INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
JOHN BELYEA
CONTENTS
Wednesday 27 August 1997
Subcommittee Report
Intended Appointments
Mr John Belyea
Mr Bruce Reid
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président
Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean PC)
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph PC)
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur L)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora L)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC)
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East / -Est ND)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1003 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The standing committee will come to order. The first order of business is dealing with the subcommittee report of a week ago, Thursday, August 21, in which no selections were made by any of the three parties.
I believe there's still one, if I could use the term, hangover from a previous subcommittee report which I think was Mr Welch, the clerk tells me. That may mean that next week we'll deal with one appointment.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Was there any success in setting it up?
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Doug Arnott): I believe so.
The Chair: We'll leave that until we get it figured out. All right, shall we move directly to the intended appointments? Sorry, we need a motion to adopt that subcommittee report.
Mr Baird: So moved.
The Chair: It's been moved. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried. Thank you for that.
At the end of interviews of the intended appointees, we'll deal with the two concurrences from today and the one that was deferred from last week. Let's proceed.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
JOHN BELYEA
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: John Belyea, intended appointee as member, Ontario Educational Communications Authority (TVOntario).
The Chair: The first intended appointment is Mr John Belyea, for the Ontario Educational Communications Authority. If you would take a seat at the table. It's traditional that you be allowed, if you so wish, to make an opening statement and then each party has up to 10 minutes to ask you questions. Welcome to the committee.
Mr John Belyea: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will take advantage of the few minutes I have to make a few brief remarks about myself. My name is John Belyea. I'm a resident of Toronto. I've lived in the city since 1984. I'm married, have been so for seven years, and have a wonderful 21-month-old son.
I'm presently vice-president and partner of Creighton and Co, which is a Mississauga-based property and casualty insurance brokerage. We're a small business with just 17 employees, and typical of small business, I wear many hats there. I'm the general manager, I'm the CFO, I'm the human resource manager and so on. I've been with Creighton and Co for almost four years now. Prior to joining Creighton and Co, I worked with an investment merchant bank organization here in Toronto for close to four years and it too specialized in the property and casualty insurance sector.
In terms of my education, I attended Queen's University and graduated there in 1984 with an honours BA, with a major in history. Between 1987 and 1989, I attended York University on a full-time basis and earned an MBA.
I've always felt very strongly about volunteerism and giving something back to the community, because we all benefit to a significant extent from the communities we work and live in. Part of my involvement in the past has been with the Big Brothers organization. Unfortunately, I have not been able to spend as much time with that organization in recent years, primarily due to business and the pressures of raising a young family. But I still regularly see the boys I was matched up with during my involvement.
A lot of my energy now, at least on the volunteer side, is being spent, if you want to use that word, as a member of the board of trustees of the Toronto Grace Hospital. I joined the hospital board late last year and presently serve as chair of the finance committee of the board and also sit on several subcommittees of the board of trustees.
I'm honoured to have my name put forward for consideration to serve on the board of directors of TVO. TVO probably is one of the better-known government agencies in the province, and it's an agency I've become more familiar with over the years, or very recently, with my young son and certainly as a parent.
In terms of my qualifications, I think there's a lot I can and will bring to the board. Specifically, I've had considerable experience working in organizations both for profit and not for profit that are undergoing considerable change and transition, and it's fair to say that TVOntario may be in a similar position itself.
I'm a very open-minded individual, and I also think I can bring to the board some skills, expertise in communication, marketing and of course finance. I can certainly say to the members of the committee here that I will serve on that board, if approved, with integrity, with honesty, and will certainly give my best to serve the board and the agency well.
That's really all I have to say. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Belyea. We can start with the government members. Any questions?
Mr Baird: We would defer at this time to our colleagues in the official opposition.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr Belyea.
It's certainly an interesting time in terms of what is happening at TVOntario. Obviously there has been or is going to be, potentially, a great number of changes. The first question I want to ask is -- you addressed it in some regard -- did you seek out the appointment yourself or did someone seek you out, so to speak, for the position?
Mr Belyea: I did not directly apply for the position. It was my understanding that the appointments secretariat was doing a search for vacancies on a board. I was contacted by them several months ago and was asked if I'd be interested, and of course seeking my qualifications as well. Then a month or so ago -- I don't remember the exact time -- they said it was going to go before cabinet if I was still interested. I said yes and it went through cabinet.
Mr Gravelle: You made reference to your son, and congratulations in terms of your becoming more aware of TVO, obviously through some of the children's programming that is a large proportion of the programming on TVOntario, which begs the question: I think it's important to find out what your sense or your opinion or your feeling is about TVOntario and the role it plays in the province. How do you view TVOntario? It's been part of the provincial scheme officially since I guess 1970. What is your belief in terms of the role TVO plays? How important is that role?
Mr Belyea: TVO plays a significant role in providing educational and particularly children's television, which I do see directly, and it has been serving that role now for I guess 27 years. So it certainly plays a role in terms of delivering those types of services to people across the province.
1010
Mr Gravelle: Would you describe yourself as a supporter, then, of TVO, in terms of the role it plays? You probably know the direction I'm moving in here, but would you describe yourself as a supporter who believes that public support of TVO is --
Mr Belyea: There's certainly great value in the programming services it provides to its viewers and to the people of Ontario. I think I know where you're bringing the question, and it comes down to how that service can be delivered. I know the government wants to look at all its available options. At the end of the day, TVO always filled that unique role of providing educational and children's-type programming. It does play an important role in delivering those services, and there are other services on television and elsewhere that provide similar programming as well, perhaps in a slightly different way.
Mr Gravelle: Are you familiar with the entire mandate of TVO in terms of the curriculum programming, the credit courses it provides for high school, for university? Are you familiar with that?
Mr Belyea: I'm somewhat familiar. I'm still relatively new to this whole process, obviously.
Mr Gravelle: There's probably a fair proportion of the population that is not aware of those either, because they aren't necessarily as public in terms of the role they play. I think that's very important; it's obviously important for you to be aware of that and have some sense of that as well.
As you know, I think it was June 26 that the privatization minister and the Minister of Culture made the announcement that TVO was being put under a privatization review. Would you be comfortable giving us your opinion in terms of how you feel about that process?
Mr Belyea: I think the government made it pretty clear -- they weren't the government at the time -- in their platform in the 1995 election that they were going to review a number of government agencies, TVO being one of them. I guess this process has now just begun. It was only recently, as you said, that TVO was named as one of those organizations to be reviewed.
My understanding of that process is that the government would like to bring out as many options as possible. They haven't committed to going one way or another, and that's the position I come from, which is a very open-minded approach. There are many options available, from the status quo to complete divestiture. Whatever option is chosen, and certainly through this process, the board has got to take into account the various stakeholders, which include the government, but also the viewers, as part of that process.
Mr Gravelle: As you know, TVO itself, the board, in fact, has put forward a proposal for a not-for-profit model as one of the options that they hope to be taken seriously. Have you had an opportunity or a chance to look at that proposal? Have you been briefed on that proposal? Would you as a member of the board support that proposal put forward by TVO themselves?
Mr Belyea: I've only seen what has appeared in the public domain. I'm not sure that full document is available yet. I expect that if my appointment is approved, I will then become privy to the full proposal. But I am somewhat familiar with what the board has put forward as the not-for-profit proposal and to a certain extent a lessening of dependence on government funding. It's my understanding that the government has also said they will seriously consider that as one of the options, so I guess that fits into what I said earlier, that it becomes one of the options. Do I support it? I'm really not totally, 100% sure of what is in it yet, so I can't really stake out a yes or no on that question. But certainly it has come from the board and I'm joining that board, and that is what their position is today.
Mr Gravelle: My understanding is that it was a position put forward by the board, and unanimously, so I would think there would be some expectation that you would support it, although I appreciate the fact that you're not there yet and have not seen it. Do you think it's fair to say there probably would be an expectation that you would support that option as one --
Mr Belyea: At this point in time, that serves as the position of the board until it is changed, so until the board decides it wants to change its approach, that is the position of the board and of the organization of TVOntario.
Mr Gravelle: One of the concerns I've expressed and I think the third party has expressed as well is a concern about consultation for this process. We most recently have been given the impression that by the end of September there will be some recommendation. What concerns me about that is that up to this stage there has been absolutely no public consultation. Do you believe there should be public consultation all across the province?
Mr Belyea: Yes, I think that's important as part of the process. For the government to consider its options, it really should be listening to, I use the word "stakeholders," which I suppose is a bit of a cliché, but that's the viewers, that's the government itself, it's the members, it's the people who contribute to it and it's the employees. Certainly there should be input as part of that process, yes.
Mr Gravelle: It's probably not appropriate for the board to make that push, but that is a concern that is clearly there and perhaps it's our obligation on this side to press the minister on that particular aspect of it. I certainly feel there is a need for a high level of public participation and consultation in this process and I think it needs to be done in all parts of the province, and certainly in the north as well, where TVO plays a very, very important role.
Thank you very much. I think that fulfils mine.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Mr Belyea, good morning. Listening to the exchange between yourself and Mr Gravelle, I still have some trouble understanding where you stand on the privatization issue. I understand that you say that you're open-minded, that you're willing to look at all the options, but surely you must have some bias -- I mean that in the most positive of senses -- some attitude going into this process. Are you in favour of the privatization of TVO or are you not in favour of privatization?
Mr Belyea: I think it's incumbent upon the government to really look at all the agencies and organizations it has investments in or controls and runs, TVOntario being one of them. TVOntario has been running for 27 years now. It certainly set out with a fairly strong mandate, which it has continued to fulfil. I think it should review its available options, which may include full privatization.
So am I supportive if it's complete privatization, or what's my stand? An option has already been put forward by the board of directors which takes that first and fairly big step away. There may be other viable options available as well, but certainly going on to this board, I'm not totally familiar with all of what those options may be and I'm prepared to listen frankly and honestly to all of them and make a reasoned and sound decision with my fellow board members.
Mr Silipo: I understand that at the end of the day, we all understand, it's going to be the government that will make the decision, if they haven't already made it, and I understand your wanting to respect that process, but I am interested in your point of view, not the government's point of view. If you had to choose today between the option that has been put forward by the board, which is turning the corporation into a not-for-profit entity along the lines, I gather, of how for example PBS functions in the States, and selling the station to a private company, which would you choose?
Mr Belyea: Frankly, that's a difficult question to answer. I think there are services TVO provides that it's unlikely others may provide. As part of the whole overview process, when you look at the mandate, if the government wants TVO to continue to play a strong role in, for instance, providing curriculum programming through the airways to schools and further education and that's important to the government, then that has to be factored in somehow, and that may not be done with a total, outright privatization and sale to a commercial organization. It may be through the not-for-profit proposal. There are many factors at work here that will go into this decision. Trying to pin it down one way or another, it's difficult knowing exactly, understanding a lot about TVOntario, what the current board has put forward and what the government wants its mandate, as it exists now to --
Mr Silipo: I want to know what you want, I want to know what you think, Mr Belyea, because it's you we're talking about at this point in terms of whether or not we appoint you to this body. So can we just please leave aside what the government's thinking on this is. The board, under Mr Herrndorf's direction, has said very clearly that they don't believe that selling TVOntario to a private commercial operator will continue any of those things you've just said are important to you and are important to many people across the province in terms of the educational programming. In order to keep that and also allow more flexibility, they've come up with a not-for-profit alternative, which is a change from the structure there is now.
Mr Belyea: Absolutely.
1020
Mr Silipo: There is also, as I'm sure you know, a commitment over the next number of years to reduce the dependency on government funding to I think about 50% by the year 2002. I need to know more clearly from you, is that the direction you would support or is it the other direction, which the government may choose, which is to simply sell TVOntario to a commercial enterprise?
Mr Belyea: I have not personally made any firm, hard decision on how TVO should be played out in terms of outright privatization or the not-for-profit proposal. That is my honest answer to that question. I do not have a firm position on that.
Mr Silipo: Fair enough. I note from your CV, Mr Belyea, that you spent about a year some time ago as a research officer for the PC caucus. Can I take it from that that you continue to have some involvement with the Progressive Conservative Party? Are you a member of the party?
Mr Belyea: Yes.
Mr Silipo: That's fair enough. That's a question I ask all people who appear in front of us, so don't feel singled out by that. Those are all the questions I have. Thank you.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I'm not going to try and back you into a corner. I believe it's very difficult in your position, where you haven't been selected for the board, to have a definite yes or no on an issue you've been asked about, mainly because I'm a great believer in getting all the information up front, then you make your decision and you make a very wise one.
I assume that with your being in business for some time, you believe in the principle of economic viability, so that's one question I will ask you. I would hope that you can give me a good, direct answer on that one.
Mr Belyea: That certainly is a very important part of the overall process in terms of determining what direction we're going to go in. The government provides significant funding right now, and part of the process is to determine the value the government is getting for that, and to a certain extent any additional commitment the government may have to it and what is required to carry on the mandate in the future. Certainly that has to be part of the review process.
Mr Stewart: I think everybody agrees, whether it be in the public or private sector these days, that review and restructuring are most essential. What worked 20 years ago may not necessarily be working now. I would look for somebody to be on these kind of boards who is open-minded and will not make these decisions without getting all the information.
The Chair: Any other questions or comments? Thank you for that.
That completes the process, Mr Belyea. You're free to remain with us in the committee. We'll be voting on your concurrence in about half an hour, but you can stay or leave; it's entirely up to you. Thank you for coming before the committee this morning.
Mr Belyea: Thank you very much.
BRUCE REID
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Bruce Reid, intended appointee as member, board of directors, Ontario VL Corp Ltd.
The Chair: The next intended appointment is Mr Bruce Reid, to the Ontario Video Lottery Corp. Mr Reid, we welcome you to the committee. If you have any opening comments, now is the time to make them.
Mr Bruce Reid: I understand that everybody has our backgrounds, so rather than bore you with any reiteration of them, I'd simply be very happy to answer any questions anybody has regarding either my background or this proposed appointment.
The Chair: Can we start with the official opposition this time?
Mr Gravelle: Mr Chair, I wonder if it would be agreeable to the committee -- there is a member of our caucus who wants to be part of this. I'll just give him a call to let him know he's here, if we could defer to the third party . Thanks very much.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Silipo: Mr Reid, good morning. I'm really, genuinely curious as to what would attract the president and CEO of the Brick Warehouse Corp to take an appointment to this body.
Mr Reid: I retired in January.
Mr Silipo: I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't catch that, because it says 1991 to present.
Mr Reid: Sorry. I'm afraid I haven't seen what you have in front of you.
Mr Silipo: It's your CV. I was looking at your résumé.
When we initially had the person who was going to be the chair of this body in front of us, there was some understanding among the committee that the running of the VLTs was going to be done under the Ontario Lottery Corp, and now there's going to be a sub-body of that. I just wanted to be clear about your understanding of the kind of role you'll be playing in terms of both boards.
Mr Reid: I'll be happy to try. I say it that way because my understanding is that while that discussion is still ongoing, there is no formal, finalized document yet outlining the clear roles and responsibilities of the subsidiary company, which in effect the Video Lottery Corp will be, and of the Ontario Lottery Corp. All I can respond to is what I understand from the discussions I have participated in.
What specifically do you want me to address? How it's my impression that the thing is to work?
Mr Silipo: Yes.
Mr Reid: My presumption and interpretation of what I've heard is that it will be in a very conventional subsidiary-parent company relationship. The purpose of the Video Lottery Corp is to focus specifically on the video lottery portion, the setting up of the company and the rollout of whatever is ultimately decided by the government of what the locations of these various casinos will be. The exact role of what authority that board has as opposed to the Ontario Lottery Corp board is still a question that, as I understand it, is not finalized yet.
Mr Silipo: What is it about this particular board that interests you? Is it something you sought out or is it something you expressed an interest in, being part of a board?
Mr Reid: What I've found is that when you retire, if you've been at all active, you immediately have a lot of people saying: "Gee, Reid has nothing to do. We should find him something to do." I was asked by several people if I would be prepared to be involved in some of the things the province was trying to do. I said yes, I would, and eventually got a call from the head of the appointments committee trying on for size several different issues or potential positions. A couple that they suggested I didn't think I had much to contribute to. My suggestion was that perhaps areas that have something to do with either the general public or systems, and fairly sophisticated systems, which in effect the retail business has become, something along those lines I might be able to make a larger contribution to. Time went by and a month or so later they called and said, "Would you be prepared to consider the Video Lottery Corp?" I said: "At least it fits into the areas that I think I know something about. If that is something I can be helpful on, yes, I'd be happy to."
Mr Silipo: As you know, Mr Reid, the issue of video lotteries continues to be a fairly controversial one.
Mr Reid: It does indeed. I spent most of the last five and a half years in Edmonton and listened to the experience out there, as any individual does; I don't mean that I studied it.
Mr Silipo: I appreciate that the decision to establish video lotteries is not yours, not the board's, it's the government's, but I'd be interested in your attitude, your sense of that tying into the kind of role you'll be playing as a member of the corporation in administering the establishment and overseeing of video lotteries.
Mr Reid: The first thing, as I understand it, that I think is quite encouraging relative to the experience out west is the decision that I gather has been taken by the government -- at least certainly according to the newspapers and what I can find out -- to roll out the process very slowly and to start in environments in which (1) there is already gambling, and (2) are therefore fairly highly controlled environments.
It seems to me that that is a very sensible learning process to go through as opposed to what we perhaps saw in western Canada, which clearly seems to have got a little out of control.
1030
Mr Silipo: Just picking up on that, what about the whole notion of where video lotteries, as part of perhaps gaming casinos, are placed or not placed? One of my colleagues, for example, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, has been making the point that one of the new gaming casinos is going to be in the Beaches-Woodbine area here in Toronto. The community is quite clearly continuing to say they don't think it's appropriate for it to be there. What kind of a role will the board play, in your understanding, in terms of dealing with those issues around where these things are going to be placed?
Mr Reid: I presume nothing, from what I can understand or even think through as an individual. It appears to me that that is an issue your larger body in the legislation is charged with figuring out. Ours will be one of implementation.
Mr Silipo: One last question, Mr Reid: Are you a member or have you ever been a member of any political party, the Conservative Party or any others, for that matter?
Mr Reid: I have, on a couple of occasions, been a member of a local riding when members I have known were trying to get elected.
Mr Silipo: Of the Conservative Party?
Mr Reid: Yes.
Mr Silipo: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Back to the official opposition. Mr Bradley, did you wish to ask some questions?
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Yes. I wouldn't allow one video lottery terminal in Ontario if I had my way, but I obviously don't have my way. I suspect there are a lot of people, some even on the government benches, who wouldn't look forward with enthusiasm to video lottery terminals.
Some of this may have been covered in another meeting, but do you anticipate that it would be possible to properly police video lottery terminals in bars and restaurants in the province? Should the government follow through with its original intention to put them in bars and restaurants at the behest of the association which represents bars and restaurants?
Mr Reid: I don't really know how you would control them in bars and restaurants because I don't even know what has been proposed in that case. I suggested that I'm encouraged by seeing them in a so-called controlled environment first, because that's where you will find out about and get some insight into the potential of how you will control them and whether it's practical. In a prior life to the Brick Warehouse, I ran W.H. Smith throughout North America and I have gone through the difficult issues of what is pornography and how do you sell it and how do you control it and all those kind of things? It is a very difficult issue. Can it be done effectively, I suspect is your question, and I don't know the answer to that.
Mr Bradley: If you observe bars and restaurants, and a lot of people don't realize -- I remember being in an argument with somebody over this on television who didn't realize that kids can go into a tavern nowadays where there are alcoholic beverages served. This person was saying they're not going into restaurants. Well, that would be defined as a restaurant, and most restaurants in Ontario now are licensed, so I have a great concern about that.
What would you recommend for those people who obviously can't handle video lottery terminals, who come out of a home where they may have a spouse and children and blow the paycheque on video lottery terminals because they're so addictive, they're so alluring? How do you stop that from happening except by preventing them from going in in the first place?
Mr Reid: I don't know the answer to that. Fortunately, I think you folks are charged with making that decision, not me, and I'm just as glad it's you. I'm not being facetious. I don't know. We, as a society, have real problems with those kinds of things. I've been quite active in sitting on boards for substance abuse: alcohol and so on. It's staggering to me what big problems these are and how unaware any of us are of how they are. I was surprised, reading the articles, that these VLTs are described as the crack cocaine of gambling. I didn't see anything other than anecdotal evidence of that. I don't know whether it's true or not. I don't know how one finds out.
Mr Bradley: Have you any idea how much the government is going to make? I try to say this in a non-partisan sense because I condemn all governments that bleed people with gambling problems and people who are desperate and people who don't have very much and think this is one way they can get ahead. I don't care what their political stripe is, I condemn them all for it.
Let me put this question to you: Do you think it's worth the social price we pay to install these machines so that governments can get money the easiest possible way, that is, what they would call a voluntary tax, which in many cases is hardly voluntary?
Mr Reid: Do I personally believe that? I personally believe that it's probably very difficult to figure out what the social costs are. What we're all seeing with the tobacco industry is a perfect example of this same thing in another form. It has taken I don't know how many years and people still haven't figured out where the balance is. I'm not sure how you really answer that.
I think that if we're going to have things like this, which we clearly are in our society, whether it be alcohol or tobacco or gambling or what have you, having it in some form of a controlled environment with government involvement has to be, in my opinion, preferable to having it done in some other way. If somebody is determined to gamble, I suspect they will find a way to do it.
Mr Bradley: Do you believe that the increase in opportunity for people to gamble, the easier access to gambling opportunities, will mean that we're going to have more gambling taking place? I recognize that we have some now. I'm not fighting old battles. I'm fighting the future battles.
Mr Reid: I don't know the answer to that. I've read probably the same things you have, not as extensively but in terms of the media. Personally, I find some of the things suggested in the media very hard to understand. The suggestion seems to be in several of these articles that on a per capita basis, the Canadian spending level on VLTs is higher than it is in the United States.
I've spent most of my life as a marketer or something or other and have spent an awful lot of time looking at social trends. I'm not really aware of any social trends where that would be true. Maybe it is true, and I say to myself that if it is true, then what could explain it? Is it really true that Canadians are spending more per capita already than Americans? I'm sceptical now of whether that's because the information is so hard to come by or whether there's such an underground economy in these things as well that no one can measure it, so I don't really know.
Mr Bradley: Almost invariably, when you have significant gambling opportunities presented, organized crime gets involved. It almost always happens. Have you had access to the Ontario Provincial Police report on the influence of organized crime on gambling in Ontario? It's a certain branch, I think it's called CISO or something like that, in the Ontario Provincial Police.
Mr Reid: No, I have not.
Mr Bradley: Would you want to have access to that to enable you to do your job better, should you be appointed?
Mr Reid: Absolutely. I've asked to see anything and everything. I think you have to be an avid reader and consumer of all this kind of information to try at least to understand even what recommendations you'd like to make.
Mr Bradley: If you get a copy, would you share it with members of this committee? The Solicitor General will not share it with those of us who are the elected representatives of the people of the province. If you were to get it, would you undertake to provide members of this committee with that particular document?
Mr Reid: As long as I didn't get it under a confidentiality agreement, I would so undertake.
Mr Bradley: You know how to answer questions, don't you?
Back to organized crime -- I guess I'll go further than that. I asked about the report. How do you believe you can ever keep organized crime out when you've got these huge gambling complexes that we're going to have around the province?
1040
Mr Reid: I really have no idea. If you took my earlier thesis and pushed it forward, I guess the extension of my logic is that the government should be involved in regulating all things, which would include, therefore, some of the other things, drugs or anything else. If there is a lot of money to be made, and if it is often in the form of cash, I'm afraid you're going to have organized crime there in one form or another. I would assume that our collective objective is to try to minimize that involvement and isolate it as much as possible. So now we're discussing, how long is a piece of string?
Mr Bradley: In addition to the government -- the "government" generically speaking, in any situation -- making money off the misery of others, which I personally consider gambling to be -- others have different views, and I respect those -- others can make a lot of profit as well from this, and some of them are outside this province.
If we are having these gambling opportunities which are supposedly going to support government activities and supposedly going to support charitable activities, do you believe that any of the rest of the money should be going back to the United States to owners of casinos, for instance, or should that money be required to stay in this country?
Mr Reid: I must confess that I tend to be somewhat of a free trader, as I'm sure you would expect. If you have expertise that you need to buy, whether it be American or British or French or whatever, you just have to face up to that.
The Chair: That's the time limit for the opposition. Thank you, Mr Bradley. We revert now to the government members.
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Mr Reid, I'm reading your background, and I have to say one thing on your behalf: The backgrounder you have here is truly a thoroughbred in business.
Mr Reid: Thank you, sir.
Mr Ford: By the looks of your background, you've committed yourself to public service; you've committed yourself to a business background which is very thorough. I haven't seen many backgrounds like this in résumés that have been submitted to this committee.
Mr Reid: In the old days, though, they used to call that a checkered career.
Mr Ford: I, for one, am impressed by the areas you've been in: the University of Western Ontario, the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, Credit Valley Hospital, Builders Supplies, the Victorian Order of Nurses and many of the others. I know what it's like to be on some of these committees; I've been on them. You look like you're very committed to these people. You haven't just had one-year stints in these places, you've had five and 10 years, and that to me is true commitment.
Mr Reid: I like to get involved in what I'm doing.
Mr Ford: I can see that. Not only that, I see that you like to get into situations that are very sticky and very unsure and turn them around. That's a challenge. I think you'd be a great asset to this area you're seeking. I have to say I'm very impressed.
Mr Reid: I like questions like that.
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Thank you for coming today. I'd like to pick up where my friend from St Catharines left off. As often happens with the member for St Catharines, he's very close to the truth but backs away from it when he recognizes it.
Let me ask you this: Would it shock you to learn that the Ontario Provincial Police suggest that there are presently between 18,000 and 22,000 illegal VLTs in restaurants in Ontario today? Did you know that?
Mr Reid: Up until last night, it would have surprised me. Last night a certain young person who I guess goes into -- I must confess I haven't done a careful study of bars, so I perhaps don't see some of these things, but I've got four sons who do move around a little bit and I gather that there are a number of these things operating illegally at the current time.
Mr Guzzo: Do you know, sir, who owns those machines?
Mr Reid: No.
Mr Guzzo: In Ottawa-Carleton, where I come from, many of them are concentrated in the ridings of Ottawa Centre and Ottawa East, simply because of the makeup of the city. Mr Grandmaître, a colleague and my friend, represents Ottawa East, where the heaviest concentration is. It's been established that most of those located in the Ottawa area are owned by companies and people in the province of Quebec. In Toronto and the surrounding Niagara area, those machines in restaurants and bars are owned by people from Buffalo, New York. It would seem that the profits from these machines are either going to companies which pay their taxes to Quebec City, to a government destined on breaking up this country, or to companies or individuals who pay their taxes in the United States. Does that surprise you and does that offend you in any way?
Mr Reid: What offends me is that apparently all these machines are operating illegally. Who owns them, it seems to me, is sort of secondary. I must confess that I've been a great advocate for a lot of things like Sunday shopping when it was unpopular, so we fought some long campaigns, but I believe you fight to change the system from within the system. What offends me is that those machines should be shut down.
Mr Guzzo: Quite apart from where the owners pay taxes if in fact they bother to pay taxes, one then might ask the question, who regulates them? Who determines what the payout is on these machines?
Mr Reid: I'm sure nobody.
Mr Guzzo: In the province of Quebec in the border towns of Hull and Gatineau, immediately adjacent to Ottawa, where they had a similar problem with these machines prior to the Quebec government introducing legal and controlled machines, they had a similar situation. Indeed, it was after the Quebec government installed the legal machines that we saw the influx across the border and into the Ontario bars.
Mr Reid: Is the suggestion that they are at very different payout schedules as well?
Mr Guzzo: They can be regulated to return anywhere from --
Mr Reid: No, I mean the illegal ones certainly aren't regulated.
Mr Guzzo: But they may vary from bar to bar.
Mr Reid: Presumably they do.
Mr Guzzo: I'm sorry. I didn't understand your question.
Mr Reid: To start with, my only point was that they should be shut down totally. They're illegal and they shouldn't be operating, and that should be the first step. But certainly if and when they ever do get into that environment, as I think I responded to the folks over here, my belief is that they must be regulated. Now, to say today how they should be regulated, I don't honestly know the answer to that.
Mr Guzzo: But there's no doubt in your mind that they're going to be regulated. Whether they're in racetracks, charity gaming halls or wherever, they're going to regulated by the authority of the government through the board we're appointing people to this morning.
Mr Reid: They should be. At the moment, they should figure out how they are removed, I would have thought.
Mr Guzzo: The committee that travelled around the province to study this issue at the time the bill was being proposed, last summer at about this time, visited the riding of Mr Gravelle and Mr Miclash. Indeed, one of the motels we were staying at had one of those illegal machines in the bar.
Mr Gravelle: No, he didn't.
Mr Guzzo: Not in your riding, Mr Gravelle; that's correct.
Mr Reid: The one thing I was very unclear about, and you raised it -- can I ask a question?
Mr Guzzo: I'm not here to give information. I can tell you that.
Mr Reid: Mr Chairman, may I ask a question?
Mr Guzzo: I'm a lawyer. I don't give it for free.
Mr Reid: Oh, then I'm in trouble.
Mr Guzzo: Yes, you may ask. Go ahead, sir.
1050
Mr Reid: We're both using the word "illegal." Is it clear whether these things are legal or illegal?
Mr Guzzo: It's definitely clear, but we don't enforce it. We haven't cracked down because of the costs and the difficulty involved. The question arises, would anybody play an illegal machine not knowing what type of return they're receiving, when they know and are guaranteed that a controlled government machine, to use the example of Quebec and Alberta, will return 88 cents on the dollar or 92 cents on the dollar? Quebec returns more than Alberta at the moment.
Mr Reid: I don't know the answer to that.
Mr Guzzo: Obviously, some do. We're told it doesn't extinguish the illegal machines completely, but the advice is that in Alberta about 90% or 95% of the illegal machines disappeared when they legalized ones came out. That'll help you sleep better tonight, sir.
The Chair: That completes the time for discussions with Mr Reid. Thank you for coming before the committee. We appreciate it.
We now are prepared to deal with the concurrences. I would propose that we deal with the ones we just interviewed this morning and then go to the one that was deferred from last week.
The first intended appointment is Mr John Belyea.
Mr Baird: I would move concurrence in the appointment of John Belyea to the board of TVOntario.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Do you wish to speak to it?
Mr Baird: Very briefly, Mr Belyea would obviously bring a terrific amount of experience in the private sector. His educational background, both at the undergraduate level and as someone with a master's in business administration, would certainly bring a good deal of experience and expertise to the board of TVOntario.
I found it interesting to note that he is extremely open to the various proposals to restructure TVOntario, be it the proposal adopted by Mr Herrndorf and the current board or a whole host of other ranges. He's certainly keen to bring some expertise to that debate and to that discussion and be open-minded as they look at various restructuring opportunities at TVOntario. I think we'd be very privileged to have his skill set on the board.
Mr Gravelle: I feel very strongly, as does our caucus, that TVO should remain in some fashion a publicly owned and funded organization. Certainly the model that TVO has is one that really needs to be taken seriously. I had some real concern with Mr Belyea's inability to make it clear what his position was. In fact, it would suggest that there be some concern in terms of the board's position.
I think it makes sense that a member of the board should support the board position that's been put forward. He wasn't able to do that. He seems like a fine individual, but I think it's important that this person who's appointed -- it's also important that he was sought out for this position, which makes me somewhat concerned, if not suspicious. There certainly were others whose names were put forward who were rejected. His name was sought out.
It feeds back -- again, this is not a personal observation -- into our concerns last week about Mr Seabrook. You are frequently seeing, on this committee, appointees coming forward who are in essence set up to change the makeup of the board. It is a weakening of the system that's happening: setting up a number of people who are not supportive of the goals and aims of the particular agency. That concerns me in this case, as it certainly does with Mr Seabrook with the Niagara Escarpment Commission as well.
I shouldn't probably compare Mr Belyea to Mr Seabrook, in that Mr Seabrook is far more blatant and one who clearly should be withdrawn, but Mr Belyea concerns me enough that we will be voting against his appointment.
Mr Silipo: I will not be supporting Mr Belyea's appointment. I just want to put on the record why.
I had the very clear impression in listening to his answers this morning that his position on the question of whether or not TVO should be privatized will be shaped far more by what the government's direction will be than by his own views, unless his views seem to coincide with the government's.
While he certainly showed some understanding of and appreciation for the unique nature of TVO and the fact that through a privatization process a number of the things that TVO does now, particularly in the area of educational programming, would likely be lost because they wouldn't interest a commercial operator, he didn't go to the extent he should have, at least to satisfy me, in saying that he supported TVOntario remaining as a public entity. There was lots of room for him to do that with respect to the present position the board has taken to turn TVOntario into a not-for-profit corporation. His reluctance to support that position leads me to believe that, while he certainly may be genuine in terms of his open-mindedness, his direction will be guided more by what the government wants to do than by what is in the best interests of TVOntario and the public. I can't support putting somebody on the board of TVOntario who would be guided in that way.
The Chair: Any further debate on Mr Belyea's appointment? If not, are you ready for the question? All those in favour of Mr Belyea's appointment, please indicate. All those opposed? The motion is carried, as is his appointment. Thank you for that.
The second appointment is Mr Bruce Reid. Do we have a motion for concurrence in his appointment?
Mr Ford: I move concurrence of the appointment of Mr Bruce Reid as a member of the Ontario VL Corp board of directors.
The Chair: Do you wish to speak to it?
Mr Ford: No.
The Chair: That's fine. Any comments?
Mr Bradley: I thought the answers Mr Reid gave were generally indicative that he is very interested in this field, that he has an open mind; that he has some experience, however, in the past, as he said, being from the province of Alberta, which has gone very big into gambling. I hope he will recall the questions which were directed to him and that he will be very careful to ensure that we don't have an escalation of gambling opportunities in the province, particularly video lottery terminals. He appears to have a good interest in this and some positive things to say, and I'm hopeful he will be successful in reining in the gambling opportunities in the province.
Mr Silipo: I will be supporting Mr Reid's appointment, notwithstanding that we may have different views on the issue of free trade, but I'll leave that aside and suggest that I was pleased by Mr Reid's straightforwardness and his sense of the problem ahead, as well as his sense of the need to move in a fairly cautious way. If this thing is going to come to be, I feel comfortable with Mr Reid being a member of the board.
The Chair: Any further debate? Are you ready for the question?
Mr Baird: I ask for a recorded vote.
The Chair: Sure. All those in favour of Mr Reid's appointment?
Ayes
Baird, Beaubien, Chudleigh, Ford, Gravelle, Guzzo, Martel, Miclash, Preston, Silipo, Stewart, Tascona.
The Chair: That is carried. That disposes of -- maybe that's the wrong term. That deals with the two appointments from this morning.
Now we'll deal with the deferred vote on Mr Norman Seabrook, who is to be appointed to the Niagara Escarpment Commission. The debate has been held already. It is my understanding that there was a unanimous agreement that the vote be deferred until today. I appreciate the fact that Mr Miclash took the chair last week, by the way, and dealt with that issue.
1100
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): On a point of order, Mr Chair: In view of what you've just said, that is, that your understanding is that the debate took place and then there was a move for a deferral which was agreed to by all members --
The Chair: Deferral on the vote.
Ms Martel: Yes. I would ask for unanimous consent of this committee to continue the discussion around the appointment of Mr Seabrook. It is an appointment about which we have some serious views. I would ask for unanimous consent so we can express and place our concerns, particularly the government side.
Mr Baird: Could I speak to that?
The Chair: On this point of order? Sure. The point of order is in order, by the way.
Mr Baird: I've worked with two or three members of the New Democratic Party in terms of ensuring that the committee could consider the appointment of Mr Seabrook, and even went further, to allow an extra week. On a personal level, I think we've gone the extra mile to ensure that there could be a thorough discussion of Mr Seabrook's appointment. It was agreed that we would defer the vote. The debate has concluded.
You could hardly say that we've been anything but extremely fair. On a personal level, I've gone to bat to ensure that we would discuss the appointment at committee. We agreed that there would be no deferments, but we asked in this case for unanimous consent that there be a deferment, which was granted. We've gone the extra mile on this one, allowing the opposition to have an opportunity to discuss the issue and for sober second thought. I would be negative on the question.
The Chair: On the same point of order, Mr Gravelle?
Mr Gravelle: Yes, Chair. In that we haven't yet had the vote on the unanimous consent, I think it would be helpful if Mr Baird or someone from the government side could perhaps explain to us really what has happened in the last week in light of the fact that there were quotes in the paper by various members that concerns expressed by the opposition basically drove the decision to defer the vote, which certainly gave the impression to the public, to the media and to the members here that indeed there was some true consideration being given to the fact that indeed this was a bad appointment and should be withdrawn.
Rather than simply using the situation where we can no longer formally debate it, I think you have a responsibility to tell us why you didn't come to that conclusion. That was the impression that was left when, after you caucused last week, you decided to defer it and some members publicly stated that it was because the opposition basically opened your eyes to some of the concerns and those concerns were reflected in your deferral. I think it would be helpful to the committee and to the public to explain to us why you are now moving forward with this.
Mr Baird: I think that reopens the question that Ms Martel --
The Chair: Order, please. It would be unusual to have a prolonged debate on a request for unanimous consent. I'll listen to a couple, but then we have to deal with it in an appropriate fashion. I saw Ms Martel's hand.
Ms Martel: Further to the point raised by my colleague Mr Gravelle, members will recall that it was one of your own -- the member for Hamilton West, who is not here today -- who moved the deferral of this vote, which everyone, including you, supported. Certainly it was the view of the opposition members that she did that because the government side wanted some time to go away and think about this appointment -- not the opposition; we had made our views very clear. We all took her move to defer and your support of it, and ours, as a sign that you folks would go away and think more about this.
We have not heard yet today what your view is after having thought about it for a week. Our position has not changed. We thought we would come here today and the government side would give us its view, after having had some time to consider this. I would certainly appreciate it if the government side, given that it was one of your own who deferred this, would advise the committee now on what your thoughts are after a week of thinking about this appointment.
Mr Baird: We certainly can advise you by proceeding with the business of the committee.
Mr Bradley: I'd like to ask a question, if I may, of someone on the government side who might know this answer. As a result of a deferral, sometimes cabinet gives further consideration. Is anybody aware --
Mr Baird: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I think we're just engaging in a debate.
The Chair: We're not debating Mr Seabrook's appointment at this point. There was a point of order raised on a request for unanimous consent. We're not listening to arguments about Mr Seabrook or his seaworthiness --
Mr Baird: Then on that point of order by Ms Martel, I would be negative on that.
The Chair: Okay. The request has been made and the request has been denied. That completes the business of concurrences --
Mr Bradley: Am I going to get my question answered or is Mr Baird going to cut me off? You're going to cut me off, aren't you? You're just a lackey for Harris.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Baird: Mr Bradley, you regularly show the true quality of your character on a daily basis.
The Chair: Mr Baird, you too are teasing the bears.
Let us deal with the concurrence now.
Interjections: Recorded vote.
The Chair: We need a motion for a concurrence. Oh, it has already been put, I guess. It has already been put and there has been a request for a recorded vote on Mr Seabrook's appointment. Are you ready for the question? All those in favour?
Ayes
Mr Baird, Mr Beaubien, Mr Chudleigh, Mr Ford, Mr Guzzo, Mr Preston, Mr Stewart, Mr Tascona.
Nays
Mr Gravelle, Ms Martel, Mr Miclash, Mr Silipo.
The Chair: That completes the vote. The motion is carried and the appointment is confirmed for Mr Seabrook.
Is there any further business? We'll let the committee know about whether we are able to schedule Mr Welch for next week. We'll let you know as soon as we can. Agreed? Okay.
That concludes the business. We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1106.