Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
DAVID NASH

PATRICIA DEGUIRE

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

CONTENTS

Wednesday 6 December 1995

Intended appointments

David Nash

Patricia DeGuire

Committee business

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Chair / Présidente: Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)

Bartolucci, Rick (Sudbury L)

*Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)

*Ford, Douglas B. (Etobicoke-Humber PC)

*Fox, Gary (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)

*Gravelle, Michael (Port Arthur L)

*Johnson, Bert (Perth PC)

*Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)

Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)

Leadston, Gary L. (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)

*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)

*Newman, Dan (Scarborough Centre PC)

*Preston, Peter L. (Brant-Haldimand PC)

*Ross, Lillian (Mrs) (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)

*Wood, Bob (London South / -Sud PC)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mr Bartolucci

Martiniuk, Gerry (Cambridge PC) for Mr Leadston

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Cooke, David S. (Windsor-Riverside ND)

Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim: Mellor, Lynn

Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1003 in room 228.

INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
DAVID NASH

Review of intended appointment, selected by the official opposition party: David Nash, intended appointee as member, Ontario Casino Corp board of directors.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Tony Martin): I call this committee to order. The first person we will interview today is David Nash. Would Mr Nash please take a seat. Make yourself at home. Help yourself to a glass of water. We have 40 minutes, 20 minutes for each caucus. Go ahead, Mr Nash.

Mr David Nash: Thank you for inviting me. I think you probably all have my background and my curriculum vitae, so I won't repeat that. I'd just like to indicate that with respect to this appointment, one of my interests is in the regulatory framework dealing with different government agencies on a variety of issues both in my law practice and my dealings through hospital matters that you've seen.

I'm here today because the appointment was made as a result of requests or an invitation through the office of appointments to accept this position. I had notified the government after the election that I was interested in some form of an appointment where I would be involved with my background in the regulatory area of government policy. I didn't ask for anything specific, but I clearly let them know and I sent my CV down to the government. The appointment arose as a result of contact from the government indicating that this position was open. I considered it for a number of days and then responded in a positive way some time, I believe, in August.

The personal goals that I have with respect to this particular body would be to ensure the successful development and operation of the casino. From a personal philosophy point of view, my definition of success isn't dollars; it's the integration of business into the community. It's the relationship that a community has with all of the business operations, and in this particular instance with the casino. There's a great deal of social policy that is involved in developing a casino and operating a casino, and it's not just the narrow framework.

I find it a fascinating area. It's an area I've worked in while dealing with a hospital for the last seven years. I've been on the board of St Joseph's hospital, more recently as chair of that hospital.

One of the reasons I'm interested in this type of appointment is that I do have some time to spend, having just finished as chair of St Joseph's hospital. I averaged 23 hours a week as a volunteer at the hospital for two years. Having left the chair there, I don't have nearly the time or commitment to the hospital that I had before, and I some time available. I have partners in my law practice who encourage -- in fact, one of the values of our practice is to be involved in public affairs.

So that's what brings me here, just from a background point of view, and I thought I would just introduce that to you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We'll start the questioning with the official opposition, the Liberals.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good morning, Mr Nash. One of the comments you made in your opening statement was that you were invited by the secretariat for this position.

Mr Nash: Yes.

Mr Crozier: Any individual in the secretariat, or was there anyone locally who --

Mr Nash: Tonie Arnold spoke to me.

Mr Crozier: Okay. And that was when? Earlier this year, you said?

Mr Nash: I think it was in around August some time.

Mr Crozier: After the election?

Mr Nash: Yes.

Mr Crozier: Yes. Are you aware of the members that are on the board and were on the board previously; for example, the person you replaced?

Mr Nash: Well, I'm not aware -- I wasn't told that I was replacing any individual person. I'm aware that two people have left the board. I read the papers so I'm aware of that.

Mr Crozier: Okay. You said you were interested in the regulatory aspect of government. What do you see that this government's philosophy is, in your opinion, towards regulation?

Mr Nash: I believe -- can really only respond to the act that I would be operating under -- that the regulation involves a responsibility to operate a business entity within a community with the community interests involved, and that it must be regulated with that in mind, that the business must have those concerns very much at the top, the priority.

Mr Crozier: Are you familiar with the Ontario Casino Corporation Act?

Mr Nash: To some degree.

Mr Crozier: To what degree?

Mr Nash: I've read it and I've been through it, but as a lawyer I always find that you can read these statutes many times and you always see something more or different the more you learn and the more you work with them.

Mr Crozier: Is there anything you've seen that you think maybe should be changed?

Mr Nash: Not at this point, no.

Mr Crozier: No. Ever been to Vegas?

Mr Nash: Yes.

Mr Crozier: Have you been to Windsor?

Mr Nash: No.

Mr Crozier: Oh. You haven't been to the casino yet?

Mr Nash: No.

Mr Crozier: You've been aware of this invitation since August, you've accepted it, obviously, and you've never visited the casino?

Mr Nash: That's right.

Mr Crozier: Isn't that odd? I think it's odd. How would you respond to that?

Mr Nash: Well, personally, I didn't think it was appropriate for me to go until the full process of the appointment was completed. I wasn't going to presume that I was to be sitting on this body.

Mr Crozier: Not even to visit the city and see the site and walk through the casino?

Mr Nash: That was my own personal decision and my own personal view.

Mr Crozier: Well, in spite of that I still think that's odd. Well, then, what it is that you see you can bring to the board? You've read the act, you haven't visited the casino yet, but what role do you see yourself playing?

Mr Nash: I think my area of knowledge would be and the strengths that I would bring would be in the field of human resources in particular. It's an area I've been involved in both in my legal practice in the past and it's an area that I've been heavily involved with in chairing a hospital with 3,000 employees. I find that probably one of the most important areas of this type of business operation is that certainly it's there for the public, for tourism, and it's there for various reasons -- raising money -- but there is very much a human resource impact with respect to this, both directly and indirectly. I find my background would assist with respect to that. That's one area.

The other is in the area of social policy. I've been an advocate and have been trained over the last seven years in the teachings of Peter Senge and a number of other people, Joe Destefano from the University of Western Ontario, on the total learning organization and on continuous quality improvement.

1010

I'm very interested in these programs as they relate to business. It's a program that we've instituted at St Joseph's Health Centre, I believe very successfully. It allows for a much broader base of community involvement, and particularly employee involvement, in operations. It's a very major responsibility for any organization to undertake, but I feel that background and that experience is something I could also bring to this particular board.

Mr Crozier: Having read the act and been appointed, or at least proposed, for the position you are, and considering the fact that the casino is really run by a management firm, you don't see yourself getting involved in it to any great degree with the employees or the management of it, do you?

Mr Nash: That's right. There's a big distinction in a board between the management, but I've had the same thing for a number of years with the board I just finished chairing. We didn't get involved in the management but we set the policy and we determined the values. The values of that organization have to be determined by the board of directors, and I believe strongly in that.

Mr Crozier: Perhaps my colleague has some questions. Thank you, Mr Nash.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Mr Nash. The whole issue of casino gambling in Ontario is certainly one that's been discussed a lot, and obviously we have the Windsor casino and there's just been the announcement that they'll be going ahead in Niagara Falls as well.

In my own community, in Thunder Bay, it's an issue that's of some interest, and I think it probably goes across the province, so I'm curious about what your own personal thoughts are on just simply the expansion of casino gambling in Ontario in light of the fact that it's obviously viewed as being a positive thing by many and having some negative consequences by others. I'm curious about your personal points of view.

Mr Nash: I think that's the study that has to be undertaken in this province. We'll have three operations that people will be able to study with some distinction, with respect to all three operations.

With respect to other communities, it's my understanding that the process has been that communities have come forward with an indication or an intent to ask for a casino and that there's been a process that's been followed. I don't have a fixed view on where this should go. I don't presume to have that type of knowledge because I think it involves a very significant input on the social policy side. I think the fiscal side we're going to study in a fairly straightforward way because we're going to be able to see what's happening with what's out there. But on the social policy side I think there's an awful lot more that has to be looked at for the province, and that's what I'm very interested in and I would see that.

For any community that is interested specifically, I would anticipate that the role of the corporation will be to ensure that that community is given every assistance in terms of knowledge and information in order to make a valid proposal. I don't see that the corporation would in any way be exclusive. It would be an inclusive approach and encourage communities to come forward and explore the possibility. I look forward to that.

Mr Gravelle: Do you think there should be exceptions made in terms of certain circumstances with certain communities that are different? Right now the decision has been pretty much made that a referendum will be held probably in line with the 1997 municipal elections. There'll be certainly some lobbying being done by various people that they don't fit those circumstances, and with Niagara Falls being in place as well, I'm just curious as to how you feel about that.

Mr Nash: I'm sorry, on referendums?

Mr Gravelle: Yes.

Mr Nash: That's for the government to determine rather than for the corporation to determine. The referendum would be run by the government, it's my understanding. In terms of the corporation's involvement, I think it may be able to assist, but I think the corporation, by legislation, must be open to the referendum process. Exactly how that's done -- I would anticipate the corporation's views may be asked, but that would be it. I think that's your responsibility as members.

Mr Gravelle: I'm just curious about your sort of personal pains. If you're involved in this, with your own background too in terms of the regulatory framework, obviously you'll be bringing some qualities to this in terms of experience. And obviously the casino corporation act is important. I presume you have a full familiarity with it.

Mr Nash: Well, yes, I've read it and been through it, but as I say, I would never say that I'm an expert on the act. There isn't an act in Ontario that I would feel I'm specifically an expert in, because every time I read them as I prepare for court -- as an advocate, we're always looking for different approaches and different interpretations with an act. The corporation's act hasn't really ever been challenged or had an advocate's approach made to it because there's really been nothing challenged. I think that will be very interesting as well as people delve into how it works and whether it's successful in the approach that's been taken.

Mr Gravelle: We may come back.

The Vice-Chair: Okay, do you want to hold your time? Then we'll move on to the third party.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Welcome to the committee, Mr Nash. Just to get clarification of exactly what your status is, you were appointed by the government before committees were established, so you're on the board.

Mr Nash: Yes, but my appointment, as I understand it, was made but nothing happened because I think it was anticipated that I would be coming --

Mr Cooke: So you haven't been to a board meeting?

Mr Nash: I have not been to a board meeting.

Mr Cooke: I'd just like to go back to a question that was raised, I think by the member for Essex South. You of course know that Windsor's the only community at this point that has a casino.

Mr Nash: Yes.

Mr Cooke: You said you were approached by the public appointments office about this particular -- the Premier's public appointments office?

Mr Nash: Well, Tonie Arnold, yes.

Mr Cooke: So this is out of the ministry? I'm sorry, I don't have all the names. It's out of the ministry or the --

Mr Nash: It's through the Premier's office, I believe, yes.

Mr Cooke: And it was described as a vacancy. I mean, you know better than that now.

Mr Nash: It was described to me that there was an appointment available. That was the terminology that was used.

Mr Cooke: You know better now about exactly what's --

Mr Nash: I'm aware of the fact of what's happened, yes.

Mr Cooke: Considering the fact that Windsor has the only community with a casino, there's been a lot of involvement at the community level in planning this casino. What's your opinion about no one from that community on the Ontario Casino Corp board?

Mr Nash: My opinion is that I think the brilliance of the statute is that it appointed a committee, a community committee, or a community committee must be appointed for every area where there is a casino. Personally, my belief is that a person should not be sitting on the casino corporation from the particular jurisdiction where a casino is located because I believe that conflicts can arise. I believe that the committee is designed to provide the specific community input, and I believe that that committee's responsibility, because it's statutory, must be recognized as being the vehicle for the community to have input. But the fiduciary obligation of a director of a corporation transcends community.

Mr Cooke: So the way you would see this then is that no one from Windsor should be on the casino corporation board, now no one from Niagara Falls should be on the casino corporation board, no one in the jurisdiction of where the aboriginal casino is going to be located should be on the board, and if a casino is located in Metropolitan Toronto at some point, no one from Metropolitan Toronto should be on the casino board.

Mr Nash: I think that's a policy issue that has to be determined. Personally, I believe that there can be and would likely be conflicts, giving my example, for instance.

Mr Cooke: What would the conflicts be?

Mr Nash: It depends on what your role is in the community in which you come from. But from my point of view, and I can only give you a personal situation as a lawyer, if there was a London corporation, the chances are that I would run across conflicts with respect to land acquisitions, various business dealings and things like that because of the nature of my law firm; or, I do labour work, and if I were involved in labour work, I know I would run into conflict with respect to the people I might be representing, either knowledge-based conflicts or direct conflicts in the nature of the work I do.

1020

Mr Cooke: You're talking about conflicts of interest that are covered, obviously, by other statutes that any appointment in the province -- appointments and individuals have to be aware of that and cannot function if they're in a conflict of interest. We're not talking about that situation. We're talking about community representation, because the community, as a community, has the most at stake. Don't you believe then that the Ontario Casino Corp board needs to have some input at the casino corporation board level as to how the community is feeling?

Mr Nash: I've given you my viewpoint as to what I believe my duties as a director would be. The way other people approach it -- the responsibility for appointments to the board is a government responsibility, not mine. As a board member, I'm only expressing what my feelings would be.

Mr Cooke: Why do you think you were chosen to be on the casino corporation board?

Mr Nash: I think my background speaks for itself. I think I bring a lot to the board.

Mr Cooke: Not all of your -- I mean, you've got a very extensive political background. I think it's okay to be honest with the committee here that you know your connections with the Conservative Party had some influence as to why you were put on the casino corporation board.

Mr Nash: I'm a known Conservative. If people aren't aware of my political affiliation, they haven't been reading the paper or are not aware. I don't hide from my political affiliation.

Mr Cooke: Did you ever talk to Dianne Cunningham directly about a public appointment?

Mr Nash: I indicated to her at some point in general terms that I would be interested in an appointment.

Mr Cooke: Did you ever talk to Dianne Cunningham directly about being appointed to the Ontario Casino Corp board?

Mr Nash: No, I didn't.

Mr Cooke: Did you talk to any elected official or party official about the Ontario Casino Corp board?

Mr Nash: The only person I spoke to was Tonie Arnold.

Mr Cooke: Could you just, so it's on the record, tell the committee what your involvement has been in the Conservative Party, and we'll start at the provincial level, specifically in the London area ridings and your relationship politically with Dianne Cunningham.

Mr Nash: Yes. My political work goes back to the 1960s, of interest, having come from the area of John Robarts, and specifically started in 1971 in Ottawa with the provincial campaign. I can't say I really worked for but I did some general work, went to meetings and supported Albert Roy, who was actually a Liberal, at the time, and in 1972, in Ottawa, worked for a federal candidate, a Conservative candidate, in Ottawa East, a fellow named Valiquette, and during the 1970s I worked for the party in Ottawa, just as a volunteer. In 1974, I worked on a federal campaign in London, Ontario, in London West, for the Conservatives, and began my provincial involvement in 1975 where I worked for Gordon Walker, just in a general capacity, and through the 1970s worked provincially in Gordon's campaigns.

In 1977, I became more involved federally and worked in the federal -- oh, I should say I worked and helped in David Peterson's leadership campaign in 1974-75 when I was going to school in Toronto. That's a personal relationship. David's from London and a family friend.

In 1977, I began my federal involvement and was campaign manager in 1979 for John McGarry in London West and have been a campaign manager for Tom Hockin in two of his campaigns, 1984 and 1988, and was not very involved provincially until Dianne Cunningham's by-election in 1988 or 1989. I was involved as a strategic planner with respect to that and was a co-chair of her leadership campaign and then have been involved in her other campaigns but not to the same degree because as I took on the hospital work I had to back off, mainly from a time commitment.

Mr Cooke: Have you ever been a campaign manager in any of the provincial ridings in London?

Mr Nash: No.

Mr Cooke: A fund-raiser?

Mr Nash: No, I'm not a fund-raiser.

Mr Cooke: Have you ever had a paid position with a federal or provincial party or a cabinet minister?

Mr Nash: I had an unpaid position with Tom Hockin. I was his interim chief of staff in 1986 and was in Ottawa and helped put his office together, but I refused payment for that role.

Mr Cooke: Do you believe that your extensive involvement with the party federally and provincially had any influence at all in your appointment to the Ontario Casino Corp?

Mr Nash: Well, I expect it may have. Nobody's told me specifically, but I would expect that it did.

Mr Cooke: So you don't believe that it's just coincidental that the community choice of representative on the casino corporation board, Mr Comartin, who was chosen by the mayor and members of council and recommended to the previous government, happens to be a New Democrat but was chosen by a council -- you would agree then that it wasn't a coincidence that he was fired and a long-time Conservative, yourself, was appointed in that person's place?

Mr Nash: I haven't been told why that happened.

Mr Cooke: But your extensive political involvement would obviously -- I mean, you're not politically naïve. You know it's not just a coincidence.

Mr Nash: From my perspective, I have not inquired as to what the reason was.

Mr Cooke: You don't believe that it's a little bit interesting and surprising that the board member from Sault Ste Marie, who happened to be a well-known Liberal, and a board member from Windsor, who happened to be a well-known New Democrat, were both fired and you were appointed, that there's nothing coincidental or unusual or controversial about that?

Mr Nash: I believe there was controversy, because I read the same newspaper clippings that most people read, but I don't have any comment on that. I was not involved in that decision, and I have no comment on that.

Mr Cooke: What do you think these types of appointments do for the legitimacy and public support of the board, when they're obviously political patronage positions and your main reason for being appointed is the fact that you're a Conservative? How do you think that enhances the public view of the Ontario Casino Corp? Do you think it improves the confidence the public has in the Ontario Casino Corp board?

Mr Nash: I believe I was appointed for -- my qualifications speak for themselves, and if you want to ask about the public confidence, then I think you have to look to my qualifications. I believe I'm qualified and that's the key.

Mr Cooke: You've been involved in politics for a long time. You know that when there are patronage positions that take place and a New Democrat and a Liberal are fired and a long-time Conservative, both federally and provincially involved in the party, is appointed, that adds to the cynicism of the process.

Mr Nash: That's your opinion, Mr Cooke. My --

Mr Cooke: You don't have an opinion on that?

Mr Nash: No. My position is that I'm a qualified person for this position and that's what's important.

Mr Cooke: I'm not saying you're not qualified. I'm talking about the public perception and the cynicism that's in the process. You don't have an opinion on that? Or you just don't want to express your opinion?

Mr Nash: I don't have an opinion on that at this point, Mr Cooke. I don't.

Mr Cooke: Your involvement and your interest in gaming is what? You've talked a lot about your involvement in a hospital, and obviously that public service is I'm sure very much appreciated in London by all the people in London and the province. But it hardly qualifies you to be on the Ontario Casino Corp board, and many of the areas that you've said you've been involved in and interested in you have nothing to do with on the Ontario Casino Corp board, because the employees work for the private company that runs it, so human resource issues are dealt with not by the Ontario Casino Corp board but by the management. So those are areas that you won't be dealing with. What is your involvement, interest in the past in gaming that makes you qualified to be on this board?

Mr Nash: First of all, the board does set the values, and I disagree with you on that. I think a board must set the values, particularly in human resource areas.

I have been involved in the gaming industry in an interesting way. When I started with my law practice, it was with a law firm called Shepherd, McKenzie in 1974. That law firm was the law firm that represented Commonwealth Holiday Inns of Canada. Commonwealth Holiday Inns of Canada operated hotels in the Caribbean, in Europe, and was involved in the casino gaming industry, and our law firm was involved in the regulatory process with respect to gaming. I found it a fascinating area, and --

Mr Cooke: Were you directly -- you said your law firm was involved. What was your involvement?

The Vice-Chair: Sorry, the end of your time, Mr Cooke. We're going to have to move on to the government side now for questions.

Mr Bob Wood (London South): Perhaps I can open the government questioning by congratulating you, Mr Nash, on what I think is an excellent appointment. Your qualifications are self-evident and I think we're very fortunate to have someone of your background and experience come forward to assist in public service.

There are a couple of questions I'd like to ask you.

1030

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): You've set up the next campaign contribution.

Mr Bob Wood: I hope it's a substantial one, too, Mr Kormos. The question of representation has come up and I'd like you to tell me whether you feel that it is your primary function to represent your community on the board or all the people of Ontario on the board.

Mr Nash: I believe my job is to represent all of Ontario, that there's a fiduciary obligation that a director has and it is not directly related to the community. It is a provincial appointment. That's set by law actually. That's not just my personal view; that's a legal view.

Mr Bob Wood: The second item I'd like to touch on is the question of having people who support the government's policy on these various boards. I think the government has been quite right in removing from boards people who are not prepared to support the government's agenda. Are you prepared to support the government's agenda in the area of casinos?

Mr Nash: Well, yes, the government's agenda is --

Mr Cooke: And so were the two people your party fired.

Mr Bob Wood: Not in our opinion.

Mr Cooke: I don't want your opinion. You can't justify it; you just get to fire people and then hire long-time Tories. That's supposed to add credibility to the OCC?

Mr Bob Wood: I gave you the courtesy, Mr Cooke, of not interrupting your questions. I hope I'm not asking too much to ask you the same courtesy.

Mr Cooke: You may be when you make those kind of comments.

Mr Bob Wood: And I might say that I think it's quite refreshing that someone like yourself is prepared to come forward, commit to the agenda and take on what I think is a very important task, and I thank you for coming forward. Those are my questions.

Mr Nash: Thank you.

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Mr Nash, my question is why you have agreed to serve on the Ontario Casino Corp and basically you've satisfied my question in your opening statement, but perhaps you'd have something further to add to that.

Mr Nash: Regardless of all of the politics, I believe in public service and I believe that serving on this corporation is a matter of providing public service and I'm looking forward to that and I would encourage other people to become involved in public service. I think it's a very important part of what we do.

Mr Fox: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Anybody else from the government side?

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Mr Nash, as a member of the Ontario Casino Corp, what specific experience do you have to ensure that the corporation maximizes profitability and at the same time provides a high level of service to the public?

Mr Nash: First of all, I think maximizing profits must be done within a framework and values that are established by the corporation so that, although there may be opportunities to maximize profits, one has to look at how that's developing. I bring the experience of having spent seven years dealing with a $165-million-a-year budget, chairing the last two years, specifically, in terms of dealing with dollars and having to deal with the community aspects of spending those dollars and accountability to the community and to the government.

I also bring the same type of experience in my law practice in terms of acting for and being involved with corporations that must meet those sorts of standards, and I act as general counsel to organizations that are regulated by the government, that have community responsibility and fiscal responsibility and you have to blend those two. So it's that experience in my law practice; I think it applies to what I'll be doing on the board here.

Mr Ford: Just one other question: Have you ever gambled? Have you played cards, craps, roulette, crown and anchor, blackjack, 21, slow draw, mah-jong, any of that type of thing?

Mr Nash: Probably most of those, particularly in my fraternity days at the university. But more recently, I haven't really had time to go to a casino to gamble, so --

Mr Ford: In other words, you're not an avid gambler who might go to, say, Monte Carlo, Vegas or Atlantic City?

Mr Nash: No, the last time I was in Atlantic City was on business for an airline that was being regulated by the casino industry and I was involved with that airline in assisting them with their application for approval to operate charters into Atlantic City. That's how I became familiar with some of the regulatory --

Mr Ford: And that's how close you've come to gambling.

Mr Nash: I'm sure I've put some money in a slot machine, but that was about it.

Mr Ford: Okay, thank you. That's all my questions.

Mr Peter Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Well, you worked on the hospital board and you weren't sick, so the fact that you're not gambling right now doesn't mean you can't be on the casino board.

I'm very happy that, with your qualifications, you are quite right, your qualifications speak for themselves. I think you're quite right in saying that community organization, the committee from the community will bring input from the community to the board. It's not necessary to have a man from the community -- or a person, pardon me -- on the board. If you don't have anything extra to add to that, I'm very happy with what's happening here. And if that's apple-polishing, I've just done it.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Mr Nash, I wanted to ask about the mandate for the corporation.

Mr Nash: The mandate is dictated by statute and it's to ensure the proper operation of the casino, and the mandate really does cover both the fiscal and the social responsibilities, because the mandate involves promotion of tourism, development of partnerships within the community itself and it does have human resource mandates associated with it.

But I think what we have to remember here is that this is a board that is established by statute and that has statutory obligations and its obligations are dictated that way and within that framework we will operate, so the mandate's determined.

Mr Bert Johnson: So you're not at odds with the mandate?

Mr Nash: No, I read the mandate before I accepted the appointment because I wanted to ensure that there wasn't anything in there that I couldn't personally be involved with.

The Vice-Chair: Anybody else on the government side? If not, I'm going to move to the Liberals then because they have four minutes left and if you want to come back on again, you're more than welcome.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Good morning, Mr Nash. I think there's been some interesting suggestions made that you're quite prepared to support the government's agenda and I don't have a problem with that. I do have some difficulty in understanding exactly what the government's agenda might be. One of the things that the Progressive Conservatives indicated in the lead-up to the last election -- in fact, during the last election in some areas -- was that 10% of the profits of casino gambling would be provided to the community which the casino is in.

We've talked about it around the table this morning, about the possible social impacts on communities, the need for perhaps additional police, additional social workers of various types and that sort of thing. Do you have an opinion about some portion of the revenue of the casino operations going to the particular community that the casino is located in?

Mr Nash: Yes, I was aware of that as part of taking on the appointment, that that commitment was there. It's been there with the prior government and with this government and it's a commitment I expect will be maintained because of the nature of the impact on the local community. But I think you have to look beyond the local community, too. It broadens out and that's what those community committees are there to do, to give that input because I think it's presumptuous of a board of directors to try to discern that specifically themselves. I think that's what those committees have to do and they have to be given that mandate and I believe they are under the act.

Mr Michael Brown: As social policy and economic policy unfold in this area and I'm sure all across Ontario, we have to reflect upon both the pros and cons of this industry being in our communities. I'm wondering whether you think there will be adequate time to assess the impacts of the Windsor casino and the proposed Niagara Falls casino and of course the casino that is to be operational at Rama, whether there will be adequate time in the next year or two, in your view, to properly assess the impacts in Ontario of the facilities that either now are operating or will be operating by that time.

1040

Mr Nash: I haven't had the opportunity to meet yet, so I haven't had the opportunity to have a full briefing on where matters stand. All that I have is the information that you all have, which would be the report that has been prepared, and that seems to be fairly comprehensive about the first year of operation of the Windsor casino. But I think we are going to find that what's in the report and what's in words must also be supplemented or enhanced by the input of the committee and by various other groups and people who have a great deal of interest in this industry.

Mr Michael Brown: Is it a concern of yours that it may be that, given the referenda that are apparently to happen in conjunction with the municipal elections, we may find across Ontario that numerous communities are interested in this particular concept, and in doing so, if the government then decides that "if you want it, you got it" sort of attitude, that we flood the market so to speak and instead of profitability and prosperity through this industry we actually end up with a bunch of white elephants around this province?

Mr Nash: I think the corporation would have to have strong views on that, not to allow the development of a casino that didn't have economic viability because that would be destructive to a community. So I think the corporation --

The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, Mr Brown. Your time is up and we can go back to the government side, if they have any questions of the person in front of us. If not, then that's it for today. Thank you very much for coming before us. It's been a valuable experience. We've all learned from you and good luck.

Mr Nash: It's been an interesting experience for me. Thank you, Mr Chair.

PATRICIA DEGUIRE

Review of intended appointment, selected by the government party: Patricia DeGuire, intended appointee as member, Ontario Board of Parole.

The Vice-Chair: The next person to come before us is Patricia DeGuire. Please make yourself at home there. Thank you for coming today.

Ms Patricia DeGuire: Thank you, sir.

Mr Bob Wood: Ms DeGuire, given your experience and background in law, can you explain why you've agreed to serve on the Ontario Board of Parole and how you feel the board is going to benefit from your membership?

Ms DeGuire: Just a minor correction for the record: The name is DeGuire, as in the French for "war."

Mr Bob Wood: Thank you.

Ms DeGuire: I do not propose at all to wage war today. I must first say thank you very much for calling me here.

To answer your question, Mr Wood, I deem it a great privilege to serve my community and I believe, as a child, "Decus est servire," it is an honour to serve. I bring to the board unity and diversity; unity in that I believe in the team effort approach and I've learned a lot of that from my legal experience working with colleagues, sharing responsibilities.

As you know, I have a legal background and in that legal background I have learned to use heuristics to garner information from accused that perhaps is cross-examination and direct examination, asking appropriate questions to get salient information for the purpose or issues at hand.

I've had experience speaking to people incarcerated. I've had experience speaking to victims of people who are incarcerated or charged. As well as a legal person, I've had the benefit of and the privilege of thinking on my feet, and that is indeed quite a challenge when you're in the legal forum and you're asked questions by a judge and you know you're there protecting the interests of someone who's depending on you.

Mr Fox: How did you find out about this position?

Ms DeGuire: I follow the news, and it was announced in the news that the government was making radical changes on the board. A friend of mine who is also a friend of David Gordon's -- in fact he is a mentor. I was discussing my future with him and he mentioned it to me. He said, "With your legal background and your vast background in community work etc you should put your CV forward," and that I did. I was given an interview and had the privilege of being appointed.

Mr Preston: Ms DeGuire, what do you think of the way the Suzack case was handled?

Ms DeGuire: I'm very familiar with the case. I've read the Wein report and I've also read the NDP reforms after the Wein report. I extend my sincere sympathy, as I always have, to the victim of Mr MacDonald. I commend Mr Fragomeni for wanting to be a member of the board.

But I focus on the positive aspect that has come out of that. There have been changes. The NDP actually introduced reforms; for example, requesting that police reports and perhaps clinical reports be presented before a decision is made. The Conservative government also went a bit further by making very substantive changes or recommendations to the board to enhance the board's performance. Out of a bad situation came some very good, and that's my opinion about the Suzack matter.

Mr Preston: How do you feel about legislation telling you that a person has to get out before his time is finished, mandatory remission? How do you feel about that?

Ms DeGuire: I see it very differently, sir. The legislation gives discretion. It doesn't tell. It is proactive and it is prescriptive. It is succinct, and it is not absolute. The legislation says "if" and gives you the basic minimum, the criteria you must work on. It's up to the personnel making that decision to bring their experience to bear on the information beforehand to determine whether the legislation mandate should be carried out for that particular situation.

Mr Ford: Thanks for coming this morning. What type of community involvement have you had to enable you to represent the views of the community at large?

Ms DeGuire: I'll start from my present position. I'm the chair of one of the largest school community councils in York region and I've held that position by unanimous vote for the last three years. I work with mayors, I work with trustees, I work with parents, teachers, administrators of schools, and children themselves. Actually, in our discussion or meeting that we hold once a month, I encounter many parents and we discuss the views about the public at large. I'm in a position where I can hear what they have to say.

Also, I've worked on the SALEP committee. That is an education committee as well, but that --

Mr Ford: Are these volunteer? Pardon me for interrupting.

Ms DeGuire: They are indeed volunteer work. I actually sit in the chair. Children who want to leave school before the age of 16 are required to appear before the board, by legislation. I sit on the board as a community member and I speak directly to the youth -- many of them are in trouble with the law -- and explain to them the wheres and whys and wherefores of life and try to direct them in the right path.

I also serve as a committee member of the feminist legal analysis committee of the Canadian Bar Association. They have an array of people again who are concerned about -- many of the women there are practitioners of family law, and many times we have views; although they come from a legal perspective, there are also personal and public perspectives about how they feel about the law.

I've also worked with parents as a scout leader and I hear from them as well their concerns about the public and the criminal justice system. I listen, because I like to listen and I like to do what I can to address those concerns.

1050

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Ms DeGuire, it's a pleasure meeting you, and thank you for coming today. I understand that in your job as an appointee to the parole board you might be required to do some travel to various correctional institutions. Would that present a problem for you?

Ms DeGuire: Certainly not, ma'am. It gives me an opportunity to get away from home.

Mrs Ross: Thank you. I think you're going to make an excellent member.

Mr Fox: What's your knowledge of the Victims' Bill of Rights?

Ms DeGuire: I've got before me Bill 23. I tried tracking down this bill for the longest while because I wanted to know what was in there and to find out if it meets the needs of victims, and there is indeed a need. I've had a cursory look at the bill, and from my cursory look -- first I should say this is legislation, and legislation is never written in stone. As the need arises, I believe we live in a democratic era where the government will exercise --

Interjection.

Ms DeGuire: Can I continue? I noticed the gentleman was speaking.

Mr Kormos: You provoked him.

Ms DeGuire: I did? My apologies, sir. I promise I won't do it again.

As I was saying, this in itself is legislation, and I see legislation as a tree, that it grows, and as the public indicate their concerns about what it contains in here, I have every confidence that the government will act accordingly. But I believe it is a first step in the right direction, in that for the first time the rights of victims are entrenched and it's no longer deemed to be a privilege but a right; it is legislated.

I note that there is a section here asking judges not to ask for security for costs. I think that is very important, because security for costs can be a real hindrance to access to justice, and that is exactly what we do not want to happen to victims. We want them to access the justice system.

Mr Bert Johnson: Ms DeGuire, I've read with interest your background and some that you've mentioned, because I served about four and a half years on SALEP as well. I'm a fellow of the Insurance Institute of Canada as well. My question is, do you agree with the criteria for granting parole?

Ms DeGuire: When you talk about the criteria, I think you're referring to the basic, that you release someone if they won't be an undue risk to society and also if, by releasing that person, that person would be a benefit to society etc. Those are the criteria you're referring to, sir?

I do not see it as whether I agree with it. I see them as succinct criteria; they're succinct in that they actually explain to the person who is applying what is needed to be done. As I mentioned before, it is proactive because it is for parole.

I pause here to say that an inmate is a person from the community who has been taken out of the community simply because that person did not conform to the norms of the community. But we must always remember that sentences are not indefinite very often, and that person must reintegrate back into the society. In order for that person to fit into society and again become a law-abiding citizen, there ought to be a mechanism to allow that person back into the community. If the parole process is that mechanism, then the legislation itself is proactive in that respect, it allows that to happen.

Mr Gravelle: Good morning, Ms DeGuire. I'm certainly impressed with your clarity and your sense of what this position entails and what it offers. I have no doubt that you'll be an excellent member.

Ms DeGuire: Thank you, sir. You're very generous.

Mr Gravelle: You certainly have a very strong sense about a number of things, and I appreciate that.

Obviously, this is a one-year appointment because there is going to be a look at whether the Ontario parole board will be carrying on; there will be some discussion as to whether it should just be folded. What is your opinion on that? Do you think there is an important purpose to be served by keeping it at the Ontario level, or should we simply fold it up and let the National Parole Board deal with it?

Ms DeGuire: I generally don't like to answer a question with a question, but I said just a few moments ago in response to one of the honourable members that the purpose of parole is facilitating a reintegration back into society, and of course one can argue that it can be done at the national level.

But since 1910 the Ontario government has deemed it fit to have a parole board. Indeed, the board has been criticized and many comments have been made that there ought to be changes. Mr Drinkwalter had been given a commission to make an inquiry and to determine whether the board should continue, and I don't know what his decision will be. I suppose we'll have to wait until then to find out what that decision will be.

Mr Gravelle: I appreciate that, but I also think it's probably fair to ask you, as a person who will potentially be in this position, whether you will contribute to that decision in terms of your point of view. I would be surprised if you didn't contribute to that in terms of your point of view.

Obviously, it will come down, hopefully, to what is the best way to handle the situation, and there certainly is a great desire expressed by a number of people in the province that the whole situation be handled differently than it has been in the past. Whether it's handled at the Ontario level or the national level is significant, and I would have thought you would have an opinion on whether it should remain the way it is in terms of jurisdiction or change.

Ms DeGuire: The board will never remain as it is, sir. I would be quite disappointed if the board continues as it is because I believe in a continuous learning environment, and when you learn there are changes, and I like changes if they're for the good.

Mr Gravelle: What are some of those changes you would personally recommend? There have been some reforms made by the previous government. There are reforms being put forward by the present government. Are there specific changes you would make, having observed the situation as closely as you have?

Ms DeGuire: At the moment, no, there are no changes. What I would have hoped to see recommended by Her Honour Judge Wein, for example, and I think it's very important, is to have a collaborative effort between all the different areas of the criminal justice system. That is very important. Also would be including in the board file, for example, a CPIC report, police report. There's also having the judge's decision for certain sentencing. I bring that with me because I have that experience. I know that sometimes seeing what a sentence is but not knowing the reason behind that sentence could actually make a big difference; having that.

Those are recommendations that have been put forward. I understand from the chair that he's taking steps to ensure this collaborative effort between the criminal justice system. I see the board as the feet; the trial system, as it comes down and sentences, is probably the head etc, and it is very important that the feet have an idea of what took place beforehand.

Those are things I'd like to see and they are things that are currently in place.

Another thing in place is the victim impact statement. I know the board has taken proactive steps in ensuring that we have that, and that wherever the board file is, it is so highlighted on that file that it will arrest the attention of whoever is handling that file or making a decision.

As time goes on, I'm sure there would be things I'd want to contribute, but at this juncture I have none. I can tell you that I'm a very curious person, I'm very creative, and my eyes are always wide open to recommend or to see that changes take place if they will be effective.

1100

Mr Gravelle: One of the criteria for being appointed to the board, obviously, is the issue of public safety and improving the public safety and people's feelings in terms of being safe, which of course has to be balanced by the responsibilities in terms of potentially, I presume you would agree, what is also the best for the person who has been convicted and who's going towards parole.

It's a difficult line to draw, but certainly I know with this government it was a major issue in the campaign and I'm curious as to how you feel you can draw the line between the issue of public safety -- in other words, if you err on one side, as a board member do you have a sense of how you would determine that? Presumably it would be individual cases, and everything varies, but the public safety issue obviously is a key one in terms of the appointments that are being made.

Ms DeGuire: Sir, I must admit that I'm not too sure I understand what your question is.

Mr Gravelle: Your job is to make a recommendation as to whether or not someone is let back into the community perhaps or is put into a different situation. The whole issue of public safety is one that -- I'm sorry if I have confused you; I hope I haven't confused everybody here.

Ms DeGuire: No, I'm not confused. You're just not clear.

Mr Gravelle: I guess I'm trying, in essence, to feel you out. The appointments are clearly made in terms of people who they feel will be most concerned about public safety, in other words, may make decisions based on that judgement. I've been listening to you and I feel you're certainly someone who will make a very informed and thoughtful decision, but I wondered in essence how you view the importance of public safety, where that falls into your own philosophy; how important is the public safety issue as opposed to the rights of the person who's been put in jail?

Ms DeGuire: Public safety is for me, sir, and should be for everyone, first and foremost. Public safety and the protection of the public is a right; parole is a privilege. I do not see it as whether they should stay in prison. An inmate is rightly incarcerated because of the democratic process that we have set up in this country. I see my job as, does this person meet the criteria to the effect that that person could be let out to be supervised so that he or she could be reintegrated into the society? I do not see it as whether I ought to keep that person in jail. That's the way I see it.

It is a balancing exercise, of course, balancing the right of the public to be safe versus the privilege of an inmate who is rightly incarcerated to be let out. One brings to bear to that whole balancing exercise the information and the tools that are presented: good judgement-making skills, good decision-making skills, heuristics, being able to ask the right questions of that person, looking at the person's background, their criminal record, to see whether that person is actually living a pattern of crime and whether it's escalating or de-escalating. That is the approach I bring with me.

Mr Gravelle: Thank you. Your answer was far more clear than my question.

Mr Michael Brown: I certainly appreciate you coming to see us this morning. In a perfect world the parole board will make the perfect decision all the time, but this not being a perfect world, and being even less perfect in that the criminal justice system in this province does of course react to funding pressures, whether that be in the court system, in the policing, in the prison system, whatever, there are real pressures sometimes put on all of us, no matter what side we're on here, that we don't really want to happen but the real world says, "There's so much money to do these things."

It seems to me that if we follow the logical conclusion of what we're seeing in government policy in this province these days with increasing cutbacks, jails being closed, there will be, because of fewer places to put people, increased pressure on the Ontario Board of Parole to release people, so the board is going to be under, in my view, some pressure to make some decisions that it perhaps does not wish to.

I just wonder, in your role as a member of the parole board, whether you would feel that you should be bringing this to the attention of the government if there is increased pressure upon you to release people, that you would feel comfortable in communicating to the government that discomfort in being forced into decisions you don't want to take.

Ms DeGuire: First, we know that there are economic constraints, and whether you're an NDP, Conservative or Liberal, you've got to face reality and realize that we cannot continue living the way we used to in the 1980s.

Second, I'm given two criteria by the board to make a decision whether someone should be released and I will be guided by that. If I find there are conflicts between those decisions and economic constraints, I have superiors and I will make my views known to my superior. In turn, my superior and perhaps the chair should be the person to report to the government and tell it whether those problems that we are facing are economic in nature and where they can be redressed.

Mr Michael Brown: I think that's fair. It's just that I guess many of us here, I think it's fair to say on all sides, understand that there is maybe a collision of agendas here. That's happening whether it's in the justice system or whether it's in the social services system, wherever. There are certain objectives that are being limited by the economics of the present situation.

It seems to me we could get into the situation where perhaps, if the parole board is not granting enough paroles to keep the jails functioning in a proper way, we get into some things that have happened in the American experience, where a judge comes along and says, "Look, everybody with only three months left in their sentences, out," because there's overcrowding in prisons and that creates a lot of difficulty for society as a whole when a judge somewhere rules prisons are overcrowded. To heck with what the parole board says, to heck with what the trial judge says; their right is not to be overcrowded and therefore they're on the street.

It is a strong concern to me and I suspect to all members, how this might happen. The way to avoid it is, of course, to start paroling more people. I've been wrestling with this, as many members have, how the parole board in conscience could start granting paroles, as a group, that they don't wish to. It's just kind of subtle pressure that will be there.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Brown, your time's up. There isn't time for a response, so we're going to move on to the third party.

Mr Kormos: Ms DeGuire, I suspect the most challenging thing you've done, I see here, is trying to explain to an insurance company the implementation of Bill 164, which certainly was a dog's breakfast if there ever was one. But that's of course not relevant to your application for the parole board.

You're working at old city hall or other courts in the Toronto area.

Ms DeGuire: I've worked in all the courts in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr Kormos: So you see and have seen on a daily basis -- you're working as duty counsel, you're working down in the cells, in the bull pen with people coming in and out of there. Would you agree with me that as a generalization, the types of people who come into old city hall and other provincial courts tend to be disproportionately undereducated, disproportionately underemployed, disproportionately poorer than most of the people in the community?

Ms DeGuire: I'm thinking back, sir, on the past over 2,000 interviews that I've done. I know I generally ask about a person's employment status etc, but I can say I've seen in the way of people doctors, accountants, people who have jobs, people who do not have jobs. To be quite candid with you, my job was so very pressured, and sometimes one morning I'd have about 40 people to interview, that I didn't really turn my attention per se. But it's quite possible.

1110

Mr Kormos: I see that since you've been called to the bar, your sole practice as a lawyer has been as a legal aid duty counsel.

Ms DeGuire: Right.

Mr Kormos: Why have you not embarked on a practice of defence law, for instance?

Ms DeGuire: Actually, my contract as a duty counsel ended on September 8 and I was unable to pick up my appointment at the board because I had a jury trial in November, a three-day jury trial on robbery. What I'm saying to you is, between that short period I had already made steps to establish my own practice.

Mr Kormos: A private practice.

Ms DeGuire: Yes, and to the extent where the case I referred to was one that was referred to me by a senior counsel because, in his own words, he admired and respected my expertise to have me as a co-counsel with him on a robbery trial.

Mr Kormos: You have views about the rehabilitative capacity of Ontario's prisons. Does rehabilitation take place in Ontario's prisons?

Ms DeGuire: There is some effort.

Mr Kormos: Would you be more precise about that.

Ms DeGuire: I understand, and I have actually been observing hearings and readings, and the inmates would tell us that they have taken part in seven-step programs, they have done what they call MSAP and they have done a lot of the programs in the institution that they believe will help them to reintegrate in society. So if they're telling me that they're doing these things, they're certainly there.

Mr Kormos: I note that from February to June 1993 you were coordinator of the CBA Task Force on Gender Equality, women of colour contingent. Do you have concerns about this government's repeal of the employment equity legislation?

Ms DeGuire: I have no comments.

Mr Kormos: I'm asking you if you have concerns. You don't want to answer that.

Ms DeGuire: You're asking me whether I have any opinion on the repeal. No, I have no comment.

Mr Kormos: Okay. You have an opinion but you don't want to speak to it.

Ms DeGuire: I have no comment.

Mr Kormos: Similarly, with respect to the recent cuts in general welfare assistance to the tune of some 21%, do you believe that's a positive thing, in view of the number of poor people who may find themselves engaged in crime?

Ms DeGuire: With due respect, and I respectfully submit, I really do not see how that would interact with my function as a parole officer.

Mr Kormos: You see, the problem is that you come here prepared to answer questions. You're not defence counsel right now, and once again, I understand you're saying to me you don't want to answer that question.

Ms DeGuire: I am saying, sir, perhaps if you could point out to me how that relates to my function as a parole officer, I'd be more than willing to answer your question.

Mr Kormos: That's the problem. You're not defence counsel here and you're not a litigant. You're not here to raise objections and there's no restriction on the types of questions that could be asked here. Do you understand that?

Ms DeGuire: That is indeed true.

Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chair, there are no restrictions on the answers either. She's answered the question.

Mr Kormos: Was that Mr Wood? He's been watching TV again. I can tell, which is about as close as he's ever going to get -- he watches too much TV.

You were involved with new Canadians, immigrants, Latin-American refugees back in 1984. Have you maintained that involvement?

Ms DeGuire: No. I did it for a period of time and then I moved on to other things.

Mr Kormos: Why did you leave your involvement in that?

Ms DeGuire: I took it on for a while; I decided that I was going to do it for two years. I did it for two years and then I went on to do other community activities.

Mr Kormos: What succeeded that?

Ms Deguire: I can say at that juncture I perhaps was balancing about four or five different community projects, some of which I can't even remember, but I can tell you I'm so active in my community that sometimes my family wonders where I live.

Mr Kormos: I notice that you worked for Guardian Insurance. You were head of the insurance claims department from 1983 to 1988. What caused you to leave Guardian?

Ms DeGuire: I left Guardian to go to law school.

Mr Kormos: What motivated you to leave Guardian and go to law school?

Ms DeGuire: I always wanted to have a legal education. It was just the first opportunity that presented itself to me and I actually seized it, and I'm glad I did.

Mr Kormos: You went to Osgoode Hall Law School?

Ms DeGuire: Yes, sir, I did.

Mr Kormos: Were you involved in the clinic services there?

Ms DeGuire: Yes, sir, very active.

Mr Kormos: What type of work did you do in the clinic services?

Ms DeGuire: I worked at class. I did some criminal, some civil and duty work as well.

Mr Kormos: You were involved with the Ministry of Attorney General during periods of -- what -- in 1991 you were articling there?

Ms DeGuire: Yes, sir.

Mr Kormos: Who was your supervisor there?

Ms DeGuire: My supervisor there was Jeffrey Graham.

Mr Kormos: Did he have positive things to say about your performance there?

Ms DeGuire: So positive that Mr Graham is not only my director, but he's also a mentor and a personal friend.

Mr Kormos: Yes. Then you worked for the Ministry of Attorney General and then seconded to the Ministry of Finance. What were you working on there in February to April of 1993?

Ms DeGuire: I'm sorry?

Mr Kormos: You were working with the Ministry of Finance, legal services. What were you working on there from February to April of 1993?

Ms DeGuire: Actually, sir, you have my CV there and refresh my memory. I have done so many things, it's sometimes very difficult for me to track them down. But I believe at that juncture I was asked to make presentations and give an opinion to the committee on human resources and hiring practices. I believe that's what it was.

Mr Kormos: Yes. You worked with the Ministry of AG from August to September of 1993. What did that involve?

Ms DeGuire: That involved -- at that time, there was a civil program review and I worked on that project to do the reconfiguration of the delivery of service to the clientele. Basically we were looking at how best can the Attorney General deliver service to its client ministries in an effective manner, and I was asked on board by the ADM.

Mr Kormos: You made reference, and I didn't pick up the name -- you mentioned Jeffrey Graham as a mentor.

Ms DeGuire: Jeffrey Graham.

Mr Kormos: You made reference to somebody who advised you to apply for this full-time position on the parole board. Who was that?

Ms DeGuire: That is indeed the gentleman.

Mr Kormos: That's Jeffrey Graham.

Ms DeGuire: Jeffrey Graham.

Mr Kormos: He's still with the Ministry of the Attorney General?

Ms DeGuire: No, sir.

Mr Kormos: Where is he?

Ms DeGuire: He made a wise decision and he left. He's now with Borden and Elliot.

Mr Kormos: Did his advice include anything you should do beyond merely filing the one-page application for appointment?

Ms DeGuire: Mr Graham gives many advices.

Mr Kormos: Yes.

Ms DeGuire: As I mentioned, he's a mentor.

Mr Kormos: Yes, I understand that and he's brilliant.

Ms DeGuire: Very brilliant and very considerate.

Mr Kormos: Yes, as are his acolytes, as he would put it. But what else did he tell you about the application for appointment? What else did he tell you to do besides submit the application for appointment? Did he give you any other advice to the end of securing the appointment?

Ms DeGuire: No, sir.

Mr Kormos: Did anybody else?

Ms DeGuire: Give me advice?

Mr Kormos: Yes.

Ms DeGuire: Oh, I'd be very daft if I sit before you here without seeking out advice from people.

Mr Kormos: Yes, and what was that advice?

Ms DeGuire: So I sought out much advice.

Mr Kormos: Yes, and what was that advice?

Ms DeGuire: And the advices that I received -- and perhaps, sir, with respect to what, though, I may ask before I actually end up into a no-ending winding path?

Mr Kormos: Yes. Did you talk to any elected political people about your application for appointment?

Ms DeGuire: No.

Mr Kormos: Did you talk to any staff in any elected political people's offices?

Ms DeGuire: At my interview and before the interview I called to find out what was the protocol.

Mr Kormos: Yes. Who did you speak to then?

Ms DeGuire: I spoke to a gentleman at the appointments office, David Gordon.

Mr Kormos: You're being considered, obviously, and have been in so far as the government's concerned, for appointment to the parole board. You also sought appointment to the pension commission, the insurance commission, the Human Rights Commission and the police complaints review board or panel. Which of those is your preference?

Ms DeGuire: Sir, I am a very multi-skilled person and I applied for positions that I believe my skills would apply to. As you rightly pointed out, I have a very long career in the insurance industry and that's the reason why I looked at the insurance commission, and if I'm given that opportunity, I will accept that opportunity.

Mr Kormos: You talked about radical change as it applies to the parole board. Is that consistent, in your view, with the sorts of changes that have been proposed?

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, I don't recall any radical change.

Mr Kormos: I made notes, Chair. You made reference to radical change --

Mr Martiniuk: The word "radical" was not being used, Mr Kormos.

1120

Mr Kormos: Please. Are your views about need for change on the parole board consistent with what you understand this new government's views to be with respect to law and order and toughening up the parole board?

Ms DeGuire: I mentioned the changes and recommendations that came from the Wein report. I mentioned those changes and I can say that some of them -- for example, if I may be specific, that a decision should not be made if crucial information is not on file. That is something that the board has adopted and is in place. I can attest that I've been to hearings where the effort has been made to ensure that those documents are present, that a person having been charged with a level 1 offence, their case will be reviewed upon --

Mr Kormos: Bob Runciman said that the new batch of appointees will put public safety first over prisoners' rights. Are your views consistent in that regard with the Solicitor General's views?

Ms DeGuire: Sir, I made the comment earlier that public safety is a right, and that ought to be everyone's concern regardless of your political persuasion.

Mr Kormos: Once again, are your views consistent with the Solicitor General's --

Ms DeGuire: My views are, sir --

Mr Kormos: -- that the issue of public safety should be put first?

Ms DeGuire: Sorry. I should have let you finish. My apologies. My views are that I am a member of the public and I want to feel safe. I want to make sure that when I go home at night, I sleep without any concerns about having somebody breaking into my house.

Mr Kormos: And how are your views on that achieved?

The Vice-Chair: Mr Kormos, your time is up. The government side still has a bit of time left if there are any further questions they'd like to ask. If not, I'd like to thank you, Ms DeGuire, for coming before us. It certainly has been helpful. We wish you well.

Ms DeGuire: Thank you very much, and I'm sure that you won't be disappointed.

The Chair: I would entertain a motion for concurrence. Do you want them one at a time? Okay. I would entertain a motion for concurrence on Mr Nash's appointment to the Ontario Casino Corp.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that the committee concur in the appointment reviewed this day of Mr David Nash.

The Chair: Any discussion on that?

Mr Kormos: One of the problems with these brief periods of discussion with applicants and potential appointees is, firstly, the paucity of information that's delivered -- other than the application and a CV as in the case of Mr Nash -- and the brevity of the discussion. So there really is limited opportunity to discuss with that person his or her views, perspectives, background, experience, commitment, motivation.

In the case of Mr Nash, we learned a number of wonderful things: He belongs to the London Club; he belongs to the London racquet club -- that's R-A-C-Q-U-E-T, otherwise it would be entirely inappropriate for him to be appointed to anything akin to a gaming commission; that's not to say there aren't rackets involved in it -- he belongs to the London Hunt and Country Club. Those are all, I suppose, expensive, and in that regard, just like BMWs and Mercedes, admirable things. He also belongs to the Canadian Bar Association, which is no big deal. It costs you a deuce a year and you're on; to the Advocates Society, which again is a pay-as-you-go organization.

I'm really concerned that, number one, when the discussion about Mr Nash's background, motivation and capacity to serve was done in isolation of other applicants, the strong inference to be drawn is that Mr Nash -- and again, he was very candid in terms of acknowledging a long and intimate and affectionate, almost incestuous, history with the Conservative Party of Canada and of Ontario. He's clearly bedded down more than once, for virtually a lifetime, other than the one aberration of Mr Roy in Ottawa, who is a pretty conservative Liberal.

At the same time, he's a lawyer -- God bless. To discuss Mr Nash in a vacuum, without understanding who the other applicants were or are, without understanding more specifically why two previous appointments were fired, one of them clearly for the purpose of accommodating Mr Nash -- and certainly, that's the irresistible conclusion to be drawn -- the other, obviously, to clear the way for some other applicant or appointment. I think it's extremely dangerous and I think this committee has to be very careful to avoid -- I know the government caucus members get pre-printed questions to ask these people, which are designed to be benign and comfortable.

Mr Preston: Mr Kormos came and read.

Mr Kormos: As a matter of fact, I looked over the shoulders and read the pre-printed questions as I saw them on their desks. So in fact they do have these things.

My concern is that if this committee doesn't take its position seriously enough to conduct aggressive examinations of personalities before it, then the committee is not serving its purpose, is not fulfilling its responsibilities and its function. It would, in my view, be derelict of this committee to approve Mr Nash's appointment, especially at this point in time, because it reveals nothing other than -- and I mentioned last week that patronage -- and I understand patronage; it's historical. I remember Judy LaMarsh once referring to patronage, she talked about it as the grease that makes the political wheels turn. I understand that as well.

But she, as well as having said that -- and she, in my view, was an outstanding political personality in this province and country -- pointed out, having said that, that patronage without merit, if that patronage is not conjoined with meritocracy, then it becomes a real evil and it becomes as much the source -- I suppose in that respect I should be pleased -- of downfall of the capacity of a government to have its boards, agencies and commissions function properly as anything else. At the same time, and not wanting to be partisan, I understand that these boards, agencies and commissions do operate important institutions in the province of Ontario.

The Ontario Casino Corp, especially now, is faced with the challenge of a new casino development that was announced in the economic statement of Wednesday past in Niagara Falls. Perhaps because my riding is part of the Niagara region and the development of a casino location there will have a significant impact on Niagara region and my own riding, I suffer from some bias, but I try very hard to avoid that in how I address this -- but extremely important challenges.

Clearly one of the issues with respect to the Ontario Casino Corp is that it must be free not only from corruption, but any prospect of corruption, because we know and when we witness, for instance, the most recent gubernatorial election in Louisiana and the high profile that casino development in Louisiana took during that incredibly heated gubernatorial race and the opposition to casinos that is developing in the new casino jurisdictions in the United States -- I'm referring specifically to Mississippi, with most of its casino development located along the Biloxi strip that you're familiar with, and Louisiana, being two of them where there has indeed, since the implementation of casino operations, the development of that type of regime, that type of jurisdiction, along with the slots and other games of chance that accompany spread throughout the community -- and I appreciate that isn't the model that Ontario has experienced yet.

What we've witnessed is a conversion from the initial exuberance of the community, saying, "By God, these things bring development, they bring jobs, they generate tourism potential," to high levels of concern and frustration after the consummation, if you will, high concern about the levels of corruption; the real danger, and again it's undeniable, of gambling addiction; the real concern about trying to distinguish in your clientele between local, domestic patrons of the casino and tourists, and the dangers that poses for people. Again, understand clearly that I have become a reluctant advocate of casinos simply because things are desperate enough in so many parts of the region that I recognize casinos can be, if properly developed, a reasonably controllable enterprise that can generate some employment, can generate some tourism traffic.

1130

But to select somebody for so important a position who clearly is, prima facie, a political appointment, pure patronage, without having an opportunity and without having displayed to us anything about himself that would demonstrate competence to serve in this particular role -- I mean, it's pretty interesting that while he belongs to some pretty high-brow social clubs in London and indeed was active on the hospital board, we don't see any participation in, let's say, more charitable organizations in his community. We don't see any demonstration of a commitment, let's say, to the poor of his community. We don't see any demonstration of a commitment to the afflicted of his community. I suppose if you consider the ill among the afflicted, serving on a hospital board --

Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chair, on a point of order: Mr Kormos has now had nine minutes to make submissions. Could we invite him to wrap up in another 30 seconds so the official opposition can get a chance to comment on this?

The Vice-Chair: According to the rules, Mr Kormos has all the time he needs to put his thoughts and questions.

Mr Bob Wood: We're going to put a motion for the question in a couple of minutes if he doesn't wrap up.

Mr Kormos: Not as long as I have the floor, you won't.

The Vice-Chair: You can do that when you get the floor, Mr Wood.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that the question now be put.

The Vice-Chair: You can't until you get the floor.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. By gosh, I have to backtrack a little now because I was distracted.

In any event, in my view it would be, as I've mentioned, derelict to merely rubber-stamp a patronage appointment. Clearly, the government members on this committee are in the majority. Clearly, no matter how strongly the opposition members of this committee rally, no matter how strongly they argue, no matter how clearly they illustrate to government members the folly of a particular appointment, the government members will be whipped, because that's how it's done, and the Chair knows that. They've got their marching orders, they're going to do as they're told in terms of supporting government appointments, and the appointment will take place.

I merely call upon committee members of all political stripes to understand that there are far more important people in your caucus than the whip, there are far more important people in your lives than the whip; that is, the residents of your community.

I intend to vote against this appointment, not because Mr Nash has in himself displayed any lack of competence, but he hasn't displayed any competence or any capacity or any particular skills that would make him uniquely suited to the very important role that the Ontario Casino Corp is going to be playing in the immediate future of this province.

Even when one considers the mandate of the corporation, that is, "To enhance the economic development of certain regions of the province, to generate revenues for the province and to ensure that any measures undertaken in accordance with the above principles are undertaken for the public good" -- I emphasize "public good" -- "and in the public interest," and I emphasize "public interest," there is nothing contained in the curriculum vitae of Mr Nash or that was apparent during our discussions with him that displayed any special sensitivity to economic development and regional economic development or to a maintenance of the public good and public interest, even to the point of no effort on the part of Mr Nash to explain what his perception was of public good/public interest or what his perception was of economic development of certain regions of the province.

I'm opposed to this motion. I will be calling for a recorded vote at the time of the vote, and I put you on notice in that regard now, Chair. Now I'm relinquishing the floor.

Mr Preston: In terms of both sides of this floor really checking into something, I think the events in the past couple of weeks show that nobody here is a rubber stamp, that nobody here is just automatically passing people. The fact that appointments are pushed through is not true.

Despite the fact that Mr Nash has committed the heinous crime of being successful, the heinous crime of belonging to fashionable clubs -- if I were in his position I wouldn't just belong to the YMCA; I think I'd belong to different clubs, as everybody else here does. Maybe not everybody; some people may not be acceptable in some clubs, but I would hope that everybody here is. Anybody who has the warped sense that the appointments here are made to fill vacancies of people who have been fired is again just a warped sense.

Mr Nash demonstrated full competence in this particular appointment, and I, for one, will be happy to stand and have my vote recorded.

On a point of order, Mr Chair: Did I just see a member of this committee make a financial payoff to the Chair?

Mr Kormos: You sure did. That was my contribution of $5 for poor Floyd Laughren, who, as you know --

Mr Preston: You can't refer to the former Treasurer as "poor."

Mr Kormos: Listen, if you had been reamed out the way he was just reamed out, we'd consider you poor too, somewhat impoverished. The pain and discomfort level is significant. I certainly wish Mr Laughren well and I'm pleased to participate in this contribution to a modest gift for Mr Laughren.

Mr Crozier: I want to preface my remarks by saying that I think Mr Nash comes with qualifications that probably he shares with thousands of people in this province to be able to dutifully serve the board.

I have one small concern. I'm very familiar with a person who was appointed, for example, to the board of Air Canada. It was a patronage appointment by the Mulroney government, and I understand how patronage works. He hasn't been fired yet, though. That's what bothers me. The members there, particularly one, Mr Comartin -- he was from the community. He was suggested to be on the board by the council and a committee of the city of Windsor, notwithstanding Mr Nash's attempt to say that there might be a conflict of interest. I think that was a very weak attempt to give a reason why someone from London maybe shouldn't be appointed to the board.

I am disappointed that the replacement was made of a qualified person, not one from my party, but I think qualified. I'm only sorry that the secretariat and whoever controls the appointments didn't take that into consideration.

The Vice-Chair: Could we put the question?

Mr Bob Wood: We should put the question.

The Vice-Chair: I've been asked for a recorded vote. All those in favour of the appointment will please raise their hand and the clerk will record it.

Ayes

Brown, Crozier, Ford, Fox, Gravelle, Johnson, Martiniuk, Preston, Ross, Wood.

The Vice-Chair: All those opposed?

Nays

Kormos.

The Vice-Chair: The motion of concurrence is carried.

1140

Mr Crozier: On a point of information: Mr Nash is already on the board, right? I should have asked this before. Do we still need a vote on it?

Mr Bob Wood: I thought under the standing order we had to vote on it.

Clerk Pro Tem (Ms Lynn Mellor): The order of reference indicated that the committee should follow the standing orders.

Mr Michael Brown: On the same point: I'm subbed in on this committee and it's not my normal place, so maybe the Chair could just help me with this process. What the committee in effect is doing is concurring with the government appointment. Whether we concur or not, the government is not bound to do whatever we suggest.

I suggest to you that that has been a long-standing difficulty the Liberal Party has expressed with this particular process, that the committee is actually only offering advice and really has no power to actually approve or deny an appointment to anyone. Just so people understand, this objection was placed before the former government when this process was initiated as being something that we in the Liberal Party had great difficulty accepting, in that it's kind of smoke and mirrors and a nice show but does not in any way affect the appointment legally.

Mr Preston: Just to answer that question, and I touched on it briefly, I think what's happened in the last two weeks shows that your concerns and our concerns have been dealt with.

Mr Michael Brown: In what way?

Mr Preston: I'll leave that up to the caucus chair.

The Vice-Chair: We have an item on the agenda of today's committee meeting which indicates that one of the people who came before us last week has not been approved.

Mr Bob Wood: I think they've withdrawn their name from consideration.

The Vice-Chair: We'll get to that when we're finished this.

Mr Crozier: I just wanted to make the point that that's true. Mr Brown hadn't been here in the last three weeks. But I think what Mr Brown is saying, though, separate from that, is absolutely true. What we do here really makes no difference, or technically may not make a difference, but I appreciate what went on in the past week.

Mr Bob Wood: I might say that is a matter of the rules of the House, and those who are concerned about it should take it to the appropriate committee for review. We can go to the American system where they're approved by the Legislature, if you choose to do that. That's something you can put on the table if you choose.

Mr Michael Brown: I'm suggesting that to the government members, that this is a long-standing problem our party has identified with this process. The process we're operating under, understandably, is just the process that exists in the standing orders of the Legislature which was a New Democratic initiative. You're under no obligation to continue this, and I would suggest that we do go to a system that requires actual confirmation.

The Vice-Chair: Concurrence on Mr Nash has passed. Could we have a motion of concurrence on --

Mr Bob Wood: I'd like to move, Mr Chair, that the committee concur in the appointment reviewed this day of Patricia DeGuire.

Mr Kormos: This particular applicant is, quite frankly, more troubling than Mr Nash. Ms DeGuire is highly adjectival in her references to herself. I suppose anybody is entitled to do that, and in fact it's an attractive option for many. But her adjectival propensity, this mania with the adjectival, especially the superlative, should, I submit, cause people some great concern.

Let's understand that this isn't an appointment as a part-time parole board member whose remuneration is some $135 a day and where you are called upon from time to time to participate in parole board hearings. This is one of a very small number of people who are earning from between $49,400 and change to approximately $58,000 a year. She's applying for a position that's merely one of but four or five as full-time parole board members, which includes the prospect of chairing parole board meetings.

Her primary background appears to be in the area of insurance law. She indicates that she left that area after some five years, of what we would be called upon to understand was 1983 to 1988, head of insurance claims department, Guardian Insurance Co, head office, where she did everything but write policies for customers. To her great credit, I suppose to anybody's great credit, although law school in itself, and trust me, I know, is not the be-all and end-all of educations -- but since being called to the bar, she's worked solely on contract work. Called to the bar in 1993, working on contract with the Ministry of Attorney General, where she appears to have what she called a mentor. Others, when one looks at her history with the Ministry of the Attorney General, would perhaps more readily refer to it as a godfather. On with the Attorney General -- another contract.

Now that her contract, as she indicates, is suspended or terminated or finished for legal aid duty counsel -- which is not a very active role in the criminal justice system -- seeks yet another one-year contract, on the understanding, as I concluded from the discussions, the questions and answers that took place, that this was to be a one-year position.

Once again it's interesting. While certainly the Chair hasn't decided to require people to answer questions, and I'm not sure whether people who appear before this committee are entitled to decline to answer questions or not, for the sake of argument at the moment, let's assume they are.

I'm troubled by the fact that this applicant, who exudes a great deal of self-confidence and who appears compelled inevitably to refer to herself in the superlative, declines to answer very fundamental questions, especially when one views that she, on her awards, speaks of having received an award for helping Latin American refugees and newcomers to settle in their new country; that she, in her achievements, speaks of having been the coordinator for the Canadian Bar Association task force on gender equality, the women of colour contingent. One would anticipate that she would have some views on equity in our society.

In view of that, when a question was asked about the impact of the repeal of employment equity, especially as it applies to the parole board because of what it does or may not do for persons who were targeted groups in the employment equity legislation that's to be repealed, her declining to answer that creates something of a quandary. One wonders why.

Either she didn't want to offend the government members, who one would assume would have views that would be an endorsement of the repeal of employment equity, or she agreed with them. In either case, although at this point I don't dispute her right to decline to respond to these, I remain concerned about the fact that she did decline to respond to this, including the second question, which was about the impact -- and it's not a novel proposition, because you, Chair, as have other intelligent members of this committee, have read any number of reports permitting the conclusion that serious cutbacks in support for poor families receiving social assistance may well lead to, among other things, increased social anomie.

The levels of poverty may well contribute to enhanced levels of crime, from the most benign, and that is the proverbial loaf of bread, to other criminal activity, which any of us who have lived in the real world, who have read about what's happening around us, who have bothered to seek out what's happening around us, understands flows from communities where there is a great disparity between the most prosperous and the poorest, and where the poor are deprived of not just money, because that's the essence of being poor, but where the poor are deprived of education, where the poor are deprived of justice in the criminal justice system, where the poor are increasingly going to be deprived of representation.

1150

Leaders across the board in the community have raised the issue of racism as being systemic, not only in the community but in the criminal justice system. You know, Chair, that there are some hard data that indicate disproportionate numbers of non-whites being incarcerated, not just in the United States but right here in this community, the city of Metropolitan Toronto. That should cause concerns to all members of this committee.

Ms DeGuire's perception of rehabilitation in our prisons -- and obviously at the provincial level these are restricted to reformatories and to local detention centres -- in my view is a very distorted one. Once again, anyone who has more than a duty counsel's experience with the criminal justice system, anyone who's ever been in one or more of these institutions in any number of capacities -- and I invite my colleagues, if they want to dispute this, to attend some of these institutions -- understands that a serious problem right now in our federal and provincial prison systems is the problem of rehabilitation.

More and more sentencing judges have simply thrown their hands up in the air and recognized, acknowledged, conceded, that rehabilitation is not going to happen, but that the primary focus on sentencing then has to be protection of the public. Yet traditionally in our criminal justice system, that has never been the sole objective. One of the interesting things that characterizes our British common law system of criminal justice is the concept of tailored sentences.

Bob Runciman, the Solicitor General, is not only entitled to make this statement, but I concede that he may well be reflecting the view of the vast majority of members of the public, when he said -- and I put this to Ms DeGuire -- that the new batch of appointments to the parole board tend to have a strong justice background and will put public safety first, in contrast to prisoners' rights.

Ms DeGuire spoke of parole as a privilege as compared to a right. In a democratic society where there is a statutory framework for a particular avenue, for a particular relief, parole in that regard could be, I submit, perceived as relief or a remedy for a prisoner. One of the things that's constant in our law is that it is a judge's job to sentence and it is a parole --

Mr Bob Wood: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Mr Kormos has now had 10 minutes, so we hope he'll wrap up fairly soon.

The Vice-Chair: That's not a point of order. Go ahead.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. Where it is a judge's job to sentence, it is the correctional services' job to decide if, when, where and how that sentence will be served, again subject to statutory restrictions. The matter of the malapropism of mandatory remission was put to this applicant today, and I say malapropism because of course it was; it's statutory remission. That was a peculiar thing to put because the concept of statutory remission is for all intents and purposes precisely that; it isn't within the purview or within the jurisdiction or mandate of the Ontario parole board.

I am once again in a position where I don't have -- if other members of the committee do, God bless them, and they will vote accordingly -- I, quite frankly, simply don't have sufficient confidence in this applicant at this point.

It's interesting, because in contrast to the other applicant today, Mr Nash, who left the clear impression that his interest was the Ontario casino commission and none other -- to give him credit, Mr Nash clearly had a passion for one particular area, at least in terms of wanting to be on that board to the exclusion of others. Ms DeGuire submits -- talk about ominous omnibus applications. In an ominous way she makes an omnibus application: for the pension commission, the insurance commission, the Human Rights Commission, the Police Complaints Board and the parole board. She seems to be looking for yet another contract, and in my view these boards, agencies and commissions require more than somebody who's merely unemployed, regardless of how glowing the terminology is that they would refer to their references.

She is, in my view, at this point a disappointment. I predict to the government members, who I'm confident will be inclined to support her because that's the way business is going to be done here, that she will cause them grief. I predict Ms DeGuire will cause this government grief, if she's appointed, during the course of her one-year tenure there. Mark my words. Whether it's condoned by the gaming commission or not, I'm prepared to bet dollars to donuts that she will cause this government grief, because I don't think these government members, if the truth be known, are at all certain about where she stands on issues, what her perspective is of things.

When they look at her CV and see somebody who since her call to the bar has but pursued contract work -- of course Ms DeGuire referred to a robbery trial she had commenced, a jury trial, of all things, because she was so highly recommended by co-counsel or some other counsel who traded the case off to her. This does not reflect -- take a look at what the criteria are for appointment to the board. Among other things there's a clear reference to a "thorough knowledge of the criminal justice system along with some direct experience in the system...ability to take charge of the hearings as a hearing chair...ability to train part-time board members and supervise them including performance planning and review...an ability to communicate orally and in writing clearly."

Now I can tell you this. She purports to have trained staff at Guardian Insurance Co of Canada head office for the implementation of Bill 164. I've had a whole lot of contact with the Guardian Insurance Co of Canada head office since her training of them in the months of May to September 1989, and I tell you, if she puts that down as a reference, notwithstanding that Bill 164 is as much a dog's breakfast as its predecessor Bill 68 and as the insurance reforms, so-called, will be of this new government, if that's put down as a qualification I'm afraid it's not a very impressive one.

Her inability to recall the continuum of public activity, because she acknowledged becoming disinterested -- she didn't use the word "disinterested" but I submit she permits the clear inference that she became disinterested in helping Latin American refugees in 1984, moved on to something different, but couldn't quite recall what it was.

1200

Among other things, for two years she was a scout leader, she writes, of the 17th Humber West of the Greater Toronto Region. For two years. That betrays something. It indicates that we have somebody here who doesn't have a great deal of commitment to any one issue or concern, someone who's not prepared to carry the ball, if you will, from A through to completion.

Mr Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr Chair: It being now past 12 of the clock, with the standing orders permitting us to sit between 10 and 12, I would suggest that it's your obligation to adjourn the committee.

Mr Bob Wood: Speaking to the point of order, I certainly understand what Mr Brown is saying. I would be prepared to grant some indulgence if we can wrap this up within a reasonable time. I certainly understand the point he is making.

The Vice-Chair: Are you about to wrap up, Mr Kormos?

Mr Kormos: Well, are you going to accede to the point of order?

The Vice-Chair: We have the potential here for an agreement to work cooperatively to get this thing done today.

Mr Bob Wood: Why don't you withdraw it and we'll see if we can wrap this up within a reasonable time. You can bring it forward again, as I understand it.

The Vice-Chair: Are you going to wrap up now, Mr Kormos?

Mr Kormos: I sure am.

The Vice-Chair: Then we'll proceed.

Mr Kormos: Had my colleagues but shown some of the virtue of mere patience, we could have avoided the time consumed by a somewhat interesting point of order, in my view. But I'm not a Chair, so far be it for me to evaluate that.

I'm voting against this person. There is something very troubling about her that causes me great concern. At this point to have her in an AM-18 position, $49,000 to $58,000 a year, give or take a few bucks, when it appears that this will be the most money she's ever made in her life, I think the government members should be a little less hasty. Surely there are other applicants and I think the government members would want to see who those other applicants are too.

Mr Preston: I find it very interesting. The first one's condemned for belonging to good clubs; the second one's condemned for being a scout master for two years.

I understand that the member opposite is concerned. The lady had enough guts to stand up to him. That's quite interesting, and in my opinion -- I'm going to make it very short because I don't like to try the patience of people -- I'm all for her.

Mr Kormos: A recorded vote.

The Vice-Chair: All those in favour of this appointment?

Ayes

Brown, Crozier, Ford, Fox, Gravelle, Johnson, Martiniuk, Preston, Ross, Wood.

The Vice-Chair: All those opposed?

Nays

Kormos.

The Vice-Chair: The motion is carried.

The next item on the agenda is the withdrawal of the application by Gary McNaughton, whom we interviewed last week. We had deferred the vote, so I assume there's no need.

We'll move on to agency selection.

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Mr Crozier: The committee will recall, certainly the subcommittee, that we had chosen the Ontario Highway Transport Board as our choice. After listening to counsel on that from various people, it wouldn't be of any value because the board is being wound down. If we could, we'd like then to propose the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.

The Vice-Chair: We have some housekeeping items.

Clerk Pro Tem: Of the committee's selections for next week, originally I had indicated that because we had four selections to be reviewed in addition to Evelyn Dodds, the committee would meet at 9:20. We will not have the full four people available, so at the direction of the subcommittee, I've scheduled Ms Dodds for 10 o'clock.

With regard to Dr Ng, who was a government selection, she's out of the country until the 11th, so we're unable to contact her. Is it the wish that the appointment go through without review, or is it your wish that it be held, a request being sent to the secretariat to hold it until we have an opportunity for the review?

Mr Bob Wood: We're prepared to waive review.

Clerk Pro Tem: The next one is Mr Strong's. He was a selection of the official opposition. At this point, we've left messages on Mr Strong's voice mail. We have not had a return phone call at this time. If I don't hear from him by the end of this day, then I will not be able to comply with the seven days' notice to schedule him for next week. Since it's the official opposition's selection, what would you like me to do with this? Do you want to waive --

Mr Crozier: Wait till the end of the day, I guess. I spoke with the mayor of the town this morning, as a matter of fact. Did you leave the message that if he didn't phone back by today, it may have some consequence?

Clerk Pro Tem: I don't know exactly what the wording was.

Mr Crozier: I really don't know what to say. I guess you just continue trying to get hold of him, and if you can't --

Clerk Pro Tem: You'd like the request to go to the secretariat that it hold the appointment until you have an opportunity to review, if I don't hear from him by the end of the day?

Mr Crozier: I don't think we want to do that. Let's just say it was one of those things. No, I wouldn't want to hold it up.

Clerk Pro Tem: So if we don't hear from him by the end of the day you want to waive, or do you want to waive it now?

Mr Crozier: I think we'll just waive, yes.

Clerk Pro Tem: The next one is a situation with Mr Keller, who was out of the country until this morning. We've left messages at his office. It's the same situation. It was a selection of the third party. What is your choice? Do you want to waive the selection or do you want it held until a request to the secretariat to hold it until the committee's had an opportunity to interview him?

Mr Kormos: We will not waive. I say no more.

Clerk Pro Tem: Okay. I'll put a request forward to the secretariat that Mr Keller's appointment be held until there's an opportunity for the committee to review it.

One more, the fourth one, and it's a government selection, and that was David Lemmon.

Mr Bob Wood: We'll waive, to make a long story short.

Clerk Pro Tem: Thank you. We've taken care of Mr McNaughton, who's withdrawn; Mr Lemmon, Mr Keller, Mr Strong. I think that's it for housekeeping.

The Vice-Chair: That's it for the whole committee. The clerk would like a brief meeting with the subcommittee, five minutes.

The committee adjourned at 1209.