INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
EVELYN DODDS
CONTENTS
Wednesday 13 December 1995
Intended appointments
Evelyn Dodds
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Présidente: Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)
*Bartolucci, Rick (Sudbury L)
*Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
*Ford, Douglas B. (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
*Fox, Gary (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)
*Gravelle, Michael (Port Arthur L)
Johnson, Bert (Perth PC)
*Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)
*Leadston, Gary L. (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Newman, Dan (Scarborough Centre PC)
*Preston, Peter L. (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Ross, Lillian (Mrs) (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
*Wood, Bob (London South / -Sud PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Cooke, David S. (Windsor-Riverside ND) for Mr Laughren
Martiniuk, Gerry (Cambridge PC) for Mr B. Johnson
O'Toole, John R. (Durham East / -Est PC) for Mr Newman
Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1003 in room 228.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
EVELYN DODDS
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Evelyn Dodds, intended appointee as vice-chair, Social Assistance Review Board.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Tony Martin): I'll call this committee to order. The first person we will interview today is Evelyn Dodds, appointee as vice-chair, Social Assistance Review Board. Would you come forward, Ms Dodds.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I might indicate, Mr Chair, that Mrs Dodds wishes to make an opening statement.
The Vice-Chair: That's fine. That will come out of your 13 and a half minutes. Please feel at home. Help yourself to the water, if you so choose, and start any time you'd like.
Mrs Evelyn Dodds: I want to thank the members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. I'm honoured to have been considered for appointment as a vice-chair of the Social Assistance Review Board. I believe I am well-qualified for this position and I have a wide variety of experiences that I believe will serve me well in this position.
I have been a teacher, I ran a small nursery school for a year, I was a service representative for Bell Telephone, I was the receivables manager for a furniture factory and a lab technician in a university. I was the controller of a developing mine, the business manager of a consulting engineering firm for 10 years, as well as the manager of an orthopaedic clinic for two years that did extensive work in rehab therapy for injured workers, which is one kind of experience that will serve me well in this position.
In 1985 I was elected to the school board in Thunder Bay and served for two terms. In that position I was chairman of the board. I instituted the first audit committee and chaired it. I wrote the response to the first provincial audit of a school board that took place. I wrote a response to the Radwanski report on standards. I wrote a brief on school board costs and governance. I worked on grievance committees, negotiating committees and policy committees. I chaired the committee to rewrite the procedural bylaw and I participated in the performance reviews of senior staff.
As an elected alderman of the city of Thunder Bay for three years, I chaired the finance committee, the privatization committee, the Victoriaville review committee, the city signage committee, the tourism billboard committee and the Norwester tourism zone development committee.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): We've read the CV, please.
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, Mr Kormos. This is on the Progressive Conservative's time and we've allowed an opening statement and that's what's happening. Go ahead.
Mrs Dodds: I list the committees that I've chaired because I believe that the ability to chair meetings is an important qualification for the position for which I'm being considered.
I briefly sat on the AMO housing committee and established the first municipal lottery in Thunder Bay. I sat on the board of directors of the community housing corporation, in which position I proposed a moratorium on the construction of new subsidized houses and proposed changes to the eligibility requirements that would give preference to disabled people. I chaired the World Trade Centre committee and the mid-Canada task force on port survival.
Specifically on welfare, which was perhaps the biggest issue I tackled as an alderman, I led the effort to systematically investigate welfare fraud and examined Manitoba's system of computerized cross-checking. I analysed over a three-month period, in detail, with the social assistance staff for the city the welfare office procedures and wrote and presented a brief on the freedom of information act as it pertains to welfare eligibility review procedures. I proposed a system of volunteer work for able-bodied recipients and proposed that group homes, with rules and responsibilities, be established for abused teenagers.
My knowledge of the welfare system comes from having worked closely with the social services staff of the city of Thunder Bay and from hundreds of hours of discussions with people over the years in all levels of the system.
The Social Assistance Review Board is a quasi-judicial body. Its conduct is governed by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and it is responsible for administering the GWA, the FBA and the VRS. It is not part of Comsoc, nor is it part of any office that delivers welfare assistance. It does not have the ability to judge the performance of welfare offices, nor to comment on legislation or to change legislation. It is a judicial position which requires that all decisions be made fairly, consistently and firmly.
I believe that my experience will serve me well in this position. Thank you for your time.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We'll start the questioning this morning with the third party.
Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Mr Chair, could you tell us how much time we have?
The Vice-Chair: You have 13 and a half minutes.
Mr Cooke: Welcome to the committee, Mrs Dodds. I noticed in your opening comments that you went through a lot of your professional and adult experience. Could you just add for the purposes of the record and the committee a major part of your previous life that you haven't talked about here this morning, your involvement with the Progressive Conservative Party and the numbers of times that you ran for the Progressive Conservative Party?
Mrs Dodds: I have been a candidate on two occasions.
Mr Cooke: And you've been a member of the PC Party for how long?
Mrs Dodds: I'm sorry, I can't remember the year I joined.
Mr Cooke: It's been that long.
While you've talked about your understanding of the Social Assistance Review Board and the fact that it has to be arm's length and it's a semijudicial body, there's been a lot of concern expressed that your appointment is the first one in 10 years that breaks the new appointments process that was put in place by the Liberal Party when it was in government to actually make the Social Assistance Review Board an arm's length agency and keep it at arm's length from political appointments.
I have a couple of very specific questions. I want to know who approached you. Some of these I have the answer to, but I think it's important for you to confirm. Who approached you to be on the Social Assistance Review Board?
Mrs Dodds: I submitted my résumé to the Premier's office and indicated that the Social Assistance Review Board was one area where I felt my experience and my abilities could be put to good use. I then received a call from I believe it's called the appointments secretariat offering me the position of vice-chair, if I wanted to take it.
Mr Cooke: So you submitted a résumé and then you received a phone call saying you're in.
Mrs Dodds: That is correct.
Mr Cooke: You weren't interviewed by the chair of the Social Assistance Review Board?
Mrs Dodds: No, I was not.
Mr Cooke: When did you first meet the chair of the Social Assistance Review Board?
Mrs Dodds: I believe it was October 10.
Mr Cooke: And your appointment was earlier than that, I take it? If memory serves me correctly, it was some time in September?
Mrs Dodds: No. The cabinet --
Mr Cooke: Well, when you found out that you were getting --
Mrs Dodds: It was October 4 that I believe the cabinet --
Mr Cooke: So you never went through an interview or anything like that. You simply submitted your résumé and you got a phone call saying you're in, you're getting this job that pays a significant amount of money. Do you believe that there was any consideration given to the fact that you were a member of the PC Party?
Mrs Dodds: I have no idea, but I believe my qualifications speak for themselves.
Mr Cooke: They obviously did, because you didn't even have to go for an interview. I doubt whether there are many people in the province of Ontario who would get a job that pays as much as this and who don't even have to go for an interview. That completely destroys, you should know, the appointments process for the Social Assistance Review Board that has been used for the last 10 years to try to change it from being the senate for the PC Party, as it was previous to 1985, and now puts it back in exactly the same situation it was before.
1010
I want to ask you about just a couple of quotes, because we only have a very few minutes, that you are reported to have said. There's one area that you've expressed a great deal of concern on, and that is that when a person is denied benefits or if they've been on benefits and their benefits are then terminated and they're going to appeal to the Social Assistance Review Board, you've expressed very serious concerns about the process that would allow a recipient to remain on social assistance while their appeal is pending. I'd like to get from you, in a very short period of time, an explanation of why you think that is unfair.
Mrs Dodds: You're referring to the interim assistance which is paid to people whose appeals are pending. As a vice-chair of the Social Assistance Review Board that will not be an area I have any influence over or any comment to make about whatsoever.
Mr Cooke: You've had an opinion on it in the past, and I'd like to know the rationale for the opinion in the past.
Mrs Dodds: I'm sorry, the interim assistance is handled as an administrative function on SARB and it comes under the power of the chairman and her staff. Individual vice-chairs do not comment on it nor have any part in the decision-making process.
Mr Cooke: I understand the process. I'm asking you why you had the views that you had, which I assume you still have.
Mrs Dodds: But you misunderstand the role. As an adjudicative position --
Mr Cooke: Oh, I don't misunderstand the role.
Mrs Dodds: -- I may not comment on any matters of legislation.
Mr Cooke: So as soon as you are appointed, you no longer have any views.
Mrs Dodds: I may not comment on them. My brain doesn't become empty, but I may not comment or employ those thoughts in the decision-making.
Mr Cooke: But you can understand why there are some people in this province who have grave concerns about somebody who has made quotes like, "The plain fact is some of us don't want to pay $2,500 for a social service funeral." You can understand why people are concerned about that, that that says something about the mindset. This committee is looking at your appointment, albeit after the fact, and we have a right to know what kind of mindset you bring to the Social Assistance Review Board. I'd like to ask what went into your thinking on that comment on funerals.
Mrs Dodds: There were nine aldermen, including me, who responded to an administrative recommendation that we reduce the city's budget by altering the amount that the municipality was paying for funerals. I'm one of nine who spoke to that issue and supported the administrative recommendation.
Mr Cooke: You made that quote. We need about an hour with you. You made that quote and you can't blame it on a process of an administrative process and recommendations. You obviously have a very strong feeling that if people on social assistance die, the state shouldn't be involved in assisting with their funerals.
Mrs Dodds: No, you're misinterpreting that quote. What I said was the amount was too high. The majority of aldermen on city council agreed with me and the amount of subsidy was accordingly reduced.
Mr Cooke: I have several other questions, but in 13 minutes --
Mrs Dodds: I would also like to say, Mr Cooke, that that is also not a matter that comes before SARB. It is totally unrelated.
Mr Cooke: That's a great line of defence, but the reality is that your views that you bring to this issue of social assistance are incredibly important, and I think are a very clear indication of where the current government is coming from, but more importantly, of what impact you will have on the Social Assistance Review Board.
It's unfortunate that you come here basically taking the fifth, saying, "I can't say anything about anything that I've said in the past because I'm now a member of a semijudicial body and therefore I'm protected." I think that makes this process this morning a complete sham.
We know what your views are, we know what you've said in the past and I must say, out of all of the things that the Progressive Conservative government has done so far in Ontario, your appointment, and the destruction of the appointment process to the Social Assistance Review Board, is one that concerns me the most.
Mr Chair, I'd like to reserve the balance of the time for my colleague.
Mr Kormos: I have no questions at this time. We'll reserve the right to use our time afterwards.
The Vice-Chair: We'll move then to the government caucus.
Mr Bob Wood: I might say that I'm very pleased to see a person who has the kind of business, political and community experience that Mrs Dodds has appointed to a position of this nature. I, for one, am very pleased that you have chosen to serve the public in the way in which you have.
I'd like you to describe briefly for the committee, Mrs Dodds, how a hearing process works. I would like you to hit the highlights, not give us too much detail, please.
Mrs Dodds: The vice-chairs are assigned cases by the staff at SARB and we are presented with a file that we have nothing to do with assembling. We have no investigative powers whatsoever. We go to the hearing and we review the evidence and only the evidence that is presented during that hearing, after which we then apply the regulations exactly as they are written.
We are able to review only decisions made by directors of the FBA or administrators of the GWA and only those decisions that cancelled, reduced or suspended benefits, and then we have only one of three possible decisions to make at the end of it. We can either affirm the decision of the director, rescind it or refer the matter back to the department.
After our rulings are written, they go to the quality control department of SARB where they are reviewed and possibly amended, after which they go to the legal department and our rulings can be challenged there by the legal staff, after which our rulings are then put in front of the chairman who can also challenge our rulings. They are not able, however, to insist that we change our decision, but they can and do try to influence our decision.
If the chairman of SARB decides that a particular ruling is not consistent with established board precedents, the chairman can order that the entire hearing be held again in front of another adjudicator and the ruling of the one adjudicator is overturned.
Assuming that a decision by any individual adjudicator is successful in going through that whole process and the one ruling is sustained and is the one that is sent to the department and to the appellant, the written decision is then subject to judicial review, an appeal in front of the Divisional Court and, increasingly, charter challenges.
Mr Bob Wood: Those are my questions for the moment.
Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): In agreeing to serve on the Social Assistance Review Board, you agreed to serve the public interest. Is there anything further that you'd like to add to what your role is in serving the public interest?
Mrs Dodds: The adjudicative tribunal system is an extremely important one in that the legislation, particularly in the welfare area, has become very, very complicated. It's not an easy area to administer and, therefore, errors can be made which are unjust. It was probably with that in mind that the Canada assistance plan had as a requirement of federal transfers that review mechanisms be established. In Ontario it's the Social Assistance Review Board that was set up as a quasi-judicial body to fulfil that function.
It is important, because in any complicated system, injustices can occur and there needs to be a way for people to appeal what has happened to them. But the job is strictly limited to applying the legislation as it is written to only the evidence presented at the hearing in the one case. SARB, unlike other adjudicative tribunals, has no policy role at all.
1020
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): As a former member of regional council in the regional municipality of Waterloo, I was one of a group that was instrumental in developing a fraud hotline, and it had amazing results. I noticed in your résumé that you too had initiated a program in terms of welfare fraud. Have you any sense of welfare fraud, how it exists and how predominant it may be in the province today?
Mrs Dodds: I don't know that there is an accurate number. Yes, you're quite right, I devoted a lot of my time to developing proper investigation procedures, but welfare fraud is not a matter that ever comes before SARB. It's a matter only for the criminal courts. The position that I'm applying for is strictly an adjudicative position and administrative law. It's a level below. The fraud cases would never come before us, so I don't have any recent statistics, and neither would they be relevant to this position. I'm sorry.
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Mrs Dodds, I looked at the backgrounder you have here. You seem to have crossed over on these various areas of business management. You've worked with the educational system, you've worked with the health system and you've been internally involved in controlling companies, receivables, payables, almost everything. Do you understand the legislation pertaining to social assistance of this board?
Mrs Dodds: Yes. I've had extensive dealings with it as a councillor and in the very intensive training session that just took place over the past five weeks at the Social Assistance Review Board.
Mr Ford: I don't care what your political background is or anything else here, but according to this résumé you've put in, it's very extensive, and I'm very impressed with it, because I've been involved in a lot of these areas that you're talking about here. I know for this type of appointment you're involved in, you have to have this type of background. You just can't be in education, you just can't be in health. But you've crossed the threshold in all these areas of finance, accounts receivable, accounts payable, all these things. I'm impressed with that. I have no more questions. Thank you.
Mrs Dodds: If I might add a comment to that, I think the common thread through all of these experiences that I've had over the past 25 years has been -- the question was asked before by Mr Cooke about mindset, and I think you can see that the common element in all of that experience is that I'm very analytical.
Mr Ford: Yes, I can see that, but I don't believe that a number of the members on this board even have that background. That's all I'm saying.
The Vice-Chair: Any other questions from the government side?
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I'd like to reserve my questions for later on, Mr Chairman.
The Vice-Chair: Then we'll move to the Liberal caucus.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Mrs Dodds, unlike many in this room, you and I are both from Thunder Bay, I as the member for Port Arthur. Certainly I was around the city during the time you were on council and were developing a reputation as someone who certainly was known as being -- tough on welfare is probably a polite way of putting it.
You did make some comments that were extremely controversial, and in some way divided the community in terms of whether they agreed with you or not. Do you believe your appointment to this board came about as a result of the tough positions you took on welfare or social assistance in general?
Mrs Dodds: You have expressed support to me on numerous occasions for many of the efforts that I undertook in Thunder Bay, in what is still your home town and was my home town, and I appreciated those contacts over the years. I believe, and I can only surmise, that it was the understanding that I had developed a lot of knowledge about the system through my work as a councillor that prompted my appointment.
Mr Gravelle: Just to be clear here, we've never talked about your position in terms of --
Mrs Dodds: No, not about this position, but the work I did in Thunder Bay as a councillor.
Mr Gravelle: But in terms of the social assistance, because certainly the concerns were expressed by a lot of people that you were somewhat over the top on occasion in terms of some of the remarks you made -- I don't need to necessarily quote them -- but do you regret or would you be willing to withdraw some of the remarks, the "subsidized bordello" expression, for example? That alone -- do you regret making that comment?
Mrs Dodds: I did what I had to do at the time to raise public awareness of what I considered to be very urgent social issues, and we all do what we have to do and what we believe to be right. As an adjudicator on SARB, however, I am not empowered to make any comments on legislation but simply to apply the legislation that already exists.
Mr Gravelle: I don't think it's inappropriate, though, to ask for and expect your response in terms of your philosophical position. I appreciate that you are now sort of kept in check to some degree because of the obligations of this particular position --
Mr Cooke: Above the fray.
Mr Gravelle: -- but I don't think it's inappropriate to ask you what your philosophical position is in terms of these, as a result of some public quotes when you were in a public position. I don't think it's inappropriate to ask --
Mrs Dodds: No, of course it isn't.
Mr Gravelle: -- and to see whether or not you would want to withdraw them, regret them or felt they were taken out of context.
Mrs Dodds: Some were and some weren't. You've had a lot of experience making statements in front of the media, and sometimes they pick them up accurately and sometimes they don't. I suppose I could write a book about which was which. The issue that that particular comment you referred to surrounded was the issue of welfare fraud. That's what it was all about, welfare fraud. I believed then that it was a very serious matter; I believe it now. I'm not in a position to do anything about it now, but I hope someone else is.
I don't really think the efforts that I made to raise public awareness were nearly as colourful as the newspaper reports would have you believe. There are many, many things I see other people doing that I never did to develop public awareness. We each do what we have to do at the time and in a way that we consider to be appropriate, and obviously the role for which I'm applying now is a vastly different position.
Mr Gravelle: Another comment or quote that you made was that, "The right of the public to protect its money must outweigh the right of an individual to privacy." Can you comment on that?
Mrs Dodds: There is one that I can clearly label as a slight distortion of what I actually said. That came from the presentation of a 16-page brief on the freedom of information act, and the entire brief concerned itself with the ability of the welfare workers, acting on behalf of the public, to properly verify eligibility.
The theme of the brief, which I prepared with the social assistance staff of the city of Thunder Bay, was that the welfare workers were impeded in their ability to access information because of the FOI. The quote that was taken was a distortion because I have great respect for privacy rights of individuals and with only great hesitation would ever think that they should be infringed, and only when there is a much greater good to be served. So that is one quote that was a distortion.
However, as an adjudicator on SARB, all hearings are confidential; no information can be released about any matter that goes on within the in camera hearing; the decisions, if they are ever published by the chairman of SARB, are anonymized; and I may not comment on any matter that comes before me as an adjudicator.
I may also not have any contact with the departments on the substance of a case outside of the evidence that is presented at a hearing. This is sometimes difficult because in about 40% of the cases there is no one to appear on behalf of the department -- we have only the appellant in front of us -- yet we are not able to phone the department for clarification or to seek any contact outside of the hearing itself.
1030
Mr Gravelle: Just one last question, and I'll pass it off to my colleagues. Do you, or did you, personally support the 21.6% cut to social assistance recipients announced this past summer?
Mrs Dodds: I believe the answer to your question, Mr Gravelle, is self-evident. That was part of the platform on which my party ran, and everyone knows that I was a candidate in that election. By definition and also by frequent publicity, I have been on the record on numerous occasions in supporting that stand. However, I must again reiterate that the position I'm applying for does not have any role in policy development. We may not even comment on the substance of legislation as it exists. We only apply the legislation as it is written for the specific time periods that it applies.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good morning, Mrs Dodds. The appointment that you've been given, how much are you paid?
Mrs Dodds: The range is, I believe -- and I'm not an administrative person on SARB so I would hate to be wrong by a few dollars, but I believe the range is from $55,000 to $68,000.
Mr Crozier: Have you received a paycheque?
Mrs Dodds: Yes, I've had one.
Mr Crozier: So how much are you paid?
Mrs Dodds: I frankly did not take the gross and multiply it out by 26. I assume I'm being paid within the legally approved range. But I'll go home and do that.
Mr Crozier: Well, earnings, pay rates and so forth seem to be in the news these days so I thought you'd probably know that.
You no longer live in Thunder Bay, you now live in Toronto?
Mrs Dodds: That's correct.
Mr Crozier: When did you take up residence in Toronto?
Mrs Dodds: My husband and I moved here on September 1.
Mr Crozier: Was it a result of having been appointed to this board, if I may ask?
Mrs Dodds: No, definitely, it was not.
Mr Crozier: Okay. I want to return to some comments that are attributed to you that were in an article written by Jim Coyle in the Ottawa Citizen on October 13, to which credit was given to Mr Cooke for having raised these. But one of them is, "Single mothers living in subsidized housing who allow their boyfriends or ex-husbands to move in; this is tantamount to a subsidized bordello."
Notwithstanding the fact that it may be or may not be subsidized, because I'm sure there are a number of single mothers who live with boyfriends or ex-husbands, do you consider those who do all to be living in a bordello?
Mrs Dodds: The issue was welfare fraud, people who obtain benefits on the basis of being sole-support parents but who in reality have people living with them who under normal circumstances should be expected to contribute to the support of that person. The issue is fraud, of lying about one's living circumstances.
The issue received a great deal of discussion in Thunder Bay, and as a result some very sensible measures were put in place so that everyone understood what the law was when we were done and we have an orderly way of applying it. That was the issue: welfare fraud. Again, I must point out to you --
Mr Crozier: But, if I might --
Mrs Dodds: -- however interested you are in that subject --
Mr Crozier: No, if I might -- I'm sorry. I asked the question. I said, notwithstanding the fact that you considered it subsidized, there are, I assume, a number of people in this province who are working people, who are not on the welfare system, who live with boyfriends and/or ex-husbands. My question is, do you also consider them living in a bordello?
Mrs Dodds: I don't understand your question. The issue in that case was welfare fraud --
Mr Crozier: Your quote, and I'll say it again. Your quote again was, "Single mothers living in subsidized housing who allow their boyfriends or ex-husbands to move in; this is tantamount to a subsidized bordello." If we take out the words "subsidized housing" and the word "subsidized" after "tantamount," do you consider people who are not married, single parents, living in a bordello, whether it's subsidized or not?
Mrs Dodds: If you remove the word "subsidized" from that quote you entirely alter its meaning, and I am unable to respond. The issue was welfare fraud, people who receive subsidies under false pretences. You cannot remove that word and ask me to comment on something that you --
Mr Crozier: So if you're on welfare and live with your ex-husband or boyfriend, you live in a bordello. If you are not subsidized by the government, you don't live in a bordello. Is that fair?
Mrs Dodds: The issue was subsidies fraudulently obtained.
Mr Crozier: I think you're avoiding the question and I really think that you understand it. As we see, you're experienced, you're intelligent, and I think my question is very clear. It's just a question of a living situation, subsidized or unsubsidized. Subsidized it's a bordello. Unsubsidized, is it a bordello?
Mrs Dodds: Mr Crozier, the Social Assistance Review Board is not criminal court.
Mr Crozier: Does the subsidization make it a bordello?
Mrs Dodds: It does not deal with matters of welfare fraud.
Mr Cooke: Evelyn, you know what the question is. Answer it.
Mr Crozier: I think you're avoiding my question. I think what you've said is that anyone who lives with their ex-husband or a boyfriend lives in a bordello; it's just that some are subsidized and some aren't. I regret that someone would make that kind of a insinuation, because those are very strong words when you use "bordello."
In any event, I want to return as well -- do you have a question?
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Yes.
Mr Crozier: I'll pass on to Mr Bartolucci.
The Vice-Chair: You have a minute.
Mr Bartolucci: One minute? All right, two quick questions, Mrs Dodds: One, do you consider your successful appointment to SARB as a political patronage appointment?
Mrs Dodds: I take it as an honour that my abilities are being recognized and that I'm being permitted to serve the people of this province.
Mr Cooke: Without an interview.
Mr Bartolucci: Excuse me, would you answer the question? Do you consider it to be a political patronage appointment?
Mrs Dodds: All people who are appointed to the Social Assistance Review Board, and indeed all tribunals, are appointed by the government of the day.
Mr Bartolucci: Therefore, you consider it to be a patronage appointment.
Mrs Dodds: I believe I have answered your question.
Mr Bartolucci: With a yes.
Mrs Dodds: I did not say that.
Mr Bartolucci: With a no.
Mr Bob Wood: She's already answered the question.
Mr Bartolucci: Excuse me, she hasn't answered the question.
Mr Bob Wood: She's answered the question the way she chose to.
Mrs Dodds: I was appointed because of my abilities and because of my knowledge.
Mr Bartolucci: Have you ever appointed --
The Vice-Chair: Mr Bartolucci, your time is up. Sorry. The third party has six minutes left.
Mr Kormos: Ms Dodds, you've expressed a number of somewhat outspoken views. Do you believe that they reflect the views of the mainstream, of the majority of your community?
Mrs Dodds: I have no idea.
Mr Kormos: You've been a city councillor in Thunder Bay, active in the community. Do you believe that the views that you've expressed reflect the views of the mainstream of that community?
Mrs Dodds: I'm not certain how one measures that. I enjoyed an enormous degree of success, achieving more votes as an alderman than anyone ever had before me, but in other elections I wasn't.
Mr Kormos: That success wasn't shared in either the provincial campaign of 1987 or 1995, though, was it?
Mrs Dodds: No, it wasn't, you're quite right.
Mr Kormos: Now, you understand of course that appellants are entitled to a fair and impartial hearing.
Mrs Dodds: Absolutely. That is the purpose of the Social Assistance Review Board.
Mr Kormos: And you're familiar with the maxim that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.
Mrs Dodds: And the principles of natural justice have to be employed in all proceedings.
Mr Kormos: In view of your strong stand on the English-only resolution passed by Thunder Bay city council, where you participated among council with the eight other councillors in supporting English as the official language and rejecting the French language, how would a francophone, then, feel comfortable appearing in front of you? How could a francophone expect to have a fair and impartial hearing in view of the outspoken views you've expressed about bilingualism?
Mrs Dodds: I am a francophone --
Mr Kormos: I don't think you were bilingual as a child.
Mrs Dodds: -- and I do not believe bilingualism is an issue that will ever come before SARB.
Mr Kormos: How would a francophone expect to receive a fair and impartial hearing in view of your strong views against bilingualism?
Mrs Dodds: I do not believe that bilingualism is an issue that ever comes before SARB. Anyone who comes before the tribunal and speaks a language other than English is provided with an interpreter paid for by SARB.
Mr Kormos: You've indicated that you believe that child benefits programs will encourage social assistance recipients to have more children: Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal, July 9, 1993.
Mrs Dodds: I don't recognize that as a direct quote.
Mr Kormos: Is it another misquote?
Mrs Dodds: I don't recognize it as a direct quote. It could be a reporter's characterization of what they believed I thought.
Mr Kormos: Here's your chance to confirm it or refute it.
Mrs Dodds: I'm asking you if it is a direct quote or not.
Mr Kormos: Here's your chance to refute or confirm whether or not you believe that child benefits programs encourage social assistance recipients to have more children. Do you believe that?
Mrs Dodds: I don't understand the reference at all.
1040
Mr Kormos: I'm asking you whether you believe that.
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chair, she can't answer the question till she's told whether or not this is a direct quote. Don't answer the question.
Mr Kormos: Don't you tell her not to answer it. Do you believe that child benefits programs encourage welfare recipients to have more children? You could either say yes or no.
Mr Bob Wood: Don't answer the question.
Mr Cooke: Mr Chair --
Interjections.
Mr Kormos: You have no intention of answering that because you're referred to as believing that. You believe that welfare benefits encourage women to have more children. How can a single mother expect to receive a fair hearing appearing in front of you when you've expressed that outrageous type of comment?
Mr Ford: That's in your opinion.
Mrs Dodds: Unlike you, Mr Kormos, I have had the opportunity of being a single mother, which I gather you have not.
Mr Kormos: How can a single mother, when you have indicated that social welfare benefits, child benefits programs, encourage women to have more children, expect to receive a fair and impartial hearing from you?
Mr Martiniuk: Mr Chairman, the witness has already stated that she does not recognize --
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, you don't have the floor, Mr Martiniuk. Unless you've got a point of order or a point of privilege, you don't have the floor.
Mr Martiniuk: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I believe the witness has stated that is not a quotation, and my friend keeps saying --
The Vice-Chair: It's not a point --
Mr Kormos: Chair, would you please exercise some authority here?
The Vice-Chair: That's not a point of order.
Mr Kormos: Do you believe that child benefits programs encourage welfare recipients to have more children?
Mrs Dodds: My answer to that would have to depend on the circumstances of a specific instance, because I'm absolutely certain that is not something that can be generalized across the board. As an adjudicator, the case before you is the one you look at. You do not comment on general public policy. You do not interpret the case in the light of general public policy or your opinion on it.
Mr Kormos: You've indicated that single mothers living in subsidized housing who allow their boyfriends or ex-husbands to move in is tantamount to living in a subsidized bordello. Do you believe that a single mother in that instance who is appealing to you can expect to receive a fair and impartial hearing, in view of that statement?
Mrs Dodds: Absolutely. My job would be to review the evidence that gave rise to the director's decision to refuse, suspend or cancel benefits. The conditions which we are permitted to recognize as adjudicators are spelled out in the legislation. If the evidence supports the conclusion that the director was correct, then that is the ruling that we must render, and we must give our legal reasons for doing so. If the evidence presented at the hearing -- nothing outside of the hearing; the evidence presented at the hearing -- does not support the director's decision, then we rule in a contrary fashion.
Mr Kormos: You've indicated that in your struggle with teachers' collective bargaining units, you've been sneered at, you've been bumped into in the halls and that you've been harassed by telephone calls at home. Is that correct?
Mrs Dodds: Yes, and my children suffered a great deal as well.
Mr Kormos: And you indicated that your response to that and the objective you engaged in was merely to embarrass the hell out of them, isn't that correct?
Mrs Dodds: You spoke too quickly; I didn't understand.
Mr Kormos: You've indicated that your response to that was merely to embarrass the hell out of them, isn't that correct?
Mrs Dodds: I don't recognize that quote.
Mr Kormos: Well, "embarrass the hell out of them," a direct quote contained in a newspaper article in the Toronto Star, Sunday, March 8, 1992. Why shouldn't a welfare recipient who's appealing before you expect merely to be embarrassed or have the hell embarrassed out of them, as compared to receiving a fair and impartial hearing, in view of the outrageous things you've said?
Mrs Dodds: With all due respect, Mr Kormos, in 1992, I lived in Thunder Bay and did not get the Toronto Star, so I have not seen that.
Mr Kormos: Another misquote?
Mrs Dodds: I have no idea. I have no idea who they were talking to.
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, Mr Kormos. Your time is up.
Mrs Dodds: I don't have it in front of me. Secondly, education was not an issue I was involved in in 1992.
The Vice-Chair: Mrs Dodds, your time is up. Mr Kormos, your time is up.
The Vice-Chair: We're now back to the government caucus. They have two minutes if they wish to ask another question.
Mr Martiniuk: I'm interested, because you've lived in a political life and now you are into an occupation which requires a quasi-judicial function, in your views on that and how one adapts.
Mrs Dodds: I'm 52 years old, and of those years, only 10 of them were spent in political life, so I had 42 years not as a politician. It isn't very difficult to return to private life. The majority of my years as a private sector person were engaged in business management, financial analysis, and management of staffs and payrolls.
Mr Martiniuk: So you've had no trouble adapting to your present occupation?
Mrs Dodds: I've quite enjoyed the experience. There's a lot to learn in any new job, but there are many people at SARB who are very courteous and willingly share information.
The Vice-Chair: Any more questions, government side? If not, we want to thank you very much for coming before us today, Ms Dodds. Your participation has been helpful.
Mrs Dodds: Thank you for the opportunity.
The Vice-Chair: I will now entertain a motion of concurrence.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that the committee concur in the appointment of Mrs Evelyn Dodds.
Mr Kormos: Once again, the fact that this is political patronage is moot, because clearly it is, there's no issue in that regard. And once again, as you've heard me say before and as others have said, political patronage, when it's accompanied by competence is in itself not a particularly repugnant thing. It may be an irritant, but it's not repugnant.
Here we have a situation of a woman with a history of the most extreme and outrageous views, the most uncharitable of views. Suggesting that women living in subsidized housing units who have boyfriends or husbands domiciled with them are living in a bordello situation goes beyond outrageous; it indeed is libelous, it's slanderous to a whole lot of women who are forced into subsidized housing because of very limited incomes and will be all the more prevalent because of the outrageous cuts this government is engaged in in the benefits paid to social benefits recipients.
To talk about tactics of approaching your opponents or those who disagree with you as merely embarrassing them, as Ms Dodds is reported in the March 1992 story in the Toronto Star in response to her criticism of teachers' collective bargaining units, once again puts appellants appearing before her at the Social Assistance Review Board in a position where they cannot expect in any way, shape or form a fair or impartial hearing.
Her outrageous and undemocratic and totalitarian opposition to French-language rights in the province of Ontario, especially after Bill 8 received all three parties' support in the Legislature when it was passed, as you well know, her outrageous and repugnant comments in that regard put at risk any francophone who appears in front of her in her capacity as a vice-chair of the Social Assistance Review Board. Not one of those appellants could expect a fair and impartial hearing.
Ms Dodds conceded -- and I know you are well familiar with the maxim that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done -- that the issue of bias by a tribunal or a hearing officer is not solely actual bias but it's a reasonable apprehension of bias. Ms Dodds has put herself, because of her history of clear, strong and, as I say, repugnant opinions about the poor, about single mothers, her suggestion that child benefits programs would encourage women to breed -- clearly suggesting that women have children so they can collect more benefits, not being in any way, shape or form sensitive to the reality that it takes a great deal of money to adequately care for a child; that the previous benefits levels prior to this government were in themselves barely acceptable and after a reduction of 21.6% became egregiously lower than what is even modestly acceptable -- has put herself in a position that any appellant appearing in front of her could not have any expectation or anticipation of a fair and impartial hearing.
This woman is clearly a bigot. She clearly doesn't like francophones, notwithstanding her claim to be bilingual. But I note that her résumé, her curriculum vitae, refers only to childhood bilingualism. She appears to have regretted her francophone experience and rejected it in adult life. She clearly doesn't like single mothers, suggesting that they prefer to have more children because of the child benefits programs. She clearly is bigoted and prejudiced with respect to single women living in subsidized housing and, all the more so, single women living in subsidized housing who may want to exercise what is a very lawful right, to engage in a relationship with a boyfriend or spouse.
A bigot when it comes to francophone matters, a bigot when it comes to single mothers, a bigot when it comes to the poor, somebody who carries with her baggage that is undeniable, that one cannot merely wish away -- a hearings officer who is most unsuited for the Social Assistance Review Board, which requires, in my view, an enhanced level of sensitivity to the reality of being poor in our society, to the reality of being unemployed, to the reality of being a victim of abandonment by a spouse, to the reality of being a victim of spousal abuse.
1050
This woman displays no sensitivity. She clearly has an agenda. Her tactics are, as she indicated in response to teachers' collective bargaining units, to embarrass her opponents rather than engage in effective or meaningful debate.
Clearly during the course of questioning, she didn't like questioning. She, as Mr Cooke said, preferred to take the 5th. This woman obviously spends a whole lot of time watching American television rather than paying attention to what's happening in her own community -- a most unsuitable person for this particular position.
The mere fact that she's a Tory bothers me not at all. You have heard me in this committee endorse the appointment of competent Progressive Conservatives, all of them far more reputable in their community than Ms Dodds is.
Here's a woman who questions whether or not she speaks for the mainstream of the community, clearly couldn't get herself elected: 1987, I acknowledge, was tough for any Tory, but 1995 certainly wasn't. They elected more than a few dogs, but even in that dog race, Ms Dodds found herself on the losing end.
Mr Peter Preston (Brant-Haldimand): I hope you feel like a tire; you know what dogs do to tires.
Mr Kormos: In that regard, this woman, I submit, doesn't have the support of her community, doesn't have the support or represent the views of the mainstream of Ontario. The role she's been granted by fiat -- by fiat, Chair, because I'm sure you'll hear more about the extraordinary process that was engaged in -- is suggestive very strongly of her having a clear political agenda, her being placed into that position by the government to exercise that political agenda under the guise, and this is the dishonesty of this appointment, of being an independent member of a tribunal.
This woman cannot be fair and impartial. No appellant appearing before her can expect a fair and impartial hearing, and it's ludicrous to suggest that there would ever be anything but the apprehension of bias on her part, on the part of an appellant who was in receipt of social assistance benefits.
A thoroughly repugnant appointment, one which, as I've said before, if the majority of this committee votes in support of -- and I'm confident they will, because the Tory members are going to be whipped and will support whoever they're told to support, no matter how loudly it barks or no matter how slimily it squirms its way in or out of the committee room. Here's a woman who, I tell you, will cause grief to this government during the course of her tenure on the Social Assistance Review Board. If you think these are her last press clippings, you're sadly mistaken. She will do damage that is cruel, unfair and contrary to everything that decent people should believe in.
Needless to say, I'm not going to be voting for her.
Mr Bob Wood: Actually, I think I might vote for her. I think she's a well-qualified appointment. She has elected experience, she has business experience, and she has community experience. She understands the job well and she wants to serve.
It has been pointed out today that she speaks her mind, and she does. As far as I'm concerned, that's no disqualification for a public appointment. I think she's going to in fact give a fair hearing to everyone who appears before the committee. I think that's her record of both public and business service.
The fact of the matter is, this board is in a mess. It takes one year from the start of an appeal to a decision. We need people like Evelyn Dodds to fix that mess. She supports the government agenda, and that's what we need on the board.
It has been pointed out that we have changed the Liberal-NDP system of how an appointment is made, and that's quite right: The people's decisions are going to be made by those who are elected by the people. The proof that that system is working is the appointment we've seen before us this morning, which I think is an excellent appointment. We've very fortunate to have someone of this calibre come forward.
Mr Crozier: Just an observation: If this committee is to do its duty, it's incumbent upon us, and the government too, for that matter, to question, even harshly at times, those who appear before us, because they're going into well-paid, responsible jobs. I observed this morning that the government side may have been a bit upset at the line of questioning. I don't think they should be. I think it's our duty.
I regret that the government members even were acting as counsel and telling the witness not to answer the question. I don't think that's our place to do that. Certainly, competent people who appear before us are well able to determine what they answer and how they answer it. In fact, those who are evasive tend to leave the door open for assumptions that may not be fair.
I would have preferred that Mrs Dodds had answered my question directly about bordellos. I think she understands full well what was being asked, yet by her being evasive, the only conclusion I can come to is that, whether you're subsidized or not, she had insinuated that anyone who lives with a boyfriend or an ex-husband is living in a bordello. It's unfortunate that she didn't answer the question more directly. But for us to intervene and tell her what to answer and how to answer it, I really don't think it's our place to do that if we're to operate as an effective committee.
To the process: I was concerned, as Mr Cooke brought out in the questioning, that the process was not followed in this case. If we're ever to get appointments to committees and boards and commissions to be fair -- every government professes to want to do that, but none has so far. In fact, I guess Mr Wood said this morning that the process followed before will no longer be followed, that it will be government people; that was a question I'd been waiting to ask somewhere along the way.
So I expect now that we can look forward to all appointments being patronage appointments. Although I'm not pleased with that tack, I am pleased that the government is now on record as having said that the process will no longer be a fair and equitable one, that they will be Tory appointments. I'm disappointed in that, quite frankly.
Because that process was not followed in this case, I won't be able to support or at least concur with the appointment of Mrs Dodds.
Mr Cooke: I'm not going to repeat everything that's been said, although I must say that I, along with others, find this appointment one of the most distressing things this government has done.
Mr Wood sits there and proudly says, "That's right, we're going to do the appointments process differently" -- and I would say it's not really different; it's the way the Conservative government did it previous to 1985 -- "we're going to have elected people involved." But you can go through a fair process, one that puts these types of positions, quasi-judicial positions, through an appointments process that is fair and is at arm's length from the political process but still achieves your ends of having people who agree with the government agenda. In fact, if you believe what Ms Dodds said this morning, agreeing with the government agenda on the Social Assistance Review Board is irrelevant because she implements the law, and if you want to change the law, the politicians have to do that.
Other than the arrogance of the approach Mr Wood proudly talks about here, "Yes, you're right, we're not going to go through a fair, independent process," what makes this appointment even more obnoxious is that the member this morning said: "I didn't go through an interview. I didn't talk to anybody. I sent in my résumé and I got a call from the Premier's office saying I'd been appointed." That is the clearest confirmation that this appointment had nothing to do with competence; it had everything to do with her political membership and the fact that she's a defeated Tory candidate that put her on the board.
1100
The Tories may say, "That's great; that's what we're going to do," but this is the party that said people in the province are cynical about the political process, cynical about politicians. And they don't believe this is going to feed into the cynicism in the province?
I remember in my area of the province, where Tories don't get elected, the only way they ever got Tory candidates was, "You run for us and Bill Davis promises you an appointment to the Ontario Municipal Board" or something else. Sandy Thomson was the last Tory candidate who ran when the Tories were still in power in the 1981 election, and I believe he's still on the Ontario Municipal Board. He ran against me. It's one of the things we learned down in Windsor-Essex when the Tories are in power: "If you run against us and you lose, you're going to end up with a job that pays a lot more than we get paid when we win." It's ironic, but that's what happens.
The cynicism that this builds into the system is incredible. You can proudly say what you say, Mr Wood, but you've got to remember that it was your party that also said the process was going to be changed; it was your party that got up every time anybody was appointed who had NDP affiliation when we were in power, or anybody who had Liberal affiliation when they were in power, and said the system was being destroyed, that there needed to be a complete arm's-length process, that, "We aren't going to make patronage positions." Then you get elected and you do a complete flip-flop and build more cynicism into the process than could ever have happened in the past.
A job like that on the Social Assistance Review Board -- that was one reason it was one of the first major bodies where the appointments process was significantly reformed after the 1985 election, because it's absolutely essential that the people on that board have the confidence of the people in the province, that they're not patronage appointments, that they're appointed on the basis of their qualifications, understanding, commitment and sensitivity to the system. In one appointment, the Tory government has completely destroyed that.
These are the folks who say, "We're voting against employment equity because we believe in the merit principle." Some merit principle. What a bunch of gobbledegook, what a bunch of hypocrites, to be very honest about it. That's exactly what it is. The only qualification you need in this particular appointment is that you are a Progressive Conservative.
I certainly appreciate that it has become much clearer in the process this morning. The minister, when he answered questions from the opposition parties when this appointment first came to light, didn't say anything about the appointments process. He said the appointments process was being respected, that she was being appointed on the basis of her merit. He never acknowledged -- in fact denied -- that there were no interviews. There's a lot of questions for which the minister has to be held to account, based on this morning. I think he was not fully honest with the Legislature when he was answering the questions. That's been confirmed by Mr Wood here -- I'm glad he said it on the record -- and it's certainly been confirmed by Ms Dodds in her testimony.
Mr Chair, I obviously will also be voting against this appointment. I'll finish by saying that I know the Tories over there -- they're all new members of the Legislature -- will say, "Of course you're going to vote against her, because she's a Tory." You will go home and you will absolutely believe that's the case. I just ask you to take a look at the record of my appointments in any ministry that I had anything to do with when I was a cabinet minister, and you'll see that a number of Conservatives were appointed by me; there were some Liberals and some New Democrats too, and lots of non-affiliated people. It wasn't on the basis of political affiliation.
I remember one in particular. Susan Fish was put on the Ontario Municipal Board, somebody whom I very much promoted to be on the Ontario Municipal Board. There are many others. Even on the Royal Commission on Learning the co-chair was Monique Bégin. There were lots of others, because we tried to move to a process that was more reflective of the people of the province and represented all the political views in the province.
This appointment is best described as an absolute disgrace. If they continue in this way, there's no doubt at all that cynicism will build further in this province. There is no way Mike Harris can now lecture any of the other political parties in this province about how he's going to be a different kind of politician and all the rest of us were tarnished by the old way of doing things. This takes the process back to the 1980s, back to the 1970s, and it's an absolute disgrace.
Mr Preston: Mr Cooke has taken a statement and elongated it, stretched it out both sideways and lengthwise to fit his own ideas, but at no --
Mr Cooke: It's on the record.
Mr Preston: I did not interrupt you, sir, through the Chairman.
Mr Cooke: That wasn't the deal. I'll still interject when I want.
Mr Preston: If the person wishes to be that ignorant, he can go ahead.
Mr Wood did not say they were Tory appointments. He said they would be government appointments, people who thought the way the government wanted to proceed. He did not say "Tory."
Mr Kormos: These are independent arbitrators.
Mr Preston: Just a moment. Are you asking the questions?
The Vice-Chair: Mr Preston has the floor. Go ahead.
Mr Preston: Thank you. Mr Kormos is now talking, and he's the one who took a statement the lady made and stretched it out. She said she was francophone. She didn't say she was bilingual, as he says, and then gave it up in her later life.
Mr Kormos: Read her résumé.
Mr Preston: She said she was francophone. Francophone doesn't change in later life. Francophone is francophone.
Mr Kormos: Not if you can't speak it any more.
Mr Preston: I didn't know "francophone" had that meaning. I thought francophone --
Mr Kormos: What do you think it means, you dumb shit? What do you think it means?
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, that language is unacceptable.
Mr Preston: I'm not going to take any of that from you, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: I withdraw that he's a shit, but he's still dumb.
The Vice-Chair: Would you withdraw that comment as well?
Mr Kormos: Yes, that he's a shit.
The Vice-Chair: And the other comment you made that was unparliamentary. Withdraw that.
Mr Kormos: I withdraw it because it's unparliamentary, not because it's untrue. I'm not sure it's unparliamentary. He doesn't know what "francophone" means.
Mr Preston: Mr Chairman, I apologize. I shouldn't get upset at the rabble. I'm sorry. I got upset and spoke out of turn. I should ignore him. That's the level he should be treated at.
Mr Kormos: Try a dictionary for "francophone."
Mr Preston: He can say anything he wishes, but the lady said she was a francophone. She also has been a single mother. I think she has the integrity, regardless of her stripe, to adjudicate in accordance with the law. Judges have biases. They do not use them when they're adjudicating a case. They adjudicate a case on the evidence. I believe she is well suited.
The Vice-Chair: Mr O'Toole next. No, just a second, Mr O'Toole. I didn't have anybody on the list when you put your hand up. I'm trying to do a rotation, so I'm going to go to one of the Liberals and then we'll come back to you. Mr Bartolucci.
Mr Bartolucci: I come to this committee being a virgin in provincial politics still. I'm trying to remain a virgin, but it becomes harder and harder and harder as the committee meets.
Just let me tell you why I'm not going to be supporting this appointment. I clearly believe that Mrs Dodds is not qualified to sit as a vice-chair of SARB. The most important qualification that a member of SARB must have is the openness and sensitivity to be able to adjudicate in a fair, unbiased manner. By her own admission, she brings very strong personal biases with her. This is baggage she can't get rid of. She has it, she admits to it, and then she says, "But I will be able to do it in a fair way." That is an impossibility.
1110
Let me just not agree with my very respected colleague across the way. Judges do form their decisions on biases. That's called precedent. Both past and present decisions are based on biases people have.
She does not have the ability to be fair in her position. Even if you believe she is a competent person, I don't believe she's been stacked against others who have applied. She was given the appointment. If she had had the courage to say, "Yes, it was a political appointment" -- we all know it was -- I think I would have garnered a little more respect for the witness. But she didn't even have the courage to do that, and that is shameful.
And let me tell you, I agree with Mr Kormos that this person's mind will come back to haunt this committee. It will haunt SARB and it will be a discredit to the adjudication process. Clearly, she is not and cannot be fair in her appraisals, and that reason only is why I will not be supporting the appointment to SARB of Evelyn Dodds.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I enjoyed sitting in on this committee this morning. I'm not surprised by the style and the gist of the questions. There's so much, whether it's PC philosophy or just general social ideology, that's most apparent to me in the line of questioning. It was in no way looking at the ultimate qualifications of the individual. There's no question that each one of us -- the more profile you have, the more people take note of the comments you may or may not have made and make news out of it.
When I was looking over the notes this morning in preparation for this meeting, I did read the Thunder Bay Chronicle of October 1995. It was a very, I thought, balanced article, addressing this appointment to SARB. One of the phrases says, "Dodds came to prominence as a Thunder Bay school trustee pursuing basic essentials and weeding out waste." It goes on to say: "Dodds was called a slasher, but she acted primarily on the demands" -- this is most important -- "of most taxpayers to save money providing needed services. She may have been aggressive but she always worked hard, was always fully briefed and always had the interests of the taxpayers at heart."
That really, in my mind, on balance is a reason to bring some sense of order and accountability to this board. I believe that on any board there is a dynamic that occurs. The individual being new to whatever position is bound to learn from the association of professionals and other people you have contact with. I think the province will be richer for her input.
I take on good face value what she said this morning, that she doesn't bring her political agenda with her, that she's there to look at the facts as they're presented and at the situation of the appellant and make decisions in a fair and honest fashion. After all, she will be seen as doing that, I think, when she's given the opportunity to provide that service to her community. After all, she has been in service to the community, as she said, since 1980.
Each of us here probably in some way has come up through that thing, and we get pushed on to agendas. The news picks up anything you say if you're in that kind of arena. In fairness, I met Mrs Dodds during one of the training seminars we had prior to the election, and I found her very strong, very opinionated. That's the kind of leadership that I think will serve this board well; we're not just being shuffled off without any kind of input.
I think we should look at her credentials and respect those for what they are. She represents fairness, in my view, and she has, after all, the interests of the taxpayer at heart. That's really what our agenda is, to be balanced, fair, and there's no more tax money. Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment.
Mr Gravelle: I believe this is an extraordinarily inappropriate appointment. I live in Thunder Bay. I was there when Mrs Dodds was on her purge. No matter how one looks at it, she frightened people to a degree that was really totally unfair. She made everybody who was on social assistance feel certainly a loss of dignity and a great fear in terms of their own future, and seemed to be taking some glee in it. I think it's clear she has shown her bias in a most remarkable way. Even if she is capable of adjudicating these positions, it's clear that somebody else who has not expressed these biases should have been picked if there was any fairness at all in the system.
It's a blatantly inappropriate and deliberate appointment, and I certainly don't support it.
The Vice-Chair: Having heard from all the caucuses in some adequate degree --
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, Mr Chair.
The Vice-Chair: -- we're going to put the vote. And I've heard a call for a recorded vote by Mr Kormos, so we'll have a recorded vote.
All those in favour of this appointment please raise their hand.
Ayes
Ford, Fox, Leadston, Martiniuk, O'Toole, Preston, Wood.
The Vice-Chair: All those opposed to this appointment will raise their hand.
Nays
Bartolucci, Cooke, Crozier, Gravelle, Kormos.
The Vice-Chair: The appointment is approved.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Vice-Chair: We'll now move to the adoption of the report of the subcommittee. Would somebody move that adoption?
Mr Bob Wood: I will so move.
The Vice-Chair: Any comment on the subcommittee report?
Mr Kormos: Put the question.
The Vice-Chair: All those in favour of the subcommittee report please raise their hand. All those opposed to the subcommittee report? Seeing none, I declare the subcommittee report accepted.
We are adjourning at the call of the Chair. We'll see you in the intersession.
The committee adjourned at 1117.