INTENDED APPOINTMENTS NAZRU DEEN
CONTENTS
Wednesday 15 March 1995
Intended appointments
Nazru Deen, Police-Race Relations Monitoring Board
Jo-Anne McDermott, Durham Regional Housing Authority
Nancy Backhouse, Board of Inquiry (Police Services Act)
Mia Tsuji, Ontario Board of Parole, central region
Margaret Buchanan, Orillia Police Services Board
Lynda Tanaka, Ontario Racing Commission
Robert Korthals, Ontario Securities Commission
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:
Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L) for Mr Crozier
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Ms Harrington
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND) for Ms Gigantes
Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC) for Mrs Witmer
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1003 in committee room 1.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS NAZRU DEEN
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Nazru Deen, intended appointee as full-time chair, Police-Race Relations Monitoring Board.
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): Good morning. We are reviewing intended appointments by the government to government agencies, boards and commissions.
The first interview this morning is Mr Nazru Deen. Welcome to the committee, Mr Deen. Please come forward and have a seat and make yourself comfortable.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): On a point of order, Madam Chair: I'd like to find out why we're not in room 151. This is such an important committee -- we're dealing with government appointments -- and that room is vacant. We think the people of the province should be able to see what we're doing, so why are we not in room 151?
The Chair: What we could do is ask the clerk if it's possible to move over at noon. I think we would all be more comfortable in there in terms of the temperature, primarily.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): I'll see if we can get the staff in there to set up.
The Chair: We'll have the clerk make inquiries to see if we can move it for the afternoon session and tomorrow.
Mr McLean: Thank you. I'd be disappointed if it didn't happen.
The Chair: Thank you for the suggestion. This room, as we all know, was renovated, but the room temperature has certainly not improved with the renovation. I'm sorry, Mr Deen, for our little comfort discussion, but I assure you we would be more comfortable in the other room.
This selection was by the official opposition party. It is for an hour, so I'm going to suggest that we do 10-minute rotations through each caucus. We will start with Mr Curling for 10 minutes.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's good to see you again and all the other members.
Welcome, Mr Deen, to this committee. It has become one of the most famous committees in the Legislature these days. As a matter of fact, it was always rather famous. First, our job is to make you comfortable and ask the appropriate questions.
You come to this committee with tremendous qualifications that have been respected in the community in the work you've been doing, but also you come to this job you've been recommended for with a tremendous amount of challenges too, with the impression of the police in our cities sometimes questionable, some rather honourable men and women who have carried out this job. Your job and the mandate before you is quite a challenge.
I want to ask you this question first: how you came to be asked or approached about this job, to be recommended for this appointment.
Mr Nazru Deen: Madam Chair, members of the committee, let me before I answer that question seek your indulgence in indicating that it is my pleasure and profound privilege to participate in this democratic exercise this morning.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Deen, we would like you to answer the questions. You're not launching into a speech?
Mr Deen: Not at all. I just wanted to preface my answer by expressing my pleasure at being here this morning.
The Chair: That's fine.
Mr Curling: I don't mind at all.
Mr Deen: I look forward to the opportunity of answering that question and many others.
I retired as a superintendent of education, Mr Curling, just over two years ago, and at that time I wanted to continue my involvement in the community. With that in mind, I submitted my résumé to the office of public appointments indicating my willingness to serve on any public bodies. I believed I had something to offer.
I also responded to an advertisement through the public appointments office for a then-advertised assistant deputy minister of education, specifically dealing with the issues of race relations. It was in that way that my background, my qualifications and my willingness to serve came to the attention of the public appointments office.
That particular competition for the assistant deputy minister of education was cancelled. I then asked for my résumé to remain in the public appointments office and be given consideration for any other possible public appointments. That's how I came to the attention of the public appointments process.
Mr Curling: I know also that the mandate of the board is to develop and revise any necessary race relations standards of audit of the police services. Do you see that as extremely necessary now, that an audit should be done, and how often should an audit be done of the police services? Should it be annually? Should it be biannually? How often do you see this being done?
Mr Deen: I think it's important to look at guidelines or standards, but the frequency with which one monitors is something that should be discussed with the stakeholders.
What has impressed me during the course of the last many months when I've been travelling across the province consulting with community groups and with police is that there is already a tremendous number of initiatives being taken by police services and their communities across Ontario. One of the first things I see us doing is capturing that picture of what is already happening across Ontario and building on that, building standards and building tools and instruments for monitoring out of what is presently happening. I think we have a rich display, a rich plethora of meaningful initiatives between the police and the communities in this area.
1010
Mr Curling: How would you describe the relationship now between the police and the community? Would you say it is improving? Would you say it needs a lot of improvements? How would you describe that? From time to time the temperature either drops or increases. We know that the police have a very, very difficult job to do: to apprehend criminals but also to serve the community and to be seen as not intimidating to those who are not breaking the law.
But there are people within the community, especially different ethnic groups, who do not perceive the police as being friendly or who sometimes, as one member stated at one time, perceive the police as occupying forces. That hit the fan so hard; some of the press and some people were not comfortable with the expression.
Do you see that the relationship between the police and the community needs a lot more improvement, or is it in the direction of improving with those ethnic groups?
Mr Deen: I see the relationship as improving; I see the relationship as needing continuous improvement. But I definitely see signs right across the province of improving relations between the police and all segments of the community, including the racial minority groups.
Mr Curling: There was one thing in these notes the able Mr Pond gave us that jumped out at me. It said, "With his or her approval" -- that is, the minister -- "the board may also issue public reports periodically." Do you see it necessary that one has to seek the minister's approval, in a responsible job like you are going to take up as a full-time chair, that you must get the minister's approval in order to give out some public reports?
Mr Deen: I would hope, since this is an advisory body to the minister, that in fact two things will happen: that the board's advice will be taken seriously, and that the board in turn will both have the courtesy extended to it and the board will extend the courtesy to the minister to take responsible statements to the public, but that there would not be undue hindrance in the making of those public statements.
May I add that in fact I see some very real benefits. If I can link this to your previous question about whether the relationship is improving between the police and the community, we tend to be guided by -- and this is not an attack on the media -- media statements describing that relationship, and by their very nature those statements tend to focus more frequently on conflict.
There is quietly, perhaps less noticeably, a tremendous amount of goodwill in the relationship between the police and various segments of the community that often does not get told. I see one of the essential functions of this monitoring board as reassuring the community, when there is news to reassure the community, of the kinds of meaningful relationships and initiatives that are happening. I hope that the public statements from the board will not be limited to shortcomings but in fact will place an equal emphasis on the exemplary practices that are happening when they're happening, and there are many of those that can be told now. So I hope there would not be undue hindrance from a minister in the board's being able to communicate to the public through public statements of that kind.
Mr Curling: My suspicion -- is that 10 minutes already? I'm just getting into it, Madam Chair.
The Chair: That's your 10 minutes, but we will be coming back, for either you or Mr Daigeler, who is also on the list. Now we have Mr Runciman.
Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Mr Deen, I'm curious about a couple of things. I'm not terribly familiar with this process, and I haven't seen this in the past. Maybe it isn't ground-breaking, but you're apparently on salary now, are you, with the government?
Mr Deen: Yes, I am.
Mr Runciman: And you have been for some time?
Mr Deen: Yes, I have been.
Mr Runciman: I'm just curious about the procedural question here, which perhaps someone can answer at another date, in respect to an appointee not yet being approved by the committee, subject to review, but being appointed in sort of an ad hoc fashion and going on salary prior to this committee having an opportunity to review the appointment. I think it's another indication of the rubber-stamp nature of this committee, Madam Chair, when the government is so arrogant that it moves ahead and makes this appointment. This is no reflection on you, sir. It's a commentary on the government's appointments process, whereby it's put you in place, put you on salary prior to this committee and the members of the Legislature having an opportunity to review your appointment. I simply wanted to put that on the record, Madam Chair.
You're talking, in this handout, about preparing an audit, a police-race relations audit. Can you describe for us what is an audit?
Mr Deen: I would indicate that in fact the board itself would not be preparing or undertaking any audits; the board will not be an auditing board. There is in the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services now an equivalent body that exists for the OPP. In the ministry, there is an audit branch, a group called police services advisers.
Mr Runciman: Instead of all that, can you tell us what -- you're talking about a pilot testing of a race relations audit. What kind of form will this take? What kinds of issues will be dealt with?
Mr Deen: Through a variety of forms. There may be questionnaires, there may be opportunities for discussions with focus groups of police personnel, of community people, to find out -- what an audit does is to determine the level at which implementation of an initiative is happening. There is a series of methodologies one can use to determine the extent to which that which you said you were going to do is in fact taking place.
Mr Runciman: How does this work in practical terms? I guess this is handed out by the secretariat, and it mentions the responsibilities of the chair: "Working with the race relations and policing unit in the development of audit and review instruments to determine the level of implementation of the race relations training and employment equity."
A two-parter here. Race relations training: What is that going to involve? How do you see that being structured? What kinds of time commitments are going to be required of police officers for this sort of process?
Mr Deen: Right now, there is the development of training for police recruits, a whole range of training, including the technical skills of policing, including the skills of human relations, of dealing with an increasingly diverse society, of dealing with victims of crime. Into that whole area of sensitivity of dealing with your clients is the question of dealing with racial, cultural differences, gender differences --
Mr Runciman: So you're going to develop this program for training purposes; it has not yet been developed?
Mr Deen: No. There is in fact training that has been developed. What the board would be doing, through the ministry's officials, will be determining the effectiveness of that training, what new training might be developed to better meet the needs of policing in an increasingly diverse society.
Mr Runciman: Okay. This is going to apply to every police service across the province?
Mr Deen: Yes.
Mr Runciman: Do you have any indication of what this is going to cost police services in terms of time and real dollars?
Mr Deen: I think most police services are undertaking that training now from within their existing budgets. I do not see that this is an add-on; it's an increased dimension to existing training for dealing with the public. I do not anticipate that this represents any significant additional cost in training.
1020
Mr Runciman: That's your view. I'd like to hear the view of others on that one.
Employment equity: This is the provincial Employment Equity Act that you're going to be reviewing, how it's working within the police services across the province. I know there's an argument on this, depending, I guess, on your political perspective -- I'm not sure -- about quotas. How do you view this in terms of the act and your role? Are you talking about coming down, if you will, on police forces that are not meeting requirements under the act in terms of reflection of certain numbers of various groups within their communities?
Mr Deen: Let me begin by saying two things. One, employment equity in policing predates the recent employment equity legislation. In fact employment equity in policing was part of the Police Services Act of 1992, so in a sense the police are leading the way across this province in the implementation of employment equity by at least two years.
I mention that because I have had the opportunity of seeing the plans that have been developed by police services for the implementation of that legislation. They in fact are in the process of implementing their plans, so the monitoring of that has begun to see the extent to which police services have developed their plans. In fact the news there is that every single police service in Ontario has developed an employment equity plan and has begun to implement that plan. I don't think there is going to be a need to look at the sanction approach for this initiative because of the kind of leadership that has been exercised in police services right across this province.
Mr Runciman: You seem to be relatively pleased with what's happening in terms of race relations training and employment equity. Is this board something of a political window dressing? I mean, why is it required, other than former NDP leader Stephen Lewis recommending it? I'm wondering, why is it required? Why can't this function be carried out by the Ministry of the Solicitor General in house? Why do we have to have this new tax burden added to the rolls?
Mr Deen: Let me answer part of that question by saying that in fact initiatives have begun in all of these areas across the province. What the board, during a relatively short period of time, will be charged with doing is building on that momentum and getting --
Mr Runciman: "Building" is a good word.
Mr Deen: Yes, building on that momentum and getting local communities and their police services, in the spirit of community policing, looking at ways in which they enhance the relationships that have begun. I think that is a very useful role that this board can play and will play.
Mr Runciman: You made some comments, and I think maybe I misinterpreted them, that by and large you think relationships between various communities in the province and policing have been improving.
Mr Deen: Yes.
Mr Runciman: I just wonder how you view the recent furore -- and there are some press clippings as well today -- with respect to the Black Action Defence Committee and their concerns about the changes that have been announced last week, I guess by both the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. Do you think that's undermining the current climate?
Mr Deen: Improving relationships do not mean that there will be an absence of conflict. By the very nature of the human enterprise there'll be conflicts. I think improving relationships will be evidenced when we can handle conflict without a total poisoning of the relationship. I don't see any difficulty in saying relationships are improving, and yet we have indication of a conflict or a number of conflicts.
Mr Runciman: There's a question in here about budget for this year, I think in this fiscal year about a quarter of a million dollars. What do you see when you're up and operating on a full-time basis as a total budget for the board?
Mr Deen: Not significantly beyond that. This is not a full-time board. The board staff will be restricted to two secretarial-type positions. The police partnerships to the board will be representatives from the associations who are contributing their time, and community members are going to be largely voluntary people who will be paid a small per diem in expenses. So the board will be one that will be very much a low-cost activity during the entire time of its existence.
Mr Runciman: You were $254,400 for the past fiscal year, which is really not up and operating. I guess you don't have a proposed figure.
Mr Deen: Yes. The budget for the board in full operation will be, I think, about $450,000.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr Deen, I used to be a teacher a long time ago and then a trustee with the Toronto Board of Education for a long time, and we had in our policy books many wonderful recommendations until the Star did a report five, six years later and discovered that we hadn't implemented any. We had wonderful policies, and many bureaucracies, institutions have wonderful policies, but we seem to fail at the level of implementation and at the level of enforcement. There's a growing -- not growing -- but an ongoing resistance to change no matter where you go.
In your long experience as a superintendent -- the educational field is one area where we do preventive work with children because young children are not racists, they become racists later on for a variety of different reasons -- what have you learned that we could be doing better in our school system, that we could be doing better in our society in terms of making people anti-racist? Have you gleaned anything from those long years of experience as a teacher?
Mr Deen: I would hope so. It's been 35 years. You talked about many policies that have been written, but in fact one is not quite certain of the extent to which they've been implemented. I think I've been on both sides of that, and in the latter part of my career I've been on the writing side of those.
Public organizations of all kinds I think have failed to develop good mechanisms for monitoring and supporting implementation. There's a tendency to believe that once you write a set of guidelines or policies the job's done, and the job's barely begun when you've done that. If you've done it well, the job is still barely begun. What I see as absolutely necessary is developing meaningful mechanisms for monitoring and supporting implementation, and it is in fact the way this board has been couched to operate, to do just that.
Specifically on how does one go about doing it, I think you'll find in any initiative, and in a province as large and as diverse and as rich and as innovative as Ontario, in this field as in others you will find people trailblazing in virtually any initiative. The secret is to build on those trailblazers' exemplary practices, and in this particular field I have been encouraged to see the number of people of goodwill in the police services and in their communities who are doing creative things, who are doing meaningful things that we can recognize and build on, and that's happening in this very city.
Mr Marchese: Mr Deen, you paint a good picture sometimes of all the great initiatives, but I'm not as optimistic as you are, although I don't want to discredit the efforts that people are making in all these wonderful institutions of ours. But I think we need to support the initiatives that are there, I agree with you, although I'm not as sanguine about what really is going on.
I'm a strong supporter of training and whether that takes some time or a great deal of time in the police services board or in an educational system or in some other institution, it needs to happen. The problem with training, in my view, is that a lot of people do flip-chart training, and this is the formula for how you become anti-racist. Well, that's not the way it works.
Mr Deen: No.
Mr Marchese: Some training that is going on is, in my view, not so great. The problem with it, of course, is that whatever training we do, however good or bad, unless we have the senior establishment supporting what we do, then it doesn't matter. All the wonderful trainers you bring, white or black, won't mean a damned thing because what needs to happen is that the people within those institutions want a change because they recognize that there is racism and the people at the top have to commit themselves to a cultural change within the institution. If we don't have that, it's not going to work.
1030
Mr Deen: Exactly, and I think that training has to be offered at all levels. It is important to understand that the changes in society are changes that the chiefs of police, for example, have got to come to grips with, to understand in order that they are better informed and better able to support.
In fact there's been an excellent piece of work done by this ministry in the development of a police learning system which focuses, if you will, on education and training for police at all levels, for police personnel, civilian and uniformed, at all levels. It is important that one focuses on training, not just on recruits.
We are living in a society in which -- I know this is a much-used phrase -- education has to be a lifelong experience, it has to be a career-long experience, and that's the kind of approach to education and training that we have to build into the process.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Mr Deen, we've talked about what needs to be done and what is being done, but I'm just wondering, how do the police in general feel about this? What's the level of knowledge and acceptance of the provincial race relations policy for police services in Ontario? Are we kind of working against them, or are they in general with us on this?
Mr Deen: With reference to the level of acceptance for the race relations policy for police services in Ontario, I think virtually every police service has now formally adopted the provincial policy. A number of police services had a policy that was roughly similar to, and with minor adjustments, they have adopted the spirit at least of the provincial policy.
If I can link it to Mr Marchese's question, they would be the first to say that adoption of the policy doesn't mean to say that there is a change in behaviour at all levels. The police services themselves recognize and the local communities recognize that there's a lot of work to be done beyond the formal adoption of a policy statement.
That is where, I think, the monitoring function will be most useful, in regard to: What are we trying to do with reference to meeting the community in absolute fairness? What are the kinds of things we should be looking for if that's happening? To what extent are we finding those things? Where are we falling short? How can we build plans to close the gaps between where we should be and where we are? The whole monitoring exercise is ultimately a major cost-saving exercise because it focuses on effective implementation.
Ms Carter: But the will is there.
Mr Deen: And the will is there. I think the will is there at the police services and in their local communities, and where there has been some reluctance, the local communities are becoming active in, if you will, nudging movement to its effective implementation.
Ms Carter: Now, obviously yours is not the only board. There's the police complaints commission, the special investigations unit, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services. How is this board different? What particular niche are you going to fill here?
Mr Deen: The other bodies to which you refer have a very useful function to play, but they play a role after an incident is alleged to have happened. There is a complaint, and it goes to the police complaints commission or the internal complaints process. This board in fact will not be complaint driven. This board will not be driven by after-the-fact issues. It is an ongoing support system in partnership between the police and their communities to ensure that effective implementation is happening, so that in that respect, the board will be a very low-profile activity but, I think, a very meaningful one.
Ultimately, the success of this partnership with the board -- and this is, I think, another part of the relationship that's worth mentioning -- the success of the relationship, the success of the effective implementation of these initiatives should mean a reduction in the number of incidents that have to go to the complaints route and so on.
Ms Carter: So it's a question of prevention being better than cure, which I think we find is valid in almost every field we look at.
Mr Deen: Absolutely.
Ms Carter: Do you think that police in general around the province are implementing employment equity fairly successfully?
Mr Deen: I'm very impressed. I know I sound Pollyannaish by saying this, but I'm impressed by the fact that all police services prepared a plan. I mean, we have right now, generally, because of our economic conditions and so on, a very reduced number of opportunities for hiring new staff. But even within those reduced numbers I think you will find that the spirit as well as the reality of the employment equity legislation for policing is being implemented. We will see with the first review of the implementation after two or three years the extent to which police services have succeeded in implementing this legislation, but the initial signs are very encouraging ones, and I think that needs to be recognized.
The Chair: Just before we start the second round, I wanted to ask the question which was raised by Mr Runciman about how this committee approves appointments vis-à-vis the discussion about Mr Deen already working and receiving a salary, I think you said, Mr Deen?
Mr Deen: May I just point out that I was engaged to carry out consultations to determine the terms of reference under which the board should operate. So the recommendation which led to the creation of the board required to be fleshed out, so to speak, in consultation with the police and the community stakeholders across Ontario.
My appointment to date has been to consult with the communities across Ontario and the police associations, the police stakeholders and government officials in order to make recommendations as to what the terms of reference of the board should be. Those are the terms under which I've been employed to this point in time.
The Chair: But you have been receiving remuneration for that appointment?
Mr Deen: Yes.
The Chair: I noticed on your CV, December 1993 to present date, you list yourself as being the chair designate, and I just wanted to answer Mr Runciman's question. Appointments are not approved until the Lieutenant Governor signs those appointments, and there are two ways that appointments are approved. First of all, all the appointments are made by the secretariat. All the appointments come to the committee. Those that are not selected for review by this committee are automatically appointed; those that are selected for review, and you are one of them, are not appointed until the report from this committee goes to the Lieutenant Governor for his signature. So in fact Mr Deen is not the chair until the committee moves the report at the end of today, to answer your question.
Mr Runciman: I appreciate that. No, it doesn't answer that. I wasn't asking a question; I was making a point.
The Chair: Okay. I'm sorry, I thought you were raising the question. I also thought, from Mr Deen's answer, that he was receiving remuneration as the chair, which he isn't yet. So that was the reason I wanted to answer the question as well.
Mr Runciman: Doing the job without the title.
The Chair: All right, we're starting our next 10-minute round, and we start with Mr Daigeler.
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Welcome to Toronto, one of my constituents. It's a pleasure to be here. Normally, I'm not a member of the committee, and it's not because of you that I'm here today, although I'm pleased to see you here, but someone else wasn't able to come. So it's a happy coincidence to see somebody from my riding, frankly I think very well qualified, looking at your background.
From a public policy perspective, I think it's to be appreciated that you are putting forward your services. That is not to say that I necessarily agree with the establishment of the board itself and with the operation of this committee. The functioning of this committee, I think, leaves a lot to be desired. But be that as it may, that's not your bailiwick.
1040
You answered a little bit as to what you've been doing up to now. You were appointed as chair designate, I guess, more than a year ago, and you're telling me that you've been going around consulting people. I have a bit of a problem with the very need for this provincial board. You indicated that there are quite a few police services that have their policies in place. I know that in the Ottawa area the police services do have various committees -- race relations boards set up. Whether they are fully successful -- you said yourself, I think, these things you have to measure in steps.
Is there really a need for a province-wide body such as yours? Why do we have to have that when it's already happening at the local level? Isn't that duplication, even though there may not be a major expenditure? But certainly I'm not convinced of the need to have such a province-wide board, and perhaps you can convince me.
Mr Deen: I indicated that the policies have been developed or been adopted. I've indicated that some implementation has begun. But lest I convey the wrong impression, I think we have only just begun to implement the necessary initiatives to bring about the kind of effective policing in an increasingly diverse society. We know that our society is becoming increasingly diverse every day.
I think it is important to have a provincial initiative which oversees and supports this and, at the same time, increase the capacity of local communities to take over that initiative. I do not see this board as being something that will be needed in perpetuity. I think one needs to have some consistency across the province, but that in fact the board, as I'm used to saying on this, should begin from day one to begin to work itself out of existence by making sure that the local communities -- you mentioned Ottawa-Carleton. Some very, very good work has begun in Ottawa-Carleton, but all sides of the Ottawa-Carleton community, including the police in Ottawa-Carleton, will tell you, as they have told me, that they have only just begun a process. They've been very strong supporters of the creation of the provincial board so that they can have the mechanism of getting some comparison to what they're doing with what's happening in Windsor, be learning from what's happening in Thunder Bay, Windsor, Sudbury. The provincial board can help to do that kind of networking as well and, in a short period of time, allow the local community to carry the initiative on its own.
Mr Daigeler: Just one quick question because I know my colleague wants to come back with some questions: I can understand and appreciate the need for some province-wide coordination and encouragement and so on, but why can't that be done or why isn't this being done under the normal functioning of the civil service? That's what we've got the various ministries for and the various staffs. Why do we need a separate board for this with all its apparatus?
Frankly, I'm not as convinced as you may be perhaps that these boards do see a sunset clause and after a certain time will disappear. They have their own weight that keeps on going. So I'm just wondering why this function couldn't be carried out as part of the normal duties and responsibilities of -- I think you report to the Solicitor-General?
Mr Deen: Yes.
Mr Daigeler: Under his ministry.
Mr Deen: Because again, remember an essential part of this board is that it is community-based. It gives the community across Ontario an opportunity for community involvement at the provincial level. So it is not a normal part of the civil service. It really is a community-based activity, supported by the Solicitor General, no doubt, but it provides an opportunity for this kind of, as I said, province-wide coordination, province-wide support, to allow that momentum to be developed.
Mr Curling: Mr Deen, I can't resist taking the opportunity to ask for your input in this respect. The police now are being asked to go into the schools. I attend schools every Friday, talking about how laws are made etc, but the fact is I've been watching the behaviour pattern in some of the schools of the children and some of them are quite questionable. Now we have decided to put the police in there. It seems somehow that there's an aspect of it that is lacking about how we as teachers seem to have -- I don't want to say lost control but are unable to because of the situation in the schools. How do you feel about the police inside the school and what would be their role? I'm not quite clear. How would that relate to your job?
Mr Deen: I truly believe, in the spirit of meaningful community policing, that the police are an integral part of the partnerships that must develop across all institutions as well as with the community as a whole, and from that point of view, the police-education partnership is one, for me, as a former educator, that is long overdue. I've been following the various comments about the beginnings of police-school partnerships of that kind in the greater Toronto area. I want to point out that in fact that kind of partnership has existed in the city of Ottawa for quite some time, and very productively so. It builds the kind of knowledge about and respect for this important institution among students in our schools that can only be very productive.
Mr Curling: I was encouraged by my colleague Mr Runciman's comment, to say that the BADC group had some concerns about police and was asking for your response to that. This somehow really tells me that some of the work that's been done and the tension that's been called upon by that group is of concern and is now being recognized in the Conservative Party.
My question beyond that is to say that many times this government here develops many bureaucracies -- employment equity, human rights and all these groups -- without any resources, and I'm concerned that having put you there, having this great ability and education and experience, are you confident that they should follow through with the fact that sufficient resources be given to you to do the job?
While you're answering that, I'll throw another one in, actually. I noticed too that members of the board will be appointed and the duration of their stay on the board is subject to cabinet time. There's no one-year or two-year service. It's up to cabinet, if they want to serve five or six years. It says "cabinet" in here, not even the Lieutenant Governor. Well, it's the same thing. How do you feel about the resources and also the appointment process, as the members of the board will serve on the board that you will chair?
Mr Deen: As far as the resources are concerned, Mr Curling, I think it's important that the resources are in place, if you will, in the permanent institutions of government to support the Police Services Act. As I said in response to Mr Daigeler's question, the monitoring board, this board, is being set up for a very limited time. I honestly do not see nor did I recommend that this board should have any more resources than it has right now, than it's planned to have.
With reference to the appointment of the community representatives of the board, maybe I should announce that in response to the public advertising of those eight positions, public appointments received more than 500 applications from across the province of members of all segments of the community wishing to participate in this activity, knowing that it's a largely voluntary activity. That augurs well for the kind of response that one would want from the community across Ontario.
1050
The length of time -- you help me, but it's my understanding that's the way language tends to be worded. Ultimately, the cabinet makes the recommendation, this committee approves or otherwise the period of time. It's my understanding that these will be either one-, two- or three-year appointments, in each case.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Curling: It wasn't stipulated at all in here.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Curling: A typical way of the Rae --
The Chair: Mr McLean.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee, Mr Deen. The first question I have is, do you have a copy of the terms that you have come up with? You were in late 1993 designated as chair to develop the terms of reference for the new board.
Mr Deen: Yes.
Mr McLean: Do you have a copy of them?
Mr Deen: Yes.
Mr McLean: Would we be able to have a copy of it?
Mr Deen: Certainly.
Mr McLean: Thank you. The other question I have is, how long is your appointment for, do you know?
Mr Runciman: At the pleasure of the cabinet.
Mr Deen: My own appointment, I think so, yes.
Mr McLean: It's to be determined by cabinet, but do you know how long they are going to determine that your appointment is for? Is it four years or five years or three years?
Mr Deen: Two years, my own appointment.
Mr McLean: Do you know of any other new people who are going to be appointed to the board?
Mr Deen: No. The advertising was done, the applications have been coming in and the process is in place right now to short-list and interview. I think the standard practice is telephone interviews across the province.
Mr McLean: Any idea how many applications they have?
Mr Deen: Five hundred applications have come in.
Mr McLean: Do you have any political affiliation?
Mr Deen: Yes.
Mr McLean: What party do you belong to?
Mr Deen: I believe that in the spirit of this healthy democracy, I am entitled to keep that information secret and I'll exercise that right.
Mr McLean: Mr Runciman.
Mr Runciman: Well, Madam Chair, a couple of things: I want to say, in response to what you said earlier about Mr Deen's appointment, I think that it was indeed a very public slap in the face to this committee, the fact that he was appointed a year ago, however you wish to word his title, "chair designate," and it's a year before his appointment comes before this committee for review. I think that the committee itself should be expressing distaste, although we've known in the opposition benches what a farce this whole process is, that not one appointee has been rejected by the committee. But this just really sends out a message to the public at large of the government's contempt for this process.
I have to take exception, Mr Deen, to your last comment with respect to your political affiliation. That's quite a common question posed in this committee. There's been considerable public concern in the past number of weeks or months, especially as it relates to matters dealing with the justice system and policing, and the political affiliation of various appointees to parole boards, to police services boards etc, who come to the job from a political perspective that is not terribly representative of the public at large and, as a result, we've seen some great problems and some decisions taken that were certainly not in the public interest.
So I want to reiterate Mr McLean's question. I think it's a fair question. I don't think we're asking you how you vote in future elections; I agree with you that's a matter of confidence. But if you have been formally affiliated with a political party in the past, I think that's a fair question. If you want to decline, that again is your freedom to do so; we can't compel you. But I want to pose the question once more: Have you had any political affiliation in the past?
Mr Deen: I have been a member of a political party; I have been a member of political parties in Canadian life since I've been in Canada. I will reiterate that in fact I have carried out my public functions as a senior education leader without any demonstrable bias, politically or otherwise. I believe I have a right as a Canadian citizen to maintain the privacy of my political party membership or affiliation and I will exercise that right in this healthy democracy. It is a fundamental right which I'll exercise.
Mr Runciman: Do you know Evelyn Gigantes?
Mr Deen: Yes. I know Mr Daigeler as well.
Mr Runciman: I didn't ask you that question, did I?
Mr Deen: No, but I think in fairness, sir, let me be quite candid. I am a Canadian citizen. I'm entitled to the privacy of my political opinion and to the privacy of my political affiliation. If you're trying to find out what my affiliation is, I have refused to accept --
Mr Runciman: Oh, I think I know what your political affiliation is or you wouldn't be so reluctant to reveal it.
Mr Curling: He's a Conservative.
Mr Runciman: Yes. No doubt about it. The appointments list is rife with Conservatives these days, and a few Liberals tossed in, I might say. Did you read the Lewis report that the formation of this committee was based upon?
Mr Deen: Yes, I did.
Mr Runciman: Did you agree with all of its conclusions and recommendations?
Mr Deen: Most of them, yes.
Mr Runciman: Which ones did you take issue with? Can you recall?
Mr Deen: I don't recall right now. I'm sorry.
Mr Runciman: In any event, you agreed with his conclusions that there were concerns I gather that applied right across the province that justified the adoption of most of his recommendations.
When you talked about the budget for the committee, and again this is another thing that isn't addressed by the cabinet minute, what's the salary range for your position? Can you reveal that to us?
Mr Deen: No. I believe that information is also covered by appropriate legislation in this province and I am not willing to --
Mr Runciman: I asked the salary range, not specific salary. Is there a range for this job or is it a set salary?
Mr Deen: I think the job is considered one of senior management.
Mr Runciman: So you don't feel uncomfortable with refusing to tell taxpayers how their tax dollars are being utilized in terms of your own salary. I don't have any further questions, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Mr Deen, it is public information, the range of honorariums and salaries for government boards, commissions and agencies. The range is published. I just wanted to assure you of that.
Mr Marchese: Just as a question for clarity, and Mr Deen might be able to answer, I saw the fact that he's got "chair designate" as the title, although what has happened is that he was hired on contract to do the terms of reference for the proposed board. So your position was as a hired person to develop the terms of reference.
Mr Runciman: Write his own job description.
Mr Marchese: Is that title, "chair designate," the title that was given to you or is that the title you wrote down?
Mr Deen: That's the title that was given to me on the contract.
Mr Marchese: I see. But for clarity, he was hired on contract to develop the terms of reference for this board.
Mr Deen: To consult with the province, yes.
The Chair: Just before Dr Frankford, I want to advise the committee in case some members leave between now and noon, including the Chair, that we are meeting this afternoon in the Amethyst Room at 2 o'clock.
Mr Frankford: I wasn't sure that community policing and policing in schools came within this orbit, but since Mr Curling mentioned it, I don't know about all of Metro Toronto but it certainly exists in Scarborough, including Scarborough East. I feel that it's an admirable initiative that has considerable possibilities for prevention. I think it's something about which we feel very good, that the police have taken a very constructive initiative along with the Scarborough Board of Education.
One of the responsibilities here is to research trends and emerging race relations and policing issues on an ongoing basis. It seems to me that developing statistical methodology is of considerable importance, to have something to grab on to for the auditing for now and for years to come. Could you say something about either what you have been doing or what you see happening around statistics?
Mr Deen: I have been doing nothing in that area as of now. I believe that for any collection of data of that kind -- for example, there are statistics that are accumulated by the police complaints commission and analysed -- the board will rely on other agencies that are collecting appropriate information, that being one. There is information coming out of the implementation of employment equity. The board should not be replicating the collection of those data because they are being collected already. One of the things that the suppliers of that kind of information are very irritated by is having two or three different arms of government coming and essentially trying to collect the same information from them. I think there are useful data, useful statistics of that kind, that will help in monitoring the effectiveness of various initiatives.
Mr Frankford: Obviously, you're not uncomfortable with the collection of statistics. At times it's been controversial, that it's used for bad purposes or to confirm people's prejudices, but I personally feel that the more comprehensive stats we develop, the better, and this is a very important role for all the public agencies involved with policing and crime.
The Chair: Any other questions from the government members? There are six minutes left. No? All right. Then that completes the review of all three caucuses. We thank you, Mr Deen, for your appearance before the committee this morning.
1100
JO-ANNE MCDERMOTT
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Jo-Anne McDermott, intended appointee as member, Durham Regional Housing Authority.
The Chair: Our next appointee whom we are going to interview today is Ms Jo-Anne McDermott. Welcome to the committee, Ms McDermott.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Welcome to the committee. My first question is, what is your present job? Where are you employed at the present time?
Ms Jo-Anne McDermott: I'm employed as cook at Trafalgar Castle, which is a girls' school in Whitby.
Mr Cleary: How did you find out about the opening? Were you approached? Did you approach someone?
Ms McDermott: I had submitted a résumé for something different and they contacted me regarding a position that could be coming up and asked if I would be interested.
Mr Cleary: What changes would you like to see, being that you're familiar with the way the board operates?
Ms McDermott: I'm not exactly sure how they operate. I assume it's similar to our cooperative board of directors, so I'm not sure what changes. Maybe a little more, I'll say, tenant involvement; I'm used to members, but a little more of the stakeholders having a say at the board level.
Mr Curling: Welcome, Ms McDermott, to the committee, as my colleague has already welcomed you. Housing has been a great concern. I was reading some of your comments saying that everyone should be actually almost guaranteed to have shelter, especially the children, a roof over their heads, as you put it, or a roof over everyone's head. Sometimes that is quite difficult for the government to do. The fact is that we're talking about costs. While it might be said that the government is doing a good job of that, do you think the government itself should be in the housing business, making housing for people, or should the private sector be doing that with government having good laws and regulations to see that this is done? How do you feel about that?
Ms McDermott: I believe we need the partnership of all involved if you're dealing with social housing. Obviously, the government's funding is there, so we should work together as a team.
Mr Curling: Some may not be aware of this, but in some of the situations that are happening now, they find that when the government runs these housing groups or homes the cost is exceedingly high, much higher than with the private sector. Do you feel that one day the government maybe should come out of that and have the private sector run it? What we have now is a large bureaucracy, a lot of committees running it, people selected, and the buildings that are run by government seem to be somehow deteriorating, not kept up properly and all that. Do you feel they are doing a good job in that respect?
Ms McDermott: I'm not really sure how to answer that. In the dealings I have, I'm with the cooperative more so than with the non-profit.
Mr Curling: Do you live in a co-op now?
Ms McDermott: Yes, I do, and we work quite well with the ministry and the different levels of government.
Mr Curling: Is it maintained properly? Do you think that the place is maintained, that it is painted and garbage is picked up, to live in?
Ms McDermott: It depends. Ours, yes; I can say unequivocally that ours is well maintained. We're new, mind you, two years old.
Mr Curling: It's a two-year-old co-op?
Ms McDermott: Yes. It's 261 units.
Mr Curling: Are there many co-ops in your area?
Ms McDermott: There are 29, I believe, in total in the Durham area.
Mr Curling: Are those co-ops, not yours, not the two-year-old one that's looking nice and well painted --
Ms McDermott: The older ones?
Mr Curling: In a couple of years from now it won't be always well painted. Are there any others within your community that you see that need some real good repairs and fixtures and all that?
Ms McDermott: There are always repairs that are needed, but there's always a way of doing repairs. We have 18-year-old buildings that are undergoing renovations now and they still look good.
Mr Curling: As far as the government is concerned, being that they are the second-largest landlord in North America and yet they're not the best landlord -- that's why I am asking you this -- maybe they should come out of that business. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Ms McDermott: I'm really not sure. We are with the government because we're using government money, or public money, and I don't know how you could come out of it. I'm not sure how to answer that.
Mr Curling: You're going to be part of that management, of that landlord now, being appointed to the board. You will be appointed anyhow to that big task of being part of the landlord team. While you are there you are almost going to be the watchdog for this large landlord to see that repairs are done and that tenants are treated fairly, that recreation facilities are there and what have you. Do you see yourself playing that role on that board, when you were being appointed, saying, "Well, I'm going to be appointed, I'm going to be a big landlord now, and I'm going to make sure that I'm going to be one of the best landlords and not this kind of stuff that's going on all the time"? Do you see yourself in that role?
Ms McDermott: I believe I can offer some input to the board. I haven't sat in on any of their meetings or anything so I'm not sure how they deal with things, but I'm willing.
1110
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee. You have about 1,276 housing units in your authority. There are 365 occupied by families. Are you one of the families that's in co-op?
Ms McDermott: I'm in cooperative, yes.
Mr McLean: Tell me, is cooperative subsidized?
Ms McDermott: Yes, it is. Actually, we're pretty much based on the same principles for the funding and the programs, administering the RGIs and that.
Mr McLean: So you're in one of the subsidized units now?
Ms McDermott: Yes.
Mr McLean: The budget is going up from $7.476 million to $7.6 million. Are you aware of the budgetary policies of that authority at all?
Ms McDermott: Not all of them, no. I'm not that familiar --
Mr McLean: Have you been involved in it, attended meetings or --
Ms McDermott: Actually, I have attended a couple of theirs. We've been invited to attend because they're starting the process of tenant involvement, that type of thing. Cooperatives have always had member involvement as opposed to tenant involvement.
Mr McLean: Do you have any idea of the amount of income that's taken in for the authority and the amount of expenditures there is and the difference between the two?
Ms McDermott: Not right down to the penny, no.
Mr McLean: You have no idea?
Ms McDermott: Not in dollars and cents. I have the information in front of me. I could refer to it.
Mr McLean: I'm curious how much the taxpayer is picking up of that authority you're now going to be a director of. It would be interesting to know. Mr Runciman?
Mr Runciman: Ms McDermott, you're a volunteer on this authority. Authority members are not paid. I congratulate you on getting involved. Not too many people serve on these kinds of government bodies any more on a volunteer basis, so you're to be commended for that.
Do you have any problems in the co-op housing that you can relate to public housing vis-à-vis youth crime, any problems with drugs, those kinds of things in co-op housing that you're aware of? I know this is not your function.
Ms McDermott: On a personal level?
Mr Runciman: Yes. Do you see that occurring?
Ms McDermott: I think no matter where you are there are problems, whether you're in private or non-profit. Any neighbourhood could have any number of crimes, but I'm not sure what --
Mr Runciman: You're not aware of any --
Ms McDermott: Nothing more so than any other neighbourhood, I would think.
Mr Runciman: I think if you take a look at Metro Toronto and other areas, especially in public housing, it is a very serious concern. In terms of public housing, you're not aware of problems with respect to drug dealing or violent crime?
Ms McDermott: In our area?
Mr Runciman: In your public housing authority.
Ms McDermott: In the Durham region area, I would say no, I don't know if it's that much. I understand that with Toronto there have been various articles and conversations regarding some of the larger projects.
Mr Runciman: Even in smaller communities, but Toronto is certainly a major concern. There were hearings I attended last year about some of the drug dealers having three or four units in public housing, where one is a lab, one is a drop point, one is a payoff point and there are all sorts of things occurring: lobbies and grounds with used needles and those kinds of things, very serious problems, and crime to go along with it.
I just toss out the idea that one of the initiatives you may want to look at as a member, if this isn't already occurring, is to try on a regular basis to invite representatives of the police service to attend your meeting and talk about their experiences with your authority, in the housing stock in your authority, and recommendations and suggestions they may have in terms of how to improve the situation. I don't know how widespread it is in Durham. It may be a good example for all the province, but I know by and large it is a problem in many public housing areas across the province. Good luck.
Ms Carter: Welcome to the committee, Ms McDermott. First of all, I don't believe you were given an opportunity at the beginning of this session to introduce yourself. I just wondered if there was anything you would like to say.
Ms McDermott: I know you have my résumé in front of you, the application I sent in. Basically, all I want to say is that I may not know all the answers or the way to proceed with the answers. This is all very new to me, but I do firmly believe that everybody has a right to housing and I'd like the opportunity to do whatever I can to help do that, because with the cooperatives being involved in that, we've seen a number of families that have gotten into cooperative because of our initiatives and our follow-through. I'd like to continue.
Ms Carter: I think we'd all agree that housing is absolutely key to any individual or family, that you can't do much with your life if you don't have a decent housing base to go from. How do you feel your experience in the co-op housing sector will help in your role as a board member?
Ms McDermott: Given that I've been in cooperative housing, I know we have a few differences as far as the non-profits and cooperatives go, but I think that we share the same concerns, the same problems, that we're based on the same funding ideas, things like that, so I just think I can offer 17 years worth of -- different experience is very difficult just to put on the table, in short.
Ms Carter: Mr Runciman has suggested that public housing goes with crime and stuff like that. I just want to put forward some of the experiences I've had as the member for Peterborough. During the time I have been in this job, I've visited a large number of different kinds of housing projects and units, and one thing I have seen very clearly is that the more involvement people have with the running of whatever it is they're living in, whether it's an apartment building or a co-op or whatever, the happier they are, the better things are socially and the more rewarding it is in a general way. I guess the cooperatives are the sort of end of that spectrum where people have the most involvement.
I particularly remember a co-op I have visited which has a large number of children in it and hearing that these children are not only well housed and accommodated, but that they have an advantage over other children because they belong to this community. They do things together, and as somebody said to me: "We're raising little democrats here. People are going to be able to take part actively in a democratic society."
I understand that the government has put forward Planning Together: Improving the Quality of Life in Public Housing and that tenant participation is a part of that. I'm just wondering how you see that and whether you see that as something which is important to encourage and develop.
Ms McDermott: Yes, it is. Basically, the basis for any community is pride of ownership, so if you give it to the people who are a part of it who are going to have to live with it day to day, you'll have the successes. It's the mix that makes it work.
Ms Carter: Yes, and of course the whole morale is better. I've been to places where there's a certain amount of money available but because the board that decided how it would be spent didn't represent tenants, it was spent on something that they felt was quite superficial and useless. They knew what they would've done with the money, and there was all the bad feeling on that account.
Mr Frankford: It seems to me there's a fair amount of confusion in the public in general and perhaps even among some of the people in this room as to what we're talking about in government-related housing, let's call it. Let's be clear: The housing authority looks after, or you will have responsibility for, Ontario Housing, but not for non-profits and not for cooperatives.
Ms McDermott: Yes.
Mr Frankford: Okay, so we're dealing with a sector of housing which has not been created for many years, which was a policy decision of the government of over 20 years ago, which was the well-entrenched Conservative government which made those decisions, and we're now living with those buildings, which are aging and where the decisions about how they'll be managed were entrenched and probably need a lot of rethinking.
Could you give us some indication of the housing in the Durham region which I will call government-related? Do you know the proportions of the old public housing and the newer non-profit and co-op housing?
Ms McDermott: I'm not sure of the exact mix. I know they do have a fair number of units in the Durham region. The ages of them I'm not 100% on.
1120
Mr Frankford: So you really haven't been briefed yet on what buildings you would be looking at?
Ms McDermott: Not specific names, no.
Mr Frankford: Okay. I don't know if you're familiar with what has been happening around MTHA, the public housing in Metro. Are you familiar with the consultant's report that came out and the recommendations on some significant changes in the way those buildings are managed?
Ms McDermott: That they're starting to lean towards member involvement -- the tenants, I should say.
Mr Frankford: Yes. I think as you mentioned, residents' councils are one of the important features of that. Again I understand you're not really familiar with the buildings that you'll be responsible for, but do you have any ideas of whether it's needed and what you would like to do to bring that approach into the Durham area?
Ms McDermott: I think I know some of the buildings that we'll be dealing with. They've already started the implementation of the tenant participation. Cormack Station actually, I believe, might be one of them and they've done quite a job in getting it started. I think it's just not necessarily the education but just the sharing of information that you can get these things to work through tenant participation because we do use them through the cooperatives as member participation.
The Chair: Mr Marchese wishes to get on.
Mr Frankford: Okay. Go ahead.
Mr Marchese: Just a quick comment: I used to live in a co-op as well, by the way, and part of the history of co-ops is that people are actively involved. It doesn't mean everyone is, but many are. We don't have the same history in the housing authorities and that's part of a long, cultural problem where we've done things for them and part of undoing that takes a great deal of time. Do you have some views about how we actually get people to participate in the decision-making processes of things that affect their life in the housing authority?
Ms McDermott: I think you would start just by informing them that they can have a say, that they do have the ability to sit in on budgets, to decide what their fates will be, and once they realize that we do have a true stake, it just eventually snowballs.
Mr Marchese: I know it's not so easy, Jo-Anne, because I'm working at Alexander Park where we're converting Alexander Park as a housing authority to a cooperative and the work that is taking place is very slow, laborious and not easy in terms of convincing people that all of a sudden here they will have a say and that in knowing that, they will take on the challenge and were ready and gung-ho to do all of that. Just simply telling them isn't what does it. What else do we do?
Ms McDermott: I think you need to show them. If you have one or two that are starting -- even if you get two people out to a meeting that you've called for 10,000 to show up, at least you've got two. That's a start and you just build on that.
The Chair: Thank you. That completes each caucus and thank you very much, Ms McDermott, for your appearance before the committee this morning.
NANCY BACKHOUSE
Review of intended appointment, selected by the third party: intended appointee as member, Board of Inquiry (Police Services Act).
The Chair: Our next intended appointment is that of Ms Nancy Backhouse. Ms Backhouse, welcome to the committee.
Mr McLean: I have a couple of questions that I wanted to ask you. This is going to be a board of inquiry to conduct hearings into complaints made by members of the public about police conduct. A complaint can be issued against pretty near anybody today, whether it's founded or unfounded, and that individual can be sitting there being investigated by the police and not knowing what the accusations are, and it can go on for a year. Does that individual have a right to complain to this Board of Inquiry into the slowness of this investigation?
Ms Nancy Backhouse: What you're asking is delay once the complaint makes it to the board of inquiry. Is that what your question is? Or is your question the time lag between when the complaint is first made and the administrative process before it would --
Mr McLean: The police are like up here and the public is here. Somebody has issued a complaint and the police are doing an investigation. They can take all the time they want.
Ms Backhouse: My understanding of the process, and this is apart from what I would be doing if I'm appointed to this board, is that the police complaints commissioner monitors the complaints that are made by the public as they are investigated internally by the police, and if the matter has not been dealt with to the complaints commissioner's satisfaction within a 30-day time period, he can step in and take over the complaint.
Mr McLean: But would he be authorized, as the complaints commissioner, to speed up the process of the investigation?
Ms Backhouse: It then becomes under his auspices and he would then be responsible to ensure that it was dealt with in an efficient manner. But if your question is concerning delays with respect to complaints once they get into the board of inquiry process, my understanding is that the delays at that level seem to be related to counsel for the various parties' calendars, as opposed to any delays that are administratively caused by the board or the board members.
Mr Runciman: You're serving currently as the vice-chair of the Grievance Settlement Board?
Ms Backhouse: I am.
Mr Runciman: So you're going to carry on those responsibilities?
Ms Backhouse: That's the intention, although to date it has not been something that has resulted in a very significant portion of my time. I was mediating for that board for about five years prior to being appointed a vice-chair of it, and since that time, I think because of the change in the way that the Grievance Settlement Board is being funded, there are very few complaints going forth, so I've only had a couple.
Mr Runciman: So how did you come to be recommended for an appointment to this board? Did you express an interest or did someone approach you?
Ms Backhouse: Someone who was a classmate of mine at law school suggested to me that I might consider doing it. There was a public, I think, advertisement with respect to openings and I made an application and was interviewed as a result of that.
Mr Runciman: Why are you interested?
Ms Backhouse: I feel I've got a background in the area of arbitration that qualifies me to do it. I think it's a very interesting area. The matters that come before boards of inquiry under the Police Services Act, as I understand it, are usually very adversarial, and I think they're very interesting public issues and I'm hopeful that I can handle them competently.
Mr Runciman: Your experience seems to be primarily in labour law. You've done some family law.
Ms Backhouse: I'm certified by the law society as a specialist in family law and that has been my primary area of practice, but since 1989 I've been mediating labour disputes and more recently I've been an arbitrator in the labour field.
Mr Runciman: The firm you are a partner in, Fraser and Beatty --
Ms Backhouse: I was a partner. As of May 1994, I resigned as a partner because I was unable to hold myself out as a neutral because that firm has a management-labour practice which created a conflict.
Mr Runciman: So it was a conflict with the Grievance Settlement Board?
Ms Backhouse: That's right.
Mr Runciman: So you gave up a partnership because of a conflict with the Grievance Settlement Board even though you say you're not terribly gainfully employed by the Grievance Settlement Board.
Ms Backhouse: I should back up and say that I was already the vice-chair of the Grievance Settlement Board prior to resigning as a partner. It was rather being an arbitrator in labour disputes referred by the Ministry of Labour that created the conflict.
1130
Mr Runciman: So are you in private practice now?
Ms Backhouse: I'm a sole practitioner.
Mr Runciman: When you applied for this job and you were contacted by the appointments secretariat -- or by whom, when you made an application?
Ms Backhouse: That takes me back a while. My best recollection was that it was Mr Yee, who's the chair of the board of inquiry, setting up an interview, first by letter to say that the application had been received and subsequently to ask me to attend an interview process.
Mr Runciman: So you went through an interview process with Mr Yee and --
Ms Backhouse: Mr Yee and somebody from the community.
Mr Runciman: Someone from the --
Ms Backhouse: A community representative.
Mr Runciman: What does that mean, "a community representative"? I'm not sure.
Ms Backhouse: I'm not sure it was explained to me fully --
Mr Runciman: Which community?
Ms Backhouse: -- and I'm not sure which community.
Mr Runciman: A minority community?
Ms Backhouse: I believe so.
Mr Runciman: And what kinds of questions? Were you expected to have a certain sympathy? I'm interested that a community representative, so-called, was part of the interview process. I wonder why. You can't answer this, but that is a most interesting note. What kinds of questions were you asked? Can you recall some of them?
Ms Backhouse: Well, it was an interesting interview and part of the process of the interview was that I was asked, and I believe all the candidates were asked, to take a mock situation and write a draft award, which will of course, if I'm appointed to this board, be what you're required to do after hearing a complaint.
Mr Runciman: Can you tell us whose side you came down on in that? Did this involve a complaint against a police officer related to a visible minority?
Ms Backhouse: To be honest with you, I can't even remember what the fact situation was and I can't remember which side I came down on. My sense of it at the time was that it was more a borderline kind of case and the concern was less which side you came down on than how you handled the issues.
Going back to the question of the interview, it was a very interesting interview and, I thought, very well done on their part. I felt completely unprepared, having walked out of it, and thought that if I'd been a little smarter I would have talked to some people who might have better prepared me for it. But I had sort of blundered into it without having done that.
Some of the questions that I recall them asking I think were to determine or give them an opportunity to assess whether you had some sensitivity to the kinds of issues which might come before the board and whether you had any sort of pre-conceived notions that might interfere with your ability to be impartial or be seen to be impartial as a chair of a hearing.
Mr Runciman: Obviously you were politically correct from an NDP perspective. Best of luck.
Mr Marchese: I just have two questions. One has to do with police investigations of complainants. It has been suggested by some individuals who have lodged complaints against police officers, who have complained, that they've been subjected to police intimidation following the filing of their complaints, and there are a number of reports where this has been shown that it has happened.
In Ottawa, for example, police officers were assigned to probe the background and credibility of crown witnesses who would testify against a police officer who was the subject of criminal prosecution. In another example, a woman who had filed a complaint alleged that the police subsequently conducted surveillance of her house and investigated her background in order to discredit her testimony. These are the kinds of things that I suspect are happening. What is your view with respect to investigations of complainants? Are they appropriate, inappropriate?
Ms Backhouse: I think that would be a matter which would be properly addressed by the complaints commissioner rather than an individual chair of a board of inquiry. The only way in which it would come before an individual chair would be if there was an allegation of police misconduct as a result of an investigation which was seen to be harassment, and then it would depend upon the facts of that particular case as to whether it was a breach of the rules or of the Police Services Act.
Mr Marchese: Sure. I was asking a general question. Rather than who would deal with that issue, is it appropriate for the police to investigate the complainants in the ways that I've described, for example?
Ms Backhouse: Well, my personal view would be that if it's being done in a way that discourages people from making valid complaints, it's obviously inappropriate.
Mr Marchese: Okay. I have another question on the hearing process. I was reading the research here, which lays out some of the points. It talks about the Police Services Act creating "a hybrid process whereby the board is expected to conduct an investigation into complaints against police and act as a forum for prosecution of police officers, but has excluded from this process the traditional safeguards of a trial."
It also talks about some board members not having legal background, it talks about wrangling over procedure and in the end makes a comment "that the perceived failure of the board to conduct its business in a judicial way has undermined the confidence of both the police and the public in the board's ability to handle complaints." Do you have a comment on all of that?
Ms Backhouse: I guess my first comment would be that as I understand the police services board of inquiry it does not have any investigative powers; that this would be something that would be done either internally in the particular police force that was investigating it and/or by the complaints commissioner. So it's not hybrid in that sense.
To the extent that there is suggestion that the board has not got legal training, the chairs are all lawyers. They don't have judicial training, but to my understanding judges don't have judicial training; they just get appointed and they're supposed to know what they're doing.
The boards, with the three appointees, one appointed by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the other by the Police Association of Ontario, interestingly enough have resulted in most cases in unanimous decisions. I think the reason for that is that it's easy to criticize decisions when you haven't actually had to sit in the room and listen to all the evidence and all you see is a short statement in the press which may or may not be accurate. But very often if they hear the same facts, people, even from very diverse backgrounds, will find that they see the situation in the same way. I don't know if that's exactly responsive.
I would say one more thing to that. I think part of your question dealt with the fact that there are appeals being taken from the boards of inquiry and that there's some suggestion that you're not getting the same safeguards in terms of the administrative process as you might in a trial with a judge. I think part of the explanation or part of the story is that because this is a new board, lawyers, being what they will, are likely to take a run at various rulings to see how the higher court will deal with that, and that's fair play.
I think once some of those decisions from the Divisional Court are in place there will be fewer opportunities for parties to make those kinds of legal arguments, which have resulted in delay in some cases. But there are very important rights at stake, and I think it's important that the parties have a right to appeal and have a right to judicial review in the event that mistakes are made.
Ms Carter: As a lawyer, as you said, you will obviously have a leadership role in the panels that you will chair. I was just wondering how you think your experience within the legal community and your other activities will help you to take that role.
Ms Backhouse: I think that different candidates all bring different things to the table. One of the things I think I'm able to do because of my arbitration experience is to control a hearing, and because I'm a litigator I'm familiar with the way trials operate. My understanding is that the proceedings for the boards of inquiry have frequently been hotly contested. There's a great deal of interest by the media. I think it's important to just keep control of the process so that it is seen to be fair, everybody gets their opportunity to present their point of view and a decision is made efficiently and fairly.
1140
Ms Carter: Do you feel that a less adversarial approach than maybe there has been in the public complaints process is appropriate, that there should be more mediation?
Ms Backhouse: My understanding is that the board of inquiry chair is looking into developing some mediation-ADR process for the board which might screen out cases at the outset, give the parties an opportunity to resolve the issue by other than going through a hearing. If that can be offered to the parties, I think that's an excellent way to proceed.
Ms Carter: Certainly you have the background that would help you to be part of that process.
Ms Backhouse: My guess would be that there might be somebody who's on staff at the board or might be contracted to do that kind of mediation. I think once you're appointed as a chair of a case of a hearing, it's fraught with difficulty to put on a mediator hat, because you hear things in the course of that mediation which may or may not be evidence. So I think there has to be a bit of a distinction between the two.
Mr Cleary: Welcome to the committee. How many board members are on this committee at the present time?
Ms Backhouse: My understanding is approximately 60, from all three areas. A third would be lawyers appointed by the Attorney General, a third would be recommended by AMO and a third by the Police Association of Ontario.
Mr Cleary: This might not be a fair question, but I just was wondering, how often on the average would you meet?
Ms Backhouse: How often on average --
Mr Cleary: Would you have meetings, inquiries?
Ms Backhouse: I'm advised that a board member, once appointed, might expect to have hearings for about two weeks in total in a year.
Mr Cleary: And how many board members would there be at a hearing?
Ms Backhouse: Three.
Mr Cleary: A chair and --
Ms Backhouse: A chair, who is a lawyer, and then an appointee coming via the municipality route and an appointee coming via the police association route.
Mr Cleary: Are those hearings heard throughout the province?
Ms Backhouse: I think there are eight regions is my understanding, yes.
Mr Cleary: And what time frame? Are we talking about a backlog right now, at the present time?
Ms Backhouse: I don't believe there is a backlog, actually, but I could stand to be corrected on that.
Mr Cleary: My colleague has a question.
Mr Daigeler: The background that you're describing seems to be mostly in the legal field. I'm sure a lawyer has contacts with the police as well through the professional connections, but other than that, have you worked with police before, or is there any kind of experience in that regard?
Ms Backhouse: Very early on in my legal career I did some criminal law, but other than that I wouldn't have had professional association with police officers other than as matrimonial clients. I've had a fair number of them in that fashion, as clients.
Mr Daigeler: I'm asking that because I'm sure you're aware that this particular committee I think raises some questions among some members of the police services, and it also relates to the question that I'm trying to get at, which is on what basis you will be making your decisions. What is the framework that you will base your judgements on? What will you be looking for in terms of arriving at justice, at being fair I guess both to the police and the person who makes the complaint? Is it just legal perspectives?
Ms Backhouse: I think all the complaints that come before the board of inquiry are complaints by the public. They allege a breach of either the Police Services Act or the rules of conduct which are part of the regulations of the Police Services Act. So it is a legal exercise to listen to the evidence that is presented and to make a determination as to whether the allegation is substantiated or not.
I think anybody performing a judicial or quasi-judicial function brings their background and their personal life experiences to the table. I find it interesting that the board's experience has been that there have been very few cases where the decisions that have been made by the various panels have not been unanimous. They're quite often pretty clear cases one way or the other as to what the outcome is. They're not a close call. They are three people from very different backgrounds, the two sides' people coming with a particular point of view -- that's why they're appointed -- seeing it the same way as the chair, who is supposed to be coming with not any particular point of view. I might say that's not the experience as often in the labour area. One finds dissents more frequently in that area.
Mr Daigeler: I must say I'm not too close to this, I follow it basically just through the press, but I get the sense that the police look at this whole process as somewhat biased against them. I'm just wondering how, in your role as a member of this process, you perceive this. Are you aware of it? Can you confirm this, and if so, how would you try to make the process appear fairer? I don't want to take a position on whether it's fair or not, because I don't know enough about it, but at least appearance sometimes is important as well and I do think our police services should feel comfortable with this process.
Ms Backhouse: My understanding is that there has been substantial support from the police. My understanding of the reason for that is that we hear these allegations made against the police that are on the front page of the newspapers, and here is an impartial board where the actual facts can be presented. It can't be suggested that it's a whitewash, that it's been an internal investigation and one of their own has swept under the carpet a valid complaint. I think the feeling is that when unfair accusations have been made against the police, this provides them with an opportunity for them to have a finding that clears them.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Allan K. McLean): Thank you for appearing before the committee.
I would like to remind the members that we'll be meeting after lunch in room 151.
The committee recessed at 1148 and resumed at 1403 in room 151.
The Vice-Chair: I have a couple of small issues that I'd like to maybe clear up before we get into our schedule this afternoon.
There have been four names that have been picked as intended appointees: Neil Bullock, intended appointee as member, Farm Products Appeal Tribunal, which was a selection of the government party. We also have another certificate: Joe Miskokomon, intended appointee as member, Health Services Appeal Board, which is a government selection. We also have another one with the name of Mary Cline, who's an intended appointee as member of the Peel Regional Housing Authority, which was also a government party pick. The other one is Martha Butterfield, intended appointee as member of the council of the Ontario College of Art, and that selection is by the official opposition. The first three were the government party's pick, and I understand that it will allow them to proceed without coming before the committee. That has been agreed to, to my knowledge.
Mr Runciman: It sounds a little too controversial to me, Mr Chairman.
The Vice-Chair: The other one is the selection of the official opposition, and would you allow that one to proceed without having them in? Apparently they can't come in at this time. Could they come in at a later date if they were so requested?
Clerk of the Committee: We were unable to reach them and I spoke to Mr Curling about it this morning.
The Vice-Chair: So Mr Curling agrees that we will let it proceed?
Mr Curling: We're going to substitute her for Gord Wilson. I saw him on the picket line down in Windsor.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. So that's agreed then; those can proceed.
MIA TSUJI
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Mia Tsuji, intended appointee as member, Ontario Board of Parole, central region.
The Vice-Chair: We will continue with our reviews and the first one this afternoon is Mia Tsuji. If you would like to make an opening statement or if you'd like to proceed right into the questions, we're at your --
Ms Mia Tsuji: I would like to proceed.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Runciman will be the first one; 10 minutes.
Mr Runciman: Welcome to the committee. I'm sure you've been apprised of the controversy surrounding parole board appointments, especially as it relates to the recent government announcement of the firing of the Chair, Mr Wadel, and the release of Clinton Suzack, who is one of the individuals found responsible for the murder of a Sudbury police officer. I'm just wondering, as you approach this appointment, how you view what's been happening in terms of the public response to decisions made by people other than yourself and how it's affected you, if at all.
Ms Tsuji: I think it certainly has affected that I've come here today. I thought it over and came to the conclusion that it's something that I have to take into consideration in any future work that I do. Having never sat at a parole board hearing and not really having been trained in all of the aspects of the parole board, I can only hope that any of my future decisions, any of my future work is careful and thoughtful and based on as much information as I can get considering all the cases.
Mr Runciman: Who interviewed you for this appointment? Who was involved?
Ms Tsuji: It was David Freedman and --
Mr Runciman: Who is David Freedman?
Ms Tsuji: The vice-chair of the central board of parole.
Mr Runciman: And one other individual from the parole board or from the ministry or from the Premier's office?
Ms Tsuji: I had his name.
Mr Runciman: And you don't know who they were representing?
Ms Tsuji: No.
Mr Runciman: Well, we can find that out later.
In your bio you've indicated -- it's in your letter to the ministry, indicating an interest -- your experience as a parole officer for Correctional Service Canada. That experience is only for six months. Why was it so brief and why did you leave the service?
Ms Tsuji: At the time I was attending Ryerson and I was taking a social work program. I was there on a student placement. At the time I was also performing the functions of a parole officer. I had the responsibilities and accountabilities of a parole officer. I was there on a student placement which ended at the end of the year.
Mr Runciman: Something else that sort of jumped out at me in your responsibilities with the MTHA, the race relations branch: I'm curious about how that might affect your approach to your experiences with responsibilities for race relations for MTHA and in your new responsibilities, if indeed you're confirmed as an appointee to the parole board. What's the relationship there, as you see it?
Ms Tsuji: Although I operated out of the race relations branch, I was the youth coordinator responsible for the youth operational strategy, which was a corporate initiative for Metro Housing. I didn't deal specifically with race relations issues but with the many issues which youth faced who were residents in Metro Housing.
Mr Runciman: Who approached you for this position? Did anyone approach you? How were you made aware of it?
Ms Tsuji: No, I found the ad in the newspaper and sent in an application through the mail.
1410
Mr Runciman: So you don't have any political affiliation; you've never had any political affiliation?
Ms Tsuji: No.
Mr Runciman: I wanted to talk about your attitude with respect to what's happened, especially with Clinton Suzack and an officer in northern Ontario who was shot by a parolee on parole from the Ontario parole board, as well. When you assume these responsibilities -- as you will, given the government majority, if nothing else, on this committee -- how would you view public safety in terms of the decision-making process?
We know in this instance that, with the Suzack case, we've had some of the facts come to light with respect to the individuals involved in the panel who made the decision to release him, that they didn't really take a close look at all of the information that was available to them, the fact there were outstanding warrants against Mr Suzack in the province of Alberta, that the police force in Sault Ste Marie had indicated that he posed a threat to society, those kinds of concerns that were virtually ignored by the parole board -- for reasons known best to them, I guess, by the three members who made that decision.
I'd like to hear your views with respect to how you are going to approach this very important role in terms of public safety, on which I give you my bias: Obviously I think it should be the primary focus and the primary concern of people making these kinds of decisions and I'd like to hear your views on how you are going to approach this very important responsibility.
Ms Tsuji: Well, I come into this position from that same basis. I believe that we have to keep in mind public safety at the forefront. In terms of how I intend to perform my function in this role, I would hope that my decisions are fair and reasonable and based on the information given to me. When I was interviewed I asked what kind of supervision and training is given and I'm hoping that there is a relationship between myself and my supervisor, that if I feel I don't have enough information, I can request that information, and that if I still haven't got that information, I can defer it to another time until I feel comfortable that I can actually make a decision which is in the public interest.
Mr Runciman: How long ago did you go through the interview process? How long ago was that?
Ms Tsuji: The process from the time I actually sent the application was possibly about six months ago. I can't be sure exactly.
Mr Runciman: And the actual interview? Have you gone through a series of interviews?
Ms Tsuji: No, I had the one interview.
Mr Runciman: And the one interview which involved someone from the parole board and another individual -- we are not sure just whom that individual represents.
Ms Tsuji: I have it in my notes, but yes.
Mr Runciman: I'd like to know who that was prior to the conclusion, Mr Chairman, if we can have that information made available to us.
Was there any indication from the people you were interviewing, or when the final decision was made and you were told that you were the lucky contestant, of the kind of approach they wished you to take as an appointee? Was there any direction given, any suggestion whatsoever as to how you should conduct yourself as a member of the parole board?
Ms Tsuji: No, the interview itself was based on things like how do I view the role of the parole board. They asked me a lot of questions on how I felt someone should function in this role, but no one ever gave me any instruction at this point. I imagine that would come with my training.
Mr Runciman: How do you think you should function? What is the answer to that?
Ms Tsuji: I think I touched upon it earlier. I think the main thing is to first serve and protect society, if you're making reasonable and fair decisions.
Mr Runciman: Okay. I think I've exhausted my questions, Mr Chairman.
Ms Carter: Welcome to the committee. I don't think you were so lucky to get this position. Could you tell us how many applicants there were? Do you have any idea?
Ms Tsuji: I'm not sure. I can only guess that it was around 50, and I'm not sure --
Ms Carter: I think actually it was more than that. I think it was 100. So I think you were selected because you were a good candidate, not because there was any lack of competition. There were many applicants.
I think we all accept that the board of parole is of the greatest importance and I think recent happenings have underlined that. We have a pretty high ratio of success -- I think it's about 85% -- but still the public has to be concerned about those cases where obviously it doesn't work out. So we still need to improve the system.
One suggestion that has been made is that instead of having personal judgement about who should be paroled and who shouldn't, we should just look at the statistics of the person involved, that actuarial science does predict an inmate's potential to reoffend. Do you think there are advantages to doing that rather than keeping the current system?
Ms Tsuji: I don't think it's a question of either/or. I think that any information that helps in making a decision is going to help, but I don't think the human element should be removed from something where you're judging human behaviour.
Ms Carter: Okay. So how can we improve accountability for the parole board? What mechanisms maybe should we be developing that are not there at the present to improve the performance? Do you have any ideas on that?
Ms Tsuji: At this time I'm not really familiar and haven't been through a training period where I understand the structure necessarily or the accountability of the parole board as a whole. For myself, I feel comfortable in the fact that I do have the supports and supervision in place and that my accountability is taken into consideration through at least that direct system.
Ms Carter: Obviously you have to make sure that all the information relevant is available to you and has been taken into account. So what do you think the role of the board is?
Ms Tsuji: I think it's a very serious role to take. Because I've worked in the community for so many years, I feel it's important to keep the community's interest in mind in terms of ensuring that in making a decision, I've made it based on information given to me by people who have worked with the offender a longer time than I have and to base my decisions on a feeling that, given all that information, when that person goes out there they're not going to reoffend and they're going to be a safe member of society and hopefully turn things around for themselves.
Mr Marchese: I just have a follow-up question with respect to the very first question that Miss Carter raised that would make it, I think, very difficult for most people to want to become parole officers, because as you say, it is a matter of judgement in the end. I personally don't know whether there is a science to it, as people say. The science is, well, if you committed so many different crimes, either of a sexual nature or a crime where you've hurt or killed or maimed people, then that's enough of an indicator to tell that you're likely to reoffend. I think that's what they're getting at in terms of, is there a science? And so when people take this position and they come back with an answer that it's a matter of judgement in terms of whether you say yes to denying or deferring parole or granting it, it's a tough call. Why do people do it? So if we eliminate the science out of it -- I think you were saying there might not be a science -- then it's a matter of judgement. Do you feel comfortable with that?
Ms Tsuji: I think in all my experiences -- I've worked with offenders, I've worked with victims of offences of numerous different crimes -- the bottom line is, every day in the social services or in community work you are making decisions like that and you have to be comfortable. As long as I stick to the basic principles in decision-making, then at the end of the day, when I've made all my decisions, I have to feel comfortable with them and live with them and go on.
Mr Marchese: Let me ask you: If somebody has committed several crimes, if someone killed somebody or has committed enough sexual abuses against children and women, if that person has done it several times over a period of years, does that give you a sense, does that perhaps give you a clue that he or she -- in this case he -- is likely to reoffend again and that we might want to look seriously at whether we should be granting parole to such an individual? What is your view about those things?
Ms Tsuji: Certainly we have to take that into account and it does send up a lot of warning flags. But again, there's a lot more information involved than the simple record of the offender. We're looking at different reports. Have any behaviours changed? For instance, alcohol and drugs often play a role in a lot of these types of offences. Has this person been rehabilitated? Are they trying to make some very serious -- and some attitudinal changes as well in their behaviours?
1420
Mr Marchese: That's the difficult question, obviously. It doesn't satisfy people in the public very much to say: "We're looking at the different factors. Has he been rehabilitated? Do we believe that? Have there been behavioral changes?" People say, "Yes, but do we believe that?" and in the end it's still a matter of judgement. So it gives very little security to the public out there that you're likely to make a good judgement about that.
Ms Tsuji: Hopefully, in selecting myself for a position like this, they look at past experiences in working with both counselling offenders and counselling victims, that there's also that instinct factor in working with people for so long that you get a sense that, are they paying lip-service? Last time did they pay lip-service? Some people put on a very good front. You kind of have to sift through all that information and try and get as much as you can. In any situation like that where you're very concerned about public safety and about someone reoffending who's got a long record of offences, yes, that's something you examine even more so, even more closely, if you're not examining them all just as closely anyway.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Just picking up on what Mr Marchese was saying, because of the instance he brought forward which was basically a murder or major crimes, for the most part you wouldn't be dealing with that, would you? You're dealing with provincial offences, not federal offences, and indeed what he's brought out there is pretty much a federal offence. I'm not saying that people who are held in provincial jails are necessarily not violent people. I know there are violent people being held provincially, but on the scale -- and maybe that's something the parole board looks at. I don't know whether it looks at, how many times does a person go up for aggravated assault before they commit a greater crime?
Maybe there are some stats on that. But for the most part I believe you're dealing with people who are doing two years less a day.
Ms Tsuji: Yes, that's my understanding.
Mr Waters: Therefore, for the real violent crimes, I guess the offenders are in the federal bailiwick, which you wouldn't be dealing with at all.
Mr Runciman: Not necessarily.
Mr Waters: And that's what I'm saying, but for the most part -- I'm not saying in entirety. There are always people who maybe have offended and have been through the federal system and are coming back through again and this time it is a lesser offence and they're in the provincial. Do you know if there's any follow-up between the two?
Ms Tsuji: If there's any --
Mr Waters: The two systems.
Ms Tsuji: Sorry, I don't understand.
Mr Waters: Whether the federal system and the provincial system actually sit down and look at an offender in the overall --
Ms Tsuji: I don't know.
Mr Waters: I just have one more thing, and actually it's in answer to Mr Runciman's question. I've done a bit of homework in the interim, and the people who did the interview were Adam DiCarlo, and he's the minister's adviser to the appointments, and David Freedman, who is the vice-chair of the Ontario parole board for the central region. Just to let you know, those were the two people, as a matter of information.
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a couple of questions. As you know, the now revoked appointment of the chair, Don Wadel, was quoted about a year ago as saying he was concerned that the Ontario parole board wasn't releasing enough people when you compared the statistics in Ontario to the statistics across Canada and that he thought it would be better if we got ours up. I'm wondering what your reaction is to that, whether you agree with it or not. If you agree with it, why, and if not, why not?
Ms Tsuji: As for as my role in making decisions, my understanding is that the reason for the parole board doing these individual hearings is to look at each individual case and to make a decision based on all the information on that individual case. As far as I'm concerned, however the numbers add up at the end of the day is how they add up. I don't think it's a goal per se as much as what happens afterwards.
Mr Murphy: I see from your résumé that you've spent some time working in programs dealing with race relations, and systemic racism concerns in one case. I think in fact systemic racism seemed to have been part of the responsibility at the MTHA, for example. I saw that in that part of the résumé.
Ms Tsuji: To a degree, yes.
Mr Murphy: I'm wondering how you view systemic racism's concerns impacting or influencing a decision whether or not to release an offender in a particular case.
Ms Tsuji: I think it's a positive thing to have people from the community chosen to be in these types of positions. The issue of equity --
Mr Runciman: Why?
Ms Tsuji: Pardon me?
Mr Murphy: You can answer that when it's his turn.
Ms Tsuji: When we're looking at taking a sampling of the population to sit on these boards, we're not only talking about having equity practice in terms of --
Mr Murphy: I want you to focus on a decision whether or not to release an offender and whether and if your concern about systemic racism and practice would influence, if at all, that decision.
Ms Tsuji: Right, I'm getting to it. What I'm saying is that I think the parole board reflects the inmate population as well as the general population, and by having women, having ethnic minorities, having different religions, that type of thing, you're minimizing any biases that could take place so that what you're actually making decisions on are the facts and not on personal biases.
Mr Murphy: I'm wondering if you believe parole board hearings should be open to the public.
Ms Tsuji: I hold myself accountable. I have no problems being accountable to the public and I actually come to this as a representative of the public. In terms of it being a policy, that's not something I can speak on because it's not something I've had any information on or know anything about at this time.
Mr Murphy: Because you don't have any information, you don't have a view one way or the other at this point.
Ms Tsuji: No.
Mr Murphy: What about a notion of making parole board members more accountable to the public through a discipline process, through a legislative accountability? Would you support that?
Ms Tsuji: At this point, I don't even know what the accountability is. I know that, for myself, I am supervised and I am accountable for my decisions.
Mr Murphy: In your covering letter when you applied for it, you referred to part of the job as being "the delicate balance between the rights of the offenders and the protection of society."
I was wondering what rights you saw the offender had, and has, in that hearing process and the decision you would have to make as the parole board member.
Ms Tsuji: As I said before, and it is my strongest feeling, I'm looking first of all in the public interest, and I've worked with both offenders and victims of offences. I think in terms of an offender coming up for parole, it's in the public's interest that the person gets the types of supports necessary, and if by releasing them on parole with a good parole plan in place -- I can see that as being beneficial both to the offender and to the community.
Mr Murphy: It's just that your letter refers to a balance between the rights of the offender and protection of society and I'm just trying to get at what you meant when you put that in your letter. What rights does the offender have as far as you're concerned and as you expressed it in your letter?
Ms Tsuji: I think they have a right to show, through their actions during their incarceration and through their interview, whether or not they are making changes in their behaviours.
1430
Mr Murphy: One last question and then Mr Curling is going to ask you some questions. This is to give you an opportunity really to explain for us on the record. I know you have mentioned I guess it's five months as a student placement as a parole officer with Correctional Service Canada, and I'm wondering what other specific experience you have with the criminal justice system other than that, if you could just outline that for me.
Ms Tsuji: As you can see in my résumé, I've done a lot of different work in communities. I've done a lot of youth work, a lot of work in residential homes for youth and that type of work. A lot of times we had offenders. I've also done some work with young offenders, which has given me some exposure, not an intense exposure, but some exposure to the system.
Mr Curling: You seem to have taken this role much more seriously than the members on the government bench over there. May I ask the question then, just to confirm what I'm hearing from you, do you feel there are criminals in the provincial system just as dangerous as there are in the federal system?
Ms Tsuji: Very possibly. I haven't seen any of the cases but I imagine violence is violence and criminal acts are criminal acts.
Mr Curling: Yes, thanks, because what I was hearing from the members of the government bench was that it wasn't so. Considering that the government with its knee-jerk attitude fired the chair as soon as the decision itself was not up to scratch, as they had thought, does that in any way affect your coming on to the board, feeling that any time the minister, when his job is being threatened, will say, "I think I should get rid of a couple of people on the parole board"? How do you feel coming to a board like that?
Ms Tsuji: Had I already been on the board for a year, I might have different feelings in terms of having an upset in the work I was doing, but coming in, I feel like I get a chance to have a fresh start. I still haven't changed any of my attitudes in terms of what my role is and what my commitment is, and in terms of my consistency, I hope to ensure that more than anything else.
Mr Curling: And you hope that your performance itself would not in any way cause the minister of the day, if the job is threatened, to say you should go because the community may react to this? You feel confident in your role and your ability, that with the kind of performance you would do, you would not be subjected to that kind of attitude by a minister?
Ms Tsuji: I think my role is directly with the work I do and not necessarily anything to do with the political arena or policy or that type of issue. I think as long as I'm looking at the cases and sticking to that role, it's safe to say that I'm comfortable with the work.
Mr Curling: As to your coming on the board itself, I'm sure that all parties or whomever, the government, wants diversity on the board and they see you as someone who would make a special contribution. What special contribution do you see you can make on this parole board with this new kind of definition of change each day as the minister gets frightened about his position? What contribution do you think you could make on this parole board?
Ms Tsuji: I think I'd bring to this parole board a variety of perspectives. I represent a number of different, I guess, communities or types of groups in the community. I don't know that at the time of my appointment, because I was interviewed on the phone -- nobody had actually seen me or known what kind of groups I represent, other than women. I feel that my past experience in working with people is going to be helpful in making judgements about human behaviour.
Mr Curling: Tell me then, what's the duration of your time on the board? Has it been determined already?
Ms Tsuji: One year, I believe.
Mr Curling: It's for one year.
Ms Tsuji: Renewable.
Mr Curling: Have you ever served on any other board of this nature before?
Ms Tsuji: Public board? No.
Mr Curling: Okay. I have no further questions.
Mr Murphy: I have one brief follow-up. You said --
The Chair: No, I'm sorry, that's the time.
Mr McLean: I just have two questions. What is the right balance? Has it been too heavy towards the offender? In your résumé you're talking about a "delicate balance between the rights of the offender vs the protection of society." In your opinion, what is the right balance?
Ms Tsuji: It's important not to ignore the offender's rights in terms of if an offender has demonstrated seriously seeking rehabilitation, making moves towards that rehabilitation, there's merit to that and that should be considered. If that person is also seeking support in the community, those rights should be defended in terms of let's put in place a parole plan which supports that. In turn again that then serves the community by ensuring we're doing everything we can so that this person is not forced to reoffend in any way or feels that he's forced to reoffend.
Mr McLean: The maximum is two years less a day. What is the need for a parole board in the first place? If it's two years less a day, couldn't there be a system put in place that could monitor what they do after they get out of prison? Why do we have to have a parole board to determine if they should get out early? Why should they get out early?
Interjection.
Mr McLean: It's my question you should be referring to. Why is it that they should get out early?
Ms Tsuji: Well, as I said, if someone were to be let out, and say there are no conditions we can place on them, that might be more dangerous to society, I think, than should we have a parole plan in place so that we can monitor them for that period of time and provide the supports and the supervision necessary for that offender.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr McLean: What I'm saying is, put the plan in place after they get out, then monitor it, not before.
The Chair: That completes the rotation. Thank you, Ms Tsuji, for your appearance before the committee this afternoon.
MARGARET BUCHANAN
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Margaret Buchanan, intended appointee as member, police services board, city of Orillia.
The Chair: Our next intended appointment for review this afternoon is Ms Margaret Buchanan. Ms Buchanan, welcome to the committee and make yourself comfortable.
Mr Cleary: Welcome to the committee. The first question I have is on everyone's mind these days, Bill C-68, the proposed new Firearms Act of the federal government. I'm sure you're familiar with the federal initiatives.
Ms Margaret Buchanan: Yes, I've read some about them.
Mr Cleary: Could you give us your opinion, please?
Ms Buchanan: This is regarding the changing to the use of the guns?
Mr Cleary: Firearms, yes.
Ms Buchanan: Correct. Do you want me to respond in terms of the local community?
Mr Cleary: I'd like your opinion, yes, on how you feel about it.
Ms Buchanan: Okay. I think there was quite an extensive study done prior to developing the bill, and the reason for it was in terms of supporting officer safety. I certainly would concur with anything that would enhance that area of policing.
Mr Cleary: So it has your support, then?
Ms Buchanan: Yes.
Mr Cleary: The next question I have is that many municipalities in Ontario are not very happy with the makeup of police boards in the province, namely, because there are three provincial appointments and two municipal appointments. How do you feel about that?
Ms Buchanan: Can you elaborate for me why that would be a concern?
Mr Cleary: On the police services board you're going on, you're going to be a provincial appointment, and on that board you have two other provincial appointments, and the municipality only has the right to put two on that board. Many municipalities are not very happy about that. I'd like your comments on that.
Ms Buchanan: I feel it's more the integrity of the individual board members, and I feel that if each board member is working effectively, the appointment area should not be a huge issue. Also in terms of the city council support, even though I would be on there as an appointee, I'm there as a member of Orillia, as a taxpaying member, so I have a lot of support as well for the city of Orillia.
1440
Mr Cleary: As I said earlier, many municipalities do not support that. They figure that they raise the tax dollars and they're being dictated to by the province, and they're really objecting to it. In fact, some of the local associations are supporting them in some ways right at the moment. I'm sure you're aware of all that.
Ms Buchanan: If I'm a board member, I think it's up to me, as I say, to be an effective board member, and if there are changes that are occurring to the status of the board, certainly we would have to look at that as well.
Mr Daigeler: Looking at your CV, I'm wondering why you're interested in serving on the police services board. You've certainly got an interesting background including, I note here, studies in Anglo-Irish relations. What is your interest in the police services board?
Ms Buchanan: In my present job and for about the last three years I have been in contact with police officers at various times, in the counselling position, because of the students I work with who may have been involved in issues of family violence -- that would be one -- and several times in terms of stalking cases as well. So frequently I've been in touch with both police officers and also probation and parole.
On the board I serve on for the community service order positions there are police officers represented on that, and that's something that ties in directly, I feel, with a number of judicial issues in terms of how they want to look at an adult alternative measures program in the community, as well as the community service order positions, so I've had a lot of background in that. Something that's not on my résumé is that when I worked at Huronia Regional Centre I was a volunteer coordinator there, and we were in the position of placing people who were young offenders themselves.
Mr Daigeler: What is this community services order?
Ms Buchanan: It's a program that I believe almost every community has, or communities of a certain size. It's similar to a diversion program, where youth who may have been charged through the courts, rather than being placed on formal probation, are required to do some community restitution.
Mr Daigeler: I see, and you serve as a volunteer.
Ms Buchanan: Yes, in various agencies.
Mr Daigeler: This is affiliated with whom, the police services?
Ms Buchanan: Yes, it's through the ministry of probation and parole, primarily.
Mr Curling: The police services board, as you know, is quite an important issue, and my colleague raised with you earlier the components and what constitutes those who make up the board. I think one of the things he was trying to emphasize was that the appointment process was not properly done. You are coming to the board I presume to make some sort of contribution to make sure people are represented properly. Do you know all the members of the board who are on the board now?
Ms Buchanan: Yes.
Mr Curling: Are you happy with that? Do you know about the concern of the different municipalities about a component of the board?
Ms Buchanan: I know there are several major local issues facing the board currently, and I guess I've been focusing more in terms of knowing that the board has a significant responsibility right now. But in terms of an ongoing dispute around the balance within boards, I'm not as clear on all the ramifications of that, no.
Mr Cleary: I'm sure the board you're going on to must have been contacted by some other municipalities that are not happy: provincial people dictating to the municipal people, who raise the funds to pay the bills. I happen to come from eastern Ontario, namely the Cornwall area, and there's a big dispute going on there right now where the mayor of Cornwall, who was on the board, was asked to be taken off the board by some provincial bureaucrat. It's really hit the fan at the moment, and I'm sure it will spill over into your area.
Mr Curling: Terrible. Political interference, eh?
Mr Runciman: On a point of order: Can the member elaborate? What's hit the fan?
Mr Cleary: The shamrocks on the 17th. Anyway, that's something that's been going on that we've been following very closely in our area. The municipal people are really all behind supporting that the municipal people stay on the board, and they hate to be dictated to by the province, namely, not representatives on the board.
Ms Buchanan: I think it's a controversial issue as well for the municipal board members, because I think there's an issue there in terms of, do they have some increased status or do they already have their own agenda in terms of municipal funding and support.
Mr Cleary: There's a controversy with the chairman of the board, who is now chairman of the police board. He's a provincial appointment.
Mr Curling: It's the NDP fellow.
Mr Cleary: He was the one who happened to run against me in the last provincial election. There's a big dispute going on at the moment.
Mr Curling: That they're paying him off.
Mr Cleary: That's a real controversy. I just thought that since you're here, I said I'm going to mention it to the first person who's appointed to a police board. You happen to be the first. So you'll hear more about it.
Ms Buchanan: I appreciate you making me aware of the controversy. I can't speak to that issue any further.
Mr Curling: We have a minute, eh?
The Chair: No, you don't have a minute.
Mr Curling: I can't ask her about employment equity.
The Chair: No. You could ask somebody else on another occasion perhaps.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee. I saw your name on the list, but I thought we needed you immediately on the board so I didn't call you. I found out later that somebody else did, so since you're here, I'm going to ask some questions.
Ms Buchanan: It's nice to be here.
Mr McLean: The controversy in Orillia today is a major one that will probably be the most major one of this council's term of office.
Ms Buchanan: Yes.
Mr McLean: It would be interesting to know your opinion with regard to the OPP takeover or proposal that's before us. How do you feel about that?
Ms Buchanan: I picked up a copy of the costing proposal when it was made public, and I have reviewed it. There are some significant issues in there to be considered. I don't see this as something that can be taken lightly at all. There's a very emotional issue involved in terms of the local police, in terms of what it means to them on a personal level and job level and so on. On the other hand, I can understand the city of Orillia wanting to thoroughly look at it and make sure it makes the right decision when there's that amount of money involved. But in studying the report, I see a lot of areas that need to be explored further in terms of whether there are the real savings there that are indicated.
Mr McLean: I've often wondered if perhaps there shouldn't be an individual consultant, other than who's involved now, doing an overall in-depth study of what the recommendation is, because we've got two forces looking at it. It's a major, major document. You will have, as Mr Cleary said, three members to two from the council. I know some of the other members are very much opposed to OPP takeover and would be supporting the city police. Are you in any position yet to indicate which way you would like to see it go or would prefer it go?
Ms Buchanan: As a citizen of Orillia -- and in my interest in the police services board back three years ago I was interested in a position on the board -- I always was one of those people who expected that there would be a local police force. Clearly, this has been new to me, to consider something else. As a parent, I like the in-school education programs; I like the community policing initiatives and all those kinds of things, but I can't speak to any definitive position I have right now.
1450
Mr McLean: That's pretty difficult, but I'd like to see the local police remain, if we're within the ballpark, very close. I can understand the city's concern with regard to the saving of costs: It's major. But is it really that major when you get down into the fine print of it?
Ms Buchanan: My initial review seemed to indicate there would be a lot of other expenses.
Mr McLean: Yes.
I want to move on to another area that concerns me, and I heard it on the news today. It has to do with the casino, and the police services board will be involved. In Windsor, they have had to hire 25 new police, and the province gives them $1 million in funds for policing. But also in that report at noon today, the compulsive gamblers association in Windsor has increased by 200 people being counselled now, over and above what there was, from the casino. Do you think that will happen in our community?
Ms Buchanan: People have told me that there'll always be more work for me in counselling if it comes, and I say that as a light-hearted response, not to be facetious.
But I think one of the issues that's different for us in Orillia is that the casino will be based not in the city of Orillia, so we're back again in dealing with policing issues in terms of both the OPP and the city of Orillia. But I think the spinoffs of it will certainly affect the city.
That's one of the things, if the city of Orillia police force remains: It has to be in a position to look forward to the future in terms of what that's going to need, in terms of training, in terms of native issues, in terms of a lot of other things that everybody, not just the police but everyone in our community, needs some more exposure to.
Mr McLean: I will refer to the question of pay equity. My understanding is that the city of Orillia police has a program in place, and it's very up-to-date, one of the most modern in Ontario. Would you agree with that? Are you familiar with it?
Ms Buchanan: I'm very familiar with the pay equity legislation, and I hope they have a plan in place and it's current.
Mr McLean: Yes, they have.
One of the other areas I want to talk about is the makeup of the board, and Mr Cleary raised the issue. The municipalities across the province pay about 85% of the cost of policing, and yet our police boards are made up of a majority appointed by the province. They don't feel that is appropriate. It's unfair to ask you what you think of it because you have not really been involved in it yet. Maybe just a comment by me that I think municipalities have a legitimate beef when they're doing most of the paying.
Gun control is another major issue. Can I have your views with regard to the gun control programs in Canada, in Ontario in particular, the licensing and the registering of firearms?
Ms Buchanan: I do agree with that. I do agree with the need to licence and register firearms. Again it's a very emotional issue for a lot of people, and some people seem to feel it's an intrusion on their privacy to do so. But I know that within the Orillia area there's been a significant increase in the number of robberies in the last while, and some of them were reported even in the Toronto papers. I can't ignore the fact that we are becoming a society that needs to pay more attention to the use of firearms, and I think that's really why it's key for the police to be well protected there, because of what's happening.
Mr McLean: Another question is with regard to your appointment. Do you have anything major or one main reason you want to be on the Orillia Police Services Board? Is there something you would like to see changed, or a priority you might like to have some input into?
Ms Buchanan: I think it would be in terms of issues of family violence and assault against women. That's an area I've been involved in for 20 years. I say this not against police in any way, but I'm not sure what progress we've made as a society, and I see that as an area I'd really like to learn more about in terms of what their experience is and what they're doing and what kinds of things we can do to help support that area.
Mr McLean: The other area is community policing. I'd like to see about four sections of the city, quartered off, and each police be responsible for each section, walking the beat, being seen more. We used to have that -- there was a write-up in yesterday's paper, I believe -- and I haven't seen a policeman in my street since I can't remember when. Should there be more emphasis on that type of community policing, in your opinion?
Ms Buchanan: I like that. I also like some of the other kinds of community policing issues they've done in terms of involving citizens more as sort of parapolice, in terms of working with them. I like that approach. I know it's an issue, because to see a police officer on the streets now almost draws attention to the fact, because we're not used to it. I don't like that.
Mr McLean: I wish you well.
Ms Buchanan: Thank you very much.
Mr Frankford: Welcome. I don't think it was fair for you to be asked about the composition of the boards, but for your interest, it was Liberal legislation that produced the current balance, so Mr Cleary might want to go back to his party to --
Ms Buchanan: I'm certainly aware now that it's a controversial issue.
Mr Frankford: I was going to ask you about the types of policing and crime problems that exist in Orillia, and then I noticed we've been kindly provided with statistics by the researcher. Have you seen these yourself?
Ms Buchanan: No, I haven't.
Mr Frankford: I'm sure you will. I find them quite interesting. It gives a breakdown of the police work in Orillia, comparing 1993 and 1994, and we could, I'm sure, form all sorts of interesting conclusions about what the needs are there. On the question of robbery, which you mentioned, I think your impression is correct, that in 1993 there were 14 robberies and in 1994 there were 28, which is a 100% change, while for the majority of crimes there's actually a decrease. Perhaps the conclusion is, in a way, that more things stay the same than are getting worse. But this is obviously going to be very helpful in your work, to get a handle on what is really going on.
I also noticed, rather interestingly, that on another page there are the non-crime calls, a whole lot of interesting things. Trouble with youth appears to be increasing from 405 incidents to 457, and neighbour disputes have increased 54%, from 63 to 97. Are they no longer as neighbourly in Orillia?
I'll pass to Mr Waters, but I draw this to your attention. I think it's a useful example of the value of statistics, which I have been trying to emphasize on many occasions.
Mr Waters: Good afternoon. As a person who has lived with the OPP for the past 20 years as the municipal police force, it took us 20 years to get them to come into our towns after we got them as our town police force. So just going to the OPP is not necessarily the answer.
Mr Runciman: Are you paying for them?
Mr Waters: We have a contract, unlike most areas. As part of the Muskoka act, we got ripped off on everything else and the only thing we got out of it was policing for free. We're paying dearly for it. Look at our assessment situation and our tax situation in Muskoka relative to our neighbours and you'll find out that we pay very dearly for OPP policing.
1500
After living through that for 20 years, if I had some suggestions for you, I would make sure that if you were going into a contract with the OPP, that indeed the contract include the number of officers per shift, the number of vehicles per shift and all of those things in great detail. Anything short of that may not represent a police force of the type and makeup you have at the present time.
Indeed, instead of enhancing, as Mr McLean said, the street patrol officers or the foot patrol officers, you might end up having to call a police officer in from the OPP station, or what's even better in central Ontario is calling central dispatch in Barrie and having to explain to them where you are within your community, because that's where the OPP are dispatched out of.
If I had anything to say about this, to give you some guidance as you go into this, it is make sure that you check everything. If indeed the OPP are doing it, make sure their dispatch is local or something so that they understand your streets, understand the makeup of your community.
Ms Buchanan: That is an issue. Certainly there've been significant cases mentioned in the Toronto papers of some very, very serious occurrences that happened with that. So I am very, very aware of that.
Mr Waters: We had OPP policing in Gravenhurst, as I said, for 20 years, and just last year was the first time we had a police station in 20 years. That's what you get. We signed an agreement saying "policing." We didn't sign an agreement saying, "X number of officers and X number of cruisers on a 24-hour basis in our community." We got policing. We just didn't get what we feel is adequate policing. It's not the fault of the OPP, it's the fault of the government of the day, both at the district level in Muskoka and their provincial counterparts. They negotiated it and we got exactly what they negotiated, which was virtually nothing for 20 years. Orillia's going to be an interesting place over the next while.
Ms Buchanan: Yes, it will be.
Mr Waters: There're a lot of things happening in Orillia. The college seems to grow every year.
Mr McLean: They've got a good member there.
Mr Waters: The guy just north or the one just south or the central Ontario team?
You've got the college. You're about to have the OPP head office. They're gradually moving in over the summer and it will be opened up. The casino's going to be on your borders. There are going to be lots of changes.
I've heard a lot of comment about the makeup of the board, where people come from and provincial appointments. I got looking at your CV that you put before us. You're now employed at Georgian College and you work with the students. Before that you were employed at Huronia Regional Centre, another major employer. I look at your education background; a wonderful background there. I look at your volunteer experience. You list so many different things that you're active in on a voluntary basis around the community.
I don't think it would matter whether you were a provincial appointee or went to the municipal level. To me, you're the type of person who should be on the committee because you're involved in the community. You touch the community in so many different places that you can bring a number of perspectives to that community and reach out and touch people in so many ways that people will talk to you. I'd just like to congratulate you on hopefully your appointment here later this afternoon and wish you well.
Ms Buchanan: Thank you.
Mr Waters: It's going to be an interesting time for you over the next while, as it is for all of us in central Ontario. I think there are some major changes happening finally in central Ontario, in our areas, and it's going to be indeed a pleasure to be working with you.
The Chair: If there are no further questions from the government members, that completes the round of the caucus members. Thank you for your appearance before the committee this afternoon, Ms Buchanan.
Ms Buchanan: It was educational for me too.
LYNDA TANAKA
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Lynda Tanaka, intended appointee as vice-chair, Ontario Racing Commission.
The Chair: Welcome to the committee, Ms Tanaka. This is a selection by the government party, so we will start with Mr Waters.
Mr Waters: When we look through the racing commission -- and I think we've had some people in the last while here before us -- there has been a lot of concern over the last couple of years about what's going to happen to horse racing with the casino.
I'd like your opinion because we're about to have a second casino with a racetrack, what, 20 miles down the road, Al? So I wouldn't mind your opinion. Do you really think horse racing is in danger in the province now that casinos have been introduced?
Ms Lynda Tanaka: The little bit of information that I've had in my discussions with Mr Sadinsky, the chair, and in review of what Mr McGirr told this committee and just the reading I've done indicates that there has been a mixed experience in North America with respect to the success of horse racing and gambling and that the industry itself is tackling it head on.
They're watching Windsor. They seem to have made some good decisions about planning Windsor. If they can learn from Windsor and if they can learn from the other communities that have had this happen and if the new casino and the Barrie racetrack can plan effectively -- I think that everyone is pretty bullish about the opportunity to make money out of this, to make it successful. That doesn't mean it's a done deal, that it's going to be successful. It means it's going to take a lot of hard work, and what I'm hearing is this industry, having faced the enemy without casinos headlong, is really in a sort of an exciting time.
What I've had communicated to me is a sense of excitement, of promise, of direction, of taking control. I don't think anyone can say it's going to work or it's not going to work. I think you can say, "It will work if people work hard at it." If people won't, then maybe things will drift and there'll be a disaster. But people seem to be willing to work at it, and I think that's very promising. I'm not an industry person, but what I hear and what I've read is that they have a sense of excitement, that they are taking control and moving forward.
Mr Waters: That'd be my only question because it's been something having a casino coming in on our borders -- those of two members of this committee -- that I was interested in, and I thank you for your comments.
Mr Frankford: Just following up on this: It seems to me that offtrack betting and teletheatres are perhaps the key to a linkage between gambling and economic development and the probable future viability of the racing industry in the province.
The little experience that we have in my area in Scarborough, where there is a teletheatre, which I believe is doing quite well and has certainly not had any detrimental effects and I think in fact strengthens the local economic activity, suggests to me that there are some good things that could happen even in areas which don't have any direct racing operations. Would you like to comment on that?
Ms Tanaka: Teletheatre has been put to me as one of the key issues in terms of development of the industry. When you look at the statistics in the annual reports and look at the wagering that comes through teletheatres, it looks like an excellent mechanism for generating more revenue, but it's also a classic example of foresight.
They don't put a teletheatre in unless it's licensed by the liquor board. That's an intelligent thing to do because you've got another body that has a specific area of responsibility that has to take into account the local public interest. That kind of planning and foresight, I think, is one of the reasons teletheatre is doing well; I gather it's doing very well. But again, it is regarded as a challenge. We seem to be, in the industry, on the edge of real potential for change, but positive change.
Mr Frankford: I believe, to enlarge on that, that you can make it, shall I say, more specialized and niche-marketed, if you'll pardon the expression. Are there not some Chinese-oriented ones which get the races from Hong Kong?
Ms Tanaka: I gather Hong Kong has a long history of horse racing, a long tradition of horse racing. I recognize in the sector strategy that there are funds being put into marketing and getting expertise and that's certainly, in my view, appropriate. If niche marketing can anticipate and can expand both the number of people who participate in horse racing and the number of people who just bet, then that's all to the good because it generates money for everybody.
1510
Mr Frankford: I'm glad to see your understanding and your enthusiasm for what I think really could be a very useful spin-off into local economic development. I look forward to seeing what happens when you're a member.
Mr Daigeler: Welcome to the committee. I see you certainly have an excellent background in law. Your peers I guess appreciate your service. I shouldn't be surprised to find lawyers everywhere, but I do wonder why you would want to be on the racing commission.
Ms Tanaka: I want to be on the racing commission because I've spent 20 years being an advocate before different administrative tribunals and this position gives me an opportunity to be a decision-maker, to participate in a commission which has one of the broadest jurisdictions in terms of the types of power that administrative tribunals have.
To me, as an administrative law lawyer who has watched that area of law grow over 20 years, these kinds of powers -- if you think about a Windows computer screen and you have all the little boxes across the top and you click on it and down comes a menu, well, in my mind I look across the top and there's the jurisdiction of the tribunal and I click on a window and here are all these wonderful issues. So intellectually it's very exciting.
It's an opportunity for me to work with Stanley Sadinsky, who's a very highly regarded individual. It's an opportunity for me to participate in something -- I'll call it constructive. This is a large industry for the province. It generates money for the province, it generates employment for the province. In my 20 years I've gone through three recessions as a lawyer and you see a fair amount of grief walk through your office as a lawyer, impacted by economic recession. There's an opportunity here for me to give public service in a different way than I ever have before, not profession-oriented so much, but at the same time enhance my skills as an administrative law lawyer.
Mr Daigeler: I like your analogy there with the screens and then all of a sudden all the little figures pop up. But, you see, sometimes I'd like the world to work that way too, but usually, and I would say fortunately, the world doesn't quite work like a computer yet. There's a lot of illogic in there and I think that's for the good of it. That's just an aside. You brought that up and I don't think in your work either it will all fit in nicely the way it might or should happen. We have to be prepared for the unexpected, but I'm sure you will be.
What kind of a time commitment do you expect this to be for you? I see it is a part-time appointment but, nevertheless, you're being appointed as vice-chair. What kind of a time commitment are you prepared to make or have they told you it will require of you?
Ms Tanaka: That was one of my early questions to the chair, Mr Sadinsky, and he indicated to me that I should be prepared for four days a month, that normally a member would have three days but the vice-chair would have four days. The commission right now is underpowered because the vice-chair position is open. That leaves Mr Sadinsky with some lack of flexibility in terms of scheduling of hearings and that kind of thing, whereas if you fill the vice-chair position and fill it quickly, the plan from Mr Sadinsky's point of view is that we would have some hearings together and then he will chair panels of the tribunal and I would chair panels of the tribunal.
We've discussed the new power in chairs to appoint single-member panels and he has indicated he prefers to have multi-member panels regulating this industry and that's fine. But it's important that whoever is appointed as vice-chair get in, get some experience in terms of how the commission conducts its hearings -- because they're all different; all the tribunals are a bit different -- and then get the workload. Now, if there are 100 hearings a year, which I think was one of the statistics I saw, if you have an experienced vice-chair and chair, you can have 50 panels chaired by each and that works out to about four a month. You could do two hearings a day.
Mr Cleary: Welcome to the committee. Most of my questions have been answered here. Why you wanted on the board was my main reason to put my hand up. But anyway, the makeup of the board is how many people at the moment?
Ms Tanaka: There are six right now and the vice-chair's position is vacant. The chair is a lawyer and the five members are industry people.
Mr Cleary: That's what I read in some of our briefing notes, that it was made up of between three and seven. So you have six at the moment. I know that anyone who was as interested to get on the board as you were, at least from your remarks, must go there with an agenda and probably would like to see some changes. We would like to know what changes you would like to see, if any.
Ms Tanaka: I'm not really going with my own agenda. I asked Mr Sadinsky what he regarded as the theme of the racing commission. At the Ontario Municipal Board the theme is good planning, and you have the labour board and the theme is the integrity of the collective bargaining structure and system. His response to me was that the theme of the racing commission is regulating the industry in the public interest.
The industry at this point is in a transition. You have four positions that have been filled in the past year or will be filled within a year period, out of seven. That's a pretty significant change in personnel. You have the sector strategy, which has been operating for a while and is moving forward, you have the casino experience, which is new but settling into a pattern, and you have the interesting problems of a few years' experience of teletheatres.
My agenda would be to get up to speed in terms of my knowledge of the commission and how it functions, to get as much industry knowledge as I can from the other members and from doing some reading and to try and ensure that the industry understands that there is value in consistency, that when they plan their affairs so as to comply with the regulatory structure, there is a respect for decisions that have been made in the past and the way people have organized their affairs so as to comply with commission regulations and that it's business as usual. Now, it's always better to be right than consistent, but consistency has merit. So that's basically where I'm coming from.
Mr Cleary: I know that we've had many of the owners in to see us, the owners of the horses, and they have great concerns and in the statistics we have in front of us since 1980 to 1993, there's been a downward trend, so you have a big challenge ahead of you and I wish you well.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee, Ms Tanaka. Fort Erie Race Track almost closed down two years ago; it's still in operation. Can you tell me today where Flamboro is? Is it going to reopen? It's not open now; there's some dispute there.
Ms Tanaka: Yes, and I gather that the dispute relates to a disagreement between the owner of the racetrack and the horsemen. It is still dark and there has been an appearance before the commission. I've read the decision that the commission issued as a result of that, and the commission expressed the view to the parties that they move forward and resolve their problems. It doesn't seem to be a good thing to have a licensed racetrack with race days dark.
1520
Mr McLean: Right. Greenwood closed down last year. Do you feel that was the proper step to take, to move it to Woodbine, or would you, in your opinion, like to have seen Greenwood still in operation?
Ms Tanaka: Well, I don't know very much about the history of Greenwood, other than as a citizen of Toronto I've watched the newspapers and I've lived here all my life and Greenwood has always been there. I remember when the new Woodbine was built and how exciting it was. I guess I have to say I have heard doubts about the wisdom of closing what was one of the continent's most profitable standardbred racing facilities, and I don't think it's appropriate for me to second-guess those decision-makers.
If there are problems the industry is facing as a result of that closure, if things haven't worked out the way they felt they would, with all their planning, and if the commission has a role to play in getting the jockey club and racing in the Toronto area on a more stable footing, then that's one of the jobs of the commission.
Mr McLean: There is one way to do that, and that would be to cut the tax from 5% to 2%, which the jockey club wants to do. In your position on the racing commission, would you support the jockey club to have that reduced to 2%?
Ms Tanaka: I would have to listen to everything that all the parties had to say about it. You know, I'm going to be sitting as a tribunal member, and I gather my job is best discharged if I listen patiently and politely. If they've got a good case that's better than somebody else's case for that tax, then -- if the commission has the authority to deal with the tax. I thought the tax was set in the legislation and it's going to be your problem, Mr McLean.
Mr McLean: But we were looking for a recommendation from the jockey club, and they are recommending that be done. It's going to reduce the revenues to the province from $50 million down to $20 million but will maybe keep a healthy racetrack going.
Telemarketing: There were 75 about a year ago; they're looking for about 225 telemarketings across the province. How many are there today? Do you have any idea?
Ms Tanaka: I thought I saw a figure of somewhere around 100, but I couldn't say. I get regular circulation of some material from the municipal point of view. There were three teletheatres in Oshawa being opened up in the last little while, but I can't give you a figure on that.
Mr McLean: Can you indicate whether the 300-seat teletheatre run by the Windsor casino is open yet or not?
Ms Tanaka: My understanding was that it was to be part of the permanent casino when it opened, but I don't know.
Mr McLean: The other question then that I have is with regard to the four-year assistance program, that Minister Shirley Coppen had given $2.5 million per year to the racetracks, a new program. Are you aware of that?
Ms Tanaka: I did some reading about a program that allowed for capital improvements to be made. Is that the program you're talking about?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Ms Tanaka: And that a number of the tracks took full advantage of the assistance to make capital improvements, to improve the facilities for the public. Some of them didn't take full advantage, but it seems that the industry, having seen that opportunity, took advantage of it.
Mr McLean: The program is being administered by the racing commission, which you're going to be appointed to, so I was just wondering if you were familiar with it. Bob, did you have a question?
The Chair: We're out of time. I'm sorry.
Mr McLean: No, we only had four minutes. I timed it.
The Chair: Oh, well, then I've made a mistake.
Mr McLean: Yes, I usually admit when I do.
The Chair: And I just did, Mr McLean. Mr Runciman.
Mr Runciman: Thanks very much. I'm just curious about your own experience with horse racing. Are you a long-time fan? Have you been an attendee at the tracks and a bettor on occasion?
Ms Tanaka: No, I have been once to a racetrack and I didn't bet at the time. It was in Vancouver, as a matter of fact, and it rained. It wasn't the most positive experience. So I am part of that 98% of the population of the province of Ontario that does not frequent the racetracks.
Mr Runciman: So you're a real newcomer to the business.
Ms Tanaka: Yes.
Mr Runciman: When you went through the process of expressing an interest in this appointment, who did you speak to? Can you take us through the process and how that worked?
Ms Tanaka: Yes. I got a call from the minister's office, asking if I would be interested in an appointment to the racing commission.
Mr Runciman: Who specifically in the minister's office?
Ms Tanaka: That was Ms MacKay. I then met, a short time later, after I'd sent in --
Mr Runciman: Did she say why she -- had you expressed an interest? This came out of the blue to you?
Ms Tanaka: Yes, it came out of the blue. I then met with her and Mr Sadinsky for a couple of hours, and Mr Sadinsky talked a little bit more. I'd done some research myself in terms of looking up the statute under which the commission was empowered. Then I met with Mr Sadinsky separately for a couple of hours to talk about what he saw as the major issues and his program for the commission and to get educated about the constituencies the commission regulates, the different interest groups, some of their concerns --
Mr Runciman: I don't really need that. I'm just curious about the personalities involved as you went through this process.
Ms Tanaka: The next meeting was with the minister's office staff. Then I'm here today.
Mr Runciman: So you've never at any point met with the minister herself.
Ms Tanaka: No.
Mr Runciman: Was there ever any suggestion that in this role you would not be seen to be or in fact be critical of government policy in any respect?
Ms Tanaka: Never any discussion about that.
Mr Runciman: Never any reference to Mr Drea's concern, the public concern about the impact of expansion of casinos on the industry, because there's been some public suggestion that one of the reasons Mr Drea has been shown the door is the fact that he expressed considerable concern about the impact of expansion of the casino program across the province on the industry.
Ms Tanaka: In my first meeting with Mr Sadinsky and Ms MacKay, it was indicated to me that concern about the gaming industry as a whole -- that is, casinos as part of the gaming industry and horse racing as part of the gaming industry -- was a matter of real concern for the horsemen, for the breeders, for the racetrack owners. It was made very clear to me that those concerns were deeply held.
Mr Runciman: I guess you're new to the game so it's difficult for you to pass judgement, but if you look at the figures that we've been provided with in terms of revenues for the industry, they've been fairly flat for the past number of years despite the new initiatives that have been undertaken: off-track betting and telemarketing and those kinds of things. Revenues have been, although not dramatically, modestly declining. And of course there's considerable speculation about the success. We know the success of the Windsor casino in terms of the revenues it's generating for the province. I think it's a clear indication that expansion is going to occur.
Do you have any thoughts about that? Given the fact that your revenues continue to decline in your industry, that you're now going to be appointed to, how can you deal with that? What's the answer?
Ms Tanaka: I guess, first of all, that the industry is holding its own after the last five years and has stayed flat, as opposed to a real decline, probably separates it out from a lot of industries in this province. That they have survived that way is --
Mr Runciman: That's with only one casino, though.
Ms Tanaka: Well, I recognize that, but I think that is a tribute to the industry's resilience. In terms of the casinos, as I said before, good planning can often lead to good results. If the industry seeks good advice, as its sector strategy indicates it is, and if it pulls together, then everyone I've talked to has a sense of the challenge but also of optimism.
Mr Runciman: If you see one of the major factors in terms of survival of the industry is, as Mr McLean was mentioning, the provincial tax on the industry, you would have no reservations whatsoever in publicly making the point clear to the government of the day that this is a necessary step if you want to see the industry survive, if you've reached that conclusion?
Ms Tanaka: If I reach the conclusion -- and I come from a tradition of independence, that you listen carefully, you listen to the merits --
Mr McLean: Common sense.
Ms Tanaka: Use some common sense. But you have to sleep at night. I'm the one who has to get up in the morning and look in my mirror and say, "Did that person do the right thing?"
The Chair: Thank you very much for your appearance before the committee this afternoon, Ms Tanaka.
1530
ROBERT KORTHALS
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Robert Korthals, intended appointee as member, Ontario Securities Commission.
The Chair: Our next intended appointment this afternoon which the committee is going to review is Mr Robert Korthals. Welcome to the committee.
Mr McLean: Good afternoon, sir. Have you been on the board before or is this your first trip to the Ontario Securities Commission?
Mr Robert Korthals: It would be my first time.
Mr McLean: Have you been involved in the stock market and securities?
Mr Korthals: You mean personally or in my employment?
Mr McLean: Personally.
Mr Korthals: Yes. I'm an investor. I bought my first securities in 1953.
Mr McLean: And through your employment, are you --
Mr Korthals: From 1961 to 1967 I worked for Nesbitt Thomson.
Mr McLean: The new commissioner wanted to make some changes limiting the amount of interacting with regard to people who are on the securities commission being able to invest. Do you think that people appointed to the board should be in the position to do that?
Mr Korthals: Is your question whether people on the securities commission should be personally permitted to invest?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Mr Korthals: Yes, I think they should be as long as the commission is aware of their purchases and sales.
Mr McLean: You don't think they would be in a position of conflict?
Mr Korthals: If they had shares in a security issue that came in front of the commission, they would have to declare that they did and couldn't sit on that particular case.
Mr Runciman: You're probably familiar with the initiative by the NDP government to require executive salary disclosure. Do you have a view on that? Do you see any downside to that at all?
Mr Korthals: For years I felt that people who would disclose their salaries might incur a security risk for their families. I think I was more sensitive to it because when I became the president of the bank my children were still very young, and also because just about that time there were two or three incidents, so why flag attention. But really, so far, it has not been a problem. We live in a safe country. It's certainly very different in Europe; when European bankers travel, they have huge numbers of security people with them. I'm now more neutral on the security issue.
I still believe that the disclosure of executive salaries does not necessarily lead to significant better information for the individual investor than that investor would have if, say, the aggregate salaries of four or five people in the organization were disclosed. Against that, I do know that the publication of executive salaries is highly inflationary because you could see the compensation committee of a board saying, "My man is better than their man and he should make more," so it's a one-way ratchet. It's been that way in the States. I think John McNeil has written articles on that and I agree with that, so I actually think the inflationary aspect on executive salaries is a greater disadvantage than the disclosure advantage.
Mr Runciman: From a stockholder's perspective, though, you might take a different view.
Mr Korthals: I can't ever in my life remember being influenced by the compensation in my purchase and sale of a security.
Mr Runciman: Well, if you were a stockholder to a significant extent in a company that was not prospering as you felt it should in terms of return on investment, yet you saw the chief executive officer of that firm receiving a significant increase in remuneration, which has been the case in a number of instances that we've read about, I think that might raise the hackles a wee bit. So from that perspective I see it being of benefit to investors.
Mr Korthals: Mind you, I still feel that by disclosing the top five salaries, you get some idea of the total compensation paid at the top relative to the revenues and earnings of the business. But I think the very short-term correlation between executive pay and results of the firm is very misleading. In large organizations, the effect of your decisions today won't really be shown for three or four years.
Mr Runciman: The irony of the government's decision is that they've been loath to reveal the salaries of top civil servants. We still don't know what deputy ministers and executive directors of the government are earning, while they're saying to the private sector, "You have to tell the public." They show ranges; they do not show specific salaries, and they demand that of the private sector.
I want to ask you quite a number of questions and we have very limited time. In your approaching this role, how have you viewed the operations of the OSC yourself as someone who's been involved in the financial community? What do you see as its shortcomings? What would you like to see achieved in this new responsibility?
Mr Korthals: Let me first of all say that I think we've been a community that is reasonably fortunate in having had good securities commissioners over the years --
Mr Runciman: Absolutely.
Mr Korthals: -- and we've had a pretty good regulatory environment. As a result, we have I think an excellent securities market compared to other regions of the world. It's really better than in many European areas. So I think on the whole it's been great for this community.
You know, everybody talks about the changing world and it's more international and there are more different types of securities, and as the workforce ages you'll find that the security holdings in the average family will go up. When workers are young they don't own equities; when they get older they're more likely to own equities. So I think individual participation in security markets will increase as the workforce ages, which demographically it should in the next decade.
I think it's an important function, but there's a lot of coordination required, both within Canada -- the issue of the national securities commission, the issues with other self-regulatory bodies, working with the other associations like the bankers' association -- and, finally, the whole international aspect.
Mr Runciman: What about derivatives? Do you have a view on that?
Mr Korthals: Well, I think derivatives are a good thing.
Mr Runciman: Who understands them? I hear you have to be a nuclear scientist to have full comprehension of how the system works.
Mr Korthals: Oh, no. I think we all can understand a warrant on a stock or an option of put or call. Those aren't so "rocket science." It's the ones that are imputed that are more difficult mathematically to work out. But we can do that; that's what technology and computers bring to us.
Mr Runciman: So you don't have any significant concerns about the operation of the OSC?
Mr Korthals: I do not, no, but I think that the OSC, as it has worked in the past, will have to change with the realities of tomorrow's financial world.
Mr Runciman: If I have a minute or two, there's been a long-term argument or discussion about the question of whether we should have these various commissions of control in Ontario, and we've all heard of the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the rather suspect reputation it has. Do you think there should be a national body involved in this rather than looking at it from a provincial perspective?
Mr Korthals: The biggest reason for having a national body is that it is a national issue in almost every other nation, and when two nations negotiate we're in the awkward position of having a province negotiate with a nation. The nation tends to not negotiate as well as they would to another national association. So it would be helpful, I think, in bilateral and multilateral negotiations on security standards, closure standards, derivative inspection, if we could speak with a national voice like other nations do at the table.
However, I think the worst thing we could do in Canada is to have a national securities commission and provincial securities commissions, because we would have enormous overlap. We already have too much overlap, and I wouldn't want to see national security achieve that at a net increase in the overall cost of regulation. I think a lot can be done on a more cooperative basis, and the majority of the provinces are beginning to see it that way, I hope.
1540
Mr Runciman: Have you taken a look at the American system? Are you familiar with the American system and how it works?
Mr Korthals: I am somewhat familiar with the American system.
Mr Runciman: If you use an analogy, do you think that could be applied to the Canadian situation?
Mr Korthals: Yes. They have allowed the licensing of individuals to be done by the states. They are the ones that enter into the contract, but the national standards and disclosure are national, not state or regional. That's probably --
Mr Runciman: Worth looking at.
Mr Korthals: We're past "worth looking at." If you fill out insider reports or if you sign prospectuses and you have to do it in two languages, and you have to sign 75, I think, copies as an officer -- I used to do it at the bank -- you start to resent the 25 minutes a day it takes to do that.
Mr Runciman: Yes. Are you bilingual?
Mr Korthals: No.
Mr Runciman: It would be a little dangerous as well then.
Mr Korthals: I speak Dutch. It's not very helpful.
Mr Runciman: Only in Amsterdam.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Runciman. Dr Frankford is next.
Mr Frankford: Welcome. Mr Runciman raised many of the issues I was wanting to, such as the federal-provincial relationship. Could you comment on Ms Stromberg's report on the mutual fund sector?
Mr Korthals: I thought it was a good report. She has worked almost all her life with the industry so she may be the most knowledgeable person around, and I thought the thrust of it was useful. I know that the industry wasn't very happy with the separation of sales, regulating the sales function as opposed to the fund function. But I think that's probably in the right direction because most people who sell funds sooner or later are going to sell other securities, and the whole regulation of the sales should come under a different umbrella than the industry. I thought that was a good thrust.
I think the disclosure on compensation arrangement of the person recommending the fund to you is a good thrust. That disclosure would be helpful to a purchaser, and I think there are also advantages to be gained on the industry part of the fund regulation by making sure that the name of the fund is pretty consistent with the investments that the fund makes, so if it's a North American fund, you don't find that 85% of the investments are in Mexico. Not all funds live up to their names. Those are all very good initiatives.
Mr Frankford: It is an area where there's a significant amount of capital and where more ordinary consumers invest I think than the --
Mr Korthals: In 1993-94 the industry had an unusual period of sales. It was almost breathtaking. That's tapered off quite a bit, but it'll come back. They are a very attractive means for a small investor to participate in different financial markets.
Mr Marchese: I have a question. There is a message from the outgoing chair in the annual report in 1993 that talked about his concerns about a real or perceived erosion of the independence of the OSC in the administration of the legislation. Perhaps I'll read the quote. He says:
"If this position is or is perceived to be eroded, whether as a result of funding decisions, appointments to the commission, interference in what are essentially commission operations and decisions or a merger of activities of various branch of the commission with those of other government branches or entities, public confidence in the commission will, in my view, be diminished, if not lost."
To some extent, my view is that we should be regulating this as best we can as a government so that if there are concerns expressed by minority shareholders or people in general, the government has a role to make sure their interests are being heard. One can assume perhaps that the OSC will take that into account and will do what it has to do. On the other hand, there's always a role for government, in my view, to make sure that some of those things get dealt with, reviewed and happen by way of regulation or changing the legislation.
What is your view on this matter?
Mr Korthals: I'd like to preface my view with the fact that I would rather have a year or two of experience within the commission before I answer too definitively. Developments in financial markets happen very rapidly, and because there are a lot of innovative people in it, things change. You have to be careful that the regulatory agency hasn't been so handcuffed that it cannot quickly respond to a new initiative in order to protect (a) the public or (b) the integrity and international reputation of those markets. There is a balance between giving power to a non-elected official and efficiency in regulation.
I actually feel from the outside, not having worked there, that Bill 190, which gives the commission some rule-making powers, probably was a pretty constructive piece of legislation. My guess is it will not disappoint, but I say that as an outside observer, not as an inside practitioner.
Mr Marchese: Can you think of a circumstance where a government might have done something that was not in the interests of the public? You raised the point that you wouldn't want to handcuff them to such an extent that you would not be protecting the public.
Mr Korthals: I don't think they would deliberately not do something that wasn't in the interests of the public, but the problem is the response by government is so slow that the issue is lost before it's dealt with. That's the risk.
The Chair: There are five minutes left. Are there any further questions from the government members?
Mr Marchese: We'd like to leave more room for the Liberals.
Mr Cleary: It's nice to get conned at the end of the day.
Mr Daigeler: If I understand right, Mr Korthals, you are currently president of the TD Bank?
Mr Korthals: No. I retired on January 31. I'm unemployed again.
Mr Daigeler: This wasn't mentioned on your very short CV that was put to us. Perhaps then I'll adjust my question a little bit. Frankly, I'm constantly surprised how, for example, Professor Prichard, the president of the Toronto university, still finds time to serve on the GTA task force. Not that I think the GTA task force is not important, but how somebody with that kind of responsibility can find time to do a good job on the GTA I don't know.
He must be really a tremendous person. I admire him, but for myself, I would find it difficult. That's why I was going to ask you how, as president of a bank, you might be able to serve on this kind of board, which obviously has an important role to play. But since you are now retired, I guess it's one of those boards that you can serve on.
Mr Korthals: Oh, yes. I'm still on the board of the bank, but because the bank is a securities dealer, I don't intend to stay on the board if this appointment goes through.
Mr Daigeler: That was going to be my next question actually, whether there is any kind of conflict of interest between the president of the bank, or as you just indicated, being on the board of the bank and your role on the securities commission. I understand obviously your expertise in banking matters and so on is an asset, but at the same time, as you just said, the bank is dealing in securities. I presume this has been checked out. To your knowledge, is it a previous practice that bank presidents have been on the securities commission?
Mr Korthals: No. Well, not in my working time here since the 1950s. Jalynn Bennett joined the board of the Commerce and left the commission. She went the other way. David Moore used to be a senior officer at McLeod Young Weir, but I can't remember if he was while the Scotia owned it. I can't exactly remember the year, and he's a commissioner now. He's left the securities industry. So there has been some movement between the financial sector and the commission.
1550
Mr Daigeler: Obviously you had some concern about a possible conflict of interest, because you just mentioned it yourself, that you're planning to resign from the board. Did you have any legal advice on that matter?
Mr Korthals: No, but I talked to the chairman of the commission, Ed Waitzer, and he felt there was a conflict, and I kind of agree.
Mr Runciman: Yes.
Mr Korthals: I would have like to have stayed on the board of the bank. It's more rewarding, by the way, than being on the OSC's.
Mr Daigeler: It would be. Had you expressed an interest in this position? I presume people knew there was an opening. They probably approached you, I presume, knowing that you were retiring.
Mr Korthals: Ed was the first person to call me when I announced my retirement in September.
Mr Daigeler: Are you serious or --
Mr Korthals: Yes.
Mr Daigeler: Who?
Mr Korthals: The chairman.
Mr Daigeler: The chairman was the first person?
Mr Korthals: Yes. To ask if I'd be interested to do anything else.
Mr Runciman: Who was the second?
The Chair: You don't have to answer those questions.
Mr Daigeler: So those who know of early retirements, you have to be quick off the mark. Is that the idea?
Mr Korthals: Pretty well, yes. I don't know why. We're so overrated, as bankers.
Mr Daigeler: How big is the securities commission, how many members, and how often would you be meeting?
Mr Korthals: The commission meets every two weeks, generally on a Tuesday morning, I think, and then in addition you rotate being on duty, which means you basically sign papers as a commissioner, and third, you have to volunteer for certain hearings. They're very unscheduled. They can't be foreseen, and they just poll the commissioners to see who's available to conduct a hearing. It's kind of like jury duty almost.
Mr Daigeler: Do you know what kind of general background the other securities commission members have? I'm asking that question, and I don't want to be overly poking, although being from the opposition I think it's part of our responsibility to do that. But I'm a little bit concerned about here's all the financial community controlling itself and I'm just wondering what kind of an assurance can you give me as an outsider that there is control that doesn't have an interest itself in what is being controlled.
Mr Korthals: I know. I'm just looking for the list of commissioners and I'm trying to find it. John Geller is a lawyer with Fasken Calvin, or Fasken Campbell as it's now called. Jalynn Bennett used to be an officer at Manulife and has had a variety of jobs, and she's not there any more. Jack Blain was a lawyer -- is a lawyer, but he's retired -- with McCarthy Tétrault as it's called now. Jim Brown, who passed away last year, sadly, was an accountant with KPMG. David Moore, as I mentioned to you, used to be a senior officer with McLeod Young Weir. Glorianne Stromberg has been a lawyer, worked in the securities area and did a lot with mutual fund clients. Joan Smart has been in the financial world in her own company.
So it's a pretty -- they all have in common, though, a knowledge about securities markets. I think it's not so easy to go in the securities commission and have no knowledge about financial markets.
Mr Daigeler: Obviously.
Mr Korthals: So that's the common denominator. But none of them work for significant stakeholders in the business, if you know what I mean.
Mr Daigeler: That's what I meant. Fine.
Mr Cleary: Welcome to the committee, sir. We hear from time to time on the TV and read in the press about insider trading. Do you feel that the Ontario Securities Commission approach to insider trading issues has been sufficient, or does that exist?
Mr Korthals: It's pretty hard for me to say. I don't believe that in the Ontario market there's been much abuse of insider trading. It's a very difficult offence to catch, by the way. I personally lack conviction that it should be an offence. There are a handful of economists who will argue that insider trading is actually the most efficient way for a market to readjust to the new information. I actually believe those economists have it right.
But as long as the rules are that insider trading is an offence, I think there's a lot that could be done to improve the gathering of information through electronic filing. You know, now it's all done by paper. I think it would be faster and more timely, but it does provide an audit trail: You subsequently can look at the trading pattern in a stock and see who did the buying and selling. I believe the mere threat of having it as an offence probably frightens off a high percentage, 98% of the people who might be willing to try it.
You know, years ago, back in the 1950s when we were developing Elliot Lake for the uranium play, a lot of money was raised. Some companies had ore and others didn't, but they all had the contract with the Atomic Energy Commission. As a result, the bonds used to sell at a discount. But if you went to the local tavern at night and talked to the miners, you would know right away who had ore and who didn't. Now, if you went there and drank and then acted on that information, are you an insider? It's always been a difficult question for me to answer.
Mr Cleary: Do I have more time?
The Chair: You have 20 seconds.
Mr Cleary: We all hear about public trust now, you know, politicians and everyone else. How would you move to ensure that the public confidence of the Ontario Securities Commission is maintained and enhanced? I guess we all talk public trust.
Mr Korthals: I think the quality of the people on the commission is all you can go by, and hopefully collectively they will administer the work of the commission in a way that accomplishes that confidence.
Mr Runciman: Bank presidents are a little above politicians.
Mr Korthals: Not on public opinion polls.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Korthals. Actually, I was waiting for someone to ask you this afternoon if it was always a myth that you rode a bicycle to the office and you took your lunch in a brown paper bag. Was that a myth?
Mr Korthals: Well, certainly the lunch. I had a lot of free lunches.
The Chair: But did you ride your bicycle very often?
Mr Korthals: I often rode my bicycle.
The Chair: So that's why you're still fit enough to carry on in another appointment.
Mr Korthals: Oh, I'm not sure about that.
The Chair: We do appreciate your appearance before the committee today. Thank you, Mr Korthals.
Mr Korthals: Thank you very much.
Mr Marchese: Bob, you forgot to ask which party he belonged to.
The Chair: All right. Now we will deal with today's appointments. We need a motion to appoint all of them. Mr Marchese?
Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Madam Chair: There are a couple of reviews that we did today that I would like to have dealt with individually and request recorded votes.
The Chair: Okay. Which are they?
Mr Runciman: The first, Nazru Deen, and number four, Mia Tsuji, I would like to have dealt with by separate motion and recorded vote. Madam Chair, I'd like to have the opportunity -- I don't know what the rules of committee are in respect to having an opportunity to have a brief comment in respect to a motion that's on the floor.
The Chair: Yes, you may speak to any motion that's on the floor.
1600
Mr Runciman: It would be very brief.
The Chair: All right. So the first motion moved by Mr Marchese is the appointment of Mr Nazru Deen as the full-time chair of the Police-Race Relations Monitoring Board. That is the motion on the floor. Discussion, if any.
Mr Runciman: I'm going to oppose this appointment. My initial sense was that I would support it, but during the testimony I was less than impressed with Mr Deen's response to questions from opposition members, his reluctance to discuss political affiliation, which is a very common question in this committee. I don't recall, in the times that I've attended, where anyone has refused in such an adamant manner as this individual. Given the public concern about the nature of partisan appointments in the justice system in the last little while, I think it was incumbent upon him to be very open with the committee.
He also reinforced that view when I asked him to reveal a salary range. I didn't ask him for a specific salary, simply to indicate the range of salary that he'd agreed to. We're talking about tax dollars, Madam Chair, as you're fully cognizant of. He again in a very adamant way refused to do so.
My party has significant difficulty with many of the recommendations of the Stephen Lewis report, thinks that it was a knee-jerk reaction to justify some of the political imperatives of the NDP which it has held for many, many years. For a whole host of reasons we're going to oppose this particular appointment on the record.
Mr Daigeler: I just wanted to say that I do think that Mr Deen is qualified, I would say well qualified, for the appointment that's being proposed here. I do have some questions about the position itself and whether it should exist and whether it is duplication or not, and I don't want, for the record, my vote for Mr Deen to be understood as necessarily support for the continued existence of this board. I'd certainly want to have a much more in-depth discussion as to whether this institution really serves the public or not. But since it is in existence and has to be filled and this committee is asked to give an opinion as to whether this particular person has the background for this position, I think I can support Mr Deen without necessarily supporting the existence of the position.
Mr Marchese: I just wanted to expose some problems I have with the arguments put forth by Mr Runciman. First of all, it is interesting to note that when Liberals and Conservatives come before us, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives raise the question of the members that come before us as to their affiliation. They do, however, raise that question when they perceive or know that the member might have an affiliation connected to the party. So it is interesting that Mr Runciman says the public has a concern about public appointments. If they're Liberals or Tories, they don't have a concern, according to the argument that I've heard, but because Mr Runciman doesn't ask a lot of them when he perceives them to be Liberals --
Mr Runciman: I know they're not Tories. I don't have to ask them.
The Chair: Mr Marchese has the floor. We could come back to you, Mr Runciman.
Mr Marchese: On the affiliation, he asks particularly those he perceives to be connected to or to be members of the party. The point is that a member doesn't have to say whether he's affiliated or not. That shouldn't disqualify the person based on the questions that are raised of him with respect to the appointment that he is making. I should point out, as I have on many occasions, that most of the appointments that we make, over 90%, are either not affiliated or are probably affiliated to the Liberal or Conservative parties. The ones that we interview here are the ones usually made by the opposition, and the ones who get called before this committee are to a great extent those whom the opposition believes have an affiliation to the party. So I wanted to put that on the record.
With respect to whether we're impressed with the man's qualifications, I was impressed with the answers he gave to the questions they asked and the questions we asked. I have no doubt about the person's ability to be able to do the job for which he is applying, so I wanted to state my categorical support for his qualifications.
Mr McLean: I guess perhaps the appointments that have been made in this committee, some 2,000 of them -- I would agree with Mr Marchese that probably 90% of them are NDP. I think that's the point he was trying to get across --
Mr Marchese: The opposite is what I said.
Mr McLean: -- and I would probably agree that that is what he was trying to say.
The Chair: Thank you. There being no further discussion, there has been a request for a recorded vote on this appointment.
All in favour of the appointment of Mr Nazru Deen as the full-time chair of the Police-Race Relations Monitoring Board?
Ayes
Carter, Cleary, Daigeler, Fletcher, Frankford, Malkowski, Marchese, Waters.
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
McLean, Runciman.
The Chair: That motion is carried.
What I will do is move the next two appointments together. The first one is the --
Mr Marchese: Madam Chair, can I suggest that I move all the others around which there is no disagreement?
The Chair: All right, certainly. I'll read all of them then: Ms Jo-Anne McDermott is an appointment as member of the Durham Regional Housing Authority; Ms Nancy Backhouse as a member of the Board of Inquiry (Police Services Act); Ms Margaret Buchanan as a member of the police services board for the city of Orillia; Ms Lynda Tanaka as the vice-chair of the Ontario Racing Commission; Mr Robert Korthals as a member of the Ontario Securities Commission. Any discussion? All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any? That motion is carried unanimously.
The remaining appointment is a motion moved again by Mr Marchese and it is the appointment of Mia Tsuji as a member of the board of parole, central region. Is there any discussion on that motion? Mr McLean and Mr Runciman.
Mr McLean: I really had some problem listening to this witness who came before us with regard to being appointed to the parole board. It didn't appear to me that she had a good grasp of what she was being appointed to or what she was supposed to do once she got there. I had some concerns with regard to the witness's answers and I just feel that -- I don't know. Somebody said there were over 100. If this was the best one they could find, I would like to have seen what the rest of them were, because in my estimation out of 100 people -- maybe she was nervous, I'm not sure, but I wasn't very enthused about the answers that she gave us.
Mr Runciman: Initially, like the other appointment that we dealt with on a vote, I tended to be supportive in the initial responses, but as the questions proceeded I became less and less supportive of Ms Tsuji.
Mr McLean's question related to her application, where she said: "The delicate balance between the rights of the offender versus the protection of society," and Mr McLean asked her just what she meant by that and she devoted her response solely to offenders' rights. That was the sole thrust of her response to Mr McLean's inquiry about having a balance between the rights of the offender versus the protection of society.
I was astounded, to say the least, by that response, given what's happened in the last few weeks and the last number of months where we have the parole board making at least two decisions which have resulted in the shooting of one police officer, the wounding of one police officer, the murder of another police officer directly attributed to the decision by the Ontario parole board grouping of three to release this individual into society despite the concerns expressed by the police, despite outstanding warrants from the province of Alberta, despite all of the best advice.
This witness before us today says that the balance has to be an emphasis on offenders' rights, totally, apparently, ignorant of the outrage of the public with respect to the way this board has been dealing with issues of public safety.
1610
I would much rather see the government trying to provide some balance here. We've seen Elizabeth Fry advocates appointed to the board. We've seen John Howard Society -- again prisoner advocates appointed to this board. We've seen people who accept the NDP philosophy of everyone's a victim, an anti-police approach, "Everyone's a victim and let's do what we can to push these people through the system." I would have rather seen someone represented here today perhaps from the policing community, a retired police officer perhaps, a retired parole officer, trying to bring some kind of balance to the system.
We had an indication today there's 109 parole board officers, appointees; only 22 of them have not been appointed by this government. We know the public concerns out there and yet this government has the unmitigated gall to put an appointee before us today who says we have to put more emphasis on offenders' rights. That offends me, Madam Chair. That should offend every citizen of this province. The parole board's number one priority has to be public safety. That hasn't been the case under this government. It's going to be the case under the upcoming Conservative government, I can tell you that, Madam Chair.
Mr Daigeler: I have some concerns about this particular applicant as well. Although unfortunately I didn't get a chance, given the way that the time goes, to ask her the question, it seemed to me that in her application she made way too much out of the fact that she was a parole officer for half a year on a student placement.
I got the impression, frankly, that that part of her background weighed heavily on those who recommended her and I'm not sure whether they were fully cognizant of the fact that this experience really was just for a very short time.
The applicant, given a bit more experience and a broader involvement in the community, I think in future could give a valuable service, but I am concerned that at this point in time she does not provide the assurance to me and to the public that the parole service is being done in full consideration of all the facts and with public safety very much in the forefront of the criteria that are being applied. So I will not support this application either.
Mr Marchese: My sense is that we all have a view of what we think we've heard, but quite clearly, for me, I think the Liberal member and the Conservative member are trying to outdo each other. There's no doubt in my mind about that.
What I heard from Mrs Tsuji was rather a different story, no different than many of the other members we get in front of this committee who want to sit on the parole board. What do we expect of these people? We expect that they behave judiciously and that when they deliberate, they will be reasonable, sensible and rely on good judgement.
I'm not quite certain what either of you were saying with respect to that. What is it that we want out of a candidate who comes before us? What I heard is a very reasonable, sensible, rational person who will listen to the --
Mr Runciman: Offenders' rights over protection of society --
Mr Marchese: No, you're quite wrong. You're quite wrong, Mr Runciman. What she did say --
Mr Runciman: That's your emphasis.
Mr Marchese: No, that's your emphasis, what exactly you want to have on the record.
Mr Runciman: Read Hansard.
Mr Marchese: The comment she made was, quite clearly, that we're here to protect the rights of society, but she also said what you said, that we also have to protect the rights of the individual. That's the balance. I'm not sure how else you want it to be seen. This is what our judicial system is based on, that you give people a hearing, that we balance the rights of society with the rights of individuals, and at the end of the day what I expect of that person is to make a good judgement.
My suspicion is that most of the time these people make good judgements on whether people should be denied parole or whatever it is that they make decisions on, and sometimes they make mistakes; there's no doubt about that. But how do we develop a system whereby the people we appoint to these boards make decisions that are always correct? There is no scientific method that allows these people to make always the right judgement with respect to decisions they make on these people.
I heard a very reasonable person who answered very well most of the questions you asked and the questions we asked, and we have the same concerns about protecting the rights of the public. But I'm not quite sure whom you would want to put on the parole board to make those fine decisions.
Madam Chair, there's no doubt in my mind that this person is, again, fully qualified and was rather reasonable in her responses to our questions.
The Chair: There being no further debate, we will take the vote on the motion to approve Ms Mia Tsuji as a member of the board of parole, central region. This is a recorded vote.
All in favour of that motion?
Ayes
Carter, Fletcher, Frankford, Malkowski, Marchese, Waters.
The Chair: Opposed, if any?
Nays
Cleary, Daigeler, McLean, Runciman.
The Chair: That motion is carried.
That concludes the business of the committee for today and we will reconvene tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
The committee adjourned at 1617.