Intended
appointments A-183
Mr Chris Triantafilopoulos
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair /
Président
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington
L)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex PC)
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)
Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe PC)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer,
Research and Information Services
The committee met at 1005 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr James J.
Bradley): We are now in session. We have the report of
the subcommittee dated Thursday, December 14, 2000. I can't
believe this but it says that the following intended appointees
from the certificate received on December 8, 2000, be selected
for review-there were no selections.
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): Maybe there were no appointees.
The Chair:
It might be there were none. We have to have a motion on that.
Would anybody like to move that?
Mr Spina: I
move that we accept the subcommittee report.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Spina. All in favour? Opposed? The motion
is carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
CHRIS TRIANTAFILOPOULOS
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Chris
Triantafilopoulos, intended appointee as member, Social Benefits
Tribunal.
The Chair:
The second item is the consideration of the appointment of Chris
Triantafilopoulos to the Social Benefits Tribunal.
Mr Spina: I
think we deferred the vote last week, so I'd like to make a
comment. I'm not sure of the opposition. I leave it to you as to
the order.
The Chair:
Is there a motion yet on approval or non-approval? Or would you
simply like to have discussion first?
Mr Spina: I
believe we made the move to appoint last week and the vote was
deferred. Do we have to move it again? I'm asking for your
direction.
The Chair:
I'm sorry. The motion was to defer. That was the motion and that
motion was carried, to defer, so I'll ask our clerk, what should
I do now?
Clerk of the
Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): At this point there was no
motion for concurrence in the appointment, so it's open to debate
or to a motion. I think it would be appropriate to have a motion
on the floor first and then proceed to debate.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault
Ste Marie): I move non-concurrence.
Mr Spina: I
move that we concur with the appointment of Mr Triantafilopoulos
to the Social Benefits Tribunal.
The Chair:
What happened was that Mr Martin moved his not to appoint first.
We'll come back to yours if that doesn't carry. Is that OK?
Mr Spina:
That's fine. I understand.
Mr Bruce Crozier
(Essex): Just a quick question, Chair. I guess this
would be to the clerk. Is a motion to not appoint in order, in
other words a negative motion?
Clerk of the
Committee: Yes, because the motion is not necessarily to
not appoint. It's to not concur with the appointment.
Mr Crozier:
It's still a negative motion.
Clerk of the
Committee: Well, the committee is saying they do not
agree with the Premier's office going ahead and making the
appointment.
Mr Crozier:
OK, good.
The Chair:
Mr Martin on the motion.
Mr Martin: I
was here last week and participated in the questioning of the
candidate for this position. I have to tell you, I wasn't sure
why the government side moved to put this off until today, but
there was absolutely nothing in this gentleman's past experience
or qualifications that would give him any understanding of the
issues that would confront him on this tribunal.
He himself, I think, very
valiantly tried to make a case that he had worked with some folks
around the issue of addictions, which I would guess would fit in
with the government's perspective on people who are on social
assistance. The story that's being put out there now in many ways
is, "If you're on assistance, you have to be addicted probably,
so we're going to test you just to make sure, and then if you
are, we're going to help you in that way." Maybe the tribunal's
going to get into making decisions about that kind of thing, I'm
not sure, but certainly a past track record of working with
people on addictions, however limited or expansive, should not,
in my mind, leave anybody comfortable that this gentleman will be
able to deal with some of the very difficult and complicated
circumstances that will be presented to him where the lives of
families are concerned.
As most of the people around
this table know, most people depending on social assistance in
this province are children, and to have somebody who comes out of
a gaming-casino industry background, with some experience in
addiction rehab-and also I believe he spoke about being a football coach and that he was
able to in that circumstance make some pretty decisive decisions
about who would play and who wouldn't, and somehow that qualified
him as well for this job-doesn't leave me very comfortable. I
asked him a number of questions regarding this whole field of
work that is so important in this province, particularly now, and
he didn't seem to understand any of it. He had no real answers
for anything. He didn't know what the levels of assistance were,
and I don't think he would be able to understand some of the more
delicate and crucial and important considerations that would need
to be taken into account in making some of those decisions.
1010
I also want to put on the
table that I was talking to a woman this week who, for
example-and maybe the government side will enlighten me when they
make their comments-was suggested for appointment by the city of
London to the new housing authority there, a woman who had just a
wealth of experience and background in the area of housing and
working with people who are in difficulty and trying to find
housing and trying to get assistance for themselves and their
families. That appointment was approved and put forward by the
city council of London to this government, and this government
chose, in its wisdom, to turn that appointment down, to say, "No.
I'm sorry. We're not going to approve that." It didn't even come
to this table for us to even consider it. Many of you will know
the name. It's Susan Eagle.
I don't know what the
criteria are here for appointing people to boards. Here's a woman
who obviously knows everything there is to need to know, who
would come to that job with all kinds of knowledge and experience
and would be a good member. We have here the government
appointing somebody who has absolutely no experience or
background in the area of social assistance, coming from a
casino-gaming industry field, with yes, some football coaching
experience, and they want to appoint him. I just don't understand
that.
Having said that, obviously,
I will be supporting the motion that I've tabled here this
morning.
The Chair: I
have Ms Dombrowsky, I have Mr Crozier. Mr Mazzilli, would you
like to speak on this as well? OK. Mrs Dombrowsky?
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky
(Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I would like
to speak in favour of the motion that is on the floor, that has
been put forward by the member from Sault Ste Marie, who I know
to be a very principled individual. I share his concerns around
this appointment. I was present at the interview last week, and I
was most surprised to understand from the individual that when
questioned about why he would be interested in this role-and
Hansard would confirm-my understanding of his response is that he
really wanted to be on the gaming commission, but that didn't
work out, so it was suggested, "Well, maybe you want another
appointed role," and this one happened to come up.
I have to say I was very
disappointed when I understood that, to learn that this was not
something that an individual had sought because they were really
interested in addressing or participating in a body that makes
decisions that have a significant impact on the lives of
individuals, individuals who are in difficult situations. If I
had heard anything of that nature coming from the person who was
interviewed, then I would say, "Yes, this is someone who
obviously has an interest, a concern, a will to participate in a
very meaningful way in an area where he has been able to
demonstrate an interest or some experience." But that
clearly-clearly-did not happen.
I think we all, as elected
members, from time to time have people come to our constituency
offices, if your offices are anything like mine, and we encounter
people who have found themselves in situations of difficulty, and
we've indicated that an option for them to consider in their
particular situation is to go to the Social Benefits Tribunal to
have their situation fairly mediated. When I or people on my
behalf offer that direction to people, it's with the
understanding that the people they will meet at that tribunal
have a pretty significant background in terms of understanding
social issues and experiences that would qualify and relate to
dealing in a social service agency. I have to say, in fairness to
the young man-he's a fine young man, I'm sure-he demonstrated
none of those experiences or background.
This, to me, is a very
important tribunal. It's a very important appointment, and I
don't think it should be taken lightly and I don't think that
because someone has indicated, yes, they might like to be on some
kind of board, maybe we should put them on the Social Benefits
Tribunal. Let's look for people who have some background, some
experience, so that when people come to my office I can assure
them, "When you go there you will be heard by individuals who
have some understanding, who have perhaps a history, who
understand precedent." I don't believe the man who was
interviewed last week would be able to bring any of those
qualities to that particular role.
I concur with the motion
that's on the floor and I certainly hope and strongly urge the
members of the government present here today to-I'm sure there
are many people you would be able to find acceptable who would
have stronger credentials than the individual we interviewed last
week.
Mr Crozier:
I too was at the committee meeting last week to hear the intended
appointee. I've been on this committee, like some of you, for
several years. From time to time there comes a point where we
really have to look at the intended appointee for what the job is
going to be. Perhaps we should do that all the time. If this
committee is going to have any credibility whatsoever, I think
this is one of those cases where we have to really look at the
candidate and the job that needs to be done.
When you look at the
information that was given to us, the responsibilities of the
position, "The Social Benefits Tribunal conducts hearings and
adjudicates appeals from
individuals (both Ontario Works and Ontario disability support
program) who have been refused social assistance or whose
benefits have been reduced or cancelled. Members of the tribunal
must issue written decisions on those appeals in a timely
manner." This is a pretty important job. I can't even use
examples as to how important the issue must be, but individuals
who go before this tribunal need to be confident, and we need to
be confident, that the individuals on that tribunal have the
experience and the ability to make these reasoned and important
decisions.
The candidate last week
surprised me on a couple of issues. One, he even said that he
could relate his experience as a psychiatric assistant to the
people who would come before the tribunal and the decisions he
would have to make. I think that's incredible. I think his
experience as a psychiatric assistant may be one thing, but to
sit here and say that he sees a link between the two was
incredible. He also seemed to think, in his view, that being a
football coach for a number of years was one of the main reasons
he should be considered. Again, although being a football coach
and a volunteer is very laudable, I don't see the connection.
1020
When asked about his opinion
on drug testing, for example, he had no opinion. For goodness'
sake, we all must have an opinion of some sort or another. I
don't know whether he was avoiding the question or whether in
fact he had no opinion.
He also expressed the fact
that he didn't feel he had any discretion in decision-making if
he were appointed to this position. That's the whole reason you
have the tribunal. The rules have been applied, we would hope, up
to that point by a caseworker or whoever else. So certainly,
within certain parameters, this tribunal has to make a decision
which must involve some discretion or at least some degree of it.
He didn't seem to think so.
The bottom line regarding the
candidate, in my view, was that he was looking for a job. As has
been pointed out, he was looking for a job in the casino
business. Apparently there wasn't one. So if we're to believe
totally everything he said, he just kind of sat around until this
was offered to him. I'm a bit surprised in the process that in
fact it has gotten as far as it has. I would have thought this
individual would have been ruled out long before it even got to
this committee.
I appeal to all of us, if we
are ever going to do our job as a committee to make a
recommendation on this, that we seriously look at this one. I'll
be supporting the motion that we do not concur with the
appointment of this individual. If he is appointed, somewhere
down the road I really think there will be some
embarrassment.
Mr Frank Mazzilli
(London-Fanshawe): I certainly won't be supporting that
motion. Something I've heard from across is the fact that when
you're appointed to any board somehow you need to have the
background-
Mr Martin:
You need to know something about the job.
Mr Mazzilli:
Mr Martin, in fairness, the person you're talking about works in
the social services field every day. How can that person be
independent and represent the community when on the other hand
they're working for the clients? How does one do that
reasonably?
Interjection.
Mr Mazzilli:
I'm not going to get into it with you, Mr Martin. But all
appointments, when we make these appointments, are to represent
the community, someone who perhaps has some knowledge, who is
fair. If you're a community member appointed to a board, whether
it's this or another one, you should come to the table
representing the community, not a certain element of the
community, whether it's a small or large percentage of the
community. You should go objectively, hear the cases made before
you as an independent person who is not tied specifically to
those issues and represent the community in making those
decisions. That's why I will not be supporting this motion. I
think the community members ought to be appointed and ought to
represent community views.
The Chair:
Any other discussion on Mr Martin's motion? If not, I'll place
the motion.
Mr Martin:
Recorded vote.
The Chair:
You'd like a recorded vote, fine.
AYES
Crozier, Dombrowsky,
Martin.
NAYS
Dunlop, Mazzilli, Munro,
Spina.
Mr Crozier:
Bill Murdoch sure as hell got it right.
The Chair:
The motion is defeated.
Mr Spina: Mr
Chair, I move concurrence of the appointment.
Mr Crozier:
Recorded vote.
The Chair:
This is a new motion. It allows for more debate, but it
probably-well, I won't say whether debate has taken place or not.
Any debate on this motion? Mr Spina first, as the mover, then Mr
Crozier.
Mr Spina:
Last week we deferred the vote on the appointment of Chris
Triantafilopoulos to the tribunal. I think we wanted to ensure
that the right person was selected to serve, or that Mr
Triantafilopoulos was in fact the right person. As Mr Crozier
aptly pointed out, the tribunal hears appeals of those on social
assistance, and Mr Martin indicated it as well. People chosen to
hear these appeals should be non-judgmental of those who are
appealing the benefits but have a degree of compassion for those
who are less fortunate. I don't think there's any disagreement on
those elements.
In reviewing Hansard-I'm
going to refer to him as Chris, not because I know him well but
it's easier to say than Triantafilopoulos, with all due apologies
to the heritage-I've concluded that he's a fairly well-rounded,
qualified individual. He may not have a legal degree or a
background in social work,
but throughout his working experience he's shown that he's able
to deal with people facing stressful situations and he's able to
govern in a firm and fair manner. He stated before the committee
that all his life he'd been in the business of caring for and
understanding the needs of people. I think that's the kind of
person we need to sit on a tribunal like this, someone who
understands people, who can relate to situations faced by those
less fortunate and who can be compassionate, but at the same time
really be objective.
I think Chris has generally
proven with his background to be a grounded member of the
community. He's involved, as he clearly indicated, in various
aspects of football and in governance in a minor football league
in Ontario, which clearly involves a large number of youth in
this province. His experience demonstrated the ability to handle
a variety of disputes involving people, organizations, volunteers
and even part of the corporate community. He has rendered
decisions in a fair and partial manner over the time that he's
been involved. He has some experience in adjudicating disputes in
his work handling personnel, and I don't see this to be too
dissimilar to hearing a case on the Social Benefits Tribunal.
Football Ontario is the
governing body for amateur football in the province. They promote
and deliver educational programs and opportunities for coaches
and officials to improve their skills. They provide skill
development programs for athletes and competitive opportunities
for participants.
Looking further to his
presentation-and Mr Crozier alluded to his description of his
work as a psychiatric assistant-I think this shows some
compassion and ability to work with people in difficult
situations. He stated that he listens to the problems of
patients, gathers the information and makes recommendations to
the care providers. He worked with a variety of people and sifted
through their statements to determine the truth and really the
best way to assist these people. This experience should not be
dismissed just out of hand.
I think the opposition
actually looks at the word "football" and thinks this is a big,
dumb jock and disregards that-
Mr Crozier:
You said it.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Not one reference was made to that.
Mr Spina:
But I think that's the allegation.
Mr Crozier:
It is not the allegation.
Mr Spina:
There are a whole lot of other elements to this that the
individual brings to the table.
Finally, we looked
selectively at his work with FedEx and the charity casinos. He
brought forward the challenges he felt were relevant to the
tribunal. In discussing the employees who suffered alcohol and
drug problems-he highlighted the compassion and respectful
treatment that they received from their employer-he was giving a
high regard to the humane treatment of those in need. I think
these are positive attributes to being an adjudicator on a
tribunal such as we are considering.
As an adjudicator, I think
the opposition has correctly indicated that he would be expected
to apply his skill sets to the responsibility. I think that he
would be expected to impartially apply the legislation as it's
written, to the benefit of all parties concerned.
His unwillingness, which Mr
Crozier brought forward, to state his personal opinions on
matters that have not yet become law should be respected and not
derided. Similarly, his unwillingness to make a public comment
when he's not yet trained in the legislation and the procedure of
the board I don't think is a fair criticism. To me, this
indicates careful and thoughtful behaviour of the individual, and
I think that's the kind of behaviour we should expect from an
adjudicator on a tribunal such as this.
1030
I think that Chris
Triantafilopoulos brings a much broader perspective of the public
at large to the Social Benefits Tribunal. He stated he's
well-versed in various multicultural, social and economic
backgrounds, and I think that's an asset to this tribunal. He
brings with him the ability to listen to an individual, the sense
to understand the differences faced by those of multicultural and
diverse origins, and I think he's able to gather the relevant
facts important to making sound decisions that would be required
of him. That's the reason we would concur.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Spina. I have Mr Crozier on the list, and
then Ms Dombrowsky.
Mr Crozier:
Just a couple of points I want to clear up. One is, Mr Spina has
used the words "just a dumb jock." I want the record to show
those are his words. When I referred to the intended appointee's
experience with football, I in fact said it was a laudable
volunteer position to have, and I still maintain that position.
Those words, frankly, had never entered my mind.
This is pure speculation on
my part, but after Mr Spina's comments, I suggest that the reason
this was deferred for a week was that, quite frankly, it appears
to me as though it has taken the government side a week to put
together some sort of an argument as to why this person should be
appointed.
In closing, the bottom line
is this, and we didn't know it last week, but we know it now: Mr
Spina said, "I will just call him `Chris' because I know him
well."
Mr Spina: I
didn't say that.
Mr Crozier:
The record will show that those are the words you used. Now we
know why he's being appointed.
Interjection.
The Chair: I
will go to Ms Dombrowsky. If any member wishes to speak after
that and get back on the list, that's fine.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: With regard to and with respect to Mr
Mazzilli's statements around background and that perhaps it isn't
reasonable to expect that an appointment to a tribunal of this
nature would have some background in the work-
Mr Mazzilli:
Community member.
Mrs Dombrowsky: Yes, you did make
reference to "community member," but I have been sitting on this
committee for many months, and very regularly, when supporting an
appointment that for all intents and purposes might otherwise
appear very partisan, the government is very, very quick to point
out the strong background that an appointee has in a related
area. On one hand, the government very regularly speaks to
related background and why all members of this committee should
support an appointment because obviously this person brings some
very strong credentials and background to it.
I'm thinking, for example, of
Mr Johnson in his most recent appointment. I know there was a lot
of conversa-tion and presentation around his strong background
that he would bring to that particular appointed role. That you
would come here today and suggest that now we need to consider
not individuals who perhaps have a related background but a
well-rounded community person, I find it rather strange that now
all of a sudden the government members have a different focus in
terms of what they look for in people who would be appointed to
these sorts of tribunals or commissions or whatever.
Also, with regard to the
proposed appointee's experience as a psychiatric assistant, I
have to say I was somewhat curious about that particular item on
his resumé, when I did note that in his university
experience he would indicate that his major was in the field of
political science. So I was rather curious what might have
qualified him to act in a role as a psychiatric assistant. When I
made a couple of inquiries, what I've been able to determine
about the role of a psychiatric assistant is that it is largely
one of monitor. They monitor. They sit in on sessions that a
psychiatrist would be having with a number of patients, and a
good part of that role would be to restrain any individuals who
might for whatever reason become out of control or act in a way
that would be dangerous to themselves or to other people in that
room. That was the type of report I got from two individuals who
have worked in that field, that that would be their understanding
of the role of a psychiatric assistant. Particularly since this
individual doesn't have a strong background in any science that
relates to psychiatry, I think it's important to make that clear
for the record. That would conclude my points, Chair.
The Chair:
Any other comment from any member of the committee on this at
all? If there is not-
Mr
Crozier: Recorded vote.
The Chair:
-I will put the motion forward from Mr Spina. He is moving
concurrence in the appointment of Chris Triantafilopoulos to the
Social Benefits Tribunal board.
AYES
Dunlop, Mazzilli, Munro,
Spina.
NAYS
Crozier, Dombrowsky.
The Chair:
The motion is carried.
The last item I would like
to bring to your attention is that the House, I believe, will be
passing a motion-we can't presume what the House does, of course,
but there has been an indication that the House will be passing a
motion permitting the committee to sit in the intersession. I
presume each of the parties will have an opportunity to indicate
if they wish to have a person who has been nominated by the
government come before the committee. So that process will
continue in the intersession. That is my understanding, and our
clerk will assist us with that.
Clerk of the
Committee: Just to clarify, technically this committee
can meet on its own during the intersession. It's up to the
subcommittee to set a date. So at some point closer to January,
Mr Bradley will probably suggest a few dates and poll the
subcommittee members to see which days would work.
The Chair:
We will certainly do that. We do this in the intersession, as we
know, in this committee because the government wishes to have its
appointments proceed and be considered, and the committee still
has an opportunity, even when the House isn't in session, to
select individuals it believes should appear before the
committee.
Any other business before
the committee? If not, I wish all of you a merry Christmas and a
happy new year, and whatever other holiday you may celebrate, I
wish that you enjoy that very much. Until we meet again, the
meeting is adjourned.
