INTENDED APPOINTMENTS PAULINE SEVILLE
CONTENTS
Thursday 8 September 1994
Subcommittee report
Intended appointments
Pauline Seville, Ontario Labour Relations Board
David Reville, Advocacy Commission
Patrick Mauro, Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp
Linda Pugsley, Environmental Assessment Board
Joanne Nother, Advocacy Commission
Gordon Taylor, Anderdon Police Services Board
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud 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)
Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L) for Mr Curling
Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND) for Mr Malkowski
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mrs Witmer
MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton ND) for Mr Ferguson
O'Neill, Yvonne (Ottawa-Rideau L) for Mr Cleary
Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND) for Ms Carter
Sterling, Norman W. (Carleton PC) for Mr McLean
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel:
Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Yeager, Lewis, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1008 in committee room 2.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Acting Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Unfortunately, our Chairperson is not with us this morning, but she will hopefully be here shortly.
I would first of all indicate to you that you have been given the report of the subcommittee, which met yesterday, and they have selected various people and agencies for the next while. Do we have a motion to adopt this report of the subcommittee? Mr Waters moves the adoption. All those in favour? Carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS PAULINE SEVILLE
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Pauline Seville, intended appointee as full-time member, Ontario Labour Relations Board.
The Acting Chair: Pauline Seville is the intended appointee as a full-time member of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Welcome to the committee. Please make yourself comfortable. If you wish to, you may give us some introductory remarks, and then we will have questions from the three parties.
Ms Pauline Seville: I don't have any introductory remarks, except to say good morning.
The Acting Chair: Good. We will begin with the third party; this is a selection of the third party. When Mr Sterling is ready, he will address you.
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Do either of the other parties want to go before me to give me a chance to get organized?
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Sure. If you want, Normie, I will.
Mr Sterling: I appreciate that.
Mr Conway: Ms Seville, nice to make your acquaintance. Just looking at your background, one is impressed by the experience you bring, certainly from the labour movement perspective. I just wondered, given that experience, what's your sense of the OLRB, having looked at it from your vantage point at OPSEU over the last number of years?
Ms Seville: I think it's important to understand how the board functions and what the role is that I'm being asked to serve in.
Predominantly, the board sits in a tripartite kind of system where there is a neutral chair or vice-chair, and the act is constructed in such a way so that there are specifically employee or sometimes referred to as labour sidespersons and employer sidespersons. The purpose of having that clearly is so that the sidespeople, whether they come from the employer representatives or come from employee or labour groups, bring that perspective to bear in terms of the kinds of decisions that are made at the Ontario Labour Relations Board. I think it's important to understand the structure and general composition in terms of the adjudicative role.
Having said that, what is OPSEU's experience with the board? My own direct experience was that while I haven't sat recently at the board, when I ran our organizing department approximately 12 years ago, I was at the labour relations board on a very frequent basis presenting cases and dealing with issues the board had the jurisdiction and the mandate to deal with.
In terms of our perspective of how the board functions, the board is seen to be very capable. The board has been around for 50 years, if not longer; in fact, I think the board is ready to celebrate its 50th anniversary. Capable, competent and, with the passage of Bill 40, our sense is that with some of the expedited processes that have been provided for in the Labour Relations Act, we are certainly pleased about how those processes enable the parties to get to the issues, get to them quickly, and we all end up with solutions out of the process.
Mr Conway: I've got a couple of questions around the Bill 40 issues, but just setting Bill 40 aside for the moment, looking at the board pre-Bill 40, what sense did you have just generally about the efficiency and the fairness of the board over the many years you watched it from your viewpoint over at OPSEU?
Ms Seville: I think the board has had a credible history through a number of successive governments. The board is seen to be the administrator of the law as it is, not the maker of the law. I think that's an important distinction. The board is not making the law, creating it; in fact it's administering law created by a Parliament. I would say it has had a long-term credibility.
From the perspective of OPSEU, for us one of the downsides, if I could put it that way, in terms of the Bill 40 changes was that the issue we saw as our number one priority, that is, sectoral bargaining, was not addressed in the Bill 40 amendments. Having said that, we are still pleased with the amendments and our experience certainly in terms of the expedited process. We haven't had experience with the full range of amendments that exist in the legislation.
Mr Conway: Bill 40 has been in effect now for a little over a year. Am I right?
Ms Seville: Yes.
Mr Conway: Again from your viewpoint over at OPSEU, have you had any sense of impact in those early months of the new legislative order effected by Bill 40?
Ms Seville: I think speed would be the predominant impact we see, where issues are dealt with in a very expeditious manner. I think that would be predominantly the impact on our organization. The vast majority of OPSEU in fact is not covered by the Ontario Labour Relations Act. They're covered by the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act which, with the recent amendments to CECBA, will be administered by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
Mr Conway: You are being nominated to a position as a full-time member of the OLRB, so let me ask you this. Critics of the bill have indicated that their concern is that historically, with whatever imperfections the board had, one of its great strengths was, so it is argued, that it was seen to be a relatively neutral player in the very delicate, difficult business of labour-management relations, and that specifically Bill 40 has in fact changed the mandate of the board in a couple of key respects that are deemed to make the board less of an umpire and more of a facilitator, at the very least, of one of the sides in this ongoing relationship between business and labour.
Ms Seville: Without knowing specifically what you're talking about, Mr Conway, it's very difficult to comment on that issue. I think what has happened is that in the controversy around some of the issues and some of the amendments contained in Bill 40, the Ontario Labour Relations Board has gotten drawn into that controversy, I think inappropriately. If parties have differences and interest groups have differences in terms of legislation, I think there are vehicles and forums for them to address that.
The board's function is not to be the creator of the law, it is to administer the law, so I guess I need to have a sense more specifically of which particular area you think has maybe drawn the board into playing less of a neutral role. It becomes difficult to answer it because it's a fairly broad-based kind of question.
Mr Conway: That's a very, very good answer. I have to tell you, as someone who's been executive assistant to three presidents of OPSEU, you've clearly earned your spurs. I'm not as familiar with this debate as some of my colleagues, but it's no secret, and it certainly would be no secret to the president of OPSEU and any of the senior staff who would advise the president of OPSEU, that a very substantial number of witnesses came before the Legislature bitterly complaining that Bill 40 in a number of specific areas changed the mandate of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, giving it a discretionary authority that it previously did not have to, in the eyes of many of those critics, tilt the board in one direction, namely, a labour direction. I take it from your answer that you just don't share that view.
Ms Seville: It would maybe help if we looked at one of the specific issues that's maybe been the most controversial: the replacement worker issue, or what's sometimes referred to as the anti-scab legislation.
Mr Conway: If I might, though, my question actually just deals with those sections of the bill that concern the mandate of the OLRB. My memory of Bill 40 is that in a number of key areas the mandate and the scope of the board was altered, and it was that change -- I'm thinking now of cases where, under the new rule, the labour relations board does have the power to do a number of things, to make judgement calls around whether or not certain practices have been fair and reasonable and, if in the judgement of the board certain things were not done, the board can act on its own in that respect. That has given rise to a lot of very bitter complaining around the -- I'll be frank -- business community by and large.
Ms Seville: In fact, I think the board had that kind of authority in many areas prior to the Bill 40 amendments. If you look at the construction of the legislation pre-Bill 40, the board had the authority to administer and render decisions with respect to the legislation. Those decisions would have impact on all the parties appearing before it, employers and unions and employees alike.
Mr Conway: So it's your view that basically all Bill 40 did in those respects was to consolidate in legislative language practices that had developed at the board over years?
Ms Seville: Possibly. The difficulty I'm having with being more specific in responding to your question is that it would be helpful to me if I had a sense of the specific issue that people are concerned about.
The Acting Chair: We'll have to move on. Maybe the next party would like to continue this.
Mr Sterling: I had never been in front of the labour relations board when I was practising law. Can you answer some questions which are really -- I guess I'm trying to determine in my own mind who is suitable for appointments to the board. You say that the duty of the board is to interpret the law and apply that law. Is the majority of the people involved with the board, either in presentation or sitting on the board, mostly legally trained?
Ms Seville: In terms of presentations to the board, you have a combination. In some organizations, unions, it is the union staff people who do the presentations to the board. When I was appearing before the board, I think I probably did 80% of my own presentation and retained lawyers for approximately 20%. I think you have a mix.
1020
In terms of the composition of the board, if you look at the chair and vice-chairs, traditionally -- and I think it still exists today -- those people have been drawn in and have a legal background. A majority of them are lawyers and in fact that's their orientation and training.
If you look at the sidespeople, I believe the CMA plays a role with respect to putting forward names of employer representatives and the OFL and possibly other organizations play a role in terms of putting forward the names of employee and/or labour sidespersons.
Mr Sterling: So there are many people on the board at present who are not lawyers. Is that correct?
Ms Seville: If I looked at the labour sidespeople whom I would be more familiar with, just in terms of the length of time I've been involved in the union movement, I would say they are not, by and large, lawyers. What they are or were is people who functioned in some capacity in employee organizations, possibly staff reps, negotiators, organizers, have that kind of background in terms of understanding what workplaces are all about but also understanding what the application of labour statutes is all about in labour relations.
Mr Sterling: I'd like to switch to another aspect. I guess you're quite familiar with Bill 40 and what it's had. My party has said that upon election, we're going to scrap Bill 40. Can you tell me what effect it will have on the OLRB?
Ms Seville: I think it goes back to the issue of what I said earlier, that the board is there to administer and adjudicate the law as it exists, regardless of what the law consists of.
If I might in an aside, I'm hoping that some of the concern around some of the amendments in Bill 40 may dissipate over time, once people have more experience with actually working with the amendments in the legislation.
You will recall that in Quebec, when the replacement worker issue was introduced, there was a lot of concern from the business community around the issue that they didn't want that kind of legislation in place, and notwithstanding that, I believe it may have been a Liberal government that brought that legislation into being. If you went back to those same employer groups or representatives now, I think they are quite content with the legislation and I think some of them see it as having been beneficial to labour relations in the province. It's certainly reduced picket line conflict. There is some evidence that in fact it may --
Mr Sterling: I don't want to cut you off, but my friend wants to ask questions too.
It's a given that that's a promise and a promise we're going to carry out. We've made that decision at this point in time, if we are elected, and I really wanted to know what the reaction at the board would be.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Ms Seville, given that your background qualifies you in many respects -- some may view it as one with a particular interest or bias. People bring that to all their endeavours and it can't be avoided. One of the positive aspects of your bias is your background with women and labour, and I think that's a welcome addition to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
I wonder if you'd be willing to comment, given the scope of the activities at the labour relations board and given the disproportionate number of women who've been laid off in the last few years, particularly from the sector you represented or came from -- I'm looking at a disproportionate number of women caught in the Rae days, layoffs from hospitals and institutions. Juxtaposing that, we have Jobs Ontario, which is literally a 95% male employment process. I'm distressed by that; regardless of my personal politics, I don't think it's fair and appropriate.
How can you, given that we all have -- and I don't mean bias or prejudice in a negative way; it exists. How can that be a positive force on the labour relations board, given the fact that, regardless of employment equity or pay equity, the reality is that those persons getting layoff slips in this province are, not only disproportionately but severely disproportionately, women workers, especially in the public sector? Could you help me?
Ms Seville: In terms of the specific issue you've homed in on, the issue of layoffs and the impact on women workers in the public sector in terms of the economic downturn, I'm not sure that the labour board is really seized with addressing those kinds of issues. What I think I bring, both as a woman and a labour sidesperson, is an additional benefit to the board, which is my public service background.
I've been in a public service organization for 19 years. I have what I think is an in-depth understanding of how both the Ontario public service and the broader public service operate, what those workplaces are like. And you're right: In the broader public service and possibly in the OPS they do predominantly employ women. Quite frankly, that's why the issue of sectoral bargaining was such a critical issue for my union, because we saw it as one of the ways that we could seek over time to address some of the lack of bargaining strengths women have.
Mr Jackson: I know I'm running out of time, so I'll home in on a specific point. We've had promises from this government and maybe the last and probably the next that displaced workers in the health sector, for example, would get primacy in terms of re-employment. We've received nothing on that. Surely, when matters are grieved or taken forward to have a worker's legitimate right pursued when promises are made, there must be a role for the OLRB in that regard. I just wondered --
The Acting Chair: Mr Jackson, I would like to move on to the government party.
Mr Jackson: It's too bad, Madam Chair, because it's a matter that I --
The Acting Chair: If there's time at the end, we could come back. No offence.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I would like to say congratulations on your position as a candidate for this position. I was wondering if you could tell us what you see as a vision for the OLRB, what kind of accountability system, or how you would be able to balance the perspectives of labour and business.
Ms Seville: I don't think I'm familiar enough with the internal workings of the labour board to be able to craft or set out a vision in terms of the board's function and/or purpose. As to how I would balance the issue in terms of employer and employee interests, I think there are things in my own background that lend themselves to my being able to do that.
While I work for a union, in fact I'm in the position where I manage or help to manage close to 250 employees who are under two collective agreements. As a manager, I'm frequently in the position where I have to make decisions where, on the one hand, while I come from a union culture and environment, on the other hand I'm also functioning as a manager and making decisions about the efficient running of an organization.
Over time, I think that has tended to mean that I look at things in a very balanced kind of perspective. I look at issues of fairness, but I also look at issues in terms of the need to function and continue to operate as an organization. I think in some sense I have a different background than possibly other labour sidespeople who strictly work on the kind of advocacy, worker side. I've had the opportunity through my position to really work on both sides of the street, if you would.
I was, and still am, I guess, briefly on the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, and my sense from the feedback at that board is that they have certainly appreciated the kind of input I have given and the role I have played at the board. I have not had the sense that they have seen that input as being narrowly based or partisan or only driven by one narrow focus and vision or agenda.
I think my actual experience that I bring to bear makes me a good candidate for the position of labour sidesperson to the labour board.
1030
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): We've had some discussion on Bill 40. I'd like to go to CECBA, because it's been something I know, in my past experience with OPSEU and with other unions in central Ontario, they've wanted dearly for a long time some reform in. With the newly acquired jurisdiction the Ontario Labour Relations Board is going to have, do you see a major increase in the workload? How do you think CECBA is going to work when it comes to the board?
Ms Seville: There is a sense that the workload of the board is going to increase as a result of the board assuming responsibility for the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. In some part, that may be why my name was put forward, because I don't think there's anybody currently -- I could be wrong about this -- on the labour sidespersons' side who comes from or has a public service kind of background. I don't know if that answers your question.
Mr Waters: That answers it. You were appointed at the same time as somebody from the management side. I believe two appointments happened -- maybe somebody can clarify that for me -- at the same time. Of course, you wouldn't have had an opportunity --
Ms Seville: I'm not privy to that, although I was told that at the same time that my appointment went forward, an appointment for an employer representative also went forward. But I wouldn't necessarily be privy to that kind of information.
Mr Waters: I wish you well.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Seville, for coming forward. We wish you luck in your appointment.
DAVID REVILLE
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: David Reville, intended appointee as full-time chair, Advocacy Commission.
The Acting Chair: I ask that Mr David Reville come forward. We have one hour to review the intended appointment. Welcome, Mr Reville.
Mr David Reville: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Acting Chair: Before we start, I would like to ask the committee if they would like to each have 20 minutes straight, or should we have 10 minutes in two rounds? What would be the pleasure of the committee?
Mr Sterling: Unfortunately, the Liberals are not here.
Mr Waters: I would suggest the two-round system. I think it gives everyone an opportunity.
The Acting Chair: Okay, we'll do that.
Mr Jackson: I think you should be flexible, though. If you're pursuing a line of questioning --
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): The standing orders don't allow flexibility. The time is divided evenly among the --
Mr Jackson: Oh, it is. But if you have two sessions, as a Chair myself, what I would do is that I've got 20 minutes per caucus, and if they use 12 then they have eight remaining.
The Acting Chair: We'll try to be very reasonable. We do have a stopwatch to help.
Mr Jackson: Madam Chair, you asked for direction from the committee and you took direction from your party. I'm suggesting to you not to cut off any members. You assume you'll be fair with the time, but for any of us, if a certain line of questioning is in the middle, to have it cut off is inappropriate, but if you will adjust accordingly --
The Acting Chair: I understand, Mr Jackson.
Mr Jackson: Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Mr Reville, if you would like to make some opening comments, please do so.
Mr Reville: This is a moment for which I've been waiting, as you might expect. I wanted to acknowledge the presence here today of some friends and colleagues, including three commissioners of the Advocacy Commission: Commissioner DiPede, Commissioner Labonté and Commissioner Capponi. I want to especially acknowledge the presence of some people from my own psychiatric survivor community; it's important that they're here today. There was a long time when we didn't get out much, so I want to thank them for their support today and over the years.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Reville. We will begin with the third party.
Mr Sterling: Mr Reville, how do you justify the cost associated with the Advocacy Commission, estimated to be somewhere between $30 million and $40 million per year that will be required, and at the same time the government -- your government -- has recently cut back in psychiatric hospitals the services to the mentally ill in the amount of $52.6 million, bearing in mind that the Advocacy Commission will not be providing any real, hard service to anyone?
Mr Reville: I fundamentally disagree with your premise, Mr Sterling. The Advocacy Commission intends to provide advocacy services which I think are very real, and it is difficult, I think, to put a price on people's rights. It strikes me that one of the jobs of the commission will be to point out areas in which the government has not done enough, and if it should be decided by the commission that services either for mental health or for other disabilities aren't adequate, you will be hearing from the commission about it.
Mr Sterling: So you are willing to withdraw health services in order to have advisers, is that correct? Is that your priority?
Mr Reville: No. I think you're offering me a false choice. First of all, I dispute the $30 million or $40 million figure. It may well be that much, once you roll in the obligations under the Substitute Decisions Act and the Consent to Treatment Act, and some of those functions will be offered by the public trustee and guardian. My understanding is that the Advocacy Commission is expected to have a budget of about $19 million annually.
I think it's a false choice. Clearly our society wants adequate medical services provided and clearly our society has decided that it's time that people's rights should be protected as well.
Mr Sterling: One of the things that alarms me about this particular legislation is the tremendous power it puts into the hands of a commission which is basically unaccountable to anyone or any body. The commission will be operating out there on its own, and Bill 74 doesn't put very many reporting or accountability mechanisms there for the public to see. It's not very transparent.
I heard over and over again during the hearings on Bill 74 how this was to be an independent, autonomous body. In fact, in the poster which Elaine Ziemba put forward, the Minister of Citizenship, minister for seniors' and disability issues, the first paragraph of the poster says, "The commission will operate at arm's length from government, and a majority of its members, including the chair, will be recommended for appointment by a committee representing senior citizens and people with disabilities."
I then read a joint media statement from groups, including the Adult Protective Services Association, which includes about 160 workers who are advocating across this province and appeared in front of the committee on Bill 74, and they spend about 40% to 50% of their time in advocacy work as it is; AIDS Action Now; Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities; Ontario Association for Community Living; Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations; Ontario Federation of Community Mental Health and Addiction Programs; People First of Ontario; Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office.
1040
Those are the advocates who are there already, and it says in their statement, and they're complaining about the appointment process: "We further understand that the AAC did not attend fully to the question of possible conflict of interest in their choice of commissioners, neglecting to consider the importance of both the appearance and the fact of the commissioner's independence from the government and from service provider organizations which could at some time come under the scrutiny of the Advocacy Commission."
Mr Reville, you were a member of the present government's caucus at one time, and I know you from that experience. I am not questioning your ability with regard to this job. I am just saying to you that in light of the fact that this commission is supposed to be fully autonomous, supposed to be acting without a political agenda, how do you possibly justify your appointment? As a former MPP for the NDP, as a close adviser to the Premier of Ontario, how on earth do you expect to divorce your political feelings when it comes to your very important and powerful job of advising advocates, of designing the program for advocates as to what they shall do or shall not do in advising vulnerable people in terms of decisions which could or could not have individual moral parts to those decisions?
Mr Reville: Thank you, Mr Sterling. You've raised a number of important issues in your question, and preamble too, and I would like to address them.
You start by talking about the extraordinary power in the commission. I want to say two very quick things about that. The point of the commission is to try and create some processes whereby people who have been powerless get more power, and those are the vulnerable people and the people with disabilities and the elderly who are frail.
In order to achieve that, the commission requires a certain amount of power of its own, and it does have extraordinary power; there's no question about that. The point, however, of advocacy is to act on the instructions of the client and to make sure that the client's wishes are followed. Given the way our society is ordered, on occasion there are very powerful institutions and forces up against which the vulnerable person comes. We know that to be true from all the experience we've had as legislators in learning about some of the horrendous abuse that has occurred and continues to occur.
We'll remember it wasn't all that long ago that it was commonplace for developmentally handicapped women to be sterilized; that was a decision that was supported socially for a very long time, and performed by caring professionals and supported by families. It wasn't until the case of Eve that society said, "No, stop, that's enough."
Transparency: You're worried about the commission operating opaquely. That is not going to be the case. The meetings of the commission are required to be public, with some minor exceptions. There will be an annual report to the Legislature, which can be reviewed in the normal course. There will indeed be an advisory committee composed primarily of care givers and family members, who are entitled to be involved in the policies that the commission designs and implements, and which also will table a report annually. There will be a complaints procedure, and involved in the complaints procedure will be the advisory committee, again composed of care givers and families.
The question of autonomy: This is a schedule 3 agency. It is the most autonomous kind of agency that can be created by the government. It will indeed be arm's length.
You commented on the Appointments Advisory Committee. I know what the legislation says about the Appointments Advisory Committee, and I know you do too. I can comment only on my experience with the Appointments Advisory Committee, and I'd be happy to do that if you want me to.
In terms of the concerns of a number of the groups which are currently providing advocacy today -- you mentioned APSWs, the adult protective service workers, there's the Ontario Association of Community Living federation, the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office, Concerned Friends -- they indeed have been the pioneers in this field of advocacy and have been working at it for a long time. In fact, it was a government of which you were a member that set up the first Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office, under the leadership of my pal Tyrone Turner.
There is no question that there are concerns that are relevant to the work those folks are now doing, and those concerns have to be negotiated with them and the commission as the commission gets started up.
In terms of your concern that my politics will get in the way of my work as a commissioner, I want to try and reassure you that I can figure out the difference between partisanship and responsibility. I was an advocate long before I was a New Democrat, which shouldn't surprise you; the two are somewhat related.
The Acting Chair: Just a point of order: We have now taken 11 minutes, and I would like to ask the third party if it would like to continue to its full 20 minutes, or should we move on?
Mr Sterling: Why don't we just finish this particular question and then we'll move on and then come back.
The Acting Chair: With whatever is left of your time.
Mr Sterling: David, do you not see the problem with the perception of your taking this job? What happens should the party which you represent, the NDP, be defeated at the next election? They're at 14% or 17% in the polls, so there's a good possibility in a lot of people's minds that the NDP government will not be there the next time.
What position does that put the next government of Ontario in vis-à-vis the Advocacy Commission? It doesn't matter what happens in terms of that you believe or I believe you can divorce yourself from this, but certainly the perception is there, and there's going to be conflict which will be created by the advocates' interventions.
Mr Reville: No question.
Mr Sterling: So every politician in this room, or anyone who survives the next election, is going to be on your neck or on the neck of the Advocacy Commission. Do you not think you are putting into jeopardy the whole idea of the commission by accepting this appointment?
Mr Reville: I don't. I want to remind you that the first Minister of Health I challenged was a man named Dennis Timbrell, who was a member of a Conservative government. Actually, Pat Capponi and I did a bit of a tent city out on the lawn to try and highlight our concern about the lack of affordable housing for people who had been in the mental health system. I have been able to advocate with politicians of every stripe that is available in this province, and I'm not going to shrink from the challenge of doing that.
Mr Malkowski: Congratulations, Mr Reville, on your intended appointment. I have taken a look at your résumé and see that certainly you have a long history and quite a background in this field, and that in fact you bring a very holistic approach to the field of advocacy. Could you tell me why you feel it's necessary that this system be put in place? Do you see it as a response to Father O'Sullivan's report, for example, who was appointed by the Liberal government, the study that was done by Father O'Sullivan? Taking a look at some of those findings, do you think that is what resulted in the development of a system such as this? Could you comment on the need for it and where you see its roots coming from?
Mr Reville: I did note Father O'Sullivan's report in an article I wrote in the Star on May 31, 1990, when I called on the government of the day to establish the Advocacy Commission. But I think it's fair to say that although the Liberal government of that time recognized the problem, it was not the first government to recognize the problem. The Conservative government had long since recognized that there were cases in which advocacy was desperately needed and that was the reason for the development of the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office, the adult protective service workers and the child advocates as well.
What I was trying to suggest in 1990 and what Father O'Sullivan was saying was that we didn't have a province-wide systematic approach to advocacy and that there were many people in need of advocacy who didn't fall into the right category.
1050
I think one of the exciting things about the Advocacy Act and the coming of the Advocacy Commission is that it's a recognition that when people are vulnerable, whatever the cause of that vulnerability, they may have need of an advocate to make sure their wishes are respected. In some cases the problem is horrendous physical abuse. In other cases it's more a matter of people not being able to convey their own views or get their views listened to.
The shocking thing in the Cedar Glen case, which sparked one of the longest inquests that has ever happened in the province, was that the advocate had advised the police of his concern about abuses over and over again. It seemed that because the people were vulnerable -- in this case they were developmentally challenged or psychiatrically disabled -- their concerns were not given any credence. Subsequently, the operators of the home were convicted and sent to jail and the little community was dispersed, but it took such a long time.
On its most dramatic level, that's the kind of thing that the commission is hopeful to prevent. On a more esoteric level, but maybe more important in the long run, I think one of the commission's roles will be to try and change societal value sets so that we begin to look at one another as a collection of abilities rather than a collection of disabilities.
Mr Malkowski: You've spoken specifically about the vision of the commission. Can you just expand on that in terms of disabled people and access to information, be it access through a variety of languages -- basically, a mechanism you would see being put in place to actually empower people, people with varying language and communication needs. What sort of model do you see being put in place so that it is in fact an enabling system, so we can be sure that also advocates are properly trained to be able to communicate with vulnerable people from a variety of backgrounds with a variety of needs? How do you see a system like that being put in place and working?
Mr Reville: Let me start with a little caveat. The vision of the commission has not yet been developed; it will be a combined vision of the commissioners and the stakeholders, so I don't want to be presumptuous here. But I can speak to my vision and I'm happy to do that.
I start with a very simple premise when I think about advocacy, and it is this: People should own their own lives. That's excruciatingly simple and it seems self-evident, but it clearly is not. You speak of the cultural differences in our society. It's absolutely critical that, first of all, the commission understands the different ways in which we live our lives in the province; it's an incredibly multicultural province. We are well positioned, it seems to me, because of the composition of the commission, to get a start on that just by sharing our own stories.
Mr Malkowski, you know from your own experience as an advocate that there are values in the community you represent which are not homogeneous. Your work on cochlear implants, for instance, is a good example of that, where in fact there are those who are working with the hearing-impaired who are fans of that procedure and then there are those who are very opposed to it.
None of the communities that the commission will represent are monolithic communities. In my own psychiatric survivor committee there are many, many different points of view: Some of us call ourselves survivors, some of us call ourselves consumers, some of us call ourselves ex-psychiatric patients, some of us call ourselves clients -- that just gives you an idea of the range -- and there are politics attached to each of those words, as members of this committee will understand.
I think what we are going to have to do on the commission is a whole bunch of learning, and we're going to have to keep at it as time goes on, and we will be in a position to reach out to groups that can tell us things that we need to know.
The Acting Chair: Mr Malkowski, I'd like to move on to Mr Owens.
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Can I wait till the second round? You can put my name down for the second round.
The Acting Chair: If you prefer. We still have two minutes left in this round, so Mr Waters.
Mr Waters: I'll ask you a quick question, David. There's been a lot of discussion over the last couple of days about the cost of the commission and the qualifications of people. In terms of the commission, I see it -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- as that we're not going to see a reduction in cost to the taxpayer or to the government over the next two, three, maybe five or possibly 10 years, but as people are moved from where they are now and through advocacy move into the mainstream of society and become more and more productive because those opportunities are there for them and society has changed -- in my view, in the long run I think there's going to be a saving in dollars for society or for the government. And at the same time it's a win-win: The very people the commission was set up to work for, if we're successful, will move out into the mainstream and become productive members of society. I'd just like your comments, quickly, because we only have a couple of minutes.
Mr Reville: I don't want to make incredibly optimistic claims for what the commission may be able to do, although I do believe empowerment is a process, and I have seen some extraordinary results from the timely provision of quite a small amount of money. Pat Capponi yesterday mentioned the consumer survivor development initiative, which is a $3-million-a-year project that employs somewhat over 300 people who before this were considered to be permanently unemployable. There was a woman here yesterday who is in one of the those programs who now supervises staff, owns a car, has an apartment, is spending her salary, and before this program was a bit of a recluse. So there are indeed those kinds of outcomes.
What I think should happen, though, over time is that the commission will be, really, a spokesperson for a new kind of citizenship where there's an understanding about participation, and because it works in tandem with two other pieces of legislation, the Substitute Decisions Act and the Consent to Treatment Act, every citizen in the province will have more control over his or her own life. To me, that's a wonderful thing, and whether those benefits can be measured materially or not is not all that important to me, although I think it can be shown that if you participate, you not only get benefits yourself but the whole of society gets benefit.
1100
The Acting Chair: We'll move on to the opposition party now.
Mr Conway: David, good to see you.
Mr Reville: And you.
Mr Conway: I want to make a couple of observations and then ask a couple of questions. This is a very difficult one for some of us, particularly those of us who have known you. I have worked with you in a number of capacities and think that in your time particularly as an elected member, you added a perspective that was extremely important and positive, and one, quite frankly, that in many respects I don't ever remember having heard or seen around the place before.
Interruption.
Mr Conway: The audience chuckles, and rightly so.
Some people will say, "Attack Reville because he's a former politician here now to take up a $125,000-a-year job." Some people will say that. That is the obvious line of attack, I suppose, that one could take.
Mr Reville: But you're more subtle than that.
Mr Conway: No, subtlety is not one of my long suits, as I think you would know.
We had Susan Fish here yesterday. She's been nominated by the government to sit on the Ontario Municipal Board. I think that's a very good appointment.
Mr Reville: Me too.
Mr Conway: Susan brings a good perspective about municipal government, she's been a provincial cabinet minister, a member of this Legislature, and I think those are not disqualifying criteria. I have to tell you, though, that if I had some sense that Susan Fish had had a bad experience with the OMB, I probably would have been reluctant to have endorsed her nomination, not because she would not have been a good person, but I would have been concerned about her perspective to the job at hand.
At one level, I look at this and -- I've got to have a little bit of fun at your expense. I was sitting there thinking, in my 20 years here, when have I last seen a situation where a former member of the Legislature, from the sainted NDP caucus -- but when has any former member gone from elected office at Queen's Park into the Premier's office, in a significant and senior role, to this kind of order-in-council appointment? The only one I could actually think of, to be ecumenical, was a Liberal 25 years ago. His name was Jack Pickersgill. Jack Pickersgill was a very bright, capable fellow who had been a public servant. He'd been special adviser --
Mr Reville: Not much like me, though, I don't think.
Mr Conway: -- to the Prime Minister of Canada. He then became a federal cabinet minister, and in the late 1960s he was putting the legislation setting up the Canadian Transport Commission through the House of Commons. Jack announced, after the bill was done, that there was only one person in the Dominion of Canada, then with some 18 million or 20 million residents, who could be the chair of the Canadian Transport Commission newly created by his legislation, and that person was J.W. Pickersgill, PC. Tommy Douglas and John Diefenbaker had a field day, the like which I could never match.
Mr Reville: Oh, I think you could.
Mr Conway: If Stephen Lewis were here today, I think he'd say, "This appointment is chutzpah with a capital C." That would be Stephen Lewis and that would have been the NDP, pre-government.
I think you will admit that there is a certain measure of chutzpah about this appointment, given all that your government has said about the new process, where one of the most senior, significant and sensitive positions within the competence of the Rae government to offer the 10 million citizens in Ontario just miraculously falls to David Reville, ex-MPP, now senior special adviser to the man who at the end of the day will decide this appointment.
I just make those observations because I think my old friends in the new democracy would want those observations made.
My concern, quite frankly, is not that we should not recommend former members of the Legislature, because Bob Nixon was appointed by your government, the Davis government once appointed a guy named Morley Rosenberg to the municipal board. I think the public out there understands that there is a tendency in government to appoint its friends and just enough of its former enemies to make it look right.
My concern, I want to tell you, though, is about this commission. Let me say at the outset, I share with you and I suspect with all the people who've come again today to the committee the concern that's out there about all the horror stories that have been brought forward, there is no question. And when one listens to the news accounts of individual and institutional problems in this area, one is horrified to think that went on in our Ontario, and something clearly has to be done.
The question is, is this legislation and the commission that it created a proper and adequate and successful response to that? I don't personally believe it is the panacea that many believe it to be. I'm telling you, I have seen some situations recently with a number of government panels, both federal and provincial, the so-called rights movement -- some of these human rights commissions are up to things that are, I think, as bad as or worse than the disease they seek to root out in the community.
So again my question and my concern: Is Reville, with his background, going to be sufficiently dispassionate and neutral, if I can use that word, to meet all the requirements in the public interest? I have to tell you, David, I really worry that what we are creating here is a commission of very deeply committed, proselytizing individuals who are going to right the wrongs of history in a way that may not advance the cause that I think everyone in the room hopefully has.
The Acting Chair: You have three minutes left. Is that a question?
Mr Conway: Yes, that is a question.
Mr Reville: It sounds more like a tour de force. My wife this morning said: "Do not engage with Mr Conway. He will kill you." I said, "Ha."
I actually have had some of those exact same thoughts, as you might expect. This is an appointment of some chutzpah. But you know what the process was here. It was an extremely unusual process, so unusual that when I applied for the job I felt I would have no chance of getting it. I was quite startled to find myself on a short list some time ago.
I imagine that I understand your fear of some red-eyed commission roaring around the province righting historical wrongs. There is no question that the people whose names I know who have been either appointed or recommended for appointment are deeply committed people, but they are also people who operate in the real world every day.
Mr Labonté works in the northwest on behalf of injured workers. You feel deeply committed to your colleagues who have been injured on the job, but you also know that in order to get the benefits they need, you have to work with a lot of institutional sectors of our society and that you have to be kind of strategic or you're just going to get squashed.
I think it is not impossible, as I'm sure you would agree, to be at one and the same time passionate and dispassionate. There is a world view, that I suspect is somewhat shared on the commission, about whose side the commission is on. There's no question, the commission is on the side of vulnerable people. But in order to deliver to vulnerable people the services and the rights they should have, the commission is going to have to deal with a very powerful judicial and health apparatus, and it's going to have to be strategic when it does that. I would be very unhappy, as I know you would be, if the commission were to retreat to the moral high ground and pontificate. I want to see results on the ground.
1110
Mr Conway: Given the sensitivity that's out there about this whole enterprise and the concern that's in the broad community about yet another intrusive, bureaucratic apparatus which, with the best of intentions, may in fact not solve the problems it was intended to solve, what thoughts, what strategy, have you got in terms of allaying that deeply felt public concern that many of us identify and many of us expect to have on our desks within a few months' time?
Mr Reville: That is probably the major valid concern about the commission, that in fact it will be intrusive in places where intrusion is not at all warranted. We all know that families, for instance, are the primary care givers in many instances, and you will have all talked to people from the head injury association and have heard the difficulty they have in caring for their loved ones. I can't imagine that the commission is going to have time to intrude on situations where things are working, and in the vast majority of cases that's what's happening.
Institutional situations are somewhat different. There is something about the way institutions are organized that they're not very friendly to people, either those who live there or those who work there, and we've had advocacy in institutional situations for quite a long time. It hasn't been the panacea we had once hoped, either. Many of us had concerns, when the PPO was first started, that it would not be independent of government, and in fact it was and still is located within the Ministry of Health, the very same ministry that's charged with providing the services which sometimes create the conflicts the advocates work on.
Yes, I think that will be the challenge: to calm the fears of the public that the commission is going to be overwhelmed with its political correctness and that it will be intrusive in a way that is harmful. But the commission sometimes will be intrusive. There are cases in which family members do abuse one another. There are cases in which a vulnerable person in a family does not get to have his or her wishes respected. And in those cases, and only in those cases, when the vulnerable person so instructs an advocate, then the commission will intervene.
The Acting Chair: Now we'll go to our second round.
Mr Jackson: David, welcome.
Mr Reville: Can I call you Cam?
Mr Jackson: We always have.
David, you and I both arrived here on the same day, and I believe during the five years we were together we sat on the same side of these committee tables and I sat on every committee with you, and I think I had one of those great opportunities to get to know you and to work closely with you. We worked together on the Mental Health Act when we had the opportunity to open it and mess around with it to try and fix it. We had the opportunity to do that with the Nursing Homes Act, you and I, and I can think of three or four more other acts over that five years, and I had the privilege to do that on social policy with Richard Johnston, as you know.
I have some concerns. If I may say so, we are friends and we've continued to be friends as we've passed each other in the halls in your new responsibilities advising the Premier of the province of Ontario, as I've seen you trooping down the halls from the second floor of this building on many, many occasions advising the government of the day on health policy.
Mr Reville: That's not correct, but carry on.
Mr Jackson: I have had occasion to travel with you, even to Kingston. We travelled together, as you pointed out, to your former residence, and you enlightened me in a very personal way.
Mr Reville: Could you be more specific about that? There are a number of facilities in Kingston.
Mr Jackson: I'd rather leave that open-ended. It gives you more flexibility.
Mr Reville: It was just a roll of the dice, Cam.
Mr Jackson: Having said all that, I have concerns about the issue of your involvement advising the government of the day in and around matters dealing with health and social policy. Although Mr Conway has highlighted one aspect of it, I want to take it one step further, because I believe you share some of the ownership of some of the major decisions that have been made by the Bob Rae government; some you will be very proud of and some you won't wish to discuss in great detail.
My fear in all this is that as you move so quickly from one role to the other, at this critical stage, the coming out of the Advocacy Commission, I have some serious concerns about whether this appointment becomes in and of itself an inappropriate focus and detracts from what I believe are the essential elements of a needed service.
I want to qualify why I think advocacy has become more critical and has changed its face across North America. There are many social scientists who are stating and showing with evidence that the abuses we are referring to in these hearings, that you've referred to and others yesterday, occurred in the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s. We've had mountains of legislation and we've had major reforms. But as the government contracts itself and as society demands put more pressure on prosumers instead of consumers and so on and so forth, in fact the real people who need advocates are those people whose lives are being directed by government. I don't want to get into a philosophical debate on that.
Mr Reville: Why not?
Mr Jackson: It just puts the Advocacy Commission in the 1990s, in 1995 in the province of Ontario, in the position where a disproportionate number of the cases are going to be the need for an advocate to intervene to help citizens with the way they're being treated by government, and, quite frankly, being treated by a government whose policies are just now being felt by the citizens of the province, the very government you've been assisting and supporting in this critical area. This is the area of the conflict that concerns me. It concerns me greatly.
I will go to what I believe will be an event, perhaps in this room, in the fall of 1995, when a legislative committee comes forward and examines how many people you've hired, how large your budget, how many people you've actually assisted. Although it may be premature to drag you in at that point, it becomes an inappropriate circus, the focus of which is your appointment and what is or is not being done about many of the decisions made by the Bob Rae government that citizens are having to deal with on a daily basis in this province.
I have one example to give you, if time permits, dealing with a matter that you and I discussed and raised about the Nursing Homes Act, the fact that under long-term care reform we are putting psychiatrically disabled in with chronic care patients.
There are some serious questions about how to advocate when there is violence or dysfunctia between these two special-client needs. That strikes at the heart of perhaps the disproportionate representation or -- I think some polite words have been used about the intrusiveness, where you and the commission, with your dedication and your background, might fall down on that line with respect to decisions for the frail elderly over psychiatrically disabled individuals in, for example, many of the institutions across this province.
I've thrown two specific issues at you. I'd prefer you to deal with the first issue of my concern first. If time permits, we can get at the other one.
The Acting Chair: Unfortunately, Mr Reville only has 30 seconds to respond.
Mr Reville: Maybe somebody else would give some time, because I think Mr Jackson raises some important questions.
I'm going to answer the second one first, because I remember it more clearly than the first one. I don't think the commission is overweighted on the side of psychiatric survivors, exactly.
Mr Jackson: No. For the record, just its leadership.
Mr Reville: There are members of the commission who are elderly. There's a gerontologist. I suspect that what will happen is that the commissioners will spend an initial period of time learning a lot about each other's stuff and that scales will fall from our eyes as we do that.
1120
I do think it's a problem, and this is not a new phenomenon, actually, that there are people in nursing homes today and retirement homes and rest homes who are behaviour management problems, and there is inadequate staff and training to deal with that and it makes for an unpleasant and sometimes dangerous situation for everybody there. I agree that that's the case, and it may well be something the commission has things to say about.
The other thing, though, that maybe was more important in terms of your question, was, am I a distraction to the work the commission needs to do? It's possible that I'm more distracting to you, actually, than to the public at large.
Mr Jackson: Ernie Lightman would be less distracting to me. I think those are the kinds of people we're looking for for the commission.
Mr Reville: I know Ernie Lightman. Ernie Lightman did write an important report for the government, commented on my work within his report, and obviously has valuable things to offer us as a society.
I think the reason I'm distracting, if I may be somewhat self-indulgent for a minute, is that I've had kind of an odd career and that I've talked about my own psychiatric history in a way that has been quite unsettling for people throughout my political career. But it hasn't been unsettling for me, nor has it been unsettling for those with whom I've worked. I've sort of had parallel careers, where I have never stopped being an advocate -- and I did supply a list to your committee of some of the things I've been doing over the last few years. While I was doing things like basketball negotiations on behalf of the government, I was also speaking at symposia about issues that relate to advocacy and patients' rights.
I've been able to manage that, throughout the partisanship of the business you are in and that I have been in, and actually maintain a pretty solid footing as an advocate and not ever worry about commenting to governments of the day about where I think they haven't done enough or where I think they've done things inappropriately or inadequately.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Reville. I've been very generous. I'll move to Mr Owens.
Mr Owens: I'd like to welcome you, David, to committee. Much has been made this morning about your connection to the government and to the New Democratic Party. My question is about the clients you're going to serve. Having read Pat Capponi's book and some of the nice things she said about you, do you think Pat Capponi and the clients Pat works with through the Gerstein Centre, through her work with clients on the street -- do you think it really matters a tinker's dam whether you're a member of the NDP or not?
Mr Reville: I don't know. My experience with the survivor community was that the survivor community was not party political and in fact didn't vote much. That actually was part of the problem: that there was not a lot of participation in society. That community is a community in which I have been embedded all these many years, 27 years. I have friends in the community and I also have people who disagree with me violently in that community, as you might expect, and they've always been bemused by my political side. The fact that I was a party politician and that I went to conventions and stuff was always kind of puzzling to them, as I suspect those kinds of things are puzzling to almost everybody who's not active in politics.
I think I'm pretty straight out. People know what they hear and see, so I'm not really worried that the communities are going to be off-put for very long by the fact that I'm a New Democrat.
Mr Owens: You described your career or life as somewhat unsettling to some folks. I actually find it quite refreshing, some of those less well polished sides of you.
Mr Reville: That's a bit of an act, though, Steve.
Mr Owens: When I spoke to you on the phone after the news story, I described you as a person who won't be bureaucratized by the system or mesmerized by the powers you will be able to wield. One of the things I found instructive, both through the public hearings on the Advocacy Act and my subsequent involvement with the Residents' Rights Act -- they talked about intrusiveness, people feeling that you and your commission will be intrusive and that things like empowerment were not good words, that providers knew exactly what people needed and how to give it to them and how they needed to be protected.
You were asked a little earlier about your vision, and I'd like you to expand perhaps, using that framework I have provided for you in terms of your experience with the community and working with groups and individuals like Pat Capponi.
Mr Reville: I've been lucky to have experience that is both broad and deep, deepest, obviously, in the psychiatric survivor community and in mental health issues, but because of my political career and because of some community activism I'd been involved with before that, I've had lots of opportunity to sit and talk to people from many different communities. I remember, shortly after I was elected to the Legislature, sitting down with the head injury association, which was a fairly new association at that time, and they were just getting started on trying to figure out how to lobby government for services that the people they cared about needed.
I said in response to a question from Mr Malkowski that I start with the premise that people should own their lives. A more sociological way to describe what I'm saying is that what I'm concerned about is structural inequality. To get even fancier, I think what we are facing and what is beginning to happen is a paradigm shift, and it's part of the consumer movement where consumers of all kinds, whether they have specific disabilities or not, are saying: "Wait a minute. I know what I want. Don't you tell me what I should have."
There are lots of cases in which care givers, almost always well-intentioned, prescribe regimens which in fact the recipient doesn't understand and might not want, so the question of informed consent becomes really critical. As you know, one of the roles of the commission will be to provide rights advice, but it won't be telling anybody what to do. God forbid. That would perpetuate the very wrong we're trying to deal with.
But in order to make a choice, you have to know what they are.
Mr Owens: That's right.
Mr Reville: Somebody was trying to catch Pat Capponi on the electroshock matter yesterday. Pat rightly answered that what she wanted was for people to have a choice, to make an informed choice: "Do I want this? What does it do? What doesn't it do? Or don't I want it, and do I have the right to say no?" In many of those kinds of institutional situations, you just try and say no to something and find out what happens to you; it's not a good strategy to say no. That's where the advocate comes in: somebody who can take your no and make it hurt.
1130
Mr Malkowski: Just to follow up on a point that was raised by the member from Renfrew, you had talked about bringing to the House a fresh perspective, and I would certainly agree with that. As an appointee, you certainly will bring that perspective.
One of the things we may be dealing with is a fear of the unknown, be it from family members or care givers. There is a fear out there of the unknown in terms of what this commission is all about and the perspectives that may be brought by the commission, the balance between the view of the vulnerable people you'll be dealing with and family members and care givers. Can you address that issue?
Mr Reville: I think one of the key jobs of the commission will be to get out around the province and talk to people about what this idea is. I have had a chance to meet some of the commissioners and there are among us those who will do a fine job of talking to people about what the commission is all about.
I agree, I think there's a horrible fear of the unknown. I also agree that there is a tension, and it's felt most strongly in families. I'm a family member too. I know the despair you can feel about one of your loved one who's in trouble, and you want what is best for them. It's very difficult when what they want is something different from what you want. Over the years I've heard thousands of honest, compelling stories from family members, and what they describe is their concern for one of the members of their family and their worry that the services are not timely or adequate. That's genuine stuff, and that's some of the stuff with which the commission is going to have to grapple.
Mr Conway: David, let me be clear. My principal fear here is not of the unknown; it's of the known. It's David Reville, a bright, colourful, eclectic, passionate individual when it comes to this subject, a man who's provided us with a list of very interesting speeches. I didn't hear all of them, but I can imagine, when you delivered that speech about the politics of mental health, a speech you can eat with a fork, it was an experience to be part of.
Mr Reville: They didn't get it.
Mr Conway: They may not have got it, but my point is that I'm trying to make the concern that I think a lot of people are going to have: that this is an enormously significant, sensitive body, and you, with your background, your commitment, your perspective, are going to be heading this commission.
I'm trying to think of an analogy that might make sense to people like yourself and others. I can imagine the government, for example, appointing me, Conway, in charge of settling the question of parliamentary pay. I have a feeling that Bradley and Reville and Sterling would go apoplectic because I am known to have a view on the subject, one I feel rather strongly about. I know from past experiences that probably you and I don't agree, and I suspect there would be very strong objection to my appointment, not because I'm not viewed as a reasonable, good person, but not on that subject. No, no. Conway on the subject of parliamentary pay and perks cannot be taken as any kind of moderate mainstream.
Robert Bork was a very considerable lawyer and jurist, but when Reagan nominated him to the Supreme Court there was a firestorm, because it was felt, in this case by the centre left in the United States, that Bork on the Supreme Court was absolutely guaranteed to bring that political perspective that we don't want in that function.
When Billy Clinton suggested that maybe George Mitchell could go to the Supreme Court, I'll tell you, the Republican right said: "Yes? Well, you just nominate him." Nobody's saying that George Mitchell is not a capable fellow -- Senate majority leader, good lawyer -- but George Mitchell on the Supreme Court of the United States? "No, you'd better not try it, Mr Clinton. I think Judge Breyer's a better bet," and he turned out to be a better bet in terms of the confirmation hearings.
My point continues to be how it is that you, with your background, your view on this subject, can be expected to be taken, as you will have to be taken if this job is going to be succeeded at, by the broader community, which I think is going to be concerned about just how balanced and how neutral you are going to be in the broad public interest as you go about discharging this enormously difficult, sensitive task.
Mr Reville: Madam Chair, when we were on the House leaders' panel together, Mr Conway used to read to us from Tip O'Neill's works, an immensely erudite gentleman, although I don't feel I'm in the same category at all as Robert Bork.
I guess we're having a fundamental passing in the night here. I can't imagine why it's a problem for you for the commissioner -- a commissioner, the chair of the commission -- to be definitively on the side of vulnerable people. I can't imagine why that should be a problem. I think you know me to be quite extraordinarily sensitive to people's views, and I don't believe I'm going to have trouble dealing with anybody, and there will be lots of pretty powerful people to deal with, including those in my own community who, as I've said before, disagree with me profoundly on occasion.
Mr Conway: Arthur Maloney was one of the most eminent lawyers the province and country ever produced. He was nominated by Bill Davis to what I like to call Vernon Singer's revenge, the Office of the Ombudsman, that advocacy commission that was established 20 years ago to establish a counterweight to government in all its insensitivity. Arthur Maloney was an Ottawa Valley compatriot of mine, and I well remember, and I'm telling you, as you weren't here at the time --
Mr Reville: I remember the appointment.
Mr Conway: -- I remember a number of people around the government at the time saying, "Wow." That was an appointment that was quite significant, and quite frankly, it was felt in some quarters that he was a very fine fellow but just in the wrong job, because he had a view that was just so one-sided when it came to the issues as between the citizen and the government that it was not a very happy relationship. In fact, it wasn't a happy relationship for a lot of the time even in this very room with members of the Legislature.
The question I still have is, how are you going to allay those concerns out there in the broader community, wonderful fellow that you are, fascinating background that you have had, that you're going to be able to head this commission in a direction that is going to on the one hand relieve many of the horrific injustices that have been visited upon vulnerable persons, and on the other hand bring the broader community alongside so that they just don't think, "Another social engineering, government intrusion that is going to drive us up the wall"?
Mr Reville: I guess that will be a question that will be answered over time.
Mr Conway: The Ontario Psychiatric Patient Group has submitted some information which indicates they're not very happy about the process that has led to a number of the appointments to the commission. Have you had a chance to survey that material, and what would you tell the committee in terms of that?
Mr Reville: I think you mean the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office?
Mr Conway: Well, we have been supplied with some materials here. We've got a memorandum dated September 1; there's --
Mr Reville: Oh, I'm sorry. The Ontario Psychiatric Patient Group. It is a group located in Oak Ridge.
Mr Conway: Mr Don Everingham.
Mr Reville: I'm familiar with the views of Mr Everingham. I know Mr Everingham is concerned that once the commission is in place the level of service he currently enjoys will decline. That's a legitimate concern he has, and it's something the commission has got to figure out.
1140
Mr Conway: In fact, the material would suggest that his concerns are somewhat more deep-seated than that. I read this to suggest that he's very unhappy about the nomination process. He raises a concern about potential conflicts of interest that some nominated commissioners might find themselves in.
Mr Owens: Let's have an inquiry.
Mr Reville: Oh, Steve. The nomination process was indeed novel. I'm not aware of another occasion in which stakeholder groups got to elect people to sit on a committee and then review applications for a commission. I don't know that that happens very often, so it is a novel approach. All I can comment on is my own experience with the Appointments Advisory Committee, which I found to be extremely rigorous.
Mr Conway: It's a $125,000 opportunity to serve Her Majesty's subjects and it certainly was a novel process. As I say, for those of us who remember those old-time New Democrats, we fantasize about what they would say about a process in which a distinguished former member of the Legislature turned senior special adviser to the Premier just magically emerged from this novel process as the $125,000-a-year man to undertake this process. Stephen Lewis, Jim Renwick, wherever you are, smile and understand that in Bob Rae's Ontario things have changed and some things appear not to change.
Mr Reville: What could one say?
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): Thank you, Mr Reville, for your appearance before the committee this morning.
PATRICK MAURO
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Patrick Mauro, intended appointee as member, Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp board of directors.
The Chair: Good morning, Mr Mauro, and welcome to the committee. You may make a brief opening statement if you wish, or we will just start rotation with questions.
Mr Patrick Mauro: That's fine.
Mr Jackson: Mr Mauro, thank you for making the trip down for this appointment and the interview. Could you enlighten us about how you found out about the appointment and reasons for your interest in this appointment?
Mr Mauro: I have a small business in northern Ontario. I know Shelley and she knows us quite well. Her office phoned me and asked me if I would be interested. I said I'd have to think about it and I'd get back to her, and I got back to her and told her I would really be interested, because I am a businessman in northern Ontario and it is quite interesting. I have a lot of interest in this field and I think I could be an asset to this corporation.
Mr Jackson: Who specifically at Ms Martel's office phoned you?
Mr Mauro: Andrea Valentini.
Mr Jackson: Were you aware of the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp at the time of that interview, or at what point were you able to get information about it to realize the full extent of your area of responsibility?
Mr Mauro: I wasn't quite aware of it -- I'd heard of it in the news media -- but I've been filled in a lot by a gentleman by the name of Stewart Kiff.
Mr Jackson: Is there remuneration associated with this appointment?
Mr Mauro: I don't understand.
Mr Jackson: Is there a per diem or travel expenses for meetings?
Mr Mauro: Yes, I believe there is.
Mr Jackson: Do you know how much that is?
Mr Mauro: I believe it's around $200 plus expenses.
Mr Jackson: How frequently do you believe you'll be --
Mr Mauro: I was told once every six weeks.
Mr Jackson: Very briefly, what are some of the decisions that are made by the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp?
Mr Mauro: What I understand is that they have to decide on moneys allocated to new businesses such as manufacturers to help them get started in the north. I'm not totally aware of all the specifics, but basically that they have loan guarantees, forgivable loans.
Mr Jackson: I notice that you were a volunteer firefighter.
Mr Mauro: Yes.
Mr Jackson: You weren't a full-time firefighter in Capreol.
Mr Mauro: They call us "volunteer," but we're actually part-time firemen.
Mr Jackson: Yes, and that you worked in a family business that your parents ran.
Mr Mauro: And I helped run, yes.
Mr Jackson: Subsequently, it looks like you became a Pro Hardware franchise and you've assumed responsibility --
Mr Mauro: Of a second location.
Mr Jackson: Do you manage the second location?
Mr Mauro: That's right.
Mr Jackson: When did you assume that position?
Mr Mauro: We've been in business at the second location for one year, but previously I've been in business for nine years with my family.
Mr Jackson: Do you know if there are any other persons who've applied for this position?
Mr Mauro: No, I do not.
Mr Jackson: You were just told that they'd like you to apply if you were interested.
Mr Mauro: That is correct.
Mr Jackson: You threw me for a loop when you said, "I was called by Shelley," that you know her well and --
Mr Mauro: Yes.
Mr Jackson: I do too. That's fine.
Mr Mauro: She's from Capreol, so we all know her.
Mr Jackson: So you've known the family a long time.
Mr Mauro: Yes.
Mr Jackson: Are you actively involved or a card-carrying member of any political party at the moment?
Mr Mauro: No, I'm not.
Mr Jackson: That completes my questioning. Thank you and good luck, Mr Mauro.
Mr Waters: With the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp, one of the things is that it covers all of the north. I look at you as a person who -- if I'm not mistaken, you were in Elliot Lake or someplace at one point, and now you're in Val Caron?
Mr Mauro: No, Capreol.
Mr Waters: Capreol and Val Caron. In the south it would be a major distance between these two communities, so you would be able to bring to the board a perspective of two relatively small communities, one quite remote, and Val Caron is just outside of Sudbury.
Mr Mauro: That's right.
Mr Waters: So one would be a suburb community. You would be able to bring the perspective of the small businessperson from both of those communities to the board. Therefore lies my question: What does the small businessperson in both of those communities feel the northern Ontario heritage fund should be doing for the north? In that respect, what would you be bringing to the board?
Mr Mauro: I'll answer the latter part of the question first. I feel that my little bit of background in small business could relate to the board the needs and the amount of dollars it takes to get a business started. It's astronomical. It's really hard for any new business to get started, especially in the north, because we don't have the population and money like southern Ontario has, the resources. I think they could help any new business start up. I'm sorry, I missed the first part of that question.
1150
Mr Waters: What I'm getting at is that, to me, you have unique experience. I come from central Ontario. In the north you tend to live in one community for life, almost. You bring an experience to the board -- there could be other people, but I'm not aware of them. Capreol is a relatively isolated community. Val Caron is a suburb community. Do you see major differences in the needs of the people, the communities and the businesses, between those two?
Mr Mauro: For sure. Val Caron is growing, Capreol is not. Any incentive the government could help the businessman with I think would be a great asset to any business. I'd also like to say that I compare, say, in term of physicians and doctors: To bring them up to the north there are all kind of incentives the government has for them. I think this heritage fund is a good incentive for businesses to get started up in northern Ontario.
Mr Waters: This is going to be an unfair question. If I remember correctly, Capreol is a railroad town.
Mr Mauro: Yes.
Mr Waters: We have gone through a situation in Elliot Lake where the main employer closed down: the mines. There's been a transition in Elliot Lake, with the assistance of the government, to a retirement community and looking at other forms of sustaining that community. As a long-time resident of Capreol, do you see any help or any hope because of the federal pull-out in rail?
Mr Mauro: Good point. I hope they do have something for any business to come and purchase the shops in Capreol. There's a lot of money tied up in that shop and there are a lot of jobs at stake. If you take $1 million of salaries every two weeks out of Capreol, that affects the local economy drastically, such as Elliot Lake. Any type of incentive to keep this thing going, opened, I think would help out the community, but not just of Capreol, also of the outside towns: northern Ontario totally, basically, from Thunder Bay on. They should have some kind of incentive for business to start up, and this is a good program.
Mr Waters: So you do have a knowledge of the mandate of the northern Ontario heritage fund and its subcommittees and all of those things that make up the fund, and you have a vision. What I'm starting to hear is that you have a vision as a small businessperson who has been in two areas, one remote and one a more urban area, that there's a place for the fund, a future for communities, and that it will help small business and indeed large business to relocate to the north and provide the economic recovery that some of these communities so desperately need.
Mr Mauro: Yes.
Mr Waters: Those are all my questions.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question about government programs, because I think everybody experiments with them to see if they're effective or not. Sometimes when you're in a community and you're in business and somebody else in the community is the recipient of government largess, it gives that business a leg up on the other business. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business was making a comment about the northern Ontario heritage fund, saying it distorts a local marketplace and puts non-recipients at a disadvantage.
In your experience, has this been the case, that those who don't receive money from the government or from this fund are placed at unfair disadvantage compared to those who do receive funds from the government?
Mr Mauro: That's a good point. That is a really big issue that has to be looked at, but if it was properly monitored how much was given to that business in need of it and to the town supporting the business or vice versa, I think it can be done with an equal balance there -- more like a loan and not just a lump sum of non-forgivable loan, not to say just, "Here, take the money and run" type of thing. If it were properly controlled, I think it would work, it would work properly, and not, as you say, a leg up where one business would benefit more than the other business. I think for a startup business it's fine or for expanding businesses. There's nothing wrong with that.
Mr Bradley: Going in a different direction: When immigrants come to Canada, the overwhelming majority go to places such as Toronto or Vancouver or, to a bit of a lesser extent, Montreal, and seldom, as was the case in the past, to places like, for instance, Sudbury, my old home town. You had people coming from many places. Immigrants to this country often settled in northern Ontario. It appears that trend is not as pronounced as it once was.
Do you think the heritage fund could be a vehicle whereby people who had entrepreneurial skills and wished to establish businesses would be lured to northern Ontario and not simply come to Metropolitan Toronto or Vancouver or other large metropolitan centres?
Mr Mauro: It's actually, as you say, "lure" in a lucrative sense, but I don't see it like that at all. But I think it would help bring people to the north. They have a lot to offer. It would help. I think this is a great program for anyone to get started.
Mr Bradley: Another issue about this is the political considerations. To your knowledge, are there political considerations given as to who gets funding from the heritage fund, in your experience? I'm not making this accusation. It's just that whenever you establish these funds -- I don't want to get into too much of a partisan thing, but I can remember that there were complaints in northern Ontario about the previous federal government and the way it was dispensing funds across the north, that there was a very high partisan component. I can't personally verify that. In your knowledge with the heritage fund, is that pretty well absent?
Mr Mauro: There's nothing, to my knowledge. I've never heard of that.
Mr Bradley: Another question: I've heard people from the north, still residing in the north, make this argument, and I'm interested in the perspective of a person from Capreol, a relatively small town, that kind of perspective, whether a lot of money should be spent saving small towns that in effect have their only business going out of business, or whether money should be spent in consolidating significant -- significant in terms of size -- northern centres?
As an example, I've heard people say we're going to spend a lot of money to save Wawa, whenever the operation closes down Wawa, which it threatens to do all the time. You could have government spending a lot of money to keep Wawa alive somehow, or you might say the money is better spent in Sault Ste Marie or Sudbury or Thunder Bay or something. Do you have any views on that, whether that's money down the drain or whether it's worthwhile trying to keep those smaller places afloat?
Mr Mauro: As long as they have a good business proposal for these small towns, a business plan, because every business needs a plan and a strategy to stay afloat, and as long as once a year they get audited by the heritage fund to show how much money they're making and how much money they're losing, I think it's fair.
It's fair to say that money should be put into these small communities, not to just let them shrivel up and concentrate on bigger centres. The north is huge, and there are a lot of communities struggling right now.
Mr Bradley: Should the money from the heritage fund be used to address environmental concerns in northern Ontario?
Mr Mauro: Such as?
Mr Bradley: Such as old mining sites that are in pretty bad shape, the tailings areas and so on. Should the money come out of the heritage fund to address those environmental problems? Heaven knows, it's not coming out of anywhere else.
Mr Mauro: That's a good point. I really can't comment enough to know about that. We would have to debate it over time, get some viewpoints. I can't comment on that. I'm sorry.
Mr Bradley: Could you comment on the proposal that has been made to send by train to Kirkland Lake the waste of Toronto, the garbage of Toronto, for recycling and reuse purposes, and of course disposal purposes as well? Do you have any comments on the economic viability of that or whether it's, in total, useful or not, in your opinion as a northerner?
Mr Mauro: I think Toronto should keep its own garbage and not send it --
Mr Jackson: And its own jobs.
Mr Mauro: That's right. I know they want to create jobs up here in the north, but go about it in an environmental way and not by shipping it up north. That's a Band-Aid solution. Eventually we're going to have a problem up north, so let's prevent stuff. There are other ways, I'm sure. There's blue box or incineration, whatever, but they'd have to come up with --
Mr Bradley: Incineration is a swear word with the Ontario government, to tell you the truth, and with others, I might say.
Have you ever been involved with the New Democratic Party?
Mr Mauro: No, I have not.
Mr Bradley: That's an asset right there. Thank you very much.
Mr Waters: Try to be nice.
The Chair: Are there any other questions? Thank you very much for your appearance before the committee, Mr Mauro.
We're recessed until 2 o'clock.
The committee recessed from 1204 to 1411.
LINDA PUGSLEY
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Linda Pugsley, intended appointee as full-time vice-chair, Environmental Assessment Board.
The Chair: Welcome to the committee. If you wish to make a brief opening statement, you may, or we can just start in rotation with questions, whichever is your preference.
Ms Linda Pugsley: Questions will be fine, thank you.
Mr Jackson: Linda, welcome. I should indicate to the committee I have a bit of a conflict of interest.
Mr Bradley: Again?
Mr Jackson: Yes, again. It's amazing how many good, qualified people I know personally.
Mr Bradley: Are you any relation to Ed Philip?
Mr Jackson: No, and now there's a person that I'd have a conflict with no interest. Linda, Madam Chair, at what point did we lose control of this committee?
The Chair: Well, I think it was some comment you made, Mr Jackson, but I'll get everybody back under control again. Order.
Mr Jackson: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Jackson has the floor, and I think, seriously, ladies and gentlemen, it's a little hard for Ms Pugsley to hear us.
Mr Jackson: Ms Pugsley, you've been appointed to the Environmental Assessment Board now for -- this is your fourth year?
Ms Pugsley: Second year.
Mr Jackson: And you're now moving into the position of vice-chair, and the current chair is also from Burlington, is she not? Isn't Mrs Allingham from Burlington? Or I call her Joan Allingham.
Ms Pugsley: I think you mean Mary Munro.
Mr Jackson: Oh, is Mary --
Ms Pugsley: Mary was our executive vice-chair, but she has just recently retired.
Mr Jackson: Oh, I apologize.
Ms Pugsley: It's the Niagara Escarpment Commission Joan is with.
Mr Jackson: All right, yes, you're right. But we did have two from our community and now we have you. Thank you.
Tell us, if you will, please, what your first two years were like and why you feel you're able to come forward to fulfil the responsibilities of vice-chair.
Ms Pugsley: I was very fortunate in my first two years to gain a lot of hearing experience under many acts. I've just finished a year-long landfill hearing. I think the experience has certainly been a learning experience for me. I certainly enjoy the work and I think my experience that I've gained as a part-time member will certainly help me if I become a full-time member.
Mr Jackson: Recently the government tabled substantive land use amendments in Bill 163 that have implications for the Environmental Assessment Board. Has the board had occasion to look at that legislation and consider some of its impact, given that your board's mandate was referred to and will be slightly impacted by this omnibus Bill 163?
Ms Pugsley: Well, certainly the material has been distributed to the board, but during the summer we haven't had board meetings. But I know we'll be discussing it. I don't think the board's view would be that it has an impact on the board particularly, but the board welcomes the fact that the environment is going to be looked at at the local level.
Mr Jackson: As I understand it from having been on the committee for a couple of weeks, it will limit to a degree the number of applications made before the board and it will, on the other hand, indicate, with policy priorities for the province set out, a bit of a provincial override so that some matters which are being referred to the Environmental Assessment Board will not necessarily have to be. That's only my perception, having sat through some of the public hearings. I will assume that your board will be looking at it in more detail once you reconvene.
I really don't have any other questions, Madam Chair, other than the fact that I know the deputant and I know of her community-based work, both an extensive background with ratepayer groups and as an elected official in our community, and I fully support the application. Thank you. Continue the good work.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Thank you very much for coming before the committee. I certainly believe your position is a very important one.
The first item I wanted to address was the issue of intervenor funding at public hearings. Does your board make decisions, then, on who would get intervenor funding?
Ms Pugsley: Yes, that's correct. Usually, a panel of the board that is not going to be the hearing panel is a panel that would hear the applications for intervenor funding.
Ms Harrington: What is your view on how and when this should be given out? I can see a great value to it, because citizens do have to have resources in order to go up against either companies or municipalities. But also there is a great deal of public concern around that issue as well, I would think, so I just want to hear your ideas about it.
Ms Pugsley: Well, I believe in intervenor funding and I think the Intervenor Funding Project Act has been successful. I know not everyone is happy with it. Proponents may think they have to pay too much and intervenors think sometimes the board directs what evidence is going to heard by what funding they provide. But my experience with intervenor funding has been that it has been very successful and has been able to avoid duplication of evidence.
Probably the hearing process could be shortened if perhaps there were -- I don't know what to give as a name for it -- pre-intervenor funding at an earlier stage, maybe before the EA is even submitted, so that you maybe could narrow the issues earlier and find out the parties and the people who are concerned earlier, and hopefully by doing that you would shorten the hearing process because some things may be able to be resolved. Am I answering your question?
Ms Harrington: Yes. I think you've gone into alternative ideas. The general public is very concerned about the layers of red tape and the processes involved, and of course the amount of public time and money that is spent. The general public knows, I believe, that the Environmental Assessment Act is for their good, and overall they realize that it has benefited our society a lot, but they are still concerned about the process, its length and its cost. If you as an official can look at other ways of getting people together, as you say, before the process even begins to see what common ground there is so that things in fact don't get out of hand sometimes and more problems are caused, I think that's a very good idea. So my suggestion to you, as an official, is if you would take into account the public's desire to have good protection but in a very efficient way.
The other question I was going to ask you is about the board of negotiation, whose mandate is to negotiate settlements where contaminants cause damage to livestock or crops. Is that a separate board, or how does that fit with your board?
Ms Pugsley: It's an appointed panel of the Environmental Assessment Board that does that, and it is anyone who is named by the chair.
1420
Mr Waters: I'm going to talk about one particular issue, and it's called site 41 in north Simcoe. In the late 1980s there was an EA done on it. It was completed near the end of the Liberal mandate. They, in cabinet, I believe, opened it up again because of the situation where you have to use -- I believe the problem was that the person who chaired it the first time had to chair it the second time, or the pair, and one had retired and the other one was ill. Hence, I think it was 1993 before it started to be reviewed and it's still going on to this day, and as the public in my community are saying, when is this thing going to come to an end? I guess I would like your comments on how you can turn this around. I know it was a political decision to open it up, but the fact that we had to go back to the original chairs and all of that -- I guess, if this is what's happening out there, I don't see it as doing what the environmental assessment was meant to do.
Ms Pugsley: I don't know that I can comment particularly on the north Simcoe case, especially since it is ongoing.
Mr Waters: No, I'm using it as an example of how things can be dragged out. This is now something like seven years that this EA has been ongoing. When is enough enough? And how does the board in the future plan, or how would you see the board in the future dealing with that problem?
Ms Pugsley: With the problem of lengthy hearings or the problem --
Mr Waters: Seven years of hearings, on and off, yes; efficiencies within the system, I guess.
Ms Pugsley: Without commenting on north Simcoe, because I think it's a special case -- and my understanding is that one of the members retired and it was, as you say, a political decision to rehear it and it's being heard now -- I think we at the board are very aware of the criticism that comes to the board because of lengthy hearings. I would like to think it's because of three or four very large hearings which are really anomalies.
However, having said that, the board, being aware of this criticism, is currently taking initiatives to streamline the process. One thing we did last year was a strategic plan, and one of the first goals was to shorten the hearing process. To that end, we've done things like make a protocol for agreement such that if parties are agreeing and the public interest is served and the interest of the parties and the government bodies, then the board will agree to the agreement.
A client group has been set up to hear from our client base how we can streamline things, and out of that committee have come generic procedural directions for hearings that will shorten things, trying to do things like a lot more pre-hearing consultation, mediation, facilitation, to try and have some consensus-building so that only those things directly in dispute come to a hearing.
Mr Waters: So very much as a part-time member you've been active in this, and now in your new capacity you'll have an opportunity to move it along. And barring that we politicians interfere too often, people of the province won't have this to look forward to too much in the future. We leave the job up to the people that we've put in place to do it.
Ms Pugsley: Certainly that's what our plan is, sir.
The Chair: Any other government members? There's two minutes. All right. The official opposition? Mr Bradley, former Minister of the Environment.
Mr Bradley: Ah, yes, former.
What do you think of incineration?
Ms Pugsley: I don't have a lot of knowledge of the technology, particularly, of incineration. It's my understanding that it's not permitted within the province.
Mr Bradley: I guess not now, although there are incinerators operating in the province, some better than others.
Ms Pugsley: Yes. I don't have a full knowledge of the technology of it to be able to comment on the different types of incinerators and whether they're environmentally safe or not.
Mr Bradley: I appreciate the fact that you're already on the board, and you may have some reluctance to express certain things, so if you do, I understand those things, when I come to the next question, for instance. Do you think, as a member of the board, it is wise for the government to remove options for you to consider when someone is putting a proposal before you? In other words, incineration would be an example. They've removed that option even from consideration. Some of us have views on incineration in any event, that it may not be the best possible way to proceed. Nevertheless, do you believe it wise for governments to take things off the table to be considered when a proposal is coming before the board?
Ms Pugsley: I think I would be very reluctant to answer that at this point, and the reason for that is that I am going to be on one of the IWA panels and I understand that that is going to be a consideration and I wouldn't like to bias myself in any way.
Mr Bradley: I appreciate that.
Do you think it would be wise to ban lawyers and consultants from hearings?
Ms Pugsley: Much as sometimes we would be tempted to do so, no, I don't, although there should be the flexibility. I must tell you that I have just finished a hearing where none of the parties were represented by lawyers, the proponent represented himself and active and informed citizens were the intervenors, and it worked beautifully. I think on a case-by-case, you could either have lawyers or not have lawyers, but certainly it's a quasi-judicial, adversarial process as it is now. What we need to do is better control the examination and cross-examination.
Mr Bradley: When the government established the Environmental Assessment Board in the 1970s, the Ministry of the Environment at least, and I presume the Environmental Assessment Board, I think some of the people sitting in the Legislature at that time would've envisaged that it was in fact as you described the last hearing. It was quite refreshing. That is, a proponent would put forward a case herself or himself and the opponents would put forth their case and the board would decide.
1430
Today, and I understand there are different kinds of hearings, but if you take the OWMC hearing, which has gone on for ever and the lawyers have had a field day and the consultants have had a field day, and the timber management EA, where the lawyers made the money and the consultants made the money and the ministry spent all kinds of its time in there, there would probably be people sitting on the board who might feel that one should significantly restrict the ability of lawyers to prolong hearings -- I don't know if consultants are as bad -- and get down to the issues at hand. I take it that's something I heard you mention that the board is trying to address and that you believe should be addressed, that there should be more -- I hate using the word "scoping" because it has all kinds of connotations, but at least they should start stopping the lawyers from tying up these hearings for ever.
Ms Pugsley: What we had hoped for was an amendment to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act that would allow us to impose time limits. Since that hasn't happened yet, what we're trying is in pre-hearing to have a panel, that isn't the hearing panel, or a case manager from our staff try to get agreement on the time that direct examination and cross-examination will take in an agreement among the parties so that it isn't any lengthier than it need be.
Mr Bradley: This will be opposed by lawyers but I would suggest that you do this soon, because if a Liberal or Conservative government were to do it, if there were a change in government and you had a Liberal or a Conservative government, all hell would break loose from the environmental community. I would suggest that as only the Republicans could end the Vietnam war, only the New Democrats can confine the environmental assessment process without the environmental community being totally up in arms and the Globe and Mail writing editorials -- not editorials, but the columnists commenting.
I really think that those of you who have sat on the board are in the best position to make those judgements and I do encourage you to continue your efforts, having the experience that the board has had with some of these prolonged hearings where it's clearly just being dragged out by legal manoeuvrings instead of dealing with the issues at hand.
I'm sure Mr Sterling, who served in the fairly early days of the environmental assessment process when he was elected in 1977 as a government member, for instance, would recall, I think, that there was a feeling that the environmental assessment process could work well if it wasn't working as a court, but rather as something else other than a court. I know Mr Nixon, who always had views on these, often felt that the average citizen should have access to that board without it being highly technical, highly scientific and highly legal in all cases.
The last thing I would say is, are you afraid, as board members, of judicial review if you don't allow the lawyers at it?
Ms Pugsley: To be frank, I think yes. Certainly it's been my experience when the board cautions lawyers and will say, "Where are you going with this line of questioning?" the board isn't finding it helpful that the response is, "I don't want my case prejudiced by not being able to bring out all the evidence that I wish to." That's why with this client committee that I was mentioning before that's made up of the lawyers that we deal with, citizens' groups, aboriginal members, we're trying to work out something with our clients that is workable for everyone.
I think, to be fair as well, the lawyers and the consultants realize that the process is too lengthy. Certainly we've found a willingness among this client group to be very cooperative, so I hope it works.
Mr Bradley: You've had good answers to virtually everything. I take it from your background, having read your résumé, that you come with an open mind and no axes to grind when you come into the position of vice-chair. In other words, if you look at some résumés, you may draw a conclusion, fairly or unfairly, "Ah, this person's pro-proponent and this person's pro-opponent." I detect that you go into these meetings with your credentials and your background and your experience as totally impartial. Is that what you see for the board as a whole?
Ms Pugsley: I think it's absolutely mandatory. The purpose of the board is to be impartial and hear the evidence and hopefully make a wise decision, based on the evidence that you've heard.
Mr Bradley: That's important for the credibility of the board.
If I could sneak a quick question in, do you believe the act should apply to the private sector?
Ms Pugsley: That's a toughie. I guess I think the private and the public sectors should be treated the same.
Mr Bradley: Right now the minister may designate something in the private sector. I well recall a member who appeared before us yesterday who wanted the SkyDome to be placed under the Environmental Assessment Act at one time, but that's always a contentious issue. I would have assumed it would have been done by now, if it were doable, by the present administration, but since it hasn't, I guess the chances of that ever happening are quite limited.
Thank you very much. I think your credentials are good and I wish you well in a very difficult job.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Pugsley, for appearing before the committee this afternoon.
JOANNE NOTHER
Review of intended appointment, selected by the official opposition party: Joanne Nother, intended appointee as member, Advocacy Commission.
The Chair: Welcome to the committee this afternoon. You may make a brief opening statement if you wish, or we can just start into normal rotation of questions from the members.
Ms Joanne Nother: Let's start into the normal rotation. I think that would be fine.
Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): You likely know that there are a lot of concerns and questions surrounding the Advocacy Commission. I don't know exactly what you're doing to prepare yourself for that position. I guess one of my questions is going to be, how do you feel your background is preparing you and what training do you think you're going to need for the position?
Ms Nother: Currently, I am very active in the volunteer community as the chair of Persons United for Self-Help in northeastern Ontario. As a consumer with a vested interest in advocacy, I have an acute awareness, I guess, if I may describe it as such, of what advocacy is and the necessity for advocacy and the importance of advocacy for all persons who are unable to act on their own behalf. I really feel that has prepared me, and my interest in that and my own life experience with that has prepared me to some extent for my position with the commission.
With regard to training for the commission, I'm not aware of what will ultimately be needed with regard to training. I have some ideas, but I have no definite path on which I see training going for the commission at this point.
Mrs O'Neill: I hope you'll think about that a little bit because, as I understand it, the commission will be determining its own training needs, and I think that's important.
There was a press conference the day the nomination process, as it was finally determined, was announced to the general public, and there were certainly several people in the media room that day who were not terribly enamoured of the change in the way that they, who considered themselves as stakeholders, would be actually choosing the members of the commission and indeed the mandate of the commission.
One of the groups that spoke most strongly, and it's still impressed on my mind, was the residents of the Queen Street hospital. Indeed, they asked to meet with me yesterday. They still feel -- and this was brought earlier today in a different forum -- that they are not going to be heard; that although the chair of the commission has certainly got a background and knowledge in mental health and certainly is one of the sought-after speakers in mental health, it is the well, or those who have actually, in his term this morning, survived mental illness who are the people who will actually access the Advocacy Commission.
1440
Those who are in the facilities, who are, for lack of a better term, severely mentally disabled -- and that's really the medical term that they use to describe themselves -- are not going to have access to the commission itself. They feel very much on the outside looking in on this and I think are using as many channels as they can that are now in existence to make that point known. I wonder what you have to say to those patients, particularly as I point now to the mental health facilities in the province, that the Advocacy Commission can play a role for them.
Ms Nother: It's very much hoped by the commission that the commission will be accessible to all parties who will require services of the commission. It will be definitely necessary that the commission be accessible to each individual, and I think that will be of utmost importance, because as a consumer, that also is my concern.
I understand and appreciate some of the differences with regard to patients of, say, the Queen Street facility or anyone in that kind of situation, because there have been entrenched in that hospital system advocates per se that often have not been seen to be in favour of the patients or in favour of the survivors after they leave the institution. So there is much concern that the Advocacy Commission is going to listen and hear their concerns, and I would hope that one of the major intents of the commission, and I'm sure it will be, is to make sure that the process is as accessible as possible to each of the parties.
Mrs O'Neill: As you know, the number 130 has been bandied around as the number of advocates that will be established. That doesn't seem to me to be a very large number of advocates. Certainly I think at the present time there are likely more advocates, or people who consider themselves advocates, and I think they wonder how they're going to relate to those newer, designated people.
I want to go back just a moment to the facilities, because I think there is an underlying philosophy of the present government that community-based care is the preferable care. For every person in the province that's not necessarily true, and I don't think there's an acknowledgement of that in the strength I would like to see.
This morning Mr Reville, who is going to be your chair, said, "The commission may well have things to say about that," when we were talking about facilities. I don't think facilities have much of a profile in this whole pattern of events that is unfolding regarding the Advocacy Commission, and for that I'm quite concerned.
I guess I would like you to say a little bit more about that because, as I say, the residents yesterday of the Queen Street facility certainly don't feel that there is a totally threatening environment in their mental health facility. They feel very threatened by the cutbacks that are being presented to them and confused very much by an Advocacy Commission being set up on one side and cuts on the other side. But they feel they have a community; they feel that people come and go, and people who have been there come back, sometimes to visit, sometimes on a short-term basis. I hope that you will see a role in the Advocacy Commission to make facilities less impenetrable, less a point of fear and mistrust in the communities, because as we've seen as we've gone across the province on the long-term care, facilities often are the best at and the originator of much of the care, whether it be for the physically disabled or mentally disabled.
So maybe you'd like to say a little bit about how you see the Advocacy Commission relating to the facility sites and how you see it taking the role of the long-term care person, who is in facility or may be in community.
Ms Nother: It will be very important for the Advocacy Commission to play a role in the facility situation whereby either we have access or are able to get into the facility or approach the residents within the facility, or to allow a channel of access where individuals in the facility can approach the commission directly. In the same respect, for persons who are in long-term care facilities, there has to be that channel created so that communication link can be established and maintained.
I'd have to give more thought as to how that channel could be established and what the parameters are of doing that, but there has to be, I would say, a direct link, some sort of communication channel created whereby residents in either a place like Queen Street or the long-term care situation are able to immediately approach the Advocacy Commission and see the commission as a very grassroots kind of organization rather than an ivory tower situation.
Mrs O'Neill: Do you see a relationship between those who are advocates now, whether they be the psychiatric patient advocates or other advocates, and the newly termed advocates that will be, I suppose we can say, government employees?
Ms Nother: I see there is a definite similarity, and there is no way the commission can negate or ignore the people who have been doing advocacy for years by virtue of the fact that we're creating a position entitled "advocate." Whether it be a paid position or whatever, I do not think the experiences and the practice of individuals who have been doing advocacy for years, whether they be family members or whether they be advocates per se through the mental health field or whatever -- there is a role for them to play within the Advocacy Commission, within that advocate structure. What has to be determined is what role they will play in so far as what kind of training the commission decides advocates must have to be able to be sanctioned by the commission. But there is definitely a role for the individuals who are doing the advocate function at this point in time.
Mrs O'Neill: I hope you will carry that forward on to the commission as strongly as you've stated it now.
My final question is, there is always the question of independence of the commission. This one in particular, as it is launched, has a grey cloud hanging around it, being determined as a schedule 1 and with one ministry more or less suggesting that it can remain quite impartial from another ministry and the two ministers sit at the same cabinet table. How do you feel about the independence of the commission?
Ms Nother: I feel that the commission can be independent. I feel that it is representative enough of the grassroots that we truly have a strong enough voice individually to be able to project our feelings in that respect and hopefully feel that, and I really do think that we will be able to remain independent.
Mrs O'Neill: Bonne chance.
Mr Sterling: Welcome to the committee. Could you tell me how you first found out about becoming an advocacy commissioner?
Ms Nother: Well, I've been involved, as I've stated, with the disability movement for a few years, actually since I've been in a wheelchair, and I've been fairly active in advocacy myself for persons with disabilities. The advocacy project was very active in sending out literature, publications.
1450
Mr Sterling: As you may or may not have known -- I don't know if you have been told about previous interviews that have taken place with other advocacy commissioners -- I find this legislation extremely dangerous. I don't believe the state has any business in going into a closed room with a vulnerable person and advising that person one way or the other, which may be in conflict with family and health care providers' advice. So I find it very, very dangerous, this legislation. I find it so dangerous, I put it in the category of social engineering which was undertaken by some very, very mean people who ran other countries. I find it that dangerous and that much of a problem. I think it's ill-thought-out and will do everything to put this to an end should the government change.
I guess one of my concerns here is the whole aspect of this legislation in that there's no definition of what an advocate is. There's no code of conduct as to what an advocate is. Could you tell me what you think an advocate should be?
Ms Nother: An advocate should be an individual who can act either to give advice to an individual or act on an individual's behalf if the individual so chooses. The advocate I see technically is driven by the consumer or the individual who requires the advocate. In some cases there will be some external influence, but in many cases, most cases hopefully, it will be the consumer who will have the choice as to whether the advocate will be involved or not.
Mr Sterling: What external influences are you referring to?
Ms Nother: It could be family, it could be medical, depending on the situation, but I think they have to be closely looked at and closely thought out. My feeling is allowing the commission to set some of the parameters, given that the people on the commission are people who would possibly have need of advocates or who have been possibly advocating on their own behalf or for others in the same situation and would have knowledge of what the parameters should be.
Mr Sterling: You do realize of course that with the wide scope of the Consent to Treatment Act, Bill 109, advocates are going to be called into a huge number of cases where they previously had not been? There's been seen as no need. Every time a doctor or a health care provider is about to undertake a treatment, and that can be as minor as giving a pill, to a person who is vulnerable or incapable, he has to ask that patient whether or not he or she would like to see an advocate.
There are about 100,000 to 120,000 nursing home beds, rest home beds, in this province. There are 212 hospitals in this province. There are I don't know how many medical clinics. There are all kinds of doctors' offices etc. There's a whole number of things when the VON go out in the community in terms of doing nursing care in the community.
The head commissioner this morning, Mr Reville, said that the budget was going to be $19 million, and I heard there's going to be approximately 150 advocates. What's going to happen when an advocate is not available to see this person who responds, who is operating at a low-level capacity out in a community? What's going to happen in terms of dealing with the treatment? Is this going to hold up our health care system? Is it practical to think that you're really going to cover the province?
Ms Nother: Well, I think for sure your point is probably well taken with regard to coverage, but I think the attempt will be made to have as adequate coverage as possible. The commission is going to have to look at the use of full-time, part-time and volunteer advocates with regard to people who can be available, because you will have to make sure, as in the case you stated, that you have sufficient people who can be available to be able to act in that capacity as needed.
Mr Sterling: But there's no adequacy argument here. You have to have enough to do the total job, because otherwise a person can't get treated, unless it's a very, very serious matter, and then there are some words in the legislation whereby if it's a leg that's broken, it can be immediately dealt with if you can't find an advocate. But there are going to be thousands and thousands of cases, particularly in remote areas.
Ms Nother: Then I think the commission will have to be creative in looking at who can be considered as advocates and with regard to possibly family members, especially in rural areas, if family members are capable. In many situations, family members have been acting as advocates on behalf of family members, that sort of thing. So the network will have to be big, I agree, and I think that is one of the reasons we have to look at all the people who have been doing advocacy as well as those who are now interested in it.
Mr Sterling: Would you hire as an advocate someone who felt strongly about either the pro-life movement or the pro-choice movement? Or, for instance, there are many people who are advocates now, particularly psychiatric survivors, who do not believe in psychotic medication. Would you hire any one of those people to be an advocate?
Ms Nother: You would hope that people who we hire would be as impartial and as objective as possible, because if the psychosomatic medicine is the only way for some individuals or it may be a viable treatment, then that may have to be considered. If there's an advocate who doesn't believe strongly in that kind of medication, it may be worthwhile not hiring that individual. We'd need somebody perhaps who can be more objective.
Mr Sterling: Do you intend to ask them those kinds of questions before they become advocates?
Ms Nother: Quite frankly, I can't speak on behalf of the whole commission, but for myself, my feeling is that an advocate should be objective and be able to see all sides and be able to make a decision based on all sides that are presented, and all aspects of the case versus just because of their own personal bias or their own personal beliefs they would chose that route.
Mr Sterling: I was very disappointed to read a letter that we received here in committee from many of the working advocate groups that were very upset with this whole process of appointing commissioners. I guess what upsets me most about it is, these are the people who are out there as advocates now for our most vulnerable people and they're complaining about the process by which you're being appointed. Do you not think that perhaps we should have another whack at this in order to in fact make the process at least legitimate in their eyes?
Ms Nother: I think the process, to my belief, has been fair and objective. The advocate network I believe that is in place now, and the advocates who are working as advocates, may possibly be threatened to some extent by fear that they are going to be replaced by a new system of advocacy and may not have a place. They feel that they don't have a place in the system because, as of yet, as indicated earlier, there is no specific definition as to what kind of training an advocate will have and that sort of thing, so I guess there may be some fear of threat of that.
Plus there are also some rumblings in the consumer community as well with regard to the advocate movement, to the advocates themselves as well, and not being so happy with the people who are working as advocates now. So I guess it has to be looked at from both sides.
Mr Sterling: Michael Breaugh, who used to be a former NDP member for Oshawa, explained to me what fair and just was: Fair and just was when you win. That's what most people interpret it as.
I'm very, very concerned about advocates going in who are, in effect, unaccountable to anyone. This commission is not accountable to the government; it's not accountable to the Legislature save and except it produces an annual report. I'm very, very concerned that we are now appointing one of the Premier's chief advisers to be the head of your commission. To me, that colours the whole process.
And to allow you people -- I'm talking about you commissioners, not you specifically as a person -- to go out there with these great powers and for no one to be able to call you into line is a dangerous, dangerous precedent to set in society.
1500
Mr Owens: Ms Nother, thank you for appearing today. I just want to begin with some general questions. I have a copy of your résumé in front of me. There have been some questions raised with respect to the appointment process. Mr Sterling just talked about rumblings from some of the current advocates. It's my understanding that before yourself and others could be considered for this committee your name had to be put forward by the disabled community; is that correct? Can you tell the committee a little bit about how that happened?
Ms Nother: For the commission itself?
Mr Owens: That's right.
Ms Nother: The commission initially published a posting for people who wanted to apply to the commission, and I responded to that posting; I submitted a letter with a résumé. Through that, there were various interview processes during which I went through an interview with members of the appointments committee, and then after that, the full committee as a second interview, and then from there it was on to an interview with the minister's staff and representatives. So there was a series of interviews. It wasn't just a single choice.
Mr Owens: That's right, and they were conducted by members of the disabled community, various members of that --
Ms Nother: Members, essentially --
Mr Owens: So then in fact there was a significantly rigorous process, and maybe some of the rumblings as -- we were presented with a stack of documents or letters today. Like many communities in the province, if your person isn't picked, then the process is wrong, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the process itself is wrong.
Looking at your résumé, you have some fairly extensive community experience. Your employment history is quite interesting as well, working with various departments, Sudbury Taxation Centre. You also have experience with the local public service union as a secretary and a steward; is that right?
Ms Nother: Yes, that was when I was with Revenue Canada in Hamilton at the district taxation office, and then I transferred to Sudbury.
Mr Owens: In terms of the volunteer involvement, again I'm very impressed with the diversity of your involvement. Not only have you been involved with the disabled communities, but also in terms of various women's organizations: the Sudbury Women's Centre. You were involved in a collaboration with the sexual assault crisis centre in terms of sensitivity training for the Sudbury Regional Police. Given, again, that great diversity of experience, both employmentwise and your community involvement, can you tell me how that has and will form your vision of your role as to how you see yourself as a member of this commission?
Ms Nother: Well, I'd like to think that I'm bringing to the commission a diverse and a varied view of equity, and I guess fairness to some extent. As I said, I have a vested interest in the consumer movement, having acquired my disability at the age of 25. That's partially why my employment history is so diverse, and my volunteer committee work is also very diverse because of the interests I have in addition to the disability movement.
Actually, this morning before I left to come here -- I sit on the Laurentian Hospital ethics committee and we met this morning and talked about the patients' rights legislation and how it pertains to ethics within the hospital movement. I guess because of the well-roundedness, I hope to bring to the commission a sense of wholeness, I guess, more than just a single focus or a single perception on the issue. I hope to bring a varied experience with a wide vision of the world per se.
Mr Owens: By your second-last comment, you obviously have some institutional experience, which again has been raised as an item of concern.
Maybe this is an unfair question, but what do you see needing to be done differently with respect to either inpatients, whether it's Laurentian Hospital or other facilities in the province, with respect to advocacy?
Ms Nother: I think that patients within the hospital system need to be advised of their rights and be aware of what their rights are and know that they have the freedom to choose an advocate or to be able to, to some extent, hopefully contact the Advocacy Commission to answer questions or to find out what their rights are or to have someone assist them in their rights. I would hope that would be required.
Mr Owens: So you would, in terms of again the kinds of discussions that you see needing to take place between the current system -- and as a former employee of the Toronto General Hospital, I also have some level of institutional experience and understand that the Toronto General has had a patient advocate for a number of years. You would see working alongside, in terms of consultations, current advocates, whether they're from institutions like Laurentian or Toronto General or the office of the psychiatric advocate to ensure that there is a continuity in the services that are well provided and a seamlessness, but also taking a look in a critical way at where some changes could be made; is that correct?
Ms Nother: Yes, exactly. Working with the systems in place is obviously much more effective and is going to be of much more benefit and immediacy than trying to create whole new systems, but to create a process, you're right, that would be seamless and that there would be access would be very beneficial.
Mr Owens: What types of training programs or -- "training," maybe that's too formal a word -- educational processes would you see being developed for consumers or would-be consumers of the advocacy system? And given that anyone of us sitting in this room at any time could be in need of an advocate, how do you plan to go about setting up the kinds of materials, whether it's reading or video? How do you plan to deal with clients who are non-verbal persons whose first language may not be English?
Ms Nother: What definitely has to be looked at are the materials that are available, things that we can gather together and create the training packages, put together the materials. What I see as an important aspect of training is what I call the travelling roadshow, especially in northeastern Ontario where we're talking about communities that are sometimes very small, very diverse and very culturally diverse as well.
Then we have to look at being able to adapt and be sensitive to those communities and also be aware of the fact that we may need to provide any training information in alternative formats. We may need interpretation, that sort of thing. We will also, as I say, need interpreters with regard to some of the communities with regard to if we're doing presentations in the francophone communities, or whether we'd be dealing with the aboriginal communities. We have to make sure that we use the correct individuals in the services to deal with those communities.
Mr Owens: Do you see a particular law reform component to your role as a commissioner? For instance, again, given your experience on tax, if there are regulations that disadvantage those who are moving between the FBA, family benefits, regime through the CPP disability regime, and our tax regulations, federally and provincially, that again disadvantage those, would you see it as a role of a commissioner to point those kinds of issues out and urge, whether it's the provincial government or federal government, changes to those tax regimens, as an example?
Ms Nother: It may be another way to make the recommendations. When the fair tax review process was being done, many of us throughout the province as consumer groups and volunteers made many presentations with regard to the FBA system, the tax reforms, both provincial and federal, that could be looked at. So the Advocacy Commission may be another route which some of these tax reforms may be submitted through.
The Chair: Thank you. That's my polite way of saying you're out of time.
Mr Owens: Thank you for your answers, and I certainly look forward to supporting your nomination.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Nother, for your appearance today before the committee.
1510
GORDON TAYLOR
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Gordon Taylor, intended appointee as member, Anderdon Police Services Board.
The Chair: Welcome to the committee, Mr Taylor.
Mr Gordon Taylor: Greetings from the sun parlour.
The Chair: Is that the emblem of Anderdon?
Mr Taylor: It's just a fact that we are the sun parlour of Canada.
The Chair: If you wish, you may make a brief opening comment, or we can just start in to the questions from the members of the committee.
Mr Taylor: That will be fine, just start with questions.
Mr Bradley: The position became known to you in which way? Who notified you of the opening of the position?
Mr Taylor: I learned of the position through a member of an organization that I belong to. It's called the Citizens Environment Alliance, which was formerly the Clean Water Alliance, which gave Mr Bradley an award in 1987 for his work in the environment with MISA.
Mr Bradley: I well recall that organization. Are they still active, by the way?
Mr Taylor: Yes, we are very active.
Mr Bradley: Good.
Mr Taylor: We're looking for your continued support.
Mr Bradley: Good. I thought that was an example of an extremely good citizens' group, by the way, I must say, working in the Windsor-Essex area. It was a good example of people becoming directly involved. So I can see that they would want you to become involved in this particular position.
I have some issues I'd like to discuss with you that may be of some interest to the committee. I'm interested as people come on to the commissions what their approach is to issues related to police commissions. First of all, gun control, as you know, is of interest to members of the Legislature, members of the federal Parliament and certainly others out there. Do you believe that guns essentially should be kept in the hands of the police, handguns I'm speaking of now, and that others should not have handguns available to them except under very restricted circumstances?
Mr Taylor: Yes.
Mr Bradley: Would you be in favour of removing from people's control, outside of the police forces and the armed forces of this country, assault weapons that we see? Some people have them as hobbies; others have them for other reasons. Would you be in favour of having those taken out of the hands of those people?
Mr Taylor: Yes. I see absolutely no use or no need for an assault weapon in the hands of the general public.
Mr Bradley: The issue of police chases is an issue which confronts both urban and rural municipalities, and over the years governments and police commissions have tried to set up guidelines for police chases. At one time they were pretty loose guidelines, and we had a number of very unfortunate accidents where officers or innocent bystanders or those being chased were either badly injured or perhaps even killed. What do you think would be a reasonable guideline? I'm speaking generally now; I don't want to pin you down to something very narrow. But what is a reasonable guideline for a police chase? When should the police be pursuing someone in a vehicle?
Mr Taylor: I guess at that particular time the officers who were involved in the situation would probably have to make that determination. I guess it would depend on what the violation was, how important it was. I think it would have to be on a case-by-case basis, and they would have to make the determination. However, I believe that there should be some standard to go by, a minimum standard. There would have to be some really serious infraction before they should be allowed to pursue a vehicle through the streets. A radio can travel at the speed of light. I don't think there's really that much necessity for that kind of a pursuit.
Mr Bradley: Approximately how many police would there be on the township of Anderdon police force, do you know?
Mr Taylor: Seven, including the chief, Ken Mancell.
Mr Bradley: In other areas of the province where people are part of a county, particularly where they're part of a region -- I think of the regional municipality of Niagara, where I reside -- there is a regional police force. There used to be a number of police forces administered by each municipality, run by each municipality. There is now one collective Niagara Regional Police Force. In your part of the province, is there a virtue to having, for instance, an Essex county police force instead of individual police forces?
Mr Taylor: I would prefer an individual police force. I prefer the police to be residents of the community; they would know the community better. I'm not an advocate of regional policing.
Mr Bradley: Another issue that we confront is how much political activity members of the public service can be involved in, the public service at large, whether it be the provincial civil service, the federal civil service; in this case, the police force. Police officers in years gone by have been prohibited from participating directly in the political process; in other words, from campaigning in an election campaign and so on. Do you believe that the police officers should have that right or do you believe that, because of the special position they hold in upholding the law in a community, they should be prohibited from direct involvement in partisan political activity?
Mr Taylor: I think that police officers may have a conflict with political activity in a township if they were to, let's say, be involved with the police services board. That's a very difficult question. I'd have to think about that.
Mr Bradley: I understand that. That's a difficult one to come at. I just thought if you had some thought off the top of your head I would be interested in it, but I certainly understand your reluctance to express a view without giving it some considerable thought.
The question I ask people on police commissions is the following: Do you believe that every police officer on the Anderdon police force should be able to break up a brawl in the toughest tavern in Anderdon?
Mr Taylor: I believe that a police officer in Anderdon township, let's say, should have the means to break up a brawl. Whether he or she would be able to break up a brawl, that's hard to say. I mean, brawls involving large men in a tavern are very difficult to break up. It may take more than one police officer; it may take a lot of people. That's hard to say.
Mr Bradley: Yes, I recognize that there is a difference between a smaller police force, as well, and a larger police force. A larger police force often allows more flexibility in terms of the number of people. If you have 500 police officers on a police force, obviously you're going to have people assigned to different duties. But I was thinking in a place such as that, because we have of course new requirements under the employment equity legislation, and the old dilemma out there is, should you get the people who can actually do the policing or should you get the people to meet the quotas that the province sets? Maybe even with the quotas you'll still get the people; I'm not saying that can't happen. But I'm wondering what the effect would be on a smaller police force.
Mr Taylor: Well, maybe the presence of a female officer at a brawl might sort of tone things down a little bit. Maybe it might be easier for the fight to be broken up because a woman is present. She might be able to sort of soothe the evil beast or the savage beast, so to speak. Maybe they might give them a little bit more respect. When two men confront each other, there is a possibility that one will try to take the other one on, whereas with a woman it might sort of moderate the problem.
1520
Mr Bradley: In domestic disputes, there has been a suggestion out there that a woman -- domestic, or perhaps even a sexual assault, the two instances -- should have the right to be able to tell her story to and be served by a police officer of whichever gender she chooses. Do you think that would be reasonable in a force of your size?
Mr Taylor: Yes, reasonable, sure.
Mr Bradley: It certainly motivates police forces in that regard to try to employ female police officers, because I would think it would be difficult for a woman in a sexual assault case, for instance, or more difficult -- it would be difficult to tell it to anybody -- to tell it to a man than it would be to a woman, for instance.
Mr Taylor: Right, I agree.
Mr Bradley: The other question I have is involving the overview of police by provincial bodies, in other words, special investigations unit. You hear more of it in the larger cities. When an incident happens, immediately in comes the special investigations unit. Do you think it is wise to allow the police, first of all, to investigate the police and then have an outside unit such as a special investigations unit or a civilian unit investigate a problem with the police, or do you think it should go immediately to civilian authorities?
Mr Taylor: I would like to see it go to civilian authorities. I believe that the police investigating the police is like the fox guarding the chicken coop.
Mr Bradley: What would your view be of nepotism? "Nepotism" is too strong a word. Do you believe, in a police force of the size you're talking about, that if there's one member of a family already on the police force, no one else from that family should be allowed to serve on that police force at the same time?
Mr Taylor: In a small community like ours, there may be situations where there is a connection as far as family. That would be difficult for me to answer.
Mr Bradley: I appreciate your answers, and it's difficult when I don't give you a list of them ahead of time. It's like a cabinet minister trying to answer, only they usually don't answer, I'm told.
Mr Sterling: Obviously, it's a relatively small -- is it a township or a town?
Mr Taylor: Township.
Mr Sterling: How many people would live in that township?
Mr Taylor: Oh, 5,000. Let me see here. I have it written down exactly.
Mr Sterling: Around there? That's fine.
Mr Taylor: It's 5,725 residents as of January of last year.
Mr Sterling: Most townships within our province do not pay for their police and they have OPP policing, which is not directly charged to the property taxpayer. Towns do have their own police and pay for it.
Mr Taylor: Like we do.
Mr Sterling: Do you know how long that's been in place?
Mr Taylor: I don't know how long that's been in place.
Mr Sterling: Ever since you've lived there?
Mr Taylor: Ever since I've lived there, 28 years. It's been there ever since I've been there.
Mr Sterling: It's a bit of an anomaly why you would not try to dump that back on the province, so to speak. It hardly seems fair, in a way, that your township is paying for it and there are many townships which are much better able to pay for it, probably, in terms of population.
Mr Taylor: I guess it's a matter of the residents wanting their own police force and someone that they can --
Mr Sterling: Control, to a degree.
Mr Taylor: Yes.
Mr Sterling: What is it, a five-member board that you will be sitting on?
Mr Taylor: I believe it's five members. I can't say for sure.
Mr Sterling: Gordon, because it's a small area, you've never had any confrontation with the police in a negative sense?
Mr Taylor: No.
Mr Sterling: I just think it's important in a small area that this be a question we ask. Maybe they've already asked you that question.
Having represented some small towns in eastern Ontario where they did have their own police forces -- Kemptville, which was a town of 2,500 at the time I represented it; Prescott was about 5,000, 6,000 people -- it was always a concern on my part that because things were so close, the people who were sitting on the police commission could have an undue direct influence on the day-to-day activities of the police force. I'd just like you to comment as to how you would see your role sitting on this board vis-à-vis the average day-to-day confrontations.
Mr Taylor: The average day-to-day operation of the police force I believe is the responsibility of the chief of police. That's his responsibility.
Mr Sterling: So if a police officer or one of your associates or somebody came up to you and said, "Look, I know you're on the commission; can you get this traffic ticket fixed?" you would know enough --
Mr Taylor: No, no. That's against the law.
Mr Sterling: Okay, that's fine. I think it's harder in a small town than it is in a large municipality.
Mr Taylor: I would think someone shouldn't be on the police services board if they would do something like that. That's against the legislation.
Mr Sterling: I'm not saying you make the approach, I'm saying you probably would be approached somewhere along the line. What do you think of photo-radar? A good idea?
Mr Taylor: Good idea.
Mr Bradley: There goes my vote.
Mr Sterling: Do you think it's a good idea?
Mr Taylor: Yes.
Mr Owens: It's your cheque they want, not your vote.
Mr Sterling: I don't know whether your township can afford to buy one or not. I guess they're pretty expensive operations.
Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): They don't want to have that down there.
Mr Taylor: If I could comment on the photo-radar, I think it's important that police officers do police work. I think photo-radar ends a lot of confrontations and does a better job and I think it addresses the problem of speeding a lot better. It makes money too.
Mr Sterling: Good luck on your appointment.
Mr Taylor: Thank you.
Mr Owens: I just have one question and then I think some of my colleagues will have further questions. In terms of your knowledge of the police services board, currently are you aware whether there's a wife assault protocol that has been established by the police services board?
Mr Taylor: I am not aware of a protocol. However, my opinion is zero tolerance.
Mr Owens: It's your view then, if I'm hearing you correctly, zero tolerance means no discretion with respect to whether or not a person is charged in that situation.
Mr Taylor: Right. If you commit the assault, you're charged.
Mr Owens: If in fact you are confirmed this afternoon and you determine that there is not a wife assault protocol in effect for your police services board, what are you prepared to do to ensure that one is put into place?
Mr Taylor: I am prepared to put that forward.
The Chair: Mr Waters. I'm sorry, Ms Harrington was the next person.
Mr Waters: Ms Harrington.
The Chair: That's right. I have it written down here actually.
Ms Harrington: I did have occasion over the last few months to go to Windsor a couple of times to investigate the casino there.
Mr Waters: Did you help out with provincial policy?
Mr Taylor: I hope you left some money in Windsor.
Ms Harrington: No. It was just an official visit actually, but I don't recall actually running into Anderdon. You are somewhere close to Windsor?
Mr Taylor: Anderdon township would be south of Windsor. It's the next township over from the town of LaSalle. It would be on the western shore of Lake Erie.
Ms Harrington: Oh, so you're down on Lake Erie?
Mr Taylor: Right. We're near Amherstburg, around the town of Amherstburg.
Ms Harrington: So it's a rural area.
Mr Taylor: Yes, a very rural area. It's about 40 square miles.
Mrs MacKinnon: And they're very fallow.
Ms Harrington: You said there were just a few thousand people?
Mr Taylor: There are 5,725.
Ms Harrington: You said seven police officers?
Mr Taylor: Yes, Ma'am. That includes the chief, Ken Mansell.
Ms Harrington: How many are women?
1530
Mr Taylor: Presently, the full-time officers, there are no women, but we have four auxiliary police and of those four, one is a woman.
Ms Harrington: And how many on the police services board are women?
Mr Taylor: I believe one is a woman. I'm not sure; I really don't know. I'm sure there is one woman.
Ms Harrington: I would like to reiterate what my colleague said about making sure that you do have connections with women's groups if you have them there. I know in our region, we do have a committee of police officers and the local women's groups across the region who get together on a regular basis to discuss how sexual assaults are handled and other issues.
The one question I did want to ask was, in that whole area around Windsor, I gather, according to our notes, there are six separate police forces. Have you ever considered, or would you consider in the future, amalgamation in order to increase efficiency?
Mr Taylor: I'm not sure. No, I'm not in favour of amalgamating police forces. I'm quite satisfied with the police force and the type of policing we have in Anderdon township. I think it does the township well. We don't have complaints about our police force.
In fact, the only time we've actually got into difficulties is when we had another police force come into our township. It resulted in the death of one of our residents, unfortunately, a case of mistaken identity. A resident behind my home was shot off his front porch by a provincial police tactical unit. I think if the police in our community were to deal with a situation like that, we would never have had that fatality, and that cost the residents of Anderdon a lot of money and the residents of Ontario a lot of money in court costs when they lost.
Ms Harrington: Thank you very much for coming all the way.
Mr Waters: I'm going to ask about schools. I come from a small town in the middle of Ontario. I represent Muskoka and we have a series of small towns. Although we'd like to think that all our problems in our schools with our young people -- the violence in the schools, the guns and the weapons and that -- are here in Toronto, the reality is that's not so. Is there some form of interaction between the board and the police commission and the police officers and the community, or how is that being handled?
Mr Taylor: From my knowledge, the police officers in Anderdon township participate in a peers, values and influences program in the schools. They talk to the children and promote good things for the children to do and good activities. I'm not sure exactly what the whole of the program is because I haven't been briefed on the program, but I know there is an ongoing program in the schools, in our grade schools for sure. The high school I'm not sure about, because that's in Amherstburg.
Mr Waters: That was the only question I had, and I thank you very much for coming before us and wish you well.
The Chair: Any more questions from government members? Thank you, Mr Taylor, for appearing before the committee today.
All right, committee members, would we like to have one motion for all the names or is there a preference to vote on some of these names individually?
Mr Owens: One motion.
The Chair: One motion for all the names. All right. The motion will be to approve Pauline Seville -- pardon?
Ms Harrington: I'd like to make a motion that we approve all of them.
The Chair: Thank you. Moved by Ms Harrington: Pauline Seville as a full-time member of the Ontario Labour Relations Board; Mr David Reville as the full-time chair of the Advocacy Commission; Mr Patrick Mauro as a member of the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp board of directors; Ms Linda Pugsley as full-time vice-chair of the Environmental Assessment Board; Ms Joanne Nother as a member of the Advocacy Commission; Mr Gordon Taylor as a member of the Anderdon Police Services Board.
Any discussion on that motion? All in favour? Opposed, if any? That motion is carried.
Mr Owens: Should it be recorded as being unanimous?
The Chair: No, it can't be recorded as being unanimous, but there is --
Interjection: There was no vote in opposition.
Mr Owens: Notwithstanding Norm wants to dismantle the Advocacy Commission, what the hell.
The Chair: Mr Owens, there is a quorum present.
There being no further business, thank you for your attendance today. This meeting stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1537.