INTENDED APPOINTMENTS JOHN FERA
CONTENTS
Wednesday 15 February 1995
Intended appointments
John Fera, Gaming Control Commission
Glenn Buchanan, Gaming Control Commission
Ken Signoretti, Ontario Casino Corp
Barbara Young, Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal
Joseph Comartin, Ontario Casino Corp
Gerald William Kinasz, Ontario Travel Industry Compensation Fund Corp
Katherine Laird, Employment Equity Tribunal
James R. Hanson, Science North
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Crozier, Bruce (Essex South/-Sud L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
Gigantes, Evelyn, (Ottawa Centre 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:
Callahan, Robert V. (Brampton South/-Sud L) for Mr Crozier
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr Malkowski
Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Ms Gigantes
Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND) for Ms Carter
Sterling, Norman W. (Carleton PC) for Mrs Witmer
White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Mr Frankford
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Yeager, Lewis, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1002 in committee room 1.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS JOHN FERA
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: John Fera, intended appointee as member, Gaming Control Commission.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Allan K. McLean): We're dealing today with the intended appointees of different agencies, boards and commissions. The first one we have is John Fera. If John would like to come forward, you have the opportunity to make an opening statement or any comments you'd like or we'll go right into questions.
Mr John Fera: Basically, all I would like to say is, thank you for the opportunity to appear and hopefully I can answer your questions with my limited knowledge.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Mr Sterling, you're first, 10 minutes.
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Welcome to the committee, Mr Fera.
Mr Fera: Thank you, sir.
Mr Sterling: You are intended as an appointee on the Gaming Control Commission?
Mr Fera: Yes, sir.
Mr Sterling: What experience do you have that you expect to bring to the gaming commission?
Mr Fera: Basically, I think the experience that I've gained through my political affiliations with the municipality. I'm currently the deputy mayor of a small town in northern Ontario and I sit on Sudbury regional government. I've been involved mainly in consensus kind of meetings and I think that kind of approach is what I bring to this commission.
Mr Sterling: Do you have any experience at all with law enforcement?
Mr Fera: No, sir.
Mr Sterling: In terms of your background, what kind of work are you involved in?
Mr Fera: My profession is I'm an electrician with Inco Metals. I've been with Inco for 25 years, and for the last four years I've worked with the joint Steelworkers-Inco Metals committee called the cooperative wage study committee, in which I'm a member of, as I said, a joint committee in which we do job evaluations and pay rates and that sort of thing.
Mr Sterling: What is your understanding of what the Gaming Control Commission will be doing? What will your job on that be?
Mr Fera: Basically, my understanding is that the control commission will be formed to regulate gaming in Ontario and to make sure that anyplace gaming is carried out it'll be done honestly and in a fair manner.
Mr Sterling: How do you think your experience will marry with the mandate of the committee?
Mr Fera: Basically, through my municipal experience in regulating and committee meeting and that kind of thing, I think. I've been involved in that for a few years now and hopefully that will assist me.
Mr Sterling: How did you come to apply for this position?
Mr Fera: Actually, it was quite by accident. I had been in contact with the Northern Development and Mines people concerning municipal matters, and in the course of the conversation I understood that there would be applications taken for the gaming commission. I asked if I could apply for it and I was told that I could.
Mr Sterling: Are you a member of any political party?
Mr Fera: No, sir, I'm not.
Mr Sterling: I don't have any further questions.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Thank you for coming, Mr Fera, all the way from way up there, the Sudbury area. I guess you're near Sudbury?
Mr Fera: Yes.
Ms Harrington: The Gaming Control Commission deals with municipalities all across the province, and I know certainly in my municipality of Niagara Falls we have many charitable bingos and huge halls that are set up. On a daily basis these are used by all the charities within the city, and of course in Fort Erie as well. It's a very big industry. We have an employee at city hall who deals exclusively with this area and very often issues come to city council about regulating the industry and making sure everything is done properly. So certainly I believe the Gaming Control Commission has a big job to make sure the credibility of the industry is preserved and enhanced.
As you can see, over the last five or six years at least, since I was on city council in Niagara Falls, the local charities seem to be more and more dependent upon gaming. As we think of the possibility of a casino coming to Niagara Falls, you wonder what's going to happen to the other gaming. So my question to you is, do you think it's a problem that charities are becoming more dependent on gaming over the years?
Mr Fera: My knowledge of that is fairly limited, and I'll be quite truthful with you. But if there is a problem, I would imagine that all the players involved would be identified and I'm sure that arrangements can be made or, I should say, that the process can be handled so that it's done fairly.
Ms Harrington: What about your background in municipal politics? Do you see that as an advantage in this position?
Mr Fera: As an advantage in what way, ma'am?
Ms Harrington: I'm just wondering if that background in municipal politics will be of help to you in your role on the gaming commission.
Mr Fera: I certainly do. I think the process that's involved through municipal politics is probably very similar to the type of process that will go on with the gaming commission as far as the regulations and the committee meetings and that sort of thing. As I said, I've been involved for many years in a consensus type of process and I think I can bring that to this commission.
Ms Harrington: Just basically dealing with people and working with people at the municipal level.
Mr Fera: That's right, yes.
Ms Harrington: I've been looking at some of our research that we got today on both the Gaming Control Commission and the Ontario Casino Corp, and I think in a lot of people's minds the difference between the two bodies is not clear. Could you explain to us your understanding of the difference between the Gaming Control Commission and the Ontario Casino Corp?
Mr Fera: My understanding is that the casino corporation is in place to specifically run the casinos. My understanding of the Gaming Control Commission is that it would be the body that oversees the legislation and the enforcement of the rules.
Ms Harrington: I think that's clear.
Now, what some people obviously say is that gaming, like drugs, is addictive and that we as a society in Ontario should be concerned about the amount of gaming that is going on. How would you on the Gaming Control Commission address this issue or how would you deal with the issue of it being addictive? Whether it's bingos or Monte Carlo nights or whatever, it's still addictive.
Mr Fera: Yes, I know that it has been an issue. I think that issue would be brought before the commission by the commissioners as a whole and I think, as I said before, all the players involved would deal in participating, and their input -- I think really it's something the commission would have to deal with when it's in place.
1010
Ms Harrington: Are they dealing with it now, do you know?
Mr Fera: The commission isn't in place now.
Ms Harrington: The Gaming Control Commission?
Mr Fera: That's right.
Ms Harrington: It's not in place?
Mr Fera: The commissioners are not in place.
Ms Harrington: Okay. So it's something that you would like to look at.
Mr Fera: Yes, it is.
Ms Harrington: Oh, good. Okay, I'll pass to one of my colleagues then.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): A couple of brief questions: As it presently stands, there's a huge number of real growth industries in gambling and bingos and Monte Carlos etc. I understand there are some 50,000 licences, mostly charities and things. As a municipal politician, I'm sure you've dealt with the many competing bodies, all of which want a bingo for a Saturday night. I know certainly in my community, in Oshawa, there was a great deal of controversy about an intended bingo hall in north Oshawa. People were saying, "Well, if that bingo hall goes in, then our bingo is going to go down the tubes." Yet, as my colleague was saying, many charities rely upon bingos. How do you, as a municipal politician, deal with those conflicting demands for licences and permission to operate games of chance for charity?
Mr Fera: I think the municipal role is really at the end of the process and really all we do is verify the licensing. Who is to determine? The criteria for the licensing are the gaming commission's, so from the municipal end of it, I really think we don't have a lot of control of that.
Mr White: Not from the municipal end but as a member of the commission then, you would be very sensitive to the fact that there are those competing requests in a community and there is a need for some kind of balance, a limited number of games, for example, in a community like Capreol or Sudbury?
Mr Fera: I'm sure when the commission is in place, that would be one of the issues that would be dealt with by that new commission.
Interjection.
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): I'm drawing a blank.
Ms Harrington: Who is that handsome gentleman?
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Come on, Margaret. You never forget.
The Chair: I didn't want to say "Randy." Mr Hope, thank you.
Mr Hope: I want to ask just a couple of questions --
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): We've been away too long. The Legislature's been away too long.
Mr Hope: Some of us would like to miss others a little longer, but Margaret never wants to miss me. We're on a first-name basis, right, Margaret?
The Chair: We are, definitely.
Mr Hope: There we go.
Legislative research does some work on public appointments that come before this committee. I want to ask two basic questions that are in this report. What is your understanding of the new legislation dealing with the Ontario Casino Corporation Act, and also the gaming legislation? I'm wondering if you could briefly explain to me what your understanding is of that.
Mr Fera: My basic understanding is that the regulations will be put in place to identify any problems and to uphold the integrity of gaming. Other than that, sir, my knowledge is very, very limited. Briefing material that I've requested is limited, as you can imagine, and I could only speculate on those items.
Mr Hope: Being as the briefing material is only limited, I guess my question would be to you, as a public appointment to a process, what is your understanding of the government's objective in establishing the Gaming Control Commission as a regulatory agency then?
Mr Fera: Well, gaming is here, and my understanding is that because it is here, there have to be regulations in place that will make sure it's performed in a fair manner and that the public at large would know that and would not be hesitant to engage in gaming.
Mr Hope: When you use the words "fair" and "the public" -- and I'm going to ask you this; it's not in this briefing -- if there were a public outcry, what would your decision be based on, public outcry or the ability to regulate appropriately?
Mr Fera: The rules have to be in place or the whole system falls apart. Basically, I think if you vary from the rules, you really do put the process in danger.
Mr Hope: Okay, thank you.
Mr Callahan: Mr Fera, I'm curious. I notice that you've been involved with a union -- and that's not the thrust of my question. The thrust of my question is that many of these -- well, the existing casino and I suppose any future ones -- will likely be unionized. Do you feel that with your involvement with the unions before, should there become a labour dispute within the particular casino, you'd have any difficulty with that?
Mr Fera: No, I wouldn't, sir. I don't see my role as a union activist on this commission. I see my role as a possible commissioner representing the people of Ontario.
Mr Callahan: So you'd have no trouble then, I would gather, voting as a member of that control unit to perhaps prevent an illegal strike or to recommend to the government that perhaps measures be taken to ensure that the strike is brought to a quick end.
Mr Fera: I don't think that would be the job of the commission at all, no, sir.
Mr Callahan: You don't think that would be the job of the commissioner at all?
Mr Fera: No, sir.
Ms Harrington: They don't deal with casinos.
Mr Callahan: They're gaming control. Let me ask you this as well: What would you do as a member of the Gaming Control Commission in terms of attempting to avoid the possibility which we heard from the chief of police of Windsor about laundering of money?
Mr Fera: I'm sorry. I'm not familiar with that, sir.
Mr Callahan: Do you know what laundering of money is?
Mr Fera: Yes, I do, sir.
Mr Callahan: So you don't have any comment on that at all?
Mr Fera: I'm not familiar with the situation. I don't even speculate.
Mr Callahan: I see. I don't mean this in any disrespectful fashion, but I've read your curriculum vitae. What do you specifically see as the background that you have which would bring you to serve on this committee?
Mr Fera: As I said before, through my municipal experience, I think I've proven that I'm capable, that I'm competent in the work that I perform, and I'm sure I bring that to the commission.
Mr Callahan: I notice under, "Statement of Criteria About Which Intended Appointee Was Chosen: familiarity with charitable gaming." What is your experience with that?
Mr Fera: My experience is just through the municipality in which we deal with Nevada licensing and bingo licensing and that sort.
Mr Callahan: What did you personally have to do with that? What is your involvement?
Mr Fera: Being the deputy mayor of the town of Nickel Centre, those licences come before our council and we approve them or disapprove them and if there's a problem, we begin a process to investigate.
Mr Callahan: But personally, what have --
Mr Fera: I have no personal experience in gaming. I have no personal experience with charities other than local, municipal charities in trying to raise money for different organizations.
Mr Callahan: So what you're telling this committee is that your experience is simply that, as deputy mayor of that community, you had to listen to groups who wished to get a licence for the charitable gaming and that's the extent of it.
Mr Hope: I'm sure he'd like to have a game of blackjack.
Mr Callahan: That's what I'm trying to get at, Mr Hope. I'm trying to get at -- do you know how to play any of these games?
Mr Fera: I don't gamble, sir.
Mr Hope: Then why don't you ask that question?
Mr Callahan: I see. You don't gamble. He doesn't gamble. Does that answer your question? What I'd really like to know is -- this is going to be a position that's not going to be a learning experience; this is going to be something where you're going to be hot into it at the first meeting. Have you prepared yourself or has anybody provided you with briefing materials to let you know what this position's all about?
Mr Fera: The material that I've requested basically tells me what the commission is about. It doesn't go into any details about gambling per se; I think that's the job of the Ontario Casino Corp to regulate the kinds of games that are played. My experience, as I said, is through my municipal background in dealing with the different organizations that have applied.
Mr Callahan: With the greatest of respect, I have 26 years in municipal background and I would certainly not have any idea of what was expected of me if I were to be appointed to this commission. I would think that you would have received extensive briefing material to at least prepare yourself for this position. I don't like to say this, but looking at your curriculum vitae and your telling us what you know about this, we could have anybody here before us applying for this job.
Mr Fera: I don't know that my knowledge of gambling is required to sit on this commission. I think my knowledge of being part of a regulatory body is probably the most important part.
Mr Callahan: Other than your municipal experience, what other experience do you have with reference to regulatory bodies?
Mr Fera: My municipal experience is my experience.
Mr Callahan: How many years were you on municipal council? Is that in your CV?
Mr Fera: Seven years.
1020
Mr Callahan: Seven years. You were elected first, I guess, as an alderman, were you?
Mr Fera: That's right.
Mr Callahan: Then re-elected?
Mr Fera: Yes.
Mr Callahan: Two elections?
Mr Fera: I was elected as deputy mayor, and this is my second term as deputy mayor.
Mr Callahan: I see. What committees did you chair while you were there?
Mr Fera: I was the vice-chair of the planning committee for the region of Sudbury. I sat on the health and social services committee. I am, as I said, the deputy mayor of the town of Nickel Centre. I'm chair of the budget committee, transportation committee and various other minor committees like policy and project committees.
Mr Callahan: Did you serve on any of those committees in your first term as a municipal councillor?
Mr Fera: In my first term I served on the town of Nickel Centre municipal committees, which are transit and that type. As deputy mayor, I also sit on Sudbury regional government, and that's why I've been sitting on their committees. It's a two-tier system.
Mr Callahan: I want to go back to what kind of briefing --
The Chair: Mr Callahan, just to warn you, Mr Cleary would like a question, and there are only three and a half minutes left.
Mr Callahan: Oh, sorry, go ahead, John.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Welcome to the committee, John. I'm sure you, as a municipal politician, do have concerns. Up till this point, do you have anything that's outstanding in your mind of the material that you've read up till now about backlogs and all this stuff? I was a municipal politician too for a lot of years and I know what municipal people ask of you. Do you have any concerns about anything that you've read up till now?
Mr Fera: My only concern, sir, is that the gaming commission carries out a fair and honest process. I guess that's the concern of the government, and that's why this commission is being put in place.
Mr Cleary: I know that with any commission that's ever set up a backlog always forms, and that gets residents that are applying very concerned. My question is, do you know how often your committee will be sitting?
Mr Fera: No, I don't, sir.
Mr Cleary: You don't know.
Mr Fera: No, I don't.
Mr Cleary: Are you concerned about a backlog?
Mr Fera: I haven't really thought of it, to be honest with you, sir.
Mr Cleary: I guess those are my questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Curling?
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have none at all at this time. So good luck to you.
Mr Fera: Thank you.
Mr Curling: Send some of those profits to Scarborough.
The Chair: Mr McLean?
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm finished.
The Chair: Oh, you're finished. All right. Thank you very much, Mr Fera, for your appearance before the committee this morning.
GLENN BUCHANAN
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Glenn Buchanan, intended appointee as member, Gaming Control Commission.
The Chair: Our next intended appointment this morning is that of Mr Glenn Buchanan.
Mr Curling: Welcome to the committee. I presume that the questions that are going to be asked from now on will be the same questions. You have a good understanding of the legislation? Are you coming into this appointment with a good understanding of this legislation?
Mr Glenn Buchanan: I have an understanding of what the commission is expected to do. I wouldn't say that I have expertise in the actual legislation, no. It's my understanding that we have a meeting scheduled for March, two days where we'll have an opportunity, through the chair of the commission, to get a briefing on the actual legislation. I've seen the legislation, but I must admit I haven't read all of the regulations.
Mr Curling: Could you tell me, Mr Buchanan, what the criteria and the qualifications are that you bring to this board that you think would be beneficial to this board?
Mr Buchanan: It's my understanding that the commission is there to make sure, as my colleague just said, that there's honesty and integrity within the gaming community. I'm a representative of a trade union and represent workers. I have an understanding of conflict and resolution of conflict. I currently sit on seven sectoral committees, including co-chair with both the federal and provincial sectoral committee. I think one of the biggest things I would bring forward is an ability to work cooperatively with a commission such as this to ensure that it can function properly.
Mr Curling: Recently, over the last couple of months, many of the appointments that were made here have been questioned as to the fact that they are associated with the NDP or the labour unions, and quite a few people who have come before us, although they are, are quite qualified themselves. How would you respond to a question that would say it's because you are a member of the labour union that you got this appointment?
Mr Buchanan: If that was to be said, I think I would be the only person on the commission who would be there representing labour, and I don't really see that that would be wrong. This is a new industry. There will be a lot of workers involved both in the Windsor casino and in charitable gambling, and I think it's important that workers' viewpoints be brought forward. The Ontario Federation of Labour represents 800,000 workers. They are citizens of Ontario and have concerns about gaming the same as anyone else. I think that as a result of being a representative for workers for the last 18 years, it gives me an opportunity to reflect some of the concerns that working people have about this industry.
Mr Curling: So you're saying that your experience, then, from that point of view, will be beneficial, which you explained.
Mr Buchanan: I think so, yes.
Mr Curling: How would you respond to the concern of some of the non-profit charitable organizations that have been raising money for their cause over the years? They feel that casino gambling, or gaming, will take away or distract from them some of those moneys that would have really come to them and they find it more difficult for them to raise funds to advance the cause they believe in.
Mr Buchanan: I'm sure there's a lot of concern in the community and within the charities that this would be an issue. I think the commission is going to have to address the issue. I haven't formed any opinion as to a solution to it, but it's something that will be, I'm sure, addressed within the commission as time goes on. Prior to the casino being brought in in Windsor, there have always been lotteries and so on. There has been an opportunity for people to spend their money in a number of different ways besides charity bingos or those kinds of things, but it's certainly an area that I'm sure is of concern and that the commission will address.
Mr Curling: Yes, lots of people have come to me in this regard and are extremely concerned that the government -- and I'm not blaming this government. All governments now are looking at how they distribute money, although of course lately I've seen a whole bunch of cheques thrown around to many organizations --
Mr Hope: I've seen Peterson do a lot more. I remember he used to stand --
The Chair: Excuse me. Mr Curling has the floor.
Mr Curling: I thought Mr Hope was being appointed to this commission, the way he's talking, and I even lost my trend because of that rude interruption there.
Mr Hope: I apologize for interrupting.
Mr Callahan: Could we have that time not taken from us, Madam Chair? He's interrupted my --
The Chair: Mr Curling has the floor. Would you continue. There are five minutes left.
Mr Curling: Looks like I rattled the cages over there. It may not be the same question, because I don't know where I was at. I was saying that private, non-profit groups have tremendous concerns, because government funding that was coming to them in the past will be cut off somehow because of restraint and lack of funds in respect of this quite recessional time when government is looking to cut programs and to be as fiscally responsible as it can. So the concern that they have in this regard is rather genuine in itself, that when there's a shortfall in government funding, they go out and look for funding through some sort of lottery or so on. They feel that when the government is competing with them in that respect, the shortfall will be quite severe in that area.
I presume the board will be discussing issues like that from time to time, how we distribute the funds. Do you feel that you'd have any input, influence, in the fact of sitting on the board that those organizations should be looked at in how funds should be given to them in regard to carrying on their work?
Mr Buchanan: As I said, I don't really claim expertise in this commission prior to being a member, but I would certainly think that's an issue for the Legislature as opposed to the commission. How the government decides to distribute funds or take care of charitable organizations I think is an issue for the government, not the commission.
1030
Mr Callahan: Mr Buchanan, I've looked at what you've provided to the committee and I don't see any experience there whatsoever for this particular job and you've not helped me with your answers to the questions here. I also note that you're the president of the union.
Mr Buchanan: I wish I were but no, I'm not. I'm a national representative.
Mr Callahan: All right. Is that going to interfere with your job, with this appointment, if you get it?
Interjection: He's got it.
Mr Buchanan: My organization has authorized me to participate on this commission.
Mr Callahan: My colleague says you've got it. You probably do. This committee is just something unbelievable.
In any event, Mr Buchanan, do you know what laundering money is?
Mr Buchanan: Yes.
Mr Callahan: What is it?
Mr Buchanan: When somebody takes profits from an illegal activity and tries to put them through an organization to have that money come out on the other end shown as a profit or a legitimate enterprise.
Mr Callahan: You say you have absolutely no experience about what this appointment's all about and --
Mr Buchanan: I haven't been appointed to it yet, so I don't --
Mr Callahan: Well, look, this is just a charade. We don't get to say anything. This was set up by the government just to make it look like we approve these appointments, but we really don't.
What I'd like to know is, you've told us you know nothing about what the duties are. Were you not given briefing materials by the government or anybody as to what this job's all about?
Mr Buchanan: I'm disappointed to hear that there's no value in my being here, because I did take time to come down here today to be available to you. I didn't say that I don't know anything about it. What I said is that I don't claim expertise in a field that I haven't been appointed to yet. I was provided briefing material by the commission. I have reviewed that material to some degree. It's a binder approximately four inches thick that includes the regulations, legislation, some press clippings, some comments.
Mr Callahan: Who supplied that to you?
Mr Buchanan: The commission.
Mr Callahan: I see. Okay. And --
Mr Buchanan: What I was going to say is --
Mr Callahan: Sorry, go ahead.
Mr Buchanan: -- I haven't had an opportunity to go through that four-inch binder and read every word, so I would hate to appear before you on the basis that I am claiming expertise in an organization or in a commission that I haven't yet sat on or been approved to.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee. This commission, I believe, is going to be one of the most important ones in Ontario because of what is happening with regard to casinos and other gambling in Ontario. I think you're going to have a big job controlling all the aspects. Will the gaming commission make recommendations if there are going to be more casinos? I wonder, is that part of their jurisdiction?
Mr Buchanan: It's my understanding that the government itself makes decisions on further casinos. We are an advisory committee on regulation and as such our commission, I understand, doesn't make recommendations on location of or the number of casinos. That's a government issue.
Mr McLean: I'm curious: There have been no studies done from the one in Windsor to see what the impact has been on the local community, and with the announcement of any further casinos it worries me a bit to find out what has happened with the ones that we have. I know in my riding the aboriginal people have been allotted a casino. There have been no impact studies done to determine what the benefits or non-benefits of the community are going to be. I was just curious if the commission was going to have any input to try to see that there were some studies done or how many more casinos we should have in Ontario. You're telling me that you don't think the commission gets involved in that.
Mr Buchanan: As I say, I don't think that they do. I think that's an issue the government itself deals with as to a decision on how many or where casinos are located. We are, I understand, a regulatory body that ensures that the integrity and honesty of this industry is maintained. It deals more with the regulations of the operations as opposed to the picking of a site.
Mr McLean: Would that be the same for, I guess, the Ontario Lottery Corp? Would you oversee their jurisdiction?
Mr Buchanan: No, we don't deal with the lotteries, nor do we deal with any of the operations of the actual casino. We deal with regulations and registration for those people who are doing business with the casinos. People who are dealing with the casino or with charitable gaming have to register to ensure that they don't have ties to organized crime, that they are honest people. I believe that's the main function of the commission.
Mr McLean: Would your commission have any input if you wanted to open some more bingo halls or allow more Nevada tickets? Do they have any input into that?
Mr Buchanan: I understand that the people who run bingos or Nevada tickets have to register with the commission. I believe it's legislation or the government that determines the number of them. There are, I think, set criteria as to the number of charitable bingos or the gaming that goes on within the province. Those that apply are dealt with by the commission.
Mr McLean: "The separation of functions between the Gaming Control Commission and the Ontario Casino Corp," it says here, "should ensure the independence of the former and prevent any perceived conflict of interest." Would you comment on that statement with regard to the separation of the Gaming Control Commission and the Ontario Casino Corp? Are you aware of anything in that, that they are kind of separate?
Mr Buchanan: Yes. The casino corporation is responsible for the actual running of or managing of and ownership of the casino. The commission has no authority in the running of the casino but is there as a regulatory body to ensure that those people who are either hired or do business with the casino register, that there's a background check done on them and to ensure that there is no conflict as far as the honesty of their applications.
Mr McLean: Thank you. I wish you well.
Mr Sterling: I'm interested in this Gaming Control Commission from the standpoint that I think it will be an interesting commission in a lot of ways, but one of the things that appears to me is that there are going to be some difficulties in dealing with somebody whom the commission has concerns about.
What will you do if you get somebody who wants to run a charitable bingo or wants to be involved in a casino in some way and there is some question as to the integrity of that person but the evidence isn't clear-cut? If somebody has a criminal record, are they automatically excluded? How do you make the decision point and how are you accountable to that person?
Mr Buchanan: I understand that on the staff of the commission there are a number of OPP who have been seconded to the commission and that they do the background investigation for people who are making application. I don't know enough yet to say what the criteria are that they use to deny people. I believe there's a three-person commission that they can appeal to.
If our commission makes a decision, there is an appeal process separate from our commission. So if I'm denied registration, I can appeal to -- and I may be wrong about this because I understood that there was an appeal committee, commission, separate from our commission that they could appeal to. I don't know what the OPP standards are or what the commission has set as standards for an application.
1040
Mr Sterling: I guess there's an opportunity for a bit of a problem in terms of your relationship with the labour movement if in fact someone within the labour movement was trying to be involved. What would you do if, for instance, someone from the labour movement came to you and said, "Oh, you know that Joe is up in front of the commission and he's asking to be registered as a dealer in the casino"? What would you say to that particular labour movement person?
Mr Buchanan: When I applied and was interviewed for the job, one of the first things that was very clearly pointed out is that, in the event of a conflict of interest, it should be declared, and I have no difficulty with that. We had to go through, in this application, an extensive background check on ourselves, and I'm an honest person.
I may be wrong because I haven't participated yet, but I don't believe the commissioners themselves get involved in the actual approval or disapproval of individual applications. I don't see that an application that was submitted would be an issue brought before the commissioners. I think what we'll be dealing with is giving advice on policies of the commission itself to make determinations.
I'm not sure that I would be any different from any individual on that committee as far as being approached is concerned. I may be approached, and I would declare that I had been approached to the other commissioners and would exclude myself. But I don't see that individual applications would come before us.
Mr Sterling: I read that the mandate of the commission is to make certain that casinos are not damaged by the reputation of people who might adversely affect the credibility of that "industry," so I thought the commission would be faced with those tough decisions.
Mr Buchanan: There is a fairly extensive staff. I understand there's approximately --
Mr Sterling: The staff will advise you, but somebody's got to make the decision. The staff are not turning down the licence or the registration. I'm sure the commission must.
Mr Buchanan: I'm sorry. As I say, I haven't been part of the commission; we haven't had a meeting. I would assume it's an administrative thing, that the commission staff would deal with normal applications. I would understand that we wouldn't be dealing with a specific application brought before us about whether an individual would be allowed to be registered. I'd be quite surprised if they were. If they were, as I said, I'd have no problem in declaring myself having a conflict if somebody had already approached me on it.
Mr Hope: I want to go to your résumé. Mr Callahan made the comment that he doesn't see anything in what you've said today nor in your résumé to indicate you have the ability. In here it says "with honesty, integrity and the public interest" as one of the criteria for how a commissioner must act or is mandated to act.
I notice in your application that you've now been involved 18 years with the labour movement. You've served on the Canadian Labour Congress environmental committee, which shows a public interest; the environment is of public interest and people play an active role in that. You've co-chaired the Canadian Plastics Training Centre, co-chaired the ministerial advisory committee on plastics. That tells me there's public interest, there's integrity, because you've been asked to be the co-chair. Somebody must believe you have the ability, contrary to what the opposition was just saying about your ability to function on this committee. The ministerial advisory committee on chemicals: That's another part of your job.
Mr Callahan: Why don't you just read it into the record?
The Chair: Excuse me. Mr Hope actually behaved very well when you had the floor, Mr Callahan.
Mr Callahan: No, he didn't.
Mr Hope: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm glad you recognize my cooperation.
What I read in this résumé, and looking at the criteria that have been the mandate of the commission -- I mean, we can all throw hypothetical questions about laundering of money. You're absolutely right: You're going to have police who are actively involved in working with the casinos and making sure in every possible way, but we all know there's no such thing as a 100% checkup on anything. When questions are being posed about laundering of money, you don't know whether that's inside, outside or where it's coming from, and that's why other laws and other people are there to do that.
When I look at your role and responsibility in this commission, it's going to be a challenge and it's going to be something new. But to raise the question of whether you have the competence -- I guess because you don't have a lawyer's degree with keys to the Don Jail he asked the question about whether you have the ability. But when I look at the responsibilities that have been bestowed upon you to represent a lot of workers -- and we're not talking about 40 or 50 people; we're talking about a huge number of workers -- I believe you do have the credibility, and I want to put that on the record. I know it's not a question, but I wanted to make sure it was stated on the record, because if you only read the part of Hansard where he asked you questions, it would lead somebody to believe that your résumé is not significant. Your résumé is significant. In 1980 the Commonwealth study conference -- I mean, it is there, and I believe it's important to make sure that part of your résumé is put forward.
My basic question to you is simply about the legislation itself. I'm not going to ask you hypothetical questions, what you do about that stuff. I want to ask you very specific questions about the legislation. Could you explain your knowledge of the legislation to me?
Mr Buchanan: As it deals with the commission?
Mr Hope: As it just deals with the legislation. What is your knowledge of the basic legislation?
Mr Buchanan: It's a fairly lengthy piece of legislation.
Mr Hope: Just give me some rough -- I don't want everything.
Mr Buchanan: I understand that what we will be doing as commissioners is to ensure that the people who deal with this industry have honesty and integrity. That's a concern that the government has, it's a concern that I have as a private citizen of this province, and that's one of the reasons I volunteered to participate on this commission.
The legislation setting up this commission ensures that those people who are actually running the casinos have some checks and balances to ensure that it's done right. I understand that what the commission will be doing is overseeing those people who have dealings with the industry and making sure they have some honesty and integrity and that there's financial responsibility back to this province and the public.
Mr Hope: I'm going to bow to my colleagues. I wish you success in this job. Let's hope Lyn McLeod's not the Premier, because we don't know yet whether or not she supports casinos. We're trying to balance that out. It depends where she's at in the province, whether she says she supports it. But good luck in your job.
Mr White: No, no. We know that Lyn McLeod supports casinos in Niagara Falls and Sault Ste Marie and nowhere else in the province.
Regardless, Mr Buchanan, welcome to the committee and thank you very much for coming. I want to apologize for some of the actions of at least one of my colleagues. Not everyone, of course, given their professional background, has hands-on knowledge of money laundering. That requires a certain kind of special knowledge.
You clearly indicated your knowledge of the difference between the casino corporation, which is a management corporation, and the gaming commission that you would be looking to joining. I hear what you're saying in terms of the regulations and ensuring that there is a quality of applicants, that those people are honest and show integrity and that the work they do is for the public benefit. Do you think there is a role as well for this commission to comment to the government in terms of the structure of gaming, the degree to which we have competing interests in various communities and also, of course, within a province-wide community?
Mr Buchanan: Not only do we regulate in terms of who participates within the industry, but we also have the responsibility of control and approval of the actual games that take place. We would as commissioners, I'm sure, be making recommendations to the government, but we have no authority as to the locations or number of casinos. That's why I say that's an issue the government itself would deal with.
I'm speculating, as, not having been there yet or participated, I can't say what issues come before it. There are obviously issues of concern, and I'm sure we would be making recommendations back to the government on issues such as was asked me, about the concerns about charitable gaming or bingos, that they have an opportunity to continue to raise funds for charities. I'm sure we would deal with that in terms of making recommendations back to the government, because issues will be brought before the commission on that.
1050
Ms Harrington: You're from Toronto, are you?
Mr Buchanan: I live in Stoney Creek. I work out of Etobicoke. It's all one big area, as Toronto.
Ms Harrington: I have two concerns. The first is the confusion we seem to be hearing here with regard to the role of the Ontario Casino Corp and the Gaming Control Commission. I want to point out that in the research we are provided with, the first eight pages actually deal with the Windsor casino and the Ontario Casino Corporation Act, which I think is misleading with regard to the Gaming Control Commission, because the mandate of the commission, as you have said, is clearly for all gaming in Ontario, to ensure its integrity and policies that ensure that.
I also want to point out very quickly to Mr McLean that studies are being done on the casino -- and we'll get to that probably with our next appointee -- before any other casinos are going ahead.
I want to pick up on what my colleague was talking about: the viability of local charities. There is a growing dependence upon gaming across this province, and with the situation of Windsor and/or other casinos, what is going to happen to those local charities? I see that as clearly an issue for your commission, and also the issue of addiction. People within our party and across the province are concerned, with the introduction of casinos, as well as all the bingo halls which are very clearly here, that the question of addiction be addressed, that it not be hidden, that the numbers be there and we look at how we can deal with it. Would you like to comment on that?
Mr Buchanan: On the charities, my understanding is that it's a different clientele that participates in the charity bingos. I understand that 80% of the clientele in the Windsor casino are Americans; they are coming there. With a $10 limit on charity gaming, it's a different clientele that wants to participate at the Windsor casino as compared to those who participate in bingo or charity bingo. I don't see the clientele that go to bingos also going to a casino. A bingo is a totally different thing.
There is concern, though, over the effect and impact casinos will have on charities, and it is an issue that I'm sure will be brought before the commission. I don't have any solutions or any recommendations at this point. I'd be very interested in participating in those discussions, because I believe they have the right to participate and earn moneys for the good of the public.
In terms of addiction, I was pleased to see that the Ministry of Health had announced funding for addiction research to those organizations that deal with addiction. Those foundations and addiction research places were in place before the casino in Windsor came to Ontario, so this has been an ongoing problem that they've addressed. I understand that the ministry is setting aside an annual budget of $1 million to assist those organizations to deal with that issue. I don't know that the commission is going to be in a place to actually deal with addiction, but it's certainly something that will be brought before the commission and will be a subject for discussion.
Ms Harrington: Thank you. We appreciate your attendance.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Buchanan, for your appearance before the committee this morning.
KEN SIGNORETTI
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Ken Signoretti, intended appointee as member, Ontario Casino Corp.
The Chair: Our next intended appointment review is that of Mr Ken Signoretti as a member of the Ontario Casino Corp. Welcome to the committee.
Mr Ken Signoretti: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr McLean: Good morning. Have you been to the Windsor casino yet?
Mr Signoretti: No, I haven't.
Mr McLean: Have you been to any casino?
Mr Signoretti: Yes, I've played a few games myself, once in a while.
Mr Sterling: How'd you do?
Mr Signoretti: Actually, the last time I was in Vegas I did pretty well.
Mr McLean: The commission and the corporation report to different ministers; that's the gaming control and the casinos. Do you think it would be more appropriate if there were only one minister involved in the whole gaming aspect, lotteries and casinos?
Mr Signoretti: No. As I understand it, from what I've read and what I know of the casino in Windsor, I think what they're trying to do is separate the two in terms of reporting as regards gaming, in terms of the games themselves and in terms of running as the casino commission. I think it's a good idea that in fact they are separate.
Mr McLean: The corporation you're being appointed to has made some recommendations and some changes to the proposed and permanent casino in Windsor. Are you familiar with any of those changes they are proposing?
Mr Signoretti: I have to be very frank with you. I really don't know that much about the casino itself. All I understand is what I've read about it. I understand that there's an interim casino right now, that at some point in time a permanent casino is going to be set up somewhat closer to the downtown area. They're in the process of doing that, and I imagine it would take some time to do that. That's all I know, but my only guess would be that, as there was concern and there were people who wanted the casino going, I guess the government probably went ahead with a temporary casino.
Mr McLean: In your briefing notes, have you noticed where there have been any studies taking place? Mrs Harrington said there have been studies going on; I haven't heard of any. Are you aware of any?
Mr Signoretti: No, I don't know.
Mr McLean: Do you feel that perhaps, before other sites are named or established, there should be some impact studies done on that community to determine what the results would be?
Mr Signoretti: Let me go back; maybe I didn't quite understand the question. Let me ask you a question, if I might: Are you speaking to the issue of where they wanted to locate the casino itself?
Mr McLean: That's right.
Mr Signoretti: Sorry, I misunderstood. I know a number of people in the Sault and people in, for example, Niagara Falls and other places who wanted it, because we've had contact with the labour councils, who've been, in some instances, promoting it. So there have been studies done.
As far as the Windsor one is concerned -- and I'm just giving you my own personal point of view of the whole issue, and that's from an outsider at this point -- it probably made more sense to put it in Windsor, at least the first one, because of the market within Detroit and because, as I understand it, some of the surveys showed that the patrons would be mostly Americans. It would make sense to have it in Windsor where you'd have a larger population wanting to use casinos.
Mr McLean: Minister Lankin has indicated that the city of Windsor will not share in any casino profits. Would you think that any municipality or area that has a casino should get some of the profits?
Mr Signoretti: No, I don't. I think they should share in -- let me clarify that. A casino obviously brings in other things, impacts and spinoffs that the casinos would bring in, and I think the community should benefit from that. But as it's the provincial government doing it, the responsibility for the provincial government is basically the whole province and I think the province as a whole should share.
Without knowing really what's happening, I would think that they are right now, for example, within Windsor benefiting from some of the spinoffs as a result of it, that other communities, I'm sure, would like to get in on.
Mr McLean: They're talking about the construction of a marina on the Detroit River. Apparently there are some negotiations going on now between the city and the corporation. Are you aware of any --
Mr Signoretti: I don't know about details or anything, but I've heard that there are discussions going on.
1100
Mr Sterling: Thank you very much for coming to the committee. You obviously have involved yourself in the community to a large degree with the United Way, and I congratulate you on your work in the past with those and bringing the labour movement --
Mr Signoretti: I worked with your Chair in Mississauga.
Mr Sterling: Well, then I doublecongratulate you. I don't think she quite understood that.
One of the problems I have with crown corporations, particularly those that are involved in a monopoly, as the Ontario Casino Corp will be -- and my concern is with the Ontario Lottery Corp, which, in reviewing its most recent annual report, from 1993-94, its expenses rose more than the amount of net profit that the province received out of the increase in the lottery sales from 1993-94.
I guess of all of the kinds of financial corporations that I would like to run, it would be one where I had a monopoly on the business and therefore, really, I knew there always was going to be a profit at the end of the year. I guess one of the problems that I see in doing this is, how do you limit the expenditure of the casino corporation? You will always have a profit, because you're in a business where there will always be profit. It's a rosy picture to be a director of, because you know that regardless of what happens, there's a very, very good chance that, unless you really fumble the ball or there's a huge shift in the market, that's going to be there.
Therefore, when you come, for instance, to negotiating with the union, how are you going to draw a bottom line with them? You could pay them twice as much as they're getting and still produce a profit. It's very difficult. This is a problem that I always have when you're talking about, for instance, liquor stores in Ontario, another monopolistic situation. How much is a clerk in a store worth? If you go around the corner to the competing private jurisdiction, which doesn't have a monopoly, the clerk is getting paid very much less. So there's a balance between trying to give the person a fair wage and the fact that you've got sort of a limitless chequebook. How are you going to balance that?
Mr Signoretti: First of all, you're asking me if I'm going to deal with the union. I don't know that I do deal with the union, as a member of the board of directors. Secondly, I guess my position would be, as it has been in other areas when I've done my volunteer work, whether it was the United Way or the Institute for the Prevention of Child Abuse, you have to make value judgements on where you can get involved and where you can't get involved. But I don't know -- and I say this very sincerely, Mr Sterling -- what the role of the board of directors is in the fact that it gets into the day-to-day negotiations. I assume that's the union itself that would do that.
Mr Sterling: I would imagine you would represent the management side of the equation in this.
Mr Signoretti: I've done that in my role as the executive vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. Let me tell you I've done that. In my roles as the president and vice-president of the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto I've done that. Sometimes it's hard trying to balance the two hats, but I guess you have to do that at some point.
Mr Sterling: I look at political appointments perhaps a little differently than some other people. I don't mind politically motivated appointments. I believe that the government in power should have the right to appoint its own to various government agencies. I don't think that that's wrong. I think that's part of our democratic system.
You're obviously closely associated with the New Democratic Party. I see no negatives in terms of them choosing you, because I think you're a well-qualified person as well in terms of your job.
What is your view in terms of if the government should change? Appointments where obviously there is a close political link, do you think that those appointments should end?
Mr Signoretti: First of all, I don't know how long the appointment is going to be for. Secondly, it's the government of the day that makes that decision. If they felt that was an impact, then they'd make a change. I would have no control. I wouldn't gripe about it.
Mr Sterling: Okay. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sterling. Actually, in reference to your comment about the Chair, I would state on the record that in my opinion, Mr Signoretti was a tremendous member of the United Way board of Peel: very contributing, very capable. You do have a chance to withdraw your comments about this Chair, however.
Interjections.
Mr Sterling: Madam Chair, just a matter of clarification: I just said that it was wonderful he could work with you.
Ms Harrington: Take that any way you want.
The Chair: This is a new year. I'm going to take it the best way I can. Ms Harrington and Mr White.
Ms Harrington: Thank you, Madam Chair, and these are your colleagues over there.
I wanted to explain a little more clearly to Mr McLean -- and it wasn't to you that I remarked -- with regard to the report that this government is involved in on the Windsor casino. There was a report issued to the government in, I believe, October. It was a three-month report on the operations which began on May 17. It included the social impact on the city of Windsor, the community; the policing aspect; the transportation -- that is, traffic and parking downtown; as well as the amount of money returned to the government and the economic spinoffs in the city and the impact on, say, local businesses downtown.
All of these things were studied after three months and the minister then announced -- it was November 5, Thursday, in the House -- that as of one year, which would be this coming May, there would be a further evaluation, a one-year evaluation, which she felt and the government felt would be needed to look at what happens to those lineups right around the block in downtown Windsor last summer. Would they continue in February? Is this just a startup phenomenon or is this going to be a constant that we can count on? So that's what the government decided, and there certainly is material available now as to what happened in Windsor and there will be a further complete study, which is in May.
I want to thank Mr Signoretti for becoming available for this type of work. It certainly is going to be an important one, I believe, of course, because I represent the city of Niagara Falls.
Mr Signoretti: Yes, and we've had conversations with Kim Craitor too.
Ms Harrington: Oh, good. It's a constant topic, of course, absolutely constant in Niagara Falls with regard to the economics of the situation. We certainly are looking for jobs. Our manufacturing has been decimated, but also the people who are involved in the tourism industry are looking to see what the future of tourism is going to be.
Our government has put a lot of effort into the tourism strategy and working with the city to be a gateway to the province. We're putting a lot of effort into bringing tourism to a new plateau in Ontario and having Niagara Falls as a key to this. Certainly a casino is part of that picture and people are waiting to see when the decision comes because it's a very important part of our whole economy.
My question to you is, so far Windsor has been an undisputed success. Why do think that has been?
Mr Signoretti: A lot of Americans coming and spending their money.
Ms Harrington: Okay. Bringing in foreign currency is what you're saying: bringing money into our economy, not just recycling Ontario dollars.
Mr Signoretti: That's right. But I think it's been successful too because, as I understand it also, as I mentioned earlier, and I talk to the people from Windsor a lot, they feel it's really helped their community, helped in terms of the hotel situation, in terms of all that. So there have been spinoffs.
Ms Harrington: From our point of view, what we want to do is to maximize the potential economic spinoffs -- I'm talking as a government now -- across Ontario, so that locations that we then pick are the ones which have to show that they have maximum benefit. How can the casino corporation be involved in ensuring that casinos, or a casino -- well, we have two already that have been announced -- will be a maximum economic benefit to this province and to the local community?
1110
Mr Signoretti: How they can be of benefit?
Ms Harrington: How do you maximize the economic spinoff?
Mr Signoretti: I really haven't given it that much thought, very honestly. I would assume that you maximize it by having the casino close to the area where there's the business and where it becomes available to people, to the use of the community as a whole. I think that's one way of doing it. I haven't really given it a lot of thought other than that.
Ms Harrington: The other thing I would like to point out to you is the question of Ontario's racetrack industry. I know in Windsor there has been an economic benefit, so when we talk about maximizing economic spinoff we're not hurting any other industry. It has worked well in some kind of partnership there and I would certainly hope that in our area -- we have a racetrack as well -- that will be taken into account, to see how those two can work together for the benefit of the whole region of Niagara as well as the province.
Mr Signoretti: I don't know this, but I would imagine that people who go to racetracks go to racetracks. They are not necessarily the same clientele that would use a casino or play bingo or whatever, so I think there's probably room for all of those charities, because you would have specific clienteles. As I understand, and I've talked to some of the people from -- Marty Coomb in particular told me that was one of his concerns too, is it going to take away from the racing, and it didn't. It's enhanced the racing --
Ms Harrington: I just wanted to make sure that is considered.
Mr Signoretti: No, it's true. I mean, when I say it's true, I accept his word at face value.
Ms Harrington: I'll just point out one other thing before I pass to my colleagues. With 12 million visitors coming to the city of Niagara Falls, what we are finding now is our market is expanding to the people from the Pacific Rim and what we have been told is that they very much do like to gamble and that this would encourage them to stay at least one more day within our city if we had that option of having a casino available. So our people there are very much in favour of it.
Mr Signoretti: Do I detect a message in there?
Mr Sterling: I don't think so.
Mr Hope: You wouldn't be lobbying for a casino?
Mr White: I think we hear heavy-duty lobbying for a casino somewhere else in the province. As the president of the Federation of Labour you have --
Mr Signoretti: Not the president. Gord would be the one, if you want to argue with Gord about this one.
Mr White: Vice-president, excuse me. I know the president. He lives quite close to where I live, as a matter of fact, a fine man. But as the vice-president or in an executive role with the Federation of Labour as a full-time position, you are in fact in management, are you not? So although you have strong union connections and are probably still a member of a trade union or labour movement, you are in fact a member of management?
Mr Hope: He's an administrator.
Mr Signoretti: I mentioned before, Mr White, that in my capacity you deal with the staff, and I did that at the labour council and I also did that when I was the area coordinator with the Steelworkers. Sometimes it's difficult trying to walk that fine line, but you have to do that.
Mr White: So in that capacity, though, you are familiar with that kind of fine line --
Mr Signoretti: I am.
Mr White: -- with making those kinds of distinctions on an ongoing, regular basis. As a member of the trade union movement and also within your capacity with many voluntary organizations like United Way etc, you are familiar with the importance not only of labour being represented, but also of there being representation from business and corporations. Would you have any objection to a representative of, say, Labatt's or some other large corporation being on the casino corporation?
Mr Signoretti: No, not at all. If I might just add to that, one my tasks in my capacity at the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto -- with the United Way of Greater Toronto we set up a joint management-union committee to try to bring together both parties in terms of fund-raising. I don't see this any differently. I have no problem with that at all. I think everybody from the community, all segments of the community have something to offer and they should be able to make that offer.
Mr White: I understand that you've been involved with the United Way, you've been able to work successfully with people from a number of different groups corresponding to political parties etc. I'm wondering also, with that kind of a social bent, if that would give you knowledge of the kind of problems that we've heard about, concern about problems with gambling addiction and the psychosocial effects that a casino may engender.
Mr Signoretti: Forgive me; maybe I'm not understanding. Are you asking me personally, as a person, how it would affect me, or are you --
Mr White: I'm asking you if you're aware from your involvement with the United Way and other social agencies.
Mr Signoretti: I'm sorry. Yes, absolutely. I guess as an individual representing the Ontario Casino Corp, we would have to do everything that we can to try to make sure that these things don't happen, that in fact people just -- I think that's part of the role we have.
Mr Callahan: I have a couple of questions. In your capacity as a member of that board, you're going to be recommending policy to the government. For instance, the one policy that you will probably recommend or have to consider recommending is the question of expansion of casinos. The minister of the day indicated to the Legislature that she would not enlarge the casino -- this is the Windsor experience -- until one year had passed and she'd had a report to the Legislature. We understand from our research that there is in fact consideration by the corporation of a riverboat adjunct to the interim casino. Are you familiar with that?
Mr Signoretti: I've heard of it, yes.
Mr Callahan: What would be your position in terms of first of all the public or the Legislature being told that there would be no expansion and the corporation considering, at the moment, an increase by a riverboat operation? What position would you take as a member of the corporation?
Mr Signoretti: Without being on the board and without having direct knowledge of anything, all I can do is give you a personal opinion on it. I would say that if I were developing something and I said, "Yeah, we're going to look at it in a year's time," and then I see that in fact there has been success over a three- or four- or five-month period, I would feel comfortable saying, "Well, maybe we should expand this right here." I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Mr Callahan: Let me follow up on that. You chaired the United Way, or co-chaired, I guess, in the Peel region area and we thank you for that; I'm a member from the Peel region. I'm sure you're aware that organizations like Big Sisters, Big Brothers and other charitable organizations -- and I can speak specifically to Big Sisters, because I've seen their financial statements. I think they brought in about $125,000, or perhaps more than that, by way of these tear-off Nevada tickets.
I'd like to ask your opinion. Since the expansion of, let's say, slot machines, larger casinos, or VLTs, if they're brought in -- I think it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that this is going to put an end to, or certainly downgrade, the Nevada tickets and therefore the financial contribution that the Big Sisters and I'm sure other organizations have been able to make. How would you deal with that? Obviously, it becomes very important, because as I understand the situation with the casino, nothing goes directly to these groups as the Nevada ticket proceeds do now. That money just goes into what I laughingly call the great black hole, the consolidated revenue fund. How would you deal with that as a member of the corporation?
Mr Signoretti: First of all, I don't agree with you that it in fact affects it because, as I said earlier, you have constituencies that will do things, whether it's the Nevada gambling or whether it's the casino or whether it's horse racing. They stay within their own constituencies. I would suggest to you that in my knowledge of the United Way -- now, I haven't been involved in the last two or three years, mind you -- there was always an increase. Somehow Big Sisters or somehow the other organizations always found an increase. I really believe there are people who say, "Look, this is what I want to do and this is what I want to support," and I don't think there is any evidence to show that it's gone down. In fact, it's increased.
1120
Mr Callahan: Well, it may not have at the moment, but I guess at the nub of my question was that if you, as a member of a corporation, are prepared to recommend to the government that there be expanded operations, ie, the riverboat, which as I understand is going to have something like 95 or so slot machines on it -- it's always been my belief that the only reason people bought the tear-open tickets was because they couldn't get at the real thing -- they'd prefer to play the paper -- because that's all there was, the only game in town. Now you've got the one-armed bandits which you can get at without the necessity of all this tear-off stuff. You don't think that's going to have an impact on --
Mr Signoretti: Well, you're asking me now. I would say no. I would also say that once I'm confirmed, Mr Callahan, I will do all my best to make sure that everybody benefits from what's happening.
Mr Callahan: Okay, let me go on to another stage. In Windsor, probably one of the largest selling features of the Windsor casino was that the residents of Windsor, the businessmen particularly, thought there was going to be increased activity in their downtown. I think, without attempting to sound negative, that has not been the historical track record. As I understand it, most of these people are bused either to the parking lot out at the racetrack or downtown, where they pay $25 or so to park their car. They then are funnelled into the casino and they never get to see the downtown, with the exception, I think, of one fast sandwich place that probably does well, because that's probably all people have got left to spend when they get out of there, and it's fast and you can get back in and crank up the machines again.
Having said that, do you think it's fair that the government on the one hand is not prepared to share any of the revenues with the host community, when on the other side of the coin, the introduction of a casino in the Chippewa reserve will be non-taxed and all of the money will be poured back into the community? What would be your position, sitting as a member of the board, in terms of recommending to government or advising government in that regard?
Mr Signoretti: First of all, let me answer that this way. As I said earlier, I think there is a spinoff effect within the community, and I think you're talking about two constituencies. One is the constituency where you have patrons going into a gambling casino and doing the gambling; the other one is people who live and work in the area, and it has created a number -- I'm not sure. I understand there's something like 2,500 jobs that have been created, so that directly affects the community as a whole. I'm not sure that you're going to get patrons going in, in that particular instance, the way the setup is now, as I understand it, without having seen it.
Secondly, I agree that in terms of the province's position, in fact if the province is involved in it, then the province really has to look for the benefit of the province as a whole. With the first nations casino, as I understand it, the same rules apply with the other casinos, that in fact it will be the whole first nations that benefit and not just that community, not funnelled solely into the community.
Mr Callahan: No, but it's different than the Windsor or any other host community. They don't get a nickel out of it. The province's share goes directly into the consolidated revenue fund. In fact in Windsor the best thing they did for them was they agreed to fund I think 25 extra police officers, and they also I believe returned the cost of the acquisition of the land for the interim casino. But apart from that, there are no special deals for Windsor, and presumably that would be the case for any subsequent casinos.
The question I was asking you was, if you were faced with that situation, if you were faced with that test from a municipality of saying, "Is it fair for the municipality to get none of the money and yet in the first nations casino they're going to get all of the money?" how would you deal with that?
Mr Signoretti: I think you're dealing with two specific issues. When you're talking about the first nations you're talking about government to government. I understand it's being all the first nations. I don't know this; this is the information I have. All the first nations across the province are going to benefit from the casino. In that particular instance you're dealing with people, you're dealing with the first nations. It's a government-to-government thing. But the fact still remains that people across the province are going to benefit from it. I don't know other than that and I'm saying to you as an outsider just knowing what I've read and what I've been involved with to a certain degree. I don't know all the details.
To try to answer your question more specifically in terms of the communities themselves, I guess that once you're there you have to make a value judgement. As of now that would be my position.
The Chair: Thank you for your answer.
Mr Callahan: Is that it?
The Chair: That's all of the time, Mr Callahan.
Mr Callahan: How quickly it goes when you're having --
The Chair: Well, it's right here.
Thank you, Mr Signoretti, for your appearance before the committee today.
BARBARA YOUNG
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Barbara Young, intended appointee as member, Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal.
The Chair: Our next intended appointment review is that of Barbara Young.
Mr Cleary: Welcome to the committee. It is my understanding that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal has over 50 members at the present time. Is that correct?
Ms Barbara Young: I'm not aware of the exact figures as I'm just intended. I haven't been trained yet and I don't know the answer to that. I'm sorry.
Mr Cleary: I guess the next thing I would like to mention is, what is your understanding of your responsibilities to the tribunal to which you were appointed and what is your responsibility back to the individuals who appointed you?
Ms Young: My responsibility, as far as what I have read regarding WCAT, is that I will sit on a panel and I will use my background, my education and my experience as a non-partisan-type person on the panel who will be very fair in judgement. Now, as to the second part of your question, sir?
Mr Cleary: Your responsibilities to those who appointed you.
Ms Young: To those who appointed me, to do the best job that I'm capable of doing. I feel that I will be an asset to the panel because of my background.
Mr Cleary: I was wondering, from the information that you have and we have, what is the backlog there now on that board?
Ms Young: I'm sorry, I can't answer that. I wouldn't know. I am aware from what I've read in the media that there is a backlog but I couldn't tell you exactly what it is as I haven't received that type of training yet.
Mr Callahan: I wonder if I can ask you how this position came to your attention.
Ms Young: The word was out that they were looking for new part-time representatives, and I've always been very interested because of my work. I applied for a position over a year ago.
Mr Callahan: You say the word was out. Who put the word out? Who'd you hear the word from?
Ms Young: From someone who was associated through WCB-WCAT, because I've worked with those people a lot.
Mr Callahan: I see. So it wasn't a matter that this was advertised in the newspaper and you got --
Ms Young: There apparently was a memo asking for applications, and I sent my application in and I was granted an interview last February or April.
Mr Callahan: Have you ever been involved in any political activity? Do you support a particular party?
Ms Young: At the present time I'm a non-card-carrying member.
Mr Callahan: A non-card-carrying member of what party?
Ms Young: That's a very personal question. My political affiliation absolutely has nothing to do with my appointment.
Mr Callahan: Have you been active in politics?
Ms Young: I vote every time there's an election, yes, but no, I've never held a position.
Mr Callahan: Have you worked in campaigns?
Ms Young: Yes, I did one year.
1130
Mr Callahan: Which year was that?
Ms Young: Oh, that would be back in the early 1960s.
Mr Callahan: I see.
Ms Young: I was a polling officer.
Mr Callahan: All right. Did you do door-to-door knocking for anybody?
Ms Young: Pardon me?
Mr Callahan: Have you ever knocked on doors for a political candidate?
Ms Young: No, I haven't done that. I assisted my husband and I can't even remember the name of the type of job I was doing, but it was people who had moved to different places, making sure they were registered.
Mr Callahan: Enumerator.
Ms Young: No, it wasn't enumerating, because we had to go to just specific houses.
Mr Callahan: I see. And you say you assisted your husband in doing that?
Ms Young: Yes.
Mr Callahan: Was your husband a candidate?
Ms Young: No, he's just a retired person.
Mr Callahan: I see. Now, you've indicated to us that you don't -- and I want to be fair in this regard because maybe I misunderstood the answer, but you said you didn't understand what this position was about, you hadn't been told yet.
Ms Young: No, I'm sorry. I don't know the exact procedure and details of the position but I definitely know what the position is about because of my background in working with claims, doing claims management in different industries.
Mr Callahan: So will sitting on this board interfere with your present position that you're in?
Ms Young: There would definitely be a conflict and, if I am appointed, I will definitely resign from any of my other positions.
Mr Callahan: Your background is workers' safety, isn't it?
Ms Young: I am an occupational health nurse, I'm a health and safety specialist and I'm a claims management person. I fill those three functions in the industries I go into.
Mr Callahan: So you would be leaving that if you were successful in getting this position.
Ms Young: Yes, definitely.
Mr Callahan: And are you fully aware of the hours involved in this and the compensation for it?
Ms Young: Yes, I am.
Mr Callahan: I see. You realize, I guess, through your working in this field that the Workers' Compensation Board extravaganza has attracted the interest of all three parties as being one that's somewhat out of control. Would you subscribe to that statement?
Ms Young: I'm only aware of what I have read in the news media, and my dealings with Workers' Compensation Board personnel do not touch that area at all. We're just dealing with cases.
Mr Callahan: Well, so does my constituency office deal with cases and they're pulling their hair out most of the time. Do you not find that it's terribly frustrating to deal with the board?
Ms Young: No, I don't.
Mr Callahan: You don't. You find --
Ms Young: Maybe we're talking different levels. I deal with the adjudicator when a claim is initiated, then I deal with the investigation branch. I deal with the voc rehab and the decision review branch. But we are discussing cases only, not management decisions or anything like that.
Mr Callahan: Maybe I'm mistaken. I'm just a sub on this committee, so I don't have all of the material, but I just wanted to take a look at your CV, which is now being handed to me. Your present position is with whom?
Ms Young: With AFG Glass. I resigned there in December when we found a replacement. I did not intend to stay with that job. I've been working there the last year and we finally found a replacement. I trained her and I've left.
Mr Callahan: So who are you with now?
Ms Young: I'm not doing anything at the present time except working as a specialist when I'm called in. I don't have a full-time job or a permanent part-time.
Mr Callahan: You're working as a specialist where?
Ms Young: I have worked for Para-Med as a trainer and a claims management specialist when they have the need for me. I would also have to leave that position if I was fortunate enough to be appointed.
Mr Callahan: All right. I must apologize. I just got your CV. You belong to a particular union, do you?
Ms Young: Not at present.
Mr Callahan: What union did you belong to?
Ms Young: When I was actively in nursing, which was about 13 years ago, I can't recall the name of it but it was a nursing-home-type union. It's not one of the ones you hear about.
Mr Callahan: Okay. You're registered with the Ontario College of Nurses.
Ms Young: Yes.
Mr Callahan: You're involved with IAPA, the Industrial Accident Prevention Association?
Ms Young: Yes.
Mr Callahan: And the Durham Addiction Awareness Committee?
Ms Young: Yes.
Mr Callahan: Do you know how long this appointment is for?
Ms Young: Three years, from what I understand.
Mr Callahan: Were you given any briefing material before you applied for this job?
Ms Young: Yes. I was given a book to read before I went for my initial interview.
Mr Callahan: Where did you get that book from?
Ms Young: That was sent from WCAT.
Mr Callahan: Did you put an application in to WCAT? Is that how you got the book?
Ms Young: Yes, definitely, and it was when an appointment was made for an interview that I received material to read to give me a bit of background.
Mr Callahan: The curriculum vitae we have here before us, is that all that was sent to WCAT, or was it more expanded?
Ms Young: No, I would have sent a cover letter and I'm sure I made phone calls because that's my usual procedure.
Mr Callahan: So you would have called somebody at WCAT?
Ms Young: I would have, yes. I wouldn't know who because I wouldn't have a name, but I did call to see if and when they indeed were going to be hiring and when they would set up interviews etc.
Mr Callahan: Did you make any other telephone calls to any political people?
Ms Young: Definitely not, no.
Mr Callahan: Okay. I think those are all the questions.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee this morning. Does the compensation appeals tribunal act on behalf of the individual or mainly on behalf of the WCB?
Ms Young: It's neutral. There is a vice-chair and there are two panel members. One is a representative for the worker and one is a representative for the employer.
Mr McLean: Run that by me again. One's for the worker and one's for the employer?
Ms Young: And then there's the vice-chair of the panel.
Mr McLean: So there's one member of the tribunal who works on behalf of the employer and one works on behalf of the --
Ms Young: They're representative of, but their views are strictly non-partisan.
Mr McLean: I see. I notice there's a 38% jump in the WCAT workload from 1991 to 1993, and I presume it's probably gone up substantially since then on the cases that go to the tribunal.
Ms Young: I'm sorry, I wouldn't be able to give you an exact number of cases.
Mr McLean: What's your view on what your job is going to be? Is it going to be full-time, part-time?
Ms Young: No, it would be part-time, if I'm appointed. It would be sitting in on hearings, which I've done a lot of reading up on through the years, and looking at whether a decision made by WCB would be accepted as it is or possibly changed because of new evidence brought in by either party if it's an issue of dispute. This would be a final appeal and the WCB decision could be overturned at this point or it could be accepted as it was decided.
Mr McLean: I would think that you would be working every day, even if it's classified part-time. With the increase of appeals, I would think that we're getting behind, that you should be --
Ms Young: I wouldn't mind that, but I believe, and I'm not sure on this, that your hours are not set; it's not a job where I'm told I'll work 10 hours a week or what. It is flexible, depending on how many hearings are going to be heard and the setup.
Mr McLean: From what I've seen here, there are 12 full-time vice-chairs, 10 part-time; 15 full-time members, representative of either workers or employers; and 14 part-time members. It doesn't appear to me that there's still even enough, or they're not having enough hearings to get the workload down. It seems to be increasing. How are we going to overcome that, in your estimation?
Ms Young: If the hearings are there and people like myself are available to sit in on the hearings, I'm sure we'll be there.
Mr McLean: We're getting more appeals all the time; I know my office does. The way it's increasing -- I guess it's not your position to make any recommendations; all you've got to do is deal with what's before you. But it appears to me there should be more people there to handle the appeals, in my opinion. Thank you. I wish you well.
1140
Mr Hope: Thank you very much for coming today. I guess if you knew why the caseload increase was there, we would have been able to solve this problem years ago.
You are going to be faced with a big challenge, a challenge of decision. People will come before you with testimony about the accident that occurred to them and why they believe they ought to have the right to the money that is owed to them. It's going to be a lengthy process, but I believe the number of cases -- I'm glad you weren't able to answer what the caseload is today, because I notice our legislative research only went up to 1993 in the numbers they've got, so if you knew that, you'd know more than our legislative research did.
But there has been an increase in cases before WCAT. We believe the changes we made to the legislation dealing with workers' compensation will address that issue of caseload. We all know where the problems are. The problem is not at WCAT and putting more staff in there. The problem is dealing with the front end of it, making sure assessments of injured workers are done properly, making sure that is dealt with, and then WCAT's work responsibility becomes easy. So your part-time position will actually be part-time if we resolve the problem at the beginning, which we believe we have done with the changes to the WCB.
As to the number of members on the committee, as was indicated earlier, there are 12 full-time vice-chairs and 10 part-time vice-chairs, there are 15 full-time members representing either workers or employers, and 14 part-time members representing either workers or employers. Do you know what constituents you're supposed to be representing? Are you representing the employers' side of the spectrum or the workers' side of the spectrum?
Ms Young: It would be the employers; a representative for the employers' side.
Mr Hope: Why do you believe you have been chosen from the employers' side of the sector?
Ms Young: I don't really know, because I've worked both "sides"; I don't like that term, but as you want to use that. My background is strictly industrial in the last number of years, and I've been working with hourly employees, with equal time working on behalf of management. But most often people consider me a management person because I'm on salary.
Mr Hope: With your years of experience -- I won't give your age away, but I use the word "years" meaning only a couple, which we know may be a few more -- dealing with the dramatic experience of WCAT, is that going to impact on your decision-making process, the dramatic presentations being made? I was looking at your CV and some of the work you've been involved in. Is that going to help you balance the decision, your nursing practice, your business working with occupational health and safety, that experience balanced with the dramatic aspect of things?
Ms Young: It will. I feel I won't have any problem because of my background and my experience. I've been going to night school for the last 12 years, and when I selected my courses, aside from my Ryerson, I took union courses, I took management courses. I just wanted to get the whole spectrum, the whole picture.
In the occupational business, when we do an accident investigation, it is very important that you gather all the facts and know the whole story. The idea is that you have to have a history and you have to be very impartial, and you don't bring your beliefs from outside, from your personal experience, into this sort of situation.
Mr Hope: I'm going to ask you a very hypothetical question. I was on the committee dealing with the changes to the WCB, and one of the political parties, which I will leave nameless -- Mike Harris, but I'll leave it nameless -- wanted to make sure the accountability aspect of the tribunal was there, that you're really a judicial system. You would have to balance the monetary aspects of the WCB with the pain and suffering of an individual.
Hypothetically, how would you balance that, as a person who has had tremendous experience in nursing, understanding the pain and suffering of individuals, and then being pushed by a government that says, "No, don't pay it, because we don't have the money," or, "You've got to watch the deficit situation," or, "You've got to watch the employers' costs"? I'm just curious. How would you balance that?
Ms Young: First of all, money doesn't even come into my mind. I'm looking at what has happened and how this person, whether it's a management person or an hourly person, should be treated fairly: What is the story? What has happened here?
Mr Hope: Mr Callahan was going on at length asking you questions. They always try to say, "Was there political interference with your appointment?" If we were to carve up all the dirty laundry of the Liberals and Tories about how a backroom decision was made there, I mean, God, archives wouldn't be able to hold all the material that would be there.
But I want to ask you a very specific question: Did you ever contact your MPP, your local member, and ask for this appointment?
Ms Young: Definitely not. I believe my local MPP is sitting right here, so you can ask him. He wasn't on the list to be here, but Drummond White is from my area.
Mr Hope: Thank you very much, and good luck.
Mr White: I won't take too much time, Ms Young. I was just very impressed with your résumé and the number of courses you've taken, the amount of training you've had, in a fairly short period. As we've attended some of the same institutions, such as O'Neill etc, I'm surprised we didn't know each other, but you're obviously much younger than I am.
In regard to your own experience in the workplace -- and you've worked at a number of the major manufacturing companies in my area, General Motors, Loc-Pipe, Cadbury Schweppes, which is of course now Durham College -- you've had a number of courses, a number of experiences with worker health and safety issues, but you've also had a lot of experience with addiction awareness and places like the sex assault care centre etc. I'm wondering how you find that kind of combination. Do you think your experience with addiction awareness and sex assault and other kinds of psychosocial stressors would inform your work with WCAT?
Ms Young: I never thought of a situation coming up, but I do empathize with anybody who has had those problems, and the reason I took those courses was that I was exposed to them in those workplaces you mentioned quite frequently, whether it was an abused woman or an alcoholic trying to keep his job or his family. The reason I went after the education in those fields was to be able to help people.
Mr White: Thank you very much, Ms Young. I certainly hope your appointment will be confirmed.
Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Thank you for coming in, Barbara. I like the way you described your husband as "just a retired person." That's nice.
As an employer appointment to the board, do you think you're going to have any bias against union people who are filing appeals with the tribunal?
Ms Young: Not at all.
Mr Fletcher: You've worked with union people and you've worked in management.
Ms Young: Very, very closely. I could get references from a number of business reps and chief stewards.
Mr Fletcher: My last question: Why are you so interested in applying for the WCAT?
Ms Young: Because of my work through the years, I initiated claims, I monitored them, I had a lot of contact with the employee and with WCB, and then there were cases I was not happy with the outcome of. I started reading all the literature I'd get into my office, and when WCAT started to show quite a bit, I was interested in it and did a bit of research to see what it was all about, and of course on my job I had to know what it was about, that there was a last resort. To me, I feel it's just great that it's there and that people do have another avenue.
Mr Fletcher: That wasn't my last question; this is my last question. In your job as an occupational health and safety nurse, you must have seen not only some of the injuries in the workplace but also some of the problems people had when they dealt with WCB and going through the appeal process. Do you think this background is one of the reasons you've applied, and also, that because of this background you'll be able to apply yourself to the position?
Ms Young: Definitely. It's been a progressive thing. I went into occupational nursing first, then I saw the number of accidents so I went into health and safety. That's what I graduated from Ryerson with. It was just a natural step to get into something like WCAT.
Mr Fletcher: I guess one of the best ways to get rid of our caseload would be at the front end, the prevention end.
Ms Young: Safety is a vital aspect. If every place was safe, there would be no accidents.
Mr Fletcher: Good luck.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Young, for your appearance before the committee today.
I'd like to congratulate the committee. We're finished 10 minutes early. We could do the subcommittee meeting now. Oh, sorry, we can't do it till tomorrow; we're going to receive some more appointments to review tomorrow.
The committee will stand recessed until 2 o'clock.
The committee recessed from 1151 to 1402.
JOSEPH COMARTIN
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition: Joseph Comartin, intended appointee as member, Ontario Casino Corp.
The Chair: Our first person this afternoon is Mr Joseph Comartin. Welcome to the committee, Mr Comartin. This is an intended appointment as a member of the Ontario Casino Corp. I guess it's our day for the gambling agencies.
Mr Callahan: Welcome, Mr Comartin. You're from Windsor?
Mr Joseph Comartin: That's correct.
Mr Callahan: I remember that when the casino was being established in Windsor I sat on the committee a couple of times and had some very significant concerns about my favourite street in the world, Ouellette Avenue, whether I'd be able to walk down it a year from then without bumping into all sorts of products being sold. Can you tell us if Ouellette Avenue has changed in any way, shape or form?
Mr Comartin: There's more traffic, pedestrian traffic, on it, there are a few more stores opened, but I think essentially, no, it hasn't changed very much at all.
Mr Callahan: My understanding is that these people, 80% of whom come from the United States, are bused into the casino and bused right out. Has there been any significant increase in the business of the downtown merchants in Windsor?
Mr Comartin: You'd have to divide those into categories. Certainly the hotels and the restaurants have benefited quite significantly. In terms of the retail merchant, the major impact has been from the employees who are now working in the downtown rather than the patrons to the casino.
Mr Callahan: Okay. I notice you were a member of the casino planning committee responsible for advocating for casino gambling in Ontario and a casino in the city of Windsor.
Mr Comartin: That's correct.
Mr Callahan: Do you see that in any way, shape or form constituting a conflict should you be accepted for the Ontario Casino Corp board?
Mr Comartin: No, I think just the opposite. It's simply a continuation. Almost exactly three years ago, I was invited to sit on that committee and began at that time to learn about the casino industry, and my appointment to this board, if approved, would be simply a perpetuation of the commitment I made at that point to bring that industry to Windsor and to see that it was implemented in the community's best interests.
Mr Callahan: Do you see any difficulty in the fact that the province has thus far not agreed to give any of the 20% it gets from the casino profits to the city of Windsor? Do you see that as a problem, particularly in light of the recent statement by the government that the native casino will open and all the money will be plowed back into use, I guess, on all the native reserves? Do you as a board member see a problem with that policy?
Mr Comartin: No. I think the positions are consistent and I don't have a problem with the province's position that it use the revenue for the benefit of the entire province rather than for the exclusive benefit of the city.
I have been very clear, I think, on a number of occasions when I've been asked this, that the city is certainly entitled to be compensated for any specific expenses it has incurred to bring the business to Windsor. Beyond that, I think we're in a position that we have a responsibility to share the revenue with the rest of the province.
Mr Callahan: I notice that you're actively practising law. Is that going to create difficulties in terms of the time you have available to serve on this board?
Mr Comartin: Both my boss and my wife have asked me that question. I guess I'll give you the same answer. Yes, probably a little bit, but again because of the commitment I made back then, I felt I would carry through on this. I'll probably have to drop one or two other commitments I've got at present.
Mr Callahan: Where does this board sit? In Toronto?
Mr Comartin: It hasn't started sitting yet; that is, the public board has not begun sitting yet. We've been waiting for these hearings to conclude. I assume most of the meetings will be in Toronto, but it's my understanding that there is a plan to have some of the meetings outside of the Toronto area. I will advocate, as I regularly do, for greater representation from outside Toronto, that some of those meetings take place in Windsor, and I expect that some of them will take place in other communities as other casinos are opened.
Mr Callahan: Okay. I'm going to put you through the same test as I did the others. Being a lawyer, lawyers tend to have a desire to deal in politics. Have you ever run for public office?
Mr Comartin: No.
Mr Callahan: Do you belong to an established party in the province of Ontario?
Mr Comartin: I've been a member of the NDP off and on since 1968 when I had dropped out of the Liberal Party at that time.
Mr Callahan: I see. So you've been a member of the New Democratic Party since 1968?
Mr Comartin: I think I let my membership lapse for a period of time in the early 1970s as our children were coming along.
Mr Callahan: How did you come to learn of this position?
Mr Comartin: As you already know, I've been intimately involved in the process of bringing the industry to the province, and I had some input into the drafting of the legislation, so I knew that the board was going to be established. Once the legislation worked its way through the House, I indicated a desire to sit on the board.
Mr Callahan: Yes, but you must have gotten some information that there were LG appointments being considered. Where'd you get that information?
Mr Comartin: No, I don't have that information. I applied. I think the question is, was I asked by somebody? I was not. I took the initiative to apply.
1410
Mr Callahan: That's fine, but how did you find out about it? I know what you're telling me, that you've been involved in the casino planning committee, but how did you become aware that the corporation was going to be seeking members?
Mr Comartin: I just knew that. That's the way this process works. I mean, all boards are like that: At some point, if you pass a piece of legislation that says a board is to be in place, they obviously are going to require members. Once it had cleared the House, I knew they would be seeking out membership to the board.
Mr Callahan: Did you contact anybody of a political type?
Mr Comartin: No. I spoke to Domenic Alfieri about getting the application form.
Mr Callahan: He's the president, the chairman of the --
Mr Comartin: I'm not sure he was at that point. He was the senior civil servant in charge. He was the assistant deputy minister at the time, but I'm not sure if he was president yet.
Mr Callahan: Have you received a briefing about what this board entails?
Mr Comartin: I had a briefing with Domenic this morning.
Mr Callahan: You had a briefing with Domenic this morning, before you came here?
Mr Comartin: That's correct.
Mr Callahan: When we were in Windsor, the chief of police concerned himself about the question of laundering of money. I think you were probably at those hearings or you read it in the press, that he expressed a very severe concern about that issue. What would you do, as a board member, to exhort your fellow members to ensure that the casino in Windsor and any other casinos that you might establish would not launder money?
Mr Comartin: I don't think I have a simple answer to that. If you've studied the laundering of money by organized crime in this jurisdiction and elsewhere in the world, they are creative enough to come up with new methodologies on an ongoing basis. All you can do is to put into place, as I think we did here, a system where you monitor it and continue to study what methods they use and then react to those.
Mr Callahan: As we understand from the briefing notes that we got on this whole issue, the objects are to enhance the economic development of certain regions of the province. I understand there is presently afoot an intent to enlarge the interim casino by creating a floating -- I was going to say crap game, but that's not right -- riverboat.
Recognizing that the minister responsible indicated to the Legislature that there would be no further expansion of casino gambling until a year had gone by and we'd had a full report, and as far as I know we have not had a full report -- but maybe the government members know better -- yet this corporation is looking at riverboat gambling, which is an extension, how would you deal with that issue if it were to come before you as a board member?
Mr Comartin: Can I say, before answering about how I would respond, there's a basic misinformation in the assumption that you're making. The minister's position was that there would be no new sites for casinos without this one being completed, with the exception of that for the aboriginal community, and that is in fact what's going on here.
When the casino in Windsor was originally approved it was for 75,000 square feet. The interim casino at this point only comprises somewhere between 45,000 and 50,000 square feet. As I understand, the authority that's been extended by the government at this point has been to fill up the balance, and that would be, therefore, somewhere in the range of 25,000 to 30,000 square feet, which is what a riverboat gambling type of operation would entail.
My reaction to riverboat gambling is that I have some concerns about it. One of the principal ones I've got is that we are using presently, in the city, waterfront property as a parking lot, and I have some reservations that if a riverboat is attached to the dock there, we will have some great difficulty removing that parking from the waterfront. I have been a strong advocate of getting the rails off the waterfront and developing it into both passive and active parkland. So I have some concerns about the riverboat.
I should indicate to you just one more point, if I may. There are two other proposals with regard to expansion. One is to add on to the building that basically was the art gallery before it was converted, and a third alternative is to look for an alternative but nearby site, which would again comprise, in both cases, something in the range of 25,000 square feet.
Mr Callahan: I don't want to rush you, but I haven't got much time. I have to tell you that in our research notes, we are told we are given a quote from Hansard, the official debates of the 35th Parliament, third session, on November 3, 1994, pages 7601 to 7603. Frances Lankin, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, clearly outlined the government policy on the issue of expanding the number of government-run casinos in Ontario and she indicated: "The issue of casino expansion would not be considered by the government until the Windsor pilot project had been in operation for a full year. The Ontario Casino Corp would assess the pilot project and prepare an evaluation at the conclusion of its first year."
Clearly, unless our research people are wrong, the minister did in fact say no to expansion. What I'm saying is that the riverboat is an expansion.
Mr Comartin: I can't agree with you. It's not an expansion because we're not moving beyond the 75,000 square feet that was allocated to the city initially and to that operator.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee. You said the Ontario Casino Corp has not had a meeting yet?
Mr Comartin: I'm sorry. The community board has not. The board has been meeting, comprised of -- I'm not sure of all of the people, but I think there are four senior civil servants, all deputy ministers, who have been meeting and acting as the legal board since 12 to 18 months ago.
Mr McLean: What is the need for a new board? If they've already been acting and already doing what is going to be done, what is the need to have another Ontario Casino Corp board?
Mr Comartin: On a personal level, I would not want civil servants making the decisions that have to be made with regard to expansion, new sites, that kind of thing. I think you'd want a broadly based community board, such as this one, I believe, is, to be making those decisions and those recommendations to the cabinet.
Mr McLean: The aboriginal community -- several had made application, and one was chosen. Who chose the one that was successful?
Mr Comartin: That would have gone through that board, the Ontario Casino Corp, on through to cabinet, where the ultimate decision was made.
Mr McLean: How many are going to be on this Ontario Casino Corp board?
Mr Comartin: I believe there are 11 people, including two of the deputy ministers staying on for one more year.
Mr McLean: On the issue of two ministers being responsible, one for the gaming commission and another for the Ontario Casino Corp, I just ask your opinion. Why wouldn't one minister, instead of two different ones, be involved in responsibility for gambling?
Mr Comartin: I have to indicate I was a very strong proponent of that in the research I had done prior to Mr Alfieri actually being appointed to take on the responsibility to develop the industry. I had a fair amount of research I reviewed.
In any of the jurisdictions I've looked at, it gave me great cause for concern. Look, there's a history of corruption within this industry. Whatever you can do for public perception purposes at the very least, and for practical purposes as a secondary consideration, I think you do. Dividing it between two ministries, and in fact, the way the structure is here, really between three, because the Finance minister is very much overseeing some of the process here -- I think it's important to do that. You can turn to the community and say: "We've done as much as we can."
We've put into place this kind of legislative structure, so we have one ministry that's specifically responsible for the policing and enforcing of regulations and the law, another ministry that's responsible for the law, another ministry that's responsible for the development of the industry. Those two roles are not always compatible. I think there's an inevitable temptation on the part of the person developing the business to perhaps cut a corner here or do something that's not entirely proper there, and having another ministry, another body responsible for bringing them up short I think is appropriate.
Mr McLean: You said that this industry is noted for corruption. Do you think the municipalities that are accepting these and want them should be responsible for the policing and the total cost of that, or do you think the casino corporation should be the one that's responsible for the cost, coming out of casino revenues?
1420
Mr Comartin: I think the model we've used in Windsor is the appropriate one in that, again, you divide it. There are two concerns about crime relating to this type of business. One is the street crime: the prostitute, the pickpocket, the muggings. I think that's very much a responsibility best carried out by the local municipal police force. With regard to the organized crime segment, which is the other element, I think you need a more sophisticated, and perhaps a more integrated at a provincial and federal level, police force. So I think that becomes a provincial responsibility, and to a lesser degree a federal one.
Mr McLean: You come from Windsor. Looking from the city of Windsor's point of view, I've seen a lot of write-ups with regard to the downtown, saying: "Well, we haven't got any spinoffs. It's not what we thought it would be." What are the mayor and the downtown saying now? Are they happy or are they still concerned that people are not staying long enough?
Mr Comartin: There's no question we're still concerned about them not staying long enough. They are happy with what has happened to this point. There certainly were some expectations, and I think city council and the mayor specifically were somewhat guilty of creating some undue expectations in the sector for retail trade. If you study Vegas and Atlantic City in particular, it didn't happen there. I think the restaurants and hotels are fine.
What we do from here on in: There are some recommendations in the Ernst and Young study which I think are worth following up in terms of some marketing that can be done. A good number of those are probably limited to waiting until we open the permanent site. In effect, what you have to do is to target a somewhat different crowd than we've been attracting up to this point. In order to do that, you need to have more upscale entertainment.
The city is currently going through a total review of a convention-entertainment type of centre. We don't have that in the downtown area at a scale that we need. If we had that, you may have people coming and saying, "Yes, I'll stay two or three days now." I'm trying to think of some of the entertainment groups you may have in so they would be willing to come and stay not only for the gambling side of it but also for the entertainment side.
Mr McLean: Have the police had to increase their staff, to your knowledge?
Mr Comartin: Yes. There were 25 additional police officers who were hired specifically for the purposes of added work they thought they would need to have done in the downtown area. I can tell you that a number of those officers have been reassigned outside the downtown area in the last few months.
Mr McLean: Who's paying for that increase of police officers?
Mr Comartin: That's coming out of the casino revenue.
Mr McLean: I guess the last question I have is with regard to the concern about the downtown. It's a short stay. Has there been any impact study done that you're aware of that's available for us to see of what has happened with the downtown?
Mr Comartin: Yes, the Ernst and Young study which was put out in November 1994. I have a copy of it here, although I've marked it up extensively. But, yes, it's available; it is a public document.
Mr McLean: What were the comments from the city with regard to that report?
Mr Comartin: I think the city generally was supportive of the study, of the conclusions that they drew. As I say, there are recommendations for additional things that might be done, but overall I certainly didn't hear anything negative from city council or the mayor's office.
Mr McLean: Good. Thank you.
Mr Hope: Joe, good to see you again. I'm particularly interested in a question Mr Callahan asked you about, will you have the time? I look at your CV and you've made time for your community, balancing of family, also playing an active role in a number of initiatives, everything from housing to social justice for children in your community. I see you as one of the people who would be most competent in dedicating time and effort for the community. I just find it interesting that that type of question would be asked.
Mr Callahan: Weren't you complaining about lawyers this morning, Randy?
Mr Comartin: I did hear that comment, Mr Callahan. I was going to mention it to him.
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Hope has the floor.
Mr Hope: To Mr Comartin, I made that generic comment to Mr Callahan because I made reference to the Don Jail. I didn't make mention to Mr Comartin, who I know, in Windsor, because living down the street from Windsor, we see the benefits. We hear about the mayor's enthusiasm about the casino coming in, the economic growth that's occurring.
The other issue that's been brought up, and I wanted to give you a little bit more time because Mr Callahan refused to give you that time, is about the riverboat, because he was saying he only had a few minutes to ask questions. If he'd make his questions a little shorter --
Mr Callahan: I take umbrage at that.
Mr Hope: -- he'd allow you the time to answer the question. But I'd ask you more specifically about that riverboat process and what is your understanding about what's going on in Windsor.
Mr Comartin: You do have to be careful with a riverboat operation. They've not been that successful in Idaho and on the Mississippi. St Louis -- they jockeyed them back and forth. A number of them have quite frankly gone under. I think one member mentioned earlier this morning about the profit level here. Not all gambling operations are successful, so you have to be careful with it.
As I understand, the proposal for the Windsor one would actually not be a mobile one. The boat would be brought in and anchored right off the downtown area, off Ouellette or one of the main arteries there, and be stationary. I think that's almost an absolute requirement. Our international border is so close that we would not be able to use a riverboat that was actually mobile. It is a ship, it's considered one, but that's one of the things, I guess -- and I hadn't finished. I wanted to say a couple of more things about the riverboat because one of the other concerns that I've got is a timing one.
I have serious doubts that we can get that in operation before the end of the summer, because of the cost of renovating it and the work that has to be done and then bringing it in, if it's already an operational one. We would have to move it up the Mississippi; it can't go out into the Atlantic. There are all sorts of problems with it. The expansion that I would like to see, because of, as Ms Harrington mentioned, the lineups that we've had, I would like to see that operation in place and going by the latter part of June so we can catch the full benefit of it for July and August, which are our biggest months. That's another concern I've got about the riverboat.
Mr Hope: The other thing I wanted to ask you, because we're so close to Windsor, just down the street, is that there are opportunities for us to benefit from the casino in Windsor. But dealing with more site specifics, like other sites in this province, would it be fair to assess that Windsor should get most of the gambling process and leave other communities out of opportunities? You're going to be faced with this decision about other sites. Your own community might have another proposal forward. We're talking about prosperity across the province, not just in Windsor. I know Windsor is doing well with the assistance of this government, but I'm just curious to hear your opinion on the total prosperity of the province.
Mr Comartin: Again, as I said earlier, we're probably almost certainly going to exceed a $500-million win on this casino in the first 12 months. That will make us, as we are right now, the most profitable in the world. In terms of how much of that ends up in government coffers, I don't know at this point because I haven't had access to the operational agreement in terms of what the operators themselves are going to make, their profit. But that is an awful lot of money to place in one community. Again, from a straight fairness standpoint, obviously not. The city should be compensated for any expenses that it has incurred relating to this business.
Mr Hope: Mr Callahan was very selective in his reading dealing with the first nations issues, because I referred back to what he referred to, the section where Frances Lankin had indicated after a full year of operation --
Mr Callahan: I must have been hitting some sore spots.
Mr Hope: No, I think it's important to get legislative research that has done an excellent job getting the facts on the table. One of the facts is, when Marilyn Churley announced the casino on December 5, 1994, it was also clearly indicated that there would be no taxpayers' dollars associated with the first nations casino complex that would be put into place, unlike the Windsor one. The Windsor one did receive provincial dollars. I guess I'd ask your opinion. Do you see Ontario playing more of a role, or should we allow the first nations to take their own ventures on?
Mr Comartin: I think it's really important for any member of this board to keep an open mind on what structure we use to develop additional casinos. There are a number of models elsewhere in the country and elsewhere in the world other than the model that we've used for Windsor and the one that we have now established for the first nations, so I am not at all locked into any specific model. I think each geographical area may dictate the type of model that should be established, and in terms of revenue-sharing the overall fund should end up to the benefit of the largest possible group of people.
1430
Ms Harrington: I want to comment on your community involvement. It's an impressive list here. I see your access to the permanent housing committee -- I used to sit on that in the Niagara region -- and the Ontario Social Development Council.
Are there still lineups in February?
Mr Comartin: There aren't in February, but there were extensive lineups through the Christmas holidays. I was out of town. I went skiing during the holidays, but I saw some of the pictures when I came back and, yes, there were extensive lineups. Whether we would have had those if it hadn't been for the very mild weather, I'm not sure, but they were almost as long as they were during the initial couple of months when we first opened.
Ms Harrington: So it's still doing well. Are the numbers still -- both in attendance and money?
Mr Comartin: No, the numbers in fact are down. We're down to about 14,500 a day in visitors, but actually the win is up. It's back to that point I made earlier about the patron that you're appealing to. What we're finding is that if we had a more open casino, that is, a more comfortable casino, we would have, for lack of a better term, the high rollers staying somewhat longer and you tend to make somewhat better profits off them.
Ms Harrington: What do you think about a casino for Niagara Falls?
Mr Comartin: I was told you were going to ask me that question. Obviously, I'm keeping an open mind on any location. There are some similarities in the Niagara region to the Detroit-Windsor area, so I suppose you're certainly on the list of communities that have to be considered at an early stage.
The Chair: You need all these votes, you know.
Ms Harrington: The casino corporation does have the expertise from what you have gone through in Windsor, and I understand that you'll be working with all of the communities that are putting in proposals. What I want to ask you is something that probably we'll be dealing with and that is, how do you select the site within your community? That must have been difficult. What advice would you give to other communities on how to go about that process?
Mr Comartin: It's very important to know in advance what your goals are for the casino, what you want it to do for your community. That's going to dictate where you're going to place it geographically. That was our experience and I think it would be the same anyplace else.
Knowing the problems that Niagara Falls has at the present time, obviously if it's going to be to benefit and bring back some of the tourism trade that you're looking for there, it seems to me it has to be there, that is, in Niagara Falls, although I understand on the other hand that Fort Erie is very concerned about their racetrack and if the ultimate goal is to work out a partnership between the casino and the racetrack, you put it up in Fort Erie. Those are both valid considerations. I think the community has to determine that. I guess the board and the government ultimately will make the final decision, but that kind of input is really crucial.
Ms Harrington: Did you have a wide cross-section of the community get together originally to draw up these goals?
Mr Comartin: Yes, the original committee that was established that I sat on was bipartisan in terms of political parties and it had a pretty broad section of people from the business community. The university was there, the labour movement was there, a number of social service agencies were represented, the police were there -- a broad section. We continued that pattern right on through. When I say "we" I mean the casino corporation did once they took control, but all the way through that there was pretty broad input from the community as a whole.
Ms Harrington: That's the way it has to be.
Mr Comartin: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr Callahan: Madam Chair, can I just have a point of clarification on something that Mr Hope said?
The Chair: No, I'm sorry. All three parties have now had questions of Mr Comartin.
Mr Callahan: Oh, no, it's not a question. I just want to clarify something.
The Chair: Well, I'm just going to let the deputation, the person we've invited, step down, and if you have a point of order, you could ask a question. Thank you very much, Mr Comartin, for your appearance before the committee.
Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I may be mistaken. I just want to clarify it. Mr Hope said that Minister Churley had said there would be no tax moneys used in the setup of the first nations casinos.
The Chair: Mr Callahan, that is not a point of order.
Mr Callahan: Well, it is in terms of him saying that research --
The Chair: No, I'm sorry. It is not a point of order.
GERALD WILLIAM KINASZ
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Gerald William Kinasz, intended appointee as member, Ontario Travel Industry Compensation Fund Corp board of trustees.
The Chair: I would like to invite our next appointment before the committee, Mr Gerald William Kinasz. Welcome to the committee, Mr Kinasz.
Mr Curling: Welcome to the committee hearing. Mr Kinasz, the researcher has put some notes down here and they jumped out at me very readily. With you being a lawyer, I'd be very interested in hearing your answer with regard to bankruptcy with regard to airlines. Normally, you know, the travel service etc goes bankrupt, but these days every time I look either one airline has taken over another or one is going bankrupt. Do you have any comment really on that?
Mr Gerald William Kinasz: That's a very interesting question because one of the things the legislation in its present form doesn't do is to cover the situation of a bankruptcy of an airline, for instance. The legislation really deals with insolvencies and bankruptcies of either retail travel agents or wholesale travel agents in Ontario and it doesn't deal with bankruptcies or insolvencies of the actual providers of the service, ie, airlines, resort hotels, things like that. So at the moment we really have no mechanism in place to deal with a bankruptcy of an airline.
As I think you're aware, airlines are within the federal government's jurisdiction and as far as I'm aware there has been no effort made to establish the sort of mechanism that we have in Ontario, for instance. In fact, I think people in the industries are looking with interest as to what might happen in the event of an insolvency in an airline.
Mr Curling: So I presume what I'm hearing from you is that you hope the feds make a move on this because it's more or less within their jurisdiction. But is there anything this board could advance in making that concern be heard in that respect?
Mr Kinasz: In the sense that it is governed by the federal government, I think there has to be some discussion and cooperation with, I would think it would be, the federal transport authority. I know IATA, which is the International Air Travel Association, has an organization. It has rules and procedures for dealing with lost baggage and things like that, and I could see some benefit in dialogue at least with those organizations.
Mr Curling: From your response it seems to me that you are quite familiar with the compensation fund and what it can do and what it leaves out. Could you comment if you feel that the compensation fund that is available is adequate in order to support some of the claims that are anticipated or that it is having?
Mr Kinasz: Let me answer this way: To my knowledge and to the extent that it has dealt with problems up to the present, yes, I think it has proved adequate, with one exception. I think in 1994 there was an operating deficit of $5 million. I think there hasn't been enough money put to the problem, but on the other hand, with the amendments made in late 1993 to the regulations, there has been provision for increased assessments and the plan is to eliminate that deficit over the next five years. So assuming that's done and assuming there are no major insolvencies, it seems that the fund and the way it operates right now is adequate, yes.
Mr Curling: You said the fund's there and you just hope that nothing happens to shake that fund or deplete it, but you said it's adequate at the moment. But any kinds of demands that are made on it would deplete it very quickly.
Mr Kinasz: I meant to say any extraordinary demand that hasn't been anticipated up to now. I think it's more than adequate to handle --
Interjections.
Mr Curling: Madam Chair, I can't hear. It's kind of noisy here.
The Chair: Excuse me. I'm sorry. We can't hear either the person asking the questions or answering them. Thank you.
1440
Mr Curling: Maybe I'll put another question to you just to make it fresh, and I hope that the government will listen in order to improve this very important --
Mr McLean: They didn't before; why would they start now?
Mr Curling: Yes, it's true.
As you know, the other areas in the travel business, and there is a phrase for it, the hotels and all the end products that come out of travelling, from time to time we do have people who are left stranded because hotels or some aspect of the travel package broke down. We get complaints from time to time on this matter. Do you feel that there is adequate legislation and that the act is adequate to deal with situations like that, where we have, as they're called, fly-by-night hotels and packages that are put together with quite expressive and explicit little descriptive adjectives, but when you get there the hotel is not a hotel or the beach is not a beach? Do you think that the act is strong enough to protect these people?
Mr Kinasz: Based on our experience to date, it appears to have handled the problems that have appeared to date. As I tried to say earlier, for a major catastrophe such as the insolvency of an airline, let's say Canadian Airlines or Air Canada, I'm sure the fund would be inadequate to deal with that kind of a problem. But to the extent that there have been problems in the past and to the extent that they've been dealt with by this fund, I think it's proved to be adequate, yes.
Mr Curling: Are there any other things that you feel, now that you will be serving on the board, are issues you would like to raise, things to be improved or eliminated? What are some of the plans you have to make that difference on the board?
Mr Kinasz: Personally and as a lawyer, I like the concept of the trust fund, a segregated trust fund. This was imposed in the last set of revisions to the regulations. What was done is that the regulations required that any travel agents segregate deposits or pre-payments in a separate trust account. I think, as you gentlemen know, lawyers have lived with this concept forever.
Although the concept of segregating money does not deter everybody, I think it is a deterrent in that you have to take a positive step to take money out of a trust fund. The regulations impose that trust fund requirement on new registrants. I think it's a simple and very straightforward method of making people protect other people's money, basically. Personally, I'd like to see that extended to more travel agents, ones that were in operation prior to the passing of that regulation.
Mr Curling: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
Mr Sterling: I think that the travel industry compensation fund is probably one of the best ideas that government has come up with. Perhaps that's because it was done during the Conservative years in 1975. Quite frankly, when travelling myself and talking to some of our American friends, they're quite envious of the fact that if you book through a travel agent in Ontario you have this protection. It's really a very, very cheap premium to pay. I think it's 40 cents on $1,000. So it's quite a small premium to pay for a considerable amount of protection.
I had a friend who had booked a holiday through a travel agent in Florida when they were in Florida, and unfortunately the travel agent went bankrupt and as a result they lost their total deposit which they had made on that particular trip.
So I think it's a good idea. One of the things I like about it most is that it doesn't involve government to a very great degree. It's standalone and away from government and we as politicians --
Mr Kinasz: It's funded by the industry.
Mr Sterling: Yes. We don't have to be worried about it as long as we appoint good people like you to it.
At any rate, I'm interested in your comments with regard to the trust fund concept and in terms of all moneys being paid into a trust fund. Do travel agents now use that as part of their cash flow, the deposits they take, and if they should go bankrupt, then the fund has to come up with that money?
Mr Kinasz: I wouldn't go quite that far, but agents who were in operation prior to December 1993 weren't obliged to segregate pre-payments or deposits, and to the extent that those moneys were put into their general operating account, in the case of bankruptcy or insolvency it would be very hard, if not impossible, to trace that money and find it. By imposing an obligation to segregate the money into a trust account, it's very clear. Either the money is there or it's not. If it's not, why isn't it there and where did it go? It's much easier to trace it through that segregated fund. And, again, I think it takes a positive step to write a cheque out of a trust fund and you have to make that positive decision that "I'm going to take the money," whereas when it's part of your general operating fund, as you say, you can just write it for general cash flow without even knowing it yourself, actually.
Mr Sterling: As you know, lawyers, if they have trust funds, have to put them into a special account and the interest that is earned on that money while it's sitting in the trust fund is given to legal aid.
Mr Kinasz: Yes.
Mr Sterling: So our government indirectly benefits, I guess the taxpayer benefits and the lawyer doesn't benefit in terms of the interest that would be in those trust funds.
Mr Kinasz: It was never his money.
Mr Sterling: It's never his money, but he has no control over it. What happens to the interest on the trust fund of those travel agents who were involved after 1993? Do you know what the --
Mr Kinasz: It's an excellent question. I don't know the answer to that. There's nothing in the regulations about that. There's no designation for that money to go in a specific place.
But also, at the same time, there are very special arrangements made for lawyers' trust funds with the chartered banks. The chartered banks will pay interest on lawyers' trust accounts, but they won't pay interest on other accounts, operating accounts, and they won't charge charges on lawyers' trust accounts because it becomes much too complicated. That's about all I know.
Mr Sterling: I know there are other machinations to that, but I just wondered whether or not the interest earned on these deposits was considered as a legitimate profit for the travel agents, or is it considered -- I mean, they must have considerable amounts of money in trust at any given moment.
Mr Kinasz: As I say, it's an excellent question. Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to that.
Mr Sterling: Okay. I have no further questions.
Mr McLean: I have a couple.
Mr Sterling: Sorry. Could I just ask one more? What brings you to your interest in this matter?
Mr Kinasz: I'm a commercial lawyer. I've practised insolvency law for various years during my career, and I have clients in various aspects of the travel industry.
Mr Sterling: Okay.
Mr McLean: I want to know what effect you think deregulation is going to have on the airline industry in Ontario, in Canada.
Mr Kinasz: The theory is that it will make them more competitive and ultimately benefit the consumer. The worry and the problem is that while it is becoming more competitive, there may be casualties along the way. I guess those are the two pros and cons of the --
Mr McLean: Why is it that I can fly to Florida and back cheaper than I can fly to Ottawa and back?
Mr Kinasz: Deregulation, in international travel, particularly to the United States and back, and I think we're moving to deregulation in Canada, but obviously not as quickly.
Mr McLean: Who regulates the flights in Ontario?
Mr Kinasz: Within the province?
Mr McLean: The airline industry?
Mr Kinasz: I think the Canadian Department of Transport.
1450
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): The one question I'd like to ask, sir, is, whenever there has been difficulty in claims, it's usually outbound travel, where people from Canada who have worked through a travel agent here are trapped somewhere else. Do we ever get inbound -- in other words, we have a situation where it's within Canada?
Mr Kinasz: Within the province?
Mr Waters: Or within the province. And if we do, how prevalent is that or how many problems?
Mr Kinasz: To the extent that the fund gets involved or to the extent that money is drawn from the fund, it really involves insolvencies in Ontario, because it involves an insolvency of either a retail travel agent or a wholesaler. As a result of that insolvency, what happens is people end up being stuck at the airport, which is I think what happened around Christmastime when Luso Airlines couldn't meet its commitments. But basically the breakdown was at the travel agent level, which was related to the airline. What happened is the travel agent took in the money but spent it in other places. They didn't have their own planes so they tried to book through Iberia. Iberia didn't want to make the commitment without having cash, and then you had about 50 or 60 people sitting at the airport.
Mr Waters: So in actuality, people coming into the province would never access this fund or have need for it.
Mr Kinasz: You mean from other countries?
Mr Waters: From other countries.
Mr Kinasz: Generally speaking, no. Curiously, I thought of that as I was preparing. The act talks about customers, but to my knowledge it doesn't define a customer. So theoretically, if somebody from Buffalo came and bought an airline ticket in Fort Erie, they could claim against the fund.
Mr Waters: Or indeed if a travel agent went to the world travel market in London and sold a Canadian product --
Mr Kinasz: I don't think it would even have to be a Canadian product.
Mr Waters: -- to bring people from Europe to Ontario, they would still be covered, wouldn't they?
Mr Kinasz: It doesn't sound right, but it's a good question. Theoretically, an Ontario travel agent could set up a branch in London, England.
Mr Waters: Or attend a trade show and sell their product.
Mr Kinasz: In London, yes.
Mr Waters: Working with an airline.
Mr Kinasz: Yes.
Mr Waters: It's something I've never heard any discussion on and I was wondering, within the bill, whether those people would be covered.
Mr Kinasz: I'm not aware of any situation where that's actually happened, but again, I think that's an excellent question.
Mr Waters: I gather right now that the travel industry outbound is probably not as active as it has been in the past, with our dollar versus the dollar elsewhere in the world.
Mr Kinasz: I think we're pulling out of the recession. If you look at the big airlines to see that, I think Air Canada has made major steps forward in the last year or two and even Canadian has come out of the jaws of bankruptcy. My personal opinion is that the trend in that industry is positive.
Mr Waters: I have no other questions. I just wish you well in your appointment.
Mr Kinasz: Thank you very much.
Mr Waters: My curiosity was on inbound, because we've very seldom ever talked about that.
Mr Kinasz: There is one more point there. There has been a recent situation. I think US Africa Air went under and there were 100 or so people stuck in Africa. What happened is the wholesalers just made arrangements to bring them back to Canada and that was the end of the story. I think the reason you hear the outbound is because it's at Pearson International Airport, the press gets there and they're visible.
Mr Waters: Everybody's sitting there.
Mr Kinasz: Yes. You don't see 200 people in Africa.
The Chair: Thank you very much. If there are no further questions, we'd like to thank you, Mr Kinasz, for your appearance before the committee this afternoon.
KATHERINE LAIRD
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Katherine Laird, intended appointee as member and vice-chair, Employment Equity Tribunal.
The Chair: Our next intended appointment review is Katherine Laird. Welcome to the committee.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee. Your interest in this appointment: Why did you apply for it? Any certain specific reason?
Ms Katherine Laird: I had already been working in the area. I guess you have a copy of my résumé and you can see that during the interim period prior to proclamation of the legislation, I worked in a position with a rather strange title. I was called surrogate chair of the Employment Equity Tribunal. I had a lot of jokes about that, but I think I won't repeat them here today. I did that from April 1 until September.
In September I became interim chair of the Employment Equity Tribunal, and in that capacity I did startup for the tribunal. I drafted rules of practice and procedure, and I did that based on my experience as counsel to the human rights boards of inquiry. In that capacity I looked at procedural rules and practices of that board. That board, of course, was merging with the Employment Equity Tribunal.
The other thing I did during that interim period was I worked on the merger. I thought perhaps you might want to ask me some questions about the merger.
Mr McLean: Yes. Are you presently now at the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, on that?
Ms Laird: Yes. I'm presently a vice-chair at the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, and that's from October 7, I think.
Mr McLean: Your understanding of the Employment Equity Act I would presume would be fairly high, your knowledge of it. Do you support it?
Ms Laird: I don't think that's a question that I feel comfortable answering. I certainly support employment equity. I don't want to comment on the specifics of the legislation other than to say that I feel competent to interpret it.
Mr McLean: What are your views on the role of the tribunal?
Ms Laird: It will be the tribunal's job to interpret the legislation when questions come forward in disputes between parties, perhaps between bargaining agents and employers. It may be that individual employees will bring cases forward. There are currently no cases pending before the tribunal.
Mr McLean: Do you think the act places quotas on employers?
Ms Laird: I really don't feel comfortable answering specific questions about my interpretation of the act. I did have occasion to see a summary of the new federal legislation this week and I noted that it asked employers to set numerical targets, so it's sort of similar, the legislation that the federal government has introduced. I think that's probably all I feel comfortable saying about that.
Mr McLean: The prosecution of an offence requires the tribunal's written consent. Are you familiar with that section of it, and are you prepared to make those written consents?
Ms Laird: I would certainly be prepared to make a ruling if called upon in such an application. That's a fairly standard section. There's the same section in the pay equity legislation. In the human rights legislation, the permission has to come from the Attorney General.
Mr McLean: Have you any questions?
Mr Sterling: Yes. I find, personally, this piece of legislation distasteful and I think it's racist, but that's a pretty strong opinion on it. I've been around this place for 17 years and it goes against everything that I believe in in terms of equality. This is not expressing anger at you at all, because I know you're not the politician.
I read an article on how this thing was going to work out and whether or not it would be implementable. There are a lot of questions as to whether or not it can or can't be. I'm not aboriginal. I'm not handicapped. Am I a member of a minority group under this legislation?
Ms Laird: I'm not sure what you're asking me.
Mr Sterling: I think that it protects minority groups, as I understand it.
Ms Laird: There are four designated groups in the legislation.
Mr Sterling: I thought if I was a minority group, I was protected.
Ms Laird: Well, I wouldn't characterize it as protective legislation myself.
1500
Mr Sterling: I call it quotas, whatever you want to call it. We have to target that --
Ms Laird: There are target groups certainly.
Mr Sterling: What is it based on? Is it based on colour?
Ms Laird: Are you asking me whether one of the target groups is visible minorities?
Mr Sterling: Okay. Am I a visible minority?
Ms Laird: Well, the act calls for visible minorities to self-identify.
Mr Sterling: What if I say I'm a visible minority?
Mr Curling: You're black today.
Mr Sterling: No, no, I'm white.
Mr Curling: Today.
Ms Laird: I certainly don't want to debate it with you.
Mr Sterling: No, I'm white, but I'm a minority, so am I a visible minority?
Ms Laird: That's for you to self-identify.
Mr Sterling: Let's say I am. That was the thrust of this article, that I could say, as a white male, that I was a visible minority.
Ms Laird: What are you asking me?
Mr Sterling: Can you recognize me as that?
Ms Laird: I'm sure I'm not going to be called upon to do that. I can't think exactly how that question would come forward to the tribunal. If you're asking whether or not there could be some disputes in this area, there could be.
I don't actually anticipate that people will self-identify capriciously. I don't know if there's any history of that happening in any other jurisdictions. In fact it seems to me that under the federal legislation that wasn't their experience. We'll just all have to see whether that kind of thing you're suggesting does become a problem.
Ms Harrington: With the types of questions that we've just heard, I'm wondering, what do you think is the greatest challenge that you face as part of the organization that is charged with carrying out this legislation, in particular the tribunal? Do you feel that the educational process around this is going to be difficult? Because there seem to be misconceptions obviously.
Ms Laird: There may be misconceptions in the committee. I think it's significant that there aren't any applications yet, and to me that suggests that the parties are working it out. The parties to date are OPSEU, of course, and the public service. To the extent that bargaining agents and employers and employees work through the legislation, that's going to be an educational process. It's the commission rather than the tribunal that has the job of education. I understand that they're getting lots of inquiries, but it has some significance that we haven't had any applications yet. In other words, things are being worked out.
The kinds of things we expected to get early on were questions concerning job responsibilities, whether or not one side or the other was in fact living up to its responsibilities to work on an employment equity plan, the survey of employees and the review of employment practices. All those types of preparatory things I guess aren't progressing, at least in the public service. It's that process that will really tell.
We'll of course get the disputes at the tribunal. Sometimes people come thinking they have one problem when in fact they have another problem. That's always a challenge for a tribunal. To be practical and to have efficient hearings, those kinds of things will be our concern.
Ms Harrington: Am I interpreting what you're saying correctly by saying that you don't feel it's the tribunal's job to be in an educational role in the community?
Ms Laird: No, I don't think so, but our decisions do play that function, play that role. The tribunal can't be seen to speak on the legislation other than through its decisions. It's the commission that has to come up with interpretative policies and educational materials and all that type of thing. The tribunal can always be misjudged if it starts to say, "We think this section means that," or, "That section means such-and-such." You have to wait until you get the particular facts in front of you. Only our decisions will serve that function.
The chair, of course, will do a certain amount of public speaking, as chairs do, but it's actually quite a fine line for a chair.
Ms Harrington: So as a member of the tribunal, you're obviously looking forward to this, I think.
Ms Laird: I am.
Ms Harrington: You don't see any real huge problem or danger ahead, or challenge?
Ms Laird: It's always a challenge to interpret new legislation. That's always a bit scary. People try to guess what the Legislature meant, and you'll know better than I that that could perhaps be a challenge in and of itself. But I do think it's exciting.
One of the particular exciting things about this tribunal, I think, is the fact that it's being set up in conjunction with the other two, so that the adjudicators will all hear also human rights cases and pay equity cases. That's quite an opportunity not only for cost-efficiencies but for a sharing or pooling of expertise. That's very exciting to me as an adjudicator. I've been doing human rights adjudication for I guess just about a year, and then I was in the counsel role before that.
There really will be a body of evolving equity law, always influenced by whatever decisions in other jurisdictions under the charter, particularly in the human rights area, so that's very exciting. Otherwise, if you didn't have that jointly appointed group of adjudicators, you would find that all the employment equity cases in the province would be decided by two people, and all the human rights cases, if you were talking full-time, two people could handle them. That's not a good situation in terms of developing a credible body of law. You don't want the same two people always interpreting the same sections because it doesn't lead to the kind of enrichment that you get when different perspectives are brought to bear on all those legal issues that arise out of these three pieces of equity legislation.
So that's a particular exciting thing, and I feel it's a particular opportunity. It's something that I worked on quite hard in my other roles previously, because I thought it was exciting. You know there are amendments to the Human Rights Code that went through in the omnibus bill and that's part of putting the three tribunals on an equal footing.
Ms Harrington: One further question: From your personal view, what would be your vision of our society in about five years from now? Do you think this will have an impact?
Ms Laird: I hope that with this legislation, as with any legislation, the goal is to produce a fairer society. I know that there are concerns about the legislation. I think that only when you've lived with it for a while can you really get a sense of how it shakes down. I would certainly hope that five years from now employers would say, "It didn't seem like such a burden," unions would say, "We learned something from this exercise," and some employees would say, "We have a better workforce because we can see that merit still operates but we can also see that we have a balanced group of people here to work with." You always hope that you achieve fairness. Whether or not the legislation does it, we'll have to wait and see.
The Chair: Mr Hope, three and a half minutes.
Mr Callahan: I'd be kind to lawyers too, because I think this young lady is a lawyer.
Ms Laird: Well, I'm trying to talk a lot so you don't get too many questions.
Mr Hope: Yes, but you make sense; he doesn't. That's the difference.
Ms Laird: I don't know; lawyer jokes are always apropos.
Mr Callahan: I'm going to get that endorsement on Hansard.
Mr Hope: Mr Callahan keeps interrupting in my time, Madam Chair.
I'd like to ask you a question, and I've listened to the conversation that has taken place so far. I take it to mean that you're not totally comfortable, that you would like there to be more improvements in the legislation than are currently there.
Ms Laird: I think that --
Mr Hope: I don't need you to answer. This is what I'm hearing from you. You were saying that you reserved an opinion about the legislation when you were asked the questions from the opposition, and I take it that you would probably like to see more improvements in the legislation.
Ms Laird: I have no idea of what would be an improvement. I wouldn't want to be interpreted as having said that at all.
Mr Hope: Okay.
Mr Curling: Ask a question, Randy, and let her answer it.
Mr Hope: I'm just trying to understand. The questions were being posed over there, and you felt very uncomfortable about answering them.
Ms Laird: I don't think it's appropriate for me as an adjudicator to comment on the specifics of the legislation. Anything I say can be interpreted as my having my mind made up on an issue. You're the legislators. You know the legislation.
Mr Hope: That's the important part I was trying to get on the record, because I was listening and I thought, "Maybe she's not comfortable with certain sections of the legislation," and then because you're now going to be asked opinion and decision, you might say, "Well, I can go better," and then you pursue your own opinion.
1510
Ms Laird: Oh, no. I'm quite sorry if I was interpreted as saying that.
Mr Hope: That's what I wanted to make sure, that I was clear.
Ms Laird: No, no. My discomfort is in being asked to comment specifically on the legislation, something that no adjudicator willingly does and, to be frank, I really have made a point of not developing opinions. You don't know how a section is going to look until you get it in front of you on facts.
Mr Curling: Especially this one.
Ms Laird: Well, I don't know. But it's not in the nature of the work that you spend a lot of time in advance figuring out what a section means. You want to understand, you want to have read it, you want to know how the act fits together. But no, I certainly don't have anything like an amendment in mind.
Mr Hope: I'm sorry I had to ask that question, because when I was looking through your CV here, I looked at some of the publications you've done and the presentations you've done. You seem to be a person people draw upon for an opinion quite a bit, and then when I heard the comment it kind of threw a fuzzy in it and I had to understand clearly for myself where you were coming from, because I don't understand it and I'm sure somebody who's reading Hansard is not going to understand about the individual who has come before this committee.
I just needed clarification, because when I look through here, you've given a lot of people a lot of legal opinions and opinions about different stuff, you've done a lot of excellent writing by the looks of it. I've read some of them. You've taken the additional training. I'm sitting here saying, "Something doesn't make sense to me," and that's why I had to ask where you're at with the legislation, whether there are improvements needed in it.
Ms Laird: I'm sure I didn't say anything about improvements.
Mr Hope: This is the understanding -- some of the questions that are coming from the opposition --
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Hope, you're out of time now.
Mr Hope: You didn't compensate me for the questions they were asking over there.
The Chair: Probably if both sides didn't bait each other and the opposite side didn't rise to the bait of the other, you wouldn't have so many interjections on both sides today that we don't normally have.
Interjections.
The Chair: No, I point that out as the Chair quite sincerely. We have two different substitute members here today and normally we treat our guests politely and we have a normal, quiet procedure. Anyway, it is now the turn of the Liberals and I'm going to Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: Thank you for coming before us. Now we come to the permanent member of the committee maybe we'll get some, as you said --
Mr Sterling: Sanity.
Mr Curling: -- sanity in all of this. Ms Laird, could you tell me if you've ever had any government contracts in the past?
Ms Laird: When I was employed as a solicitor with the boards of inquiry office it was on a services contract as opposed to an employment contract. If you're asking whether, as a business person --
Mr Curling: As a consultant under a consultant's contract.
Ms Laird: That was a kind of consultant's contract, frankly. There wasn't a salaried position in the budget, so you'll see that for a period of some two years I was counsel to the chair of the Human Rights Commission's boards of inquiry. That was as a consultant really.
Mr Curling: It had nothing to do with employment equity?
Ms Laird: No.
Mr Curling: Do you have any background in administrative law?
Ms Laird: Yes. I also worked quite a bit in the area of housing actually at the time, sir, when you were the Minister of Housing. I don't know if it shows up in my résumé, but --
Mr Curling: When I was the minister, you said? Those were good days.
Ms Laird: Yes, I thought you might think back fondly.
Mr Curling: Yes, gone are the days.
Ms Laird: I was on the Rent Review Advisory Committee, you'll recall.
Mr Curling: What a good committee that was too.
Ms Laird: I don't know. I have nightmares sometimes thinking --
Mr Callahan: RCCI and BOCI, eh?
Ms Laird: That's right.
Mr Curling: RCCI and BOCI, of course. I want to follow up on what Mr Sterling said, but I want to take it a bit further. Let's say that someone who looks like Mr Sterling puts on that self-identification form that the person is a black female. Could the tribunal question that if it came before them?
Ms Laird: The first question would be, how would that question come before the tribunal?
Mr Curling: Self-identification. It says "sex" and it talks about race and they put it down.
Ms Laird: Right. I doubt that the tribunal will ever get that case in front of it. That's the kind of thing that I think would be resolved at an earlier stage. But if the legislation --
Mr White: You'd have to go to the review board for that one, Mr Sterling.
Ms Laird: Let me repeat part of what I said earlier. I don't think people will capriciously self-identify, but I may be naïve; I don't know. If there is such a problem in particular workplaces, perhaps it will be worked out by the parties who are negotiating their employment equity plan. Perhaps there will be challenges. If the plan gets posted and the employees think, "This is kind of weird, it doesn't look right," perhaps that would be a case where the commission would get involved and perhaps it would get to us. I can't even really think what section of the act would bring that one forward, sitting here.
Mr Curling: I said the section of the act that would bring it forward. First, there's the form that says "self-identification."
Ms Laird: I realize how that would happen. I'm just not sure how it gets, in an application, before the tribunal. It may be a joint responsibilities question. But I'm sure you're not asking for that kind of detail. It just remains to be seen whether that kind of thing will happen under the legislation and, if so, how it'll be resolved.
Mr Curling: The federal employment equity legislation talks about the limitation respecting the direction of orders wherein no officer may make any order where the direction would bear undue hardship on the employer or no quota should be put in place. I know you were quoting, a minute ago, the federal legislation. Do you believe that's a better way to go or that the federal legislation is better legislation in that respect?
Ms Laird: No, I have no comment on that. I couldn't make a comparison. I actually haven't done a section-by-section read of the federal legislation. I noted that it did have numerical targets and that it did say something specific about merit and I noticed the "undue hardship" provision, which is in the Ontario Human Rights Code but not specifically in our employment equity legislation.
Both statutes, as they're lived with and interpreted, may fall down to the same thing. It's hard to say at this point how those different sections would be interpreted and fall out.
Mr Curling: So you're not giving any comment really on that.
Ms Laird: I'm not really going to tell you whether I think it's better legislation. Let me say even more than that. I haven't done a section-by-section comparison and I wouldn't be competent. Even if I wanted to give you that opinion I'm not competent to do that at this point. I really have just read a summary of the federal legislation which came across my desk yesterday.
Mr Curling: The reason I asked this is that the present government from time to time has raised the fact that the federal employment equity legislation is a very good one and this is patterned off that. I found that within the federal legislation it talks about no officer or tribunal may impose any quota on an employer. That is why I wondered, seeing that they have praised the federal legislation so much, what your feeling was on that. But you're saying you're not going to give your impression one way or the other.
Ms Laird: I actually haven't read that section. What I read, to be clear, was a comparison between the two pieces of legislation and I've said that both had numerical quotas. But as far as the section you're referring to and how it might be interpreted, I'd never feel comfortable unless I had the section in front of me and I wouldn't want to comment.
Mr Curling: All right. Since you will be on the tribunal -- of course you'll be endorsed -- let me just ask you a personal favour. In subsection 30(1) of the federal legislation it says, "No compliance officer may give a direction under section 23 and no tribunal may make an order under section 27 where that direction or order would cause undue hardship on an employer." There are a couple of others: "require an employer to create new positions in his workforce" and "impose a quota on an employer."
1520
Ms Laird: Are you reading the section from the federal legislation?
Mr Curling: Yes. I'm just saying to you that, being on the tribunal, if it comes up from time to time, there are suggestions you can make, as you said, as it comes out of play, as these cases come before you. Keep that in mind and watch the federal legislation and see which one is more effective, and then you could make, of course, as a tribunal, observations of what you see. My personal request of you is to submit those personal observations to the then minister of the day. Would you promise me that?
Ms Laird: No, I'm sorry, sir. I can't promise you that.
Mr Curling: Oh, that's so unfortunate. I would have thought that she would.
Ms Laird: The only other way that a tribunal speaks, other than in its decisions, would be in an annual report.
Mr Curling: If it isn't there, I'd like you to put it there.
Ms Laird: You would be more likely to hear that kind of comment in an annual report of the Employment Equity Commission. You'll notice, for instance, that the federal human rights commission often comments at length about their legislation. Tribunals generally don't. But I will certainly tell the chair of this tribunal that you have mentioned that.
Mr Curling: Please. My last question that I have for you is, just give me your opinion on this: Do you feel that the creation of employment equity is really a failure of human rights in enforcing some of the abuses that happen in the workforce?
Ms Laird: I hope that the employment equity legislation can address some areas that perhaps weren't adequately dealt with under human rights legislation.
Mr Curling: How much more time do I have?
The Chair: You have a minute.
Ms Laird: I think it would be fair to say that the impetus behind the legislation partly arose out of a feeling on the part of the Legislature -- and certainly you'll know that better than I -- that there were some areas in which human rights law wasn't doing as effective a job. That's my understanding of why the legislation came forward.
Mr Curling: My colleague Bob Callahan would like to ask --
Mr Callahan: I just wanted --
The Chair: You're out of time.
Mr Callahan: You just told him he had a minute.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Callahan: Surely that minute didn't go by.
The Chair: And?
Mr Curling: That was a short question.
The Chair: There isn't time.
Mr McLean: I'll take the word of the Chair.
The Chair: Do you want to look at the clock?
Interjections.
The Chair: Ms Laird, thank you for your appearance before the committee this afternoon.
Mr Hope: Madam Chair, on a point of order: I'd like to correct the record, if that's under the point of order.
The Chair: Yes. You are able to correct your own record.
Mr Hope: Yes, that's what I'm going to do.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Hope: I had made an interpretation about tax dollars being brought into -- when we were questioning the person to the casino --
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Hope: Let me get it correct here.
The Chair: Mr Comartin?
Mr Hope: Yes. During that questioning time period I made reference to the minister saying there would be no provincial tax dollars associated with that. I was wrong and I'd like to correct the record.
The Chair: All right. Thank you, Mr Hope, for correcting the record.
JAMES R. HANSON
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: James R. Hanson, intended appointee as member, Science North board of trustees.
The Chair: Our next intended appointment review this afternoon is Mr James R. Hanson. Welcome, Mr Hanson, to the committee.
Mr James R. Hanson: Good day.
Mr Waters: It's nice to have you down. I guess the first question is, how's the snow in Sudbury?
Mr Hanson: The snow is really in between here and Sudbury. I think it's falling in your area primarily, but it's actually kind of nice through there.
Mr Waters: I'm going to take that part of the Hansard and send it to a friend of mine up there.
It's nice to have you here. I guess my questioning would be on the changes to Science North and where you, as a prospective board member, think you would like to see Science North go from here. The Cinesphere and all of that has gone in, which I think are all positive things not only for Science North but for Sudbury. It's my belief that Science North is the focal point within Sudbury of the tourism industry that is being built in the region, at least in the summer months. I know there's some activity out there to get snowmobiling going in the winter, but without snow that's a little bit tough. You can send them all to Muskoka.
I guess what I'm asking is, do you have a vision for Science North? I don't believe there is any need for drastic changes, but if you do see that, could you talk about what you see in your vision for Science North with it?
Mr Hanson: I don't see any major changes. What I see is the growth that's taken place over the last 10 years continuing, and Science North without question, as you mentioned, serves the Sudbury community very well, as well as all of northern Ontario. I think where the growth can come from is through the outreach programs and the ability of Science North to get as many visitors as possible, I suppose, from all of northern Ontario. If they can't make it to the science centre, then Science North should make it to them, and I think particularly through the outreach program. Certainly in the community, with the new Imax theatre and all the science-based programs that are ongoing at the present time, it's without a question a terrific focal point for educating not only northern Ontario but I think all Ontarians to the education of science.
Mr Waters: You touched on one of the things that I've always found interesting about Science North, and that is the outreach program, taking science to the community instead of trying to convince the -- and in the north it's communities from great distance to come to Sudbury. Sort of whet their appetite and then they can maybe come and see the real thing. I think you indicated that you see that as a key part. Do you think that indeed it should be expanded upon? I don't know exactly how you would expand it, but I guess I would ask your opinion. Should it be expanded upon, especially when it comes into the schools in northern Ontario, so they would have an understanding?
Mr Hanson: I think I could come up with specific ideas on how it could be expanded. Being a new member to the board, I really don't have those ideas at this point, but I think the vision or the thrust should be to try to encourage as many people to see what's available at Science North, whether through the outreach program or have them actually visit the centre itself. I certainly remember as a younger person and being in the north coming to the Toronto area to visit the various attractions, and I think with the growth of the province that's what really is encouraging in the Sudbury area, to try to build upon those facilities, such as Science North, that can build a sense of pride in the north and accomplishment, as well as have children and adults be able to experience world-class science exhibits and take part in them and learn more about science, which of course would encourage them to maybe pursue careers and interests in those areas.
1530
Mr Waters: The next question is probably better asked of someone else other than yourself, but I'm going to ask it anyway. That is, when I look at your CV, I see United Way and fund-raising and all of those wonderful things. I know that Science North, being, shall we say, a very proactive group of people, is always looking for new ways and indeed ways within the community and within the province to raise funds to make it bigger and better and to do the programming that they feel and we all feel is so important. Do you think they'll be calling upon your expertise in this area?
Mr Hanson: I think so. I've just finished as chairman of the United Way campaign in Sudbury and district for 1993, actually, and I think certainly the thrust of most agencies that we see today will be the difficulty in getting funding for various programs. If Science North is going to keep improving and to keep providing a world-class quality source of exhibits and what have you, there's going to have to be some outside funding. I can see that.
Specifically, as far as ideas on how to do that at this point, I've given it some thought but I really don't have the ideas at this point to be specific about what would be done. But I think there's some great potential. There's certainly a lot of competition out there for the fund-raising dollars, but fund-raising up to this point has been very successful at Science North, certainly for the Imax theatre and the film Shooting Star as well. Both programs were funded to a tremendous level in the community and I think the future bodes well as far as future fund-raising goes throughout northern Ontario.
Ms Harrington: What do you feel from your professional background might be helpful in this role?
Mr Hanson: I think the biggest thing is probably trying to tie in an agency such as Science North with business. My early background was with education -- I was trained at McArthur College in Kingston -- and I'm very close to the education industry, if you will. But as far as my personal background at the present time goes, I think it's to try to tie in the science programs and possibly the fund-raising and try to draw closer ties between business and industry to the science centre.
Ms Harrington: Some members of a government committee that I was with, I believe the end of August or so, were in Sudbury. We had a great time there; you can ask Mr Curling. We were very close to Science North. We didn't actually have the time to go through it but we did have lunch there and that was lovely at that time of year. We got to walk around the lake there a little bit.
Mr Hanson: That's a great start, and the next visit we'll get you through the building.
Ms Harrington: I want to ask you two questions. First, do you see any problems ahead for Science North? I don't know the operating of it at the moment. Are things going smoothly? Secondly, we do have some figures here, but roughly what percentage of your budget is from government and what is from private sources or your own generated revenues?
Mr Hanson: In terms of the first question, the difficulties that might be coming over the horizon, so far the community and anyone I talk to is always amazed at how well Science North functions. It's very well managed, has a terrific corps of volunteers, and I think functions on a day-to-day and year-to-year basis extremely well. So I don't see any difficulties in the past. As far as difficulties in the future, I think the sources for any difficulties would probably be, how big can it become and what funding might be available and what's the funding potential both in the community and from government sources that would enable it to achieve the goals and objectives that are set out?
As far as the percentages go between the government and private sources, I don't know offhand specifically. Again, being a new appointee to the board, I'm not exactly sure. I believe it's about 80-20, but I can't be specific at this point: 80% government funding.
Ms Harrington: So 80%, and is that directly from the Ontario government?
Mr Hanson: That's correct. I should say that there were federal funds made available for the Imax theatre as well; there have been federal funds made available as well.
Ms Harrington: And your budget is roughly about $30 million?
Mr Hanson: Again, in terms of exact budget figures, I couldn't be specific. I'd hate to say and be wrong on it.
Mr Callahan: Welcome, Mr Hanson. The first question I'm going to ask you, and I hope you won't be offended by it, is, are you related to anybody who's a sitting member of the Legislature?
Mr Hanson: No, I'm not.
Mr Sterling: One of the Hanson Brothers in that movie?
Mr Hanson: Just the movie. That's right.
Mr Callahan: The second question I would have for you is, you seem to have a fairly extensive understanding of Science North, and yet I notice you have never -- at least I believe you've never -- applied for that position before. Am I correct?
Mr Hanson: That's correct.
Mr Callahan: First of all, how did you find out about this and why did you, at this stage, apply for the position?
Mr Hanson: I'm not familiar with your background as much, but I think if you're familiar with the way communities operate, particularly in the smaller communities and particularly communities in areas such as northern Ontario, a facility like Science North becomes a very big focal point for the community, and if you're involved in the community you're automatically drawn to that focal point.
I think with my present employment, present business and previous employment through the airlines, with the chamber of commerce and United Way, you're always touching, at some point, every week, something going on at Science North. It's very easy to become familiar with what goes on there. Any committee you're sitting on often, if it's not a facility you're using at Science North, you're bumping into somebody from Science North. It's osmosis, basically.
Mr Callahan: I notice that you're an owner-operator of a car rental franchise and you also have, according to your CV, links with the aviation industry. Do you see any potential for conflicts arising as a trustee of this facility?
Mr Hanson: There could be some conflicts, but I think the guidelines in terms of conflicts are pretty clear. I spoke briefly with the chairman of the board and he made it quite clear how seriously he and the group treat any conflicts of interest, and certainly they have to be declared. I don't see any problem whatsoever; if there is anything that's remotely close, it would be declared.
Mr Callahan: How long a period is this appointment for?
Mr Hanson: I believe it's three years.
Mr Callahan: And it's part-time, is it?
Mr Hanson: It's voluntary, so it certainly would be part-time.
Mr Callahan: Have you ever run for elected office?
Mr Hanson: Not at all.
Mr Callahan: Have you participated in elections?
Mr Hanson: No, not at all either.
Mr Callahan: A purist, good heavens.
Mr Sterling: Can I ask a supplementary question?
The Chair: Your turn's coming.
Mr Sterling: I was going to ask if he would like to participate in an election.
Mr Callahan: I don't think I'll ask you that question, Mr Hanson. As my predecessor in my riding, who was the former Premier of this province and their leader, used to say, it will all occur in the fullness of time.
In any event, these meetings for Science North are obviously held in Sudbury, or are they held elsewhere?
Mr Hanson: No, they're held in Sudbury. I think from time to time, because the board is representative of a cross-section of individuals from the Sudbury area as well as northeastern Ontario, I can see probably where meetings would be held outside of the Sudbury area, but none to my knowledge at this point.
Mr Callahan: Have you found that the attendance of people at Science North, with its expansion, has increased?
Mr Hanson: Again, to be specific about a lot of those things, I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, but certainly from what I read publicly and my knowledge of Science North, I think the attendance figures are above projections. They're doing very, very well. Particularly, the Imax theatre seems to have enhanced the overall numbers of people who are visiting the science centre itself as well, which is what was expected, that it would tend to draw more people to the whole facility. That seems to have been the case.
Mr Callahan: Is the facility at Science North designed in such a way that it's available, accesswise, to the disabled?
Mr Hanson: Yes, it is.
Mr Callahan: Fully?
Mr Hanson: Yes. Again, I can't say specifically, but I know that it's a world-class facility, it's a modern facility and there's no question in my mind that it's fully accessible in every respect.
Mr Callahan: How many trustees are there?
Mr Hanson: There are 20.
1540
Mr Callahan: I'm just a visitor here but I gather that this is the only application. The other positions are filled, are they?
Mr Hanson: I believe they are.
Mr Callahan: All right. Thank you very much. Have a safe trip back to Sudbury and say hello to Floyd for me. No, I guess it's Shelley.
Mr Sterling: I just want to say that I read over your résumé and you've done a lot of things in the community. I am somewhat surprised that it was necessary to have you down here, but I'm sure you enjoy the trip. I just wanted to say that as a campaign chairman for the district United Way you've undertaken some major voluntary commitments in the past, and I wish you well. I'm sure if you put that kind of time into a voluntary endeavour you'll be an asset to this board.
Mr Hanson: Thank you very much.
Ms Harrington: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I want to tell you that I was wrong in the figure that I gave. Could I correct my record?
The Chair: Yes, you can correct your record, but can we just finish so we can let Mr Hanson leave?
Ms Harrington: I'm sorry. I thought you were finished.
Mr McLean: I just had a couple of short questions. Over the past year, for 1994, have your revenues been up, are you aware, or are they down? We have 1993, but are you aware of whether the revenues are up or down?
Mr Hanson: I don't have that knowledge. I understand they are up, but specifically I couldn't be sure.
Mr McLean: All members are volunteer on the board. They just get expenses, but the director I guess is the only one who's paid. Do you have any idea how much the director makes?
Mr Hanson: No, I don't.
Mr McLean: Would you like to know? Thank you for appearing.
The Chair: You're complete? All right. Thank you very much, Mr Hanson, for your appearance before the committee this afternoon.
Now, Ms Harrington, you wish to correct your own record.
Ms Harrington: Yes. I indicated that the operating budget was somewhere around $31 million. That was the bottom line here. That is in fact the capital assets. I understand the operating budget is about $7.5 million, of which it's roughly split 50-50 with the private and public contributions.
The Chair: Thank you for doing that.
Now we have some matters before the committee. The first would be to move a motion on today's appointments, if someone would like to move a motion.
Mr Waters: I so move, Madam Chair.
The Chair: They can be voted on individually or collectively.
Mr Callahan: I'm asking that they be voted on individually.
The Chair: You want all of them voted on individually?
Mr Callahan: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. Mr Waters, you're going to move them all?
Mr Waters: Yes, I move all of the list.
The Chair: Mr Waters has moved the appointment of Mr John Fera as --
Mr Callahan: On a point of order, madam Chair: Could I also inquire of the clerk whether or not all the members who are about to vote on this are properly subbed in as voting members? As I understand it, there are at least two changes, I believe.
The Chair: All right. Let's have the clerk answer your question then, Mr Callahan.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): Everyone's a properly subbed member.
Mr Callahan: They're all properly subbed in?
Clerk of the Committee: Yes, on both sides.
Mr Callahan: Because this morning we had other members sitting there.
Clerk of the Committee: I had sub slips for this morning and sub slips for this afternoon.
The Chair: That is quite in order. We will try to do the motions without any interruptions.
This motion is moved by Mr Waters, that Mr John Fera will be appointed as a member of the Gaming Control Commission. All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any?
If you are sitting at the table you have to vote. Mr Sterling, are you voting?
Mr Sterling: No, I'm not voting.
The Chair: All right. Thank you. Mr Curling, you're not going to leave forever, though, are you?
Mr Curling: No.
The Chair: The next motion by Mr Waters is Mr Glenn Buchanan as a member of the Gaming Control Commission. All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any? That motion is carried.
The next motion by Mr Waters is Mr Ken Signoretti as a member of the Ontario Casino Corp. All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any? That motion is carried.
The next motion by Mr Waters is Ms Barbara Young as a member of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal. All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any? That motion is carried.
A motion by Mr Waters that Mr Joseph Comartin is appointed as a member of the Ontario Casino Corp. All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any? That motion is carried.
A motion by Mr Waters that Mr Gerald William Kinasz be appointed as a member of the Ontario Travel Industry Compensation Fund board of trustees. All in favour of that motion? That vote is unanimous.
A motion by Mr Waters of Ms Katherine Laird as a member and vice-chair of the Employment Equity Tribunal. All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any? That motion is carried.
A motion by Mr Waters that Mr James R. Hanson be appointed as a member of Science North board of trustees. All in favour of that motion? That motion is unanimous.
Thank you for that part of the business.
We have one matter. I received a letter, which I think was circulated to the committee members, from Marilyn Roycroft, the director of public appointments in the Office of the Premier. The letter is dated January 24, 1995. I'll read the letter into the record, I think. Actually, the letter is to the clerk of the committee, Ms Mellor:
"I am writing in response to your memo of January 11, 1995, regarding the subcommittee's request that Peter C. Engelmann, the intended appointee as member, Board of Inquiry (Police Services Act), and Gord Wilson, the intended appointee as member, Ontario International Trade Corp, who had been selected for review by the subcommittee on Wednesday, January 11 or Thursday, January 12, 1995 be postponed until the committee has conducted its review of the intended appointees in March, 1995.
"As you know, the public appointments secretariat has always attempted to cooperate with the committee. However, regarding the above cases, we will be unable to agree to the subcommittee's request since the resulting delays would adversely affect the work of both boards."
I think it's important to know that the delay was not of course caused by the committee. The committee clerk did try to schedule both Mr Gord Wilson and Mr Peter Engelmann, and their schedules precluded them from being able to commit to interview times when the committee was sitting in January and also in February, but this letter was sent on January 24.
Mr Callahan: Since I'm a sub on this committee and have been severely maligned by the Chair, can I inquire whether or not Gord Wilson is the Gord Wilson of the labour movement? Is that right?
The Chair: Yes, it's the same Mr Gord Wilson. And I apologize if you feel you've been maligned. There was no intention.
Mr Callahan: No, no. I'm kidding, Margie. I would never say that of you. But I don't quite understand the tenor of that letter.
The Chair: The explanation of the letter is that normally the process is that the director of public appointments in the Office of the Premier submits to the committee lists of intended appointments. The subcommittee selects, as you know, as part of this process, people who will be invited to be interviewed. Then the full committee approves the subcommittee report, and those people who are selected to be interviewed are not appointed until after they're interviewed. The balance of the names on those lists that are submitted to the committee automatically are confirmed as to their appointments by the Office of the Premier.
1550
Mr Callahan: That's my question.
The Chair: The next thing that happens is obviously the appointment, the people who are to be interviewed by the committee -- the clerk's office attempts to schedule them as quickly as possible in order that the appointment process cannot be interrupted unnecessarily. It has to be done by the statute within 30 days. However, sometimes what happens is that the people who are being requested to come before the committee, because of their own personal schedules, are not able to within the time frame. The request then goes back to the Office of the Premier to request that the committee needs more time in order to schedule them because somebody's out of town or they're at another hearing or whatever their personal commitments in time are.
In this case, we did not have a meeting. The last the committee knew was that we had requested more time from the appointments secretariat. The reply we got was this letter that I've just read into the record where the director of public appointments said that they were not able to grant the committee more time to schedule the appointments, so therefore those appointments did proceed.
Mr Callahan: The purpose of that question was, does the director of appointments, or whatever it's called, have the authority to override a direction from a legislative committee?
Clerk of the Committee: The time frame set out in the standing orders says that the committee must review the appointments within 30 days from the time the subcommittee selected them. It doesn't stipulate that if they're not available or if the committee's not available -- it just stipulates within 30 days. There is nothing the committee can do to extend it on their own -- it's strictly a courtesy on the part of the secretariat -- other than request that the secretariat not put the appointments through until, and in most cases it's been granted; not in all cases, but in most cases.
Mr Callahan: Not to prolong this or to sound overly political, but does that mean the political appointment secretary in the Premier's office could in fact keep us from examining any or all recommended appointments and have them automatically approved without any attempt, albeit a minimal one, by this committee to say yea or nay to them? I find that absolutely outrageous.
In Ottawa they're castigating the federal Liberals for the type of conduct that's going on there, and yet here we have this charade that supposedly is available for the review of so-called appointments and in fact people can be extracted from it simply by the appointment secretary not acceding to an increase in the rather narrow standing orders provision, I would think.
I just put that on the record. I find it incredible that the press is all over Ottawa about what they're doing or not doing, and yet down here we sit here day after day approving appointments that are already approved, without any purpose and at the taxpayers' expense, which I find absolutely outrageous, unbelievable.
Mr Curling: Madam Chair, if I understand the letter properly, I think it is stating that we ran out of time, although we have requested an individual to come before us, and therefore the executive body will proceed in confirming this appointment because this person had said they could not accommodate us at a time that is convenient for both of us to meet for this interview. Is that my understanding?
The Chair: I think the answer to both Mr Callahan's and your question is in the last sentence where they say, "We are unable to agree to the subcommittee's request since the resulting delays would adversely affect the work of both boards." That is their answer.
Mr Curling: That brings me to the point of why this committee continues to be a farce, in a sense. We know that when individuals come before us -- sometimes we call them applicants -- they're already confirmed no matter what we do. They've never turned down one individual here, if there's any disagreement. I've never seen anyone who has been turned down from this board.
Now, here it is that we had requested an individual. We asked for two things: that either the person come before us before our time runs out, so to speak, and the first thing they do is block us by saying, "We will not give you any more extension for this committee to meet, and furthermore, because your time has run out, we'd better confirm this individual."
I think it's the biggest farce I've ever seen. That is why I don't vote on this committee. I just want to put that on the record, Madam Chair.
Mr Hope: Is it one or two people that you mentioned?
The Chair: There are two.
Mr Curling: I didn't say one. I said those who are --
Mr Hope: You're saying "person," and I want to know if it's two.
The Chair: The letter is referring to Mr Gord Wilson and Mr Peter Engelmann. Mr Sterling?
Mr Sterling: Just one question and then I'd like to comment immediately after that: Has this happened before, this particular idea of somebody being unable to come to a committee and then you've requested an extension and it's been refused and they've gone ahead and appointed?
Clerk of the Committee: The occasion that the committee has requested to the secretariat has happened more than one time, several times, but it has been refused previously. This is not the first time they've refused.
The Chair: Usually it's granted.
Mr Sterling: Okay. The comment I would like to make is, number one, the appointments are made by the government, and therefore if there's an urgency to fill a particular position, it's the government's own incompetence in not doing this soon enough to make certain that this committee has the opportunity to call those appointees in front of this committee. Therefore, the argument that they are needed this month rather than a month from now is very, very hollow, because it's a problem made by the government itself, the people who appoint these people.
The second thing is that I am amazed that this committee has tolerated it in the past. Basically, what it says to me is that if I am appointed by the government and I do not want to come in front of this committee, all I need to do is find some excuse for why my time schedule will not allow me to meet with the legislators of this province, say to the clerk of this committee, "I'm sorry, I can't be at your meeting on such and such a date," then go to the appointments secretariat and say: "Don't grant a 30-day extension. Then I'll never have to appear in public and justify my appointment."
It really, really reeks of arrogance on the part of the Premier's office not to grant a 30-day extension in these cases. If these people want to be appointed to a public appointment, it's in the standing orders that this legislative committee has the right to at least ask a few questions, even though there's no real power in this committee to refuse an appointment. It really reeks of arrogance that the Premier's office will not give an extension and allow this committee to interview, particularly a high-profile person like Gordon Wilson. I'm amazed, Madam Chairman, at how weak this committee's powers are.
Mr White: I just would like to comment that what we're talking about is the exception rather than the rule, and that what we have had, generally with this committee, the many times I have sat on it, has been a genuine, interested, fair process of review --
Mr Callahan: What a joke.
Mr White: -- that on occasion is tarnished by some partisan innuendos. But I think the purpose of the committee is to ensure that public appointments are filled with competent people.
1600
Mr Curling: You're rubber-stamping them.
The Chair: In fairness, the government members didn't interrupt you.
Mr White: Along those lines, there will, I'm sure, be occasions when it is very difficult to assure the attendance of all the bodies necessary. We're talking about meeting two days a month; it's not always possible. But we do have a review process which is public, which is accessible and which of course is the first time that's ever happened in this province.
Mr Waters: Every time we get someone new on the committee we hear this same story.
Mr Hope: Whoa, whoa. Make that clear. I mean, I'm new here. I would have been out of here 15 minutes ago. I wasn't involved in this conversation.
Mr Waters: On the opposition side then, we get this.
The gentleman in question, let's face it, is Mr Wilson. He is an extremely busy person. We tried to get him in January.
Mr Curling: Too busy to interview for a job.
Mr Waters: Alvin, I never interrupted you; I don't expect you to interrupt me. Now, if you want to keep up being partisan, we'll just forget it and we'll do a vote and be done with it.
Mr Curling: Let's do a vote then.
The Chair: No. I think we're adults. We can complete this debate as it started, which was fine.
Mr Waters: In all fairness, this is not something that has happened very often. I've been here since the beginning and I can only recall maybe once or twice in the last five years that this has happened. Indeed, when there is an agency, board or commission that needs its people, you can't shut down something in the province just because we don't want to meet. And this is in the intersession. When the House is sitting, we meet weekly and it's much easier. I don't think we've ever had that problem when the House is sitting, because of the weeks. But in this case we dictated that we only are sitting these two days, and very early on we spelled them out. Unfortunately, Mr Wilson has not been available those days.
I really don't understand what all of this is about, on the other side. If you want to play partisan politics, fine, but we have done something -- if you want to be partisan about it, at least the people of the province know what agencies, boards and commissions are out there and how they can get on them. That's something that neither of the other two parties have ever allowed in this province. It's a definite move ahead in the right direction.
Mr Sterling: I guess we were more honest than that.
The Chair: I'm going to make a suggestion and you can tell me if you agree with it or not. This letter has been brought to the committee for information. All three caucuses now have comments on the record. I'm at the direction of the committee. If you want to go another round, I'll take that direction, but if not, the fact that all three caucuses have spoken about the letter is perhaps sufficient.
We have one other matter to deal with before we adjourn. What is the wish of the committee?
Mr Callahan: You know what the wish will be, Madam Chair. They've got the votes; they'll vote against it. With all due respect, that's the ultimate in cutting off democracy.
Mr Curling: Call the vote.
Mr Callahan: These people have got the nerve, the gall, to say that this committee is a great, democratic thing. I want to explain: I've observed that we have had different members in the morning, different members in the afternoon, and yet the government members of the New Democratic Party all voted in favour of every applicant who came before us. Now, that is absolutely amazing when they didn't hear half of them. That in itself, on the record, is a sham. This entire committee is a sham.
If you are going to vote on a particular person in any tribunal or any forum, you have to be here for the entire hearing. You people have had different members over there. It's like musical chairs. All I've got to say is that Mr Waters says --
The Chair: Excuse me. Mr White has a point of order.
Mr White: The gentleman's tirade unfortunately has nothing to do with the point in question, which was the reception of this letter.
The Chair: You don't have a point of order, Mr White. Continue, Mr Callahan.
Mr Callahan: Mr Waters pointed out that this has only happened once in five years. I'd like to ask the clerk if that's correct. If it's not, a member who has been a long-standing member of this committee should not try to whitewash the bloody thing by saying it's only happened once in five years. I'd like to ask the clerk. How many times in five years has this happened?
Clerk of the Committee: This is the second time.
Mr Callahan: All right, second time. So you're wrong, it wasn't once.
Mr Waters: No, once before now.
Mr Callahan: All right. Finally, if Mr Wilson is such a busy man that he can't attend to at least go through the charade of democracy, perhaps he's too busy to have this appointment and maybe he shouldn't be appointed to the board. Do you ever think about that? I find it absolutely undemocratic, totally dictatorial, for the Premier of this province and his appointments secretary to simply say, "Sorry, you couldn't accommodate Mr Wilson or this other person, so therefore they are now automatically on the board." I'll tell you, as a taxpayer of this province I would be screaming like hell. Not only that, but if the public ever gets wise to the fact that this committee sits and does absolutely zippo -- they're paid by the taxpayers to sit, and it's just a sham, a total sham.
I love it. The press are not here, the press couldn't care less about this, yet they're jumping all over the federal Liberals in Ottawa for making appointments. They don't try to set up some sort of cockamamy committee like this that goes through the motions of approving. They have the guts to do it and take their lumps in the press. But not the NDP, not the Premier of this province, not Bobby Rae, our Premier -- you know, lily white. He sets up a committee and says this committee will do it. If the taxpayers knew that for the two days we're sitting here we're being paid to simply rubber-stamp something that's already occurred --
Finally, if the proof is not there, one of the members -- I can't remember the person who came before us -- said he had met with the deputy minister this morning. If he's just coming here wondering whether he's going to get the job, why is he meeting with the deputy minister? It's a fix; they're in. I think the press, if they had any guts at all, would explain that to the public, just as they're doing in Ottawa with the federal Liberals. Why don't they play up the fact that the NDP has set up this ghost-like committee that supposedly hears from the public and recommends people? That's a crock. The press, if they had any guts, would come clean with the public.
Mr White: They'd jump right on them.
Mr Callahan: You're darn right. They'd also bring out the fact that this letter partially is caused by the Premier of this province proroguing the Legislature and not calling us back, so you can't sit as a committee. He cancelled all the committees with the exception of finance and government agencies. The people of this province are not getting their money's worth, while the Premier and all his cabinet ministers rush around this province throwing money all over like it's largess. I suppose once they run out of cheques they'll call an election. I find the whole thing just absolutely incredible.
Mr Curling: I want to comment on the statement Mr Waters made before us here. This committee, the members here, I'm sure are ready to meet more often than we have been meeting, because we know we have a number of appointments. However, as you said, Mr Wilson is too busy -- he's a busy man -- to even come for an interview for the job that he is to take on.
Tell me, if you were running a business, Madam Chair, if Mr Waters was running a business, and someone came forward for a job but you realized he hadn't come for the interview, I wonder if you would have given him the job.
He knows already, as my colleague said, that the fix is in. We're just a farce. We just come here and go through the motions, and then, "I'm sorry, guys, your time has run out." We say we've got lots of time. The House hasn't sat for all this time and we've got lots of time. The House isn't coming back for another month, so we can schedule another day. But no, the executive council and those who make the decisions are saying: "I am sorry, this committee will not meet. We have already agreed upon that."
We tried on two occasions to get Mr Wilson in here, on two occasions, and he said he was busy. However, we have a couple of days. He could have come today. He's busy today. He could have come tomorrow. But no, he hasn't come. To say to us that you can't understand what's going on, that really stated the fact very clearly: You don't understand what's going on at all. You have no democratic process in this situation; we just come every day and vote and go through the exercise. They even object sometimes to the fact that we ask the people questions.
If it's a matter of information, I'll ask the clerk, is there any way of appeal -- I don't know the process -- to say back to them that it is important? We have the time, I'm sure, we all have the time to come back to meet the hundreds of people they are trying to put through the process. But what they will say -- again they will continue to approve those members who are coming for appointments.
1610
Can I then ask another question of the clerk? If there are other people who should take up positions by appointment before the House resumes, do they automatically get it because we don't sit again?
Clerk of the Committee: It's my understanding that we follow the same procedures that we have, and when the 30 days expire -- or, in the case of any of those for this month, we had the 30-day plus the 14-day extension. All I can suggest is that the committee put the request forward to the secretariat. There isn't any other process in the standing orders.
Mr Curling: The question I was asking, though, is that there are members who are appointed to boards now who are supposed to come before us, and we won't make any more selections to come before the government agencies committee.
The Chair: Yes, we will be making selections tomorrow for March. We are making more selections.
Mr Curling: When we make those selections, if the time comes for them to take up their appointment and we are not meeting, do they automatically, like Mr Wilson here, get appointed?
Mr Callahan: You got it.
Clerk of the Committee: As I said, at the next meeting --
Mr Curling: Tomorrow.
Clerk of the Committee: No. If there's a selection tomorrow and I contact those people for the March meeting, the process would be the same as it has been in the past. The individual member of the subcommittee who has made that selection will have the option to put the request forward to the secretariat. The 30 days will have expired.
The Chair: As a matter of fact, the other items of business this afternoon are two selections of the PC Party and one selection of the government party, which we did select at our last meeting, that we are not able to schedule. So that's an example we're going to be dealing with in a moment.
Mr Hope: After listening to the comments, I'd ask that the question now be put.
The Chair: There isn't a question on the floor. What we're dealing with is the receiving of this letter.
Mr Hope: Then that's what I'm moving, to receive and vote on it. That's what you told me, correct? You said the motion to receive this letter.
The Chair: No, there wasn't a motion on the floor. It was simply that I was reporting this letter back to the committee as an explanation of why we didn't schedule Mr Wilson and Mr Engelmann.
Mr Hope: Okay. Then now I ask to adjourn the debate.
The Chair: On that matter?
Mr Hope: Yes.
The Chair: Is that a formal motion you're making?
Mr Hope: Yes.
Mr Callahan: We can speak to that motion. It's debatable; it's not non-debatable.
The Chair: In fairness, Mr Hope, the clerk is advising me that in fact we're not in the middle of a debate per se on a motion so you can't move a motion to adjourn the debate. Possibly you could move that we move to the next matter of business.
Mr Hope: Madam Chair, that's what I'm trying to get clear. We've been debating, and I thought we were debating a motion, and that's why I moved it. But I'll make a motion that we move to the next item on the agenda.
The Chair: All in favour of that motion? If you wish to speak to the motion that we move to the next item of business on the --
Mr Callahan: Just one comment, and then you can move to the next item: This is the only process I've ever heard of where if you want a job, you can get it by staying away. That's outrageous. Interviews usually are conducted by employers and you've got to go to the interview to get the job. Here, it's better if you stay away: You don't get questioned at all by this committee and you still get the job. I find that passing strange.
The Chair: All in favour of that motion?
Mr Curling: Is there no further debate?
The Chair: Yes, if you wish to have further debate. I didn't have any other names down.
Not seeing any other names, I'm going to take the vote on the motion. All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any? The motion carries.
The next business, the final piece of business for today, is that we do have two selections made by the PCs: Mary Anne McKellar, an appointment to the Employment Equity Tribunal, and Mary-Woo Sims, an appointment to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal. Mary-Woo Sims will be in China from January 27 to February 26; she will be available for the March review dates. Ms McKellar is in attendance at the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal in Ottawa from February 14 to 16, obviously through the period of this week that we're conducting hearings in now. Mr McLean, these were your two selections. Would you like to keep them until March? The request would have to go forward to the secretariat.
Mr McLean: That's right.
The Chair: You would like us to request of the secretariat that they be held for interviews in March?
Mr McLean: That's right.
The Chair: All right. The government selection was Mr Donald Hillock to the Gaming Control Commission. We have been unable to contact him at all.
Mr Callahan: So he just automatically gets confirmed under this new rule, this dictatorial edict from the Premier's office?
The Chair: The question we're dealing with is that Mr Hillock could not be reached for scheduling purposes. It is our understanding that he is out of the country.
Mr Waters: He's not available. Representing the government side on this, because he is our selection, I not only waive him coming but waive the 14 days as well.
Mr Callahan: I've got to ask the question --
The Chair: Excuse me, let me finish with Mr Waters. Mr Waters, you're declining the request of the government party to have him come before the committee?
Mr Waters: Yes.
The Chair: All right. Mr Callahan, did you wish to make a comment on that?
Mr Callahan: It would seem to me that if any of the parties, the government, the opposition or the third party, asks through the subcommittee and it's ratified by this committee that a person be requested to come here so they can be interviewed, that's a decision not of Mr Waters but a decision of the committee.
The clerk is saying no, but I understand from this letter that it's your caucus, the NDP caucus, that decides who it will bring forward.
The Chair: Excuse me, let's correct how we operate. The selections of which intended appointments come before the committee are equally distributed between the three caucuses. After the three caucuses have made their selection, and it's on an equal basis in terms of numbers, the requests go through to schedule those individuals. We have operated under the process that if an individual is not available for some reason, we go back to that caucus of the committee and ask them if they would like to relinquish their request or whether they'd like to request extended time from the secretariat in order that that person can still be scheduled.
Mr Callahan: In other words, because it's their selection, we can't ask that there be an extension of time.
The Chair: No, because you never asked to hear them in the first place.
Mr Callahan: But what concerns me, and I'm going to put it on the record, is the fact that if a person can't be reached to come before this committee, that would be my first inclination to think that the person really is either not interested in the job or not qualified for the job, and I think that's the most dangerous type of person to allow off the hook and allow them to go through this automatic appointment routine.
The Chair: In fairness, regardless of who that appointment is, perhaps it would be unfair to assume an individual's status without knowing what their status is.
Mr Callahan: I quite agree with you.
The Chair: I don't think the committee is in a position to make a decision about that individual's status for not being here, without talking to him personally.
Mr Callahan: I quite agree with you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: I think the business has been completed now.
Mr Hope: Madam Chair, earlier today you made a comment about two substitutes being in this committee and the committee being unusual -- I am one of those substitutes -- which I take offence to. I've been a very quiet individual during this process, and we would have been out of here probably about 35 minutes ago if it wasn't for one of the other substitutes.
I would respectfully ask the Chair for an apology. Through the committee process of interviewing, yes, it was a little raucous, and yes, I was a part of that, but we did finish 10 minutes early this morning and we would have finished about 35 minutes ago if it hadn't been for the other substitute. I would just like my record and my name cleared that I was not one of the people who held up this process.
Mr Callahan: You can put mine on the record as the one who kept you here 35 minutes to earn your pay.
The Chair: If I offended you by suggesting that the tone of the committee was somewhat different today because the committee makeup was different today, I apologize. I did notice some smiles and chuckles from the regular members, however, who probably agreed with me at the time. Anyway, I think that's fine.
We will adjourn until tomorrow morning. Thank you for your attendance today.
The committee adjourned at 1621.