INTENDED APPOINTMENTS RICHARD BOUTIN
CONTENTS
Thursday 6 October 1994
Intended appointments
Marion Dewar, Regional Police Planning Committee for Ottawa-Carleton
Gary Forest Burroughs, Niagara Parks Commission
Nadia Diakun-Thibault, Advocacy Commission
Phyllis Jean Savoie, East Niagara Housing Authority
Richard Boutin, Ontario Board of Parole, west central region
Rajula Atherton, Liquor Control Board of Ontario
Judy Aikman-Springer, Social Assistance Review Board
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
*Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr Ferguson
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND) for Mr Waters
Murdoch, Bill (Grey-Owen Sound PC) for Mrs Marland
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Yeager, Lewis, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1003 in committee room 2.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): Good morning. I'd like to call this meeting of the standing committee on government agencies to order.
MARION DEWAR
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Marion Dewar, intended appointee as member, Regional Police Planning Committee for Ottawa-Carleton.
The Chair: The first appointment for review this morning is that of Ms Marion Dewar. Welcome, Ms Dewar. Ms Dewar is being appointed as a member of the Regional Police Planning Committee for Ottawa-Carleton. Welcome to the committee this morning. This is a selection by the Progressive Conservative Party, so we will start with Mr McLean. Thank you.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Welcome to the committee this morning.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Would someone tell the Ottawa Sun it was a Progressive Conservative choice?
Mr McLean: Have they got it all right now?
Mr Bradley: They said it was one of the Liberal choices.
Mr McLean: I guess you can have all you want to say when your turn comes. I'll proceed at my speed now.
Ms Dewar, on the regional police force, the ratio of male to female, are they meeting their quota, do you believe? How many female officers are there?
Ms Marion Dewar: Oh, on the police force itself?
Mr McLean: Yes, how many female officers are there?
Ms Dewar: On the Ottawa force?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Ms Dewar: I don't know how many are there now, but no, they're certainly not meeting it. I don't think they have a quota, but I think that they certainly have affirmative action, that they're attempting to hire more women. But they've got a couple of female senior officers now who are doing a very good job as far as a presence in the community is concerned, speaking on policing issues in the community and so forth.
Mr McLean: The other question I have is that Gloucester and Nepean have their own police forces. Is there any move on foot to have them amalgamated, have an overall regional force?
Ms Dewar: I think the idea of having a regional force is very much -- yes, that's certainly what's in store and what's in the plan. As of January 1, 1995, I understand the police services board will be a board that will be overseeing all of the forces and by 1997 my understanding is that it will be an amalgamated regional force.
Mr McLean: You're quite happy that that's going to be promoted, I am sure.
Ms Dewar: A long time ago I thought it was a good idea.
Mr McLean: It seems to be happening across the province. The OPP is looking into amalgamating with some of the local towns.
Ms Dewar: Oh, yes.
Mr McLean: Alliston, for one, used to have its own force and it's now all part of New Tecumseth. There's an investigation going into the city of Orillia about the OPP and the town of Penetanguishene. There is a lot of it going on right across the province to try and streamline the system.
Ms Dewar: But it also, I think, creates efficiencies, because if you look at, for instance, investigations, we were constantly running up against municipal borders when we were looking at that kind of thing in the days when I was on the commission before.
Mr McLean: Do you feel that there are probably too many officers doing administration work and not being out in the field?
Ms Dewar: Yes, I think we have to look hard at that. I think the planning committee has to set out what its own goals are and what it wants to do, and then there probably has to be a flattening of some of the services. I have been reading some of the preliminary work that was done in Edmonton when they went into community-based policing. They did a lot of intensive study and looking at how the structure of the policing was and also went into a lot of the research that was done in policing across North America in the 1980s. Certainly the recommendations of all those reports were to flatten out the forces so that you have more people contact with police officers.
Mr McLean: Do you think that there should be an amalgamation of police forces and the OPP involved in more? I see that the villages of Kanata and Rockcliffe pay the OPP for policing. What about West Carleton, Rideau, Osgoode, Cumberland?
Ms Dewar: I don't think they pay yet, do they, West Carleton and Osgoode?
Mr McLean: West Carleton and Osgoode don't, but Kanata and Rockcliffe --
Ms Dewar: Kanata does; they've got a contract. I think what we certainly would have to do in a police services board -- I mean, the group at the moment is a planning board, but as a police services board I would see the need to talk to the communities and see what the communities want. It seems to me that you could come to an easy result. When I was on the Ottawa Police Commission in 1985, what we did was an amalgamation with the Vanier Police Force. We spent a fair amount of time in the community and worked out a contract with them. I don't see that as a great obstacle as we work through.
Mr McLean: I have an interesting question for you: Bill 143. A lot of people in Ottawa-Carleton didn't support that bill, but there were a lot who did. I understand that you did and I'm wondering why, the reasons.
Ms Dewar: There was a survey done in the last 10 days and it showed that the majority of the people in all of the region supported it. As a matter of fact, what came out as a result of that survey was that there were over 60% who wanted even more amalgamation of the municipalities. Interestingly enough, a tremendous challenge I think to policing is that everyone felt that they were going to get better policing and it was going to cost less.
1010
Mr McLean: "Dissenting Police Forces Accept Change," so there was a lot of dissentment within. I know in the city of Orillia right now the members of that city police force are very upset because there's a study being done to determine whether it's more feasible to have the OPP or not. Is that what happened in Ottawa-Carleton, the local forces rejected it?
Ms Dewar: I'm certainly not in close contact with the local forces, one to one, on the officer-based patrol, but just from the word that I get on the street, and I'm fairly well in touch with the communities, I would suggest that there's going to be concern and fear between the different forces. I think there's a real challenge for both the police services board and the new police chief to assure the officers of the various police forces that they are going to be treated with respect and equally and that their skills are going to be recognized.
Mr McLean: "Regional Force Could Double Policing Costs." Is that actually going to happen in Kanata?
Ms Dewar: What's that?
Mr McLean: It says: "Kanata Faces `Unfair' Tax Hikes. Regional Force Could Double Policing Costs."
Ms Dewar: I don't think that has to happen. The way the region was set out in 1972, there was an equalization of payment of taxes, and that was done based on the commercial base as well as the ability to pay of the municipalities. I'd like to see that kind of thing continue.
Mr McLean: Thank you. I wish you well in your new appointment.
Ms Dewar: Thank you very much.
Mr McLean: Is there time? How much have we got left?
The Chair: Two and a half minutes.
Mr McLean: I have other questions. I want to go back to the OPP and the local forces to try and find out your opinion. Do you think that we should be having the OPP study whether there should be a takeover of the local force or do you think the OPP would be better to stay out of it?
Ms Dewar: That's a big question because I don't know enough about the structure and so forth of the OPP. But I do know, and I feel rather strongly, about communities being able to have a say in what the adminstration and what the delivery of policing is in their own communities. I think what you're referring to is a provincial force that would police the whole province.
Mr McLean: That's what it seems to be going towards in a lot of communities.
Ms Dewar: I think that would be very difficult to do within a community like Ottawa-Carleton, because I think they have a fairly strong identification with their policing.
Mr McLean: You're being appointed as a part-time member. How much time do you anticipate you will have to spend in that position as a part-time member?
Ms Dewar: I think there will be a lot of time spent, certainly in the next year, because I see the planning process taking a lot of time. I think it's really important that the police services board engage itself in the communities as they're going toward this amalgamation we were speaking of earlier and I think it's really important that the communities are sensitized to the fact that the police services board is sensitive. At the same time, you have to look at what the expenditures are, what your budget is, and I think I have a fairly good track record of being able to not spend more than what we take in.
Mr McLean: The last question I'd like to ask you is, the lower-tier municipalities -- West Carleton, Goulbourn, Rideau, Osgoode and Cumberland -- are all being looked at for OPP services. Do you believe that is the right way to go, to have the OPP take over those services?
Ms Dewar: I would like them to look at what we're doing in Ottawa-Carleton when the regional force is in place and then compare that with what kind of services they get from the OPP. Then I'd like the community to make some decisions on that. I have a feeling that if the police services board does a good job, the people in the other municipalities in the region will feel comfortable with that kind of policing.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Welcome, Marion, to this committee. I think we all know that you have a pretty distinguished background from being mayor of Ottawa and so on, so how does your background prepare you for the work that the committee, and later the board, must do? Could you fill us in on that?
Ms Dewar: One of the things I thought about before I put my application in for the police services board was how would I do it and, Mr McLean's question as well, would I have the time? I'm at that point in the time of my life where I'm not fully employed and I would have the time. I know the community well. I know the region well as well as the city of Ottawa. I have been very interested in crime prevention. As a matter of fact, when I was with the Canadian Council on Children and Youth we did a publication and also did some work on crime prevention.
I've also had a close association with the police, and not just with the police executive but also with police officers, because when it wasn't sort of the in thing to do, we were working on community-based policing back in the late 1970s and the early 1980s. It wasn't always easy to be able to put forward some of those things. I think now, as this is becoming almost the modus operandi, I would like to be very much a part of making decisions and doing some of those structures that I think are possible to do that we couldn't do 20 years ago.
Ms Carter: You mention community policing, and I think there is a very desirable trend these days to integrating the police with the community they serve. How do you think the community could be involved with the decisions that the planning committee/board will have to take?
Ms Dewar: That's a very important and a very serious question, because I think that we must make sure we're not just doing it cosmetically. Some of the experience I have read about that they've done in Edmonton was that -- there's community-based policing going on all across the province right now, but I'm not sure that we've set up the systemic structures to make sure that it's done in a well-planned, organized way. What they did in Edmonton, and I like the description, is they said, "Community-based policing isn't how police are going to police the communities, but it's how they're going to police with the communities." They have included a lot of volunteers in all of their community bases and actually looking at and doing problem-solving with some of the arrests that they're making and so forth within the community. They've not only reduced crime, but they've also brought people in who didn't know that they could be of use to their community, and they're doing it.
We would certainly look at -- and I say "we" in a collective manner because I know some of the people on the police services board. I know the regional chairman and I know Councillor Holmes -- I don't know Councillor Pratt -- and I just know that they would want to go into the communities, listen to the people and also involve the people in the delivery of the service.
Ms Carter: Do you think that regionalization will strengthen community policing?
Ms Dewar: There's no question in my mind that it will. When all the other services are regionalized at an administrative level, and I'm thinking of the health unit and I'm thinking of the welfare services and those kinds of things, what you're doing is you've got another unit that is a core administratively, but you've also got the decentralized offices that hopefully will all work together.
Ms Carter: Will the rural areas have their needs met, and how?
Ms Dewar: I think what we will be looking at, and certainly not immediately, is allowing the rural areas to do some comparisons of the kind of policing that they're getting now and the kind of policing they would want to see if we could meet their needs. That can only happen if you go out into those communities, hear what those communities want and let those communities see how you're delivering services, not just tell them but let them see, and then decide.
Ms Carter: I don't know whether you'd call this a hypothetical question, but have you ever been in a committee or whatever that's been opposed by other people, and what do you do when you find that you're arguing for something that other people don't agree with?
Ms Dewar: The story of my life. I guess one of the things I feel very strongly about is that you don't do any problem-solving by confrontation. I think it's really important just to try to understand why other people are coming from a different point of view. I think it's also equally important to respect other people's views. As you do that and as you have that discussion, I think usually you can come to some consensus. I have found over the years that it's amazing; we're a lot more like-minded than we pretend at times.
1020
Ms Carter: So there aren't the bad guys and the good guys out there.
Ms Dewar: I don't think so. I think there are communities out there and you have to figure out how to bring them together.
Ms Carter: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Any other government members? There are four and a half minutes left. You're all perfectly happy? Okay. Then we will go to the official opposition. Mr Bradley.
Mr Bradley: My first question relates to your appearance before this committee. There has been some discussion in the Ottawa media that this is an imposition for you to appear before the government agencies committee to have your appointment reviewed. Do you object to being called before the government agencies committee to have your appointment reviewed?
Ms Dewar: Not at all. I've been asked that very thing by many of the Ottawa media. As I've said, I think the process is very good and is something that should be transparent, that if there's anything I have to hide, you certainly should raise it.
I guess I was kind of puzzled and concerned when, as I read in the paper, people were asked why I was asked to appear and it was because I was a New Democrat. I guess I was puzzled by that because I never figured for a moment that it's a shame or against the law to belong to a political party in Ontario any more than if you wanted to request what my religion is or what my sexual orientation is. I think those are things that I don't apologize for; but to come down to talk about policing, I'm delighted.
Mr Bradley: The parties have individuals who appear before the committee, and when the Conservative Party chose to have you appear before this committee, I saw in the newspapers as well some concern that somehow this would be a delay of an appointment, that the committee should not be asking people to appear if it was going to delay an appointment. Yet person of your stature, for instance, who has served as the mayor of the city of Ottawa, who has been the president of the New Democratic Party of Canada, who served, in other words, in several very prominent positions, I think you'd understand members of the committee are very interested in your views on policing. You would be considered to be a star candidate for the police services board in Ottawa. So I'm glad to hear that you don't object to coming before the committee.
Ms Dewar: I don't object to coming before the committee to discuss policing. I would object if the only reason I was here was as a member in a political party. That's, I think, what I want to be clear about.
Mr Bradley: I see. Let's look at some of the issues that you will have to deal with. When police forces are hiring officers, do you believe that the officers they hire should be able to break up the battle in the toughest tavern in Ottawa-Carleton?
Ms Dewar: Yes, I think they should be able to.
Mr Bradley: All of them should be able to do so?
Ms Dewar: And I think they can, yes.
Mr Bradley: Because with the hiring policies that are now being developed, encouraged by the provincial government, there are some on police forces who have said that some people who are going to be hired may not be assigned to those tasks -- I'm talking about officers now; I'm not talking about administrative people -- and that it's unfair not to hire people who can handle every one of those tasks. That's, of course, police associations who say that. Do you have any comment on those contentions?
Ms Dewar: I certainly have because of my previous experience as a police commissioner. We had a female officer who became pregnant while she was doing her police duties, and for some reason her immediate supervisor decided that a police officer couldn't do her ordinary police work because she was pregnant and sent her home. I asked for a special meeting of the commission and I also asked her to be there, with the police chief and with the deputy chiefs and so forth, and discussed her medical condition, whether she was able to do it. There was an unqualified agreement, finally, after much discussion. I must say the police association didn't think that she could do her duty, and she went ahead with her regular police duties and had her new baby and she's been promoted in the ranks since.
I just think that if we are talking about employment equity being something that is hiring people who are incompetent, that is not true. I have worked in affirmative action for years. I have had people come before me, who were male and female, whom I would not hire and I've had people come before me, who were male and female, whom I was delighted to hire. So to suggest that people aren't competent because of their gender touches a nerve with me.
Mr Bradley: Should the police services board in Ottawa-Carleton have a majority of members appointed by the local community rather than by the province? My friends in the New Democratic Party will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it was the policy of the New Democratic Party and now the government to have the majority on police commissions, as I think virtually every party says when it's in opposition, from the local area, appointed by the local councils because the overwhelming amount of money that comes in comes from the local council and there seems to be little control. Do you have any views on that?
Ms Dewar: Yes, I have a long-standing view on that. I feel very strongly that the majority of the people on the police commission should come from the local municipality.
Mr Bradley: Good luck. I think every party is for that in opposition.
Ms Dewar: Well, it's something that I've made many public statements about in the past and probably will continue to for the same reason, as the resources come from the community. I understand the fine line between the enforcement of justice and the --
Mr Bradley: Sure.
Ms Dewar: But I still think that the local community needs to have -- hopefully, with the police services board, if I am appointed to it, I will work closely with the regional council. You know, it's not an "us and them." It's us together and I think we have to really build that.
Mr Bradley: Another question I have is -- perhaps you haven't had a chance to do so and you will along the way -- have you and the others who are proposed to be on the board had a chance to look at the experience of other regional municipalities creating a region-wide police force and the ramifications for the costs? In other words, if the OPP is assuming some of the costs, as you'd be very familiar with in your area and in some of the very small communities, those are costs which seem to be less of an impact on a local community than a regional police force.
This debate has gone on with every one of the police forces. When you have a regional police force, then you must have a hierarchy set up that reflects the number of police officers and then there will be people saying, "Well, you must have a station in this area and this area." Have you looked at the other experiences to see whether it's more expensive or less expensive setting up a regional police force?
Ms Dewar: I've looked at them. I've gone through the studies because, as you know, we've been studying this in Ottawa-Carleton since 1975. I have challenged the idea that it's going to cost more. I think people have to be aware of the fact that municipalities that are being policed by the OPP are -- actually, we're all paying for it. It's not a case of getting it for nothing, but it means that the province is paying for it instead of the local community. But I think the issue becomes what kind of policing people want, what kind of policing the community is able to deliver, and to allow those two factions to come together to discuss it and come to some agreement, and I think that can happen.
Certainly, when we went through the whole contracting, I guess is really was what it was, it was a quasi-amalgamation of the Vanier force with the Ottawa force. That didn't happen just overnight. We spent many months looking at talking to the officers, talking to the local councillors, talking to the local communities and it was a very smooth transition.
Mr Bradley: Do the police need better guns and better bullets, as many police forces have indicated? Many individual officers say that their job could be done in a better fashion if they had better bullets and better guns. The province has already acquiesced to better guns. In one situation, some officers say it's still not good enough, that they need better guns than that. Do you think there is a need for better guns and better bullets for the police officers?
Ms Dewar: I would hope that we're not ever judging and evaluating our efficiencies of policing by what kinds of guns they have and how often they shoot them. I think that most police officers I know who are both on the beat and in the offices, their policy would be that they would hope they would have to use our guns as minimally as possible. But I think when they do have those guns, it's important that they be efficient and capable, and I understand the guns that have been approved now save them from reloading. Certainly, most of the police officers, not the ones who hit the headlines, I've known and I've dealt with, because a police officer has to report to the commission any time a gun is drawn. So at any time that has happened, I have known that it was usually with great reluctance and as a last-minute self-defence. I don't like to just reinforce the idea that the police are out there and they have to be pulling their guns every other day. It's very minimal when they use their guns.
1030
The Chair: I'd like to thank you, Ms Dewar, for your appearance before the committee this morning.
Ms Dewar: Thank you very much. I understood I was going to be able to make an opening statement before I came and I didn't get the chance. I'd just like to say that I did look in the community and I have three references for you. One of them is Senator Michael Pitfield, one is Councillor Mary Hegan, who was a police commissioner and is now on council, and the other is Mr Sam Hughes, who is a past president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
I asked for those references and I leave those names with you because none of them are of the political party I belong to, but I can find some from that political party if you wish me to. In the meantime, I wanted you to know that I work with all people.
Mr Bradley: Well, they're all there.
Ms Dewar: There's more than that.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I hope you'll find us some training money from the government. All the training funds for the police were cut back and they are expected to do their job.
GARY FOREST BURROUGHS
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Gary Forest Burroughs, intended appointee as member and chair, Niagara Parks Commission.
The Chair: Good morning, Mr Burroughs, and welcome to the committee. This is a selection by the official opposition party. Who would like to start? Mr Bradley. Thank you.
Mr Bradley: Welcome to the committee.
Mr Gary Forest Burroughs: Thank you.
Mr Bradley: First of all, I'll ask you the same question: Do you object to being asked to appear before this committee to have your appointment reviewed?
Mr Burroughs: No. It's a pleasure, actually.
Mr Bradley: Okay. Thank you. I'm glad to hear yet another person doesn't object to it.
You have been designated by the government for the position of the chair of the commission. I think a lot of people in Ontario probably don't know the significance of the commission, the kind of money that you deal with, for instance, and what the parameters of your responsibilities would be. I'm going to go a bit beyond what they are now and try to pick your brain as to what you think might happen in the future. I understand you're not the chair yet and these may be difficult questions.
There are other parts of the Niagara Peninsula that are crying out for, perhaps, or would benefit from being brought under the jurisdiction of the Niagara Parks Commission. They're talking about Welland Canal lands, for instance; they're talking about other lands of a conservation nature in the Niagara region. Do you see the Niagara Parks Commission looking beyond its present geographic boundaries to yet other areas where it might have some jurisdiction and control?
Mr Burroughs: Certainly as you relate to the Welland Canal and the NPC's super experience with the bicycle path, I think, on a consultative basis or at least really applauding them if somebody went with it. I don't think it's our position to expand beyond the boundaries of Lake Erie to Lake Ontario along the river. However, currently our policy is not to do that, as I understand it. We have the expertise. Right now I'm a total outsider, and having lived there for 30 years, I'm very impressed with how the parks commission has been operated. So there's no doubt in my mind that if it was required, we would do it and do a good job.
Mr Bradley: If you are as successful at promoting the Niagara parks as you are the Oban Inn, then the commission will be in good hands. I've never seen an individual who was able to get more publicity over a fire and a rebuilding on all the major networks and all the newspapers and so on. That's just a little side compliment to you for your ability to do that.
That leads me to another question, however, and you could see this as a person from the private sector: Do you believe that the Niagara Parks Commission in fact competes with the private sector and has an unfair advantage in competition with the private sector?
Mr Burroughs: I'm glad you've asked me that question, because several years ago I might have had a different answer than I do now. First of all, the answer is that they certainly do compete. I don't believe they compete at an unfair advantage. What happens is that they are very sensitive to not gaining new business by undercutting, and they could undercut as far as not having land costs and those sorts of things and having a very large, successful base. But what they do is they compete on a quality basis.
What that has done certainly down in my end, in the Niagara-on-the-Lake end, where I know the experience, they compete in a positive way by doing good quality, good service and it establishes a very positive network. So I'm not worried that we, the Niagara Parks Commission, compete unfairly. I think we do compete, but it sets a standard that I think we in private industry can all benefit from.
Mr Bradley: There is a problem existing sometimes dealing with American tourists coming into Canada, particularly in border areas, but it certainly can happen in other areas as well, and that is with the exchange rate which is paid to Americans. Advertising goes out to the United States which indicates that there's a very favourable exchange rate. I think most Americans would expect 35 cents on the dollar at least, and perhaps if they go to the bank -- it depends on whether you're giving money to the bank or getting it back. The bank makes money every time anyway. One can be sure of that. But that is a problem where there's a large number of American tourists.
Do you believe it should be the policy and is it the policy of the Niagara Parks Commission to give American tourists a fair and accurate amount of exchange on the American dollar?
Mr Burroughs: In fact, it is the policy of the commission to do that and it again is a leader in the community of being so fair that it is almost exactly on the rate at all times. I find, again in the history of tourism over the last 15 years, 15 years ago many businesses, including many in Niagara-on-the-Lake and many in Niagara Falls, used to believe that the exchange rate was merely a bonus from having Americans over here and it was not treated as a fair basis of paying them back, nothing to do with your business; it's straight exchange. That has changed throughout the community and again the parks commission is a leader in that and keeps the rate high among the private sector so that it can compete.
Mr Bradley: Niagara Falls is a gateway to Ontario, since it's on the American border and there are several bridges along the Niagara River, but Niagara Falls has certainly prominent bridges that have been crossed many times. Yet, there are other attractions in the Niagara region, and beyond the Niagara region, that tourists should see. Do you believe the Niagara Parks Commission has a role in informing in a very positive and -- I hate the word, but I think somebody made it up -- proactive way of the other tourist sites that potential tourists might want to see within the Niagara region?
Mr Burroughs: Yes, I certainly do believe they have that responsibility. I hate referring to changes over the past 10 or 15 years, but that again is a major change in the philosophy of tourism in the Niagara region, where we as operators -- and this is private operators -- used to believe that every dollar that a tourist brought in we wanted, and now we all believe that if the tourist has a good experience, is able to stay an extra day or two, we will all benefit and the tourist will go away having had a better experience.
1040
Mr Bradley: The Niagara Parks Commission is a multimillion-dollar operation. Do you believe that appointees to the Niagara Parks Commission should be individuals who know how to run a business or at least are familiar with the operation of a business? Since taxpayers' dollars are involved and it's a very important operation, do you believe that appointments to the commission should reflect the business knowledge of people to be appointed to the commission?
Mr Burroughs: I think that helps. I would hate to see -- I am a chartered accountant and I would hate to see a commission made up of chartered accountants. I don't believe that --
Mr Bradley: They have a reputation for being exciting people.
Mr Burroughs: I've heard that. Basically, I think that does help. Referring to taxpayers' dollars, while the commission has never actually borrowed or been in a deficit position, we are a major fund-raiser in the sense of earning taxes. We do pay a certain amount to the municipalities in cash in lieu as opposed to taxes, and so we are a major contributor. I think in any organization it's useful to have people that do understand numbers, as long as they're not an overwhelming majority.
Mr Bradley: Do you believe that the Niagara Parks Commission should come under the auspices of the Environmental Assessment Act, since I believe there has been one activity undertaken in the wall of the river, an activity took place there, some construction activity, that was not subject to the Environmental Assessment Act. Do you believe that you should be subject to the Environmental Assessment Act?
Mr Burroughs: Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to know that. I was unaware -- I think you're referring to the elevator in that area -- that that was not subject to the environmental act.
Mr Bradley: That's all. Thank you.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the meeting this morning. Did I hear you say that the Niagara Parks Commission has no debt?
Mr Burroughs: Has no debt that's government money, and currently no debt. At the end of the financial statement last year, they will have short-term borrowings, but if you look on the asset side, they also have short-term assets, temporary investments. I believe it's more of a timing issue than anything else.
Mr McLean: Well, you have loan interest of $638,547.
Mr Burroughs: Right.
Mr McLean: And what would that be from?
Mr Burroughs: Again, in the private sector also, you heavily get into seasonal work here, and the parks commission is no exception to that rule, although with things like the butterfly house and many of the projects that they are contemplating, they are trying to lead Niagara Falls and the Niagara region into a more year-round operation, but there is no doubt that, being seasonal, we all borrow in the off-season.
Mr McLean: The staff has been cut, and do you see how you can progress and streamline it to be more cost-efficient?
Mr Burroughs: Well, again, I'm a little new. I have been on tour. I have looked at financial statements. I think they run a very good operation. Basically, in the tourism business as I know it, you really don't want to cut staff because the first thing you're doing is cutting service. You can be more efficient -- that's terrific -- but I don't think the first place to look is cutting staff.
I have reviewed over the last couple of years only, and very briefly, the fact that they are seasonal and they have dropped, I believe, 25 or 30 from the late 1980s to now of their permanent staff. They hire another 1,200 or 1,400 in the summer, and they continue to do that as needed, but as their projects change, that labour variation is a tough one to analyse.
Mr McLean: Your warehouse, have you expanded it or has it stayed much the same over the years, the warehouse that supplies all your service?
Mr Burroughs: Again, excuse me, but on my tour, which was only a few weeks ago, it is a new facility. It's a wonderful-looking facility, and I believe in my questioning of staff that it simply centralized a lot of operations that needed help, and so it is now a central operation set back from the parkway itself but on NPC property.
Mr McLean: You said that you were on tour. Are you not familiar with the operation of this park?
Mr Burroughs: I certainly had never been to the works department. I'm very familiar with the operation as far as being an outsider living in the area for 30 years, but I had never been to where they overhaul the buses. I had not seen that.
Mr McLean: Have you been across the border -- the building up -- I'm not sure which one that we were in. We had looked at this way back, about eight or 10 years ago, the Niagara Parks Commission, and travelled it and were down there to visit.
Mr Burroughs: I'm sorry, I'm not sure which building you're referring to.
Mr McLean: It's right now in the waterfront, right near where the bridge is, where they come over top.
Mr Burroughs: I've been in all the buildings in Niagara Falls, if that's what you're referring to.
Mr McLean: Yes. Right.
Mr Burroughs: It was only service buildings that I had not seen before.
Mr McLean: My colleague has a question for you, but I want one last one. "Opportunities for people in the fields of horticulture, geological, natural history, and the history of the Niagara frontier." What do they mean by that? I've been there where I've seen the ladies and the men who are working in the flowerbeds and the horticultural. It's major along that waterfront.
Mr Burroughs: Absolutely.
Mr McLean: Is that going to be expanded?
Mr Burroughs: Expanded? I think we are responsible to maintain what we're doing. I think as properties come up, it's also our mandate, if they fit the area, to try and acquire them and continue on a long-term goal of presenting one of the best waterways, I think, in probably the world, and it's happened piece by piece.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Welcome, Mr Burroughs. It's nice to have you here. I've had an opportunity to dine in your inn on several occasions. My question for you is, obviously, many of the people employed would be students.
Mr Burroughs: Yes.
Mrs Witmer: And we see now that we have another increase in the minimum wage of 15 cents. What impact will that have on the hiring of students?
Mr Burroughs: I believe that it will have a major impact, but not within the Niagara Parks Commission. They are able, because of their size, to be a real leader again in so many ways, and I've talked about service and I've talked about quality and staffing. I think that's another area where they can absorb that. It is a big expense. It's an operation where a great deal of income is earned by the service staff by way of gratuity. Over the years, this has certainly had an effect.
However, it hasn't been as negative as I thought it was going to be, having been in business for quite a number of years, and it's maintained good staff. What it has done is it's got away from hiring young kids -- bus kids -- and gone more to young waitresses and waiters, because basically the rate is almost the same, so that seems to be the direction. But as far as the parks commission is concerned, they're a leader anyway and they are also using a good mix of seniors as well as students. So within the service staff, there's a very good mix of older people looking for part-time work and students.
Mrs Witmer: I guess what you're saying is similar to what I've heard, that there are some younger students who seem to have fewer job opportunities because of the increase in the minimum wage.
Mr Burroughs: I believe within the service staff. Now, I myself have just hired some young kids, but out in maintenance where they're in a normal situation, we all need staff and we're still hiring on a fairly regular basis, but not in the gratuity-based operations.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much. I wish you well. It's a beautiful park.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Thank you for coming, Mr Burroughs. I just want to make sure my colleagues know that I'm very lucky. Every day that I am at home, when I drive from my home in Chippewa to my office on Queen Street, I go right through the parks commission and I investigate everything that's going on as I drive through and it's wonderful.
The Chair: Nice way to start the day.
Ms Harrington: Yes, it certainly is. This committee will be going to the St Lawrence Parks Commission, I believe, in another week from now, and it's too bad you couldn't come to the St Lawrence Parks Commission as well to see how they operate and maybe compare operations.
Mr Bradley brought up some very good points about being a leader, that the Niagara Parks Commission is a very important part of our tourism industry in the city of Niagara Falls with regard to such things as the exchange rate.
I believe part of your role is to set the tone. You brought up the interesting aspect of the relationship with the private sector, and obviously you have a very interesting background and point of view on that. I know last weekend, when I was trying to get a booking for a special occasion, I had the choice of calling the Queenston Heights Restaurant or the Oban Inn, so those are the kinds of choices that are made all the time.
1050
The first question I want to ask you is, what is your vision for the Niagara Parks Commission, say, 10 years from now? How would you like to see it changed?
Mr Burroughs: As far as change, right now I'd like it to stay the same, at least until I know what I'm doing. But what I see down the road in its leadership role is, as they have done with Christmas tree lights and all that kind of thing, try to develop the off-season, do many of the things that they are still doing as far as leadership in the quality and service and fairness areas, but try to develop the season so that all the communities can carry a little bit longer.
In Niagara-on-the-Lake, we're particularly fortunate because of the Shaw Festival carrying on well into the fall. The bicycle path that I think was visionary by the parks commission when it did it, every day there will be five or six cars in my parking lot way down in Niagara-on-the-Lake with bicycle racks on the back, and they are strictly there to use the bicycle path.
So that's the leadership that I hope they will continue well down the road, but I think they can participate in many areas, in things like the Gateway. I think the expertise among the --
Ms Harrington: Do you see any major changes in the lands -- Mr Bradley was mentioning the Welland Canal system -- or in buildings?
Mr Burroughs: I think we are trying to keep primarily a wonderful, open space. I think there are some buildings that are going to need to be looked at, and certainly that is a potential. I don't see a big development of property as far as building on it. I don't see that, but again, I think the whole commission needs to look at policy, and as long as we are fulfilling our requirements, then that's what we should be doing.
Ms Harrington: Have you any view on how labour relations could be improved within the parks?
Mr Burroughs: Yes, I believe labour relations can always be improved. I think the commission has consciously made up a very good mix of individuals, although I haven't met many of them at this point. I believe that is certainly one of the major steps. Communication usually is a major cause of breakdown, certainly in the kinds of businesses that the parks commission handles.
I think, again, from my very early look at it, they are trying to be as fair as possible. There are restraints and they are trying to run it as a successful business and they are doing that. I do understand there are some labour issues before us. However, I don't have any answers because I don't really understand the situation.
Ms Harrington: I hope you will look into that.
Mr Burroughs: I've already been instructed on it and certainly I know it's an ongoing issue.
Ms Harrington: I know in the commission there are, say, 15 people or so. Each of the mayors of the three cities is represented, and then beyond that, how should the representation take place? What sectors?
Mr Burroughs: There are 12 on the commission. I believe that currently each municipality has the mayor, although Niagara Falls still appoints the mayor. After this next election, that position also will be an automatic -- the mayor is the representative. That is very good, because, really, they are in the know in each community and they should be there and it is a major part. We are in each municipality, and planning issues often play a major role. I think that's very healthy.
But I also believe that the appointments that have been made, and I see photographs of everybody in the book here, have been very useful because they are trying to pick up segments that would have an impact. As long as these people, when they are appointed, are committed to the success of the commission and not to the success of their individual group, which is still true of municipalities, then I think it's a very good way of doing business.
Ms Harrington: I also want to mention what we call the RAP committee, which is the remedial action plan for the Niagara River. I met with those folks just this past Friday and their job is to improve the condition of the Niagara River. The parks commission also has a mandate to be a steward of the river. We can't worry about, I suppose, what's on the US side, which is really tragic, but I would encourage the parks commission to be involved or at least have a representative on the RAP committee and look at that angle of your stewardship.
Mr Burroughs: I've been heavily involved in a group called the Friends of Fort George, which is about to get a major EPA grant. We are studying sewage through treatment by bulrushes and we are the only one in North America that is doing it successfully in the winter. We're doing that in Niagara-on-the-Lake, and certainly the region has played a major role in helpfully doing our testing for us. The province has been outstanding in supporting our testing. I think there's a lot of talent within the Niagara region to deal with that. So while I do know that organization is under way, I also believe there are solutions.
The Chair: Dr Frankford has a question. I'm just advising you of that.
Ms Harrington: Okay. I just want to mention one further thing to you. I'm sure you're aware of the new group called Niagara Tourism Inc, which tries to bring together all the tourism operators within the city. I just want to let you know that our ministry and our government is very dedicated to marketing the whole area through the Gateway project; that is, the Welland Canal, the Shaw Festival, the racetrack, all kinds of things across the region to make people stay and enjoy their trip. So I want to make sure that you will work with our new tourism body down there and also with this ministry to market the area.
Mr Burroughs: There's no doubt about that. As I mentioned earlier, there has been a change and whether it was partially brought on by the recession, whichever recession we're talking about, I think we've learned a great deal within the industry and I think we are working and we have the ability to work together much better than we did a few years ago. I don't see a problem with that.
The Chair: Dr Frankford, you have time for one brief question.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I've certainly enjoyed coming down your way. I can see one thing: It's a great area.
Mr Burroughs: It's a wonderful area.
Mr Frankford: I was interested in your mention of bicycles. I just wondered if you had any other thoughts about what one might call ecotourism.
Mr Burroughs: Basically, I'm just at the stage of being astounded by the success of it. It is becoming a major operation and the parks commission under Pam Walker, the previous chairman, has been outstanding and forward-thinking. I believe on a smaller scale, but on a wintertime basis, that this butterfly house, when it is completed, will be a leadership role in both the healthy environment of greenhouses in the off-season, that kind of thing, as well as keeping people in town.
The parks commission has operated cross-country. They have tried to do those sort of things with varying degrees of success over the years, but I think the point is that they are very up to date on meeting the needs of society, particularly the Niagara region. So whether they're successful on the ongoing basis, at least they're totally aware of them and dealing with them.
The Chair: We would like to thank you again, Mr Burroughs, for your appearance before the committee today.
NADIA DIAKUN-THIBAULT
Review of intended appointment, selected by the third party: Nadia Diakun-Thibault, intended appointee as member, Advocacy Commission.
The Chair: Our next appointment is Ms Nadia Diakun-Thibault. Good morning and welcome to the committee. This is an appointment as a member of the Advocacy Commission. We will start with the Progressive Conservative Party.
Mrs Witmer: Welcome to the committee. My first question to you is, how did you become familiar with the Advocacy Commission and how did you come to be appointed?
Ms Nadia Diakun-Thibault: That's a very interesting question, and I suppose I should answer that very delicately. Let's say that I became familiar with the Advocacy Act, which was certainly first, preceded it, as a result of my work as chair of the public policy committee for the Alzheimer Society of Ottawa-Carleton and as part of my capacity as executive director of the council on aging. It was the first draft that certainly attracted my attention.
1100
How I came to be appointed, to be really very honest, I'm not sure. I suppose that in the work I have done in the last two years with respect to the act there is perhaps something about my abilities that demonstrates strengths that would be useful to the commission.
Mrs Witmer: Would you just elaborate on what you have done during the last two years for the committee?
Ms Diakun-Thibault: When the legislation received first reading, I was perhaps one of the first and certainly one of the more vocal opponents of the legislation. I found the first draft rather flawed. It needed extensive revision, and as a result of second reading and appearances of many groups before the standing committee on social development, the final reading of the act certainly was a far cry from the first and was certainly a piece of legislation that I could live with.
Since then I think I've been quite active in assisting many persons who have levied a lot of criticism against the act to perhaps better understand the legislation's intent. I brought along with me one of those responses, recently published in the Lawyers Weekly. I am not a lawyer, so I am quite pleased that they chose to publish the response. It is a response to Philip Crouch, who was particularly vicious in his attack in the Lawyers Weekly. So if I may file this with the Chair, perhaps the Chair would like to give each one of you a copy.
Mrs Witmer: You've indicated, then, you feel you've had some impact on making changes to the act.
Ms Diakun-Thibault: I would hope so.
Mrs Witmer: I'm sure you probably have. Is there still more that you would like to see? I think you've also indicated you're relatively comfortable and pleased with where it's at at the present time. Is there any other area that still needs to continue to be looked at, to fine-tune it, I guess, at this point? Obviously, you're quite comfortable.
Ms Diakun-Thibault: As you know, legislation always will be fine-tuned, regardless of which government brings it in and as time progresses and things change. Legislation should be dynamic enough and not static so that it can change with the times and reflect the needs of our society at that time.
I think that perhaps 10 years down the road we may even be able to dispense with the legislation, provided that the work of the commission and many community organizations is such that it will bring about the changes that at this time we see are problems. If that happens, we might live in a perfect world. I know that we are quite human and prone to making mistakes. We will continually make mistakes, but that's the vision I have for the legislation: to have an impact, to do something good. It will be very incumbent upon the commission to do its work well.
Mrs Witmer: It's refreshing to hear you say that maybe at the end of 10 years there'll be no need for the commission, because, unfortunately, when governments tend to set up commissions, they seem to continue and have a life of their own. So you do see the real possibility of this not being necessary in the future if certain things would happen. What things need to happen that would eliminate the need for this commission altogether?
Ms Diakun-Thibault: I think we would have to have a major shift in the understanding and the attitudes of our society. I can't give you specific examples. Perhaps let me use a specific example that is particularly dear to my heart because of my mother. My mother had Alzheimer's disease, and if I can contribute in any way to this province so that elderly persons with dementia can be treated in a more equitable, a fairer, more compassionate manner with time, then I will have made an impact on the lives of my fellow citizens.
I don't say that glibly. I'm very, very serious. We have much work to do. There are still a great many misconceptions about Alzheimer's disease and there are many, many attitudes towards the elderly that are inappropriate and very unfortunate. That's one little thing that I'd like to see changed. Maybe in time we will learn that we're not all the same, we're not cut by the same cookie cutter and that we all have a place in our society. If that's enough, then that will be my contribution.
Mrs Witmer: I'm interested in hearing you say that, because as our population ages, obviously, there's going to be a larger senior citizen population. How do you specifically see the Advocacy Act helping seniors who suffer from Alzheimer's or senility or some of the other problems associated with senior citizens?
Ms Diakun-Thibault: I'd like to put that into the context that advocacy came in with companion legislation: substitute decisions and consent to treatment. One of the very important pieces of substitute decisions is making living wills binding. I have heard from many senior citizens in our area of eastern Ontario and elsewhere that they would like to have, literally, control over their lives. What they wish to do is exercise more autonomy.
I'm sure you know that regardless of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there are still many instances, well documented in legal journals and medical journals, where the rights of the patient, the rights of the person are often trampled on. In that regard, if advocacy, substitute decisions, living wills, power of attorney for personal care, power of attorney for property can be exercised in a fashion that allows the individual to use moral autonomy to make decisions for themselves, which they have a right to do, that will make the changes for senior citizens down the road. It's extremely important; it's crucial.
Mrs Witmer: What do you say to the people who are fearful of the intrusive nature of this act? Families fear that decision-making regarding loved ones will be taken out of their hands by a large government bureaucracy. How do you respond to those people who have those fears?
Ms Diakun-Thibault: I don't think there is any piece of government legislation in our history that has not been intrusive in our lives at some point. One would be able to say that the Income Tax Act is intrusive. Safety legislation is intrusive. Business might say environmental laws are intrusive. Does that mean that we throw out all government legislation because it's intrusive in some way to some one? I think not.
I'd like to allay their fears by suggesting that right now we don't have a bureaucracy. The commission has not met. We are intended appointees. We haven't had a chance, should we be appointed to do any work, to think, to talk about what is necessary and to hear from others who may have alternative opinions. The work hasn't even begun yet, so a fear of a large burgeoning bureaucracy is premature and unmitigated as far as I can tell.
Mrs Witmer: There's some concern that the personal advocacy services that are presently being provided will be sabotaged or eliminated once this Advocacy Commission starts to wield some power. Again, that's a concern.
Ms Diakun-Thibault: I'm not that pessimistic. I think it will be very much the work of the commission to assure that we understand the word "advocacy" in all of its definitions, whether it's the quasi-legal now as according to the legislation or whether it's in a very journalistic fashion where it is making representations before committees of the Legislature or the House of Commons.
Having said that, once you educate and raise public awareness, then perhaps the greater part of the battle is won. I would hope that my personal experience with Alzheimer's disease would reassure those who are family members of persons with dementia that there is at least one person on the commission who understands their needs and understands their concerns.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): You've worked in settings where a concern has been expressed about the intrusion of rights advocates and where the organizations that you represent will be seeking capacity assessments. So how can you justify sitting on a body which is designed to ensure that those people who will be subject to these assessments are fully informed and given support if they choose to challenge the assessment?
Ms Diakun-Thibault: That's the nature of democracy. Does it need justification?
1110
Mr Malkowski: The entire philosophy of the Advocacy Act is to foster independence and to assist people in exercising their rights to speak out on their own behalf. The purpose of the act was to move away from a paternalistic system in which someone makes decisions for a vulnerable person, to one in which the person is empowered to make their own decisions. Do you believe in this philosophy, and if so, can you justify sitting on this commission when you are representing organizations against whom people will be advocating?
Ms Diakun-Thibault: I don't think I represent organizations against whom people will be advocating. I am executive director of the Council on Aging for Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, which represents the interests of senior citizens. My other associations have been with the Alzheimer Society of Ottawa-Carleton. I have just used the words "moral autonomy." I believe in that very firmly and very strongly and I have no qualms sitting on this commission. I think one of my strengths is that I am not easily intimidated, will be questioning and perhaps will be able to assist in the work of the commission.
The last thing we would like to see on the commission, I would think, as citizens -- and I step back from my intended appointment to citizen -- is a group of persons, albeit with specific points of view, with very specific understandings and experiences, to be, if I might, patsies or to be frightened of anyone. I think the appointments to this commission show that this group is a very strong, dedicated and committed group. They come from different perspectives, different experiences. My work on the commission will allow me to learn a great deal more from people who have a very different experience in life than I do. There is no conflict for me.
Mr Malkowski: How can you make sure there is a balanced perspective, say, between the Alzheimer Society and its perspective and the perspective from developmentally disabled communities and their concerns? How can you balance the concerns of these different communities, talking about capacity assessments or different things? When a person challenges an organization, how do you balance their needs and serve their needs?
Ms Diakun-Thibault: That's a very complicated and complex question, and I'd be remiss if I gave you a very glossed answer. I think it will take a great deal of thought and consideration to look at both perspectives and both points of view.
Let me just share with you one experience that I had about two years ago. I was invited by the district health council of Ottawa-Carleton to come as a guest -- I do not sit on their health issues committee -- as a result of my work with the Alzheimer Society and my interest in public policy, to look at the legislation at that time, which was in second reading, and to make some recommendation to the health issues committee that it would take to put in its presentation.
I have to correct myself. I said district health council, but it was the Council on Aging for Ottawa-Carleton. I apologize.
One of the persons who sat on this committee was a mother of a developmentally handicapped child. We have different perspectives and different needs. In the discussion about one particular aspect of substitute decisions, and to the best of my recollection it was clause 15 which had to do with research, she was very much opposed to this clause. I argued for, because from both of our perspectives biological research, research in general, is extremely important and crucial.
In the end, we reached a compromise which accepted clause 15 to remain as it were, so that research with caution, with adherence to rules and a code of ethics, be permitted regardless. The reading of that one little clause would have suggested that even if biological research would just want a blood sample, it would not be able to be permitted. I thought -- the suggestion was to change it so that it would be permitted -- that would be very presumptuous on our part to suggest that scientific research has no place in our society.
I think the answer is that one will strive and one will work to a compromise, understanding that we're not in opposition. We are working together, these are parallel streams, and there is no reason to believe that anyone will be at loggerheads with each other. I hope that answers your question.
Mr Malkowski: Thank you for sharing your point of view.
The Chair: There are three minutes left. Mr Marchese and Ms Carter.
Ms Carter: Mr Marchese has conceded.
I'd like to welcome you to this committee. In the performance of my duties which involve seniors we've crossed paths several times, I believe, so I know you're --
Ms Diakun-Thibault: We've crossed paths, but not swords.
Ms Carter: Right. I was interested in something you said earlier on, that hopefully the Advocacy Commission might do itself out of a job. I've certainly felt that about employment equity, that if we could just change attitudes, or if attitudes would change as a result of everybody getting jobs on a fair basis, then eventually that would happen automatically and we wouldn't need to worry.
But I'm not quite so sure that the Advocacy Commission could ever be out of a job. Obviously, with its systemic activities, it can improve the general situation, and hopefully there will be an improvement in attitudes too. But do you think that we could ever, in an imperfect world, reach a situation where nobody would ever get treated badly when they were in a vulnerable situation so that they would need this kind of assistance?
Ms Diakun-Thibault: I think you know that I'm a realist. The answer is very simple: No. This is an imperfect world, but the objective should be that we try to make it as perfect as we can, to better it as best as we can and to perhaps live by a motto that I was brought up with. It was the motto of my high school, the motto of St Basil: "Leave things better than you found them." When you find them in disarray, in a bad state, do what you can to fix it, make it better, so that it will be better for future generations. That work continues. It will always be a challenge for all of us.
I'd like to be very optimistic that perhaps we could make such a substantial change in our society that we could legislate the Advocacy Commission out of existence, but perhaps that's not realistic. However, how the commission handles itself, how it proceeds, will be part and parcel of the determination of its longevity or its demise.
Ms Carter: Hopefully, it could at least shrink.
Mr Curling: I too would like to take the opportunity to welcome you to the committee. You made a comment earlier on which I found very interesting. You said, "Those of us who want to criticize the advocacy legislation should first know what it's all about before we criticize it." If there is any legislation that passed during the time of this government that was quite difficult, it's this Advocacy Act that is composed of three different acts in one, trying to understand them all at once.
Therefore, there will be people who will not understand it, like myself. I don't profess to understand this act one bit and I don't think I will ever get it quickly either. There may be people like yourself and some of my colleagues who seem to have a better understanding somehow, but I understand, more or less, the diagnosis of it all, and as I said earlier on, I'm not quite sure I'm convinced of the prescription that is laid out here in this act. If there's a challenge to the commission about this act, it is to educate the people about this act, what it's all about. I think that's one of the main responsibilities.
I ask you this question first, about the composition of the commission. Are you over 65?
1120
Ms Diakun-Thibault: I do not think so. No, sir.
Mr Curling: Are you disabled, or intend to become disabled?
Ms Diakun-Thibault: My mother had Alzheimer's disease. I live with the risk that I too could develop Alzheimer's disease, and in my reading, tomorrow I could be involved in a serious accident and I could become disabled. I am also vulnerable.
Mr Curling: I presume you think I'm rather presumptious to ask you those questions.
Ms Diakun-Thibault: No. Go right ahead.
Mr Curling: But the act actually asks for that. That's how the commission must be comprised of people.
Ms Diakun-Thibault: The act also stipulates that the appointees should also be committed to advocacy, and I think I fulfil that criterion.
Mr Curling: Oh, yes. I was just trying to put you in a category. The categories I ask you are not the categories that you fill. Do you feel then that the way the commission is comprised is the best way to go about the composition of the commission?
Ms Diakun-Thibault: I would say it's an adequate way of composing the commission. I believe that the minister in this round of appointments has balanced the commission by also providing perspectives from some of the other very vocal critics of the legislation. I think it is, at least in my estimation, a fairly balanced composition, yes.
Mr Curling: How do you feel about sitting on a commission that the legislation is not yet proclaimed, most of it?
Ms Diakun-Thibault: Is that not an occupational hazard on occasion with government that you might be on the commission of legislation that has not yet been proclaimed? A historical question.
Mr Curling: I didn't get your answer.
Ms Diakun-Thibault: I think that it's an occupational hazard, that oftentimes things are created before legislation is proclaimed. So this is just a kink in history, I suppose.
Mr Curling: I just ask that government do the things it demands of the private sector. If any businesses come before them without being properly formed, they neither fund them or give them a licence. We seem to go ahead without even being licensed and formulate and say, "Well, that's an occupational hazard." I think when the private sector does come to the government in that sense, it would look at it the same way, "We're not yet legitimate fully, but accept us." I just wondered why they would proceed in that light.
How do you feel about the training aspect of the advocates who are coming on board? Who should do the training? Who should dictate it? I think I'm moving into what we call the arm's-length aspect of the commission. In one aspect of it, at the initial stage, they threw around the fact that it's an arm's-length commission, which it is not in the initial stage, or do you see this as an arm's-length body now?
Ms Diakun-Thibault: The commission at this time does not exist. This committee has not yet sent, I believe, its final approval of all the candidates. Once everyone's order in council is signed, then the commission will exist. Technically, right now there is no commission.
With respect to training, I think we have an excellent system of colleges and universities that can be adequately brought up to speed, and quickly, to provide the kind of training for applicants as it is needed.
I was hoping that perhaps you might like to ask me who I see as an advocate; what kind of advocate would I like to see. I'd love to answer that question, if you'll allow me.
Mr Curling: No, I'll ask you another question. I won't allow you to. I'll ask you, because we have a short time. I just want to ask you some of those questions. Please don't think I am rude about that, but it's just a short, limited time that we have.
When I asked you about training, I just wondered -- well, first, it was rather interesting to hear your comment. You said it doesn't exist. I was about to ask you then, should I have questioned you, since there is no commission, it doesn't exist.
Ms Diakun-Thibault: But the terms of reference of this committee are to review intended appointments. So, yes.
Mr Curling: It does exist?
Ms Diakun-Thibault: I think that's a moot point. I think we'd be splitting hairs and entering into a debate I don't think would be fruitful.
Mr Curling: The only reason I ask is that people want to know that there's a legitimate commission out there. It's a legitimate commission that is touted as at arm's length, and it is not at arm's length at the beginning stage. They intend to have it at arm's length. In the meantime, while we're trying to define what it is, I'm getting from you it doesn't exist when it does exist. It is a schedule 1, and people don't understand that outside anyhow. What they know is to what extent is it arm's length, how much interference, how much input that the minister will dictate to this group, who this group is about in order to recognize people's independence itself, and I haven't got the answer yet, neither from you or anyone else whether this commission really is legit, is legally --
Ms Diakun-Thibault: Mr Curling, I have a wee bit of experience in my past history of having worked as exempt staff on Parliament Hill for members of Parliament. I do recall that when the Prime Minister appoints a royal commission, very few people question its legitimacy or question its arm's-length nature to the government. The commission will be the one that will determine whether it will be perceived as an arm's-length commission or whether it's going to be perceived as a commission that is at the service of the minister.
This commission is at the service of the government, as all other commissions are. I'm not sure it would help if I were to say to you, "It's not arm's length, it is arm's length," and to engage in that debate, because really, to be very honest, I don't have that answer. I don't think we have resolved that on either the federal or provincial levels. A commission appointed by a government may seem or may be perceived as arm's length, but is it really, because it has been appointed by a government.
Mr Curling: Let me read from the definition I got, "The advocacy program will be run by the Advocacy Commission, which will operate at arm's length from the government, and which will provide advocacy service to vulnerable adults." I'm just saying to you, I'm questioning you from information that I have before me that is researched by the Legislative Assembly. In that context, that's the reason why I ask about the arm's length, because it's so important that we establish whether or not this commission would be arm's length or whether it will be, well, at times manipulated by the minister and interfered with by government. I'm not yet convinced that that will be so unless it is properly established.
I want to say this, though, in the sense that as I was reading your dossier here, I was extremely impressed about some of the things you have done.
Ms Diakun-Thibault: Even though I'm not 65.
Mr Curling: No, I have no question about your ability, even if you are 85. This is one of the criteria, and I did ask that. I think some of the track record you have here -- and I'll just wind up as a comment instead of a response then -- I think the credits you brought within this will do well for the commission, but I just want to tell you some of my concerns: concerns about training and, again, who will be an advocate. I have that in my head too, but because of the short time I did not ask you that. Thank you very much for coming before us.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Diakun-Thibault, for appearing before the committee this morning.
Ms Diakun-Thibault: Thank you very much. It was a pleasure.
PHYLLIS JEAN SAVOIE
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition: Phyllis Jean Savoie, intended appointee as member and chair, East Niagara Housing Authority.
The Chair: Our next appointment this morning is that of Ms Phyllis Jean Savoie. This is an intended appointment as member and chair of the East Niagara Housing Authority. I guess we're in Ms Harrington's riding this morning. Welcome to the committee.
Ms Phyllis Jean Savoie: Thank you.
The Chair: This is a selection of the official opposition party. Mr Bradley?
Mr Bradley: My first question has to do with the amalgamation of housing authorities. The provincial government is now engaging in a process of centralization, once again, this time in the field of housing authorities, and there have been a number of discussions taking place under the guise of consultations that seem to be aiming towards bringing together the housing authorities in various parts of the province -- I'll be parochial because you're dealing with the East Niagara Housing Authority -- wanting to bring together the housing authorities in the Niagara region into one authority. Do you have any views on the advisability of having one authority in the Niagara region?
1130
Ms Savoie: Specifically, no, I don't, because I haven't been able to be involved on a firsthand basis. I have, however, had a conversation with the housing manager of the East Niagara Housing Authority and spoke with him about his concerns and those of his staff, as he's relayed them, as to what they saw were the problems. Throughout the conversation, there was some agreement between the two of us that it wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea, but at this point in time there were still a lot of unanswered questions in their minds. My understanding is that it's the 21st of this month that they're expecting an answer. He has indicated that there's a commitment to work within whatever process is decided, but they still, like I said, have some questions.
Mr Bradley: When there is a move towards amalgamation or regionalization, the contention is always that it's going to save money, that bigger is better in terms of being more efficient. My personal observation is that that isn't always the case, that larger municipalities or larger structures of any kind do not always produce the economies of scale that are contended by those who are proponents.
Do you see a problem for individuals accessing one regional housing authority? For instance, if they lived in Niagara Falls and the office were located in Thorold, as they would probably want to put it at the top of the hill with regional headquarters and so on, do you see that as being an inconvenience, particularly for senior citizens, who don't always want to travel great distances and find it much more convenient to deal in Niagara Falls or in St Catharines or in Welland?
Ms Savoie: My understanding is that the proposal is to have satellite-type offices in the areas they're in now so consumers aren't going to be inconvenienced in terms of travel. The whole question of travel within the region I think comes under a whole other discussion about the ability to get from Fort Erie to St Catharines being a whole day's jaunt. I know that was taken into consideration in those discussions.
Mr Bradley: You're dealing with a public housing authority here. People in the private sector, particularly I suppose those who are in the building business, have on a continuing basis, but increasing more recently, sent letters to members of the Legislature and made representations to committees suggesting that the private sector is in a better position to be able to provide affordable housing for individuals than the public sector. Your involvement has been with the public sector for some period of time in non-profit housing and so on. I'd like to determine what your views would be on the suggestions from the private builders and so on that they could provide low-cost housing, good housing for individuals, better than the public sector.
Ms Savoie: Is this in terms of rent supplement? Is that the direction you're going, or actual buildings?
Mr Bradley: Well, some of them have suggested that that is the case. Whether it is that or not, their contention is that it's extremely expensive to provide housing for moderate- and low-income people using the present systems that governments have been using for a number of years and continue to use. Their contention would be that they have a better way. Rent supplements I think are advocated by at least some of those people.
Ms Savoie: In terms of rent supplement, I believe that it's a valid argument if there's a glut of available units in the market, that it keeps the competition and there's a way to actually keep rents in check. I believe, and there have been a lot of studies done, that when there's a shortage of housing in the market, it may not be the best way to go, because it kind of opens up that whole idea of, you know, "I can get the most money possible because people are in real, dire need."
In terms of construction, if that's the direction the conversations have gone, it's interesting that when there was a boom in the public housing field, the builders who were asked to participate and come in with really low construction prices were actually the people who gave us the most argument that they had their costs of labour and all of the other things wound together, so they certainly played a part in keeping costs up. I think, depending on the time and what the job situation is, financially recession-type discussion sometimes mandates the direction they go.
The Chair: Mr Curling, there are four and a half minutes.
Mr Curling: Four and a half minutes left. Thank you.
Ms Savoie: I'm not 65 either.
Mr Curling: Let me just continue with what Mr Bradley was saying. I disagree with you a little bit. There is a glut of housing on the market. There's no doubt about that, and there is a misconception to feel that there is not housing, lots out there. What we talk about is the affordability of it. We have taken care of that in the sense that escalating prices, in other words, rent control, controls that.
Now, you talk about subsidizing the individual. It's a much more human way and a much more selective way that the individual could find places to live where they want, where they want to take their kids to school and all that. Would you support to the government that it should look very seriously at supplementing rent more than building more non-profit housing, because the cost of building non-profit housing is higher than the private sector now?
Ms Savoie: It's a double-edged sword as well. I would support it if there was in fact housing in the area where people wanted to live. I think the flip side of that is that there are people in some areas where there just simply isn't enough housing in their area or there isn't affordable housing, and then at that point in time I think there's a responsibility within society to provide. If they don't, what we're asking people to do is uproot their families and move them to whatever area it is available. Then that flops back on to the job situation. So I think it has to be looked at either one of both ways.
But in terms of if that were the situation of the day and there was the glut -- and the comment I made was rent supplements in the time when there was, just to be sure we're not arguing the point -- I think there is merit in the possibility of providing people with the rent supplement, yes.
Mr Curling: But you would not encourage, you would not recommend that they take a very serious look at, stop building non-profit housing because of the fact that the cost factor is much higher than the private sector.
Ms Savoie: In a blanket, no. I wouldn't support just a blanket statement like that, because there are other things to be considered.
Mr Curling: No, not the blanket, to look into it, study it and find out which is more economical to do, because you're spending more money not only subsidizing but giving money to build non-profit housing than in the private sector. Let the private sector take the risk, and what you do is subsidize the rent.
Ms Savoie: Well, I said that, yes, I agree with that in principle. So I guess the question again put that way is I agree with that in principle, but if the question to me is, would that be my direct recommendation, that the actual construction be stopped and go in this other direction, no, I wouldn't.
Mr Curling: Let me ask you this one other question. How do you respond to the fact that we, "we" meaning the Ontario government, are the second-largest landlord in North America and one of the worst landlords they have in the sense of where people live and how they maintain those buildings? Do you think some emphasis should be placed on cleaning up their act and acting like responsible landlords and having the place where people do live be much more habitable?
Ms Savoie: If that's true, yes, but I've certainly never heard anything like that.
Mr Curling: Oh, you didn't?
Ms Savoie: No.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee this morning. I want to talk a little bit about the Niagara area that you're involved in. Do you have any safety or security problems in your housing authority?
Ms Savoie: Yes, there are some safety issues and security issues in some of the different developments.
Mr McLean: Do you have a security firm that looks after your overall buildings?
Ms Savoie: No.
Mr McLean: The other question I have is, the minister appeared before the standing committee on estimates in 1993 and she indicated that all Ontario's 56 local housing authorities have formed a local planning committee and begun the work of implementing this program. Are you familiar with this initiative?
Ms Savoie: The Planning Together process I'm familiar with, but I haven't been involved with east Niagara specifically. But I'm very familiar with the concept in Consultation Counts and Planning Together.
Mr McLean: Do you have a group of people that's involved in the tenant selection and transfers?
Ms Savoie: Currently in east Niagara there is tenant representation and in one particular of the locations there is actually a very active tenant group that meets with the staff and housing manager and they participate in discussions about the direction that they're going to go. In the seniors' buildings, their committees, though, are specifically social functions.
1140
Mr McLean: You have 19 staff persons?
Ms Savoie: Right.
Mr McLean: What would those people mainly do? Do they work in the office? They're not classified as the people who would live in one of the residences for cleaning or that type of thing?
Ms Savoie: No.
Mr McLean: Who would do the cleaning in a complex?
Ms Savoie: In the units themselves, the interior, in the seniors' buildings in particular, there would traditionally be a live-in super who works in there. In the townhouses, of course, people maintain their own, and then there are maintenance staff.
Mr McLean: But that super wouldn't be classified as one of your employees?
Ms Savoie: Not that I know of; no, I don't believe so.
Mr McLean: He's not one of the 19 then.
Ms Savoie: I don't believe so.
Mr McLean: The ratio of seniors to middle-class -- what number of seniors would be in your -- do you have specific homes for seniors?
Ms Savoie: Yes, in the East Niagara Housing Authority there are 17 sites in total and 10 of those are seniors' buildings.
Mr McLean: Seniors only?
Ms Savoie: Yes, and seven are family.
Mr McLean: Can we have seniors-only buildings designated now? I thought that was something we couldn't.
Ms Savoie: The average age of the housing stock is 20 years, so I think many of them have been there for a period of time.
Mr McLean: But can they be transferred from one home to the other?
Ms Savoie: If they wish, yes. I actually think it's a good idea and I support integrated groups and bringing seniors into family housing. I don't believe that many of the seniors' groups, in a lot of cases, would agree to a transfer the other way.
Mr McLean: Any idea what your waiting list is?
Ms Savoie: Actually, at the end of the month, September, there were 382 people who are currently registered on the waiting list and people who have kept their information up to date. But there are several people who have fallen off, in the sense that they haven't given their latest phone number, address, information like that, so there's no way of locating them.
Mr McLean: Do you have any idea -- it's a tough question -- of what percentage would be seniors and what percentage would be looking for subsidized housing?
Ms Savoie: By and large, pretty much everyone who's on the waiting list is waiting for a subsidy of one level or another. Some 62 of the people who are on the list are seniors waiting for one-bedrooms. I have that information.
Mr McLean: Do you have many three-bedrooms sitting empty?
Ms Savoie: The housing authority specifically has a couple of three-bedrooms that are empty, but they're in the transition of people preparing to move in. If you're talking about three-bedrooms, there are three-bedroom units available in the Niagara area, yes, many of them at what's called market rent, which is out of the reach for people on fixed income.
Mr McLean: They're $800 usually, or $840, and you can probably rent privately cheaper than that.
Ms Savoie: A lot of times less. I was meeting with the committee last night and there's a man whose pension is $648 and his rent is $450 and a bus pass costs him $40 a month, so he's waiting and there are --
Mr McLean: What's he in now?
Ms Savoie: Right now he's in a rooming house, because there's such a shortage of one-bedrooms.
Mr McLean: What are we going to do? I mean, I've had this discussion before with these three-bedrooms, because I know in our area there are three-bedrooms sitting there empty because they're the market value and nobody can afford them. What are we doing with regard to these three-bedrooms sitting around the province that we can't rent? That puts a burden on the whole system.
Ms Savoie: There is a mechanism to ask for a review of the market rent assessment that's set, and I think that's been recommended in most of the areas in Niagara and the units there, where it was suggested to people that they should be writing letters and asking to meet with the local ministry officials to ask them to take a good look at how the market rent was actually set. Many of those market rents were set in 1985 or 1988, in that area, where housing was in a little different situation, so there were a lot of different considerations. When those assessments are done, the people who do the assessments, the experts in the field, also take into consideration private buildings as well as anything in the immediate area which would be classified for rent. I think when you take a look at it, there's not always an even balance of what got thrown into the equation, so sometimes the market rents have been set a little out of reach.
Mr McLean: Thank you for appearing this morning. I was glad to hear you when you were answering Mr Curling with regard to subsidizing the rent and I think that's probably a study that's long overdue. There's been one done and I would hope that we would have another look at that. I wish you well.
Ms Harrington: Thank you for coming, Phyllis. There are two important areas that I would like to look at in the East Niagara Housing Authority. First of all is the board and how it's functioning and the relationship to staff and your role as chair. First of all, it's a very difficult time, I would think, for you to come in because of the amalgamation question that is out there and that hasn't been resolved. Obviously if we're going through that process, it's going to be a difficult process.
Coming in as a chair from outside and not being on the board previously, that means getting to know people, building up a trust factor, working with people. You have people on the board who are municipal appointments, people who are federal appointments, and you all have to be there as a team. How do you see your role as chair and what background do you have to bring to this, I would say, very difficult task?
Ms Savoie: You had to say "difficult." I've been speaking with the housing manager about that issue because I know, through other committees I sit on, that it's a real concern. The board itself, just to deal with that issue, currently is not functioning because there are some appointments that have just been made, there are some appointments that are waiting to be made and there are some internal issues that need to be worked out.
I see my role as the chair, if it so comes, as that it's up to me to try to bring people together, to get them to a table and to get those agendas out there and deal with whatever their agenda is, to get those issues out of the way and then to start clean.
The work that will be before the housing authority after the amalgamation decision is made will be putting things back together, because the element of trust right now certainly I don't think is there with the staff. There are some board members who have been there through thick and thin with them and they're really looking to them, and others like myself will be coming in and they're not really sure if we have an agenda. So I think we have to do that.
I don't want that process to happen without the staff participating in it, because I think everybody's got to sit down, declare it, deal with the baggage and do some visioning together to decide how we're going to move forward. I think I can do that best with my experience in adult education. It's going to be really critical that the issues are laid out very clearly and that people are given the opportunity to buy into the system. We're all going to have to buy into it and take some ownership and responsibility for whatever decision will be made. That's going to be really important.
On the team-building aspect of it, I have a background in community development as well, so I think I have the skills there to work with people and listen to what the problems are and try to put forward some different ideas and possibly get people to do some real looking around at some alternatives. I know, Margaret, your question was specifically with the board, but I think the key here is the staff.
Ms Harrington: I really hope that you will do well at this. I know you will give it everything you have to build a common vision for the board and the staff.
The second concern I had was with regard to the Planning Together process. Having been with the Ministry of Housing for three years, I know, at least from my point of view, that part of the reason for this was to change the patriarchal system that I believe has been there for some 40 years with regard to Ontario Housing, like, "This is our housing. You're allowed to live in it and these are the rules kind of thing," into a more empowering system for the people who are the residents and to have them take ownership and improve their lives and break that cycle.
It's a very, very difficult task and this is obviously trying to happen all across the province with some more successful areas probably than others. The whole idea of Planning Together is to have tenant participation in decision-making. Are you familiar with this initiative and how are you going to apply it to East Niagara?
1150
Ms Savoie: I'm very familiar with Planning Together, because the work that I do with my current employment is working in cooperative housing. We're based out of the community and participation is the key in that: working with people, asking them what they think, what they want to do, how they'd like to proceed and what role they're going to take. It just seems so obvious to me that with something that is as consumer-oriented as the housing that we're talking about, people would be asked what they like about it, what they don't like.
I haven't seen the document. I thought that it was unfair to ask that I be given a copy to find out the direction that people took. I don't want to go into the chair having made up my mind before I even get there. I want to get the support of the other board members and I'd like to ask the tenants to participate once more, and even probably a little bit further, in establishing committees in their local housing units and have them come and participate with the board. I don't see any way at all that change can be implemented from the outside looking in. You have to be part of the process and have some ownership in that to change it.
I want the whole process to continue. I don't want it to be simply a document that's shelved that says, "This is what we're going to do," and then no one ever goes back to it; I mean, if the willingness is there to take the document and make it a business-plan type of thing where everybody reflects on it every month and says: "Okay. Where are we? Where are we supposed to be? Which direction do we have to change?"
In cooperative housing, we train people to be able to handle the day-to-day decision-making, how to read the financial statements, how to get involved in those types of decisions and recommendations and lobbying. We do that really well. I'm hoping we can bring that sense of community. I'm going to bring that with me and I'm hoping that other people will pick up on it. I might be a little starry-eyed, but I think it's workable.
Ms Harrington: My colleague has a question too, but I just want to let you know that there have been a lot of meetings over the last couple of years in Niagara Falls around this and that a lot of work has been done. I just hope that the pieces don't fall apart, that it's time now to continue with that.
Ms Savoie: Yes, I got that message loud and clear from the housing manager as well, so I think that everyone is looking to get back on the track and get moving.
Mr Frankford: I was struck by your response to the question of my Scarborough colleague, Mr Curling, about his impression of public housing as rife with problems, which I think you genuinely don't really see as being that bad. I would assume that this is because you have something very, very different, that is probably on a much smaller scale. Perhaps small is beautiful. I imagine that you don't have areas that are perhaps ghettoized because they are associated with being public housing areas, which is certainly what we find ourselves with in Metro.
I wonder if you would have any comments on both the built form and the organizational form that we should be looking at for the future, perhaps to give some guidance for those of us who happen to be in Metro.
Ms Savoie: It's not accurate to say that there aren't those types of stereotyping. That stereotyping is happening in Niagara; I think it's happening in every community. That I believe is due to a lack of education and a lack of willingness to actually sit and find out what is going on. I think that whole issue can be dealt with by everybody being out there, being in the forefront, and talking about what's being attempted.
In terms of the building in East Niagara, the housing stock is approximately 20 years old, so there's some work to be done there, but I think that working with the tenants and teaching them some skills and working with them will help that. Everyone has pride in ownership, and I think that if you're continuously and systematically booted in the head you become really complacent and you'll take on the attitude of, "It just doesn't matter."
In terms of Metro itself, I think the other thing too that you are looking at is some really isolated cases. It seems to be always in the press, it will be pinpointed at certain locations and it will always start off with the same type of headlines. I think there's some work that needs to be done there, the point being that every community has it. I think it's a lack of education and working with the people who live there. The old days of, "Just be happy we gave you a place to live," have to be completely gone.
Mr Frankford: I'm glad you reminded us that we are dealing with old housing, built 20 years ago under a government -- I forget which party it was, but I'm sure that can be found out somewhere.
The Chair: Thank you again, Ms Savoie, for your appearance before the committee this morning. That completes the business of the committee for this morning and we will recess the committee. There will, however, be a very brief, quick meeting of the subcommittee. Thank you very much.
The committee recessed from 1156 to 1401.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Allan K. McLean): I call the government agencies committee to order. This afternoon we're continuing with our reviews.
First off, we have Richard Boutin, intended appointee as member of the Ontario Board of Parole, west central region. Is Mr Boutin here? Will you come up to the front.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Vice-Chair: While we're waiting for you to come, we have a subcommittee report that we could deal with fairly quickly. Has everybody seen this report that the subcommittee dealt with before lunch?
I have a motion by Mr Cleary that it be accepted. Any discussion? All in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS RICHARD BOUTIN
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Richard Boutin, intended appointee as member, Ontario Board of Parole, west central region.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Boutin, you have the opportunity to make any opening statement, if you would like, or if you want to continue right into questions; the choice is yours.
Mr Richard Boutin: I'll just make a brief opening statement. I apologize; I have a sinus infection so my voice is a little unclear.
The Vice-Chair: We have a half-hour review. Whatever time we use will be taken off the half-hour.
Mr Boutin: First, I would like to thank the committee for selecting me as a candidate for appointment to the Ontario Board of Parole. As a resident of the Niagara region, I have always believed it is important to back one's community with the ideas and abilities one has developed through working collectively towards the goal of making our district a healthy one. A healthy community is one that allows all its citizens the opportunity to participate as productive and appreciated links in the continued struggle to improve everyone's lives.
Consequently, I always have been interested in areas of employment that have allowed me to both participate in improving our society and empowering others to become active participants in determining their future. Therefore, when I read in our local paper about this position, I felt it would allow me the opportunity to continue working in the type of employment geared towards this particular philosophy.
The ideas I bring to the board are the same as the values and principles of the Ontario Board of Parole: First, I believe in the dignity and worth of every individual; second, I believe all individuals can experience personal growth; and third, I believe most communities and individuals need to act responsibly towards each other, because neither can exist without the other.
The abilities I bring to this appointment are my years of experience in working in the public sector, both in social work and in research. First, I have obtained the knowledge of the social service agencies in my community and what support services can be provided to individuals being paroled. Second, I am able to objectively examine the facts in a situation and determine the best possible outcome for all concerned parties. Third, I have a good understanding of the issues that affect people from various backgrounds, which enables me to empathize with all parties involved in a parole hearing.
Therefore, as a member of the Ontario Board of Parole I look forward to using my abilities to improve the welfare of our community.
Mr Bradley: The parole board is an extremely important agency of the Ontario government, as you would be aware. What specific qualifications would you have when applying for the parole board which would influence the cabinet to appoint you to the parole board, do you believe?
Mr Boutin: The qualifications that I have for this position are, one, that I have worked in the social service sector before, so I have dealt with several individuals who might possibly have experienced being paroled; also, I know quite a bit about the social agencies in the area that are set up to assist individuals being paroled. Third, I do have my mediation background where I had to mediate between disputing parties and decide on a settlement that would make everybody happy and be fair for everyone involved. I also do have a research background as well.
Mr Bradley: Have you held any positions outside of the public sector in recent years?
Mr Boutin: No, I haven't.
Mr Bradley: You say you read about this in the newspaper and applied. Did anybody suggest that you apply or did you discuss it with any member of Parliament or anyone else?
Mr Boutin: No, I did not, sir. I independently applied for the position because I felt I was very much qualified to fulfil the role that was required in it. Nobody pursued me.
Mr Bradley: Many of the appointments that have been made -- I suppose it's understandable, although for years I didn't think it was ever going to be possible, because the present Premier said he would never do it -- have been members of the New Democratic Party. Are you a member of the New Democratic Party or a supporter of the New Democratic Party?
Mr Boutin: I have been a member of the New Democratic Party, but in my politics, I support no party. I support parties that support my views and my ideas. At times it can be one party and at times it can be another. I don't follow strictly party platforms in terms of my voting.
Mr Bradley: In terms of the responsibilities that you see yourself having, there are many people in our society today who are extremely concerned about the number of people who are being released on parole and who are breaking the terms of parole or committing serious crimes, the latter being more important to them. Do you believe that in the past, up to this point in time, too many people have been released on parole? If so, do you believe there should be fewer people released on parole in the near future or in the future?
Mr Boutin: Judging from the statistics that I have looked at, only 15% of people being paroled actually commit or recommit another crime. Therefore, if 85% of the people being paroled are successful in terms of being reintegrated into the community, I guess the numbers speak for themselves that parole is successful.
Mr Bradley: If I were Mrs de Villiers asking you the same question, the mother of the girl who was murdered by a person who I believe was on parole, would you not understand the concern people would have that that 15%, if they were people who had committed a serious crime, that indeed would be something our society would find repugnant, particularly Mrs de Villiers and others in her circumstance?
Mr Boutin: First of all, I do know a little bit about that case but not all of the facts; therefore I really can't comment on everything that was questioned. However, with any type of situation when you're dealing with human beings, you have to acknowledge that there are errors and mistakes that do happen. None of us are infallible. Therefore, although it was an unfortunate incident that occurred, it was something that -- there's no way always of predicting the crimes recurring all the time, and that was an unfortunate incident.
Another thing though is, understanding the mother's and the victim's rights is important in determining parole as well. I'm sure in that case, although I'm not familiar with all of it, her statements were submitted to the board. So it was an unfortunate incident, but one can't always guarantee everything will be always 100% correct and successful.
1410
Mr Bradley: Do you believe we jail too many people in our country?
Mr Boutin: That's a tough question, because I guess you would have to compare it with another place.
Mr Bradley: Compared to Europe. Compared to Britain.
Mr Boutin: I don't think we do.
Mr Bradley: My understanding is that we in North America jail far more people than they do in Britain. I was just wondering whether you believe that we jail too many people and that perhaps we should be looking for alternatives other than jail for many of these people, which would allow them to stay in the community, with the risk of course of committing another crime.
Mr Boutin: Well, that would be why the parole is set up, in order to help a person stay in the community and get re-established in the community and grow in the community. Always putting somebody in prison may not be the total answer.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Curling, perhaps you may want to sneak in here.
Mr Curling: Yes, I will sneak in here now, actually. Thank you very much. Mr Boutin, I would tell you to relax a bit, because we have not turned down one person who has come before us. This is one of the guaranteed job opportunities, in this committee, so you're okay. You'll get the job.
I just want you to comment quickly on this for me. You're already on this probation board, and these people sometimes are released, sometimes on the recommendation of halfway houses, social services agencies, institutions and sometimes their relatives themselves. There is a tremendous concern about how these places are handled or how the government funds these institutions. Do you have any comment on that, that the government should startle itself a bit and look very closely at some of those halfway houses and see how they are run? When you do make that decision and people are on probation, you're going to release these people into the hands of either these institutions or these individuals. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr Boutin: Again, I don't know whether that's the role of the Board of Parole, to actually examine halfway houses and institutions as such. The board of parole's position is to determine whether somebody is suitable for being reintegrated into the community.
Mr Curling: That's right, and that community sometimes depends on the institutions and where they go. It is their business to know, if I send this individual back into society, into this individual's hands, is that individual okay to have gone to that individual? So it is the responsibility of the parole board.
Mr Boutin: Well, looking at the individual's situation and their plan of action in terms of being paroled and all the personnel involved in that person's parole situation would determine whether or not we'd make the decision to allow them to be paroled.
Mr Curling: Do I have any more time?
The Vice-Chair: You have about a minute, maximum.
Mr Curling: I want to pursue this, because it's very important, because while we believe very much in parole, and I believe in the parole system, I don't believe in a parole system that releases an individual into society who can cause more havoc. Some people need to adjust back into society, and I'm not convinced or I'm not satisfied with your answer.
All I'm saying to you is, do you feel that you should be monitoring those institutions or those individuals to which we release those individuals into our society? Do you feel it's the responsibility of the parole board to do that?
Mr Boutin: To monitor the individual, yes.
Mr Curling: And the people letting them --
Mr Boutin: Supporting them? Yes.
Mrs Witmer: I have questions here regarding the victims' bill of rights. Do you support the victims' bill of rights?
Mr Boutin: I am not overly familiar with all the legislation regarding the victims' bill of rights, but I do support victims having a say in a person's parole situation -- not all parole situations, but as I was thinking earlier, in terms of the trial itself, after a decision has been made, allowing the victim the opportunity to either continue on with the process of the individual's parole and being informed of what's going on, or giving them the option of not pursuing that situation, depending on the nature of the crime.
Mrs Witmer: So that for you would be what a victims' bill of rights should be all about?
Mr Boutin: Yes, giving choice to the victim.
Mrs Witmer: You may or may not know that there are only two provinces that don't have a victims' bill of rights. One of them is Ontario and the other is Alberta. This committee has recommended that there be a victims' bill of rights, and there was one introduced by Cam Jackson, a private member's bill, which would apply to the treatment of victims of crime. It says in relationship to parole that victims should receive information from prosecuting crown attorneys concerning any proceedings, should have an opportunity to make representation to the crown attorney concerning interim release and sentencing, should receive notice of the impending release from custody of a convicted person.
There are several other things as well: For example, a victim of a sexual assault should, if the victim so requests, be interviewed only by a police officer of the same gender; victims should receive information concerning the investigation and the victim's protection; victims should receive social services, health care and medical treatment, counselling and legal assistance responsive to their needs; and of course victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their personal dignity and privacy.
Do you support those principles?
Mr Boutin: I do support the principles, but the idea of having somebody of the same sex and gender -- they also have to be somebody who is understanding of the victim's situation at that time. It also depends on the nature of the crime. I would assume that for some crimes, by their very nature, victims may not really want to pursue further knowledge of it. But as you read it, it does sound like it is a very positive move in the right direction.
Mrs Witmer: I'll also tell you that the Attorney General, Marion Boyd, appeared before the standing committee on justice in June 1993 and indicated that she couldn't support that particular proposal. I think it's most unfortunate that we don't have in this province at the present time a victims' bill of rights.
I'll end my questioning there.
Ms Harrington: Thank you, Richard, for coming up to Toronto today. We've got a good day for you.
I met Richard a few years ago. You were with the Housing Help Centre in Welland and I was with the Ministry of Housing. I guess you're not there any more. What are you doing now?
Mr Boutin: Currently I'm working at the Ontario Public Interest Research Group at Brock, OPIRG.
Ms Harrington: Yes, I've heard of that. That's a very good group.
There is a suggestion that has been put forward from some quarter that if you look at statistics on who will reoffend, the likelihood of reoffending, just going on a purely statistical approach in terms of who should be paroled and who shouldn't be, it works out fairly close to the way things are happening now when you rely upon the judgement of the three people involved in the review, plus of course using the relevant background documents when you interview that person. Which method would you prefer, and why?
Mr Boutin: I believe, and this is how I've always performed positions in the past as well, that you can't solely rely on statistics when you're dealing with human beings, because human beings are not machines and therefore they don't always act as statistics. Statistics are cold facts but they don't always represent each individual human being, and therefore you have to have a balance between the two: looking at the facts and statistics and also interviewing, talking with a human being or the person up for parole and discussing what they feel, what they have planned, getting a feel of what they're all about in terms of their being released into the community. You can't rely on solely either side. It's a blend of both.
1420
Ms Harrington: So you feel using the judgement of the three people is an important factor?
Mr Boutin: Yes.
Ms Harrington: I noticed that in your résumé you've listed some interesting facts you've done in the past, skills with the different client groups you've worked with. One of them says, "Mediated between disputing parties during difficult negotiations." I wondered if you could explain a bit further what that involved.
Mr Boutin: In my last position, I would have people of both backgrounds, landlords and tenants, who would come to me, as well as matters not related to landlords and tenants. I would sit down with both parties involved, find out the facts of what was going on with that situation -- usually one side is always right -- and look at all the facts, talk to the people, find out what happened, how the situation was instigated, and then come to an understanding that both parties could live with.
Sometimes one of the parties wasn't happy with it, but if all the material and the talking and the information brought forth was on the side of, say, the tenant or the landlord, my part would be to basically litigate before it had to go on to a legal matter, at the level of the grass roots. I would make decisions in terms of what side this situation should fall on.
Ms Harrington: I imagine dealing with the landlord and the tenant together would be a very interesting negotiation process.
Mr Boutin: It was quite fun.
Ms Harrington: To go back to some of the comments made earlier with regard to that judgement call you're going to be asked to make, many people in our society now -- and we have discussed this in the Legislature many times with regard to victims in our society and their rights, and the Attorney General has now moved forward with several different initiatives to give more rights to victims. How do you assess, when someone is being given parole, whether there is a danger to the victim?
Mr Boutin: If you're looking at an individual being paroled and whether they're a danger to the victim, one would want to look at the nature of the crime towards the victim. For example, stalking or something like that is a crime where there would be a problem with the victim, so you would definitely want to look at the victim's rights there. Also, you'd have to look at the nature of the crime and what was done to the person it was perpetrated on and whether it's a continual situation that has happened or one incident that occurred, probably familiarity to the individual as well. You would have to take in a lot of factors. It would be a lot more difficult than what I just mentioned to you, because I'm sure there would be a lot more intervening factors as to what nature the perpetrator and the victim had in terms of parole.
Ms Carter: Kind of a portmanteau question here: Why do people commit crimes? This is at the base, I guess, of what you'll be dealing with.
Mr Boutin: I wish I knew the $100,000 answer. There are a lot of suggested reasons, one being economic status, one being gender. Again it depends on the level of crime you're looking at. Certain crimes are looked at as being of a more serious nature, where other levels of crime are looked at in a less serious outlook. In terms of understanding why people commit crimes, there's the psychological, the social, the economical; there are various factors that would instigate somebody to commit a crime.
Ms Carter: It's interesting that if you look at statistics of who actually is in jail, you find there's a large number of people who basically are illiterate and also a large number who have some kind of near disability, if you like, or borderline, or worse, mental problems. I guess the question is really what sort of challenge this poses to society to do something which means those people don't end up in jail because they have certain characteristics.
Mr Boutin: That's where the rehabilitation process will take effect, in terms of when somebody is being paroled: the systems out there to support those persons when they are let out of the institution. That's definitely a needed factor, and it has to be examined before somebody is released.
Ms Carter: So is that an argument for having people out on parole rather than completing their sentences, and going out without there being those checks on them that there are when they're paroled?
Mr Boutin: In terms of looking at somebody serving their full sentence and then they're released, as opposed to somebody going out on parole, I can tell you from my background that somebody who is released from an institution without any supportive factors could -- could -- recommit a crime, because their doors are open and there you go; whereas somebody who is on parole is given the opportunity to integrate into the community and get the training, get the experience, get the life skills in order for them to stay in the community and become a member of the community. I definitely would say that the parole option is the better of the two.
Ms Carter: So people who insist that somebody serve their full sentence because they're a danger -- that might in fact be counterproductive in the long run as far as public safety is concerned?
Mr Boutin: It could be if in the end we're just releasing somebody who has not obtained anything except for staying in a cell for a certain period of time and then we say, "There you go." I don't think that might, in the end, benefit anybody.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for appearing before the committee today. I wish you well.
Mr Boutin: Thank you.
RAJULA ATHERTON
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Rajula Atherton, intended appointee as member, Liquor Control Board of Ontario.
The Vice-Chair: Our next review is Rajula Atherton, intended appointee as member, Liquor Control Board of Ontario. Please have a seat at the front, Rajula. You have the opportunity to make an opening statement, or we can go right into questions, whichever would be your pleasure.
Ms Rajula Atherton: I'd just like to say thank you for inviting me, and I think I'd like to go straight into the questions, please.
Mr Frankford: Welcome. I noticed that the profits of the LCBO have actually tended to decline. Do you have any thoughts of how that could be turned around, or even should it be turned around?
Ms Atherton: That's a very broad question. From the recent trends in society, people are beginning to drink a bit less than they were before, especially the spirits, the higher-alcohol-content beverages. I'm not sure if I would encourage people to drink more. But if we're talking about profits, I think we have to be looking at not only the revenue side but the expense side. We have to strike a balance between how much consumption we want to advocate and the efficient and effective operation of the organization.
1430
Mr Frankford: It seems to me that in retailing, which one can generalize more than in the other sectors -- I'm thinking, for instance, of hardware -- there is a tendency to large, regional stores in the name of efficiency and reduced overheads at the cost of closing down small neighbourhood stores. But then one could argue that by closing down small neighbourhood stores, you lose something about the quality of life or the economic development of local areas. Do you have any thoughts of where the LCBO should be going in its encouragement of open development and the overall pattern of retailing?
Ms Atherton: What do you mean by "open development"?
Mr Frankford: Should one have small local stores as sort of the centre of -- I'm not going to ask about --
Ms Atherton: Do you mean privately owned stores?
Mr Frankford: Not necessarily, but small, let's say, compared to your local hardware store, with a megastore. I'm sure you do have the same thing in the sale of liquor, and perhaps the LCBO could be even taking a proactive policy of saying, "We should be developing local stores because that will help to re-establish local neighbourhoods."
Ms Atherton: My understanding is that the LCBO has quite a good network of stores across the province, and I understand from some reading that I was doing around the LCBO that the Addiction Research Foundation recently did a survey in the province to see the satisfaction level of the residents of Ontario vis-à-vis the LCBO and it seems that people are quite satisfied with the distribution network that the LCBO has in place. So I would say that probably what is in place now is adequate.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): One question, Ms Atherton: I was reading the research, and one of the research points that has been made is that the LCBO faces a challenge in declining consumption. It says that not only are people drinking less, but their tastes have shifted from high-cost spirits to a less profitable product such as wines and coolers, so we face a challenge. Now, I'm not sure this is a challenge. While on the one hand we would like to have more money in our coffers, I'm not sure that I would then want to engage the LCBO in finding ways for people to consume more. So it's a double bind perhaps. But I'm not unhappy about the fact that people are drinking less, because presumably that means that more people are more health-conscious, and presumably they're staying more healthy, therefore, in the long term. Do you have a view on that?
Ms Atherton: Yes. I think one should look at alcohol consumption in the context of the total picture, and you made a very good point about the health issues. So I think when one is looking at reduced consumption, perhaps one should also be looking at the reduced costs of treating alcohol-related illnesses and accidents and other matters related to abuse of alcohol, or maybe not even necessarily abuse but just the consumption of alcohol.
No, I think one should not look at one side of the equation alone. I think one should look at other aspects and other impacts of the sale of alcoholic beverages.
Mr Marchese: Right. I was just talking to Dr Frankford very briefly and in a side remark we were saying that perhaps a glass of red wine is good in fact for our health. So this shift away from the spirits to wine may not be such a bad thing after all.
Ms Atherton: No, and if I could make a plug for the Ontario wine industry, I would say that's a very good shift, especially for Ontario wines. I understand that cool-weather wines like we have here are exceptionally good for the health and I think we should encourage some research in that regard.
Mr Frankford: Controlled studies, yes.
Mr Marchese: Good luck, Ms Atherton.
The Vice-Chair: Nothing further from the government members? If there isn't, we'll move on to Mr Cleary.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a couple of questions. Welcome to the committee. I see in the information we have before us that the number of permanent employees is declining under the board. I guess my question to you is, what changes would you like to see when you become a member of the board?
Ms Atherton: I don't quite have all the information to be able to make an informed comment on the number of employees that I think should be at the board. I suppose the board is facing, like all other organizations in the private and public sectors, reduced revenues and an examination of the costs and the processes that they follow, but I also think there has to be a balance between the humane and empathetic treatment of staff and the efficiency of the organization. I'm sure that the union, as well, has a part to play in the staffing picture for any organization in the public sector.
Mr Cleary: One other thing I'd like to mention here is that I know the inspectors are overworked at the present time. A lot of that has to do with smuggling and cross-border shopping. Do you think that's a big threat to your board, cross-border shopping and smuggling?
Ms Atherton: Yes, I would think that would be a matter of great concern to us, not only at the board but to all of us in the province, because I understand from newspaper reports that smuggling is quite a significant problem in Ontario and it does affect the industry, and it affects the health of people when they consume alcohol that is not tested and may be quite unsafe for them. But I think the LCBO alone cannot attend to this problem; I think it has to work closely with other government agencies, customs, the police and the public in terms of alerting about the illegal sale of alcohol. So I would like to see an effort where all the relevant government agencies joined forces to attend to this problem.
Mr Cleary: In the past couple of weeks we had the opportunity to go out with a joint task force in our part of eastern Ontario to show us at first hand some of the things that were going on in smuggling. What changes would you like to see? Do you figure the joint task forces are working on smuggling of -- well, it's not only beer, wine and liquor but tobacco too. Do you think those task forces are effective?
Ms Atherton: I can't comment on the effectiveness of the task forces because I haven't really studied what their terms of reference were and what they've actually been able to achieve, but just as a citizen and using my common sense, I would say that joint task forces are a very good idea because no one organization can deal with these issues by itself. As well, when we are facing a shortage of money in terms of government programs, I think that we have to join forces and achieve the kind of synergy that many people working together can bring to a problem rather than when they're working by themselves.
I also think that perhaps there needs to be more of a public education program so that people do know the extent of the problem and citizens can also become part of the solution to the problem. I know that when I'm better informed I certainly can make better decisions about where I'm buying from and why I'm buying, and I'm a bit more alert. So I would say that along with the joint forces maybe we need to make the citizens of the community more alert and more aware of a specific problem.
Mr Cleary: Just a comment. I think that the joint task forces are working very well, doing the best they can. They still say they don't have enough manpower, but it took us a long time to encourage both governments to get the joint task force in place. They've been in place almost a year now and I think they're doing the job.
I wish you well, and I know my colleagues have some questions.
1440
Mr Bradley: My question is, do you believe the purchase of liquor products at LCBO stores should be made easier by allowing the use of credit cards?
Ms Atherton: I'm not sure that it makes it easier. I think the use of credit cards conforms to the way we are going in terms of a paperless society. I got a notice in the mail last night that says I can bank 24 hours a day by phone. I think that's a great idea; it will save me writing a cheque or even going to the bank machine. I suppose it's more convenient.
Mr Bradley: So are you opposed or in favour of credit cards at the liquor stores?
Ms Atherton: I'm in favour of credit cards at the liquor store.
Mr Bradley: Do you think the liquor store should be allowed to open on Sundays?
Ms Atherton: I'm not sure. Probably not. No, I don't think the liquor store should be open on Sundays.
Mr Bradley: How do people get jobs at the liquor stores these days? I remember years ago, all of the Conservatives used to have jobs at the liquor stores. Then I thought all the Liberals wanted jobs at the liquor stores, but of course the Liberals changed that and they didn't get jobs at liquor stores because they weren't going to be like that. How do you get a job at the liquor store now?
Ms Atherton: I'm not sure. I'm not yet a member of the board, and I'm afraid I have -- I presume through the competitive process.
Mr Bradley: The Tories are still there. I keep looking and they're still there. I just wondered if there was any change or now they're hired properly. People would come to me when I was an MPP and say, "Can you get me a job in a liquor store?" I used to send them to the local Conservative power broker, because I thought they still got the jobs at the liquor store; it didn't change. You don't know how that happens?
Mr Curling: We shouldn't complain about that. We put a big Tory in to head it anyhow. The Liberals did that, so we shouldn't complain.
My concern -- just your comment on this -- is people compete for shelf space in the liquor stores. There have been many complaints that there are other people, because the diverse multicultural society has a diverse taste for alcohol too, and they have difficulty getting some of those different liquors on the shelves.
Mr Bradley: Name names.
Mr Curling: You have wonderful Jamaica rum and liquors and different other places. When I spoke to Mr Brandt, he was rather concerned and very sensitive to it. Do you see a lot of change happening, that a different format is used in order to promote some of those liquors, alcohol that is coming in from other countries?
Ms Atherton: As I said earlier, I'm not a member of the board yet so I can't comment on what the organization is planning to do, but I'm sure that, being the progressive type of organization that it seems to be, they would be taking note of the diversity in our society and responding appropriately.
Mr Curling: I want to wish you well. I am not in a good taste of any kind of liquor, from wine to alcohol, so I just want to wish you well on that board.
Ms Atherton: I'd like to suggest --
Mr Curling: Start tasting?
Ms Atherton: -- some nice red Ontario wine.
Mr Bradley: In the last 30 seconds I have, could you tell me how you believe the liquor control board could better promote Ontario wines, even better than they do today?
Ms Atherton: I think they're doing a very good job, and the wine industry is certainly very pleased with the kind of attention it has been getting from the LCBO. I think we continue to work together as we have been doing and I'm sure we'll come up with more interesting and innovative ways to promote Ontario wine.
Mr Bradley: Good stuff.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I guess we could point out, in terms of Mr Bradley's question about how you get a job, that the Liberals weren't around long to put anybody in there, so that probably was his problem.
Mr Bradley: I can send them to the Tories.
Mr Murdoch: Anyway, I would like your thoughts on privatization of the liquor control board.
Ms Atherton: I guess it depends on what one's point of view is. I think in Ontario right now, the feeling of the residents of Ontario, from the surveys and work of the Addiction Research Foundation, is that we want a balance between social responsibility and therefore control of alcohol. Governments are always interested in collecting the tax revenue from the sale of alcohol, so there is that side of the picture. Then, of course, privatization implies more of an interest in the profit motive rather than the social responsibility aspects of the sale of alcohol.
But I don't think privatization necessarily means people have more choice and more selection. From reading some of the research that has been done on privatization, it appears that people actually have less of a selection, because the individual entrepreneur who is selling the alcohol is only interested in those items that move quickly and have a bigger margin. If one is looking at variety of selection point of view, I don't think privatization would achieve that.
Certainly, if one is looking at the social responsibility picture, which I personally am a proponent of, we don't have the ability to monitor and challenge the sale of alcohol to minors or to people who are intoxicated and who would be endangering themselves by purchasing alcohol.
I think we have to study the issues. And then there's the whole issue of: Is it really cheaper to privatize? Is it really better? The LCBO collects a number of taxes on behalf of the government, and if we were to disburse the activities of the LCBO through privatization, I think we may not collect all the taxes that are due to the government.
Also, I don't think it would be very good for the Ontario wine industry.
All of these issues need to be looked at, so I don't think there's an easy answer. I think it needs to be examined very carefully.
Mr Murdoch: I can see you've done some studying into it, anyway.
Mrs Witmer: You certainly are very knowledgeable. It's really quite refreshing to have individuals appears before the committee who have some understanding of the committee in which they're going to be involved.
How do you feel about the announcement that was made not too long ago by the minister, Marilyn Churley, indicating that credit cards could now be used at the LCBO store?
Ms Harrington: We already asked that question.
Mrs Witmer: I'm sorry; I missed it. You can answer it again.
Ms Atherton: I said earlier that I believe that's just conforming to the trend we are moving towards as a society. We tend to be moving towards a paperless society, and I think it's just bringing the operations of the LCBO in line with what is now generally common business practice. I was saying that I got a notice in the mail last night that said I could bank for 24 hours a day by phone, which certainly is a very attractive option. I don't have to write a cheque; as soon as I get the bill, I pick up the phone and they debit my account. So I just see it as something that is inevitable.
Mrs Witmer: Unfortunately, I guess it is. I say "unfortunately," because some people are able to control their expenditures and others are not. Unfortunately, for some people who maybe are prone to abuse alcohol, it will put them in a position where they're going to have a debt load that -- up until now, they've had to pay cash on the line.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for appearing before the committee today. We appreciate it. Good luck.
Ms Atherton: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: The next appointee we have is Judy Aikman-Springer, intended appointee as member and full-time vice-chair, Social Assistance Review Board. Is she here? Not yet. We're rolling right along. I guess we'll recess for a few minutes.
The committee recessed from 1450 to 1456.
JUDY AIKMAN-SPRINGER
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Judy Aikman-Springer, intended appointee as member and full-time vice-chair, Social Assistance Review Board.
The Vice-Chair: I call the committee to order. Judy Aikman-Springer is an intended appointee as a member and full-time vice-chair of the Social Assistance Review Board. Welcome to the committee. You have the opportunity to make an opening statement or we can go right into questions, whichever you prefer.
Ms Judy Aikman-Springer: I'll take the questions.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. We'll start off with the opposition party.
Mr Bradley: I have a couple of questions. One is a great concern I have about the Social Assistance Review Board. There's a perception, realistic or not, by many in the municipal field that the Social Assistance Review Board is very partial to those who appeal. In fact, Mr Jackson, the member for Burlington South, indicated in the committee -- his figures were that about 47% of the appeals are sustained or accepted by the Social Assistance Review Board. On the other hand, the Ontario government is telling the local governments to be as careful as possible to ensure that the claims are legitimate, and they're beside themselves at the local municipalities at the number of appeals that are accepted. Do you think it's unusual and acceptable that the Social Assistance Review Board is overturning the decisions of the local authorities about 47% of the time?
Ms Aikman-Springer: I think it's important that there is provision for a board of review. It's part of the democratic process that there is a system of checks and balances and that the right to appeal is in the legislation. My role as a member of the board will be to make the best decision, based on the facts of the individual case that's brought before the board.
Mr Bradley: Many of the municipalities are saying this government is stacking the Social Assistance Review Board with people who are going to be sympathetic to those who appeal. You would not consider yourself in that category. I would take it you are totally impartial, that you don't come with any biases or any preconceived notions.
Ms Aikman-Springer: No, I certainly intend to be as impartial and fair and open-minded as I can be.
Mr Bradley: I'm greatly relieved by that, because I keep hearing these things from the municipalities. I don't know whether to believe them or not, but I keep hearing them.
I would like to talk about student welfare, one of my favourite subjects. The student welfare program was established to allow young people, teenagers, who were in abusive situations at home and were interested in continuing in school to continue in school and receive payments from the grateful taxpayer out there who foots the bill for social assistance payments. Most people -- fair-minded people, not everybody; some people would renounce it completely -- but most people would say if it were going to designated people who were genuinely interested in carrying on their education and they were in a genuinely abusive situation at home, that would be acceptable.
I hear from people in the education profession and from anguished parents that the system is being abused rather significantly, that (a) the children are not showing up at school, and (b) they're making up situations at home, that they simply don't like the rules of having to be in before sunrise at home and therefore they want to hike out with three or four of their friends, shack up in an apartment -- that wording -- go together in an apartment and have a jolly good time. How do we deal with this situation? Do you think students should have to attend school and be making some significant progress to be able to receive student welfare?
Ms Aikman-Springer: I believe it is a requirement under the legislation that to receive student welfare the applicant must be 16 to 18 years old. There must be special circumstances before they can be granted assistance, such as you referred to, a situation of abuse, whether physical, emotional or sexual abuse, or a serious family situation such as alcoholism. Student welfare can't be granted just on the basis that there are the normal disciplinary problems and conflicts between a teenager and his parents or where the teenager just wants to move out and live with friends. That would not indicate that the applicant is eligible for welfare.
Mr Bradley: That's what's not supposed to happen, but we keep hearing reports as MPPs that in fact that is happening. As a member of the Social Assistance Review Board, what kind of input would you bring to the board when faced with cases of this kind? What kind of records investigation would you require from a person making a claim to the board? If they were denied, if the municipality finally said, "No, you're not having it," and they said, "I'll fix you; I know my rights," and they head right to the board and say, "Here I am," what investigative information would you try to obtain before rendering a decision?
Ms Aikman-Springer: The role of the board member is not an investigative role but an adjudicative role.
Mr Bradley: Sure, I know, but what would you think the investigators who provide this information for you would -- what kind of information would you need, in other words? I know you don't go out and do the investigating.
Ms Aikman-Springer: The role of the board member would be to look at the evidence that's brought. I think it would be up to the applicant to provide convincing evidence of the situation, the special circumstances that would justify welfare.
Mr Bradley: Would those students be eligible for legal aid? Would they be eligible to have legal representation and therefore be eligible for legal aid? Heaven knows, they wouldn't be able to afford the cost of a lawyer themselves. Do you know if that's the case? I don't.
Ms Aikman-Springer: I believe they may have representation from the legal clinics.
Mr Bradley: You see, I have a great concern that there's going to be -- and there is now -- a very significant backlash against social assistance payments because of real or perceived abuses. People who are genuinely in need are going to be in a situation where, for instance, a subsequent government could simply throw this program out. Yet I think it's a good program, properly handled. I think this may happen all the time. When I see 47%, Mr Jackson's figures -- I have no reason to doubt them; he's always had accurate figures, I believe -- when I see that kind of overturning of the local decisions that are made on social assistance, I become concerned. Do you not see the possibility of a backlash increasing against those receiving social assistance if people are getting away with getting social assistance in borderline cases?
Ms Aikman-Springer: Policy issues are not really part of the role of a board member. With regard to student welfare, I believe there were only approximately 400 cases in a year appealed to SARB on that basis, and 50% of them were granted and 50% denied. That's my understanding of the figures.
Mr Curling: I'll just ask a quick question. I just want to thank you for coming before us. Do you think statistics should be kept about who is getting welfare, and also the cause, to find out what are the reasons? We know many policies and many decisions by government sometimes, like the social contract, have thrown people back on welfare. Do you feel you should be monitoring or that SARB should be monitoring some of the effects that are causing people to come on welfare?
Ms Aikman-Springer: I don't think that would be part of the role of the board. The policy issues, keeping statistics, that's a municipal matter. That's something that's done by municipalities or the provincial agencies. It's not part of the role of a board member of SARB.
Mrs Witmer: I'd just like you to perhaps review with us why you think you're particularly well qualified to sit on this commission.
Ms Aikman-Springer: I have a legal background. I'm a lawyer. I have worked as a staff lawyer in a legal clinic where I dealt with issues of social assistance. I have had the experience of appearing before the Social Assistance Review Board representing applicants or appellants for social assistance. So I have that background. I think I have the expertise and the analytical skills and the knowledge of the area that are necessary for the position.
Mrs Witmer: You've heard the official opposition express some concerns about the entire area of social assistance. As a result of the work that you're going to be involved with on the board, what do you think are going to be some of the challenges that will face you as a board member?
Ms Aikman-Springer: I think the case load that SARB is faced with right now is a heavy one. That's because of the increase in applicants for welfare. There is a corresponding increase in denials and an increase in appeals to SARB. That in itself will be a challenge, and then there are the normal challenges that you would expect whenever you're in any adjudicative position.
Mr Murdoch: There seems to be some problems with SARB in terms of getting the cases heard; there seems to be a backlog. Do you have some ideas about how we can look after this backlog? By the time somebody appeals, the time they're heard and things like this, there seems to be a lot of problems with this. At least, I've heard complaints.
Ms Aikman-Springer: I understand that the board has taken measures to deal with the backlog. They have put innovative procedures in place such as moving from three-person boards to one-person boards to deal with cases. In appropriate cases, they're also using a paper hearing procedure rather than having an oral hearing on the issues, when it's an appropriate case where that can be done. Those are some of the measures.
Mr Murdoch: You'll be vice-chair. Would you have any ideas of your own that you'd like to see, just to hurry the system up?
Ms Aikman-Springer: I think it's a bit early for me to be formulating those kinds of plans. As I said, SARB has a number of measures in place. They're attempting to deal with the situation. I'll do my best too.
Mr Murdoch: One thing I'd like your thoughts on is that a lot of family and social services have people do job searches. Do you have any problems with them enforcing that rule, where people have to go out and search for jobs? I have people come to my office, and they'll tell me that they did search for a job but they didn't do their job search properly so they've been cut off. Of course, then they'll appeal to you people. Do you have any thoughts on this job search process? Some of the complaints will be, "I live out of town and I have no way of getting to town to search for a job; of course we don't have a phone, because we can't afford it," and things like that. Do you have any thoughts on that process?
Ms Aikman-Springer: As I said, policy matters are not matters that I expect to have input into as a board member. I think enforcement of the job search is something that is a policy of the municipality and it's something they deal with.
1510
Mr Marchese: I have two questions. From your experience, do you get the sense that boards, agencies and commissions, crown agencies in general, are underrepresented when it comes to racial and other linguistic groups?
Ms Aikman-Springer: As I'm just starting on the board, I can't say. I don't have enough knowledge to be able to answer that question.
Mr Marchese: Then I'll make it a statement. For a long, long time, people of colour and other linguistic groups have been underrepresented. That's a fact. We are trying to change that because we feel that Ontario is a different province made up of many linguistic groups that have come over the last many, many years. To represent people well, so that we reflect the different experiences that are here, it is my view that we should have different people on these boards, agencies and commissions. I thought I'd make it into a statement. It wasn't really a political question, but I think from your own experiences you would see that.
Quite apart from that, Mr Bradley makes the point -- not he, but he has heard others make this point. I am particularly perturbed by it and I'm not sure whether you are. When people say we're hiring black people all of a sudden, or other people, linguistic groups, for some strange reason, in hiring them we would think they would be biased towards black people; that is to say, if a black person comes in front of you with an appeal, because you are black somehow you would discriminate on their behalf. I don't see that happening, but doesn't it rile you that for some reason people might assume that because you're black, you might either be more sympathetic or that you would be biased or that you would change the criteria somehow to fit black people? Doesn't it bother you?
Ms Aikman-Springer: I think boards and agencies in the province should reflect the makeup of the population of the province and that there should be the kind of diversity that we see in the population of Ontario today. I don't think the fact that one is from a particular ethnic background should have any impact on the kind of decision-making you engage in.
Mr Bradley: On a point of privilege: Are you attributing that to me?
Mr Marchese: No. I made very clear that others have said this to you.
Mr Bradley: No. It had nothing to do with colour. It had everything to do with advocacy. People are concerned that the government places people who have advocated in the past for those who would appear before the board, that they would be biased towards those who would appear before the board. It had nothing at all remotely to do in any way, shape or form with colour.
The Vice-Chair: Carry on, Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: I attributed nothing to you, but rather what I thought others said to you.
Mr Bradley: Nobody's even said that to me.
Mr Marchese: That's fine, that's good. I'm glad Mr Bradley made that clarification. But it does bother me to think that when we put people in certain positions, because of their colour or ethnicity somehow they would make different judgements as they relate to their own.
I was thinking about this because it brought to mind some other experiences. A housing project came up somewhere that had been recommended by the Chinese community. They wanted one housing project in one area, and another Chinese group in Scarborough wanted another Chinese project to fit Chinese people in their housing project. They were told by the bureaucracy at the time, for some reason, that the two Chinese communities should get together and decide where they wanted it, as if somehow all Chinese people live in the same area and needed to decide to put it in one spot so they all get to it. We wouldn't ask that of other communities. We wouldn't ask Anglo communities, for example, from Scarborough and Toronto to get together to decide where they'd want it, but we would ask that of the two different communities. I link it because sometimes these things create a problem in terms of our perceptions about how we treat ethnic and racial communities. I just wanted to make that comment.
The Vice-Chair: No further questions? There being no further questions, we want to thank you very much for appearing before the committee today. We wish you well.
Could we now determine whether the committee concurs with the intended appointments we have reviewed today.
Mr Marchese: I move concurrence, Mr Chair.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Marchese moves concurrence. Shall we deal with that at the present time, if everybody is happy? All in favour? Opposed, if any? That motion is carried.
There being no further business, this committee will adjourn until about November 2, 1994. I'm sorry; that's when I'm going to be back on the committee. Next week you will be adjourning to Cornwall, and I wish those who are going all the best in their deliberations, because it's a very important aspect of the St Lawrence Parks Commission that you're reviewing. Thank you. The committee is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1516.