ALLEGED BREACH OF CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
CONTENTS
Wednesday 10 August 1994
Alleged breach of conflict-of-interest guidelines
Brian Sutherland
Marc Collins
Vinh Tang
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, legal counsel to Dr Vinh Tang, board president, Van Lang Centre
Kristjanson, Freya, legal counsel to Marc Collins
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 0940 in room 151.
ALLEGED BREACH OF CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
The Chair (Mr Ron Hansen): I bring the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to order. I'd like to read out the subcommittee report we had last night.
"Your subcommittee met on August 9, 1994, and agreed to the following:
"(1) Legal counsel will have as much time as necessary for her examination of Evelyn Gigantes.
"(2) The testimony of Ms Gigantes will commence at a set time.
"Your subcommittee did not have unanimous agreement for the following:
"(3) It was moved by Mr Chiarelli,
"That an extra day be added to the public hearing schedule, this day to be either Friday, August 12, 1994, or Monday, August 15, 1994. (The Liberals and Progressive Conservatives voting in favour and the New Democratic Party voting against, pursuant to the terms of reference of the House dated June 23, 1994, this matter will be referred to the House leaders.)
"(4) It was moved by Mr Chiarelli,
"That, if an extra sitting day is not forthcoming, the testimony of Ms Gigantes commence prior to 12 noon on August 11, 1994. (The Liberals and Progressive Conservatives voting in favour and the New Democratic Party voting against, pursuant to the terms of reference of the House dated June 23, 1994, this matter will be referred to the House leaders.)"
This report is deemed adopted.
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Mr Chair, can I have the floor to make a motion?
The Chair: It would be in order.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you. I move the committee --
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Mr Chair, point of order: Could I just seek some guidance on that? It was my understanding that under the terms of reference, and agreed to at a previous subcommittee, the business or organizational business of this would be dealt with at the subcommittee, which has all-party representation.
The Chair: I'll have the clerk explain it.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lisa Freedman): While that's true, there was nothing in the terms of reference or in the standing orders of the House that would preclude a member from moving a motion in committee.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): That's called democracy.
Mr Chiarelli: Mr Chair, I'd like to move a motion.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Chiarelli.
Mr Chiarelli: I move that this committee meet on Friday the 12th day of August or Monday the 15th day of August to complete the examination of witnesses recommended by committee counsel.
That's my motion. It is my understanding, Chair, that the advice of counsel is that there is insufficient time to complete the examination of witnesses who this committee has already agreed, who the House leaders have already agreed, should be examined. It is also my understanding of counsel's advice that the evidence of these witnesses who might not be heard is extremely relevant to establishing the conflict or non-conflict of interest of the minister in question, Evelyn Gigantes.
I think it is sufficiently important that this motion be put and that we have some kind of discussion on the public record. I think it is compromising the credibility of the committee, which has already agreed on the relevance of a number of key witnesses, to now have to make a decision on which witnesses we will not hear from, and it is very possible that in excluding witnesses by reason of this time constraint, there are very relevant witnesses, such as people on the minister's staff who would have had communications with the minister, who we will not be able to hear from. I think it's very important that we deal with this motion, and I hope that in the spirit of cooperation we'll get some consensus that we can have the extra day to examine witnesses; this, according to my understanding, on the advice of independent committee counsel. Thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Before I go on to any more points of order I'll have the clerk explain exactly what happens if your motion passes.
Clerk of the Committee: Mr Chiarelli, I'd just like to point out that if this motion is to pass, we would still have to seek the approval of the House leaders for permission to sit outside of the four days that were granted for public hearings in the terms of reference.
Mr Chiarelli: I believe the House leaders would be available for a telephone conference on fairly short notice, and I think it would be very useful to the House leaders to have a motion coming from the committee as a whole indicating the desire, the need and the advice we have had to provide sufficient time to examine witnesses.
Mr Sutherland: I would request that the motion be deferred. I think at this stage it's a little premature. I think we need to see how testimony goes today and at the end of the day we'd be in a much better position to make some type of judgement or decision on this issue. Mr Chiarelli talks about a "spirit of cooperation," and I have to laugh a little bit, because we have been working through these issues at the subcommittee and have been trying, I think, to come up with some solutions. But I do think it is a bit premature at this stage and I think it would be best to defer the motion until we hear today's testimony and then we'll be in a better position to make a decision.
The Chair: I see Mr Callahan, but I'm going to go to Mr Harnick next so we hear from the third party.
Mr Callahan: I thought we were going alphabetically.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I thought we were going through the subcommittee first.
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I find it rather strange that Mr Sutherland says this is premature. We're starting the third day of a four-day hearing. From what Mr Chiarelli says, our counsel has made it quite clear that we cannot complete the agreed-to agenda of witnesses in the four days that have been allotted to us, so I don't think there's anything premature about the motion Mr Chiarelli brings. I do think we should ask our counsel what in her estimation, because she understands the amount of material still to go through with each of the witnesses and she is in a better position to advise us on the record, the time lines might be. And what I would like to know from counsel is whether in fact in counsel's estimation, to do this job properly, we need the extra day, be it on Friday or Monday, and then I think the committee should be in a position to decide whether to agree to that extra day. I think that would be helpful.
Ms Eleanore Cronk: Mr Chair, members of the committee, it has been my view and advice to the committee that the extra day is required in order to complete this hearing in the manner in which I would recommend that it be done.
Mr Callahan: Mr Chair, I find that the suggestion that's being made is eminently reasonable. I really find it difficult to understand why the government members are objecting to it. We've got four days next week. I recognize technically what the clerk says about the question of House leader approval, but surely to God it's not going to take us four days to write a report. In fact, we're not even writing it, the committee counsel is writing it. She's got to have time to do that. If the report we're going to write is going to be so vacuous that it's going to not allow us to do what committee counsel at the outset said, that it may be very important that we make findings of credibility in this matter in order to come up with a proper determination, then I suggest that without these witnesses, it makes it very difficult for us as members to make any assessments in that regard. It will simply eliminate witnesses that counsel has considered to be relevant and appropriate.
0950
I just find that the position of the government in terms of not agreeing to the suggestions that were made in the subcommittee meeting are absolutely obtuse. It's no wonder that people out there in the public who are viewing this or reading about it think we're absolutely all bonko down here and that we're just throwing away taxpayers' dollars. This is a very serious issue. It's an issue that should be given a full airing. We've already had an instance at the outset of this where one of the members -- I understand he said that that's not what he meant -- indicated that he'd already made up his mind, and I suspect that if that maintains --
Mr Sutherland: Check Chiarelli's press release, Mr Callahan, three days after the event.
Mr Callahan: -- as true, then what the government is doing is probably appropriate, because we perhaps know what the result of this is going to be anyway.
I would think the minister would certainly want to come forward and have her opportunity to speak; that's only fair. The committee, as was said by committee counsel -- we're sitting as a quasi-judicial committee. We're not sitting here as a Star Chamber, as it were, and I think it's appropriate that we hear witnesses that committee counsel considers appropriate in order to determine the issue that was put to us by the Legislature.
To do anything other than that would be totally irresponsible, so I suggest that the additional day of either Friday or Monday -- and I'd even go as far as to say Tuesday, if necessary -- is appropriate, and I think the House leaders would certainly be prepared to accept that, particularly as the committee counsel herself has recommended that additional days are required. Mr Chair, anybody voting against this particular issue would certainly not have been listening, or at least understanding the reason we're going through this exercise and wanting to have it dealt with in an appropriate and fair and open fashion.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I'm not sure that some members aren't missing the point, the way they're discussing the motion, but the motion was a deferral motion. Mr Sutherland says we'd like to review this matter at the end of the day. He didn't say that we don't want to meet, but rather said, "Let's defer it and talk about it at the end of the day." We're very conscious of the fact that if counsel needs more time, then the counsel needs more time, and I think we support that. Some of us are saying --
Mr Harnick: Then vote for the motion.
Mr Marchese: But that's why we're supporting a deferral motion, Mr Harnick.
Mr Harnick: Counsel says she needs more time now. We're wasting our time.
Mr Marchese: The point is, we're very concerned about the need for more time, yes. Is it unreasonable to defer this matter until the end of the day? I say no. We are not dismissing the whole issue at all, but rather, we want a sense of how the proceedings are going, to be able to then at the end of the day decide whether or not Friday is necessary. Mr Chair, I support the deferral motion.
Mr Harnick: There's no deferral motion on the table.
The Chair: Okay, is there unanimous consent that we defer till the end of the day?
Interjections.
Mrs Marland: Excuse me, Mr Chair, I think you had me down to speak.
The Chair: Yes, Ms Marland.
Mrs Marland: Thank you. I recall that Mr Marchese chaired one of the subcommittee meetings last week and I also recall that as long as a week ago today, before these hearings commenced, our counsel told us that there was insufficient time. So when you say, "We're very conscious of the fact that counsel needs more time," you'd better be, because our counsel told the subcommittee that one week ago.
For over a week we've known we've had insufficient time; for over a week the Liberals and myself on behalf of the Conservatives have been asking for more time. That was before we even started the hearings. Now we're into the hearings and we're already almost, I would guess, about eight hours behind what we had originally scheduled. What we had originally scheduled was at best three and a half hours short, so now we're looking at perhaps 11 or 12 hours, which has to be another day.
Now, if there's some paranoia on the part of the government about extending it because of cost, then using Monday does not add any extra cost, because we already have been assigned eight days. When those days were assigned and moved as a motion in the Legislature, we had not even selected the witnesses; we hadn't even looked at a witness list. We had no idea how much time we would need. Does it have to be that somehow it's some blessing from above when the Legislature, and in particular the government, of course with a majority, decides that this matter will be referred to a committee, without any knowledge of who needs to be called as a witness -- that the practical aspect, when we find out who the witnesses are who need to be heard from, that we can't cooperatively say, "We've got to revise the time"?
You must realize, and if the rest of the committee members don't realize this, it's the fault of the subcommittee members, but one of the things about this hearing is that although we all suggested witnesses, the list we went with was a list compiled and suggested by counsel. There were witnesses that I suggested that we're not hearing from, and I think also Mr Chiarelli. So either you're going to turn this hearing into a complete circus or you're going to proceed with the advice of counsel. I understand that the government members don't want to listen to the Conservatives or the Liberals, and I respect the political dynamics of that, but how the government members continue for a whole week to ignore our professional counsel is beyond me. Why do you think we hire an independent counsel if you're not going to take her advice? That is absolutely beyond me.
When the Premier agreed that this should be referred to this committee, I'm quite sure that the Premier did not want this to turn into the circus and farce which now, with the suggestions that are coming forward, will happen, one of the suggestions being that come what may, we're going to hear from the minister, Gigantes, even if we have to cut out other witnesses. That's got to be the most bizarre suggestion I've heard. If we're going to cut out other witnesses, that's saying, "Well, we're going to gerrymander this and we, the government, will decide now who the witnesses are."
The person who has decided who the witnesses are has been the counsel, who, by the way, before she brought us that list of witnesses, interviewed everybody whose names we all put forward. I cannot understand why you will not listen to our counsel, I can't imagine, someone who is apart and apolitical from this process.
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Mr Chair, I had the opportunity to sit in subcommittee a couple of times and was in fact pleased by the degree of cooperation we had on most issues. Part of what made that work, to be fair, was the fact that we by and large bowed to the recommendations of our counsel, who, as has been noted by some members, interviewed all of the witnesses at our suggestion, came to a conclusion based on interviewing all the witnesses, going through the process, that the 12 we are interviewing are the necessary witnesses to establish what we have been charged with, which is the determination of whether or not a conflict issue arose and the minister was in conflict. It is her professional opinion, for which we are paying her in fact -- the taxpayers are paying her -- that these 12 are necessary.
It was also her view and advice to us at the beginning of these hearings that the four days would not be sufficient to do that job adequately. At that time, Mr Sutherland, on behalf of the government, indicated that the time would be sufficient because the first estimate of time was about 32 or 33 hours, which is about how much sitting time we've had. It is now abundantly clear that that estimate, no matter how well intentioned, was very much off.
We are at least eight hours over that estimate, which is an additional sitting day, so any defence by Mr Sutherland based on an estimate being accurate no longer holds any water whatsoever. If he is continuing to say, as he should, that we are relying on counsel, that advice is even stronger now that we need an additional day.
As to Mr Marchese's suggestion that, "Oh no, all we're asking for is a deferral," it's a suggestion based on a complete misunderstanding of how it is that a counsel prepares for a hearing. How can it possibly make any sense that a counsel would, after finishing today whenever we finish, then get told the answer is, "No, we are not having sufficient time; you have to do eight witnesses on Thursday," with no preparation time involved? It's based on a misunderstanding of how counsel has to work.
1000
Our counsel has eight witnesses after this one in two days and we've had two in two. Included in that is obviously the key witness, Ms Gigantes, and if we are giving Ms Gigantes an equal time to those who have said she put pressure on Ms Pretty -- Ms Pretty, I think, had seven hours of testimony -- that would assume seven hours for Ms Gigantes alone, which is a day in itself. So that leaves something like eight or nine witnesses for less than eight hours of hearing.
This makes no sense as a suggestion, unless of course Mr Marchese is suggesting that if we defer the motion on his government's undertaking, that if at 2 o'clock counsel says to us, "We need more time," they have not only this committee members' undertaking that they will agree to another day, but they have their House leaders' concurrence in that as well. And I suspect they can't give us that.
So what we are asking for at this point in time is a continuing of the cooperation that was at the subcommittee level by them as committee members to reinforce our counsel's recommendation as a suggestion to the House leaders from this committee that we need more time, we are requesting more time, but it is more time for evidence; it is not more time in total. We have allocated eight total hearing days and it was initially thought that four days of hearing and four days of report-writing would be sufficient. I think it is fair to say that we in the Liberal Party, and I suspect the Conservatives, would be equally more than happy to give up one of those report-writing days for further evidence, as that is clearly going to be required.
So in summation, I think it's pretty clear that there is no reason for the government to oppose this motion, other than their fear of another day of embarrassment.
Mr Chiarelli: In order that we not take more time which could be applied to witnesses, I'd like to call the question and I'd also like to ask for a recorded vote.
The Chair: Okay. All those in favour of calling the question? Unanimous, call the question. Okay. All those in favour of Mr Chiarelli's motion?
Mr Chiarelli: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Callahan, Chiarelli, Harnick, Marland, Murphy.
The Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Marchese, Mathyssen, Owens, Sutherland, Winninger.
The Chair: Motion defeated. But the terms of reference still go back to the House leaders.
Interjections.
The Chair: Okay, can we continue with the witness? Welcome back again, Mr Sutherland. Ms Cronk, you may begin.
Ms Cronk: Good morning, Mr Sutherland.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Good morning.
Ms Cronk: Before you and I continue the discussion that we were having yesterday afternoon, there is a minor housekeeping matter from my perspective for a few moments.
Mr Chair, members of the committee, you will recall that before you as exhibits at the present time are exhibits 5 and 6. Exhibit 5 is a copy of a transcript of a discussion between Sharron Pretty and Sue Lott which occurred on May 19th, 1994, as prepared by our offices, that is, Mr Hourigan's office and my own, on the basis of an audio tape provided to us during the course of our witness interviewing. Exhibit 6 before you is a copy of a transcript similarly prepared, that is, by our offices, of a discussion between Ms Trinh Luu and Dr Tang on June 19th.
I have been requested to provide a copy of the original transcripts that were given to us in respect of those discussions, that is, those provided to us by the witnesses -- Ms Trinh Luu and Ms Sharron Pretty provided these transcripts to us -- and in addition to provide formally to the committee a copy of the transcripts of the balance of the discussions which, as I understand the request, in my view are relevant, because the committee will recall that there are a large number of transcripts involved here, both of board meetings and of a number of telephone discussions.
It is my advice to the committee that of all the audio tapes which we received and of all the transcripts that we received in respect of those audio tapes, there are four that arguably bear directly on the matters at issue before you. They are as follows:
(1) The discussion of May 12, 1994, between Sharron Pretty and Karen Ridley;
(2) A discussion on May 19, 1994, between Sharron Pretty and Sue Lott;
(3) The discussion between Trinh Luu and Marc Collins on June 2, 1994;
(4) A discussion between Dr Vinh Tang and Sharron Pretty on June 19, 1994.
So I propose now to ask you to receive, and unfortunately it's a bundle of paper, some additional exhibits this morning which are the remaining transcripts in respect of those four discussions.
I've also been asked to provide, for the information of the committee, a copy of the index of those transcripts of which I am aware or Mr Hourigan is aware. I have that index for you this morning and I'm going to ask that you receive the index as the next exhibit. I should point out, this is not an index of transcripts prepared by us; this is an index of the transcripts that we received. So if I could ask that that index be received as the next exhibit.
Mr Chairman, in my view there's no magic to the order in which you receive these, so perhaps I can just do it in the order in which they are sitting here on the desk.
The next is a transcript of the discussion between Trinh Luu and Dr Tang on June 19th, as prepared by other than our offices, as provided to our offices.
Interjection.
Ms Cronk: It says June 19th, the transcript provided to us.
The next is the transcript of the discussion between Ms Trinh Luu and Marc Collins, as provided to us. That's June the second.
The next is a transcript of the June second discussion as prepared by our offices. That's Marc Collins and Trinh Luu.
Interjection.
Ms Cronk: Is that exhibit 10?
Interjection.
Ms Cronk: You think I'm at 10? You think I'm at 10. Okay.
The next is the transcript of the discussion between Karen Ridley and Sharron Pretty on May 12, 1994, the version originally provided to us.
The next is a transcript of the same discussion as prepared by our offices, and I should indicate, Mr Chairman, that there is some underlining on it. It's mine. I apologize for that. It was made on our only copy before the photocopy.
Then with respect to the transcripts as exhibit 13, the transcript of the discussion between Sharron Pretty and Sue Lott on May 19, 1994, as originally provided to us. I think that's exhibit 13.
1010
What we did, Mr Chair and members of the committee, is we wrote the initials FCG in the corner to distinguish these transcripts for you so that you'd know which ones we prepared and which ones had been provided to us.
Finally, Mr Chair, I'm going to ask the committee to receive as exhibit 14 a bundle of documents received by Mr Hourigan and myself yesterday evening from the Ministry of Housing related to matters at issue.
Mr Murphy: I'm sorry, can you repeat that please?
Ms Cronk: I'm going to ask that you receive as exhibit 14 a bundle of documents received by us yesterday from the Ministry of Housing. There are additional e-mail messages that we received yesterday.
Mr Callahan: Did that come by special delivery?
Ms Cronk: It came by e-mail. It's still undetected on my machine. I can assure you that, as a technopeasant, Mr Callahan, that's where they are.
Mrs Marland: I understand the transcripts, because we've already discussed that, and in the subcommittee at least, we understood that the tapes existed and the transcripts existed. Is this material from the Ministry of Housing material that you previously requested, and is it material that you have had time to review and are accepting now as evidence and relevant evidence?
Ms Cronk: To your first question, Ms Marland, I asked every party to this hearing -- I don't mean party in the technical legal sense, but every potential source of documentation -- pursuant to the direction of the subcommittee, you may recall, to provide a list of all documents that they had that in any way arguably were related to the investigation and hearing. All have done that.
There have been continuing and ongoing efforts by all to provide that documentation -- that includes the Ministry of Housing -- and these are as I understand it additional documents which only recently came to their attention and I take it were immediately provided to me. Some of what's in the bundle -- they're hard copy production of e-mails that may well have been electronically recorded. I don't know the background of this, Ms Marland. All I can tell you is that of the bundle, some of them are already before you in the exhibit, some are not, some are new that I hadn't seen, but I have read them, and I think a couple of them are relevant. I'm providing them all to you because they relate to the relevant time period.
I should say that in respect of each potential source of documents, including the Ministry of Housing, I have asked again for confirmation that all relevant documentation has been provided to me, and before I complete calling witnesses, I will either have received that confirmation from everyone or you will know about it.
Mrs Marland: Thank you. Mr Chairman, I think it's appropriate, since it's probably inferred by my question that there's some criticism about this material coming late, and possibly that's a correct inference on my part, I would like you to know, Mr Chair, that the late filing of the handwritten notes of my executive assistant, Mora Thompson, on Monday was only as a result of the fact that we were only asked for those notes on Monday. As soon as Mora Thompson was asked did she have any handwritten notes of her meeting with Ms Luu, Ms Thompson said yes and produced them immediately, even to the extent that she didn't have time to type them for the committee and gave them in her original handwritten form. So I just place that on the record in case there is a question arising about other late evidence being filed.
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I'd just like to ask a question with respect to Ms Marland's continued representation of her staff person, as a member of the committee.
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Murphy, Mr Owens has the floor. Go ahead.
Mr Owens: I'm simply asking whether or not it is the view of counsel that this representation of a staff person, and almost as leading some sort of testimony as to what this staff person would say, is appropriate for this committee as a member.
Ms Cronk: I think what I can best reply to that, Mr Owens, is I don't understand Ms Marland to be explaining or offering any explanation as to what Ms Thompson does or does not know. What she just indicated was the reason for timing of the delivery of documentation to me, and where there's some issue about that, I welcome the clarification from anyone.
I can tell you also that as committee counsel we have interviewed Mora Thompson and I don't see an issue over this. You have the paper in front of you.
Mr Owens: Perception is reality.
Ms Cronk: For some people it is.
Mr Owens: Mm-hmm, as we've heard.
Mr Robert Stupart: Mr Chairman, with respect to the e-mails which were recently provided from the Ministry of Housing, the reason for the late delivery was that it was a lengthy process to retrieve these e-mails electronically. They were in storage offsite, and I'm told that there were 140 hours of time required to retrieve them and that staff worked over the long weekend to accomplish this, that there were up to 4,000 messages a month, I think, on any individual receiver's line and a lot of work involved.
The Chair: Okay, thank you.
Ms Cronk: At last, Mr Sutherland. Mr Sutherland, because of the break last evening and, in addition, my opportunity to review some of the e-mail messages that have now been marked as exhibit 14, I'd like to back up in time a bit if we could.
Mr Brian Sutherland: All right.
Ms Cronk: You remember that late last evening we had begun to --
Mrs Marland: Excuse me, Ms Cronk. One other point, Mr Chair. I was waiting till Ms Cronk had finished filing the materials.
At the beginning of this morning's meeting, you read into the record the minutes of a subcommittee meeting that took place last night, and under item 4 of that subcommittee report it says:
"It was moved by Mr Chiarelli,
"That, if an extra sitting day is not forthcoming, that the testimony of Ms Gigantes commence prior to 12 noon on August 11, 1994. (The Liberals and Progressive Conservatives voting in favour and the New Democratic Party voting against, pursuant to the terms of reference of the House dated June 23, 1994, this matter will be referred to the House leaders.)"
Mr Chair, I'm advising you as a member of the subcommittee that as the Progressive Conservative that's reported here as voting in favour, that in view of the subcommittee meeting that took place this morning, I am now withdrawing my support for this part of this motion of the subcommittee last night, and I want it on the record because the subcommittee report was on the record.
The Chair: But this report was deemed accurate when I read it in for the record, and I think that --
Mrs Marland: I'm not saying it isn't accurate.
The Chair: -- the next meeting that we have at noonhour, you can reverse your stand on that.
Mrs Marland: Excuse me. I did reverse my stand at the subcommittee meeting this morning at 9 o'clock.
The Chair: This morning. Yes, you did.
Mrs Marland: I'm only doing it on the record. I'm not saying it's not accurate. It is accurate, but because it was read into the record this morning of this meeting, I'm formally notifying the committee on the record in this meeting that I am now withdrawing my support for item 4 of this report of August the ninth.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Ms Marland.
Mr Chiarelli: Mr Chair, I concur and I withdraw my support for that item 4 as well. Thank you.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Mr Chair, given that there's so much concern about the time for testimony, is it now appropriate that we can start hearing some testimony?
The Chair: Yes, Mr Sutherland. Ms Cronk.
BRIAN SUTHERLAND
Ms Cronk: Mr Sutherland, may I take you back, then, in time to events before the June 17th meeting, and we will come back again, because I, as you might anticipate, have some further questions about it.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Okay. Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: But just a couple of follow-up items, if I might. Could you look at volume 2 of exhibit 1, at tab 18. Just to put this in a context for you, Mr Sutherland, because this is an aspect of the chronology of events about which the committee has not heard in evidence before, you'll remember that we spoke about a letter dated October 29, 1993, sent by Sharron Pretty to Evelyn Gigantes, and as well about the response that was forthcoming to that letter from the minister, which was dated April 25th, 1994. You recall that sequence of events?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I do.
1020
Mr Kimble Sutherland: I'm sorry. Could you repeat again what tab and volume?
Ms Cronk: Yes, it's volume 2 of exhibit 1, tab 18, and we're talking about an issue related to -- the October 29th letter from Sharron Pretty to the minister --
Mr Kimble Sutherland: I'm sorry to interrupt.
Ms Cronk: That's all right -- and the response that I believe you and I at least mentioned yesterday during the course of our discussion.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, we did.
Ms Cronk: The document at tab 18, Mr Sutherland, is dated January the 11th, 1994, and it appears to be a draft of a response to Sharron Pretty. You'll see that the word "Draft" is written on the top.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: It is unsigned. We have heard from Ms Pretty in her evidence that she did not in fact receive a reply until shortly after the date of the April 25th letter. I think her evidence was that she received it on April 28th, 1994. In fact, we saw the envelope in which it was received and it had a mailing stamp on it of April 26th. Do you know who prepared this draft?
Mr Brian Sutherland: This draft would have likely been prepared by Bill Clement in my office.
Ms Cronk: All right. To your knowledge, is there any reason of which you are aware as to why it was not finalized and sent at a date earlier than April of 1994?
Mr Brian Sutherland: My understanding is that we didn't receive the letter itself until early January. Typically, it's our practice to turn these things around fairly quickly. My sense would have been that we would have prepared this draft and it would have been directed up to the ministry for usual processing.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry; I put the question badly. The draft having been prepared, it's dated January the 11th.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you know why no reply was forthcoming until April 25th?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Not particularly, no.
Ms Cronk: Well, at all?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I sensed that the draft was not acceptable.
Ms Cronk: Well, do you know that, Mr Sutherland? I'm just asking you if you have any personal information about it. I understand that you're trying to assist me in answering the question, but if you don't, please just tell me you don't. Do you know why an answer didn't go to Ms Pretty before the 25th of April?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I don't.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Could I ask you to look at tab 29 of the -- sorry, it's a different volume, it's exhibit 2. You'll remember we have different volumes.
Interjection.
Ms Cronk: Sorry, it's exhibit 2. There's only one volume -- exhibit 2, tab 29. Just to go back on a couple of unrelated issues in the chronology, at this tab, as you will see, there is a fax that appears to be from Sue Lott to Marc Collins, dated January 27, 1994, and the handwritten note suggests that Ms Lott was sending to Mr Collins some correspondence that had been received at the constituency office. She indicates that she would be showing it to Evelyn, the minister, but that she was passing it on to Marc Collins and she, Ms Lott, indicates that she'd be interested in seeing what communication had been sent to the various tenants who had written the minister about these matters.
Attached to it is documentation from Mr Michael Séguin, who has been described in evidence as another tenant at the Van Lang Centre, and it includes a letter from him, dated January 18, 1994, to the Van Lang tenants association, that appears to have been copied both to the minister and to yourself, looking at page 2. Can you tell the committee, do you recall seeing the Séguin correspondence?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I do recall seeing it, yes.
Ms Cronk: And would it be fair to suggest to you that Mr Séguin in this letter, although directed to the tenants association as distinct from the board of the Van Lang Centre, was raising certain concerns, not only about association-related matters but about the centre?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, he was.
Ms Cronk: Did you, over the course of the fall of 1993 and spring of 1994, become aware of correspondence from Mr Séguin, either to the minister and copied to your offices or to one or more of the individuals reporting to you expressing concerns with respect to the Van Lang Centre?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I recall this letter specifically.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall others?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I recall this one. I really can't recall other correspondence.
Ms Cronk: I suppose what I'm getting at by that question, Mr Sutherland, is that we know of course that Ms Luu, as the second property manager at the centre and then ultimately as a former employee, and clearly Ms Sharron Pretty, wrote a number of letters to a number of people expressing concerns, and I'm suggesting to you that they were concerns expressed by another tenant as well, Mr Séguin. Can you confirm that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm, that's correct.
Ms Cronk: Now, yesterday when we were discussing events leading up to the meeting of June 17th, 1994, I had asked you a number of questions concerning when you personally had learned or come into information about the charges initiated by Sharron Pretty under the Corporations Act. Your evidence yesterday, as I understood it, was that your best recollection was that you learned of that after publication of the James Wallace articles on June first, 1994, in the press. Do you recall that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.
Ms Cronk: I asked you as well, when we were reviewing the chronology of what had occurred and your own involvement or awareness of it, whether you had received any communications during the months of April and May of 1994 from representatives of the minister's office, whether in Toronto or the constituency office, relating to the Van Lang Centre or to a proposed meeting with Sharron Pretty or Trinh Luu. Do you recall that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: You indicated to me in your evidence yesterday that, based on what you could recall, you did not think that you had. Do you remember that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Now, based on the e-mail messages that have been marked this morning as exhibit 14, I'd like to revisit that issue, if I could. I think in the package that you and the committee members have, which has been numbered -- and mine is in a little different order; again, it was a photocopying glitch -- could I ask you to go to what I think is page 2 in your documents. That should be, if you have the right one, an e-mail message from David Clarke to yourself and to Steve Shapiro dated Tuesday, May 17, 1994, at 8:22 am. Do you have that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I have it.
Ms Cronk: Is that page 2 in the bundle that you have, could I know?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it is.
Ms Cronk: First of all, who is Mr David Clarke?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Mr David Clarke is the executive assistant to the assistant deputy minister of housing operations.
Ms Cronk: In Toronto?
Mr Brian Sutherland: In Toronto.
Ms Cronk: Had you dealt with Mr Clarke in the past on housing related matters?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I have.
Ms Cronk: With this now in front of you, Mr Sutherland, do you recall receiving this e-mail message from Mr Clarke?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I do not recall receiving it specifically. It was dually addressed to Steve Shapiro and myself, so it's quite possible that it could have been dealt with directly by Steve. I just don't recollect the e-mail.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall the information in it?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I recall having some discussion about -- at this time, we were updating a number of briefing notes, and this leads me to believe that there was some communication on it, and I may have talked to Mr Clement about this e-mail. I just can't recall specifically the point of the discussion.
Ms Cronk: All right. Looking at the contents of the e-mail, in the first paragraph, as I read it, your offices were being requested to send a copy to the minister's office in Toronto of the compliance review on the Van Lang project because the minister's office had been chasing David Clarke for it.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.
Ms Cronk: The word "chasing" appears in the e-mail; that's not mine.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: In fairness, if we went back through a number of the communications in the spring of 1994, and please indicate to me if you are not in a position to confirm this yourself, but it does appear that there was an effort to obtain a copy of the compliance review over some time in the spring. There were repeated requests to get a copy of it.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, that would be true.
Ms Cronk: Specifically during the spring, can you confirm that the minister had indicated that she wished to review a copy of the compliance review and had asked her Toronto staff to get it for her and to provide it to her?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then secondly, looking at the second paragraph, it reads, "They are now also telling me that the rift on the board is widening and will soon end up as a court case (Sharron Pretty taking them to court?)."
Stopping there for a moment, first of all, you recall yesterday, Mr Sutherland, that I suggested to you, and I believe you confirmed for the committee, that there was considerable acrimony and antagonism at the board level on the Van Lang Centre for what I would describe as a great many months. Is that fair?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: You'll remember that we looked specifically at certain of the contents of a number of background notes that confirmed that, dating from early in 1994; my recollection is as early as the briefing background note of February the 14th.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
1030
Ms Cronk: You'd indicated to the committee that you, based on your own attendance at the December 30th board meeting and your own observance at it, could personally confirm that.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's true.
Ms Cronk: As I recall your evidence -- please tell me if I'm not stating it correctly -- that situation, you agreed, persisted through until the month of May 1994.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Looking at this paragraph, it appears that Mr Clarke was informing Mr Shapiro and yourself that he was being told by the minister's office -- I take that to be the minister's office in Toronto -- that the rift on the board was widening.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's what it implies, yes.
Ms Cronk: It suggests, does it not, that the problems were getting worse?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And then it goes on to say that "the rift on the board is widening and will soon end up as a court case," and then there's a query as to whether Sharron Pretty was taking them to court. That suggests to me, to put it to you bluntly, Mr Sutherland, that there was information available at the minister's office, at least to some, that Mr Clarke was relaying to you and to Mr Shapiro that there was a possibility of court proceedings here, specifically potentially involving Sharron Pretty. Is that fair?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And that that information, whatever its source, suggested that Sharron Pretty might be taking them, the board, to court. Is that a fair reading of this paragraph?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it would be.
Ms Cronk: Do you have any knowledge of a discussion on or about May the 12th, 1994, between Sharron Pretty and a representative of the minister's office in Toronto when this matter was discussed? Do you have any knowledge yourself of that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I do not.
Ms Cronk: Would I be correct in assuming that an e-mail of this kind directed to your attention, and Mr Shapiro, that even if you don't remember it today -- and I can certainly understand how one potentially doesn't remember an e-mail, out of hundreds that you get -- but you would have gotten it, if it was addressed to you as an e-mail?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes. Yes, I would've.
Ms Cronk: Would it be fair of me, then, to suggest to you that at least by May the 17th, 1994, you had some information available to you, first that the situation of conflict on the board of the Van Lang Centre, from the perspective of the minister's office in Toronto, was potentially getting worse?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And secondly that there might be a court case initiated by Sharron Pretty against the board?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes. According to this e-mail, yes.
Ms Cronk: And may we fairly conclude from that, and please tell me if you don't think we can, but may we fairly conclude from that then that prior to the Wallace articles of June the first you had some information available to you suggesting it might be heading in that direction?
Mr Brian Sutherland: In a very general sense, yes.
Ms Cronk: General as described here. There's no further detail provided.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.
Ms Cronk: But you did know, based on this e-mail, and Mr Shapiro, who would have received a copy of the e-mail, I take it, as well --
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: -- did know that there was at least a question as to whether Sharron Pretty would be taking them to court, ie, initiating proceedings?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And that it might involve the board.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Do you now remember, with the benefit of having this e-mail in front of you, whether you had any discussions with anyone with the minister's offices in Toronto or anyone connected with her staff in Toronto about this issue prior to the Wallace articles?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I do not remember discussing this matter with anyone in Toronto on the minister's staff, no.
Ms Cronk: And do you now remember, again with the benefit of this e-mail in front of you, whether you were aware or anyone suggested to you in May 1994 that a meeting with Ms Pretty or Ms Luu or the board was being considered by the minister?
Mr Brian Sutherland: My memory is not specific on this, but something tells me that Mr Clement and I had a discussion about this, and as we were unable to identify another option in terms of dealing with this situation, we did discuss the possibility of a meeting.
Ms Cronk: The reason I ask you that, of course, is because you confirmed for me yesterday that your offices had advised against a meeting --
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, we did.
Ms Cronk: -- with Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu when the March 4th request came in.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Did your advice in that regard change at any point during the spring?
Mr Brian Sutherland: My sense is that upon discussing this, and perhaps based on Mr Clement's discussions with others, we changed our advice on or about May 18th, in a briefing note that we produced, an updated briefing note.
Ms Cronk: Are you saying it was as a result of this, the e-mail, or the --
Mr Brian Sutherland: I can't say it was a result of this specifically, but obviously there was some discussion that Mr Clement had had with me and others and we agreed that if this were to be helpful, you know, a meeting could be arranged wherein I could attend, and the minister.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you then to go back to look at the May 18th background note? It's in exhibit 1, volume 2, at tab 46. Just again, to put it in the context, Mr Sutherland, because there's a great of paper before the committee, my understanding is, based on the documents available to the committee, that the next closest in time background note on the Van Lang matters to this one was the February 14th background note, and that there was not such a background note in the month of March or April. Can you confirm that for me or do you know?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I can't say for sure, but that would probably be correct.
Ms Cronk: Just to make available to you the February 14th one then, if you look at tab 22, the same volume, that's where the February 14, 1994, background note is contained.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: This, of course, would have been written at a time when the request from the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre had been received for a meeting, but not -- but prior to the March 4th request by Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu for a meeting.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. Then we come forward to May 18th, and under "Action Required," there is a recommendation there in paragraph 2 that "The minister, together with the regional manager and other staff, meet with all Van Lang Centre board members to assist in resolving the present internal strife and respond to the concerns of all parties involved." Do you see that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: All right. Should we take from that then that the advice of your offices changed at that point, and you were now recommending a meeting by the minister, a meeting which you would attend as regional manager and other staff with all of the Van Lang Centre board members?
Mr Brian Sutherland: And that's true.
Ms Cronk: Including Sharron Pretty.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Looking back on it now and with the benefit of the Clarke e-mail to you of May 17th, can you indicate to the committee why the advice of your offices changed at this particular point? Why were you now recommending a meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, again, I was not directly involved. My sense is that there was some encouragement for us to be able to do something, and in any communication from the Toronto office to us, or with Mr Clement, this was thought to be an option that we should put on the table.
Ms Cronk: And as expressed in the background note, it was more than an option, wasn't it? It was a recommendation.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It was listed as required action.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And was it because of the information that you'd received from David Clarke, namely that the rift on the board -- that some thought, "some" meaning people in the minister's office according to the Clarke memo, that the rift on the board may be widening and that there might be a court case initiated by Sharron Pretty?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's probably the case. I just can't recall the specifics of our discussion, but that probably is true.
Ms Cronk: It certainly looks that way, doesn't it?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it does.
Ms Cronk: Okay. So at that point, your background note goes forward, I assume, to the minister's office?
Mr Brian Sutherland: It would go up through the information liaison service, and then on to the minister's office, yes.
Ms Cronk: And were you involved in preparation of the background note?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I was not involved in preparation of it, but I obviously -- and remember discussing it at least in a limited way with Mr Clement.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Looking again at the e-mail from Mr Clarke, the May 17th e-mail, Mr Sutherland, could you look at paragraph 3, which indicates that, "The minister's office is concerned that our briefing notes continue to say that everything is under control, but they keep hearing things to the opposite from their own contacts." Stopping there for a moment, that, I take it, was an expression of concern coming from Toronto to your offices that -- and please tell me if this is an unfair interpretation in any way, but it appears to me to be suggesting they didn't quite understand why the briefing notes were saying things are in hand and the ministry's done everything possible, if in fact the rift on the board was widening, and they were getting information suggesting that wasn't quite so.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's the way we read it, I believe.
Ms Cronk: What action, if any, did you take as a result of receiving -- with respect to that aspect of the matter -- this e-mail from Mr Clarke? Is that what generated the May 18th background note?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, again, I think my involvement in the preparation of an updated background note was minimal. But obviously we would have thought about the request and looked at the last briefing note and attempted to identify another option, and if I my recollection is correct, I do recall discussing the possibility of there being a meeting with Mr Clement.
1040
Ms Cronk: Okay. And that discussion, we've seen, led to the recommendation of a meeting by the ministry?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: That's contained in your background note?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: What I'm trying to get at, and I'm doing it perhaps badly this morning, Mr Sutherland, is just I'm trying to understand what was in your mind, given the position you held with the Ministry of Housing in Ottawa, when you got this information from David Clarke, and we've seen that a recommendation goes forward that a meeting should take place. You've told me that that probably, looking back on it, was as a result of getting this information that there was a concern in the minister's office that the rift on the board may be widening and that there might be a court case initiated by Sharron Pretty. And was there an effort in this background note of May 18th to take a fresh look at what the actual situation was and to inform Toronto about what was going on, what the real situation was?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I thought we felt we had things in control and I think we also realized that, you know, maybe there's another way of dealing with this and maybe we should be more creative in our suggestions, and as a consequence recommended such a meeting.
Ms Cronk: Was there any effort on your part or did you instruct your staff to try to get any more information about this possibility of a court case by Sharron Pretty?
Mr Brian Sutherland: It may have been at that time that the court matters came to my attention and I asked Mr Clement to clarify, to the extent he could, what the charges were all about. I certainly didn't know anything specific about them.
Ms Cronk: All right. And I understand what you're saying, because in David Clarke's e-mail, first of all, it's not the court matter -- you're saying an actual court case may have come to your attention at that time?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I wasn't clear, really, on the matter.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Do you remember -- and please tell me if you do not. But do you remember either yourself or instructing your staff, once you got the e-mail from Clarke, to check into this and to find out if there was a court case either existing or in progress by Sharron Pretty against the board? Did you take any action on that aspect of the matter that you remember now?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I recall discussing the matter with Mr Clement, and frankly I wasn't sure whether it related to the action taken against the first administrator or what. I simply -- I recall some very brief discussion but I can't recall specifically what the content was of it.
Ms Cronk: Okay. And should I take from that, then, that you can't recall any instructions that you might have given him, if any, in that regard?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No.
Ms Cronk: And again, in the context of information available to you in the months of April and May 1994 -- I apologize. I don't know what page this is in your -- in exhibit 14, the e-mail package. I don't know what page it is, but it's an e-mail from David Clarke to Steve Shapiro dated Tuesday, April 26, 1994, at 8:07 am.
Mr Brian Sutherland: April 26?
Ms Cronk: April 26 at 8:07 am. Do you have that?
Interjection.
Ms Cronk: It's to Steven Shapiro of your offices from David Clarke. I'm sorry, I just can't help you where in the bundle it is.
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I'm missing something here.
Interjection.
Ms Cronk: If you just give me a minute, I'll be able to tell you.
Interjection: Page 9.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Here we are. I have it.
Ms Cronk: You have it? Thank you very much. If you look at this e-mail, Mr Sutherland, would I be interpreting it correctly if I suggested to you that Mr Shapiro was being informed at that point in time that a meeting with representatives of the Van Lang Centre involving the minister and Marc Collins was to occur in the near future?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And that it included a request that the minister wanted to see a copy of the compliance review prior to that meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's true.
Ms Cronk: All right. So that when I asked you yesterday whether you had any information available to you in the month of April about a meeting with the Van Lang group from the minister's office and you indicated that you thought not, you didn't have this e-mail in front of you, in fairness, and I take it that any information that Shapiro got about it at that time would have been relayed to you?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. So towards the end of April, April 26th, it appeared that a meeting was certainly under discussion, and this e-mail would suggest that a meeting was going to take place with this group involving the minister and Marc Collins?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it would.
Ms Cronk: All right. And the significance of that perhaps is that this is April 26th and the committee has heard that the informations were sworn by Sharron Pretty on April 25th and it appears that a meeting was either under consideration at that point by the minister's office or in fact a decision may have already been made to meet. Is that a fair conclusion, given the timing?
Mr Brian Sutherland: It's a fair conclusion, yes.
Ms Cronk: It also suggests that a representative of your offices was to attend that meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And they're still chasing the compliance review; is that fair?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I've adopted the verb. It looks like they still want a copy.
Mr Murphy: Counsel, when you put to the witness that the decision may already have been taken to have a meeting, I assume you mean the decision may have already been taken by the minister and the minister's office?
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, that was implicit in my question, if that wasn't clear. Did you understand --
Mr Brian Sutherland: I understood that, yes.
Mr Murphy: As opposed to the ministry officials.
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Mr Murphy: Okay.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. And then, if we could go to volume 3 of exhibit 1, tab 79. We are coming back to the June 17th meeting, Mr Sutherland.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: I don't believe I drew your attention to this document yesterday and I should have done so. This is a fax dated June 16th, 1994, from Patti Redmond, apparently to your attention, relating to the Van Lang Centre, and it indicated in handwriting at the bottom of the page that "Shirley Hoy asked" the author -- that is, Patti Redmond -- "to send this" -- meaning the attachments -- to your attention. Am I reading that correctly?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, you are.
Ms Cronk: Can you just remind me again who Shirley Hoy is?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Shirley Hoy is the assistant deputy minister of housing operations in Toronto.
Ms Cronk: And who is Miss Patti Redmond?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Miss Patti Redmond is the executive assistant to the Deputy Minister of Housing.
Ms Cronk: All right. So just to put this again in a context, we've seen that on June the 15th a background note was prepared with respect to the Van Lang Centre, and you and I discussed that yesterday. It's at the immediately preceding tab, if you want to take a look at it. On June 15th your offices are preparing the background note.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And that specifically included information concerning the nature of the pending charges, their status in court, the fact that a crown attorney was involved and that there was a pending motion to remove Sharron Pretty as a director. Do you recall that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That is correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. And then, on the following day, June 16th, this information comes to you from Patti Redmond and it includes a memorandum which contains further information about the court application; that is, the court proceedings initiated by Miss Pretty.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that's set out in the attached memorandum dated June 16, 1994, to Patricia Redmond from Andrea Baston, an acting senior solicitor in the legal services branch?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: It appears that information had been sought with respect to the court proceedings and their status and it was being provided to you in advance of the meeting of June 17th.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And the memorandum specifically indicates that information had been obtained by the author "that six board members had been charged with" alleged offences and that an adjournment would be sought on June 16th, an appearance date in court. Is that fair?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. So with that information in hand, that is, the information that you received and had to prepare the background note on June 15th, this information from Patti Redmond on June 16th, would it be fair of me to say that going into the meeting on June 17th, you had available to you details with respect to the fact of the charges, that they existed? Am I right so far?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, you're right.
Ms Cronk: As to who they involved?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: As to the nature of the allegations?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: As to the fact that there was a court appearance on June 16th when an adjournment had been sought?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: As to the possible penalties involved?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: That's set out in Ms Baston's memo. And, in addition, as to the pending motion by the board of Van Lang to remove Miss Pretty as a director?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: So you knew all that.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Okay. You told me yesterday that you did not speak, yourself, with the minister prior to commencement of that June 17th meeting.
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I did not.
Ms Cronk: All right. But I believe you also said, and I just wanted to confirm this so that again it's fresh today in our discussion, that that background note of June 15th containing much of that information -- not all of it but much of it -- would have gone to the minister.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's my understanding, yes.
1050
Ms Cronk: Okay. And then coming then to the events of June 17th, I had asked you who was at the meeting and a number of questions relating to the commencement of the meeting, what happened at its outset and you had described some of that to me. Can you now please, Mr Sutherland -- and please feel free if it would be helpful to you to look at your handwritten notes and your daybook entry -- but could you outline for the committee, please, what you remember being discussed at that meeting in the order in which you remember it being discussed?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I will. I'd like to refer to notes I prepared somewhat after the meeting, but they will help me recollect.
Ms Cronk: All right. Then let's talk about those for a minute if those are the notes you mean. Can you go to tab 103, please, of exhibit 1, volume 3? We looked yesterday at some handwritten notes that you'd prepared during the course of the meeting, jottings that you'd made in your daybook.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.
Ms Cronk: I keep calling it a daybook. You had an appointment book with you. Is that what you were using?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And then at tab 103, there's a further document entitled "Notes on the June 17, 1994 Meeting with Van Lang Board of Directors." Are these your notes?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, they are.
Ms Cronk: When were they prepared?
Mr Brian Sutherland: They were prepared around July 12th or 13th -- 13th or 14th.
Ms Cronk: Why were they prepared at that time?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I had been meaning to reflect on the meeting and prepare something more substantive earlier but frankly had not found the time or the quietness to do that, and that was the first opportunity I had.
Ms Cronk: What was the purpose of their preparation?
Mr Brian Sutherland: As I was aware of what had happened following the meeting, I wanted to be sure that I recollected, to the best of my ability, what actually happened there and felt I should commit something to paper.
Ms Cronk: Were you asked to do that, or did you do it on your own initiative?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I did it on my own.
Ms Cronk: And how did you go about doing it? What did you have available to you at the time?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I frankly just sat in front of the computer one evening, the evening of the 13th, I believe, and just sat there and tried to reflect on the meeting and the order of events.
Ms Cronk: These notes are three pages of typewritten notes and they're styled, without being called it, sort of in the format of a background note.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It's not called that, but it has that same format approach on page 3 at the bottom.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Were you preparing it with the intention that it be provided to the minister's office in Toronto?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I was preparing it with the intention that it may be required by somebody, and if I can back up to your question earlier, I believe I had been asked earlier, between the 17th meeting and the date of preparation, to have some document related to my recollection of the meeting.
Ms Cronk: Who had asked you do to that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I believe that had been asked through the assistant deputy minister's office.
Ms Cronk: Who specifically? Do you recall?
Mr Brian Sutherland: It was either Ms Hoy or her assistant, David Clarke.
Ms Cronk: What were they asking you to do? Just to set down your recollection?
Mr Brian Sutherland: They just wanted to make sure that I had an account of what had happened, to the best of my recollection, because I did make the point that I had only prepared very limited notes during the course of the meeting.
Ms Cronk: So if I understand what you've said when you prepared these notes, you did so in the knowledge that they might be required or used by others to gain an understanding of your recollection of what occurred.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, but I wasn't certain of that.
Ms Cronk: All right. I ask you that again simply because of the approach taken on page 3 that it's styled in the format of background notes that we've seen were prepared over the course of time by your offices. Your name is provided, the branch, your phone number, your region. It suggests to me that you were going to send a copy to the minister's office after you'd prepared them.
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I didn't have that intention. I was going to meet with senior staff at the ministry at a later date, and I wanted to be sure that I had something that would recount my recollection of the meeting. In fact, I was unsure as to how or when or if such a document would be used.
Ms Cronk: Okay, I'm sorry. So that when you prepared them, there was a meeting already scheduled with senior staff of the minister's office. You knew that meeting was coming up?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it was.
Ms Cronk: And when was that meeting scheduled to take place?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Now, I have to -- Mr Stupart was there; I don't know if he remembers.
Ms Cronk: I'm afraid you can't ask him about that at this stage, but I might be able to help myself. If you --
Mr Harnick: One hundred.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, wherever that came from. Could I ask you to look at tab 100.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Brian Sutherland and Steve Shapiro?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Okay.
Ms Cronk: Does that help you recall when the meeting was scheduled for, or is that something else? Were you at another meeting with senior members of ministry staff? You don't think that's it?
Mr Brian Sutherland: It says the week of -- I'm just trying to recollect the exact date of the meeting.
Mrs Marland: I couldn't hear that answer.
Ms Cronk: Sorry; he said he was trying to look back on the exact date of the meeting. Could I ask you to look at tab 102. This may be of some assistance.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It suggests that a meeting was going to take place consisting of yourself, Patti Redmond, Mr Stupart and Shirley -- I take that to be Shirley Hoy -- on Monday, July 18th.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Is that the meeting you're talking about?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's the meeting I'm talking about.
Ms Cronk: So with the knowledge that that meeting was scheduled, you sat down and you prepared these notes that we see at tab 103.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: When you prepared them, Mr Sutherland, recognizing that it was almost, but not quite, a month after the meeting had taken place, did you have any information or documentation available to you at the time you prepared these notes, other than your own jottings in your day book?
Mr Brian Sutherland: All I had was my own jottings. I relied on my memory.
Ms Cronk: Had you seen at that time, when you prepared these notes, the notes prepared by Audrey Moey in the course of the meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I had not.
Ms Cronk: Had you seen notes prepared by anyone else during the course of the meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I had not.
Ms Cronk: Did you have a memorandum or document of any kind from anyone else who had been at the meeting about what had occurred at it when you did it?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I did not.
Ms Cronk: When you prepared these notes, did you try to set out, to the best of your ability, all of the matters that you recalled being discussed at the meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Have you had -- this may sound like a silly question -- a chance recently, like, say, even in the last 24 hours, to refresh your memory by reading these again?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: That would be a fair question. Looking at them today, do they set out all that you remember now having been discussed at that meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: They set out to the best of my recollection most of what I heard at the meeting.
Ms Cronk: When you prepared these notes, how did you approach it in terms of deciding what to list when? Did you try to set it out in the sequence of matters as they were discussed or just as you remembered it?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I tried to go back to the meeting, when it commenced. I even believe I mentioned my late arrival or close-to-late arrival and simply tried to reconstruct things to the best of my ability.
Ms Cronk: After the notes were prepared, did you attend the meeting on the 18th with senior staff?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Prior to attending that meeting, did you provide a copy of these notes to any of them?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I revealed my note at the meeting; I released my note to those in attendance.
Ms Cronk: So you gave them a copy?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you know thereafter if copies were provided to anyone else who'd been at the meeting on June 17th? Did you, for example, give them to anybody else?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I didn't.
Ms Cronk: Do you know if they were distributed further, if anyone else received a copy who'd been at the meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: To my knowledge, they were not.
Ms Cronk: By that, do you mean you know they weren't, or are you saying you just don't know?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, we had a discussion about their usefulness and how they should be used. The advice I received at the time was that they needn't be part of the ministry's information package and that I should just keep them for my own reference.
Ms Cronk: So you did not, and as far as you know they weren't distributed any further, save to the people who were at that meeting.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
1100
Ms Cronk: Could I direct your attention to the fourth paragraph of the notes, Mr Sutherland. First, in fairness, in the first paragraph you indicate where the meeting was and when it commenced --
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: -- and in the second paragraph those who were present at the meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And in the third paragraph it suggests, as you indicated yesterday in your evidence, that the minister made some opening remarks by thanking people for being in attendance?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And similarly that Dr Tang did so, made some opening remarks by thanking the minister for being there?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And then if I could direct your attention to paragraph 4, does that reflect what you recalled as at July 15th about what the minister said in her introductory remarks?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it does.
Ms Cronk: Can you confirm then, as suggested by the third line, the third sentence in that paragraph, that the minister acknowledged at the outset of the meeting, among other matters, that she was aware of "current legal steps that have been taken by Sharron Pretty to obtain specific information relating to the operation of the project?"
Mr Brian Sutherland: It may not have been in those words precisely, but there certainly was reference made to that. Yes.
Ms Cronk: And in the last sentence, is it correct that during her opening remarks she also acknowledged that she was aware of the meeting planned for June 19th with the intent of removing Sharron Pretty as a member of the board?
Mr Brian Sutherland: As I recall, yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you now recall the minister saying anything further at that point in the meeting on either of those topics?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I don't. I simply recall that was sort of background and the meeting opened up at that point.
Ms Cronk: And was there any discussion about either of those aspects? Did anybody raise any questions at that point in the meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Not to my recollection.
Ms Cronk: At any point during the balance of the meeting, Mr Sutherland, do you recall further discussion by anyone about the charges then pending or the legal steps that Sharron Pretty had taken?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I recall near the end of the meeting, after a discussion of a number of items that are contained in the note here, the minister asking Sharron Pretty whether the two major issues, what were the two major issues, at which Sharron responded, Ms Pretty responded, that they were -- or, pardon me, the minister asked whether the two principal issues were the access and tenant participation issues, which Ms Pretty thought about for a few moments and responded yes, they were. After that, it seems to me there was some discussion about, is it possible that --
Ms Cronk: I think you're going to have to move forward, Mr Sutherland; I'm having trouble hearing you.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Okay. After that there seemed to be some discussion about whether it was possible that the board could meet again to try to work out any differences related to these two matters.
Ms Cronk: Whose suggestion was that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I believe it was the minister's.
Ms Cronk: Was that the first time that suggestion had been made?
Mr Brian Sutherland: So clearly, it seemed to me that was the first time, yes.
Ms Cronk: How long did this meeting last, from start to finish?
Mr Brian Sutherland: My recollection is that it lasted about an hour and a half.
Ms Cronk: How far into the meeting was it that this suggestion or inquiry by the minister of Ms Pretty as to what the two principal issues were came up?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, we were certainly winding down. It was not too long before the end of the meeting, to my recollection, perhaps 15 minutes.
Ms Cronk: And was it immediately thereafter that the minister raised the possibility of a further meeting? Was that the sequence?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That was the sequence, yes, and it seems to me that at that point Ms Pretty made an expression, or expressed herself in a way that she said, "Well, what about my issues?" To the best of my knowledge, I remember that statement being made, "What about my issues? What about the issues of importance to me?" at which the minister suggested that, "Why don't we take a fresh approach to resolution of the issues, you know, don't dwell on old issues that may not be so important today," or something to that effect. "Why not attempt to deal with the issues that are important to you today?"
Ms Cronk: What was said next?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I believe there was one expression wherein Ms Pretty said that, "I don't think I'm able to work with this board," or something to that effect.
Ms Cronk: How did that come up?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I think that was part of her response to the notion of continuing on with the rest of the board. It seemed to me that she felt that this wouldn't necessarily be productive.
Ms Cronk: You've lost me, Mr Sutherland. What you told us was that the minister, about 15 minutes before the conclusion of the meeting, asked Ms Pretty what the two principal issues were from her point of view and whether they were tenant access and participation.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that Ms Pretty confirmed that they were. You then told us that the minister raised the possibility of a further meeting.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.
Ms Cronk: I take it among the board, including Ms Pretty?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: That was the intent. And you told me that that suggestion came from the minister.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And then you indicated that the minister had said, "Well, what about the issues that are of importance to me?" and you indicated the minister replied by referring to a fresh approach being taken to resolve the issues and attempt to deal with the issues that were important today as opposed to in the past. You said nothing about the issue of Ms Pretty not continuing on the board. Did the issue of her status on the board come up at that point in the discussion?
Mr Brian Sutherland: There was some reference to her status, and I can't recall specifically how it came up, but I do recall her saying something to the effect that: "Why should I bother? I only have a month left anyway." I recall that now. It may not be in my notes, but I do recall that expression.
Ms Cronk: If I can back up then, there are two issues of particular importance for our discussion that the minister acknowledged at the outset of the meeting. That's in paragraph 4 of your notes. There are other matters as well, but the two of importance are first that she was aware of the outstanding legal action commenced by Sharron Pretty.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And she was aware that there was a motion for removal.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Are you saying to the committee that it was not until the meeting was almost over, about 15 minutes shy of it concluding, that there was any discussion of either of those issues again?
Mr Brian Sutherland: To my best recollection.
Ms Cronk: You don't remember anything about either removal of Ms Pretty as a director or about outstanding legal action or proceedings that had been taken by Sharron Pretty coming up again until the meeting was almost, as I say, just shy of 15 minutes of conclusion?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's my recollection.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard evidence from another witness that about 45 minutes into the meeting, the issue of Ms Pretty's intended removal from the board and the issue of the charges or legal proceedings then outstanding came up and that it consumed virtually, in one fashion or another, the entirety of the rest of the discussion, of the meeting. Is it your recollection that that did or did not occur in that way?
Mr Brian Sutherland: It's not my recollection. My sense was that we were dealing with other issues that we'd talked about before until the issue arose near the end of the meeting.
Ms Cronk: At the end of the meeting, in the sequence that you are describing to me, what do you remember being said about the issue of Ms Pretty continuing on the board?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I don't recall a lot being said about it. I do recall Ms Pretty making the comment that: "What's the difference? I only have a month left to go." It seems to me that there was more emphasis placed on meeting again, and to that extent, I recall Dr Truong taking out his date book and Ms Pretty making some comment to the effect that meetings had not been conveniently held for her, that she had work or had other obligations at the time of the previous two or three meetings and there seemed to be some discussion about doing it in a convenient way, which seemed to be agreeable to Dr Truong.
Ms Cronk: In the context of the minister's suggestion for a further meeting, was there discussion of the pending legal charges against the members of the board initiated by Ms Pretty?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I can't recall that being a point of specific discussion.
1110
Ms Cronk: Was there, in the context of proposing this further meeting, discussion of actions proposed by Ms Pretty or undertaken by Ms Pretty or legal proceedings? Was there any reference to any of that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: There seemed to be some discussion about the meeting that had been scheduled for the 19th to remove Ms Pretty, and whether --
Ms Cronk: Sorry to interrupt. My question was directed to actions by Ms Pretty, or legal proceedings, as distinct from the removal, which was a board-intended action.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: What I'm saying to you is, was there any discussion at that point in the meeting, 15 minutes short of its conclusion, or in the remaining ensuing time at the meeting, that you now remember about pending legal proceedings or actions that had been taken or might be taken by Ms Pretty?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I don't recall that.
Ms Cronk: Mr Sutherland, you of course appreciate the importance of the question that I'm asking you, I assume.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Some people, when they say, "I don't recall something," mean that it did not occur. Some people mean, "I just don't remember, one way or the other." Which are you telling us?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I'm saying I don't remember.
Ms Cronk: One way or the other?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No.
Ms Cronk: All right. So you're not saying there wasn't discussion of that issue; you're simply saying that you personally don't have a memory of it.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And at any point from the time of the minister's introductory comments at the meeting, which included again I say, and you've acknowledged, an acknowledgement by the minister that she was aware of legal proceedings --
Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: -- initiated by Sharon Pretty and the removal motion; at any point from then until the time in the meeting that you're now describing when this issue of the further meeting came up, was there any discussion that you remember about legal proceedings then pending involving Sharon Pretty and the board in whatever way it might have been described? Pick your noun: actions, legal proceedings, charges? Any discussion of that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: If there were, it was incidental and I just do not remember it being a significant point of discussion early on in the meeting.
Ms Cronk: At any point during the course of the meeting that you remember, was it suggested to Ms Pretty by anyone that the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre might defer or consider the possibility of deferring removing her from the board as a director if she would consider withdrawing or dropping the charges that she had initiated?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I do not remember it in that context.
Ms Cronk: In any context, that kind of a suggestion?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, obviously I made mention of the fact that there seemed to be some agreement reached about whether to have the meeting on the 19th, which was scheduled to have Ms Pretty removed. From my observation, it seemed as though that was going to be put on hold. I can't recall that being related to any action that Ms Pretty may or may not take.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall there being an agreement at the meeting that a meeting of the board to remove Ms Pretty be deferred? Was there agreement that that shouldn't take place?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I believe there was, yes.
Ms Cronk: And are you saying to the committee that you don't recall that being related to any other action that Ms Pretty was then involved in or might be involved in?
Mr Brian Sutherland: To me, the emphasis seemed to be on having another meeting, and the way I remember it, Dr Truong and Ms Pretty were discussing dates and times. It seemed to me that there'd been some general agreement reached to have another meeting.
Ms Cronk: Mr Sutherland, to put it to you bluntly, so that there's no confusion about this, Ms Pretty has testified before this committee, and I assume that you are aware has said on a number of occasions publicly, that there was a deal offered at that meeting -- that's her language, not mine -- that it was proposed essentially to her that she drop her charges, or speak to the crown or prosecutor about withdrawing those charges if the board would defer her removal as a director or postpone that decision. You're aware of those allegations by Ms Pretty?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I am.
Ms Cronk: And you're aware, I take it, that they have been made publicly and again here before this committee?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Did that occur, based on your memory of the meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Not to my recollection.
Ms Cronk: When you say that, are you saying that it did not occur or that you don't remember one way or the other?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I do not remember.
Ms Cronk: One way or the other.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.
Ms Cronk: So you're not saying it didn't happen. You're simply saying you have no memory of it.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Similarly, she has alleged both publicly and again before this committee that the minister on a number of occasions -- she has said on three or more occasions -- asked her whether she would consider as a possibility withdrawing her charges or speaking to the crown attorney about that if there was a deferral of the decision to remove her. In the context of the suggestion of it repeatedly coming up, do you remember that having occurred?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I think I would have remembered it, had it been said. I do not remember that.
Ms Cronk: And in fact do your notes prepared on or about July 13th, July 14th at tab 103 contain any reference or indication of a discussion of charges or the removal of Ms Pretty as a director, apart from that paragraph 4 that I've drawn your attention to, concerning the minister's initial acknowledgements at the meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, they do not.
Ms Cronk: Do your handwritten jottings in your day book contain any reference to either of those issues?
Mr Brian Sutherland: The two issues again, please?
Ms Cronk: Removal of Ms Pretty as a director and the suggestion of charges being withdrawn or dropped.
Mr Brian Sutherland: I think I may have written down something or just, "Removal of Ms Pretty."
Ms Cronk: If you look at your handwritten notes at tab 83, June 17th, first, is there anything in those notes about charges, legal proceedings, legal actions or actions generally?
Mr Stupart: Excuse me, the tab number again?
Ms Cronk: Eighty-three. Would you like me to repeat the question, Mr Sutherland?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Please.
Ms Cronk: Is there anything in those notes, which you've said were made at the meeting, about charges, legal proceedings, legal actions or actions generally? Is there any reference to anything of that kind?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, there's a line about Sharron Pretty's removal, which I'm sure relates to some discussion.
Ms Cronk: All right, and what does it say?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Simply, "Sharron Pretty's removal."
Ms Cronk: And you're referring to the fifth line down?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I am.
Ms Cronk: And that's listed under the topic "Issues."
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Looking at these notes now, can you assist the committee as to whether that was something discussed at the beginning of the meeting or later in the meeting, or can you tell?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That would have been at the start of the meeting.
Ms Cronk: It looks to me that you were listing the issues referred to at the outset of the meeting.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Okay. After that, is there any indication in these notes -- and I'm suggesting that there isn't, that there's no indication or mention of legal proceedings, legal actions, charges, outstanding litigation or actions generally. None of those words anywhere appear in these notes.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Similarly, there's no further reference in these notes, is there, with respect to the removal of Sharron Pretty as a director, except the words "Special meeting" appear?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: What did the words "Special meeting" relate to?
Mr Brian Sutherland: The term "Special meeting" meant that as we closed the meeting there was some reference to involving perhaps someone from the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association and our office and having the parties get together with that kind of involvement. I was thinking in terms of who I would be contacting from that organization that may be able to assist in this.
Ms Cronk: So I take it those two words, "Special meeting," refer to the proposed further meeting among the board members and Ms Pretty as distinct from any special meeting regarding her removal as a director.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember, Mr Sutherland, any person at that meeting using the phrase "drop the charges," "dropping the charges," or any suggestion being made of legal proceedings, legal actions or charges being dropped in any way?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I do not.
Ms Cronk: When you say that, again, are you saying that you don't remember one way or the other or are you saying it did not occur?
Mr Brian Sutherland: It did not occur.
Ms Cronk: You're saying no one at the meeting used those phrases.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Not to my recollection, no.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall at any point during the meeting any person referring to a crown attorney or prosecutor?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I don't.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard evidence from Ms Pretty, and indeed there is reference in public statements made both by the minister and by Ms Pretty, that there was discussion of a prosecutor, that that word was used during the course of the meeting. Ms Pretty has given the committee her evidence regarding that discussion; the committee will hear from the minister. Do you remember now any discussion of a prosecutor or crown attorney or those phrases being used by any person at the meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I do not.
Ms Cronk: Again, are you saying it didn't occur, or you don't remember one way or the other?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I do not remember that.
Ms Cronk: Let me understand what your evidence is to the committee, then, Mr Sutherland. Are you saying that you really have no memory of this contentious discussion at this meeting or are you saying that there was no discussion of pending charges, a crown attorney or crown prosecutor at all? Are you saying, "It just wasn't discussed at that meeting; I was there, I remember, and it wasn't discussed," or are you saying, "I just don't remember"?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I don't remember it.
1120
Ms Cronk: Are you understanding the difference of what I've put to you?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Are you saying then that you don't remember one way or the other?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I could say I don't remember it being discussed. I do not recall it being discussed. I'm just trying to focus in on what the best way of providing an answer on this is. I do not recall those kinds of specifics being discussed.
Ms Cronk: And I take it that if they were, whatever their context and whatever the language used, you have no present memory of it and can't assist the committee as to what was or was not said?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I cannot.
Ms Cronk: Either by the minister or by Ms Pretty or by anyone else at the meeting.
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I cannot.
Ms Cronk: And when Ms Pretty tells this committee, as she did yesterday, that there was discussion on her evidence at least by Mr Nguyen, as she recalls it, and she suggested, by herself, of the use of the phrase "dropping charges," you have no memory of that.
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I do not.
Ms Cronk: And you don't recall anyone else using that expression at the meeting either.
Mr Brian Sutherland: No.
Ms Cronk: One way or the other.
Mr Brian Sutherland: No.
Ms Cronk: One way or the other? You're saying you don't recall that being used by anyone at the meeting.
Mr Brian Sutherland: I don't recall that being used by anybody, no.
Ms Cronk: One way or the other.
Mr Brian Sutherland: One way or the other.
Ms Cronk: Ms Pretty has really suggested to the committee, Mr Sutherland, that a proposal was made to her that she refrain from proceeding with her charges, that she take some action by speaking to the crown attorney or the prosecutor to have those charges withdrawn or dropped, and she has suggested to the committee that it was clearly put to her by the minister that were she to do that, the board might defer or postpone the removal of her as a director, and that that was either a deal put to her at that meeting or a proposition that the minister expressed to her in a variety of ways on more than one occasion during the meeting. Do you have any memory of any of that, that you can assist the committee with?
Mr Brian Sutherland: My only memory is that the minister was encouraging the parties to work together to solve the problem. I don't relate that comment to any suggestion that certain actions be taken by Ms Pretty. I don't recall that.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall the minister saying to Ms Pretty during the course of the meeting, at any point, that she or others there should not feel pressured?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I can't say I recall that specifically, but that comment may have been made.
Ms Cronk: But you don't remember.
Mr Brian Sutherland: No.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall at any point it being suggested to Sharron Pretty or other members of the board by the minister that they didn't have to make up their minds, that they could take the time to think about it, or they could take time to think about it? Do you remember that being suggested?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Again, I'm just not clear whether I do or I don't.
Ms Cronk: And specifically, in the context of the proposal that a further meeting occur among the members of the board and Ms Pretty, do you recall the minister saying to Ms Pretty: "You don't have to make your mind up about a date. You don't have to agree to a date now. Take your time to think about it," or words to that effect? Do you recall that being said?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Again, something to that effect may have been said, but I cannot recall it clearly enough to say yes or no.
Ms Cronk: So you don't remember one way or the other.
Mr Brian Sutherland: No.
Ms Cronk: So when you said a little earlier, as you did, that there was an agreement, you thought, among the people present at the meeting, the board members and Sharron Pretty, to meet again, it was your impression that an agreement had been reached?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Is it also your recollection that Ms Pretty was also to that suggestion?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, because I do recall specifically date books being taken out and Ms Pretty mentioning her schedule and the fact that the previous meetings had not been scheduled at her convenience and that any future meeting would have to take into account her schedule.
Ms Cronk: Mr Sutherland, please tell me if this is unfair, but I gather if there was any discussion of these issues at the meeting, either in the manner suggested by Ms Pretty or in the manner suggested by the minister publicly on other occasions and in her statement given to this committee -- have you seen her statement delivered to this committee, that's filed as part of the exhibits here?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I haven't.
Ms Cronk: Okay, and I won't ask you to read it. Are you aware, however, of what the minister has said publicly about this issue, both in the Legislative Assembly and in various reported media accounts?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Generally, yes.
Ms Cronk: I take it, then, that if there was any discussion of these topics between Ms Pretty and the minister at the meeting, it didn't hold sufficient significance for you that you retained a memory of it?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: You had no memory of it on July 14th when you made your notes?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: But that was about a month after the meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: During the course of the meeting, your notes -- you were really making jottings, not detailed notes of what occurred?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Would it be fair to suggest that those notes certainly didn't contain even a heading for everything discussed at the meeting, because the notes are on one page and really less than a full page?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, they are very abbreviated.
Ms Cronk: So you didn't, at that point, make any note about these matters, but there were many other matters that were discussed at the meeting that you made no note about either. Is that fair?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: In giving your evidence before the committee about what occurred at the meeting, are you relying on the notes that you prepared on July 14th, about a month after the meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: To a large measure, yes.
Ms Cronk: Mr Chair, I have a few more questions for the witness, but I would think within about 10 to 15 minutes I would be complete. Would the committee be prepared to rise for its break now? We've been going since 9:30.
The Chair: Fine, a 10-minute recess.
Ms Cronk: Thank you.
The committee recessed from 1127 to 1146.
The Chair: Ms Cronk, do you want to continue your questioning of the witness?
Ms Cronk: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. Mr Sutherland, with respect to your July 14, 1994, notes, would you agree with me that they are a detailed account of matters discussed at the meeting on June 17th?
Mr Brian Sutherland: As detailed as I could recollect, yes.
Ms Cronk: And that they are a fulsome summary, I suggest, of what occurred at the meeting, the atmosphere of the meeting and various issues discussed at the meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Certainly much more so. There's no comparison between the depth of the detail in your July 14th notes and the jottings that you made at the meeting on June 17th.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: We're talking, in character and kind, about a very different kind of recording, are we not?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, we are.
Ms Cronk: All right. Could I ask you to go to tab 90, if you would, please, of exhibit 1, volume 3. Do you have it, Mr Sutherland?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: This is a memorandum dated Friday, June 17, 1994, expressed to be to Steve Shapiro from yourself. Is that correct?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And am I correct that this is a transcription of an e-mail sent to Mr Shapiro by you on that day?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it is.
Ms Cronk: And there's a time entry immediately beside the date of 3:33 pm?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Would that be the time that the e-mail was sent by you to Mr Shapiro?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: In the context of the timing of the meeting at the Rideau Centre on June 17th, I understood that the meeting commenced at about 11:30 in the morning. Is that correct?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And lasted, you said, about an hour and a half. That would take us to about 1 pm in the afternoon.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Is it correct, then, that this e-mail to Mr Shapiro was prepared by you about two and a half hours after the conclusion of the meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And where did you go after the meeting? Did you go back to your office?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I believe I went right back to the office, yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. You might have had lunch?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I don't know that I had lunch that day. I think I went right back.
Ms Cronk: So did you, within two and a half hours after the conclusion of the meeting, go back to your office and prepare this e-mail for him and send it to him?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: All right. It reads as follows: "As you might have imagined, the meeting between the board of the National Capital Vietnamese Canadian Non-Profit Housing Corporation (including Sharon Pretty) and the minister today was a lengthy ordeal. It went on for more than an hour."
Stopping there for a moment, was that your impression of the meeting, in the sense that it was what you thought to be a lengthy ordeal?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Had I known this transcript would have been circulated so far and wide, I suppose I might have said that differently. But indeed, I felt they would understand what I was saying because of having attended meetings of the board before. The phraseology -- again, had I known it was going to be circulated so far and wide, I might have used different terminology, but indeed it was an ordeal.
Ms Cronk: In your mind, a difficult meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Difficult, I take it, because of the history of these parties, that is, the acrimony and antagonism of which you were aware?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And the fact that at least a majority of the board was present, plus Sharron Pretty?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
1150
Ms Cronk: The very people between whom, to your knowledge, there had been months of difficulty?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And in addition, it was a meeting at which the minister was present?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's true.
Ms Cronk: And that, you told us, was for you an unusual event.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that lent, would it be fair of me to suggest, a heightened gravity to the meeting or significance to the meeting? This was serious.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it did.
Ms Cronk: You continue in the memo, "There is no doubt in my mind that the minister continues to be sympathetic to Trinh Luu and Sharron although I think her eyes were opened a bit as the meeting progressed."
Perhaps I could just carry on and then I have some questions for you about the memo.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Okay.
Ms Cronk: "In any event, I believe that the minister was able to convince Sharron and the other board members to work toward a resolution of the matter prior to the charges being considered by the court early next month. There seems to be more willingness to resolve matters in-house although Sharron remains unpredictable and could sabotage things on short notice.
"I would like to talk about future board meetings, our involvement and possible [sic] the added involvement of either ONPHA members or a mature member of another non-profit in the area. We should discuss on Monday."
You then conclude the e-mail and you copy it to Bill Clement in your office, correct?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: This memo very clearly suggests, does it not, Mr Sutherland, that at the meeting on June 17th there was discussion by the minister with Sharron Pretty and the other board members of working towards a resolution before the charges initiated by Sharron Pretty were considered the following month in court?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it does.
Ms Cronk: The difficulty that I have, sir, is this, and I'm going to explain to you what my difficulty is and then ask you to comment on it. Your evidence to the committee this morning is that you do not remember a discussion at this meeting between the minister and Sharron Pretty and the other board members about the charges that were then outstanding, save for an acknowledgement at the beginning of the meeting of the minister of her awareness of that fact.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Am I correct? And this memo, written by you within two and a half hours of your return from the meeting, very clearly deals with the subject of the charges and their timing, that is, the next appearance date within the next month, correct?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it does.
Ms Cronk: It very clearly suggests, does it not, that the charges were a subject of discussion at the meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: The way it's written here it does, yes.
Ms Cronk: And indeed, reading through the memo, apart from commenting upon how you perceived the atmosphere of the meeting in the sense of it being a lengthy ordeal and a difficult meeting, the only thing mentioned and discussed in this memo at all is the fact of the minister's discussion with Sharron and the board members about working towards a resolution of the matter and the charges.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: There's nothing else in this memo about any of the other matters discussed, correct?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And indeed, in the language of the memo, you suggest that it was your belief following the meeting that the minister was able to convince Sharron and the other board members to work toward a resolution within a certain time frame, that is, prior to the charges being dealt with the following month in court.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: That suggests to me, and I invite your comment, that what occurred at that meeting, from your perspective at least, was an effort by the minister to persuade the board members and Sharron Pretty towards a certain end, and that is to work towards a resolution of the matter prior to the timing, the scheduling of the next court appearance on the charges.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Again, that's what I said in the e-mail, and certainly in terms of working towards an accommodation, there's no question in my mind that that was the order of the day. I looked upon what was happening as being a window of opportunity between that time and whenever the charges were going to be heard, and I suppose in that context I looked at it this way.
Ms Cronk: It suggests, Mr Sutherland, doesn't it, that of some significance, in your mind at least, was the fact that those charges were to be dealt with in the sense of another scheduled court appearance the following month?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that the convincing that the minister was doing at the meeting was somehow tied into that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: It may have had some bearing on it, yes.
Ms Cronk: Well, your memo suggests that was your perspective, doesn't it?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it does.
Ms Cronk: And going into the meeting, you of course knew, as you've told the committee, of the status of the charges and details of the nature of the charges and who they involved.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You had that information available to you both through the background note prepared by your office on the 15th and the additional information provided to you through Patti Redmond on the 16th.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: So that was certainly a highlighted item, a matter of significance in your mind going into the meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it was.
Ms Cronk: And you come back from the meeting, and the report you do to Shapiro speaks specifically about what happened between the minister, the board members and Sharron Pretty with reference to when those charges were going to be dealt with the following month.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And in that context, Mr Sutherland, do you now remember a discussion at that meeting between the minister, Sharron Pretty and the board members about those pending charges?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I can't recall it clearly enough or specifically enough to be precise, but obviously I'm aware that, you know, something related to them may have taken place.
Ms Cronk: So you accept, with this e-mail in front of you, that coming out of the meeting, you were recording that there had been a discussion towards a resolution of the matter in the context of the charges being considered the following month.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That would be my recollection. If I put it down, that would be my recollection, yes.
Ms Cronk: And doesn't that mean, Mr Sutherland, that the matter of the charges and working towards some resolution was discussed at the meeting among the minister, Sharron Pretty and the other board members?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Again, it may have been, but I cannot recall the specifics.
Ms Cronk: But with this memo in front of you -- I'm focusing now on your words "may have been." This memo clearly suggests it did occur, does it not?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it does.
Ms Cronk: And are you saying to the committee that you just don't remember what was said about it?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I don't remember what was said, but obviously I had the impression that this was part of the discussion.
Ms Cronk: And in terms of the focus of the meeting or the purpose of the meeting, from your perspective, when you came back the only thing that you were reporting on to Steven Shapiro was, apart from the atmosphere of the meeting and the possibility about future board meetings, this issue; that's the only thing you're dealing with in this memo.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, but I was simply putting that into context so that they would understand the main elements of the meeting, you know. I suppose putting it into that context certainly made it one of the main elements of the meeting but, to my way of thinking, the real issue or the real element of the meeting that was important was the fact that the folks were going to get together and try to resolve their differences.
Ms Cronk: Well, can we agree that the matters recorded in this memo or this e-mail are, first, the atmosphere of the meeting and its length?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Secondly, the minister's attitude, as you understood it, to Trinh Luu and Sharron, which you described as continuing to be sympathetic?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I felt that way, yes.
Ms Cronk: That's the second item dealt with in the memo?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Thirdly, the matter of the minister, the minister's discussion with Sharron Pretty and the other board members about working towards a resolution of the matter?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And that's done in the context, in your e-mail, of the charges being scheduled to be dealt with the following month in court.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: So that that third item discusses the charges and the minister's discussion at the meeting towards a resolution.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And the fourth thing is a comment about your views of Sharron Pretty?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And her willingness, in your view, to resolve the matter?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And the fifth and final thing is the possibility about future board meetings and involvement of your staff in those meetings?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And when you say to me that you were trying to put in context the main elements of the meeting, I suggest that when you compare this memorandum to your detailed notes of July 14th, there were many other things discussed at the meeting; correct?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And are you saying, then, that the matters in this e-mail to Steve Shapiro were, in your mind, the most significant, the main elements of the meeting that were important?
Mr Brian Sutherland: They were certainly important that day, and I saw the fact that the people were going to get together again and meet again as being important, yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you go into that meeting, Mr Sutherland, with the expectation that what was going to be discussed was related to the charges then pending?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No.
Ms Cronk: And do you say that, sir, recognizing the information you had available about that matter on June 15th and June 16th, and again in recognition of the fact that you're reporting upon that to Steven Shapiro when you come back? Do you understand --
Mr Brian Sutherland: Can you pose the question again?
Ms Cronk: Do you understand the implication of what I'm putting to you?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
1200
Ms Cronk: What I'm saying to you is, did you go into the meeting in the expectation or with the understanding that what was going to be dealt with at the meeting concerned the pending charges initiated by Sharron Pretty?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I was aware of them, but certainly that wasn't my expectation as far as the meeting was concerned, that that would be a principal area of topic.
Ms Cronk: Why then was information included in the background note of the status of those charges and additional information provided to you on June 16th relating specifically to the status of the charges?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I really don't know. I suppose it was for my information, but certainly in my own mind I didn't associate that directly with the meeting.
Ms Cronk: So that I'm clear, then, Mr Sutherland, as to what your evidence is, do you now acknowledge, with this e-mail in front of you, that the matter of those charges was discussed by the minister with Sharron Pretty and the other board members at the meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And are you saying to the committee that you just don't remember what was said about that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: In fairness to you, if you're not clear in your own mind about what was said on the issue, I take it you don't want to be offering suggestions to this committee about what various individuals may or may not have said, if you're not clear about it?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Did you report to Mr Shapiro or Mr Clement about any other feature of the meeting after it had concluded, apart from what's contained in this memo of June 17th?
Mr Brian Sutherland: We spoke about the meeting the following week, in a very general way.
Ms Cronk: What, in the context of this memo, do you remember the minister trying to convince Sharron and the other board members to do?
Mr Brian Sutherland: To meet again.
Ms Cronk: When you wrote the words "to work towards a resolution of the matter," is that what we're to take from them: that in your mind it was a further meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Is it equally possible, Mr Sutherland, that there was discussion by the minister with Sharron and the other board members of working to resolve, on the one hand, the removal of Sharron Pretty as a director and, on the other, Sharron Pretty's charges?
Mr Brian Sutherland: It is possible.
Ms Cronk: Is it equally possible that the minister was able to convince Sharron and the other board members to work towards a resolution of those issues?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I felt there'd been progress made. I couldn't conclude as to what the outcome would be.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to go as well, sir, if you would, please, to exhibit 2, to tab 54. Do you have that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: This is a letter dated June 15, 1994, expressed to be from yourself to Mr Nguyen Huu Chi, the president of the Ottawa Vietnamese Non-Profit Residence Corp. I understand that organization to be another non-profit facility, not connected with the Van Lang Centre.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Is it correct that in this letter you were responding to correspondence received from the president of that organization in which an offer of assistance had been made by him?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And his letter to you in that regard is the next attachment, dated June 6, 1994?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: He wrote to you referring to the fact that the president and several members of the Van Lang housing project had been charged with violations under the Corporations Act and offering the assistance of his organization until the matter of those charges had been resolved.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Is that a fair construction of the letter?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it is.
Ms Cronk: What I took from it, and please tell me if this is right or wrong, that he was really writing to you saying: "This difficulty has arisen with respect to the Van Lang Centre. We have experience in non-profit organizations of this kind with Vietnamese residents and we are prepared to step in and manage the Van Lang Centre until this matter's resolved." Is that effectively what he was proposing?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And in your letter of June 15th you were acknowledging that offer but rejecting it?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: You say in the third paragraph, in that context, "I honestly feel that the members of the Van Lang board are also very concerned about their responsibilities and that they are keenly interested in refuting those charges." Stopping there, I take it you're referring to the alleged infractions to the Corporations Act?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I was.
Ms Cronk: Again, you wrote this on June 15th, so that information was available to you, as we've seen from the background note at that point in time --
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- but also through this source. You'd received a letter from the president of this organization specifically referring to the matter?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: "It is also premature to judge the outcome of the current state of affairs. In these circumstances, it is my advice that we all stand back until the charges have been processed through the justice system. Do otherwise may be seen as interfering with due process." Was that your feeling at the time?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That was my feeling. It was a third-party request to become involved, and I certainly felt, given the charges and the environment at that time, that it would not be appropriate to involve another party.
Ms Cronk: And what your letter suggests, in the context of writing to him, was that all should stand back until the charges had been processed essentially in the normal course of the justice system. Correct?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And you are saying to him that to do otherwise might be seen as an interference with the due process. I take that to mean the due process of the justice system.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That was my intended meaning.
Ms Cronk: Would you agree with me, sir, that discussing the charges at the meeting on June 17th was not standing back until the charges had been processed through the justice system?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, it may be interpreted that way.
Ms Cronk: Is that a fair interpretation?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And in that context, did you regard what happened at the June 17th meeting as carrying with it the potential as being seen as interfering with the due process of the justice system?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I really didn't look at the meeting in that context, honestly. I felt it was a problem-solving meeting and I didn't see it in the same context as this matter.
Ms Cronk: At the time?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Looking at it today, do you?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Not necessarily. I guess I make the distinction between a third party expressing interest in a situation and the Minister of Housing. I have some difficulty seeing the two are the same. The minister had responsibility for the ministry and projects and this was a separate organization, so --
Ms Cronk: Are you saying it would be more appropriate for the minister than for a third party, outside organization?
Mr Brian Sutherland: To involve oneself in due process would not be appropriate for anyone.
Ms Cronk: Can we go this far together, that it was a matter to which you were sensitive prior to the meeting on June 17th?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And in responding to the president of this organization, you were being courteous, thanking him for his offer but effectively saying: "Stand back. It's in the interests that all stand back until this is dealt with in the normal way, because to do otherwise carries with it the risk of being seen to interfere with the due process of the justice system"?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Before you went to the meeting on June 17th, Mr Sutherland, had you considered the fact of that proposed meeting and what might occur at it in the context of the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I had not.
Ms Cronk: Had any member of your staff provided you with any advice on that or raised the issue with you in any way?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No.
Ms Cronk: To your knowledge, had they considered it?
Mr Brian Sutherland: To my knowledge, they had not.
Ms Cronk: Had anyone from the minister's staff in Toronto raised it with you?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Not to my recollection, no.
Ms Cronk: Did any red flags go off in your own mind, especially given the views that you -- I shouldn't say "especially" -- recognizing the views that you'd expressed just two days before to the president of this organization as to whether there was an issue there with respect to the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I certainly would have it in my mind; I can't sort of relate specifically to how I thought about it. But my bigger concern was that the minister had decided to meet with the group and that I had been asked to attend. In that context, I felt reasonably comfortable about going into the meeting.
1210
Ms Cronk: Do you now remember having addressed the issue in your own mind at all or it having even crossed your mind before going into the meeting of June 17th?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I can't recall a specific feeling of that nature, but obviously had I communicated to another group on a similar issue very recently it certainly may have been there. I just can't recall specifically thinking about that.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Does it follow from that that you don't recall having discussions with anyone about that prior to the meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I'm sort of curious, Mr Sutherland, as to what training or information is provided to ministry offices such as your own, or has been since introduction of those guidelines, regarding when they're to be considered or how they apply or when they may be an issue. Did you at any point following introduction of those guidelines, as a senior management representative of the Ministry of Housing offices in Ottawa, receive information or training about that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: About the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Mr Brian Sutherland: No. We've certainly been dealing with conflict-of-interest guidelines relative to our own activity and had training respecting those.
Ms Cronk: What about the whole issue of conflict-of-interest requirements or rules, whether in legislation or in the Premier's guidelines for conduct by ministers?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I would say that our knowledge of those is more general than specific. I mean, I'm aware that there are such requirements, but I don't have a detailed knowledge of them.
Ms Cronk: I just don't know what the general practice is. Were you ever at a briefing meeting about that or as a senior manager do you receive information about when you should be considering those issues or is that really for the political advisers of the minister?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I can't recall having received any information about that or having been at a briefing specifically dealing with conflict of interest in that context.
Ms Cronk: The reason I ask you these questions, Mr Sutherland, is because in the file materials that we received from the Ministry of Housing offices in Ottawa it came to us in the form of two brads, one marked "Regional Office Admin File Number Two" and the other containing correspondence, various e-mails and memos. On the brad which I'm going to show you is a copy of the conflict-of-interest guidelines bearing the date of December 12, 1990, and it appears on the brad just after the June 15 background note -- "after" meaning that beneath the conflict-of-interest guidelines is the June 15th background note -- and immediately after the conflict-of-interest guidelines is the fax cover sheet from Patti Redmond, dated June 16th, enclosing the memo from Reid Duncan and Andrea Baston that we looked at, the one providing information about the charges.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: I wondered, therefore, whether Patti Redmond had provided to you, with the fax, a copy of the conflict-of-interest guidelines. Would you like to look at it? Would that help?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: At the top of the brad is, just to put it so that we know the sequence in which these appear to have been put on the file -- and when I say a "brad," in fairness I should say these materials are clipped together; the other is actually a cerlox brad at the top with punch-hole marks in it where things were put on the brad. But this appears to be a photocopy of a correspondence brad, I suggest. The document on the top is dated July 22, 1994, and as you move through it you're moving to earlier documents. So they appear to be in chronological order. Do you want to take a minute to satisfy yourself that's a fair description of it?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Okay, sure.
Ms Cronk: Mr Hourigan informs me that it's actually our understanding that this may be the original copy of this documentation from the ministry, not photocopies, so you'll see some bearing an original fax stamp. At this point I'm just asking you to confirm whether I've described it accurately, that it appears to be from the most recent to the oldest in terms of correspondence and e-mails and memos of that kind.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Could I help you find the document?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Sure.
Ms Cronk: Moving through it, back in time, when we come to the date of around June 23rd, we see various memos under date of June 23, 1994. Do you see that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Excuse me for leaning over you. And then we see a copy of a briefing note, and then a photocopy of an article from the paper, and then we come to a copy of the memo from Andrea Baston to Patricia Redmond dated June 16th?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And behind it a copy of a memo from Reid Duncan to Andrea Baston dated June 16th regarding removal of a director?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And then we find the fact sheet from Patti Redmond to yourself of June 16th that we spoke about this morning?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Then we find behind that a copy of the conflict-of-interest guidelines?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And then we find immediately behind that a copy of the June 15th memo to Karen Ridley from Lisa Heaton enclosing a copy of the background note with reference to the minister's meeting with the Van Lang Centre group on June 17th?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Can you help me as to whether Ms Redmond sent with her fax to you a copy of the conflict-of-interest guidelines?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I can't recall that specifically. I in fact arrived back in Ottawa that morning, so I don't know when this fax would have taken place June 16th.
Ms Cronk: Do you know how the guidelines come to be on that brad?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I don't.
Ms Cronk: Okay. I'm showing you the file folder from which the bundle came, and would you agree with me it bears a -- I don't know what to call it. It's a label describing what's in it. The "Regional Office Admin File Number Two" is in it, and that too appears to contain copies of various documents, but it appears to be inclusive of some originals.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Would it be fair of me to suggest to you, Mr Sutherland, that it would appear that the conflict-of-interest guidelines were in someone's mind around the time of that meeting if these brad materials are in fact in chronological order of their compilation?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you have any knowledge about that at all, with that information in hand, in the sense of whether it was raised with you by any member of your staff or anyone else prior to the meeting on June 17?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Not to my recollection. Again, I was out of town the night before. I came in the morning of the 17th. I obviously had the memorandums from Ms Redmond, but I do not recall specifically looking at the conflict-of-interest guidelines at that time.
Ms Cronk: Nor do you remember, I take it, anyone bringing them to your attention.
Mr Brian Sutherland: No.
Ms Cronk: Mr Sutherland, did you or, to your knowledge -- and in asking this question I'm not suggesting to you that I have any information suggesting that you did -- did you or anyone else, to your knowledge, from your office have any contact with the crown prosecutor relating to these charges under the Corporations Act either before or after that meeting of June 17th?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No.
Ms Cronk: Thank you very much, sir. Those are my questions. No doubt the caucus members will have some.
The Chair: Mr Sutherland.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Thank you, Mr Chair. Mr Sutherland, I have a few questions and I want to start a little bit with the compliance review process. Did you or your ministry do a detailed and thorough compliance review of the Van Lang Centre?
Mr Brian Sutherland: We did a detailed and thorough compliance review according to a format that we had developed over the years. Following that format, we did a reasonably thorough review.
1220
Mr Kimble Sutherland: So this was the standard ministry compliance review process?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it is.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Okay. And what were the, in your opinion -- let me go to the next question. Were you made aware that both Ms Luu and Ms Pretty had concerns with the results of the compliance review?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Okay. And what were the concerns they expressed regarding the compliance review?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, when it was tabled on February 8, given the tenor of the meeting and way things turned, it was clear to my representatives that there was some unhappiness with what had been presented. My sense of that is that that discontent related to our not being able to deal with issues that I suppose we felt were more of a board responsibility than a ministry responsibility.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Did any of the evidence they furnished you cause you to doubt the results of the compliance review?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No. I believe I said yesterday that I have a high degree of confidence in my people, and even though the review was carried out over a period of time, which was not something we wanted to do, but given staff resources that was the only way we could it, I felt reasonably confident that our people had looked at all the things they should have looked at.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: But you are also aware that Ms Luu and Ms Pretty wanted the ministry itself to take more action against the board and specifically Dr Can Le?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Okay. With respect to that, did Ms Luu and Ms Pretty outline their specific concerns with the compliance review?
Mr Brian Sutherland: If they did, they did not to me directly.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Okay. You may be aware that Ms Luu and Ms Pretty, I believe, have outlined their concerns regarding the issue of tenant placement.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Was tenant placement one of the issues as part of the compliance review?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, it was.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: And do you recall what their concern was regarding tenant placement?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes. To me, the issue of that time was the arrangement that was supposed to be in place between the local housing authority and the non-profit housing corporation, and the issue was whether in fact the non-profit housing corporation had been receiving referrals from the housing authority.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: And as part of that compliance review, did the ministry check with the local housing authority?
Mr Brian Sutherland: The ministry checked extensively with the housing authority and found that in the initial rent-up, in fact more applicants than were actually required were referred to the non-profit: 17 applicants, according to our information, were housed from the housing authority's referral in that instance.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: So from your sense, the board was operating appropriately regarding tenant placement, as a result of what was found out in the compliance review?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, it's one thing to refer on rent-up, but then of course there's an additional requirement that after rent-up, one of every two deep-core units must be referred to the housing authority. We sensed that there wasn't a complete or clear understanding of that. Obviously, that had not been followed, so we drew that to the board's attention.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Okay. In terms of after a compliance review is done and it's brought to the board, you've indicated that you offered your staff to attend meetings with the board and to discuss items of the compliance review?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Actually, I did that on December 30th when I arrived unannounced at a board meeting. I did recommend or offer the services of our staff member to attend future meetings of the board, and that was confirmed again when the compliance review was presented on February 8.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: And is it fair to say that some of the items in the compliance review would have taken some period of time to be resolved?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Do you recall what some of those items might have been that would take some time?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, in terms of some of the issues that we felt might have been impairing the board's ability to function, obviously we were concerned about the amount of time that was being spent on certain issues and perhaps not on progressive reporting so that the board could have a full and immediate knowledge of what was happening. We were concerned about that.
We also realized that, given the fact that the building was either full or near to being full, we had to bring to the board's attention the importance of applicants being referred for every deep-core unit, but we realized that would take time to sort itself out.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: And even though this would take some time, you were still made aware by Ms Luu and Ms Pretty that they had concerns about the process?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, I believe at least Ms Pretty in her letter of March 1 and 4.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: You've also given indications that you thought some of the difficulties hampering the board were what you've described maybe as internal? Sorry, I should say, would you say it's fair that some of them you felt were internal issues?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes. We felt under the articles of incorporation that the board members had certain responsibilities to deal with, and to a certain extent we had great difficulty dealing with them.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Is it normal ministry process, at least within your region, that if there are internal processes the ministry does not try and get involved directly with those internal processes?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, that's difficult to say. We can facilitate and be helpful, but to a certain extent these corporations are self-governing and certain responsibilities are theirs.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Is it fair to say, then, that the ministry would point out these concerns or difficulties but would not normally be trying to take sides in resolving these internal processes?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: And was it your view that this also should occur regarding the Van Lang Centre, once it had been identified that there were certain internal processes, that the ministry should not be taking sides?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, we felt we were getting expressions of goodwill and a willingness to cooperate with us from the board as a whole and honestly felt that there was an intent on their part to comply with what we wanted the board to do. So in that context, we were quite prepared to let them deal with some of those issues that we felt were internal among themselves.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Okay. It's also in the evidence you've given that there were several requests for the minister to meet with the board and that on several occasions, including January, March or April, it was recommended that the minister not meet with the board?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: And that all the memos indicating that, that the minister shouldn't, predate the memo under tab 46, the May 18th one, advising that the minister should meet with the board? That's in exhibit 1, volume 2.
Mr Murphy: I'm not sure I understood that question.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Maybe I can clarify. I guess I was just trying to establish -- the memos advising the minister meeting with the board all predate May 18th?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Advising the minister not to meet with the board?
Mr Kimble Sutherland: To meet with the board all predate the May 18th memo?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, they do, but those recommendations are that she not, I believe.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Yes, sorry. That's right. Maybe I'm not being clear. Let me repeat that one more time. All the memos that advise the minister not to meet with the board predate the May 18th memo of advising that the minister will meet with the board?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Thank you. I think that's all the questions I have for right now, but can I pass rather than bank for the time being?
The Chair: Yeah. You've got 10 minutes left.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: All right.
1230
Mr Callahan: Mr Sutherland, I can have some sympathy for you here as a career civil servant giving evidence before a television camera, with your minister probably watching the proceedings.
You said something that struck me as rather significant. You said about the memo that you made June 17th, shortly after the meeting with the minister, that it was important that day, and then you made a more detailed memo in July when, I think if you look at your detailed statement -- I don't know whether commission counsel went through this, but you'll agree that nowhere in that detailed memo is there any mention whatsoever in the vein of your shorter memo of June 17th, namely, that there was some discussion about the legal proceedings. Do you agree with me?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Mr Callahan: Why is that? Let me set the stage. Did it have anything to do with the fact that on June 17th, although there had been press reports, there had not yet been a referral from the Legislature to a standing committee? At the time you did the detailed report, there had been a referral to the legislative committee, and can I kindly suggest that the detailed statement of July that you did was really what we would call damage control? Is that a fair statement?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I don't think I would categorize it that way. It was something I should have done earlier, but --
Mr Callahan: All right. If you're not going to categorize it as damage control, why did you not include what you had said in your memo of June 17th in your more detailed memo in July? Why is it not in there? Why did you leave it out?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Because I didn't feel it was something that needed to be addressed.
Mr Callahan: I see. So it wasn't that you forgot to put it in; it was the fact that you didn't consider it to be important at that time.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.
Mr Callahan: Well, if I suggest to you, Mr Sutherland, that in the detailed memo that you did in July at home on your computer -- you knew that you'd made this memo on June 17th, you knew that you'd referred to the termination of legal charges, and you didn't think it was important to put that in the detailed memo that you prepared? Is that what you're telling this committee?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I'm telling this committee that at the time I printed that memorandum on June 17th, there were a lot of things that seemed to be relevant and important at that time. Again, had I known that note was going to be widely circulated, like it was, I might have used different phraseology. But to me, I was just trying to bring my staff up to date on what the main elements of the meeting were and the fact that there might be a resolution to the issue.
Mr Callahan: Mr Sutherland, with respect, you haven't answered my question, because at the July memo being typed at home, you knew --
Mr Brian Sutherland: It was typed in the office.
Mr Callahan: I thought you said you did it at home. Wherever you typed it, at that time you knew there was going to be a legislative committee hearing, this event. It had been referred, the last day of the sittings in June, to the Legislative Assembly committee. Is that right?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Mr Callahan: Okay. And then you prepared a detailed statement, and you have admitted now under oath that you left out the phraseology you used in the June 17th memo, which clearly dealt with the issue that had been referred to the Legislative Assembly committee: Was there in fact discussion about the withdrawal of charges by the minister?
Now, I find that absolutely astounding, that you would not have considered that to be important in your July memo. Can you comment on that? You've told us you remembered it, but you didn't consider it to be important to put in the July expanded memo. Why?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Frankly, because when I did my note on June 17, I was attempting in the best way possible to provide my staff with a context for where things were. I know they made reference to charges and their being considered in the future, but I didn't feel it important to include that in my later notes.
Mr Callahan: But Mr Sutherland, this is a briefing presumably to all involved, who are going to want to know what went on in that meeting so they can answer questions properly here --
Ms Cronk: Excuse me, Mr Callahan. In fairness to the witness -- I don't mean to use your time, but that's not his evidence with respect to the purpose of those July 14th notes.
Mr Callahan: In any event, I think we can assume that he didn't just type them up for his own consumption. That's right, isn't it? That wasn't just your own little memo, was it? That was going to be circulated to people, wasn't it?
Mr Brian Sutherland: It was going to be circulated to people who had been actively involved with the file, yes.
Mr Callahan: Right, and people who would be subsequently actively involved in the file, ie, being called here as witnesses. Is that right? Yes or no?
Mr Brian Sutherland: There was that possibility, I suppose.
Mr Callahan: There was that possibility. All right, if there was that possibility and we knew that the terms of reference had now been struck and the matter had been referred to the Legislative Assembly specifically to deal with the question of whether or not the minister had asked the charges be withdrawn or whatever the terminology she used was, and you didn't include it in that memo that was going to be distributed to the people who were involved in this file -- that's what you're telling us.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Could you repeat that question, please?
Mr Callahan: Well, you're telling us that the terms of reference had been struck. The matter had been referred to the Legislative Assembly committee as of the last day of June or the last sitting day of June. You wrote this on July 14th. You've told us it was to be circulated among those people who would be involved with this file, including people who perhaps would be called before the committee, and you did not consider it important to include the terminology that you had used on the 17th of June, which apparently was the most important feature that you gleaned from the meeting, ie, that, "In any event, I believe that the minister was able to convince Sharron and the other board members to work towards a resolution of the matter prior to the charges being considered by the court early next month." You didn't consider that important to put in that more detailed memo?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I didn't.
Mr Callahan: I find that incredible. I have other questions, but my colleagues have questions as well. I'll pass to Mr Chiarelli.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you. Mr Sutherland, you're the senior bureaucrat for the ministry in eastern Ontario, a very important position. You attended the meeting of June 17th, and I have come to the tentative conclusion at this point, and I want to get some confirmation from you, that this was a politically driven meeting initiated through the minister and the minister's political staff. In particular, you are already referred to exhibit 1, volume 3, tab 65, which is the memo from political staff Karen Ridley to political staff Rob Sutherland notifying various people of the June 17th meeting and indicating that, "Bill to make sure every board member knows." So basically the bureaucrat in your office, Bill Clement, was to notify these people and this was done essentially on the instructions of political staff.
You have admitted that you attended the meeting. You as the senior bureaucrat in eastern Ontario did not have an agenda. You did not know what was going to be discussed. Indeed, you hadn't even been properly informed sufficiently so that you went to the wrong place for the meeting initially.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That was my mistake.
Mr Chiarelli: Well, in any case, I think the facts that I've outlined are sustained by the evidence to date. So I've tentatively concluded that it's a minister-driven meeting and it has a political connotation rather than a ministry connotation. How do you feel, as the senior bureaucrat, being asked to go to a meeting in which you were not even given an agenda and you didn't know what the subject matter was going to be?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I felt that we knew some of the issues, having provided briefing material on a fairly regular basis for the previous few weeks. So I certainly knew what the issues were in a general context.
Mr Chiarelli: But you had no agenda.
Mr Brian Sutherland: I didn't feel uncomfortable going to the meeting.
Mr Chiarelli: You didn't know whether this was a formal board meeting. The evidence is that there were no formal notices gone out to directors. There were a number of people who were invited, but they were not invited technically as a board meeting. But I'll leave that question for now and I want to go on to another one.
Evelyn Gigantes, the Minister of Housing, basically is your boss. Given the nature of these hearings, the fact that she's your boss, does your attendance here give you any level of discomfort, given the nature of the questions that necessarily would have to be asked of you?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, it's not a way I'd like to spend every day, I can assure you.
1240
Mr Chiarelli: Let me ask an additional question. Your memo of June 17th indicated that you felt the meeting was an "ordeal." You've indicated that you have 10 years' experience in the ministry. You're the senior bureaucrat in eastern Ontario and you found the meeting an ordeal. Do you think it must have been an ordeal and there must have been pressure on Sharron Pretty, who was a first-time board member of a non-profit housing corporation being summoned to a meeting? Given the nature of the communications which have been indicated in the evidence here, you having feel that as an ordeal, how must it have felt for Sharron Pretty, in your opinion?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, frankly, when I used that expression, that I felt it was an "ordeal," my thinking was that those staff members who were receiving that memorandum had been at similar meetings of that non-profit housing corporation involving the parties, and in many respects some of the things that were said at the meeting on June 17th and many of the dynamics of the meeting were very similar to what they had experienced at meetings that they had attended. That was my thinking and, you know, maybe it was an inappropriate word, but that was my thinking behind it.
Mr Chiarelli: One last, very short question: In your letter of June 15, 1994, exhibit 2, tab 54, to Dr Chi you said: "It is also premature to judge the outcome of the current state of affairs. In these circumstances, it is my advice that we all stand back until the charges have been..." proceeded "through the justice system. Do otherwise may be seen as interfering with due process." What is it in your information or experience bank that would lead you to write that in a letter?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, number one, we had had some dealings with the other group over the years, and I wanted to be sure that I didn't impose views or assistance on a situation that may not have been appropriate at the time, and I felt that this was a third-party intervention, a party that had no direct involvement in this non-profit, and that really given the information that they provided to me in their letter about charges --
Mr Chiarelli: If I can interrupt just for a minute, because I'm just about out of time, I wanted to bring to your attention the fact that you said in your letter "that we all stand back until the charges have been processed...." You didn't say that third party stand back; you said "we all stand back" because of the judicial process. I want to know what it is in your experience or information bank that would lead you to conclude that "we," meaning everybody that's involved presumably, should stand back. What would lead you to write that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, that was my feeling at the time and the use of the royal "we" -- I suppose I used it in that sense.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you.
Mr Murphy: I think you testified that in your view one of the options, I guess -- that they were left with no option for resolution of this issue perhaps but with a meeting with the minister. I think you said that at some point in terms of what --
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Mr Murphy: -- could happen at the Van Lang Centre. I assume from that that a satisfactory resolution coming out of that kind of meeting would include a dropping of the charges or a conclusion where the charges were resolved outside of court and the current directors, including Ms Pretty, could begin working together.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Mr Murphy: I assume that that would be not only a satisfactory resolution, but would probably be -- a purpose of the meeting would be to achieve that goal?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That may have been, yes. I --
Mr Murphy: It may have been? You mean, it's certainly likely that that was the purpose of the meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I again differ. I really feel that the purpose of the meeting was to do what could be done to get the parties together. I mean --
Mr Murphy: I would suspect that getting the parties together would have to include resolving outstanding court cases between the parties before them going to court. I mean, that only makes sense.
Mr Brian Sutherland: It may have involved or it may have precipitated a reconsideration of those things. I mean, that's certainly possible, yes.
Mr Murphy: You'll agree with me that part of the issue is the removal by the board of Sharron Pretty as a director?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Mr Murphy: And that a satisfactory resolution would include dealing with the issue of that resolution?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Mr Murphy: And dealing, in any event, with the issue of the charges?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Can you pose that question a little bit more clearly?
Mr Murphy: Well, you agreed that the way of resolving the issue, one way -- part of it -- is to deal with the issue of the motion to remove Sharron Pretty as director. You agreed that that is part of the resolution, a satisfactory resolution.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Mr Murphy: And that, in addition, part of a satisfactory resolution would be dealing with the issue of the charges.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, bearing in mind that it was still going to be up to Ms Pretty what she did, I mean, you know.
Mr Murphy: Oh, absolutely, but a satisfactory resolution would be Sharron Pretty deciding not to proceed. I'm not saying that you would go to the crown or anybody in the ministry would go to the crown. Sharron Pretty has to come to that conclusion, but her reaching that conclusion is part of a satisfactory result.
Mr Brian Sutherland: I suppose that would be a good result. Yes.
Mr Murphy: Now, I would like you, if I have even a minute, to turn to tab 79.
Mrs Marland: In what?
Mr Murphy: In exhibit 1, volume 3. This has got the fax cover page from Patti Redmond to you with the two memos attached, one of them dealing with Ms Pretty's court cases and the other with the issue of how a board can remove a director.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Mr Murphy: And these were sent to you prior to the June 17th meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, they were.
Mr Murphy: The first memo talks about the court cases, Ms Pretty, and then goes on to reference specifically the second memo dealing with the removal of the directors. Right on the first page there, after the fax sheet.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Mm-hmm.
Mr Murphy: So you have a memo in which the charges and the removal of directors are dealt with in the same page prior to the June 17th meeting.
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's right.
Mr Murphy: And you would agree with me that it's sensible to conclude that the preparation of these memos would be done, in part, for preparation by staff and the minister for the meeting on the 17th.
Mr Brian Sutherland: I think there was an attempt made to clarify just what the issues were, and I suppose they're best reflected in these memorandums, yes.
Mr Murphy: And that would be for the purpose of the June 17th meeting.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Mr Murphy: So it would be then clear that the two issues, removal of a director and the status of the charge, are linked ideas in this memo prior to the June 17th meeting.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I sense they were an attempt made internally to clarify the issues. I don't know that I understand the connection that you're making.
Mr Murphy: Well, I guess what I'm trying to get at, and I'll put it to you straight out, is that it strikes me that this leads to a conclusion that prior to the June 17th meeting there was a clear understanding that dropping the charges and getting rid of the motion to remove Sharron Pretty was within the mind of the ministry people and the minister prior to the meeting and that attendance at that meeting was in part done to achieve that very goal. Those two things were linked ahead of time, and the meeting was intended in part to raise those issues as linked ideas at the meeting on June 17th.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I can't comment on that, because certainly that was not my thinking on the meeting.
Mr Murphy: But it could be others' thinking, if not yours?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I suppose it could be.
1250
The Chair: Okay, Mr Murphy, time's run out, and we go to the third party and we have Mr Harnick first.
Mr Harnick: Thank you. Sir, is it safe to say that as we moved from January, or December 30th, when you began attending meetings at Van Lang, and we move towards the June 17th meeting, this problem at Van Lang was getting bigger and bigger and bigger? Is that safe to say?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I think the problem involving people was getting bigger and bigger and bigger.
Mr Harnick: And in fact, as the senior bureaucrat in the Ottawa area, you were trying to deal with this problem in-house, so to speak, and confine it and deal with it and solve the problem among your own ministry staff. Is that correct?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Mr Harnick: By the time the June 17th meeting came along, it appears to me, from reading all of the documentation, that there were people in Toronto, both political staff and senior bureaucrats, who felt that the situation had not been resolved, and accordingly, they were taking steps to have a meeting with the minister. Is that correct?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I don't know whether it's correct. I suppose that would be a fair assessment.
Mr Harnick: In fact, you, all the way along, wanted to solve this problem without that intervention, correct?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I felt we were working towards a resolution, yes.
Mr Harnick: Then intervening were the charges that Ms Pretty had laid, which in your mind, I would state, really changed your assessment about the nature of this whole problem. Is that correct?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I'm not sure I understand your point.
Mr Harnick: Well, once those charges were laid, you yourself appreciated that this situation had become, for want of a better term, a dangerous situation.
Mr Brian Sutherland: I suppose that would be true, yes.
Mr Harnick: In fact, in your own mind, once charges are laid -- as a senior, seasoned, experienced bureaucrat, you yourself would recognize that once charges were laid, it's part of your job to isolate the minister from getting involved in any aspect of a charge before a provincial or any court. Is that correct?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, anything that I felt was not in the minister's best interests, of course.
Mr Harnick: And certainly, in your view, the minister coming to Ottawa to meet at this particular meeting was something that was not in the best interests of the minister. Isn't that correct?
I'll make it a little easier for you. To be perfectly fair, nobody asked you, and accordingly you were told to come to a meeting, and you had to come to the meeting because you were, in a sense, summoned to be there. But no one asked you your opinion, and had they, it would have been your opinion that this was not in the best interests of the minister. Is that correct?
Mr Brian Sutherland: It may have been. I --
Mr Harnick: Well, certainly it was your opinion when you wrote a letter on June 15th.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes, again --
Mr David Winninger (London South): Point of order through the Chair to our counsel: Is it appropriate in this forum to be asking hypothetical questions to elicit hypothetical answers?
Mr Harnick: There's nothing hypothetical about that question and I resent your interruption.
Mr Winninger: No, I'm sorry. Can I complete my point of order?
Mrs Marland: Could we have the time, Mr Chair?
The Chair: I've got it shut off.
Mr Winninger: The point of order was this: If the question is phrased "if," in a hypothetical fashion to elicit a hypothetical answer, I'm asking for advice from our counsel whether this is an appropriate line of questioning or whether the witness could be excused from making hypothetical answers.
Mr Harnick: It's cross-examination.
Ms Cronk: If the question is hypothetical, then I have some difficulty with the question being posed. As I wrote it down, I didn't hear it that way, but it's quite possible I wrote it down incorrectly. But as a hypothetical question, the traditional rule, in proceedings of this kind, is that can only be put to experts, and if Mr Harnick intended it as an opinion to an expert bureaucrat, you're into a different debate.
The Chair: Mr Stupart, I believe you have an opinion.
Mr Stupart: Yes, it was posing a situation which hadn't occurred and therefore you can't expect a witness who is testifying purely as an administrator rather than as a professional expert to answer something which would be within a professional knowledge. This is posing facts which didn't exist and therefore weren't considered and therefore can't be answered.
Ms Cronk: Maybe, Mr Chair, the matter could be resolved if Mr Harnick can put his question again. Our understanding of the question was that the first may have caused some problem, but the second, as I heard it and wrote it down, wasn't hypothetical. But again, I may not have written it down correctly. I leave that to Mr Harnick.
Mr Harnick: Sir, would you agree with me that for a minister to go to a meeting in the face of charges before a court would be a dangerous situation? Would you agree with that?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I would say it would be perhaps an undesirable situation.
Mr Harnick: Close enough. I want to deal for a moment with the actual meeting. You've told us that you don't recall specifics of what was said and what wasn't said, but I'm sure you read the Ottawa newspapers, and on the 20th of June, there's a comment from the minister where it says, in an article by Dave Rider, "Gigantes said yesterday she only laid options on the table and did not pressure either side to take any action.
"`I said [talking to the crown] is a possibility and I presume it is, but I don't know,' she said." You weren't surprised when you saw that in the newspaper?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Frankly, I was surprised, yes.
Mr Harnick: She said that at the meeting and you don't deny that she said that.
Mr Brian Sutherland: I don't remember her saying that.
Mr Harnick: All right. I just want to deal with one other aspect before I turn this over to my colleague. One of the things you said in your memo, at tab number 90, the Friday June 17th memo two hours after the meeting. You said, "There seems to be more willingness to resolve matters in house although Sharron remains unpredictable and could sabotage things on short notice."
Sir, the reason you thought that she could sabotage things was because everything that happened at this meeting was predicated on her withdrawing the charges, and if she changed her mind, you were back to square one. Is that correct?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That phraseology, again, I wish that I had not used, but having dealt with Ms Pretty and having had my staff deal with Ms Pretty, I felt that it was difficult to predict what her reaction to any suggestion might be.
Mr Harnick: In fact, the minister seemed to have reached the stage at this ordeal of a meeting where she was almost at a point where it was felt that Ms Pretty might withdraw the charges and then everybody could move on from there. Is that correct?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I think there was an agreement near the end of the meeting for people to reconsider their positions.
Mr Harnick: And that position with Ms Pretty amounted to her withdrawing her charges. Is that correct?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's not the way I remember it.
Mr Harnick: What sabotage then could there be? I want you to tell me what sabotage there could be other than the fact that she would change her mind and not withdraw the charges. You used the word; you now tell us what sabotage there could be.
Mr Brian Sutherland: I think it's an inappropriate use of the word --
Mr Harnick: No, I'm not asking for --
Mr Brian Sutherland: -- but I was simply saying that the arrangements may or may not proceed because, based on our experience with Ms Pretty, that was very unpredictable.
Mr Harnick: And what arrangements were those?
Mr Brian Sutherland: To meet at a future date.
Mr Harnick: So all you were worried about here was that Ms Pretty might decide not to come to another meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That was my primary concern.
Mr Harnick: And that would sabotage everything?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Obviously, if she wouldn't meet, that would take things back to where they were.
Mr Harnick: All right. Those are my questions.
1300
Mrs Marland: Mr Sutherland, I'm concerned that in your evidence today you're talking a number of times about this memo that you wrote two and a half hours after the meeting. A number of times you've said those are not words that you would have used; your actual words were, "Had I known it was to be distributed far and wide, I would have used other wording." I'm very concerned that the most senior bureaucrat in the Ministry of Housing in Ottawa has one lot of wording for internal memos and another selection of wording for material that might become public. What does that indicate about how you do your job?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I suppose it indicates that I'm prone to saying things or writing things internally that may sometimes be my view of things. They may be somewhat of an exaggerated view. I --
Mrs Marland: So when you write something that is external -- as you did one month after the meeting, which was to be the official summary of your recollection of that meeting, and you selectively chose to omit the key point of what this hearing is all about, this hearing that has been criticized because it's costing the taxpayers a great deal of money -- when you choose to omit the main focus of this hearing on the 14th of July, when you're writing your recollection, after this hearing has been set to look into the question of conflict of interest, you then write your recollection of that meeting without making any reference to any discussion about charges. And yet, two and a half hours after the meeting on the 17th of June, you did write an internal memo that refers very clearly to the matter of charges.
So I ask you again, are you misleading the public -- and you are a senior bureaucrat; you're accountable to the public of this province, not only your minister -- are you misleading the people in this province by writing two versions of what happened at a meeting?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, I don't feel I am. I was simply trying to let my staff know in the vernacular, and again, the expressions used might not have been appropriate, but --
Mrs Marland: Okay, so --
Ms Cronk: Let him finish, Mrs Marland.
Mrs Marland: Sorry.
Mr Brian Sutherland: But I was simply trying to give them a recap, as I saw it at that time, of the meeting.
Mrs Marland: So do you feel that your obligation is greater to your staff than to the people of this province, so that when you come to write a résumé of the meeting that's going to become public, you selectively choose to ignore the inclusion of something that you thought was important to the staff, which, there's no question, in reading it, was the only focus of that meeting, in terms of your recollection on the 17th of June, the day that you wrote the memo?
Mr Brian Sutherland: When I was thinking about the charges, I was thinking about them being heard and I was thinking about there being an opportunity between the time of the meeting on the 17th and those charges being heard. I didn't know whether they would or wouldn't be heard. I just used that as an example of, here is a time period that, you know, parties may be able to get together.
Mrs Marland: So on the 14th of July, when you write your in-depth -- not just a brief e-mail -- when you write your in-depth recollection, you choose to ignore the fact that charges were discussed. Is that selective editing on your recollection of that meeting on the 17th?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, it was not. I don't feel it was.
Mr Stupart: That wasn't his evidence.
Interjections.
Mrs Marland: I would like to ask you, Mr Sutherland: You were shown files this morning which came from your ministry files, actually, which we have not seen yet. In those files, you saw a number of documents, and they included the conflict-of-interest guidelines. Our counsel showed you these files. Would the various staff who put those files together and sent them to you as a package, including the conflict-of-interest guidelines dealing with this meeting on the 17th of June -- would it be your assumption that the same package of material would have gone to other people?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I don't know.
Mrs Marland: I haven't seen the files. Is there any indication on the files that they were circulated, including to the minister's office?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I don't know that.
Mrs Marland: Are most of the things that are sent to you copied, to use your own expression, "far and wild"?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Far and wide?
Mrs Marland: Well, it seems that everything that we have from the ministry, everybody's copied on everything, and that seems to be a normal circulation route.
Mr Brian Sutherland: I'm just not understanding your question, Mrs Marland.
Mrs Marland: Okay. Well, I'll go to another question.
The main concern of Ms Luu and Ms Pretty all along has been that the Van Lang Centre has been operating out of compliance with your ministry's own guidelines. Setting aside what you and your staff refer to as -- in fact your answer was that: "The problems were overstated, most of the problems were beyond the scope of their mandate, and we felt we'd been doing our best. It's a self-governing corporation." This is how you've described the Van Lang Centre.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes. Well, to a certain extent, yes.
Mrs Marland: One of the major concerns that was -- and by the way, this is the material. These are copies of the material, the in-depth reports that went to you, Mr Clement and all the staff in Ottawa.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Mrs Marland: In this material there is a reference to the fact that one of their main concerns is about the lack of an operating agreement and the incorrect vision, to use their words, of Dr Can Le's tenant selection.
I would like to bring to your attention the fact that the auditor's report of 1992 had the same concerns as Ms Pretty and Ms Luu, and that was before their involvement with the Van Lang Centre. In the auditor's report, he addresses the fact that accountability is a major concern for him in this program. He addresses the fact that a lack of operating agreements is a major concern.
In your ministry guidelines for the operation of non-profit housing corporations, there is a requirement for written agreements in a number of areas, and one of those happens to be tenant selection.
You stated in your evidence yesterday that you agreed with the statement of background facts where tenant selection for a certain category of tenants, those that come from the local housing authority, has to be 50% -- has to be, pardon me, 20% -- and yet the selection of tenants according to the ministry guidelines is in fact 50%.
Do you think that your staff for whom you are responsible -- Mr Shapiro, Ms McCredie and Mr Clement -- have been doing their job, when we now know that the ministry guidelines have not been adhered to; and when problems arose, why would you not have insisted that's the first remedy, that there be an operating agreement signed with this corporation? Would you not then have saved all the expense of this hearing, all the embarrassment of the risk to your minister being challenged with a conflict of interest? Do you not see it as your responsibility for all of those things that are in contravention to your own ministry guidelines for non-profit housing corporations? Do you not see it as your responsibility that you could have saved the cost of this hearing, let alone the embarrassment to your minister going to a meeting, which you yourself have identified is something we should all hold back from because there were pending court appearances?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, in answer to your first question about compliance review and what the requirements are, under the Homes Now program, at least a minimum of 40% of the Homes Now project were required for deep-core households. In this case that would have amounted to 28 units, and of those 28 units, half should be referred by the local housing authority. According to our information, according to all the information we have, that was done. That was done in the first instance, and there have been referrals since last August, since we conducted our compliance review. So according to the guidelines under this program, it's our view that the group is complying with our requirements.
1310
Mrs Marland: And the rest of the question, the operating agreement?
Mr Brian Sutherland: As far as the operating agreement is concerned, I know that the deputy made a presentation before the public accounts committee a year ago and undertook to have a final operating agreement for all provincial unilateral programs by the end of 1994. That agreement now is in the final stages of development, and as soon as it has been completed -- because it does involve some consultation with people involved in the non-profit housing activity -- as soon as that agreement is finalized we will be, without delay, going out and signing agreements with all non-profit housing corporations that have been funded under the unilateral programs.
Mrs Marland: And the last question: Could you have saved the expense of this hearing and the embarrassment to your minister if your staff, and you in particular who are responsible for those staff, had done your job so that this whole scenario had never gone down that slippery slope?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Well, I honestly feel that my staff had done their job and I'm confident that our work at that non-profit housing corporation will prove beneficial in the long run.
Mrs Marland: You're not concerned about the absence of an operating agreement, and a compliance report that refers to "reconciliation of bank statements has not been completed for eight months, blank cheques are pre-signed by both the signatories to that cheque, current financial statements are not routinely tabled at board meetings" -- you're not concerned about any of those things enough to have an operating agreement? Because you, in your evidence yesterday, referred to contractual agreements.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Mrs Marland: And you do not have, as I understand, a contractual operating agreement.
The Chair: Ms Marland, your time has run out.
Mrs Marland: I just want him to answer that question.
The Chair: Okay, can you answer, sir?
Mr Brian Sutherland: We do not as yet have an operating agreement for this particular project, but we will have very soon.
The Chair: Mr Sutherland, you had one more question?
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Yes. Actually, I just had a couple.
Mr Murphy: Point of order, actually, if I can, Mr Chair: I think we agreed that we could bank our time. I don't remember there ever being agreement that you could save your time to jump over a rotation. My understanding of the practice is you go -- you have been rotating by order of who starts and there never was agreement that we could do that.
The Chair: Being Chair of many committees, we've practised always --
Mr Murphy: On this committee.
The Chair: Okay, I know. I realize that wasn't discussed. I know we talked about banking in the terms of reference that we had.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Mr Chair, I understand that we didn't discuss this issue directly, but it is fairly standard procedure that if parties don't use all the time, you can come back. I've experienced that in many committees I've participated in.
Mr Harnick: The difficulty with the proposal that Mr Sutherland makes is that we go in a particular order so that on each occasion someone goes first and someone goes last and someone goes in the middle. If Mr Sutherland decides that he wants to defer his questions, he can go last every time, and that's not fair. I presume -- and Mrs Marland will have something to say about that -- that's why the subcommittee set up the rules that they set up.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, if I may speak as a member of the subcommittee: If what Mr Sutherland as a subcommittee member is suggesting were to be the case, then we're all going to be banking time because we're all wanting to rebut questions of the other members. I just cannot see, Mr Chair, that it's possible for you to manage that kind of sequencing.
The Chair: It's more difficult for the Chair, I can tell you. Mr Johnson.
Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I think if you check Hansard, you'll see that Mr Kimble Sutherland asked to just defer. At that time, there was no objection from any of the opposition members. I think it would have been appropriate for them to make that point at that time so that Mr Sutherland could have continued his questioning, rather than to defer their complaint to the point in time when he wants to raise further questions and now tell him he can't.
Mr Chiarelli: I clearly understood Mr Sutherland to say that he wanted not to use all his time. I can't recall the actual words, but I was left with the impression that he wanted to bank his time the way some of us have done on a number of occasions, which means that he could use that time for other witnesses, not as rebuttal time.
Mr Callahan: I think, clearly, if we're applying any analogy to a courtroom, you certainly wouldn't be able to hang back like that and then just keep asking questions of witnesses. I think if that's the rules that were set by the subcommittee, we abide by them. I don't know whether Mr Sutherland originally intended that he might want to ask questions, to reinstate perhaps the witness, and that's why he deferred his time. I don't know why he did it, but I certainly won't support that. I think it's unfair, totally unfair.
Mr Murphy: It is a new point. In fact, we discussed the issue of re-examination in the subcommittee -- at one I was at, in any event -- specifically. In that context, it was only that counsel was doing re-examination, reserved the right to do that after we did our rotation. So the issue was addressed. At no time was there an agreement that what Mr Sutherland MPP is now asking could be done. I think, you know, it's going to lead to an untenable situation where each of us tries to save a little bit of time so that we can go after the last person, until you're down to two-second questions. This is a different committee than normal. It is intended to keep the rotation in order. So I don't think we can do it workably.
The Chair: Is there a possibility we come to an agreement that the government party has done it once, and once for the Conservatives and once for the Liberals, and we solve the problem?
Mrs Marland: No.
Interjections: No.
The Chair: There's no way of coming together? As the Chair, I'm going to have to rule. It wasn't laid out that we could defer our time, other than bank our time with another witness. So I think I'm going to rule as the Chair so we can let our witness go. He's been on the stand for quite a while.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: What about legal counsel?
The Chair: Yes, I will. I'm going to rule to the point that we use our time -- if it's 20 minutes, the 20 minutes is used up by the caucus on the regular rotation. Okay? Ms Cronk.
Ms Cronk: Could you look at tab 90 again, if you would, please, Mr Sutherland: exhibit 1, volume 3.
Mr Brian Sutherland: I have it.
Ms Cronk: Do you have that, sir? I just wanted to clarify one point, Mr Sutherland, arising out of some of the questioning. Whatever else the words are and whatever else the words mean, is it correct that nowhere in this memorandum do you specifically use the words "withdrawal" or "dropping" of charges?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And with respect to this issue over the Ministry of Housing files and the presence on the brad, as I suggested to you, of the conflict-of-interest guidelines and certain questions put to you, is it correct that the documents in the first instance compiled for forwarding to this committee for the purposes of this hearing were compiled at the Ottawa offices, your offices, in the first instance?
Mr Brian Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that they were thereafter directed to Toronto?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And from Toronto ultimately made their way to the committee through the committee's counsel?
Mr Brian Sutherland: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Do you know, Mr Sutherland, or are you in a position to indicate to the committee, what happened to the files or how they were organized in Toronto after they left your offices?
Mr Brian Sutherland: I'm aware that they were sent to the assistant deputy minister's office and some work was done in organizing them, but that's about the extent of my knowledge.
Ms Cronk: But were all original documents pertaining to this matter as contained on your Ottawa files sent through to Toronto for delivery to the committee through our offices?
Mr Brian Sutherland: To my knowledge, yes.
Ms Cronk: Is Ms Janet McCredie part of your staff? By that, I mean part of the Ministry of Housing staff.
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, Ms McCredie is a staff member of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Housing Authority.
Ms Cronk: Finally, Mr Sutherland, I ask all witnesses this, either in re-examination or initial examination, and I did of witnesses yesterday: Given everything that you've said here this morning and everything that you've been asked about these events, is there anything further that you wish to say to this committee or comment upon with respect to the June 17th meeting and your recollection of it?
Mr Brian Sutherland: No, there is not.
Ms Cronk: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate your testimony.
Mr Brian Sutherland: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sutherland, for appearing before the committee.
We're going to be taking a recess for one hour and we'll be back in here at 2:20 sharp. We're going to have a subcommittee meeting at 2:10 in room 110.
Legal counsel has a question.
Ms Cronk: I just wanted to raise with the committee through the Chair before your luncheon break my request that the committee, if possible, sit later this evening to complete certain of the evidence that we will be hearing today. I wonder if the committee could give me some direction as to its willingness to do that. I have witnesses lined up.
Interjections: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Okay, recessed until 2:20.
The committee recessed from 1320 to 1436.
MARC COLLINS
The Chair: I'd like to welcome our next witness, which is Marc Collins. The clerk will read you the oath.
Clerk of the Committee: Do you affirm 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?
Mr Marc Collins: I do.
The Chair: Ms Cronk, your witness.
Ms Cronk: Mr Chair, members of the committee, Mr Collins is represented today by Ms Freya Kristjanson, sitting to his left. Mr Collins, good afternoon.
Mr Collins: Good afternoon.
Ms Cronk: As I understand it, Mr Collins, you are a special assistant in the office of the Minister of Housing here in Toronto. Is that correct?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: On policy matters?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: What is the technical description of your position?
Mr Collins: Technical description? Most people would consider it a policy adviser role. My area of responsibility covers all issues related to social housing.
Ms Cronk: And you have held that position since approximately May of 1993?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: As I understand it, you're actually on secondment from the Ministry of Housing to the minister's office. Is that correct?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Previously, did you also serve as a policy adviser in the Ministry of Housing?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: In what branch of the Ministry of Housing was that?
Mr Collins: The housing policy branch.
Ms Cronk: To whom do you directly report in your current position with the minister?
Mr Collins: A combination of the chief of staff and the minister herself.
Ms Cronk: Could I show you a copy of what I recall has been marked as exhibit 3. It's called Schedule of Involved Persons, for want of a better title, and I'm going to direct your attention to the entries under D for the office of the Minister of Housing in Toronto. Do you see that?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Could you just confirm for me by taking a quick look down the list of those seven individuals that their job descriptions have been properly described, and if not, could you indicate for me if there's any changes to be made.
Mr Collins: The descriptions appear correct, though two of the names listed are people who are no longer in the office and have been replaced by other staff, some of whom have been mentioned in the hearings so far.
Ms Cronk: Who are the two who are no longer on the staff of the ministry?
Mr Collins: Number 5, Ezia Cervoni, the scheduler, what we would call the external scheduler, the person who deals with meetings that the minister has with people outside of the ministry.
Mrs Marland: I'm sorry; I couldn't hear the name.
Mr Collins: Ezia Cervoni, listed as D5 on this piece of paper. She was the external scheduler until some point in April -- I can't recall the exact date that she left -- was replaced temporarily on an interim basis by Jenny Lam and subsequently was replaced on a permanent basis by Karen Ridley.
Ms Cronk: And the second individual?
Mr Collins: Number 6, Newton Vanriel is no longer employed in our office.
Ms Cronk: And when did he leave, if you recall?
Mr Collins: I can't recall the exact date. I think it was some time in May, but I don't know.
Ms Cronk: Of this year?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And in your position with the minister, particularly having regard to your area of primary responsibility, do you have frequent or infrequent contact with her constituency offices?
Mr Collins: Relatively infrequent, I would say, in terms of the people I deal with on a regular basis. The constituency offices are far down the list in terms of frequency.
Ms Cronk: And on matters that might arise in the minister's constituency office relating to a housing project, would you deal with representatives of her constituency office on those kinds of issues?
Mr Collins: Yes, the constituency office staff basically funnel information to me or others in the office, or to the ministry itself on an as-needed basis, but I would not deal with them in terms of the substance or content of the issues. It would be a transferring-of-information type of relationship.
Ms Cronk: All right. And with respect to the Ministry of Housing itself in Toronto, would your contact with representatives of that office be frequent or infrequent in the carrying out of your duties?
Mr Collins: Very frequent.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you then to look at part A of schedule 3, and if you could just take a moment again and read the names there and indicate to me if their positions are properly described. I understand there may be some change with respect to Karen Ridley, for example, but you may not be in a position to help me with that.
Mr Collins: Number 3, Bob Arsenault -- I'm not sure what this is intended to mean -- acting information liaison. Bob is -- as far as I know, his title is manager of the information liaison section. Those are what I refer to as the briefing note people.
Ms Cronk: Any other changes?
Mr Collins: Number 7, Lucy Martins, just for the reference of the -- for you and the committee, is technically employed by the deputy minister's office as receptionist, but she also acts as receptionist for our office, the minister's office. It's a joint reception desk.
Karen Ridley, of course, I've identified as the minister's external scheduler. She was previously the executive assistant to the parliamentary assistant. That of course is not a Ministry of Housing job. It's a political position.
Ms Cronk: And she's now external scheduler for the minister.
Mr Collins: Yes, but the number 8 and the person who was -- if it was of any concern to include that position on the list, it should be in section D, not --
Ms Cronk: Not A.
Mr Collins: Not A.
Ms Cronk: Thank you for that. You referred a few moments ago to Bob Arsenault's department, that is, the information liaison section, as being the briefing note people. The committee has before it, Mr Collins, as perhaps you are aware, a number of documents entitled Background Notes Relating to the Van Lang Centre or Issues Concerning It, and they are dated from June of 1993 through until June of 1994. In your position with the minister would you, as part of the normal course of your duties, review background notes prepared for the minister?
Mr Collins: Yes, I always review the notes.
Ms Cronk: And would that be so whether they originated in Toronto with information liaison section staff or with Ministry of Housing representatives in Ottawa?
Mr Collins: Yes, I review the notes that pertain to my subject area of responsibility.
Ms Cronk: So any background note dealing with a housing project issue you would review?
Mr Collins: A social housing project, yes.
Ms Cronk: And did you, with respect to the Van Lang Centre, see and review, over the course of June 1993 through until July of 1994, a series of background notes?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Once having reviewed them, would you discuss their contents from time to time directly with the minister?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Mr Harnick: Before you get into the actual factual investigation, there's one thing that I am not clear of in terms of the background of Mr Collins, and that is whether he is at present in a position that is a political appointment or whether he is a member of the civil service in his position at the present time.
Ms Cronk: Could you answer the question, Mr Collins?
Mr Collins: I'll answer to the best of my ability, and the answer is I'm both. I work directly for the Minister of Housing and I am part of the political staff of that office. My salary is paid by the Ministry of Housing and I remain a civil servant on secondment to the political office.
Mr Harnick: I understand.
Ms Cronk: Okay.
Mr Murphy: Could I just follow up? Has that always been the case throughout the piece?
Mr Collins: Throughout?
Mr Murphy: Throughout the relevant times related to what we're here for.
Mr Collins: Yes. I began in the office in May of 1993 and was first -- I think the first sort of relevant incident related to the Van Lang Centre in terms of our office occurred in June. I was not aware that my predecessor had any dealings with the Van Lang issues.
Ms Cronk: I think the question was also directed to whether you were a civil servant on secondment to the political staff of the minister's office for the full period from May, let's take it from May 1993 through to date?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Just dealing then with your role with respect to the minister and your frequency of contact with her, during the course of that time frame, starting from last May when you took the position, or at least secondment began, with what regularity would you meet with the minister, how frequently?
Mr Collins: On issues related to Van Lang or in general?
Ms Cronk: General.
Mr Collins: I see the minister virtually daily when she's in the office, and part of my duties involve dealing with ministry briefings, internal ministry briefings, that occur on a regular weekly basis. We review those notes separately and then usually get together to talk about it before the ministry briefing.
Ms Cronk: Were there --
Mr Collins: I guess to be useful, I would just say I deal with her daily.
Ms Cronk: Were there set times for more formalized briefings on a regular basis with the minister? For example, did you meet every week with others involved in the office with her?
Mr Collins: No, not in that format. When there are specific meetings or briefings, we squeeze in as much time as we can to discuss the issues before the actual formal meeting occurs. Other times it's sort of -- it's already been revealed that Evelyn smokes, so when she goes down between meetings or between responsibilities to have a cigarette, she's always accompanied by someone from the staff who are briefing her or questioning her or getting her opinions at that time.
Ms Cronk: I see. I take it there are occasions more formal than that for those kinds of briefings to occur on a regular basis as well?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Not just when the lady has a cigarette?
Mr Collins: No, but I'm saying that's often the time that issues of this sort are discussed. When you've got five or 10 minutes you take the opportunity to discuss it.
Ms Cronk: You take your time with her when you can?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. When special meetings or briefings were held, I take it it was on an ad hoc basis including as informal an occasion as the kind you just described?
Mr Collins: Yes, and usually always those kinds of briefings are a prelude to an actual ministry briefing or an event occurring. I wouldn't want to characterize the situation in that I have regular meetings with her to just discuss unspecified items or whatever is on the top of my list of things I'd like to talk to her about. She's busy enough that we basically only brief her on those things that are immediately upcoming that she has to deal with herself.
Ms Cronk: When then, turning to the concerns of this committee, Mr Collins, do you first recall becoming acquainted with the Van Lang Centre and of concerns or matters relating to that facility?
Mr Collins: That would be in June of 1993.
Ms Cronk: And would it be correct of me to suggest that from that time forward, continuing until early July of 1994 and thereafter, you had regular involvement with respect to issues concerning the Van Lang Centre in the sense of being provided with information of developments and information that came into the minister's office about that facility or issues related to it?
Mr Collins: That's correct.
1450
Ms Cronk: You may or may not be aware, Mr Collins, but the committee is operating under some rather tight time constraints at the moment, so what I am going to do is to put some general questions to you about the state of your involvement and knowledge during the first nine or 10 months of that period, and if there is anything significant or important that you wish to point out to the committee that I don't ask you about, would you please do that.
But generally, then, from June of 1993 through until December of 1993, during that period, did you become aware of the expression of concerns regarding the management practices and certain of the staff, including management staff, at the Van Lang Centre, by first a Trinh Luu and secondly a tenant director by the name of Sharron Pretty?
Mr Collins: I was trying to listen carefully to the phrasing of your question. I became aware of these issues through contact with the minister's constituency office, of which the staff were funnelling me information, and from staff in the ministry. So I was aware of the existence of a Trinh Luu, because her name -- she was the one providing some of the documents, and I became aware of a Sharron Pretty, but to date have met neither of them personally.
Ms Cronk: And did you on occasion speak to Sharron Pretty during the course of the last year by telephone about matters related to the Van Lang Centre?
Mr Collins: No. As I just said, I have not met either Trinh Luu or Sharron Pretty.
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Mr Collins: At all.
Ms Cronk: I understand that, but during the course of the last year, did you speak by telephone --
Mr Collins: No.
Ms Cronk: -- with Sharron Pretty?
Mr Collins: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you speak by telephone with Trinh Luu?
Mr Collins: I had one conversation with Trinh Luu on June the second of 1994.
Ms Cronk: And you said that information came to you concerning the Van Lang Centre from two sources, the constituency office and from the Ministry of Housing, correct?
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Did you deal then with representatives of the minister's constituency office on matters related to the Van Lang Centre on a regular basis during the course of the last year?
Mr Collins: No, other than being the recipient of faxes and materials being sent in. To the best of my recollection, I spoke to Sue Lott once early in the June-July period to just get some clarification in terms of who she thought the players were and what the relative importance of this was. Subsequent to that, I was dealing with ministry staff, but had continued to receive on a fairly regular basis faxes and information via the constituency office.
Ms Cronk: Have you met Sue Lott?
Mr Collins: I met Sue Lott Monday evening for the first time.
Ms Cronk: Of this week?
Mr Collins: Yes. We were both here at the end of the day.
Ms Cronk: And have you met Audrey Moey from the constituency office?
Mr Collins: I met her today.
Ms Cronk: For the first time?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And then coming back to the issue of the information that was being provided to you during that first six or seven months for the period June through to the end of December 1993, I may have put the question badly. What I intended to ask you was, during that period of time, were you made aware of concerns being expressed by Sharron Pretty or Trinh Luu regarding the Van Lang Centre?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: For example, there was a letter from Sharron Pretty addressed to Evelyn Gigantes, as the Minister of Housing, dated October 29th, 1993. Did you see a copy of that letter?
Mr Collins: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: At or around the time that it arrived in the minister's office?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And prior to its receipt, had you been made aware of or had you seen letters from Trinh Luu to various people at the Van Lang Centre and at the Ministry of Housing, for example, Mr Brian Sutherland, expressing concerns relating to the centre?
Mr Collins: I know I received information over the period of the summer. I certainly knew who Trinh Luu was and I had a fairly good grasp of what her issues were. I can't recall specifically -- if I saw the items, I think I would be able to recall them, but I can't off the top of my head recall precisely which pieces of correspondence and which reports I saw up to that point.
Ms Cronk: All right. Did you, in addition to the letter from Sharron Pretty, the October 29, 1993, letter from Sharron Pretty, become aware of letters from another tenant at the Van Lang Centre, Mr Michael Séguin, that were forwarded either to the constituency office or to the minister's office in Toronto?
Mr Collins: I recall one letter from Mr Séguin being part of a package that was faxed to me from the constituency office.
Ms Cronk: Just dealing first with the letter from Sharron Pretty of October 29 -- perhaps Ms Kristjanson can help you. There are four volumes of documents that have been marked before the committee, and if you could look first at volume 2 of exhibit 1, tab 11, this is the letter from Ms Pretty to the minister, Ms Gigantes, dated October 29th, 1993. Do you see that?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: In terms of the timing of its receipt by the minister's office in Toronto, do you know and can you help the committee as to when it was received?
Mr Collins: I receive copies automatically of all correspondence to the minister related to social housing matters, so this letter arrived, at some point subsequent to its arrival in the deputy minister's office, to my office. My recollection, though, is that it was actually faxed to me by the constituency office, that they had received a copy. I didn't bring my file with me. I assumed that everything that would be needed would be in here. There may very well be a fax. I mean, I can clarify that I saw the letter shortly after it arrived, whichever place it came from.
Ms Cronk: My question was really directed to when it was actually received in the minister's office, the actual time frame.
Could I ask you to go to tab 18 of that brief, the one that you have in front of you, volume 2. If you look at this tab, Mr Collins, you'll see a draft letter at the front of it dated January 11th, 1994, but behind it as the first attachment, another copy of the October 29th letter, and there's a date stamp, a receipt stamp, in the top right-hand corner, of December 22nd, 1993, office of the Deputy Minister of Housing. Did I understand you to say a few moments ago that it would have come to you, in the normal course, after its receipt in the Ministry of Housing, that is, the deputy minister's offices? Is that correct?
Mr Collins: That's correct, yes.
Ms Cronk: And in addition, in this case you think you received a copy from the constituency office?
Mr Collins: I don't have a clear recollection of either way, but I just know that I had received a number of letters through the constituency office and managed to have them arrive in my office before they came through the normal channels of the ministry. As I said, I can't say, without checking my actual file, whether that was the case with this letter.
Ms Cronk: This document suggests that the deputy minister's offices received it on December 22nd. Could I ask you to go to tab 15.
Mrs Marland: Ms Cronk, you've drawn our attention to Ms Pretty's letter under tab 11 and now another copy of the same letter under tab 18. I notice that under tab 11, Ms Pretty's letter has the address on the top right-hand corner and under tab 18 it's on the top left-hand corner. These are both letters from Sharron Pretty to Ms Gigantes. In fact, I think the wording is the same, as I'm looking at them quickly, but I'm wondering what explanation -- I'm asking this because they are now being used as evidence in your examination in chief. I'm asking how it can be that the same letter is written with the same content and yet the format changes between the one received in the deputy minister's office, where the address is on the left-hand side, without a handwritten phone number, and then under 11 there is a handwritten phone number, which may or may not have been added. But the main point is, to me it doesn't look as though it's the same letter.
Mr Collins: The final paragraph is different.
1500
Ms Cronk: Mr Collins is pointing out -- I don't know if you heard it, Ms Marland -- that the final paragraph is different, between page 6 of the two letters; both have been signed.
Mrs Marland: So are we acknowledging that these are two different letters then? Is that what we're saying?
Ms Cronk: Would you agree, Mr Collins, that based on those variances, it appears that there are two different versions of this letter?
Mr Collins: That's what it appears to me to be.
Ms Cronk: Can you help us as to whether two copies of this letter were received, one in the form at tab 18 and one in the form at tab 11, or do you know?
Mr Collins: I do not know. I'm checking now to see the fax that was sent to me from the constituency office to see which version of the letter that was.
Ms Cronk: That's what I was about to take you to, so if you could look at tab 15 as well -- do you have that?
Mr Collins: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: At tab 15 there is a fax from Sue Lott of the minister's constituency office, dated December 21st, to you at the Ministry of Housing, and it indicates by the handwritten note at the bottom that she was forwarding to you another letter related to the problems of the Van Lang Centre from a former board member. It says: "I mislaid this one and it does require a response from Evelyn. Could you ensure that there is a minister's response to this letter? Thanks."
I note that that fax to you is December 21st, 1993, two months after the date of the letter, but attached to it is a version of the letter dated October 29th. It would appear, I suggest, to be the same version as appears at tab 18, namely, the address of the sender is in the top left-hand corner and the last paragraph of both letters appears to be the same.
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. So can you confirm at least this much for us, Mr Collins: that the letter which you received yourself from Sue Lott is that set out at tab 15 accompanying the fax?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And the letter that appears to have been received in the deputy minister's office is the one at tab 18 bearing the receipt stamp?
Mr Collins: Correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. And both of the photocopies bear the signature of Sharron Pretty.
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Are you aware of the receipt at the minister's office, or at the Ministry of Housing offices in Toronto for transmittal to the minister's office, on any occasion earlier than December 21st or 22nd of a copy of this letter from Sharron Pretty?
Mr Collins: No. If I can suggest, what is likely the case is that when this letter was sent to me from the constituency office suggesting that it required a ministry response, I looked at the letter and agreed and submitted it to the deputy minister's office correspondence section, that would have date-stamped it the following day.
Ms Cronk: So it may have come to you first, then, and you just sent it over to them. Does it follow from that that although the letter is dated October 29th, for whatever mishap at the constituency office, it doesn't appear to have been brought to the attention of the minister's office in Toronto until the end of December?
Mr Collins: In terms of a physical copy of the letter, I would agree it was not brought to our attention. My recollection is that perhaps through a telephone conversation or some other contact with someone in the ministry I was vaguely aware of a board member who had similar concerns to Ms Luu.
Ms Cronk: Prior to the end of December.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And did you also become aware, through contact with the minister's constituency office or otherwise, of a request in early November 1993 by Trinh Luu for a meeting with the minister?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: The committee has seen that Ms Luu actually wrote a letter to the minister dated November 8, 1993. If you need to see any of this documentation as I refer to it, please just tell me.
Mr Collins: I wouldn't mind just refreshing my memory by looking at it.
Ms Cronk: Tab 12. This is a letter dated November 8, 1993, to the minister, Ms Gigantes, from Trinh Luu. Did you see a copy of this letter and its attachments on or about the timing of its receipt at the minister's office?
Mr Collins: Yes, I've seen the letter. I'm not recalling exactly when it arrived in my office, though.
Ms Cronk: Well, whether or not you had seen the actual letter, did you become aware that a request had been made by Ms Trinh Luu for a meeting with the minister?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And the committee has thus far heard that at the beginning of December, December 6, 1993, the minister responded to Trinh Luu's letter of November 8 and indicated to her that she had not yet received a copy of the compliance review that was then in progress with respect to the Van Lang Centre but that she would be in touch with her when she had a copy of the report. Are you aware of those facts?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you have any involvement in the timing or preparation of the reply to Trinh Luu from the minister?
Mr Collins: I review all correspondence signed by the minister related to social housing matters, so the letters that are prepared for the minister's signature come past my desk first.
Ms Cronk: And if you have any comments to offer or amendments to suggest, is it part of your job responsibilities to do that and to propose amendments to letters for signature for the minister?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: The reason I reviewed this particular part of the chronology with you, Mr Collins, is for this reason: If the letter from Sharron Pretty was not received by the minister's office or the deputy minister's office through you until December 22nd, 1993, is it consistent or inconsistent with your recollection that the first request for a meeting, or letter directly to the minister, from either Trinh Luu or Sharron Pretty was actually Ms Trinh Luu's letter of November 8?
Mr Collins: I'm going to have to be honest and say that at the time I was not distinguishing between who was requesting a meeting. My concern was with the operations of the Van Lang Centre and I knew that there were a number of concerns being expressed by a former employee. I knew the ministry was doing a compliance review and investigating. It wasn't of particular interest to me to know precisely who was saying what at which time.
Ms Cronk: I understand, but for the purposes of the committee's work, what I'm asking for your assistance on, if you're in a position to give it to us, and you may not be, is would it be a fair conclusion for the committee, on the basis of looking, as we just have, at these documents, to conclude that Trinh Luu's letter of November 8 was actually received at the minister's office, for whatever the mishap at the constituency office, before Sharron Pretty's?
Mr Collins: That would be a fair conclusion, yes.
Ms Cronk: And the committee has also heard that a response did not go from the minister to Sharron Pretty's letter of October 29th until quite late in April 1994, April 25th, 1994. Are you familiar with the reply that ultimately was sent to her?
Mr Collins: Yes, I am.
Ms Cronk: All right. And based on the review we've just done, would it be fair to suggest that it appears that the time elapsed from receipt to response does not appear to have been from the first of November through to the end of April but really from the 22nd of December through to the end of April?
Mr Collins: That would appear to be the case, yes.
Ms Cronk: And what you've said to the committee is that for the purposes of your work and the dealings you were having both with the minister and the constituency office, you weren't distinguishing between the two women? Is that --
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: But throughout the fall of 1993, I take it then, given the timing that we've retraced here, that you were aware that concerns had been expressed, first back in June by Trinh Luu, and then again at the beginning of November and that they led her to ask for an actual meeting with the minister, which ultimately the minister declined, at least until she had a copy of the compliance review in hand?
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And after the letter came in from Sharron Pretty to your office and you sent it on to the deputy minister, was the issue of a meeting with either Trinh Luu or Sharron Pretty revisited at that time? Or do you know?
Mr Collins: Not immediately at the end of December, to my recollection, no.
Ms Cronk: What about into the month of January 1994?
Mr Collins: If I recall, another request letter had come in in early January from the board of directors of Van Lang, or perhaps the president of Van Lang, so at that time we once again revisited, on a more formal basis, the question of whether or not the minister should meet.
Ms Cronk: And that letter, the committee has heard, was a letter dated January 3, 1994, from the board directly to the minister requesting a meeting, and the committee has also received evidence that the Ministry of Housing offices in Ottawa advised within a couple of days of receipt of that request letter against the minister meeting with the board at that time. Were you aware of those events?
Mr Collins: Yes.
1510
Ms Cronk: Was it part of your job function at the time, Mr Collins, to provide advice to the minister as to the persons or groups that she should meet with?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And as to which invitations she should consider accepting or meetings she could consider initiating?
Mr Collins: Yes, along with others in the office, that's part of my job.
Ms Cronk: So if a request like the one that came from the board or like the one that came from Trinh Luu came in, would you deal with those in the sense of considering them and then providing your advice or views on them to the minister?
Mr Collins: Either to the minister directly, or in fact there's a small committee that meets regularly to deal with meeting requests. So my advice --
Ms Cronk: Do you participate in that committee?
Mr Collins: Yes, so my advice would be either forwarded directly to the committee or to the minister, more likely to the committee.
Ms Cronk: In respect of Trinh Luu's November request for a meeting, did you advise the minister against meeting with her at that time, until the compliance review was in hand?
Mr Collins: To the best of my recollection, that request for a meeting was dealt with through the minister's response letter rather than through the more standard practice of having a separate meeting request form filled out by ministry staff, because I don't recall it being discussed at our regular committee meeting that deals with who the minister should meet with, the meeting request committee.
Ms Cronk: And when the board request came in at the end of January?
Mr Collins: It was dealt with --
Ms Cronk: In the normal course.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: After the Ministry of Housing offices in Ottawa had recommended against a meeting at that time between the minister and the board, did you provide her with advice on the issue?
Mr Collins: I can't recall whether it was to her directly or to the committee, but I did provide my advice.
Ms Cronk: What was your view?
Mr Collins: I did not support the minister meeting with the board of Van Lang at that time.
Ms Cronk: Why was that?
Mr Collins: I felt that (1) I hadn't yet seen the compliance review, so I had very little information to know how serious the situation actually was subsequent to a ministry investigation. Secondly, I'll say quite bluntly, the minister generally doesn't do these sorts of meetings. We get many, many requests from all sorts of people wanting the minister's time and we have to be fairly rigorous in terms of who she can meet with.
I was well aware that the ministry was making a serious effort to do the compliance review. By the time our January meeting request meeting occurred, I had been informed that Brian Sutherland had attended the end-of-December board meeting. I was quite pleased with that. To me that spelled a level of seriousness at the regional office, that they were certainly not ignoring any of these issues, that they were actively trying to work with the board to resolve whatever problems there were at Van Lang. So I felt at that point it was premature to involve the minister.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard that at the end of March or thereabouts, March 25th, 1994, a letter goes from the minister to the board declining a meeting at that time. Were you involved at that point in the decision or in advising her with respect to whether she should meet with the group? I'm talking now in March.
Mr Collins: That letter, to the best of my knowledge, would have -- I hate to use the term "sprung," but would have evolved out of the January decision to not meet.
Ms Cronk: The reason I asked you about that is because you said that one of the reasons that you advised against meeting with the board at that time was that you hadn't seen the compliance review. The committee has heard that the compliance review was finished and was discussed with the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre at a board meeting on February 8, 1994. Are you aware of that?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And when thereafter did you see a copy of the compliance review?
Mr Collins: I don't believe I got the compliance review until either the very end of April or the early few days of May -- much, much after these events.
Ms Cronk: When, to the best of your knowledge, did the minister first see a copy of the compliance review?
Mr Collins: At the same time.
Ms Cronk: Would it be fair of me to suggest to you -- again, we can go through all the paper on this if you like, and please tell me if you wish to do that. Would it be fair of me to suggest to you that there were numerous efforts by people in the minister's office in Toronto, including yourself, to obtain a copy of the compliance review throughout the spring of 1994; there were many requests that a copy be provided to the minister's office?
Mr Collins: I don't know whether I would characterize it as "many." If my memory serves me correctly, around the beginning of April is when Evelyn sort of -- the minister pointedly said to me, "I want a copy of the compliance review. Get it for me," as opposed to up to that point she was just sort of -- I knew she wanted to see it, I wanted to see it, but I wasn't going out of my way to chase down a copy. So subsequent to her requesting that, I followed up with David Clarke, who is the executive assistant to the assistant deputy minister's office that deals with social housing matters and the Ottawa office, and requested a copy of the compliance review from him.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 31 of this volume, please? This appears to be a handwritten note which reads: "Where is the operational review report? Please." And then there's an initial. Is that the initial "E"?
Mr Collins: Yes, it is.
Ms Cronk: Is this a note by the minister?
Mr Collins: Yes, it is -- well, it certainly appears to be her handwriting.
Ms Cronk: Was it to you, or do you now recall?
Mr Collins: I don't recall, but it's likely that it would have been to me.
Ms Cronk: All right. And do you specifically recall being asked directly by the minister to get her a copy of the compliance report around the beginning of April?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And when I was suggesting to you that there were numerous requests for a copy of it, I didn't mean, Mr Collins, that they were all by you. What I meant was that there were efforts throughout the spring, and I have in mind April of 1994 and any number of e-mails saying: "Where's a copy of the report? What's its status? Where is it? Can we have it?"
Mr Collins: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: Fair description?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And some of those are from you and some are from other people in the minister`s office?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You have to nod yes or -- I think you have to nod yes or no for Hansard, unless it's a whole lot different --
Mr Collins: Yes, that --
Ms Cronk: -- than any reporter I've ever dealt with. So that in that regard, you and the minister did ultimately see a copy of the compliance review and you think that was towards the end of April, beginning of May?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And in the months preceding that -- let's take it now from January of 1994 when the board request for a meeting has come in, up until the time at the beginning of April when the minister has asked for a copy of the operational review or the compliance report. Did you during that period become aware from the minister's constituency office or from the Ministry of Housing that there had again been concerns expressed in letters from Sharon Pretty to the MOH offices in Ottawa relating to the Van Lang Centre?
Mr Collins: Yes, I recall a letter from Sharron, that when I received it, it triggered my memory that we had not yet replied to her previous letter from the fall. So I can't say exactly when I received that but I know it was before we had sent out the response to her original letter. I took very serious note of this letter because it was effectively saying that the ministry's compliance review had missed the point, I guess is the way I would characterize it, that it had in fact not even looked at the right issues or had not probed deeply enough into the right areas to reveal the kinds of concerns that she had been raising for many, many months and that Trinh Luu had been raising.
1520
Ms Cronk: All right. Could I ask you to look at tab 25 of this volume, please? Sorry, wrong tab. If I could just have a minute. Wrong book. Sorry, Mr Collins. You need exhibit 2 in front of you, and if I could ask you to look at tab 33.
This is a letter of March 1, 1994, to Mr Sutherland from Sharron Pretty, of some considerable length, 20 pages in length, and it appears to have been directly copied both to the minister and to yourself and to Mr Newton Vanriel. Is this the letter to which you referred just a moment ago?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did you receive a copy of it directly then, in due course?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And to your knowledge, did the minister as well?
Mr Collins: I can't say. The minister normally sees correspondence after the response has been prepared, unless one of her staff members brings it to her attention specifically. I don't recall bringing this letter to the minister's attention but, throughout the time period, it was my understanding that the constituency office was keeping Evelyn posted in terms of the flow of correspondence.
Ms Cronk: What was the basis for that understanding? Did someone tell you that?
Mr Collins: There was nothing specific that I can point to other than Evelyn would sometimes just make passing comments perhaps on a Monday, and it was clear that she had been talking to someone on the weekend or the Friday, and I assumed it would be someone in the constituency office. It was just a very casual observation. I'd have no evidence or proof of this.
Ms Cronk: During that spring period, did you remain in contact with Sue Lott in the constituency office in the sense of receiving information from them concerning the Van Lang Centre, or corresponding with her or dealing with her about information concerning the centre as need be?
Mr Collins: Yes. Again, there seemed to be a dropping off of the flow of material at some point, but certainly throughout the early spring.
Ms Cronk: The committee has also heard that there was a second letter, also in the month of March 1994, from Sharron Pretty to Brian Sutherland, this one dated March the 20th. Do you recall seeing as well a copy of the second letter from Sharron Pretty?
Mr Collins: If you can refer me to it, I'll take a look at it.
Ms Cronk: If you take a look at tab 36 of the same book.
Mr Collins: Yes, this letter looks familiar.
Ms Cronk: It appears to have been copied to you directly as well as the minister.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: When you became aware both of the March first letter and the March 20th letter, at that point did you raise any of the concerns outlined in the letters with the minister?
Mr Collins: We had perhaps two, possibly three relatively casual discussions, nothing that was scheduled, about the course of events at Van Lang.
Ms Cronk: In the month of March, or February?
Mr Collins: February-March-April. I can't pin down a specific time or date. Over the course of the late winter, early spring.
Ms Cronk: And what was the purpose of those specific meetings?
Mr Collins: Just to make sure that she was kept posted as to what was going on. I let her know about the compliance review being completed. We would discuss our impressions of the seriousness of the events, what was going on, what could be done. Obviously, much earlier on in the process we had both hoped that the compliance review by the ministry would be the key item that would turn things around at Van Lang. This was back in the summer of 1993. We were hoping that the compliance review would be the turnaround event.
We had then gone through a period where ministry staff started attending board meetings. They were obviously in the process of attempting to implement the measures outlined in the compliance review. Despite that, we were continuing to receive letters of this sort that didn't seem to reflect any progress at all at Van Lang and in some cases would lead you to believe that the opposite was occurring: that things were getting worse.
Ms Cronk: Just on that issue, what was your understanding in March of 1994 as to how well or otherwise the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre was functioning, or did you know?
Mr Collins: My sense was based on reading the correspondence and talking to primarily David Clarke, who is my conduit to dealing with the Ottawa office, my information conduit. He obviously had whatever form of contact with the regional staff in Ottawa to find out what was going on. My impression was that they were painting a picture of things in relative good order, certainly some problems pointed out in the compliance review, management issues that needed to be looked after, but nothing at all of the sense that I got from reading Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty's correspondence.
Ms Cronk: Just to explore that with you for a moment, in a background note prepared in mid-February 1994, part of the note specifically addresses and outlines what was perceived to be antagonism and acrimony at the board level at the Van Lang Centre. It was suggested that the conflict on the board was of such a nature that it was bogging down the work of the board. Do you recall that?
Mr Collins: Um, yes.
Ms Cronk: In February and March of 1994 -- I recognize that you were not at board meetings and didn't personally know these people -- but were you generally aware that there were difficulties and there was acrimony and antagonism at the board level?
Mr Collins: Absolutely, yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. The committee has also heard that at the beginning of March, on March the 4th, quite apart from the letters that Sharron Pretty is sending to Brian Sutherland at the MOH offices in Ottawa, Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty both write another letter, this time together, directly to the minister, asking for what they describe as a "special and urgent" meeting with her. Are you familiar with that letter?
Mr Collins: Yes, I am.
Ms Cronk: Did you see a copy of it on or about the time that it was received at the minister's offices?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall when it was actually received at the minister's offices, or do you know?
Mr Collins: No.
Ms Cronk: Was it some time during the month of March, and do you remember becoming aware of that request for a meeting around the same time as you became aware of the Sutherland-Pretty correspondence, if I can put it that way?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: That being the case, when we come to the end of March of 1994, Mr Collins, there was a request for a special and urgent meeting from Ms Luu and Ms Pretty, there were these letters that caused you concern, that you treated seriously, you said, because of the nature of the commentary provided on the compliance review from Pretty to Sutherland. At that point in time, did you provide any advice to the minister as to whether she should meet with either of these individuals?
Mr Collins: Through the same process I described the last time, yes.
Ms Cronk: What was the nature of your advice at that point?
Mr Collins: That the minister should not meet with the Van Lang board or with Sharron or Trinh at that time.
Ms Cronk: Why was that, the compliance review being in hand?
Mr Collins: Primarily because I felt strongly that the Ministry of Housing office is responsible for the ongoing administration of this group; that they had clearly been informed, well informed, of the problems, they had been identified very clearly. There was a compliance review in hand, with some specific measures outlined; these could be added to it.
All along, my judgement is based on a question of, will the minister's attendance or having an audience with various people make a difference? It's obviously not standard practice for the minister to meet with every individual and group who wants to meet her. This was a case where there was a clear responsibility within the ministry to deal with these matters, and I wanted to make sure that that was absolutely exhausted before we seriously considered having the minister meet with any of the people involved.
1530
Ms Cronk: Did you also become aware around that time, Mr Collins, at least in the case of Sharron Pretty, that she was sufficiently concerned, that there was the possibility of her going to the media over the issues?
Mr Collins: I recall hearing about that from either Sue or Audrey in the constituency office. I can't remember who.
Ms Cronk: Could you look at tab 27 of -- actually, we're in volume 2 of exhibit 1 now. I'm not sure that's the volume that you're in.
Mr Collins: Twenty-seven?
Ms Cronk: Yes. Does this fax to you -- sorry. Does this fax to -- is it Ezia?
Mr Collins: That's it, yes.
Ms Cronk: -- Cervoni from Sue Lott confirm that that appears to have been their understanding of Sharron Pretty's state of mind at the time?
Mr Collins: Sorry, I'm in the wrong book here.
Ms Cronk: Volume 2 of exhibit 1.
Mr Collins: Okay, here we are.
Ms Cronk: At tab 27.
Mr Collins: Yeah, I think I recall Ezia pointing this out at our sessions. She either pointed it out to me specifically -- she would often bring these kinds of requests directly to my attention as opposed to waiting for the weekly meeting to deal with them, but in one of those two situations, she brought this to my attention. I was certainly aware that there was a sort of media potential in this case.
Ms Cronk: And specifically that issue had at least, that potential had at least been raised by the constituency office staff in mid-March?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to go next to tab 32, please? The committee has received evidence that the Ministry of Housing offices in Ottawa recommended, at least it was their advice at about this time, that a meeting should not take place with Trinh Luu or Sharron Pretty. The document at tab 32, which was expurgated by myself and Mr Hourigan to remove proposed invitations and meetings having nothing to do with the Van Lang Centre, appears to be a form in use to record the nature of an invitation or a proposed meeting and the proposed response by the minister. Am I reading this, understanding this document correctly?
Mr Collins: Yeah. This would form the agenda for the meetings that I described where the staff would discuss meeting requests and give the minister advice as to whether she should meet or not.
Mr Callahan: What tab is this?
Ms Cronk: This is at tab 32 of the same volume, volume 2, exhibit 1.
Mr Collins: During this week, there would've been 10 requests to deal with.
Ms Cronk: Twelve, actually.
Mr Collins: Okay. Sorry, 12.
Ms Cronk: And with respect to item 6, it appears to be suggesting and can you confirm that the advice at that point was against meeting with what's described as the "Van Lang Centre Tenants," meaning Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty's letter, I take it?
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Clearly this was responding to the tenants' request as distinct from the board?
Mr Collins: That would be my understanding, yes.
Ms Cronk: Now, this is April 13, 1994, Mr Collins, and can I ask you to go to the immediate next tab? This is an e-mail dated Thursday, April the 14th.
Mr Collins: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: At 11:46 in the morning. So it's the next day, and it's from Lisa Heaton to Ezia Cervoni, and it appears to indicate that the minister would like to meet with Sharron Pretty et al of the Van Lang Centre and include Brian Sutherland in the meeting. It would be held in Ottawa Centre, her riding, and then there's a query about how the arrangements were to be made.
Should we take from this that notwithstanding the advice of the Ministry of Housing in Ottawa at the time, and indeed your own view, that the minister at this point either herself or in consultation with other advisers had decided she wanted to meet with Sharron Pretty?
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And were you aware of -- was that the minister's decision, or do you know?
Mr Collins: It could only be the minister's decision, because she's the only one that would be able to override the advice of staff.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. Again, in fairness to you, I haven't put the question to you properly. The ministry offices in Ottawa advised against it. You advised against it. I assume you expressed that view to the committee considering the matter? You have to nod and indicate --
Mr Collins: Yes. Sorry.
Ms Cronk: Was that advice accepted, or did the committee recommend that the minister meet?
Mr Collins: That I am not sure. I don't recall anyone at the committee disagreeing with my advice, but it's possible that they did.
Ms Cronk: Well, do you recall a specific discussion yourself with the minister as to the advisability of meeting then with Sharron Pretty or Trinh Luu?
Mr Collins: Not specifically at this time, no.
Ms Cronk: You've told the committee that you recall the minister asking towards the beginning of April for a copy of the compliance review and recall also that both she and you received it towards the end of that month.
Mr Collins: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Was it the correspondence from Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu requesting a meeting and the Pretty correspondence to Sutherland in March that prompted the minister to ask for a copy of the compliance review?
Mr Collins: I can't say.
Ms Cronk: At that point, though, until the arrival of that correspondence, you certainly hadn't seen it and didn't in fact see it for another month, to the end of April.
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Then I'm going to suggest to you, Mr Collins, and again please just indicate to the committee if this is incorrect in any way, that after this e-mail of April 14th, 1994, there are a series of e-mails between either the Ministry of Housing in Toronto and the minister's office in Toronto or the constituency offices in Ottawa and the minister's office in Toronto, all having to do with whether this meeting should occur with Sharron Pretty or others connected with the Van Lang Centre and the -- well, if I could stop there for a moment. Am I right so far? Are you aware of those facts? Can you confirm that?
Mr Collins: I'm not aware of correspondence related to whether or not the meeting should occur until much later on. At this point, the minister had made the decision to meet and it was a matter of setting up the logistics.
Ms Cronk: I see.
Mr Collins: Picking a time, finding time in her schedule, figuring out where it's going to be held, the usual.
Ms Cronk: Am I right in this suggestion -- there's always a danger as a lawyer asking questions, you try to shortcut on the paper here, which is one of the problems that I'm having. It'll just take us a while to move through it. If we have to, then we'll do that, but am I right in suggesting to you that there is that kind of correspondence, that is, e-mail correspondence, either from or to the minister's office and the constituency office, in which it is indicated that, notwithstanding that April 14th e-mail indicating the minister would like to meet, that no final arrangements for that meeting and indeed no final decision by the minister as to whether to meet would be made until she'd seen the compliance review? Are you aware of that?
Mr Collins: No.
Ms Cronk: I can't do it the short way. That's fine. Could I ask you to look at tab 36.
Mr Murphy: Before you do that -- and you may have asked this and I apologize if you have -- I just was wondering, who comprises the scheduling committee?
Ms Cronk: I didn't ask. Can you answer the question?
Mr Collins: Generally the senior staff in the office, which would be the two policy staff, the scheduling staff, the communications person and what we call an outreach person.
Ms Cronk: Having regard to exhibit 3 and the list of people from whom the committee has some correspondence, can you identify on that list whether any of those individuals sit on the committee?
Mr Collins: Yes. Obviously, the scheduler; myself; Shirley Darling, the legislative assistant; and the chief of staff attends when available.
Ms Cronk: So that would be Carol Whitehead, Shirley Darling, Ezia Cervoni and yourself?
Mr Collins: Yeah. Ezia of course was replaced with Karen Ridley. And there are others that aren't on this list that attend.
Ms Cronk: Does Newton Vanriel sit on that committee?
Mr Collins: I don't recall the public liaison person sitting on that committee.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Could I ask you to look at --
Mr Murphy: I don't mean to interrupt, but the reason I'm asking is because I'm just wondering, sometimes in offices these decisions go through a political calculation first and you testified that the chief of staff is occasionally there, and whether before it goes to the minister it goes through the chief of staff in every occasion.
Mr Collins: Not that I'm aware of, but if something was important, if the scheduler or the others who coordinate this, which is not me, if they felt it was important to check with the chief of staff, if she was not able to attend the meeting, they would obviously do that.
Mr Murphy: Thank you.
Mr Collins: Also to my knowledge there's a regular meeting, a weekly meeting, between the minister and the scheduler where the advice of staff is discussed, and the minister is free to accept or not accept the advice of her staff on who she's going to meet with and not meet with. That's standard procedure.
Mr Murphy: So it might have been one of those meetings that produced the next memo where the minister says, "I want a meeting"?
Mr Collins: I would assume it was, but again, not having attended those ever, I can't say one way or the other for sure.
1540
Ms Cronk: I may just retire from the field here. This is all becoming very clear to me, so thank you, Mr Murphy.
Mr Callahan: You better switch seats --
Ms Cronk: I think we better just leave that there, Mr Callahan.
Where this started, Mr Collins, was with our looking at the April 14th memo indicating that the minister did want to meet. Now I'm asking you to look, if you would, at tab 36, which is four days later. This one is to you and it suggests that the minister wants to see a copy and read the compliance review before deciding on any meeting -- is that correct? -- with the people at Van Lang.
Mr Collins: Yes, I remember this now, and that's obviously the trigger for me pursuing with the assistant deputy minister's office my desire to get a copy of the report. I didn't actually recall this happening, though, until I saw it now.
Ms Cronk: That's fine. Could I ask you to look at tab 37 as well, please. As I read this particular e-mail -- I'm sorry, at tab -- it is tab 37. This time it's the invitations and meeting requests form relating to a meeting held on April 20th or a meeting to be held on April 20th with respect to the Van Lang Centre. It confirms that the minister wants to look at the compliance review and talk to you before agreeing to a meeting.
Mr Collins: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Again, that is in respect of an invitation request from Van Lang Centre tenants. I take that to be the outstanding request from Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty. Would that be fair?
Mr Collins: Uh, yes, I think that was the vernacular being used.
Ms Cronk: Not the board. Not the board?
Mr Collins: Uh, that's correct, but I'll be honest with you: When I discussed the issue with Evelyn, I am not clear in my own mind when I was distinguishing between the two, nor when she was. It's my sense that when I dealt with ministry staff, I was effectively suggesting that the minister would be meeting with everyone involved in Van Lang, which would include the entire board and potentially Trinh Luu as a former employee. I cannot say whether at any time the minister had in her mind to only meet with, uh, with Sharron Pretty or Trinh Luu. That was not my understanding, nor my intention of what would be a useful use of her time.
Ms Cronk: Perhaps we'll come to that, then, Mr Collins. Could I ask you to look at tab 38, please. This is another e-mail message and it appears to indicate, at least to me, that a reply was drafted by the ministry and was approved by you in respect of a letter attached to the document. The exhibit book doesn't contain the attachment, but it indicates that a meeting with the minister is still considered unconfirmed at this time, and that is from Ezia Cervoni to the information liaison service or section, Mary Mammola. Am I correct in that?
Mr Collins: Uh, yes.
Ms Cronk: All right, so it looks at that point, as at April 21st, as if the meeting was not certain, it was unconfirmed.
Mr Collins: Yes, I assume they were operating under the assumption that the minister wanted to see the compliance review before making a final decision.
Ms Cronk: Mm-hmm, and you make that assumption, I take it, because of the e-mails we've just looked at.
Mr Collins: Correct.
Ms Cronk: And then to move through some more of them, if you look at the next tab, this is a fax transmittal form dated April 21st. There are several copies of it. The most legible is the last, the third page in, and it appears to be to Sue Lott at the constituency office from Jenny. I take that to be -- is that Jenny Lam?
Mr Collins: Yes, it would be -- just for my clarification, we're in tab 39?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Mr Collins: And you're saying the third page in? I only have two pages in my tab 39.
Ms Cronk: Sorry. Looking at the first page that you have, then -- I have a duplicate copy of one of those. Looking at the first page, which is the most legible, would you agree with me that the introduction to it, under the "Comments" section suggests, first, that it's dealing with the latest status on Van Lang, and what's described, if you'll allow me, perhaps quite accurately by the author as the "to meet or not to meet" debate. Is that fair? That's what the author appears to be talking about?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: So I take from that, Mr Collins, that the issue of a meeting was still up in the air at that point?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: But a reply had actually, this says, been sent to Sharron Pretty's letter.
Mr Collins: That's what it says, yes.
Ms Cronk: Are you aware of any reply in writing ever being sent to Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty to their March fourth letter requesting a meeting?
Mr Collins: No. To the best of my knowledge, that has not yet been replied to.
Ms Cronk: There was a --
Interjection.
Ms Cronk: That may come later this week.
Sorry. There was at this point in time an outstanding letter from Sharron Pretty, the October 29th letter, if you remember, Mr Collins.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: The committee has evidence before it indicating that a response to it went at the end of April -- April 25th, 1994. Would it be fair of us to conclude that that's the reply being referred to in this note?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: As I read the balance of the handwritten note, it appears to say: "I'll talk with her in a few days to see if the written response eliminates need for meeting. We'll take it from there, depending on their response."
Mr Collins: Yes. If you want me to explain the context of that, I think I can illuminate people as to what was happening.
Ms Cronk: Would you please?
Mr Collins: Around the time that Evelyn made her decision that she wanted to see the compliance review and was seriously contemplating a meeting, for perhaps the third or fourth time I received a draft of the response to Ms Pretty's October 29th, '93, letter. At that point, as I often do when letters get turned back repeatedly, I have to make a judgement as to whether there's going to be any value added in putting it back into the ministry again or whether to simply send it out and see if things can be dealt with in another way.
My thought at the time was, since we're seriously considering a meeting and it's probably just a matter of time in terms of finding a slot in Evelyn's schedule, we may as well send out the letter as it stands, which did not offer a meeting, nor did it thoroughly respond to the October 29th concerns, in my opinion. But I suggested that we should send it out anyway, wait a week and time for Canada Post to deliver it and for Ms Pretty to read it, and then hopefully contact her and offer her a meeting.
Ms Cronk: This note would appear to suggest that she was going to be contacted in a few days. Well, first it suggests that the reply had already been sent. It's dated April 21st, and that, of course, had not happened. The reply was dated April 25th, so it went out a little later.
Mr Collins: But it may have gone from my office, in terms of being signed off by me, into the minister's stack of correspondence to sign, by April 21st.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. That's helpful.
Mr Collins: Obviously, that letter was one that I had seen several times. Given, obviously, that the office was considering a meeting at that time, I would have probably known precisely where that letter was in the multiple steps of our correspondence system, whereas a typical letter, I wouldn't necessarily know where it is at any one time.
Ms Cronk: This appears to suggest, however, that after the letter went to Sharron Pretty you were going to wait a few days to see if the written response eliminates the need for the meeting, as distinct from what you said a few moments ago, of waiting a few days to give Sharron Pretty a chance to receive it, read it and then offer her a meeting. Mr Collins, that's what this appears to suggest. Am I correct?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Was that your understanding of what was to happen, and then was to see how it all sort of gelled out after Ms Pretty got the letter?
Mr Collins: Well, that was a polite way of characterizing it. My recollection is that we assumed there would be a request for a meeting. I assumed, certainly personally, that Ms Pretty would not be satisfied with the April 25th response. Effectively, we just wanted to get that letter sent out in the interim period. While it was being sent and she had a chance to digest it, we could be further looking to see whether we could actually find time to meet.
1550
Ms Cronk: I see.
Mr Collins: The minister was exceptionally busy during that period, so we were not able to -- we had not secured a time slot for the meeting, even assuming that the minister was --
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the witness's answer. Could you just repeat the last part for me?
Mr Collins: To the best of my recollection, we were having difficulty finding time slots for meetings. So assuming that the minister was going to make a final decision or anyone else was going to make a final decision that we would meet, there may still very well have been a delay before a meeting could occur.
Ms Cronk: All right. But Mr Collins, although you may not have anticipated it, indeed you're saying that you expected the reverse; you expected Sharron Pretty not to be satisfied and to still want a meeting. Did this carry with it the possibility that if, when she got the reply letter, she didn't repeat her request or appear still to want a meeting, one would not have taken place?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And if we go to the next tab, tab 40, this is another e-mail. This is from you, I take it. Is that to Dave Clarke?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And it again confirms that both you and the minister would need to see the compliance review before the minister met with, and the words are, "this group"?
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. So at that point you are assuming a meeting will occur but you still want to see the compliance review and you haven't got it.
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And, it would appear, neither does the minister.
Mr Collins: Correct.
Ms Cronk: And you're again asking for a copy.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And then at the next tab, at tab 42, we have the response letter to Sharron Pretty, dated April 25th. Is this the letter that you referred to a few moments ago when you said that although it was not as fulsome a reply as you would have liked, you thought it better that it go at that point, even though it didn't invite a meeting, to get it out and to see what the response actually was?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then if we go to tab 43, just to move through some of these to refresh your memory, this appears to be from you again to David Clarke. This is the day after the date of the response to Sharron Pretty, April 26th, and it's suggesting, as I read it -- please tell me if I'm reading this correctly -- that the reply letter was being sent to Sharron Pretty, that you would wait about a week and then offer a meeting, if they want one, and it confirms what you said a moment ago: You were sure that they would. "The minister and Steve or Brian can then go over the action steps in the compliance review with the board members." And again you're asking for the compliance review. Is that fair?
Mr Collins: Yes. In a subtle way I was, yes.
Ms Cronk: Sorry, what's subtle about it? You said you wanted the report by the end of the week. Weren't you asking for it yet again?
Mr Collins: Oh, okay, I'm sorry. I wasn't reading the --
Ms Cronk: Am I missing something, Mr Collins?
Mr Collins: No, no, no. I just hadn't read the third sentence yet.
Ms Cronk: Okay. So that what I suggested to you a few moments ago, that through the spring -- and I clarified that I meant during the month of April -- there were repeated requests for receipt of this compliance review.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: In fairness to you, with the benefit of this documentation now in front of you, can you confirm that that appears to have been the case?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that they were coming from you on behalf of the minister pursuant to her request for a copy of it.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that was because, according to these e-mails, she had initially made the decision that she wanted to meet but that she didn't want to confirm that or finally decide about it until she'd actually seen and actually read the compliance review, according to this documentation. Is that right?
Mr Collins: Correct.
Ms Cronk: And that takes us then towards the latter part of April, and if we take a look at the next tab, tab 44, you'll see another e-mail. April 26th was a busy day. It confirms that the letter was being sent and this suggests that a meeting was being offered. This was from you to Newton Vanriel. Did you mean by that that in the letter to Sharron Pretty a meeting was going to be offered, or that there was going to be some separate contact with them to suggest a meeting?
Mr Collins: Again, I would say this is simply an extreme short form of my e-mail that I sent to David Clarke. Newton was a colleague in the office who was also familiar with the situation, so I was being extremely brief. Offering a meeting technically did involve waiting for Sharron to see the letter and waiting for a response.
Ms Cronk: So you were signalling to him that it was likely to occur.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: At what point, Mr Collins, did you first become aware that Sharron Pretty had initiated charges against some of the other board members of the Van Lang Centre with respect to infractions of the Corporations Act?
Mr Collins: Mid-May is probably the closest that I can estimate. I don't remember a precise day.
Ms Cronk: And how did you first become aware of that?
Mr Collins: Again, I don't remember precisely or concretely. It was either through Karen Ridley, the scheduler in our office, or it may have been through a call from the constituency office. Karen Ridley would be the most likely person. I was not able to refresh my memory by asking her.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard evidence that on May 12th there was a discussion between Sharron Pretty and Karen Ridley in which Ms Pretty disclosed to Ms Ridley that she felt -- that is, she, Sharron Pretty, felt -- it was too late for a meeting, that the matter was going to court, that there was a June 2 court date, and that the court proceeding concerned what Ms Pretty described as illegal refusal to hand over documents relating to the Van Lang Centre.
Do you recall, with that information in hand, Karen Ridley speaking to you at any point to confirm, or provide you with information -- I shouldn't say "confirm"; provide you with information -- that there was a court proceeding either intended or in progress on the Van Lang situation?
Mr Collins: Yeah. Again I'll say yes and expand a little. My recollection is that Karen at some point, whether she was the one that talked to me first or not, but at some point came to me to say: "Uh-oh, there's charges or legal proceedings of some sort involved. What do we do? Is this a problem? Is it not a problem?" -- the usual situation. As the scheduler, she would not be expected to know or follow up on those sorts of concerns.
Ms Cronk: What do you mean, "the usual situation"? You've indicated to the committee that she came to you and said that there were charges; what does this mean? -- "the usual situation." I don't know what the usual situation is.
Mr Collins: Oh, just that whenever there are legal proceedings involved, or legal matters pertaining to things involving the ministry, the minister or people the minister's going to meet with, we obviously do a little bit of checking to determine whether or not those matters have any bearing on whether or not the minister can meet, whether there's things that we can talk about or not talk about. That's what I meant by "the usual," the sort of standard procedure of being careful around legal matters.
Ms Cronk: Do you now have a recollection of whether it was your impression that Karen Ridley came to you with this information as soon as she had learned of it, or did you have the impression that she had known of it for some time?
Mr Collins: To the best of my recollection, it would have been fairly soon afterwards. I mean, it may have been the next day, depending on my schedule and hers, but it didn't seem to me that this was an old issue that she had known about. It was something that we were trying to deal with reasonably urgently.
Ms Cronk: All right. Well, the information before the committee at the moment, as I indicated, is that on May 12th that discussion took place between Sharron Pretty and Karen Ridley. That would place it on or shortly after May 12th, if your recollection is correct, as to when Karen Ridley provided this information to you. Would that be fair?
Mr Collins: Yes, that seems very reasonable.
Ms Cronk: And then if I could ask you to look at exhibit 14, page 2 of that exhibit, Mr Collins.
Mr Callahan: Is that the same volume?
Ms Cronk: No, it's a separate exhibit. It's exhibit 14, Mr Callahan.
Interjection.
Ms Cronk: No, it's a separate pile of e-mails, exhibit 14 from this morning. If you'd go to page 2 -- do you have that, Mr Collins?
Mr Collins: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: All right. This is an e-mail that the committee looked at this morning. It's dated May 17, 1994, and it appears to be from David Clarke to Brian Sutherland, and it does confirm, in the first paragraph, that Mr Clarke, as he'd indicated in some of these earlier e-mails to you, was requesting a copy of the compliance review for the Van Lang project. He was asking Mr Sutherland for it, correct?
Mr Collins: Correct.
Ms Cronk: And he also goes on to indicate that the minister's office is chasing him for it?
Mr Collins: Correct.
Ms Cronk: I guess you were the chaser and he was the chasee. Would that be fair?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And looking at the second paragraph, he's also telling Mr Sutherland and Mr Shapiro, "They are now also telling me that the rift on the board is widening and will soon end up as a court case (Sharron Pretty taking them to court?)." Now, did you speak to David Clarke after Ms Ridley spoke to you to let him know of the information she'd gained from Sharron?
Mr Collins: I don't recall whether it was speaking to him or sending him an e-mail, but I'm quite confident in my recollection that I followed up with the ministry, David Clarke being the most likely person, once I found out that there were legal proceedings occurring, obviously to get some details.
1600
Ms Cronk: As you recall it, did Ms Ridley tell you that legal proceedings were pending, were in progress, were a fact or just that they were a possibility?
Mr Collins: I don't recall. I remember that it was a quite vague description and at the time that I talked to David Clarke or e-mailed him or communicated with him I myself did not have a clear sense of what legal proceedings or legal matters were occurring. The only legal matter that I had been aware of was the suit involving a former employee of Van Lang. There was nothing else that I knew.
Ms Cronk: And that was separate litigation?
Mr Collins: Yes, and that had been known from very early on.
Ms Cronk: After you got this information from Karen Ridley, did you speak to Ms Gigantes about it?
Mr Collins: Yes, but I cannot recall precisely when.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall how long after you got the information from Ms Ridley that you did so?
Mr Collins: No.
Ms Cronk: Is it the type of thing that, given your daily contact with her, would have been raised by you within a day or two after learning of it?
Mr Collins: If it was convenient. In other words, if the minister was in the office, not busy doing other things, and if we had a chance to squeeze it in between briefings or what have you, I'm quite confident that I would have mentioned it to her. It would have been something that we would both be keenly interested in, but I cannot recall a specific conversation with her.
Ms Cronk: You have no reason to expect that you delayed in communicating that information to her?
Mr Collins: No.
Ms Cronk: Or that there was any reason why you couldn't access her, she wasn't available to you?
Mr Collins: No. You're correct in that assumption.
Ms Cronk: The committee has also heard that on May 19th, two days after this e-mail, there was a discussion between Sue Lott of the constituency office and Sharron Pretty in which quite specifically the fact of the charges was discussed. Did Ms Lott relay any additional information to you that you now recall, indicating that she'd had a discussion with Ms Pretty about that?
Mr Collins: She may have, because as I said earlier, it's not crystal clear in my mind whether I talked to Karen, Sue or both some time during that period. It's quite likely that I did talk to Sue but I can't recall clearly.
Ms Cronk: During this entire period of time, had either Ms Pretty or -- I gather Ms Trinh Luu had not contacted you yet; you told us that was only once and it was on June 2?
Mr Collins: She had tried to contact me for a few days ahead of that, but we ended up talking on June 2, yes.
Ms Cronk: I see. So she actually called you a couple of times before you connected.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did Ms Pretty make any efforts to speak with you at any point?
Mr Collins: Not that I'm aware of.
Ms Cronk: All right. And then I gather at some point shortly after this, that is, before your discussion with Trinh Luu, you did receive or had some contact with the constituency office about the matter of the charges? Do you remember that? No.
Mr Collins: I don't recall clearly, as I said earlier, whether I spoke to anyone in the constituency office or not. It's quite probable that someone from the constituency office spoke to someone else in the office who relayed it to me. I was aware that the constituency office knew about the charges or legal proceedings or whatever they were, at that point undefined. I cannot recall whether it was me that spoke to someone there, and it wouldn't be of any consequence whether it was me or someone else.
Ms Cronk: Did you during the month of May 1994 also receive a call from Ms Marland's offices, from a Mora Thompson?
Mr Collins: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: And when was that?
Mr Collins: I don't have a specific record of it. It was very close to the end of May, to the best of my recollection, probably the last week of May.
Ms Cronk: I have some questions about that and then about your discussion with Trinh Luu.
Mr Chairman, if the committee was proposing to take a break this afternoon, can we do it now? Would now be a convenient time?
The Chair: Fine. A 10-minute break, a recess.
The committee recessed from 1606 to 1624.
The Chair: The committee will come to order. I have Mr Sutherland with a point of order.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: I just wanted to raise a point, to let people know that it's my understanding the House leaders have met and they have agreed to allow the committee to sit on Friday. I just at this stage want to ask -- I know we've been starting at 9 every morning -- that on Friday we request that we start at 10 rather than at 9, to accommodate a member who has a previously scheduled appointment that will not be able to be changed at this stage. So if it is agreeable that we can start on Friday at 10, that would be good. I understand that written confirmation of that should be coming fairly shortly.
The Chair: Does everybody agree with starting at 10 o'clock on Friday? Agreed. Ms Cronk, how is that with your schedule?
Ms Cronk: That's fine. Thank you.
The Chair: Okay, fine. I'll hand the floor back to you, Ms Cronk.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Mr Collins, could I just ask you to return for a moment, please, to the e-mail message to Brian Sutherland of May 17th from David Clarke. I'd asked you a number of questions about it, but I neglected to direct your attention to paragraph 3 of the e-mail. It's suggested in that paragraph that the minister's office was concerned -- perhaps I'll just read it -- "that our briefing notes continue to say that everything is under control, but they keep hearing things to the opposite from their own contacts," and then it goes on to again request a copy of the compliance review, and I'll come back to that in a moment. Is David Clarke in the minister's office here in Toronto?
Mr Collins: No. David Clarke is the executive assistant to the assistant deputy minister for the operations division of the Ministry of Housing. In other words, he's the assistant to the person who is Brian Sutherland's boss, and it's that office that I deal with and the minister's office deals with most regularly on social housing matters.
Ms Cronk: And is what he's saying in this memo with respect to the briefing notes, that there was concern being expressed by the minister's offices, that is, the office where you work, about the fact that the previous briefing notes suggested that everything was under control with respect to the Van Lang Centre but in fact your office, the minister's office, was getting information to the contrary?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And one case in point, I suggest, is the information provided to Karen Ridley that the matter had actually ended up in litigation and that Sharron Pretty had commenced a legal action, that there was a court date of June 2.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: That's not exactly under control, you'd agree?
Mr Collins: Yes, obviously.
Ms Cronk: In addition, the second feature of this memo that suggests things may have accelerated, I suggest considerably, is the indication that the minister's office, that is, the office where you work, was also telling David Clarke of the Ministry of Housing office in Toronto that "the rift on the board is widening."
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. The memo, however, appears to be suggesting that there was some doubt or uncertainty, on the part of Mr Clarke at least, as to whether Sharron Pretty had initiated court proceedings or was taking the board to court, because there's a question mark after his indication of that. Do you see that?
Mr Collins: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: And would you agree with me that it is a fair interpretation that Mr Clarke seemed somewhat uncertain of that, because there was a question mark, but he was confirming that the matter seems to be different than the previous background notes from the ministry had suggested?
Mr Collins: I can't, obviously, speak for David Clarke. I would like to put forward a suggestion that this e-mail was probably generated as a result of a discussion that David had with me.
Ms Cronk: And when was that?
Mr Collins: It could have been the previous day.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember it or are you just reconstructing?
Mr Collins: I'm reconstructing, based on looking at this e-mail.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember having a discussion with David Clarke about legal proceedings involving the board and Sharron Pretty?
Mr Collins: I've talked to David Clarke on numerous occasions over the entire period of dealing with this Van Lang issue. I've also e-mailed David Clarke on numerous occasions. I don't remember the specific discussion. I know that, basically, any time I would find out something from the constituency office or from any other source that I had not known about through ministry notes I would talk to David about it so that the ministry was informed and could provide whatever extra information or advice they might have to our office.
Ms Cronk: So you're assuming, then, on the basis of your usual practice, that you would have spoken to David Clarke once you obtained information as to those legal proceedings.
Mr Collins: Yes, and the fact that he's somewhat unclear is probably a reflection that I was somewhat unclear at that time as to exactly what was going on. I just knew there was something happening involving legal matters.
Ms Cronk: It could be, or it could also be that you just don't recall at this point in time the information that Karen Ridley actually gave you?
Mr Collins: That's correct, yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. So with respect to what is contained in the memo as to the state of affairs, leaving aside the litigation, would it be fair of us to conclude that at least at this point in time, May 17, there was clearly information in your offices, which I take it you would be aware of, that the problem was accelerating, that the rift on the board was greater than it had been and it was not as it was described in previous briefing notes?
1630
Mr Collins: Yes. We had moved from a situation where there was a board member -- where attempts had been made to squeeze a board member off the board to a situation where legal proceedings were either happening or a potential.
Ms Cronk: In fact, did this lead, Mr Collins, to a further background note or briefing note, dated May 18th, in which for the first time the Ministry of Housing offices in Ottawa were recommending a meeting by the minister with participants in the Van Lang situation? Do you recall?
Mr Collins: Again, I'm not directly involved in those matters, but given the e-mail of May 17th and the note appearing on the 18th, that would be standard procedure, that the regional office would have responded to David Clarke's or their boss's office's request by producing an updated note.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall actually seeing a briefing note on or about May 18th in which it was being recommended by ministry people out of Ottawa that a meeting now take place?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that was the first time that that recommendation had come forward from Ottawa, wasn't it?
Mr Collins: Yes. Just if I could ask for -- if we could step back one moment, the e-mail that we were referring to, page 2 of whatever --
Ms Cronk: Yes, exhibit 14.
Mr Collins: -- exhibit 14, indicates that there was a message attached to this e-mail. Do we have the message in the exhibit? The message could be either a file or, what is much more likely the case, another e-mail, perhaps an e-mail from me to David Clarke that he was attaching so that the regional staff could --
Ms Cronk: All I can tell you -- I can't help you with that, Mr Collins. All I can tell you is that I have given you the documents in the form which I received them last night from the ministry.
Mr Collins: Okay.
Ms Cronk: What was or wasn't attached to it I don't know and I may or may not have. I don't know. Is that what that indication on the bottom means? If it says "Message," there was a message?
Mr Collins: Yes. All I can say is that technically, if this e-mail was able to be produced, so will the message that is attached to it, and it may or may not be of interest to know what that was.
Ms Cronk: So when I read at the bottom of these various e-mails something that says "Files" and then an indication of "Message," it means there was an attachment of some kind?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I see. All right. Thank you for that. I didn't know that.
With respect to the May 18th background note, do you recall the one of which I'm speaking?
Mr Collins: Generally, yes.
Ms Cronk: If you look at tab 46, if you still have exhibit 1, volume 2, this is the background note of May 18th, and I draw your attention particularly to page 3. Do you have that?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: In the second bulleted paragraph, Mr Collins, it contains a recommendation that, "The minister, together with the regional manager" -- from Ottawa; that in this case would be Brian Sutherland -- "and other staff meet with all Van Lang Centre board members to assist in resolving the present internal strife and respond to the concerns of all parties involved."
In so far as the committee is aware, based on the documentation now before it, this was the first time, as I suggested to you a moment ago, that the Ottawa MOH offices were proposing a meeting, and the part of the recommendation that I'd like you to focus on for the moment is that this is a recommendation, in the sense of an identification of the action required, that a meeting take place with all of the Van Lang board members. Correct? That's what the language is of this.
Mr Collins: That is correct. Could I make a comment on your earlier supposition?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Mr Collins: Seeing these notes on a daily basis, many more of them than I would like to see sometimes, I would not read the last bullet point as a recommendation from the regional office. I would read it as a statement of fact that there had been a decision to meet. At that point it would be rather fruitless and ridiculous for the regional office to do anything other than acknowledge that a decision was taken to have a meeting and start incorporating it into their daily business, including any notes that came forward.
Ms Cronk: Well, Mr Collins, can I just make sure I understand what you're telling me? We've looked at a number of e-mails that make it clear that until the minister saw the compliance review, up until the end of April, a meeting was unconfirmed. Am I right so far?
Mr Collins: Correct.
Ms Cronk: We went back and we looked at those. Then coming through on May 17th is this e-mail to Brian Sutherland in which information's being provided about the potential for court proceedings and widening difficulties on the board. And then the very first piece of paper of which the committee is aware in which from the Ottawa MOH staff there's an indication that there will be a meeting or that there should be a meeting is this one, the May 18th background note that I'm telling you about. Are you saying to me that some time during the first two weeks of May there was a decision that a meeting should take place?
Mr Collins: No. My sense, given the materials and my own memory, is that I had referred from the beginning to the fact that a meeting was more or less a fait accompli. I had no reason to believe that once the minister saw the compliance review and once I saw the compliance review, that would somehow remove the necessity or the desire to have a meeting, nor did I have any sense that when Ms Pretty received her letter, somehow she would be satisfied and convinced that the ministry had resolved her concerns.
So my assumption, and I think it's reflected in my correspondence that's here, and it certainly is my memory that when I was discussing things with ministry staff, which is who's produced this note, my communication was of a sort that they would assume that a meeting was going to happen. It was just a matter of when.
Ms Cronk: You've explained what your own assumption was when the response went out to Sharron Pretty, and what your own expectation was, and my question to you is this: Are you in a position to tell the committee that the minister had made a decision in the first two weeks of May to meet with this group?
Mr Collins: No, I'm not.
Ms Cronk: All right. So when you made the clarifying statement that you wished to offer a moment ago, are you suggesting that the MOH people in Ottawa had been told there would be a meeting and were simply assuming that there'd be a meeting, or was this not their own proffered suggestion for action to be taken in the case?
Mr Collins: Again, I cannot -- first of all, I'm not responsible for some of the contact with the ministry in terms of setting up the logistics of the meeting, nor would I pay any attention to it on a day-to-day basis.
My sense and recollection of the history during this period is that there was some confusion around who the minister would be meeting with, when, whether she would be meeting with them. All I know is that from my discussions with Evelyn, her concern was about the management compliance of the Van Lang Centre. That, to me, suggested that it would be a meeting with the board, the entire board.
There was some questioning as to whether there would be a necessity to have a pre-meeting, which in the most likely case would be Ms Luu and Ms Pretty, and it's quite probable that both staff in our office and within the ministry were, not having been given very explicit, clear instructions either way, somewhat confused as to exactly what this meeting was going to contain, who would be going etc.
So I don't -- again this is my own view, but going through these sorts of matters on a regular basis, I don't read a whole lot into some of the fuzziness and apparent contradictions during this period in terms of someone suggesting a meeting should be set up with person X, and I'm talking to David Clarke about a meeting with the board or the group. It's just sort of the normal lack of clarity that accompanies these sorts of things when there are multiple requests coming in. We of course, by that time, had had requests from both Ms Luu, Ms Luu and Ms Pretty, and the board to meet.
Ms Cronk: Over the course of the preceding year.
Mr Collins: Yes, and some of the people involved, probably most of the people involved in this, other than Karen Ridley and myself, would not have been aware of those requests.
1640
Mr Harnick: I'm becoming more confused by the minute, but I thought that what you were being asked was whether the Ottawa ministry staff were now recommending a meeting, because that's what the document appears to say. You were asked to clarify that and what I got was, "It was fuzzy, and nobody really knew what was going on." But are you telling us, from your answer, that the Ottawa staff were not recommending the meeting and that this recommendation for a meeting was coming from somewhere else? I think that's --
Mr Collins: No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that unlike the other meeting request forms that from my observance of the committee to date, you have looked at, meeting request forms that are filled out by the regional staff -- again, standard procedure; any time there's a meeting those forms are filled out -- this is not one of those forms. So the fact that there is a briefing note that suggests that a meeting is going to occur, to my mind -- and again, you'd have to talk to the regional staff; I can't speak on their behalf. But if I received this note cold and someone put it in front of me and said, "Does that, to you, represent a recommendation from the regional office to meet?" I would say, "No, it represents a statement of fact."
That's the only point that I'm making, just that this is not a meeting request form.
Mr Harnick: All right.
Mr Collins: There wasn't a meeting request form sent to the regional office, to my knowledge, post the minister making her decision to meet. We don't ask the staff to fill out forms when we've already made a decision.
Mr Harnick: Just for clarification, then, if this is a statement of fact, some day preceding this date when this statement of fact was made, there was a decision presumably made by someone to have a meeting.
Mr Collins: And my attempt -- and I was probably inarticulate, but what I was attempting to say to Ms Cronk earlier is that that may or may not be the case, I can't say, but what I can say is that I characterized the meeting as essentially a fait accompli when dealing with ministry staff. I had no question in my mind that there would be a meeting occurring at some point. I had no question in my mind that Ms Pretty would not be satisfied with the April 25th letter, if I'm remembering the date correctly. It was simply a matter of: "Send the letter out. She'll get back to us and ask for a meeting. In the meanwhile, let's see if we can set one up. Let's see if we can get the compliance review." We were very busy. It may very well have been several weeks, and as it turned out it was several weeks that passed before a time slot was available.
Ms Cronk: All right. May I just make sure that I'm clear on what your evidence is. Sorry, Mr Harnick, did I cut you off? Is that --
Mr Collins: Does that --
Mr Harnick: Well, if we're trying to tie this all together factually, I know that there was a period of time where the minister said, despite the fact that you disagree, that there was going to be a meeting and there was some correspondence to the effect that, or e-mails going back and forth to the effect that, "Yes, there was going to be a meeting but we had to get this compliance review report in front of the minister first." All I want to know is that there is no other evidence that a meeting was being recommended, other than the fact that the minister said, going back to, I guess it was April, the end of March, beginning of April, that there will be a meeting.
Interjection: April 14th.
Mr Harnick: And other than that decision made by the minister, there was no other decision or discussion that there was going to be a meeting; that was the decision and now it was a matter of putting it together in terms of timing, documentation and everything else.
Mr Collins: That is my recollection of what occurred during that time period, remembering, of course, that it was a combination of myself and Karen Ridley who were dealing with the actual ministry staff. The minister herself never said anything to the ministry staff one way or the other.
Ms Cronk: Okay, thank you.
Mr Harnick: Thank you.
Ms Cronk: May I just be clear about this, then, and I want to have an understanding, Mr Collins, of what you are indicating to the committee is fact and what you are indicating to the committee is your sense of what was occurring, looking back on it, the two being quite different, you would agree with me.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. As a matter of fact, I understand you to be saying to the committee that in your mind a meeting was likely to be inevitable following receipt by Sharron Pretty of the response letter of April 25th because you expected her not to let the matter drop and to pursue the request for a meeting. Am I right?
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And in that context, it was Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu who had triggered the most recent request for a meeting by their letter of March 4th, 1994.
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And it was Sharron Pretty who had been in contact with Sue Lott and the constituency offices to inquire about a meeting at that point in time; it was in response to their letter that there were communications with the constituency office, or do you know that?
Mr Collins: I'm not aware of -- I wasn't involved in communications that I can recollect around the meeting request.
Ms Cronk: I didn't suggest you were, Mr Collins. I was talking about the constituency office, and I take it you're not in a position to confirm that one way or the other then?
Mr Collins: No, I'm not.
Ms Cronk: Then in so far as you were concerned, because in your mind a meeting was going to occur, you take from this background note prepared by the MOH offices in Ottawa that they were simply reacting to a fact, but that's the interpretation you place on it because you, in your discussions with them, treated it as if a meeting would in fact take place.
Mr Collins: Yes. I think again to the best of my recollection that that is contained in e-mails to David Clarke, that I essentially said, "A meeting is going to occur," or in discussions with David Clarke, that the minister and I will meet.
Ms Cronk: Well, forgive me, Mr Collins, the e-mails are before you, we looked at them, and what the e-mails appear to suggest is that the minister wanted to see a copy of the compliance review and to discuss it with you before making a decision on a meeting. There is no e-mail of which I'm aware in this period of time when you indicate that the minister has decided a meeting will occur. Are you suggesting that you have a memory of that?
Mr Collins: Well, could I take a moment to review the e-mails?
Ms Cronk: Absolutely.
Mr Collins: If you look at e-mail number 6 or page number 6, sorry, in exhibit 14, is it?
Ms Cronk: Mm-hmm. Can you give me the date, because mine's a bit out of order.
Mr Collins: April 25th, 1994, from David Clarke to myself. Again, this is just the first one I've tripped across. He's asking me: "Any idea when you and the minister will be meeting with the group? Will it be in Ottawa?" To me, that is confirming my recollection that in my speaking with David Clarke, I was referring to the meeting, the proposed meeting, as a fait accompli.
Ms Cronk: Yes, I'm sure you were, Mr Collins, but what I'm trying to be clear of here -- and I wish to be fair to you, but I thought we'd just gone through this -- is that what the e-mails reflect is that the minister, as distinct from what was in your mind --
Mr Collins: That's right.
Ms Cronk: -- wanted to see the compliance review, wanted to read it, wanted to discuss it with you and then wanted to decide whether there was going to be a meeting. I'm suggesting to you, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that there is no e-mail here indicating that the minister during the first two weeks of May had herself reached a decision that there would be a meeting. Am I right so far?
Mr Collins: You're absolutely correct.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. So whatever was in your mind about the matter, things do happen. You might have been right but you might also have been wrong.
Mr Collins: Yes, and the only relevance -- you're absolutely right, it doesn't matter what I thought in my mind. The only relevance to this that I could see is that the eastern regional office's preparation of a note was probably in response to discussions or e-mails or both with David Clarke.
Ms Cronk: Well, forgive me, Mr Collins, you don't know that, do you?
Mr Collins: No, I don't, but that would be the standard procedure. They do not deal with me directly in anything other than very extraordinary circumstances.
Ms Cronk: I put to you a little while back that they had a May 17th e-mail directed to Brian Sutherland from David Clarke in which he was saying, "There's a problem with the background notes here," and I thought we'd agreed that it was that and the information in it that may have triggered the May 18th background note. So I actually don't think we're disagreeing, because we'd already looked at that, right?
Mr Collins: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Okay. So can I come back then to what the background note itself appears to say, and that is, by its language, would you agree with me that it's suggesting that the minister, together with the regional manager -- I take that to be of the eastern office, Brian Sutherland -- and other staff would meet with all Van Lang Centre board members as set out in that bulleted paragraph.
Mr Collins: That's what I would read it to say.
Ms Cronk: So whatever the source of their information, they seem to be thinking at that time that the meeting was going to be with the entire board. Is that fair?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Okay. And what you've said, and in fairness to you I want to make it clear, is that you were, in your communications with them, treating the meeting as a fait accompli and you were no doubt communicating that to them.
Mr Collins: Correct.
Ms Cronk: Is that what I should take from this exchange?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: What I also understood you to be saying was that as you moved through this paper, there was some confusion you feel as to who the meeting was going to be with and as to whether it would be with the entire board or with Sharron Pretty or Trinh Luu.
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Is that fair so far?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Would you also agree with me that some of these e-mails that we've already looked at do suggest by their language a meeting with Sharron Pretty as distinct from the board as a whole, but there's also some that leave that open to question, and then this one which specifically talks about a meeting with the board.
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Is that a fair summary?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Thank you very much. Then we come forward to the discussion which I understand you had in the latter part of May with Mora Thompson of Ms Marland's offices, and it's my understanding that that contact occurred on or about May 27th. Is that consistent with your recollection?
Mr Collins: Yes.
1650
Ms Cronk: Ms Mora Thompson, the committee has heard, is an executive assistant to Ms Marland. Did she initiate the call to you?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you speak with her?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: What was the nature of the discussion you held with her at that time?
Mr Collins: Ms Thompson was calling me to let me know that Ms Luu had visited their office and had either dropped off material or had discussed a wide range of material related to the Van Lang Centre. If I recollect, I sort of let Ms Thompson know immediately that I had a very good sense of what this material was and she didn't need to detail it for me; to let me know that their office was now aware of this issue, that they had been asked to raise it in the House; that upon review of the material, they felt that the ministry was actively involved in trying to resolve the issues and was certainly aware of the issues; and that she wanted to let me know that they were obviously also now aware of it and would be watching closely to see if there was a quick resolution to the issues.
Ms Cronk: Did she mention anything during the course of that discussion about pending legal proceedings?
Mr Collins: I do not recall whether Ms Thompson or whether I discussed legal charges, matters, procedures during that call.
Ms Cronk: Was it suggested during the course of the call by Ms Thompson that the minister should meet with Trinh Luu?
Mr Collins: I don't recall. What I'm saying, I guess, is that I wouldn't say yes or no to that. It's a possibility, but I do not have a clear recollection of it. There's an aspect to the call that I very clearly recollect because it was an unusual call, but I can't recall whether we talked about the potential upcoming meeting.
Ms Cronk: Could I stop you there, Mr Collins, because it's important that you understand the question I'm putting and that I understand the answer, but that they both be somehow connected.
Mr Collins: Okay.
Ms Cronk: The question was this: Did Ms Thompson suggest to you during the phone call that the minister, Ms Gigantes, should meet with Trinh Luu? I think your answer was, "I don't recall, but I wouldn't have answered that," which is a little different. It presupposes that she raised it. So do you have any recollection of whether she said in the call that the minister should meet with Trinh Luu?
Mr Collins: If what you just described to me is what I said, then I would certainly like to clarify. The answer is I don't recall. To be very clear, I would not have had any reason to say one way or the other. I certainly would not have said that there was not going to be a meeting. It's quite clear that we were in the middle of a process of setting up a meeting.
Ms Cronk: Should I take from that that you don't recall saying anything to her about a meeting one way or the other?
Mr Collins: I don't recall one way or the other, but if asked, I certainly would not have said that there was not going to be a meeting.
Ms Cronk: What is the aspect of the conversation that does stand out in your memory that you alluded to a moment ago?
Mr Collins: Well, at the time I was very impressed and pleasantly surprised that the Housing critic of the third party's office would call our office to let us know about an issue that quite likely was worthy of a question in question period and to prewarn us of that. That's an extraordinarily rare occurrence.
Ms Cronk: Had it ever happened in your experience before while you've been at the minister's office?
Mr Collins: No, no. Since the time I've been in there, I've not received a call of that nature from either of the opposition parties' offices.
Ms Cronk: Where I come from, Mr Collins, that might be described as a favour, a prewarning.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Yes? Was she effectively telling you that this was a problem and if the minister didn't get on it and if it wasn't dealt with, they'd be watching it and it might be raised in the House?
Mr Collins: Yes. In a very professional, businesslike, pleasant way, yes.
Ms Cronk: Was the essence of that prewarning, if I could put it that way, or that message, that Trinh Luu had told them she wanted a meeting with the minister and that the ministry or the minister should be responding in some way to that?
Mr Collins: I don't recall any discussion about a meeting with the minister during that call.
Ms Cronk: Sorry, I didn't mean to re-emphasize that, because I understood your answer. Was she asking you to do anything specifically by way of response, or was she suggesting that there should be a response to Trinh Luu or Sharron Pretty?
Mr Collins: Yes. Well, she was saying that the issue should be responded to, and my recollection is that I let her know that we were very well aware of the file and had been dealing with it for a number of months and were actively attempting to deal with it.
Ms Cronk: And did you give her any indication as to whether you would speak with Trinh Luu or Sharron Pretty?
Mr Collins: No.
Ms Cronk: And subsequent to that discussion, did you tell the minister you'd received that call?
Mr Collins: I know I discussed it with others in the office. I cannot recall whether I discussed it directly with the minister.
Ms Cronk: I take, from the way you've so candidly and quickly described it, that it was quite an unusual call?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And as you say, you were pleased to receive it and thought it was a very professional communication.
Mr Collins: Mm-hmm. And at the time, I remember distinctly mentioning it to a couple of other people in the office because of its unusual nature. Whether that included the minister I honestly can't recall.
Ms Cronk: That's what I was wondering, because of its unusual nature, whether it stands out in your mind that you would have told her about it. Is it probable, looking back on it, that it's the kind of thing, again given the frequency of your contact with her, that you would have drawn to her attention?
Mr Collins: It's probable, but again I don't have a --
Ms Cronk: You can't be certain.
Mr Collins: I cannot be certain.
Ms Cronk: All right. So where we are then, as I understand it, after this telephone call from Mora Thompson, based on what we've looked at this afternoon, is that there is information available to the minister's office suggesting either that legal proceedings have in fact been commenced through that information being available from Karen Ridley, based on her discussion with Sharron Pretty, that the rift is widening on the board, that there was some apparent difficulty with the background notes and another is produced, for whatever reason, and it's now being, in your mind, inevitable that a meeting is going to take place, and then you get a call from Mora Thompson saying, "We're on this, and if there's no response we are going to raise it in the House." Is that a fair synopsis of those events?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And would you agree with me that that heightened the sensitivity of this matter somewhat, given that the opposition was now telling you, "We're not going to go away on this; we're going to be monitoring this and you'd better respond to it"?
Mr Collins: I want to be very careful in the way I word this so as to not attempt to offend Ms Marland or her office, but at the time, I did not feel that anything more could be done with the file than we were already doing. Given the number of other -- this was in the context of a number of other audits of troublesome non-profit projects being released in the House. The thought of one more showing up in the House was not, to me, the end of the world, and I didn't feel that, based on that call, there was something we could do to somehow resolve this in the next immediate short while.
My discussions with the minister up to that point had -- I think we had a common understanding that there were serious longer-term problems with this project and it was simply a matter of trying to figure out a way to sort of steer it in the right direction, with the understanding that it would probably be a fair length of time before the project would be considered fully in compliance with the ministry's management and operational expectations. It wasn't a quick fix, in other words.
Ms Cronk: Had there been a decision at that point, as at May 27th, when you got that call from Mora Thompson, by the minister to go forward with the meeting?
Mr Collins: I don't recall. I do not have a sense of precisely when a decision was made to go ahead with the meeting or not.
Ms Cronk: And you don't recall one way or the other?
Mr Collins: No.
Ms Cronk: So you're not in a position to give the committee any information as to when that decision was in fact taken by the minister?
Mr Collins: No, I'm not. As I said, in a perhaps somewhat inappropriate way, I had been operating under the assumption for several weeks that there was going to be a meeting.
Ms Cronk: I understand where you were coming from. I'm asking you about the minister.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And you can't help us as to when that decision was made by her or whether it had been made as at May 27th.
Mr Collins: I knew there were people working on the logistics of setting up the meeting and I knew that, as a result of finding out about the legal proceedings, there was a pause while we examined that situation that might have affected whether or not the meeting occurred. But in terms of, for example, when a meeting date was confirmed or when meeting dates were confirmed, when or if the minister actually said specifically to someone, "I'm definitely going ahead with the meeting," I have no direct knowledge of that.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. May I please understand why there was a pause when you found out about the legal proceedings? What was it that you understood had to be found out about that?
Mr Collins: At the time, as I said, there was a vague suggestion that there were some legal proceedings or legal matters occurring, no specific definition of what those were.
Ms Cronk: Can I just stop you there for a sec, Mr Collins? You say "vague" in a sense that, I take it, looking back on it yourself, you think your knowledge of it was vague at that point.
Mr Collins: Yes, I'm sorry. My knowledge was vague. Obviously, the actual events were not vague.
1700
Ms Cronk: But beyond that as well, there'd been a discussion between Sharron Pretty and Karen Ridley on May the 12th when -- you're not in a position to indicate whether more specific information was or was not communicated in that call, am I right?
Mr Collins: That's correct. All I know is that the communication to me about the specifics of any legal proceedings or matters was vague enough that I didn't have any comfort level with what they were or what they were not and whether or not it would affect the minister's or my ability to deal with this file.
Ms Cronk: What, if anything, did you personally do about that?
Mr Collins: My recollection is that I went to David Clarke and suggested, and it may in fact have been as part of a previous e-mail where he had noted to the regional office that there were -- question mark, is Sharron Pretty suing the board, or something along those lines. To put it into very simple terms, request of the operations ADM's office to find out what these charges were.
Ms Cronk: Did you make that request?
Mr Collins: Yes, and they of course passed it on to the regional office.
Ms Cronk: When did you get a response to that?
Mr Collins: To the best of my recollection, we didn't ever get what I would call a thorough response. At the time of the June first Sun articles, a decision was made to try a different route. I went through the deputy minister's office to ask the legal director to basically find out for sure exactly what was going on in this situation.
Ms Cronk: That was after, you said, the Sun articles. Do I take that to mean the articles under Mr Wallace's byline that appeared on June the first?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: From your perspective, what were you seeking? What information was it that you were seeking with respect to the charges?
Mr Collins: Aside from the usual who's suing whom, I was primarily concerned about whether any of the legal matters involved the minister or the ministry directly. In other words, was there the potential or was there in fact anyone involved in this situation suing the ministry, and effectively to confirm that the charges or any legal proceedings that were out there were in fact, to use someone else's term, "internal" matters that would not have a direct bearing on any ministry-management compliance issues, they would not affect the ministry's operating agreement or, in this case, memorandum of agreement with the group. Basically, just making sure they were sufficiently distant that we did not have to be concerned about discussing them or acknowledging them.
Let me clarify. Discussing the merits of a case would obviously be totally unacceptable, or approaching anybody that was prosecuting the cases or the crown or what have you. But what I was more concerned about was that given that these legal matters seemed to be part of the evolution of the breakdown of things at Van Lang, we obviously needed to be able to acknowledge that. If it was a matter of, for example, not being able to speak to someone involved in those legal proceedings, that would have eliminated the opportunity for a meeting, since virtually either all or almost all of the board members of Van Lang were involved.
Ms Cronk: In what circumstances would a meeting, in your mind, have been precluded?
Mr Collins: If, for whatever reason -- and again, I didn't have a great deal of reason to believe that it would be the case in this situation -- a board member or if a corporation operating under our program was suing the ministry, for example.
Ms Cronk: Or the minister.
Mr Collins: Or the minister personally, yes, or, for example, me or someone in her office, as unlikely as that would be.
Ms Cronk: In those circumstances, in your view, a meeting would not have been possible, in either of those two events?
Mr Collins: If we had found out that the minister or the ministry was being sued, it would have involved a further level of checking with the ministry's chief lawyer for very specific advice on exactly what can be said or done under these circumstances, because I personally would not be able to advise on that.
Ms Cronk: Would not be?
Mr Collins: No, I'm not in a position to -- I'm not a lawyer and I don't have an extensive legal knowledge of those things.
Ms Cronk: Well, then, when I asked you a few minutes ago in what circumstances would a meeting have been precluded, do I take from your answer that if you had learned that either the minister or the ministry had been sued or named in these proceedings, in your view that would have triggered a different and further level of inquiry to determine if a meeting was possible?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And do I understand you to be saying that that would be a matter upon which you would not advise but someone else would, with legal training?
Mr Collins: I might make the request, but it would be the ministry's legal director that would advise --
Ms Cronk: I understand.
Mr Collins: -- on whatever various concerns there might be under those circumstances.
Ms Cronk: And short of that, Mr Collins, that is, short of the minister herself being named in the suit, which of course factually did not occur, and short of the ministry actually being named, charges against the ministry, are you saying that in your mind there would have been no difficulty in going forward with a meeting?
Mr Collins: I wouldn't say "no difficulty." I would say that we would need to know, as we asked, precisely what all the legal proceedings were before meeting, but in my mind and to my knowledge and understanding of the various governances around these things, it would not have prevented a meeting from occurring.
Ms Cronk: But in terms of the nature of the advice that you provide to the minister in your capacity on policy, as well as you indicated earlier with some political aspect to it, in other words, assessment of the political significance, I take it, of doing or not doing certain events, from those perspectives, in your mind would there have been any reason not to meet, simply not to meet, if the minister wasn't involved or the ministry wasn't involved?
Mr Collins: Sorry. I'm going to have to ask you to restate that so I can try to follow.
Ms Cronk: Leaving aside the issue of whether there was any legal impediment, right?
Mr Collins: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: From a policy and political assessment point of view, if it was a situation where the minister wasn't named and the ministry wasn't named, would there in your view have been any reason to hesitate or would the minister have been free to go ahead with the meeting?
Mr Collins: Again, assuming that advice was being provided by the ministry, even on the less significant minister not directly involved or ministry not directly involved, to my knowledge there wouldn't be, and of course in this case the existence of the legal proceedings was an illustration that a situation that had been bad was getting worse, so it would have the opposite effect.
Ms Cronk: Opposite in what sense?
Mr Collins: In that it suggested to me ever more clearly that perhaps the minister's personal presence could be helpful in this situation.
Ms Cronk: And when was the information forthcoming to you that you ultimately had requested through the deputy minister's office for information as to the exact nature of the proceedings, the charges?
Mr Collins: There was sort of a two-staged situation is how I remember it. Knowledge of whether or not the minister or the ministry was directly involved came in formally very quickly after the initial request. That's something that is, again, not knowing the technical procedures, but I assume that's a relatively simple thing for our legal branch to determine. The more complex note that dealt with the details of the matters related to the Van Lang board members arrived, um -- June 16th is the best of my recollection. It was reasonably late in terms of, uh, timing and having a chance to review it before the meeting.
Ms Cronk: So as I understand it then, after your discussion with Mora Thompson on the 27th of May, the next event that occurs is the Wallace articles that you've referred to in the Sun on June the first, with respect to these terms?
Mr Collins: Yes, in terms of my memory now, that was the next sort of significant milestone.
Ms Cronk: And is it then the very next day that you have a discussion with Trinh Luu?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did she initiate that call or did you call her?
Mr Collins: Trinh Luu had been attempting to reach me for a number of days. I had received e-mail notifications that she was trying to reach me. It was not until June second that I actually had a chance to speak to her.
1710
Ms Cronk: And do you recall the nature of the discussion that you held with her on that day, in general terms?
Mr Collins: Yes. And obviously, people are aware there's an transcript --
Ms Cronk: Yes. I'm just going to get you a copy of that. It's exhibit number 10. Mr Collins, at my request, did you earlier review a copy of this transcript?
Mr Collins: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Does it accurately set out, from your point of view, the nature of the telephone discussion that you held with Trinh Luu on June 2?
Mr Collins: I would say it's substantially accurate. As I mentioned to you earlier during our interview, I have some sort of mental recollection of more occurring at the beginning of the conversation than is here, but I wouldn't put my memory up against the transcript. I'm saying my recollection is not so clear that I would have reason to doubt this transcript. I would say it is accurate.
Ms Cronk: So you think there may have been more at the beginning of it, but you're not disagreeing with or disputing the content of the transcript itself.
Mr Collins: Yes. Again, only because of the line on page 2, where Ms Luu is apparently saying, "According to your message, you said that you can't see any point in...meeting." I have absolutely no recollection of leaving a message of that description and would have had no reason to do so at the time.
Ms Cronk: Did you tell Ms Luu during the course of this telephone discussion that it would put the minister in an awkward position, given the legal case involving Sharron, to meet on this matter?
Mr Collins: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Was that your view at the time?
Mr Collins: It was my view in terms of dealing with people on the outside of the ministry. I was wanting to be overly cautious, given that at that point I did not have any clarification from the ministry's legal branch as to -- at that point I wasn't even sure that I knew about all of the charges that might have been outstanding or pending.
Ms Cronk: Was it your view at the time that it would put the minister in an awkward position, given the legal case involving Sharron Pretty, to meet?
Mr Collins: It was my view that it had the potential to, or that something unknown at that point might have the potential to.
Ms Cronk: But did you tell Ms Luu that it had the potential to put her in an awkward position or that it would put her in an awkward position?
Mr Collins: I think I probably said it would put her in an awkward position.
Ms Cronk: And is that what you meant?
Mr Collins: What I'm attempting to articulate is that I was purposefully being overly cautious when dealing with someone who was not the ministry's legal advisers. Given what I said earlier, it's my understanding that if, for example, other charges that no one had brought to my attention had been discovered or revealed, depending on the nature of those charges or legal matters there might have been a situation where it wouldn't have been appropriate for the minister to meet or talk to people related to this case.
The Chair: A question from Mr Murphy to you.
Mr Murphy: Sorry, counsel, and it may or may not be very important. On page 19 of this transcript, and I think you put it to this witness whether it was accurate, the one question I have -- about halfway down there's a long paragraph.
Ms Cronk: What page, Mr Murphy?
Mr Murphy: Page 19, and it's "M" next to it. Just from reading it, I think that might actually be Trinh Luu speaking, as opposed to --
Mr Collins: It is crossed out on my copy and replaced with a T.
Ms Cronk: Sorry, it should have been on yours.
Mr Murphy: Okay.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, Mr Murphy's mike wasn't on during that little question.
The Chair: The mike was working; the light didn't go on.
Mrs Marland: Thank you.
Mr Murphy: People say that about me a lot.
Mr Owens: You said it, not me.
Ms Cronk: Mr Collins, if I can just understand what you're telling the committee, are you saying that because you were dealing with someone not from the ministry staff and not a legal adviser to the minister, you expressed the view that meeting, given Sharron Pretty's involvement in a legal case, might put the minister in an awkward position, but what you really thought at the time was that it would potentially do so?
Mr Collins: My recollection is that I was most concerned about the unknown. In fact, my own clear -- well, to my view, clear -- sense of what the pending legal matters involved occurred when I talked to Ms Luu. She explained it to me in a manner that no one else to date had. Despite that, I was still concerned that our own legal branch might turn up something that had not yet been known to me --
Ms Cronk: I'm just trying to understand the distinction I thought you were drawing, because you talked about speaking to someone "who was not a legal adviser" and someone "outside the ministry." You have acknowledged, and the transcript indicates, that you told Ms Luu that because of the legal case involving Sharron Pretty it would put the minister in an awkward position to meet. You've acknowledged that you said that.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then I thought you were telling me that you exercised caution, great caution, because you were speaking to someone from the outside, if I can put it that way, from outside the ministry staff, and I understood you to say that you were concerned about the potential for it. I'm trying to understand where that leaves the committee.
Are you saying that in your mind you were concerned about the potential for putting the minister in an awkward position, or did you in fact feel at that time that the fact of that lawsuit, as described to you in this conversation, would put the minister in an awkward position to meet?
Mr Collins: Absolutely. It was the potential.
Ms Cronk: All right, but that's not what you told Ms Luu?
Mr Collins: That's correct, and I'm acknowledging that I was purposefully being overly cautious, given that I knew Ms Luu was one of the people who wanted to meet with the minister, had been involved with Ms Pretty, and I did not want to give any expectation of a meeting in the very near future.
Ms Cronk: You were in fact, by the language that you used, suggesting quite the opposite, weren't you?
Mr Collins: That's right.
Ms Cronk: You also told Ms Luu in the conversation, did you not, that the fact that there were allegations of coverup by the regional staff, which she mentioned in the call, made things very delicate?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that you needed to talk to the minister about it?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then you had a discussion with Ms Luu, as I read the transcript, about the nature of the proceeding and some of the history and you returned -- I'm looking at page 6, Mr Collins -- to the theme of the fact that the regional office had been implicated in some of the allegations made by Ms Luu. You refer to that about midway down the page. Ms Luu replies: "I don't implicate anything. I just want Evelyn...to look at the evidence and it's up to her." So part of the conversation is concerning the potential implication of the ministry, through its regional staff, in the allegations that had been made by Ms Luu and Ms Pretty. Is that correct?
Mr Collins: That's correct, yes.
Ms Cronk: You then again told Ms Luu that you were going to talk to the minister that evening?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And you asked specifically what the legal action was that was going on and Ms Luu said to you, "It's a minor charge, and, you know what? Sharron has the right where, every director according to the Corporations Act" and she went on to say "has the right to access to the corporation's documents" and she explained to you what had happened, from her perspective?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And you asked her what the status of it was, where it was all standing? You asked and were told who was involved in the charges.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You asked whether the other litigation involving the first project manager, Ms Trinh Tran, was pending or had been completed, over at page 9.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And Ms Luu provided you with some information about that.
Mr Collins: Correct.
Ms Cronk: Then over at page 11 you again tell Ms Luu that you were going to talk to the minister and you indicated that you would do so that night.
Mr Collins: Correct.
Ms Cronk: You also told Ms Luu that the minister was going to have to talk to the ministry lawyer about the whole situation.
Mr Collins: Correct.
Ms Cronk: Your conversation continues with her for some time and you talk about a variety of matters, including the response from the ministry to Ms Luu that had been made. You went on to make some inquiries about media contact -- I'm over at page 18 -- and you went on to say, at page 20, "that in some very delicate situations where there are legal cases pending it's sometimes better only for the professionals in the ministry to deal with things." I take that to be as distinct from the minister?
Mr Collins: That's correct.
1720
Ms Cronk: And you had a conversation about that and you concluded the conversation by indicating to Ms Luu that you would be back in touch with her shortly?
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. Should we take from the transcript of this discussion -- and I ask for your own recollection of the discussion if you have any, Mr Collins -- that what you were saying to Ms Luu, at least in part, in this conversation was, "You've got an outstanding legal action; tell me about it," and she did. Right? And she provided you with facts about it, right?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Yes. And you were telling her that the fact of that legal action involving Sharron Pretty would put the minister in an awkward position with respect to a meeting?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that it was a very delicate situation.
Mr Collins: I think "delicate" referred to the other issue, but I can't recall.
Ms Cronk: So "delicate" because there'd been implications of Ministry of Housing staff involved.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And you told her you would speak to the minister about it. Indeed, at one or more parts of the transcript of the discussion you said that you would do so that evening.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And you would get back to her about it.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Was it your view at the conclusion of the conversation with Ms Luu and based on the information she'd provided that -- or did you have a view as to whether the minister was in a position to actually have a meeting with Ms Luu or Ms Pretty, based on the facts that had been given to you?
Mr Collins: I do recall this fairly distinctly. My view was that assuming there's nothing more out there than what Ms Luu had told me about, and she characterized it as a minor charge, that I didn't think that would preclude the minister from having a meeting, but again was not in a position to say one way or the other because I was still awaiting the advice from the people in the ministry who can actually make those determinations and give that kind of advice.
Ms Cronk: And that's not you.
Mr Collins: That's not me. That's the legal branch. The legal director typically deals with the minister directly on those sorts of matters.
Ms Cronk: And did you offer or provide your own advice to the minister on the matter?
Mr Collins: Again, I've been trying to recall, during this time frame, the time frame immediately leading up to the meetings being set up, precisely when I talked to the minister, in fact even whether I talked to her specifically about my call with Ms Luu or any other communications I had during that period, and I don't have a clear recollection.
Ms Cronk: Well, whether or not you spoke to her about the fact of the conversation with Trinh Luu -- I of course recognize the difference between actually telling her of that and speaking to her generally about the matter -- do you have a recollection, after you learned details of the legal proceedings that had been commenced, of advising the minister or commenting to her or offering her your advice as to whether, given those circumstances, given those facts, a meeting should or should not occur involving her participation with representatives of the Van Lang group?
Mr Collins: I don't recall. My recollection is, as I said, that I was waiting for the briefing note from the ministry, which was anticipated to arrive sooner than it actually arrived.
Ms Cronk: And if I understand what you've also told the committee, it was, however, your view, based on what you'd been told, that there would have been no impediment for her to have a meeting of that kind, given what you'd been told about the proceedings.
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And is that because neither the minister nor the Ministry of Housing, based on what you were told, were directly named in or involved in the legal proceeding?
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And was that your view notwithstanding the information that Trinh Luu had provided that there were implications in the allegations made by Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu involving Ministry of Housing staff? They were implicated in some of the allegations that one or both of those women had made.
Mr Collins: Well, she was suggesting that they might be implicated. It wasn't a -- I think at one point she sort of said, "Don't worry about who I'm implicating; I just want Evelyn to see the evidence." Quite frankly, I had to go away and think about that. I at that point had no reason to believe that anyone in the ministry was acting in a manner to exacerbate the problems at Van Lang, but I wanted to reflect on that.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. My question wasn't intended to suggest that that was the fact. The fact I was putting to you was that Ms Luu had discussed with you during that telephone conversation that there were implications regarding Ministry of Housing staff, and you clearly knew that, based on the telephone discussion.
Mr Collins: Yes, and that fed into my concern that there may be other things out there that would pop up or had already been proceeded with by individuals that I just simply wasn't aware of.
Ms Cronk: And my question to you was: When you told the committee, as you did a few minutes ago, that it was your view, based on what you learned, that there was no impediment to the minister meeting with this group, you did so with the knowledge, because Trinh Luu had told you, that some of the allegations involved implications regarding Ministry of Housing staff?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: But you don't remember whether you spoke to the minister about it one way or the other?
Mr Collins: I don't have a clear recollection of a specific conversation, no.
Ms Cronk: So you're not saying it didn't occur; you just don't remember.
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: With respect generally to the idea of a meeting as it came up in a conversation with Trinh Luu, did you understand her to be suggesting a meeting with the board as a whole, or a meeting only with herself, or with Sharron Pretty, or both of them? What was your understanding of what she was discussing?
Mr Collins: I don't recall having any specific notion one way or the other.
Ms Cronk: Now, that telephone call was on June 2. Could I ask you to go to tab 60 of volume 3, please. Do you have that, Mr Collins?
Mr Collins: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: At tab 60 there's an e-mail -- sorry; let's wait for Ms Kristjanson to get it. This is an e-mail, Mr Collins, that I understand to have been directed to you from Rob Sutherland, and it's dated June 6.
Mr Collins: Correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. It appears to be suggesting that a meeting with Van Lang was to occur and that the minister had asked that this be arranged as soon as possible. Am I reading that correctly?
Mr Collins: Again, I would not be able to speak on Mr Sutherland's behalf to know precisely what he was interpreting this meeting to be.
Ms Cronk: I didn't ask you that, Mr Collins. Can I just ask you -- I don't wish in any way to be unfair to you, but for the moment my question is just directed to what the language of the memo itself says. Am I correct at least this far, that what it says is that the minister had asked that a meeting be arranged as soon as possible? That's what the first paragraph of this e-mail says, isn't it?
Mr Collins: It says "this meeting." I don't know whether in Mr Sutherland's mind that was the board or someone or Ms Pretty, Trinh Luu, whatever.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. My question wasn't directed to that, with that refinement, but a meeting with the Van Lang people.
Mr Collins: Sorry. I'll try to be less refined.
Ms Cronk: That's all right. What the memo is suggesting is that the minister had decided there was going to be a meeting, that she wanted it as soon as possible, and that's what he was addressing in his e-mail to you. Am I right?
Mr Collins: Correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. And he goes on to talk about the fact that the schedule for the 10th -- I take that to be June 10th -- was quite busy and he was suggesting June 17th for the meeting. Is that right?
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And the point you were making -- and fairly, I understand what was in your mind -- is that it doesn't make clear with whom the meeting was to take place.
Mr Collins: That's because at that time, as far as I recollect, there was a proposal to have two meetings on the 17th, a pre-meeting between the minister and Ms Luu and potentially Ms Pretty, and then the meeting with the actual board that would involve Mr Sutherland from the regional office.
Ms Cronk: As you understood it, was the meeting with the actual board to include Sharron Pretty?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And thereafter, that is, from and after June 2, the day of your discussion with Trinh Luu, did you have any personal involvement in making the arrangements for that meeting or in facilitating it?
Mr Collins: No, none.
Ms Cronk: Was that all set up between Rob Sutherland and Karen Ridley and others?
Mr Collins: It wouldn't be Rob Sutherland. Rob had probably just come from a chat with Evelyn and was just wanting to remind us or convey her concerns. Rob is not normally involved in setting up meetings.
1730
Ms Cronk: At that point in time, as far as you were aware, had the minister received and reviewed a copy of the -- you told us that she'd received it towards the end of April, beginning of May. Had she reviewed the compliance review?
Mr Collins: Yeah. Upon reflection, I think actually that it was later than that that we received the compliance review. By this time, I'm quite confident that she had --
Ms Cronk: Did you ever --
Mr Collins: -- received it and reviewed it.
Ms Cronk: Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Did you ever sit down and talk to her about it?
Mr Collins: Not in a meeting specifically for that purpose.
Ms Cronk: Well, in a less casual way, did you speak with her?
Mr Collins: Yes. She discussed it with me after reading it.
Ms Cronk: Did you share your views with her that you previously expressed this afternoon, that you had concerns about it?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did she share those concerns as you understood it?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then if I could ask you to go to tab 63, this is an e-mail to Karen Ridley from Rob Sutherland dated June the seventh, and I can't tell from the initials on the copying, because it is just initials as to the persons who received a copy, but I thought perhaps you did because there's an "mc" there. Does it look like it was copied to you?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: In the first paragraph, it's suggesting that the minister had "decided that the Van Lang complaints warrant further investigation and has agreed to meet with both the complainants and the board." Do you see that?
Mr Collins: Okay, yeah. That clarifies my earlier wondering about whether that had been decided or not.
Ms Cronk: As far as you knew, was it then the situation as at June seventh that the minister had decided to meet with the board and as well with Trinh Luu?
Mr Collins: Yes. There would be, the purpose -- as I said, I would think of it, if it was, given that this is the kind of meeting that I would normally be involved in, I would consider the meeting, the dual meeting, as the meeting and a pre-meeting, almost like a briefing for the minister, so that Ms Luu and Ms Pretty could in a more detailed sense and in a face-to-face way inform her of their concerns before she met with the board as a whole, where for example there might have been some question as to whether people would be, given the setting, completely able to be forthcoming with their concerns.
Ms Cronk: I see. Did you know, based on any discussion that you yourself had with the minister or any information available to you at the time, as to who the minister expected to be at those two meetings?
Mr Collins: My sense from talking to the minister was that she expected both Ms Luu and Ms Pretty to be at the pre-meeting. Certainly in discussions that she and I had, that was the expectation.
Ms Cronk: Based on discussions that you yourself had with her, do you know whether she expected the second meeting to include all board members, and by that I mean Sharron Pretty?
Mr Collins: Yes, it certainly did.
Ms Cronk: Did you attend the meeting on June 17th?
Mr Collins: No, I didn't.
Ms Cronk: Did you speak with the minister thereafter as to what had occurred at the meeting?
Mr Collins: I think not, given by the time there would have been the normal opportunity to discuss things, the Tuesday or the Wednesday, since Mondays are briefing days where we have a full schedule of other ministry matters to look after, it had been raised in the House and a whole chain of events ensued as a result of that.
Ms Cronk: So you have no recollection of having discussed it with her?
Mr Collins: No, but I was a party to seeing Audrey Moey's notes at the time that those were originally faxed to the office, the notes reflecting the course of events at the meeting. I did receive those.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you finally to look at tab 78 of the same volume. This is a cover memo to Karen Ridley from Lisa Heaton dated June the 15th attaching a background note for the minister's meeting on Friday, June 17th. A copy appears to have been provided to you, according to the cover sheet.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Looking at the background note, do you remember receiving a copy of it?
Mr Collins: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: Did you review it on or about the time of its receipt?
Mr Collins: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: To your knowledge, was a copy provided to the minister?
Mr Collins: Yes, it was.
Ms Cronk: To your knowledge, did she read it, or do you know?
Mr Collins: I was not in the same city with her, or in fact, if she received it while she was still in Toronto, it was at the very end of the day before she left to fly back to Ottawa.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, could you just say that last part again?
Mr Collins: If she had received it at the end of the day, Thursday, it would have been very shortly before she was ready to leave the building to fly back to Ottawa.
Ms Cronk: But did I understand you to say that she did get a copy?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You know she got a copy?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You just don't know when?
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Nor do you know if or when she read it.
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And did you have any discussion with her about its contents prior to her attendance at the meeting on June 17th?
Mr Collins: No. I reviewed the note on the 16th and was very impressed with the quality and the thoroughness of the note. It was sort of a very, I thought, easy-to-follow chronological description of the various events, and for that reason, given that Evelyn -- there's never a concern with the minister reading materials. She always reads what we provide her and deals with it thoroughly; I don't have to doublecheck on that. I had no question in my mind that she would in fact read this and also find it a useful note.
Ms Cronk: Thank you very much. Those are my questions, Mr Collins.
The Chair: Okay. We'll start the rotation with Mr Callahan, 15 minutes.
Interjections
The Chair: Mr Murphy, lead it off there.
Mr Murphy: Yes, thank you. I would like to turn to tab 79, if I could, which is in exhibit 1. I think, Mr Collins, you indicated that at the June second conversation with Trinh Luu there was still some concern in your mind that --
Mr Collins: I'm sorry. Could you repeat just that last sentence?
Mr Murphy: Yes, in your June second telephone conversation with Trinh Luu you indicated, I believe, that there was still some concern in your mind about what was out there and the issue of advice on whether or not the minister should meet is dealt with by the legal director directly with the minister. Is that correct?
Mr Collins: If there's a situation that involves the minister, to the best of my knowledge, it's usually the legal director herself who would deal with it.
Mr Murphy: Right. You'll agree with me that there is no note in here from you to the legal director asking for advice about whether the minister should meet?
Mr Collins: No, in fact, I don't think there was ever --
Mr Murphy: Such a note.
Mr Collins: Such a note specifically requested. I asked for information from the legal branch on the -- basically for them to get back to us and clarify every possible thing in terms of a legal proceeding that could be pending or outstanding or involving Van Lang through the deputy minister's office, and the person I deal with there is Patricia Redmond.
Mr Murphy: Right. So what you were asking for is a status: "What's happening? Tell us what's happening on this lawsuit." And in fact that's what you got.
Mr Collins: Not just that lawsuit: "Tell me every law suit or every legal proceeding that might be out there related to the Van Lang Centre."
Mr Murphy: Right. And you'll agree with me, though, that that request did not include asking for advice about whether the minister should attend, based on concerns about there being an outstanding lawsuit.
Mr Collins: I considered it implicit in the request.
Mr Murphy: Well, you'll agree with me what you got back didn't address the issue of whether she should or should not attend, on June 16th, at tab 79.
Mr Collins: Well, in terms of a specific question being asked and a recommendation being given, you're correct, yes.
Mr Murphy: That advice, is it your responsibility to provide that advice in the office or is there some other political staff who would raise the issue from a political perspective in the minister's office, or do you rely solely on the legal director's advice?
Mr Collins: This is advice on --
Mr Murphy: Whether or not a court case being extant would preclude the minister from going to a meeting.
Mr Collins: To the best of my knowledge, that would be the legal branch of the ministry that we would rely on.
1740
Mr Murphy: Would the legal branch in the ministry include consideration of, for example, the commission on conflict-of-interest rules? Would that be included in the legal branch's advice to the minister?
Mr Collins: I would assume so, yes.
Mr Murphy: Do you know?
Mr Collins: I'm saying I assume so. I'm not legal branch and, you know, if you wanted to get an absolute clarification of that you'd have to ask them.
Mr Murphy: All I'm asking is whether you know.
Mr Collins: What I know is that the legal director regularly briefs ministry office staff on issues such as conflict of interest and that they are the body that, as far as I'm concerned, we rely on for advice on these matters.
Mr Murphy: So the legal branch would then brief you from time to time on outstanding conflict issues?
Mr Collins: Not me specifically; the general office staff in the minister's office.
Mr Murphy: So they would brief everyone, including you?
Mr Collins: As a group, yes. Yes.
Mr Murphy: And would that include the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines?
Mr Collins: Again, the briefings occur typically every six months. I've been through two of them in my tenure there. I think the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines are mentioned but not dealt with in any great amount of detail. Again, that's a matter that -- a minister of the crown himself or herself is expected to understand those, and if they had a concern about those guidelines, I assume they would deal with them personally. They certainly wouldn't come through me to deal with it.
Mr Murphy: In the setup to the meeting between June 10th and June 17th -- I'm sorry if I missed this -- do you recall meeting with the minister to discuss what was going to happen at the June 17th meeting?
Mr Collins: No, I don't.
Mr Murphy: And does that mean there wasn't such a discussion or you don't remember there being one?
Mr Collins: Well, again, I'll try to be a cooperative witness. Evelyn passed me a note subsequent to the June 10th meeting. I don't recall actually having a meeting or discussing it with her directly.
Mr Murphy: Do we have that note?
Mr Collins: I assume you do, but --
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, may I just be clear? Was this after the June 17th meeting?
Mr Collins: No, this is after the June 10th meeting.
Ms Cronk: Yes, we do, Mr Murphy, and I apologize. Actually, I'd forgotten to draw the witness's attention to it, so if we're off your clock, could I just find it for you? I don't mean that I want to --
Mr Murphy: Certainly, especially if we're off the clock.
Ms Cronk: It's in volume 2. Perhaps you could ask the witness, Mr Murphy. I'm assuming that the document at tab 47, volume 2 is the document you're talking about.
Mr Collins: I'll let you know in just a second.
Mr Murphy: How much time do I have, Mr Chair?
The Chair: You've got about five minutes and 49 seconds.
Mrs Marland: He's got you on hold while --
The Chair: So you can take some time looking for it. You're not being timed.
Mr Collins: Do you have that?
Mr Murphy: Yes.
Mr Collins: The document at tab 47 is a note that I assume was made either at or subsequent to the minister's meeting with Ms Luu on the 10th and passed to me, asking for me to follow up, to gather some more information before the meeting on the 17th.
Mr Murphy: On a different topic, do you remember after the meeting of June 17th whether you had any discussions with members of the regional Ministry of Housing staff about preparing documents for a briefing or a recollection of the meeting on June 17th?
Mr Collins: I'm very sorry, are you saying --
Mr Murphy: After June 17th --
Mr Collins: Did I have a conversation?
Mr Murphy: In fact, after the issue was raised in the House, do you recall having discussions with Mr Sutherland, particularly, at the regional office staff about preparing briefing materials?
Mr Collins: Briefing materials --
Mr Murphy: In relation to the June 17th meeting, for any purpose whatsoever.
Mr Collins: The briefing materials for the June 17th meeting had already been prepared by Mr Sutherland's office and forwarded to our office; that was past.
Mr Murphy: But there was a subsequent package that the ministry put together, including a set of sanitized notes, I call them, that Mr Sutherland prepared in and around July 14th, and I'm wondering --
Mr Collins: Okay, I'm sorry. I understand what you're saying now. I have not been involved in any -- once the discussion of a legislative committee was raised, I was in a position that I had to step out of all discussions in the office related to this matter. So I attended no ministry meetings, no political meetings, I have discussed my evidence and my notes with no one else who was involved in the lead-up or the actual meeting since -- I don't remember which day that occurred, but whatever day it was clear that we were going to be heading into a hearing of this sort.
Mr Murphy: Thank you. While those aren't all my questions, it's Mr Callahan's turn.
Mr Callahan: Let me ask you a question. If you knew that the minister was going -- I mean, it seems to me that everybody was trying to keep the minister from going to this meeting and she finally went. If you knew that when she was going, she was going to go there and, say, try to negotiate a deal to have Ms Pretty go to the prosecutor and get rid of her charges and quid pro quo for that was that she would continue as a director, would you have allowed her to go?
Mr Collins: My understanding of the purpose of the meeting was to go to discuss, in a forum with all of the parties necessary to resolve management and operational compliance issues, the various ways that the Van Lang Centre could be brought back into compliance with ministry's policies and hopefully start spending their time and energy on that rather than fighting with each other. I wasn't -- you know, there was no --
Mr Callahan: All right, let me try this again from another aspect. On the 16th of June you knew from information you got from the Attorney General's office that -- you knew specifically what the charges, criminal charges, or the quasi-criminal charges, were. You told my friend that you had asked them for all legal proceedings outstanding. You weren't told about the civil action for wrongful dismissal by the former administrator.
Mr Collins: That had already been noted from June of 1993 in ministry notes.
Mr Callahan: Okay. Recognizing that you knew there were charges that were in the process under the aegis of the crown, would you have stopped the minister from going to this meeting?
Mr Collins: Well, obviously not. I didn't stop her from going to the meeting.
Mr Callahan: I see.
Mr Collins: There was no intention to intervene in those proceedings or attempt to influence them in any way.
Mr Callahan: I see. Well, okay.
You know Brian Sutherland, obviously.
Mr Collins: Yes, I do.
Mr Callahan: We had him here this morning giving evidence.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Mr Callahan: He prepared a note at tab 90, if you'd look at tab 90. Have you ever seen that note before?
Mr Collins: Sorry. Which volume are you in?
Mr Callahan: Tab 90, volume 3, exhibit 1. That was an e-mail, we understand.
Mr Collins: Yes, it's an e-mail between Brian and his staff.
Mr Callahan: Have you ever seen it? Ever?
Mr Collins: Uh, yes, I was shown this e-mail subsequent to -- uh --
Mr Callahan: What date?
Ms Cronk: I think he should be allowed to finish --
Mr Callahan: All right.
Mr Collins: Thank you.
Mr Callahan: Well, I'm limited in time, you see, so I don't have the luxury of --
Interjection.
Mr Collins: I was shown the e-mail in between the time of the June 17th meeting and the time at which we knew there was going to be a legislative hearing.
Mr Callahan: Ah, okay.
Mr Collins: At that point I was still carrying the Van Lang file in the office and was attempting to deal with any concerns related to it.
Mr Callahan: I suggest you also saw the more detailed statement made by Mr Sutherland, which is at tab 103. It's the "Notes on the June 17th, 1994, Meeting with Van Lang Board of Directors."
Mr Collins: I have not seen this. No.
Mr Callahan: You mean to tell me you saw the note in 90, which is a brief note, and you didn't see this one, which was prepared July 14, 1994?
Mr Collins: I don't understand the incredulity of that, but -- I saw the e-mail because Patti Redmond of the deputy minister's office showed it to me as a point of interest at a time when I was still carrying this file. I have not seen these notes and would have no reason to see them.
Mr Callahan: I see. So Mr Sutherland just spent quite some time typing them up, and he said he sent them off to various people. You tell us, Mr Collins, that you saw the note of the 17th at tab 90 because it was shown to you by Patti Redmond. That was before the legislative committee was set up as a result of a decision of the House.
Mr Collins: That's my recollection, yes.
1750
Mr Callahan: And you're telling me that this item, which is at tab 103, which is a detailed account by Mr Sutherland of what took place at the June 17th meeting -- you weren't interested in that? You didn't see it?
Mr Collins: I had no idea that it had been prepared.
Mr Callahan: I find that remarkable.
Mr Collins: I don't.
Mr Callahan: In any event, you'll agree with me that by July 14th something had hit the fan. It was damage control time --
Mr Collins: I'm not aware of anything occurring around July 14th that changed anything.
Mr Callahan: Let's go back to tab 90. You tell us that Patti showed you that tab, and clearly that tab says, and I invite you to look at the e-mail, "In any event, I believe that the minister was able to convince Sharron and the other board members to work toward a resolution of the matter prior to the charges being considered by the court early next month." Did you ever question anybody about what that meant?
Mr Collins: Nope.
Mr Callahan: You didn't care, did you?
Mr Collins: I have a fairly good notion of what that means.
Mr Callahan: Aren't you the damage control messenger of the minister? Are you not?
Mr Collins: Not that I'm aware. No.
Mr Callahan: You're not?
Mr Collins: No. We have --
Interjection.
Mr Callahan: I'm sorry?
The Chair: He's a witness here.
Mr Callahan: I appreciate that, Mr Chair.
Mr Collins: We have communications staff who, I guess, if you wanted to characterize things as "damage control," would be a damage control person. I'm not.
Mr Callahan: Who is the damage control person?
Mr Collins: Well, I'm saying if you wanted to characterize something as damage control, I would assume it would be the communications assistant in the office.
Mr Callahan: Who's that?
Mr Collins: Anne-Marie McElrone.
Mr Callahan: I see.
I notice that at tab 78, when a memorandum was sent, it was addressed to you, Anne-Marie McElrone, Marc Collins, Evelyn Muncaster, so I gather that when faxes or items are sent out, they're addressed to all of you.
Mr Collins: This was a briefing note in preparation for a ministry meeting that included ministry staff. Whenever the minister meets with somebody there's a briefing note of this sort prepared, usually nowhere near this detailed because it's often not as complicated a situation, but there's always a briefing note prepared when the minister meets.
Mr Callahan: Why would you be included in that memo, which was pre-June 17th meeting and you're telling us --
Mr Collins: I've been copied on every --
Mr Callahan: Just a second. Let me finish.
The Chair: Just a second. Your time has run out, Mr Callahan.
Mr Callahan: All right. Well, I don't have an answer yet. And you weren't included --
The Chair: I'm sorry.
Mr Callahan: I want to know why he wasn't included in the 103 tab.
The Chair: You've had your 15 minutes. Mr Harnick.
Mr Harnick: Sir, you have some considerable qualifications in your job in that you were a civil servant who obviously was quite well recognized within the ministry by the minister because of your obviously very able and extensive background, and you were chosen to move into the minister's office and to take a job as a political person with direct access to the minister, someone who sees the minister often, speaks to her every day, probably frequently, and meets with her. You've been around for a while in order to attain that status and that level, and what I'd like to know from someone with your background who's been around, as you have, as a civil servant and as a political appointment to a minister: Have you ever before seen a minister have a meeting with individuals who were involved in a quasi-criminal court case and go into a meeting as minister and meet with the complainants and the accuseds while a court case was pending? Have you ever seen that before?
Mr Collins: It's my understanding, from having worked --
Mr Harnick: I don't want to know what your understanding is. I want to know whether you've ever seen it before, and that demands an answer that's either yes or no. Can you answer a question by saying yes or no?
Mr Collins: Yes, I'm confident that ministers have met with parties who have been involved in lawsuits not involving the minister.
Mr Harnick: Have you ever seen Minister Gigantes meet in these circumstances before?
Mr Collins: I've never seen circumstances of this sort before in my entire six and a half years at the Ministry of Housing. I've never encountered a case of this sort.
Mr Harnick: Can you tell me which --
Ms Freya Kristjanson: Let the witness finish the question.
Mr Harnick: I'll never get my time in.
The Chair: But they can't pick it up in Hansard if both of you are talking at once.
Mr Collins: I'll be very brief. This is a unique case. I've never encountered a case of this description before.
Mr Harnick: Can you tell me a case that you have seen where a minister meets with people who are accused and the complainants in a lawsuit before?
Mr Collins: At any time amongst the 1,500 co-ops and non-profits in the province, there are board members and employees and former employees suing each other. As I said before, so long as those cases don't involve the ministry, they're not suing the ministry for something or the minister personally, it's not my understanding that that prevents the minister from meeting.
Mr Harnick: No, that's not what I'm asking you. I want to know of an actual case that you've seen before. Have you seen one? Tell me what the actual case was that you've seen where the ministers met under those circumstances.
Mr Collins: I can't recall one off the top of my head right now.
Mr Harnick: All right. Now, if a minister is going to meet in these circumstances, as Minister Gigantes did, can you tell me whether there -- and I'm not asking you whether you think it's proper or not, because I appreciate you don't know the answer; that's a legal matter -- but from your experience as a political individual, would you think that there should be any restrictions on what the subject matter of the meeting should cover if a minister is going to meet in these circumstances?
Mr Collins: There could be the potential for that. As I said, based on the purpose of the meeting, what I wanted to get clarified was that it was possible to acknowledge the existence of these charges. It would have been a rather ridiculous meeting to try to bring people together who obviously had antagonistic feelings towards each other for a very long period of time and to try to conciliate, mediate, just try to get them to talk to each other, however you want to describe it, if you weren't able to acknowledge that there were legal actions occurring. If the situation was that serious, there wouldn't have been a meeting.
Mr Harnick: So you're saying that it's correct, then, to deal with the subject matter of the charges in this meeting?
Mr Collins: No, not to deal with the subject matter; to acknowledge that they existed and that, you know, perhaps --
Mr Harnick: We all knew they existed.
Mr Collins: -- there may be --
Mr Harnick: What restriction on the minister should there be?
Ms Kristjanson: Excuse me, would you let the witness answer the question.
Mr Harnick: He doesn't answer the question. That's the problem.
The Chair: Yes, he has. He hasn't finished, but they're very short answers he's given, Charles. Okay, go ahead, Mr Collins.
Mr Collins: Thank you. What I was about to say is that --
Mr Owens: Yes, he's rocking.
Mr Harnick: Not rolling, though.
Mr Collins: -- and I may have lost my train of thought, given the --
Mrs Marland: Do you want me to take over?
Mr Harnick: Go ahead, Margaret.
Mr Collins: If you can just restate your question briefly, I will answer it.
Mr Harnick: All I want to know is, very simply, should a minister in those circumstances, from your experience as a seasoned political individual with one of the highest jobs in the ministry, be careful to restrict themselves in any way in these circumstances?
Mr Collins: Yes, and to my knowledge the minister certainly did not approach the crown, did not discuss the merits of the charges, didn't approach anyone --
Mr Harnick: Well, I didn't ask you that.
Mr Collins: -- in any way in a manner that would be seen as trying to influence charges.
Mr Harnick: I want to know what --
Mr Collins: So that's what I define as being careful.
The Chair: Excuse me, Charles. Let the witness finish his answer.
Mr Harnick: I'm finished.
The Chair: Okay. Mrs Marland. Mr Collins, did you want to finish the answer there, for Hansard's purposes?
Mr Collins: That's all I needed to say unless --
The Chair: Okay. I was hearing two conversations.
Mrs Marland: Mr Collins, were you aware of an agenda for the meeting on the 17th of June?
Mr Collins: No, I wasn't. There are usually not agendas prepared for those types of meetings.
Mrs Marland: In the briefing note prepared for the minister -- which I would like to tell you that if this was prepared for me as a minister I would have a great deal of difficulty with my staff. There are a number of serious errors in this briefing note, absolute inaccuracies about what is a government policy, what comes under the Corporations Act. I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for the minister when she is surrounded by the kind of incompetency that she obviously has been with her staff.
1800
On page 5 of the briefing note there is a reference to June the 16th and the fact that summonses have been received by all directors to appear in Provincial Division Court as of this date. Would you agree, because you've already said that the minister reads these briefing notes thoroughly -- whether they're accurate or not is a problem for her to resolve; I'll certainly point out to her the errors in this since I think it's in everybody's best interest that she has accurate information -- that going into that meeting there was no question about the minister knowing the status of the charges and the status of the summonses that involved four of the directors that were in that meeting on the 17th of June?
Mr Collins: I have no reason to believe she wasn't clear on the matter, but if I could really, briefly -- are you suggesting there's an error in this section of the note?
Mrs Marland: No, I'm not.
Mr Collins: Okay. Sorry. Thank you.
Mrs Marland: I don't want to take up my time, which is minimal at best, to point out the errors, but I would be happy to point them out at some other time.
There isn't any doubt in the minister's mind that there are four directors in that room that are involved in litigation, and the party who has initiated that litigation is also in that room. Is that correct?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Mrs Marland: In hindsight, if you had all this to do again, and since you personally have been copied on correspondence -- from the evidence that we've had in the last three days you've been copied on correspondence about all of these matters for at least eight months -- in hindsight would you agree with me that this has not been handled well?
Mr Collins: That what has not been handled well?
Mr Harnick: Does he know why we're here?
Mrs Marland: Do you know what this meeting is about? I'm talking --
Mr Owens: Come on, Margaret.
Mr Collins: I'm asking -- I'm not trying to be evasive. I need to understand what it is that you're --
Mrs Marland: That the whole mess, the whole cost of this hearing, this hearing that is necessitated because a number of people did not do their job, possibly including you -- I don't know; I'm trying to find out.
Now, this hearing is in session, it is very expensive and it could have been avoided. The minister, on the 14th of April, asked for a meeting. The charges were not laid until the 25th of April. You didn't return the phone call to Trinh Luu until the second of June, after it hit the press. You had an opportunity, when my staff phoned you, to facilitate a resolution with Trinh Luu because she was not involved in the charges, and dealing with the very controversial letter of the 29th of October from Ms Pretty, on which you were copied, that was the letter that laid out all the concerns of Ms Pretty and Ms Luu.
My question to you is, if Sue Lott advised Sharron Pretty on the second of December that Ms Gigantes had pulled that 29th of October letter out because she was concerned and that letter was being referred to Marc Collins, do you think it's fair on your part, to your minister, once she's identified the seriousness of that letter, knowing the minister has a whole lot of things to do in her job, do you think you've served her well to wait six months, until the 25th of April, to reply to that letter to Sharron Pretty?
Mr Collins: Would you like me to just deal with the latter part of your question, the six months question?
Mrs Marland: Yes.
Mr Collins: Okay. I did not wait six months to deal with that letter. I think we already heard that it had been mislaid for two months. Subsequent to it being given to the deputy minister's office at the end of December, drafts were prepared reasonably quickly, I would say, compared with an average situation, and I would assume that's based on the eastern regional office staff's awareness that this was a contentious issue.
Mrs Marland: I'm talking --
Mr Collins: The fact that drafts had to be redrafted because they weren't acceptable to me --
Mrs Marland: Would you agree that the letter went out -- I'm not interested in when the drafts took place; I'm talking about a citizen who has concerns who appeals to the minister, finally, because she can't get anywhere after six months with the minister's staff. She writes -- I think this is a 20-page letter. There are very serious matters in that letter identifying policies of your ministry that are not being adhered to, and you are happy or you think that you served your minister well, let alone the poor citizen who wrote the letter, by sending her a reply on the 25th of April and another e-mail somewhere referring to the fact if this satisfies her, it'll be fine; we won't have to have a meeting.
How do you feel that you've treated this individual citizen who was trying to resolve a problem in the interests of 70 units of publicly funded housing? How can you defend this process? How can you sit there, as an assistant to the minister, and be satisfied that you've all done your job when --
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Mr Chairman, can I just ask a point of order, though?
The Chair: I've got to stop the clock.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Yes, that's fine.
With all due respect, are we going to allow five questions at once, or should it be one question?
Mr Harnick: She can do whatever she wants with her time.
The Chair: If that's how she wants to question --
Mr Kimble Sutherland: I just wanted some ruling from you.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Owens: I'm not sure that the matters she's addressing follow from the terms of reference that we're supposed to be addressing here today.
The Chair: A little bit off base with some of it, but that's it, that's her time.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Okay, fair enough.
Mr Owens: Just how far off base are we going to let it go?
Mrs Marland: Excuse me.
Mr Marchese: It's okay, Margaret. You're doing fine.
Mrs Marland: I'm only off base in your opinion because I'm hitting at the very heart of this matter. Our counsel has brought us through the history of this outrageous situation, and all I'm doing is reminding the minister's senior staff person how outrageous this situation is and how it could all have been avoided, and the embarrassment to your minister could have been avoided, if the staff had done their job.
Mr Owens: And your question is?
Mr Collins: Would you like me to answer the question?
Mrs Marland: No, thank you. I've had so many interruptions now that I would like to go to another question.
Interjection.
The Chair: I'm sorry. Legal counsel said that the witness should be allowed to give an answer.
Mrs Marland: All right.
Mr Collins: My answer is that I think it would be quite obvious that no one involved was satisfied with the length of time that the April 25th response took to get out. I have no qualms about the way Ms Pretty or Ms Luu had been treated. As citizens, they had more access to the minister's constituency office probably than anyone else. I personally spent more time dealing with this file on this project than I have on any other project in the 120,000-unit portfolio that we administer.
Mrs Marland: You say that they had more access to the minister's constituency staff than any other case that you know of, and yet in nine months they couldn't get a meeting with their MPP, as in the case of Ms Pretty, who could not get a meeting with her MPP.
The Chair: Time has run out. Mr Winninger.
Mr Winninger: Thank you, Mr Chair. Perhaps we could lower the volume by a few decibels in the room.
I'd like to just take you back for a moment to June 1993, when you said you first had knowledge of the Van Lang matter. Am I correct on the time frame there?
Mr Collins: Yes, you are.
Mr Winninger: I believe you also mentioned during your evidence that the ministry has some 1,500 non-profit and co-op complexes. Is that correct?
Mr Collins: Don't quote me on the exact number, but it's in that range, yes.
Mr Winninger: Plus or minus. How many policy advisers does the Minister of Housing have in your capacity?
Mr Collins: That deal with those projects?
Mr Winninger: Yes.
Mr Collins: One: myself.
Mr Winninger: One. Okay. I take it that when you became aware of the Van Lang matter and information was provided to you, you set up some kind of watching brief. Would that be fair to say?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Mr Winninger: Okay. Over the course of the next few months, you became aware, I think you indicated, through a letter from Ms Pretty on October 29th and a follow-up letter by Ms Luu around December 6, that they were seeking the intervention of the minister. In fact Ms Luu, in her letter of December 6, was asking for a meeting with the minister. You're nodding your head. Is that correct?
Mr Collins: Yes, that's correct.
1810
Mr Winninger: At that point in time, I believe you indicated that you were already aware that the ministry at the regional level was aware of the issues in dispute.
Mr Collins: Oh, yes.
Mr Winninger: And that steps were being taken to deal with and hopefully resolve those outstanding issues.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Mr Winninger: And you probably were aware that the issues concerned access, concerned tenant participation, concerned procedural irregularities and so on. Again you're nodding your head. That means yes?
Mr Collins: Yes. Sorry.
Mr Winninger: So in fact at that point in time you were also aware that the compliance review had been undertaken.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Mr Winninger: Was it your hope or anticipation that the compliance review, when it was complete, might offer the kind of solutions that might redress some of the issues the complainants had referred to in their letters to the minister?
Mr Collins: Yes, and in most circumstances it's enough to bring things back into line.
Mr Winninger: Were you aware that there were some delays in the preparation of the compliance review?
Mr Collins: I was aware that it was taking a long time. I wasn't aware of any specific reason why or anything of that sort, I just knew I didn't have it yet and I knew it hadn't been completed towards the latter part of the fall.
Mr Winninger: And while the compliance review was under way, were you aware that there were ongoing meetings with staff of the regional office, including Mr Sutherland, Mr Shapiro and Mr Clement?
Mr Collins: Yes. Over time, as those events occurred, David Clarke, the assistant deputy minister's assistant, did keep me informed of those sorts of things as a way of reassuring me that the ministry was in fact taking this very seriously and doing what they could.
Mr Winninger: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my impression from your earlier evidence that you believed the matter was under control.
Mr Collins: No, I don't think I said that, and it's not my recollection that that's how I felt about it.
Mr Winninger: Maybe I should be a little more precise in the time frame I'm referring to now. Prior, say, to January 1994, you were aware that the regional office staff were assisting, providing support to Van Lang, were providing guidance and counselling, and you were probably also aware that Mr Sutherland had attended a December 30th board meeting.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Mr Winninger: And that there was an undertaking on his part that either he or staff would attend future board meetings --
Mr Collins: Yes, I was aware of that.
Mr Winninger: -- to assist at Van Lang. But later on, and I'm moving quickly here because we have limited time and I know my colleague has a question as well, later on in April or May, would it be fair to say, and in light of a memorandum that was referred to earlier, that the rift between Ms Pretty and the other board members was growing?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Mr Winninger: And at the same time, the information you were receiving at the regional level was to the effect that the situation was under control.
Mr Collins: Not completely, but the sort of tenor of their notes was much calmer than, obviously, what the constituency office staff were hearing from the parties directly involved. The ministry fully acknowledged that there were serious problems at Van Lang, as a result of both the compliance review and the staff's attendance at meetings.
Mr Winninger: And the e-mail that counsel referred you to from David Clarke to Brian Sutherland of May 17th, which you acknowledged appears to verify and confirm that.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Mr Winninger: At some point in time, then, your approach to the management of this issue and the hopeful resolution of this issue changed and more attention was being focused on the possibility of a meeting between the minister and members of the board. Would that be correct to say?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Mr Winninger: And also the complainants as well, Ms Pretty and Ms Luu?
Mr Collins: Well, Ms Pretty is part of the board, so she would be automatically involved.
Mr Winninger: Okay. But at the point in time at which it appears a meeting was being considered, there was also considerable attention given to obtaining a copy of the compliance review? I recall the memoranda you were presented with by counsel to the committee to the effect that both you and the minister were actively requesting the compliance review?
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Mr Winninger: You also acknowledged some familiarity with the two articles by James Wallace of the Sun, and at the same time I understand that Ms Luu was attempting to contact you --
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Mr Winninger: -- to discuss her desire for a meeting as well. Is that correct?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Mr Winninger: As counsel took you through the interview of June 2, I don't propose to do that again, but you clearly expressed your reservations in light of certain legal proceedings, of which at that point in time you, albeit, had rather scant knowledge, but you knew of their existence.
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Mr Winninger: You expressed some reservation and indicated that you were going to seek advice. Is that correct?
Mr Collins: I can't recall the precise wording, but that was certainly my intent.
Mr Winninger: Right. And notwithstanding that it appeared that the charges were not against the minister or against the ministry, you expressed some caution about the meeting taking place. Is that correct?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Mr Winninger: But at the same time, as the events unfolded and in the light of your conversation with Mora Thompson of Ms Marland's office, did it appear to you that there were issues that could be perhaps mediated -- that's a word that's been bandied about throughout these proceedings -- by the minister that wouldn't, if I can use this word, trench on matters that were before the provincial court?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Mr Winninger: And these would be matters unrelated to the request and denial of information from other members of the board that Ms Pretty had sworn out complaints about.
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Mr Winninger: Would it be fair to say that the issues that the minister might consider meeting with the board on and issues that she might mediate were those that have been previously described as core issues?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Mr Winninger: And this would be the access to housing and the tenant participation, to name two?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Mr Winninger: Did it appear to you, after you sought advice -- and the advice has been documented earlier in these proceedings -- as to the nature of these charges, that they didn't preclude the minister from meeting with members of the board on June 17th?
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Mr Winninger: I'm just going to check my time with the Chair at this point and find out how much time remains.
The Chair: You've got five minutes left, and you've got 10 in the bank.
Mr Murphy: If I can, on a point of clarification -- and please stop his clock -- he said there was advice received that said the minister wasn't precluded from meeting. I didn't hear any of that in his prior testimony. I'm wondering what advice that question is predicated on.
Ms Cronk: I don't believe the witness has given that evidence. He gave evidence that advice was sought, but not on the preclusion issue, as I understood it. You might want to pursue that.
Mr Winninger: Well, I was deliberately avoiding that, and I may be in your hands, Mr Chair and counsel, because these are matters that may be privileged and of a solicitor-client nature. I just wanted to establish that it was on advice that you had received.
Ms Cronk: I don't want this running on your -- the clocks are bothering me in this room; I don't want to be taking your time to do it. Mr Murphy's comment, and I'm suggesting that, in fairness, there's some legitimacy to it, is that it's asserting a fact that he heard back that there was, as a fact, advice received. That may be, but this witness hasn't said that. So we may want to establish that. Don't deal with the nature of the advice but the fact of it being received. I don't know that.
1820
Mr Winninger: If I misspoke myself, perhaps I could rephrase the question and ask Mr Collins whether, on the basis of the advice he received, he was of the conclusion -- and I know earlier you had expressed considerable reservation, and that's transparent on the face --
Mr Murphy: If I can -- but I don't want to use up your time and we'll stop the clock.
Mr Winninger: You don't?
Mr Murphy: But this question still assumes advice received. I think you haven't established advice received yet.
Mr Collins: Let's say information instead of advice. I have to agree that I attempted to clarify that in fact a note had not been prepared, nor had a specific request gone forward for advice specifically from the legal branch: Should the minister meet or not under these circumstances? There was information, both of an informal nature earlier on and the June 16th note, given to our office which might be called advice but in strict terms was information.
The Chair: David, ready to go?
Mr Winninger: How much time remains?
The Chair: You've got just four minutes, plus 10 in the bank.
Mr Winninger: Okay. I would ask you -- and I know that the fact that the meeting of June 17th took place speaks for itself -- whether it was your understanding, based on information you received, and it's been established that you were in daily contact with the minister, that a decision was made that the fact that the charges had been laid didn't preclude the minister's ability to attempt to mediate issues unrelated to the substance of those charges.
Mr Collins: That's my understanding of the situation. The minister read the note herself -- again, I wasn't with her when she read it, so I'm assuming that -- and would have drawn her own conclusions.
Mr Winninger: I know counsel didn't take up this line of questioning earlier, and I'd just like to take a moment to review with you whether or not there have been any discussions over the course of your tenure as policy adviser to the minister regarding a position that you and other staff should take in regard to such situations that might involve conflict of interest.
Mr Collins: As I said before, our office as a staff is briefed regularly -- my sense, having only been there a little over a year, is that it's typically twice a year -- by the legal director of the ministry, who gives us her best sense of these matters and gives us the one overriding piece of advice, which is: "Call me. Don't hesitate to call me to get things clarified."
Mr Winninger: That's essentially what happened here.
Mr Collins: Yes, there was a request through the deputy minister's office to the legal branch to find out what these charges were etc.
Mr Winninger: I see. I know my colleague has a question, so I'll defer to her.
Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Mr Collins, I noted that you said to counsel that you hoped to steer the board in the right direction so they could get Van Lang into compliance; that it would take some time; it would not be a quick fix. Is this what you had hoped to accomplish from the meeting: steering the board in the right direction?
Mr Collins: Very much so, because, of course, something I don't think anybody's talked about yet is that the alternative to the Van Lang board coming together as a whole and operating as a functioning board, given the memorandum of agreement that exists between the ministry and Van Lang, as opposed to a wonderfully polished, finalized operating agreement, we are left with, if I can put it in the vernacular, effectively two options.
One is for things to occur as they did, with Brian and other staff going and sort of poking the board and suggesting that they bring themselves into line. If that fails after a period of time, we essentially have only a sledgehammer option left to us. The minister was obviously very reluctant to use a sledgehammer approach here and wanted to make sure that every option had been exhausted.
We tried that over a series of months with the ministry, trying to get the ministry, as is their responsibility, to resolve the issues. When it became clear that at least some of the people involved had lost faith in the ministry and, in terms of the conversation with me, were potentially accusing the ministry of being part of the problem, it was felt that the minister's presence might be seen as more of a neutral party.
Mrs Mathyssen: And that it would take time.
Mr Collins: But certainly any solution was going to take a good length of time to work through.
Mrs Mathyssen: Okay. If you turn to tab 89 of exhibit 1, volume 3, there is a note from Trinh Luu to Mora Thompson. In this note Ms Luu indicates that: "The one hour and a half meeting between Evelyn and the board was disappointing. Basically, from Evelyn to the board, all begged Sharron to drop the charges, `forget the past, look forward to the future.' Evelyn is not supposed to play the role of mediator. She is supposed to take action, and she failed to take any. The problems remain unidentified, and Sharron was seen as the one to be blamed for all the troubles. Evelyn did not at any time mention this board's wrongdoings, in spite of evidence uncovered by Trinh on June 10, 1994."
I'll read you the Hansard of Ms Pretty's feeling about the meeting. That is from August 9, in the afternoon at 1520. She said: "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."
In your opinion, Mr Collins, are these expectations by Trinh Luu and Ms Pretty realistic?
Mr Collins: Not given the contractual relationship that the ministry has with co-operatives and non-profit housing corporations under our program.
Mrs Marland: Without an operating agreement?
Mr Collins: As I said earlier, we have a memorandum of agreement that is the equivalent to the operating agreement. It's not as finessable as the operating agreement, but it has the same effect and it has the same powers for the minister. There's no shortage of opportunity for the minister to intervene if she so chooses. As I said, it's more or less on a relatively limited basis or go in with a sledgehammer. When I say "sledgehammer," I'm referring to putting the corporation into receivership and bankrupting them. That is the next step in the remediation options for the ministry.
So the notion that the minister could go in and tell the board what to do, determine who was going to be on the board, tell them to do one thing or another, is just not an option legally under our system. All we can do is cut off subsidy, put them into receivership and replace them with someone else. The minister made it clear to me from very early on that would not be a preferred choice.
Mrs Mathyssen: So if the minister had gone in and punished the wrongdoers as Ms Pretty --
Mr Collins: Well, she has no ability to punish anyone.
Mrs Mathyssen: But it would have been very catastrophic for the entire project had the sledgehammer fallen, as you say?
Mr Collins: I would think so. It's extraordinarily rare that that occurs.
Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms Cronk, you have a few questions.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, sir. Mr Collins, I won't be very long. I'd like to just return to one area of questioning that came up this afternoon from the caucus members. At some point you said in reply to a question with reference to the June 17th meeting, as I understood it -- the proposition was put to you that if the minister was going to meet in circumstances where it was known that there were outstanding legal proceedings and where it was intended that the meeting would be with the people involved in those legal proceedings or the people who had initiated them, in those circumstances there should be restrictions on the topics to be discussed. In the course of your reply you said, I thought, that there wouldn't be a problem if the minister went in those circumstances so long as there was no discussion of the merits of the charges, just the fact of the charges. Did I get that more or less correctly?
Mr Collins: If I said "fact," and again there's probably a legal definition, I didn't mean the facts of the cases; I meant acknowledging that the cases exist.
1830
Ms Cronk: The existence.
Mr Collins: Yes, acknowledging the existence of the cases.
Ms Cronk: That's what I understood you to mean; I didn't mean more by it. But just dealing with that for a moment, I take from all of your evidence that you would acknowledge -- indeed, you first pointed out in our discussion to the committee -- that there are circumstances where because of a pending legal action a minister of the crown would be precluded from meeting with the parties involved in that legal action. That would be understanding as a policy and political adviser. Correct?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You suggested two circumstances in which that might be the case; for example, where a minister of the crown was himself or herself named in the suit, be it, I take it, criminal or civil. Correct?
Mr Collins: I would err on the side of caution. But again, I would rely on our lawyers' advice for the specifics of that.
Ms Cronk: Well, when you suggested that as a possible example, were you distinguishing in your mind between civil or criminal proceedings?
Mr Collins: No.
Ms Cronk: All right. So I take it, for the purposes of what you said, it doesn't matter. Right? And you suggested a second situation, and that's where the ministry for which a cabinet minister is responsible is named in the suit. Again, to your way of thinking, fairly, can I suggest it doesn't matter if it's criminal or civil if the ministry involved, the government's involved?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. You raise those as two possible situations in which a minister might be precluded from meeting.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Would you also agree with me that there may well be situations in which, where legal action is pending, be it civil or criminal, although a minister of the crown might not be precluded from attending, it might be inappropriate to do so?
Mr Collins: Yes, yes, I would think there would be occurrences of that.
Ms Cronk: All right. That could be, I suggest, for any number of reasons, including because the public might perceive in some situations that it was inappropriate for a minister of the crown to meet when a legal proceeding was outstanding, to meet with the people involved in that suit, again be it civil or criminal? Would you agree?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: A minister of the crown, would you agree, has to be concerned about that perception of the public?
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that's not just because most of them, from time to time, stand for election; it's also because the perception of the public goes directly to the issue of confidence in our justice system.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It is a responsibility of a minister of the crown to do, in his or her conduct, everything that can be done both to foster and maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. So that when you gave the answers that you gave this afternoon, fairly to you, it should not be understood that you were suggesting that it is only those circumstances in which a minister is precluded legally from meeting with parties to a lawsuit that they shouldn't do so.
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: You would recognize, and indeed I think you now have, that there are situations where although there's no legal restriction or impediment, it may none the less be unwise or inappropriate to do so.
Mr Collins: Yes, and it's my understanding that there's wording to that effect in the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. One or two other questions related to matters that came up this afternoon: I just want to be clear. It may be that there are facts that I'm unaware of, so I just want to be clear of this. All right? This issue of what advice was sought on the ability of the minister, this minister, to meet with these parties, given that there was a legal action outstanding, right -- I understood you to tell the committee that you had initiated the seeking of advice or the seeking of information, as you pointed out that, strictly speaking, it wasn't advice, it was information, on what they were all about, what the facts were, what kind of charges they were. Correct?
Mr Collins: Correct.
Ms Cronk: And also on the issue of what was involved in removing a director, and there was a second memo about that?
Mr Collins: Correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. Did you personally at any time trigger or take the steps necessary to seek advice on whether the minister in the circumstance of this case was precluded legally from meeting? Did you take those steps?
Mr Collins: Again in hindsight, I should have done it more formally, but my understanding of my conversation with Patti Redmond, who subsequently forwarded the request to the legal branch around the nature of the charges, was that implicit in that request, since Patti knew that the minister had a scheduled meeting or was in the process of scheduling a matter -- it was my understanding, based on my confidence in both Ms Redmond and in the legal branch, that implicit in that request would be an obvious openness for us to accept any advice, particularly if they thought there was going to be a problem. In other words, my assumption is, and I have no way of -- I've not spoken to Patti about this so I have no way of knowing, but my assumption is that when Patti asked for the note from Andrea Baston, the acting legal director at the time, that it was known that this was in reference to a potential meeting that the minister was having. And it is my assessment, given the standard practice of the way things work and the competency of the staff in the legal branch, that they would not withhold any information or advice if they felt it was relevant or in fact if they thought the minister was putting herself in some sort of compromising position. But of course technically that request, to my knowledge, did not go to the legal branch.
Ms Cronk: All right. And I certainly don't wish to be taken as suggesting circumstances in which there would be deliberate or conscious withholding of information --
Mr Collins: No, I understand that.
Ms Cronk: -- but as a member of the bar, I'm obliged to suggest to you on behalf of other members of the bar that sometimes they have to be asked to lend their mind to it.
Mr Collins: I understand that.
Ms Cronk: All right. And when you suggest that it was implicit in the request that you made, that's an assumption that you're making?
Mr Collins: Absolutely.
Ms Cronk: And you didn't specifically, I take it -- tell me if I'm wrong. You didn't specifically say to any other member of the minister's staff that the minister needed advice on this issue and "please take care of it" or "do what has to be done to get it"? You didn't say that.
Mr Collins: No, I did not.
Ms Cronk: All right. So that the committee should not, based on your knowledge of the matter, understand that that advice was sought, whatever it might be, specifically. It wasn't.
Mr Collins: It was not.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Again, just as a factual clarification, do you have any knowledge of Sue Lott having suggested at any point to Sharron Pretty that her letter of October 29th to the minister, whenever received, was being taken out of the normal channelling process for reply and was being separately tracked or separately dealt with? Do you have any personal knowledge of that?
Mr Collins: I have knowledge that I took it out of the normal track and either communicated that to Sue directly or via someone else, so I think what she meant was that our office was looking at it out of the normal channel.
Ms Cronk: I see.
Mr Collins: And in that case it would be me.
Ms Cronk: I see.
Mr Collins: As I said, the minister normally only sees correspondence that enters the ministry at the time that it's accompanied by the reply, unless one of her staff members, me included, receives a letter that's incoming and sort of feels that, for whatever reason, she needs to see it immediately, as opposed to however many weeks later when the reply comes up with the original attached to it.
Ms Cronk: When did you learn that this matter had been referred to this committee for investigation and hearing?
Mr Collins: I don't recall the date actually.
Ms Cronk: The order of reference is dated June the 23rd. Does that help you?
Mr Collins: It would have been the day that it occurred, but I don't specifically remember the day.
Ms Cronk: And one final matter so that there's no later confusion about it. Could you look at tab 47, if you would please, of exhibit 1, volume 2. It's the handwritten note that was discussed by Mr Murphy with you.
Mr Collins: Yes, I have it.
Ms Cronk: This, as I understand your evidence, is a note from the minister to you.
Mr Collins: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And I understood you to say that it had been prepared, you assumed, some time -- did I correctly understand you to say that it had been prepared some time after the June 10th meeting with Trinh Luu?
Mr Collins: My recollection is that it was in my in-tray Monday morning when I arrived.
Ms Cronk: After the meeting with Trinh Luu?
Mr Collins: Yes, the Monday after the June 10th meeting.
Ms Cronk: All right.
Mr Collins: Typically the minister takes home a package of documents on the weekend, normally involving briefings and so on for Monday that involve me. She normally returns those briefing notes with her comments on them to me, or any other matters, such as this note in the case of the Monday briefing, so that I can follow up and get answers before the afternoon briefing; in this case so that I could do other follow-up in preparation for the upcoming Friday meeting.
Ms Cronk: Okay. What does the phrase "time is running out" mean at the bottom of the page, or what did you understand it to be referring to?
Mr Collins: I understood that as her reminding me that she felt that the Van Lang Centre was on a slope downwards and that if we didn't figure out something to do to correct the course, it would quite likely have to be put into a situation of receivership.
Ms Cronk: Should I take from that that you understood that to be an observation of some volatility with respect to the situation; it was getting difficult? Steps had to be --
Mr Collins: Yes, and I assumed it was as a result of her talking to Ms Luu, or her impressions of whatever Ms Luu had told her on June 10th.
Ms Cronk: As you understood it, then, that note did not refer, I take it, to time running out before the June 17th meeting, for example.
Mr Collins: That's not certainly the way I took it.
Ms Cronk: Nor in terms of the way you took it, I take from what you're saying, did it have any reference or connection to the fact of charges having been brought by Sharron Pretty and a scheduled court appearance on June the 16th.
Mr Collins: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you ask the minister what she meant by that?
Mr Collins: No.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Did she tell you?
Mr Collins: No.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Mr Collins, thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr Collins, I'd like to thank you for coming before the committee today.
I have a letter here --
Mr Paul Johnson: Mr Chair, I think that perhaps legal counsel, and I'm not sure that this is important to Mr Collins, but --
The Chair: Can I dismiss Mr Collins?
Ms Cronk: Perhaps not yet.
Mr Paul Johnson: I'm not sure. It has to do with the letter of October 29th from Ms Pretty. In my own notes that I've been making, I'm not sure when that was logged into the minister's office and I was wondering if legal counsel has that date.
Ms Cronk: Can you help with respect to that, Mr Collins?
Mr Collins: Based on the relooking at things today, my assumption is that I received the letter in December -- December 21st, I think -- and passed it on to the correspondence unit of the ministry the following day as a result of a fax from the constituency office, and noted on that fax is that, oops, this letter had been misplaced.
Mr Paul Johnson: I'm not sure how important the timing of receiving letters is --
Ms Cronk: Maybe I should pursue it a bit.
Mr Paul Johnson: -- but I know in my office, I know I log them in, log them out, and sometimes we get letters dated by people that were written sometimes before they're actually received in our office, whether it's because they didn't mail them in a timely fashion or -- I don't want to suggest the mail's slow, but I just wanted to know if we could have an absolute date of when this was first received.
Ms Cronk: Could I just pursue it, then? And I thank you for raising it.
Mr Paul Johnson: Yes, thank you.
Ms Cronk: Is there a log of that kind kept in this minister's office, so that every piece of correspondence is logged in on receipt?
Mr Collins: No, the correspondence unit of the Ministry of Housing is contained within the deputy minister's office. They log letters. So they will have a log date and I would assume it will match the date stamp that's on the letter. That's the purpose of the date stamp.
Ms Cronk: Does the deputy minister's office also log the date on which they transmit an original letter or a copy of a letter to the minister's office?
Mr Collins: Yes, they do, along with everyone else who gets copies.
Ms Cronk: Is that log still available? Does it exist from December of 1993?
Mr Collins: I would assume it would, yes.
Ms Cronk: Would you be prepared, through your counsel, to make inquiries and to inform me through your counsel whether the deputy minister's log contains a date indicating when a copy of that letter went from his office to the minister's office?
Mr Collins: I can access it through my own computer, so I can check it myself.
Ms Cronk: Even better. Would you mind doing that? I don't want an e-mail; if you can just tell me through Ms Kristjanson. Would that be satisfactory, or no?
Mr Paul Johnson: Also related to that is that the letter went certainly to the ministry, but I believe it also went directly to the minister's MPP office. I was just wondering: There's been some indication there was a delay. I'd just like to know how long the delay was from the time that it was received by her office till it was forwarded.
Ms Cronk: I see. One of the remaining witnesses that you're going to hear from is from the constituency office, so in terms of the mechanics that they use of recording receipt dates, it seems to me that at that end it would be a more appropriate question to put to them.
Mr Paul Johnson: Very good point. Thank you.
Mr Collins: And in fact it just occurred to me, since this is televised, I can anticipate that Patricia Redmond is looking up the date as we speak and --
Ms Cronk: Don't do that to me, Mr Collins. We've got ghosts in the room.
The Chair: Okay, thank you again, Mr Collins.
Ms Cronk: Thank you.
The Chair: I have a letter here from the Cabinet Office dated August 10th, 1994, to Ron Hansen, the Chair of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly:
"Dear Mr Hansen,
"In response to your letter dated earlier today, pursuant to the terms of reference of the House, dated June 23, 1994, the House leaders have agreed that Friday, August 8, 1994 be added to the public hearings schedule on the matter now before the committee.
"Yours truly,
"Brian Charlton," government House leader.
So the letter's here now and we are sitting Friday, and I don't see any smiles either.
Interjections.
Mr Callahan: How can we sit on August 8th? I've got August 10th on mine.
The Chair: This committee will break for half an hour, until a quarter after 7. Ms Sue Lott will be our next witness. Do you have something?
Ms Cronk: There may be a change in which witness it is.
The Chair: Okay, we'll wait until quarter after 7.
Ms Cronk: Thank you.
The Chair: This committee's adjourned for half an hour.
The committee recessed from 1845 to 1931.
The Chair: Okay, we'll resume the hearings, the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, and I would like to just straighten the record out here. I read a letter in earlier that said we would be meeting on Friday, August 8th, 1994; it should read August 12th, 1994.
VINH TANG
The Chair: Our next witness is Dr Vinh Tang and the clerk will administer the oath. Welcome to the committee, Doctor.
Clerk of the Committee: Do you affirm 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?
Dr Vinh Tang: Yes, I do.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, is there a reason that this witness is being dealt with now in position 5 whereas on the list he's position number 9? The only reason I'm asking is that I do my preparatory reading with the list that's in front of me, and I'm just wondering if there is a reason for this. I think Dr Vinh Tang is one of the people that this morning we received the transcript of a fairly important telephone conversation.
The Chair: I'll turn it over to Ms Cronk.
Ms Cronk: Ms Marland, I apologize for any inconvenience. I understand fully the point that you're raising, and I have to indicate to you that the decision was mine. It was a judgement made as counsel, and it simply had to do with scheduling and the various preparation matters that are under way.
I confess to you, although I was not in any way unmindful of the fact that committee members also put in considerable preparation, I had forgotten that the actual transcript of that discussion wasn't provided until today.
So the decision was mine and I regret any inconvenience caused to the committee. I do have to tell you, however, that it had nothing to do with Ms Lott; it was my decision as counsel, and she is not available, as a result of my discussion, to proceed this evening. I've learned my lesson, I guess. No more switches in the batting order.
Mrs Marland: Thank you for the explanation.
The Chair: Ms Cronk, you can continue on now.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. With your permission, Mr Hourigan will be leading the evidence of this witness.
Mr William Hourigan: Dr Tang, I understand you're a senior nuclear safety specialist for the Atomic Energy Control Board.
Dr Tang: Yes, I am.
Mr Hourigan: And you're a resident of Ottawa?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: You're also the commissioner for external affairs of the Vietnamese Canadian Federation?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: And you're also a director of the Van Lang Centre.
Dr Tang: Yes, I am.
Mr Hourigan: In fact, you're the president of the Van Lang Centre board of directors. Is that correct?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: How did you come to become a director of the board?
Dr Tang: Mr Can Le approached me, asked me if I'm interested in becoming a board member at Van Lang Centre.
Interjection: I can't hear him.
The Chair: I've already asked to have it turned up.
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, if he could move closer to the microphone it would be helpful.
Mr Hourigan: Just move up on the end. That's fine. Thank you, Dr Tang.
When were you approached about becoming a director, sir? When did Dr Can Le approach you about becoming a director?
Dr Tang: In the summer of 1993, about.
Mr Hourigan: The summer of 1993. And do you know when in fact you became a director?
Dr Tang: In July of 1993.
Mr Hourigan: July of 1993. At that point were you the president of the board?
Dr Tang: No, I was just a board member.
Mr Hourigan: You were just a board member. When did you in fact become president of the board?
Dr Tang: At the end of January.
Mr Hourigan: January of 1994?
Dr Tang: Of 1994, yes.
Mr Hourigan: When you first came on the board, had you met previously Ms Trinh Luu?
Dr Tang: Yes, I met her at one social function.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. And Sharron Pretty: Did you know her?
Dr Tang: No, I had never met Sharron Pretty before.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. You mentioned as well that Dr Can Le approached you about becoming a board member.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Did you know Dr Le?
Dr Tang: Yes, I knew Dr Le through the community work.
Mr Hourigan: The Vietnamese community work in Ottawa?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: I'd like to take you through, tonight, as briefly as I can, the series of events that have led us to where we are today.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: I don't want to get into a great deal of detail about the back and forth between the various parties because, as you know, our terms of reference here are we're trying to focus on what happened on the June 17th meeting. However, if at any point you feel that there's something we're missing or you want to add something, feel free to stop me and we'll do that. Okay?
Dr Tang: Yes, okay.
Mr Hourigan: All right. You came on the board in July of 1993, of the Van Lang Centre. Do you know -- did you become aware any time after that of concerns by Ms Luu and Ms Pretty about the way the centre was being operated?
Dr Tang: No. The first thing I heard about Ms Luu was her concern with the superintendent.
Mr Hourigan: Yes.
Dr Tang: Actually, I read her letter proposed to dismiss the superintendent.
Mr Hourigan: Do you know which letter you're referring to?
Dr Tang: It's a 13-page letter or so.
Mr Hourigan: I think we're probably dealing with -- would that be a letter from June of 1993?
Dr Tang: Possibly.
Mr Hourigan: Possibly? Maybe I can just turn it up for you and we can see.
I'm advised that that letter isn't in the productions. But I take it then, sir, it was shortly after you came on the board that you became aware of the concerns she had with respect to the superintendent?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Did Ms Pretty express any concerns about the building at that time or any time shortly after your joining the board?
Dr Tang: No. Ms Pretty, at the beginning, as I recall, her complaint was mainly about the superintendent and then later on about Dr Can Le for having so much power.
Mr Hourigan: I see. Can you help me with when those complaints started about the superintendent? Do you have any idea as a date? Would it have been in the fall of 1993 or later?
Dr Tang: Regarding the letter?
Mr Hourigan: No. You said that Ms Pretty had some concerns with respect to the superintendent. What I'm trying to find out is when exactly those concerns were expressed or when you became aware of them.
Dr Tang: I can't remember that, but since day one I thought, as I recall -- early on she mentioned about the superintendent, she has concern with the superintendent's working.
1940
Mr Hourigan: All right. If I could ask you to look at exhibit 1, volume 2, tab 11.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: This is a letter dated October 29th to Evelyn Gigantes, and it's from Sharron Pretty, who signs as vice-president of the Vietnamese Canadian non-profit housing corporation. Did you see this letter, sir, when it went out in late October of 1993?
Dr Tang: I don't recall this.
Mr Hourigan: You don't recall. Have you seen it any time prior to today?
Dr Tang: No, I have never seen this letter.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. I'm going to ask you to flip the page to the next tab, which is tab 12.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: This is a letter, again to Evelyn Gigantes, but this one is from Ms Trinh Luu and it's dated November eighth, 1993. Did Ms Luu provide you with a copy of this letter?
Dr Tang: No, I don't think so.
Mr Hourigan: Have you ever seen this letter?
Dr Tang: No, I have never seen this letter.
Mr Hourigan: All right. You mentioned to me that Ms Pretty expressed concerns about the superintendent's performance in the fall of 1993.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Were you aware of any other complaints she had at that time, generally speaking -- the nature of any other complaints?
Dr Tang: Yes, the first one, I think about the sexual harassment that she had.
Mr Hourigan: Yes. Anything else?
Dr Tang: No. I can't recall anything else.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Did the expression by Ms Pretty of her concerns and the problems she felt were ongoing at the centre cause any difficulty in relationships among the board members at that time? I'm talking about the fall of 1993.
Dr Tang: As I recall, the difficulty is mainly the frustration in trying to determine what exactly her concern is.
Mr Hourigan: Whose frustration was that? Was that your frustration?
Dr Tang: The board, my frustration and the board, the rest of the board's frustration because we could not pinpoint exactly what is her concern besides the generic statement that she made.
Mr Hourigan: So you were concerned, you were frustrated that you weren't getting specifics, in your view, of her complaints. Is that what you're saying?
Dr Tang: Right. Yes.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Did you know whether Ms Pretty, in the fall of 1993, was making either the Ministry of Housing or Ms Gigantes's constituency office aware of her concerns?
Dr Tang: No, I am not aware of that.
Mr Hourigan: At the time, you didn't know she was in contact with the Ministry of Housing?
Dr Tang: No.
Mr Hourigan: Or with the minister's constituency office?
Dr Tang: No.
Mr Hourigan: What about Ms Trinh Luu? Were you aware that she was expressing concerns to the minister?
Dr Tang: No, I was not aware of that.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Similarly, you weren't aware that she was expressing concerns to the Ministry of Housing or to Ms Gigantes's constituency office?
Dr Tang: No, I was not aware of that.
Mr Hourigan: I'd ask you now to look at exhibit 1, volume 2, tab 16.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: This is a letter dated January third, 1994. It's on the letterhead of the Van Lang Centre and it's to Evelyn Gigantes. It's written by Hieu Truong, who's listed as being president of the board of directors. Was he the past president before you took over?
Dr Tang: Yes, he was the president before I took over.
Mr Hourigan: Were you aware that this letter was being sent to Ms Gigantes requesting a meeting?
Dr Tang: Yes, I remember this.
Mr Hourigan: Who had you discussed it with?
Dr Tang: Pardon?
Mr Hourigan: You said that you were aware that the letter was going out to Ms Gigantes.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Had you discussed it with any of the other board members prior to it being sent?
Dr Tang: No, I just sort of -- you know, as I recall, I heard about this letter inviting -- expressing our wishes to meet with the minister.
Mr Hourigan: Right. And would that have been Mr Truong who made you aware that the letter was going out?
Dr Tang: I can't remember that.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. But you do know that you were aware that it was going out?
Dr Tang: Yes, I think I know that.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. What was the purpose in requesting a meeting with the minister?
Dr Tang: Mainly just to tell our side of the story. After we feel that the minister just heard only from one side of the story because of this cc, the letter that Ms Sharron Pretty wrote and she cc'd to the minister, so we would think it's about time to tell the minister our side of the story.
Mr Hourigan: All right. You made reference to a letter. What letter is that, do you recall? This is a letter from Sharron Pretty to the minister, or she cc'd the minister?
Dr Tang: Oh, the letter which she cc to the minister, as I recall.
Mr Hourigan: Yes.
Dr Tang: So after this letter with the cc to the minister, we became concerned with that.
Mr Hourigan: Who was the letter addressed to that you're referring to, this letter from Sharron Pretty?
Dr Tang: She wrote to the board president, Mr Hieu, or to me.
Mr Hourigan: Yes, and do you know when that letter went?
Dr Tang: I don't know. There are a number of letters throughout the year.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Give me a moment. So you were aware at that point when that letter went off that Ms Pretty was expressing her concerns directly to the minister. Is that correct?
Dr Tang: I don't think I was ever aware of any letter that she wrote to the minister directly, but I was aware of those letters that she wrote to the board which she cc'd to the minister. Then I'm aware of those.
Mr Hourigan: So you're aware, then, that the minister was being copied on these letters and therefore was being informed of Ms Pretty's concerns.
Dr Tang: Right. Yes, yes.
Mr Hourigan: And you told me that it was for that reason that you requested the meeting with the minister? What I'm trying to get at is, what did you hope to achieve in meeting with the minister?
Dr Tang: The thing that we hoped to achieve with the meeting with the minister was to tell our side of the story, to basically give that.
Mr Hourigan: So if I understand it, you were trying to express your side of the concerns that Ms Pretty was expressing in the letters that she had cc'd to the minister. Is that correct?
Dr Tang: Yes, yes, because our concern was that it was a long-standing problem and we would like the minister to know that we'd done our best to try to resolve the problem.
Mr Hourigan: Can I ask you to look at the volume marked exhibit 2, tab 20. You see, this is a letter dated December 20, 1993, and it's from Sharron Pretty. Can you help me who this is addressed to?
Mr Kimble Sutherland: I'm sorry, Mr Hourigan, which tab was that again?
Mr Hourigan: Sorry. Tab 20, exhibit 2. Who is this letter addressed to, sir?
Dr Tang: This letter is addressed to Mr Tuyen Huynh who is the president of the tenant association.
Mr Hourigan: All right. If I can ask you to just take a quick look at this letter, it appears from this letter that Ms Pretty was expressing concerns about an effort to have her removed from the board of directors. Is that your understanding of the letter?
Dr Tang: You said this letter -- I can't recall this letter. I remember seeing this letter. I have to read it through now --
Mr Hourigan: Okay. If you want to look at it, fine.
Dr Tang: Okay. You mean the letter --
Mr Hourigan: It appears, sir, from the letter that she is expressing concerns about an effort to have her removed from the board of directors at this time.
Dr Tang: Yes, she's expressing concern, yes.
Mr Hourigan: Now, was this the letter that you were referring to when you mentioned a letter that was cc'd to Ms Gigantes? I would ask you to turn to page 3 and you can see who the letter is copied to.
Dr Tang: Yes, this is one of the letters.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. So you were aware of this letter and possibly others being copied to the minister --
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: -- and it was for that reason that you made this request in January 1994 for a meeting.
Dr Tang: Yes.
1950
Mr Hourigan: Prior to the January 3, 1994, letter being sent to Ms Gigantes, had there been any other requests for a meeting with her, any verbal requests?
Dr Tang: Not that I'm aware of, no.
Mr Hourigan: All right. So as far as you're aware, this was the first request for a meeting.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Did you hear anything back from Ms Gigantes with respect to your request?
Dr Tang: There is a short letter. Later on she said she can't come.
Mr Hourigan: All right. I'd ask you then to turn, dealing with exhibit 1, volume 2, to tab 29.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: This is the letter you're referring to?
Dr Tang: Yes, this is the letter I'm referring to.
Mr Hourigan: Did you see this letter when it came in? When it arrived to Mr Truong, did he provide you with a copy of it or show you a copy?
Dr Tang: I think I have read this letter before, yes.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Were you aware, sir, at that time of any requests made by Sharron Pretty or Trinh Luu to meet with the minister?
Dr Tang: No, I'm not aware of that.
Mr Hourigan: Just so we're clear, at the time -- I'm talking now in the early part of 1994 -- you weren't aware that Ms Luu or Sharron Pretty were requesting a meeting with the minister?
Dr Tang: No, I was not aware of that.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. After the receipt of the March 25th, 1994, letter, between the end of March and the beginning of June, were there any further discussions with the minister or her office about setting up a meeting?
Dr Tang: No, not that I'm aware of.
Mr Hourigan: So from the end of March to the beginning of June, there's no discussions about setting up a meeting with the minister?
Dr Tang: No.
Mr Hourigan: If you could turn to tab 32 in exhibit 2, that appears to be a letter dated February eighth, 1994.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: It's from Mr Sutherland and it's addressed to you?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Do you recall receiving that letter on or about the beginning of February 1994?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Was that letter mailed to you or was it delivered to you? Do you recall?
Dr Tang: I can't recall. I think I get it from the office, from the Van Lang office.
Mr Hourigan: From the Van Lang Centre office?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall on or about that date a meeting of the board of directors where the compliance review was presented to the board?
Dr Tang: Yes. It's roughly then, yes.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. So is it possible then that this letter was delivered to you at that meeting when the compliance review was presented to the board?
Dr Tang: Yes, that is possible.
Mr Hourigan: Do you know one way or the other?
Dr Tang: I can't recall exactly when I received it, but I have read this, yes.
Mr Hourigan: I'd ask you then to look at the second paragraph of the letter.
Dr Tang: Mm-hmm.
Mr Hourigan: Mr Sutherland appears to indicate that there are areas where improvement is necessary, although the report as a whole is generally favourable.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: He expresses concerns about two areas: "improved administrative efficiency."
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: And "the...reports of dissatisfaction with some of the activities of the board by one of the directors and former staff."
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: At the February board meeting, do you recall discussion of the compliance review and of those concerns?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Who attended that meeting from the Ministry of Housing?
Dr Tang: I think Mr Sutherland himself.
Mr Hourigan: Mr Sutherland did?
Dr Tang: Yeah, as I recall.
Mr Hourigan: The compliance review was discussed in detail at that meeting, do you recall?
Dr Tang: I'm sorry, Mr Sutherland never attended. The first time he attended was -- no, not this meeting. I'm sorry, no.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Were there Ministry of Housing officials at that meeting, the February meeting?
Dr Tang: I can't recall. I'm sorry.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall whether Bill Clement was there?
Dr Tang: Bill Clement was there a lot of times to help us out, yes.
Mr Hourigan: Specifically, though, with the February 1994 meeting?
Dr Tang: I can't remember that. I don't know.
Mr Hourigan: Okay, you can't remember. But there was a representative of the Ministry of Housing, is that what you're telling me?
Dr Tang: I don't remember that, really.
Mr Hourigan: You don't remember?
Dr Tang: I don't remember that meeting, no.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. I ask you then to turn to tab 40 of the same volume. This is a letter dated April 11, 1994, and it's addressed to Brian Sutherland, and it's signed by you as president of the board of directors. Did you prepare this letter, sir?
Dr Tang: No, I did not prepare this letter, but --
Mr Hourigan: Who prepared the letter?
Dr Tang: Mr Can Le.
Mrs Marland: I didn't hear the answer.
Ms Cronk: Dr Can Le.
Mr Hourigan: Why did Dr Le prepare it and not you?
Dr Tang: He was the longest-serving member of the board, and he had a lot more on the background of the operation. We work on a volunteer basis, we just chip in whatever we can, and I'm quite a new member. I let him prepare that.
Mr Hourigan: All right. What was the purpose of the letter?
Dr Tang: The purpose of the letter is just to clarify some of the points we wanted to clarify that we think may be misunderstood by the Housing officials.
Mr Hourigan: As I understand it, this was a letter that was in response to the compliance review?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: And in that letter, if you look at page 1, you deal with a number of topics. Under the heading "Points of Clarification," it deals with "Information Made Available to Members of the Board of Directors," "Guidelines on Conflict of Interest."
Dr Tang: You mean page 2?
Mr Hourigan: Yes, page 2. "Referrals from the Regional Housing Authority."
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: The "Fire Safety Plan."
Dr Tang: Mm-hmm.
Mr Hourigan: "Superintendent's Leave."
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: "Loss of Equipment."
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: The issue of "Pre-Signed Cheques."
Dr Tang: Mm-hmm.
Mr Hourigan: And the letter then deals with "Measures Undertaken Since the Review"?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: And those are measures, I imagine, to clarify or to correct the weaknesses in the compliance review?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: And this letter was prepared, then, by Dr Le. Did you review it before it went out?
Dr Tang: Yes, I reviewed it. He discussed with me before he wrote it, and I reviewed it, and I agree with it.
Mr Hourigan: So you are in agreement with the contents of the letter?
Dr Tang: Yes, yes.
Mr Hourigan: I ask you to turn to exhibit 1, volume 2, to tab 25. At that tab, there's a letter to Mrs Gigantes signed by Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu. Have you seen this letter before?
Dr Tang: No, I have never seen this letter before.
Mr Hourigan: All right. If you'll turn to the third page behind the tab, there's an attachment, a letter to --
Dr Tang: Do you mean the third page in?
Mr Hourigan: Yes. All right? This is a letter dated March 1, 1994, to Brian Sutherland, and this is a letter from Sharron Pretty. Have you seen that letter before, sir?
Dr Tang: No, I have never seen this letter before.
Mr Hourigan: Without going into details, it appears in both letters that Ms Pretty and Ms Luu were expressing ongoing concerns about the operation of the Van Lang Centre. Is that consistent with your memory at the time, in the spring of 1994, that the expression of concerns were ongoing from Ms Pretty and Ms Luu?
Dr Tang: We never heard any complaint from Miss Luu, but from Miss Pretty, yes. In all of the board meetings she attended she raised, again, generic concerns, like the superintendent has so much power, the secretary has so much power. She pointed out generic issues most of the -- all the time, actually, most of the times.
2000
Mr Hourigan: Were there any other issues she was raising at that point?
Dr Tang: I don't recall offhand, but basically what sticks in my mind is that she kept pushing for the removal of the two gentlemen.
Mr Hourigan: The two gentlemen you're referring to are?
Dr Tang: The superintendent and Dr Can Le.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. The superintendent's name is?
Dr Tang: Tung.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. What effect did these complaints have on the operation of your board meetings?
Dr Tang: I think it takes time from discussion of matters that have more direct relevance to the operation and to the concerns of the tenant.
Mr Hourigan: So it was your view that it was taking up board time?
Dr Tang: Yes, certainly.
Mr Hourigan: And these were concerns that you didn't think should be raised with the board?
Dr Tang: No, I didn't say that. All what I say is that, as I mentioned earlier, we don't know. We didn't know and we don't know what she's getting at, she tried to get at, because she kept raising generic questions of generic concerns such as the power of the superintendent. When I asked her, "What specific power that you think the superintendent has?" she would reply, such as he would go around gossiping with tenants. I mean, how can I deal with that?
Mr Hourigan: That was one of her complaints?
Dr Tang: Yes. And about the secretary, she said there's so much power. I asked her, "What kind of power?" and really, until this date, she couldn't give me a single answer to that.
Mr Hourigan: All right. I'd ask you then to look at tab 23 of volume 2 of exhibit 2. If you'll look at this document here, it's a background note, and it's prepared by Mr Bill Clement.
Dr Tang: Excuse me. I may have looked under the wrong one.
Mr Hourigan: Exhibit 1. This is a background note prepared by Bill Clement.
Dr Tang: Actually, that's not in there.
Mr Hourigan: If you'll just turn the page you'll see it there, sir.
Dr Tang: Oh, yes, background note.
Mr Hourigan: If you turn to the third page, you'll see it's dated February 14th on the bottom right-hand corner. Was Mr Clement attending board meetings at that point at the Van Lang Centre?
Dr Tang: I assume so. I couldn't remember exactly when, but I think it's after Christmas time, December 30th, 1993, when Brian Sutherland first attended a board meeting, and subsequently Bill Clement attended almost every board meeting, but I don't know when exactly he first started.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. So if I understand your evidence, then, the December 30th board meeting Brian Sutherland attended as a representative of the Ministry of Housing.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Was that the first board meeting where you had a representative of the Ministry of Housing in attendance?
Dr Tang: Yes, as I recall.
Mr Hourigan: All right. And subsequent to that, the meetings in the early part of 1994, did Mr Clement attend those meetings?
Dr Tang: If Bill Clement subsequently did? Yes.
Mr Hourigan: All right. I just want to clarify a point. If I understand your evidence from before, you indicated that you were frustrated, that you didn't understand the nature of the complaints that Ms Pretty was raising at this time. Is that correct?
Dr Tang: Yes. Excuse me. Not the nature of it, but the specificity, the specific point of her complaint that I never get at.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall Ms Pretty raising the issues, and I think she termed them two core issues, of tenant participation and tenant access?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Did you understand the nature of her complaints in that regard?
Dr Tang: Yes, but that was later on. After all of her generic complaining I was asking her, I said, "We are here for the safety and the security of the tenant, so if you have any concern about this issue or the financial management, then please let me know, and be specific." And I think I was the first one who used the term "core issues," and after that, she started to come up with some kind of core issues.
The two issues that you mentioned, yes, I agree, it was important issues, but again, what specific complaint about tenant participation? That I don't know. She did not come forward with a specific concern or what specific about tenant accessibility. She did not come with any specific to us.
Mr Hourigan: I just want to be clear on when you understand those two core issues were raised by her. Can you give me a time frame when the two core issues first came up?
Dr Tang: I can't remember that, no.
Mr Hourigan: Would it be in the fall of 1993?
Dr Tang: It could be, after a few months of board meetings of staff from July, so yes, maybe into the fall. It could be that.
Mr Hourigan: All right. And it's your evidence that you didn't understand what she meant by those --
Dr Tang: Again, I understood what she meant by the tenant participation and the tenant selections, I understood that, but: "What's wrong with our practice? Give me specific example of what we're doing wrong." I never heard from her on that account.
Mr Hourigan: It's your evidence that she never provided you with specific evidence of her complaints.
Dr Tang: Yes. Up until this day, as of --
Mr Hourigan: All right. If you'll look at page 2 of the document in front of you, there's a note here under the title "Board Antagonism." Mr Clement notes, "There is considerable antagonism at the board level between the lone non-Vietnamese tenant member" -- and do you understand that to be Ms Pretty?
Dr Tang: Yes. Now I read it, I think that's right.
Mr Hourigan: At the time, was she the only non-Vietnamese member of the board?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: -- "and the others. (Reportedly 60 of the 70 units are occupied by Vietnamese households)." Mr Clement goes on to note: "Most of the complaints are considered to be internal (personnel) or corporate and beyond the bounds of the project operating agreement with the ministry (although as a Homes Now project, no agreement has been executed.) Although of concern, little else can be done other than coach the directors on how to deal with the issues."
The next point he makes: "After the report was tabled at the February 8 meeting, other business was conducted. 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."
Was that an accurate statement of the type of board meetings you were having at that time?
Dr Tang: I would not describe it this way.
Mr Hourigan: How would you describe the relationship among the board members?
Dr Tang: I would say we were frustrated in trying to find out what Miss Sharron Pretty was getting at. We could not get that, and we were quite frustrated with that.
Mr Hourigan: Would you agree with Mr Clement's statement that there was considerable antagonism between the board members?
Dr Tang: No, I wouldn't characterize it that way.
Mr Hourigan: So you would characterize it as just being frustration at that point.
Dr Tang: Yes. We tried to listen to her, tried to address her concerns to the best of our ability, but still we could not get the specificity to deal with.
Mr Hourigan: All right. At that time, throughout the winter of 1994 and into the spring, was the relationship among the board members staying at the same level or were things declining in terms of your ability to get things done and to operate efficiently?
Dr Tang: It's getting more difficult, yes.
2010
Mr Hourigan: Specifically, at this point was there antagonism, as you understood it, between Ms Pretty and Dr Le? In February 1994, in your attendance at board meetings, did you witness a deteriorating relationship or a poor relationship specifically between Ms Pretty and Dr Le?
Dr Tang: Yes, and this started from day one, as I said. But at the beginning she would just make comments like: "How would you find the time to do this, Dr Le? You almost have two full-time jobs there. I would never understand how you would find the time to devote to this centre." At the beginning she'd make that kind of remark, and it deteriorated with time to calling names.
Mr Hourigan: So by 1994 they'd gotten to the point where they were calling each other names at board meetings?
Dr Tang: They don't call each other names, because I never recall a single name that Dr Can Le called Miss Sharron Pretty -- not a single name.
Mr Hourigan: All right. How would you describe, then, the relationship between Ms Pretty and Dr Truong, who was also on the board at that time?
Dr Tang: Their relationship was businesslike, I think.
Mr Hourigan: So you didn't witness any ill feelings between the two of them in the board meetings?
Dr Tang: No, I did not witness any ill feeling between the two of them, no.
Mr Hourigan: So that any ill will was between Dr Le and Ms Pretty, as far as you can recall?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. In exhibit 1, volume 2, tab 53 --
Dr Tang: Excuse me, it's not here; it's only tab 50 here.
Mr Hourigan: This is exhibit 1, volume 2.
Mr Owens: Do you think it's appropriate for a member of the committee to be discussing testimony with a person who has been a witness to this proceeding? This has happened on a number of occasions, where the witness of Monday has approached the member of the third party; they've engaged in discussions. They're back there now engaging in discussions while this witness is testifying. If Ms Luu has evidence she would like to present to the committee, I'm assuming she's still under oath and would like to present that to the committee.
Mr Callahan: Mr Chair, I'd like to speak to that. Special counsel cautioned every witness, while they were under testimony, not to discuss their evidence with anybody. Once they're finished, they are as free to come and go as any other person in this room.
Mr Marchese: He's just asking a question of appropriateness.
The Chair: Ask the question to the Chair, and I'll ask Ms Cronk to make a reply. I believe they have every authority, but that's not -- Mr Harnick?
Mr Harnick: I think it's rather presumptuous of the member to assume what the contents of private conversations are with a witness who's already completed their testimony. The fact is that the member knows nothing about what was going on in these purported private conversations, and I think it's very presumptuous that the member thinks there's some wrongdoing by one of his colleagues. I caution the honourable member that that's not the way we behave vis-à-vis one another, and he should be ashamed.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Oh, please.
Mr Marchese: All the member did was to raise a question. It was asking counsel for an opinion, that's all.
The Chair: A question to the Chair, and I'm asking Ms Cronk. I don't believe there's anything wrong, but I'll hear her opinion.
Mrs Marland: May I just speak before counsel?
The Chair: No, I'd like to hear the counsel. We can get into a discussion for an hour, and then we'd wind up --
Mrs Marland: Well, it's about me. I think I have a right to make a comment.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Mr Chair, with all due respect, the question, I believe, was directed to --
The Chair: It was directed to me and I'm asking counsel for a reply.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, on a point of privilege: I want to hear from the counsel, Ms Cronk, but I think I have a right to speak, since I left the table to go and speak to two people at the back of the room --
The Chair: That is your privilege.
Mrs Marland: -- which is my privilege, and as I was doing that I didn't realize the question was being asked about me. But the one thing I would like to say, Mr Chair, to you, is that I am speaking to a witness who has completed her testimony, unlike some of the government members who have been speaking constantly with ministry staff who have yet to come before this committee. We have a very interesting --
Mrs Mathyssen: That's not true. That is not true.
The Chair: Okay. Look, you wanted to explain your position going over there, but we're getting on beyond that. Ms Cronk, could you explain, and I hope that you confer with the Chair.
Ms Cronk: Well, that sort of takes care of that.
The Chair: Okay. No, no, I'm just --
Ms Cronk: There are two rules generally, and this was raised at the beginning of the hearing, and the first is that witnesses are not to discuss their evidence at any point with anyone during the course of their evidence. Before some tribunals and some courts that rule applies until the matter is complete before the court or the tribunal. There has been no ruling to that effect by this committee, and it doesn't apply in all tribunals; it's not a general ruling. So as a general answer, it is permissible to speak with a witness when their evidence is completed unless there is a specific rule or procedure that applies in the forum that prevents it. It is absolutely unacceptable to confer in advance of their evidence or during the course of their evidence at any point.
I have to say that there have been a number of inquiries about this this week, in the hearing to date, and there have been a number of discussions by a number of parties with a number of people that your counsel are aware of. So I just point that out. Talking to the lawyers for witnesses is one thing. Being provided with information by them is, in my view, not from a legal perspective in any way impermissible. Speaking to witnesses is generally unwise.
The Chair: I think maybe the other thing to make a little bit clearer, are you looking at recalling any witnesses as it is right now?
Ms Cronk: At the moment, I have no recommendation to make to you in that regard.
The Chair: If someone was to get recalled, then that would be different.
Ms Cronk: That's correct.
The Chair: Okay, fine. Mr Hourigan, you might as well carry on.
Mr Hourigan: Getting back to where we were, in the spring of 1994, did Ms Pretty engage in a practice of taping board meetings at that point?
Dr Tang: I can't remember exactly at which point she started doing it, but she did it at some time, yes.
Mr Hourigan: She did tape board meetings, you recall?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Was she taping board meetings in 1994 that you're aware of?
Dr Tang: Yes, in 1994 certainly I think she did.
Mr Hourigan: What was the reaction of the other board members to that practice?
Dr Tang: I think some board members felt intimidated.
Mr Hourigan: Intimidated?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Did they express any concerns to Ms Pretty about her taping the meetings?
Dr Tang: Yes, I think they did.
Mr Hourigan: What was Ms Pretty's response to those?
Dr Tang: She said she had the right to make sure that she had a record of what had been said at the meeting.
Mr Hourigan: In your view, the practice of taping meetings, did that contribute to the antagonism among the board members or contribute to any antagonism among the board members?
Dr Tang: Yes, I think so. It contributed to the frustration.
Mr Hourigan: To the frustration of the other board members?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: In front of you, you have a copy of an article dated June first, 1994, from the Toronto Sun by James Wallace. Do you recall when you first saw that article?
Dr Tang: Yes. Actually, this is from the Toronto Sun?
Mr Hourigan: Ottawa Sun, sorry.
Dr Tang: Ottawa Sun, yes, I read it from the Ottawa Sun.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall when you first saw the article?
Mr Callahan: I'm sorry, this witness was asked about the Toronto Sun, I thought, was he?
Interjection: Then he corrected himself.
Mr Callahan: He said "Ottawa Sun" so --
Mr Hourigan: It is the Ottawa Sun.
Mr Callahan: Okay, all right.
Mr Hourigan: So you did see the article. My question to you is, when did you first see the article?
Dr Tang: I saw the article I think on the day that it was published.
Mr Hourigan: All right. In the article, there are a number of complaints that Ms Pretty has made about the operation of the Van Lang Centre.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Were any of the concerns expressed news to you? Had you heard these concerns expressed previously?
Dr Tang: No, some of the concerns I had not heard before.
Mr Hourigan: Which concerns specifically hadn't you heard about before?
Dr Tang: The use of lawyer fees for private use and the nepotism and there's a discrimination against non-Vietnamese tenants. The last three I never heard before.
Mr Hourigan: There's also mention in the article of charges or contemplated charges that Ms Pretty had filed with the crown attorney's office.
Dr Tang: Oh, yeah, I read about the four complaints here. The charges I have never heard before either.
Mr Hourigan: You had no knowledge about any charges previous to seeing them published in the Sun?
Dr Tang: No, I have no knowledge of any charges before this, except as I mentioned to you, I think, you know, we heard from Ms Bui that Ms Pretty did make a threat that she would sue us all and that sort of thing.
Mr Hourigan: You heard that from whom?
Dr Tang: From Ms Bui, the office assistant.
Mr Hourigan: Can you just spell her last name?
Dr Tang: Her last name is Bui, B-U-I.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Ms Bui expressed to you or let you know that Ms Pretty had stated previously that she was contemplating laying charges or suing the board members, is that correct?
Dr Tang: Yeah, but just like an empty threat at the time. That's how we took it.
Mr Hourigan: You took it as an empty threat. Do you know when you were advised of that by Ms Bui?
Dr Tang: It's certainly before this, but I can't remember. I mean, she worked there just for a month or so.
Mr Hourigan: Were you contacted before this article appeared in the newspaper by the reporter?
Dr Tang: No, I was not.
Mr Hourigan: What was your reaction to the article when you saw it for the first time?
Dr Tang: We were quite upset when we saw this article for the first time.
Mr Hourigan: Previous to it being published, had you spoken to Dr Truong about any contact he might have had with the author of the article? The article comes out on June the first.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: It's my understanding that Dr Truong was contacted by the author of the article, James Wallace, a day or two previous to that. Had he made you aware of that fact?
Dr Tang: Again, I'm not sure if for this particular article or not, but I do recall whenever he is talking to a reporter, he has made me aware of that, yes.
Mr Hourigan: So whenever Dr Truong spoke to a reporter, he let you know?
Dr Tang: Usually, yes, as I understood.
Mr Hourigan: And you don't recall whether he let you know about any discussions he might have had previous to this specific article going out?
Dr Tang: No, I don't recall that, no.
Mr Hourigan: But you certainly weren't contacted by Mr Wallace before it was published?
Dr Tang: No, I was not contacted.
Mr Hourigan: What response if any did the board have to the publication of the article? What I'm asking -- sorry, go ahead.
Dr Tang: As I said, we were quite upset in that he make these reckless and irresponsible statements to the public without discussing it with the other board members.
Mr Callahan: Could I ask if the gentleman, if there's a seat or possibly if he could swing his seat between the two microphones, and we'll get a better pickup. I'm having real trouble hearing him. It's not his fault; it's our system I guess, but --
Mr Owens: Mr Chair, do you think we could get a lapel mike perhaps from --
Mr Callahan: Yeah, that might be helpful, because --
Mrs Marland: Yes, that's a good suggestion.
Mr Callahan: I think he has some difficulty in describing things and I think in fairness to him, he should have that.
The Chair: I think what it is is that he's used to talking to Bill here, and by turning, he's turning away from the mikes.
Mr Callahan: Well, maybe we've created a problem that Margie created right at the beginning.
The Chair: We'll take a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 2024 to 2037.
The Chair: Okay. We'll resume the hearings, and Mr Hourigan, questioning again. We've got the mike on the doctor over here so we can all hear.
Mr Hourigan: Before we begin, I neglected to introduce your counsel to the committee. Mr Phil Hunt is here on your behalf.
Before we broke, we were discussing the June first article by James Wallace in the Ottawa Sun and you indicated to me that at that point this was the first confirmation you had about the charges that were going to be laid by Ms Pretty.
Dr Tang: Yes, that's correct.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Do I take it from that response at that point you hadn't been served with a summons?
Dr Tang: No, I had not been served with a summons by this time yet.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. When were you served with a summons? Do you recall?
Dr Tang: Shortly after this. Shortly after the article. Maybe a week or so after.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. I'll ask you to turn in exhibit 1, volume 3; turn up document 66.
Interjection.
Mr Hourigan: Exhibit 1, volume 3, tab 66.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: All right. This appears to be a resolution or a notice of a meeting to be held on Sunday the 19th of June and the second paragraph indicates:
"Resolved that:
"Sharron Pretty be removed from her office as a director of the board of directors pursuant to section 3 of bylaw No. 1 of the corporation."
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: And this document, is this signed by you, sir?
Dr Tang: Yes, it's signed by me.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Can you give me some background on what led up to the issuing of this notice?
Dr Tang: I think the remark that she made, or her comment in the Sun, in the article that you just mentioned earlier, led us to think that maybe a director who has made that kind of irresponsible comment in a paper -- it may have compromised her effectiveness as a board member.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Was that your view?
Dr Tang: Yes, it's my view.
Mr Hourigan: Did the other members of the board share that view?
Dr Tang: Yes, most of the board members shared my view.
Mr Hourigan: Most of the board members?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: When you say "most," you mean all but Ms Pretty?
Dr Tang: I assume so.
Mr Hourigan: You assume so. Who did you discuss this with before you had the notice issued?
Dr Tang: We may have had a board meeting before that to discuss the article, the Sun article.
Mr Hourigan: Right. There was a board meeting, I believe, on June third, 1994. Was it at that meeting that the decision was made to --
Dr Tang: I think so, yes.
Mr Hourigan: You think so. And do you recall whose idea it was?
Dr Tang: It's the board's decision, I think.
Mr Hourigan: It was a board decision, but do you recall specifically which board director came up with the idea or first brought up the idea of moving to remove Ms Pretty as a director?
Dr Tang: I don't recall that.
Mr Hourigan: You don't recall. And did you vote in favour of that resolution?
Dr Tang: Yes, I voted in favour of that.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall if anybody opposed it?
Dr Tang: No, I don't think anybody opposed it.
Mr Hourigan: Besides the board members, who else got copies of this notice?
Dr Tang: I wouldn't know that.
Mr Hourigan: You don't know?
Dr Tang: I wouldn't know who else. You mean -- this one just -- this is a notice of meeting. It's supposed to be distributed to board members.
Mr Hourigan: To board members.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Do you know if this notice went to anybody else, specifically whether it went to anybody in the Ministry of Housing?
Dr Tang: Oh, yes. Normally this kind of notice would have a copy sent to the Ministry of Housing.
Mr Hourigan: Do you know whether this specific notice was sent to the Ministry of Housing?
Mr Callahan: Mr Chair, during the recess I spoke with our people who are in charge of transmission here and they suggested that we can all have one of these. This gentleman, I'm not sure whether his other language is French, but he'd have the benefit of tuning into the French channel and we would all have the benefit of being able to hear everything that's said. I understand there are enough of these around. Are there? No?
The Chair: I don't have a problem.
Interjections: No.
Mr Callahan: Well, I don't know. I am.
Mr Hourigan: I'm advised, Mr Callahan, that he doesn't speak French.
Mr Callahan: Oh, all right. Okay.
Ms Cronk: Mr Callahan, if it's a volume problem, which it appears to be, then we could perhaps try to deal with that.
The Chair: Mr Callahan, how about picking up the English version on there. It'll be a little bit louder and you can tune it louder.
Mr Callahan: I intend to, but I thought I could be helpful to the committee and also to the witness.
Interjection.
Mr Callahan: Okay, if nobody else is having difficulty, that's fine.
The Chair: He's got the mike on there. I have no problem hearing and I'm hard of hearing. Just stick it in your ear there.
Mr Callahan: You're a little closer and a little younger, so that's probably why you can hear him.
Dr Tang: I will try to speak louder.
The Chair: Okay, thank you.
Mr Callahan: We have an obligation to make certain you are heard.
Dr Tang: Sure. Yes. I understand that. I will try to speak louder.
Mr Hourigan: Thank you, Dr Tang.
In an answer to a question I just put to you, you indicated that normally notices of this type are sent to the Ministry of Housing. Is that correct?
Dr Tang: Yes, I think so, yes.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Do you know if this specific notice was sent to the Ministry of Housing?
Dr Tang: I don't know that.
Mr Hourigan: Do you know whose responsibility it would be to send it to the Ministry of Housing?
Dr Tang: The secretary.
Mr Hourigan: The secretary, and at that time, the eighth of June, 1994, who was the secretary?
Dr Tang: Dr Hieu Truong.
Mr Hourigan: So if a notice was sent, it would have likely been sent by Dr Truong.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: The decision to move to remove Ms Pretty was based, you were telling me, on the allegations she made in the June first article found in the Ottawa Sun? Was that the basis of the issuance of the notice?
Dr Tang: Yes, the basis is, we believe she has compromised her effectiveness as a board member by stating reckless remarks to the newspaper and we believe it's also irresponsible remarks to the newspaper.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Was there anything else you based the decision on to send the notice out to have her removed?
Dr Tang: It was part of the last straw that broke the camel's back.
Mr Hourigan: The last straw that broke the camel's back. All right. What specifically? Are you telling me that the newspaper articles and other problems that you had experienced with her led to this decision?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Can you tell me what the problems were?
Dr Tang: The problem, as I stated earlier, that she seemed to have her own personal agenda, that we tried to understand, but we just could not find out what she's heading to. Our concern at that time, we said to her many times, was the tenants' safety and security and the financial management of the operation.
Mr Hourigan: Yes.
Dr Tang: And we asked her if she has any of those concerns she would raise to us, but we did not get any specific concern from her.
Mr Hourigan: All right.
Dr Tang: So we think that she was not there for the benefit of the tenants at all.
Mr Hourigan: Okay.
Dr Tang: Specifically, she was the tenant director.
Mr Hourigan: She was the tenant director?
Dr Tang: Yes. And, you know, part of that is that we feel like if she's a tenant director but she did not raise any concern from the tenants, but just her own personal view, and she even worked on a group of tenants, so we were afraid that it would cause friction among the tenants as well.
Mr Hourigan: When you say she "worked on a group of tenants," what do you mean by that?
Dr Tang: In one of her letters, for example, she cc'd to the so-called non-Vietnamese tenants.
Mr Hourigan: All right. And that was of concern to you?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: And why is that?
Dr Tang: Because we think, if a board of directors seeks out a selected group of tenants, and to discuss certain issues with a selective group of tenants, that may cause friction among the tenants.
Mr Hourigan: All right. As I understand your evidence, then, the facts that led to the issuance of the notice were publication of the article in the Ottawa Sun, your concern that she had her own personal agenda, as you put it. Is there anything else?
Dr Tang: Basically, that's some of the major concerns.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Shortly after -- this notice is dated the eighth of June. If I could ask you to turn to tab 68 in the same volume, there's a letter here dated June 9, 1994, from Bill Clement, and it's addressed to you. Do you recall receiving this letter, sir?
Dr Tang: Yes, I recall that.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall when you received it?
Dr Tang: I can't remember exactly. Everybody say June 9.
Mr Hourigan: It's dated June ninth.
Dr Tang: Yes, it's dated June ninth, but I think I received it shortly after that.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. And in the letter, Mr Clement is indicating that he'd been advised by the minister that she had arranged for a meeting to be held with the board of directors, and the meeting was to be held June 17th at 10 am.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: And he asked you to advise all the other directors and let him know by next Wednesday which ones would be attending.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Did you do that?
Dr Tang: I did not do that because I see that the secretary's job.
Mr Hourigan: When you say "the secretary," who do you mean?
Dr Tang: Dr Hieu Truong.
Mr Hourigan: So you assumed that Dr Truong had the responsibility to contact the members?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Did you contact any members and advise them of this meeting?
Dr Tang: No, I did not.
Mr Hourigan: Specifically, did you speak to Sharron Pretty at all about this meeting?
Dr Tang: No, I did not.
Mr Hourigan: Did you provide this letter to Dr Truong once you'd received it?
Dr Tang: The letter came to the office.
Mr Hourigan: Yes.
Dr Tang: And I think the office assistant made one copy available to me and a copy available to Dr Truong as well.
2050
Mr Hourigan: As far as you're aware, then, Dr Truong then contacted the other board members.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Do you know if he contacted all of them at once?
Dr Tang: I have no way of knowing that, no.
Mr Hourigan: You have no way of knowing it. Because there's an indication from Ms Pretty that she wasn't advised about this meeting until some time later and that she had to contact Dr Truong to find out about it.
Dr Tang: I learned that the superintendent at the time -- it was a temporary superintendent -- hand-delivered this letter to her. That's as I recall.
Mr Hourigan: From what Ms Pretty has indicated, the letter was delivered to her only after she found out about it through another means and contacted Dr Truong. Do you have any evidence in that regard? Do you know anything about the delivery?
Dr Tang: I didn't know that, no.
Mr Hourigan: Prior to this letter arriving in the early part of June, had you or any of the other board directors that you're aware of had any discussion with the ministry with respect to setting up another meeting with the minister?
Dr Tang: No, I'm not aware of anything like that.
Mr Hourigan: Did this letter take you by surprise, then?
Dr Tang: No, no, this letter does not take me by surprise because Bill Clement, at the board meeting just prior to this, had asked us verbally, are we available to meet with the minister now, that she's available to meet with us.
Mr Hourigan: What board meeting was that?
Dr Tang: It's just prior to this one. I can't remember the exact day.
Mr Hourigan: Would that be the June third board meeting?
Dr Tang: It must be, I guess.
Mr Hourigan: Oh. There was a meeting on June third of the board, and at that meeting you discussed the James Wallace article. There was also discussion at that time about issuing the notice to remove Ms Pretty. Was Mr Clement at that meeting?
Dr Tang: I can't remember.
Mr Hourigan: Do you know when the board meeting for May would have been held?
Dr Tang: I can only recall that prior to this one, prior to receiving this letter, Bill Clement was at one of our board meetings and told us that.
Mr Hourigan: Okay, and you don't recall whether it was the June board meeting or the May board meeting.
Dr Tang: No, I can't recall that.
Mr Hourigan: What specifically did Mr Clement tell you about a meeting with the minister?
Dr Tang: I think at the end of the board meeting, he would just simply say: "I have news for you. The minister would like to see if you are still interested in seeing her. Do you have an available time to see her?"
Mr Hourigan: What expression was made by the board members about that proposition?
Dr Tang: We were agreed to that.
Mr Hourigan: Did Mr Clement indicate what the nature of the meeting would be with the minister?
Dr Tang: No. As I recall, not more than what I just said there.
Mr Hourigan: That's all he said about the meeting?
Dr Tang: As I recall, yes.
Mr Hourigan: Did anyone ask him why the minister wanted to meet with them now?
Dr Tang: No, no, I don't think so.
Mr Hourigan: So he simply indicated that the minister had time and the board indicated that they would be willing to meet with her.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: There was no further discussion about why there hadn't been a meeting with the minister previous to that or what the discussions with the minister were going to be?
Dr Tang: No, no questions on that sort of thing.
Mr Hourigan: That was the only discussion you can recall at that specific meeting.
Dr Tang: Yes, I remember at the end of the meeting, almost like before he went home, almost standing up from his chair, almost standing to get away from his chair, as I recall. He sort of sat down and he said that.
Mr Hourigan: Prior to attendance at the June 17th meeting, did you or any of the other board directors contact either Bill Clement or anybody else at the Ministry of Housing to inquire about the nature of the meeting, what would be discussed at the meeting?
Dr Tang: No, we did not inquire about any meeting with the minister before that.
Mr Hourigan: You didn't make any inquiries to find out what the meeting was going to be about or what would be discussed.
Dr Tang: No, we did not.
Mr Hourigan: What did you understand was going to be discussed at the meeting?
Dr Tang: I understood that we would go there and present to the minister the problem as we saw it.
Mr Hourigan: When you say "the problem," what do you mean by "the problem"?
Dr Tang: Everything that she may have heard about Van Lang through the newspaper or by the cc that she received from Ms Sharron Pretty. We would like her to be aware of another side of the story.
Mr Hourigan: So it was your intention, then, to go to this meeting and present your side of the story with respect to the allegations made by Ms Pretty.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: And did those allegations include the charges under the Corporations Act that she had laid? Did you understand that that was going to be the subject matter of the discussion?
Dr Tang: No. It had never occurred to our mind at that time.
Mr Hourigan: When you say "our mind" --
Dr Tang: My mind, and the rest of the board, as I know of.
Mr Hourigan: All right. So you're telling me, then, that you understood that the meeting was going to deal with all of the other concerns expressed by Ms Pretty, but not the Corporations Act charges?
Dr Tang: Yes, that's correct. Because in our mind, it was just the long-standing problem at the board and we'd just like to let the minister know that we have tried to do our job the best we can, basically that; tell her our side of the story, in a nutshell that we have done our job; we're not just sitting there doing nothing.
Mr Hourigan: You told me you were served with a summons some time in early June. Do you know if you had a summons by the time this letter came on June ninth?
Dr Tang: I can't remember that.
Mr Hourigan: Do you know if you were aware of the charges when the invitation came from Mr Clement?
Dr Tang: I can't recall now.
Mr Hourigan: You can't recall.
Dr Tang: I can't recall that. I can't remember that.
Mr Hourigan: Prior to going into the meeting, is it your evidence that you didn't anticipate the charges would be brought up or discussed at all with the minister?
Dr Tang: No, we -- that's --
Mr Hourigan: You're saying "we." I want your recollection.
Dr Tang: From my point of view.
Mr Hourigan: There was a board meeting held on June 15th, 1994. Is that correct? If I can be of assistance, if you could turn to tab 74 of the volume in front of you.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: What was the purpose of this meeting?
Dr Tang: "To discuss the summons received by board members and the meeting with the Minister of Housing, Mrs Evelyn Gigantes."
Mr Hourigan: All right. So the purpose of the meeting as you understood it -- and this is your signature on the bottom of this --
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: -- was to discuss the charges and to discuss the meeting.
Dr Tang: Yes, to discuss the summons received by the board members, yes.
Mr Hourigan: Are you telling me, then, in your mind the charges and the meeting were completely distinct?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: All right.
Dr Tang: I think it's very unfortunate. Now I look at it I don't know why it's this way. It's just by coincidence, totally by coincidence. I can assure you that.
Mr Hourigan: Did you draft this document?
Dr Tang: No, I think it was drafted by the secretary.
Mr Hourigan: And that's Dr Truong.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Turn to tab 76. There's a letter here dated June 15th, 1994, from Sharron Pretty.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: And it's addressed to a Dr Vinh. Is that a letter to you, sir?
Dr Tang: Yes, it's a letter to me, yes.
Mr Hourigan: She's addressed it to you by your first name.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: And am I correct in stating that Ms Pretty was indicating to you that she would not attend this meeting?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: And what was the basis for her refusing to attend?
Dr Tang: Well, I just know from the letter here, whatever.
Mr Hourigan: All right. What was your understanding, then?
Dr Tang: "I cannot attend your meeting with an agenda that deals only with alleged problems with me, when I have repeatedly requisitioned meetings to deal with core issues and with Can Le's dishonesty -- and you still have not held that meeting."
Mr Hourigan: Was it your recollection, sir, that Ms Pretty had made repeated requests for such a meeting?
Dr Tang: Yes, she had made one, at least one. I recall that, yes.
Mr Hourigan: At least one?
Dr Tang: At least one.
Mr Hourigan: More than one?
Dr Tang: Possibly two times she requested a special meeting.
Mr Hourigan: Well, the phrase she uses is, "repeated requests," and is it your evidence, then, that you can only recall one or possibly two requests?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: The meeting took place, then, on the 15th?
Dr Tang: Yes -- I don't really have a good recollection of this meeting at all, for some reason.
Mr Hourigan: All right. I'd ask you then to turn the tab. At tab 77, you'll see minutes of the meeting.
Dr Tang: Good, yes.
Mr Hourigan: And on the front of that document, there's an indication that you were in attendance at this meeting.
Dr Tang: Yes.
2100
Mr Hourigan: So you were in attendance; you recall.
Dr Tang: Yeah, yeah.
Mr Hourigan: If you look at the next page, under the heading number 2, "Court Summons," there's an indication that a number of people were served with summonses on June third, 1994, and they're listed.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Is that your recollection now? Does that seem to be correct, that you were served on June third, 1994?
Dr Tang: Yes. I mean, I trust the minutes of the meeting right now.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Now, if you'll turn to the next page, there's a reference on the bottom of the page to "Meeting with the Ministry of Housing."
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: There's an indication under this heading that the board received a briefing note for the minister prepared by Dr Can D. Le and approved it with some suggestions on its contents. "Dr Le undertook to revise this note for submission to the minister at the forthcoming meeting with her on June 17."
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: What was the purpose of doing the briefing notes here, completing briefing notes before the meeting?
Dr Tang: This is just to organize our material to present to the minister.
Mr Hourigan: And it was Dr Le, then, who drafted the minutes?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Or the briefing notes? Do you recall making any suggested changes to the briefing notes?
Dr Tang: Yes. Like before he prepared the briefing note, we may have discussed in this meeting here what we'd like to discuss with the minister, and after he finished the first draft, he passed the draft around to us, and we made any suggestions or comments on the draft, and then he would finalize it.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall making any suggestions or changes to the briefing notes?
Dr Tang: Yes, some minor changes there.
Mr Hourigan: Can I ask you to look at tab 80 of the same volume? Are these the briefing notes that were referred to?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: And this is the final version of the notes, as far as you're aware?
Dr Tang: Yeah. I mean, it looks like this, yes.
Mr Hourigan: And they were signed by you?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Did you review the notes thoroughly before they were finalized?
Dr Tang: Yes, I review the note if I sign it, yes.
Mr Hourigan: You attended, sir, at the meeting on June 17th with the minister?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Where was the meeting held?
Dr Tang: At the location on Rideau Street. The ministry has an office there.
Mr Hourigan: Who do you recall being at the meeting?
Dr Tang: Mr Sutherland.
Mr Hourigan: Yes.
Dr Tang: And the Minister of Housing.
Mr Hourigan: Evelyn Gigantes.
Dr Tang: Yes, and two of her assistants.
Mr Hourigan: Did you know the assistants' names?
Dr Tang: Yes. One is Miss Moey, I think, and another one is Miss Bell.
Mr Hourigan: Beverlee Bell and Audrey Moey?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Did you know these women before you went to the meeting?
Dr Tang: No. I'd never met them before.
Mr Hourigan: So you'd never had occasion to meet them before that?
Dr Tang: No.
Mr Hourigan: Who else was in attendance at the meeting?
Dr Tang: The board members, including Dr Can Le, Dr Truong, Mr Nguyen, Miss Sharron Pretty and I myself.
Mr Hourigan: Was it your understanding going into this meeting that Ms Pretty was to be in attendance at the meeting? Did you expect her to be there?
Dr Tang: I don't recall. I didn't just expect anybody there then.
Mr Hourigan: What I'm asking you, sir, is whether you thought this was a meeting for the board members excluding Ms Pretty or whether you assumed that Ms Pretty would be at that meeting.
Dr Tang: I don't think I assumed that Ms Pretty would be there.
Mr Hourigan: You didn't assume.
Dr Tang: No, no.
Mr Hourigan: Did it take you by surprise when you arrived and saw her there?
Dr Tang: I can't recall that.
Mr Hourigan: You can't recall. All right. What time did the meeting start?
Dr Tang: At noon time. I know it was lunchtime, 11 o'clock, 11:30, something like that.
Mr Hourigan: Okay, 11, 11:30. How long did it go?
Dr Tang: Roughly two hours or so.
Mr Hourigan: I just want to go back for a second. You indicated that there were four directors there plus Ms Pretty, so that's five directors. Mr Sutherland was there. Beverlee Bell was there. Audrey Moey was there. Do you recall anybody else being there?
Dr Tang: The minister herself.
Mr Hourigan: The minister herself. Okay. Sorry, I haven't been counting correctly. Did anyone get up and leave at any point in the meeting?
Dr Tang: No.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall if everyone arrived on time for the meeting?
Dr Tang: When the meeting started everybody was there, yes.
Mr Hourigan: Did you take notes at the meeting?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Are these your notes at tab 82?
Dr Tang: Yes, these are my notes.
Mr Hourigan: They appear to be made on a daybook of some sort.
Dr Tang: Yes, a date book, but it's an old calendar book.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Were these notes made during the meeting or were they made after?
Dr Tang: They were made during the meeting.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. The copy I have in front of me I can't read very well. Do you think you can assist me in reading the notes?
Dr Tang: Yes. The first line says, "compliance report," and the next line says, "turn over." The next one, "superintendent's power," and then there's an arrow -- it says something like "what specific power, incompetent," and then an asterisk, "Two core issues have been replied by Housing staff."
Mr Hourigan: "Have been replied" is what you're saying?
Dr Tang: "Have been replied," as I see here, "by Housing staff." And then it says, "If anybody can do, Hieu can," regarding "project management," and then number 1. Then under that I say something like "racial" and then an arrow -- it says "Sharron's letter." And then in the big circle it says, "accessibility, tenant participation." On the side, under number 2, it says "resolution, conciliatory," and in the circle with number 3 it says, the "board meeting time." And on the next page it says "communications to tenants."
Mr Hourigan: All right. All of these notes, I take it then, were made at the time of the meeting, including the one on the second page.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: I take it you weren't attempting to get down everything that was being discussed at this meeting.
Dr Tang: No.
Mr Hourigan: What was your intention when you were making the notes?
Dr Tang: As a memory jogger, so some of the things I wrote down here I may have not use it in the meeting.
Mr Hourigan: Let's be clear about this. Are these notes of things that were said at the meeting or do they also contain notes of things that you wanted to say or you were using as a memory jog?
Dr Tang: Yes, two things.
Mr Hourigan: All right, so they're both.
Dr Tang: They're both, yes.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Looking at it today, can you tell me which of these were notes of matters that were raised and discussed at the meeting and which were notes that you were just using to jog your memory?
Dr Tang: The "compliance report" I can't remember exactly if it was a memory jogger or was discussed, but the "turn over" --
Mr Hourigan: What did that relate to, sir?
Dr Tang: That we were discussing about the concern that the staff turnover is quite often.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall that being discussed at the meeting?
Dr Tang: Yes. And "superintendent's power" has also been discussed at the meeting. "What specific power" -- I raised that question at the meeting.
Mr Hourigan: You did raise that question?
Dr Tang: Yes, I raised that question at the meeting. Regarding the competency of the superintendent I also raised at the meeting as one of Sharron's concerns.
Mr Hourigan: So that was discussed as well.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: The next entry.
Dr Tang: Says, "Two core issues have been replied by Housing staff." This is just to jog my memory.
2110
Mr Hourigan: So do you recall whether the two core issues having been replied to by the Housing staff was discussed or not?
Dr Tang: The two core issues have been discussed, but this particular line, when I wrote it down, I wrote it as a memory jogger.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Now the next reference.
Dr Tang: "If anybody can do it, Hieu can."
Mr Hourigan: What does that mean?
Dr Tang: This again is a memory jogger. When we were discussing about the project management, I just jotted it down so that it would remind me, maybe if there's opportunity, I will say that I have full trust in Dr Hieu Truong's capabilities in management.
Mr Hourigan: So it's your recollection then that project management was discussed at the meeting?
Dr Tang: Yes, project management, there was some discussion on that.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. And the next entry?
Dr Tang: It says "racial" and an arrow says "Sharron's letter." This is a memory jogger again. But at the end of the meeting, I did say something about Sharron's letter.
Mr Hourigan: Which letter are you referring to here?
Dr Tang: I can't remember the letter, but I remember the cc, the two non-Vietnamese tenants. And then my comment to Sharron at the very end of the meeting was: "In future, if I was you, I would not cc to a selective group of tenants. It would cause conflict and friction among the tenants."
Mr Hourigan: Okay. The next references are to "accessibility" and "tenant participation."
Dr Tang: This is at the end of the meeting.
Mr Hourigan: I don't want to get into the detail at this point of what was discussed about it, but that was raised at the meeting, those two issues?
Dr Tang: Yes, these two issues were raised at the meeting.
Mr Hourigan: And the other reference to the side here?
Dr Tang: "Resolution, conciliatory."
Mr Hourigan: What does that refer to?
Dr Tang: That they were conciliatory. It's just my assessment of what had been said. I might have heard -- actually, I look at the words myself, I can't remember who said what.
Mr Hourigan: Do you know if either of these words -- or specifically "conciliatory," whether that word was mentioned in the meeting?
Dr Tang: I can't recall that, no.
Mr Hourigan: The next reference is to "board meeting time."
Dr Tang: Yes. That's about we would set up -- I mean, that's been discussed.
Mr Hourigan: I'm sorry?
Dr Tang: That is the item that had been discussed at the board.
Mr Hourigan: About a future board meeting?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: And then the reference on the other page, under Saturday?
Dr Tang: I wrote it for -- I can't recall that. I maybe wrote it for myself. I have to communicate what had been said to the tenants.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. I'd like to take you back to the beginning of the meeting, and you can indicate to me how you recall the meeting opening. The meeting began. Everyone showed up on time and sat down, and what happened?
Dr Tang: I make some opening remarks and then we start to discuss after that.
Mr Hourigan: You made some opening remarks yourself?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: What was the nature of those opening remarks?
Dr Tang: I think at the time I talked to you, I remember better. I can't remember now.
Mr Hourigan: I'm sorry, you talked to Hieu?
Dr Tang: At the time I have interview with you, I think I recall the nature better. I basically just told the minister that it was a long-standing problem. I think I said, "We're sorry that your name has been put in the paper in a bad light; we're sorry about that." But then she said, never mind, being a politician, she had been called worse than that, been subjected to worse treatment than that, she said.
Interjection: Little did she know.
Dr Tang: And I was saying, "Basically, we're here to let you aware of our side of the stories and then listen to your advice."
Mr Hourigan: But at that meeting, Ms Pretty was in attendance too.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: So was it your intention at that meeting to give your side of the story?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Alone? Was it also your intention to allow Ms Pretty to present her side of the story to the minister?
Dr Tang: I think it's more just our side of the story, because after all the letters she had received from Miss Pretty herself and from what she read from the paper, we think it is our turn to speak up.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Was there an agenda for the meeting, an agenda handed out?
Dr Tang: No, there was no --
Mr Hourigan: Were the briefing notes that we reviewed earlier provided to the minister?
Dr Tang: Yes, at the end of the meeting I handed it to the minister.
Mr Hourigan: So the meeting didn't follow any written guide as to the topics to be discussed. There was no agenda; you didn't follow the briefing notes.
Dr Tang: I attempted to follow the briefing note at the beginning, but after one or two items, we started to discuss -- the discussion jumped all over the place.
Mr Hourigan: Were you chairing this meeting?
Dr Tang: No, I was not chairing the meeting.
Mr Hourigan: Who was chairing the meeting? Who was in charge of the meeting?
Dr Tang: I assume the minister.
Mr Hourigan: The minister.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Can you give me, to the best of your recollection, the issues that were discussed at the meeting? You start with your opening remarks, and then I take it there were some issues that were raised and discussed.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Can you take me through, to the best of your recollection today, what was raised and what was discussed at the meeting?
Dr Tang: I think the first thing was the minister was saying something about the concern Sharron raised regarding -- not that Sharron raised, but she said somewhat the concern about the Van Lang operation, such as the turnover of the staff so often and the superintendent's competency was in question.
Mr Hourigan: All right, so you're telling me that the first issue discussed was staff turnover and that also discussed was allegations about the superintendent's incompetency.
Dr Tang: Yes, that's from my notes.
Mr Hourigan: Do you have any independent recollection other than from the notes?
Dr Tang: I cannot remember that, no.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall at all how long these discussions lasted on each of the topics?
Dr Tang: This lasted for quite a while, at least half an hour or so, I think. I think when the minister stopped expressing her concerns about some of the points she raised -- it was not her own concern, but she said Sharron had raised that with her. Then I think I jumped in and asked her a question like: "Yes, I understood. Sharron used to say the superintendent has so much power, but we cannot deal with the issue in that manner, when you talk generalities like that." So I would ask her to give me specific points so we can deal with it. And the minister then said, as I recall: "Sharron, there's a question put to you, but you don't have to answer that." I do remember that. "You don't have to answer that."
Mr Hourigan: What question was that, that was put to Sharron?
Dr Tang: What specific power does the superintendent have?
Mr Hourigan: And the minister advised Sharron that she didn't have to answer the question.
Dr Tang: Yes, the minister advised that. She repeated it a couple of times, I remember.
Mr Hourigan: She repeated it at that point, or more than one occasion she made that point?
Dr Tang: More than one occasion, and at that point she repeated it twice, as I recall.
Mr Hourigan: How long did the meeting go, do you recall?
Dr Tang: About two hours or something, overall.
Mr Hourigan: So in the beginning of the meeting, after your introductory remarks, you recall that there was discussion about the superintendent and there was discussion about staff turnover. Do you recall discussion of any other issues at the meeting?
Dr Tang: Project management, as I said.
Mr Hourigan: And what was the nature of that discussion?
Dr Tang: I think Mr Sutherland suggested that we should have a strong property manager at the centre.
Mr Hourigan: What else was discussed at the meeting that you can recall? Those three topics were discussed. Do you have any recollection of any other topics being discussed at the meeting?
Dr Tang: And the two core issues, the minister asked Sharron if that was her main concerns.
Mr Hourigan: The minister asked Sharron Pretty about her main concerns?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: And what was Ms Pretty's response to that?
Dr Tang: She confirmed that tenant accessibility and tenant participation is her main concerns.
Mr Hourigan: And was there discussion at that point about these two core issues?
Dr Tang: No, I don't think there was much discussion.
Mr Hourigan: You don't think there was any discussion?
Dr Tang: No, I don't recall that.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. What else was discussed at the meeting, do you recall?
Dr Tang: No, I can't recall.
2120
Mr Hourigan: Those are the only topics you remember being discussed?
Dr Tang: Yes, I think so.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall any discussion about the pending motion to remove Sharron Pretty from the board of directors?
Dr Tang: No, I don't recall that.
Mr Hourigan: You're telling me that there was no discussion by the minister or by anybody at this meeting about the removal of Sharron Pretty from the board.
Dr Tang: No, I don't remember anybody discuss the removal of Sharron Pretty in this meeting.
Mr Hourigan: And the upcoming meeting of June 19th was not discussed?
Dr Tang: What --
Mr Hourigan: There was a meeting called for June 19th, and that meeting was to deal with the removal of Sharron Pretty as a director. And is it your evidence to the committee that there was no discussion of the removal of Sharron Pretty or the upcoming meeting where this issue was to be dealt with?
Dr Tang: No, it was not discussed, no. But in the context that the minister tried to reconcile both sides, as I assume, so she would put forward a proposal.
Mr Hourigan: What was the nature of that proposal?
Dr Tang: The proposal is that she asked Sharron, first, is that her real concern.
Mr Hourigan: Is what her real concern?
Dr Tang: Is her real concern the tenant accessibility and the tenant participation, and Sharron said yes. And the minister would say: "So if your concerns be addressed to your satisfaction, then you would not pursue anything else. Is that the case?" -- something of that nature.
Mr Hourigan: What did you understand she meant when she said "pursue anything else"?
Dr Tang: Well, I understood, just in my thoughts, in my mind, that Sharron would not ask for more information, to dig into others, pursue whatever, you know. Over the year that's what she tried to do, and maybe it would involve the court case as well. It was in my thoughts, now.
Mr Hourigan: Let's be clear here. When the minister mentioned to Ms Pretty if she was satisfied with the two core issues, and she indicated would that be it and they could resolve things, that she could resolve her difficulties with the board, when the minister said "resolve things," to your mind that meant what?
Dr Tang: To my mind, it meant we would go back to normal before, because I remember that another thing she said is, "Look to the future and forget about the past," that to resolve things you had to look to the future. So to my mind, we would go back to work together again.
Mr Hourigan: And what did you understand that to mean, back to before?
Dr Tang: That would mean, you know, no more court case, no more removing her from the board.
Mr Hourigan: So it was your understanding from what the minister said that if Ms Pretty was satisfied about these two core issues, she would not pursue the court case and you, in turn --
Dr Tang: That's my assumption.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Let me finish. She would not pursue the court case and you, in turn, would not pursue her removal from the board.
Dr Tang: No, it's not that way. That's --
Mr Hourigan: Well, you explain to me, then, what you thought.
Dr Tang: What I see from that meeting is that there's just no give and take verbally, so there's no negotiation, in my mind. Nobody said, "You do this for us and we will do that for you." None of that happened. What happened was one proposal out of there, which all parties believe, which would reconcile the differences.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. You understood that a proposal was put forward by the minister to reconcile all the differences.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: What were the differences, as you understood them? What was going to happen as a result of this?
Dr Tang: The conflict between the rest of the board and Sharron Pretty.
Mr Hourigan: Yes?
Dr Tang: The longstanding problem there. "If you do this, you may solve all of that problem." That was one of the options offered by the minister, as I understood it.
Mr Hourigan: Okay, let's be clear: A proposal was put forward that if Ms Pretty was satisfied with respect to the two core issues, then the result would be that the board could reach a goal where they were working together, as you said, like before.
Dr Tang: Mm-hmm.
Mr Hourigan: What I want to know from you is what that meant to you. Did it mean specifically that the charges would not be pursued? Did it mean that you would not pursue the motion to remove her as a director?
Dr Tang: Yes, that meant to me in my mind.
Mr Hourigan: Okay.
Dr Tang: But it was not as a bargaining. I want to make it clear to you.
Mr Hourigan: Okay, that's fine, but I'm not asking that. I'm asking what it meant to you as you were sitting there in that meeting.
Dr Tang: It meant to me, like I said, in that proposal there's three things in that. You see, "If you take this option, you reconcile your differences."
Mr Hourigan: Yes, and what are the three things in that proposal?
Dr Tang: That involved not pursuing the court case. I mean, that's as a byproduct, okay? "If you follow this route, one byproduct is, you would not have a court case, you would not have a removal of Sharron Pretty and you would solve your own two major concerns."
Mr Hourigan: Being tenant access and --
Dr Tang: Right, and the tenant participation.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Was there discussion at that meeting of the Corporations Act charges?
Dr Tang: Pardon me?
Mr Hourigan: Was there discussion at that meeting of the Corporations Act charges?
Dr Tang: No, there was no discussion of the Corporations Act charges.
Mr Hourigan: The charges were never discussed at all at the meeting? Is that what you're saying? Are you saying that they were never discussed or you don't recall discussion about them?
Dr Tang: I remember that it was never discussed, from my recollection.
Mr Hourigan: Okay, let's be clear: Are you saying specifically they were not discussed or that you can't recall if they were discussed?
Dr Tang: From my memory, they were not discussed.
Mr Hourigan: I'm still not clear. Are you saying, from your memory you don't remember them being discussed?
Dr Tang: Right.
Mr Hourigan: You can't say one way or another whether they were discussed or are you saying they were not discussed?
Dr Tang: They were not discussed, based on my memory, yes.
Mr Hourigan: When you reached the conclusion in your mind that a solution to Ms Pretty's two core issues would include not pursuing the court case, what did you base that on?
Dr Tang: I based that on, you know, statements such as: "Forget about the past. To solve this issue, you have to look to the future." That's one thing, and another thing is, "If this is the only concern that Sharron Pretty has, we've finally nailed down this is the only concern, so if we resolve that, it means she has no more concerns, based on the understanding that's there."
Mr Hourigan: All right. So then it's your evidence to the committee that the Corporations Act charges that had been laid were not discussed at all.
Dr Tang: No, not discussed at all.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall one way or the other whether the phrase "drop the charges" was ever used?
Dr Tang: No, I never recall that at all.
Mr Hourigan: You don't recall one way or another, or you don't recall it being used?
Dr Tang: I don't recall it being used.
Mr Hourigan: What about the term "withdraw the charges" or anything similar to that?
Dr Tang: I don't recall that being used.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall the phrase "crown" or "crown prosecutor" being used, or "prosecutor"?
Dr Tang: Yes, Sharron Pretty used that term.
Mr Hourigan: When did she use that phrase?
Dr Tang: I can't remember exactly. I can't remember the context in which she used it, but she did say something about the case "now in the hands of the crown" or something like that.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Now, you just told me a few minutes ago that you didn't remember any discussion about the case. Are you telling me now, sir, that there was discussion of the case?
Dr Tang: No, I didn't say there was a discussion of the case. I said there was a statement made by Sharron Pretty. She said that thing; I remember that. She said something about the crown, "in the hands of the crown," but there was no discussion on that matter that I recall.
Mr Hourigan: Okay, but the issue clearly then was raised, sir, because she said that the case was in the hands of the crown.
Dr Tang: She did say that; I remember that, yes.
2130
Mr Hourigan: All right. So then isn't it your evidence that that was discussed at the meeting, at least by Sharron Pretty?
Dr Tang: Okay, maybe we -- like I said at the beginning, if you mean discuss in terms of give and take, a little different from that --
Mr Hourigan: No, no, I'm not saying give and take; I'm saying, was the topic mentioned?
Dr Tang: It was mentioned, like I said. Okay, that one has been mentioned, yes.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Who else mentioned the charges, the Corporations Act charges?
Dr Tang: Nobody else has mentioned that statement, as I recall.
Mr Hourigan: So Sharron Pretty said in the meeting that the Corporations Act charges were in the hands of the crown.
Dr Tang: Yes, something of that nature.
Mr Hourigan: Something of that nature. And did she say that in response to anyone?
Dr Tang: I can't just recall the context in which it was put.
Mr Hourigan: So you don't know one way or another whether there was further discussion about the charges, further mention of the charges?
Dr Tang: I cannot remember who said what, but I can sort of have a better memory of what is important being discussed --
Mr Hourigan: All right.
Dr Tang: -- and I don't think we have discussed the charges. I can say that.
Mr Hourigan: You don't think you discussed the charges.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: All right. But you did tell me that Sharron Pretty mentioned the fact that the charges were in the hands of the crown prosecutor.
Dr Tang: Right, yes.
Mr Hourigan: All right. You don't remember the context of when that statement was made.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: So I'm submitting to you, sir, that you don't recall one way or the other whether there was a discussion about it. You know that it was mentioned by one person, but you don't know if anybody else discussed it or mentioned it.
Dr Tang: Well, it may be fair to say that another way of looking at that is maybe the surrounding argument was too trivial that I can't remember that. And as I said --
Mr Hourigan: It was too trivial?
Dr Tang: Yes. The surrounding of that maybe is trivial, that I could not remember that. What I mean is, we had not discussed the court case; we had not discussed the charges.
Mr Hourigan: I think we're getting hung up here on the semantics of the word --
Dr Tang: Okay.
Mr Hourigan: You are saying "discuss" as in going back and forth in negotiation.
Dr Tang: Yes, yes.
Mr Hourigan: When I say discuss, I mean "mention." Was the issue mentioned at the meeting?
Dr Tang: It was mentioned one time, from my recollection.
Mr Hourigan: And when was that?
Dr Tang: That was by Sharron Pretty.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall anybody else mentioning it?
Dr Tang: No, I don't recall anybody else mentioning that.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall the context of when it was mentioned?
Dr Tang: No, I don't recall the context that it was mentioned in.
Mr Hourigan: I'm submitting to you, sir, that Ms Pretty would not make that statement out of the blue. Is that fair?
Dr Tang: That's fair, yes.
Mr Hourigan: So is it your evidence then that there's a possibility that other people were discussing this issue with Ms Pretty at the time?
Dr Tang: You make whatever interpretation you want to make, I guess --
Mr Hourigan: No, no. I'm asking you whether you can tell me definitively that there was no other discussion or mention of the charges.
Dr Tang: I already answered that question, and the answer is yes. I only heard that term mentioned once, by Ms Pretty and by nobody else.
Mr Hourigan: All right. I just want to be clear on your evidence.
Was there discussion at that meeting of a future meeting?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Can you tell me about that?
Dr Tang: We would meet together to address Sharron Pretty's two core issues, which are the tenant participation and the tenant accessibility.
Mr Hourigan: Who would meet, sir?
Dr Tang: Pardon me?
Mr Hourigan: Who was going to meet?
Dr Tang: The board.
Mr Hourigan: The board. And when was that meeting to be held?
Dr Tang: We did not set the date. We were supposed to go home and Sharron was supposed to provide Dr Hieu Truong with the dates.
Mr Hourigan: Did Ms Pretty agree to a further meeting?
Dr Tang: Yes, I think she's agreed to that.
Mr Hourigan: What did you expect the result of that meeting to be if Ms Pretty's concerns about the two core issues were satisfied?
Dr Tang: I expect that when she's satisfied she would not pursue, whatever, her own agenda any further, and also would not pursue the court case.
Mr Hourigan: What about the removal of Ms Pretty as a director?
Dr Tang: And I would expect that we would not remove her from the board; we would not decide on her status on the board.
Mr Hourigan: This meeting was held on June 17. You had another meeting scheduled two days later, for June 19.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: What did you decide about that meeting? Was it to go ahead?
Dr Tang: I don't recall. Which --
Mr Hourigan: There was a meeting scheduled for June 19th.
Dr Tang: You mean the meeting that you showed me earlier about the resolution to remove Sharron Pretty?
Mr Hourigan: That's right.
Dr Tang: Yes. That was not held.
Mr Hourigan: Okay, that was not held. Was there an agreement in the June 17th meeting with the minister that that meeting was not to be held?
Dr Tang: I don't know if that's -- I'd be careful just because, as I said, the meetings just offer options, and we, all party, agree to that options.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. She offered -- you've only told me about one option. Are you saying that she offered more options?
Dr Tang: No, no, just one option.
Mr Hourigan: So, singular: one option.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: All right. And I'm asking you: There was a meeting scheduled for two days in the future to deal with the removal of Ms Pretty.
Dr Tang: Mm-hmm. Yes.
Mr Hourigan: And you're telling me that that meeting didn't go ahead.
Dr Tang: No.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. And I'm asking you, was there an agreement reached at the June 17th meeting that that meeting was not to be held?
Dr Tang: No, not an agreement as such, no.
Mr Hourigan: Who made the decision not to hold the meeting?
Dr Tang: No, the understanding that, you know, when we get out of this meeting --
Mr Hourigan: Yes?
Dr Tang: -- the June 16th, the agreement was --
Mr Hourigan: Sorry. It was the June 17th meeting?
Dr Tang: June 17th; yes, sorry. Yes. When we get out of this meeting, the understanding, the agreement, was that we would meet to discuss with Sharron her two core issues.
Mr Hourigan: All right.
Dr Tang: So by that I assume that, you know, there is no need for the board meeting then.
Mr Hourigan: It was your assumption, then, that there was no need for a board meeting.
Dr Tang: Yeah, yeah. I assume that everybody understood the same way.
Mr Hourigan: All right. I'm going to ask you to look at something that we've marked as exhibit 6, which is a transcript of a telephone conversation between Ms Pretty and yourself dated June 19th, 1994. Do you have the transcript in front of you?
Dr Tang: Yes, I have it.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Have you had an opportunity, sir, to review this transcript? I provided a copy to your counsel earlier today.
Dr Tang: Yes, I had a chance to look at it.
Mr Hourigan: All right. To your mind, is this an accurate -- first of all, let me ask you: Did you have a telephone discussion with Ms Pretty on June 19th?
Dr Tang: I can't remember the date, but this conversation here, I think I had.
Mr Hourigan: You had this conversation.
Dr Tang: Yes, yes.
Mr Hourigan: And you don't know what day it was held on?
Dr Tang: I can't remember the -- oh, excuse me. The date that we're supposed to have the board meeting, yes.
Mr Hourigan: And what date was that?
Dr Tang: At June 19, here.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Is this an accurate reflection of the conversation you had with Ms Pretty?
Dr Tang: In the general tone. I mean, I cannot testify to every word that is in here. I can't remember every word, but --
Mr Hourigan: Is there anything specifically in here that you're looking at that you think wasn't said at that meeting?
Dr Tang: Yes, one specifically.
Mr Hourigan: What is that?
Dr Tang: The term that I said, I thought I mentioned quite a few times, which was, "in the spirit of reconciliation."
Mr Hourigan: Yes?
Dr Tang: And I told my counsel that.
Mr Hourigan: Right.
Dr Tang: But when I look through here, I try to search for it, I only found one.
Mr Hourigan: You found it once.
Dr Tang: But I think I said more than once.
Mr Hourigan: All right. But other than that, is there anything else in the transcript that you have a problem with in terms of its accuracy?
Dr Tang: Other than that -- I mean, I just take a look at it for 20 minutes or so.
Mr Hourigan: Would you like more time to look at it?
Dr Tang: Well, even if I have a few days or few months to look at it, I would not be able to know, you know, exactly if I say every word in here is correct.
Mr Hourigan: All right.
Dr Tang: But I can say that overall it looks like it's a reflection of what I was saying at the time, yes.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. I'd like to review the first three pages of this transcript with you, sir.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: The conversation begins with you saying, "Hello." Sharron Pretty says, "Is that Dr Vinh?" You say, "Pardon me?" She says, "Dr Vinh?" "Yes." Sharron Pretty: "Yeah, it's Sharron Pretty calling." You say: "Oh hi. How are you Sharron?" Sharron Pretty's response: "Not too bad. Um I was just wondering what was the status on this meeting today."
Dr Tang: Mm-hmm.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Stopping there, does that help your recollection that this call was on the 19th?
Dr Tang: Yes, yes.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Your response: "Well I thought we -- we agreed not to meet today, right?"
Dr Tang: Yes.
2140
Mr Hourigan: Ms Pretty's response, "I-I understood that, but I'm just confirming it."
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Your response: "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."
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Is that a correct statement?
Dr Tang: Yes, that's a correct statement.
Mr Hourigan: When you said "not pursue the case," what did you mean by that?
Dr Tang: I mean to say, my understanding was she would not pursue the court case.
Mr Hourigan: And when you said "we would postpone this meeting," what did you mean by that?
Dr Tang: The meeting to decide the status of her membership as a board member.
Mr Hourigan: I'm suggesting to you, sir, that there was an agreement reached, that it was your understanding that there was an agreement reached at that meeting --
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: -- that she would not pursue her case and you would postpone the meeting to remove her. Is that right?
Dr Tang: Yes, just whatever I say here. I --
Mr Hourigan: So you agree with me that there was an agreement to that in your mind at that June 17th meeting?
Dr Tang: An agreement. It was not an agreement between -- I try to be the --
Mr Hourigan: Do you call it an agreement or an understanding?
Dr Tang: Yes. I would call it an understanding, yes.
Mr Hourigan: And what was the understanding, sir?
Dr Tang: Because an agreement is not like we discussed with her. We throw the thing back and forth, like I said: "Would you do that and I will do this for you? Okay, let's agree. I will drop this and you drop that." It's not now happened that way.
Mr Hourigan: All right.
Dr Tang: Okay? It's a proposal and everybody looked -- it looked good -- agreed to it.
Mr Hourigan: And do you --
Dr Tang: In that sense, then I say yes.
Mr Hourigan: Without getting into the issue of whether there was any back and forth, it was your understanding of that meeting that there was an understanding or an agreement between the board members and Ms Pretty --
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: -- that provided that she would not pursue her case, you would not pursue the meeting to have her removed as a director?
Dr Tang: No, it's not providing that she not pursue the case. It's not a condition.
Mr Hourigan: It's not a condition?
Dr Tang: No.
Mr Hourigan: So you were willing to postpone the meeting --
Dr Tang: Yes, in any case.
Mr Hourigan: In any case?
Dr Tang: Yes, and it shows in this transcript as well.
Mr Hourigan: Okay.
Dr Tang: It shows in this transcript.
Mr Hourigan: So you're telling me then that if Ms Pretty continued with her court case, it's your evidence to this committee that that would have been fine with you and she could have remained on the board?
Dr Tang: No, I didn't say that.
Mr Hourigan: Okay, what are you saying?
Dr Tang: I say even if she continued with the court case --
Mr Hourigan: Yes?
Dr Tang: -- we would meet with her and try to resolve the differences, as I said in the transcript here.
Mr Hourigan: Yes?
Dr Tang: And the meeting that we were supposed to have on June 19th would be postponed, but we don't know what we are going to do on that yet.
Mr Hourigan: Right. If you held this further meeting and if her concerns were dealt with --
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: -- and she was satisfied with them but she still wished to continue with her court case, are you telling me today, sir, that you would not have proceeded to have her removed from the board?
Dr Tang: We never thought of that option, but I can tell you that the decision that we should or should not remove her from the board, the decision for the meeting of June 19th, has nothing to do with the court case.
Mr Hourigan: Nothing to do with it at all?
Dr Tang: Nothing to do with it at all, whatsoever.
Mr Hourigan: If you read this sentence again, "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." That suggests to me, sir, that there was an agreement and there was an understanding, and one was conditional on the other. Is it your evidence that that's not the case?
Dr Tang: No, no. I said we will postpone this meeting. I said that we postpone this meeting. My understanding from the June 17th meeting is that we would postpone the Sunday meeting.
Mr Hourigan: This proposal is the proposal that came from the minister. Is that correct? The proposal that we're discussing is the proposal that came from the minister?
Dr Tang: Yes, from my understanding in this context, my understanding of what I heard in the meeting, yes.
Mr Hourigan: Let's just be clear again on what your understanding was from the meeting. Can you tell me what it was? I confess I'm not understanding what you're --
Dr Tang: Okay. What I understood was, the minister was asking Sharron whether the two issues were her core issues, her main concerns. Then the minister also asked her, "If this is your main concern, then when it's been dealt with, when it's been resolved to your satisfaction, then you would not pursue it further."
Mr Hourigan: Pursue what further?
Dr Tang: Present the case. I can't remember the exact words of the minister, but that's --
Mr Hourigan: What did you understand the minister to mean when she said "pursue further"?
Dr Tang: Out of that meeting, what I understood, as I already mentioned to you, is that we will meet together to try to resolve the two concerns that Sharron Pretty has, and if she's satisfied with that, she would not pursue her court case.
Mr Hourigan: Right.
Dr Tang: That's how I understood.
Mr Hourigan: It was your understanding then, if you could meet and in the future resolve her concerns, she would drop the case. Is that your understanding?
Dr Tang: My understanding from that proposal there.
Mr Hourigan: Is that your understanding of what the minister said to you?
Dr Tang: That's what I understood from the proposal as I come out of meeting, yes.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Let's continue on with the transcript.
Sharron says in response to that statement: "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."
Your response: "Well, well, well, I -- I don't know about that too well."
What did you mean by that statement?
Dr Tang: She said, "You were supposed to suspend this attempt to oust me from the board." See?
Mr Hourigan: Yes.
Dr Tang: So that's what I told her. I said, "Well, again, we didn't." I don't think that we do any trading with her at all, whatsoever.
Mr Hourigan: But I want to know, sir, what you mean by "I don't know about that too well." It appears to me that you're disagreeing with something she's saying.
Dr Tang: Yes. I disagree with she's saying that we were supposed to suspend this attempt to oust her from the board.
Mr Hourigan: And that wasn't your understanding?
Dr Tang: No.
Mr Hourigan: Was it your understanding that meeting was going to go ahead that day?
Dr Tang: No, no.
Mr Hourigan: Your evidence --
Dr Tang: I'm sorry. Maybe I misunderstood something here. I may have misunderstood her at that time there, you know, to mean the trading there, sir. As I tried to say, when I say I don't know that we should, I thought she meant we would trade her agreement to the meeting for not meeting of the board or something. So that's where I say I don't know about that or something.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Moving on: "Well if you'd like to go ahead with the meeting this afternoon, I'm sure the press would be interested."
Your response: "What do you mean? No, no, no, I don't want -- I'm not worrying about that."
Her response: "Uh-huh."
Your response: "I'm not worrying about that. You know -- I, I, I..."
Her response: "Well they've been phoning me this morning and wondering if there was going to be a meeting, and I said I'd phone you and find out for sure. And, you know..."
Your response is: "...me firm understanding. I mean I have to do according to the last time -- the official time that we met."
Her response: "Uh-huh."
Your response: "Which was last time at..."
Her response: "On Friday."
Your response: "The meeting on Friday."
Ms Pretty says: "Uh-huh."
And then you say: "On Friday with the minister. And then from my understanding of that meeting -- okay -- is that when the minister asked if you agree to the compromising proposal that she put forward, and I can see clearly I remember that you said `yes.'" What did you mean then by "the compromising proposal"?
Dr Tang: I say "compromising," and I use the word, I think it's loosely. We're talking over a conversation over the phone, and I sort of corrected myself. I called it a proposal instead of a compromising thing.
Mr Hourigan: Ms Pretty states: "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."
Your response: "I believe you said `yes' both sides said `yes.' But in any case, I would just go with according to my understanding of that meeting."
There's a portion of the transcript that isn't transcribed because there's a message that appears to go over it.
And then the next portion of your discussion is: "...and the court case I mean we agreed not to meet this Sunday. You know that's my understanding of the meeting, and I would go with that first. And also, another understanding at that meeting is -- is that we -- you, actually, would give us the 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."
Her response: "Yes."
Your response: "Number two is tenant admission."
Her response: "That's what I agreed to."
2150
Mr Callahan: Can we find out whether or not he agrees to that up to this point?
Mr Hourigan: That's fine. Is there anything inaccurate in this?
Dr Tang: No, I think it's near it. I agree to that.
Mr Phillip Hunt: If I may, Mr Chair, I don't know if a great deal would turn on it, and I don't think Mr Hourigan would have done this intentionally, but in reading passages to the witness, Mr Hourigan tended to omit the pauses, or if I can call them, they often appear as "ah" in the transcript. Perhaps it's sort of awkward to read it that way. But I note the witness, in answering the question --
The Chair: You mean it's like a "yes" then.
Mr Hunt: No. The concern I had specifically was in the middle of page 2. There's the passage that reads: "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 ah proposal...." The witness later indicated something to the effect that he had corrected his reference. I know that the statements as Mr Hourigan is reading them are being recorded in Hansard, and I only wanted to draw to the attention of the inquiry at this juncture, since the witness is being asked if the transcript to this juncture is accurate, that the transcript does differ in a minor way from the manner in which it was read on to the record.
Mr Hourigan: If I did that, it was unintentional. Looking at that paragraph that you referred me to, starting with "On Friday with the minister," I don't see the word "ah" used anywhere. I do see slashes around the word "okay."
Mr Hunt: It's in the third line, between the words "compromising" and "proposal."
Mr Hourigan: Okay, sorry. Well, it's not, actually, on my transcript. So if I did that, it was unintentional and I apologize.
If we turn the next page, leaving off where we were, Ms Pretty said, "That's what I agreed to."
Your response was, "Yeah, yeah."
Ms Pretty states: "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 -- 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..."
Your response: "Well I remember you said that sentence as well, but you also said `yes' to the compromise, you said `well, okay, yes.' You agreed to that."
In that response, sir, you say, "Well I remember you said that sentence...." What did you mean by "that sentence"?
Mr Paul Johnson: A point of order.
Dr Tang: "I'm not going to make any decisions right now." That one.
Mr Hourigan: Okay, I apologize. I was reading from an earlier transcript.
The Chair: I think there's a point of order from Mr Johnson.
Mr Paul Johnson: I think my point of order is just that --
Mr Hourigan: I apologize. There is a minor difference in that, and I'm going to repeat it to you in fairness.
Ms Pretty states at the top of the page: "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..."
Your response: "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."
Mr Callahan: Does he agree to that portion up to that point?
Mr Hourigan: Is that correct?
Dr Tang: Yes, that's correct. You asked me what I meant by that sentence. My answer is, that sentence means, "I'm not going to make any decisions right now."
Mr Hourigan: All right. You said you also understood that she agreed to the compromise?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Hourigan: Then Ms Pretty states, "I agreed to meeting with you and talking about core issues, and trying to come up with a compromise."
Your response: "Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's another thing. But, okay. So let us set the the date. You had the date yet?" What did you mean by "that's another thing"?
Dr Tang: "I agreed to meeting with you and talking about core issues, and trying to come up with a compromise." I mean, you know -- another thing is really she agreed to meet and talk about the core issues.
Mr Hourigan: That's what you meant by that?
Dr Tang: Yes. I think so, yes.
Mr Hourigan: All right. How did the meeting end, sir?
Dr Tang: One thing now, it just occurred to my mind that, you know, to answer the gentleman down there, I said I agree to these things, whatever has been read here. It means that I sort of, you know, I recall something like that being said, but I cannot know for sure whether anything was omitted. You see, there's no way that I can pick out one sentence I said here and there that was not here. That I don't know.
Mr Hourigan: In the portions that I read you specifically, is there any area where you think that something's been omitted?
Dr Tang: You see, like this, there's a dot there, so you know, and dot, dot, dot, dot. But I don't know.
Mr Hourigan: That indicates, sir, that there was an overlap in the conversation. Is there anything else specifically you can point me to?
Dr Tang: I cannot -- I mean, there's no way that I can tell that.
Mr Hourigan: All right. How did the meeting end?
Dr Tang: Which meeting?
Mr Hourigan: The meeting of June 17th. Was there any further discussion at the end of the meeting about the compromise that you can recall, other than what you've told me so far?
Dr Tang: The "compromise" word that you quote me from here that I use very loosely, as I said, because I remember I told Sharron a few times that was in the spirit of conciliation that we have this, and I said a few times, but it appears only one time in here somewhere. But the outcome of the meeting, as I mention, as you've seen from my note there, is the meeting to discuss her core issues then. That's one of agreement now.
Mr Hourigan: Following the meeting, did you have any discussions with any Ministry of Housing staff?
Dr Tang: No.
Mr Hourigan: Is there anything else you want to tell me about the June 17th meeting that we haven't covered?
Dr Tang: No. I don't have anything else.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. No other questions. Thank you.
Dr Tang: Thank you.
Mr Paul Johnson: Could I raise a point of order now?
The Chair: Okay, Mr Johnson.
Mr Paul Johnson: I just wanted some clarification. I didn't want to interfere with the line of questioning, and so although I did raise a point of order and I realize that what I wanted to raise was at least resolved for the time, I would now like a clarification with regard to the two transcriptions that we have. One appears to be a "cleaned up" transcript and the other one seems to be a verbatim transcript. Is that correct, and why is there a difference?
Ms Cronk: You'll recall that when I introduced the transcripts today, I indicated that there were two versions, a version that had been prepared by our offices based on the audio tapes as originally provided to us, and the second version had been provided to us in the course of our interviews by Ms Trinh Luu or Ms Sharon Pretty. So those are the two transcripts that I marked today. So one is a Fasken Campbell Godfrey transcription done by our staff and rechecked last night before they were given to you this morning, and there should be an "FCG" in the corner of the document that you have to identify that, and the second one is the transcript as provided to us, transcribed by someone else.
Mr Paul Johnson: Understanding that, might I suggest that when counsel is speaking of a transcript, they identify the one they're drawing from?
Ms Cronk: Identify it. Sure.
Mr Hourigan: I'm sorry.
Mr Paul Johnson: Thank you.
Mrs Marland: Did you say it's supposed to have the name of the firm in the corner?
Ms Cronk: It should, but it was late when we did it, so I could have missed one.
Mr Callahan: Put it on there, Margaret.
Mrs Marland: No, I just want to be sure that the official one is the -- I think I can tell by the typeset.
Ms Cronk: By the font, too.
Interjection.
Mr Callahan: Mr Murphy says to announce the name of the firm and that way we can have a little commercial.
Mr Owens: You can give a phone number.
Interjections.
The Chair: Okay, Mrs Marland.
Mrs Marland: Dr Tang, is it true that your board of the Van Lang Centre had a meeting this past Sunday, the seventh of August?
Dr Tang: Yes, we did.
Mrs Marland: Could you tell the committee what happened at that meeting?
2200
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Mr Chair, on a point of order: Can I have some ruling from legal counsel as to whether this question is appropriate?
Ms Cronk: You may recall that Ms Pretty gave evidence as to her understanding of what had occurred on Sunday last with respect to her status, and in those circumstances I think we should hear from the president of the corporation.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Okay. thank you.
Mrs Marland: Could you tell the committee what happened at this past meeting four days ago, on Sunday the seventh of August?
Dr Tang: It was the annual general meeting of the board.
Mrs Marland: Were there any motions passed at that board?
Dr Tang: Yes, the dissolution of the old board.
Mrs Marland: So you presently are not a member of the board?
Dr Tang: No. We had then, after that, the election of the new board, and I am on the new board as well.
Mrs Marland: So does that mean that as of Sunday the seventh of August, 1994, Ms Sharron Pretty is no longer a member of the board of the Van Lang Centre?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mrs Marland: And were these directors elected by the directors themselves?
Dr Tang: Yes -- by the members of the corporation.
Mrs Marland: How many people were at the board meeting?
Dr Tang: About seven, I would think.
Mrs Marland: Seven?
Dr Tang: About. I have the count, if you want me to be more accurate.
Mrs Marland: So the directors elect themselves. There isn't a requirement for members at large to elect the directors of their corporation?
Dr Tang: No. Not at this time, no.
Mrs Marland: Are you familiar with the Corporations Act?
Dr Tang: I'm not as familiar as a lawyer. I guess we rely on our legal counsel.
Mrs Marland: Was your legal counsel at the meeting?
Dr Tang: No, he was not there.
Mrs Marland: So you don't know if what took place on Sunday is legal or illegal?
Dr Tang: No, before the meeting, we did approach our counsels.
Mrs Marland: How many notices of last Sunday's meeting were sent out, and to whom?
Dr Tang: Pardon?
Mrs Marland: How was the notice of last Sunday's annual meeting circulated, and to whom?
Dr Tang: It was circulated to all board members.
Mrs Marland: To the old board members?
Dr Tang: Yes. To all board members, I said.
Mrs Marland: To all board members?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mrs Marland: And how many is that?
Dr Tang: Right now I think we have seven.
Mrs Marland: So the existing seven board members re-elected themselves, with the exception of Sharron Pretty?
Dr Tang: Sharron Pretty was in the old board, and the old board had been dissolved by the end of the year.
Mrs Marland: I understand very clearly. Is the new board everybody that was on the old board, with the exception of Sharron Pretty?
Dr Tang: No, we have some new members who joined the board, three -- four, actually. Four new members joined the board.
Mrs Marland: So you have four people of the seven new members -- you have seven members of the board now, and four of them are new?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mrs Marland: And they were elected by the seven people present.
Dr Tang: Yes. They were nominated before. They were nominated in the previous meeting.
Mrs Marland: By the previous board.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mrs Marland: They were nominated by the previous board members. So you're telling us that under the Corporations Act, which governs non-profit housing, a board is able to elect itself.
Mr Callahan: I would have to say that's an unfair question of a person who's not a lawyer, Mr Chair.
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Callahan, but we have the guest's legal counsel sitting beside him, if he objects. There is no problem. You will have your time.
Interjections.
The Chair: Mrs Marland, carry on.
Mrs Marland: I'm just trying to find out, Dr Tang, if you understood what it was you took part in at that board meeting.
Dr Tang: We seek legal advice before we had the board meeting. I can tell you that.
Mrs Marland: I think, Mr Chair, that I will bank the balance of my time. Do you want to know when I want to use it, or can I just bank it?
The Chair: Any time.
Mrs Marland: And how much time do I have?
The Chair: Ten minutes and 17 seconds.
Mr Callahan: Mr Tang, I'd like to say that you're a refreshing witness. I think you've tried to be as honest as you can with this committee, despite what may be the irregularities in terms of your board. I'm not going to comment on that at all.
But I'd just like to go back. We have notes that were made at this meeting by a constituency assistant of the minister. For your own fairness, I'm referring to tab 81. I hope time's not running against me while we're looking up the tab.
Mr Owens: Of course.
The Chair: You're giving questions.
Mr Callahan: Okay. I'd like to refer you to tab 81. It's somebody's notes that were being taken and if you go about halfway down the page, you'll see the capital letters, E as in Edward, V as in Victor, which I presume -- and you can't tell us, but -- is for Evelyn Gigantes. And that says, "To the board -- Can these things be resolved without legal proceedings and removal of directors."
Dr Tang: I didn't know which part you're reading.
Ms Cronk: I don't think you've given him the page.
Mr Callahan: Oh, I beg your pardon. Page 4. Halfway down the page, Mr Tang, and you see "EV" there?
Dr Tang: "EV," yes.
Mr Callahan: And it says, "To the board" -- with an arrow -- "Can these things be resolved without legal proceedings and removal of directors." Now I ask you, does that help you in terms of determining whether or not the minister was in some respects acting as a facilitator and said, "Can't we resolve this whole issue, Mrs Pretty, by you getting rid of those charges against the directors and they will keep you on as a director?" Does that sound like what --
Mrs Mathyssen: Mr Chair --
Mr Callahan: Just a second now. I'm in the middle of a question, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Stop the clock.
Mrs Mathyssen: That's not exactly what it says. In fairness, instead of Mr Callahan interpreting what it says, I think he should read what it says.
Mr Callahan: Mr Chair, I don't appreciate the opposition interfering with a question being asked of this witness, and he should have an opportunity to answer it.
Mrs Mathyssen: No, you're the opposition, Bob. We're the government.
Mrs Marland: Not for long.
The Chair: Well, his legal counsel will step in.
Mr Callahan: That's right. He's got legal counsel. You guys just told me about that.
The Chair: Okay, start again.
Mr Callahan: Mr Tang, what I'm saying to you is, does that trigger your memory? You've been a very honest witness. Does that trigger your memory of this meeting on the 17th of June, that the minister, Evelyn Gigantes, said something like -- she was being a facilitator. You know what a facilitator is, of course.
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Callahan: "Ms Pretty, if you're prepared to put" -- sort of bygones be bygones. "You put your charges aside, okay? The board lets you stay on as a director, and we start from scratch." Is that about what was said?
Dr Tang: No, it's never been said that way.
Mr Callahan: She never suggested anything like that?
Dr Tang: No, at least not in the way that you put it.
Mr Callahan: Well, you tell me how she did.
Dr Tang: Like I mentioned, I never recall, from my perception of the meeting, I never recall any sort of give and take as that.
Mr Callahan: Well, no, not give and take, but I'm reading the -- sorry, I don't want to interrupt you. I'm reading the minister's note, and from the minister's note -- which was not being taken by her, in fairness to her; it was being taken by a constituency assistant, one Audrey Loey or Hoey. Was it a case of the minister was trying to sort of straighten this whole thing out? Is that what it was? She was trying to get everybody back to be one big, happy family?
Dr Tang: Yes. More or less, yes.
2210
Mr Callahan: But as recognized by your transcripts, which the counsel for the committee has gone through with Mrs Pretty, you were of the understanding that Mrs Pretty was to consider dropping the charges. Is that right? That's a yes?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Callahan: And in turn for that, there was going to be another meeting to discuss the core issues. Is that right?
Dr Tang: Not in turn for that, you see. That's sort of suggesting that "If you do this for me, I do that for you."
Mr Callahan: Well, no --
Dr Tang: I will repeat it again like when I answered to the counsel. From my understanding, there's a plan, whatever you call it, a proposal --
Mr Callahan: Oh, okay, it was a total plan.
Dr Tang: Yes, a proposal out there, an option.
Mr Callahan: Not two different plans, but a total plan was to be done. Is that right?
Dr Tang: One option shown to us.
Mr Callahan: One option. Okay. But you agree with me that that note triggers in your mind that the minister was involved in trying to create this one plan. Is that right? She proposed it?
Dr Tang: She proposed one offer to us, yes.
Mr Callahan: And that one plan, just to be clear, that she proposed was: "Mrs Pretty, let's go back to happy times. You drop your charges or get rid of your charges, and we'll work together by keeping Mrs Pretty on the board."
Dr Tang: No, she never put it that way. From my recollection, she asked Mrs Pretty: "Is this your core issues? It this your main concerns? And I assume that if this is your concerns, when the board addresses your concerns to your satisfaction, then there will be no more concern. There's no more pursuing of" --
Mr Callahan: And you can drop the charges.
Dr Tang: No, she didn't say that. She didn't say "drop the charges."
Mr Callahan: Well, "You can get rid of the charges"?
Dr Tang: She didn't say "the charges." I didn't remember that at all, whatsoever.
Mr Callahan: You can get rid of the --
Interjection.
Mr Callahan: But that was the understanding, though, was it not, Mr Tang? Let's play it aboveboard here.
Dr Tang: Yes, I already said that. I mean, it's in my mind that that's --
Mr Callahan: That's right. And the minister suggested that as this proposal to solve this problem. Is that right?
Dr Tang: The minister proposed what?
Mr Callahan: The minister was the one who was sort of facilitating this reunification of the family by these things happening and the charges no longer being dealt with.
Dr Tang: She offered options that everybody just thought were sensible options.
Mr Callahan: And that was one of the options?
Dr Tang: No. She offered an option that everybody felt was a sensible option, and that option was, if we satisfy her core issues, then she would see no reason to pursue whatever she pursued.
Mr Callahan: Okay, and finally, she --
The Chair: Okay, you could bank eight minutes. Do you want to bank them?
Mr Callahan: Just a second. And finally, the minister was running the meeting, was she not? The minister was the chair of the meeting. We've heard that.
Dr Tang: Yes, I assumed that.
Mr Callahan: Okay. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Just about eight minutes. Okay, now we go over to Mr Owens.
Mr Owens: Thank you, Chair. I want to go back to the meeting of June 17th. I want to ask you what your perception of the tone of the meeting was. How did you feel the meeting was proceeding? Was it an angry meeting? Was it a conciliatory meeting?
Dr Tang: It was a conciliatory meeting. After the meeting we did talk about the minister's performance, and we think that her performance was very professional. She handled the meeting very well. She was very calm and cool and quite professional.
Mr Owens: Did you at any time during this meeting feel any pressure to undertake any kind of activity?
Dr Tang: No, not whatsoever.
Mr Owens: Was it your view or is it your view that the Minister of Housing was trying to pressure anybody at that meeting into undertaking an activity?
Dr Tang: No, I don't think she -- it's not in my view that she tried to pressure anybody. Actually, at the end, even after she offered the options, she repeated a couple of times: "You don't have to answer that now. You can go home and think about that." I recall she said that quite a few times.
Mr Owens: If you could refresh my memory on what the question was that the minister was giving -- it was Sharron that she was giving the opportunity to think about something?
Dr Tang: Two times. Number one time was when I asked Sharron to be specific about her complaint about the superintendent. And before Sharron had a chance to answer, the minister told Sharron: "You don't have to answer that. I'd just like to remind you, Sharron. There's a question put to you, but you don't have to answer that." That's one time, as I recall. Then a second time is near the end, almost at the end of the meeting, when she referred to the option that she just put forward. She again said: "You don't have to answer that now. You can go home and think about that."
Mr Owens: To the best of your recollection, was the phrase or word "deal" ever used with respect to reaching the point where Sharron would drop the charges in exchange for remaining on the board? Was that ever discussed?
Dr Tang: No. As I mentioned earlier, that had never been discussed.
Mr Owens: Given the -- I would like to characterize gently -- strong feelings that some of the parties at this meeting may have had for each other, do you think it's possible that what was termed a proposal or a suggestion that if the two core issues, which I understand from your testimony were the tenant participation and access, if those two core issues were dealt with, things would return to normal -- is it possible that it is your interpretation, and I say interpretation and perception, your view, and only your view, that that would include dropping the charges, and that at no time did the minister ever suggest to Sharron Pretty or anybody else at that meeting anything about dropping charges or visiting a crown prosecutor?
Dr Tang: Yes, that's correct, yes. It's my own view, my own thought.
Mr Owens: So it's your own perception that "returning to normal" meant that would be inclusive of dropping charges, but the minister made absolutely no attempt to pressure or coerce anybody into dropping charges?
Dr Tang: Yes.
Mr Owens: Thank you, Chair. We'll bank the rest of our time.
Mrs Marland: How much time, Mr Chairman, has been banked?
The Chair: You've got 10 minutes and 17 seconds, 11 minutes and 58 seconds for the Liberals, and 10 minutes and 34 seconds for the government. And I'm not doing the adding, so blame the --
Interjection: We can trust this guy.
The Chair: Are there any questions?
Mr Hourigan: No, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Okay. Dr Tang, I appreciate you travelling from Ottawa down here, and I'm sorry we've had to keep you in Toronto a little bit longer, and the late night we have tonight. Again, thank you for coming before the committee.
Dr Tang: Thank you very much, sir.
The Chair: I'd like to adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
Interjections.
The Chair: Oh, 9 o'clock.
The committee adjourned at 2217.