that would be a very important extension to make.
Mr Bradley: Do you think it should be the norm, as opposed to simply allowing exceptional extensions of that time period, which would exclude some people and not exclude others? It would be at someone's discretion, in other words. Would it be better to have a longer period of time to catch more of those cases, say, up to five years?
Ms Klein: I would need to know why the one-year limitation was imposed to begin with as a reasonable amount of time. My experience with survivors of sexual abuse is that a one-year limitation would eliminate most survivors. So an exception or an extension would have to be made for them. I don't know enough about why the one year was imposed for other forms of crime. I would have to know more about that.
Mr Bradley: There are a lot of people who don't even know that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board exists. At the risk of yet another government advertising program slanted towards the government's own interests, could you give any suggestions on how the profile may be raised within the community so that people may be made aware of the existence of the board and their right to apply for compensation?
The Chair: Sorry, you won't have time to respond to that.
Mr Bradley: It's something to think about, anyway.
The Chair: I'll have to move on to Mr Turnbull.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Ms Klein, could you tell me why you feel you're suited, from your educational background and your experience, to this position?
Ms Klein: My training has been in social work, and I have worked for a number of years in the area of violence against women. I've worked specifically in the areas of wife assault, sexual assault and child sexual abuse, working predominantly with women who have been victimized. I've also worked with a number of women. At the clinic I used to work at, the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, there were a number of women from there who had approached the board for compensation.
I think that both my qualifications and my understanding of the issues would allow me to have a sense of what the damage has been, especially because I understand that a growing number of women who have been sexually assaulted have approached the board of compensation. My familiarity with the issues and my belief in society's responsibility to attend to the needs of victims are what I think I would bring to the board.
1050
Mr Turnbull: Obviously, I'm very sympathetic to those needs, but I've heard you this morning speaking only about the needs of women and children. I haven't heard anything about families where a child has been snatched away from them and assaulted or even murdered by paedophiles. What do you feel about the need for compensation for families in these particular circumstances?
Ms Klein: I've mentioned primarily what my experience has been and I think that experience can be generalized. My training in social work is really -- I think it's not just those whom you've worked with, but a general understanding of what the issues would be for anyone in those various circumstances.
Mr Turnbull: Do you think we should change these programs so that we can find a much broader way of getting compensation back from the perpetrators, so that it is not costing society money but in fact we're finding a way of taxing these people, if necessary in perpetuity, to pay back the victims?
Ms Klein: I think that's a really interesting idea. I'm not sure how that would be attached to the board, because the perpetrator isn't necessarily involved at all with the ones coming to the board. In many cases, the perpetrator might not even know that a victim has made an application. My sense is that this kind of taxation could only take place through either a criminal or civil proceeding, which is quite separate from the board.
Mr Turnbull: Do you not think there should be a better relationship between the two actions?
Ms Klein: My sense is that for many of the women I worked with, if they had been considering making an application, if the perpetrator had to have been involved, they never would have made an application.
Mr Turnbull: So we're saying that the burden lies with society and we're not going to make the perpetrator pay?
Ms Klein: I think that as a society we need to make the perpetrators pay. I don't think this board is the way in which that's going to happen.
Mr Turnbull: I notice in your résumé it says "political and social action." Are you a member of the NDP?
Ms Klein: No, I'm not.
Mr Turnbull: Have you ever been?
Ms Klein: No, I have not.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have just a couple of questions. I'm impressed with your réumé, obviously. I've worked in the field of sexual abuse of children and worked extensively with adults molested as children, both men and women, although men are much more reluctant to engage. I'm wondering if you could explore with us some of those long-term effects from your experience with adults who have been molested as children, the kind of likely results that molestation may have with women in their 30s or 40s.
Ms Klein: I have a difficult time generalizing because I think everyone deals with the experience differently. But certainly there is a wide range of effects that one would be living with in terms of intimacy, relationships and a sense of oneself. I think the most important thing that happens to children who have been molested is that their whole sense of trust, their whole sense of understanding the world has been turned upside down, and so as they grow older, a sense of trusting the world as a safe place, in the way those who haven't been molested do, is not the same process at all.
The experience of vulnerability in the world is much greater. For those who could have a different kind of assessment of how vulnerable they are, if they have been molested, it's going to be a very different process. I think there's a wide range of effects: dissociation, multiple personality disorder, which is being spoken of a lot more these days. There's really a wide range.
Mr White: Are you familiar with the work of Margo Rivera at Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, where you're currently studying?
Ms Klein: Yes, I am.
Mr White: In terms of treatment, you mention that as one of the costs for sexual abuse victims and sexual assault victims. What are your thoughts? Should that be something that should be assumed outside of the health care system simply because the Ministry of Health refuses to recognize many qualified practitioners, or should it be alone for practitioners who are licensed or regulated by the Ministry of Health?
Ms Klein: Speaking from my own experience, I've worked with a number of women who have been through the psychiatric system or who have been through the medical system, and they are opting out at this point. When they seek out services that are specifically geared towards survivors of physical or sexual abuse, they're seeking out therapists who have some understanding that the symptoms which they're exhibiting today are directly related to what happened to them in the past and through this victimization.
The healing needs to take place and focus on the source of the victimization, whereas a lot of women who've been through the psychiatric system have expressed that, through the wide use of medication, therapy has focused more on the here and now and not so much on the past. It seems to me that a lot of the therapists who are doing the work that deals specifically with the abuse are in fact outside the medical system.
Mr White: But the cost of that treatment, by itself, could well exceed the figure of $6,500 that you cited.
Ms Klein: Yes, it can.
Mr White: So you would bring that perspective to the board.
Ms Klein: Yes, I would.
Mr Frankford: I'd like to get into some questions around physicians, particularly family physicians; I happen to be one. If you're talking about a backlog of delays in processing cases, I assume that having medical reports and having a physician as an advocate for the victim is extremely important. From the experience you've already had, can you make any generalizations about how family physicians respond to that role?
Ms Klein: I think the role of the family physician is crucial, and I have worked with a number who have referred to myself or to other therapists in the community and work in conjunction with them, dealing with many of the physical effects and as an added support. I think that any support physicians can give to survivors through this whole process is crucial. The responses victims receive from professionals, doctors and lawyers, also make a big difference to victims; it makes a big difference for them to be taken seriously.
Mr Frankford: It seems to me that in our advocate role -- and perhaps I'll refer to Mr Bradley saying, "How widely is the program known?" I can't recall ever getting anything directly encouraging me to connect with the board, and I don't believe I ever wrote a report myself, but I'm sure there must be many doctors out there who would have clients who could be referred. I'll perhaps leave a suggestion that this might be one area where one could do some rather effective and cheap informing about the existence of the program.
Ms Klein: My understanding right now is that a lot of the notification of the board's existence is done through word of mouth and at some of the primary sources of victimization. So the police, hospital emergency wards and rape crisis centres do a lot of informing. Certainly, to make it better known would be wonderful, and then we'd get into the backlog problem that we were talking about earlier.
Mr Frankford: But I think, if I could speak up for family physicians, if the system works as I believe it should, then one should have a long-term relationship, and I think this could also address the question about grief and suffering, that somebody who knows the person over a long term can write a much better report as to whether they have, supposedly, normal grief and suffering or if there has been some striking change in their psychological state.
Ms Klein: That's a really good idea.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Klein, for your appearance here this morning, and good luck.
1100
ALEXANDER ADAM
The Chair: The next witness is Alexander Adam. Welcome to the committee, sir. Mr Adam is an intended appointee as a member of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. Do you have any brief comments you'd like to make before we get into it?
Mr Alexander Adam: No, I think we could go right to questions, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Okay. Since the member whose party initiated this is absent at the moment, I'm going to look to someone else to begin the questioning. Mr Waters, are you prepared?
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I find quite interesting your background and where you work. I'm very impressed. I know from my past life that indeed there is a commitment by people such as yourself at Stelco over health and safety matters. It's an impressive company. But I would ask about time. You obviously have a position with Stelco that needs a lot of your time and attention. I believe that at this point in time, with the history of the agency, it's going to need a certain amount of time and I was wondering how you could indeed jockey between the two.
Mr Adam: It's certainly an issue and it's one that I had to do my own soul-searching about and then discuss with our president and our chairman, but the issue here was that I had been asked would I be prepared to serve on this board as part of the process of reconstituting the management side of the board. I think it's important work and I have a sense of the time frame that's involved and I can fit that in, both in terms of my own personal life and my own commitment to our organization.
Mr Waters: We had another gentleman yesterday who's going on the board as well, and I asked him a question because I have a hope and a belief and a lot of faith in the outcome of where this board will go. I guess I'll ask you the same question, and that is, do you see this, in the long term, as a means of lowering compensation rates for companies? As we work together, shall we say, both sides of the issue, the worker and the management, to make a healthier, safer workplace, do you think that in the long term it will reduce compensation rates for those employers and how long do you think it will take to do that?
Mr Adam: I think, in a general sense, reduction in the frequency and severity of accidents in the workplace isn't just an altruistic aim. It's good business and it is costeffective and it does have the benefit of reducing compensation claims and compensation administration. In a general sense, I think it's a very important initiative.
The real proof comes in what happens in each individual workplace and the degree to which the people who live in that environment are able to identify and eliminate in a proactive sense the hazards and the opportunities for people to get hurt. I think there's a direct link with the cost of workmen's compensation. I'm not sure that it has to be the main objective. I think that's a good outcome. The issue is that people shouldn't come to work and get hurt if it can be avoided in any way whatsoever.
Mr Waters: I know there are other members who would like to ask questions, so I'll pass.
Ms Murdock: Thank you, Mr Adam. I have two things. First of all, I'd like to get a feel for your own experience in relation to joint health and safety committees as they have been utilized in the past and, hopefully, in the future and, second, the Workplace Health and Safety Agency itself and how you see it fitting within the labour-management relations context.
Mr Adam: There are some very good parallels, I think, with my experience at Hilton Works. Hilton Works is a large integrated steel plant with about 6,800 people, and my experience at Hilton Works sort of transcends 24 years. I started there 24 years ago at a time when the labour unions, and ours in particular, were trying to begin to get more involved in health and safety issues. At that time it was dealt with through the process of negotiations and became an issue between the parties.
Having returned to Hilton Works about three years ago from other activity and stepping into a situation where there'd been a commitment to joint health and safety and we'd gone through some growing pains and it was now functioning, in my view, in a very successful way and the results proved themselves. Our frequency of accidents and our severity had come down consistently each year. More importantly, I think from a longer labour relations point of view, it's provided a platform on which to try to find more issue resolution and less conflict resolution activities in other facets of our relationship.
You can extrapolate from that to the role of the board itself. I think you can build on something like workplace health and safety on a bipartite basis and use that as a way to maybe shift the whole paradigm of labour relations in the province. If labour and management cannot find a way to constructively deal with issues in an area as fundamental to human beings as health and safety, then we have real problems. My belief is that our experience and others' experience show you can.
The Chair: Any more questions from the government members? Okay, then we'll move on to Mr Turnbull.
Mr Turnbull: Welcome, Mr Adam. You're probably aware that there were certain members of the agency on the board who represented employers who resigned because they weren't very satisfied with the conduct of the board. Can you give me your view of that?
Mr Adam: I can tell you from a distance that, from my point of view, there still is some confusion as to what really went on. I know some of the people personally and have a lot of respect for them. In fact one of my former colleagues is one of the people who resigned.
From a personal point of view, it had sort of happened before I became aware of what had happened. My understanding is, strictly through discussion and hearsay, that some of the management members who lost the vote felt they had been presented with a monolithic block vote by labour and didn't like the outcome. Some of the labour people felt the people on the management side were being obstructive and were not moving the process forward. As often happens when you get into that kind of a situation, in retrospect it's very difficult to sort out who was right and wrong.
I also understand that was really the only significant issue that had come before them where there had been that kind of a need for a majority vote to decide it. A lot of other items which haven't been given as much public disclosure had been dealt with quite well through a consensus process on the board.
Mr Turnbull: What was the issue they disagreed over?
Mr Adam: I believe the issue was certification, which is still the prime issue in front of the board, and in this case it was the aspect of the number of hours that would be involved in training.
1110
Mr Turnbull: Would you concur with the management's view of the people who resigned?
Mr Adam: I'm not sure what the management's view was. As I said, I only understand that they didn't like the fact that some members of the management caucus had voted with the labour caucus on this matter of hours. My personal view is that sometimes you have votes to resolve an issue and move on. I would not have resigned.
Mr Turnbull: Do you have the support of various management groups in coming forward for this position?
Mr Adam: I have the support of people who know me and of some management groups. I do not have the support of the management advisory committee.
Mr Turnbull: Can you give me the names of some of those groups that support you?
Mr Adam: I think I would have the support of the business community in Hamilton in general that knows me and my commitment to this issue. I would probably have the support of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce. I just left their board of directors. Those would be examples, in my view.
Mr Turnbull: Have you ever been involved in political activities?
Mr Adam: I've been involved in various political activities over the years but not in the last number of years, and I've been somewhat eclectic in that activity. I worked as a student some years ago, when I was at the University of Toronto, for a PC running in the election where Diefenbaker got trashed. I knocked on some doors for Bill Kempling in one of the federal elections. In my most recent political activity I assisted our alderman, who happens to have NDP credentials, in running for mayor of Burlington, not because of his party affiliation but because he'd been a good alderman, and I knocked on some doors in our neighbourhood. That's the extent of my political activity. I would describe myself really as being an independent.
Mr Turnbull: Do you think you can represent the needs of employers? Remember, that's the focus of your job. Your job would be to represent the needs of employers on this board.
Mr Adam: My job on a day-to-day basis is to represent the needs of the management of our organization, and I think I can very satisfactorily represent the needs of employers on this agency.
I think there's another issue, am I and are others on both parts of this bipartite board prepared to make a commitment to deal with the issues in an open-minded way and make the health and safety agency work? I think that really is important at this juncture.
The Chair: Mr Sola, do you have some questions to ask?
Mr Sola: I am interested in the fact that you stated a former colleague of yours was one of the persons who resigned from the committee. I am wondering, first of all, if you would classify that individual as the obstructive type.
Mr Adam: Do you want to mention specifically who you're talking about?
Mr Sola: Well, you were the one -- you didn't mention who the person was, but you said one of the persons from the management side who had resigned from the committee --
Mr Adam: Exactly.
Mr Sola: -- was a personal friend or a colleague of yours. I'm wondering, since you know the person, whether he could be described as an obstructive type.
Mr Adam: I wouldn't categorize anybody involved in that unfortunate incident in any way whatsoever, on the labour side or on the management side, and this specific individual you're referring to, I would not categorize as an obstructive type.
Mr Sola: Okay. Since this individual is not an obstructive type and he felt compelled to resign, I guess, on a matter of principle, does that not create a sense of unease in your mind in being asked to go on this board? The second question is, since this situation has occurred, can you go in there with an open mind, or are there certain reservations in your mind as you contemplate being appointed to the board?
Mr Adam: There are a number of questions in there. Let me take the last one first. I have an open mind. I think it's the only way to approach these issues and that's the way I would go on the board. As far as other people's issues of principle, you'd have to talk to them about that. I can't take that and draw conclusions about my own activity or behaviour.
Mr Sola: I think Mr Turnbull mentioned that you are supposed to represent the needs of employers on this committee. I would like to change that and say that I would think both sides should be representing the interests of the workers, because I think it's in the best interests both of employers and employees to have the safest possible working conditions in any work environment.
I'm just wondering whether you think the fact that the previous set of directors saw that the environment forced them to resign, whether there was beginning to develop a sense of partisanship that may prevent actually looking out for the best interests of the employees.
Mr Adam: I wouldn't even describe my view of that as an insight into what went on there. I think whatever happened, it was unfortunate. I think the issue now is going forward. There's been an endeavour to reconstitute the management side of the board and to get on with the process, and I think that's important. I couldn't agree with you more that the real issue here is representing the workers in this province and making sure we have a system that guarantees them the safest possible workplace and workplace practices.
Mr Bradley: It indicates in some information we have that candidates were recommended by various business organizations with an interest in health and safety matters and these recommendations were reviewed by the management advisory committee to the Workplace Health and Safety Agency for consideration. You mentioned in passing that you didn't fit into that category. Did I hear that right?
Mr Adam: No, you didn't hear it right. I think I was asked if I was recommended by the management advisory committee and I said I believed I was not.
Mr Bradley: Is there any reason you can think of why you were not recommended? Was there opposition to your appointment?
Mr Adam: I don't know. You'd have to ask them. I think what I bring to the agency is what's needed, experience in a bipartite joint health and safety system that we believe has been successful in improving workplace health and safety for over 6,800 people, and we've used that cooperative activity to also help improve the balance of our labour relations in our plant. I'm very positive about the ability of a bipartite approach to health and safety not only to improve the workplace but also to improve the general labour relations climate in the province as well as any workplace. I think that's what's needed. I'm also open-minded. I can't say any more than that.
I met with three people from the management advisory committee. We had a good discussion. I didn't consider it a job interview. It was an opportunity for me to meet them, and they went off and put forward their own slate of candidates.
Mr Bradley: You were not included in that slate?
Mr Adam: I don't believe so.
Mr Bradley: The next questions are difficult to ask. Do you feel then you would have the confidence of the general business community to be a business representative on the board?
Mr Adam: I think I have the confidence of anybody who knows me and meets me. I've met with a number of those people from the management advisory committee subsequently and I've talked to people at the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. You would have to ask them their reasoning, but I certainly didn't take it personally and I don't think the slate they put forward was directed in any personal way at my candidacy.
1120
Mr Bradley: Do you think the fact that the government did not accept the slate that was put forward by that group would mean the agency is not going to receive the kind of confidence it might otherwise from the business community? Because the government did not accept the slate put forward.
Mr Adam: I don't think so. I think ultimately the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I think the real issue is, are there management people, business people, now on the board who are prepared to look to the future and bring their experiences and try to deal with issues in a way that gets this important work moving forward?
Mr Bradley: Do you see the need, from your experience -- and of course you'll have further experience when you're appointed,because you are appointed. The committee has no power to do anything other than to endorse the government appointment, so you're certainly appointed and it's an opportunity to chat with you. Do you believe there is a need for more legislation in the field of workplace health and safety that you can see in your mind, or will this particular agency likely preclude the need for further legislation in that regard?
Mr Adam: I think our first emphasis should be making the agency work the way it was intended to. I think if we can do that, I wouldn't preclude future legislation, amendments or changes, but certainly I think you're on the right track.
Mr Bradley: Do you think if those changes were made, they should be to make it more onerous for the industrial sector or the business sector in the province in terms of what they must do to meet the health and safety needs of workers? In other words, if you look at the legislation as it exists today, there are two ways you can amend it: You can either weaken it or strengthen it. Do you believe, from your experience, that there is a need at this time for further legislation to protect the health and safety of workers in the province?
Mr Adam: Based on my own experience, no. I wouldn't emphasize the punitive side of the issue at all. I think what we need is to emphasize the cooperative side and the fact that we really have to be proactive for the right reasons, not because you're afraid of being charged or financially penalized but because it's the right thing to do, it's good business and it's smart.
Mr Bradley: Am I out of time yet?
The Chair: No, you have about 30 seconds.
Mr Bradley: I'll pass, then. It will take me 30 seconds to ask the question and then you won't have time to answer. It would be unfair to you.
The Chair: Fine. That concludes the questioning, Mr Adam. We appreciate your appearance.
Mr Adam: Thank you very much.
MELVIN IRWIN ROTMAN
The Chair: Our final witness this morning is Melvin Irwin Rotman, who is an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board. Welcome to the committee. Do you have any brief comments you'd like to make before we get under way?
Mr Melvin Irwin Rotman: No, thank you.
The Chair: Your review was at the request of the official opposition, so I look to Mr Bradley.
Mr Bradley: I don't know whether you were here previously to hear some of the questions which were directed to the people being appointed to this board, but one of the problems that some members of the Legislature encounter is that we are often contacted by people who are concerned that the system works in favour of the psychiatric patient. I know it has been extended.
I think what is happening in this committee is we're getting at you to get at something over which you have no control, and that makes it a little bit difficult. But there is a perception out there among my constituents, the majority of my constituents, that essentially the agencies, boards and commissions of governments are run by an élite -- a very intelligent group of people, a well-connected group of people, an expert group of people -- but that this group of people does not take into account the feelings of the general population or the views of the general population when rendering decisions.
I'll just throw it out and say, would you comment?
Mr Rotman: No, no, please go ahead.
Mr Bradley: I'll be a little more specific in the question then. How would you go about seeking the opinion or reflecting the opinion of the general community in the decisions that you are making?
Mr Rotman: As you appreciate, the board itself is a very difficult one in that it's a provincial board yet it's governed by federal legislation. As such, both you, as a legislator, are hamstrung as well as myself, as a decision-maker, because of the parameters placed on the board. My personal feeling, in terms of your question and how I would seek that out, would be more along the lines of the legislation has changed recently to allow for both the Attorney General and the crown who is prosecuting the accused to be parties to this matter, and I would hope, since they are given notice, that at least the crown who is dealing with the matter of the actual allegation would be in touch with such people as the family or the victim, as the case may be, and allow for input through that direction.
As the legislation itself doesn't allow for publication of the results of these decisions, the public would really have no other way other than the individual way, by way of the crown, as I see it.
Mr Bradley: Let me paint a scenario which may not be unrealistic for you. In major psychiatric institutions -- I take it Penetanguishene is essentially what we're talking about -- there is overcrowding and there is not room for all of these people. Do you think that would influence the board or would that influence you, the fact that there is simply not accommodation for people? Would that influence you to be more liberal in your application of judgement on whether somebody should be released to the community or not?
Mr Rotman: For myself, I can say no. Two reasons: First of all and probably most important for this committee is that Parliament, when it set out the structure of the board, essentially said that in any disposition the first consideration has to be the protection of the public from dangerous persons. That's the first item, the very first item listed. Given that particular scenario, I don't see how consideration of the crowding even comes into account, because then the next one happens to be the mental condition of the accused. There's his ability to reintegrate and then, finally, there's such other needs of the accused, lastly, in place. So it doesn't come into consideration under the act of Parliament.
Mr Bradley: It doesn't, but it's amazing how other factors tend to push agencies, boards and commission into certain decisions. I won't pursue that one further.
I want to pursue now how you got appointed to this. How did you find out this position was available?
Mr Rotman: Essentially, I was aware of the board and just simply filed my résumé. After that point, I don't know. As well, I have a great deal of experience in administrative law. That's my area. And I've done a fair amount of decision-writing through arbitrations etc, as nominee, and on filing factums etc. But that's about it as far as I know.
Mr Bradley: One of the considerations that governments generically make when making appointments is that they like to appoint people to agencies, boards and commissions who are in tune, philosophically and politically, with their point of view, although it doesn't necessary happen, particularly on boards of this kind. Are you a member of the New Democratic Party or a supporter of the New Democratic Party?
Mr Rotman: I have never been a member of the New Democratic Party, nor am I now; I'm afraid not.
1130
Mr Bradley: Have you worked for the New Democratic Party or supported the New Democratic Party?
Mr Rotman: Not only have I never worked for the New Democratic Party, I have never even campaigned for a candidate for the New Democratic Party.
Mr Bradley: This is quite a relief. This encourages us that perhaps the government is at long last seeing the light.
Mr Waters: As we have all along, unlike our predecessors.
Mr Bradley: You will meet many people on the agencies, boards and commissions who do not fit the category you've just described.
I would like to go back. At one time, when I first entered this Legislature, eons ago, there was a feeling that psychiatric patients, particularly those in the category you will be dealing with, may have been hard done by. There may have been a conservative approach to keeping people confined as opposed to integrating them back into the community. Whether that's a fair observation or not, that appeared to be the case. As time progressed, it seemed that we were to look more at the fact that there may be people kept there who shouldn't be kept there, and the pendulum appears to have swung the other way. Do you believe, in light of the perceived public opinion today, that, for instance, when people are released back into the community the community should be made aware of this in a very public way, that this person has been released into the community? We've seen some of the examples. They're not of these patients but of others.
Mr Rotman: I think we have to differentiate between release of people who are being brought back into communities, say, from the prison system, where there's been a finding of guilt, and people who are being released from a mental institution. The difference with respect to the mental institution situation is that these are people who have been found not guilty because they're simply not criminally responsible. The aspect of it is that the strictures placed on the board and placed on the decisions are such that, as it stands, Parliament has made sure that there's no way that information can get to the public, because it simply isn't available. The decisions of the board are available to the judge, the crown, the Attorney General, the accused or the patient. They're not available to anyone else. I can digress and go back to prisoners, but the question with respect to patients is almost moot, if you don't mind my saying so.
Mr Bradley: No, I understand the difference. I appreciate the difference and you've articulated that, I think, exceedingly well. But I want to say -- is this the last one?
The Chair: One minute.
Mr Bradley: Let me paint a worst-case scenario for some people. There's a family with young children living next door to the person who's going to be released. This person, when the person was mentally ill, committed crimes against those children. Should the next-door neighbours be aware of this or not? It's a tough question.
Mr Rotman: It's a very tough question. I have a young child, a nine-month-old son. I understand the question. I don't know how I could emphasize my empathy and sympathy with the question itself. But as a lawyer I'm stuck with a legal response to what must be that situation and, although I may have personal feelings about it, as a lawyer I have to say I don't see how they can get that information as Parliament has structured the code. From a legal perspective, my position would be that my hands are tied.
The Chair: Do you want to jump in there, Mr Turnbull?
Mr Turnbull: Yes, sir. I want to pursue that same line of questioning. As you know, the public is very exercised about this issue at the moment. I will sort of set the scene by saying that I introduced a private member's bill last fall, just before the House rose, the Registration of Pedophiles Act. In that, when somebody was released from prison he would have to register with the police in the local area where he was living and the police would determine whether it was appropriate to generally make neighbours aware of it if they felt there was some imminent danger.
I modelled this legislation on the legislation that exists in Washington state and has done for a few years. Also, there would be a penalty of a fine or potential reincarceration if the people who were released did not register their whereabouts with the intent that we could track where these people are.
In the English-speaking world, we have a tradition of not registering people. We feel this is a terrible intrusion upon people's privacy. However, in many countries of the world, you don't have to be a criminal to be registered; just simply by merit of the fact that you're living in a certain place you are registered with the police as to your whereabouts.
With due consideration for the fact that you're saying, "Yes, well, you have to just administer within the confines of the law," we, as legislators, are looking at you and saying, "You know, we can bat this backwards and forwards." But given an opportunity like today, I'd like just a little bit of an opportunity to talk to you about what we should be doing, not somebody throwing the ball and saying, "Well, it's your problem."
Let's talk about our problem together.
Undoubtedly, there is overwhelming evidence that paedophilia cannot be cured and there have been many submissions to this effect by very learned people who specialize in this field, so I don't want to get into a discussion of the merits of that. But how do we protect people?
My suggestion was a registration process which at least would be able to allow parents to go to a police station if they were concerned and look it up, as they do in Washington state. What are your feelings about that? On the one hand, does it not seem reasonable to you, bearing in mind that, yes, there is a restriction of the offender's liberties when he's released -- he or she, I guess, but normally he in this particular case. We are restricting their liberties, but it's basically to protect innocent children. Should we make changes to the law? What do you think your board should be doing about this?
Mr Rotman: The question was --
Mr Turnbull: Pretty broad.
Mr Rotman: -- pretty broad. Without attempting to be too political about it, because you're not putting me on a board to be a politician, essentially, as I understand the issue, it's the difference between, shall we say, individual rights versus community rights as you're describing it.
I can discuss the Criminal Code stuff with you, but it would just be us chatting, because your description is a situation where a paedophile has been in prison, has been found guilty and is then going to be released into the community, and you want the opportunity to register this particular individual. As I pointed out to the honourable member, I have a child and I understand what you're saying, but I have essentially no comment. I don't stand opposed to what you're suggesting.
The board, though, is dealing with a different situation. The board is dealing with people who have been found not guilty because they're not criminally responsible and as such, if they're not guilty, the possibility of registration becomes more remote in my opinion.
That aside, as I pointed out, regarding the disposition with respect to any person within an institution with whom this board would be dealing, the first item is the protection of the public. We, of course, will have the availability of psychiatrists to assist us, and if, as you suggest -- because I'm not in a position to debate whether or not paedophiles may or may not be cured -- there is no cure for a particular mental disorder, then the issue doesn't arise, does it? Public protection is foremost.
1140
Mr Turnbull: There are two issues arising out of what you said. Number one is the question of yes, they have been determined not guilty by reason of insanity. I suppose there is a question there as to whether in some way we should change the law so that we can at least treat them in the same way as -- if we were to allow the registration of criminals who have been found guilty of paedophilia, would it not be reasonable to change the law to say that we believe this person committed the act but is not guilty by reason of his or her state of mind, so that at least that same type of protection would be afforded to the public at large?
Mr Rotman: With respect, the principle does not go beyond the purview of this particular Legislature.
Mr Turnbull: Yes, it does. This is the problem. All too often we have these sorts of discussions, and you can say, "Okay, this is not really the question that this board has to answer; it's not the question that this Legislature has to answer." The problem is that in Canada we're batting responsibility around. It's just like somebody sitting at the table in a restaurant and calling a waiter and the waiter says, "It's not my table." I'm trying to at least stimulate a discussion about the direction that we should be urging legislators at any level to take in the future.
Mr Rotman: I appreciate where you're going. The problem from my perspective is that it requires a political position. As I see it, my position on the board is to be one of a neutral trying to assess the protection of the public. Now given that this is my primary consideration, all I'm saying is that the rest of the issue then lies in hands of politicians rather than someone sitting on a board. It doesn't seem to me that you want to be in the position where you're having your boards make declarations of any sort.
Mr Turnbull: "Lies in hands of" -- I'm sorry?
Mr Rotman: When I say "lies" I mean "lays" rather than misleading the --
The Chair: Mr Turnbull, I know it's unusual, but will you allow the Chair a supplementary?
Mr Turnbull: Yes, please do.
The Chair: This is an issue of interest to me, with a forensic facility in my riding. I'm curious. We've been talking especially about paedophiles. That's a major concern now with what has happened in a number of very tragic incidents. I'm concerned about your role in making these decisions in terms of what we used to call loosening a warrant or lifting a warrant in allowing these people to be gradually reintegrated into the community.
I guess I would like to know what you see your role as in terms of ensuring as best you can if you make a decision on release or loosening, especially when we're dealing with paedophilia, which I'm advised is not curable. It's something that can be controlled through constant medication use and so on.
I've seen instances in my own community where an individual's out there, and the monitoring of that individual in terms of getting off or maintaining his medication and so on, and he's gone off his drugs and committed a crime. I guess there's that responsibility on you to make sure the system doesn't fail the people with the flexibility you do have within the legislation. I just wonder how you'd view that.
Mr Rotman: I view that very seriously. As I understand the legislation and having reviewed it, the administrator of the hospital is a party to these proceedings. It would seem to me it is incumbent upon this particular person -- and he or she generally is ultimately responsible -- to be able to advise the board whether the hospital is able to oversee this individual properly and to, shall we say, rein in or ensure that whatever loosening is done is maintained and, failing such, can be brought back in.
I believe, where Parliament has stated the protection of the public is the first consideration, the ability of the administrator of the hospital to properly assess and advise the board puts us in the position of being able to determine exactly that issue you've stated.
The Chair: To the government members. Mr Waters.
Mr Waters: There's been a lot of talk about the rights of the public in that. I guess where I'd like to start is, does that mean it would be the function of the layperson who sits on the board to bring the public's concern as you see it?
Mr Rotman: It would seem to me that the layperson would be your sounding board with respect to what the public generally is feeling and where it is going. The psychiatrist brings to the board the clinical, the psychiatric perspective. The barrister or the lawyer on the board brings the legal perspective. The layperson is there to be able to assess where the general public is coming from. I would agree with that. With all the other inputs we have from the crown and the Attorney General, we have I would think a fairly well-rounded position.
Mr Waters: You are a lawyer representative, right?
Mr Rotman: Yes.
Mr Waters: Unlike our previous gentleman who was sort of a cross between lawyer and psychiatrist, you are a lawyer representative.
One of the things Mr Bradley mentioned, by the way, was that Penetang is overcrowded. I've attended Penetang on a couple of occasions.
Ms Murdock: As a visitor.
Mr Waters: I've had the opportunity to visit. I can tell you that the staff of Penetang say it is not overcrowded, and when I was there, it wasn't. Under this legislation there are different levels of security and therefore the maximum security institute is not overcrowded at this point. It does, however, need some upgrades.
Mr Rotman: Yes. I've been to Penetang myself.
Mr Waters: As a visitor.
Mr Rotman: As a visitor. I took Mr Bradley's question to be a hypothetical situation of an institution being overcrowded.
Mr Waters: With the new types of hearings I see that a person who is held under a warrant -- it has to be between 45 and 90 days of the verdict, and at least once a year thereafter, he has the right to a hearing. With so many people having the right to come in and make their appearances and ask their questions and bring in their witnesses, do you think that is slowing the system down? Also, I go on to read that failure to hold a hearing within the legislated time frame entitles the accused to apply to the court for a release. I would like your comments on all of that.
Mr Rotman: The federal government has certainly created a situation where we are going to have go into the modern age, use computers and get this organized and going. What is attempting to be addressed, I would presume, or redressed, is that a person who is found not guilty have access to review on a regular basis. You have the old horror stories from before this legislation of people being kept for an extended period of time without review.
Although they may very well have been able to have been reintegrated into the community, they just haven't been in a position to put their case forward. It isn't fair. The idea isn't to incarcerate people and throw away the key. The idea, especially with people who are not criminally responsible because of a mental disorder, is to have that opportunity to reintegrate if they are able, and if it's in the public interest of course.
Mr Waters: I believe Ms Murdock has a question.
Ms Murdock: Just to follow up on that, there is a difference between the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board and the psychiatric review board.
Mr Rotman: Absolutely.
Ms Murdock: But it's been very blurred here, I think. How do you see the function of the Criminal Code review board as being different from the psychiatric review board?
Mr Rotman: The Criminal Code review board is specifically looking at two situations: those people who have to be determined whether they're fit or not fit to stand trial and those people who are not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Those are the two specific mandates within this particular board as opposed to the much broader mandate in the other board.
Ms Murdock: Of the psychiatric review board. I know that you're here today as a candidate for the lawyer position on the board.
Mr Rotman: A lawyer position.
Ms Murdock: A lawyer.
Mr Rotman: There are a number of us.
Ms Murdock: Yes, I realize there's a list, a roster I guess. I know the question was asked earlier about the distinction between the lawyer position and the layperson position. As a human being living within the community you're not going in totally isolated from what's happening within the community.
Mr Rotman: Correct.
Ms Murdock: Therefore, how do you see your role as the lawyer rep and your humanness being affected in the decision?
Mr Bradley: Are you suggesting lawyers aren't human?
Ms Murdock: A lot of cartoons certainly make that suggestion.
Mr Rotman: Like Shakespeare: "Hang all the lawyers."
Ms Murdock: I think it's "kill."
Mr Rotman: The problem, I guess, as a lawyer -- and I believe, Ms Murdock, you're also a solicitor.
Ms Murdock: I also am, yes.
Mr Rotman: You get framed in a specific way. You have a view of the world which is slanted in legal reference and legal terms. I would think, although I can't differentiate my humanity from my practice of law, given the nature of my practice, in any event I look at things legalistically and try and fit them into that perspective. I believe the layperson on the board provides a third view, which in fact is very beneficial, to temper my view as a lawyer, because I think sometimes my view as a lawyer can overshadow my particular view as a person in the community. I'm prepared to admit that openly. I see things legally.
Ms Murdock: Yes, thank you. Particularly on the paedophile issue that within many communities is becoming so important, if you look at any of the television programming that has gone on recently as to what legislation is actually being considered, I wondered whether or not that would get in the way of the humanity of the issue. Anyway, thank you. I appreciate your time.
The Chair: Anything further? There's about a minute and a half to go? Okay, thank you, Mr Rotman. We appreciate your appearance here today.
Mr Rotman: Thank you.
The Chair: That concludes the business for this morning. We have the one witness this afternoon, so our proceedings will wrap up fairly early this afternoon. We'll break for lunch and see you all at 2 o'clock.
The committee recessed at 1154.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1402.
PAUL KELLY
The Chair: Can we come to order, please. Our first witness this afternoon, and our final witness for the day, is Mr Paul Kelly, who is an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. Mr Kelly is here. Would you like to come forward please, sir. Thank you for travelling down from North Bay today. I appreciate your appearance here.
Mr Paul Kelly: Thank you.
The Chair: This is a half-hour review, 10 minutes allocated to each party for questions and responses. You were selected for review by the government party. Would you like to say anything, briefly, before we get under way or simply move right into questions?
Mr Kelly: I'll give you a little bit of background about who Paul is. For the last 20-some years I've been a professor at Canadore College in North Bay. I have both a BBA and an MBA. My particular strength, in terms of academic strength, is a combination of marketing and business administration, so that's part of the knowledge I bring to it. Prior to that, I worked for Canadian National for nine years in a variety of middle management jobs, in research development, in passenger sales and, for the last couple of years I was there, in the accounting area. In the accounting area I was particularly involved in internal audit, which is really a polite way of saying that if you can control their money, you can control their activities. So that's the background I bring to the possible appointment.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Ms Murdock, would you like to begin the questioning?
Mr Bradley: It's a done deal; it's not a possible appointment.
Mr Kelly: Oh, okay.
The Chair: Or Mr Waters. Who is leading off?
Mr Waters: I can ask a couple of questions here. The person from the government party who actually selected you to come before the committee isn't here today, but I found your background quite interesting. You have a very varied background, and I think you might bring a different point of view to the transportation committee. I was wondering if you would care to elaborate on your background and how you think that would assist you in this position.
Mr Kelly: Obviously, although it was long ago, now over 20 years ago, I certainly have, or did have, a considerable amount of, if you will, hands-on, insider knowledge about rail operations and affiliated rail operations like telecommunications and things of that sort. Most of the nine years I was with CN, I was involved in somehow critiquing what they were doing, and sort of looking at Canadian National and saying: "We're doing this. How can we either do it better or, preferably, maybe just do the same thing but do it more cheaply?"
So I had the opportunity to work for a crown corporation that in a sense has the same product, but an awful lot bigger, especially in those days -- a great deal bigger than the then-ONR. So I got to work with a crown corporation. I got to see their problems and certainly the frustrations, the frustrations of a crown corporation that is expected to act in a competitive way or expected to act with somewhat the same criteria as a private business, and yet in many ways is forced to act with a handicap in that a crown corporation is trying to provide, or their mandate is to provide, a service that private industry often would not choose to provide.
For one thing, you're trying to provide the service or the business, or whatever the case may happen to be, where often there's not a sufficient marketplace to really make a positive financial contribution. Also, you're often expected -- in fact, almost universally expected -- to act as something of a model employer. You are expected not to violate the contracts; you're supposed to be, really, a model for society in how you treat your employees and how you treat your public.
Those are somewhat conflicting mandates: to try to behave as a private enterprise would behave, in that sort of competitive manner, and meanwhile, in effect, being asked to do it with probably one arm behind your back and maybe both arms behind your back. It's a very delicate thing, to be able to meet both requirements. I'm not sure you could ever quite meet both requirements. In more recent years I've come to have the notion that a crown corporation probably will be for ever in sort of the dicey condition of both trying to meet the needs of the public, as we maybe can define the public, while trying to act in a responsible manner towards the public at large -- in this particular case, the public of Ontario -- and still trying to provide the service of opening up and developing northern Ontario. It's a very difficult task. That's some of what I learned, I suppose, at Canadian National, from having worked in the crown corporation.
Then, as you know, about 20 years ago I decided to go into education. I'm not sure it was a wise decision, but none the less I made it and I've been in it a long time.
Mr Bradley: More money than the Legislature.
Mr Kelly: Well, probably better holidays, anyway, although I may comment about that later.
Starting this week, I'm actually moving out of the classroom for the next year. Canadore College, for whom I work, made a rather different decision about three weeks ago. We have some significant budget problems. That's not unusual throughout the province. But we have developed a number of financial budgeting models, and about three weeks ago the president in effect approached me and grabbed me by the elbow and said, "I want to talk to you for 10 minutes." So now they're pulling somebody out of the classroom who was more or less happy to be back in the classroom and really not worrying about where the money was being spent and what we were doing. If I taught well and the students did well, that was fine. Now I'm going to be preparing the master budgets for the school for the next couple of years, and I think that's a response to -- largely, the faculty did not really buy into the budgeting models developed by the financial people. So what we have here is a situation in which in effect the president is turning to a faculty member and saying: "Okay, you people develop it, then, and I'll pick you to do it. You've certainly criticized some of what we've done. I'll let you do it." I guess that's much of the role I've played for much of the last 30 years.
Mr Waters: One other question I would have: I find with our federal rail system, they seem to be offloading freight on to the roads, to truck traffic. I'd like your opinion as to what northern Ontario -- not only the moving of freight around northern Ontario, but there's a lot of freight that goes north-south and all of that. Do you feel that it's more viable to use the road or the rail, or where you see that going?
Mr Kelly: Some of the things I'm going to say I may not be able at this point to actually back up; it's more of an opinion than established fact. There's only a limited area in Canada where the amount of industry, the number of consumers and the number of people are large enough to really make a great deal of financial strength in terms of either transportation of people or transportation of freight. That's largely the corridor from Windsor to Quebec City, and it's very profitable. It's a marvellous opportunity.
1410
But as soon as we move out of that corridor that's only about 700 miles long and perhaps 50 miles wide, the rest of Canada has, in many cases, a fairly small amount of industrial base, a relatively small number of citizens. Running something like rail transportation that has a large amount of fixed cost, and once you lay down the railway line it's darned hard to pick it up and move it over if you've made a 15-mile error or the community that was once in spot A moves 30 miles away because of the development of a mine or whatever the case may happen to be, it's very expensive to move over by rail. I see, in many cases, the use of truck transportation as being probably a better answer.
Part B to that is, as I understand it, but I've been away from it for a very long time and I didn't choose to keep informed, I think there's a case to be made that truck transportation is to some degree subsidized by the way the province and maybe the rest of Canada build their highways, so that the trucks in effect get their carriageway, if you will, not quite for free but a heck of a lot cheaper than building a railway, and that's pretty attractive.
The Chair: Ms Murdock, very quickly.
Ms Murdock: I noticed in your CV that some of your background is in marketing.
Mr Kelly: Yes.
Ms Murdock: It's interesting to note that with the cutbacks from CN-CP, Sudbury, my riding, does not have daily transport by rail to Toronto, as an example, and yet ONTC provides direct daily transport from Cochrane to Toronto. I don't think very many people realize that Cochrane has a daily service and Sudbury doesn't, yet I know that the ONTC also, as you've stated already, is in severe financial difficulty, closing down some of the trucking business and Star Transfer and so on. But what kinds of things do you see us doing to promote ONTC and its use in northeastern Ontario?
Mr Kelly: Let me try to turn the question around. In turning it around, I may not quite answer it, but then we'll take another run at it if it isn't satisfactory.
Mr Bradley: You could be in cabinet with that skill.
Mr Kelly: That's the opposition side today, is it?
In many cases, I think it's not a situation of providing more service. In some cases, more service is needed. But I think it is the responsibility of a crown corporation -- and as I've earlier mentioned, I think it's a very delicate balance -- to provide adequate service at the most reasonable cost you can. I said "adequate service," and I'm going to be careful to say not what people necessarily want, because people's wants can always exceed what we're capable of providing, but rather more of what people need or what society needs, and what society, the people of Ontario -- and obviously the Legislature of Ontario representing the people -- need provided to them and what would be an adequate level of service, whether it be transportation of people or transportation of things or transportation of messages.
So I think it's quite possible that it might not be illogical to provide rail transportation between Sudbury and Toronto. On the other hand, from my background, albeit a long time ago, I personally have the suspicion that there is enough traffic or potentially enough traffic between Sudbury and Toronto to make rail transportation viable.
The Chair: I'm going to have to stop you there, Mr Kelly, and move on. Mr Sola.
Mr Sola: With regard to your background in the rail industry and also because you are from the north, I would suppose you're familiar with the fact that the north is quite supportive of the idea of helping to solve Metro's waste management problems by using the Adams mine in Kirkland Lake.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Are you sure about that statement?
Mr Sola: I happen to have been on the committee that held hearings on this in Sudbury, in Kirkland Lake and throughout the province, and I can say --
Mr Wood: That survey was 82% opposed.
Mr Sola: Local governments, the business community and even unions were very supportive of the idea. So in light of the general support that at least I perceived for the proposal -- maybe the government did not -- what are your views with regard to the proposal, first of all to help solve the Metro problem, and secondly to help solve the financial problems of the Ontario Northland railway and safeguard the jobs that are at stake here?
Mr Kelly: I'm going to take a glass of water, because my answer may not please some people. I think the transportation of Metro's waste to Kirkland Lake would be marvellous for the ONTC, but I have some really severe reservations that it's a good answer for the citizens of Ontario and I have some severe reservations that it's a good answer for the people in Toronto.
If we were to transport waste from Toronto to Kirkland Lake, it would certainly provide lots of revenue for the ONTC, at least in one direction, but we would presumably be sending back empties in the other direction. I've a little familiarity with sending freight cars loaded with product in one direction and sending freight cars back empty in the other direction because you've nothing to return in it.
I don't have any problems whatsoever in terms of the effect on the environment. I'm sure the garbage can be treated such that it's fine in Kirkland Lake or fine placed anyplace else in Ontario, even at the corner of King and Jarvis. The technical problems of the environmental leaching or whatever I'm sure can be solved.
But I'm not very happy about the notion that the citizens of Ontario would pay, in effect, for the next 50 or 75 years as we transport waste some 300 or 350 miles north. I would rather see the money going into some solution that says: "We've had a very large city here for more than 100 years. We're going to have a large city for the next 200 or 300 or 500 years. Let's start to solve the problem now. Instead of shipping the problem" -- and yes, it is a problem -- "350 miles north where we have a place you can put it, let's look at some other solution that in the long run is a better solution for society than shipping it away."
Mr Sola: Are you saying you're on one side of the argument or the other, or are you sort of playing politics here?
Mr Kelly: No, I'm not playing politics; it's a strange place to play politics. I'm saying that for the ONTC it's a marvellous solution, but I don't think it's a good solution for the taxpayer or for society.
Mr Sola: As a member of the board, would you rule it out because of your concerns for the general population or would you vote in favour of it in order to save the railway?
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): We already made the decision.
Mr Kelly: It's a great question and it really nails me. I'm hard pressed to answer it. I suspect that as a member of the board I would have to support it, but it would certainly be such a lukewarm support that they'd wonder whether or not I was actually supporting the move, because I would carefully say, "Gee, it's great for us and it really does bring in money, but it's not a good answer."
Mr Sola: So you would not be taking the position of the government, that's coming in with a closed mind, with a predetermined solution. The parties on this side have not ruled it in; they just want an environmental assessment to see if it's feasible. I think my colleague Jim Bradley wanted to have a go at it.
1420
Mr Bradley: As you may be aware from news accounts these days, Premier Thatcher -- Premier Rae, excuse me --
Mr Kelly: A bit worrisome there.
Mr Bradley: -- has changed his views on many things and might well be thinking that everything should make a profit now and that there should be a downsizing and shakedown of many agencies, boards and commissions. From what you have observed as a person residing in northern Ontario, one who has an interest, no doubt, in the corporation, do you believe it should be permitted to operate at a loss, or should it be a profit-making organization?
Mr Kelly: I think it should serve society's needs, and I think society's needs have to be looked at in terms of how much we can afford to have society's needs served. By the very notion and the very nature of a crown corporation, if it's doing something whereby significant sums of money can be made, I think there's a very strong possibility that private enterprise is going to want in there or is going to already be there. So the ongoing problem with crown corporations, as I see it, is to provide the level of service necessary in this particular case to help develop the north without spending so much money that we in effect are spending a great deal to lead to development that may not ever occur.
I think you perpetually have to rework that equation: What is really necessary to provide the necessary either development of the north or services to the people of the north? But being aware that in all honesty the great bulk of industry is not in the north and the great bulk of people are not in the north, I think there's a distinct limit to what the citizens of Ontario in total can afford to pay to subsidize service to the north.
I believe that's true throughout Canada. Ontario particularly, but the rest of Canada too, has to become more competitive in the days ahead, and we can't afford to spend our resources where they aren't getting a sufficient return. So I think we have to be very careful about what we expect a crown corporation to do. People always have wants; whether it's wise for us to satisfy those wants, I'm very doubtful.
Mr Bradley: That brings about the question, I suppose -- I won't say begs the question, because I read somewhere that that's a misused piece of terminology, but I'll ask this question. What that suggests to me is that you believe -- and please challenge me if what I'm saying is incorrect -- that the public sector should pick up those things which have a potential loss and the private sector should have the gravy train. An example in southern Ontario is that Greyhound wanted in on the routes from Buffalo to Toronto, for instance, because that was a lucrative route, but if you said, "Would you like the run to Owen Sound?" they said, "No, thank you; give that to Gray Coach," which is kind of public sector.
So if Ontario Northland gets stuck with the uneconomic routes, shouldn't it be given exclusive rights to the economic routes where you can make some money, or, if the private sector takes over, shouldn't it be compelled to take the uneconomic routes as well as the economic routes?
Mr Kelly: No, I don't think they should be compelled to take the uneconomic routes as well as the economic routes. I think the very nature of private enterprise is that private enterprise is out to maximize its profits. If I flip the coin over, I think that's where crown corporations really have a role to play, the other side of the coin, where it is not in the interests of society that private enterprise should have it, say the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada. Obviously, we don't necessarily want private enterprise to try to maximize its profits in terms of atomic energy, so now it makes sense to have a crown corporation.
Where it's necessary or desirable not to have competition because the citizens are ill-served, I think that's where crown corporations come into being. A third area in which I think crown corporations come into being is that where society needs something that private enterprise just isn't interested in doing, but society says, "We need this," and it's well verified that it is truly needed, I think that is the role of the crown corporation.
The crown corporation, I think, ought not to be competing with private enterprise. I think it has a distinct role to serve, and I think it's a very difficult role to serve, because you're for ever tempted to try to get over to those things that are profitable, but as soon as you get into the things that are profitable, then to some degree you're probably challenging private enterprise. They can probably cut corners that you can't afford to cut, operate in perhaps a more economic way than you can: They don't have to be model employers.
So to try to answer your question, I don't see that there's a necessity that if a crown corporation takes some transportation route that is unprofitable, it should be offset by being given a profitable one. I think their role was to provide that service, and yes, it's a very difficult one: to provide the desired level of service in the most efficient and economic way possible.
The Chair: Mr Turnbull.
Mr Turnbull: Following the same line of questioning, I was quite interested when you said that if private enterprise could make a profit or if the business were capable of giving a profit, you believed that private enterprise would be in there. It's my understanding that Ontario Northland actually operates trucking in northern Ontario in competition with the private sector, much to the chagrin of the private section. Could you comment on that?
Mr Kelly: If I commented, it would just show my ignorance. I don't know the level of competition between the trucking operations of the ONTC in competition with private enterprise. This goes back, not to my knowledge of ONTC or the ONR, but rather to my background of similar charges when I was with Canadian National. While we were doing our own business, in effect doing trucking to get the freight to the trains essentially, which was what we were looking to get it to, we of necessity accidentally ended up in competition with private enterprise. We were trying to move it by rail, but meanwhile we were taking the short hauls by truck in order to get them to the railhead and put them on our freight structure. That may be the situation in northern Ontario, but really I'm speaking from ignorance; I just don't know.
Mr Turnbull: In a general sense, do you think it's good that we should have such activities which are directly in competition with the private sector?
Mr Kelly: In a general sense, no, I don't think crown corporations should be in competition with private enterprise. The one that strikes me as perhaps the most logical, and even that may be questioned, was when the federal government made a crown corporation out of Petro-Canada a few years ago, in effect behaved in such a way as to say: "There's an oligopoly situation in terms of oil. We want to find out what's happening and we want to have a finger on the pulse of the oil business, and the only way we think we can really have an understanding is to become a player. Therefore we as a crown corporation will enter in as a player alongside private enterprise, and that will put us at the table so that things aren't happening that we don't know about." But that's the situation that best strikes me as where it was valid for a crown corporation to actually act in competition with private enterprise.
Mr Turnbull: I have to say I think it was the most miserable failure of the government.
Slightly straying off it, because a few of the questions before strayed off the main topic of Ontario Northland, talking about the question of subsidies, I note you were suggesting that in point of fact private industry can normally do things cheaper than the state.
There are significant subsidies to norOntair, which operates in direct competition with the private sector; in point of fact, there are routes where it is significantly undercutting the private sector. The proof of that is that on certain flights of a certain duration, they're neck and neck in terms of the fare. For almost double the distance, they're only charging maybe $10 more, whereas the private sector's charging a few hundred dollars more, quite clearly contributing to the losses norOntair adds up. Since you'll be in a business which is in some ways compatible with that, because it is serving northern Ontario, what are your views on that?
Mr Kelly: My general view on it is that norOntair, or any crown corporation, ought not to be competing where there is an adequate level of private enterprise already providing the service. I don't know the specifics of the one you have mentioned. I think you mentioned, among other things, that norOntair was able to provide for perhaps an increment of $10 a flight of perhaps twice the distance whereas the private carrier was charging quite a large increment more.
Mr Turnbull: Yes.
1430
Mr Kelly: Of course most of the cost, as you know, is getting them on to the darned plane and, once they're there, off. The transportation cost once it's in the air is in a sense fairly modest.
Mr Turnbull: That isn't quite true.
Mr Kelly: No, but in general it doesn't cost that much more to go 200 miles than 150 miles because a lot of your costs are pretty well fixed, you know, the airport at either end, that sort of thing, charging off the airplane. Certainly, there will be incremental costs through going the incremental distance, but they aren't at the same level. The first mile is the most expensive.
Mr Turnbull: Certainly $10 is not the sort of economic amount.
Mr Kelly: No.
Mr Turnbull: I'm specifically talking about Bearskin, which is the direct competitor.
Mr Kelly: Let me try to answer the question specifically as I hear you asking it. I do not believe a crown corporation ought to be competing if there's already adequate service provided by a private enterprise.
Mr Turnbull: In the situation we find that there is that, whether it originated that way or not, if today you have the two competing and an adequate service can be provided by the private sector unsubsidized, do you feel it appropriate for us to continue to spend government subsidy dollars in maintaining services in competition with the private sector?
Mr Kelly: On the surface, no.
Mr Turnbull: Would that be one of the principles that you would bring forward to Ontario Northland?
Mr Kelly: It is.
Mr Turnbull: Good. Okay, that's fine.
The Chair: Fine. That concludes your appearance here, Mr Kelly. Thank you again for coming down. We wish you well.
Mr Kelly: Thank you very much.
Mr Bradley: You're in. You were in before you got here, so that's the good news.
The Chair: There's a note on the bottom of your agenda about Daniel Alguire. This is sort of a continuing irritation, I guess is one way of describing it.
Mr Bradley: Is this guy ducking --
The Chair: We've certainly been making every effort to have the individual attend and he continues to avoid us, so we've indicated to the appointments secretariat that it's still the wish of the committee and the subcommittee to have this gentleman appear before us. Our request is essentially that he not receive final approval until he does appear before us. We've made a number of requests now and he's had vacations or a variety of reasons.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Chairman, can I suggest that we move a motion that he not be allowed to sit on any board until he appears before us.
The Chair: We've made that request in the sense that his order in council will not be finalized because of the failure to appear before us. In a sense, he's in limbo -- at least we've made that request to the secretariat -- until --
Mr Turnbull: And he will receive no income during this period?
The Chair: Oh, no, he's not a member until he's been through this committee. I just wanted to make you aware of that.
Mr Bradley: For clarification on this, Mr Chair, generically speaking, in this circumstance where people have not appeared before the committee who have been requested to appear before the committee, do we have a standard policy that we follow in this committee or is this ad hockery right now? I can't remember that we've been confronted with this before. We may have, but I can't remember that we have.
The Chair: We've been confronted with it before, and it depends on the circumstances of the situation. If there are valid reasons for the individual not being able to appear, we've simply requested an extension, or if there are grounds for him or her not appearing and there's a need for that individual on the specific ABC, we've allowed it to go through. We deal with them on an individual basis on the merits of the case. But in this one we've had a variety of reasons which have not been terribly persuasive. That's why we continued to ask for extensions.
Okay. The final matter on the agenda is the -- oh, sorry, Mr Waters.
Mr Waters: I'm going to have to request a 20-minute recess at this point, if I may.
The Chair: For what reason?
Mr Waters: Before we go into the final deliberations.
The Chair: You're doing this under the standing orders?
Mr Waters: Yes.
The Chair: Why don't we get the motion on the floor? Then you can make the request.
Mr Waters: Okay.
The Chair: Can we have a motion in respect of the witnesses who have appeared before us today that the committee concurs with the appointments reviewed? Can we have a motion to that effect?
Mr Waters: Yes.
The Chair: Moved by Mr Waters.
Mr Waters has made a request under the standing orders for a 20-minute adjournment prior to the vote being called, so we will adjourn. We will reconvene for the vote in exactly 20 minutes.
The committee recessed at 1436 and resumed at 1452.
The Chair: I call the meeting back to order. We have a motion before us, moved by Mr Waters, that the committee concur with the intended appointments reviewed today. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favour? Opposed? The motion carries. Meeting adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1453.