Intended
appointments
Mr Michael Johnston
Mr Michael Van Dusen
Ms Beth Goddard
Mr Wallace Humfryes
Mr H.G. (Herb) Bradley
Mr Robert Smith
Mr Richard Raymond
Mrs Cheryl Byrne
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)
Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 1005 in room 151.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
MICHAEL JOHNSTON
Review of intended appointment,
selected by official opposition party: Michael Johnston, intended
appointee as member, McMichael Canadian Art Collection board of
trustees.
The Vice-Chair (Mr
Bruce Crozier): We've got some semblance of a committee
here, so we'll get started and not hold our appointees up
unduly.
If Michael Johnston is here,
please come forward and make yourself comfortable. Just in case
you're not familiar with the process, we have half an hour. You
may want to make an opening statement, after which the time will
be divided equally among the three caucuses. Welcome, Mr
Johnston, and proceed.
Mr Michael
Johnston: I thought I would take a few minutes giving
you some idea of my background and career and, hopefully, giving
you some idea of why I feel as strongly as I do about the
McMichael art collection.
I was born and raised in
southern California by a Canadian father and a US mother. I
started in the newspaper business in Oxnard, California, moved to
Eureka, California, and then on to Canton, Ohio. During this
period I was on the board of many cultural and other charitable
activities, concentrating mainly on education and the arts.
I moved to Toronto in 1980,
where I served as a division manager for Thomson newspapers. In
the next few years I moved through the ranks, finally ending up
as president and CEO of Thomson newspapers and a member of the
board of the Thomson Corp. I retired from Thomson in 1995 to
pursue other activities in my chosen profession. During this
period I got my Canadian citizenship so that I could fully
participate in our country's affairs.
Shortly after I arrived in
Toronto, I started visiting the McMichael on a fairly regular
basis and enjoyed it thoroughly. I also went to the Art Gallery
of Ontario, the Toronto zoo and all the other places and events
this dynamic city has to offer, but I must say that we
continually return to the McMichael.
Two or three years ago some
friends of mine, who are on the foundation board of the
McMichael, invited me to join in. As you are probably aware, the
foundation board is the fundraising arm of the McMichael. I
started participating as a member. A little over a year ago I was
elected chairman of the foundation board. I thought it would be
best if the foundation were represented on the board of trustees.
In looking into the bylaws and practices, it was apparent that
the foundation board did have a representative, the chair, but it
was one of four choices for the board that was made by the board.
When Mr Braley became chairman and the new rules were brought in,
I asked if he agreed with the principle that the foundation
should have a board member. He agreed.
The foundation is intimately
involved in the fundraising of the gallery. While its main
emphasis is on raising endowments, we have been concentrating in
the recent past on keeping the gallery going. As you are probably
aware, it has been a very difficult period to raise money for the
institution, but both I and the other board members believe we
have a great opportunity and it's time to really get started
doing our job. We think we have a wonderful gallery with great
facilities. It is time to not worry about what happened or how we
got here but how we are going to get ahead and meet the needs of
the McMichael gallery.
1010
The
Vice-Chair: We have about 28 minutes, eight or nine
minutes each, so I'll let you know as the time goes on. We'll
begin the questioning with the NDP member.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault
Ste Marie): Thank you very much for coming this morning
and lending your time and expertise to the public good of this
province in the way you are indicating you want to do. Given so
many opportunities that are out there today for people to
participate in various ways in the public life of Ontario and
given your obviously very impressive background in administration
and oversight of some pretty impressive operations, why this
particular appointment for you? Why would you choose to do
this?
Mr Johnston:
Firstly, I'm very interested in the arts, and secondly, the
McMichael is a wonderful facility and I think people who think so
should help. I think we can get over wherever we are. That's
why.
Mr Martin:
You understand that at the moment there is some controversy.
Mr Johnston:
I do.
Mr Martin:
We moved a bill through the House in the last session that
created quite the debate about a number of things where this
collection and its presentation are concerned. There seem to be
two sides.
Mr Johnston:
Yes.
Mr Martin: Where would you come
down on that? What would be your position?
Mr Johnston:
Probably in the middle.
Mr Martin:
You see yourself as somebody who could marry the two interests
here?
Mr Johnston:
I think that's the obligation we have. I'm on the foundation now,
and anybody on the board has got to marry the two sides and
they've got to see how it can all work.
Mr Martin:
How do you see the difficulty? How would you describe it?
Mr Johnston:
In principle, I think if you talk to the McMichaels, they have a
particular problem accepting where the gallery is going. I think
it's important to remember that we, the people, owe the
McMichaels a certain amount of respect. I suspect what happened
in the recent past is that they didn't get that respect and
that's why they feel the way they do. So I think it can be
bridged.
Mr Martin:
One of the issues is the breadth of art that's out there under
the rubric of "Canadian," and the expectation or the
understanding over the years that evolved, that the McMichael
collection should be a place where that could be presented. Where
would you personally draw the line there? There will be some
difficulty. I'm sure there will be some difference of opinion.
Some in the art community were very critical of the passing of
this bill, which gave back to the McMichaels some degree of
influence and in your opinion some of the respect they were due.
Where would you draw the line there?
Mr Johnston:
The first thing to remember is that the McMichaels always had the
support. They always have been on the board and all the rest of
that. I think what they've done is given them a little more
definite line of authority, but it's still a minority position. I
think what will be there is going to be good art. Mr Braley is
dedicated to that, and that's what we're all trying to get to. I
guess I can't answer specifically what I would accept, because I
don't know what's presented. You have to be there. The gallery is
fine. There are certain things I don't like, but there are
certain things I don't like in all galleries. It's a matter of
choice.
Mr Martin:
If it came down to a decision that needed to be made and the
board was split, and the McMichaels were insistent on a
particular piece being in or not being in, where would you come
down?
Mr Johnston:
The board can't be split. It's three members of the committee and
the McMichaels; that's the committee of the board, and as far as
I'm aware, that's the way it will end up. But if you ask specific
questions, it would be in the individual circumstance. I don't
think you can say, "Here's what I like." I think you have to look
at it.
Mr Martin:
But you're obviously of the opinion, though, that their opinion
had lost some of its clout, we'll say.
Mr Johnston:
Their perception of their opinion had lost.
Mr Martin:
What would you say to those who might be critical of this
appointment simply because you've spent so much of your time in
the States as opposed to Canada, and here's an institution that's
trying to present and preserve a face of Canada that a lot of
people have worked at over a long period of time and have stayed
in Canada in some instances when they could have perhaps bettered
themselves financially by leaving and going someplace else, and
now you're going to be sitting on this board, somebody who hasn't
spent his whole life in Canada, whose career hasn't all been here
in Canada?
Mr Johnston:
I was born in-it's pretty hard to make a decision when you're
zero, but that's where I was born, in Los Angeles. I've been here
since 1980. I've been a citizen since that time, or very shortly
after that time. I think I participate fully in all the functions
especially in this-the people of this area.
Mr Martin:
Thank you very much.
The
Vice-Chair: Just a clarification: of course the
introductory time of an individual is taken away from the
government's time. So in that instance the government caucus has
seven minutes.
Mr Bob Wood (London
West): Would you agree that the old approach was not
working at the gallery?
Mr Johnston:
The recent old approach?
Mr Wood:
What was happening a few years ago was not showing results in
terms of people coming to the gallery.
Mr Johnston:
I think that's true.
Mr Wood:
There was a problem that had to be fixed.
Mr Johnston:
Yes, I think that's true.
Mr Wood: And
one option for fixing that was to return to the original vision
of the McMichaels?
Mr Johnston:
I think that's what they attempted to do.
Mr Wood: Do
you support that option?
Mr Johnston:
If you talk about it in general purpose, yes.
Mr Wood:
What is your artistic vision of the kind of art that should be in
the gallery?
Mr Johnston:
I suspect I would broaden it a little bit from the mandate, but
not very much. I think there are some very good artists who are
not in the Group of Seven, so to speak, and they should be, but
it's very narrow.
Mr Wood:
When you say "broaden ... from the mandate," do you mean you'd go
beyond the legislative mandate?
Mr Johnston:
The specific list, I think, is not broad enough.
Mr Wood: You
would go beyond the legislative mandate?
Mr Johnston:
No. It says "and other Canadian artists," so I think that's what
I would say.
Mr Wood:
What sort of Canadian artists could be complementary to those in
the legislative mandate?
Mr Johnston:
Like the original artists, not Impressionists.
Mr Wood: What sort of artists would
you have in mind? Could you name a few artists who would come to
mind?
Mr Johnston:
I think the original mandate is good enough, to keep it as long
as-I don't specifically want to name an artist, because I don't
know what will come up. But I think that as long as the people
making decisions-that's the committee-include somebody else; I
mean, the committee would have to include another artist if they
wanted one.
1020
Mr Wood: I
didn't quite understand. There was a former vision which
obviously the legislation has indicated shouldn't continue. The
McMichaels have a vision. You were talking about some middle
position. Was it a middle position between those two visions, or
where was the middle position?
Mr Johnston:
It was much closer to the McMichaels' when it comes to that. It's
not a middle vision at all. I think the strict interpretation of
the Group of Seven is too narrow. It's got to be some other
things, and I think the legislation provides for it. That's what
I've said.
Mr Wood:
Those are my questions. Do we have other questions? We'll waive
the balance of our time.
The
Vice-Chair: We'll move on, then, to the Liberal
caucus.
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky
(Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Good morning,
Mr Johnston. You've indicated this morning that you have been a
Canadian citizen for upwards of 21 years. Do you hold citizenship
for any other country?
Mr Johnston:
I came from the US, so I've retained that.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: You are an American citizen as well?
Mr Johnston:
Yes.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: With regard to the management of the
gallery, are you aware that initially the gallery was funded 100%
by the province?
Mr Johnston:
Yes.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Are you aware that at this present time, the
gallery receives about 40% of its resources from the
province?
Mr Johnston:
Yes.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: It has been presented, and we know, that the
gallery is in financial difficulty, and it has been suggested
that because the original mandate of the collection has changed,
that has had an impact on the revenues the gallery is able to
generate. Would you be of the opinion that the reduction in
support of the government has had anything to do with the rather
serious situation in which the gallery now finds itself?
Mr Johnston:
I don't necessarily agree at all with that. I think the gallery
can support itself.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Can you explain why you would be of that
opinion, please?
Mr Johnston:
I think it was overstaffed. There were a lot of extra people.
They had a lot of programs that weren't paying their way. I think
we can deal with the budget as it is, and that would certainly
have been adequate money to fund the past.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Do you know what the present operating
deficit is for the gallery?
Mr Johnston:
The one that they are-
Mrs
Dombrowsky: The most recent deficit.
Mr Johnston:
It's around $2 million.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Two million dollars. So am I to understand
that you believe you will be able to address that deficit
situation as a member of the board-
Mr Johnston:
No, I didn't say that.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: -through administrative efficiencies? You
were saying that they were overstaffed.
Mr Johnston:
I'm saying that the present operating budget of the gallery, the
one that's on the books now, is balanced, and we will make sure
it stays balanced. The past is what we'll have to deal with.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: You are aware that within the new
legislation there will be an obligation for members of the board
to divest the gallery of thousands of works of art, yet the
criteria that would provide you direction to do that are very
limited. Can you give me what you would have in your mind in
terms of how you would determine what pieces of art should be
divested and how that would happen?
Mr Johnston:
I don't think anyone is in a position yet to say anything about
divestiture. To my knowledge, the board hasn't addressed the
question. It's only had two meetings, I think, since Mr Braley
has been on it. One was Monday, and I am not aware of what
happened there because I wasn't on the board.
We talked informally when I
had a chance to talk about loaning some things to other artists,
art galleries, all kinds of things other than divestiture. I
can't say how many will be divested. I don't think it's a lot,
but that's just my opinion.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: It is my understanding that Bill 112, when
it receives royal assent, will oblige the board of trustees to
divest of artwork.
Mr Johnston:
I didn't interpret it that way, but it may be. You may be right,
but I didn't interpret it that way.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Does that concern you at all?
Mr Johnston:
There's some artwork out there I don't like. I wouldn't have any
problem at all divesting of that. With wholesale divestiture I
would be concerned about the market. As with everything that
happens in the art world, I think it's important that it be
orderly, whatever they decide, and carefully thought out to make
sure it doesn't create a problem in the market, if you're going
to divest.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: One of your statements did catch my
attention. It would be that statement where you have indicated
that there are some pieces of art that you don't like. Would it
be fair to suggest, then, that you're saying that those pieces
that you don't like would be the pieces you might advocate
divesting?
Mr Johnston:
I don't necessarily say that at all, because art is in the eyes
of the beholder.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Exactly.
Mr Johnston: I don't set myself up
as the paragon of virtue here.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: With regard to the pieces that would be
divested, there will be works of art that will be disqualified
because they do not fit into a specific genre, but they continue
to hold great value for the people of Ontario and indeed the
people of Canada because they are creations of Canadian artists.
There is a lot of concern about the fact that the gallery that
many would suggest has evolved to be a superior reflection of
Canadian art is now returning to a definitely more limited
presentation of what Canadian art was during a period of time.
What of these other works that thousands of people have come to
the gallery to admire and enjoy these many years and that will no
longer be in one location, conveniently located for the people of
Ontario and the people of Canada to come to in one location in
Kleinburg and be exposed to a significant, wonderful breadth of
Canadian talent? Do you have an opinion on that at all?
Mr Johnston:
First, I don't necessarily think there's going to be a great
divestiture. On top of that, if the board and everything else
determines that they are going to divest of some, that has to be
done in a very orderly, methodical way so it doesn't hurt the art
world, so to speak.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Perhaps not the art world, but my question
did make reference to Ontarians and Canadians, who at the present
time have the opportunity to go to Kleinburg to see a wonderful
variety of Canadian pieces. Those works will be divested, and
that was really a great-
Mr
Johnston: That's not necessarily true. I'm not agreeing
at all that those works will be divested.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Well, Mr Johnston, when I participated in
the debate in the Legislature, that was certainly a large part of
the issue around the bill, the fact that there was going to be-in
fact, the bill required it; it was stated in the bill-divestiture
of artwork.
Mr
Johnston: There will be. I'm not arguing that there will
be. I don't know-you say all kinds of people came out and looked
at it and it worked, and they honestly appreciated it. I don't
know that those are the pieces that are going to be divested. I
don't think anybody knows what's going to be divested at this
point.
1030
Mrs
Dombrowsky: We are given to understand there will be 14
artists who will be recognized by the committee and that beyond
that, the works of the other artists will be considered for
divesting.
Mr
Johnston: That is not my understanding.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: My last question is with regard to your
statement that you are very interested in the arts. Can you give
me some examples of your involvement in Canadian art and how you
have demonstrated your interest in Canadian art?
Mr
Johnston: It's simply that I have gone to art galleries
all over this country in my travels and I appreciate Canadian
art. I appreciate very much some of it; some of it I don't like.
I think I have a good understanding of what that art is, and I
hope I have an understanding of good and bad.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Johnston. That concludes the
time that we have to spend with you. We thank you for coming. I
suspect that concurrences will be dealt with at the end of the
morning.
Mr
Johnston: Thank you.
MICHAEL VAN DUSEN
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Michael Van
Dusen, intended appointee as member, Ontario Rental Housing
Tribunal.
The
Vice-Chair: The next selection is Michael Van Dusen, an
intended appointee as member of the Ontario Rental Housing
Tribunal. Welcome.
Mr Michael Van
Dusen: Thank you. Good morning.
The
Vice-Chair: Make yourself comfortable, and while you are
I'll again point out that you have the opportunity to make some
opening remarks, after which we will proceed around the circle to
have questions. You may begin.
Mr Van
Dusen: I'd like to preface my comments by thanking the
members of the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak
with you today. I'm very pleased to be considered for the
appointment as a member of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal,
and I hope that appointment will allow me to provide some
assistance to the tribunal in dealing with the very heavy load of
cases that await disposition.
As you know from my
resumé, which I assume has been provided, I was born in
Aylmer, Quebec, and raised in Ottawa. I attended French
elementary schools until high school, and I completed my
education in the English school system. I attended Carleton
University and completed my undergraduate degree at the
University of Ottawa, and my law degree at the University of
Ottawa as well. I articled with the law firm of Goldberg,
Shinder, where I practised law from 1986 until 1997, when I
joined the law firm of Burke-Robertson. My current practice
involves primarily working as defence counsel for different
insurers in and around the Ottawa area, among other areas of
practice. I also act for individual residents of our little town
of Russell, where I live with my wife and three children.
In my early days as a law
student and lawyer, I acted for both landlords and tenants before
the provincial court in minor disputes. As my practice continued
to develop, I became more involved in commercial tenancy disputes
and less so in the type of matters that would come before the
tribunal today.
As many of you may know,
Ottawa is subject to the case management system and mandatory
mediation. I practise almost exclusively in litigation and
believe that my participation in mediations on a weekly and
sometimes daily basis has been of invaluable assistance to me in
developing the ability to find common ground in disputes between
people. At the same time, I've been trained to analyze
legislation and prepare arguments in a careful and reasoned manner. I have developed
familiarity with computers and current technology and have
incorporated the use of laptops in my trial preparation and
procedure. I hope to bring this experience and this way of
proceeding expediently on matters to the position of an
adjudicator.
I was raised in a family of
community service. I've always seen it as my duty to try and
bring something back to my community. I do that in my private
life, and I hope to have the opportunity to do that now with the
tribunal. Though the appointment is only on a part-time basis, I
hope that it will allow me to contribute to the tribunal, even if
it's only in a minor way, at least initially, and to assist
people in Ottawa and in the surrounding areas of eastern Ontario
with what is a very important issue for tenants that has to be
dealt with as expeditiously as possible. I see that hopefully as
a service that I can help provide.
In conclusion, I'd like to
thank the members of the committee for showing the interest that
they have in this appointment and for providing me with the
opportunity to address them today. Those are my comments, and to
say I'm glad I'm not being appointed to the McMichael board.
The Chair (Mr Jim
Bradley): We'll begin with the governing party, Mr
Johnson.
Mr Bert Johnson
(Perth-Middlesex): No, I was nodding my head "Good
morning" to you, rather than saying, "Good morning."
The Chair:
Thank you.
Mr Wood:
On that note, Mr Chair, we'll waive our time.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. It'll be the official opposition, Mr
Crozier.
Mr Bruce Crozier
(Essex): I'm glad you made it through the traffic this
morning. I'll welcome you now as a member of the Liberal caucus
questioning you, sir.
There has been, it seems to
me, a history of conflict between landlords and tenants. This is
something that no matter what legislation is written, there
always appears to be conflict in that many tenants are asking
landlords to do things that they don't do and vice versa. You've
been on both sides of this conflict, I take it, in your
professional life. I would like your comment about that, whether
you think this is a major problem or whether it's minor in scope,
considering all the rental units there are in the province.
Mr Van
Dusen: I guess it's fair to say that it's a major
problem in a number of different ways. It's a major problem on an
individual basis for the people who are involved in those
disputes. Your home and a place to lay down your head is a huge
issue in most people's lives. I have been on both sides of those
disputes professionally. I've been a tenant in my private life;
I've never been a landlord. But I see it as a very important
issue that has to be dealt with expeditiously on both sides for
both parties. It's usually important for landlords.
As I was reviewing the
material, from my perspective in Ottawa and the small towns that
surround it, there are a lot of mom-and-pop landlords who have
bought a few homes and houses and have tenants that are in those
houses. So it's not always the case of a huge, multi-unit
residential landlord who is in a dispute with a small individual
tenant. Oftentimes it's mothers and fathers who have legitimate
disputes, who have apartments that they have rented out and
either damage is being caused or you have individual tenants who
are entitled to services and to live in a decent home and where
the landlords aren't providing those services. I have seen both
sides of those issues and both sides of those issues concern me
equally, from the landlord's perspective or the tenant's
perspective, frankly.
Mr
Crozier: When the legislation was brought in, it was
suggested that the most recent changes would result in more
rental housing units being built. I guess the reason behind that,
and I'm only guessing, is that landlords would be put in a more
favourable position and therefore would be more likely to either
enter into or expand in the rental field. Do you feel that the
most recent legislation, as it is written, gives the landlord any
specific advantage over the renter?
1040
Mr Van
Dusen: I don't know that I would necessarily agree with
that statement. I was practising law in Ottawa at a time in the
late 1980s and early 1990s when we saw huge numbers of our
landlords-the firm I was practising with did a lot of commercial
landlord work-becoming bankrupt, losing buildings and having
buildings repossessed. You could speculate as to all the reasons
that may have happened, but certainly some of the reasons we
heard were that the units couldn't carry themselves and they
couldn't afford to keep them going and so on. I don't pretend to
either support or detract from that argument; I simply put that
we heard those types of arguments.
So I think there was
certainly an issue that needed to be dealt with. I have reviewed
the current legislation a number of times, and from my
perspective I see it to be a piece of legislation that attempts
to travel a very difficult middle ground, and in many ways
achieves that. I don't think I can say at this time that I think
it provides any specific hammer to a landlord that wasn't
otherwise there.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I'm sure, in the background research you
have done around this position, that you have encountered the
reference to the tribunal that it would be an eviction
machine.
Mr Van
Dusen: Yes, I did notice that.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Yes, and the Centre for Equality Rights in
Accommodation has indicated that in the year 2000, for
example-this would be their figure-of the over 46,000 applicants
to the tribunal, over 30,000, or over 60%, were evicted by order
of the tribunal without a hearing. Given that I think it is the
understanding of the people of the province that the tribunal is
a court, an opportunity where people who believe they have been
unjustly treated would have a fair hearing, in 60% of the cases
in the year 2000 it has been presented that that has not in fact been the case. I was
just wondering if you had any comment on the presentation of
those numbers.
Mr Van
Dusen: I saw those numbers, and I reviewed the report.
As a litigation lawyer, or maybe just as a lawyer, I'm always
trying to look behind the reports and behind the numbers, and I'm
very hesitant to comment on numbers that are simply taken-not
simply taken out of context but the background information isn't
really provided.
I understand the argument
that a number of the hearings proceed by way of default.
Certainly in my practice as a civil litigator, we have the same
mechanisms in the court system. I think the important factor to
consider, of which there is really no indication in that report,
is: were the tenants served, were they properly served, and did
the tribunal ensure the landlords did provide them with notice of
the hearing?
If all those things were in
place, if the tribunal was satisfied that the tenants were given
notice and chose not to appear-and again we're speculating on the
statistical numbers that are pulled out with no background
context. But one presumes that if the tribunal has assured itself
that the proper service methods had been followed out and the
tenants chose not to appear, then applying the provisions of the
legislation, all other things being equal, I don't see the
difficulty of that particular hearing proceeding by way of a
default judgment.
It's hard to say why, of
60,000 applications, tenants chose not to appear before the
tribunal. Without any other background information, it's hard to
comment on that.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: As a member of the tribunal, would it be
your goal to perhaps hear more of the grievances that would be
directed toward you?
I can appreciate that there
are circumstances where maybe the letter of the law hasn't been
followed and for a variety of reasons an individual or a family
may not have met the criteria and would default from qualifying
for a hearing, but from my perspective I think there is an
expectation that that is in fact the purpose of the tribunal, to
be able to offer individuals an opportunity to plead their unique
circumstance. I'm just somewhat concerned that in a
significant-and it has been presented that in 60% of the cases
brought forward they were evicted without a hearing. That's a
number that I've asked if you've had an opinion on. Is it a
number that you think is too high? Do you think more should be
done to try and afford people the opportunity to be heard
publicly about the situation? You understand, when people are
evicted it contributes to another problem that we have in this
province and that is the problem of homelessness. We know that in
the province of Ontario the largest-growing demographic among the
homeless population is people with families. Would you be able to
comment on that?
Mr Van
Dusen: I can't comment on your last comment dealing with
the largest demographic in Ontario because I'm not aware of those
numbers.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: The fastest-growing demographic group among
the homeless is people with families.
Mr Van
Dusen: Let's step back for a second. The first part of
your question was dealing with, do I feel there should be more
done to allow tenants the opportunity to be heard? I believe that
the legislation provides adjudicators-particularly, I was looking
at section 84-with the ability to delay evictions they feel would
be unfair, to look at the merits of the applications if there is
a reason to believe that for some reason the tenants were not
given the opportunity to be heard. I see that applied every day
in my practice in court, where judges are called upon to assess
all of the circumstances within the letter of the law and to
apply the letter of the law in a way that benefits to the
greatest extent possible the ends of justice, not necessarily the
ends of one party over the ends of another party.
This legislation, in my
view, having looked at it-and I'm certainly not practising it at
this time-I believe allows the tribunal not discretion
necessarily but gives them the ambit to say, "All right, if the
tenant shows up at three minutes after the hearing's already been
held, or two minutes after they were supposed to be here, are we
going to proceed without consideration for the fact that they are
here and not able to present their arguments or do we give them
an opportunity to be heard?"
As I said in my opening
comments, my practice on a daily basis deals with mediation and I
don't see myself as the type of lawyer who battens the hatches
and goes full speed ahead regardless of the considerations of all
sides of a dispute. I see myself as a facilitator-that's why my
clients hire me-and I'm able to bring a certain modicum
sometimes, as my wife would say, a small modicum of common sense
to disputes, and I hope to be able to bring that to this
position. It's sort of a motherhood statement: everybody has the
right to be heard. My role as an adjudicator would be to apply
the provisions of the legislation in as fair and reasonable a
manner as possible, given all the circumstances.
1050
Mr Martin:
Certainly your background gives you lots of experience in light
of the work that you would be called to do on the tribunal. Given
the very difficult debate that happened in this place and across
the province when changes were proposed, and ultimately passed,
where the rights of landlords and tenants are concerned, there
continues to be a tremendous difference of opinion out there. I
get tenants come into my office to tell me about issues they've
had to deal with. I get landlords coming still, even though the
act has been changed, experiencing difficulty of various sorts.
It seems to me that we need some people on this tribunal, given
that this is where we're going now-the law has been passed and
this is the way we're going to settle some of these
disputes-where your background will probably serve you well.
I just wanted to know, in
terms of your practice, if you look at the cases you've dealt
with, were they predominantly landlord? Were you on the
landlord's side or were you predominantly on the tenant's
side?
Mr Van
Dusen: It's really sort of a shifting target. Certainly
for the first few years of practice, as I mentioned in my bio, I worked with the community
legal education facility at the University of Ottawa, which is a
community legal aid clinic, for the last two years of law school.
That was exclusively dealing with the tenant side of disputes,
and principally residential tenants. In the first few years of
practice I would say there was a combined mix of both. In the
firm I articled to and worked with initially, what landlords they
had were very much commercial landlords and commercial
developers. I was one cog in that particular wheel. My practice
really started to diverge away from landlord-tenant disputes more
into civil litigation dealing with contractual disputes. Probably
about eight or nine years ago, I began practising as defence
counsel for different insurance companies, so I was completely
out of the game.
I live in a small town and
I've been there most of my life. I get people coming to me on a
daily basis, really on both sides. I have clients and associates
who are landlords with the typical complaints that small
landlords have. I have friends and associates who are tenants and
have the typical complaints that tenants have. I really do. I've
been exposed to both sides of the area.
The last major litigation I
had was acting for a commercial tenant, the type of thing that
just doesn't come before the tribunal. We argued to the Court of
Appeal on the provisions of a lease and so on. But that type of
stuff simply doesn't come before the tribunal. At this point, my
practice is focused primarily on insurance work.
Mr Martin:
In the dealings you've had in the area of landlord and tenant,
and you've had some, have you developed any bias of any sort?
Mr Van
Dusen: I don't know. Do you ever really know if you've
developed your own biases? Somebody else might see the way you
act as being biased in one way or the other. I don't believe so.
I try to approach each case with an open mind. I have always
taken that approach to my practice. Give me all the facts, the
good facts and the bad facts; I'll take them and I'll do the best
I can with them. Don't just give me what you want to give me and
keep what you think are the bad facts away from me. Give me the
whole ball of wax, I'll hear everything and I'll make the best
case I can out of what I've been dealt. That's the way I've
approached my practice and that's the way I would propose to
approach this appointment as well.
Mr Martin:
You're probably aware that there are many groups out there that
act on behalf of tenants, that insinuate that the tribunal is in
fact biased.
Mr Van
Dusen: I've read about that, yes.
Mr Martin:
And that it's an eviction machine, that's what it's turning out
to be. I would certainly hope that's not the case. They certainly
make the case though; there's a number of studies that have been
prepared over the last few months and short years. Have you taken
the time in preparing for or looking at the possibility of being
appointed to this tribunal to have looked at any of those
studies?
Mr Van
Dusen: I read the Parkdale Community Legal Services
report-well, I read the synopsis of it, I guess; I don't know
that I had the full report-and I read the other report that Ms
Dombrowsky commented on this morning, the Centre for Equality
Rights in Accommodation pilot project. I did review the excerpts
from those reports that were provided to me for review.
Mr Martin:
In light of that, having looked at the Parkdale Community Legal
Services report and some of the other information that's out
there and probably from that realizing that this will probably be
fairly challenging, particularly if you're going to, in my view,
be fair and do something, even if what you find when you get in
there is not quite in keeping with what the report is saying-I
think the perception out there is that it's not fair-given all
the ways you might be able to serve the community of Ontario and
the various boards and commissions that we see are out there,
because we come here on a fairly weekly basis to interview only a
small number of the people who are appointed in any given week,
why would you choose this one, given the difficulty that's there?
What do you think you could bring to it that would in some small
way perhaps reduce the anxiety that's out there in the community
that acts on behalf of tenants? Is there something in particular
that you think you have to contribute?
Mr Van
Dusen: Why this tribunal is a simple matter. The
position of adjudicator, particularly on a part-time basis, it
sounds silly to say-I have a busy practice. I was made aware of
the situation with the tribunal. I have a longstanding associate
who works in a management capacity. He's not a member of the
tribunal but he works in the office in Ottawa. He is aware that
I'm bilingual and able to operate in both official languages, and
is certainly aware of my practice as a lawyer. He asked me if I
would consider helping out. That's how I first became aware of
the position and of the need, because, again, my practice does
not deal at all with the typical residential landlord and tenancy
disputes. So that's how I became aware of the situation. He asked
me if I would consider putting my name forward to help out on a
part-time basis, so I agreed to do that.
Ultimately, it's always
been my intention to become involved in community service. I've
been busy raising three children, as many of you here are doing.
My plan, frankly, was to hold off a little bit longer, but this
opportunity and this request came up at this point in time and
that's why I put my name forward. I think my skills as a lawyer
and certainly as a mediator-not a mediator, but being exposed to
mediation-are suited to it. Because it's a part-time appointment,
I feel I can devote the time to it and not detract overly from my
practice. And they coincide. They don't conflict in terms of the
type of work I do and in view of the type of work the tribunal
does.
That's really it. If I can
take some of the workload off, I'm happy to travel around. The
appointment, I understand, is principally for eastern Ontario and
francophone communities, and I'm happy to do that if I can.
That's really about it.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Van Dusen, for appearing before the
committee. You may step down, and we'll have our next intended
appointee before us.
1100
BETH GODDARD
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Beth Goddard,
intended appointee as member, Champlain District Health
Council.
The Chair:
The next intended appointee is Beth Goddard, intended appointee
as member, Champlain District Health Council.
Ms Goddard, you may come
forward. As you have probably heard already, you are entitled to
make an initial statement should you see fit to do so.
Ms Beth
Goddard: Yes, I would like to.
The Chair:
Then there will be questions from members of the committee.
Welcome to the committee.
Ms
Goddard: Thank you very much. I am very pleased to be
here.
As has been stated, my name
is Beth Goddard. I was born and raised in Pembroke, Ontario.
After my undergraduate degree I did various jobs, such as a
switchboard operator, working in a university library, student
awards officer, finally getting a master's degree in French. Then
I went to law school. In 1983 I was called to the bar. By the by,
you seem to have a plethora of lawyers this morning. I just heard
the gentlemen ahead of me.
I practised civil
litigation in Ottawa, Thunder Bay and Toronto after one year as a
clerk at the Court of Appeal. In 1991 I went to Greece. I planned
to stay for three years; I actually stayed for nine. In 1999 I
returned to Pembroke fully intending to settle, just in time for
my mother's 80th birthday.
I have always been
interested in community involvement. In Thunder Bay as well as in
Greece I acted on that interest. In Pembroke I looked for the
opportunity to become involved in a community-focused endeavour.
During the summer of the year 2000 I met a member of the
Champlain District Health Council. I was asked if I would be
interested in applying for a position on the board. I was
delighted to be considered, but having no political connections
of any kind, I didn't rate my chances too highly.
Since last summer I have
been employed by a local law firm and am requalifying for the
bar, which is necessary after you leave for more than five
years.
I am proud and honoured to
be appointed to the Champlain District Health Council. I
understand that there are three representational categories for
participation on the board. I fit the category of consumer.
The health concerns of the
aging are significant both in Ontario and in the Champlain
District Health Council. Being over 50 places me in that
category, and I have a mother who fears being forced out of her
home for health reasons. Having watched her care for my father,
who died of Alzheimer's disease, I am concerned that her options
be as broad and practical as possible.
I also feel that my legal
background may bring a slightly different perspective to the
council. That would be not so much in the sense of providing
legal advice-I am really not qualified in that particular
area-but rather in the sense that a lawyer's way of looking at a
problem might provide a fresh approach.
The Champlain District
Health Council has the goal of recommending the best possible
health care system for the region, and I know I can contribute
meaningfully to that goal. Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. We will commence with the official
opposition.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Good morning, Ms Goddard. I am very
interested to understand as a resident of a rural community in
Ontario. Certainly I am aware of many needs within the health
care sector at the present time-too many, in my opinion. You have
a most impressive background, however, I would suggest perhaps
somewhat limited in dealing with health issues, although I do
appreciate your reference to your own personal health issue. Have
you an understanding or a sense within your community of what the
key health issues are in that particular part of rural Ontario
and would you be able to share those with this committee this
morning?
Ms
Goddard: As I mentioned, I know that Renfrew county has
one of the higher proportions of the aged, over 65, even over 75,
as does one of the other areas in the Champlain District Health
Council.
The other thing that is a
problem, particularly in rural Ontario, is the spreading out of
health services so that they are equally accessible to all. It's
a very difficult problem in the sense of home care and the
provision of a number of services. Many people are forced to
travel distances to the communities that provide a more central
area for this. It is a problem, and I know it's a concern of the
health council as well as myself. I have friends who live in a
village called Beachburg, who say they have one doctor who comes
for half a day from Barry's Bay, which is at the far end of the
county, and two doctors who come for one day each from Quebec.
They are treated by Quebec doctors. It's a bizarre situation and
it has to change if at all possible.
Mr
Crozier: From your background as presented and your
opening statement, I am sure, on concurrence, that you will be a
good member of the district health council. But I want to discuss
with you, in the time we have, a few of the objectives of
district health councils.
Did you say, and I could be
corrected, that you knew a friend or acquaintance who was on the
district health council?
Ms
Goddard: Yes. I spoke to Mrs Glenda O'Brien.
Mr
Crozier: In the conversation or conversations about the
district health council, did you get any sense of the
effectiveness of district health councils, perhaps in general,
although the one in your area, the Champlain area, in
particular?
Ms
Goddard: I know that a health council operates as an
advisory body. They are requested, either by the ministry or the
minister or the community, to investigate certain areas of
concern in the region. I know that they make reports to the
minister and to the ministry. As far as the effectiveness is
concerned, I can't say the district health council can create a change. That is
something that must be decided by the ministry and the
minister.
Mr
Crozier: OK. I want to go to the mandate of district
health councils. This isn't a test, but are you aware of the
mandate of DHCs as described in the Ministry of Health Act?
Ms
Goddard: I'm not sure-
Mr
Crozier: OK. As I said, it isn't a test, so I'll help
you. There are essentially four parts to the mandate, and I just
want to discuss a couple of those. One is "to make plans for the
development and implementation of a balanced and integrated
health care system in the council's geographic area." Do you have
any comment on how you might treat that part of the mandate?
Ms
Goddard: I know that as a member of the board, there is
a substantial support staff-the investigators and the ones who
prepare the reports. I really haven't had much experience on the
board-
Mr
Crozier: No, and I appreciate that.
Ms
Goddard: -and I missed the opportunity even to attend a
meeting a week or two ago; I couldn't get there because of the
bad weather. But how the board can actually carry out those
things-certainly they would discuss with the community health
providers and with the community, people who are concerned about
certain issues, and those things can be addressed in their
recommendations.
Mr
Crozier: How many hospitals are there in the Champlain
district?
Ms
Goddard: There is quite a number. I know in Pembroke
there is one, in Renfrew there is one, in Arnprior there is one,
in Barry's Bay there is a very small clinic and in Deep River
there is a small clinic. That's just in Renfrew county.
1110
Mr
Crozier: I guess what I'm getting at, and I'll prompt
you a bit and you may wish to comment, is that I hope you and
other members on the district health council are real advocates
for your area. I suggest that not only would you advise the
minister, but I would hope that members of district health
councils are feisty and that they go to the minister and really
present the problems of their area in a very distinct and concise
way and pressure the minister.
Do you see yourself as
being the kind of person who says, "Hey, I'm from the Champlain
district. We want our share. We've got our problems and we want
them addressed"? Is that the kind of person you are?
Ms
Goddard: That's the kind of person I am, and I
understand that the chairman, Mrs Beth Sweetnam, is also someone
who takes her position very seriously and does encourage
recognition of the unique problems in the area. I do know
that.
Mr
Crozier: I've always been concerned-not always, I guess,
but more when I became a part of public life-with the real effect
that district health councils can have on health policy in the
province. I say again that I hope you take an advocacy role. If
you do, then I will be happy to have been part of your
concurrence to that committee.
Ms
Goddard: Thank you very much. I will certainly try. It's
something I would like to do.
Mr Martin:
I just want to know: of all the things that somebody who has the
public interest at heart would want to get involved in-and we
have numerous people come before us, and that's just a small
percentage of the people who get appointed to various boards and
commissions in the province-why would you have chosen this
particular board or this particular appointment over others to
spend your time on and be involved in?
Ms
Goddard: It's a rather awkward question. I don't think I
have had the opportunity to apply for any other public
appointment, and this one certainly interested me. It doesn't
bother me in the least that it is a non-paying position; it's
mostly volunteer work. But it is one where one can actually
contribute and possibly have an effect on the health care system
in my part of the world, or of the province.
Mr Martin:
What would you see as the most obvious need as you take on this
appointment, both in your part of the world and across the
province, where district health councils are concerned?
Ms
Goddard: As I said a little earlier, I'm very concerned
with the aging population in Renfrew county, as part of the
Champlain district, and also the rural nature, which creates
shortages and difficulties in the provision of health
services.
Mr Martin:
And you think that the district health councils can-
Ms
Goddard: Those are the two things I consider to be
important, but I know the focus of the health council is in fact
topics that are either suggested or proposed by the ministry and
the minister, as well as by the community. I don't believe it
would be my role to generate a study. I could support it, I could
perhaps find support for it, but it's not really my role to do
that. I'd work to make sure the reporting is done and the advice
given is correct. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding my role, but
that's what I think it is.
Mr Martin:
And you think you can actually have an influence and make a
difference? For example, in my community in the early 1990s there
was a very active and proactive district health council bringing
people together around issues, trying to sort out differences of
opinion on various things between the different groups, because
there are lots of groups within the health sector in various
communities. But the restructuring of district health councils
now has take that away from that more intimate and narrow focus.
In our neck of the woods, the district health council probably
oversees an area that's bigger than most European countries. To
be honest with you, we haven't seen anything come out of that
council that has in any serious and significant way affected and
given us any direction or hope in terms of some of the challenges
faced in my community where building a new hospital is concerned,
or the issue of getting more doctors and specialists, the
question of the health travel grant where northern Ontario is
concerned, the cancer care apartheid that a lot of people have
been talking about, and all that kind of thing.
Have you looked at all at some of the things that
have been happening with the district health councils over the
last while, and do you have any concern that you might be joining
a board that is simply another public relations exercise by this
government and that really, at the end of the day, does nothing,
that it might be a waste of your time?
Ms
Goddard: I certainly hope it isn't just a public
relations exercise. The material I covered was the orientation
manual for the district health council. Other than that, I
haven't looked at it in a historical sense, no. But in the
orientation manual, the role is spelled out for that health
council. I can only say it's very unfortunate if advice which is
very well researched and very well investigated and very well
supported is not followed. It doesn't seem to be the fault of the
people in the health councils actually carrying out their duties
to the best of their ability. At least the voice is there and the
advice is there, and the support.
Mr Martin:
If you, for example, brought to the health council an issue that
you heard in your community every time you went out for coffee or
attended a meeting-people are talking. Health care is usually a
fairly top-of-mind issue for people these days. There are a
million things floating, and every time I go back to the Soo it
seems there's something else. Certainly in northern Ontario, the
issue of the day that every community is struggling with is how
they pay for a new health facility. That's one of them. The other
is that because every community can't have all of the specialists
and specialties available to them, there's a lot of travel. The
distance between Sault Ste Marie and Sudbury is, on a good day,
about a three-hour drive, and between Sault Ste Marie and Thunder
Bay-Sudbury and Thunder Bay are becoming the medical centres for
the north-is as far as from there to Toronto.
An issue, then, for the
north is travel grants and travel and how you get from one place
to the other and how we access health care in a timely and
affordable way. There has been a raging issue over the last
couple of years where access to cancer care is concerned. But we
hear nothing from the district health council to the government
or to the public, their leading a discussion about some of these
things. We sort of say, "What's the point?" Why would these
people be meeting constantly and putting out the effort?
If you found that the
district health council that you're being appointed to was not
dealing with the real issues that people are struggling with
where health care is concerned, what would you do? What would
your response be?
Ms
Goddard: I've read a number of the reports that are in
the process of being generated now concerning the provision of
health care and the integration of various services. There needs
to be a certain way of having some kind of central registry to
deal with the various kinds of services and treatments that are
available to people in certain circumstances. It's kind of
complicated. They're considering various ways of setting up that
system, what would be the most cost-effective and efficient for
the patient or the individual to deal with.
1120
I haven't seen anyone
dealing with, for example, the distances to travel, but I'm well
aware that people in Deep River, for example, have to travel to
Ottawa for cancer treatments. Deep River to Ottawa is 200 miles
or more. We have the same problems in Renfrew county as you have
in the north. Ottawa is part of the district health council, but
it also services to a great degree the people in the surrounding
areas. It has no choice. We have no access to specific cancer
treatments in Pembroke or Renfrew or Deep River or Barry's
Bay.
It's the nature of Renfrew
county to be particularly rural, and being rural means that the
services are limited and you have to get to them in a different
way. It's all part of the nature of the whole district, as I
understand it. So those issues are important. Whether they get
directly addressed in a report is something that-I'm not exactly
sure how that gets started. I understood it either came from the
ministry or from the community. It's certainly a community
concern individually, but as yet I'm not sure how that becomes
the focus of a report. I would be concerned if the serious
concerns of the people in the community were not being
addressed.
Mr Martin:
If it became obvious to you after you were on the board for a
time that the serious issues of your community were not being
addressed, that when it came to a decision as to whether to
support a government initiative-which some of us feel district
health councils are a vehicle to do-or to in fact challenge the
government of the day on its approach because it's obviously not
serving the people who live in your community, what side of the
fence would you come down on?
Ms
Goddard: I can't imagine the district health council
creating a report that was not truthful about the situation in
its own district in order to respond to a government suggestion.
The district health council, as I understand it, has to focus on
the needs of the communities in the district and how it is being
served in terms of the focus of whatever study is being
requested.
Mr Martin:
In your opinion, are the needs of your community being addressed
or are there some major challenges out there?
Ms
Goddard: I'm afraid I really don't know the answer to
that question.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Martin. Unfortunately, your time is up and we go to
the government caucus.
Mr Wood:
We'll waive our time.
The Chair:
The government caucus has waived its time. Thank you very much,
Ms Goddard, for appearing before the committee and you may step
down.
WALLACE HUMFRYES
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Wallace
Humfryes, intended appointee as member, Municipality of Brighton
Police Services Board.
The Chair: We will move to the
next intended appointee as a member, the Municipality of Brighton
Police Services Board, Mr Wallace Humfryes.
Mr Humfryes, you may come
forward. As you probably heard previously, you are permitted to
make an initial statement should you see fit and, after that,
members of the committee have an opportunity to question. Welcome
to the committee.
Mr Wallace
Humfryes: Thank you for having me here today. I have
prepared a short opening statement and I'll just take a few
minutes to introduce myself.
I was born in Toronto and
moved with my family to the Brighton area in about the 1950s. We
farmed for a while, and then I had to return to Toronto to work.
I continued to work in Toronto in printing and publishing until
retiring in 1992, then happily returned to Brighton to live on
our original farm.
In the interests of the
committee, I volunteered at the local branch of the Royal
Canadian Legion, helping at different functions and fundraisers.
Now I'd like to volunteer for a position with more challenges and
importance to the community.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, sir, and we will commence our questioning
with the third party.
Mr Martin:
Thank you, Mr Humfryes, for coming before us this morning and
being willing to answer some questions that we might have for
you.
This is a question I ask
all of the people who come: given the wide array of possibilities
to serve on boards and commissions that this government and all
governments have available to them, why would you want to serve
on the police services board? What interests you in that and what
background might you have that would help you to do that
effectively?
Mr
Humfryes: First, the interest is because our area is
changing quite rapidly. We have just amalgamated the town and the
township and the population is growing quite quickly, by our
standards anyway, a lot of people moving from the city. There is
the problem of people coming from the city and expecting services
the same as the city. That is not the case when you live out
there. So my interest there is to, if possible, educate the new
people and the public as to what the police services do.
My background is very
little with the police, so for me it's going to be quite a
learning experience and I'll be needing some training. But I do
want to help the community and am willing to spend the time and
the training to come to that end.
Mr Martin:
If you have no background in policing and no real experience in
what the police services board might be about, how did you come
to know of this appointment and to actually apply and get to a
position now where you're being considered by this committee?
Mr
Humfryes: As you know, Dr Galt is the member for
Northumberland. I had worked with his personal assistant 40 years
ago and still kept in touch. We live in the same area, and we
both were volunteering at the legion running a bingo when I
mentioned that I would like to do a little bit more than running
a bingo, although it is important as a fundraiser. So he
suggested I go to the office and see what was open, and this was
open and I thought it would be very interesting and more
challenging.
Mr Martin:
Are you a member of his Conservative riding association?
Mr
Humfryes: Since the last five years, yes; just
recently.
Mr Martin:
Are you part of his riding association executive?
Mr
Humfryes: No.
Mr Martin:
You know that there are lots of issues out there where policing
is concerned, and one of them that I think your municipality will
probably have to deal with in the foreseeable future is whether
you continue to have your own police force or whether you
contract with the OPP. What would be your thinking on that?
Mr
Humfryes: Definitely stay with the OPP. My personal
feeling? Yes.
Mr
Humfryes: The OPP have the contract there now, yes.
Mr Martin:
So you find that would be-
Mr
Humfryes: Yes.
Mr Martin:
Those are all the questions I have.
The Chair:
The government caucus.
Mr Wood:
You've come to a conclusion on the issue of the OPP versus local
policing. When does the OPP contract expire?
Mr
Humfryes: I'm not too sure, because they are just
rewriting that now because of the amalgamation. The township in
which I live has a different level of services from the town, so
that has to come even and then they'll be writing a new contract.
I'm just not too sure of the timing of this, but I know there are
ongoing meetings now to get the same level of services from the
OPP.
Mr Wood:
On what do you base your conclusion that you should continue with
the OPP as opposed to considering a local force?
Mr
Humfryes: This is my personal opinion: it is that they
are so well trained. It's a great force and they are well
equipped and, again, well trained. The detachment is also in our
town, which helps. It gives the OPP a lot more presence in the
area. With a local force you have the problem perhaps of training
a new member, where with the OPP you do not have that problem.
They can change their officers back and forth, or their commander
or whatever, which is their business, of course, but it will
always be a capable person doing that job.
1130
Mr Wood:
If you were to take a job with the police services board and this
issue came up, would you be open to a view contrary to the one
you've just expressed, or is your view absolutely firm?
Mr
Humfryes: I believe in our area that would only be up to
the local council. I don't believe the police services board in
that small area has that option, if I read this correctly. But
I'll answer the question: no, I would still want to stay with the
OPP on a personal basis, but of course if you're on a committee and that is
voted against, then you go with the committee.
Mr Wood:
My question is, would you be open to arguments in favour of a
position different than your own? Would you be prepared to give
fair consideration to those arguments?
Mr
Humfryes: Definitely, yes.
Mr Wood:
So if you heard arguments that you thought warranted it, you
would change your position on that issue?
Mr
Humfryes: Perhaps, but it would have to be a good
position that they have.
Mr Wood:
What do you see as the key functions of your police services
board?
Mr
Humfryes: With the force as it is there now-their
presence is a lot higher lately-the key thing for myself, and I
believe for the committee, would be between the public and the
police force.
Mr Wood:
When you say "the key thing," the key function is to receive
input from the public?
Mr
Humfryes: Yes, complaints or whatever they wish to have.
Of course, I know there's a little bit more to the committee
where you're involved with the police, but still the main thing
would be that the public is being well served and served properly
for complaints or any-thing else, which would come through the
police services board.
Mr Wood:
Are there any areas in which you think you can make a particular
contribution on the board?
Mr
Humfryes: I don't know enough to set any priorities
right now. I don't want to go into the board and say, "Why don't
we do this," when I don't know the issue itself, or the complete
issue. I'm trying to keep an open mind on all that. If I do get
on the board, from meeting and talking to the board members who
are already there, I would say the main thing I would be doing is
learning and supporting.
Mr Wood:
Those are my questions. Do we have other questions? We'll waive
the balance of our time.
The Chair:
The official opposition.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Good morning, Mr Humfryes. I'm curious:
within the newly amalgamated municipality, where do you live? Do
you live in what was previously Brighton or what was the
township?
Mr
Humfryes: In the township, yes.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: So you're a rural resident.
Mr
Humfryes: Yes.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: So typically you would have had your police
services delivered by the Ontario Provincial Police for many
years.
Mr
Humfryes: Over the years, yes.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Has Brighton had a force of its own within
recent memory?
Mr
Humfryes: I don't remember that. You'd have to go back a
long way.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I expect so.
Mr
Humfryes: I think you'd have to go back maybe 40 or 50
years, which would only be perhaps one officer or so.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Yes. My area of representation is very near
to yours-in fact we're neighbours on some borders-so I am
somewhat familiar with the debate that took place within your
community before the newly amalgamated municipality determined
that it would be best to pursue a contract with the Ontario
Provincial Police. I am aware that there are members within your
municipality who are very seriously considering contracting with
the neighbouring municipality of Quinte West in order to engage
police services. Are you aware of the differences in terms of
accountability of the forces when it is a locally operated force
as opposed to the Ontario Provincial Police force?
Mr
Humfryes: You mean in the level of service or how they
are run?
Mrs
Dombrowsky: No, in terms of the control that the
municipality has with regard to those who provide that service.
You know that when the municipality provides the service, they
have direct input and control over hiring of staff, certainly
hiring of the administration, establishing policies and setting
priorities. However, when a municipality contracts those services
with the Ontario Provincial Police, then they receive reports and
have significantly less direct control in terms of personnel,
certainly, and I would suggest as well in local policies in terms
of issues that receive attention.
Mr
Humfryes: As I say, there was quite a debate at that
time, and most of the people who lived in a rural area did not
want to go to Quinte West because, as the rural part, we would
lose all control. The number of votes we would have out there, or
the representation, was very low compared to what, say, the town
of Trenton would be, or Quinte West. That's why most of us at
that time wanted the OPP, so that, yes, we could still control
the police a little bit. We're not saying who were going to be
the officers, and that perhaps shouldn't be our business, but you
are taking who is going to be the officer out of the hands of
your council. Back in history, I would say that's a good idea. It
isn't somebody's son-in-law or whatever, if you go back to the
small police forces where there's one or two people.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I think you have made it clear that you do
appreciate the difference when contracting with the OPP and the
fact that probably the area the municipality does have some
control over is the compensation.
Mr
Humfryes: Yes.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: But then some would argue that perhaps the
OPP have a monopoly. If after a period of time a municipality has
been in the practice of engaging their services, it's far less
feasible or viable then to consider a municipal force.
Mr
Humfryes: You're right. The OPP are probably going to be
higher compensation for our area, but I do not see that as a
problem. I think the most important thing is the protection and
the services, and then see what you can get with your money
afterwards. I'd hate to save $10 and have a bigger problem.
Coming from a rural area where we used to know all our neighbours
and who was doing what,
that has gone now. Anybody can easily drive from Toronto for
whatever bad purpose they have.
Interjection.
Mr
Humfryes: Well, not all from Toronto. We get some from
Montreal too. With the 401 running there, we have a
different-
Mr Morley Kells
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore): How about North Bay?
Mr
Humfryes: I forgot I was in Toronto here.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: You have to watch that.
Mr
Humfryes: Yes. But if we do not have enough police in
that little area, we will attract the wrong people, if our force
isn't strong enough, I believe.
Mr
Crozier: Good morning, Mr Humfryes. When the township of
Brighton was previously serviced by the OPP, before amalgamation,
did it pay for those services?
Mr
Humfryes: Yes, they did pay.
Mr
Crozier: You weren't one of the lucky ones that got the
police for free?
Mr
Humfryes: Well, before the restructuring, if you go back
some years, we paid indirectly for the OPP. It wasn't on our tax
bill. Now it's on our tax bill.
Mr
Crozier: By paying indirectly, you mean just through
provincial taxes.
Mr
Humfryes: Through our taxes, yes.
Mr
Crozier: In other words, the township didn't pay for
policing services.
Mr
Humfryes: No. I'm not too sure when that started, but
I'm going to say about 1992. I'm not too sure; 1993 perhaps.
Mr
Crozier: Maybe even later than that.
Mr
Humfryes: Yes. Then it had to go on our tax rolls.
Mr
Crozier: At the time of the discussion about whether the
OPP would be contracted or whether you would have a municipal
police service, were you aware of the costs that were quoted,
that were proposed?
Mr
Humfryes: Yes. I don't remember them now, but there was
quite a discussion at the time, before that was on the tax rolls;
then somebody said, "Gee, this is $300,000," and people were
fainting all over the place there when they first heard those
figures.
Mr
Crozier: I can imagine. No, I meant when council or
whoever was determining whether it would be OPP services or local
services, and that discussion went on, were you aware of the
proposal, the cost of municipal services as opposed to OPP
services?
Mr
Humfryes: Oh, yes. We had several bids, if you will.
Quinte West was interested in coming in, and then a small local
one or the OPP. So those figures were bandied around for quite a
bit.
1140
Mr
Crozier: Do you recall which one was the lowest
cost?
Mr
Humfryes: I'm going to say Quinte West, I think.
Mr
Crozier: So it wasn't necessarily decided on cost
alone.
Mr
Humfryes: No.
Mr
Crozier: It was decided when it comes to the services
provided or the value for the dollar.
Mr
Humfryes: Yes. I think one of the considerations was to
keep the detachment in the town of Brighton.
Mr
Crozier: This question would just be your own personal
opinion. The OPP, of course, is a large provincial service which
has many specialists, many areas of specialization. Is it a
concern at all to you that officers serving with the OPP in your
area might in fact be there only a brief time because it may be
their desire to move on to other areas of specialty that they
wouldn't get the opportunity for in a small rural area?
Mr
Humfryes: No, that would not be a concern. I think it's
one of the pluses.
Mr
Crozier: You're hoping there are some who like to serve
in a small rural area?
Mr
Humfryes: Or they'll stay in the area because they are
living in the township or the town. I have to remember that it's
only one now, what they now call the town of Brighton. They quite
often live there, which is a plus.
Mr
Crozier: Are there any major issues in policing in the
area that you're aware of?
Mr
Humfryes: No, not that I am aware of.
Mr
Crozier: It's just a great, quiet community to live in
and you want to keep those characters from Toronto out of there;
is that it?
Mr
Humfryes: I think I'll be living with that one for a
while.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. That completes the questioning. You may
stand down, Mr Humfryes.
Mr
Humfryes: Thank you very much.
The Chair:
We have the opportunity now to deal with concurrences of the
morning's intended appointments. I am prepared to entertain
motions at this time.
Mr Wood: I
would ask that Mr Johnston be deferred to the next meeting of the
committee.
The Chair:
All in favour?
Mr Wood: I
think I'm entitled to that.
The Chair:
That's correct. Mr Johnston will be deferred until the next
meeting.
Mr
Crozier: Just a question, since I am curious. When you
say that you're entitled to it-and that's fine with me-is
everybody entitled to it or do you hold a special-
Mr Wood:
Each of the three parties is entitled to a deferral.
The Chair:
Any member of the subcommittee then is allowed to do so, so all
three parties have that opportunity.
Mr Wood:
It's a matter of right; it's not a matter that's voted on.
Mr
Crozier: Understood. Our rights are trampled on here all
the time, so it's good to have one once in a while.
Mr Wood:
It's a good idea to have a Chair that respects them, which I
think we do, just in case that was misinterpreted.
I move concurrence in Mr
Van Dusen.
The Chair:
Our clerk is going to explain for Mr Crozier and other members of
the committee, including the Chair, the precise procedure we go through
and when, then, it would have to be heard.
Clerk of the
Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): Just to clarify, under the
standing orders, the request for deferral is for seven days. Do
you want to waive that seven days and defer it until the next
meeting, or at this point do you want to confirm a meeting next
Wednesday? We don't have anything scheduled for next
Wednesday.
Mr Wood: I
would be quite satisfied that it go to the next meeting.
Clerk of the
Committee: Is there unanimous consent?
The Chair:
OK. Further motions?
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence in Mr Van Dusen.
The Chair:
Mr Wood moves concurrence in the appointment of Michael Van
Dusen. Any discussion? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence in Ms Goddard.
The Chair:
Any discussion? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence in Mr Humfryes.
The Chair:
Any discussion?
Mr Martin:
I have no difficulty with Mr Humfryes. I just wanted to put on
the record that we have yet another appointment here that is
flowing from the recommendation-and I suppose that's the way it
happens. It happened under our government, I'm sure, from time to
time, and under your own, Mr Chair, when you were in government.
But I think it's important to note that this person coming
forward was encouraged to apply for this job by his sitting
member, Mr Galt, and as a member of the political party that he's
a part of. There's nothing in any regulation that says that's not
appropriate, but I think it's important for people to understand
that.
The Chair:
Any further discussion? If not, I'll call the vote. All in
favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.
The committee will resume
at 2 pm.
The committee recessed
from 1145 to 1402.
The Chair:
I'm going to call the meeting to order for the purposes of
Hansard. Mr Martin.
Mr Martin:
I was wondering, with the indulgence of the committee, if we
couldn't at this point deal with the issue of the referral of
last week, given that I'll probably be away from the room for
another appointment that I have at 3:30 when we wrap up. Would
that be possible?
Mr Wood:
We can deal with it very briefly, because he has withdrawn his
application.
Mr Martin:
OK.
The Chair:
It's withdrawn?
Mr Wood:
It is withdrawn.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Wood.
Interjections.
The Chair:
No debate is required.
Mr
Crozier: Chair, I think in view of that we should call
everybody who's appointed, and then we won't miss anything.
Mr Wood:
That's up to you.
Interjection: That's not going to
work.
The Chair:
We have that knowledge.
HERB BRADLEY
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Herb Bradley,
intended appointee as member, County of Prince Edward Police
Services Board.
The Chair:
We will proceed, then, with Mr Herb Bradley, intended appointee
as member, County of Prince Edward Police Services Board. Mr
Bradley, you may come forward. As you may be aware, you are
entitled to make an initial statement, should you choose to do
so, and then be questioned by members of the committee. Welcome
to the committee.
Mr Herb
Bradley: Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, I would like to make
a brief opening statement. I'm in the unenviable position of
trying to convince the members of the board that I am a good
candidate for appointment to this position without appearing to
be an egotistical braggart.
First and foremost what I'd
like to do is just briefly outline my background for a board
position. Then, without anticipating the board, I would like to
suggest what the major issues are that are facing section 10
boards and the Prince Edward board in particular and then come
back to my own particular experience with the past board.
The focus for the boards,
of course, is section 10 and section 31 of the Police Services
Act, which respectively describe the responsibilities of boards
that have a contract with the OPP and boards that have a contract
for municipal police forces. That really is the focus of
attention, particularly for section 10 boards, starting in 1998
and continuing into the future. The problem is to devise a
practical application of the responsibilities that are outlined
in section 10. This is requiring some major changes for boards,
and I might point out that it's requiring some significant
changes for the OPP. Our board in particular has been involved
quite extensively with the OPP on some of these issues, and the
kind of co-operation that we're getting has been excellent.
At this stage there are
three congruent themes facing section 10 boards. I don't know
whether they're pushing us or whether they're leading us toward a
better interpretation of the authorities of section 10.
The devolution of
responsibilities that accompany the restructuring of municipal
councils sort of brought the whole thing to the fore and in
essence required a broader definition or a broader application of
the responsibilities of section 10 with the devolution of
responsibilities down to the local level.
In Prince Edward, as an
example, prior to 1998 we were serviced by 10 separate elected
councils. The OPP was the police for the entire county, the
entire corporation. However, there was a contract in place only
for the town of Picton, which represents less than 20% of the
population, and the kind of governance, supervision, overviewing
of the police services at that time was a very informal process
between the town police committee and the detachment commander.
That accounted for 20% of the population and less than 25% of the
activity. The other 80% of the population of the county had, at
best, a very informal and very arm's-length relationship with the
police. That, quite frankly, at times led to a fair bit of
acrimony at the political level.
That's the first thrust
that's come on us: how do we as a new board-the election did away
with that environment entirely. It created a new environment. The
council very quickly realized it needed a police services board.
One of its first orders of business was to negotiate a contract
with the OPP. That brought us right up against, how does the
board exercise its responsibilities in the new environment?
The other thing that
happened at the same time this was all going on was that the
Ministry of the Solicitor General and representatives from all
the major police forces in Ontario were drafting a draft
regulation under the Police Services Act which came to be known
as the standards for adequacy and effectiveness of police
services in the province of Ontario. The interesting thing is,
that regulation does not distinguish between section 31 and
section 10 boards. It very clearly commands that both sets of
boards undertake the same supervisory, overview responsibilities,
which include auditing all current police practices to ensure
they meet these standards, auditing the ongoing maintenance of
those practices at least every three years, consulting with all
the stakeholders in your jurisdiction and creating a report that,
among other things, identifies deficiencies and how you're going
to overcome those deficiencies.
1410
The OPP, I might also add
here, and this is the third element, was not oblivious to the
issue of how you develop a good relationship between a section 10
board and their detachment commander. Some time ago, in fact,
Commissioner Thomas O'Grady enunciated a policy and Commissioner
Gwen Boniface, in November 1999, reiterated this policy, which in
effect interprets clause 10(9)(b) in particular, which deals with
the board's authority to advise on policy and priorities. In that
context, the commissioner issued the directive, "The detachment
commander shall follow the directions and advice of their board
unless that direction is illegal or outside the approved
budget."
Clearly I think the
commissioner of the OPP has the legislative authority for
administration and operation of the force, and they have
interpreted their mandate to say that the detachment commander
should-in fact, in other areas it frequently uses the term that
the detachment commander should be viewed in the same light as
the chief of police for a municipal force. I think that is
perfectly appropriate for us, and it has proven to be the
fact.
So we have these three
issues all coming at us, and frankly the adequacy standards over
the next three years, in particular the implementation of those
standards-they were effective January 1 this year-are going to be
a major undertaking for every police services board in the
province.
That brings me back to my
own experience with the current board. To give you an example of
the kind of work I have done at the board, as soon as I was
appointed to the police services board by the council, the
council invited me to join the council committee that was
negotiating the contract with the OPP, and I served in that
capacity for about 15 months. Our board actually got underway in
1998, prior to the signing of any contract, which came in
September 1999. When the adequacy standards started coming down
to us in draft form in 1999, the board asked me to be the focal
point in assessing the policy that was coming to us and trying to
keep the board apprised as to the probable impact and the kinds
of activity we were going to have to engage in in the long
run.
The third thing that was
quite interesting was when we replaced our detachment commander
about six months ago. I, along with the chair of the board, was
asked to represent the board, and we went through the process of
actually selecting a new detachment commander.
The other thing we did,
with the provisions of the adequacy standards plus the fact that
we as a board wished to get some better comprehension of the
perspective of our constituents on policing, was a fairly major
survey in August and September last year. I was asked by the
board to be the focal point in designing the survey and analyzing
the results, and I wrote the report which was ratified by the
board in December.
Finally, I think I should
point out that obviously none of this works very well unless you
have good interrelationship and co-operation between the various
levels that are required. I must say we have that. We take our
issues on a regular basis to the regional commander, and some of
our issues in fact have gone to the commissioner herself, and we
have received excellent co-operation to the point where the other
boards within our OPP regional structure, which is eastern
region, have been coming to us for advice on how to approach
particular issues. Our chairman in fact has been asked to make a
presentation to the police services boards' annual meeting of
this year, which is organized along with the OPP and other police
forces, and is an excellent forum for discussing these types of
issues.
In essence, what I'm trying
to say is that the issues facing our board over the next three
years in particular are critical. The mayor has returned to the
board, the council member who was on the board has been
reappointed, and with myself, I think we have been the core of
the previous board, and I think there is a large measure of
support to say that the impetus we've started should be
continued.
The Chair:
Government members?
Mr Wood: I
have one question. As you may be aware, it has been a matter of
considerable concern from time to time on this committee that
there may be nepotism in government appointments. I therefore
feel it my duty to ask you, is it true that you're the son of Jim
Bradley, MPP?
We'll waive our time.
Mr Herb Bradley: I think not, but
he may be my older brother.
The Chair:
On that basis, I know how I would vote if I could.
We'll then go to the
official opposition.
Mr
Crozier: Good afternoon, sir, and welcome to the
committee. I understand by your background that you have been on
the police services board prior to this. How long have you
served?
Mr Herb
Bradley: With the board, three years.
Mr
Crozier: In your resumé you have noted that because
you're retired and have flexible time you've been able to devote
a great deal of time on board concerns. Has it taken a great deal
of time to be a member of this particular board?
Mr Herb
Bradley: It has taken a surprising amount of time,
perhaps more because of the way our board has chosen to function,
although I must say that the chairman finds the same thing. I was
doing so much background information for our board that in fact
the county loaned me a computer system to take home so I could do
the work. I have produced a stack of background documentation for
the board that is probably this thick.
Mr
Crozier: Is it because of specific problems that you
have? In other words, you mentioned that there are critical
issues to deal with in the future. What might those critical
issues be?
Mr Herb
Bradley: The most critical one is the implementation of
the adequacy standard itself. Some time in the next three years
we have to do a major survey-the board must do the survey, not
anyone else-and produce a report on that. That's not going to be
a minor undertaking. The amount of work, even doing the survey we
did last year for our own purposes-I literally probably spent a
good part of my time for two or three weeks in August and
September on that project.
That's the way we've chosen
to work. The chairman is an excellent frontperson for us and the
mayor is an excellent frontperson. We all are contributing a
great deal to the actual board meetings, but this is the kind of
work that goes on outside of the specific board meeting itself. I
was surprised, quite frankly, by the amount of work to be
done.
Mr
Crozier: You said also in the information that has been
given to us that one of the board's key initiatives was a
community survey on police services. So you've done the survey,
or you have to do another survey, you say, as one of your
critical issues?
1420
Mr Herb
Bradley: We completed a survey in September for our own
purposes. The adequacy standards require that we do a major
survey and, in fact, name many of the stakeholders that we must
consult. That has to be done sometime within the next three
years. We're sort of aiming and suggesting that it's going to be
in 2002. But that is going to have to be done. It's a legislative
requirement.
Mr
Crozier: What were the major results of the community
survey that you conducted last fall?
Mr Herb
Bradley: Actually, several key ones. Number one was that
our citizens are quite pleased with the degree of service we are
getting. There were a few suggestions. The part that particularly
pleased me, was we queried the citizens on their perception of
particular kinds of police service problems, and uncategorically
the response came back that our citizens have a pretty proper
understanding of police issues and where they're going. They're
not overly concerned about things like law enforcement. They've
put it all in a pretty good perspective.
The only place where we
came up with a criticism-and the OPP did its own survey, I think
in 1998, and the same criticism was there-was that there are a
number of people who criticized the response of the OPP when they
called for service in the first place and a number of people
criticized the follow-up of the OPP to the investigations that
they had to undertake. The business plan of the detachment, which
I think was put out in 1999, addresses that issue and our new
detachment commander very clearly indicates that as far as he is
concerned, even though it's a small number, that is a major
concern of a police force and they must do something to alleviate
that concern.
Mr
Crozier: With your experience, do you find it unusual
that a body like the OPP would have been criticized for both
response and follow-up? That doesn't leave much in the
middle.
Mr Herb
Bradley: The question of the response in the first place
is a little easier to deal with. The problem is-and I must say
one of the things that surprised us in the survey was to find
that in fact, how much of the interchange between our police
service and our citizens was actually directed to the detachment.
The impression was that a lot of it went through the
communications centre, but in fact our residents obviously are
well acquainted with the detachment. If they have a problem, they
call the detachment.
The problem with that is
that frequently-or at least part of the time-a person calls the
OPP about a problem that's not the OPP's authority or
responsibility. So some people get upset about that, obviously.
The OPP will steer them on to whoever should be looking after the
problem.
The question of follow-up
is probably nothing more, in most cases, than a question of
communications, and we've certainly had a few occasions of that.
There's no doubt that the odd person-and the detachment commander
undertakes this on a regular basis-needs to be bucked up and say,
"Look. You were dealing with this person about a break-and-enter.
The least you could have done was gone back and explained to them
what the results were of your investigation." I think that sort
of approach will clear up most of those concerns.
Mr
Crozier: I'm curious, too, about something you said
where you have taken issues right up to the commissioner. What
kind of issue would you feel necessary, or have you felt
necessary, to take to the commissioner?
Mr Herb
Bradley: The one major issue that our board inherited-it
stems from an OPP policy, and this is one of the kinds of policies that the OPP must
look at and is looking at and will have to change. Up until
recently, the OPP policy for their members posted to-I don't know
what their name is for it, but they're hardship postings. The
policy said that a person who went through that posting and spent
three years or two years, whichever the case may be, when they're
through that posting, has their choice of where they want to be
posted afterwards. The problem was that at the staff sergeant,
detachment commander level, the board supposedly has the-it's
pretty poorly defined and we've redefined it, but if the board
has the authority to participate in the selection of the
detachment commander, that runs right against the prospective
person's ability to choose to come to our detachment, and in fact
that's what happened. A detachment commander came to us seven or
eight years ago out of a specialty area as a staff sergeant and
he did not have the background and the experience to run a
35-person detachment. The consequence was that the OPP found it
necessary to transfer him from those duties. The good side of
that was it gave us the opportunity to participate in the
selection of a new detachment commander, who is A1.
The Chair:
That is it for the Liberal Party. We will now go to the third
party and Mr Martin.
Mr Martin:
Thanks for coming today. I note in your resumé and in your
comments that up until just recently you served on the police
services board.
Mr Herb
Bradley: That's correct.
Mr Martin:
Why weren't you able to continue in that capacity? Why are you
coming at it now from this route?
Mr Herb
Bradley: I was a council appointee the first time
around. It was the first board that represented the new
amalgamated council. Toward the end of our jurisdiction, one of
the provincially appointed members of our board let it be known
to us that he would not seek reappointment to the board. At that
time, I rather thought I would be pleased to apply and receive
that appointment, so I've come forward. I hope I have left the
impression-I'm really quite committed to the proper application
of the board, so I applied.
The other part of that is
that I'm a known quantity to the mayor, who has been returned to
office, to the councillor, who has been returned to office, and
several other council members who have been returned to office.
We all thought it an appropriate step to take. It would leave the
new council with the opportunity to exercise its jurisdiction in
picking a new selectee for the board at that level. One of the
background issues we're hoping for, and I include myself in this,
is that in fact we can find a well-qualified lady to step into
the board in the council's appointee position.
Mr Martin:
I understand wanting to appoint a woman to the board perhaps. Is
there any other reason why you wouldn't have simply continued on
in your position as the appointee of the council?
Mr Herb
Bradley: The council itself has exercised its
responsibility. The new council-over half of them are newly
elected-let it be known very quickly that they wished to go
through the procedures again of selecting their own appointee. If
I'm not successful before this committee, I will choose to enter
into that competition and will go back before the board. But I
think I can assure you there is no ulterior motive in terms of
anyone wishing to divest me from the board.
Mr Martin:
Do you have any particular political affiliation?
Mr Herb
Bradley: None at all.
The Chair:
We have had all three parties now. Thank you very much, Mr
Bradley, for appearing before the committee.
Mr Herb
Bradley: I thank you for your indulgence.
1430
ROBERT SMITH
Review of intended
appointment, selected by the official opposition party: Robert
Smith, intended appointee as member, Town of North Perth Police
Services Board.
The Chair:
Our next intended appointee is Robert Smith, intended appointee
as member, Town of North Perth Police Services Board. Mr Smith,
you may come to the table. As you would know from watching the
previous speaker, you are permitted to have some introductory
remarks, should you choose to do so, and then you will be
questioned by members of the committee. Welcome to the
committee.
Mr Robert
Smith: Thank you very much. My name is Bob Smith, and I
am applying for a position on the police services board of North
Perth.
I was born in Listowel and
spent my boyhood years helping on the family farm or attending
school. Upon graduation from school with a diploma in commercial
studies, a local company that was in the wholesale automotive
parts business hired me. I worked in purchasing and inventory
control as well as inside and outside sales until 1957, when I
was asked to assist in opening the company's first branch
operation in Wingham, Ontario. It proved to be successful, and I
was moved to the town of Hanover to create a similar branch.
Over the years a number of
branches were established, and in 1975 I was offered an
opportunity to return to head office in Listowel and take on the
role of district manager, overseeing the management and building
of additional branch locations. Part of my duties involved
organizing and presiding over managers' meetings and training
sessions, and I was also responsible for the recruitment and
hiring of personnel. The company now has 20 outlets in
southwestern Ontario, and I am very proud of the small part I
played in its successful growth. I have been retired since 1994
but still have a great deal of respect for the firm and its
owners. They have been very kind to me.
My volunteer experience has
been with church boards, church music committees and the parking
authority, a committee of the town of North Perth. As a member of
several musical groups, I have helped entertain and visit senior
citizens and shut-ins, and I've enjoyed many years of satisfaction from my
involvement with the Society for the Preservation and
Encouragement of Barbershop Quartet Singing. Their charity is
raising funds for the treatment and training of children with
speech impediments.
As a municipally appointed
community member of the Listowel Police Services Board, I have
taken part in police salary negotiations and budget planning. I
have attended a number of zone meetings, conferences arranged by
the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards, as well as
other training sessions presented by the Ministry of the
Solicitor General's office.
I have enjoyed living in
the community of North Perth and feel I can be a useful member of
the police services board.
Thank you for the
opportunity to attend this hearing.
The Chair:
We will commence with the official opposition, the Liberal
Party.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Good afternoon, Mr Smith. Am I to understand
from your opening comments that you have already participated as
a member of the police services board in your community?
Mr Smith:
I have.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: For how long?
Mr Smith:
I believe it's four years.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Then you would have some familiarity
with-you heard the previous presenter, who made reference to
adequacy standards. At this committee we've had the opportunity
to have a chat with a number of individuals who would be
appointed to police services boards across the province, but I
have to say that today was the first time I became aware of the
issue around adequacy standards.
I come from a rural riding
in Ontario, much like yours, I would expect, so the issue of
adequacy standards is one that I'm quite interested in. I would
ask you today if you would be able to make any comment about the
adequacy standards in your police services board and if you would
be able to comment on the challenges that you would see in your
area with regard to these standards and meeting these
standards.
Mr Smith:
I don't see any immediate problems. We certainly were concerned
and we knew the adequacy standards were to be established, but
they have just been made available to us and we see no problem
with them. The board itself has to complete a business plan of
our own that we haven't completed as yet, but we're ready to
start it. But the adequacy standards don't seem to be any problem
with us.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Would you be able to help me perhaps just a
little bit to understand some of the issues to which adequacy
standards would be applied? And when you say they've given you
some concern, in what areas? Is it response time? Is it to ensure
that all residents have access to 911 numbers? Can you just share
with me and explain, because I don't know and this is information
that would be very helpful to me, for your police services board
in a rural Ontario community, those standards that you might
consider somewhat of a challenge and what your board would be
doing to address those?
Mr Smith:
I think originally we were concerned about such things as
tactical units and police dogs and helicopters, but we discovered
that's not a problem in a small community; it's available to us
if we need it.
The assurance of safety and
security for all persons and property is our main concern and our
main en-deavour, and that seems to be adequately covered by the
standards. Have I answered that?
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Thank you.
Mr
Crozier: Sir, did you know anybody in this room before
you came in here today?
Mr Smith:
Yes.
Mr
Crozier: Could you point to that person? Ah, so is he
the guilty one?
Mr Smith:
He had nothing to do with this appearance today that I'm aware
of.
Mr
Crozier: OK. You have been on the police services board
in your area. Were you a provincial appointment at that time?
Mr Smith:
I was originally a provincial appointment and then I was
appointed by the council.
Mr
Crozier: But you've served four years in total.
Mr Smith:
Yes.
Mr
Crozier: I see. OK. No, I don't have any further
questions. I think the one I asked was damning enough.
Laughter.
Mr
Johnson: I just wanted to clear up: you said I had
nothing to do with you being down here today. To make that clear,
you and I drove down here together today.
Mr
Crozier: Talk about nepotism.
Mr Kells:
Never spoke a word on the way down.
Mr
Johnson: I think the point that Bob was trying to make
was that I didn't either ask him or pressure him or any other
thing to encourage him to take this step. So I really don't have
any questions. I've known Mr Smith for some years and I'm pleased
and proud to be able to hopefully refer to him as a friend.
Mr Smith:
I would very much publicly like to thank Mr Johnson for the trip
down here today. It made it much easier for me.
Mr
Crozier: Now we're really getting into it.
Mr Smith:
But that is true: I didn't request him. He's a good friend.
The Chair:
Any other questions from the governing party?
Mr Garfield Dunlop
(Simcoe North): I'm just curious, Mr Smith. Have you
been very active in community-based policing associations in
your-
Mr Smith:
I'm sorry?
Mr Dunlop:
Do you have active community-based policing committees under your
police services board?
Mr Smith:
I'm not sure I understand. Other than the board, we don't have
anything-
Mr Dunlop:
Community-based policing, when an organization will look after a
small community like a hamlet and they'll have aggressive-driving
programs, that type of thing.
1440
Mr Smith:
Yes, we have the RIDE programs and we have a wonderful community
relations officer who visits schools and malls and does displays
and clinics on drugs and so on. We've lost him to another
community but he's being replaced with someone I think equally
well qualified.
Mr Dunlop:
I should tell you I made a trip one evening, and I tried to
follow a gentleman from St Marys to Listowel. There was some
aggressive driving that evening. That fellow's name was Bert
Johnson.
Mr Smith:
He drove very well today.
The Chair:
Any more incriminating statements to be made?
Mr Wood:
We'll waive.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, sir, for being with us. You may step
down.
RICHARD RAYMOND
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Richard
Raymond, intended appointee as vice-chair, Ontario Lottery and
Gaming Corp board of directors.
The Chair:
Our next intended appointee is Richard Raymond, intended
appointee as vice-chair, Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp board of
directors. I'm going to relinquish temporarily the chair of this
committee to Mr Crozier so that I may have an opportunity to ask
questions.
The
Vice-Chair: Good afternoon, Mr Raymond. You have an
opportunity for opening comments and then we'll move on to
questioning.
Mr Richard
Raymond: First I'd like to thank the committee for the
meeting we have today. I'd like to take a few minutes to discuss
my business and personal background to establish my experience
and qualifications to serve for this public appointment.
Being president and chief
executive officer for the past 30 years has led me to the
formulation and execution of strategies and tactics which have
seen companies grow to a respectable size and market position
with managed assets of about $65 million and sales in excess of
$120 million. I've also established corporate business plans and
have overseen the performance of various divisions and operating
units of the companies, both in Canada and the United States. In
this role I've built and maintained important relationships for
the company with customers, suppliers and other members of the
corporate community such as commercial banks, investment banks,
insurance companies, brokerage firms, stock exchanges and
government regulators, federal and provincial, state and local
levels, and have also been involved in major acquisitions and
divestitures.
In addition to my
responsibilities, I've held several senior positions in
municipal, provincial and national industry associations and have
had the opportunity to hold other board positions. With the
divestiture of the US company and restructuring of the Canadian
company, I feel I have the time available for such an opportunity
that I'm applying for today.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We'll start with the
government members.
Mr Wood:
We'll waive our time.
The
Vice-Chair: Your time is waived. Then we'll move to the
Liberal members.
Mr James J. Bradley
(St Catharines): I obviously asked to ask the questions.
Members of the Legislature are well aware of my views on gambling
in the province. They're not shared by all of my own colleagues
in my own caucus, nor necessarily by colleagues in other
caucuses. However, I think there are some who probably share them
in all three caucuses.
Sir, to put it on the
table, so you'll know where I'm coming from, I'm an adamant
opponent of the escalation of gambling by governments of all
political stripes in all different jurisdictions. How do you view
the continuous expansion of gambling opportunities as a social
policy for this province? How do you think it affects the social
fabric of this province?
Mr
Raymond: I can only look and evaluate the positive side
of it and the negative, and obviously there is some. That's why
we provide up to $17 million for gambling research and the
development of programs and investment for responsible
gambling.
Mr James J.
Bradley: Would you say, sir, that that money would not
be required in those kind of sums if indeed governments had not
expanded gambling opportunities, whether it's the federal
government or any provincial government, and in this case the
Ontario government; that this $17 million to which you are making
reference, which the government sees as a virtue, would not be
required if it weren't for the constant escalation of gambling
opportunities that this government has embarked upon since its
election, and has followed on other governments which have been
involved in gambling activities?
Mr
Raymond: I think that's a given, yes. If there weren't
any gambling, there wouldn't be any addiction. I think there
would addiction and gambling other than going into the public
purse. There is always underground gambling that I think has been
eliminated quite extensively by the government getting into the
game and having taxpayers have the opportunity of the
revenues.
Mr James J.
Bradley: Following that theory, that if there is a
criminal activity the government should get into it-
Mr
Raymond: Eliminating the criminal activity.
Mr James J.
Bradley: -should the government then sell cocaine?
Mr
Raymond: Excuse me?
Mr James J.
Bradley: There is a problem with the illegal sale of
cocaine. Does that mean the government should sell cocaine?
Mr
Raymond: Obviously not.
Mr James J.
Bradley: That's an argument I've heard. By the way, I
understand you're not responsible for the policy, sir. So don't
worry, I understand that. These are not critical of you, but they are questions
that I think members of the commission to which you're being
appointed should be aware.
We now have slot machines
in the racetracks. The minister responsible, Mr Hodgson, with a
good deal of fanfare and, in my view, after considerable
pressure, probably from members of his own caucus, members of the
opposition and other people, said that they would not have 44 new
charity casinos. There would only be four, but they would have
slot machines in the racetracks. Would you not say that slot
machines in the racetracks are really a backdoor way of having
casinos across the province, casinos that were in fact denied
through the front door, called charity casinos?
Mr
Raymond: No. I think the racetrack slots were actually
to provide financing for an established industry, the racetrack
industry, and support the agricultural part of the racetrack
industry and all those small businessmen who were involved in the
racetrack industry.
Mr James J.
Bradley: I understand that the Premier got an award for
this. If it was an award, I'd be turning it down were I he, but
that's only my opinion. Naturally the racetrack owners, or
whatever the association is, thought he was the best thing since
sliced bread because he allowed these slots in. Couldn't you
equally do something good for the horse racing industry, but not
by putting slot machines in? People don't even have to watch a
race; they just put money, endlessly like zombies, one after
another, into these slot machines. At least with the racetrack
they're watching horses. They have to know something about the
horses. It provides jobs as well. Wouldn't it have been just as
easy for the Ontario Lottery Corp, the casino corporation-those
responsible for gambling, anyway, and the government-to simply
allow the racetrack owners to receive more of the revenue and the
government less of the revenue? Would that not have accomplished
the same thing as simply sticking slot machines in and allowing
people to play slot machines?
Mr
Raymond: Really, that's not for me to say. I'm here to
run the business, to sit on the board and try to run the business
the best we can. I can't make a comment on that.
Mr James J.
Bradley: Fair enough, sir.
It is said that somehow, as
a result of gambling, there is money for such things as the
Trillium Foundation and others. The implication, the suggestion,
is that if we didn't have all these gambling activities, the
government of Ontario wouldn't provide money to all of these good
endeavours in the province. Isn't it true that all money from
gambling in fact goes into the consolidated revenue fund and then
the government decides where that money will go after that?
Mr
Raymond: A certain percentage goes into the fund; other
money goes directly to municipalities.
Mr James J.
Bradley: But the part that comes to the Ontario
government-this is something I learned when I got into
government. I didn't know this all these years.
Interjection.
Mr James J.
Bradley: Exactly. The member is exactly right. They are
a joke, "designated taxes." They in fact are not designated and
they go into the consolidated revenue fund. So isn't it true that
those same monies could be derived from government sources other
than gambling and not embark upon widespread gambling in this
province?
1450
Mr
Raymond: Approximately $51 million went to 13
communities just in the third quarter of last year. I think
there's a tremendous amount of money going into benefits for
different municipalities, directly into their hands to do what
they wish, the same percentage of money that's gone to the
racetrack owners and the horse owners. They have money to invest
in businesses-small businesses-to reinvest into the racetrack
industry, which has improved its purses and is doing much better
because of the investment.
Mr James J.
Bradley: You're kind enough to answer and to offer an
observation. In fairness to you, the questions are more of a
policy nature and I understand that. I was just interested in
your responses as a person who is going to be on this particular
agency.
Let me get to something
perhaps more directly under your control and supervision, as
opposed to the policy. I have seen some of the commercials for
the slots that show the gentleman leaving the house. He ties the
bedsheets together, leaves on his wife and goes out and blows a
bundle at the racetrack slots. Do you think it is appropriate to
have commercials which, if they don't give ideas, certainly give
the wrong impression that people should be sneaking out on their
spouses or their family or something of that nature to head out
to the slot machines? Would you be prepared to look carefully at
those kinds of commercials?
Mr
Raymond: Definitely. We certainly would have input. The
marketing people have their job to do, and they do it based on
what they think is best to get revenues up at the various sites.
They're experts and professionals at what they do. We have a
marketing budget, and they work within that. We can't critique
every ad that goes out. They don't always come to us, but
obviously they do work within a parameter of trying to make
things proper. You're not going to please everybody with any
ad.
Mr James J.
Bradley: Do you believe that people should be allowed to
max out their credit cards at a casino; bring a credit card, put
the credit card in and get the maximum, whatever it is, $5,000,
$7,000?
Mr
Raymond: There are just the bank machines for them
to-
Mr James J.
Bradley: Extremely convenient.
Mr
Raymond: Credit cards aren't used, to my understanding.
It's just bank cards. You can get cash.
Mr James J.
Bradley: Again, I guess I should confine my questions to
those things over which you have jurisdiction; I understand that.
I'm looking for ways to curb some of the excesses. Would you be
prepared to have a study done-I guess it has to be done on an
interview basis or so on-to determine whether the people who are playing the
slot machines are exactly the people who shouldn't be playing the
slot machines; in other words, trying to get a profile? It's
hard, because it's a volunteer answer, but many people who have
observed-I haven't been in a casino-have said, "If you put your
mind to it ahead and said, `Who shouldn't be in here?' and then
you walked in, you'd find a heck of a lot of people"-not
everybody by any means-"who shouldn't be in there blowing the
paycheque while governments get the revenue and say what a great
job they're doing." Is there some kind of study that can be done
that would determine who is going into the casinos and the slot
machine places, to determine whether there are policies that
should curb that?
Mr
Raymond: I really don't know, but I'd be happy to take
your wishes back and suggest it.
I think we all are
conscious-we don't want anybody hurt. We are here to represent
the taxpayers of Ontario and do the best for them with the
abilities we have to do it. I think we all have a conscience, Mr
Bradley, and I think we try to work within the parameters of that
conscience, the same as you do.
Mr Martin:
Picking up from there, what would be your attitude to legislation
that would make casinos and racetrack operations where gambling
other than on the horses is happening responsible for damage done
to people who come and play at such a level that they lose their
livelihood and their families and their health? There's some
suggestion out there from some of the folks who have some
concerns about this that maybe making the actual casinos
themselves responsible would then put enough onus in place to
actually do the kind of thing that Mr Bradley was speaking about
a few minutes ago, which is to minimize or lessen, or cut out
altogether, the potential that there is now for lives to be
destroyed and families to be ruined in this kind of venture.
Mr
Raymond: Like I said, I think we all have our conscience
in relation to seeing anybody hurt. We really don't take them by
the hand and take them to the machines; it's freedom of choice in
relation to visiting any of these facilities, based on your
age.
Mr Martin:
But isn't it a little bit, though, like the tobacco industry that
says, "Just because we advertise and make our product as
attractive as possible and try to get people, by the ways that we
do, to actually participate, we're not responsible ultimately, in
the end, if they partake and destroy their health or whatever."
Don't lottery operations run advertisements and create atmosphere
and do all kinds of things to entice people to come and
participate at as full a level as possible, and wouldn't that in
itself suggest that at the end of the day there should be some
responsibility if hurt actually happens?
Mr
Raymond: I don't know if you're aware of it, but there
is under the government a problem gambling allocation. The newly
established Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre recently
awarded $1.7 million in research grants to 11 universities to
work, probably, to look at different ways to help. We do a
tremendous amount of posting of warnings of gambling and fatigue.
Every one of the slot machines has warnings on it; they're in all
the washrooms. There are help lines. I think we do have a very
established program to try to make people aware, based on how
they're feeling, where they are in relation to the money they're
spending. We reach out as much as we can in relation to trying to
deal with those people, to try to get them to stop when they
should stop.
Mr Martin:
There's a group out there as well that you may or may not be
aware of-certainly all of us in this place are because they are
communicating with us all the time-who are concerned about the
expansion of gambling with no consultation in the community about
the impact that might have on the particular community that the
venue may be next door to, or whatever. In being appointed
vice-chair of the corporation that you are, would it be your
intention to perhaps consult more with communities as we expand
further and further-
Mr
Raymond: I have no problem with that at all, Mr
Martin.
Mr Martin:
Because certainly that's a strong suggestion by this group.
Mr
Raymond: I believe we do, but if it's not enough, I will
certainly ask the questions and make sure we are communicating
well with the communities. We know we do have a moratorium. There
is a moratorium on gambling. The only one possible charity casino
is the one at the Thousand Island bridge area. There are, I
think, a couple of racetracks that haven't been opened. Other
than that, there is a moratorium and a freeze on any more
expansion.
Mr Martin:
I guess what they're concerned about, in the reading I do anyway,
is that even with the moratorium and the potential expansion into
the places that haven't been developed yet, they feel that more
and more machines are going into the already existing facilities
and that means more opportunity for people to gamble. They think
that wasn't in keeping with some of the consultations that
actually happened, although they believe that the consultation
was minimal and not really very effective. Anyway, I just put
that on your plate as you go forward.
The other question I have,
if I have just a couple more minutes, is more personal and more
parochial for me. The head of the Ontario Lottery Corp used to be
in Sault Ste Marie and it was put up there for a very particular
reason by the Liberal government of the day and David Peterson:
to help our community diversify its economy and to send a message
to the rest of the province and the country that you could do
that kind of business there and be successful. In fact, the
experience through the early 1990s was that for each year that
the headquarters of the corporation was in the Soo, profits
increased year over year, so it was successful. The headquarters
now, for the most part, has been and is being moved to Toronto.
That has had a very detrimental and negative effect on Sault Ste
Marie for a variety of reasons. One is the salary base of some of
the higher-echelon professions that were there; plus it took away
from our community that pool of expertise that used to participate in community
economic development and the United Way and so many other
organizations.
1500
I want to know your opinion
on that move and whether you could be somebody that Sault Ste
Marie would see as friendly to the possibility of maybe reversing
that decision so that we might have that headquarters there
again, to give us the stimulation and the opportunity that it
gave us from 1990 to 1995 while it was there.
Mr
Raymond: The address of the headquarters of the
corporation is Sault Ste Marie, and there is an operational and
business unit in Toronto for obvious reasons.
Mr Martin:
The headquarters is in Toronto.
Mr
Raymond: On the letterhead, Mr Martin, the headquarters
is Sault Ste Marie.
Mr Martin:
But it's not.
Mr
Raymond: I don't know the percentage; I really don't
know if there have been reduced numbers of people working in
Sault Ste Marie. I don't think there have been. You might say
that most of the top-end financial people are there.
Mr Martin:
Actually, they're not. Most of the vice-presidents are now in
Toronto and the corporate executives are all in Toronto. There
are a couple left because there is still an operational arm
there; more and more of those positions are contract and temp
jobs. But the headquarters itself is now down here in
Toronto.
Mr
Raymond: The senior vice-president of finance, Mr Tom
Dalton, is there, and all his people; and the human resources
vice-president, Walter Fioravante.
Mr Martin:
They're the only two top vice-presidents left.
Mr
Raymond: But with a tremendous amount of staff.
I have no problem with what
you're saying and obviously, sure, I think the employment base in
the Soo should be protected. There's no question about that. I
think that the opening of the charity casino there also has added
some opportunities in Sault Ste Marie. So I think there is a
benefit of that being open there and, I hope, helping the
business climate in the Soo.
Mr Martin:
Interestingly enough-I don't know if we're running out of time
here or not, but-
The
Vice-Chair: No, you actually have about a minute and a
half.
Mr Martin:
OK. That's the argument that's made, that we in fact got the
casino, so what are we complaining about? But the image that is
presented when you lose the top-echelon jobs and the headquarters
in fact isn't there any more-and it's not. If we're being honest
with each other, it's not. The headquarters is in Toronto.
Mr
Raymond: I would be happy to find out exactly and give
you the information in relation to what the total payroll was and
what it is to see if there is really a net gain or loss in
relation to the offices in Toronto. With the adding of the
racetrack facilities and the growth of the industry, there is a
tremendous amount of growth of total overall employees. I think
it's somewhere in the area of 17,000 people working in the casino
corporation.
I don't know if I can
answer your question directly, if the number of people have been
reduced in Sault Ste Marie in total, or as you're saying, does
that mean that some of the top jobs have moved out but maybe
there's more people? I don't know what the total annual payroll
is, but I'd be happy to find that out for you, if you wish.
Mr Martin:
Just to say to you that that move in itself was one of the major
detractors from us building a new economy in the Soo that was
diversified and into some of the new communication-oriented
fields that obviously the lottery corporation is in. It was
unfortunate.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Raymond. We appreciate your
taking the time to come before the committee today.
Mr
Raymond: Thank you very much.
The
Vice-Chair: The next selection is Cheryl Byrne, an
intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming
Corp board of directors. Is she available? We're a bit ahead of
schedule.
Mr Wood: I
don't think she's here yet. I wonder if we might deal with
concurrences and see if she arrives. If she doesn't, we'll
adjourn until 3:30.
The
Vice-Chair: That's a great suggestion. I was just
thinking that.
Mr Wood:
We'll do what we can to find her in the meantime.
The Chair:
I'll assume the chair for the voting, since our voting members
are Ms Dombrowsky and Mr Crozier.
These are the ones from
this afternoon you're talking about, and I'll entertain motions
now.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence with respect to Mr Bradley.
The Chair:
The motion is for concurrence in the appointment of Mr H.G.
(Herb) Bradley as intended appointee as member, County of Prince
Edward Police Services Board. Any discussion?
All in favour? Opposed?
Carried.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence in Mr Smith.
The Chair:
There is a motion for Robert Smith, intended appointee as member,
Town of North Perth Police Services Board. Any discussion?
All in favour? Opposed? The
motion is carried.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence re Mr Raymond.
The Chair:
Mr Richard Raymond, intended appointee as vice-chair, Ontario
Lottery and Gaming Corp board of directors. Any discussion?
All in favour? Opposed? The
motion is carried.
Mr Wood:
If I may, I'll find out what word we have on Ms Byrne. Give me
one minute.
The Chair:
We can have a recess for one minute.
The committee recessed
from 1507 to 1515.
CHERYL BYRNE
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Cheryl Byrne,
intended appointee as member, Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp
board of directors.
The Vice-Chair: Good afternoon.
Cheryl Byrne is the intended appointee as a member of the Ontario
Lottery and Gaming Corp board of directors. You have the
opportunity to make an opening statement, if you like, and then
after that we'll go to a round of questioning. We have you with
us for half an hour, I understand. Welcome.
Mrs Cheryl
Byrne: Good afternoon, members. Thank your for the
opportunity to appear before you to speak about my intended
appointment to the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. I understand
that you have been given a copy of my resumé but I'd like to
expand a little bit on some of the educational, business and
perhaps personal background issues.
I was born in Edmonton,
Alberta, and graduated with a bachelor of education degree from
the University of Alberta. I taught music and math in an
elementary school outside Edmonton and was enjoying it quite
immensely until my husband was transferred to Montreal. He was
then the national menswear buyer for the Hudson's Bay Co. The
English schools were closing in Montreal and, not being
bilingual, I was unable to secure a teaching position. I
therefore decided that in order to open some doors for myself, I
needed to go back to school. So I wrote the GNAT exam and was
accepted into Concordia University's MBA program. Over the course
of three years I completed my MBA, had three children and moved
house and home to Toronto, where my husband was now an executive
with a clothing manufacturer.
I tell you this because it
provides an example of the energy level that I bring to any
project, personal or professional, and it also provides an
example of my commitment to a goal once it has been
established.
As you will see from my
resumé, once I joined the workforce on a full-time basis in
1992 I had a series of interesting positions. Throughout these
positions there were always two very common threads: project
management and change management. I enjoy the challenge that
comes with starting a new project or organization or changing one
to work more effectively. My MBA investigative project was
employee involvement and job commitment, and I have had many
opportunities to test those findings as I have led teams through
organizational development and change. Motivating a team, finding
the right fit for an individual and the organization, and
providing the support and encouragement as the challenges
increase has been one of the most rewarding parts of my career.
Setting the strategic direction and putting the pieces in place
to see what happens has been the other.
I have been fortunate in
that I have been able to put these skills to use for my family
and my community. Working with the Erin Mills soccer association
was one of my most demanding and rewarding volunteer roles.
Fielding over 4,000 children for the outdoor soccer season was a
huge undertaking for us as a group of volunteers. I can see
somebody nodding; obviously a soccer father here. Our board of
directors comprised a diverse group of parents with different
ethnic backgrounds, educational levels and organizational skills.
Coming to consensus on some of the more difficult issues was an
exercise in careful listening and mediation.
Whether it's debating an
issue with business colleagues at the board of trade or parents
at the school council or my management team at the Electronic
Commerce Council of Canada, I have the proven ability to listen,
challenge and mediate. I am hoping to bring those skills and
others to the board of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp.
In closing, I would like to
say that I put myself through university, paying my tuition and
room and board by working three part-time jobs: one was as a
piano teacher, one was as a cashier at the Bay, where I met my
husband, and the third was as a ticket seller at the Edmonton
racetrack. Maybe I'll be able to draw on that front-line
experience of the latter with this board appointment.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you, Ms Byrne. For questioning, we'll
go to the Liberals.
Mr James J.
Bradley: I don't know if you had an opportunity in the
other room to view the questions which were directed to a
previous person.
Mrs Byrne:
No, I did not.
Mr James J.
Bradley: Just so you know ahead of time where I'm coming
from, I am probably the most adamantly opposed person to the
expansion of gambling opportunity in this province, at least
who's prepared to say so. There are many reasons why others may
not be able to, regarding which party they happen to be in, so it
does not look as though I'm coming out of left field.
1520
I'm going to try to zero in
on questions. I was a little less fair with the last person
because I thought it was more on policy questions that should
have been directed to a minister or something.
There is a case in Windsor,
I believe it is, where a woman who was the manager of a bank had
$1 million, which was, I think I read in the paper, allegedly
embezzled and spent at the Windsor casino. I won't ask you to
comment on that specific case; that would be very unfair. But bar
owners have a responsibility. If somebody leaves in a drunken
state from a bar and then gets into an accident, that person
might be liable for something that had happened, if the bar owner
hadn't taken steps to prevent that person from getting
drunk-let's put it that way. Do you think that not only casinos
but places of gambling have a responsibility to ensure that those
who are there blowing their money should be stopped at some point
in time?
Mrs Byrne:
I'm assuming you are asking for a personal opinion-
Mr James J.
Bradley: Yes, I am.
Mrs Byrne:
-so I'm quite prepared to give you one. If you're in a situation
where somebody is inebriated and they're about to get in a
vehicle, I think any good citizen other than the bar owner has a
responsibility to step in and do something. If somebody is
inebriated, standing in a gambling casino, I hope somebody would
also step in and pull
them back from perhaps making a poor judgment issue, but whether
or not the casino has the right to infringe on somebody's
personal decision to blow their money, I guess that's a bigger
issue for discussion.
Mr James J.
Bradley: As a member of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming
Corp, would you be prepared to promote policies which would
encourage gambling establishments to stop people from maxing out
their bank cards and blowing every last nickel they have there so
that they have no money left at home? In the specific case I was
speaking about before-and it has happened on many occasions,
embezzling money from work-would you be prepared to promote
policies that would try to stop that from happening?
Mrs Byrne:
I certainly would be prepared to promote any policy that assisted
an individual in having a good and careful look at what they were
doing, especially if it was to affect their livelihood and their
family. To what extent you can enter into guiding people's
decisions, I think that's a larger question and certainly one
that I'd like to take part in.
I have seen examples, when
I was working at the racetrack many years ago, of some people who
were like that person who is always sitting at the bar. They are
addicted to it and they are into it in a big way. I think there's
a bigger issue behind those people, though. I think they have
some other serious problems that need to be addressed. I don't
know that shutting down a casino is necessarily the answer. And
how far the casino can go in addressing those personal issues,
like I said, that is a healthy discussion to be had.
I noticed that the Ontario
Lottery and Gaming Corp have listed in their annual report their
commitment to gaming problems as second in their mission. I was
actually quite surprised that it appeared that high, and I found
that to be a very positive thing.
Mr James J.
Bradley: I would personally view that as either
conscience money or-they are the ones who are creating the
business in the first place, but that's only a personal
opinion.
I want to get to this,
because you may have some influence on it-perhaps not; it's
usually policy. I am very concerned about the expansion of
gambling opportunities. I was just counting. We have some
information provided to us. There are now 5,527 more slot
machines in Ontario as a result of Ontario slamming the door shut
on gambling-that was the front door, the charity casinos. In the
back door they put them in the racetracks.
Is there any limit to which
you would recommend governments not go in advancing gambling
opportunities-and by the way, my fellow committee members know
I'm not critical of this government alone; I say "governments,"
all political stripes, all jurisdictions. Do you think we've gone
far enough in making it available for people in this province who
want to gamble?
Mrs Byrne:
I honestly don't know if we've gone far enough or too far. I have
not had the benefit of any kind of orientation session in terms
of this corporation and some of the numbers reached to date and
going forward, other than a very broad overview.
Do I believe we should ask
the people in the communities in which gambling facilities are
going to be placed or are being considered to be placed?
Absolutely, and it is my understanding that that is already being
done. Whether that is done in terms of the terminals that are
placed in horse racetracks, I am not sure. But I would certainly
be interested in knowing that and, yes, I would certainly be
interested in receiving some answers around that issue.
Mr James J.
Bradley: There's no level of perfection that we've
reached. I don't wish to think everything is one way or another
way. People say, "Well, we had bingo halls before," and we have.
My observation is that people don't spend as much money in bingo
halls as they do in slot machines and it's a different
atmosphere. But I stand to be corrected.
Do you think that with
government intrusion into so many areas of gambling-I know they
give the money back, and they get credit for it when they do it,
but do you think that has, and will continue, to limit the
ability of local charitable organizations, volunteer
organizations and service clubs from holding activities that may
involve some minor things such as bingos and a couple of other
things they might run? I don't even mean the roving casinos,
which I didn't like either. Do you think this constant expansion
of government gambling is having an impact on them, and would you
be prepared to review that as a member of the corporation
directors?
Mrs Byrne:
Two parts, two answers. Number one, absolutely. If the Ontario
Lottery and Gaming Corp is turning around and providing funds for
charities etc in the province, and in the course of doing that
they end up damaging others, I think there needs to be some
serious discussion about the strategy with which this corporation
is approaching the whole gaming business in Ontario and the
results from it.
The second part of that is,
do I believe that is actually happening today? In my personal
opinion, no, I don't believe so. I am involved with the school
councils, the soccer league and so on, and we do a lot of
different fundraising things. Cawthra Park school council, of
which I was chair and am now past-chair, is involved in a bingo
event on a weekly basis, and it feeds funds into our school for
some special projects. It's a local community thing and it's
not-I suppose the people who go there view it as entertainment. I
know that if I were to go out for the evening and some friends
suggested that perhaps we entertain ourselves with an evening of
gambling, I would view it very differently than if I was going to
a local charity bingo to raise money for the soccer association
or the school. I could be mistaken, but I think the market's
perception of the two is different. One is seen more as
entertainment and the other is seen more as a fun, community,
let's-all-pull-together-and-have-a-fundraiser event-both somewhat
in terms of entertainment, but I think they're viewed differently
by the market. I could be wrong, but that's my view.
Mr James J.
Bradley: One thing I would ask you about in terms of
reviewing is whether you, as a member of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp board of
directors, would be prepared to be one of the consciences who
would review the advertising policy of the corporation or of
individual gambling spots that do advertising.
1530
An example I had was, I
think it was, Woodbine Slots. You notice they don't call it
Woodbine Raceway any more because they're really not, in my view,
gearing it to the horse racing fans. They just want to get them
in there to get those one-armed bandits going and blow all the
money. They want that to happen, and they've had some rather
unfortunate commercials. One I mentioned to a previous guest
before us is the man who ties the sheets together and heads out
the window on his wife, who is having dinner with friends or
something, and he's out there to do his gambling. There may be
more truth to that than we would like to think.
Would you be prepared, as a
member of the board of directors, to review and comment
negatively when necessary, with the hope of eliminating such
commercials when those commercials are brought forward for
consideration?
Mrs Byrne:
Yes, absolutely, I would. Past experience has put me into the
marketing and communications field. The way in which pieces of
information are communicated and positioned are critical, because
it can highly affect how things are perceived. I am very
conscious of how we communicate and the perceptions we create and
the perceptions we promote when we communicate outward, so
absolutely.
I am appearing on this
board. I am assuming I've been asked to come to this board
because, as vice-president of the Electronic Commerce Council of
Canada, I have a certain seniority and a lot of work with
different industry sectors and so on, but behind that there is
the mother of three children and a very responsible and devoted
community member. So I absolutely have no problem in telling you
that I don't mind speaking up and speaking my mind about anything
I don't feel is quite appropriate and would create bad
perceptions and so on.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you. We'll now move on to the
government side.
Mr Dunlop:
I would like to welcome you today, Mrs Byrne. I come from a
community with a casino, Casino Rama. You've probably heard of
it, up in the Chippewas-Mnjikaning First Nation. I would like to
say some positive things about it and I just have one quick
question at the end.
First of all, when Rama
first went after the casino and they were selected back in 1994,
it was very controversial in our community. A lot of people had a
lot of concerns about gambling addiction. We were very fortunate
that the community pulled together around the casino and looked
at it very positively. Community organizations like our local
community college held courses and had a lot of training for
people so that when they did have gambling addictions there would
be someone there to help support them. As a whole, it hasn't
really been a problem, I don't think any more so than someone
buying too many Nevada tickets or people who spent a lot of time
at the Barrie raceway earlier or even bingo. That seems to be an
addiction in itself at times. But for us, for our community, it
has been very positive. I want to send this message to you and to
your board, if you're selected.
Casino Rama now employs
more First Nations people than anywhere else in Canada. It's now
the second-largest employer of people in Simcoe county, behind
Honda of Canada. It's been a wonderful asset to the Orillia area.
They're building it as a tourist destination and what's now under
construction-you'll likely find out a lot more about this-is a
5,000-seat community entertainment centre and a 300-room hotel
going up, which will create more and more jobs. In our community,
we look at it as a very positive economic generator today.
The only thing I see some
weakness in is, maybe some of the money in the local community
has been taken away from service clubs that may have generated
more money in the past. I am wondering if you would support, as a
member of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp, more policies that
would support the casinos and gaming organizations working with
community organizations.
Mrs Byrne:
Yes, absolutely, and that is similar to what Mr Bradley asked.
When you strategically look at where you're placing these
organizations and you're looking at what's happening there
currently, those are questions that you need to ask the
community: "Are we going to damage some service groups?" Then you
go one step further and you say, "OK, let's not look at this just
as a negative but let's also have a look at positive outspins."
Maybe the positive outspins are that you work with some of the
service clubs to provide some of the value-added pieces that go
along.
In my current position, we
operate 15 committees out of the electronic commerce council.
We're a rather unique trade association in that we represent
cross industries. For instance, if the grocery industry, as it
does right now, wants to come together and approve the
efficiencies with which it runs the grocery industry in Canada,
we step in and act as an independent facilitator across those
industry lines. We ask people to take off their competitive hats
for a moment and sit down as grocery suppliers, distributors and
retailers and ask the serious and difficult questions on how we
can improve the efficiencies in the Canadian supply chain. If we
don't ask those questions, Canada will become less and less
competitive on the global stage.
But from our perspective,
and from my perspective at the electronic commerce council, we
are able to act as independent facilitators, get people to put
down those competitive hats for a minute and look at
opportunities and say, "How can we move forward together and how
can we all benefit?" Yes, sometimes in those discussions we have
to act like the conscience of the industry supply chain and say,
"Gee, Loblaws, I know you'd like to see that change but it's not
going to help this small producer over here."
I don't see that this is
that different. I see this as an opportunity for Ontario to
develop and grow one aspect of its business offering, the gaming business,
but at the same time to work with the communities in which it
finds itself to make sure this is a win-win situation for
everybody.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Further questions?
Mr Wood:
We'll waive the balance of our time, Mr Chair.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mrs Byrne, for appearing today.
I'll vacate the chair.
The Chair:
We have now completed the interviews of intended appointees. I am
prepared to entertain a motion regarding our last applicant.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence re Mrs Byrne.
The Chair:
Mr Wood has moved concurrence in the appointment of Cheryl Byrne,
intended appointee as member, Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp
board of directors. Discussion?
All in favour? Opposed?
Motion carried.
Is there any further
business of the committee that anyone wishes to raise?
Mr Wood: I
move adjournment.
The Chair:
All in favour? Opposed? Carried. The meeting is adjourned.
