Intended
appointments
Mr Stephen Raymond
Mr Hugh Nichol
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)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at
1030 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr James J.
Bradley): The three parties are represented here today.
I'm going to call the meeting to order. Our first item of
business is the report of the subcommittee on committee business
dated Thursday, April 27:
"Your subcommittee considered
on Thursday, April 27, 2000, the selection of intended
appointments for committee review, and has agreed to recommend:
that the following intended appointees from the certificate
received on April 20, 2000, be selected for review:" In all three
cases -- opposition, third party and government -- there were no
selections.
Would someone like to move
that report?
Mr Bob Wood (London
West): So moved.
The Chair:
Mr Wood moves the report. Any discussion?
If not, all in favour?
Opposed, if any? The motion is carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS / STEPHEN RAYMOND
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Stephen
Raymond, intended appointee as vice-chair, Ontario Labour
Relations Board.
The Chair:
Under appointments review, we will be beginning our half-hour
review of intended appointments as follows. From the certificate
received on April 12, 2000, the first person at 10:30 am will be
Stephen Raymond. Mr Raymond, would you come forward please. Mr
Raymond is an intended appointee as vice-chair of the Ontario
Labour Relations Board.
I would say, first of all, Mr
Raymond, that our procedure is that if you wish to make an
initial statement, you're most welcome to do so. We welcome you
to the committee today.
Mr Stephen
Raymond: Thank you, Mr Chair. Good morning, members.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to speak about
my intended appointment as a vice-chair of the Ontario Labour
Relations Board. I'm aware that you have a copy of my
resumé, but I'd like to spend a few moments providing some
further information and highlighting some aspects that I think
make me well-suited to assume this role.
Before I do that, I'd be
terribly remiss if I did not thank a couple of people who have
come to support me here today. First of all, Mr Rick MacDowell,
chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, is here. I
appreciate his support and his taking time out of his very busy
work at the Ontario Labour Relations Board to be with me here
today. As well, behind him is my wife, Natasha vandenHoven, the
most important person in my life. Her support is very much
appreciated. I'm very glad she could take time out of her busy
work life to be with me here today.
I was born and raised in the
city of Toronto, the fourth of five sons. My father is an
Anglican minister who worked most of his career in the national
office of that church as the director of program. My mother was a
university professor and then stayed at home to be the primary
caregiver to her children. She later was a school trustee and
eventually chair of the Etobicoke Board of Education. They are
now both retired and enjoying their retirement quite a bit. I
learned from them the importance of community and the importance
of public service. I think in large part I owe to my parents my
interest in joining the public service.
My education was in
Etobicoke's public schools and then I went to the University of
Western Ontario where I pursued a degree in political science,
and then the University of Western Ontario for my bachelor of
laws. While I was in law school I determined I wanted to go into
the practice of law and that I would like to be an advocate. I
learned during the second year that labour law was an area with a
great deal of advocacy and that the subject matter was more often
dealing with people than with things. I've always enjoyed people
more than things, so I pursued a summer job opportunity.
I was very fortunate to be
offered a position by Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie, then
and now the largest firm in the country specializing in labour
and employment law. Following that summer, I was asked to be an
articling student with the firm and hired as an associate in
1991. In January 1997, I had the privilege to be made a partner
of the firm. All of my legal work has been as a labour and
employment lawyer. I have appeared on numerous occasions before
the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the courts, interests and
rights arbitrators and boards, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, the Workplace
Safety Insurance Appeals Tribunal and coroner's courts.
Specifically, at the Ontario
Labour Relations Board, I have appeared on cases dealing with
most of the major subject areas that that board concerns itself
with: certifications, terminations, unfair labour practices, sale
of the business, related employer, unfair representation
complaints, health and safety and employment standards appeals. I
believe I have the necessary background and expertise to assume
this role.
Just on a further personal
note, I still live in the city of Toronto. I am married, as I
indicated, with one child, an 18-month-old boy named Clarke, who
is the light and joy of my life and my wife's life. I look
forward to your questions and thank you for your attention.
I understand from Mr
MacDowell that he is prepared as well, if the committee wishes,
to answer any questions you may have that relate directly to the
board itself.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. I'll begin with the official opposition.
Mr Bruce Crozier
(Essex): Good morning, Mr Raymond. Welcome to the
committee, and thank you for taking your time to come and appear
before the committee.
As you've outlined, and then
in the information that was given to us, we certainly believe
you're eminently qualified for this position and we'll support
it. But this hearing this morning gives us an opportunity, as
you've pointed out, to ask some questions on how the board
functions and how you see your role with the board.
For example, did you apply
for this position? You mentioned civil service and so forth. Did
you apply for this?
Mr Raymond:
As a member of the labour relations bar, one becomes familiar
with the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and I was generally
aware that there were a number of people who were at the board. I
think there are approximately 15 full-time vice-chairs. Last
spring, I think it was, there were five new appointees to the
board, but since that time a number of people had left the board,
so I was vaguely aware they might be looking for someone. As a
result, I contacted the chair of the board, Mr MacDowell, and
expressed my interest in discussing with him the possibility of
joining the board. He welcomed that and we then met on a number
of occasions. That was the beginning of the process. So there was
no request in a newspaper that I was responding to. I was just
sort of loosely aware that they might be looking, so I expressed
an interest to Mr MacDowell and he took it from there.
Mr Crozier:
Sure. It's been outlined in your background that you've advised
and represented employers. Of course the board, as I understand
it, has both labour and management appointees to the board, and
generally its hearings are held by three members of the board.
Are you identified specifically as a management vice-chair of the
board?
Mr Raymond:
No. The role I will take up will be the neutral person. Some of
the board hearings are tripartite with a representative from
management and a representative from the trade union. Some of the
hearings are solo vice-chair, acting as vice-chair by himself. I
will be assuming the role of the neutral person, the unbiased
person, hearing the facts, assessing the facts, applying and
interpreting the law and making a decision.
Just for your reference, I
understand from the chair that almost all of the current
vice-chairs at the Ontario Labour Relations Board came from
either the management or the union side prior to joining the
board, and they all are now operating as neutral, unbiased people
adjudicating matters.
Mr Crozier:
Great. You've answered what would have been my next question. It
is about the neutral member of the board as well. From a layman's
point of view, in many cases it must be very difficult to be
neutral, because that essentially is, I suppose, what it takes
when two parties get to the point where they can't seem to get
anything settled.
For my information, does the
board intervene, or is the board always invited to review a
situation and rule on it, or is there a mechanism by which it
reaches the board?
Mr Raymond:
Since I'm not there, I don't know the answer to that entirely, so
I'll look for a nod from the chair if I get this wrong.
The Chair: I
just point out that all you can have is a nod from the chair,
because the standing rules do not permit anyone else to answer
questions, but it's fine to get a nod from the chair.
1040
Mr Raymond:
My understanding is that all the matters that come before the
board are initiated by one party or the other starting an
application or a complaint or an appeal. So in each and every
case, as I understand it, one party or the other would initiate a
process which would then involve the Ontario Labour Relations
Board in trying to assist those parties in solving their problem.
That's what I see is my role, as a neutral. Two parties are
coming before me. They haven't been able to solve this problem
and I'm there to help them solve it, if necessary in a formal,
legal way, and if possible, not in a formal, legal way, because
they have an ongoing relationship that is their relationship and
I'm just there to help them at a particular difficult point in
that relationship.
Mr Crozier:
I certainly wish I could put you to work today. You and I could
jump in a car and go down and settle the dispute on the Pelee
Island ferry in my riding, but we'll see how that goes.
This would be, as is pointed
out, a full-time position. It's like a five-days-a-week,
eight-hours-a-day kind of thing. In other words, you wouldn't
carry on your legal practice along with this position, is that
correct?
Mr Raymond:
No, I would not carry on a legal practice as a full-time
position. If my appointment is confirmed, then I would be
resigning from the partnership I'm presently a member of.
Mr Crozier:
Mr Raymond, we wish you well. In a perfect world, I would wish
that you have absolutely nothing to do, but we aren't in that perfect
world so I certainly wish you success on the board.
Mr Raymond:
Thank you, sir, I appreciate that.
The Chair:
Ms Dombrowsky, do you have any questions?
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky
(Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Not at this
time.
The Chair:
I'll move to the third party.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault
Ste Marie): You're aware, I'm sure, that the role you
will take on if you're given this appointment is to act as an
arbitrator and to interpret, to some significant degree, some of
the laws that are on the books where labour relations are
concerned. There have been a significant number of changes over
the last five or six years to various pieces of the Labour
Relations Act and I'm wondering if you know of these, understand
them, and how you see them either contributing to or taking away
from the level playing field or fairness that needs to be in this
area if all parties concerned are going to get a fair deal.
Mr Raymond:
Thank you for the question. In my first five years of practice I
was faced with three different labour relations acts. I first had
the one that had been in place and was in place under the Liberal
government; then the New Democratic government made significant
changes to that piece of legislation and that was a significantly
different act; then the Conservative government, when it came to
power, made significant changes again. So in those first five
years I faced three different labour relations acts and I think I
understood them well. I understood what policy was behind those
various governments in terms of what they were trying to do with
the Labour Relations Act, so I think I understood them.
In terms of contributing to
the level playing field, I see the role of vice-chair as one who
is going to deal with a specific problem that's brought to them
on a specific day by specific parties. I don't see the role of
vice-chair as somebody who sets policy. I think the Legislature
sets policy. The Legislature enacts the legislation to determine
what the law is going to be and then it's the role and the
function of the labour board to interpret and apply that law,
whatever it might be.
If I'm at the Ontario Labour
Relations Board, I will of course try to do that in as fair,
equitable, reasonable and sensible way for the parties as
possible. But I recognize that we're not the ones making the law.
The Legislature makes the law. The Legislature determines the
policy. We're there to interpret the law as it's given to us and
to apply it to a particular fact situation that we are faced
with.
Mr Martin: I
understand all that. I guess I'm trying to get a handle, before
I'm called today to make a decision on whether or not I can stand
behind your approval, on where it is you stand on some of the
changes that have happened in the Labour Relations Act over the
last three or four years.
Mr Raymond:
I think, as a neutral and someone who hopes to assume that role,
that my personal views of those changes aren't important. What I
want to do and what I would hope to do in the role is take the
law as it exists on whatever day I am faced with it, interpret it
and apply it to the facts and attempt to do that in a way that,
to me, makes sense for the parties. I very much believe in the
relationship between trade unions and employers. It's their
relationship and something they have to manage, but when they
come to the board, we would be there to help them in that
relationship and I'd want to continue to help them in that
relationship. My personal views on the legislative changes
brought by the Conservative government or the NDP government or
the Liberal government before that aren't things that I would be
considering when I was faced with a specific question.
Mr Martin:
Certainly from my perspective it will colour your interpretation.
We all come to the jobs that we do from a set of circumstances, a
background where we've been surrounded by certain people and are
usually somewhat fixed in terms of what it is we want to
accomplish in attaining certain positions and roles. When I went
before the electorate in Sault Ste Marie, they knew I was a New
Democrat, they knew of my involvement in the community in a lot
of social justice types of things and they knew of my personal
life, because that happens when you get into public office.
This is an appointment that
will have significant ramifications on where we go as a province
where labour relations are concerned. I, for one, anyway, around
this table, would be more satisfied if you were a bit more
forthcoming in terms of what your position is or was re some of
the changes that have happened to the Labour Relations Act over
the last few years, particularly given the fact -- and maybe you
can respond to this; I'm not sure -- that most of your previous
activity was on behalf of employers. Have you done any work at
all on behalf of employees before the board?
Mr Raymond:
No. My work has been exclusively on behalf of employers. The
labour relations bar, among those who are regularly practising
labour relations, is almost entirely split. You're either someone
who represents trade unions and employees or you're someone who
represents employers. So while there are large firms such as the
one I come from that represent employers, there are large firms
that represent trade unions and large firms that represent
employees. As a young person moving into this field, you're
forced to make a choice as to which side you're going to work on.
I made the choice because I was given the opportunity to work in
what I understood to be one of the most prestigious firms in the
country in this area and I wanted to get that experience.
You can't come out of law
school and apply to be a neutral, unbiased person somewhere.
Everybody who moves into this role moves there from somewhere. In
the most recent appointees, we had a partner from a union-side
firm who was appointed by this government and I don't think
people have raised any concern that he can't treat employers
fairly. If, at the end of the day, I'm appointed by this
government, I'd hope that there wouldn't be any concern that I'd
treat trade unions fairly.
There are trade union counsel I've known for years
who have called to congratulate me on my intended appointment and
indicated that they thought I would make a good vice-chair and
they were looking forward to appearing in front of me. In the
community, it's understood that there's a split between the
management side and the union side and that we are all
representing our clients' views and our clients' interests,
whatever our own may be, and that's the job we're asked to
do.
1050
You won't find many people
coming to the labour board who have represented both employers
and employees; usually they have just represented one or the
other. But when we go there we have to do the job of dealing with
the particular facts on the particular day and interpreting the
laws that may exist on that day.
Mr Martin:
So you're not going to share with us, then, your view or opinion
on the changes that have happened over the last four or five
years.
Have you been or are you now
a member of the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario?
Mr Raymond:
I have never been a member of any political party, including the
Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.
Mr Martin:
Thank you.
The Chair:
The government party?
Mr Wood:
We'll waive our time.
The Chair:
It appears that all of the questions have been asked from the
members who wish to ask them, so I thank you very much for
appearing before the committee.
Mr Raymond:
Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.
HUGH NICHOL
Review of intended
appointment, selected by the official opposition party: Hugh
Nichol, intended appointee as member, board of directors, Ontario
Lottery Corp/Ontario Casino Corp.
The Chair:
The next intended appointee is Mr Hugh W. Nichol. This is
scheduled for 11 am. Mr Nichol is here, so with his permission
we'll have him come forward at this time.
I will first of all indicate
to you, as I did previously, that you are welcome to make an
initial statement, should you wish to do so, sir.
Mr Hugh
Nichol: Yes, I would. Thank you.
First of all, I would like to
thank the committee for asking me down here this morning to meet
with you. I know you have my resumé, but I would like to
take a few moments and just expand upon my educational, business
and personal background to establish my credentials in terms of
qualifications and experience to serve as a public appointee.
I was born and raised in
Haliburton and I was educated in Haliburton. I then attended
Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo and obtained a bachelor of
business administration degree. I later articled in Ottawa with a
firm that was then called Deloitte Haskins and Sells. It was
considered one of the big eight firms. I understand now they are
down to the big four or five firms. At that time I obtained my CA
designation, chartered accountancy. While articling in Ottawa I
obtained extensive exposure to audit work on crown corporations,
the federal government, large international firms and of course
some medium and small firms in the Ottawa area.
After tenure there with
Deloitte, I moved home to Haliburton and worked in a public
practice, and I'm now a partner in a public practice in the
Haliburton area. Through that involvement I have gained extensive
experience in dealing with small and medium-sized businesses,
extensive experience in dealing with municipalities and boards of
education, understanding how grants and government funding works
very well with that. One of the great joys of my practice is
being able to meet with individuals on a daily basis, and I've
come to gain extensive knowledge and information in dealing with
personal and individual taxation.
One of the great highlights
of my life is really more on the personal basis. I am married to
my wife, Stephanie, and I have two young boys, Curtis and Tom,
who are aged 8 and 6. Through their support and my business
background, I have been actively involved in many community and
charitable activities. I am a member and past president of the
Haliburton Rotary Club. What I think I have enjoyed most of all
is that I have been a member of the Haliburton Highlands Health
Services Corp, which is the health board, for six years. Of that,
I was chair for three years.
I would like to expand upon
that, because when I first became chair of the health services
board in Haliburton, it was the first year that our region
actually had a health board. Before then, we were under a
department, as you would say, of St Joseph's General Hospital in
Peterborough, which is an hour and 15 minutes away from our
region. As chair, we had to establish the governance of our
health services board and operate the health facilities. One of
the main things we were trying to do was undertake a capital
project of up to $20 million to renovate the acute care hospital
to build and add new long-term-care facilities in our region.
Also, as part of that, while
I was being chair of the health services board, we did not have a
foundation. Through our support, my support and the health
board's support, we created a Haliburton Highlands Health
Services Foundation.
I'd like to talk briefly
about this. In our region there's a very small population base,
low income, and our mandate on our health project was to raise
$5.5 million on a local share. I'm really proud to say that
through our efforts and many people's efforts, our region has
raised over $3 million out of the $5.5 million in two years. I
enjoyed very much being on the health board and the experience
that came with it. I feel these attributes will be most
beneficial in serving on a corporation whose mandate, as I see
it, should help promote business and tourist opportunities in a
socially safe and responsible manner for the people of
Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We'll begin with the New Democratic Party, the third party.
Mr Martin:
This is an organization, of course, that has grown in leaps and
bounds over the last few years in Ontario, and is more and more
playing a very critical and significant role in the revenue
generation of the province so that we have the dollars we need to
pay for some of the things government delivers, given that
government has given away a lot of the money they get by way of
the tax system.
However, my concern is the
role of the lottery corporation above and beyond that and the
potential it has to be other things in the province besides just
a source of revenue. You mentioned tourist attraction and
bringing people in. At one point the government of Ontario
decided it was a vehicle that could be used as well to stimulate
economic development in an area, and the headquarters was moved
to Sault Ste Marie. It was a good decision and it was ratified by
the Bob Rae government that came into power in 1990 and it went
ahead.
There was a beautiful
building put up to house it and it was indeed doing all the
things that it was expected would happen. There was spin-off
activity and there was a ticket plant put up. The goods and
services that were purchased from the region were significant.
But now, under the leadership of the present government and the
new chair -- by the way, I don't see him here. Does that mean
he's not supporting you in your request, your application?
Mr Nichol: I
would suppose you'd have to ask him yourself directly.
Mr Martin:
In view of the decision that was made by the Liberal government
of David Peterson and then ratified by the New Democrat
government of Bob Rae to place the headquarters of the lottery
corporation in Sault Ste Marie to assist in the diversification
of the economy of that area, and now the reversal of that
decision, what would your position be on that and what would your
opinion be on that kind of thing re the lottery corporation?
Mr Nichol:
Just to paraphrase, you're asking me, what is my position on the
fact that the lottery corporation used to have its headquarters
in Sault Ste Marie and they intend to move it back towards
Toronto?
Mr Martin:
It's already moved, with the amalgamation of the casino
corporation and the lottery corporation -- I guess your view on
using a vehicle like the lottery corporation as a stimulant to
diversify an economy of a particular region. Is there
justification in that?
Mr Nichol:
I'll leave that first part. I really feel that in my experience
in what I've seen and talking to a lot of individuals, there's a
lot of disposable income out there and people are going to attend
casinos, whether they're in Ontario or in some of the border
states of the US. I think there are opportunities for economic
development, but I think those decisions have to be made as very
sound business decisions. I don't think you should put a casino
necessarily in Haliburton because I think it would be great for
Haliburton. There isn't a population base there.
I think, and I said in my
statement, that there are opportunities for business and tourist
attractions, and I think that's going to happen because people
have income. In some cases they enjoy going to casinos or lottery
corporations or things like that, for many reasons. I'd like to
see it done on as responsible and safe a basis as we can. But
where they are specifically located should be made on sound
business decisions.
1100
Mr Martin: I
agree with you there, but the question actually was about the
headquarters of the whole corporation and its location. There was
a decision made to move it out of the Toronto area into a part of
the province that was struggling to diversify its economy and
stimulate an economy that's still struggling. That decision was
proven to be a correct decision in that in moving the lottery
corporation headquarters to Sault Ste Marie it continued to
generate significantly improved profit year over year every year
it was there. There are a lot of people in my community who are
very upset with the decision to move that headquarters back to
Toronto, where it just becomes another corporation and doesn't
have the potential to stimulate the kind of positive economic
change that it did in our region of the province. What would your
view of that kind of activity be?
Mr Nichol: I
wasn't involved with the business decision of relocating the
lottery corporation headquarters, but coming from an area that
has low income, is heavily dependent on tourism, has some
lumbering, I can empathize with your position and I can empathize
with the people of Sault Ste Marie. It's very difficult to
diversify your economy. I have sympathy for it, but I was not
involved with the business decision and I was not involved with
all the background information. In the long run you have to make
decisions that are best on a business basis, but you have to take
into account whenever you can these other factors you're talking
about. I have empathy, but I wasn't a participant in those
decisions.
Mr Martin:
As long as you have empathy and you understand why it was
done.
Mr Nichol: I
come from a region that has the lowest income per capita probably
in the province, the lowest number of people who have
post-secondary education per capita. I have a lot of empathy for
that. But I also know and I've seen, and we all have, that if you
make business decisions, and continue to pour government grants
and funding into those that have no long-term business rationale,
they won't survive. I'm not sure that's best in the long
term.
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): Thank you, Mr Nichol, for bringing
your name forward for this. Your background is fundamentally
accounting. What area of accounting were you in? I realize you
are in public practice.
Mr Nichol:
Public practice, I describe to people, is in many regards like
being a GP for a medical doctor: You're a jack of all trades. I do a lot of
financial statements, estate planning, tax returns for
individuals and corporations. I do some audit work on the
municipal side. I'm a generalist. I'm not a tax specialist, and I
don't deal in specialities in mergers and acquisitions. I have a
business degree and a CA designation.
Mr Spina: Do
you feel, then, that your role on the board could contribute
substantially towards the financial decision-making process of
the corporation, if and when you get that opportunity?
Mr Nichol:
If and when I get that opportunity, I feel I have the background.
I am very good at concepts, and I'm very good at relating
concepts with financial numbers. The numbers are large, huge, but
the concepts are always the same: You must make sound business
decisions. I represent an area of Ontario that maybe doesn't have
a lot of representation in something like this. I do feel I can
add to it and be cognizant of other factors and the impact that
some of the decisions we make will have on rural Ontario and
smaller communities.
Mr Spina:
Thank you, Mr Nichol. I wish you well.
The Chair:
Any further questions from the government caucus?
Mr Wood:
We'll waive the balance of our time.
The Chair:
I will move to the official opposition.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I would like to indicate to Mr Nichol that
we appreciate your coming and answering our questions this
morning. I read with some interest the resumé that was
provided to us and listened as you expanded upon that. When I
read the responsibilities of the position for which you are
intended, it indicated, "Board members will play a vital role in:
strategic planning, establishment of good management practices"
and would demonstrate "a thorough knowledge and understanding of
the casino and gaming industry and best industry practices and
standards." I really don't see anything in your resumé that
would indicate that you have had any connection or experience
with the casino and gaming industry, and I was wondering if you
might be able to expand upon that for us this morning,
please.
Mr Nichol:
I believe you have read the resumé correctly. I do not have
an extensive background or a background in casino and lottery
corporations. I do have a sound background in business and
business fundamentals. A board of directors is made up of,
hopefully, not 12 accountants or 12 people who are in marketing.
I'm going to be part of a team and sit on a board of directors.
My background will be in business. They will obviously, or
hopefully, have an audit committee. I hope to see myself being
part of the audit committee and bringing my background to this
industry. I know from my own personal experience that I'm a quick
learner and can understand concepts really well.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I thank you very much for your honesty in
that regard, because it was something I was looking for, I must
say, with this type of an appointment. I am a member from a rural
riding and in my riding I hear from constituents around, usually,
issues relating to lottery regulations. There are very small
communities in my riding that would very much appreciate the
opportunity to participate in making available lottery tickets to
people in their community. However, they are not able to meet an
expectation in terms of dollars sold on a monthly basis.
You did indicate in your
comments that you believe the lottery corporation should be
instrumental in communities to promote business and tourist
opportunities. I'm sure you can appreciate -- you've indicated
that Haliburton is a rural community as well -- that these small
hamlets in my riding, like Eldorado and Ivanhoe, have a lot of
traffic in the summer, so they can meet those dollar sales
expectations on a seasonal basis, but in the months of December,
January and February it is certainly a challenge and so the
opportunity for them to provide this service within their
community has been taken away or has been denied.
I was just wondering what
your position would be. Would you, in your role on the board, be
open to some flexibility that would open up and provide for small
rural communities better access for their people so that they
don't have to drive 20 and 30 miles to buy lottery tickets?
Because they live in a small town that can't sell $400 or $250
worth of lottery tickets in December or January, for example,
their community does not have access to the tickets. I'd really
like to understand what your position on that would be.
Mr Nichol:
Obviously I don't know all of the detailed policies and practices
of the lottery corporation and its business decisions. But I was
expecting -- and perhaps this is a good opportunity -- a member
to ask, "What would you bring to the table and why would you want
to sit on it?"
A board of directors
represents the shareholders, and the shareholders in this case
are the people of Ontario. I'm from a rural small town like
yourself who represents or sits in an area like that. I think I
have enough confidence in myself to be vocal enough that if the
opportunity came along, I would at least push for it because I
come from a small area and I feel I'm going to represent rural
Ontario. Nothing may change, but at least as opportunities come
along -- as you say, the summer traffic is higher. You're right,
December, January and February are not good months. I haven't
seen the data on what it takes to sustain the lottery
corporation's ticket sales but I think that's one of the things I
bring to the table. I do represent rural Ontario in this matter
and I have a good background in terms of business and my
accountancy. I know how difficult it is for small businesses to
survive in a rural area. I have a lot of empathy for that. As
long as it makes sense I'd at least like to bring that
discussion, if that opportunity came up, to the table.
1110
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I appreciate that very much. Thank you. I
would also ask if you have any political affiliations.
Mr Nichol: No, I do not.
Specifically when you're asking about political affiliation -- am
I a member of a political party?
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Yes.
Mr Nichol:
No, I'm not.
The Chair:
Any further questions from the official opposition?
Mrs
Dombrowsky: That would conclude my line of
questioning.
The Chair:
Mr Crozier, there's a brief supplementary that the NDP member
wishes to ask. Does anybody here object to him asking this?
Interjection.
The Chair:
Did you want to ask it of the person? It has to be with
permission.
Mr Martin:
I'll let the official opposition go, and then I'll --
Mr
Crozier: Just a quick question. Did you apply for the
position?
Mr Nichol:
No sir, I did not. How it came about is, I had been on the health
board for six years, three years as chair. I enjoyed very much
the challenges that went with it. Last summer at a barbecue I had
the opportunity to talk to our member of Parliament and said that
if an opportunity came up to sit on a committee that could use my
type of background, that obviously being in the business and
finance area, I would like the opportunity to at least apply for
it and see if I could get such a position. I enjoy the challenge
and the personal growth that comes with it.
In January of this year, I
was asked if I would be interested in sitting on the Ontario
Lottery Corp and the gaming commission.
Mr
Crozier: What was the barbecue that you attended?
Mr Nichol:
It was a fundraiser for the Haliburton Highlands Health Services
Foundation.
Mr
Crozier: OK.
The Chair:
Any objection to Mr Martin --
Interjections.
The Chair:
Mr Kells says it's OK. It looks like everybody's agreed.
Mr Martin:
Mr Kells, I appreciate it that if the Chair was actually over
here and able to ask a question, it would probably be something
like this: The growth of the gaming industry in the province has
been quite dramatic over the last short while, even to the point
where we're now seeing racetracks that were simply supposed to
have slot machines turning into full-fledged casino operations
without the attendant local referendum that was proposed by the
government or supposed to be in place as a prerequisite to a
casino going into any community. What's your view on the
proliferation of gaming operations in the province and the
seemingly growing dependence of government on the revenues that
are generated by such?
Mr Nichol:
It seems to be a two-part question. I think the second part
--
Mr Morley Kells
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore): You're only allowed one.
The Chair:
It was one, with two parts.
Mr Kells:
Oh, I see.
Mr Nichol:
The second part, about the government's growing dependence on
lottery revenues -- I'll leave that to the political side to
answer. I think it's the mandate of all governments to
responsibly collect taxes and spend them in a responsible manner.
I'm not part of that process; I'll leave that.
I said in my opening
remarks that this type of industry is growing very quickly. I
have clientele who would shock you, the people that go to
casinos, and it's an hour and fifteen minutes away. They enjoy
it. They talk about how they enjoy doing it. It's going to
happen. I'd like to see Ontario be part of the process. I said it
should be done in a responsible manner that best represents all
the people of Ontario.
As for slot machines at
racetracks, why do people go to racetracks in the first place? Is
it because they like horses or because they like to gamble? So on
a personal basis I see that the two make sense, from a business
point of view. People go to racetracks, Woodbine or whatever,
across the province, because they like to place bets on horse
racing. Is it because they like horse racing or do they just like
to place the bets? I don't know. But that industry is going to
continue to grow. It seems to me that's a natural place for it to
grow. If you're going to go to horse racing to place bets, I
don't see that as a huge conflict of interest.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for permitting Mr Martin to have that
question. His reference, by the way, Mr Nichol, is to the Chair
of this committee. If you will remember Mr Drainville's opinions
on gambling, mine are exactly the same as Mr Drainville's. That's
why he is making reference to the Chair of the committee. There
are days when it's an advantage and there are days when it's a
disadvantage to be a Chair. It's always an advantage with the
wonderful members we have on this committee, however.
Thank you very much, Mr
Nichol, for being with us today and answering our questions.
Mr
Crozier: Particularly, Chair, when they are all
unanimous in wanting the opposition to have every opportunity to
ask questions.
The Chair:
We will now deal with intended appointments and I will entertain
any motions.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Raymond.
The Chair:
Is there any discussion?
Mr Martin:
I won't be supporting the appointment of Mr Raymond. I found him
to be evasive in terms of his position on some things I think are
really important. Given the changes that are happening out there
in the labour relations areas, this a board that is very critical
and sensitive, and I think we need to know what people's views
and opinions are on some of these issues and topics.
In my view, he comes from a
very one-sided perspective on this. All his work and
presentations before the board have been on behalf of employers.
Given the atmosphere and
environment that are out there right now where labour relations
are concerned, we have to be completely and totally concerned and
careful that we put people in place who are unbiased and balanced
in their view and come with a background of experience that has
them, from time to time, cognizant of and able to argue on behalf
of both sides of the issue. In this instance, I don't think
that's the case.
It's my view, and it's a
personal view, that the movement that has taken place in labour
relations in this province has been very pro-management. Some of
the appointments to not only the Ontario Labour Relations Board
but a whole host of boards and committees and commissions that
oversee the labour relations aspect of the public business of
this province have been taken very significantly out of the hands
of organized labour and turned over, in many significant ways, to
the will of management and this government and its
supporters.
It's with that in my mind
that this morning, on behalf of my caucus, I will not be able
support the appointment of Mr Raymond to the Ontario Labour
Relations Board.
Mr Spina:
If one were to follow the logic of my colleague from Sault Ste
Marie, we would presume that no defence attorney could ever
become a crown attorney, and no defence attorney or crown
attorney could ever become a judge. We are extremely satisfied
that Mr Raymond demonstrated that he can make a great transition
from one of being an advocate to one of the being an adjudicator.
We are quite convinced that he will do a good job in the
transition.
The Chair:
Do any other members of the committee wish to engage in the
discussion? If not, we will come to the point of decision. We
have a motion before us from Mr Wood to concur in the
appointment.
All in favour? Opposed? The
motion is carried.
The second one we have is
that of Mr Hugh W. Nichol, intended appointee as member, Ontario
Lottery Corp board of directors and the Ontario Casino Corp board
of directors.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Nichol.
The Chair:
Any discussion?
Mr Martin:
Even though I sense that the Chair would not have been real happy
with the response to the question I asked in terms of the
dramatic proliferation of gaming and gambling opportunities in
the province, I am not as anxious about that as he.
Mr Spina:
You have a casino and he doesn't.
The Chair:
I don't want one.
Mr Martin:
Given the empathy, though, and the understanding the member
showed in terms of the different ways this particular corporation
could be helpful in the stimulation and further development of
economies and the economy of this province, and his understanding
of how important it is for a vehicle like the corporation to have
its headquarters in a place like Sault Ste Marie that's
struggling to diversify its economy and get its feet under it in
that way, because he comes from a place that is itself struggling
in probably somewhat the same way, I will certainly be supporting
his appointment this morning.
The Chair:
Any other comment by any member of the committee before we come
to a decision? If not, I will put the motion by Mr Wood.
All in favour? Opposed? The
motion is carried.
Is there any other business
before the committee? If not, I'll entertain a motion of
adjournment.
Mr Wood:
So moved.
The Chair:
All in favour? The motion carries. Thank you, members of the
committee.
