ALLEGED BREACH OF CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

SHARRON PRETTY

BRIAN SUTHERLAND

CONTENTS

Tuesday 9 August 1994

Alleged breach of conflict-of-interest guidelines

Sharron Pretty

Brian Sutherland

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

*Chair / Président: Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND)

Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)

*Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud ND)

MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton ND)

*Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex ND)

McClelland, Carman (Brampton North/-Nord L)

Morin, Gilles E. (Carleton East/-Est L)

Sterling, Norman W. (Carleton PC)

Sullivan, Barbara (Halton Centre L)

*Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND)

Villeneuve, Noble (S-D-G & East Grenville/S-D-G & Grenville-Est PC)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Callahan, Robert V. (Brampton South/-Sud L) for Mr McClelland

Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L) for Mrs Sullivan

Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC) for Mr Villeneuve

Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND) for Mr Dadamo

Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC) for Mr Sterling

Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L) for Mr Morin

Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND) for Mrs MacKinnon

Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND) for Mr Wessemger

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Hunt, Phillip G., legal counsel to directors, Van Lang Centre

McKinnon, Colin D., legal counsel to Ms Sharron Pretty

Stupart, Robert, solicitor, Ministry of Housing

Clerk / Greffière: Freedman, Lisa

Staff / Personnel:

Cronk, Eleanore, counsel to the committee

Hourigan, William, counsel to the committee

McLellan, Ray, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 0908 in room 151.

ALLEGED BREACH OF CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

The Chair (Mr Ron Hansen): Good morning. I'd like to bring to order the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. This committee was authorized to conduct investigations into allegations of breach of the conflict-of-interest guidelines made against the Minister of Housing in connection with her attendance at a meeting with the board of the Van Lang Centre in Ottawa on Friday, June 17, 1994. Our legal counsel is Ms Eleanore Cronk. Ms Cronk, I'd like to hand it over to you. The first witness is Ms Sharron Pretty.

SHARRON PRETTY

Ms Eleanore Cronk: Good morning, Ms Pretty. We're just going to ask the clerk of the committee to administer the oath or affirmation, as you prefer.

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lisa Freedman): Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give to this committee touching the subject of the present inquiry shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Ms Sharron Pretty: I do.

Ms Cronk: Ms Pretty, as I understand it, you are a tenant at the Van Lang Centre in Ottawa.

Ms Pretty: Yes, I am.

Ms Cronk: And you became a tenant at the centre when?

Ms Pretty: I moved in just shortly after the beginning of July in 1992.

Ms Cronk: I'm going to ask you, Ms Pretty, just to move the microphone. That would be fine. If you'd like to move and if you could try to speak a little bit more directly into the microphone so that the committee members can hear you.

The Chair: Just speak into the mike a little bit louder, please.

Ms Pretty: Is that better?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms Cronk: I'd asked you when you became a tenant at the Van Lang Centre.

Ms Pretty: July the third, 1992.

Ms Cronk: And how did you hear about the centre? That is, how did you come to reside there?

Ms Pretty: I applied for subsidized housing at the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Housing Authority, known as OCRHA, and I was on their list.

Ms Cronk: By "their list," do you mean their waiting list?

Ms Pretty: The waiting list.

Ms Cronk: Before moving into the centre, did you know anyone living there?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Had you ever met at that time -- that is, before moving into the centre -- a woman by the name of Trinh Luu?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: I take it, after moving into the centre, you did come to know her.

Ms Pretty: She interviewed me just before I moved in, but that was the only time I'd ever seen her.

Ms Cronk: And the committee has heard that Ms Luu came to work at the centre in the summer of 1992. Did you come to meet her or did you meet her shortly after she began to work there?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: When you moved into the centre, Ms Pretty, did you become involved in any of the tenant activities relating to the Van Lang Centre?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I was very interested in the culture and I took part in a lot of things that were going on, t'ai chi and what not.

Ms Cronk: And did you as well become involved with any formal tenants organizations at the time or did one exist?

Ms Pretty: Nothing existed when I moved in because there were very few tenants; I was one of the very first ones to move in, but as people started to move in and there was more of a population there, there seemed to be a need for some kind of a tenant organization. So I was asked by Dr Can Le if I would be part of an advisory committee to set up and form a tenants' association.

Ms Cronk: And did you agree to do that?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: And how long did you serve on the tenants' advisory committee?

Ms Pretty: Until the beginning of the tenants association, when I was elected as vice-president of the tenants' association.

Ms Cronk: And when was that?

Ms Pretty: Um --

Ms Cronk: Just approximately.

Ms Pretty: Gee. I didn't -- it was in the fall, I think, or the summer.

Ms Cronk: Of the first year that you moved in or the second?

Ms Pretty: The second year.

Ms Cronk: And did you agree to serve as vice-president of the tenants' association?

Ms Pretty: Oh, yes. I was quite happy to be.

Ms Cronk: And at some point, Ms Pretty, as I understand it, you also became involved with the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And when did that begin?

Ms Pretty: I was asked to be a representative to the board of the tenants' association along with another woman. So August the fifth was my first board meeting and at that time I was elected to the board and I was also elected in the capacity of vice-president.

Ms Cronk: And that was August the fifth of which year?

Ms Pretty: Nineteen ninety-three.

Ms Cronk: So by that time, you had been living at the Van Lang Centre, as you indicated, for about a year?

Ms Pretty: About a year, yes.

Ms Cronk: Ms Pretty, are you familiar with the terms of reference of this committee in the matter that the committee is looking into, and by that I mean are you aware that it concerns the meeting of June 17th, 1994, with the Minister of Housing?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I am.

Ms Cronk: Did you attend that meeting?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: What I propose to do, Ms Pretty, is to review with you this morning a number of events that occurred during the period August 1993 up until the following June of 1994 and to review some of those events with you in a very general way and then to come back and ask you some specific questions about a number of those events. Would that be acceptable to you?

Ms Pretty: Okay. I hope you'll let me use my notes; I'm not as good as Trinh at remembering.

Ms Cronk: You may use any documents that you have with you that you think would be helpful to you. If, when I ask you about these general events, there's any particular matter that you wish to bring to the attention of the committee, would you just stop me and tell me that?

Ms Pretty: Sure.

Ms Cronk: Otherwise, I'm going to move through a chronology with you and ask you to confirm if I have my facts correct. All right?

Ms Pretty: All right.

Ms Cronk: So you've told the committee, then, first, that you came on the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre at the beginning of August of 1993 and at the same time were elected or appointed vice-president of the centre. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Had you ever before served on a board of directors of any kind?

Ms Pretty: No, no.

Ms Cronk: Save, I take it, for your position as vice-president of the Van Lang tenants association.

Ms Pretty: It's the first time.

Ms Cronk: All right. And in October 1993, on October 28, 1993, as I understand it, you had occasion to meet with representatives of the constituency office of the Minister of Housing in Ottawa. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Yes. Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: And did that meeting include Ms Trinh Luu?

Ms Pretty: She was there.

Ms Cronk: Yes.

Ms Pretty: She was in the office.

Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. She was in the office. Did she go with you to the meeting?

Ms Pretty: Just wait a minute. I'm just trying to get organized here which meeting it was. The 28th of October?

Ms Cronk: Did you attend a meeting on that date at the constituency office?

Ms Pretty: Yeah, there's a board meeting -- no. Oh, that was the 29th.

Ms Cronk: All right. Let me rephrase the question, then, to you. Did you in the latter part of October attend a meeting at the constituency office of the minister?

Ms Pretty: Yes, with Trinh. Yes.

Ms Cronk: And you recall that being on October 29th?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And did you on the same day write to the Minister of Housing about concerns which you had developed regarding the Van Lang Centre?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: All right. And did you write the letter on the same day that you had met with members of her constituency office staff?

Ms Pretty: I started to. It was a long letter.

Ms Cronk: Okay. Who do you recall meeting with at the meeting at the constituency office?

Ms Pretty: It was Sue Lott, her assistant, and there was Trinh Tran, Trinh Luu and myself.

Ms Cronk: Had you ever met Ms Lott before that?

Ms Pretty: Uh, no, I hadn't.

Ms Cronk: Did you know who she was?

Ms Pretty: Just what Trinh told me.

Ms Cronk: All right. And which Trinh do you mean?

Ms Pretty: Trinh Luu.

Ms Cronk: All right. So I take it going into that meeting which you believe occurred on October 29th, you had not met Ms Lott but you knew something about her based on what Trinh Luu had told you?

Ms Pretty: I only knew that she was her assistant, Evelyn Gigantes's assistant, and that I would be speaking with her.

Ms Cronk: And had you at that point ever met the Minister of Housing, Ms Gigantes?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: When did you meet Ms Gigantes for the first time?

Ms Pretty: Basically, it was at the June 17th meeting, just recently. I understand she was at the opening ceremony at our building, but I didn't see her. I missed the first part of it and then she left, so I didn't get a chance to meet her.

Ms Cronk: And was your meeting on June 29th with Ms Lott the first time that you'd met her?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Had you --

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Is that June 29th or October 29th?

Ms Pretty: October.

Ms Cronk: Did I say June? I'm sorry.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Thank you.

Ms Pretty: We're all mixed up.

Ms Cronk: Thank you.

Mr Callahan: I'm an older person, you see, so I have to protect those months.

Ms Cronk: Don't give me an opening like that, Mr Callahan.

Mr Callahan: You don't care, but I do.

Ms Cronk: Never give me an opening like that. I'm getting younger as the day wears on. You probably didn't know that.

At your meeting on October 29th, were you meeting Ms Lott for the very first time?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And you indicated that you did commence writing a letter then to Ms Gigantes, and I thought you told me that was, you think, on the same day, October 29th?

Ms Pretty: Well, it's dated October the 29th because that's when we had the meeting.

Ms Cronk: Now, those black volumes in front of you, Ms Pretty, are a number of exhibits that have been introduced before the committee. As I understand it, you were here for part of the proceedings yesterday?

Ms Pretty: Yep.

Ms Cronk: All right. Then the exhibits are marked exhibit 1 and exhibit 2. I'm going to be asking you a number of questions about volumes 2 and 3.

Ms Pretty: Okay.

Ms Cronk: Could we start with volume 2?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Colin D. McKinnon: Exhibit 2 or volume 2 of 1?

Ms Cronk: Exhibit 1, volume 2.

Ms Pretty: Okay, now we've got it straight.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 11.

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm. It looks familiar.

Ms Cronk: At tab 11 is a document, a letter of some length dated October 29, 1993. Is this the letter that you and I have just been discussing that you wrote to the Minister of Housing?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: Did you complete it on or about October 29th and send it to the minister?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: It is directed to the minister at a Queen Street address in Ottawa, Ontario. Is that her constituency office address?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

0920

Ms Cronk: And then as I understand it, just to move through the chronology, Ms Pretty, and again, as I indicated, we'll come back to certain of these events, but again at the end of October 1993, had you by that time, as a director of the Van Lang Centre, developed any concerns regarding your ability as a director to access information relating to the corporation?

Ms Pretty: I started having trouble getting access, basically, from very early on.

Ms Cronk: Did that continue to be the case in October 1993?

Ms Pretty: Yes. To this day, basically, it's the same.

Ms Cronk: As I understand it, again just dealing with the chronology of events, on November 8, 1993, Ms Trinh Luu wrote to Ms Gigantes. Are you aware of that?

Ms Pretty: Yes. I don't have a copy of that letter in my records, though.

Ms Cronk: All right. Could you look at tab 12 of the same volume, the very next document in the book that you have.

Ms Pretty: Okay. I've seen it.

Ms Cronk: Were you aware at the time that Ms Luu was preparing this letter that she was doing so?

Ms Pretty: Um, most likely.

Ms Cronk: Do you recall whether you discussed its contents with her before it was sent?

Ms Pretty: Well, we certainly talked a lot about our meeting with Evelyn. So I'm sure that, you know, in some respects it's a joint effort in a way. But it's her own words. I certainly didn't have anything to do with writing it.

Ms Cronk: Then moving forward in the month of November 1993, was there at that time something which occurred regarding your status as a director on the board of the Van Lang Centre that was of concern to you?

Ms Pretty: November 1993. I was having trouble getting access, and I approached Brian Sutherland to try and remedy a problem that I was having.

Ms Cronk: Who did you understand Mr Sutherland to be?

Ms Pretty: He's the regional manager of the Ministry of Housing.

Ms Cronk: Had you ever dealt with or met with Brian Sutherland prior to November 1993?

Ms Pretty: No, I'd mostly dealt with Bill Clement, the representative under him.

Ms Cronk: Had you dealt with Bill Clement about matters related to the Van Lang Centre?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Did you actually meet with Mr Sutherland in November 1993?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Was that on or about November eighth or ninth?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Without getting into the detail of what they were, did you express concerns to him at that time regarding the Van Lang Centre?

Ms Pretty: Very much so, for over an hour.

Ms Cronk: You met with him for over an hour?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Was that the first time you'd personally met him?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: During that same month, Ms Pretty, again November 1993 and the beginning of December 1993, were any efforts undertaken by others connected with the board of directors concerning your continuance as a director or your status as a director?

Ms Pretty: Well, there was an effort made by the tenants' association to remove me from the board of directors. It was a joint effort, actually, because as it turns out there was a letter sent by the president of the board of directors asking about my status as a representative on the board. The president of the tenants' association wrote back and said that because they had held an election and that I had been only on an interim committee, an executive committee, that I was being replaced by a new representative.

Ms Cronk: As matters unfolded, was the effort to remove you as a director in the fall of 1993 successful?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Did you remain on the board throughout the winter and spring of 1994?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: Is that the case, in so far as you are concerned, continuing today?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Then in December 1993 --

Ms Pretty: Excuse me. Apparently, and I've only been notified, there was a meeting held on Sunday which I couldn't attend because I was on a plane coming here. The board held a meeting and dissolved the board of directors. So I have no idea what my status is at this time.

Ms Cronk: All right. Up until then, as far as you were concerned, were you still a director of the Van Lang Centre?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Just so the record is clear, Mr McKinnon was good enough to suggest some caution to you in that answer. I take it you have some information available to you but not full details as to what occurred on Sunday?

Ms Pretty: It's just hearsay. It's something that I heard through a reporter.

Ms Cronk: I see. You have no formal indication from the board then one way or the other?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Just to deal with that now so there's no confusion about that, did you receive a formal notice of any kind as a director that there was to be a meeting on Sunday, August seventh?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Did that notice deal with your status as a director?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Was it proposed in that notice that there be a resolution for your removal?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Your removal only or that of other directors as well?

Ms Pretty: Only me.

Ms Cronk: Do you have a copy of that notice with you here today at the hearing?

Ms Pretty: I think we're talking about two things here. There was a notice to remove me as a director that happened just before the June 17th meeting with Evelyn Gigantes.

Ms Cronk: Yes, and we'll come to that. Was there a second?

Ms Pretty: There was another notice sent to me that they were going to hold the annual general meeting in which they would dissolve the board and elect new directors, and that proceeded on the seventh when I couldn't attend.

Ms Cronk: I see. Thank you for clarifying that. So just to make sure that I have it correctly, what occurred as you understand it last Sunday, just two days ago, was the annual general meeting of the Van Lang Centre?

Ms Pretty: Yes, that's what they called it.

Ms Cronk: And one of the items to be dealt with was the issue of who was on the board of directors?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: So it wasn't specific to you, but it certainly dealt with the board of directors, is that right?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Do you have a copy of that notice with you here today?

Ms Pretty: I should have it somewhere in my files.

Ms Cronk: Perhaps at the break I can make arrangements through Mr McKinnon to obtain a copy of that.

Ms Pretty: Sure. Okay.

Ms Cronk: Just to come back then so that you and I are clear about the time frame we're talking about, we had moved through November of 1993 up until December. Did you in the month of December 1993 have occasion to meet again with representatives of the Ministry of Housing in Ottawa?

Ms Pretty: In December, I met with the Housing authorities many times.

Ms Cronk: Did you meet with Brian Sutherland again during the month of December?

Ms Pretty: I called him on the first to talk about -- I decided that in my capacity as vice-president, I would call an emergency meeting, because I had been insisting on dealing with core issues of tenant access and participation and they weren't being recorded in minutes; they weren't being acknowledged. I was having a lot of trouble being heard by the board. So I decided, so there wouldn't be any excuse that there's not enough time during our meetings to discuss these core issues, I would call an emergency meeting, which I tried to do, and nobody came.

Ms Cronk: When did you call that emergency meeting?

Ms Pretty: I believe it was the -- I'm terrible with dates.

Ms Cronk: Was it on or about November 29th? Does that sound about right, the end of November?

Ms Pretty: The end of November, probably.

Ms Cronk: Do you recall -- I'm sorry, I don't mean to cut you off, Ms Pretty.

Ms Pretty: I'm just trying to look through here. There were so many things happening, it's hard to keep everything straight.

Ms Cronk: Well, whatever the date of that effort on your part to call an emergency meeting of the board, after the date of that meeting came and went, did you meet again with Brian Sutherland?

Ms Pretty: Yes, on the ninth of December.

Ms Cronk: And did you express concerns that you had to Mr Sutherland again at that meeting?

Ms Pretty: Yes. I said to him that I was very concerned that we had incompetent staff and that there were some irregularities going on and we really needed to look into it. I was concerned that there was no operating agreement between the Ministry of Housing and the board of directors. I was also concerned that we had no directors' liability.

Ms Cronk: Insurance?

Ms Pretty: Yes, because of the fact that there was a civil suit launched against a couple of members -- well, one staff and one board member -- I realized that I was vulnerable as the director and I wanted to make sure that the directors' liability was looked after.

0930

Ms Cronk: And you met with Mr Sutherland on December the ninth for those purposes?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Did you in that month as well ask Mr Sutherland or a representative of his offices to attend the next meeting of the board of directors?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: In that month, on December 30th, was there a board meeting attended by a representative of the Ministry of Housing?

Ms Pretty: Yes. Actually, it was Brian Sutherland himself. He showed up unexpectedly.

Ms Cronk: When you say "unexpectedly," I take it you didn't know that he was coming.

Ms Pretty: No, I didn't. I had urged him to come. I had sent a couple of memos and had written a letter in December to him, wishing him a merry Christmas and reminding him about our December meeting, saying, "Please send someone or please come yourself to attend this meeting."

Ms Cronk: When you went to the meeting, did Mr Sutherland also attend?

Ms Pretty: Yes, he walked in just as the meeting was beginning.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to take a look at exhibit 2, which is not the volume you're in now; it's a different black binder. It's exhibit 2.

Ms Pretty: Okay.

Ms Cronk: If you could go to tab 22.

Ms Pretty: Yes, that's it.

Ms Cronk: Is this the letter that you sent to Mr Sutherland towards the end of December 1993?

Ms Pretty: Yes, December the 21st, 1993.

Ms Cronk: In this letter, did you request that one of his representatives be present at the December 30th meeting of the board?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Judging from the last two words of your letter, which read "Please respond," you were asking for an indication of whether that would occur.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: I take it, when you arrived at the meeting, he had responded in the sense that he personally came and attended the meeting.

Ms Pretty: Yes, that's the first response he gave me.

Ms Cronk: First response to this letter?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: On December 22nd, did you also write to the Minister of Housing?

Ms Pretty: On the 22nd?

Ms Cronk: Do you recall doing that?

Ms Pretty: Of --

Ms Cronk: December.

Ms Pretty: December?

Ms Cronk: About Christmas time.

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did. It was a similar letter, wishing her a good holiday and just updating her on what was happening at the centre.

Ms Cronk: At that point in time, that is, the end of December, Ms Pretty, had you received any response from the Minister of Housing to your letter to her of October 29th?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Had you received any contact from any representative of the Minister of Housing concerning that letter to her?

Ms Pretty: I had sort of phoned a couple of times to jar their memory and find out why nobody had responded to my lengthy letter to her on October the 29th. But the only thing that I was told, mainly by Sue Lott, her assistant, was that Evelyn had pulled my letter out of the normal channels. I assume it would be to go to Marc Collins or Newton Vanriel or somebody in Toronto. They were going to look at it and deal with it.

Ms Cronk: When did Ms Lott tell you that? Do you recall?

Ms Pretty: I'm not sure exactly. It would be around the time that you were just speaking of.

Ms Cronk: I was speaking of December 1993.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Is that when you think you received that information from Ms Lott, or was it earlier or later than that?

Ms Pretty: On the second, I called about having no reply to my letter and Sue Lott mentioned Marc Collins to me. He's the ROH adviser, I guess policy adviser, who would talk to Evelyn about it.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): On the second of January or December?

Ms Pretty: December.

Ms Cronk: Had you ever heard the name Marc Collins before?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Had you dealt with him in any way, in writing or otherwise?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: What did you understand Ms Lott was telling you?

Ms Pretty: She just indicated that my letter had been taken special notice and that they were going to deal with it. So I felt a little bit relieved.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 26 of the same volume, exhibit 2, which you have in front of you. This contains a number of documents, Ms Pretty. The first one is a fax cover sheet from Sue Lott to Marc Collins, and I'm not interested in that at the moment. Then there are a number of attachments to it, and the first attachment is a letter dated December 22, 1993. Do you have that?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: All right. And is that a letter from you to Ms Gigantes?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: And did you send it to Ms Gigantes on or about that time?

Ms Pretty: December the 22nd.

Ms Cronk: In the last paragraph of the letter, did you deal with the issue of your outstanding letter of October 29?

Ms Pretty: Yes I did, as well as the fact that things were happening as far as Michael Séguin was concerned --

Ms Cronk: And who is -- sorry again; I didn't mean to cut you off. Who is Michael Séguin?

Ms Pretty: Michael Séguin is a tenant at the Van Lang Centre who was elected by the tenants' association in my place as vice-president.

Ms Cronk: And did he remain as vice-president of the association?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Did he withdraw from that appointment?

Ms Pretty: He sure did.

Ms Cronk: Did you provide the minister, under cover of your letter of December 22, with information about that?

Ms Pretty: Yes. I sent a copy of his letter to the president of the tenants' association resigning from his post because he felt that he had been parachuted into the position and that he didn't like the way they had treated me as their vice-president. He said, "I cannot, in good conscience...serve in a position where my integrity will be compromised."

Ms Cronk: Now, I take it you were reading a document when you just said that?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I was just reading Michael's letter of December the 21st to Mr Tuyen Huynh, the president of the tenants' association.

Ms Cronk: If the committee looks at the second attachment at this tab, tab 26, is that the letter from Mr Séguin you were just quoting from?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: All right. As I understand it then, Ms Pretty, at that point, that is, as at December 22nd, you had personally written to Ms Gigantes twice, that is, on October 29 and again by this letter. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Were those the only communications that you had had directly to her attention at that point?

Ms Pretty: I believe so.

Ms Cronk: And then, as you've indicated to the committee, there was a board meeting of the Van Lang directors at the end of December, attended by Mr Sutherland?

Ms Pretty: Yes, on the 30th.

Ms Cronk: Was there in progress at that time, as far as you knew, Ms Pretty, a compliance review with respect to the Van Lang Centre?

Ms Pretty: I believe so.

Ms Cronk: Would I be correct in suggesting to you that on February the eighth, 1994, the results of that compliance review were presented to the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre by representatives of the Ministry of Housing?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I attended that meeting.

Ms Cronk: Who were the representatives of the Ministry of Housing in attendance at the meeting? Do you recall?

Ms Pretty: Bill Clement and Steve -- what's his last name?

Ms Cronk: Could I suggest "Shapiro"?

Ms Pretty: Shapiro, that's it.

Ms Cronk: Am I right in that?

Ms Pretty: Yes. I have "S" there.

Ms Cronk: I can suggest all kinds of things, but it's important that you indicate if it's correct or incorrect. Was it Mr Shapiro?

Ms Pretty: It was.

Ms Cronk: Okay. Had you met Mr Shapiro before that February eighth board meeting?

Ms Pretty: I think he came around on a tour of the building once, but I didn't really know who he was or anything. I was just sort of -- I didn't really meet him formally; I just knew of him.

Ms Cronk: Did you know what position he held with the Ministry of Housing?

Ms Pretty: Not particularly; I just knew he was with the Ministry of Housing.

Ms Cronk: Okay. That meeting occurred at the beginning of February 1994. Had you been aware, in your capacity as a director or as a tenant of the centre, prior to that that this compliance review was under way?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: You knew that. You weren't surprised by it being presented at that meeting?

Ms Pretty: Yes, because -- well, Evelyn had said to Trinh that she was waiting for the compliance review. Everybody seemed to be waiting for the compliance review and it dragged on and on. So I was aware of it being compiled by the MOH.

Ms Cronk: And when you say that Evelyn had told Trinh that she was waiting for the compliance review, is that something that Trinh Luu told you?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: The committee has before it, Ms Pretty, a letter from Ms Gigantes to Ms Trinh Luu dated December the sixth, 1993. I'm sorry to ask you to be flipping around these --

Ms Pretty: Sorry?

Ms Cronk: I'm sorry to ask you to do this, but if you could leave that one open, could you also get volume 2 of exhibit 1 back in front of you and perhaps just put it on top for the moment. It's sort of awkward; I'm sorry.

At tab 14, this is a letter dated December sixth, 1993, from Evelyn Gigantes to Ms Luu. Did you see this letter on or about the time that Ms Luu received it? Do you remember?

Ms Pretty: I don't know if it was at the time she received it, but I certainly have seen it since.

0940

Ms Cronk: All right. And did she tell you that she'd heard from the minister in respect of her letter to her of November eighth?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Your understanding, I take it, from that discussion with her was that Ms Gigantes was waiting for the compliance review?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Once the compliance review was presented to the board in early February, did you personally have concerns with some of the findings or observations made in it?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And on March 1, 1994, as I understand it, you wrote to Brian Sutherland?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm. I wrote a detailed report to Brian on the first of December -- or the first of March, I should say.

Ms Cronk: And again, without getting into the details of what your concerns were, would it be fair of me to suggest that you've set out in some considerable detail a number of concerns that you had about the Van Lang Centre?

Ms Pretty: It was a long letter.

Ms Cronk: All right. That's why I wanted you to keep exhibit 2. Could you look at exhibit 2?

Ms Pretty: Is this it up here?

Ms Cronk: Tab 33. I think you're actually in volume 2 at the moment. I think you may have to go underneath that. Sorry to be flipping.

Ms Pretty: So many books. Tab 33?

Ms Cronk: Yes. Is this the letter of March 1, 1994, that you sent to Mr Sutherland?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: And in this letter, did you refer to your earlier discussions and meetings with him on November the eighth or ninth and December the ninth, 1993?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: As a result of those meetings that you'd held with Mr Sutherland in November and December 1993, did you have any understanding as to whether he was going to take any action in respect of your concerns?

Ms Pretty: Well, he had earlier promised me that he was going to launch an investigation.

Ms Cronk: When did he promise you that?

Ms Pretty: That was on the meeting of the ninth.

Ms Cronk: Which ninth?

Ms Pretty: The ninth of November -- pardon me, the ninth of December, 1993. I had met with him at his office and he said he would launch an investigation on three fronts, on board organization, on funds and on staff, and I never saw any indication of that investigation. I never heard any more about it.

Ms Cronk: When you met with Mr Sutherland on December the ninth, did you meet with him alone or were you --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Excuse me, Ms Cronk, is it December the ninth or is it November the ninth?

Ms Pretty: December the ninth.

Ms Cronk: Just to clarify this point so that we're clear as we go along, Ms Pretty, do I understand you to have told the committee that you met with Mr Sutherland on two occasions, on November the eighth or November the ninth, and in addition on December the ninth?

Ms Pretty: On the ninth of December I met with him.

Ms Cronk: Did you also meet with him on November the ninth?

Ms Pretty: I met Bill Clement, I believe in November.

Mr McKinnon: November 24th she said she saw him.

Ms Cronk: Excuse me, Mr McKinnon, I'm grateful for your help, but I would like Ms Pretty's recollection.

Ms Pretty: Yes, I just found it. On the 24th of November I met with Bill at his office, and at that meeting I asked him for clarification on the certification of Tung, our superintendent, because there were questions of his competence.

Ms Cronk: It's important then that we clarify this, because I may have misdirected you as to part of the chronology. If you look at the first paragraph of your letter of March the first -- that's the one in front of you -- does it suggest a meeting with Mr Sutherland on November the ninth?

Ms Pretty: On the ninth, yes.

Ms Cronk: But the ninth of November?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: And in addition, in paragraph 2 on the first page, does it suggest a promise by Mr Sutherland on November the ninth?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And that promise relates to an official investigation?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: No doubt that's why Ms Marland, looking at the letter, has raised the issue of when the promise was made.

Ms Pretty: Yes, I can see why you're confused. I am too.

Ms Cronk: I'm not sure much turns on when it occurred, but do you remember having a meeting with him on November the ninth --

Ms Pretty: Yes, I do.

Ms Cronk: And looking over at page 2 of your letter, if you could just flip, under the first paragraph --

Mr McKinnon: Ms Cronk, page 2 is not reproduced.

Ms Pretty: It's not there.

Mr McKinnon: They've reproduced page 1 twice, front and back.

Ms Cronk: I beg your pardon. May I show you page 2? We're making a note as we go along of these photocopying errors. I apologize to everyone for that. I'm not going to tell you I did it personally, but I'm going to get you copies.

Can I show you page 2 of your -- I'm just standing beside you so that the mike can pick this up. Under the first paragraph on page 2, it's entitled "A Written Acknowledgement of My Concerns." Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And in that paragraph, do you suggest that you met with Mr Sutherland again on December the ninth, 1993?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: So what I'm suggesting to you, and I'm asking for your confirmation one way or the other, is, did you meet with him both on November the ninth and, as well, on December the ninth, which is what this letter seems to be suggesting? Or do you remember?

Ms Pretty: I only remember one significant meeting with him.

Ms Cronk: Which was that?

Ms Pretty: The November one.

Ms Cronk: And why do you regard that meeting as having been significant?

Ms Pretty: Because we had a long, long meeting, and I discussed a lot of my concerns. I was aware that I was being removed from the board, that there was an effort being made to remove me from the board of directors, and I was aware of the fact that I couldn't get free access to documents for me to make informed decisions as a director. I was having a lot of trouble dealing with the board. I was experiencing a lot of frustration with being treated in a patronizing manner and I felt as if I had absolutely no power at all. And so I had to resort to going to the ministry, first to Bill, which didn't get me anywhere, and then to Brian, and then Brian showed up on the 30th, and I thought that was when our problems were solved.

Ms Cronk: Looking still at this letter, on the first page of it, paragraph 2, in that paragraph, as I read it, and please tell me if I'm reading this correctly, you appear to be seeking a written confirmation from Mr Sutherland of the actions that you indicate he said he would take.

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: And that is with reference, as Ms Marland points out, according to this letter, to the meeting you had with him on November the ninth. That's what the paragraph suggests.

Ms Pretty: It seems to me that I must've made some kind of an error in transcribing the date on when our meeting was, but it was November the ninth.

Ms Cronk: Is it on or about that time, at that meeting, that, as you recall events, Mr Sutherland promised you that an investigation would be undertaken?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And that investigation was to concern three matters or three fronts that you set out in this paragraph.

Ms Pretty: Yes, three fronts.

Ms Cronk: "Board organization, board's management of funds, and staff hiring practice."

Ms Pretty: Right.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at page 19 of the same letter. Please understand, Ms Pretty, because I am not asking you questions about the very lengthy matters dealt with in your letter, that does not signify a lack of awareness about them. But do you understand that the matters directly at issue for this committee are those that occurred in June of 1994?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: All right. With respect, though, to what was happening in the spring and what you were telling Mr Sutherland in this letter, at page 19 I direct your attention to the second-last paragraph. Did you, in that paragraph of this letter, suggest to Mr Sutherland that if no action was taken, then the public at large should learn what you described as "what happened" at the Van Lang Centre?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: That paragraph reads:

"This is my last attempt to request the ministry's response to my concerns, intervention and positive actions. If I find out that my time has been wasted again, that all my reports, complaints, actions were undertaken in vain, why should I come to you any more? If no action is taken, then the public at large should really learn about what happened."

Just looking at that paragraph, were you intending to suggest in that paragraph, Ms Pretty, that if you did not receive a response which you regarded as satisfactory, you would take the matter public?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And had you in fact suggested that on any earlier occasion to representatives of the Ministry of Housing or of the minister's constituency office in Ottawa? Or do you remember?

Ms Pretty: By November -- I had been trying to go through the proper channels. I didn't want to go to the media. I didn't want to have to go to the courts. That was my last resort. I guess maybe at this point it was just a threat. I wanted to see whether that would move them, and I guess it did, because Brian showed up on the 30th.

0950

Ms Cronk: That was back in the fall. Was this then the second time, at least, when you were raising this issue, that is, the possibility of going public?

Ms Pretty: I'm not sure how many times I mentioned it, but in that month I started to say: "This is probably my last resort. If I can't get any action from the ministry then I'm going to go public."

Ms Cronk: As I understand it, on March the fourth, that is, just three days later, you and Ms Trinh Luu jointly wrote a letter to Ms Gigantes, the Minister of Housing, is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: If I could ask you to look at tab 25, volume 2, is this the letter that Ms Luu and yourself sent to Ms Gigantes? It's dated March fourth.

Ms Pretty: Wait a minute. Where am I here?

Ms Cronk: You should be at tab 25.

Ms Pretty: Okay, March fourth. Yes. There's two letters in that tab. Oh, many letters.

Ms Cronk: Both of the letters should be dated March fourth. It's just another copy of it. Is this the letter that you sent to the minister with Ms Luu?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it is. You say both of the letters should be dated March fourth? I have a March first letter to Brian Sutherland also in that tab.

Ms Cronk: And that's just a duplicate copy of the letter we looked at a moment ago, is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: So on March 1, you wrote to Brian Sutherland, the letter we've just looked at?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: And then on March fourth, you wrote as well to the minister, together with Trinh Luu?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: In this letter of March fourth, as I read it, and please indicate if I'm reading it incorrectly, you and Ms Luu quite specifically were requesting what you described as "a special and urgent meeting" with the minister?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: According to paragraph 2 of this letter, it's suggested that that meeting was "in order to expose evidence of Can Le's continuing defiance of the above vital issues to carry out his erroneous vision of the project development." Then you go on to speak further about Dr Can Le. That's in paragraph 2 of the letter of March fourth. Do you see where I'm reading? The second paragraph of the letter of March fourth.

Ms Pretty: Yes, I see it. Okay.

Ms Cronk: All right. From your perspective and Ms Luu's at that time, that is, on or about March fourth, did you regard the matter as urgent?

Ms Pretty: Of course.

Ms Cronk: Had you at that point received any reply from the Minister of Housing to your earlier letter to her of October 29th?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: What triggered this particular letter of March fourth?

Ms Pretty: They were trying to remove me from the board.

Ms Cronk: That had been true the preceding fall, had it not?

Ms Pretty: Yes. They tried twice.

Ms Cronk: And when was the second effort to do that?

Ms Pretty: You'll have to excuse me for a second.

Ms Cronk: Okay. Did that occur in the early winter?

Ms Pretty: Yes. For some reason, I didn't write it down here.

Ms Cronk: When you say "here," you're looking at a handwritten chronology?

Ms Pretty: I'm looking at my own notes, yes. I'm looking at my own notes, but actually I have a better chronology that I could look at.

Ms Cronk: Again, Ms Pretty, I'm not sure that anything turns particularly on the date.

Ms Pretty: Well, I'm starting to feel like my head's empty or something here, without being able to say a few dates.

Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, I don't mean to make you feel that way. I think what is important for the committee is that they understand what caused you and Ms Luu, from your perspective, to write this letter. As I understand it, what you're saying is, whatever the date of it was, there was a second effort to remove you from the board.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And that was one of the reasons that you wrote?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Was another reason related to the compliance review and your concerns about it?

Ms Pretty: Yes, because there were a lot of discrepancies in the compliance review that I could see. They didn't address the superintendent's incompetence, for one thing, and I could see that there had been a lot of smoothing over done.

Ms Cronk: And had you provided a copy of your March first letter to Mr Sutherland to Ms Gigantes? According to my copies of it, it appears that it was cc'd to Mr Sutherland.

Ms Pretty: Oh, yes. By that time I was cc-ing everything to Evelyn.

Ms Cronk: When you did that with Ms Gigantes, where did you send the letters? Were you sending them to Ottawa or Toronto?

Ms Pretty: Ottawa. Any time I sent my letters I would send them off to either -- sometimes both Newton Vanriel or Marc Collins.

Ms Cronk: For example, on your letter of March first to Mr Sutherland, it appears to be copied both to Marc Collins and Newton Vanriel.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: By that time, that is, the spring, were you routinely or only sometimes copying your letters to Mr Collins?

Ms Pretty: The more important ones went to him, what we felt was significant. Anything that Trinh wrote, anything that I wrote, went to her staff in Toronto as well as Ottawa.

Ms Cronk: When you sent letters directed to her name personally, you sent them to the constituency office in Ottawa, is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Who did you understand Mr Vanriel to be?

Ms Pretty: One's a case worker and the other one is a policy adviser, and I get the two of them mixed up. I've never met the gentlemen at all, so I don't know.

Ms Cronk: Why did you start sending copies of your letters to Mr Vanriel?

Ms Pretty: Well, because with my letter of October the 29th Sue Lott, Evelyn's assistant, had told me about Newton Vanriel, and the name Marc Collins came up as well during inquiries about why I hadn't gotten a response to my letter from Evelyn, so I realized that these two people were ones who were dealing with her correspondence and with any problems in the ministry and that they were important people to make sure I got information to.

Ms Cronk: Did you ever discuss any of your concerns regarding the Van Lang Centre with Mr Vanriel?

Ms Pretty: In a phone conversation. Very early on I talked to him in Toronto.

Ms Cronk: Mr Vanriel or Mr Collins?

Ms Pretty: I am not sure which one I talked to now.

Ms Cronk: One of them?

Ms Pretty: Yes, one or the other.

Ms Cronk: Okay. You told the committee, Ms Pretty, that back at the beginning of December 1993, in a discussion that you had with Sue Lott, she had told you that your letter of October 29th to the minister had been set aside to be dealt with. Do you recall that?

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: Did she tell you why that had occurred, why they did that?

Ms Pretty: Not really; I don't remember whether she said why. She recognized that the issues that we were raising were important, so she just said it had been pulled out of the regular channels and it was going to be dealt with by someone in Toronto.

Ms Cronk: By the time that you were writing this letter of March fourth, 1994, to the minister, had you followed up with Ms Lott or anyone else at the constituency office to see why there'd been no reply?

Ms Pretty: I did a couple of times. I phoned and I'd say, why? Whenever I sent a letter to Evelyn's office, I would remind them about my October 29th letter and say, "Why haven't I received a reply?"

Ms Cronk: And did you receive any explanation for why you hadn't?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Then after March fourth, as I understand it, you again wrote to Mr Sutherland, this time on March 20th. Does that ring a bell?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: I don't know if you're now in exhibit 2 or not, but could you look at exhibit 2, tab 36. Do you have that?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

1000

Ms Cronk: Is this a copy of your letter to Mr Sutherland of March 20th?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: And in that letter are you raising issues about access and tenant participation, and as well the findings of the compliance review?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: All three matters?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And was this letter as well copied to Ms Gigantes?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it was sent to Evelyn Gigantes, Marc Collins and Newton Vanriel.

Ms Cronk: And in the last paragraph, there is mention made of a special board meeting -- I'm sorry, of a board meeting -- to be held on March 29th, 1994, and you appear to be requesting that Mr Sutherland personally attend that meeting. Am I reading it correctly?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And you were suggesting that vital issues of concern by the ministry at the Van Lang Centre would be identified and resolved. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: And those, I take it from your letter, from your point of view, related to what you considered the fundamental core issues?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Now, Ms Luu has given evidence before the committee as to what she meant when she used that term. It appears in a number of letters over your signature as well. What did you mean when you referred in your correspondence with the ministry to "core issues" or "the two fundamental core issues"? What were you meaning?

Ms Pretty: Well, first of all, with access to the Van Lang Centre, my interpretation of that is that it's supposed to be a place where people can have affordable housing and that it should be non-discriminatory according to race, sex, age, or whatever. And we have a commitment to the OCRHA people that we place a certain number of needy people in our building, and for a whole year while I lived there, I noticed that there were nothing but Vietnamese people any time there was a vacancy. I noticed there were no non-Vietnamese people coming into the building, and it made me start to wonder why. That was my concern about tenant access.

And in terms of tenant participation, I found that the tenant association -- I had nothing to do with drafting the constitution. I wish I had, because it never would exist the way it does now. It's not a democratic constitution. The way the whole constitution is constructed is unfair. It's not taking into account that there are other people besides Vietnamese people in the building who require a voice. The way they set up the voting power was that two thirds of the vote of the members of the TA were required in order to pass any resolutions, and if there's 150 people in the building and there's only maybe seven or 10 or 12 non-Vietnamese people, if we had an issue that we wanted to raise, we could never get enough votes to pass it.

Ms Cronk: So that when you referred to, variously, either "fundamental core issues" or "the two core issues," you were referring both to tenant access and tenant participation as you've just described them?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Based on this letter, then, Ms Pretty, and what we've been talking about, in the month of March, you wrote on March first to Brian Sutherland, you wrote with Ms Luu to the minister on March fourth, and you wrote again to Mr Sutherland on March 20th. Did Mr Sutherland reply to these letters?

Ms Pretty: I got a reply at the end of March from Brian.

Ms Cronk: Sorry, your voice trailed just a bit there. I missed the end of what you said.

Ms Pretty: I think it was the end of March. I didn't have to wait very long for Brian's reply. It only took maybe three weeks or so for him to get back to me.

Ms Cronk: All right. Could I ask you to flip to tab 39 in the same volume. There's a letter there dated March 25th, 1994. This is still in exhibit 2, tab 39. It appears to be from Brian Sutherland to you.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Is this his reply?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: All right. So that in the context of your March first letter, his reply was within, as you suggested a moment ago, three weeks or so, and in the context of your March 20th letter, it was within five days or thereabouts.

Ms Pretty: Excuse me. Can you ask people to stop whispering so loud? I'm getting --

Ms Cronk: Mr Chair, I wonder if we could have your assistance.

The Chair: Could we stop the private conversations going on. Thank you.

Ms Pretty: I'm getting very distracted by it.

Ms Cronk: The question I was putting to you, Ms Pretty, was that in the context of your March first letter to Mr Sutherland, it was three weeks or so before you received a reply, as you suggested just a moment ago.

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: And in the context of your March 20th letter, it appears to be five days or so by the date of his reply. It's dated March 25th and you'd written to him again on March the 20th.

Ms Pretty: Yes, that's right.

Ms Cronk: And this letter of March 25th, as I read it, is a reply both to your --

Ms Pretty: To the first and the 20th.

Ms Cronk: Exactly.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: All right. In that reply, did Mr Sutherland agree, as you read the letter, to conduct an investigation?

Ms Pretty: He said that they "are emerging principles of the ministry" and he acknowledged there were a number of complaints that were being brought to their attention. He was aware of the access to documents, and he said that most of it was beyond the bounds of the ministry's control. "Little else can be done....Some of the other observations you make are considered personal and will not be commented on."

And then at the end, I was insulted by his remark that they were disappointed at the ministry at the acrimony and the considerable antagonism that exists at the board level. So I felt as if I was being chastised like a bad little girl.

Ms Cronk: Leaving aside the way in which it was expressed or the fact that it was said -- let's put that aside for the moment -- is it correct that by that point in time, by the spring of 1994, indeed even earlier, that there was considerable acrimony at the board level?

Ms Pretty: Yes. And it was simply because the board would not address those core issues. I called a special meeting; nobody came, not even the ministry. I phoned, I wrote, I did everything that I could to get somebody to listen to me, and they wouldn't listen to me. I went through all the channels, the proper channels, to try and address these core issues, and they refused to allow me to have that meeting.

Ms Cronk: "They," meaning the board of directors?

Ms Pretty: The board. The board refused, and they didn't even record my concerns in a lot of the board minutes.

Ms Cronk: And when you say "that meeting," do you mean a meeting dedicated to the two core issues?

Ms Pretty: Yes. Yes.

Ms Cronk: All right. And would it be fair to say -- at least, tell me if it isn't. But looking back on it now, would it be fair to say that really by the mid to late fall of 1993 and certainly by January of 1994, those divisions had clearly developed at the board level at the Van Lang Centre?

Ms Pretty: Very much so.

Ms Cronk: And the division concerned you on the one hand and the balance of the directors on the other?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And was there in particular, leaving aside the reasons for it, that tension or acrimony between yourself and Dr Can Le during the course of that period of time?

Ms Pretty: I have nothing against Can Le. I don't dislike him. I just don't like what he does.

Ms Cronk: I wasn't intending to suggest it was personal in any way, Ms Pretty.

Ms Pretty: Well, it's been insinuated and used as a scapegoat all along that this is a personal conflict. It certainly is not.

Ms Cronk: In terms of the conflict and the acrimony that did exist on the board, though, during that period of time, is it fair or unfair to say that much of it was focused on the differences of viewpoint between yourself and Dr Can Le?

Ms Pretty: It was between me and the rest of the board, because Can Le didn't necessarily do all the talking. He had his group and I was alone here. They were there; I was here. That's the way it was.

Ms Cronk: Okay. With respect, though, to Dr Can Le, isn't it the case that in many of the letters that you had written to the ministry, including the letter that you had written to the minister --

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: -- at the end of October 1993, many of your comments were specifically directed to activities that you alleged Dr Can Le had engaged in?

Ms Pretty: True. I had pinpointed the source of the problem.

1010

Ms Cronk: In that sense, was part of the problem at the board level focused on Dr Can Le's activities, from your point of view?

Ms Pretty: Yes, because he was the source of the problem.

Ms Cronk: Okay. Did there come a point in time in the spring of 1994 when Dr Can Le replied to some of those allegations in writing?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: All right. Could I ask you to look, again in the same volume, at tab 42. This is exhibit 2, tab 42.

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Is this a reply by Dr Can Le, addressed to your attention, concerning some of the allegations that you had made?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: Including some of the allegations which you had made against him in a letter to the board of March 20th, 1994?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Again, leaving aside the detail of the comments either of your allegations or his response, is it fair to say that in his response letter he essentially denied the allegations that you were making?

Ms Pretty: Yes, he did.

Ms Cronk: Coming back, then, to Brian Sutherland's response to you of March 25th, the letter at tab 39, if you could just flip back again for me, again leaving aside how it was said and whether it should have been said, because I understand your evidence before the committee about how you felt about that, but putting that aside for the moment, is it correct that Mr Sutherland was identifying, in this second-last paragraph of his letter on page 2, that it was, from the ministry's perspective, of major concern that that acrimony and antagonism existed at the board level?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: They were worried about it; he was telling you that?

Ms Pretty: Yes, he was worried about it.

Ms Cronk: Did he also suggest in that paragraph that because of those circumstances or that climate at the board that the business of the board was being bogged down continually?

Ms Pretty: There's no doubt about it that the business was being bogged down. I couldn't get on with anything.

Ms Cronk: Mr Sutherland specifically alluded to that problem, not directed to you but to the fact that the business of the board was getting bogged down?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Right. The letter seems to conclude, and I'd ask you whether you can confirm this, that from Mr Sutherland's point of view as he was expressing it to you -- I'm looking at the second-last paragraph on page 2 of the letter -- it was his hope that what he described as "the present strife" could "be resolved internally and that the efforts of all directors" would "focus on the future direction of the corporation."

Ms Pretty: That's why I kept sending memos asking for a special meeting.

Ms Cronk: Why was that? Sorry.

Ms Pretty: So that I could resolve the strife. But the board did not respond. They didn't want to have a special meeting. They didn't want to hear what I had to say.

Ms Cronk: Were you trying to resolve those issues?

Ms Pretty: Yes, of course I was.

Ms Cronk: Then, still dealing with the month of March -- I know we skipped ahead to look at Dr Can Le's reply -- the evidence before the committee thus far is that during that month discussions were held with representatives of the crown attorney's office concerning the possibility of a variety of charges under the Provincial Offences Act. Were you involved in those discussions?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I was.

Ms Cronk: All right. Moving forward into April, did those discussions in March of 1994 come to the point where you swore a number of informations alleging offences by various members of the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre under the Ontario Corporations Act?

Ms Pretty: Yes, on the 25th of April I did that.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at exhibit 1. Let's go to exhibit 1 just for a change here.

Ms Pretty: Volume 1, exhibit 1?

Ms Cronk: Yes, thank you, volume 1, tab 6 of that volume, Ms Pretty. There are a number of informations and related documents set out at tab 6. Do you have it?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: All right. Do the documents at this tab include all of the informations which you swore on April 25th, 1994? In asking you that question, I recognize that there's also one that appears to have been completed by Ms Trinh Luu, but do they include all of yours?

Ms Pretty: I'm just checking, because there are a lot of other documents in between each one.

Ms Cronk: Thank you.

Ms Pretty: I'm just looking for one person's name here that I didn't see. Yes, they're there.

Ms Cronk: Sorry, I didn't hear that.

Ms Pretty: They're all there.

Ms Cronk: Thank you. They all relate, do they not, to alleged infractions of the Corporations Act in one or more ways?

Ms Pretty: They were all basically infractions of the Corporations Act, section 304(4), which deals with free access of information by corporation directors.

Ms Cronk: They all deal with alleged infractions of that section?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Okay. That's April 25th of 1994 that these are sworn?

Ms Pretty: Yes, that's when the crown approved the charges.

Ms Cronk: All right, and that's when you formally swore the information?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Also, at the end of April 1994, did you learn that a response from the Minister of Housing to your letter of October 29th would be forthcoming?

Ms Pretty: Can you repeat that, please?

Ms Cronk: Okay. Did you also learn towards the end of April that you were going to receive a response from the minister to your outstanding letter of October 29th?

Ms Pretty: Learn that I was going to get a response from Evelyn?

Ms Cronk: Mm-hmm.

Ms Pretty: At that point, when I laid the charges?

Ms Cronk: Towards the end of April or the beginning of May. Did anyone call you to suggest that you were going to get a letter from her, or do you remember?

Ms Pretty: I'm having trouble with that one.

Ms Cronk: Okay, if I could help you or try to help you with that, let me ask you first: By the time you swore these informations, had you received a reply from the minister?

Ms Pretty: The only reply I got from Evelyn was on the 25th of April.

Ms Cronk: That's the same day as the charges were sworn. Could I ask you to take a look at tab 42 of volume 2 of exhibit 1?

Ms Pretty: Okay, is that volume 2?

Ms Cronk: Yes, it's exhibit 1, volume 2.

Ms Pretty: Tab?

Ms Cronk: Forty-two. There's a letter at this tab, Ms Pretty, addressed to you that appears to be from the minister, Evelyn Gigantes.

Ms Pretty: It should stand out in my mind but I guess there was so much happening that day, I just --

Ms Cronk: There's a great deal of paper here, Ms Pretty. I'm just trying to help you find it. Is this the response from the minister that you received?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: Now, the letter's dated April 25th, but did you receive it on that date or several days later?

Ms Pretty: I received it a few days later and I have the envelope with a postmark, but I don't have it with me at this moment.

Ms Cronk: That's all right. The only reason I'm asking you that is, my question to you is this: At the time that you swore the informations on April the 25th, had you received a reply?

Ms Pretty: I didn't, no. No, I didn't know about this letter at all until a few days later.

Ms Cronk: So it would appear to be simply coincidence that on the day you swore the informations, that's also the date of the minister's reply.

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: The other question that I'd asked you was, were you contacted by anyone from the minister's office, before actually getting her letter, to tell you that you were going to get one?

Ms Pretty: I don't think so. I got a call from her staff in Toronto, Karen Ridley, asking if I had received her letter. When was that?

Ms Cronk: It's my information -- and I'll come back to this, Ms Pretty, because I'm actually still just trying to move through the chronology here -- that on or about May the third, 1994, you may have received a phone call from Karen Ridley of the minister's offices in Toronto in which it was suggested to you that a letter would be coming to you and that if you had any concerns about it, you should feel free to telephone her. Does that ring any bells?

Ms Pretty: Yes. I have the second of May.

Ms Cronk: Second of May?

Ms Pretty: Yes, that she called me, left a message. The 12th, I called her -- oh, no, wait a minute. Just a minute. Is that right? Yes, I called her and then that's when she asked me whether I had received the minister's letter.

Ms Cronk: Okay. Ms Pretty, just so that there's no misunderstanding between you and me, I'm less concerned about the exact date of these things. You don't have to worry about the exact date.

Ms Pretty: Oh, that's good.

1020

Ms Cronk: What I'm trying to have you identify for the committee are the key events that occurred. So if you're not comfortable with a particular date that I'm suggesting to you, please just tell me that. Don't worry about it not being exact. It's what --

Ms Pretty: There's just so much to remember.

Ms Cronk: I understand. It's what occurred that is important.

Mr McKinnon: If I just can assist, Ms Cronk, it seems that you were suggesting that she received a phone call before she received the letter --

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr McKinnon: -- and what the witness is saying is she received that phone call well after she received the letter confirming whether she'd received the letter.

Ms Cronk: Well, can I just clarify that, Mr McKinnon? Ms Pretty, if I could just make sure that I'm getting your evidence here on this, all right --

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: -- I was suggesting to you that on or about May 3, you got a call from Karen Ridley telling you that a letter would be coming and suggesting to you that if you had any concerns when you got it, you should feel free to call her. I thought you told me that your notes indicated that you got that call from her on May the second and that you then spoke with her on the 12th as well. Did I understand that right?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: So that on May the second, had you received the minister's reply letter yet or was that the first indication you had that you were going to get a letter?

Ms Pretty: I received it about three to four days after she mailed it, after it was mailed. I'd have to look at the postmark; it's in my notes.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 38 to see if this is it?

Mr McKinnon: Ms Cronk, again just to clarify this, you've indicated that on May -- I think my client's evidence was that on May second she received --

Ms Pretty: A message.

Ms Cronk: Excuse me, Ms Pretty. Let --

Mr McKinnon: -- a message that she should phone the minister's office. She didn't phone until May 12th, as I understand it.

Ms Cronk: That's not my understanding either of what the witness --

Mr McKinnon: There wasn't a conversation on May second.

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Mr McKinnon, if I could ask you to let me pursue it for just a moment or two and if you have some difficulty, then at that point you can raise the matter with the Chair. That is not what I understand the witness has said nor is it my information. So if I could just pursue this for a moment and then I invite you to raise whatever concern you may then have.

Ms Pretty, could I ask you to look please at tab 38 of volume 2, exhibit 1? You got that?

Ms Pretty: From?

Ms Cronk: Sorry. It's tab 38, volume 1. This is what some people refer to as a typed e-mail message between two individuals. That's at the top of the page, but at the bottom of the page there are some handwritten notes. Have we got the right document together?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And you'll see at the top of the handwritten notes, there's an entry there saying, "May 3/94." Do you see that?

Ms Pretty: "May 3." Yes.

Ms Cronk: It's my information, Ms Pretty, that these are handwritten notes by Karen Ridley. That entry appears to read as follows: "Called S. Pretty's office...if any concerns after receiving letter please call me."

Ms Pretty: That's right, but --

Ms Cronk: Did you get a message of that kind from Ms Ridley on or about that time, or does this help you recall that at all?

Ms Pretty: She just said, "If you have any other concerns, please call me." That's all.

Ms Cronk: That's fine. All right.

Ms Pretty: I don't remember anything about a letter.

Ms Cronk: I see. All right. You do remember getting the message, but you don't remember being told about the letter.

Ms Pretty: I got the message, but she said something about, "If you have any other concerns, please call me." That's why I took until the 12th before I called her back. I wondered why she called me.

Ms Cronk: And then looking at the balance of the note, and I'm going to come back because I have some specific questions for you about this, but just looking at that note, it seems to suggest that you did call Karen Ridley on May the 12th, that you were not happy and that you then had a discussion with her, and we'll come back later to what that discussion was about.

The Chair: Ms Cronk, I have a question here by Mrs Marland.

Mrs Marland: Ms Cronk, when you direct us to a tab as part of the evidence that you're leading, is it in order for me to ask you, as in the case of tab 42, where there are at least three copies of the same letter --

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): They're not the same. They have different stuff at the bottom.

Mrs Marland: Excuse me, Mr Harnick. Is it in order for me to ask you why the three copies are not the same nor the font is the same? The only reason I ask this is that under tab 38 -- pardon me, it's tab 42 in exhibit 1, volume 2, the letter from Ms Gigantes. It seems to me that the same letter appears in at least three different formats on three different fonts, and some of them are copied to Bill Clement. I'm just wondering why in our binders we have three copies of the same letter and why they are in three different formats.

Ms Cronk: May I respond, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Ms Marland, I'm of course not in a position to give you any evidence in the sense of an explanation for it, but as counsel of the committee, I can tell you why you have many copies of some of these documents.

Mrs Marland: Okay.

Ms Cronk: Where we as your counsel received a copy of a particular document from a number of sources, and it appeared to us to be different for any reason, whether one copy had a date stamp on it that another didn't or the font was different from another, then we gave you all the copies.

With individuals who may have personal knowledge about the matter, if the distinction is in my mind material or in Mr Hourigan's, I will be asking about that.

Mrs Marland: So what you're saying is it would be up to us to ask the authors of the letters why there are so many different editions of the same letter.

Ms Cronk: For example, Ms Marland, under some of these tabs you have duplicate copies, because one shows that a copy of the letter went to so-and-so where the original doesn't, or a copy of the original doesn't but a copy of a blind copy is there. So you may have a duplicate because it establishes that someone received it or establishes a date upon which it was received or it was simply different and I don't know why.

Mrs Marland: Thank you for clearing that up.

Ms Cronk: Could I just get the answer to the question I was asking, though, before we take a break?

The Chair: Okay.

Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, Ms Pretty. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to ask you exactly the way I said it so let me try again. Looking at this handwritten note of Ms Ridley's and leaving aside what it says, because I am going to come back to that, do you now recall having a discussion with her on or about May the 12th, 1994, as this note would appear to suggest?

Ms Pretty: Yes. I called her.

Ms Cronk: In fairness to Mr McKinnon, so that there's no difficulty -- I'd never like to have a difficulty with Mr McKinnon about any matter, let alone this -- as I understand where you are then in terms of what you've said in evidence to the committee, you do remember getting a message from Ms Ridley on May the third. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Well, I have the second, but it's in around --

Ms Cronk: On May the second or May the third?

Ms Pretty: Yeah.

Ms Cronk: Do you remember speaking to her or simply getting a message?

Ms Pretty: It was a message on my machine.

Ms Cronk: And you don't remember any part of that message suggesting to you that you were about to get a letter from the minister, but you do remember the message saying if you had any concerns you were to call her?

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: Can we go this far as well, on May the 12th, you did that because you did have some concerns and you spoke to her?

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: Thank you.

Mr Harnick: Excuse me.

The Chair: Yes, Mr Harnick.

Mr Harnick: You have read on exhibit number 38 the entry opposite "May 3/94 - called S. Pretty's office.... If any concerns after receiving letter please call me." There's something else written there, at least on the copy that I have. I wonder first of all if you can tell me what that is.

Ms Cronk: I'm not sure I know where you are, Mr Harnick.

Mr Harnick: On exhibit 38.

Ms Cronk: Sorry, no. Where on the document is there something else written? Are you referring to the balance of the note that I haven't read?

Mr Harnick: It says "L.M." Does that mean "Left message"?

Ms Cronk: Oh, I see. Thank you very much.

Mr Harnick: "Called S. Pretty's office. Left message. If any concerns...." There's no indication based on that entry that that was received directly or that that call went directly to Sharron Pretty.

Ms Cronk: Can we put that question to you, Ms Pretty, because of course I don't know the answer and I can't help that and I thank you for the indication.

Mr Harnick: Okay. You see, she seems confused, quite frankly, about the sequence of events and whether a call was received, and now it appears that there was a message that was left.

Ms Cronk: Excuse me, if I could just pursue this with the witness so that we have her evidence.

Mr Harnick: Okay.

Ms Cronk: I'm grateful for the point. If those initials are "L.M.," and I don't know that they are but Mr Harnick is putting a certainly legitimate interpretation on the initials that appear there, can you help us at all as to what you actually remember, whether you got a message or whether you spoke with her?

Ms Pretty: I remember getting a message.

Ms Cronk: All right, you remember getting a message.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: You don't remember speaking with her?

Ms Pretty: I spoke with her on the 12th.

Ms Cronk: On the 12th, okay.

Mr Harnick: Now, that's my next question, and I apologize for intervening again, but when I look at the handwriting from the "May 3/94" and the "May 12/94," there is a consistency in the way the date is written down in each case. But if you take a look at the handwriting for the balance of the message, it does not appear to be at all the same as the message on May the third. I don't know whether anything turns on it.

Ms Cronk: Mr Harnick, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on your interpretation of handwriting. I understand the point that you're raising. All I can obtain for you and for the other committee members from this witness is her recollection, and I understand her to be saying that in her own notes, she had an indication on May the second, a message from Ms Ridley. My only point was that there was contact from the ministry's office before she got the response letter. Beyond that, we'll have to pursue it with other witnesses.

Mr Harnick: The other thing that I want to know, if you can tell me, is there appears to be at the bottom of that page on the right-hand side in a little box, two initials.

Ms Cronk: I should clarify that, and I'm very grateful for you pointing it out. Where you see initials in a little box like that, it was put on by our offices to identify the file from which we obtained the document.

Mr Harnick: Okay.

Ms Cronk: Right?

Mr Harnick: All right.

The Chair: We'd like to call a 10-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 1032 to 1056.

The Chair: Okay, resume our hearing here, and I'll hand it back over to Ms Cronk.

Ms Cronk: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Ms Pretty, just to clarify a little bit further the timing of your receipt of the minister's letter of April 25th, you were good enough over the break to provide me with an envelope addressed to you from the Ministry of Housing. Is this the envelope in which you received the minister's response letter?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And could you just confirm for me that there is a mailing date stamp on that of April 26th?

Ms Pretty: That's right. It's April 26th.

Ms Cronk: On your copy of the minister's letter, did you make a notation of the date you received it?

Ms Pretty: Yes, the 28th.

Ms Cronk: Of April?

Ms Pretty: Of April.

Ms Cronk: Thank you. Now, we were discussing the events of May 1994. What I propose to do, Ms Pretty, is to simply move through a couple of key dates with you at this point, and then I want to come back and discuss with you, obviously, the events of June in more detail. All right?

Just with the balance of the month of May, as I understand it, apart from the discussions that you had with the minister's office through Karen Ridley on May the 12th, you also -- did you also, during the month of May, have contact with representatives of the opposition parties?

Ms Pretty: I didn't, no.

Ms Cronk: To your knowledge, did Trinh Luu?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And were you aware of the contacts that she was having during that month?

Ms Pretty: Yes, she kept me informed on what she was doing.

Ms Cronk: The committee has heard evidence that on May 25th, 1994, Ms Luu travelled to Toronto and met with a Mora Thompson. Did you attend that meeting?

Ms Pretty: No, I didn't.

Ms Cronk: Were you aware that Ms Luu was coming to Toronto for that purpose?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And had you discussed the matter with her before she came to Toronto to meet with Ms Thompson?

Ms Pretty: Yes. Actually, I considered going myself, but I couldn't because of another obligation.

Ms Cronk: During the month of April 1994, did anyone from the minister's office or the Ministry of Housing contact you with reference to a possible meeting with the minister?

Ms Pretty: I called Sue Lott, who is Evelyn's staff, and I wanted to find out whether there was going to be a meeting or not; also why I hadn't -- no, forget that. I told her that I was going to go to the media if I didn't get some kind of action, to Sue Lott.

Ms Cronk: When do you recall that discussion taking place?

Ms Pretty: The 19th.

Ms Cronk: Of what month?

Ms Pretty: The 19th of May.

Ms Cronk: Okay. Could I just back you up for a month, then?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Leave May aside just for a moment. During the month of April 1994, do you remember being contacted by any representative of the minister's office or the Ministry of Housing about the possibility of a meeting being arranged with the minister?

Ms Pretty: I got Evelyn's letter on the 25th and I don't believe that she said anything about a meeting.

Ms Cronk: Okay. You have no recollection, then, of that kind of a contact during the month of April?

Ms Pretty: Mm --

Ms Cronk: I'm not suggesting that there was.

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: I'm just trying to clarify whether you recall anything.

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: And then during the month of May, you were starting to indicate that you spoke with Sue Lott of the minister's constituency office?

Ms Pretty: Yeah. It was on the 19th.

Ms Cronk: Okay. I'll come back to that discussion, but did the subject of a possible meeting with the minister come up at that time?

Ms Pretty: Well, Karen Ridley, on the 12th, when I spoke with her, had mentioned that she would try and set up a meeting with the minister. I was waiting for Sue Lott to get back to me, and she never did, so I called her on the 19th and I asked her what was happening about the meeting and she said that, "Oh, the minister can't meet with you because some of these matters are in court and she can't deal with things that are in court." So that was when I sort of gave up and I figured, "Well, there's no point in dealing with the ministry at all," and that's when I started thinking, "Well, the media's the only thing left."

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Ms Cronk, sorry, I just thought I heard the witness make reference to Karen Ridley. I'm sorry, but I need to be reminded who that is again.

Ms Pretty: She's Evelyn's staff in Toronto.

Mr Murphy: Within the ministry, or political staff? Do we know?

Ms Cronk: Do you have any knowledge as to whether she's with the minister's office in Toronto or whether she's connected with the Ministry of Housing?

Ms Pretty: I think she's with Evelyn's office.

Ms Cronk: Just to assist you, Mr Murphy, if you look at exhibit 3, which I don't have in front of me, my recollection is that that's the schedule of involved persons. Subject to confirmation from later witnesses, it's my understanding that Karen Ridley is the executive assistant to the parliamentary assistant of the Minister of Housing in Toronto.

Mr Murphy: Thank you.

Ms Cronk: You're welcome. We'll come back to that discussion of May 19th, Ms Pretty, but could we stop here for a moment and may I go back and just ask you a couple of general questions about all of this time frame that we've been speaking about from August of 1993, when you came on the board, up until May, when you were having these discussions with Ms Ridley and then with Ms Lott? So can I just back up and ask you a couple of questions?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: All right. When you first came on the board of the Van Lang Centre on August the fifth, 1993, did you have any understanding at that point, yourself, as to how the board had or had not been functioning?

Ms Pretty: Not much, no. Um, I knew that there were a few problems, but I didn't know to what depth those problems went.

Ms Cronk: Had Ms Trinh Luu discussed with you, before you went on the board in August of 1993, the concerns that she had about the board?

Ms Pretty: To some extent, yes.

Ms Cronk: And over the course of the preceding year, the year that Ms Luu was working there at the centre, had you come to be friends with her?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And did that continue during the course of the fall of 1993, although she had left and gone to law school?

Ms Pretty: Yeah, we're still friends now.

Ms Cronk: Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were not. I suppose the real purpose of the question is, were you in continuing close contact with her throughout the fall of 1993?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And was that also true during the winter and spring of 1994?

Ms Pretty: Yes. I've needed her help in being able to find information so that I could contribute something to the Van Lang Centre, because I was denied access so much and there were important decisions being made at each meeting and I wasn't able to corroborate the information that I was given in order to make an informed decision. So I needed her. I needed her experience and her memory.

Ms Cronk: And her memory?

Ms Pretty: Yeah, her memory of events that, you know, pertained to the different things that I needed to know about.

Ms Cronk: And did she provide you with information and advice on those issues when you sought it over those many months?

Ms Pretty: Yes, she did.

Ms Cronk: And did there come a point in time when it might be fairly suggested that you and she were working as a team with respect to matters relating to the Van Lang Centre?

Ms Pretty: Oh, yes.

Ms Cronk: And was that --

Mr Callahan: Excuse me. I wonder if the witness could move that microphone up just a bit. I'm having trouble hearing her.

Ms Pretty: Sorry.

Mr Callahan: Thank you.

Ms Pretty: I'll try and crouch forward for you.

Ms Cronk: When would you say that really began, looking back in your own mind?

Ms Pretty: Well, I'd say when the attempts to remove me from the board started, and Trinh was pretty upset because she knew that something wasn't right in the way that they were proceeding with that. We went to seek legal counsel and they still weren't able to spot the loophole. I was able to figure out how I could stay on the board and refused to step down. That's basically when she and I started to team up and do things together.

Ms Cronk: That, I think you indicated, was in approximately November of 1993.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Would it be fair of me to suggest that, as that relationship developed between Trinh Luu and yourself, information that she had relating to the centre and information that you had relating to the centre was shared between you?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it's true.

Ms Cronk: Would it also be fair of me to suggest that throughout that entire fall of 1993 and really all of 1994 to date, her concerns with respect to the Van Lang Centre became yours and your concerns became hers?

Ms Pretty: Of course.

Ms Cronk: With respect to Dr Can Le, when you came on the board in August 1993, did you know him well?

Ms Pretty: I had had a few encounters with him in the activities in the building and I thought he was a really nice person. I didn't have any problems at all with him.

Ms Cronk: How would you describe your relationship with him in the first few months after you came on to the board?

Ms Pretty: It wasn't too bad really, you know. I became disillusioned quite quickly in the picture. I became a board director on the fifth of August. There was an incident that happened that day that sort of set the tone for the rest of the year, I think. But it was the way the board handled it and the way the superintendent handled it that told me that I wasn't important to the board, that what I said wasn't important to the board. I was a token Canadian.

Ms Cronk: By that, I take it you mean a token non-Vietnamese representative.

Ms Pretty: That's right. I've realized that I was given the power or the title of vice-president of the board just to look good to the Ministry of Housing, because when I tried to contribute in a productive way, I was squashed.

Ms Cronk: Is that how you felt about it?

Ms Pretty: Yes. I wasn't able to give anything to the board. I couldn't contribute anything. My remarks were not recorded, concerns were not recorded. Really strong concerns, like about safety or about disputes or anything like that, weren't addressed. My own letters to the board president were not acknowledged or replied to regarding internal regulations and things like that. I just realized after a while that I was just supposed to sit there and not say anything.

Ms Cronk: When you did go on to the board in August and during those early times on the board, did you see it as part of your purpose to carry on and monitor the concerns or issues that Trinh Luu had identified?

Ms Pretty: Yes. I felt that Trinh made a good point that there was no voice for the non-Vietnamese tenants in the building and that there were some really big problems with whether or not the information that people were getting was true or whether they were getting information that they required. At my very second meeting, the board voted on two extremely important issues and they were misinformed by Can Le on both counts. I based my decisions on information given by him, our board secretary, and those decisions turned out to be -- they placed me in a vulnerable situation. Then I found out after that we had no liability. So it was one thing after the other. It was a complete fiasco.

1110

Ms Cronk: Looking at the time frame with that in mind, you've confirmed to the committee that your first letter to the minister was written on October 29th. That's three months after you came on the board.

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: That letter, again leaving aside what the actual issues were, leaving aside the details of that, sets out a very lengthy list of concerns on your part, does it not?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Would it be fair of me to suggest then that by that time, that is within the first three months of being on the board, you had developed, based on information provided to you by Trinh Luu and your own experience on the board, some concerns about the Van Lang Centre which you regarded as very serious?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And could we move forward then to the latter part of 1993 and the board meetings into the early winter and spring of 1994. Did you at a certain point in time begin to tape those meetings?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I had to.

Ms Cronk: Why did you have to?

Ms Pretty: Because I was receiving board minutes as a director that -- first of all, I should've received, or all of us should've received, board minutes within a certain amount of time after the meeting, but we weren't given our minutes until maybe two or three days before the next meeting, so I didn't have time to review those minutes. But I started to make time, and I'd read the minutes and I'd say, "That didn't happen," or "This should be in there; why wasn't this recorded?" "This is false." And I distrusted the secretary, the way he was writing down the minutes.

I knew that I had to find a way to get an accurate record of what was actually happening and what was being said, because every time I tried to clarify something with, say, the board president or the secretary himself, they'd twist all their words around. Then after a while, you start to wonder, "Am I going crazy?" So the only way you can deal with it is to tape it.

Ms Cronk: Do you recall when you began to do that, approximately?

Ms Pretty: I believe -- was it January, in around?

Ms Cronk: I don't know. Did you tape a number --

Ms Pretty: December. Oh, December, I taped Brian Sutherland's visit on December 30th, and I believe I was taping before that, so it's probably November I started.

Ms Cronk: And did you do so with the knowledge of the other directors?

Ms Pretty: Yes. It was right there in front of them.

Ms Cronk: Was that in itself a source of some irritation --

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: -- and controversy at the board, the fact that you were doing so?

Ms Pretty: They didn't like it, of course.

Ms Cronk: And in the spring of 1994 -- let's just talk about the period March, April, May 1994. You've already outlined for the committee that you had a number of discussions with representatives either of the minister's constituency office or with representatives of her staff in Toronto, at a variety of times. Am I right so far during that period?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And did you tape a number of those telephone discussions?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: Did you do so with the knowledge of the person with whom you were speaking?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Did you ever tell any of them they were being taped?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Why not?

Ms Pretty: Well, I never intended to use those tapes for anything other than just to help my own memory, and to make sure that I was accurate in my own statements and my own correspondence.

Ms Cronk: And did you subsequently prepare, yourself, transcripts of a number of those tapes?

Ms Pretty: I never prepared any transcripts. I didn't have the time. I was teaching, and I was also ill quite a lot through the winter due to a lot of stress. So Trinh helped me, and she did all the transcript recording.

Ms Cronk: Ms Luu did.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: All right. Also during that same period -- that is, in the spring of 1994, the months of March, April and May -- did you throughout that period on a number of occasions suggest either to representatives of the minister's constituency office or her office in Toronto that if your concerns were not expressed, you would have to go to the media or that you would take the matter public?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And had you at earlier points in time suggested that as well?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: You indicated -- I think it was before we took our break -- that in your discussion with Sue Lott on May 19th, you really concluded after that discussion, would it be fair of me to say, that you were unlikely to get the response that you wanted from the minister's office?

Ms Pretty: I realized I was beating a dead horse.

Ms Cronk: Was it at that point, around May 19th, that you determined to go to the media about these issues and to take the matter public?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And then on June first, 1994, the committee has heard and has before it a copy of an article under a James Wallace's byline which appeared in the press raising certain matters relating to the Van Lang Centre. Could I ask you to look at volume 2 of exhibit 1?

Ms Pretty: I have the article right in front of me.

Ms Cronk: Oh, good; I don't. Volume 2, exhibit 1, at tabs 53 and 54. Did you see these articles at about the time of their publication, around June first?

Ms Pretty: Oh, yes.

Ms Cronk: Had you spoken with James Wallace yourself, Ms Pretty, before these articles appeared in the press?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And did you provide him the information contained in the articles of June 1st attributed or ascribed to you?

Ms Pretty: Well, there are some quotations by me. It was a telephone interview.

Ms Cronk: When did that interview take place?

Ms Pretty: I believe it would have been -- sorry, I'm starting to get a little tired.

Ms Cronk: Do you remember whether it was days before the articles or very close to the time that the articles appeared in the press?

Ms Pretty: It wasn't very long after.

Ms Cronk: And did you contact Mr Wallace initially or did he contact you?

Ms Pretty: He contacted me, and when he did he told me that he had received information from within the Ministry of Housing, and they had suggested that an anonymous -- let me clarify that. It was an anonymous envelope that he had received from someone within the Ministry of Housing, providing him with all kinds of information about my correspondence and Trinh's and lots of things regarding the Van Lang Centre, and he said that the person had recommended that he call me.

Ms Cronk: Had you, prior to that call from Mr Wallace, yourself provided any information to him?

Ms Pretty: I never --

Ms Cronk: Before he called you?

Ms Pretty: No. I didn't even know him.

Ms Cronk: Could I back you up then, and ask you again to think about your discussion with Ms Ridley on May 12th? Could I ask you to turn to tab 38 again, which we were --

Ms Pretty: Of volume --

Ms Cronk: Same volume. Volume 2 of exhibit 1, tab 38. I'd like to talk to you about the discussion which took place on May the 12th with Ms Ridley. First, did you call her or did she call you at that point?

Ms Pretty: Are you speaking about May the third or May the second?

Ms Cronk: No, May the 12th.

Ms Pretty: Oh, 12th. I called her.

Ms Cronk: Okay. And was that in reply to the message that you believe you'd received?

Ms Pretty: That I know I received.

Ms Cronk: Thank you. All right. So you called her, and during the course of that discussion, what did you discuss with her?

Ms Pretty: Basically, I told her that -- she had said something about having a meeting with Evelyn. I told her that things had gone to the court, that it was pretty useless for Evelyn to have a meeting with me now because it was gone past the point. She said: "Well, I think if I were you, I would reconsider jumping the gun here. Maybe we can arrange a meeting. Can you hold on and I'll call you right back?" So she contacted Sue Lott. I'm assuming it was Sue Lott she spoke to. She phoned someone in Toronto at Evelyn's constituency office. She called me back within 10 minutes. That was the fastest reply I ever got back from the ministry. She said to me that Sue Lott would be calling me in the near future to arrange a meeting with the minister.

1120

Mr Callahan: Excuse me, can I ask, who was she talking to?

Ms Cronk: Karen Ridley. During that first telephone discussion, Ms Pretty, what specifically do you remember telling Ms Ridley about it being too late for a meeting?

Ms Pretty: I told her that the crown was pressing charges against some of the board members for illegal denial of free access of information.

Ms Cronk: Did you mention a court date to her?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I believe I told her June the second.

Ms Cronk: Looking at the notes which appear at tab 38, if I could just read a portion of them to you, beside the date May 12, 1994, they appear to read as follows, "Sharron called, not happy, said I would talk to ministry staff and get back to her." Does that in part reflect what occurred during your first telephone conversation with Ms Ridley?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Then they go on, "Called Sue at CO" -- I take that to be constituency office.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: "She will talk to Evelyn to see about setting up a meeting with Sharron, MOH staff and" -- it's either "her" or "how" -- "soon." I recognize that doesn't deal with the discussion that you were having with Ms Ridley. Then the next entry reads: "Called Sharron to say Sue would be in touch soon. She feels it's too late. Going to court June 2. Illegal refusal to hand over" -- and I'm sorry, I can't read the next word -- "documents."

Mr David Winninger (London South): "Agency."

Ms Cronk: Agency? Thank you: "agency documents. Said I would relay this to Sue." Stopping there, is that a fair representation of part of your second discussion with Ms Ridley?

Ms Pretty: Of course it is.

Ms Cronk: Is it your specific recollection that you told her that the crown was pressing charges against some board members?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Because of course that isn't in this note. It doesn't mean it didn't happen, but --

Ms Pretty: No, but I'd been very specific that it wasn't a civil suit, that it was a crown case, so I've always used that term.

Ms Cronk: Did you tell her that you had sworn a number of informations in that regard?

Ms Pretty: I don't know how much detail I went into with her at that time.

Ms Cronk: Did you mention to her the possibility of going to the media?

Ms Pretty: Yes. I think at that point I told her I only had a couple of options: one was legal action and one was the media, because the ministry had not responded and I felt as if there was really no hope in dealing with the ministry. I'd already given them a year and I'd received nothing, so those were my only two options left to me.

Ms Cronk: Based on the second discussion you had with Ms Ridley, what did you understand was going to happen, if anything?

Ms Pretty: I told her basically that it was no use: "I don't see any point in having a meeting." She was pressing me to have a meeting with Evelyn, and I was saying: "There's really no point. It's gone too far. It's in the courts now." She said, "Well, just hang on. Reconsider this. Maybe we can set something up." That's basically what the conversation consisted of.

Ms Cronk: Based on that part of the discussion you had with her, was it suggested to you that, as the note I read to you indicates, someone would be back to you?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Did you know at that point, based on anything said in the telephone discussion, whether the minister's offices had already been aware of the charges?

Ms Pretty: It was June 10th that Trinh Luu went to see Evelyn, and that's when the information was given to her. Before that, other than what I may have said in telephone conversations, I don't think so.

Ms Cronk: Well, when you told Ms Ridley that from your perspective it was too late for a meeting, that matters had gone beyond that, and told her that the matter was going to court on June second, did she make any comment or express any surprise at that information in any way?

Ms Pretty: There was dead silence. She just didn't say anything for about 10 seconds.

Ms Cronk: Did she indicate to you whether she knew that or make any comment that suggested to you what her knowledge of it was?

Ms Pretty: She made no comment on it. She just said, "Let's," you know, "try and have a meeting."

Ms Cronk: And after that conversation with Ms Ridley, did you in fact hear from Ms Lott or anyone else at the minister's constituency office?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Did you follow up on the matter yourself?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: When was that?

Ms Pretty: I called Sue Lott on -- let me see -- the 19th. No. It couldn't be the 19th.

Ms Cronk: If I could help you with that --

Ms Pretty: Please do.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to turn to tab 48, of the same volume? We should be in volume 2 of exhibit 1, tab 48. Do you have that?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Okay. This appears to be a telephone slip, a photocopy of the front and the back of one of those little telephone slips you get when a call comes in, Ms Pretty, and it appears to be addressed to Sue. It's dated the 19th of May, and it's a message from you, Sharron Pretty. Do you see that?

Ms Pretty: Yes, 19th of May. I knew it was 19th of something.

Ms Cronk: Does that help you recall when you spoke to Ms Lott?

Ms Pretty: Yes, 19th of May.

Ms Cronk: All right. Did I hear you say you called her?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: And why were you calling her?

Ms Pretty: They'd said they were going to set up a meeting. Why hadn't they called me about a meeting?

Ms Cronk: Well, based on your discussion with Ms Ridley, as I understood what you said, you'd indicated that you felt matters had really gone beyond the point of a meeting. Did you expect a meeting?

Ms Pretty: No, but I expected somebody to get back to me and confirm, either yes or no, to a meeting.

Ms Cronk: Had you yourself rethought the matter and were you then considering a meeting?

Ms Pretty: I wanted to give Evelyn all the evidence I had gathered over the last year. I have been waiting since October the 29th for her to reply to me, to my concerns. I think I've jumped through hoops to try and get the ministry to respond to me and to acknowledge the problems at Van Lang as being serious. When Karen said to me that maybe we could set up a meeting, I thought: "Oh, good. Finally I'll get a chance to speak to Evelyn, show her what I have here, and then we'll go from there."

Ms Cronk: So that I understand, in your discussion with Ms Ridley on May the 12th, you've told the committee that you expressed the view that matters had really gone beyond a meeting, that it was going to court, you mentioned the date, and you gave Ms Ridley some information about the nature of the charges. Right?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: And you indicated that she was, I think you said, pressuring you to reconsider or suggesting you reconsider.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

1130

Ms Cronk: And by the time you called Ms Lott on May 19th, had your view changed? Did you now think that there was some purpose in meeting?

Ms Pretty: Well, I had new concerns. They were trying to remove me off the board; the compliance review was in question. There were a lot of things that I wanted to speak to the minister about if it was possible, and they never got back to me and told me whether it was a conflict for her to speak with me, and so I wanted to find out whether I could speak with her. Why not?

Ms Cronk: And what occurred during your discussion with Ms Lott?

Ms Pretty: Ms Lott basically very briskly said: "I'm sorry, but the minister can't see you because this is in court, some of these matters are in court. It's a conflict for her to see you."

Ms Cronk: Did she use those words?

Ms Pretty: She didn't use the word "conflict." She just said it would be very difficult or something.

Ms Cronk: This telephone slip, Ms Pretty, just to read what appears to be on the front of it -- there's an arrow to the right and it says, "Marc getting compliance report." Then there's a telephone number and then there's a date, June 2, and on the right there's an arrow saying "Brd," which I take to be --

Ms Pretty: Board.

Ms Cronk: -- board, "has gone against," and then the words "Corporations Act" appear. Do you see that?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Just stopping there for a moment, did you tell Ms Lott during that discussion, or did she appear to know, of the charges that were then pending?

Ms Pretty: I'm pretty sure that I told her the details of the court case.

Ms Cronk: And then, looking at the next page, there's a photocopy of the back, I understand, of the telephone slip. There's an arrow on the left-hand side saying "crown attorney," and then an arrow at the top and the words appear to be, "It had gone further than having" -- and the word "having" seems to be crossed out and then "a" and then there's an arrow -- "past the point of a meeting being -- "

Mr Callahan: Could I just ask -- there seems to be also an obliteration. It seems there "having" and then "a" and then there seems to be what appears to be some scuffing on the paper. Do we know what that is or whether that was a word taken out or whether --

Ms Cronk: You'll be hearing from Ms Lott, and I hope at that time to have the original available for you. I don't have it here this morning. I can also say that that may simply be the photocopy, Mr Callahan, so it could be one or the other. This witness, of course, can't tell you that.

Mr Callahan: Okay.

Ms Cronk: Just continuing with the reading: "It had gone further than having" -- and the word "having" is crossed out -- "a" -- then an arrow -- "past the point of a meeting being effective but that" -- and then there's an arrow -- "Karen Ridley told her she thought it was still important that a meeting occur."

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: All right. When you say, "That's right," did Karen really tell you that?

Ms Pretty: Yes, she did.

Ms Cronk: And is this an accurate recording of some of the remarks that you made to Ms Lott during the discussion?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I'd say so, from my memory.

Ms Cronk: Was this one of the discussions, Ms Pretty, that you taped?

Ms Pretty: I think so. We did tape that one.

Ms Cronk: Did you tell Ms Lott that that telephone discussion was being taped?

Ms Pretty: No, I didn't tell anyone I was taping their conversations.

Ms Cronk: I'm going to show you, through Mr Hourigan, a copy of a transcript of what I understand to be the tape in existence of the conversation between yourself and Ms Lott on May 19th, 1994.

Mr Callahan: Could we get a copy of that?

Ms Cronk: Yes, sir. Once I have it identified, if it is identified, I propose to distribute it.

Can you tell me, is that the transcript of the tape?

Ms Pretty: It looks like it, yes. It looks familiar.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask, Mr Chair, that this be received by the committee as the next exhibit, please? I think that's exhibit 5.

Ms Pretty, for your information and so that the committee is clear, this is a transcript prepared by our offices of an audiotape which we understand to be the tape of your discussion with Ms Lott on May 19th. Did you personally make the tape of that discussion?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: All right. And did you provide that tape to committee counsel during the course of your pre-evidence interview?

Ms Pretty: I gave all the tapes in my possession to the committee.

Ms Cronk: And have you had a chance to review this transcript?

Ms Pretty: No, not lately.

Ms Cronk: Did you review the transcript that Ms Luu prepared of this discussion?

Ms Pretty: Many moons ago.

Ms Cronk: All right. I'm sorry, I thought you had had a chance, brief though it might be, to review this transcript. I'm going to ask you if you would do so over the luncheon break, when we break, and inform me whether it is, as far as you're concerned, an accurate rendition of what was discussed in the telephone call. But at this point I'd like to draw your attention to some specific passages in the transcript.

Mr Harnick: Excuse me. Just so we're not confused, before we go any further, on exhibit number 48 --

Ms Cronk: Tab 48?

Mr Harnick: Tab 48. This is a slip purporting to be a message to Sue from Sharron. Am I correct?

Ms Cronk: I've suggested to the witness, and I understand the witness to have -- she's looked at a telephone slip which I suggested was a message to Sue Lott from Sharron Pretty.

Mr Harnick: Do we know who wrote this all down? I mean, has that been identified?

Ms Cronk: All I can do, Mr Harnick -- and I recognize the need for the committee to be clear about the evidence as it comes in, but you'll also appreciate the position that I'm in.

Mr Harnick: Oh, I understand.

Ms Cronk: All I can tell you is that I anticipate that you'll hear evidence that this handwriting is by Sue Lott, that in part that she was given a telephone slip and that some of the handwriting on the front and back of this is Sue Lott's. Beyond that, you'll have to hear from that witness.

Mr Harnick: All right. Just so I'm not confused then, when we take the next step and look at this transcript that you've now given us, it appears to be a phone call from Sue Lott to Sharron Pretty, but if we go about halfway down the phone, we have Sharron Pretty saying, "I was phoning because...last week I had some conversations with...." I'm lost in terms of the sequence.

Ms Cronk: If you can bear with me for a minute or two, I was going to try to clarify that.

Mr Harnick: Okay.

Mr Callahan: Just before you go on, can you tell us who [information deleted] is? Is that Ms Pretty's telephone number?

Ms Cronk: Ms Pretty, can --

Ms Pretty: That's my number. That's my phone number.

Mr Callahan: That's your phone number.

Interjection: Which she'll now have to change.

Interjections.

Ms Pretty: Just charge it to the committee.

Ms Cronk: I'm not going to make any comment about that at all, Ms Pretty.

Just dealing with the transcript, and we could deal with the point first that Mr Harnick is raising, what he is suggesting and what I am now suggesting to you is that it looks from this transcript as if the call came in in the first instance to you from Ms Lott. Would you agree that that's what the transcript suggests, just by the first entry?

Ms Pretty: That's the one with the little drawings on the top corners, right?

Ms Cronk: Sorry, I'm actually looking at the transcript now, not the telephone slip. Could you just look at the transcript with me?

Ms Pretty: All right.

Ms Cronk: And it appears that you received a telephone call from Ms Lott.

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: And if you carry on on the first page --

Ms Pretty: Sorry, can I clarify something?

Ms Cronk: Yes.

Ms Pretty: The reason why it appears as if she called me is because I phoned, she was busy on the phone, I left a message, and she got back to me about half an hour later.

Ms Cronk: Thank you very much. Does that help?

Mr Harnick: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Then could I ask you to go, if you would, please, to page 2. With reference to this page of the transcript, does it indicate that in fact you did tell Ms Lott that the matter was going to court and that the crown was pressing charges against the board members?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: All right. And does it go on to indicate a question by Ms Lott as to whether that had already commenced, and a reply by you at the bottom of the page that everything was "ready and waiting. It's supposed to happen on June the second as a first hearing."

Ms Pretty: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: All right. And is that portion of the transcript, as you now recall the discussion, an accurate representation of what was said?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it is.

1140

Ms Cronk: And if you could look at page 3 of the transcript, beginning at the top of the page, the conversation appears to be as follows:

"L" for Ms Lott: "That has been, you've got a hearing date. Is that right?

"Pretty: Mm mm. Yup." Sorry, I don't say that very well.

"L" Ms Lott: "Okay. Well then, if you're in, in, in the process of a legal action, it would be very difficult for Evelyn to meet on this one."

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: You make no direct response. Then:

"L" Ms Lott: "That would put her in a, in a potentially difficult position...as the minister. So you're, did she make you aware of that?"

Now, stopping there for a moment, did Ms Lott make those comments to you in the conversation?

Ms Pretty: Yes, she did.

Ms Cronk: And she then asked you whether "she" -- I take that to mean Ms Ridley -- whether Ms Ridley had made you aware of that.

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Sorry, am I misreading that? She's talking to you about a discussion that you had had with Karen.

Ms Pretty: Yes, did Miss Ridley -- your question, I'm getting, is, did Karen Ridley make me aware of whether the minister would be in a potentially difficult position if we had a meeting?

Ms Cronk: And did she?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Okay. And was this the first time that you'd heard that, as the next line in the transcript suggests?

Ms Pretty: That's right. This was the first time I had heard of it.

Ms Cronk: Looking at the bottom of the page -- I'm sorry, the lines aren't numbered -- you appear to have said to Ms Lott: "I said to her," meaning Ms Ridley, "that I, uh, felt that it had gone further than, you know, just having a meeting with Evelyn. Evelyn had had plenty of time to have a meeting with me and with Trinh Luu before this and she hadn't. So, um, you know, it was...I felt it was past that point."

Ms Pretty: Right.

Ms Cronk: Do you recall saying that to Ms Lott?

Ms Pretty: Very clearly.

Ms Cronk: Then over on page 4, the first lengthy paragraph, a comment attributed to Ms Lott: "Okay, well as I said. I'm, uh, I'm not the final arbiter on this one. I have to get direction from her staff in Toronto. So I will get back to them. But the, uh, fact of the matter, I think the bottom line here though is, if there is in fact been legal action that's been commenced at this point, then that's going to make it very difficult to Ev, for Evelyn to have a meeting."

Stopping there, do you recall Ms Lott saying that to you?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: All right. Rather than going through this transcript line by line, because I am going to ask you to review it over the lunch-hour and come back and tell me whether in your view it's an accurate representation of what was said, based on your recollection of the discussion, the telephone slip that we've looked at, and this transcript and your own knowledge of the transcript that Ms Luu made of the discussion, did Ms Lott suggest to you during the course of this telephone conversation on more than one occasion that given the fact that there was a legal action in progress, it would be difficult or awkward for the minister to meet with you?

Ms Pretty: Yes, she did.

Ms Cronk: Was that the first time that you had had that suggested to you by anyone connected with the minister?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And did Ms Lott explain to you why she felt it would be awkward or put the minister in a difficult position to meet with you?

Ms Pretty: No, I didn't know anything about conflict of interest or anything like that.

Ms Cronk: Well, when you say "conflict of interest," at any time during that conversation was that mentioned?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: So that's an assumption on your part that that's what was in her mind, isn't it?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: So my question to you is, did she explain to you at all?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: And did she -- that is, Sue Lott -- indicate to you at any point during the conversation whether in fact a meeting could or would occur, or did she simply make the comments that it would place the minister in an awkward or difficult position? Did she say anything definitively about a meeting?

Ms Pretty: She said she'd -- I thought she said she'd get back to me. I haven't read through this, so I'm just going to have to try and tap my memory. But I was under the assumption that the ministry was going to get back to me and confirm whether or not I could have a meeting with Evelyn.

Ms Cronk: All right. Just to help you with that, looking at the top of page 6 of the transcript, Ms Lott, on the previous page, appears to have been saying to you that she's not in the position of providing legal advice to the Ministry of Housing and that it would put Evelyn Gigantes in a "potentially difficult position" to meet. Then, over on the top of page 6, the following appears. Quote: "Anyway, well I'll, that's the impression you carried away, is that you, there was going to be a meeting set up, so somebody will have to clarify that with you."

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: Then attributed to you the word "Yeah," then Ms Lott, "And I'll have to get her staff to talk to you."

Ms Pretty: I don't say "yeah" on the phone. I want to clarify that.

Ms Cronk: Based on your discussion with her, did you understand that someone was going to get back to you?

Ms Pretty: Definitely.

Ms Cronk: And did you have a further discussion with Ms Lott on that same day?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And is that dealt with in the second part of the transcript?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: Going over to page 7 of that transcript, this suggests that during the course of that second discussion with Ms Lott, you pointed out to her that the proceedings -- I'm sorry. I'm looking at the first lengthy paragraph on page 7 and the following comment attributed to you:

"And that is when you, when you said that, that, um, you know, Evelyn can't intervene at this point because it's gone to court and everything else. The thing that I should have thought of at the time to tell you, is that, uh, what has gone to court is, is problems that the board has, um, has gone against the Corporations Act. But we want to meet you and discuss, uh, problems with the compliance review, and uh, and uh the access issues, the core issues that we've always been trying to, to meet with Evelyn and discuss, and, and ah, you know, that's your responsibility."

Stopping there for a moment, did you say that to Ms Lott?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: And in the next paragraph the following response is attributed to Ms Lott:

"Yeah, but" -- and then there appears to be laughter on the tape -- "the, the fact of the matter is though, Sharron, when you're dealing with the provincial minister, and you're dealing with somebody who's launching a court action that involves the province of Ontario, that just creates a scenario that makes it very difficult for uh, provincial politician, ministers of the crown to get involved. It's not a question of, you know, we don't want to do it. It becomes a question of, uh, she might not be able to, to set up a meeting."

It's then suggested that you replied, "You don't know that for sure yet." Ms Lott: "I don't know that for sure. But that's what I am warning you about. And that's what I'm going to talk to her staff about."

Did that exchange occur between Ms Lott and yourself?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And over at the top of page 8. And does that appear to you to be an accurate rendition of what you recall of the discussion?

Ms Pretty: Yeah, without all the commas and the "uhs" and the --

Ms Cronk: Okay, and with respect to the suggestion of laughter on the tape, do you recall laughter on the tape?

Ms Pretty: Yes. I found it kind of inappropriate at the time for her to be laughing.

Ms Cronk: Well, was it a nervous laugh, or what kind of laugh? Or do you remember?

Ms Pretty: It just seemed like out of place, that's all. I don't know why she laughed. It was sort of like, um -- I guess at the time I felt as if maybe she didn't quite understand me or she wasn't really taking me seriously or she thought I wasn't understanding what she was saying to me, so she just sort of was reiterating or something.

Ms Cronk: Is it possible it was a nervous laugh?

Ms Pretty: It could be. I don't know. It's hard for me to say.

Ms Cronk: Over on the top of page 8, the following appears. You're speaking at this point: "Okay. Well I just wanted to clarify what the meeting, what..." And then Ms Lott: "It goes beyond at this point of being an issue of want and don't want. It's, it becomes an issue of what prevents the minister from doing it."

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: And then carrying on to the middle of the page, the following is attributed to Ms Lott, "But there's still there, it's still a perception of a minister meeting with a group of people that have launched a legal action...that involves the province of Ontario." Then you speaking: "Okay. Well..." Ms Lott, "Yes." Then you speaking, "When you find out the answer to that one, um, can you just let me know." Ms Lott: "Oh sure. Somebody will get back to you very, very definitely." And then yourself, "Okay," and then the conversation more or less concludes with a few sign-off remarks.

Do those portions of the transcript, based on your recollection of the discussion, appear to you to be an accurate rendition of what was said?

Ms Pretty: They are.

Ms Cronk: And did you, based on that discussion, understand that someone would be getting back to you with respect to the prospects of a meeting with the minister?

Ms Pretty: I trusted that they were going to get back to me.

Ms Cronk: Based on what she'd said, that was the indication?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And did you also understand, based on that discussion, that Ms Lott was telling you that it might put the minister in an awkward or a difficult position to meet with you, given the fact that a legal action, that court proceedings were pending?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And did you in fact receive over the course of the next several weeks a response from the minister's office?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: Do you recall who that was from, and when?

Ms Pretty: Um, I think maybe the 19th, um, April. Can you help me with that one?

Ms Cronk: Yeah. To assist you with that, the next discussion with the ministry of which I have any information that involved you is later, at the beginning of June, on or about June the second.

1150

Ms Pretty: Okay.

Ms Cronk: Do you remember, between the period May 19th and June the second, whether you were contacted by anyone from the minister's office as a result of your discussion with Ms Lott?

Ms Pretty: I called Sue Lott myself. I returned the call because they didn't call me back.

Ms Cronk: And do you remember when that was?

Ms Pretty: On the 19th of May.

Ms Cronk: Okay, and after that --

Mr Callahan: I'm sorry, what date?

Ms Cronk: On the 19th of May.

Just to make my question clear, after the 19th of May, after this discussion that you had with Ms Lott, did you hear back within the next couple of days from the minister's office?

Ms Pretty: I don't remember. I don't think so.

Ms Cronk: That's fine.

Ms Pretty: No, I didn't get a reply that I can think of.

Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, you didn't get a reply that you can think of?

Ms Pretty: That I can remember, you know.

Ms Cronk: All right. And then earlier this afternoon -- sorry, this morning -- we talked about a meeting that Trinh Luu had on May 25th with Mora Thompson, and you indicated to the committee that you had not attended that meeting, although you were aware of it and you'd considered going to it. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm, that's right.

Ms Cronk: All right. Could we have a copy of exhibit number 4 -- I think it's number 4 -- please, to show to the witness? Exhibit number 4 is the notes of Mora Thompson. Ms Pretty, the exhibit 4 before the committee is some handwritten notes that it has been suggested are the notes of a Mora Thompson, relating to her meeting with Trinh Luu on May 25th in Toronto. Could I ask you to look at page 3? They're numbered in the top right-hand corner. Do you have page 3?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Okay. The notes indicate, or at least contain an entry about two thirds of the way down the page, as follows: "Gave min" -- minister -- "a year to rectify situation before went to court." Do you see that?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm. Yes.

Ms Cronk: Now, you said a little bit earlier that as far as you were concerned, the ministry had had about a year to respond. Remember that?

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: And then the next entry in these notes reads, "If solved internally, charges can be withdrawn." Do you see that?

Ms Pretty: I see that.

Ms Cronk: All right. Prior to May 25th, prior to Ms Trinh Luu's meeting with Mora Thompson, had you and Ms Luu discussed the possibility of the charges being withdrawn if a satisfactory internal resolution could be reached?

Ms Pretty: I never wanted to withdraw those charges. Never.

Ms Cronk: The question I put to you, Ms Pretty, was, before May 25th, did you have a discussion with Ms Luu about the possibility of the charges being withdrawn if a satisfactory internal solution could be reached? Did you discuss it with her?

Ms Pretty: Of course, that would be an option. I can't specifically remember a particular conversation that we had about dropping charges, because I had already made up my mind that I was going to go through with this because the board contravened the Ontario Corporations Act, and I felt that it was important to set some kind of precedent and I was not going to drop those charges, regardless of who or what, you know, transpired after that.

Ms Cronk: Before you went into the meeting on June 17th with the minister, Ms Pretty, was it an option that you had at least identified in your own mind?

Ms Pretty: Of course it's an option, but it would be my last option.

Ms Cronk: Was it one that you had identified in your mind? Whatever priority you attached to it, had you identified it as an option in your mind?

Ms Pretty: Well, actually, I thought that it might be very difficult to drop the charges. Once I made the commitment to press charges or to lay evidence to the crown, I was prepared to go to the end with it. I felt that it would be ridiculous for me to at any point change my mind and say: "Oh, excuse me, I've changed my mind. Drop the charges." I just can't consider that. So it would be a very remote option, if anything at all.

Ms Cronk: All right. But before you went into the meeting of June 17th with the minister -- I'm just trying to get at your own state of mind when you went into that meeting, Ms Pretty -- had you, in your own mind, thought about whether the withdrawal of the charges was an option if a solution internally was reached?

Ms Pretty: No, not really. No.

Ms Cronk: Do you have a clear recollection of this either way or are you just now trying to figure out what was happening?

Ms Pretty: No, I never considered dropping the charges, never.

Ms Cronk: When you said to me a moment ago that it was an option, you thought it was remote?

Ms Pretty: Well, of course it would be an option. It would be an option if I had to, if it was possible.

Ms Cronk: Had it occurred to you, though, before you went into the meeting, that that was --

Ms Pretty: On June 17th?

Ms Cronk: -- a possible scenario?

Ms Pretty: It didn't even cross my mind on June 17th.

Ms Cronk: No, before you went into the meeting, had it crossed your mind --

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: -- as a possible scenario?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: When Ms Luu returned to Ottawa from her meeting with Ms Thompson, did she discuss with you what had happened at the meeting?

Ms Pretty: We discuss everything. Yes, she did.

Ms Cronk: Did she give you any indication, when you discussed the meeting with her, whether the possibility of withdrawal of one or more charges had been discussed?

Ms Pretty: I'm not clear on when I was made aware of that.

Ms Cronk: Do I take from that that at some point you were made aware that there was discussion about that?

Ms Pretty: Yes. Basically, it was just recently in the testimony.

Ms Cronk: Okay. Leaving aside what testimony you've been made aware of before this committee, my question to you is: When Trinh Luu came back to Ottawa from the meeting with Mora Thompson, you've told me that she talked to you about what took place at the meeting because you talked about everything related to Van Lang.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Did she tell you at that time that the possibility of withdrawing one or more of the charges had come up in the discussion?

Ms Pretty: I don't recall her discussing that at that time.

Ms Cronk: Okay. Now, when a person says, "I don't recall," that can mean different things to different people. Sometimes it means, "I recall that it didn't happen," and sometimes it means, "I don't recall one way or the other."

Ms Pretty: I don't remember. I don't remember her actually addressing that particular thing when we were discussing her meeting with Mora.

Ms Cronk: And you don't remember one way or the other?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Thank you. You told me a little bit earlier that in the latter part of May, beginning of June, the issue of your removal as a director of the board had come up again. Remember that?

Ms Pretty: Can you repeat that?

Ms Cronk: Yes. You told me a little bit earlier that towards the end of May, beginning of June, the issue of your removal as a director from the board of the Van Lang Centre had come up again.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at, this time, volume 3 of exhibit 1, tab 66.

Would you like a break?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Mr Chair, the witness would like a short break, if that's possible, five minutes or 10 minutes. Is that enough time, Ms Pretty, five, 10 minutes?

Ms Pretty: I need to eat something.

Ms Cronk: Okay. Is 10 minutes enough time?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I guess so.

The Chair: We're going to have a short break of 10 minutes.

Ms Cronk: Are you saying you need to have lunch?

Ms Pretty: I need to eat something.

Ms Cronk: Would 10 minutes be enough?

Ms Pretty: Yes, unless it's convenient to have the lunch break now; I don't know.

Ms Cronk: If you'll allow me, Mr Chair, could we take 10 minutes?

The Chair: Okay.

Ms Cronk: If it's insufficient for the witness, you can tell us when you come back.

Ms Pretty: Okay.

Ms Cronk: Thank you very much.

Ms Pretty: Thank you.

Ms Cronk: Mr Chair, just before the witness leaves, for the benefit of the witness, and I'm sure you've been told this, but just so that it's formally on the record, could I ask you to direct, as is usually the case, that witnesses, during the course of their examination, not discuss their evidence with any person until their evidence is complete.

The Chair: It's on the record.

Ms Pretty: I understand.

Ms Cronk: Thank you.

The Chair: We'll break for 10 minutes.

The committee recessed from 1201 to 1219.

The Chair: Okay, we'll resume the hearings and, Ms Cronk, you may continue on.

Ms Cronk: Thank you, Mr Chair. Ms Pretty, you're ready for us to continue?

Ms Pretty: Yes, thank you.

Ms Cronk: Okay. I was asking you before we took the break whether the issue of your potential removal as a director of the Van Lang board of directors had come up again at the beginning of June 1994 and I'd understood you to say yes.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at volume 3 of exhibit 1 and in particular at tab 66.

Ms Pretty: Yes, I have that here.

Ms Cronk: Do you have that? All right. This is a notice dated June the eighth, 1994, of a proposed meeting of the Van Lang board of directors to be held on June 19th at 2:30 for the purpose of passing a resolution that is set out in the notice, and the resolution concerns your removal from office as a director of the board. Did you receive a copy of this notice?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: When was that? Do you recall?

Ms Pretty: I received it shortly -- when did I receive it? I don't usually get a lot of notice with these memos. I can't think of when I actually received it. Let me think.

Ms Cronk: There's evidence before the committee that at a meeting on the 10th of June between Ms Trinh Luu and the Minister of Housing, Evelyn Gigantes, Ms Trinh Luu had a copy with her --

Ms Pretty: Okay.

Ms Cronk: -- of this notice. Did you provide her with a copy of it?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I must have.

Ms Cronk: All right. That would suggest that you'd received it either on the eighth or the ninth.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Or perhaps the morning of the 10th.

Ms Pretty: Yes, actually I do remember now. I do remember. The eighth day of June -- I got it within a day of that, or the same day. It was very quick, that one. They made sure that I got that one.

Ms Cronk: And you told me earlier, I believe, that you did not attend the meeting on June 10th between the Minister of Housing and Ms Luu. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: No, I did not.

Ms Cronk: All right. Was it suggested to you by anyone that you should attend or that it was expected that you would attend?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: You knew of the meeting, I take it?

Ms Pretty: Yes, through Trinh.

Ms Cronk: And did you consider going to it?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I thought about it, but I pretty well resolved myself -- or resigned myself to the court date and I was sticking with that. Plus, it was going to cost quite a bit of money to travel to Toronto and I had other commitments. It just didn't -- you know, I figured one person was enough to go to speak for both of us.

Ms Cronk: Should I understand from that that you felt free to go to the meeting, that you considered it --

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: -- and you decided not to?

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: But also, you've said that no one contacted you or suggested to you that you should go or that you were expected to go.

Ms Pretty: No.

The Chair: Mrs Marland, I think I've got the same question, too --

Mrs Marland: Yes.

The Chair: -- but go ahead. I think there's some confusion here.

Mrs Marland: Ms Cronk, your witness referred to the cost and time of travelling to a meeting in Toronto and I'm just wondering, is it possible that Ms Pretty, in that answer, was referring to the meeting that Ms Luu had with my staff on the 25th of May in Toronto, and in fact you're asking about the 10th of June meeting with the minister, which I've always understood took place --

Ms Cronk: Was in Ottawa.

Mrs Marland: -- in the minister's Ottawa constituency office.

Ms Pretty: Oh, I must be confused. Okay. I was confusing those two meetings; I'm sorry.

Ms Cronk: All right. Thank you, Ms Marland.

Ms Pretty: Thanks.

Ms Cronk: May I back up then?

Ms Pretty: Yes, let's clean it up here.

Ms Cronk: All right. We're talking about the June 10th meeting --

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: -- between Trinh Luu and the Minister of Housing --

Ms Pretty: Okay.

Ms Cronk: -- which, the committee has heard thus far, was held in Ottawa --

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: -- at the constituency office of the minister.

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: And my question to you was, did anyone suggest to you that you should attend that meeting or that you were expected to attend that meeting?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Did you consider going to that meeting?

Ms Pretty: I wanted to.

Ms Cronk: Did you tell Trinh Luu that?

Ms Pretty: I don't know whether I told her at the time, but I've certainly said it since. I felt really jealous because she had received a lot of replies from Evelyn. You know, she had gotten at least some replies to her correspondence to Evelyn and I had received one in April and I felt that I had -- I had asked the minister for an audience, or whatever you want to call it, a meeting, so many times and yet I didn't get a chance to have one with her and here Trinh was going and I thought, you know, really, this should be both of us going. But I didn't go.

Ms Cronk: Why was that?

Ms Pretty: Well, it was between Trinh and her. The invitation was sent to Trinh to meet with the minister.

Ms Cronk: How do you know that, Ms Pretty? How did you learn of this meeting?

Ms Pretty: Trinh told me.

Ms Cronk: Did she also tell you that it was an invitation to her?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: That didn't include you?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Did you inquire of anyone whether you could attend the meeting?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Did you have any discussions with anyone from the minister's office as to whether the meeting could or was intended to include you?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: So you understood that it wasn't a meeting that you could attend.

Ms Pretty: It didn't include me. That's right. I just accepted it that it was between Evelyn and Trinh.

Ms Cronk: After the meeting was over, did you discuss with Trinh Luu the results of the meeting?

Ms Pretty: Yes. She called me and told me that she felt good about the meeting that she had had with Evelyn, that she was finally able to show her evidence and to talk with her about the problems at Van Lang in person and that she was able to even in a soft way reprimand Evelyn for not paying attention, because it was such a mess now and it didn't have to be.

Ms Cronk: Did Trinh Luu tell you whether the minister had agreed to do anything as a result of the meeting?

Ms Pretty: She said that she was going to arrange a meeting.

Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, who said that?

Ms Pretty: I'm sorry. The minister, Evelyn Gigantes, said that she would arrange some sort of meeting.

Ms Cronk: Is it possible, Ms Pretty, looking back on it now, that you were told by Trinh Luu that the minister had agreed to get back to her?

Ms Pretty: Oh, get back to her, yeah. That's right, get back to her.

Ms Cronk: Well, I don't know what's right and it's important that the committee know.

Ms Pretty: Yeah, it's true. That's what she said at that point. She was going to get back to her.

Ms Cronk: Was that satisfactory to you?

Ms Pretty: For her to get -- what was that question supposed to mean anyway?

Ms Cronk: Were you satisfied based on what Trinh told you about what was going to happen? Was that acceptable to you?

Ms Pretty: Basically, I felt that we were just being put off again.

Ms Cronk: Did you have any understanding as to when the minister had said she would get back to Trinh?

Ms Pretty: A couple of weeks.

Ms Cronk: As a result of what Trinh told you had occurred, did you reach any decision with her as to your future course of action?

Ms Pretty: I just said that: "I'm fed up trying to negotiate with the ministry. So Evelyn knows, you know, basically she knows she's in trouble now, so I'm going to just proceed with my action, my court action."

Ms Cronk: Was there any discussions after the June 10th meeting by you with Michael Séguin about any of these developments?

Ms Pretty: I kept him updated to a certain extent.

Ms Cronk: Specifically, did you discuss with him, either alone or with Trinh Luu, what had occurred at the meeting with the minister?

Ms Pretty: Oh, yes. And we came up with a letter. First, I wrote a letter to the non-Vietnamese tenants, just orienting them, pardon the pun, on what was going on and the seriousness of the situation and the fact that I was supposed to be removed from the board, and I asked for their support, that we should join together and form some sort of group with a voice so that we can approach the media, so that we have more power in approaching the board. So I wrote a letter to them asking for their support and I went around and I showed them some of their things that had transpired over the year, and everybody I showed these things to signed the letter of support.

Ms Cronk: Were you really trying at that point to mobilize some support from the other tenants?

Ms Pretty: Yes, because the tenants' association wasn't meeting. It hadn't met in months. There was no voice for the tenants that existed at that point in time and there were some critical things happening. I was being removed from the board, there was all kinds of stuff happening, and we had no way, no forum to speak about it, so I tried to organize a group of concerned tenants.

1230

Ms Cronk: Just focussing on the June 10th meeting and what happened when Trinh came back from the meeting and told you what had occurred, do you remember discussing that very day, the 10th, or the next day, the 11th, with Trinh and Michael Séguin what you were going to do?

Ms Pretty: Yes. We decided we were going to go to the press.

Ms Cronk: Had you not earlier decided that yourself after the discussion you had on May 19th with Sue Lott?

Ms Pretty: Yes. I knew that that was the direction I had to take.

Ms Cronk: And was Trinh Luu aware of that, your feelings on that before she went to the meeting on the 10th?

Ms Pretty: Yes, she did. She tried to talk me out of it. She got me to hold back on my action to go to the press just until she could meet with the minister, until a couple of more things could happen. When I saw that nothing was happening, and the fact that Evelyn's response to this incredibly incriminating evidence and a stack of it, like this big -- and her response was, "I'll get back to you in two weeks," I thought, "That's it, I'm not going bother with them any more."

Ms Cronk: Is your knowledge of what occurred at the June 10th meeting between the minister and Trinh based on what Trinh told you?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: The committee has heard that on the day after the meeting, on June 11th, there was a communication between Trinh and Mora Thompson --

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: -- and that there were a number of those communications, mainly on June 11th, June 13th, June 15th and then on June 17th, between Trinh and Mora Thompson.

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Were you aware of those communications?

Ms Pretty: She told me that she was going to the opposition party, and we'd do that jointly. She and I decided that the best move to make after discarding all hopes that the ministry could do anything was to go to the opposition party, and in turn the media would become involved.

Ms Cronk: Were you involved in preparing any of the memos that were provided to the opposition party, or did Trinh Luu do that?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I prepared some things. We worked together on some things and we worked separately on some things. You'll have to be more specific.

Ms Cronk: Could you look at tab 73, please, of volume 3 before you. This is a memorandum dated June 11th from Trinh Luu to Mora Thompson.

Ms Pretty: Okay.

Ms Cronk: Did you prepare it or did she or do you recall?

Ms Pretty: I've never even seen it before.

Ms Cronk: All right. Then I won't ask you any questions about the content of it, but do you remember after the meeting between Trinh Luu and the minister any discussion with Trinh about asking the opposition to raise the matter in the House?

Ms Pretty: Yes. I know that Trinh did ask that that issue be raised in the House at one point.

Ms Cronk: Do you recall when that was first raised with the opposition?

Ms Pretty: I'm not clear on when exactly it was.

Ms Cronk: All right. Looking at this memo, the second paragraph is a one-sentence paragraph. It says, "We would like you to raise it in the House." Would it be fair of me to suggest that by at least this date, perhaps earlier, but by at least this date, that suggestion was being made to the opposition?

Ms Pretty: That date being June 11th?

Ms Cronk: Yes.

Ms Pretty: Yeah. I can see that it says, "We would like you to raise it in the House."

Ms Cronk: Do you know, looking back on it, whether that suggestion or request had been made of the opposition prior to June 11th?

Ms Pretty: I can't answer that one. I don't know.

Ms Cronk: With respect to the June 13th memorandum, would you go to tab 110, please, at the back of this volume, Ms Pretty, tab 110. Have you seen that memorandum before?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Could you go to tab 111. This is a memorandum of June 15 from Trinh Luu to Mora Thompson.

Ms Pretty: It's very, very light. It's very faint.

Ms Cronk: Can you read your copy? I'll get you another if you can't.

Ms Pretty: It's pretty bad.

Mr Cronk: Perhaps Mr McKinnon can show you his.

Mr Murphy: Again, it seems to be a similar photocopying problem with a number of others. Perhaps you can add that to your list, Mr Hourigan.

Ms Cronk: Thank you. Have you seen this memorandum before?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Did you have any contact with the media, personally, in the period June 10th to June 17th, before you went to the meeting with the minister?

Ms Pretty: I'm having trouble remembering. The 21st I got a hold of Peter Varley.

Ms Cronk: Sorry, but I've got to back you up, Ms Pretty. I'm talking now about before the meeting on June 17th with the minister. You've told the committee that you spoke with Mr Wallace because he called you --

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: -- before his June first article appeared.

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: So what I'm really asking you is, did you have any further contact, personally, with the media before the June 17th meeting?

Ms Pretty: Yes. I believe I spoke to Dave Rider with the Ottawa Sun, I think.

Ms Cronk: Do you recall when you did that?

Ms Pretty: It would be before the meeting.

Ms Cronk: Did you speak with Patrick Dare of the Ottawa Citizen?

Ms Pretty: Oh, Patrick Dare, yes.

Ms Cronk: I'm not suggesting that you did.

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did talk to him.

Ms Cronk: Before the meeting on June 17th or after?

Ms Pretty: Oh, God, I was inundated with reporters. I can't remember whether it was before, after or during.

Ms Cronk: You don't remember one way or the other?

Ms Pretty: It's very difficult to keep track of when a reporter phones when you have 15 of them phoning.

Ms Cronk: Well, you didn't have 15 reporters calling until after the June 17th meeting, right?

Ms Pretty: Well, between my press releases and everything else, it gets kind of confusing.

Ms Cronk: Okay. Just to help you with that, because it's important if we can be clear, and if you don't remember it's perfectly fine to tell me you don't, Ms Pretty, but your press release -- and we'll come to the actual document -- was after the June 17th meeting, right?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Okay. And I'm suggesting to you, and please tell me if I'm wrong, that the numerous media contacts with you started to take place after the meeting with the minister on June 17th, not before.

Ms Pretty: Except for -- James Wallace phoned me before.

Ms Cronk: That was earlier in June, around June first.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: All right. So what I am asking you is, before you walked into the meeting on June 17th with the minister, did you have a discussion with any member of the media that you now remember?

Ms Pretty: I can only recall having a discussion with James Wallace.

Ms Cronk: Okay. And specifically with respect to Patrick Dare of the Ottawa Citizen, did you speak with him after the June 17th meeting?

Ms Pretty: Can I refer to my notes?

Ms Cronk: Absolutely.

Ms Pretty: I didn't keep track of my contact with the media.

Ms Cronk: So you have no note of when you spoke with whom with respect to the media?

Ms Pretty: Saturday, June the 18th, Patrick Dare wrote an article --

Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, I can't hear the witness.

Ms Pretty: Patrick Dare wrote an article on June the 18th, the day following the meeting with Evelyn. So I just can assume from that that I spoke to him after the meeting.

Ms Cronk: You don't have a clear recollection one way or the other?

Ms Pretty: No. no, I don't. Sorry.

Ms Cronk: That's all right, and we'll come to the details of the meeting, but it's my understanding that it was held at the Rideau Centre in Ottawa. Is that right?

Ms Pretty: That's right, 10 Rideau.

Ms Cronk: It's my understanding as well, and can you confirm, that although Trinh Luu did not attend the meeting, she accompanied you to the Rideau Centre. Is that right?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Do you remember, before walking into that meeting, because you went to the Rideau Centre with Trinh, and sometimes it helps to remember things when you know where you were and who you were with -- you went with Trinh to the Rideau Centre, right?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: And she didn't go into the meeting but you did.

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: Okay. And did she wait for you until the meeting was over?

Ms Pretty: Yes, she did. The meeting was only supposed to be half an hour.

Ms Cronk: It went a little longer than that, didn't it?

Ms Pretty: An hour and a half.

Ms Cronk: Okay. Do you remember, before you went into that meeting, whether any media people were around or whether any reporter came up and spoke to you?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Okay. Did you get a phone call that morning from anybody from the media?

Ms Pretty: I can't recall. I'm sorry. I must have been pretty excited that day or something because --

Ms Cronk: Again, you don't remember one way or the other.

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: But you have no recollection of there being media.

Ms Pretty: No. Nobody was there at the meeting.

1240

Ms Cronk: Okay. Or outside, gathered around, before you went in.

Ms Pretty: No. I was kind of expecting them, but they didn't show up.

Ms Cronk: But after the meeting took place, you did have discussions with the media.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And that included Patrick Dare?

Ms Pretty: Um-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Who attended the June 17th meeting?

Ms Pretty: There were, I believe, nine people. There was myself, there was Dr Hieu Truong --

Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, you're going to have to speak a little louder, I think.

Ms Pretty: -- Dr Hieu Truong, there was My Nguyen.

Ms Cronk: That's Mr Nguyen?

Ms Pretty: Mr My Nguyen, yes. There was Brian Sutherland, the regional manager for the MOH. There was Beverlee -- I don't know her last name; Evelyn's staff. There was Evelyn Gigantes herself. There was Audrey Moey, her staff. There was Dr Can Le, Dr Vinh Tang. Is that nine?

Ms Cronk: That's nine. When you said there was Beverlee but you don't know her last name, did you subsequently learn whether it was Beverlee Bell?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And had you ever met her before?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: How did you learn of the June 17th meeting?

Ms Pretty: It was quite bizarre.

Ms Cronk: What do you mean?

Ms Pretty: Well, I had a package of information come to me from the board of directors in which there was a document. Do you know which document I mean, so that I can see it?

Ms Cronk: Not yet.

Ms Pretty: Okay, one referring to a special meeting where the directors can discuss the allegations in the newspaper and the meeting with the minister.

Ms Cronk: Are you talking about a notice from the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it's a notice for a meeting to discuss those two things.

Ms Cronk: All right, just give me a moment.

Ms Pretty: Oh, guess what? I've got it.

Ms Cronk: What tab?

Ms Pretty: It's June the 13th --

Ms Cronk: Could you just give me one minute, please. Could I ask you to look, if you would, please, at tab 74 of volume 3. Do you have that?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Is that the notice you're referring to?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: All right. Are you saying that your learning of the meeting on June 17th was tied up with this notice in some way?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Could you explain that, please.

Ms Pretty: Well, when I received this, it was hand-delivered to my door on June the 14th, one day before the meeting.

Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, on what --

Ms Pretty: One day before the meeting. On June the 14th, I received it at 1:28 pm.

Ms Cronk: The meeting of course was June 17th?

Mr Murphy: This refers to June 15th.

Ms Pretty: To the June 15th meeting.

Ms Cronk: Oh, sorry. Thank you.

Ms Pretty: So it's one day before the meeting. So I had very little notice, and this special meeting notice was to address the summonses received by the board members and the meeting with the Minister of Housing, Mrs Evelyn Gigantes.

I have a question mark after "Mrs Evelyn Gigantes," because for some strange reason, the board forgot to give me the letter from Bill Clement informing the board of the meeting that Evelyn wished to have on the 17th.

Ms Cronk: And when you refer to the letter from Bill Clement, can I ask you to look at tab 68. Is that the letter from Mr Clement that you're referring to?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it is. I had to ask for it and go down to the office and get it.

Ms Cronk: How did you learn of its existence?

Ms Pretty: I phoned the office and I questioned the wording of the last sentence in this special meeting notice. I said: "What is this meeting with the Minister of Housing? Have you already had one?" Because at this point they were excluding me from a lot of very important discussions and meetings with various people because they decided that I was no longer on the board, so they just simply didn't include me in a lot of things.

I had no idea whether they had had the meeting or whether they were going to have a meeting. I had no idea what this meant -- "and the meeting with the minister." So I phoned down to the office, to the office assistant, and I asked her and she said: "I don't know. Dr Hieu Truong will be here at 5. Call him at 5 and he'll tell you what it is." She was the one who put together the packages that went to all of the directors and she told me she didn't know. So it wasn't until 5 o'clock, when I was able to get Hieu Truong on the phone at the office, that I learned that there was a letter from Bill Clement inviting the directors to a meeting with the minister on June the 17th at 10 Rideau. If I hadn't read this and if I hadn't asked, I probably still wouldn't know about the meeting on June 17th.

Ms Cronk: Should I take from that that no one from the minister's office or the Ministry of Housing contacted you to tell you about the June 17th meeting?

Ms Pretty: No, nobody.

Ms Cronk: And that no one from the board did --

Ms Pretty: No one.

Ms Cronk: -- and you only found out about it based on the events that you have described with Dr Truong. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: Did anyone suggest to you, Ms Pretty, before you went to that meeting, that the meeting did not include you and that it was for the other board members only?

Ms Pretty: Did anyone suggest that I was not included?

Ms Cronk: Yes.

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Did you discuss with Trinh Luu the matters to be raised at the meeting?

Ms Pretty: We had no idea what the meeting was going to be about.

Ms Cronk: So did you know what its purpose was?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Did you discuss with her any issues that should be raised at the meeting?

Ms Pretty: Excuse me for just a moment; I have to grab the document. I went to the meeting with one thing in my hand, a Brief and Evidence on Illegal Denial of Free Access to an Open Inspection of Corporation Documents to Board Members.

Ms Cronk: And did you take that with you to the meeting?

Ms Pretty: I took this because I thought perhaps that's what she may be addressing. I thought that she was going to take the opportunity to speak to the board and to inform them, to guide them on proper procedure and treatment of board directors and make them more aware of the fact that they were committing offences by denying me access.

Ms Cronk: What made you think, Ms Pretty, that the issue of access to information, or the denial, based on your allegations, your alleged denial of access to information was going to come up at the meeting? Why would you think that?

Ms Pretty: It's paramount. It shows that the board was not complying with MOH rules, with Corporations Act rules, no guidelines at all.

Ms Cronk: Did anyone suggest to you that that was going to be discussed at the meeting?

Ms Pretty: No, but Trinh Luu presented Evelyn with enough evidence to show her that that was the issue.

Ms Cronk: Okay. Please understand that in my asking you these questions I am not challenging your recollection, but I am obliged to understand what your understanding was.

Ms Pretty: I understand that.

Ms Cronk: Ms Trinh Luu had discussed a number of matters with the minister on June the 10th. Am I right? Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Callahan: June 10th or the 17th?

Ms Pretty: On June 10th.

Ms Cronk: On June the 10th, Trinh Luu had discussed a number of matters with the minister. What was it that made you think that this particular matter might come up with the minister at the meeting that you were going to go to on June 17th?

Ms Pretty: I only hoped; I didn't know what the meeting was all about.

Ms Cronk: Did you take with you, for example, any documents relating to the fundamental core issues that you'd identified?

Ms Pretty: Trinh had already showed her those things. I can't haul around, you know, 15 binders full of things everywhere I go. I thought that this, if I had any opportunity whatsoever, this would be the thing that I would focus on: the denial of access.

1250

Ms Cronk: So did you go, then, with the intent that if the opportunity was afforded you, you'd make sure this issue was raised?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And that was the only thing that you took with you?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Okay. And before the meeting, then, recognizing that you didn't know what its purpose was and that you'd sort of accidentally found out about it -- is that fair, based on what you've told me?

Ms Pretty: It's very fair.

Ms Cronk: Okay. Did you talk to Trinh Luu about any other issues or even this issue, the issues that you might raise if an opportunity was given to you? Did you discuss that with her, or was this your own thinking?

Ms Pretty: I think she and I concluded that this was probably the best thing to take of all the issues that we had to look at, the important issues that we'd been trying to raise for a year, this illegal denial of free access, because this involved the court case. This was the biggest problem to the board and to Evelyn.

Ms Cronk: Not the two fundamental core issues?

Ms Pretty: More so than the fundamental core issues. I mean, that sort of stuff you get down and dirty with once you get everybody in a circle, and you can talk about it. But this was the one thing that had gone outside; it's gone beyond the board. It was no longer internal. It involved the courts. So I felt and Trinh felt that this would be the issue she'd be addressing.

Ms Cronk: And did you, so that I'm clear, yourself go to the meeting with the intention of raising it yourself if the opportunity was given to you?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: When the meeting commenced, did anyone leave the meeting during the course of the meeting? Did anybody get in, get up and walk out for a while and come back?

Ms Pretty: I think Beverlee Bell either came in late or -- I'm not quite sure, but I can remember her moving around in the room. That's all I can remember.

Ms Cronk: Could I just go back for a moment. Did anyone suggest to you, Ms Pretty, that you should raise the issue of access to information at this meeting?

Ms Pretty: No, except Trinh and I. We just decided that that was it.

Ms Cronk: And during the course of the meeting, did anyone arrive to it late, or were all nine participants there from the very beginning of the meeting?

Ms Pretty: I can remember that most of the board members were -- oh, yes. Was it My Nguyen? Someone, I think, was a little late. I may be thinking of Beverlee Bell; I'm not sure.

Ms Cronk: You don't have a clear recollection?

Ms Pretty: No, not really. No.

Ms Cronk: Did you make any notes yourself during the course of that meeting?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: Did you notice whether anyone else did so?

Ms Pretty: Can Le was making some serious notes.

Ms Cronk: When you say "serious notes," what do you mean?

Ms Pretty: Well, he's usually the secretary, so he was busy writing most of the time.

Ms Cronk: By "serious," do you mean he seemed to be making a lot of notes?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: I see. Did you see his notes?

Ms Pretty: Oh, no. Of course not.

Ms Cronk: So you don't know what was in them. So you weren't talking about the subject matter; you were talking about how much he was writing.

Ms Pretty: Yes. I just observed that he was writing a lot and looking down at his paper a lot. I know that Audrey Moey was making notes for Evelyn, and she was making detailed notes; I could tell. I saw Brian. He might have just scratched a couple of things down, but I don't think he made any real, you know, comprehensive notes of any kind. Vinh Tang -- I don't think he was making comprehensive notes. Hieu Truong made a few notes, and of course myself.

Ms Cronk: Did you see the minister making any notes?

Ms Pretty: No, she did not make any notes. It was all her staff.

Ms Cronk: And, I take it, some of the directors.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Did you notice whether Mr My Nguyen made any notes?

Ms Pretty: I don't believe he did. He was very quiet. I hardly noticed him there so I didn't pay much attention to him, because he didn't speak.

Ms Cronk: He didn't speak at all during the meeting?

Ms Pretty: No, just at the end.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to go to tab 85 of volume 3. Do you have tab 85?

Ms Pretty: Yes. I'm going to work from my originals, if I can.

Ms Cronk: I was just going to ask you if you had the originals with you. Are those the notes that you made at the meeting?

Ms Pretty: Yes, they are.

Ms Cronk: All right. At the top of page 1 on the photocopies that the committee has, just above the word "Evelyn" there appears to be something cut off. May I see the original of your notes?

Ms Pretty: Sure.

Ms Cronk: The words cut off, do they read, "Meeting with" -- and there's a symbol for "with" -- "Evelyn, June 17, 1994"?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Then the first entry is the name "Evelyn" and a dash?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm, that's right.

Ms Cronk: Did you make the entirety of these notes during the course of the meeting, Ms Pretty?

Ms Pretty: No, not all of them. The first page I made at the meeting, during the meeting, and I tried to keep a sequence of topics as they came up. But then when Evelyn started to address me personally I had to put my pen down. I couldn't pay attention to what she was saying and what other people were saying and write at the same time. So I unfortunately had to recap, try and recall afterwards, what had been said after.

Ms Cronk: Did you make all of the notes on page 1 during the course of the meeting?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: If we look on the right-hand side of the page, in brackets there is handwriting, "Page 1, made during meeting."

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: All right. What portion of the notes, then, were made after the meeting?

Ms Pretty: On page 2 from "See press release for details" down to the word "director," about halfway. There's a box at the bottom part. That top part that is not boxed in was Saturday, and then the boxed-in part was Monday or Tuesday, just because I was working on my press release and I was finishing up my notes so that I could put it on the computer.

Ms Cronk: So that I'm clear, there's a box that appears by a straight line across the page and then down, straight and down?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Are you saying that all of the notes above that line were made on Saturday, June 18th --

Ms Pretty: Right, yes.

Ms Cronk: -- and that everything that appears below that line was made either on Monday, June 20th or Tuesday, June 21st?

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: What about the notes at page 3?

Ms Pretty: That was just a continuation of the boxed-in one.

Ms Cronk: All right. So were they also made on Monday the 20th or Tuesday the 21st?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: When you made the notes on the 20th of June or the 21st, had you already prepared your press release?

Ms Pretty: Can you repeat that, please?

Ms Cronk: Yes. When you made the notes on June 20th and June 21st, from the box down --

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: -- when you did that on Monday or Tuesday, had you already prepared your press release?

Ms Pretty: Um, when was the press release? I just want to see what date it is.

Ms Cronk: Look at tab 86.

Ms Pretty: Okay, that was sent to Peter Varley at Mike Harris's office because I could see by the Legislative Assembly televised videos that they didn't know a lot of information and people needed to know exactly what happened. So I felt it was necessary for me to make that press release.

1300

Ms Cronk: When did you prepare it?

Ms Pretty: I'm trying to remember. It was -- if I had a calendar in front of me -- what day would the 17th be on?

Ms Cronk: The 17th was a Friday.

Ms Pretty: Friday.

Ms Cronk: Monday was the 20th.

Ms Pretty: Friday. It would have been for Monday because I know I faxed this. I don't have the little fax thing. I have a fax record that was attached to that. See how great I am with dates?

Ms Cronk: You're doing very well.

Ms Pretty: I don't know. I think it could be in one of my other binders. It was the 22nd, I remember.

Ms Cronk: That you prepared it or that you faxed it?

Ms Pretty: That I faxed that press release, the first one.

Ms Cronk: All right, but you prepared it on Monday the 20th?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I prepared it and then faxed it immediately.

Ms Cronk: If you faxed it immediately, that would mean you faxed it on the 20th. I just want to make sure what's happening here.

Ms Pretty: I need a calendar.

Mr Callahan: Or she made it on the 22nd and faxed it on the 22nd.

Ms Pretty: That's what I'm saying. I completed my handwritten notes and then I put it on my computer and then I went up the street and I faxed it right away. So, see, Monday or Tuesday was when I finished doing my notes. Tuesday was the 22nd, wasn't it?

Ms Cronk: Tuesday was the 21st.

Ms Pretty: The 21st? Okay. It must have been the 21st I faxed it then.

Ms Cronk: This is my question to you, Ms Pretty, and I'm just asking for -- you've been provided with a calendar for the month of June. With that in hand, I just want to make sure you're clear about my question, Ms Pretty, and if you don't recall, please just indicate that.

Ms Pretty: Okay.

Ms Cronk: I understand you to have said that you prepared your handwritten notes from the box part down, half of page 2 and page 3 on either Monday the 20th or the 21st.

Ms Pretty: That's right. And then the 22nd I put it on the computer and faxed it.

Ms Cronk: And are you saying that the document that appears at tab 86, your first press release, was what you put on the computer and faxed that day?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: So that your handwritten notes were prepared before this press release?

Ms Pretty: Yes. Absolutely.

Ms Cronk: And if that's the case --

Mr Winninger: Mr Chair, just a point of clarification: What's referred to as the press release? Is that tab 86, just so I'm perfectly sure?

Ms Cronk: Can you confirm that, Ms Pretty?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: When you say "press release" are you referring to the document at tab 86?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I am.

Ms Cronk: Because there's another document that appears at the next tab.

Ms Pretty: That's the second press release.

Ms Cronk: All right. And that was also prepared by you?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: Now, it's dated June 23rd.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: When did you prepare it?

Ms Pretty: Same day.

Ms Cronk: All right. So that was the 23rd that you prepared this second press release?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Coming back then to the first press release, the one that you've indicated you prepared on the 22nd and faxed the same day.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: You've said now to the committee, as I understand it, that your handwritten notes were prepared first before this?

Ms Pretty: Yes, they were.

Ms Cronk: And if you look at the top of page 2 of your handwritten notes --

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: The very first entry says, "See press release for details."

Ms Pretty: I wrote that down there for my own reference.

Ms Cronk: If you made the notes at the top part of the page during the course of the meeting; right? --

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: -- when did you put in the words "See press release for details"?

Interjections.

Ms Pretty: Excuse me. Those were made on Saturday.

Mr Murphy: Those were made on the Saturday.

Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm getting confused; maybe we need a coffee here. I'm sorry, Ms Pretty, I didn't mean to do that to you.

Ms Pretty: It's okay.

Ms Cronk: When did you put in the words "See press release for details"?

Ms Pretty: Probably at the same time. I was probably already working on the computer. You know what I mean? I was completing my notes. I was working on the computer.

Ms Cronk: Do you remember having started the press release on Saturday the 18th of June when you made the top entries on page 2?

Ms Pretty: I think I probably drafted it in, you know, just sort of put points or something down and then I went back and fleshed it out later.

Ms Cronk: Do you remember one way or the other, Ms Pretty? If you don't, please just tell me you don't.

Ms Pretty: Well, let me think for a minute here.

Ms Cronk: Thank you.

Ms Pretty: I would say that, okay, the meeting was on the 17th and the first page was made at the time. Saturday I can remember being depressed. I was depressed because I was so let down by the meeting that I didn't even care about writing anything. And then, you know, as the days went by, up until Tuesday, I started pulling myself together and I thought, well, I've got to at least make sure that I have an accurate picture of what I remember and put it down on paper so that I can be consistent. So between the 17th and -- where are we? -- the 22nd, I worked on those notes.

Ms Cronk: When you say "those notes," which notes now do you mean?

Ms Pretty: On the handwritten notes and then on computer.

Ms Cronk: And do you know now, looking back on it, whether you had started your first press release on the Saturday or whether you started it later?

Ms Pretty: I had to work on that very quickly. Like I said, Saturday I was depressed. Umm --

Ms Cronk: You don't remember?

Ms Pretty: How relevant is it? I mean --

Ms Cronk: Ms Pretty, I'm just asking what you remember. Don't worry about it if you don't. I just need to know if you do remember and I just --

Ms Pretty: It's kind of mixed up because I did some -- you know how when something happens and you've been waiting for it for a long, long time and it's really exciting and you go there and you're let down, you make some notes and then you realize that what you hoped for wasn't going to happen? And I got depressed and I didn't want to write anything and I thought: "Forget it. I don't care about this any more."

Ms Cronk: I'm certainly not suggesting you should have, but I --

Ms Pretty: So I don't know when I started to write again. It was somewhere during the weekend, and when I finished fleshing out -- sometimes my memory would come back, I'd be doing the dishes and I'd remember something that somebody said, so I'd go write it down. The end result is a press release which is accurate.

Ms Cronk: Okay, thank you. I take from that, and I won't belabour this, but you're not clear about when you first began to prepare the first press release.

Ms Pretty: Probably Sunday I started.

Ms Cronk: Okay, but you're not clear; you don't actually know.

Ms Pretty: No, not really.

Ms Cronk: Okay, that's fine. Thank you.

And then let's just deal with the first press release for a moment, the document at tab 86. What was its purpose?

Ms Pretty: What was the purpose of the press release?

Ms Cronk: The first press release. Why did you prepare it?

Ms Pretty: As I said, I wanted to have an accurate account of what I remembered took place at that meeting of June 17th with Evelyn Gigantes. I'm like most other people: I don't remember things, you know, verbatim for very long and I have to write things down.

Ms Cronk: A lot of us are like that. Don't feel alone in that, Ms Pretty. I wouldn't remember my name if somebody didn't give me a signpost most mornings, so don't worry about that.

Can we come back to the June 17th meeting?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Who opened the meeting? How did it actually begin?

Ms Pretty: Evelyn chaired the meeting.

Ms Cronk: And did she open the meeting? Did she make the first initial remarks?

Ms Pretty: Yes, she did.

Ms Cronk: And what do you recall those being about?

Ms Pretty: I'll just refer to my notes, please.

Ms Cronk: Mm-hmm.

Ms Pretty: She basically started in by acknowledging concerns and struggles within the board. She acknowledged meeting with Trinh on the 10th of June in which she had seen a lot of evidence showing that our concerns were basically valid. She also knew that legal steps are being considered. She said "are being considered." In my note here, I have " -- legal steps considered." That's just basically what she said, even though she knew at the time that the crown had already begun the prosecution.

Ms Cronk: Were you making these notes as Ms Gigantes was speaking?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Were you trying to take everything down that she said or just the highlight of it?

Ms Pretty: All the main points, the main, main points. She said she had seen the motion to the board for the Sunday meeting to remove me and she wondered if there was any other way to deal with it besides removing me from the board. She also acknowledged questions about the compliance report, that we had raised questions, Trinh and I, meaning we.

Ms Cronk: Did she say anything else initially that you now remember or did Dr Vinh Tang then begin to speak at that point?

Ms Pretty: Well, she was very conciliatory. The whole mood was very calming and very conciliatory.

Ms Cronk: Did Dr Tang then begin to speak?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Just stopping there for a moment, was there any agenda for the meeting?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Was there any other document that was followed at the meeting?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Was the minister provided with any documents at the meeting?

Ms Pretty: I showed her two documents and Can Le showed her one document.

Ms Cronk: What did you show her?

Ms Pretty: I showed her the letter to the tenants with their signatures of support, because they were talking about my removal at that point. When she said, "Motion to the board, Sunday," she started talking about my removal.

Ms Cronk: What else did you show her?

Ms Pretty: I showed her the two documents from the tenants forming some kind of alliance, the signed documents.

Ms Cronk: What did Dr Can D. Le show her?

Ms Pretty: He showed her a document later on, like a little later on in the meeting, and I'm going to have to think on what that was. I don't even know if I can remember what it was he showed her.

Ms Cronk: Were you given a copy of it?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Was it distributed to everyone around the table?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Or just to the minister?

Ms Pretty: Just to the minister.

Ms Cronk: Did you actually see it at some point during the course of the meeting?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: So you don't know what he gave her then?

Ms Pretty: No. I can't remember what he gave her.

Mr Chiarelli: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I'm just wondering in terms of process how long we're going to be going without a break. I perceive that we're getting to a very important part of the testimony and the witness has been on the stand so to speak for four hours. Before lunch, she indicated that she would appreciate a lunch break and I'm just wondering when we may be breaking and what the process will be and whether in fact the witness needs it.

Interjection.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Chiarelli: She just indicated yes.

The Chair: Hopefully we'll get an answer from Ms Cronk.

Ms Cronk: Mr Chiarelli, you're getting psychic in your youth, because I was about to raise the matter. Perhaps you've always been. I will be about another half-hour I think in my questioning of the witness. I would prefer that that not be interrupted, for reasons that the committee will appreciate. If it's convenient to the committee and the witness would wish it, now would be a convenient time to rise, or alternatively, I can press ahead and complete. I'm in your hands.

Mr Chiarelli: The witness just indicated she would appreciate breaking now. I believe she nodded yes.

Ms Pretty: No. Actually, my lawyer asked me if I'm all right and I said yes. So it's up to you. You decide.

Mrs Marland: We would all appreciate breaking now. I'm only speaking for myself of course, Mr Chair.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): That's the royal "we."

The Chair: Okay. We'll rise now until a quarter after 2. So this committee will recess.

The committee recessed from 1315 to 1424.

The Chair: Okay, we will resume the hearings. Ms Cronk, I believe we've got a question from Mr Sutherland.

Mr Sutherland: Could I just ask for some clarification? Just before we broke you mentioned about witnesses not talking to other people before they're done their testimony. Can I get some sense from you as to whether witnesses, either before they testify or after they testify, in terms of discussions with each other or discussions with committee members -- what is considered appropriate in these types of processes?

Ms Cronk: Normally in quasi-judicial proceedings or proceedings before administrative tribunals of any kind, there are often orders made excluding witnesses during the testimony of other witnesses. In the context of a televised public hearing, an order of that kind becomes somewhat specious.

Having said that, it is also a well-established legal rule and requirement for the fairness of the administration of justice that witnesses not discuss their evidence, when they are under cross-examination, with any other person until their witness is complete.

Our role here as counsel to the committee is a blended role, and, as will have been apparent to you, it is both an examination and a cross-examination approach. That being the case, it has been my advice, and is my continuing advice, that witnesses should not discuss their evidence with any person, including, specifically, committee members or members of the press during the course of their evidence until it is complete. Some tribunals extend that order until completion of the matter at issue, until completion of the hearing. That's in the discretion of the committee. But certainly, while witnesses are giving their evidence, that would be my advice to you.

Mr Sutherland: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: There's one other point. I'd like to have a motion from the floor to remove the telephone number of Ms Pretty, that was said already.

Mr Callahan: I should have just said, "Is that your number?" but I forgot all about being on the funny tube.

The Chair: Okay. Agreed? It's agreed. Ms Cronk, carry on.

Ms Cronk: Thank you. When we broke before lunch, Ms Pretty, I had been asking you about whether there had been an agenda of any kind for the meeting of June 17th, and you had indicated that there was not; and I had asked you whether any documents were distributed or shown to the minister during the course of the meeting, and you had identified for me two documents which you showed the minister and they related to documents concerning other tenants -- "support documents" is the way I think you described them -- and that you had shown those to the minister; and you'd indicated that you recall Dr Can Le showing the minister a document, but you also said, as I understood your evidence, that you didn't remember seeing it during the course of the meeting and you couldn't recall what the document was.

Could I ask you to look, if you would, please, at volume 3 of exhibit 1, specifically at tab 80. Can you tell me, have you seen this document prior to preparation for this hearing?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I saw these notes.

Ms Cronk: Perhaps if you just move the mike a little to your left, whatever's comfortable for you, Ms Pretty, or we won't be able to hear you.

Ms Pretty: Is that better?

Ms Cronk: Yes, thank you. Have you seen this document prior to preparation for the hearing?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I saw this not long ago.

Ms Cronk: With this document in front of you, can you help me as to whether it was distributed at the meeting on June 17th, or do you know?

Ms Pretty: It could have been what Can Le gave the minister, but I can't say for sure. I just can't recall.

Ms Cronk: Thank you. Apart from the two documents which you showed her then and a document which you remember Dr Can Le showing the minister, was there any other documentation provided to her, of which you are aware, during the course of the meeting?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Now, I'm interested as well, Ms Pretty, in how you perceived the initial tone of the meeting. I understood you to indicate to the committee before we broke for lunch that the minister was conciliatory and that that was the initial approach. Did I understand that correctly?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: As you perceived the climate of the meeting, if I can put it that way, initially the atmosphere of the meeting, was the minister, in your view, attempting to mediate in the situation?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And was she, in your view, supportive of the parties at the table, and by that I mean yourself and the other members of the board, as the meeting got under way and progressed?

Ms Pretty: I would say so. Yes, she was supportive.

Ms Cronk: Do you recall, during the course of the meeting, Ms Pretty, the issue of the pending board motion for your potential removal from the board of directors coming up for discussion?

Ms Pretty: She referred to the motion made by the board for the Sunday meeting to remove me as a director.

Ms Cronk: And when you say "she" referred to it --

Ms Pretty: Evelyn.

Ms Cronk: Evelyn Gigantes?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: And you'd indicated, based on the first page of your own handwritten notes from the meeting, that the minister had made some initial or opening comments at the meeting, and among them, as I understand it, based on what you said this morning, was an indication that she was aware of the motion. Am I right in that?

Ms Pretty: She was.

Ms Cronk: And she indicated that at the outset of the meeting?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Apart from that introductory comment regarding the motion to the board -- and just to be clear, the notation in your notes says, "Motion to the board (Sunday)" -- did the minister indicate at the outset of the meeting an awareness that the motion was to be dealt with on the Sunday?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: All right. And apart from that introductory comment, did that subject come up again during the course of the meeting?

Ms Pretty: It was kind of enmeshed in and about the whole hour and a half, because the whole thing revolved around reaching some sort of compromise where I wouldn't have to be thrown off the board, and in return for that I would go to the court and ask them to drop the charges. And that was put in such a manner that it was rephrased many different times and put to me throughout that period of time, that hour and a half. I'm sure that at least three or four times I can recall actual statements made by the minister saying, you know, "Do you think there's a possibility of reaching some kind of compromise without having to go through the courts?" -- that sort of thing. It was said many times to me. I can't say exactly when because it started about halfway through and it went right to the end, where she repeatedly asked me.

Ms Cronk: When you say it started about halfway through and went through to the end --

Ms Pretty: The proposal to me to compromise.

Ms Cronk: And was that word used, that is, the word "compromise"?

Ms Pretty: I would imagine so.

Ms Cronk: Do you remember?

Ms Pretty: Can I just take a look at my press release? I want to see what exactly -- because I wrote down exactly what I remembered her saying. Where's press release number 1? Can you remember what tab it is?

Mr McKinnon: Yes, it's 86, right there.

Ms Pretty: Oh, okay. Thank you. In paragraph number 4, I listed the actual questions that she put to me through that period of time of that meeting: "Can you at least consider a solution that does not involve the courts? Will you consider my suggestion as a viable solution?" -- meaning, drop the charges. "Do you think that you would be willing to try to solve this issue internally, and not involve the courts?" And also, "I strongly recommend that the board postpone the decision to remove Sharron."

Ms Cronk: In that context, do you remember the minister specifically using the word "compromise"?

Ms Pretty: No, I do not remember.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at your handwritten notes at page -- you have your originals there -- at page 2. It's tab 85. And could I direct your attention to the first three lines --

Ms Pretty: Oh, yes.

Ms Cronk: -- which read, "Evelyn to me -- Now Sharron" -- what is the next word?

Ms Pretty: "Now Sharron...I'm sure if you went to the crown and explained..."

Ms Cronk: And what does the next line read?

Ms Pretty: It says "compromise -- `only suggesting.'" What the completion of that first sentence was, "I'm sure if you went to the crown and explained, they may find it of interest." That was basically what she was saying there.

Ms Cronk: And these notes, which you've told us, at least this portion, were made on the Saturday morning, the 18th of June, specifically include the word "compromise" and the indication of "only suggesting."

Ms Pretty: She used -- yes.

Ms Cronk: Let me --

Ms Pretty: I'm sorry.

Ms Cronk: That's quite all right. Excuse me. Let me just perhaps put the question to you and then you can comment upon it. Were those words which you remember the minister using?

Ms Pretty: I wrote it down. I was just writing down what I heard. She must have used the word "compromise" here, but probably in the context that this is not a compromise, I'm only suggesting.

Ms Cronk: With reference to the paragraph that you read from your press release at tab 86, that's your first press release, if you just flip one more tab, to the fourth paragraph, there are a number of things mentioned in that paragraph, if we could just take it sentence by sentence.

"Evelyn emphasized that she was only `suggesting' a possible solution...." I stop there for a moment. Is that in fact what she emphasized at the meeting?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And then you go on "...but she did repeat her suggestion at least three times." Do you have a clear recollection of that, Ms Pretty?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I do.

Ms Cronk: You then have a number of statements that appear in quotes, the first of which is, "`Can you at least consider a solution that does not involve the courts? Will you consider my suggestion as a viable solution'" and then in round brackets the words "`(drop the charges)'" appear. Did the minister make those statements?

Ms Pretty: Yes, she did.

Ms Cronk: With reference to the words in round brackets "(drop the charges)," did she actually use that phrase or was that your understanding of what she meant by suggesting that you consider her suggestion as a viable solution?

Ms Pretty: Well, that's what I assumed. Taking a look at -- if you take a look at the previous sentences, the things that she had said to me about not involving the courts, that sort of thing, willing to solve this internally and not involve the courts, what other conclusion could I come to, except that it meant drop the charges?

Ms Cronk: That's what you understood her to mean?

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: I take from what you've said -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- that that was an assumption on your part. It's what you understood she was saying to you. She didn't actually use the words "drop the charges."

Ms Pretty: Okay. I'll go with that. I don't particularly -- I don't specifically remember her saying "drop the charges." I don't specifically remember.

Ms Cronk: And then looking at your handwritten notes, at tab 84 -- sorry, tab 85 -- perhaps we can deal with this sort of topic by topic, on this issue of whether the words "drop the charges" or "dropping the charges" was used by the minister. At page 2 of your notes, and again over at page 3, several times the phrase "dropping charges," "dropping court proceedings," "drop/reconsider court action" appears. I've probably missed a couple, but I counted about four or five times in the space of those two pages.

So do I understand your evidence to the committee to be that you understood what she was saying to you to mean a suggestion of dropping the charges, but she didn't actually use that language?

Ms Pretty: The only phrase she didn't use was "drop the charges." The other ones she did.

Ms Cronk: The answer is yes, you don't remember her using that phrase.

Ms Pretty: I don't remember her using that phrase "drop the charges."

Ms Cronk: Dealing still with paragraph 4 of your first press statement, the next sentence, "`Do you think that you would be willing to try to solve this issue internally, and not involve the courts?'" Is that a quote that you're attributing to the minister? Is that something she said?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

1440

Ms Cronk: And to the best of your recollection, is that the way she phrased it?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Then the next sentence is in part in quotes as well, "I strongly recommend that the board postpone the decision to remove Sharron,'" end of quote. Is that a comment that you're attributing to the minister?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And to the best of your recollection, is that the language that she used?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: May I just understand, Ms Pretty, how this part of the discussion arose. I take from your notes -- and I don't intend to review each of the items with you, but from your notes and those of others -- that a number of topics were discussed at this meeting?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: And from what you've said, it was about halfway into the meeting, as you recall it, that the issue of the charges came up?

Ms Pretty: Well, the issue was basically a result of talking about removing me as a director on Sunday, and why that happened was that I was pressing charges against the board of directors for denying me free access to documents and they were trying to remove me as a director.

Ms Cronk: When you say that that's why that happened, you mean the resolution to remove you?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And did someone from the board tell you that that's why the resolution had been framed, or is that what you assumed when you saw it?

Ms Pretty: It's what I assumed.

Ms Cronk: So if the board had other reasons for bringing that resolution forward, you're unaware of them.

Ms Pretty: That's true.

Ms Cronk: Okay. And then coming back to the timing of when in the discussion the issue of charges arose, do I understand that it arose, from your recollection, about halfway through the meeting?

Ms Pretty: Yeah, it was about -- no, probably more like a third, a third of the way, because according to my notes here -- let's see, on page 1. It was the fourth point, "motion to the bd (Sunday)," where it was brought up that they were trying to remove me, and she said, "Perhaps there -- is there not another way to deal with this other than removing Sharron Pretty as a director?" And that's basically what made the rest of it happen, you know?

Ms Cronk: Well, just to be clear about that, I understood that the first part of your notes on page 1 related to introductory comments --

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: -- that the minister made at the outset of the meeting?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it was sort of like a summary or like a -- she was sort of recapping a bunch of events to start off the meeting and covering the main points, and then it was sort of open to the rest of us to make comments.

Ms Cronk: And are you saying, Ms Pretty, that that early on, that is, at the outset of the meeting, there was discussion of the charges in relation to the motion to remove you?

Ms Pretty: Um --

Ms Cronk: Or did she simply say --

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: -- that she was aware --

Ms Pretty: Yes, it did. It did come up, because one, two, three, four, five, six, seven points down, "personal conflict -- Dr Vinh," that's where it started -- they started to talk about personal conflict, things had blown out of proportion, steer away from personal issues, and that's when, you know, talk about the court charges came up.

Ms Cronk: Okay. The proposition that I'm putting to you -- and I simply want your recollection. I'm not suggesting one way or the other what did or didn't happen at the meeting; I of course wasn't there. But it's important that the committee have your best recollection of what was said. So it seems to me there are two possibilities -- perhaps more, but two on this particular aspect -- that at the beginning of the meeting, the minister made some introductory comments and in the course of those comments she said, or acknowledged, that she was aware that legal steps had been considered. That's the language --

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: -- that appears in your notes. And further in those introductory remarks, she said or acknowledged that she was aware that there was a motion to the board to remove you as a director that Sunday.

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: Now, am I right so far?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: All right. Now, it's possible that in introductory comments, that might be all that was said on those issues without the conversation then continuing on them. In other words, the conversation could later have come back to that with the direct suggestion of your not being removed as a director and the charges not being proceeded with. So what I'm saying to you is, do you now remember, when you think back on it, a discussion, really from the outset of the meeting, about the deferral or postponement or cancellation of the idea of removing you as a director on the basis that the charges wouldn't go forward, or did that really happen much later in the meeting?

Ms Pretty: She said to me, in reference to the motion to the board that they remove me on that Sunday, that, "Is there not another way that we can deal with this, rather than Sharron's being removed as a director?" That was the onset of the meeting. It did crop again later on, yes, and there were other things that were raised, but that was the main, you know, the main base of the topic. The whole thrust of the meeting was on compromise.

Ms Cronk: And as the discussion proceeded, were other matters also discussed of the kind described in the balance of your note at page 1?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: At some subsequent point, then, in the meeting, did this issue of your not being removed as a director and the charges that were outstanding come up again?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: All right. And how much into the meeting was it when it came up again? Do you remember how long the meeting had been in progress?

Ms Pretty: Well, the meeting was an hour and a half long, and the introductory part wouldn't have taken any more than 10 minutes.

Ms Cronk: Then I understood you to indicate that there was discussion of a number of topics, as set out at page 1 of your notes.

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: What I'm asking you is, how much longer into the meeting was it when the topic of your removal as a director and the outstanding charges came up again? Were you another hour into the meeting, were you almost at the end of the meeting, or did it just continue throughout?

Ms Pretty: About halfway through.

Ms Cronk: About halfway through? Okay. You actually said that earlier, and then I got confused. So about halfway through.

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: And as you remember it, how long did the discussion on that issue, on those issues -- the removal of you as a director and the outstanding charges -- last when it came up that second time?

Ms Pretty: To the end.

Ms Cronk: To the end of the meeting. So if the meeting was about an hour and half long, are you saying that as you recall it, approximately 45 minutes or so into the meeting the topic came up again and it was discussed for another 45 minutes?

Ms Pretty: Easily.

Ms Cronk: I'm obliged to put to you, Ms Pretty, that I anticipate there will be evidence from other witnesses that there was --

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm. That's fine.

Ms Cronk: I'm going to tell you what it is and ask for your comments on it: that there was, at the outset of the meeting, an introduction by the minister, an acknowledgement by her that she was aware of the pending resolution for your removal as a director and an acknowledgement that she was aware that legal steps were under way or actions were being considered, and that it was much, much later in the meeting, virtually at its conclusion, that the topic of your removal as a director and the possibility of deferring or withdrawing charges came up again for discussion -- whatever language was used, that the subject matter, the topics, didn't come up again until virtually the end of the meeting, and that when it did, the discussion was very brief. Is that consistent or inconsistent with your recollection of how the meeting progressed?

Ms Pretty: It's inconsistent with my recollection.

Ms Cronk: Is it, then, your evidence to this committee, as you suggested a few moments ago, that it came up approximately 45 minutes or so into the meeting and then consumed the balance of the entire discussion?

Ms Pretty: Yes. It was mainly that that she was talking about: the charges, how to remedy it. "Is there a way we can solve this problem?" "Brian Sutherland, do you think maybe we could have a meeting?" "Does the board agree to a meeting?" "Sharron, would you agree to a meeting to discuss these problems and perhaps maybe we won't have to go to court over this?"

Yeah, it was about 40 minutes or so.

Ms Cronk: And with respect to the suggestion that you understood was being made, can you tell the committee as best you can today, first, who first raised the suggestion of deferral? Was it a suggestion of deferral of the resolution to remove you as a director?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

1450

Ms Cronk: Who first raised that suggestion?

Ms Pretty: Evelyn.

Ms Cronk: Did she connect that with anything else? Was that connected to a discussion of the charges?

Ms Pretty: Well, she spoke about the meeting that she had had with Trinh on June the 10th, where she had seen a lot of documentation and she realized that we were in trouble as far as the board goes and we were in conflict. You know, basically she was just trying to -- she was mediating, she was trying to get both sides to back down and discuss things, but I'd already tried to do that and it didn't work; it was beyond that.

Ms Cronk: Did the minister appear to you, based on what she said and did at the meeting, to understand the nature of the charges that were outstanding?

Ms Pretty: I guess so. I don't remember her expanding on them very much; she just said she was aware of the charges with the crown.

Ms Cronk: Did she mention the word "crown"?

Ms Pretty: Uh, I think so. I think so.

Ms Cronk: Did anyone else mention the word "crown"?

Ms Pretty: "Courts." Oh God, what's the difference between "courts" and "crown"? I remember saying to her at one point, when she suggested that I consider going to the crown and dropping the charges, that I said: "It's out of my hands. It's in the court -- it's in the crown's hands now," or, "It's in the hands of the crown now." I was surprised to find that those words were borrowed in some kind of a press article later on by Evelyn. She borrowed my words, "It's in the hands of the crown now" or "the courts." What did I say? "In the hands of the crown now. It's out of my hands. It's in the hands of the crown now."

Ms Cronk: Are you saying, Ms Pretty, that the minister suggested that you should go to the crown and drop the charges?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I am.

Ms Cronk: All right, and let me just understand that. We've already agreed that you don't remember the phrase "drop the charges" being used.

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: So whatever the minister said, you understood it to mean that but she didn't actually say "drop the charges." We've already agreed about that.

Ms Pretty: Hmm.

Ms Cronk: Five minutes ago we agreed about that.

Ms Pretty: Um, you're getting me very confused.

Ms Cronk: I'm just focusing on what you just told the committee a moment ago, and it's important that I understand exactly what it is, to the best of your recollection. I'm not asking for absolute precision but that I understand exactly what you're saying to the committee was said. What you said a minute ago, just so that we're clear, okay, is that you said that the minister suggested that you should go to the crown and drop the charges.

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: And what I'm focusing on is just the language of that for a moment.

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: And I thought we had agreed that you did not remember the minister using the phrase "drop the charges." That's what you thought it meant, but you don't remember her using that phrase. Am I right so far?

Ms Pretty: Yeah, I guess so. It's just that sometimes when you ask me a certain way I don't remember, but then when I look at my own notes that I made almost, you know, the same day as the meeting, I wrote down, "It's out of my hands. It's in the hands of the crowns now," so that my memory then would obviously be much better than it is now. I've read all sorts of articles in the newspapers, I've had numerous discussions with lawyers, with all sorts of people, press people, and I'm mixed up now. The only thing I can rely on are my notes.

Ms Cronk: All right. And when you say your notes, you're referring to your handwritten notes?

Ms Pretty: My handwritten notes and the notes that I did in terms of press release. My press release is my notes; it's just put in a formal form.

Ms Cronk: Then, just so that I'm clear, because I want to know if you're saying something different to me now, do you, as you sit here today, based on all the thought that you've given this and the notes that you've prepared and the press statements that you've prepared, do you remember the minister using the phrase "drop the charges"?

Ms Pretty: I think I do.

Ms Cronk: I take from that that you're uncertain.

Ms Pretty: Well, I wrote it down. I didn't write anything down that I didn't remember. I didn't make anything up. I wrote down things as they came to me, as I remembered them as happening, word for word. If you're asking me now, at this point in time, to remember things verbatim, I can't. I can only trust my notes.

Ms Cronk: Okay. So that when you say that you think you remember the minister using that phrase, you're relying on the references to that phrase in your notes. Is that right?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I have to.

Ms Cronk: All right. And I'm obliged to put this to you, Mrs Pretty: Is it possible that because you understood what the minister was saying as meaning a suggestion that you drop the charges, that she never actually used that phrase or said that but that you took from her words that that's what she meant? Is that possible?

Ms Pretty: Well, it wasn't just me that understood it that way.

Ms Cronk: Well, I'm just talking to you right now and I'm going to be talking to some other people.

Ms Pretty: That's good.

Ms Cronk: I want to know what you understood, Ms Pretty. I want to know what you understood. It's very important to the committee.

Ms Pretty: I understand the importance of it.

Ms Cronk: Is that possible?

Ms Pretty: I'm going to stick with what I wrote in my press release because I know that I was being as absolutely truthful as possible.

Ms Cronk: When you wrote your first press release?

Ms Pretty: And that's when my memory would have been the most fresh.

Ms Cronk: And just so that you understand, Ms Pretty, do you recognize that it's my job here, on behalf of the committee, to test both your recollection of the meeting --

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: -- that of the minister and others? Again, I say to you, I was not there, I don't know what occurred so I'm asking for your very best recollection and I know that you will give me that. Do you understand that that's why I'm asking these questions?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I do.

Ms Cronk: All right. Then just with respect to what you've said in your notes on this suggestion of dropping charges, you told me earlier today that you spoke after the June 17th meeting with Patrick Dare of the Ottawa Citizen. Do you recall that?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: And as we spoke about this morning, an article appeared under his byline on June the 18th, the day after the meeting. Do you recall that in the Ottawa Citizen?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: All right. Could I ask you to look at that article, please. It's in several places, but if you could look at exhibit 1, volume 1, tab 7.

Mr McKinnon: It's also tab 91 of the book we're into.

Ms Cronk: Okay. Thank you. Wherever it's more convenient. For those who are at volume 1, tab 7, it appears at page 55. Do you have a copy of it, Ms Pretty? It's entitled "Non-Profit Housing Agency Fighting Race Issue."

Ms Pretty: Yes, I have the original newspaper clipping.

Ms Cronk: Okay. As I understood your evidence to the committee, you spoke to Mr Dare, as you recalled it, on June 17th after the meeting with the minister?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm, yes.

Ms Cronk: And you told him a number of things, I take it. You're quoted in the article?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Are the matters attributed to you in this article accurate? For example, "`I want to be a voice for the non-Vietnamese tenants in this building,' Pretty said Friday."

Ms Pretty: Yeah, that was one thing that he played up on.

Ms Cronk: All right. Would you agree with me that there's nothing in this article about the minister having suggested to you that you drop the charges that were then outstanding?

Ms Pretty: I didn't bring that up, no.

Ms Cronk: You didn't tell Mr Dare that?

Ms Pretty: I didn't realize the significance of it, to tell you the truth.

Ms Cronk: You spoke with him on June 17th after the meeting and you made your handwritten notes at page 2, at least in part, the first half of them, the following morning. Am I right?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: And when you made the notes the following morning, I take it that you did attribute some significance to it, because in the part that you made on Saturday morning you referred to that issue twice. Am I right?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And then dealing with the suggestion at the meeting, your recollection of what the minister said, was the issue of the charges and the charges not proceeding raised in the context of a possible option?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

1500

Ms Cronk: And did the minister, as you recall it, use language which suggested that that was one option that might be considered?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And in that context, do you remember specifically discussion using the word "charges"? Or is it possible that the minister referred to "actions," resolving actions both on the board's part and your own, as being a possible option?

Ms Pretty: It's possible.

Ms Cronk: Okay. For example, did the minister, looking back on it now, based on what you wrote at the time and everything you remember, say, "Can these things be resolved without legal proceedings and removal of directors?"

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Did she say that?

Ms Pretty: Oh, yes. She said it so many different ways that I -- yeah, probably.

Ms Cronk: Is that one of the ways?

Ms Pretty: Could have been, yes.

Ms Cronk: Did you suggest to the minister that you didn't think you could work with the board?

Ms Pretty: I can remember that very clearly. Yes, I did say that.

Ms Cronk: Did the minister say to you that talking to the prosecutor was a possibility, that she presumed it was, but she didn't know?

Ms Pretty: She did mention the prosecutor. She did say, "Perhaps if you go to the prosecutor," or the crown -- I don't know exactly what word she used, but I knew what she meant. "If you go to the prosecutor, she'd understand if you were to explain that you wanted to solve things out of the court." And it was at that point when I said, "I find that absolutely ludicrous, to suggest that I go to the court and say: `Drop the charges; I've changed my mind. Let them all go.'"

Ms Cronk: Did you tell her that's the way you felt about it?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Do you remember saying that?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I sure did.

Ms Cronk: And why did you feel that way?

Ms Pretty: Well, first of all, I felt as if I'd been totally betrayed by the minister because I went to that meeting thinking that she was going to try and correct the wrongs at the centre. By having me drop the charges, I didn't consider that the best way of correcting the wrongs at the centre. It might have been the easiest way, but it wasn't the best way.

I was feeling pretty disillusioned when I saw that the whole direction that the minister was taking was to appeal to me to compromise, and in exchange for dropping the charges, she would recommend to the board not to hold this meeting to remove me, so that I could stay on the board for one more month of my term. And seeing as how I was completely disempowered as a director, what possible good does that do? I mean, that's not a deal at all. It was a deal.

Ms Cronk: You understood what the minister to be suggesting to be a deal?

Ms Pretty: To be a deal, yeah. She said, "If the board does not go ahead with the meeting to remove you and you can complete your term of one month left on your year as a director, then in exchange for you dropping the charges, then maybe we can work with this," you know. "Maybe then we can get together, have a meeting. Brian could come and help, you know, get things going and maybe we could get someone from ONPHA to help," you know. But it was all stemming from me dropping the charges, that everything was for me to do the first thing. I was to drop the charges and then, in exchange for that, I would not get kicked off the board for a month.

Ms Cronk: Was she also suggesting to the board that they strongly consider not removing you as a director?

Ms Pretty: Yes, she did say that.

Ms Cronk: So when you say that it was all to you initially, was she not suggesting both a compromise by the board and a compromise by you?

Ms Pretty: Yes, she did turn to the board and say that one sentence, but most of it was directed at me.

Ms Cronk: Could you look at exhibit 1 again, volume 1 at tab 7, if you would, please, Ms Pretty. These are a series of media articles, press articles that appeared.

Mr Callahan: Can anybody read that? It's so small.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at page 49; they're numbered in the top right-hand corner. This one's a little bigger, Mr Callahan.

This is an article that appeared in the Windsor Star on June 21st, 1994, Ms Pretty, entitled "Gigantes' Actions to be Reviewed." Do you have that?

Ms Pretty: Yes, and it's the first time I've seen it, so I'd like a chance to take a look at it, if I could.

Ms Cronk: That would be fine.

Ms Pretty: Okay.

Ms Cronk: Could I direct your attention to the top of the third column, beginning with the sentence, "Outside the Legislature...." Do you see that?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: It reads: "Outside the Legislature, Gigantes again denied she had interfered with Pretty's case," and then there's a quote attributed to the minister and it reads as follows: "I suggested if that were possible, perhaps the board would be willing to back off and think again about an action which they had proposed to bring forward...to have her removed, and it might be it would not be necessary for some other actions to proceed on her side." End of quote.

Did the minister, to your recollection, say that at the meeting?

Ms Pretty: She didn't phrase it like that at all.

Mr Murphy: Do we know what the "that" refers to in the first --

Ms Cronk: If you read back in the second column, in the quote attributed to Premier Rae at the bottom, it appears to be the suggestion urging that charges be dropped or withdrawn.

Ms Pretty: There are some similarities to things she said at the meeting, but I would say that she's had time to very delicately rephrase it.

Ms Cronk: You don't think she said it in the language suggested in this article?

Ms Pretty: She didn't say that kind of thing in the meeting. It was much more easy to understand. This is very vague.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at the same tab at page 52. This is another article, this by Dave Rider. It appeared the day before, on June 20th. It's entitled, "Gigantes Accused of Court Conflict." Do you have that?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I do.

Ms Cronk: And about the fourth paragraph down, it reads as follows:

"Pretty said Gigantes attempted to defuse the situation by suggesting she ask the crown to drop the charges in exchange for the other directors not following through on a threat to kick her off the board.

"`On two or three occasions, (Gigantes) said, "Let's deal with this without going through the courts," openly saying I should drop the charges.'"

Stopping there for a moment, is that the language the minister used, and by that I mean, "Let's deal with this without going through the courts"? Is that what she said?

Ms Pretty: Yes, along that line.

1510

Ms Cronk: And is that what you understood to mean that she was suggesting that you drop the charges?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Carrying on in the next paragraph, "Gigantes said yesterday she only laid options on the table and did not pressure either side to take any action." Based on your recollection of the meeting, was the minister simply laying possible options on the table?

Ms Pretty: Well, she didn't order me to go to the courts.

Ms Cronk: Was the suggestion of discussions with respect to the charges made in the context of a possible course of action, or was she suggesting that you do that, that you go and see the crown?

Ms Pretty: Well, there were no other options suggested. That was the only option suggested at the meeting. So that's why I say I felt pressured.

Ms Cronk: Was the potential for another meeting among you and the other directors raised at the meeting?

Ms Pretty: If I dropped the charges.

Ms Cronk: Let me just understand. Was there a suggestion made by the minister that another meeting occur among yourself and the other directors?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And in that context, are you saying that it was suggested to you that you drop the charges in order for that meeting to occur?

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: Or that there be a meeting at which the various issues between you and the other directors might be discussed?

Ms Pretty: I believed that she was asking me to drop the charges, for the board to stop their process of removing me, and that a meeting take place where we all sit down and work it out internally.

Ms Cronk: And were you open to that suggestion, the suggestion of a meeting for that purpose?

Ms Pretty: I was open to the suggestion of the meeting, but I was not open to the suggestion of dropping charges.

Ms Cronk: Did you agree to meet with the other directors?

Ms Pretty: I did not agree.

Ms Cronk: Did you signify one way or the other whether you were prepared to do so?

Ms Pretty: I said I would think about it, and they were pressing me at the time to set a date, and I said, "I don't want to make any decisions right now about anything."

Ms Cronk: When you say "they" were pressing you to set a date, who was pressing you?

Ms Pretty: Vinh Tang, Can Le, mostly the board directors.

Ms Cronk: Did the minister, with reference to that, tell you at the meeting that you did not have to agree to a date and that you could think about it?

Ms Pretty: Yes, she did.

Ms Cronk: And was a date for that meeting in fact set?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Did you signify one way or the other at the meeting whether you were agreeable to not proceeding with the charges? Did you say anything about that?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: In your press release, Ms Pretty, the first statement, the first press statement at tab 86, you indicate in the first paragraph, "The thrust of the meeting was on compromise." I'm sorry, I'll wait for you to get it.

Ms Pretty: Oh, yeah, here we are.

Ms Cronk: Tab 86, volume 3, in the first paragraph --

Mr Murphy: Are we done with volume 1?

Ms Cronk: For now.

The first sentence, "The thrust of the meeting was on compromise," do you see that?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: "Evelyn was in a very pacifying mode." Thus far, is that how you recall the meeting?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And then it goes on to say, "I felt intimidated and pressured to agree to the suggestion by Evelyn Gigantes that I drop charges against the board of directors in order to solve the issue out of court." Stopping there for a moment, looking back on it today, with all of the thought that you have given to this matter and again the notes that you prepared concerning the meeting, is it your evidence that you felt intimidated and pressured at that meeting?

Ms Pretty: Absolutely.

Ms Cronk: By what?

Ms Pretty: By the environment, by the individuals and by the tone of the meeting. I was shocked that the minister basically avoided addressing the directors on their wrongdoings and that mainly everyone was looking at me to be the one to back down, and everyone else, they don't even get a slap on the wrist. It's like: "Okay, we go on from here. The past is the past. Let's forget it all and move forward, be productive."

Excuse me, but history repeats itself, and I happen to know that we learn a lot from history, and if people get away without having any consequences or any accountability, then the offences keep on going on and getting worse. That's why I felt very strongly about going ahead with my court case. A very serious offence had taken place, where I was denied information as a director, I was not able to do my job as a director. The other board members were all biased, and it was extremely tense.

The easy thing for me to do was to say: "I don't need this. I don't get anything out of this. I don't get paid for this job. What am I here for?" But I got angry because here I am on a board of directors and it was an opportunity for me to do something worthwhile, and yet in everything that I tried to do I was stalemated, I was paralysed. They took away my power. They gave me power; they took it away. They told me things that were lies. They expected me to make important decisions, but they didn't give me the proper information and tools to work with.

Ms Cronk: And those things were enormously frustrating for you and a source of increasing anger over time. Would that be fair?

Ms Pretty: That's right, and that was my main motivating factor for sticking with this for so long.

Ms Cronk: If I could just ask you to come back to your press release, the first press release, for the moment, did you intend, when you said in this press release that you felt intimidated and pressured, to be suggesting that you felt pressured and intimidated by the minister?

Ms Pretty: I felt let down by her because she should be supporting me. I was the one that started writing and informing her of things that were going wrong at the Van Lang Centre. I was the one that cc'd information to her. I was the one that kept her abreast of everything.

Ms Cronk: And in fairness to you, you had been doing that for months.

Ms Pretty: For a long, long time, starting in October.

Ms Cronk: My question to you, Ms Pretty, was, when you said this in your press release, that you felt intimidated and pressured, were you intending to suggest that you felt intimidated and pressured by the minister or are you simply saying today that you felt terribly let down by her?

Ms Pretty: I was let down by everything. I was let down by the board. I was let down by the whole system, the Ministry of Housing. I was let down by basically the whole bureaucracy. It was a very frustrating experience to try and go up through all of the layers of the bureaucracy and experience conflicting statements and getting misdirected and just trying to wade through mountains of paper.

Ms Cronk: I understand your evidence as to the frustration and the effort over many, many months on your part to deal with the situation. What I'm asking you is, when you said in this press release that you felt intimidated and pressured, were you intending to say that you felt intimidated and pressured by the minister?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Or are you simply saying to the committee that you felt terribly let down by her? You recognize the difference?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I do recognize the difference between the words "intimidated" and "pressured." I felt both, because, first of all, why should this have gone so far that we had charges with the crown? We were having a meeting with Evelyn after the fact, at 10 Rideau overlooking Parliament Hill, in this beautiful boardroom. I was surrounded by doctors and ministers and ministers' staff, and I'm just a regular, everyday person, a tenant at Van Lang who took an interest in the place. And suddenly everybody is looking at me, going: "Drop the charges. Forget everything that's happened. Forget what we've done. Forget everything that's been done wrong. Forget how you feel. Just go for it. Just go on."

1520

Ms Cronk: Was it, then, the atmosphere in the meeting and the focus at the meeting on your charges and the removal of you as a director that you felt to be intimidating and a pressurized situation?

Ms Pretty: Basically, what I felt pressured about the most was that I went there thinking that the minister was going to support me. Especially after seeing all of the evidence that she saw at the meeting with Trinh Luu on June the 10th and all my letters and discussions and cc'd letters and everything else, I thought for sure that surely she'd realize the gravity of the situation and she would do what was right, and that was to tell the board that they have been wrong. But instead, I got told that I'm supposed to back down in order for them to back down, and then we've got to go back to square one and start talking again. It didn't work in the first place; it's not going to work.

Ms Cronk: Just so that I understand it then, when you say that you felt pressured and intimidated, it was because of those factors and the fact that you felt let down and were not supported by the minister. Do I understand correctly that it was for those reasons and not because of what she said to you with respect to withdrawing the charges?

Ms Pretty: No. I was feeling very intimidated and pressured because of the direction that the meeting took. I didn't expect that. I expected her to support me, and instead she asked me to back down, and she sided with the board basically.

Ms Cronk: In the course of the meeting, did the minister say to you on one or more occasions that you should not feel pressured, but that you --

Ms Pretty: Of course.

Ms Cronk: Did she?

Ms Pretty: But that doesn't mean I didn't feel pressured.

Ms Cronk: Did she say that to you more than once?

Ms Pretty: Many times.

Ms Cronk: And did she also say to you that you should take your time to consider what was being discussed and that you didn't have to make up your mind on anything at that very meeting?

Ms Pretty: She did, but that directly followed me saying that I would not make up my mind and set a date for a meeting or I would not decide on anything at that meeting. She followed immediately with that statement.

Ms Cronk: Do I understand then, Ms Pretty, that the entire atmosphere of the meeting, the focus at the meeting, as you felt it, on the charges that were outstanding, the people who were present at the meeting and the way the meeting progressed led you to feel very pressured while you were there?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: As distinct from anything in particular that anyone said to you at the meeting, it was a combination of all those factors?

Ms Pretty: Yes. It was a combination of what was said and also the whole -- all of the surrounding circumstances.

Ms Cronk: Was there any suggestion of any kind at that meeting, Ms Pretty, that the minister herself would approach the crown or the prosecutor about the charges?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Was there any suggestion at that meeting by the minister that she would arrange for anyone else to approach the crown or the prosecutor about the charges?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: With respect to the suggested further meeting to take place between you and the other board members, I understand your evidence to the committee to be that you did not agree to a specific time for the meeting nor even to the meeting but that you were open to the suggestion.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Is that right?

Ms Pretty: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: Do you recall two days after the meeting on June 19, the Sunday, having a telephone discussion with Dr Vinh Tang?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: And did you, during the course of that telephone discussion with him, indicate to him that you would have said at the meeting that you would meet him and the directors?

Ms Pretty: May I refer to that transcript?

Ms Cronk: Yes.

Mr Callahan: Is this another transcript?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Callahan: Do we have a copy of it? We don't have a copy of it.

Ms Cronk: Ms Pretty, so that everyone is clear, this was a telephone discussion, as I understand it, between Dr Vinh Tang and yourself on June 19th?

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: Did you tape this discussion?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: I have provided you, through your counsel, with a copy of the transcription that we made of that telephone discussion. Do you have that handy?

Ms Pretty: I don't have it handy.

Mr McKinnon: We just have the one copy.

Ms Pretty: Thank you.

Ms Cronk: Could I direct your attention, Ms Pretty, to the first page of the transcript.

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: The conversation appears to begin with Dr Tang saying hello.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And you inquiring, "Is that Dr Vinh?"

Ms Pretty: Yes, I called him.

Ms Cronk: Sorry, I'm having trouble hearing the witness.

Mr Harnick: Excuse me. Do we get a copy of this transcript?

Ms Cronk: It's being passed around now, I believe.

Mr Sutherland: Sorry, the clerk said it's one per caucus for now.

Mr Harnick: Is that what it is? Okay.

Mr Sutherland: She's gone to make more copies.

Ms Cronk: Do you have one there, Mr Harnick?

Mr Harnick: Yes, we have one, thank you.

Ms Cronk: May I back up then so that I'm sure the committee heard the evidence of the witness? The conversation appears to indicate that you telephoned Dr Tang. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: That was on June the 19th?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And that after you had identified yourself as Sharron Pretty, Dr Tang is recorded as saying: "Oh hi. How are you Sharron?"

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And you replied to that?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Then he's recorded as saying -- sorry, you're recorded as saying that you were "not too bad" and that you were "just wondering what was the status on this meeting today."

Now, stopping there for a moment, do I take that correctly to mean the meeting that had been scheduled with respect to the issue of your removal as a director?

Ms Pretty: Exactly, the Sunday meeting.

Ms Cronk: What time of day did this discussion take place? Do you recall?

Ms Pretty: I'm not sure.

Ms Cronk: Carrying on, then, may I just read the following to you:

"Dr Tang: Well, I thought we -- we agreed not to meet today, right?

"Sharron Pretty: "I -- I understood that, but I'm just confirming it.

"Dr Tang: Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay. So, you know, I understand it that you also agree, you know, to take a compromising route, and would not pursue the case and we would postpone this meeting. So that's, I think we do accordingly, I guess.

"Sharron Pretty: Um, well, I was under the understanding that the meeting was -- you were supposed to suspend this attempt to oust me from the board. The rest of it is up for debate. I haven't agreed to anything.

"Dr Tang: Well, well, well, well, I -- I don't know about that too well.

"Ms Pretty: Well if you'd like to go ahead with the meeting this afternoon, I'm sure the press would be interested.

"Dr Tang: What do you mean? No, no, no, I don't want -- I'm not worrying about that.

"Ms Pretty: Uh-huh.

"Dr Tang: I'm not worrying about that. You know -- I, I, I....

"Ms Pretty: Well they've been phoning me this morning wondering if there was going to be a meeting, and I said I'd phone you and find out for sure. And...you know....

"Dr Tang: ...my firm understanding. I -- I mean I have to do according to the last time -- the official time that we met."

Then you: "Uh-huh.

"Dr Tang: Which was last time at...."

Then yourself speaking: "On Friday.

"Dr Tang: The meeting on Friday.

"Sharron: Uh-huh.

"Dr Tang: On Friday with the minister. And then from my understanding of that meeting -- okay -- is that ah when the minister asked you if you agree to the compromising...proposal that she put forward, and I can see clearly I remember that you said `yes.'

"Ms Pretty: I said that I would have...I said that I would -- that I would meet you. I would meet with you and discuss it but we hadn't decided when -- what time."

Now, stopping there for a moment, Ms Pretty, is that portion of the transcript an accurate representation or rendition of what was said?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: Did you in fact, at the meeting on June 17th, agree to meet with the board to discuss the matters of difference between you?

Ms Pretty: Like I said before, the only thing I agreed to was to consider a meeting with the board as a possibility. I did not actually say, "Yes, yes, I will definitely have a meeting with you and this is the date." You know, they tried to get me to agree to it but I didn't want to. I wanted to think about what was said at that meeting on the 17th. I wanted to think about all the options and what was the best move to make.

Ms Cronk: Did Dr Tang say to you, as suggested by this transcript, in that discussion with him on June 19th, that it was his understanding that you had agreed to take a compromising route and would not pursue the case and that they would postpone the meeting scheduled for June 19th? Is that what he said to you?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

1530

Ms Cronk: And had you agreed to that?

Ms Pretty: Had I agreed to a meeting? I had not --

Ms Cronk: Had you agreed to take a compromising route --

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: -- and to not pursue your case if they would postpone the meeting?

Ms Pretty: No, I hadn't. He heard what he wanted to hear.

Ms Cronk: At the end of the meeting, did you leave the meeting alone or were you accompanied by anyone?

Ms Pretty: Actually, I was accompanied by Evelyn and Audrey.

Ms Cronk: Audrey Moey?

Ms Pretty: Audrey Moey.

Ms Cronk: Did you go down on the elevator together?

Ms Pretty: Yes, we did.

Ms Cronk: And did you have any discussion with her on the elevator?

Ms Pretty: Sure.

Ms Cronk: Was it just a common exchange of civilities, nothing about what happened at the meeting?

Ms Pretty: I was so blown away by the meeting I didn't know what to think, so I kept it very superficial.

Ms Cronk: Did you, either as you were leaving the meeting or when you went down on the elevator with the minister and Ms Moey, indicate to her that you had felt pressured or intimidated at the meeting?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did say I had felt it was a very intimidating experience for me. I did say that to her.

Ms Cronk: And did you, at any point in that discussion, suggest to her that any of her actions or any of her remarks had made you feel that way?

Ms Pretty: No. We didn't get into that. We didn't get into it.

Ms Cronk: And in fairness, in so far as you're concerned, Ms Pretty, was it any of the minister's actions or anything that she had said that had caused you to feel that, or was it a collection of circumstances, the nature of the meeting, the people who were there, the atmosphere, the matters discussed and the way the meeting progressed?

Ms Pretty: The most intimidating thing for me and disillusioning thing for me was the fact that the minister took that particular stance. It threw me off balance. I was so disappointed. I felt abandoned, actually, because here I was alone against everybody and I thought that Evelyn had called this meeting because she had seen all this evidence that Trinh Luu had shown her on June 10th -- reams of evidence. She had agreed with Trinh at the time, saying, "Oh, this is messy." And Trinh had said, "It wouldn't have been so messy if you had listened to us months ago."

Ms Cronk: Did you, when you left the meeting, when you rode down on the elevator with the minister or as you were leaving the building, tell her any of that?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Did you tell her that you felt intimidated by what she'd done at the meeting or what she'd said?

Ms Pretty: No, I didn't.

Ms Cronk: And in fact, as I understand it, is it correct that you proposed having lunch together?

Ms Pretty: I told her that Trinh and I were supposed to meet and she said she was going into one of the salad places. I think I said something like, "Would you like to join us?" or something. I don't know. It was just a --

Ms Cronk: And did that occur?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: How did you understand the meeting to have concluded, Ms Pretty?

Ms Pretty: As far as I'm concerned, everything was still up in the air. I was not going to drop the charges. I knew that. I wasn't sure I was going to have a meeting with the board, because I had had to face so much abuse for the past year from that board of directors that I just didn't relish the thought of having to look at them again. And so of course we couldn't set a -- I couldn't commit myself to a date for that meeting because I just didn't want to have it.

Ms Cronk: In so far as you were concerned, was anything agreed upon at that meeting?

Ms Pretty: No. Nothing.

Ms Cronk: When you met with Mr Dare on that day, on June 17th, leading to his article of June 18th that we looked at a few moments ago -- do you remember that?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Am I correct that there's nothing in Mr Dare's article that suggests that you told him you felt pressured or intimidated at that meeting?

Ms Pretty: Let me just scan it again, okay? Just give me a second.

Ms Cronk: Take all the time you need.

Ms Pretty: Okay.

Ms Cronk: I'm suggesting to you that there's nothing in that article indicating that you told Mr Dare that you felt intimidated or pressured when you left that meeting. Am I right in that?

Ms Pretty: No. Let me -- if it's possible, I'd like you to get into my head a little bit. On Saturday the full reality of that meeting on June the 17th was hitting me. I was actually quite depressed and I stayed depressed most of the day. That's why I only wrote a few notes down on Saturday and they just sort of stopped abruptly. It wasn't until Sunday afternoon or so when I started to feel a little bit more -- I was starting to gather myself together more and that's when I started recalling more clearly what had transpired, what was said, and I started writing things down again.

Ms Cronk: All right. So on Friday when you spoke with Mr Dare, you didn't tell him that you felt pressured or intimidated at the meeting?

Ms Pretty: I hadn't had a chance to really sit down and evaluate how I was feeling. I just knew that I was really disappointed and I felt kind of hopeless, because this had been a long, long fight and both Trinh and I had put a lot of effort into trying to right things at the Van Lang Centre, with the best intentions, and nothing was happening.

Ms Cronk: I have just one or two more questions for you, Ms Pretty. Could I ask you to look again at your second press statement, the one of June 23rd. It's found at tab 100.

Ms Pretty: Okay. Which volume is it?

Ms Cronk: That's volume 3.

Interjection: I think it's at tab 87.

Ms Cronk: Actually, I guess it's at both tabs. That's right.

Ms Pretty: Sorry?

Ms Cronk: You can go to tab 87 if you'd like of that volume.

Ms Pretty: Okay, because it isn't at that tab 100, unless it's --

Interjection: Tab 87.

Ms Pretty: Yeah. It wasn't at tab 100.

Ms Cronk: Sorry. This is your second press statement dated June 23, 1994?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: Do you have that? Okay. Could I ask you to look at page 3, if you would. Have you got that?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: The third full paragraph, which reads as follows: "As revealed in my account of the June 17 meeting issued yesterday, June 22, 1994, it is clear to me that the June 17 meeting initiated by the minister was intended to persuade me to ask the crown to drop the charges for the best interests of all concerned." On what basis were you suggesting in this document, Ms Pretty, that the meeting was intended to persuade you to drop the charges?

Ms Pretty: Just from all of the facts, if you look at them in sequence. If I presume to be the minister for a moment and look at the facts, I think, what other options would she have had?

Ms Cronk: Was this then your impression, having been at the meeting and in reflecting on it, as to what you thought the purpose of the meeting was?

Ms Pretty: Yes. It was clear to me. That was my perception. That's all I can say. I'm not speaking for anyone else.

Ms Cronk: That's what I was getting at. It was your perception of the meeting.

Ms Pretty: It's my perception, yeah.

Ms Cronk: Certainly no one suggested that to you?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: With respect to the next paragraph, "Mrs Gigantes said, `I am sure that if you went to the crown and explain that you would like to drop the charges for the best interests of all concerned in order to settle this dispute out of court, they would understand,'" now, I can take you to the exact language of it if you wish, Ms Pretty, but may I suggest to you that that is different language again from what is in your handwritten notes or your first press statement as to what you suggest that Ms Gigantes said. You've just expressed it differently here. Would that be fair?

Ms Pretty: Well, it was probably another statement.

Ms Cronk: Well, do you remember her saying that, what you have in quotes?

Ms Pretty: Yes. Yes, I do.

Ms Cronk: In that language?

Ms Pretty: Yeah.

Ms Cronk: Including the use of the phrase "settling this dispute out of court and dropping the charges"?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

1540

Mr Callahan: Can I just inquire what other statement you're talking about that it's inconsistent with? Is that the one at tab 86, the first press statement?

Ms Cronk: No, I've suggested to the witness, Mr Callahan, that in her handwritten notes and in the first press statement there are different expressions of what the minister said and that this language is a different expression of what was said.

Mr Callahan: Which paragraph are you referring to? Because I thought I had the wrong paragraph. I've got paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4 -- the fifth paragraph seems to be almost a mirror image of what she said there. She says in that paragraph, "I find it ludicrous to suggest that I go to the crown and say I've changed my mind.... After all, the crown considered..." and so on. That's not much different than, "I'm sure if you went to the crown and explain that you would like to drop the charges for the best interests of all...."

Ms Cronk: The witness has said, Mr Callahan -- and I'll have the witness clarify it and I'll explore it with her -- that the minister repeated the suggestion to her in a number of different ways at the meeting and I'm simply suggesting to the witness that this particular characterization of what the minister said uses different language than that contained in her first press statement or her handwritten notes. Just to give you an example of that, Ms Pretty, could I ask you to go to the first press statement, if you would. That's at tab 86.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Just following on Mr Callahan's question -- and, counsel, I don't want to presume your line of questioning, but I'm not clear on the construction of the notes, the chronology and perhaps who actually did the note-taking and the writing of these press releases. I'm not clear from testimony that we've heard today and so far this afternoon.

Ms Cronk: Well, thank you for indicating that to me. I had put certain questions to the witness in an effort to establish that. Perhaps I can revisit it if there's some lack of clarity.

Sorry, Ms Pretty, was there something you wanted to draw to the attention of the committee?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: All right. Could I ask you to look at your press statement at tab 86?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I'm looking at it.

Ms Cronk: Just by way of example, I'm asking you to look at the fourth full paragraph, the one that we spent some time talking about. "Evelyn emphasized that she was only `suggesting' a possible solution but she did repeat her suggestion at least three times," and then there's a number of quotes attributed to the minister. You and I talked about that and you said that she told you those things at the meeting. Remember that?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm, yes.

Ms Cronk: Just looking at that language, what I'm suggesting to you is that that expression of what she said, those various statements are different than the expression contained on page 3 of your second press statement. Would you agree with me? It doesn't mean that she didn't say it; it's just different.

Ms Pretty: Well, it's a little bit more elaborate, that's all.

Ms Cronk: It's different language, isn't it?

Ms Pretty: Well, let me take a look at it again. I don't think that's -- you know, sometimes she used short sentences and sometimes she used longer sentences. It's --

Ms Cronk: Would you agree with me that the language contained at page 3 is different than the descriptions found in the first press statement? Again, I'm not suggesting to you that she didn't say it; I'm just saying it's been characterized a little differently. Is that fair?

Ms Pretty: Yes, it's slightly different; it's just a little bit longer.

Ms Cronk: With respect to the preparation of the press statements, we went through earlier today when your handwritten notes were prepared and when your first press statement was prepared and when your second press statement was prepared.

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: With respect to the first press statement, did you prepare it yourself or in consultation with Trinh Luu or anyone else?

Ms Pretty: No, the first one was me.

Ms Cronk: And what about the second one, June 23rd?

Ms Pretty: The second one I worked at her place and she helped me with the chronological order. As you know, Trinh is a magician with facts and names and dates, so it made things a lot more simple for me, and she also had a fax machine at her house, so we decided to work at her place.

Ms Cronk: And with respect to your handwritten notes, did you prepare those yourself or in consultation with Trinh Luu?

Ms Pretty: No, those were completely by me.

Ms Cronk: So that I understand how you felt about this meeting, Ms Pretty -- and please correct me if I don't put this to you in the way that you feel about this meeting -- would it be fair to say that you had been trying, from your perspective, for many months to meet with the Minister of Housing?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: That a meeting had occurred earlier that month with Trinh Luu but it didn't involve you and as far as you were concerned you weren't invited to that meeting?

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: Then a meeting is arranged for June 17th, 1994, but you find out about it by accident because of your own inquiries of other board members?

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: You attend the meeting and it's taken a long time to get there. Is that fair, from your perspective?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm, a long time.

Ms Cronk: You had a lot you wanted to say.

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: A lot, I suggest, that you were hoping might be achieved.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And much that you expected from the minister.

Ms Pretty: I expected her to do her job.

Ms Cronk: And by doing her job, did that include trying to resolve the difficulties at the Van Lang Centre, in your mind?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And did it include, from your perspective, dealing with many of the concerns that you'd raised over the preceding months?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And did you expect some or any of those to be dealt with at the meeting on June 17th?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: And some, as I understand it, were discussed; some of those issues were discussed?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: But no resolution of those issues was reached?

Ms Pretty: None.

Ms Cronk: And on a personal level, you felt disappointed by what had occurred, and in particular disappointed by the minister's actions at the meeting?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I was.

Ms Cronk: Would it be fair to say that you had quite high expectations of her at that meeting, going into the meeting?

Ms Pretty: She was the only one that could make any difference by that point.

Ms Cronk: And you perceived and you felt on a personal level disappointment with what you thought was a lack of support to you at that meeting?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And you came away from it, I take it, uh, feeling that you had been both -- that you were intimidated during the course of the meeting and that you had been subjected to pressure. Is that fair?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And you've described to the committee your state of mind and how you felt the next day, on the Saturday. And was it then, over the course of the weekend, that you started to collect your thoughts and to put down your notes about what had occurred?

Ms Pretty: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: I'm obliged to put to you, Ms Pretty, that from the perspective of others who may have attended the meeting, that what the minister may have been trying to accomplish was to mediate the differences between parties who had been involved in an acrimonious dispute for many, many months; namely, yourself and other members of the board. Would that be equally fair?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And that she was attempting at the meeting to establish an atmosphere of conciliation and to mediate those differences and to encourage you and the other directors to move in that direction?

Ms Pretty: Yes, but I felt it was a little late.

Ms Cronk: Apart from the timing of it, whether it should have happened sooner, is that what she was trying to do at the meeting? Is it fair to characterize it that way?

Ms Pretty: I have no way of knowing why the minister held that meeting.

Ms Cronk: Well, I didn't ask you that, Ms Pretty.

Ms Pretty: Well, in a way you are.

Ms Cronk: No, I'm suggesting -- I'm asking you whether it is fair to also characterize what occurred at that meeting as an effort by the Minister of Housing to mediate the differences among the people who were there and to suggest that they try to resolve those differences.

Ms Pretty: That's what she stated.

Ms Cronk: And is that a fair characterization of what occurred, looking back on it, based on what you remember of the meeting? Is that what she was trying to do?

Ms Pretty: Ohh -- I feel almost like I have to answer for the minister.

Ms Cronk: No, I'm asking you how you felt, looking back on the meeting, and if that's an unfair way to put it, I want you to tell me. But I'm suggesting to you that, given what occurred at the meeting, is that also what the minister was trying to do, and that is to encourage you and the other directors to try to resolve your differences?

Ms Pretty: That's what it appeared to be to me.

Ms Cronk: All right. And would it also be fair to suggest that she was encouraging all of you at that meeting to put behind your past differences and to think to the future of the Van Lang Centre?

Ms Pretty: That's what she said.

Ms Cronk: And did she also suggest that, for that reason, another meeting be held or that you consider another meeting -- that is, you and the other directors -- when these matters might be discussed?

Ms Pretty: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: And did she also, in the course of the meeting, talk about the actions that were being proposed by the board, namely, the suggested removal of you as a director, and the actions in which you were then involved, namely, the charges that had been initiated?

Ms Pretty: Yes, she did.

Ms Cronk: All right. And is it fair, in the context of all of that, to say that she didn't meet your expectations, that you were disappointed with what occurred at the meeting and you came away from it feeling very let down?

Ms Pretty: Yes, that's correct.

Ms Cronk: Over the course of that weekend, did you have any further discussions with any members of the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre apart from Dr Tang on Sunday, June 19th?

1550

Ms Pretty: I don't think so. I'm getting very tired. I'm having trouble remembering anything at this point.

Ms Cronk: I have about three more questions for you and then I'm going to ask the Chair if we might rise for a break, and then I suspect the caucus members may have a number of questions for you.

Ms Pretty: If there's any documentation that you could refer me to, to help me at this point --

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to go to tab 93 of -- it's still the same volume -- volume 3. This is a memorandum that we didn't actually look at earlier this afternoon. It's dated June 19th from Mora Thompson -- I'm sorry, to Mora Thompson from Trinh Luu. Have you seen this before?

Ms Pretty: No, I've never seen it before.

Ms Cronk: Could you take a moment, please, and just read it. It's not that long. Perhaps you could just read it for me and then I have a question for you.

Have you had a chance to read it?

Ms Pretty: I just need one second. What's the date? June 19th?

Ms Cronk: This is dated June 19th. Are you looking at some press articles?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I am. There was a quotation made by Evelyn Gigantes that totally corroborated what I'm saying.

Ms Cronk: All right. Well, if you would like over the break to turn that up or to find it in the documents and show it to me, I'd be glad to look at it and discuss it with you, and I invite you to show that to the committee. But for the purposes of this memorandum, have you had a chance to read it?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: All right. Do you recall being present during a discussion on Sunday, the 19th of June, involving Dr Hieu Truong?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I do.

Ms Cronk: And do you recall Michael Séguin and Trinh Luu being there as well?

Ms Pretty: Yes, Michael Séguin and Trinh Luu were there.

Ms Cronk: Sorry if I mispronounced his name. And were Pat Dare and David Rider there as well?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And was that in the context of the board meeting that was to have taken place on June 19th?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And did that occur?

Ms Pretty: No. The board meeting didn't happen, but I had received several phone calls from, well, first Pat Dare and Dave Rider wondering what was going to happen about that meeting and to make sure whether or not it was going to take place. Although they had promised that they were going to postpone it, we weren't sure.

Ms Cronk: So is it for that reason that you went?

Ms Pretty: I went to make sure that they didn't have a board meeting.

Ms Cronk: And did any director other than Dr Truong and yourself show up?

Ms Pretty: No one else showed up, and Dr Truong came quite a long time afterwards. Oddly enough, the office assistant had the office open at the time that I went down, so they must have been expecting some kind of press or some meeting.

Ms Cronk: Does this memorandum accurately set out a statement made by Dr Truong at that meeting or during the course of the afternoon?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And is that, from your perspective, essentially what Dr Tang had suggested to you in your telephone discussion with him?

Ms Pretty: Yes, exactly. They all thought I had come to some kind of understanding about a compromise.

Ms Cronk: The compromise being that you would drop the charges and they would postpone the meeting.

Ms Pretty: And they would postpone the meeting, yes.

Ms Cronk: All right. And do you have a recollection in your own mind of Dr Truong saying that on June 19th?

Ms Pretty: Absolutely. I was so shocked that he said that in front of two reporters.

Ms Cronk: Why were you shocked?

Ms Pretty: Well, because he was telling the truth.

Ms Cronk: Why would that shock you?

Ms Pretty: I don't know. I guess -- if you don't mind, I don't want to elaborate on that one. It's just -- it goes without saying.

Ms Cronk: Is that statement accurate as recorded in the memo, accurate in the sense that he said it?

Ms Pretty: Yes, he did say that.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 88, please. This is a memorandum dated June 17th from Trinh Luu to James Wallace. Do you have that?

Ms Pretty: Oh --

Ms Cronk: Sorry, tab 88.

Ms Pretty: Yes. It's my mistake.

Ms Cronk: Have you seen this memorandum before?

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: All right. Over the luncheon break today, which now no doubt seems a long time ago, Ms Pretty --

Ms Pretty: It's time for supper, isn't it?

Ms Cronk: -- I asked you to look at the transcript of your discussion on May 19th with Sue Lott. Did you have a chance to do that?

Ms Pretty: No, I'm sorry.

Ms Cronk: I'm going to ask, if you wouldn't mind, if you could take a look at it over the course of the break, and would you let me know if it is an accurate rendition, as far as you're concerned, of the discussion that you held with her.

Ms Pretty: Okay.

Ms Cronk: And also the May 19th transcript of the discussion between Ms Pretty and Sue --

Mr McKinnon: That was given to us on our return from lunch.

Ms Cronk: Yes. And similarly, with respect to the June 19th transcript with Dr Tang, I drew your attention to the first two pages of it. It's very long. I'm not going to ask you to read the rest of it over the break, but I believe you told me that the portions that I drew to your attention were an accurate rendition of the discussion that you had with him, as you recall it. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Ms Pretty, is there anything else about the June 17th meeting with the Minister of Housing that you wish to tell the committee that I have neglected to ask you about?

Interjection.

Ms Cronk: Sorry, Mr McKinnon?

Mr McKinnon: I'm asking her to review notes before she answers.

Ms Cronk: Well, perhaps if we could rise, Mr Chair, and take our break now, the witness could consider that.

Ms Pretty: Yes. Thank you.

The Chair: A 10-minute break.

The committee recessed from 1558 to 1620.

The Chair: Okay, if we can resume the hearings, Ms Cronk, carry on.

Ms Cronk: Thank you, Mr Chair. Ms Pretty, did you have a chance to review the transcript of the discussion between Ms Lott and yourself on May 19th, exhibit 5?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: And does it represent an accurate rendition of the discussion in so far as you're concerned?

Ms Pretty: As far as my memory goes, yes, it's pretty accurate.

Ms Cronk: Is there anything in it that you think is not?

Ms Pretty: No. I recognize a few little things that I said throughout, so I have to assume that it's accurate.

Ms Cronk: Thank you. And you'd already told me with respect to the first two pages of the transcript concerning your discussion with Dr Tang -- it's actually the first three pages -- of June 19th that you regarded that as an accurate rendition of your discussion with him. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Ms Cronk: I neglected to ask you, which even to me is quite astounding, that I didn't ask you this earlier, Ms Pretty, so may I ask you now: You taped a number of discussions with a variety of people related to your discussions about the Van Lang Centre in 1994. Did you tape the June 17, 1994, meeting?

Ms Pretty: I wish I had.

Ms Cronk: So do I. Thank you very much. Those are my questions. I take from that you did not.

Ms Pretty: No.

Ms Cronk: Thank you.

Interjection: We wouldn't be here.

The Chair: I'll be rotating with the caucuses, and we'll be starting off with the Conservatives and Ms Marland.

Mrs Marland: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Obviously, Ms Pretty, your time on the board has not been an easy experience for you, and you in fact said at one point earlier this afternoon that it would've been easier just to give up and walk away. I hope I'm not cross-examined on my paraphrasing you, but you said something in similar words.

You also said that you didn't want to go to the media, and I know that when Trinh Luu came to meet with my staff, she actually gave instructions to my staff that you and she, Trinh, wanted to get this resolved through the minister and through the minister's staff and that it wasn't your choice to go public, which means going through the media. And we respected that request by you and Trinh, you indirectly; you didn't meet with Mora Thompson, but certainly Trinh did. Mora Thompson respected that by calling Marc Collins and telling him that, you know, there was this problem -- obviously, he was aware of it -- and would he please get it resolved.

You've been asked today about what happened at the 17th of June board meeting. I'm just wondering how you would feel if you knew that somebody else at the board meeting wrote a memo after the board meeting describing the board meeting as an ordeal. Do you find that interesting, that someone else other than yourself who was at that meeting also found it an ordeal?

Ms Pretty: I'd say that that person's telling the truth.

Mrs Marland: You also mentioned at one point that when you were talking about the number of things that you were concerned about in terms of the operation of the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre and some of the concerns that Trinh Luu had had about that operation, one of the things you mentioned was directors' liability.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mrs Marland: Do you mean directors' liability insurance when you refer to that?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mrs Marland: I think there also has been some reference to a previous employee suing the directors. I don't know whether the previous employee is suing a number of directors or an individual board member, but there is a suit going on between a previous employee and one of the board or the board as a whole, I understand, and that has involved legal expenses so far.

Ms Pretty: Yes, it has.

Mrs Marland: Can you tell us who's paying those legal fees for the board at this time?

Ms Pretty: Once I was able to gain some kind of --

The Chair: Excuse me, Sharron, could you get closer to the mike?

Ms Pretty: Sorry. Once I was able to gain my rights as a director to access corporation documents, I was able to uncover several pieces of written material that indicate that the operating budget is paying for that legal counsel.

Mrs Marland: So this is the operating budget of a non-profit housing corporation --

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Mrs Marland: -- that doesn't have directors' liability insurance and those funds are being used for a private suit between a previous employee and the board now.

Ms Pretty: That's correct.

Mrs Marland: I guess we can ask the ministry whether operating budgets are allowed to be used for legal services or legal fees of that sort, and I think we'll probably find that's an interesting answer.

You've been asked a number of times this afternoon about how you felt in the June the 17th meeting. I apologize for jumping around in subjects, but actually that's how the evidence has come out today. It's jumped around chronologically as well, by necessity. At one point you were describing how you felt in the meeting and you said you were sitting in this room with a minister of the crown and her staff and you said "doctors," and I think this is because at least three of the board members have their PhD.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mrs Marland: You said you looked out the window and you could see Parliament Hill and I'm wondering if what you're describing to us there is, as you tried to earlier today, that you're none of those things. You're not a minister of the crown and you don't have a PhD and you're not on the minister's staff. You see Parliament Hill outside the window, which for you represents justice and the rights of people, and yet there you are as --

Ms Pretty: And honesty.

Mrs Marland: And honesty -- and there you are as an individual, single person who is living in the Van Lang Centre, thrilled and happy, I think I've heard you say in the past, about -- you're very pleased about this non-profit project and that you live there. And suddenly you're in this meeting, in this kind of a setting, and I'm wondering what upset you the most in terms of sitting in this room, one person versus eight, in that kind of setting. What was the feeling that you had at that meeting? You did answer one question about intimidation, but was it finally a feeling of determination on the one side because you have also said today you were determined to proceed with your charges because you felt that was the only way to solve the problem, but was it also somewhat a feeling of hopelessness too?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mrs Marland: So if all of it would have been much easier for you -- I mean, you're down here in this hearing, in an experience that I am sure you don't ever want to have to go through again. It's fairly easy for all of us because we're in this milieu all the time, but you're completely a fish out of sea in this milieu here. All you are is an ordinary citizen trying to resolve a problem in the building development in which you live, the housing development in which you live. I've also heard you say how much the interconnection between yourself and the Vietnamese people in Van Lang Centre was something that you really enjoyed. You talked about enjoying getting to know them and their culture, and that's something that has to do with your artistic background. You've always enjoyed other cultures.

Ms Pretty: Yes, that's right.

1630

Mrs Marland: And from a number of aspects. Why do you think it is that you didn't just chuck it all in, I mean, even six months ago? Why do you think you've persevered when obviously the board wanted you removed a long time ago? Certainly Dr Can D. Le, he must have thought you were one big troublemaker. What is it, do you think, that's given you the strength and motivated you to carry on whereas most people long ago -- especially when you're living there and you have to cope every day with seeing the people that are in the same environment as you are, what is it that has motivated you and given you the strength to keep going?

Ms Pretty: I thought that the system worked and --

The Chair: Ms Pretty, could you just come in a little bit closer.

Ms Pretty: Okay. I thought that the system worked, and when I got involved in a political forum, it didn't take very long before I realized that it doesn't work the way I thought it did. But what I do believe in is that a person should tell the truth and a person should try and uphold the values that the country expects of its citizens as Canadians, and those values are to protect democracy. I know this probably sounds very idealistic, but it's the way I feel.

I saw that just in the context of Van Lang Centre, there was no democracy, and it upset me that the people in the building who had come all the way from Vietnam in boats, some had drowned, people, you know, killed, they'd gone through so much horrendous experiences to get here to enjoy freedom and we had built a little Vietnam at 30 Van Lang and the oppression still ruled and the communism still ruled and the fear still ruled. And I thought, "These are new Canadians. This building was put up so that we can have integration, not isolation," and the people at the top of this board were promoting isolation and it was at the Canadian taxpayers' expense. And I got mad.

Mrs Marland: Were they promoting control? Because the people at the top of the board were also Vietnamese, were they promoting control?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mrs Marland: Would you recommend that one of the solutions might be to have on the board some people who, yes, are Vietnamese, because they understand the Vietnamese tenants from a language and cultural background, but also have a number of people on the board who are not at all related to that community but can look to fairness in governance of the project?

Ms Pretty: Again, I'd like to say that I believe in integration and so, yes, my answer's yes to what you're saying. I think that on one hand they're trying to promote English classes, they want to learn the language, but on the other hand an environment has been set up where they're isolated from Canadians. And although the board was forced to take a certain number of non-Vietnamese into the building, they are not adhering to guidelines and taking in the number of tenants of non-Vietnamese origin that they should be. So, in effect, what's happening is it's on the road to becoming an all-Vietnamese building, and that would be a crime.

Mrs Marland: Would there be -- how much time do we have left? Because I want to leave some for my --

The Chair: You've used 12 minutes.

Mrs Marland: Thank you.

What would be the reason that Dr Can D. Le would not want to have accurate minutes of the meetings, that he had this format for writing his own version of what took place at board meetings?

Mr Callahan: Is that getting into the charges?

Mrs Marland: No, the charges are relating to the access of information.

Ms Cronk: That's my understanding.

Mrs Marland: Yes. I'm simply asking -- both witnesses have told us that Dr Can D. Le would not record the board meetings as they proceeded, and you used a tape recorder because the minutes that came out which he recorded were different.

Ms Pretty: They were selective.

Mrs Marland: Why do you think he would do that? Why would he not want to record what happened at the board meetings?

Ms Pretty: Because he --

Mr Phillip G. Hunt: Mr Chairman, if I might interject. Phillip Hunt on behalf of --

The Chair: Okay. Would you come up to the mike here, please.

Ms Cronk: Mr Chair, for you and for the benefit of the other committee members --

The Chair: Would you identify yourself also, please.

Ms Cronk: Mr Phillip Hunt represents the other directors of the Van Lang Centre.

The Chair: Go ahead, sir.

Mr Hunt: Thank you, Mr Chair. Mr Chair, members of the committee, Ms Cronk, the question that's being put to the witness is (a) asking her to speculate on something that would be the substance of presumably Mr Le's testimony and more valuable if it's put to him, but more importantly my concern is that one of the matters that was raised in provincial offences court is with respect to, if I recall the wording correctly, untrue or incorrect entries. So my position would certainly be that the question that has been put is with respect to one of the matters that is pending before the court.

Ms Cronk: May I have a moment, Mr Hunt, just to check that?

Mrs Marland: I don't mind accepting that. I can go with another question.

The Chair: Okay, I should stop the time on this.

Ms Cronk: Thank you, Mr Hunt. I didn't check it. Mrs Marland is accepting --

Mrs Marland: To go to another question, then, after you didn't get a reply from your 29th of October letter, at some time later you were speaking to Sue Lott -- either you were or Trinh Luu was, but you were working together on some of that correspondence -- and Sue Lott said "that the letter had been pulled," that it was considered to be a very important letter and it had been pulled. Were you encouraged when you heard that? You thought, "Well, there's finally going to be some action"?

Ms Pretty: Yes. Oh, yes, I was very happy.

Mrs Marland: So when you continued to have the same experience in the next five months, when it finally got around to March and all these people had promised you a remedy, you reached a point where there simply wasn't a remedy coming. You had talked to the top person, Mr Sutherland, and everybody had said that they would address the concerns that you had brought to them.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mrs Marland: Finally, it gets to March and you start looking at what your other options are, and you decide to seek some professional, independent help.

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Mrs Marland: I think all the MPPs at this table have at some time, and maybe on numerous times, in their political careers heard that same quote, "If I don't get any action, I'm going to go to the media." That's a very common solution that people see as a resolution to a problem. They think that going public may help. The irony is, of course, that it always comes back to the bureaucracy to actually effect the solution. But maybe the pressure of going public is something that helps. But when you said that, in one of your meetings you said, "I may have to go to the media," was that out of absolute frustration because at that point you didn't know what else you could do?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mrs Marland: Yet, even having said that back perhaps as early as March, you still had Trinh Luu meet with Mora Thompson on the 25th of May for one more try at going the right route, which was through the minister and her staff, to solve the problem of a non-profit housing corporation which was under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Housing.

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Mrs Marland: Mr Harnick has a question.

Mr Harnick: Ms Pretty, you've told us that for the last 45 minutes of the meeting you pretty well dealt with the idea of you withdrawing your charges in exchange for the board not proceeding to remove you as a director. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: It was interspersed with other comments.

Mr Harnick: You've told us quite clearly what you said and what the minister said. What I wonder is, there were several other people there, and was there a sense of frustration at trying to deal with and determine these couple of issues among those other people?

Ms Pretty: For me?

Mr Harnick: For them, as well as for you. You've told us about your frustration. What I'm wondering about is your observations of the other people who were there.

1640

Ms Pretty: It looked to me like everyone else was quite comfortable. I didn't feel comfortable.

Mr Harnick: See, I gather there was never any agreement achieved because there was some idea that the minister was trying to promote yet another meeting. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Harnick: And the minister, I gather, had not yet received a commitment from you to withdraw your charges.

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Mr Harnick: Did the fact that you spent a considerable portion of the meeting talking about that and not getting your cooperation to resolve the issue the way they wanted it resolved amount to some frustration in all parts of the room?

Ms Pretty: Well, I can tell you about one example. Mr My Nguyen said to the minister, close to the very end of the meeting, he said: "Evelyn, you asked Sharron earlier on if she was willing to compromise and to drop the charges. So what's her answer? She didn't answer. I want to know what she's going to do."

Mr Harnick: They wanted, obviously, at least in your mind, I think, a firm commitment when the meeting was over that you were going to drop the charges. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: They sure did, yes.

Mr Harnick: And were there any other examples of the frustration around the room? Were people becoming exasperated after this 45 minutes and Sharron still hadn't said she was going to drop the charges?

Ms Pretty: Dr Hieu Truong, who was sitting right to the left of me, got quite aggressive, actually, at one point. I had to tell him that I felt he was being aggressive and he sat back in his chair and shut up.

Mr Harnick: So is it safe to conclude -- you've told us what you said and you've told us what the minister said -- that the feeling in that room, over the course of those 45 minutes or so, was one of extreme frustration because you hadn't made a determination that you would withdraw your charges?

Ms Pretty: There was a push-pull feel to it, yes.

Mr Harnick: All right. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr Winninger.

Mr Winninger: Thank you, Mr Chair. Earlier in these proceedings you had to answer questions over a period of several hours, and we have approximately 20 minutes for questions from government members on this committee. I have to say that Ms Cronk, as counsel to the committee, in her neutral role has done a superlative job of bringing out some of the facts and eliciting the information that is very necessary for this committee to make its final determinations at the end of all of the evidence. However, I do have a few questions for you.

First of all, you were described yesterday -- you may or may not have been in the committee room at the time -- by Ms Marland as one of a pair of two strong advocates, yourself and also Trinh Luu. She described you as strong advocates, and you yourself have described how you came into the centre, the Van Lang Centre, in 1992 and then by 1993 you had formed a tenants' association. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: With the help of two other tenants, yes. I was part of a group.

Mr Winninger: And then it came to be that you were invited to join the board of directors as a representative of the tenants association?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Winninger: Subsequently, of course, you were no longer a vice-president of that association. You've described, in some detail, efforts that were made to remove you from the board, which you firmly and strongly resisted, and in fact were successful in remaining on the board. You've also described, over the course of your evidence, your strong efforts to gain redress for some of the dissatisfaction that you had with the administration of the centre. That's correct, isn't it?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Winninger: And you've alluded to your concern about administration, about maintenance and several other areas that you felt needed to be addressed. You, along with Ms Luu, I believe the evidence was, pressed for a compliance review. You're nodding your head. Does that mean yes?

Ms Pretty: Yes. Sorry.

The Chair: Hansard doesn't pick it up.

Ms Pretty: I keep thinking I'm on TV so everybody knows.

Mr Winninger: Well, you are. In fact, the compliance review, to your position, probably wasn't done as quickly as you would have liked. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: It wasn't done as quickly as anybody liked.

Mr Winninger: But at the same time, there were changes to the board, I understand, and the --

Ms Pretty: That doesn't interfere with a compliance review.

Mr Winninger: But be that as it may, by February eighth the compliance review report was presented to the board, and again you expressed some dissatisfaction with the results of the compliance review.

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did.

Mr Winninger: But in the meantime -- and there's sort of an element of Greek destiny to this -- you had initiated efforts and action to have the minister intervene, and to have a meeting with the minister ultimately. I suppose it begins with your letter of October 29th that's been referred to several times, requesting the intervention of the minister. That's correct? You're nodding your head again. And then not too long after that, I believe it was a week or so, Ms Luu wrote her own letter asking specifically for a meeting, and I think you're aware of that letter as well. By March fourth, after the compliance review had been presented to the board, you again write to the minister asking for a special and urgent meeting with her. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Winninger: So there's an ongoing effort on your part to gain access to the minister and have a meeting with her.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Winninger: She, on the other hand, while not replying directly to you by letter -- you mention phone calls with her staff -- had in fact written to Trinh Luu indicating that while the compliance review was under way she couldn't meet, but it was, I think, the understanding of both of you that once the compliance review was complete, then there could possibly be a meeting. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: I wrote a personal letter to the minister; I expected a personal letter back from the minister.

Mr Winninger: And I know it was a bone of contention with you, if I can call it that, that you hadn't received a letter at that point, but you had repeated communications with the minister's staff, both at the constituency end and also at the Toronto end.

Ms Pretty: They were all at my insistence.

Mr Winninger: Right. But there were conversations with Ms Ridley, with Ms Lott, with Ms Bui, and by the time that Trinh Luu began her meetings with Mora Thompson of the Progressive Conservative caucus, there was a desire, I think -- and it's certainly confirmed by some of the questions and statements that Ms Marland has put to you -- to meet with the minister. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Mr Winninger: And I wonder if you have this before you, exhibit 5, which was the transcript of telephone conversations --

Ms Pretty: Between --

Mr Winninger: -- between yourself and Sue Lott on May 19th, 1994.

Ms Pretty: Yes, I have.

Mr Winninger: Your attention was directed on a few occasions during the examination of Ms Cronk to certain parts of that evidence, particularly those exchanges that dealt with the statements of reluctance.

Mrs Marland: Excuse me, Mr Chair. I'm sorry to do this. I just realized, Mr Winninger, what you said in reference to the role of my office. The role of my office was to get a meeting with the minister for Ms Luu, not for Ms Pretty.

Mr Winninger: Thanks for the clarification. If I could go on, there were several references to exchanges between yourself and Ms Lott in the course of that first telephone conversation, wherein Ms Lott indicated that there might be some reluctance on the part of the minister to meet with you, given the laying of the charges against the directors. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: That's right.

1650

Mr Winninger: If you turn to the middle of page 5 -- do you have that before you?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I do.

Mr Winninger: Where Ms Lott says "that it would put Evelyn in a potentially difficult position," after which you say, "Hm. I think she's in a, kind of a pretty tight spot right now if she doesn't talk to us," did you mean by that that you expected a meeting with her anyway?

Ms Pretty: No. I think I was referring to the fact that I was going to press charges.

Mr Winninger: Well, you called back again. Did you converse with anyone between the first and second telephone conversations that day, other than Ms Lott?

Ms Pretty: I have no idea.

Mr Winninger: You may have? Because you called back. And if I could direct your attention to page 7, just about 10 lines down, where you say: "And that is when you, when you said that...um, you know, Evelyn can't intervene at this point because it's gone to court and everything else. The thing that I should have thought of at the time to tell you, is that, uh, what has gone to court is, is problems that the board has...has gone against the Corporations Act. But we want to meet you and discuss...problems with the compliance review, and...the access issues, the core issues that we've always been trying to, to meet with Evelyn and discuss, and...you know, that's your responsibility."

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Winninger: And you've affirmed this transcript to be true and accurate?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Winninger: In fact, you said that you wanted to meet with Evelyn and discuss core issues, presumably unrelated to matters before the provincial court, and yet when you were asked by Ms Cronk what you anticipated to unfold at the meeting, you said you brought with you your file on the non-disclosure of documentation. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Winninger: So evidently what you had told Sue Lott on May 19th was different from your anticipation and expectations for the meeting on June 17th. Would that be correct?

Ms Pretty: There's quite a lot of time that elapsed between that date, that conversation and -- as you well know, after listening to the testimony of both Trinh and myself, a lot of things were happening and we were trying to decide what was the best thing to do, what was in the best interests of everyone. And so we were going with the flow.

Mr Winninger: In the interim, of course, a meeting took place on June 10th with Trinh Luu and the minister.

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Mr Winninger: Which you indicated during your evidence you would have liked to attend, since you had been requesting your own meeting with the minister for a considerable period of time. You indicated that you had discussed that meeting with Trinh Luu after the event, and you were aware, I think, that the minister had undertaken to get back to Trinh Luu in --

Ms Pretty: A couple of weeks.

Mr Winninger: In two weeks approximately.

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Mr Winninger: You've said at various times during your evidence that you didn't think the meeting with the minister on June 17th was necessary, but it appears to me that your whole thrust throughout this period of, let's say, eight months was towards a meeting with the minister where, as you said, you could lay before her some of your evidence and allegations regarding the core issues.

Ms Pretty: That's correct.

Mr Winninger: Now, I wanted to ask you whether in fact, at the time of the meeting on June 17th, when you stopped writing -- and we have, of course, the first page of your notes from that day, which you indicated were prepared during the course of the discussions at the Rideau Centre.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Winninger: At that point in time, I believe your evidence was that conflict of interest was not discussed in those terms, "conflict of interest." Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: At the June 17th meetings?

Mr Winninger: Yes.

Ms Pretty: Conflict of interest, in quotes?

Mr Winninger: Right.

Ms Pretty: Um, I don't believe so.

Mr Winninger: Your evidence in answer to Ms Cronk's questions was along the lines that the minister was very conciliatory --

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Winninger: -- and playing a mediating role, one designed to try and perhaps achieve some compromise between the parties on some of the issues that had caused the acrimony and antagonism that had come out. It appears that perhaps your expectations went a little further than that. Would you agree? Because you said afterwards you felt let down.

Ms Pretty: That's true, but I never expected that the direction that Evelyn would take would be to ask me to compromise on my court charges.

Mr Winninger: And in fact your evidence was that she said that if there were to be an agreement between yourself and the board of directors, that's something you should take time to consider.

Ms Pretty: That's only after I said: "I am not going to make up my mind right now. I want to think about this."

Mr Winninger: Mm-hmm. Immediately after that meeting, the evidence of Ms Luu was that you met over lunch. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Winninger: And that you met for about a period of an hour and a half that day.

Ms Pretty: Approximately.

Mr Winninger: And that it was later that day that you -- I believe Trinh Luu faxed a communication to the Conservative caucus. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Are you talking about my first press release?

Mr Winninger: Yes.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Winninger: Well, no, not your first press release, because your evidence was that somewhere over the course of the next three days -- for example, Saturday you said you inserted the first paragraph of page 2 and then it was probably Monday when you completed it, but at the same time, you referred to a press release that you said may have been entered into your computer.

Ms Pretty: On the 23rd.

Mr Winninger: I know that other members will probably have questions, but I think that I need to ask you this question: After the meeting on June 17th but before June 22nd, you were in the process of preparing your press releases. Correct?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Winninger: And you were completing your notes of the meeting.

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Mr Winninger: You were having conversations with Mr Chiarelli of the Liberal caucus -- is that correct? -- Monday morning? Because he said he had spoken to you Monday morning.

Mr Chiarelli: My staff.

Mr Winninger: Staff, okay. You were watching the Legislature on TV, I believe you said, which would have been either Monday or Tuesday, and you were pulling together the contents of your press release and your notes. Is that correct?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Winninger: Was it at that point that the concept of conflict of interest arose?

Ms Pretty: I didn't know what -- I didn't know anything about Bob Rae's policy, the conflict-of-interest, until I did watch the Legislature. I had no idea.

Mr Winninger: And was it around that time that you were inserting into your notes and your press releases the allegations regarding what you've now refuted, the dropping of charges, against the minister?

Ms Pretty: I wrote in my notes what I remembered in that meeting, not what I saw on television or what I talked to someone else about. This was just strictly from my own memory.

Mr Winninger: From your own memory?

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Mr Winninger: And I believe you said that you were in fact -- well, would it be fair to say that you were reconstructing what had happened on June 17th?

Ms Pretty: Basically. It's, you know, how you remember and then you jot down, and then you'll be doing something, you remember something else, you jot it down. That's how it --

Mr Winninger: But the --

Ms Pretty: Yes, I was reconstructing what happened in my mind, according to my memory.

1700

Mr Winninger: Yes, but your evidence in any event earlier this afternoon was that in the context of the atmosphere, the pressure that you were feeling from other directors on the board, perhaps you were more let down than intimidated at that meeting by the minister. Would that be fair to say? I believe you've said that to Ms Cronk during her examination.

Ms Pretty: I was let down; sure I was let down.

Mr McKinnon: With respect, stop the clock, but with respect, that's not my memory of the evidence. She was let down, but she also felt pressured and she also felt intimidated, given all the circumstances, given the minister's presence, given the minister's advisers' presence, given the board against her. That's what my memory --

Mr Winninger: Okay. At the time that you were reconstructing the events of June 17th, you were viewing the legislative channel, you were in fairly frequent communication with the Conservative caucus and I understand also staff of the Liberal caucus.

Mrs Marland: She wasn't in communication with my office.

Mr Callahan: How about an answer from her? Let her answer.

Mr Winninger: Yes.

Mrs Marland: Jeez.

Mr Winninger: Is that when the issue of conflict of interest under the Premier's guidelines arose?

Ms Pretty: If I may --

Mrs Marland: Gee whiz.

Ms Pretty: -- I spent a fairly secluded weekend. I was depressed all day Saturday. I wrote some notes, very few notes. I didn't want to even think about the meeting.

Mr Winninger: I'm sorry --

Ms Pretty: Sunday afternoon I started to pull myself together --

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman?

Ms Pretty: -- and that's when I started to finish my notes.

Ms Cronk: Mrs Marland, I may be able to handle the concern for you, if it wouldn't be presumptuous of me to do so. The foundation to the question does not accord with the evidence given by the witness in one respect, and I don't think the clock should be running here. The evidence of this witness is that she was not personally in contact with the opposition offices. Indeed, you'll recall that she denied any awareness of a number of memoranda from Trinh Luu to Mora Thompson's offices, and the way your question was framed suggested that she herself had been in continual contact with the offices of the opposition. That's how I heard the question, and that, based on my recollection of the evidence, is not consistent with what this witness said, if that is what Ms Marland's objection is directed to. It would be a concern of mine, regardless of what Ms Marland's hand is up for.

The Chair: You have 30 seconds left unless you want to save it till the next witness.

Ms Cronk: I'm sorry to have interrupted. I just don't think it was fair to --

Mr Winninger: Yes. Just while the clock is off for a moment, the question was premised on statements made in the House by Mr Chiarelli the afternoon of the 21st of June. Be that as it may, despite the allegations --

Interjection.

The Chair: You've got three seconds there, Dave.

Mr Winninger: Three seconds?

The Chair: Sorry, I'm going to cut you off and I have to go down to Mr Murphy.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, before you go to the Liberals, because this is a committee of the Legislative Assembly and because we are governed by those rules that govern us in the House, I wish to register, on a point of privilege, my objection to you referring to my office as being in contact with this witness, because at no time was my office in contact with this witness, nor she with my office, and I take very strong exception to the inference in your questions in relationship to my office, and I would appreciate you doing some homework and looking up what the evidence is that's already been registered and even look up in Hansard when I first asked my question on the subject of the Van Lang Centre, or my colleague, Mr Harnick.

The Chair: This is not a point of privilege but it will be in Hansard there, Ms Marland. Mr Winninger.

Mr Winninger: I meant no --

The Chair: You haven't got another question.

Mr Winninger: I meant no injustice to yourself or your caucus, but the evidence was that on June 21st, when the second --

The Chair: No, no. Mr Winninger.

Mr Winninger: -- just, with respect, when the second media release was prepared and faxed to your office --

The Chair: Mr Winninger.

Mr Winninger: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. We go on to Mr Murphy. You want six minutes and split it among the other colleagues here.

Mr Murphy: Thank you. I just wanted to ask you a few questions, if I could, about the June 17th meeting with board members and the minister and the other people that are there. You said in your evidence about looking out the window of the Rideau Centre on Parliament Hill and its representing justice and democracy for you, and the minister is in the room. I just wanted to ask you, first of all, if you had ever met, in that kind of meeting or in any context, a cabinet minister before.

Ms Pretty: No.

Mr Murphy: And with the Parliament Hill sitting out there, I mean, I would think that, if I can put a thought out on the record and have you either agree with it or not, but I would think that a suggestion from a cabinet minister, a minister of the crown, would, no matter how carefully phrased, be taken quite seriously by you, I would think. Is that fair?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Murphy: I want to use that in the context of the discussion about dropping the charges. There was quite detailed interplay between you and counsel about who said "dropping the charges," and I think, to be fair, at the end you say that you couldn't recall Evelyn Gigantes using that exact phrase. But I'm wondering, in fact -- in response to Mrs Marland, I think you said that it was My Nguyen said that phrase at some point in the meeting. Is that right?

Ms Pretty: Yes, he did.

Mr Murphy: And was that in the context of there being him asking --

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Murphy: -- that you drop the charges in trade for them not proceeding?

Ms Pretty: Those were his words.

Mr Murphy: And that's what he understood, from your impression, that the minister was asking?

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Mr Murphy: And did you say at some point during the meeting, "Are you asking me to drop the charges?" Did you use that phrase during the meeting, do you recall?

Ms Pretty: If I can just -- there's something I want to read here, if I may.

Mr Murphy: Sure. Are you looking for your notes?

Ms Pretty: If I can -- I just have to try and remember where these things are.

Ms Cronk: What are you looking for? Maybe I could help you.

Ms Pretty: I'm not sure. Okay. Now, just recap that question for me and I'll pick up.

Mr Murphy: What I was trying to get at is whether at some point, in response to what may have been a carefully phrased suggestion by the minister, you interpreted that to mean that you were to drop the charges and said that phrase yourself in the course of that meeting.

Ms Pretty: Yeah. My Nguyen said to her, and what I wrote down were his words as I remember them, so that corroborates what I'm saying --

Mr Murphy: Maybe I can just ask you to turn to your own notes of that meeting at tab 85. Do you have it there?

Ms Pretty: My notes of June 17th?

Mr Murphy: Yes.

Ms Pretty: Okay.

Mr Murphy: And the Saturday portion.

Ms Pretty: Mm-hmm.

Mr Murphy: You'll note there it says, "Me to Ev," just about a third of the way down the page.

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Murphy: Then there are quotes, pretty big quotes: "This is not a very good deal for me. You offer that the board postpone removing me...in exchange for me dropping charges."

Ms Pretty: Right.

Mr Murphy: Does that help you remember whether you said that phrase?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Murphy: And so did you use that phrase?

Ms Pretty: I did.

1710

Mr Murphy: So does this mean that you said that to Evelyn in response to what may have been a carefully phrased suggestion by her?

Ms Pretty: Yes, I did.

Mr Murphy: Did she ever say, "Oh, no, no, no, that's not what I mean at all" to you?

Ms Pretty: No, she did not.

Mr Murphy: Was it clear to you that in fact that's exactly what she meant, no matter how she phrased it?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Murphy: Thank you.

Mr Chiarelli: Ms Pretty, committee counsel, Ms Cronk, spent considerable time with you trying to get you to reconstruct what you recall occurred at the meeting on the 17th at which Ms Gigantes was present. In that process, you referred to notes that you had taken and written in the meeting and notes that you had written subsequently, over several days. You also referred to, or counsel brought your attention to, two press releases which you had written in which counsel tried to focus on the exact wording and the exact nature of the communications that took place in that meeting of June 17th.

I want to, in that context, refer you to the transcript of the phone conversation of June 19, which was in the same time frame of the reconstruction of the facts; the transcript of a conversation between you and the president of the board of directors, Vinh Tang. In particular, on page 2 of that transcript, the president, Vinh Tang, says, "And also, another understanding at the meeting is ah -- is uh that we -- you, actually, would give us the date -- the available date for you, very soon, so that we can meet and talk about the two core issues. Number one, tenant participation."

You respond, "Yes."

President Tang says, "Number two is tenant ah admission."

You respond, "That's what I agreed to."

Then the president, Mr Tang, says, "Yeah, yeah."

Then you say, and this is the critical point I want to draw your attention to, "A meeting to discuss those issues...Yeah, yeah. I did not agree to -- to dropping all court cases and everything else. As a matter of fact, I can remember distinctly saying I'm not -- I'm not going to make any decisions right now. I want to think about it. And I -- I know I said that. So, you know..."

Then Dr Tang interrupts and says, "Well I remember you said that sentence as well, but you also said `yes' to the compromise, you said, `Well, okay, yes.' You know you agreed to that."

What I want to ask you is this: This conversation occurred two days after the meeting of the 17th.

Ms Pretty: Right.

Mr Chiarelli: You are saying to Dr Tang that you did not agree, and you used the term "dropping all court cases and everything else." He responded, "Well I remember you said that sentence as well."

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Mr Chiarelli: Would that conversation make you recall or reinforce the fact that the terminology "dropping the court case" in fact took place at the meeting --

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr Chiarelli: -- because this was corroborated in fact by what Dr Tang was saying?

Ms Pretty: Most probable.

Mr Chiarelli: The next thing that I want to draw your attention to is a memo that was referred very briefly to by Ms Marland. It's a memo from Brian Sutherland to Steve Shapiro dated Friday, June 17th, 3:33 pm, the date of the actual meeting; the subject: Van Lang Centre. I'm going to read it very quickly. It is exhibit number 1, volume 3, tab number 90. I'm going to quote from Brian Sutherland:

"As you might have imagined, the meeting between the board of the National Capital Vietnamese-Canadian Non Profit Housing Corporation (including Sharron Pretty) and the minister today was a lengthy ordeal. It went on for more than an hour. There is no doubt in my mind...the minister continues to be sympathetic to Trinh Luu and Sharron although I think her eyes were opened a bit as the meeting progressed."

The key part of that memo which Mr Sutherland wrote states, "In any event, I believe that the minister was able to convince Sharron and...other board members to work towards a resolution of the matter prior to the charges being considered by the court early next month."

Now, would that, in your opinion, tend to reinforce your recollection of the meeting that there was some connection between what the minister was asking you to do and the imminent court case which was coming at that time, "early next month"? Would you say that Brian Sutherland's memo to that extent reinforces your recollection of what happened in the meeting? After all, he attended the same meeting.

Ms Pretty: There seems to be quite a strong link.

Mr Chiarelli: Thank you.

Mr Sutherland: Mr Chairman, could I just ask a question on a point of order? I must admit I don't have a lot of legal background and --

Mr Murphy: You should stop there then.

Mr Sutherland: Well, maybe I should.

The Chair: Do you want to ask counsel a question?

Mr Sutherland: Yes, I guess I just want to ask counsel some advice in terms of applying this memo to reinforcing the witness's recollection of the events, whether that is appropriate.

Ms Cronk: It's not inappropriate to put facts or apparent facts from others to witnesses to ask their view. The witness can always say, "That doesn't influence my thinking," "It's not what happened," "It is." So were you not hearing from Mr Sutherland there might be some basis for concern, but you can put the document to the witness.

Mr Sutherland: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr Chiarelli, carry on.

Mr Chiarelli: The other point that I want to ask in bringing Ms Pretty's attention to this memo is that in terms of any specific issues that were discussed at the meeting, the regional manager of the Ministry of Housing, in his memo recapping what happened at that particular meeting, only refers specifically to the question of "the resolution of the matter prior to the charges being considered by the court early next month."

Was it also your impression of the meeting that the main focus was on resolution of the court case issue? When you left the meeting did you have that impression, that that was the main thrust of the meeting? We'll have the opportunity to ask Mr Sutherland later, but that appears to be the thrust or the focal point for Mr Sutherland's memo summarizing the meeting.

Ms Pretty: In answer to your question, it was -- if I was to prioritize, that would be priority number one. Priority number two would be, in order to make priority one happen, then the board would have to postpone the meeting to get rid of me off the board.

Mr Chiarelli: Thank you. Mr Callahan?

Mr Sutherland: Point of order: Can I just seek some clarification from legal counsel as to the appropriateness of committee members, if they haven't been here for all the testimony of a witness, asking questions to a specific witness?

Mr Callahan: Who wasn't here?

Ms Cronk: It's my advice to the committee as a whole that because of the nature of this hearing, and my advice on this matter was sought, that it was important for all committee members to be present. It is extremely difficult to put fairly based questions if one has not been present for large portions of the evidence. I don't know who's been present and who hasn't, so I don't know the implication of the question.

Mr Chiarelli: I haven't missed any time.

The Chair: Okay, Mr Callahan, go ahead.

Mr Callahan: I find that an interesting comment from the member, who started out by saying he'd decided the case already when the commission counsel told him not to do that.

But in any event, I'd like to take you to the tab 85 and, at the second page of it, the work that was done, I guess, on the Monday or Tuesday. About halfway down in the boxed section you say: "Hieu Truong very aggressive...his attitude was abusive. Evelyn to me: I'm sure that if you went to the crown -- drop charges."

Do you get the feeling that this meeting was sort of -- you were sitting in a lions' den?

Ms Pretty: I felt that way.

Mr Callahan: Was everybody pressing for withdrawal of the charges, all of the directors and everybody at the meeting?

Ms Pretty: Well, Evelyn basically did the talking and the others sort of watched me.

Mr Callahan: Well, did Evelyn ever come to your assistance when this fellow got abusive and aggressive?

Ms Pretty: No, she did not.

Mr Callahan: So in other words, they were allowed to be aggressive to you and abusive, and you were getting no assistance whatsoever from the minister.

Ms Pretty: It happened very quickly. I responded very quickly because I'm used to it.

Mr Callahan: Now, did it not -- I notice that over at tab 93, in that second paragraph where we're talking about the meeting that took place between yourself, Michael Séguin, Pat Dare and Dave Rider, this was just shortly --

Ms Pretty: I'm sorry, where are we looking now?

Mr Callahan: We're looking at tab 93. This is the memo from Trinh Luu to Mora Thompson.

1720

Ms Pretty: All right.

Mr Callahan: You've told us that that was what was said. Now I notice the statement says, "We confronted him with a lot of uneasy questions." Who's "we"? Were the reporters asking questions of Mr --

Ms Pretty: All of us.

Mr Callahan: Okay. What else? Was there anything else said about that meeting other than that, anything else about the charges other than that statement there?

Ms Pretty: I remember that there were a lot of things that he said that were conflicting with my understanding of events, and it was noted by two reporters.

Mr Callahan: Okay, I go over to tab 92. Commission counsel took you through a number of articles that you -- apparently interviews that you gave where there didn't appear to be any mention about dropping the charges, and yet I refer you to an article by Dave Rider which appeared in the Ottawa Sunday Sun on June 19, 1994. I refer you to the last two lines, the words, "Pretty said Gigantes' attempt at peacemaking included urging her to ask the crown to drop several charges laid against board members under the provincial Corporations Act for refusing to divulge information to a director." Was that said to them on that day?

Ms Pretty: Them?

Mr Callahan: Well, to Mr Rider.

Ms Pretty: Oh, yes. Of course, we talked about a lot of things.

Ms Cronk: Excuse me, Mr Callahan, what --

Ms Pretty: Are you talking about the Sunday meeting?

Mr Callahan: I'm sorry.

Interjection: What day did she speak to Mr Rider?

Mr Callahan: When did you speak to Mr Rider?

Ms Pretty: The Sunday meeting. I'm getting confused. What day? Who?

Mr Callahan: I'm asking you to look at tab 92. The date of the paper is June 19.

Ms Pretty: Yes, I am looking at that, Dave Rider.

Mr Callahan: You've told us that you had a discussion on June 19th where Mr Rider and Mr Dare and Mr Séguin were there, and Mr Hieu Truong --

Ms Pretty: That was the Sunday. That's right.

Mr Callahan: Yeah, okay? So you've got the same date the paper comes out, the 19th. When did you give that interview to Mr Rider?

Ms Pretty: We met on the date -- it was the Sunday that we were supposed to have the meeting.

Mr Callahan: And that's the same date that Mr Truong made the comment about you dropping the charges that's referred to at tab 93?

Ms Pretty: That's right, yeah, his impression of the June 17th meeting.

Mr Callahan: Finally, did you get the impression -- here you've got a minister of the crown asking you to drop charges. Did it not go through your head -- and maybe you want to wait before your counsel advises you one way or the other on this question -- you've told us that it was in the hands of the crown. Did you not think it was inappropriate to accede to a request from a minister that you go to the crown and drop charges?

Ms Pretty: I thought it was a little strange, yeah.

Mr Callahan: Did you think there was anything wrong with it?

Ms Pretty: I wasn't sure, but I didn't think it was very ethical.

Mr Callahan: Okay. I think that's all the questions I have.

The Chair: Do you want to bank your time?

<A NAME = "PARA2731"></A>Mr Callahan: Yes.

Ms Cronk: For clarification for the record, I take the point that Mr Callahan was making in his questions concerning the Rider article, but lest there be any misunderstanding, my questions to the witness were directed to an interview given on June 17th to a Mr Pat Dare. So I wanted to clarify that on the record.

Secondly, two follow-up matters, Ms Pretty, that I'm obliged to put to you in light of the questioning that has just occurred: First, with respect to the discussions at the June 17th meeting and what Mr My Nguyen said to you, I'm obliged to indicate to you that I anticipate that the committee may hear evidence that Mr Nguyen did not pressure you or push you to say yes or no to the issue of either dropping your charges or whether the charges would proceed. Looking back on it now, do you have a clear recollection one way or the other as to whether he did so?

Ms Pretty: He asked the minister to get an answer from me.

Ms Cronk: Well, then perhaps I misunderstood. I thought the entry in your handwritten notes and in response to a question from Mr Murphy raised the inference that Mr Nguyen had pressured you himself for an answer yes or no to that.

Ms Pretty: No, he directed that statement to Evelyn herself, and he said -- I repeat this, because I know I said this earlier -- he said to her that it had been asked whether or not I was willing to consider dropping the charges in exchange for them postponing the meeting to throw me off the board. And he said to her that "Sharron had not answered the question, yes or no," and he wanted to have an answer.

Ms Cronk: Leaving aside what language he used with respect to the legal proceedings, do you have a clear recollection that he, through the minister, was pushing for an answer from you on that issue?

Ms Pretty: Absolutely.

Ms Cronk: Would your answer to that question change in any way if the committee were to hear evidence from Mr Nguyen that that did not occur?

Ms Pretty: No, it would not. I remember it very clearly.

Ms Cronk: Secondly, with respect to your discussion with Dr Tang on June 19th, could I ask you to go to page 3 of the transcript, please.

Ms Pretty: I have it.

Ms Cronk: Looking at the third paragraph and the comment attributed to Dr Tang: "I remember you said that sentence as well, but you also said `yes' to the compromise, you said `well, okay, yes.' You know you agreed to that." Do you know what "that sentence," the phrase "that sentence," refers to, which of the ones preceding it?

Ms Pretty: I'm a little bit confused about how you've phrased that question.

Ms Cronk: Mr Chiarelli asked you a number of questions, about which I wish to ask you nothing. All right? But one of the things that I thought you said was that the phrase "that sentence," used by Dr Tang, referred to a particular sentence by you in the preceding paragraph. Do you know what he meant when he said that? Looking at it now, do you have any recollection?

Ms Pretty: Let me read it for a minute. Yes, well, I said to Dr Vinh, a meeting -- I was talking about a meeting to discuss those issues. I did not agree to dropping all court cases and everything else. As a matter of fact, I can remember distinctly saying, "I'm not going to make any decisions right now. I want to think about it," and I know I said that.

Ms Cronk: Stopping there, what I'm suggesting to you is, there are several statements there by you. One relates to dropping court cases. One relates to, "I'm not going to make any decisions right now." One relates to, "I want to think about it."

Ms Pretty: That's right.

Ms Cronk: All I'm asking you is, do you know, looking at it now, what Dr Tang was referring to when he said, "I remember you said that sentence"?

Ms Pretty: He was agreeing with me. He was agreeing with -- basically, in those few words I summarized the whole meeting with Evelyn, and he agreed with me.

Ms Cronk: You thought he was referring to all of what you'd said in that paragraph?

Ms Pretty: Yes.

Mr McKinnon: With respect, may I, Mr Chairman? I'm questioning the appropriateness of the question. It seems to me asking this witness what Dr Tang meant -- you just look at the transcript. It seems perfectly clear that two matters are being discussed by this witness: (1) a compromise, and (2) not making decisions. The answer Tang says, "I remember you said that sentence," which can only refer to not making decisions, "but you also said `yes' to the compromise." In other words, "that sentence" can only, on this transcript, refer to not making a decision.

Ms Cronk: Mr McKinnon, I don't want to get into an argument. I just don't want any dispute about it. I didn't invite this witness to comment on what the meaning was of Dr Tang's words, someone else did, and I just want it clear before she completes her evidence whether she has a clear understanding of that. I'm not, as I say, commenting in any way on any of the other questions asked of her. I don't want to get into a wrangle with you about what it means, but there hasn't been a transcript, in 20 years of practice at the bar, that had only one meaning. I've never seen that yet. This may be the case, but I've never seen that yet.

I won't pursue it any further on that issue, Mr Chair.

One final question. With respect to your handwritten notes -- you've been asked a number of questions about them, Ms Pretty -- were you trying to record in them, whether made on the Saturday morning or on the Sunday, Monday or Tuesday, in your handwritten notes, what you understood had happened at the meeting?

Ms Pretty: What I remembered.

Ms Cronk: Okay. And in doing that, did you try to put down what you remembered and what you came away from the meeting with, what you understood?

Ms Pretty: Yes, yes.

Ms Cronk: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Okay. Ms Pretty, I'd like to thank you for coming down, not just one day; you were here yesterday listening to testimony. I appreciate your trip down from Ottawa and I believe you're leaving at quarter to 9 tonight. Have a safe trip back home.

Ms Pretty: Thanks for the opportunity.

The Chair: And you should be just about home by the time we get finished, so you might be able to turn the set on and watch the end of it.

Ms Pretty: I'll tune in.

The Chair: So right now we're going to take a recess for half an hour and we're going to be back here sharp at 6. We have a Mr Brian Sutherland, the next witness to come forward. Thank you. Recessed.

The committee recessed from 1731 to 1814.

The Chair: I bring the committee to order. Mr Chiarelli, you have a point you'd like to bring before the committee.

Mr Chiarelli: I want to make a suggestion or get some sort of sense from the committee as to when we're going to have our next subcommittee meeting to look into the question of scheduling of witnesses.

It's clear from the examination of the first two witnesses over today and yesterday that we have consumed -- necessarily, in my opinion -- longer time slots for the first two witnesses, and I think we're clearly going to have a problem squeezing everybody in.

I would like to get some indication from the committee as to when we will have our next subcommittee meeting, and I'd like to put on the record publicly that it's imperative that we come to grips with the question of time and how we're going to manage to get the remaining witnesses into the time that's allotted.

I think we also have to be mindful, when we allocate time and say, "Well, we'll sit in the evenings," it's important to keep in mind particularly that various counsels, and indeed committee members, if they're doing their homework, need some time, at least midevening, late evening, to get ready for the next day's session.

I'd like to put that on record and I'd like to get some sense from the committee members as to whether or not we can have a subcommittee meeting either this evening or first thing tomorrow morning, with the time available as the priority item on the agenda.

The Chair: Can we have one right after we adjourn tonight?

Mr Sutherland: Mr Chair, that's fine by me.

The Chair: At least five or 10 minutes, whatever's required.

BRIAN SUTHERLAND

The Chair: I'd like to carry on and welcome Mr Brian Sutherland to the committee as a witness. I have the clerk here to swear you in. Could I identify your legal counsel also? Would you, for the purposes of Hansard, identify yourself?

Mr Robert Stupart: Yes. I'm Bob Stupart, solicitor with the Ministry of Housing.

Clerk of the Committee: Mr Sutherland, would you please take the Bible in your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give to this committee touching the subject of the present inquiry shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I swear.

The Chair: The committee's legal counsel is Ms Cronk, and you have the floor.

Ms Cronk: Mr Sutherland, thank you for agreeing, at my request, to make yourself available this evening for the purposes of giving your evidence before the committee.

As I understand it, Mr Sutherland, you are the regional manager for the eastern regional office of the Ministry of Housing in Ottawa. Is that correct?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That is correct.

Ms Cronk: How long, sir, have you held that position?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That particular position? Close to 10 years now.

Ms Cronk: Do you have working with and for you an individual by the name of Steven Shapiro?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I do.

Ms Cronk: What is his position?

Mr Brian Sutherland: He is a housing programs manager.

Ms Cronk: What does that mean?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That means that he assumes overall responsibility for the delivery of social housing and ongoing management of both public and social housing.

Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. Your voice was trailing just a bit at the end. Of both public and social --

Mr Brian Sutherland: Of both public and non-profit housing. We have a diverse responsibility.

Ms Cronk: To whom does Mr Shapiro report?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Mr Shapiro reports to me.

Ms Cronk: Is there also working in your office an individual by the name of Bill Clement?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, there is.

Ms Cronk: What position does Mr Clement hold?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Mr Clement is a housing administrator and he reports directly to Mr Shapiro.

Ms Cronk: As I understand it, Mr Sutherland, your offices, generally speaking, are responsible for three program areas?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right. Well, essentially the office is divided up into three major components. We have a finance and administration section, a housing program section and a technical section. So there are in fact three managers that report to me and look after those separate disciplines.

Ms Cronk: For the program delivery component of your responsibilities, is Mr Shapiro that manager?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, he is.

Ms Cronk: Is it within the program delivery section that Mr Clement works?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: Is it part of your responsibilities, Mr Sutherland, to oversee all three components, including program delivery?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: As you will appreciate, Mr Sutherland, the order of reference by which the investigation and hearing that this committee is conducting is taking place is specifically related to events involving the Minister of Housing in Ottawa on June 17th, 1994, at a meeting with the board of the Van Lang Centre. I take it you are acutely aware of that.

1820

Mr Brian Sutherland: I'm somewhat familiar with the situation, yes.

Ms Cronk: That being the case, it has been my advice to the committee that a detailed understanding of the history of the Van Lang Centre and of various allegations relating to it or its management and responses to those allegations are neither necessary nor relevant to the work of the committee, but at the same time, that a general understanding of that history is necessary and relevant to assist in understanding the events leading up to the June 17, 1994, meeting. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I do.

Ms Cronk: For that purpose, Mr Sutherland, what I would like to do is to review with you in a general way only at this stage some of the background events relating to the Van Lang Centre as they have any connection with Ministry of Housing personnel in Ottawa, including in particular your own involvement, and I propose to do that in a chronological fashion and then to come back and ask you some specific questions about some specific matters. Would that be acceptable to you?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it would be.

Ms Cronk: All right. If I could try to do that in a summary way, at least initially, it's my understanding, based on the evidence that the committee has heard, that the Van Lang Centre is part of the responsibility of your offices in the sense of Ministry of Housing involvement. Is that correct?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: Part of the documentation that's been provided to the committee is a document called Statement of Selected Background Facts. Have you had an opportunity to review that document in part or in whole?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I have.

Ms Cronk: Among the various binders in front of you, Mr Sutherland, is what's called exhibit 1, volume 1. Could I ask you to look at that, and if you look at tab 4, there should be a copy of the Statement of Selected Background Facts.

Mr Brian Sutherland: I'm sorry, exhibit 1, volume 2?

Ms Cronk: I think we'd better be clear about the paper here. There's exhibit 1 in three volumes, 1, 2 and 3, and then there's exhibit 2, and what you need is exhibit 1, volume 1.

Mr Callahan: You'll get the hang of it.

Ms Cronk: At tab 4.

Mr Brian Sutherland: I have it.

Ms Cronk: Thank you. Have you had an opportunity to review in particular paragraphs 1 through 6 of that document?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I have.

Ms Cronk: Can you confirm to the committee that the facts set out in those paragraphs are substantially correct?

Mr Brian Sutherland: They are substantially correct, yes.

Ms Cronk: I take from that then that it was in approximately June of 1992 that the Van Lang Centre first opened in Ottawa.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That is correct.

Ms Cronk: And that it is a non-profit housing project coming within the area of responsibility of your offices in Ottawa.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That is correct.

Ms Cronk: In terms of your own familiarity with that project and centre, the committee has heard evidence and has received documents that in the spring of 1993, in particular in April and May of 1993, there was correspondence entered into by the then project manager of the centre, Ms Trinh Luu, with Mr Bill Clement of your offices. Are you aware of that correspondence at that point in time, in May of 1993?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I am.

Ms Cronk: Would it be fair to suggest that at that point in time the project manager, Ms Trinh Luu, was drawing certain concerns which she had to the attention of Mr Clement?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That would be a correct assumption, yes.

Ms Cronk: May I just understand something about the day-to-day realities of the reporting relationship between Mr Clement and yourself. If there were matters that appeared to be either controversial or potentially troublesome arising in respect of a non-housing project in respect of which Mr Clement had any involvement, would you have the expectation that he would draw that to your attention on a day-to-day business basis?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Ordinarily, he would do that with Mr Shapiro, his immediate supervisor, but if it were something quite significant, I would either be made aware of it by Mr Shapiro or Mr Clement directly.

Ms Cronk: All right. If the matter at issue with respect to a particular non-profit housing facility or development was particularly sensitive or appeared to be relating to difficulties, would you expect that one or both of Messrs Shapiro and Clement would draw that to your attention?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I would.

Ms Cronk: When then, looking back on events as you now recall them, Mr Sutherland, did you first become aware that there were difficulties at the Van Lang Centre in the sense that allegations relating to alleged improper management practices or personnel issues were being raised?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I believe it was first in a tangible way in May of 1993. However, our office had some dealings with the previous administrator as well, and I had not been aware of problems through her presence, but I know that our office had been providing some assistance to the project manager on a periodic basis. But in terms of the problems that prevailed at the centre, I would say that my first real knowledge of them came when I believe Bill and others received a submission from Ms Luu dated May 31st, or something of that sort, 1993.

Ms Cronk: When did you first personally meet Ms Luu?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I first met Ms Luu, I believe, in Osgoode on June 16 of last year.

Ms Cronk: Of 1993?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: What was going on at Osgoode at the time?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association was having a workshop meeting and I had been asked to come down and speak to the group, which I did, and in the course of the evening and discussing a variety of items with a variety of people, I did have occasion to quickly talk to Trinh Luu.

Ms Cronk: At that time, did she raise any concerns with you with respect to the Van Lang Centre?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, she was actually talking to Mr Shapiro it seemed, my memory seems to be, and it was not a matter of having an extensive conversation with her, but I do believe that she was expressing some of these points of view about the centre. I just can't recall precisely what the order of conversation was, but it seemed to me that she was relaying some of the concerns to Mr Shapiro as well or at the time and there seemed to be some problem.

Ms Cronk: Did you speak to her briefly yourself?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I honestly can't recall having spoken to her at great length, but I do remember intervening in a discussion with her and Mr Shapiro and listening or overhearing some of the concerns she was making. That's about all I can remember about that conversation.

Ms Cronk: As I understand it, Mr Sutherland, you did during the month of June receive a letter report from Ms Luu in which she detailed numerous concerns that she held at the time with respect to the Van Lang Centre.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes. I believe that was received the following day. I know it was very shortly after that meeting that I received a package from Ms Luu.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to put in front of you two documents that I think we're going to have to make some reference to. The first is exhibit 2, which is a separate black binder, and the second is volume 2 of exhibit 1.

Mr Brian Sutherland: I have exhibit 2.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to go to tab 57. Sorry, that's the wrong tab. Just a minute. At tab 5 of this brief, Mr Sutherland, is a letter dated June 21, 1993, from Ms Trinh Luu to the president of the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre. It appears to have been copied to you among others, including Bill Clement. Did you receive a copy of this letter?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I believe I did.

Ms Cronk: And did you, over the course of that month then personally become aware of a number of concerns held by Ms Luu relating to the centre?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I did.

1830

Ms Cronk: If we turn to tab 8 of this book of documents, there's a letter at that tab of July second, 1993, addressed to Trinh Luu apparently from yourself. Did you send this letter in response to Ms Luu?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: In that letter, as I read it, you were acknowledging that the allegations which she had made were considered by you to be serious?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I considered them that way.

Ms Cronk: And in your concluding paragraph, were you inviting her to keep Bill Clement informed should other incidents occur that were of concern to her?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I was.

Ms Cronk: Was it your intention, at the time of writing this letter, that she in fact do that?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it was.

Ms Cronk: Now, in the month of August 1993, the committee has heard that there was a changeover or a number of changes to the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre. Had you, prior to August of 1993, dealt with the board yourself?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I had not.

Ms Cronk: During the month of August the committee has heard that Ms Sharron Pretty came on the board of directors as a tenant representative on the board and that she was appointed or elected vice-president at the same time. Did you, in August of 1993, know Ms Pretty? Had you ever heard of her or met with her at that point?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I didn't know her.

Ms Cronk: Similarly, the committee has heard that a Dr Hieu Truong came on as a director on August fifth, 1993, and assumed the presidency of the Van Lang board. Did you, at that point in time, know Dr Truong?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I did not.

Ms Cronk: Did you know Dr Can Le, the secretary of the board?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I believe I'd met Mr Le on occasion before, but I certainly didn't know him well. I simply knew him to be associated with this project.

Ms Cronk: In the context of day-to-day dealings with the centre as might be required, who among Mr Shapiro, yourself and Mr Clement was really the point person for the ministry offices?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, the point person typically, with all non-profits and/or housing authorities that we have responsibility for, is the housing administrator. That's the first line of contact with the regional office.

Ms Cronk: And in this case that would be Mr Clement?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That was Mr Clement.

Ms Cronk: The committee has also heard that in the months of November and December of 1993 you were contacted by Ms Sharron Pretty and held meetings with her to discuss matters relating to the Van Lang Centre. Can you confirm that that's the case?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I can confirm a meeting on December ninth by my date book, but I have some difficulty with a formal meeting other than that one.

Ms Cronk: Do you recall meeting with her on December the ninth?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I do.

Ms Cronk: And did she raise with you certain concerns that she had at that time regarding the Van Lang Centre?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Ms Pretty asked to see me and came along with a binder, a three-ring binder, and was, if my memory serves me correct, raising some concerns about the corporate operations of the Van Lang Centre.

Ms Cronk: When you say "corporate," what do you mean, Mr Sutherland?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I think she was referring to the work of the board of directors more so than anything else, and whether that work was being done appropriately.

Ms Cronk: Was that a casual meeting, did she just drop in, or had it been arranged previously?

Mr Brian Sutherland: It seems to me that she'd called earlier and I'd set some time aside and received her when she came in on the ninth of December.

Ms Cronk: And did you meet with her alone or was Mr Bill Clement present as well?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I was hoping that Mr Clement would have been there that day, but he was not available and I did meet with her alone.

Ms Cronk: And did you receive any briefing from him before meeting with her about matters that might be an issue at that time concerning the Van Lang Centre?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I believe that we chatted briefly about it. It's not uncommon for me, when I get calls like that, to receive people in. I'd prefer, of course, that the person more directly involved with them would be there, but we'd chatted about her role and that conversation, I don't believe, let me believe that there was anything untoward to expect or anything different to expect. It was not a substantive conversation, I don't believe.

Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. Did I understand you to say that based on your discussion with her, it didn't lead you to think that there was anything untoward?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That may not be a correct way of describing that. It's just that I cannot recall discussing or receiving any particular information from Mr Clement before Ms Pretty arrived that would have been important to me. You know, she --

Ms Cronk: I see. So prior to the meeting you had no reason to think that there was anything untoward that was going to be raised with you --

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: -- in relation to the Van Lang. Is that what you're saying?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: All right. Now, the committee has heard evidence that at either a meeting on November the ninth with you or at a meeting on December the ninth between you and Ms Pretty, you indicated to her, after she had expressed a number of concerns, that an investigation would be initiated with respect to the Van Lang Centre relating to board organizational matters, board-management-of-funds issues and staff hiring or staff recruitment practices. Did that occur?

Mr Brian Sutherland: We may have had a discussion about those issues but, of course, at that time we were already into the compliance review that the regional office had undertaken or started to undertake. I realized, of course, through keeping up with Bill Clement and Steve Shapiro, that we had already started doing some work at the Van Lang Centre.

So I was aware of that. The concerns that Ms Pretty was bringing to my attention were somewhat different from the scope of work that we'd been carrying out, but none the less I felt that I would discuss her concerns with my staff and, if necessary, we'd enhance the scope of the compliance review.

Ms Cronk: Perhaps I should back up, then. The committee has received evidence that in May of 1993, when concerns were drawn to the attention of Mr Bill Clement by Ms Luu, an offer of a compliance review by the Ministry of Housing was made. Is that correct?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: And that that compliance review was then subsequently initiated in the month of August 1993.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it was.

Ms Cronk: And that during the course of the fall, the compliance review was in progress; it wasn't in fact completed in all facets until the end of December 1993, as I understand it. Is that correct?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: But that it was in progress.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: Were you aware of that from the outset: that a compliance review was being undertaken?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Very shortly after Ms Luu had sent me or provided me with her submission, I had recognized that anyone who took the time to put together a package of that consequence must have had reason to do so. We had had discussions -- Mr Shapiro, Mr Clement and myself -- about this and had looked at the package that Mr Clement had received earlier. We had made a point that the best way to deal with this is, first of all, to go to the board because, after all, our contractual relationship is with the board. Then, of course, if necessary, we'll have to carry out a more comprehensive analysis. Of course, the best way to do that is through a compliance review.

Ms Cronk: And that was in fact undertaken, as you've indicated.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it was.

Ms Cronk: So that at the time that you met with Ms Pretty in, as you remember it, December 1993, was the compliance review still in progress at that stage?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it was. We hadn't completed it. It was simply a resource issue. I have to tell you that from early July until late August, I was involved in another project for the Ontario Housing Corp and, as a consequence, was not available in Ottawa all the time. I was doing significant travelling. From late August until early October, I was off on medical leave so, to a certain extent, I was out of the picture for a while.

Ms Cronk: When you met with Ms Pretty on December the ninth -- forgive me; I may have asked you this -- was that the first time that you were meeting, that you'd ever met her?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I believe we'd talked on the telephone. I can't verify just when, but that was the first time I'd met her, yes.

Ms Cronk: When you met with her, were you aware that she had written directly to Evelyn Gigantes, the Minister of Housing, to express her concerns relating to the Van Lang Centre?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I was not.

Ms Cronk: Were you informed of that during the course of your meeting with her?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I can't recall that being an area of discussion.

Ms Cronk: Were you aware, when you met with Ms Pretty in December of 1993, that Ms Trinh Luu had left the employ of the centre and was then embarked on other matters, specifically, she was a student at law school at the time?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I was.

1840

Ms Cronk: And when you had the meeting with Ms Pretty, were you aware that Ms Luu had also by that point in time written directly to the Minister of Housing to express concerns and also to request a meeting with her about the Van Lang Centre? Did you know that?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I may have been aware of that, but it wasn't an issue that I was thinking about when I met with Ms Pretty. If I had received a copy of that correspondence, I would have been aware of it.

Ms Cronk: Had you, by the time of your meeting with Miss Pretty, received any contact from any representative of the constituency office of the Minister of Housing in Ottawa relating to the Van Lang Centre?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Not to my knowledge, no.

Ms Cronk: Okay. So that as best as you recall events, you do not remember being aware of, and certainly didn't have foremost in your mind during your meeting with Miss Pretty, the fact that you were dealing with someone who had written to the minister and who was connected with a facility where a former project manager had asked for a meeting with the minister about concerns at the centre.

Mr Brian Sutherland: I don't believe I was aware of that.

Ms Cronk: All right. And where we were when I embarked on these questions was, I had indicated to you that the committee had received evidence that at your meeting with Miss Pretty at the beginning of December you had indicated to her that an investigation would be undertaken with respect to the Van Lang Centre to address specifically three issues: first, board management; secondly, board management of funds; and, thirdly, staff hiring practices. With the background that we've just reviewed in mind, is it the case that there was an indication at that meeting that such an investigation would be undertaken by the Ministry of Housing?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, again, I was aware that our staff had been involved in the compliance review to a certain extent already. We'd done the program part of the review. We'd done the finance part of the review. And although I talked to Miss Pretty -- I certainly accepted her concerns and it was my intention to talk to staff about them -- I don't recall that I talked about a specific investigation divided up into three parts. I obviously did assure her that we'd look into her concerns.

Ms Cronk: Do you recall the issue of an investigation coming up at all?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, it seems to me, if my memory serves me, that we did talk about the compliance review already under way and I was, you know, certainly hoping that that would bring some of the issues that she was bringing to my attention out into the open. That was what I was concentrating on. Of course, the issues that she brought to my concern I had every intention of sharing with staff who had been there and getting their point of view on. I know that I would have assured her that we would look into those things; I'm just not sure about the term "investigation."

Ms Cronk: And then, as I understand it, later that month, that is, in the latter part of December, you received another communication from Miss Pretty, this time a letter requesting that you send a representative of your offices to attend a scheduled December 30, 1993, board meeting at the Van Lang Centre. Do you recall receiving that letter?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I do.

Ms Cronk: And could I ask you, in exhibit 2, to look at tab, I believe it's 22. Do you have that?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I do.

Ms Cronk: Is this the letter that you received from Sharron Pretty with respect to the December 30th board meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: Okay. When you met with her earlier in the month, Mr Sutherland, had she made you aware of the fact that there was an effort then under way to have her removed from the board of directors of Van Lang?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, she had.

Ms Cronk: And did you have any concern about that when you learned of it?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I accepted it on face value and, as I have indicated earlier, it seems to me that Miss Pretty showed me some documentation pertaining to the Corporations Act. We looked at a certain information she had, and she had expressed at that time a concern that there was some interest in removing her from the board, if that's the way I can express it.

Ms Cronk: How did you react to it, though? That's what I'm trying to get at. Were you concerned at that news?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I was concerned, because I felt that, you know, she'd only been appointed in August, and now there seemed to be an effort under way to remove her and it just seemed a bit unusual.

Ms Cronk: Did you know at that time that Ms Pretty was one of only two tenant representatives on that board?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Uh, I certainly knew that she was a tenant representative, and I believe she talked about the process that was used to nominate two tenants to the board. It may well have been, yes, that -- you know, we discussed that fact, that there were two tenants on the board.

Ms Cronk: Did you know as well that she was the only person on the board whose first tongue was not Vietnamese?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I didn't think of it in that term, but -- I don't know that I really knew that. I just knew that she had been a tenant and she was on the board. I really hadn't had that much contact with the board, so I didn't think in those terms.

Ms Cronk: Okay. I'm getting the impression, Mr Sutherland -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- that when you met with her at the beginning of December, you were generally informed about a number of matters relating to the Van Lang Centre but you didn't have any information available to you prior to that meeting to put you in any state of concern about what was going on in that facility.

Mr Brian Sutherland: No.

Ms Cronk: Is that right?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I did not. That's right.

Ms Cronk: And after the meeting that you had with her, would it be fair of me to suggest that considerably more detail was provided to you about certain concerns that she had?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, that's correct.

Ms Cronk: And when you received her letter of December 21st, did you reach any decision as to whether a representative of your offices should attend the December 30th board meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I didn't reach a decision then. I had a difficult situation to deal with. On the one hand, I was receiving concerns that were somewhat new to me. On the other hand, I knew that our staff had been in there, into the non-profit corporation, and had been looking at a number of the operations and had reasonably assured me that things were not quite as bad as I thought, or as we might have thought, and I was just a bit perplexed about this. I mean, I understood Ms Pretty's concerns and I felt that there was some concern about her comments about her board status. I really didn't know what to do, and I simply kept the memo and took the matter under advisement.

Now, I did decide -- I guess the way I'd like to express this is that I've never attended a board meeting without sort of an official invitation before, and I realized that Ms Pretty was vice-president and for that reason she had asked someone to come along. I felt a bit uneasy about going, but sort of on a spur of the moment, I felt, because of her concerns that she had raised to me, I suppose it was just the day of or the day before I decided that I would probably go along to the meeting myself.

Ms Cronk: And did you?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: And at that meeting, did you address the board?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes. Again, I felt quite awkward going in, because, again, it's not my custom to attend board meetings without all the formal invitation and to a certain extent I felt I might have been intruding. But none the less I did go in and I asked the board whether I could speak to them as a group for a few minutes and they granted me that pleasure and I took the occasion to speak generally about some things that I felt to be important.

Ms Cronk: Was your attendance at the board meeting, then, unannounced in the sense that you hadn't had any contact about attending with any of the other directors except Ms Pretty?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: Moving forward into the early months of 1994, it's my understanding that towards the beginning of January 1994, the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre sent a letter to Evelyn Gigantes, the Minister of Housing, inviting, or requesting, a meeting with her to discuss matters relating to the centre. Were you aware of that request having gone from the board to the minister?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I was. It was a January 3 letter.

1850

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 16 of volume 2 -- sorry, of exhibit 2. That's the wrong tab. Sorry. I think it might be volume 2. Just a second. It is. I beg your pardon. It's exhibit 1, volume 2. Is that the -- I'm sorry, at tab 16.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Tab 16. Yes, that's the letter.

Ms Cronk: It appears to have been copied to you by the board?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it was.

Ms Cronk: This followed very shortly on your attendance at the December 30th board meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it did.

Ms Cronk: Was there any discussion at that December 30th board meeting that you now recall about the board requesting a meeting with the minister?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Not that I can recall. I thought we had a productive meeting on the 30th, and I didn't recall a specific reference being made to a request for a meeting with the minister.

Ms Cronk: Did you, when you left the meeting of December 30th, the board meeting, have any reason to think that there were matters of sufficient concern that the minister should become involved, in your view?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I didn't think it was necessary at that time because we had had a very frank discussion about issues that I felt Ms Pretty had brought to my attention, in a general sense. We talked about access, because that had been a concern of hers, and tenant participation. We had a general discussion about those things. I did it in such a way that I tried to present the vision of the ministry as it was now, and I used the occasion to enhance the full board's understanding, I felt, of these objectives.

Ms Cronk: Did this come out of the blue, then, the letter requesting a meeting with the minister? Did it take you by surprise?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I can't really comment on how it took me. I felt it was a bit unusual, because I thought we had made some good progress at the December 30th meeting.

Ms Cronk: Did your offices in Ottawa prepare any advice for the minister's offices in Toronto as to whether that kind of a meeting should be set up with the board?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, yes, we did. We prepared a form that is used to advise the minister as to whether we would recommend the minister meeting with a group or not. I believe that form suggested that, in view of my meeting on the 30th and the goodwill that had been expressed by the board in terms of our objectives, it really wouldn't be all that useful for the minister to meet with the group at this time. We felt we had the situation under reasonably good control.

Ms Cronk: May I just understand what the process or the protocol is in so far as your offices are concerned when an invitation of that kind or a request of that kind comes forward? If it's a matter relating to a housing project for which your offices have some responsibility, in the normal course of events, if the minister is asked to meet with a group of that kind, would your offices be consulted or the advice of your offices be sought, as a normal matter, with respect to whether that kind of a meeting should occur?

Mr Brian Sutherland: As a normal matter, if it referred to a housing project or something that we were working with on a day-to-day basis or on a regular basis, it's customary for us to receive the questionnaire form requesting us to provide our input as to whether the minister should meet with the group or individual or not, what the issues are and any other relevant information that might be available.

Ms Cronk: Should I take from that, then, that in this particular situation there was nothing unusual about your offices providing advice on the advisability of such a meeting or the necessity of such a meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, there wasn't. No, that process is quite common.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 17 of the same volume. Is this the advice form you were referring to?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: It's dated January the sixth, 1994, Mr Sutherland, and it says that the ministry contact is yourself and that the ILS contact is a Mr Bob Arsenault. What does "ILS contact" stand for?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's the information liaison service. It's an organization within the ministry that receives information like this, sends it out, receives it back and arranges for its distribution.

Ms Cronk: Again, at the bottom left-hand part of the form it says, "Report prepared by Bill Clement."

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: In the normal course of events, if Mr Clement or any other member of your staff prepared an advice form of this kind, would you be aware of it?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And would your signoff either theoretically or literally be required before a response could go to the minister's office?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it would.

Ms Cronk: And are these kinds of documents intended to be sent to the minister's offices in Toronto?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, they make their way there through the ILS process, yes.

Ms Cronk: Let me rephrase the question. Do they go through the constituency offices? I think the committee members probably all know this, but I don't, so I thought I'd ask the question.

Mrs Marland: No, we don't.

Ms Cronk: Does it go through the constituency office, or does it go directly to the relevant minister's office?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, it goes down to, in this case, 777 Bay, and as I said, the ILS, the information liaison service, arranges for the appropriate distribution.

Ms Cronk: All right. Now, in this particular case, as you suggested, the advice was that a meeting should not occur? Your offices advised against such a meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: We advised against it, yes, we did.

Ms Cronk: And the reasons for that recommendation are set out in paragraph 1(b) of this advice form. Is that right?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: Did you agree with that advice?

Mr Brian Sutherland: At that time I did, because I was of two minds prior to the meeting on December 30th, but I felt after my attendance at the meeting on December 30th that I had made the points that I felt important to make to the board and I'd received pretty good assurance back that the issues that we felt to be important, they felt to be important as well.

Ms Cronk: It's my understanding, Mr Sutherland, that it was March 25th, 1994, approximately three months later, that a response was sent from the minister's office to the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre in reply to their request for a meeting and that the reply essentially indicated that the minister could not commit at that time to meeting with them in the near future. Can you confirm that that's correct?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: And could I ask you in the same volume to look, if you would, please, at tab 29. This letter I understand to be the reply letter that ultimately went to the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre and it bears -- I'm sorry, one of the people who received a blind copy of it was Mr Bill Clement of your offices.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: Were your offices involved in the preparation of the reply to the Van Lang board of directors, or do you know?

Mr Brian Sutherland: In this case, I'm not certain. Usually we are. I'm just not certain in this case.

Ms Cronk: Do you personally know, Mr Sutherland, why a reply did not go to the board of directors until the end of March 1994?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I do not.

Ms Cronk: There was no reason of which you were aware for a delay in that regard -- or for that length of time. I shouldn't characterize it as a delay.

Mr Brian Sutherland: No. When requests come in of this nature, we try to turn them around within a reasonable period of time.

Ms Cronk: The advice form from your offices was dated, as I indicated, January the sixth. There's another date entry and it indicates that it was required by the minister's office and ILS by January 13, 1994. When it refers to the minister's office in that regard, would that mean the minister's constituency office or the minister's offices in Toronto?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I believe that would refer to the minister's office in Toronto.

Ms Cronk: And then moving forward -- well, perhaps still dealing with January 1994. As I understand it, the compliance review undertaken by the Ministry of Housing with respect to the Van Lang Centre was in fact complete by that month.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it was.

Ms Cronk: But it was not presented or discussed with the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre until the board's February 8, 1994, meeting.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: And why is that, if it was ready in January?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, first of all, going back to December 30th, when I -- I'll come back to the question, but going back to December 30th, I realized that we were in the process of completing the compliance report and that it had been outstanding for some time. I had indicated to the board at that time that we would be presenting the compliance review as quickly as possible and that in addition to that, with their acceptance, I would be arranging for a member of my staff to attend their board meetings for a time to help them get through this difficult period.

Ms Cronk: Did you make that offer at the December 30th meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: Did you see it as an offer, or were you informing them, gracious or otherwise, that that was going to happen?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I think I was informing them and inviting them at the same time. I just felt that some of the difficulties they were having might have been helped by having someone there who understood board process, understood the kinds of things that board members should be receiving on a regular basis, and I felt really that perhaps our presence might have been helpful in that regard.

1900

Ms Cronk: And how was that received by the board?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That was received very well by the president.

Ms Cronk: And then coming forward to February of 1994, my question to you was, if the compliance review was complete in January -- indeed, I understand it was actually complete in December -- was there any particular reason why it wasn't presented to the board until the beginning of February? There may not be. I just --

Mr Brian Sutherland: I'm not certain of the reason for that. Obviously, the board knew we were nearing completion of the report and we would present it as soon as possible. I just can't recall why that was not done in January.

Ms Cronk: It's my understanding that you actually, by letter of February the eighth under your signature, provided a copy of the compliance report to the board. Do you recall doing so?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct, yes.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look, Mr Sutherland, please, again, at exhibit 2, this time tab 32. Do you have that?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I do.

Ms Cronk: And was this letter sent by you to Dr Tang, the then president of the Van Lang Centre, enclosing a copy of the compliance report?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That letter was signed by me the day the report was submitted to the board, and Mr Shapiro and Mr Clement were going to attend the board meeting that evening.

Ms Cronk: And did they attend the board meeting that night and discuss the results of the compliance report with the board?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, they did.

Ms Cronk: It's also my understanding, that around the same time -- that is, in January and early February 1994 -- there was a reorganization of the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct. Actually, now that you mention that, that was the reason, I believe, that we could not present in February, that the board was doing some restructuring and had rescheduled or scheduled a meeting to receive the report in February. It seems to me there was some activity of their own that they were dealing with in January.

Ms Cronk: And as a result of that reorganization, did Dr Hieu Truong become president of the Van Lang Centre?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I believe Dr Vinh Tang.

Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. Dr Vinh Tang?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, became president.

Ms Cronk: And did Dr Hieu Truong replace Dr Can D. Le as secretary?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, he did.

Ms Cronk: Thank you. Could I ask you to look again at the -- I'm sorry to be jumping around here, Mr Sutherland. If at any point in this you think there is some other fact or matter which should be drawn to the attention of the committee about these issues, would you let me know? Otherwise I'm just going to move through some of this.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Okay, sure.

Ms Cronk: Could you go back to exhibit number 1, volume 1, and look at tab 4 again, the "Statement of Selected Background Facts." You need exhibit 1, volume 1. And could I ask you this time to look at paragraphs 31 and 32 relating to the compliance review, if you could just take a minute and read them. Can you confirm for me whether the facts in those paragraphs are substantially correct?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Uh, yes, they are.

Ms Cronk: And could I ask you to look as well at paragraph 9. Paragraph 9 concerns the composition of the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre in January of 1994. Can you confirm for me that the individuals listed in that paragraph assumed a position as directors and, where indicated, officers of that corporation in January of 1994?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, they were.

Ms Cronk: And is it then the case, Mr Sutherland, in so far as you are aware, that Sharron Pretty remained a director following the reorganization in January but was no longer vice-president?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, that is correct. If I can go back to December 30 again, we did have some discussion about membership on the board. As this had been a concern expressed by Ms Pretty in her meeting to me, that discussion was pursued on December 30 and we did get into some discussion about the process that was used to appoint tenants to the board and, I believe, Ms Pretty's unhappiness that the process had not been, in her opinion, followed correctly or appropriately. There was some discussion given over to that. It seems to me that at the end of the meeting we had some conversation about, is it possible or practical that Ms Pretty can continue on the board? There seemed to be a general agreement -- that was one of the issues that we discussed -- that that could be arranged, that was possible.

Ms Cronk: Were you encouraging of that at the December 30th meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I was.

Ms Cronk: Am I correct that in January the board actually informed you of the intended reorganization and of the fact that Dr Can D. Le was stepping down as secretary of the board?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 30 of exhibit 2. Can you confirm for me that you received a copy of that letter, which is dated January 28th, informing you of that reorganization?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Tab 30?

Ms Cronk: It's exhibit 2, tab 30.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I've seen this letter.

Ms Cronk: Then, moving forward in time, Mr Sutherland, the committee has heard that on the first of March, 1994, you received what has been described -- and the document is before the committee -- as a very lengthy letter from Sharron Pretty setting out in considerable detail the concerns that she had as they had evolved and as they then were for her concerning the Van Lang Centre. Do you remember receiving that letter?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I do.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you in that regard to turn to tab 33 of exhibit 2. Is this the letter that you received from Ms Pretty at that time?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: Do you remember personally reading it, Mr Sutherland, or did you pass it on to other members of your staff to brief you on it?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I read it and also passed it on to staff for their points of view.

Ms Cronk: Did you make note at that time that it had been copied to the Minister of Housing, Evelyn Gigantes?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I don't know that I made note of it, but obviously I recognized that it had been copied.

Ms Cronk: Is that something that you now remember having noticed when you read it?

Mr Brian Sutherland: It's quite common for letters to be copied to the minister, so I can't say that it sort of jumped out at me, but --

Ms Cronk: Well, did it have any significance for you?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, there was more than the minister, I believe, copied.

Ms Cronk: Yes, there was a Mr Marc Collins and a Mr Newton Vanriel.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it would have --

Ms Cronk: Caught your attention?

Mr Brian Sutherland: It would have, yes.

Ms Cronk: Wouldn't it normally, if a letter addressed to you was copied to the minister?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: The reason I want to ask you about that, Mr Sutherland, is because at this point in time, the beginning of March, based on what you've said to the committee, you knew that the board of Van Lang had requested a meeting, that your offices had advised against it, for the reasons you've outlined, and now you've got another letter coming in from Sharron Pretty, whom you just personally dealt with at the December 30th board meeting, only this time she's sending a copy to the minister. Am I right so far?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: Would you agree with me, again without getting into any of the detail of them, that many of the concerns raised by her in this letter, if accurate, and I say if accurate, were of a very serious nature?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, they were.

Ms Cronk: Many of them involved allegations concerning improprieties by individuals connected both with the board in its management practices and in its staffing, and indeed allegations of illegality, rightly or wrongly, accurately or inaccurately, were raised in this letter, were they not?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, they were.

Ms Cronk: That's not your everyday letter?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, it isn't.

Ms Cronk: And when you received it, did any red flags go up? What did you do about it?

1910

Mr Brian Sutherland: When I received it, I spoke to Mr Shapiro and/or Mr Clement and of course I was being reassured that they were satisfied that the work that they had done in terms of the compliance review and their presentation of it had addressed these issues. To a certain extent these were issues that were beyond the purview of the Ministry of Housing, some of these issues were, and that really there wasn't a lot we could do beyond what we had done.

Ms Cronk: Was that the information and advice you were getting from your staff at that point?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I was.

Ms Cronk: And based on your own review of the matters dealt with in the letter, was that your view, that they were all corporate matters about which little could be done?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I was starting to get that view. I certainly had concerns in the first instance, but my staff have been in the field for a long time, they know how organizations should run, and they were reassuring me that their assessment of the non-profit -- albeit there were problems, there were deficiencies that had to be dealt with -- but their assessment of the non-profit was that these things were being dealt with and that there was a willingness on the part of the non-profit to deal with them, and they felt reasonably satisfied that we were making progress, particularly Mr Clement, because he had been asked to attend the next two or three meetings of the non-profit board and had agreed to do so. We just felt that we were making progress on this issue and for that reason some of the problems were somewhat overstated.

Ms Cronk: Overstated?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Would you agree with me that some of the problems outlined in this letter were not confined to personnel matters? They weren't just staffing issues, were they?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct, yes.

Ms Cronk: In this letter at page 19, Mr Sutherland, there is an indication by Ms Pretty that, in her language, if she found out her "time had been wasted again" -- I'm quoting now. Sorry. Page 19, the second-last paragraph on the bottom of the page. She indicates that it was her "last attempt to request the ministry's response to" her "concerns, intervention and positive actions," and if she found out that her "time had been wasted again," essentially, and "no action" was "taken, then the public at large should really learn about what happened." I read that, Mr Sutherland, as an indication that she would take her concerns public if she didn't receive an adequate response from the ministry. Is that a fair interpretation?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's a fair interpretation, yes.

Ms Cronk: And is that the kind of thing that raises a red flag with you when you see it from someone connected with a facility for which your offices are responsible?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: And did it, upon your receipt of this letter, raise that kind of a red flag?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, it certainly raised concerns with me, because I felt that we had done just about everything that we could do, and the reports that I was receiving from my staff, who I have a lot of confidence in, were to the effect that a lot of these issues were very difficult and were beyond the scope of our mandate. Their view was that we'd been working with the board, the board in turn had been cooperative, the board as a whole, and there was just very little that we could do beyond what we had done.

Ms Cronk: Did you have any understanding as to whether your staff had also been working with Ms Pretty, as distinct from the board as a whole, to respond to her concerns, or do you now recall that?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Could you repeat that, please? I'm sorry.

Ms Cronk: Yes. What you said to the committee, as I understood it, was that your staff, in whom you had a great deal of confidence, had been working with the board as a whole --

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, they had.

Ms Cronk: -- and that they were making progress.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: My question to you is, were they similarly working with Sharron Pretty? Do you know what, if anything, they were doing in respect of her as distinct from the board as a whole?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, my sense was that my staff wanted to work with the board as a whole, not with one member of the board, and they felt that they had been making progress in that regard and that Ms Pretty's concerns were not really the interest or the issue with the whole board.

Ms Cronk: And then, as I understand it, Ms Pretty in fact wrote to you again in the same month --

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, she did.

Ms Cronk: -- by a letter dated March 20th? Do you recall receiving that as well?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I do.

Ms Cronk: Could you look at, please, tab 36; tab 36 in the same volume. Did you receive this letter from Ms Pretty?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: And in it, as I understand it, she was requesting you personally to attend an upcoming board meeting on March 29th?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: She also made some allegations about the ministry's responsiveness to her concerns. Would that be a fair way to put it? I'm looking at the second- to the third-last paragraph of the letter.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes. Okay.

Ms Cronk: Less than favourable.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Did you respond to this letter from Ms Pretty?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 39?

Mr Callahan: Could we inquire whether he's aware of it being copied?

Ms Cronk: I didn't hear, Mr Callahan; I'm sorry?

Mr Callahan: It's copied as well to Evelyn, Marc Collins and Newton Vanriel.

Ms Cronk: Did you make note at the time -- that may be quite an unfair question. I mean, we all get letters with copies. I don't know the -- I'm just asking you, did you make note at the time as to the fact that this letter appears to have been copied to the minister as well?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And again to Marc Collins and Newton Vanriel?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: I should've asked you with respect to the March first letter, and now with respect to this one, did you at the time know who Marc Collins was?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: And who did you understand him to be, in the sense of what position he held?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Mr Collins is one of the minister's assistants who works out of her office in Toronto.

Ms Cronk: In Toronto?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And do you know what area he works, or on what kinds of matters he provides assistance?

Mr Brian Sutherland: On policy matters.

Ms Cronk: And did you know at the time who Newton Vanriel was?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I didn't.

Ms Cronk: Do you now?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: What do you understand to have been his position at the time?

Mr Brian Sutherland: The question again, please?

Ms Cronk: What do you now understand his position to have been?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I understand this person is associated with the minister's office, I believe.

Ms Cronk: Had you in March of this year met Mr Collins personally?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Oh, yes.

Ms Cronk: Had you dealt with him from time to time?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes. On other matters, of course.

Ms Cronk: Just to follow up on the clarification that Mr Callahan was seeking, do we have then a situation in March where you've received a second letter copied to the minister, copied to whatever policy advisers, from Sharron Pretty about her concerns with respect to the Van Lang Centre?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And your response letter, I was about to ask you, is at tab 39. Is that correct?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: And in that letter, do you indicate that Mr Bill Clement would attend the March 29th board meeting, as you were unable, due to your own previously scheduled commitments, to do so personally?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I did.

Mr Callahan: I don't want to interrupt, but I notice down at the bottom it's got "FAX."

Ms Cronk: Which document are you looking at?

Mr Callahan: This is under tab 36. It's got "FAX," and it says, "To: Newton. From: Sue Lott." Can you inquire of the witness as to how it wound up at the constituency office in Ottawa, because that's where I understand Sue Lott is operating out of, and how it got there and whether that was how -- I'd just like to know what that is on there.

Ms Cronk: Mr Sutherland, there are a number of copies of the March 20th letter found at tab 36. The second one in bears a fax stamp that Mr Callahan's referring to.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Do you have any knowledge about whether a copy of this March 20th letter was provided to the minister's constituency offices, and if so, what they did with it?

Mr Brian Sutherland: To my knowledge, it was not provided by our office. If it was, it came via another route.

Ms Cronk: Mr Callahan, may I suggest that we reserve that line of inquiry and that I pursue it with the appropriate witness in the person of Sue Lott, who will be testifying tomorrow? Would that be acceptable?

Mr Callahan: That's fine.

Ms Cronk: Thank you. With respect to your reply letter then, Mr Sutherland, on March 25th at tab 39, could I direct your attention to the last two paragraphs in that letter, please, page 2. In those paragraphs, are you commenting upon some of the concerns that had been raised by Ms Pretty in her two letters in March?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: As I read it, and please correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, you appear to be indicating that there were two issues that she had been raising, namely, access and resident involvement, that were related to emerging principles of the Ministry of Housing?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

1920

Ms Cronk: But that there were also a number of complaints that your offices, that is, the Ministry of Housing, considered to be internal, relating to personnel matters or corporate -- that is, the content of corporate documents including minutes, access to documents etc -- that were, according to the language in your letter, "beyond the bounds of ministry control"?

Mr Brian Sutherland: We felt that these items were within the purview of the corporation to deal with and they, more appropriately than us, should be dealing with them, yes.

Ms Cronk: And then in the next paragraph, Mr Sutherland, you indicate that, "Of major concern, and disappointment, to us" -- I take that to be to the Ministry of Housing?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: -- was what you described as "the considerable antagonism and acrimony that exists at the board level. Personalities and other interests should be set aside." And you go on to express the view that those difficulties, on a continuing basis, were bogging down the conduct of business by the board, right?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, that was our view, because I relate back to the meeting that I had with the board in December and I talked about providing a staff member to attend each meeting so that the board could receive information that was important to it and it just -- and of course, when the compliance review was presented to the board in February, my staff felt that they received an assurance of cooperation from the board. They did feel that there were certain things happening when they presented the report that would make it difficult for the board to work together. Ms Pretty and the other members of the board had some differences of opinion at that meeting about the report.

Ms Cronk: You'd been at one board meeting yourself, the December 30th board meeting.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I had.

Ms Cronk: Did you observe yourself at that meeting signs of, to use your language, "acrimony and antagonism" between Ms Pretty on the one hand and other board members on the other?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I felt it was a difficult situation to arrive at a board meeting and have someone have a tape recorder there, which put everybody ill at ease.

Ms Cronk: Who had a tape recorder?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Ms Pretty. And also, during the course of the meeting, of course, on various matters that we would discuss there was quite a lot of tension, a difference of opinion between Ms Pretty and the other members of the board, and my sense is that this same sort of situation prevailed on the February eighth meeting as well. My staff came back and were somewhat concerned that there were things happening at the board level that we just couldn't deal with, and they weren't causing the board to work harmoniously as a group as they should.

Ms Cronk: In fact, had your offices formed the view that they were having quite the opposite effect, that they were interfering with the constructive working of the board?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: In terms of your knowledge of what the climate or the atmosphere of that February eighth board meeting was all about, I take it that's based on reports given to you by your staff --

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: -- who attended? Could I ask you to look at volume 1 -- I'm sorry, exhibit 1, volume 2, tab 23. Do you have that, Mr Sutherland?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I do.

Ms Cronk: All right. There are a number of documents before --

Mr Sutherland: Could you repeat which tab that was? I'm sorry.

Ms Cronk: Yes. That is tab 23, volume --

Mr Sutherland: Twenty-three, okay. Volume 3 or volume 2?

Ms Cronk: Volume 2.

Mr Sutherland: Volume 2.

Ms Cronk: Tab 23, exhibit 1.

Mr Sutherland: Okay.

Ms Cronk: There are a number of documents before the committee, Mr Sutherland, that are entitled Background Note.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: The purpose of those documents is what?

Mr Brian Sutherland: The purpose of those documents is to update or provide background information to senior officials in the ministry, including the Minister of Housing.

Ms Cronk: In the context of background notes prepared relating to housing matters, would I be correct in assuming that, when prepared, they would be sent to the minister's offices in Toronto for review by her and her staff?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, they would.

Ms Cronk: And if they were prepared by your offices, would you see them before they went out to the minister's offices in Toronto?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I would.

Ms Cronk: Regardless of the project, if it was a background note?

Mr Brian Sutherland: If I was in the office I'd see them. Occasionally, they go out without me being there because I'm not there all the time.

Ms Cronk: And again, to put it to you in this way, do you have to sort of sign off on them, either figuratively or literally?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, if it's something of a significant amount of contention, I certainly like to see the note and see whether it reflects what I think the issues are and their possible resolution, yes.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at page 2 of this background note. The note itself is dated February the 14th, 1994, and the staff contact person is Bill Clement.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: Should we take from that that it was prepared by Bill Clement?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it was.

Ms Cronk: Could I draw your attention to the three paragraphs which appear in the middle of the page under the title "Board Antagonism."

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: It is suggested in the first paragraph, this is obviously with respect to the Van Lang Centre, that, "There is considerable antagonism at the board level between the lone non-Vietnamese tenant member and the others." Just stopping there for the moment, I take it the lone non-Vietnamese tenant member was Sharron Pretty?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: In the second paragraph, "Most of the complaints are considered to be internal (personnel) or corporate and beyond the bounds of project operating agreement with the ministry." And then continuing on, "Although of concern, little else can be done other than coach the directors on how to deal with the issues." I take it that was the view of your staff at the time with respect to most of the complaints being expressed by Sharron Pretty?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it was, and we felt strongly that the best way to get the board through this is to coach them. And again, that's why I made that offer in December, and given their acceptance of the review and its findings and their willingness to have our presence at their meeting, I felt that that was the best way that we could make progress with the group.

Ms Cronk: That offer being the offer to have representatives of your office attend board meetings?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: In the next paragraph, it's suggested that, "After the report was tabled" -- I take that to be the compliance report?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: -- "at the February 8 meeting, other business was conducted." And then it reads as follows: "The meeting deteriorated rapidly, with much antagonism between the lone non-Vietnamese tenant member and the others over her taping of the meeting and her concerns with the content of prior meeting minutes, comments on the inexperience of the administrator (who was in attendance), and access to corporation documents." Did this background note form part of the source of your information of the acrimony and antagonism at the board that has been referred to in your letter to Ms Pretty?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Given what you'd observed at the December 30th meeting, what was reported in the background note in February and the contents of your letter to Ms Pretty towards the end of March, would it be fair of me to suggest that that was a persistent situation with respect to this board for a period of several months in 1994?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it was.

Ms Cronk: And did that continue in so far as you were aware through the months of April and May 1994?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes. From the reports that I received from Mr Clement, who attended the March and May meeting -- I don't believe there was a meeting in April -- Ms Pretty was either not there or attended for a very short period, so it seemed as though this difficulty within the board was continuing.

Ms Cronk: Did you during either the months of April or May 1994 -- let's take it up to the end of May 1994, Mr Sutherland -- receive any further communications from Ms Pretty or from any other member of the board concerning problems at the Van Lang Centre?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I did not, not to my memory. I had committed Mr Clement to the file. I mean, given the number of non-profits we deal with, I just couldn't be involved on a regular basis. Mr Clement had responsibility for that organization.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at volume 3 of exhibit 1, tab 108. Do you have that, Mr Sutherland?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I do.

Ms Cronk: This is a background note, which if we look at page 3, is dated May the 30th, 1994?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: So we're skipping ahead two and a half months from the date of the last background note of February 14th that we just looked at?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: This one also appears to have been prepared by Bill Clement of your offices.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it was.

Ms Cronk: Again, would I be correct in assuming that you would have seen and, again to use my euphemism, signed off on this background note?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Maybe it's not a euphemism. Do you actually have to sign off on these before they're sent to the minister?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I don't have to sign off, but I usually do see them, so there's an invisible sign-off, I suppose.

Ms Cronk: If you had any comments or suggested changes to a background note of this kind, in the normal course of events, is that the kind of thing that would be sought of you before it was sent to the minister's offices?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes. Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: And I assume, given your role in the office, it's likely they'd be made if you had any comments or suggestions before it went off.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Dealing with the contents of this background note, am I interpreting it correctly when I suggest that it reports on the March 29th board meeting attended by Mr Clement and concerns raised by Ms Pretty at that meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And it also records that Mr Clement attended a special board meeting on May the third, and again it deals with certain matters that were dealt with at the board level at that meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it does.

Ms Cronk: And in particular, it suggested that at that meeting, which Ms Pretty could not attend -- I'm referring now, at page 2, to the third-last bullet from the bottom of the page.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: It suggested that at that meeting -- we're talking now about May the third -- first that, "Ms Pretty could not attend," having had a prior commitment, but that she had corresponded with the board about the meeting. Am I reading that correctly?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: And it suggested that, "The other directors expressed concern that the board was no longer operating cohesively or effectively because their meetings have become bogged down with conflict, criticism and accusation."

Stopping there for the moment, would it be fair of us to conclude therefore that the antagonism and the acrimony which you had noted in your letter to Ms Pretty of March 25th, and which you indicated really had been observed in the sense of tension and difficulty and functioning from at least December 30th, was persisting as at the end of May?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That would be a fair assessment of things, I believe, and Mr Clement had been at a number of those meetings and I feel his reflections are accurate and reflect what happened.

Ms Cronk: And according to the background note, it appears that the other members of the board disagreed with accusations which Ms Pretty had made of what's described as "lies and dishonesty" on the part of Dr Can Le, and that they had "moved to absolve themselves of any legal or financial responsibility" for her actions as a board member. Is that correct?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: And would you agree with me that taking an action of that kind -- that is, the other board members seeking to absolve themselves in that fashion -- might be taken as an attempt of them to distance themselves in a very real way from the accusations that she was making?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I believe that was quite clearly stated on their part, yes.

Ms Cronk: When you got this background note at the end of May, Mr Sutherland, and read it, what did you make of it? Were you concerned by the continuing reports that are coming through these periods that this situation was not only not improving, but appears to be perhaps getting worse? Would that be a fair suggestion?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I was concerned because I felt that we had made a good effort to recognize Ms Pretty's issues, the board's issues -- we'd talked about overall objectives, we'd done our compliance review, we'd tried to focus on the areas that she had felt to be important -- and yet things were continuing to bog down. So frankly, at that point in time, I accepted my staff's view of the situation and felt, again, that even though we'd continue to participate and work with the board, it was very difficult to do given the current state of affairs between one of the board members and the remainder.

Ms Cronk: Did your offices know at that time, Mr Sutherland, that Ms Pretty and Ms Trinh Luu, by letter of March the fourth, 1994, had again -- when I say "again," it was the first time that they wrote under joint signature, but that they had written to the minister requesting what they described as a special and urgent meeting with the minister? Did your offices know that?

Mr Brian Sutherland: We didn't know about that particular letter. I don't believe we were copied on that letter.

Ms Cronk: Were you or were your offices aware, however, that throughout the month of April and the month of May, there was consideration at various points in time being given by the minister's offices in Toronto to the holding of a meeting with Ms Trinh Luu and/or Ms Sharron Pretty? Were you aware of that?

Mr Brian Sutherland: We had received a request, I believe, in March involving a meeting between the minister and the board. I believe we filled out one of the information liaison service reports in March and provided an opinion as to whether we felt a meeting was appropriate or not.

Ms Cronk: When you say that that was with respect to a meeting with the board, is that your understanding, or was it with respect to a proposed meeting with Ms Pretty and/or Ms Luu?

Mr Brian Sutherland: We had no knowledge of that meeting.

Ms Cronk: Sorry?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I say I don't believe we had any knowledge of a meeting between the minister and Sharron Pretty and/or Trinh Luu.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 30 of -- I believe it's volume 2 of exhibit 1.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Exhibit 1, volume 2?

Ms Cronk: I'm sorry; let me just find it for you first. I'm not sure I've given you the right -- yes, I have: tab 30 of volume 2 of exhibit 1. Do you have that?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: If we could just identify this first, Mr Sutherland. As I understand it, this is the kind of invitation response advice form that we looked at a few moments ago back in January, the one dated January.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it was.

Ms Cronk: This one is dated March 18th, 1994, and the ministry contact is described to be yourself.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And the ILS, or information liaison contact, again Mr Arsenault.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And this one, looking at the date at the bottom of the page, appears --

Mr Callahan: Excuse me; is this tab 30?

Ms Cronk: Yes, it is.

The Chair: Exhibit 1.

Mr Callahan: My tab 30 has got March either 29th or 28th on it.

Mr Brian Sutherland: On the top.

Ms Cronk: I'm sorry; on the left-hand corner at the top, you're quite right. Did I say March 18th?

Mr Callahan: You said 18th.

Ms Cronk: There's two dates. I read the wrong date. Thank you for clarifying that, Mr Callahan. If we look at the top left-hand side, it appears to have the date March 29th, 1994.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm.

Ms Cronk: Then there's a date of March 18th. Can you help me as to how to relate those two?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, we would have submitted the report on March 28th. So the March 29th date would be the right date. The request H1627 would have probably come from ILS on the 18th and we would have responded on the 28th.

Ms Cronk: So do I take it then that you, by a request of March 18th, would have been asked for advice on the matter?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: And by a report submitted on March 28th and ultimately dated March 29th, a response was forthcoming from your offices?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Mr Murphy: Could I suggest the possible explanation? The letter attached to it has a stamp from the deputy's office of March 17th. I would suggest that logic would say that then gets forwarded somehow on the 18th and then gets fed through. That is a quasi-educated guess.

Ms Cronk: Could we just pursue that, Mr Sutherland? If you look further into the tab, you'll see the letter that Mr Murphy's referring to. It's a letter addressed to Evelyn Gigantes, March 4, 1994.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: It has a date stamp on it of March 17th from the deputy minister's offices.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: I suggested to you earlier that a letter of request had gone from Ms Trinh Luu and Ms Sharron Pretty seeking a meeting with the minister on what they described as a "special and urgent" basis, and you indicated to me that you weren't certain that your offices had received a copy of it. Do you recall that?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: Looking at the document itself, it doesn't appear that you were directly copied on it. By that, I mean your offices.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: But did you, bearing that date in mind, a receipt date of March the 17th, and then the information and advice form of March 29th -- should we take from that that your offices did become aware of it and that your advice was sought as to whether a meeting with Ms Luu and Ms Pretty should occur?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I believe we would have received -- when we received this notice we may have received the letter itself, because it references on the ILS report H1627. I'm just not certain about that, but it's quite possible that we received the letter with the request.

Ms Cronk: What I'm coming to then about that, Mr Sutherland, is that back in January, as you've confirmed to the committee, there was a letter dated January the third, 1994, from the board to the minister requesting a meeting.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: Your offices prepared an advice form advising against such a meeting with the board by an advice form dated January sixth?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: A response ultimately goes from the minister's offices in Toronto under date of March 25th to that request for a meeting, and in that reply it's indicated that the minister was not in a position to commit to a meeting in the near future. Do you recall that? We looked at that.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct, yes.

Ms Cronk: This seems to be a different streamed request, and that is a request coming from Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty by letter of March the fourth. Again, the advice of your offices is sought and is provided by the information and advice form that we're looking at dated March 29th. Have I got it right so far?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: Again, in this instance as well, the advice is against such a meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: And the reasons for that recommendation are set out in paragraph 2?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, they are.

Ms Cronk: And the reasoning set out appears to be that -- it doesn't appear to be -- as stated, is that there were: "unresolved conflicts for over a year between Can Le and Sharron Pretty...and the former manager, Trinh Luu. Ministry staff have attempted to mediate this situation during this period. There are many complex issues involved."

Now, stopping there for a moment, did you personally have any part in the preparation of this advice form or in formulating the advice set out in it?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I didn't.

Ms Cronk: The report appears to have been prepared by Steve Shapiro.

Mr Brian Sutherland: It was probably prepared by Bill Clement and approved by Steve Shapiro.

Ms Cronk: And, as I read the reasons for the recommendation, Mr Sutherland, and I'm not asserting this to you, I'm inquiring of you, all right?

Mr Brian Sutherland: All right.

Ms Cronk: It seemed to me, on reading it, that what was being said was: "Look, we've been trying to mediate this situation. It's a long pre-existing conflict and it's a complex situation, so don't meet."

Mr Brian Sutherland: That was our advice. We felt we'd been doing our best and had some difficulty understanding or appreciating what more could be done through a meeting with the minister. That was our best advice, recognizing of course that we often make recommendations and of course they can be accepted or not.

Ms Cronk: Right. Was it your perception, though, as the individual responsible for your offices in Ottawa, that your staff had been engaged in a mediation function with respect to the Van Lang board?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, yes, it was.

Mr Callahan: Could we inquire -- with the second report there seems to be, "Meeting originally scheduled for May rescheduled to June 17th," something like, "Home no reply" -- whether he can identify that and how it got there?

Ms Cronk: I was going to come to that, Mr Callahan, but there's no problem in having it answered now. Do you know the meaning of it? Do you know what page we're even looking at, Mr Sutherland?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I do.

Ms Cronk: Do you know the meaning of that entry? It looks to me to be a photocopy of a Post-It. Can you help me with that?

Mr Brian Sutherland: It appears to bear some resemblance to Bill Clement's printing or writing --

Ms Cronk: Handwriting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: -- but I can't be certain of that.

Ms Cronk: Okay. And where we were when I took you to these documents was an inquiry from me as to whether your offices had been made aware, in the months of April or May 1994, of consideration in the minister's offices in Toronto to actually arranging a meeting with Ms Trinh Luu or Ms Pretty.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Not to my knowledge, no.

Ms Cronk: All right. Mr Chair, I can inform you and the other members of the committee that I will be some time yet, but I'm about, shortly, to move into the events of June, and with your permission I would prefer to do that without a break, and if you were intending to take one, that we take it now.

The Chair: Okay, fine. Recess for 10 minutes.

The committee recessed from 1945 to 2008.

The Chair: Okay, we'll resume our hearing. Ms Cronk, you can carry on.

Ms Cronk: Thank you. Mr Sutherland, I had been asking you before the break whether during the months of April or May, to your knowledge, your office had had any information available to it concerning a potential meeting with Ms Luu and/or Ms Pretty, and you had indicated that in so far as you were aware you did not have such information. Do I understand that correctly?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: All right. Moving forward in time then, Mr Sutherland, it's my understanding that on June the first, 1994, an article under James Wallace's byline appeared concerning the Minister of Housing, Evelyn Gigantes. Are you familiar with the article of which I'm speaking?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Generally, yes.

Ms Cronk: All right. Could I ask you to look at volume number 2, exhibit 1, tab 53. This article appeared in the Sun by James Wallace, entitled "Gigantes Ignores Scandal: Director."

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Did you see this article on or about the time of its publication?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Similarly, over at the next tab -- if you can't hear me, would you let me know?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I will.

Mr Callahan: Is the Premier trying to start his car or what?

Interjections.

The Chair: Okay, carry on.

Ms Cronk: At tab 54, there is a second article by James Wallace. This one appeared in the Ottawa Sun, also on June the first, 1994. Did you see this article as well?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: Reference is made in both of these articles to information provided by Sharron Pretty. It is indicated that Ms Pretty had "filed a complaint with the crown attorney's office to get employment and other records from the non-profit housing corporation that runs the complex," meaning the Van Lang Centre, "because the government wouldn't act on her complaint, she added." Do you see where I'm reading, from the first article?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I do.

Ms Cronk: Prior to reading these articles in the press, Mr Sutherland, or having them brought to your attention, did you have any knowledge concerning charges initiated by Ms Pretty against one or more directors of the Van Lang Centre?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Not to my knowledge, no.

Ms Cronk: In so far as you are aware, did any representative of your office, that is, Mr Clement or Mr Shapiro, have any information concerning such charges before these articles appeared in the press?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I don't believe so, otherwise I would have heard something about it, but I didn't.

Ms Cronk: Did either you or, to your knowledge, any member of your staff have any contact with Mr Wallace concerning these matters prior to publication of these articles?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I'm quoted in one of the articles, I believe.

Ms Cronk: In one of these two?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Sorry, can you help me where that is?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Tab 54, the penultimate paragraph, the second-last paragraph.

Ms Cronk: When were you contacted by Mr Wallace?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I recall a telephone call around the time of the article asking questions as to what we had been doing or what our involvement had been with the project.

Ms Cronk: And did Mr Wallace indicate to you during that discussion any information regarding charges initiated by Sharron Pretty or then outstanding with respect to directors of the Van Lang Centre? Do you know if he told you about it?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I can't remember that clearly whether he was that specific. He certainly wanted to know what we had done or were doing.

Ms Cronk: Did either you or, to your knowledge, any member of your staff, apart from that call that you received from Mr Wallace, provide any information to Mr Wallace about these matters before the articles appeared in the press?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, we did not.

Ms Cronk: As a result of the articles appearing, did your offices make inquiries as to the status of the charges?

Mr Brian Sutherland: If there were inquiries made, they would have been made by Mr Clement to the Van Lang people.

Ms Cronk: Mr Sutherland, I'm just going to interrupt for a moment. Mr Chairman, it's almost bordering on cruel and unusual punishment here. I wonder if we can find out --

Interjections.

The Chair: We sent Tannis down to try to stop it.

Mr Callahan: It's the underground tunnels being built.

Interjections.

The Chair: I think we should just sit for five minutes, take another recess. It's not fair to the witness and the committee cannot hear the answers, so we'll recess for five. We'll just stick here until --

Mr Chiarelli: I think if they just keep their mouths close to the mikes, we'll be okay. If you can concentrate all right --

Mr Owens: It's distracting.

The Chair: It's hard for the witness to answer. Let's just recess for five until Tannis comes back.

The committee recessed from 2014 to 2016.

The Chair: We'll wait for people to regain their --

Ms Cronk: Mr Sutherland, I was asking you, just before the interruption for a higher or lesser authority, whether around the time that the articles by Mr Wallace appeared -- that light should go on, Mr Sutherland, when you begin to speak. Around the time that the Wallace articles appeared, you've indicated to the committee that you received a call from Mr Wallace.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Did you or any member of your staff, after seeing the articles, make inquiries as to the nature and status of the legal charges referred to in the article?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Again, if we had made those inquiries, we would have made them through Bill Clement to the Van Lang Centre, but I'm not certain about just when that may have happened.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look, if you would please, at tab 55, the same volume of documents. This appears to be a memorandum from Bill Clement to Lisa Heaton and Mr Stupart regarding -- it has been expurgated, and I should inform you and for the benefit of the committee members, that a deletion was made to it by counsel to the committee because the second paragraph concerned the status of a matter unrelated to the matters before you, so we took that paragraph out. That deletion was ours.

With reference to the last paragraph, that appears to be a report as to the status of a scheduled court hearing date on June the second, based on a discussion with the secretary-treasurer of the Van Lang Centre.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Am I looking at the right page?

Ms Cronk: No, I think you have to flip a page. The last full paragraph appears to be -- first, it's a memo from Bill Clement to Lisa Heaton and to Robert Stupart, and it appears to be reporting upon a discussion held with the secretary-treasurer of the Van Lang Centre concerning a scheduled court appearance date of June the second. Am I right so far?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, you are.

Ms Cronk: All right. It would appear then that, through Mr Clement, some information was coming into your offices around the beginning of June following the Wallace articles about the status of these charges?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: And that the source of the information was the secretary-treasurer of the Van Lang Centre. That would be Dr Truong at the time?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: If you could flip back, if you would please, to tab 49, the very last page of that tab, Mr Sutherland, this is described as an MPP media contact sheet. It's dated May 30th and it appears to have been completed by Bill Clement.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it was.

Ms Cronk: And it suggests in the first paragraph that contact was made with Dr Truong of the Van Lang Centre, who apparently indicated -- I'm sorry, let me rephrase that. Am I reading this correctly if I suggest that it appears that Mr Wallace, a Queen's Park reporter, had contacted Dr Truong of the Van Lang Centre?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And that it appears that Dr Truong was told that Mr Wallace had received a brown envelope of information and that he would not disclose the source, and he then proceeded to ask a number of questions concerning the Van Lang Centre?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: If we look at the distribution of this on the bottom, it appears that a copy went to the deputy minister's office, to the communications adviser at the minister's office, to the executive coordinator of communications and to the appropriate assistant deputy minister. I take all of those to be references to the Ministry of Housing?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: Should we take from this that on May 30th, the day before the articles appeared in the press, Mr Sutherland, that information came to the Ministry of Housing in Ottawa that this contact had been made by Mr Wallace with Dr Truong and that information was reported to the minister's office and the deputy minister's office in Toronto?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct, yes.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you now to go to volume 3 of exhibit 1 and to tab 56? This is entitled "Supplementary Background Note." If you go to page 3, Mr Sutherland, it's dated June 1, 1994. Was this document prepared by you?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I believe this document would have been prepared by Mr Clement, not myself. We may have collaborated on it.

Ms Cronk: Do you recall doing so, or is that just a supposition at this stage?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Perhaps that's a supposition. I believe it was prepared for the most part by Mr Clement.

Ms Cronk: As I read it, it is directed to providing information and reporting upon the matters raised in the Wallace articles in the press. Is that correct?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: Specifically with respect to paragraph 2, does it detail certain of the allegations made by Ms Pretty concerning alleged infractions of the Corporations Act?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it does.

Ms Cronk: And it provides, over at page 2, information concerning each of the allegations referred to in the Wallace articles?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it does.

Ms Cronk: And over on page 3, in a handwritten note that appears at the bottom entitled -- at least in the box the words appear, "Confidential re: litigation," there's reference made to one action in litigation involving the former project manager at the Van Lang Centre, Ms Trinh Tran.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: And that has to do with her employment situation, as I understand it.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: So there's no mention in this article in any detail of the charges that had been initiated by Miss Pretty or reported upon by Mr Wallace in the two articles dated June 1.

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, there is not.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to go to tab 68 of the same volume, Mr Sutherland, and if you could just put your hand there for the moment so that you've got that point in the documents and then also flip to tab 65, maybe you could just keep the two before you at once. At tab 65 there is a memorandum from Karen Ridley to Rob Sutherland dated Tuesday, June 7, 1994. More accurately, it may be an e-mail. Do you know who Karen Ridley is?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Karen Ridley, I believe, is the scheduler in the minister's office.

Ms Cronk: In Toronto?

Mr Brian Sutherland: In Toronto, yes.

Ms Cronk: And Mr Sutherland?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Mr Sutherland is one of the minister's advisers who works out of her office in Toronto.

Ms Cronk: And a copy appears to have gone to Mr Marc Collins as well?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And Mr Collins, you've told us earlier, was with the minister's offices in Toronto in an advisory capacity?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: And if you look at the handwritten notes at the bottom, would you agree with me that it appears to suggest that contact had been made with Bill Clement?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: And in part it concerns the articles that appeared under Mr Wallace's byline?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: And does it also indicate that the minister had been asked the preceding January to meet with the board and that the minister would meet with the board at 10 Rideau the following week, that is, the week after June seventh?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I'm just looking for the reference to "earlier in the year."

Ms Cronk: I'm sorry?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I'm just looking for reference to the minister's intention to meet with the board earlier in the year.

Ms Cronk: If I could just direct your attention to this third line of the handwritten note, it appears to read, "Board asked to meet with minister last January."

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, that's correct.

Ms Cronk: "Minister will meet with board at 10 Rideau."

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: "Who will be there -- called Hieu Truong, secretary-treasurer. Staff attending -- Brian Sutherland."

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: Can you help me now, Mr Sutherland, as to whether on or about June the seventh you became aware of an intended meeting by the minister with the board?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I did. Mr Clement advised me that this was in the works. I was still somewhat unclear about our role in that meeting, but in fact I asked Bill to keep me posted. I recall asking him a question either the week of or a week before the meeting as to whether we were to participate. Shortly thereafter, I was made aware that our attendance was required.

Ms Cronk: Do you remember when you first became aware that -- when you say "our attendance," I take it it was yours.

Mr Brian Sutherland: My attendance, yes.

Ms Cronk: When did you first become aware that you would attend the meeting with the minister and the board?

Mr Brian Sutherland: It would have been around the eighth, if not the week of the 17th.

Ms Cronk: Do you remember who first informed you of that?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I believe it was Bill.

Ms Cronk: Bill Clement?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Did he tell you at that time the purpose of the meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, we had a pretty good idea of what -- if there was a meeting with the board, we assumed it was because of ongoing difficulties.

Ms Cronk: Did anybody actually tell you what the purpose of the meeting was?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, but because of our involvement we assumed that it may be somewhat associated with problems at the centre.

Ms Cronk: And do you remember -- did Mr Clement indicate to you how he's become aware of the meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: He advised me that Karen Ridley from the minister's office had kept him posted on it.

Ms Cronk: All right. Were you told by Mr Clement who was to attend the meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I was. I wasn't certain about that, and it seems to me I asked him two or three times, "What is our role?" You know, "Who should be there?" It was clear to me well in advance of the meeting that I should be there.

Ms Cronk: All right. Apart from representatives of your office, were you informed by Mr Clement or anyone else who was to be in attendance at the meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I wasn't.

Ms Cronk: Did you have any understanding or expectation as to whether Sharron Pretty was expected to be at that meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I didn't have an understanding either way.

Ms Cronk: Did the matter come up in your discussions with Mr Clement?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Not that I can recall. I mean, when we talked about a meeting with the board, I assumed it would be the board. I didn't think of Sharron Pretty and the board; I was just thinking in terms of the board at that time.

Ms Cronk: When you say "the board," does that include or exclude Sharron Pretty?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, it would have included Sharron Pretty at that time.

Ms Cronk: So should I take from that that you understood the meeting was to be with the board and in your mind that would have included Sharron Pretty?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I may have had some thoughts in my own mind about whether it does or whether it doesn't, but as far as I was concerned she was still a member of the board. If we were meeting with the board, I had no reason to believe either way that she would or wouldn't be there.

Ms Cronk: Was there an issue in your mind about her attendance at all?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Not really.

Ms Cronk: All right. The committee has heard in other evidence that on June the 10th there was another meeting involving the minister related to Van Lang: There was a meeting between Ms Trinh Luu and the minister. Do you recall being informed of that in advance of that meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I was uncertain about that meeting until very close to the meeting on the 17th. I wasn't sure that such a meeting had taken place.

Ms Cronk: So in terms of your understanding of the situation at the time you learned of the intended meeting on the 17th, you knew at that point that the board had previously requested a meeting with the minister --

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: -- advice against such a meeting had been given by your office and the board, in due course, was informed that such a meeting would not occur --

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: -- all those events occurring as at the end of March 1994.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: You knew as well that Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty had requested a meeting with the minister because a copy of their letter of March 4 had been provided to you and your offices in Ottawa had advised against that meeting as well?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: In so far as you were aware, had a formal response gone from the minister or her staff in Toronto to Ms Trinh Luu or Ms Pretty prior to Mr Wallace's articles about a meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I wasn't aware of one.

Ms Cronk: Did you know then, in the early part of June, when the intended June 17th meeting came to your attention, whether there had been a meeting with Sharron Pretty or Trinh Luu?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I really didn't.

2030

Ms Cronk: Did you, once you learned of the intended meeting on June 17th, pick up the telephone and talk to anybody at the minister's offices in Toronto to find out what this was all about?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Not that I can recall. I was depending on Bill to keep me posted. He was dealing with Karen Ridley. The key thing I was interested in was whether my attendance was required and when the meeting was.

Ms Cronk: What was your understanding, if any, Mr Sutherland, as to why this meeting was being scheduled at this particular point in time?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I really didn't know.

Ms Cronk: Did you make any inquiries in that regard or were you informed by anyone subsequently as to why it was being arranged at this particular point in time?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Not that I can recall. I just knew the meeting was on and recognized it was the minister's prerogative to have such a meeting, and did she wish us to be there or not, and as she did, I made arrangements to attend.

Ms Cronk: As I understand it, then, it was a situation where dual requests had previously been made for a meeting, your offices had advised against it and in so far as you were aware, such meetings had not occurred either with the board, Sharron Pretty or Trinh Luu. Am I right so far, in so far as you were aware?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: Then on June the first two articles appear under Mr Wallace's byline, and your offices, through Mr Clement, are aware of that media contact, and there's some information obtained from Dr Truong about that. Am I correct?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: All right. In your mind, did the appearance or publication of those articles heighten any issues with respect to Van Lang in the sense that it was now attracting public attention?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: When you learned of the meeting on June 17th, did you attribute its cause at that point in time to the appearance of those articles by Mr Wallace?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I certainly thought that they contributed in some way to the meeting being held.

Ms Cronk: In your own mind, was it because of the articles that you thought the meeting was being arranged at that point in time?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I felt I did, yes.

Ms Cronk: Were you provided, prior to the meeting of June 17th, with any further information about who was to be in attendance; what the agenda, formal or informal, was to be for the meeting? Did you get any detail on it before you actually attended it?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I didn't. As a matter of fact, I showed up at the wrong location for the meeting and had to redirect myself. I simply relied on Bill to keep me posted. The word we got was that there would be a meeting on Friday the 17th of June at 11:30, and I made arrangements to attend.

Ms Cronk: Did you have any personal involvement in arranging the meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I didn't.

Ms Cronk: As I understand it, though, Mr Clement did, in terms of communicating with the board of the Van Lang Centre?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, he did.

Ms Cronk: All right. Now, the note at tab 65, just to continue on, refers to: "Staff attending -- Brian Sutherland.

"Audrey -- wants list of board members." Stopping there for a moment, had you met or did you know the staff of the minister at her constituency office in Ottawa?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I knew them, yes.

Ms Cronk: Did you know a Ms Audrey Moey?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And a Ms Sue Lott?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Did you, on or about this time, that is, the beginning of June, 1994, have any communication from either of them about this meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I did not.

Mrs Marland: Ms Cronk, for the benefit of the committee, did you ask if this writing had been identified on the memo? I realize the name on the memo is Karen Ridley.

Ms Cronk: I didn't ask this witness. Do you know, Mr Sutherland?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, it doesn't look familiar to me, so I'm assuming it's not the handwriting of anyone in my office.

Ms Cronk: I think we'll have to get that, Mrs Marland, from a subsequent witness.

Then continuing on, I can't read the next word, "...put a note on" -- can you help me with that? -- "every" -- something -- "door."

Mr Brian Sutherland: "On every tenant's door."

Ms Cronk: "On every tenant's door." Then, I'm sorry, I can't read the next word: "...Sharron Pretty. Bill to make sure every board member know." Am I reading that correctly?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: "Bill will send list of board members, and list of those attending." I take those to be references to Bill Clement?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: Then it says: "Change meeting to 11:30. Bill will let board members know."

Mr Callahan: You've got "...put a note on every tenant's door" -- then a hyphen, something or other -- "Sharron Pretty."

Mr Chiarelli: That's "pres," I think, the first word.

Ms Cronk: "Pres put a note...."

Mr Harnick: "Pres put a note on every tenant's door discrediting Sharron Pretty."

Mr Callahan: Yeah, that's what I read it.

Ms Cronk: I don't think it says "discrediting."

Mr Callahan: What does it say?

Ms Cronk: We're going to have to get that from the author of the note, and I anticipate you'll be hearing from the author. I can't help you with that word.

Mr Brian Sutherland: I can't interpret that.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 68, please. That's the one where some time ago I asked you to keep your other hand. It's a letter from Mr Clement to Dr Vinh Tang, president of the Van Lang board, dated June the ninth. It appears to be confirming arrangements for the meeting with the minister.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: It suggests in the second paragraph that he was being -- that is, he, Dr Tang -- requested to advise all directors and to let Mr Clement know by the following Wednesday which ones would be attending, which directors.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: Did you see this letter?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I did not.

Ms Cronk: Then could I ask you to go to tab 78, if you would, please. The first document at tab 78, Mr Sutherland, for the record, is a memorandum dated June 15th, 1994, to Karen Ridley from Lisa Heaton. The subject matter concerns the "Minister's meeting with the board of Van Lang, Ottawa," and it indicates that a note is attached "for the minister's meeting with this group" -- I take that to mean the board of Van Lang --

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: -- "on Friday, June 17." If we look at the note itself, it on page 5 indicates an original date of May the 10th, 1994, and an update as at June 15th?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: In terms of the staff contact, both yourself and Bill Clement are named.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: Should we take from that that it was prepared by your offices?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it was.

Ms Cronk: Did you personally prepare this?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I participated in the development of this note.

Ms Cronk: With respect to this note, could you describe to the committee what its purpose was, please?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, it seems to me that the meeting had been scheduled and there was a need to provide updated and clear information on all issues pertaining to the Van Lang Centre. In many cases, the note reflects an updating of events that were in previous notes, but I do recall sitting down with Bill and looking at some issues that we had perhaps not dealt with through our notes before that were in Ms Pretty's October 29th letter.

Ms Cronk: As I read these background notes, and there are a number of them before the committee. We for example have looked at the February 14th one, 1994, and I asked you questions about the May 30th one, and now we're at one as at June 15th.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: Or at least updated as at June 15th. As I read them, what appears to be happening in these documents, Mr Sutherland, is that they are really updating documents in the sense that the author, as at the date of the note, is building on information contained in previous background notes. Is that a fair way to describe it?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct. Most of the construction of the document was done by Mr Clement on the basis of previous information.

Ms Cronk: The idea would be to add additional or new or amended information but to retain the previous information contained in earlier notes?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: Can you confirm for the committee whether the minister, Evelyn Gigantes, received a copy of this note prior to the meeting on June 17th?

Mr Brian Sutherland: It's my understanding she did.

Ms Cronk: In addition, if we look at the covering memorandum to Karen Ridley from Lisa Heaton, it appears that a copy was also sent to Marc Collins.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: Who is Lisa Heaton?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Lisa Heaton works in the information liaison service and does a lot of the distribution of these notes at head office in Toronto.

Ms Cronk: Would it be fair of me to suggest, Mr Sutherland, that this background note contains considerable detail in a chronological fashion about events regarding the Van Lang Centre?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it does.

Ms Cronk: Including regarding concerns expressed over the course of time by Sharron Pretty and in part Ms Trinh Luu?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: In addition, if we turn to page 4 of the background note, I direct your attention to the last bullet on the page. Does that specifically deal with the response of the Van Lang board to the main allegations made in the Wallace article which appeared in the Sun on June the first?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: Specifically, paragraphs 1 through 5 are directed to detailing the board's response to those allegations?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct, yes.

Ms Cronk: And if we look on page 5, there are a number of entries under the date June 16, 1994.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

2040

Ms Cronk: And do those relate specifically to the status of the charges then pending before the court as initially initiated by Ms Pretty?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it does.

Ms Cronk: And do they indicate both the status of it in terms of the fact that summonses had been received by all the directors to appear in provincial court on June 16th, the first paragraph beside the date June 16th?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Oh. Yes. Yes, it does.

Ms Cronk: I've expressed that badly. What I'm suggesting to you --

Mr Brian Sutherland: I was looking for the date June 16th. It does express that, yes.

Ms Cronk: So it indicates that there was a court date on June 16th with respect to those charges.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right, that they had now received a summons, right.

Ms Cronk: Does it also indicate the nature of the charges, or at least some of them?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, that Miss Pretty has been refused to inspect various corporation documents.

Ms Cronk: And then I don't propose to ask you questions about this, but there's also some commentary made about the nature of the charges themselves and the board's response to them?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, there is.

Ms Cronk: It's also suggested that there was a perception that Ms Pretty was using "this information for the purpose of discrediting the board"?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Did you write that?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I don't think I wrote that. I can't recall whether I wrote that or Mr Clement wrote that. But it may have originated from our office.

Ms Cronk: And whose perception was that, as you understood it?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I'm assuming it may have been Mr Clement's perception from conversations he had with the board members.

Ms Cronk: But that's an assumption; you don't know.

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right; I just don't know.

Ms Cronk: Was it yours?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I can't precisely say whether it was. At this point in time, I just can't recall whether that was something I authored completely or whether it was the result of a discussion with Mr Clement.

Ms Cronk: Or does it relate to a perception by the board, or do you know?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I would feel that that was a perception of the board and we had sort of inserted it in the briefing note.

Ms Cronk: With respect to the next entry -- that is dated June 19th, 1994 -- does that paragraph record the fact that a special meeting of the board was scheduled for June the 19th for the purpose of considering the removal of Ms Pretty from her office as a director?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: And do you know the source of that information?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I'm assuming again that this came via the non-profit group.

Ms Cronk: So do I understand then -- and please correct me if I am misstating this in any way -- as at the date of this background note, June 15th, which you understand to have been provided both to Marc Collins and the minister, detail was being provided first as to the status in the courts, in the sense of timing of appearances with respect to these charges and with respect to the nature of the charges, and of the fact that they involved directors of the Van Lang Centre who had received summonses?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: All of that information was contained in this document?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: And in addition, specific detail was provided that there was a then pending meeting of the board of directors for the express purpose of removal of Ms Pretty as a director of the corporation?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: In addition, if we turn to the prior page and if you look at the entry for June 3, 1994, does that paragraph make it clear that a complaint had been filed by Sharon Pretty with the crown attorney with respect to the alleged denial of access rights to her concerning information relating to the Van Lang corporation?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: So that this document as well indicated that the crown attorney was involved.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And then, Mr Sutherland, the committee has heard that the meeting in fact proceeded on June 17th at the Rideau Centre in Ottawa?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And you indicated a few moments ago that there was, I take it, some confusion and you actually went to the wrong place.

Mr Brian Sutherland: I went to the minister's constituency office in error. I just hadn't been clear on the location.

Ms Cronk: Did you arrive at the meeting in time for its commencement?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I did. It seemed as though everyone else was there and they were waiting for me. In fact, one of the minister's assistants was about to shut the door, I felt, but I was about 10 minutes late, 8 or 10 minutes late, I believe.

Ms Cronk: So you got there in time. It hadn't started yet.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Apart from your participation in the preparation of the background note that we've just looked at, did you have any other information going into that meeting relating to what was going to be discussed or who was going to be there?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I did not.

Ms Cronk: To your knowledge, was there an agenda for that meeting, formal or informal?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I did not notice an agenda.

Ms Cronk: And you weren't given one before the meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No.

Ms Cronk: Perhaps if I can lead you on this part of it, and then I am going to ask you to outline for the committee what you remember of the meeting, the committee has heard that in addition to yourself obviously the minister was present; Audrey Moey; Beverlee Bell; four directors from the Van lang Centre apart from Sharron Pretty, namely, Dr Can D. Le, Dr Hieu Truong, Dr Vinh Tang and Mr My Nguyen; and in addition Sharron Pretty, for a total of nine people. Does that accord with your recollection?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: Did anyone leave the meeting during the course of it, as you can now remember it?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Not to my knowledge. I can't recall anyone leaving. I just can't recall that.

Ms Cronk: Did you personally make any notes during the course of the meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: My notes are very abbreviated and are just jottings to help me sort of follow the main points. I certainly didn't take extensive notes.

Ms Cronk: To your knowledge did anyone else make any notes, extensive or otherwise, during the course of the meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I was aware that Audrey Moey from the minister's office was taking notes, because she was sitting beside me.

Ms Cronk: Did you see anyone else making notes?

Ms Brian Sutherland: Not noticeably. I was attempting to follow the conversation and I didn't notice a lot of note-taking.

Ms Cronk: In particular, did you see the minister making any notes at that meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I did not.

Ms Cronk: Or Mr My Nguyen?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I don't believe so.

Ms Cronk: All right. Could I ask you to look at tab 83 of this volume. Are these the notes that you made at the meeting, Mr Sutherland?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, they are.

Ms Cronk: They are on a day book form or a date book or appointment book form dated June 17th, 1994. Is that where you made your notes?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.

Ms Cronk: In fairness, looking at the notes, are they really a jotting of various things that were discussed at the meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: They were a jotting of things that stood out in my mind that I just felt important, but certainly not an exhaustive report on the meeting.

Ms Cronk: How did you make these notes? By that, I mean, at the time that you made an entry or a notation, were you doing so in the sequence in which matters came up, or was it all over the map?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I think there was some sequence to it. You know, I tried to follow main points even though it may not appear that way here. But obviously, I started at the top of the page and some of the things there would have been reviewed earlier on in the meeting.

Ms Cronk: Was this meeting, to your knowledge, taped by anyone?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Not to my knowledge.

Ms Cronk: How did the meeting begin, Mr Sutherland?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I believe either Mr Tang -- I'm just not certain on this -- Mr Tang on behalf of the Vietnamese non-profit housing corporation welcomed the minister. There were the usual pleasantries and the minister responded by saying that or indicating that she was glad that she was able to be here, because she had been following events and that it had been corresponded to by the parties over the recent period and was concerned about the wellbeing of the non-profit, its state of affairs.

It seems to me there was some reference made, in a general way, to the situation that had been expressed in the newspaper that had to do with the intention to remove Ms Pretty from the board, and her awareness of the fact that charges had been laid by Ms Pretty against other members of the board. And it was her feeling that, or it seemed to me that the intention was, is there any way that we can resolve this? Is there any way that we can work together to fix this situation? That was sort of the opening statement, if you will, by the minister.

Ms Cronk: Were any documents provided to the minister at the meeting that you recall?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I was aware of a document after the meeting. I don't believe I made reference to it during the meeting, and that was a brief that was prepared by the non-profit board outlining their main areas of concern.

Ms Cronk: And was a copy of that brief provided to the minister at the meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: I can't recall whether it was handed to her. As I say, I arrived a little late, but I'm assuming that she had access to that document.

Ms Cronk: Did you, in the sense, were copies distributed around the table, or handed out to people at the meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: There were copies available because I picked up a copy after the meeting. It seems to me I was not following that document during the meeting.

Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 80. Is this the document that was provided to the minister by the board at the meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it is.

Ms Cronk: And is this the document that you picked up at the end of the meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.

Ms Cronk: How often, as a matter of normal course, Mr Sutherland, in your duties, would you attend meetings with the minister in Ottawa?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Certainly infrequently.

Ms Cronk: Infrequently?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Let me rephrase that. I may attend functions with the minister when there's an opening of a housing project or some other event of major importance going on, but in terms of meeting with her, that would be very seldom.

Ms Cronk: Was this then an unusual occasion in that sense?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it was.

Ms Cronk: In terms of the other persons present at the meeting, did you personally know all of them?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes. I knew them from previous -- I knew the minister's staff from previous dealings with her office, and as far as the members are concerned, I had some -- I remembered them from our December 30th meeting, most of them.

Ms Cronk: You knew the directors.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: And you knew Ms Pretty, of course, because you had met with her.

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I did.

Ms Cronk: Did you know Ms Bell as well?

Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.

Ms Cronk: Because of the lateness of your arrival, did you have the opportunity for any discussion with the minister prior to commencement of the meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I did not.

Ms Cronk: Or for any discussion with Ms Pretty?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I did not.

Ms Cronk: Or, for that matter, anyone else in attendance at the meeting?

Mr Brian Sutherland: No. I arrived just as the meeting was to commence.

Ms Cronk: Mr Chairman, rather than getting into any further detail tonight, I'm going to propose, if it's agreeable to the committee, that we break at this stage.

The Chair: I've already talked to the subcommittee members and they agree.

Ms Cronk: Thank you. So we can complete this in one stretch in the morning.

The Chair: So we'll adjourn until tomorrow.

The committee adjourned at 2055.