INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
RICHARD BROCK
CONTENTS
Wednesday 6 November 1996
Intended appointments
Mr Richard Brock
Ms Carol Fletcher-Dagenais
Mr Ian MacInnis
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président: Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
Mr RickBartolucci (Sudbury L)
*Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
*Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
*Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
*Mr GaryFox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings /
Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)
Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)
Mr BertJohnson (Perth PC)
*Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Mr FloydLaughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
*Mr DanNewman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
*Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr TonySilipo (Dovercourt ND)
*Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC) for Mr Fox
Mr E.J. DouglasRollins (Quinte PC) for Mr Bert Johnson
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr JohnGerretsen (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îsles L)
Clerk /Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1000 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The standing committee will come to order, and we'll proceed with our morning's business. The first item on the agenda has to do with the subcommittee report.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I move adoption of the report of the subcommittee.
The Chair: You've heard Mr Wood's motion. No debate? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried. Thank you for that.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
RICHARD BROCK
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Richard Brock, intended appointee as member, Regional Municipality of Waterloo Police Services Board.
The Chair: Mr Brock, would you please take a seat at the end of the table. Welcome to the committee. We're pleased you're here. If you have any opening comments you want to make, that would be appropriate. Then the members of the committee will have at you.
Mr Richard Brock: Thank you. I'm not sure what information people have received, but I intend to tell you who I am, what I do and why I'm interested in the police services board.
My name is Richard Brock. I'm 52 years old. I live in Cambridge with my wife and four daughters. I own my own business. We operate out of Kitchener, primarily in industrial automation and technology that we market all over the world. It's a professional company. I have 190 employees. I also sit as a director of four different companies involved in the publication and media business, the finance business, the chemical business and technology.
My belief has always been, as a businessman, that you should not take your community for granted, and having the opportunity to travel in many places in the world and do business in many places in the world, certainly Ontario is a unique place and an opportunity for a businessman.
Growing up in rural Ontario, I learned to be a volunteer, and I have served on hospital boards, United Way, the chamber of commerce, different education organizations, theatre groups and two government task forces, one involved in the reorganization and better way to manage the airports in Canada and the other in Ontario, the centres of excellence and particularly the centre for microelectronics.
My present involvement in the community in the Kitchener-Waterloo area is centred around CODA, the Community Opportunities Development Association. We work with people who have been displaced because of the technology changes in industry and who have been on welfare, in an attempt to help build up their self-esteem and get them back into the workforce. We have created a fund whereby we work with the local banks to lend them money, when they could not otherwise get it, and start their own businesses.
It has been in this area of the community of Kitchener- Waterloo-Cambridge that I was approached in the spring of 1996 to see if I had an interest in serving on the police services board. I did have an interest and have done some research, and I believe it's compatible with what I've chosen as my present activities in the community and learning more about that community. I'm aware that it's 50% of the budget for the region of Waterloo.
I believe my experience as a businessman, management skills, financial skills and technical knowledge, my interest in the community and my compassion for people will qualify me to add to and be a contributor to the police services board.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Brock. Questions from the government side?
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Good morning, Richard, and welcome here. I've got a couple of preliminary questions to ask. We have something in common. My son has four daughters too, so I understand where you're coming from.
The regional municipality of Waterloo covers a number of cities and townships. Are there some policing concerns specific to some of these areas, or is each area represented with its own policing challenges?
Mr Brock: In my opinion, the biggest area with the policing challenge is the downtown core, particularly the Cambridge and Kitchener areas, where the police force has been going back to walking the beat or community forcing, where police officers are encouraged to get to know the local merchants, the local people and the activities going on in those communities, and from an economic point of view, a concern for the region in both cities, to have these areas restored to healthy commercial centres.
Mr Ford: How will Waterloo police services board directly benefit from your professional and personal experience?
Mr Brock: As I said in my opening remarks, my experience with a variety of organizations, working with people -- I in fact have personally managed budgets of $50 million to $120 million, so this is not a size I have a problem with or have not had experience with. Every organization is people, and I think I have a track record of good communications skills in understanding the people who are closest to the customer, and the customers in the police business are the people on the street.
Mr Ford: I completely understand where you're coming from. Thank you very much.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Mr Brock, I found out in a brief conversation that you're a duck hunter. I'm a trap shooter. Some say I shoot my trap off too much. I thought I'd get that in before somebody else did.
Bill C-68: We know it's not going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, we know handguns have been registered already for years and years and years and we know that it's going to contribute to smuggling. What is the feeling in your community?
Mr Brock: The feeling in the community is confused. People who own guns and have gone through the process of buying a gun know for the last 15 years every firearm has been registered. I myself am on my third firearms acquisition certificate and have recently just passed the exam to acquire a new one. So people who own guns see that the government has a record someplace of every firearm that's owned. No one in this province or Canada can go and buy a handgun without having two certificates, and that's common knowledge.
For sure, from the point of view of the public and the police services or a policeman, firearms in the hands of somebody they're having to deal with are a danger and a concern, so what the government has tried to do in the legislation, and I'm in total agreement, is increase the penalties and crack down on people who are using firearms for purposes other than they were intended.
The confusion with the bill, and the fear -- there are a lot of people who own firearms, I think many more than the public realize, and it's coming out in the media now, some 800 applications a day are being processed for these certificates. The great fear in the way the legislation was presented is that you're going to come into my house and take away my gun. I don't think that was the intention, but that's the way the message was conveyed.
At the shooting clubs that I go to, and I too shoot trap and skeet and belong to hunting clubs, there's an overreaction and a fear against the bill. It will not, in my opinion, deter anybody who's interested in using a gun for criminal purposes. They are just not going to go and fill out the form and say, "I've got a handgun that just came in from the United States." It's very difficult to control the movement of handguns. As an example, you could put one in a bale of marijuana. You seem to be able to get that everywhere. So it's a difficult problem.
1010
The Chair: No more questions for the moment?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve the balance of our time.
The Chair: You have a minute left.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good morning, Mr Brock. Just to follow up on the previous question, I don't own a gun, I don't hunt, I don't like guns, and anything we can do to limit guns, aside from what's being done -- because I agree with you, I don't think Bill C-68 is going to get rid of illegal guns any more than legalizing illegal video lottery terminals is going to get rid of video lottery terminals.
Mr Preston: That's a good twist.
Mr Crozier: I do want to clarify one thing, though, Mr Brock. The public appointments secretariat gives us a background of yourself and how the candidate search process was carried out. It says here: "The vacancy was advertised in the local newspapers. Interviews were conducted by the public appointments unit." You said you were approached. Which is correct?
Mr Brock: Yes.
Mr Crozier: You were approached? You didn't answer an ad in the paper?
Mr Brock: I wasn't aware it was being advertised or the position was available. I was approached by two different people, one a past chairman of the Waterloo regional police services, a person I've helped with his business when he had some reorganizational problems, and another gentleman, a member of the Kitchener-Waterloo Progressive Conservative businessmen's association, of which I'm not a member, but I attended a meeting. He is a person I was lobbying on behalf of CODA to make some amendments to the proposed workfare legislation. I had some ideas from what I'd learned. Through that discussion, he asked me if I would be interested in the police services. So two people had approached me and made me think about it.
Mr Crozier: That's fine. I just wanted to correct my record.
Mr Brock: But I was interviewed in the process after that.
Mr Crozier: This just implied that you may have answered a local newspaper, and I'm glad you clarified that for me.
I want to talk a little bit about governance and police services boards and the appointments to them. Are you aware that there are a majority of provincial appointments on police services boards as opposed to elected officials? As a taxpayer, do you have any comment on whether there should be a majority of non-elected members to the board, or should we consider having a majority of elected members?
Mr Brock: In the Waterloo regional police services there are seven members, three from the region. How they're selected I do not know, but they're not elected by the public at large. So I consider all of them appointments by some political body: three from the region and four from the province. I can speak only for myself. It wouldn't matter whether the region appointed me or the province appointed me. I'm the same person, I'm going to give the same opinion and I've got the same experience.
Mr Crozier: I believe that. It's just one of accountability, I guess, that I'm getting to. It's the elected officials who are accountable ultimately for the collection of taxes for the payment of police services.
Mr Brock: In the situation I'm interested in, the region, one is the chairman of the region of Waterloo, who is a non-elected person, the chairman of the board is the mayor of Wilmot township, and the third person I do not know. But they're not elected to their position on the police services board, so I don't believe they're elected in any form. I think they're all appointed. Certainly the one from the region is not an elected person.
Mr Crozier: No. What I'm getting at, though, is ultimately the council or the region or whoever collects the taxes is accountable for those taxes, for the tax rates and so forth, whereas the majority appointed to the board are not elected. When you say "appointed," I guess they're all appointed to the board in that the council determines who will represent them there, but there are a minority of elected officials, in some form, on the board.
Mr Brock: I agree with that.
Mr Crozier: Do you think that then makes the board more or less accountable?
Mr Brock: It's a question I haven't put my mind to before, but I relate it to a problem I have with municipal elections, and that's the participation of the community where you have turnouts in the 30% range.
Mr Crozier: We even get majority governments elected with a minority of votes.
Mr Brock: You can get majority of governments. I'm not sure that process gets you the best-qualified people, when the appointed people I believe should care as taxpayers and compassionate citizens of a community. So I don't have a problem with the process; obviously I'm here.
Mr Crozier: If that's the way you feel -- that's the answer I want from you, just exactly how you feel.
Are there are any issues that you're aware of that are before the polices services board that you have a particular concern with?
Mr Brock: I'm not aware of nearly all of them, but certainly the Young Offenders Act is an issue expressed by the Waterloo police services board. They've been public and made their position known in agreement with the Hamilton-Wentworth police board.
The biggest issue, in my opinion -- and I look at it as I would a business organization where you have 700 employees and a budget of some $55 million, and in one of the fastest-growing regions in Canada, Kitchener-Waterloo, a very dynamic industrial area -- is that there are increasing pressures on the services required by the community and increasing pressures from budget restraint on the organization to deliver these services. As I view it with the little knowledge I have today, police services organization is something of a military style because of the nature of the titles of officers. It's in very much of a transition: changing its management style, learning to use technology more efficiently, and cope, and sell its needs for financial support.
Mr Crozier: When you mention budgetary restraints, of course there's been some suggestion that there should be alternative forms of financing, of revenue, for police services; for example, charging businesses for false alarms, selling advertising. Do you have any thought about that?
Mr Brock: In reverse, I have fair experience in the media business and advertising business. I'd have to learn a lot more, be convinced that it was a good idea. I say that because on the board of a newspaper your main advertiser gets a little more attention than somebody off the street. Right or wrong, that happens, and I would be concerned that it would happen in a police service situation.
False alarms: I have a security system in my house, I have security systems in my office, and because of my business security is very important to me. We have false alarms; somebody inevitably sets it off. In the past I've been so appreciative of the police calling, I call and say: "It's our fault. You came. Can I pay?" All I've been able to do in the past is send a cheque to the police charity, which happens to be the Children's Wish Foundation in the area. As a customer, I'm totally supportive of it. I don't think the taxpayers' money should be wasted on businesses or people who have security systems and don't manage them properly, so I would be an advocate that they should pay.
Mr Crozier: Would you differentiate between that and a private citizen who may call, think they see a prowler, where nothing results from it?
Mr Brock: I would definitely differentiate that.
1020
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I anticipate, and I suspect -- I can't speak for other people -- it's going to be unanimous that your appointment be approved. You've got qualifications which would stand you in good stead.
You won't deal with the gun control issue; that's been canvassed already.
You made reference to community concerns about the YOA, the Young Offenders Act. Are you simply the messenger here or do you share those concerns?
Mr Brock: I'm not a messenger at all. I took it upon myself to learn a bit about some of the issues. That's why I'm aware of that. Personally, my eldest daughter is a teacher. I'm aware. I have mixed emotions about it. There are young people being used by adults to commit crimes in situations where they know they aren't going to be punished, and that's wrong. By the same token, I have compassion for those children who have been misled and haven't had an opportunity. That's why I'm doing what I'm doing in the community. The Young Offenders Act has to be changed. Policing enforcement and punishment have to be tightened up. At the same time you have to get into the root cause of the problem, or all we're going to do as taxpayers is keep them in jail.
Mr Kormos: One of the phenomena you talk about isn't new. Read Dickens. Fagin was a theme prominent in one of Dickens's novels from literally centuries ago. You see, I'm always intrigued, and I have concerns about the YOA myself, but where does the YOA fail us in a manner that the JDA, the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which it succeeded, didn't?
Mr Brock: I'm not going to answer that because I don't know enough.
Mr Kormos: I'm concerned about this debate about the YOA, because the YOA changed very little about the law as it applied to young offenders. It did expand the coverage of "young offender" to ages 17 and 18, beyond 16, which it was under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, but it really does very little to change the manner in which young offenders are dealt with. That's why I'm concerned about this debate about the YOA when there wasn't the same criticism of the JDA.
Mr Brock: Let me tell you what I know from my experience, and some of this comes from my daughter. When I went to school it was a one-room school with eight grades and one teacher, and the strap was something that everybody was quite familiar with. I've got to tell you -- one time we had 48 students -- discipline was never an issue and we all got an education. Today in the school system there is no discipline. My daughter called me Monday night, crying. She has a class of 32 children. It's a misbehaved class, and in the school she's in the principal has put them all in the same class. She said that in the space of one hour there were three fights. The language is unbelievable and they call her a bitch. Now, in that hour nobody got an education. Society has changed. There is no discipline and no respect. For sure, in my experience in life, there is a balance in that, and certainly in the way I've raised my children there is discipline and there is respect. Society must, in my belief, enforce discipline.
Mr Kormos: I can't quarrel with you on that, and I don't.
Mr Brock: The point is that I think we went too far away from discipline and that we'll have to come back.
Mr Kormos: You're not the first person to speak in this way, to target the YOA. I've criticized the YOA since its introduction, for some very specific reasons and specific concerns I've had. But the YOA isn't responsible, I suggest to you, for what you're speaking of now in terms of the classroom context or in terms of what's happening to families or in terms of what's happening to communities. That's why I'm raising this with you. I'm responding to you that to target the YOA, because that's become a buzzword, without addressing -- and the YOA does little to change what the Juvenile Delinquents Act provided before it in terms of structure and limitations on sentence and limitations on the ages of young people who can be dealt with. I raise that with you because I think it's unfortunate that we focus on the YOA, which needs addressing, but it isn't the cause of the things you're talking about, in my submission to you.
Mr Brock: I don't think I'm disagreeing with you, but you're more knowledgeable on that topic than I.
Mr Kormos: Not necessarily.
The other issue Mr Crozier was referring to was a recent report that was distributed under the name of Al Howey, who happens to be a member of the Niagara police services board, from the association of police services boards. It talked about the distinction between provincial appointees and members on police services boards who are elected members by virtue of their municipal or regional councils. The police services boards association seems to think there is an important distinction between provincial appointees and what we can refer to as elected members. You don't share that view, obviously.
Mr Brock: I could take a position that there is a distinction, but as I said, I don't believe that for what the purpose is or the reason somebody sits on the board there's a distinction, as I see it in the Waterloo region.
Mr Kormos: When the Liberals passed the new Police Services Act, one of our criticisms -- I was the critic on the committee -- was that there was a majority of appointees by the government as compared to a majority of local people. When you've got the police services board responsible for setting budgets but somewhat hamstrung when it comes to collecting the money, how do you resolve that conflict? Because policing costs money. One of the complaints of cops across the board is, "We don't have the resources to do what you expect us to do."
Mr Brock: I can only give a philosophical answer. The Waterloo regional police board is part of the policing of the province of Ontario, and there are a number of boards, so certainly the province must have representation and make sure that the policing in one area is not different from others. I wouldn't want Ontario to be like a trip through Georgia on your holiday.
By the same token, I think the region is well represented by having three representatives. I think we have four members of Parliament in the Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge area.
Mr Kormos: For the moment.
Mr Brock: For the moment, but we'll always have four members of Parliament, unless they do a downsizing of the numbers, which they may do.
Mr Kormos: Oh, you're talking federal.
Mr Brock: No, I'm talking provincially, provincial members of Parliament. The process is that elected people appoint these people, so I don't see the differentiation in responsibility or how the people are appointed. I don't see a problem with the system today.
Mr Kormos: Then how do you perceive the function of the dual membership? Clearly there are some who are elected and there are some who are appointed without election. I heard what you've had to say about elections; so be it. Why is there the duality in membership, in your mind, on the police services board? Is it something that should be maintained and protected?
Mr Brock: From what I know today, I don't have any reason for recommending a change.
Mr Kormos: Okay, fair enough.
Mr Brock: But I might reserve the ability to change my answer six months from now.
Mr Kormos: Come back in a year.
The Chair: Mr Brock, thank you very much for coming before the committee and sharing your views with us. We appreciate it.
1030
CAROL FLETCHER-DAGENAIS
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Carol Fletcher-Dagenais, intended appointee as member, Ontario Board of Parole.
The Chair: The next intended appointee is Carol Fletcher-Dagenais. We welcome you to the committee. We welcome you and ask you, if you want to make any opening comments, to do so at this time.
Ms Carol Fletcher-Dagenais: I prepared a brief statement that I'd like to give. First of all, it's an honour for me to appear before this committee this morning and to be considered for this position with the Ontario Board of Parole. Of special note is the fact that my late great-aunt was a cleaner at Queen's Park when my family first immigrated to Toronto from Scotland several decades ago, so it's of personal significance that the third generation of this Canadian family may be given the opportunity to be a witness here in this building today.
As you have noted from my CV, I have always had an interest in criminal justice issues. I have an honours degree in sociology, with a legal studies minor from the University of Waterloo and a master's in applied criminology from the University of Ottawa. While I was completing my undergraduate work, I was fortunate to have the chance to work for two terms with the Halton Regional Police force. It was a special program that provided young participants with a hands-on knowledge of various issues within the justice area. We audited criminal trials, we gathered statistics on crimes in Halton, and we were trained in assisting homeowners and small businesses with crime prevention techniques, and we were afforded the opportunity to ride along with the officers.
Also while at the University of Waterloo I had the opportunity to volunteer for a short term at a home for young offenders in the Kitchener area.
At the University of Ottawa, the master's program also allows for a co-op approach to learning. My first practicum was at RCMP headquarters in Ottawa in the crime prevention branch. We assisted in the development of various programs for children, youth, the aged and women. The second practicum was within the office of the then Solicitor General of Canada, and my role centred on assisting the minister's senior adviser for the RCMP and CSIS on issues relevant to their purview.
During my master's program I was also given the opportunity to give a seminar to the offenders at the federal institution at Collins Bay, and as a teaching assistant in an introductory criminology course I taught a class in electronic monitoring prior to the concept being introduced in any form in Canada.
While I was at the University of Ottawa I began working on Parliament Hill as a constituency assistant. I'm sure the members are familiar with the various responsibilities inherent to that role. That role led me to accept a position with the then Minister of Immigration, who at the time was undertaking a significant revamping of the Immigration Act.
Of note among my responsibilities, I was charged with advising the minister on particular cases, and a number of these cases involved criminality. It was incumbent upon me to ensure that the decision was consistent with the Immigration Act and made after careful consideration of all relevant factors.
In this way, and in respect of both my academic and professional background, I am prepared to take on this important position at the Ontario Board of Parole should this committee concur. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that. Are there any questions from members of the government?
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Welcome, Ms Fletcher-Dagenais, to the committee. I read with interest your résumé -- varied experiences, both practical and the academic background. You're currently a small business owner?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: Yes, that's true.
Mr Newman: And you've been a teaching assistant, you've done some work with the Halton Regional Police service and you've been an assistant in various ministers' offices. That practical experience and your academic background, with the master's degree in sociology -- what specific strengths will you, with your master's degree, bring to the Ontario Board of Parole?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I had the benefit, as I referred to earlier -- for most of the 1980s I was in university. I was listening with interest to the former witness and the question from Mr Kormos regarding the YOA. Of course, when I was there I took a course on juvenile delinquents, because that's what it was called then. But I did have the benefit of taking many academic courses surrounding issues of Canadian criminal justice, both on the more academic side with respect to philosophy of law, sociology of law and on and on, but also with respect to the fact that we had teachers who were professionals in the field. Judges would come in; offenders would come in and speak to us with respect to their experiences; parole officers, lawyers, crown attorneys, so on and so forth. So even though we may not have been working in the field, we had an appreciation for what that entailed. I think I garnered a lot of knowledge during that time.
Following that, and participating in government, certainly there are issues you have to deal with as a constituency assistant with respect to areas surrounding the federal criminal justice system. Also, in terms of my immigration work, there is a system within the Immigration Act that allows for rehabilitation for those who have committed offences. We would review specific cases in terms of how long ago the offence had occurred and in terms of particulars of the case and what that individual had done to overcome the problems they had earlier in life. Then I would be in charge of recommending a decision to the minister, which I took quite seriously, in order to recommend whether that person should be either allowed to enter or remain in Canada. So I bring with me the benefit of that experience.
Mr Newman: In your profile, in your résumé, some of your strengths include that you're an effective consensus-builder, that you have keen judgement and formidable trouble-shooting capabilities. Can you comment on those?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: Consensus-building: When you work in a ministerial office, when you work on a team, obviously you have to be able to bring together different views and come up with a decision. Sometimes those people come to an issue with different perspectives, and it's important to bring everybody together and come out with a product at the end that people are comfortable with and that you feel comfortable with. So, yes, I've had that experience.
The trouble-shooting, of course, comes from almost 10 years of working with the public and dealing on a daily basis with issues relevant to them. Obviously, now in my own business and dealing with the federal bureaucracy in terms of immigration, let me tell you, trouble-shooting comes into play every day.
Mr Newman: With respect to your activities of interest, it has the group CAVEAT and that you're a supporter of minor hockey. How will these interests and other community activities that you may be involved in help you to represent the views of the community as a whole?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I'll refer to the last one first. I think it's important to participate in your community. I live and work in my community. I'm active when there are events that either have to be planned or I enjoy participating in them. Just this past summer at the Navan fair, if anyone's been down in eastern Ontario, it's one of the biggest agricultural fairs in the area. The theme was O Canada. It was a unity theme. I thought it was incumbent upon myself to participate on that, so we had a booth there and we participated in it. A year ago last October, of course, I went down to Montreal with my federal friends and we participated in the rally. I took a bus down early in the morning and I was pleased to stand with my fellow Canadians on behalf of my country.
In terms of the community issues, I also participate, of course, in crime prevention, the Neighbourhood Watch in my community and that sort of thing. I do believe it's fairly important to do that. Now, I'm sorry, you had another issue you referred to --
Mr Newman: Just CAVEAT.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: CAVEAT. Yes, of course. After leaving the minister's office I continued, obviously, to take a real interest in issues surrounding border control. In fact, I've remained very active on the issue. I think that in Canada there has been a gap, let's say, in terms of our attention paid to the issue. In reality, if we deal with issues at the border, in ensuring that there are rules and attention paid and people can communicate so we know what is happening at our border in terms of smuggling, illegal immigrants and so on and so forth, then we don't have to worry about them at the back end once they're in the country. I think it's only fair to Canadians that we pay more attention to that issue, so I continue to work on that.
Mr Preston: I was going to ask a silly question like, do you support these criteria for parole? Naturally, you have to. But I am concerned about two points in the criteria: "The board may grant parole." How do you feel about "may grant"? I'll just give you a parallel. Two people are working in a bank, both loan officers; one looks for a way to make a loan, one looks for a way to turn a loan down, but they're both doing exactly the same job. How do you feel about "may grant"?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I think it's important that you approach each case in an objective way. Our hands are certainly not tied to the issue and I intend to make sure that I review all the pertinent information that is provided to me and that I render a decision consistent with how I feel about the case. I think it's important that in terms of the statutory criteria for the board, there is the allowance for reintegration into the community. That is a very important concept. But there's also the concept of examining the risk to society. If there's ever a question in my mind as to which one will be paramount, I can tell you that the protection of the community and Ontarians will be paramount in my mind.
1040
Mr Preston: That's my second question, the part I'm concerned about: undue risk. How do you feel about undue risk?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I guess it's a matter of degree. Certainly one would have to examine the facts of the case to feel comfortable with rendering a decision. As I said, I will try and strike a balance, but there will be no question in my mind as to where I lie on the issue.
Mr Crozier: Good morning. I don't know whether you have information on parole applications granted and denied.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: In terms of, sir?
Mr Crozier: In terms of numbers. I want to share this table with you and then ask for your comment, the table on the page right there. These are very general questions. You'll see from that table that two interesting things have happened from 1992 through to 1996. One is that the number of applications has gone down, and interestingly too the percentage granted and the percentage denied have kind of reversed themselves. In other words, there are fewer granted now as a percentage than previously and of course more denied now. Any thought, with your experience, about what that table tells us?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: In terms of those applying for parole and why the number has gone down, I'm not familiar with the issues as to why that might have happened, and I'm interested, actually, to know why that is the case. In terms of the applications denied, I know it's very clear that people take their role seriously as a member of the parole board, and from what I understand of the people who have been appointed to the role recently, they will make sure that all factors are considered and that their decisions would be rendered based on the criteria put before them. In terms of statistics, if you really want to throw out statistics and talk about them, that's fine, but in my experience it's a bit of a waste of time.
Mr Crozier: Okay. Liars figure, and figures lie.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: Your words, sir.
Mr Crozier: Oh, yes. I'm an accountant, and I've used that a lot.
I still want to pursue this a bit, though. Do you think, then, that boards in the past have not been doing their job?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I'm sure that people who accept a role to this position make the decisions based on their knowledge of the facts, and also consistent with their backgrounds and their feel on the issues. Getting back to the statistics and from what I've seen recently, I think 85% was the figure of those who, once they are paroled, are successfully reintegrated into the community. I don't think that's a failing grade. Certainly the Prime Minister of Canada just gave himself 78% positive support and said that was a great grade. But with all due respect, I think there's always room for improvement in a board. I know it's evolving. There are certain issues that have come to the fore following a very tragic incident a number of years ago, and both the former government and subsequent governments are moving, I think, in the right direction to deal with these issues.
Mr Kormos: Here I am again, as with Mr Brock: I'm going to support your appointment and I'm confident that everybody will. But you're almost overqualified. I don't say that to be denigrating, but there's been a whole lot of research that's shown that plain old laypeople, just plain folks, are as capable of predicting dangerousness as are the most élite panels of psychiatrists, criminologists, what have you.
The discussion about the 85% success rate of parole, or whatever the percentage would be at any given point of time, begs this question, because it's similar to the success rate for probation: Maybe these are people for whom the jail term wasn't an essential consequence in any event. As I say about probation, the reason there's a relatively high success rate with probation is because it's offenders deemed by a court to be least likely to reoffend who are put on probation, so of course there's a relatively high success rate. Parole boards are in this incredible dilemma. I suppose a parole board could be less concerned about a situational shoplifter -- though Lord knows I don't want to diminish the seriousness of that to store owners -- than they are about, let's say, the paedophile. The reality is that sentences for paedophiles and other predatory offenders like that are still falling, not as much as before, but within the provincial range.
Dr Freund from the Clarke Institute, the Czech researcher who just died, was interesting because in the comments on his death it was mentioned that he expressed great sympathy for the paedophile, strangely enough, recognizing that this was a tortured, sick person, but he was also one of the people who made the observation that treatment for paedophiles is rare, few and far between.
So here you are, you're on a parole board and you've got a guy -- I'm sorry, a person, though usually a guy -- who's eligible for parole, and you know if you don't release him now he's going to be out in six more months anyway. What's going to happen within that six months? I'm not trying to challenge you with this, but doesn't this make the whole situation ironic, or at least paradoxical?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I'm not sure what the question was, but I'll attempt to discuss the issue.
Mr Kormos: It was an observation. I just want to hear your response to it.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: First of all, on your first comment surrounding laypeople and their ability to perform the task -- and I'm sure there are many -- I've had either the benefit or the misfortune, depending on how you look at it, to listen to many people with PhDs in the criminal justice field, and I can tell you that I haven't been enamoured of all their ideas. I'll give you an example. One of my professors went into a great deal of study about how one could be rehabilitated if we just painted the room pink, that it would create a calming influence and on and on and on.
Mr Kormos: Name names here.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: That might be very useful in the Legislature, from what I've seen of question period.
In any event, I think each case has to be examined on a case-by-case basis, and if we're dealing with a situation where someone would benefit from an early release, with the supervisory role that would be put in place and the programs they would come out with, then certainly that would be one consideration. If I'm of the view that I don't believe this person is ready for release or wouldn't benefit from that type of structured follow-up, then no, I wouldn't be proposing an affirmative answer. But as I said and as you know, sir, you have to deal with these issues on a case-by-case basis and look at each case individually and all the factors inherent to that case.
Mr Kormos: What do you see as the purpose of parole, ultimately?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I believe it's twofold, and it's stated in the criteria. First, it's to ensure, as we referred to earlier, that protection of society is considered and that there is no undue risk to the community, and, second, to allow the offender to have an opportunity of reintegration into the community and allow for a staggered approach to that.
Mr Kormos: In terms of the second consideration, the statutory considerations, what do we do in communities that have simply fewer and fewer resources for this reintegration process? Does that hamper the parole board in performing its function?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I'm aware of, even in very rural communities, one of which I live in, the resources available. There are some very good groups out there that deal with offenders and helping them reintegrate into the community: the John Howard Society, Elizabeth Fry, the Salvation Army and so on and so forth. The churches play a big role in that as well and families obviously play a huge role, so there are a number of things one would look at with each individual to see what kind of approach would be taken and would be best considered for that individual.
Mr Kormos: Do you have any views about women offenders who have perpetually had difficulty in serving their sentences close to their own municipality, simply because many regional detention centres don't take women and women have to be shipped to more centralized ones? And it may change for the worse -- government members would argue for the better -- with the corrections reconstruction. Do you perceive women as being in a somewhat different position from male offenders -- as you know, other writers and observers have, and even some courts have -- because of the restricted location of services for them?
1050
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I know that's also been an issue at the federal level, and I've had the opportunity to review some information on that. I know it is a challenge. Let's face it, all levels of government are under constraints. We have to deal with how to best use the economies of scale to deal with this situation but also provide that family and community support to make sure it's accessible. It's something I'd like to learn a lot more about in terms of how women are considered in a disadvantaged position. Arguably, that can be said of a lot of different areas. But it is a special situation and one that probably requires a little bit more attention.
Mr Kormos: Louise Lassevich's book, Cry Baby, was one of the most effective things out of -- the first dangerous offender. The woman is dead now, unfortunately. Thank you.
The Chair: Ms Fletcher-Dagenais, thank you very much for coming before the committee. We appreciate your presence here.
IAN MACINNIS
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Ian MacInnis, intended appointee as member, Ontario Board of Parole.
The Chair: The next intended appointee is Ian MacInnis, for the Board of Parole as well. Welcome to the committee. I think you got to see the way we function. We'll give you the opportunity to say a few words.
Mr Ian MacInnis: Thank you very much. With respect to my intended appointment to the Ontario Board of Parole, if this committee and others in the Legislature are looking for someone with a capacity to analyse and assess large volumes of documents, I would direct your attention to my years on municipal council in the city of Kingston and to my experience as an agent in Small Claims Court, which is my present profession. A good number of you, I'm sure, are from a municipal background and can certainly appreciate the number of reports and recommendations, delegations and submissions that one entertains if one is committed to the job of learning and listening to as many points of view as possible in order to make an informed and reasoned decision. As an agent in Small Claims Court I must assess on a daily basis for my clients the merits of their case and advise them as to whether we should proceed to trial, seek an out-of-court settlement or not pursue the matter at all, and I believe I have the ability to do that type of analysis.
If you're wondering whether I bring to the Board of Parole the perspective of a broad cross-section of the community, I would also refer you to the list that I believe is contained in my CV of the community committees and boards I've served with, in addition to my work with the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Rwandan orphan relief program, in which I participated with members of the Canadian armed forces.
If you consider it important to have directly related experience in the criminal justice system, I would direct your attention to my years with the Manitoba Police Commission, and the Alberta correctional service, where I had the opportunity to introduce crime prevention programs throughout Manitoba. I might add that one of my most important experiences in Manitoba was the work I did in some of the more isolated communities, like Pukatawagan and Shamattawa and Berens River, where there's a high, high incidence of crime, of murder, of suicide. I've seen youngsters dead, with a burlap bag around their head, sniffing gas. It's quite an experience, and I think I've seen a lot of sides of the justice system.
I also had the opportunity to assist in improving community relations with members of the justice system. I'm talking about the police, I'm talking about judges and I'm talking about correctional workers as well, because I was very much involved with conducting community education workshops in a lot of those rural and more isolated communities throughout the province.
When I was with the Alberta Solicitor General, with the correctional services branch, I had the opportunity to introduce recreation standards in correctional facilities; there were eight facilities, actually. I thought that was very important because idle time is not valuable to any community. If people learn to make constructive use of their recreation time, certainly that is better than going out and committing crime.
I also introduced a program, with the Alberta Solicitor General, called the young offenders correctional centre visitation program, which actually appeared on CTV news some years ago, where we took a good number of young people aged 14 to 21 who had been involved with committing offences but had never been incarcerated. It was our objective to give them an opportunity to see what it was truly like in a correctional facility by taking them through with an inmate and one of the correctional officers and having an opportunity -- none of it was primed -- to speak with inmates serving time and hear from them straight out what it's like to serve time.
Finally, if you agree with me that public safety is the paramount consideration in granting or denying parole and that cautious and reasoned decisions are required in dealing with requests for parole, then I would welcome the appointment. Thank you.
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): Welcome, Mr MacInnis. Thank you for appearing here today. I see on your CV, and you briefly mentioned this, that you were a police community relations officer with the Manitoba Police Commission. You were also a program consultant with the Alberta correctional service and law enforcement division, Alberta Solicitor General.
You briefly touched on that when you were talking with us. I wonder if you could expand a little on that and how that would be of benefit to a position on the parole board.
Mr MacInnis: I'll start with the Manitoba Police Commission. I had the good fortune, while I lived in the city of Winnipeg, to do a great deal of travelling throughout Manitoba. As you probably are aware, there is what appears to be a disproportionate number of native Canadians who are incarcerated. I was able to go into those communities, in working with the RCMP and with the judges in the area, to find out, and come to an appreciation of, what type of life some of these people lead.
One of the problems in those areas was that there was nothing to do. As a result, people were getting drunk and they were killing each other and they were committing suicide, as I mentioned earlier. In a good number of cases they didn't like the police very much. The RCMP, of course, are the provincial police in Manitoba.
As part of my function in crime prevention -- that was my emphasis, by the way, as a police community relations officer; I focused on crime prevention -- I thought it would be a good idea to start bringing the police who policed these areas together with some of those younger people, who either had been in trouble or certainly were headed towards it, in recreational pursuits, whether it be hockey or some passive pursuit.
To tell you the truth, when the police would fly from a place like Lynn Lake into Pukatawagan, which is about 500 miles west of Thompson, Manitoba, just to give you an idea -- it's way out in the middle of nowhere.
Mr Doyle: Polar bear country.
Mr MacInnis: That's right. The mounties would fly in and they would stay there for a few day in their own trailer, and they too were looking for something constructive to do. So bringing the police together with the youth and some of the adults in the community really helped improve relations, and I dare say -- I haven't been there in a while -- it assisted in lowering the crime rate.
Mr Doyle: And would be of assistance on the parole board.
Mr MacInnis: Absolutely.
1100
Mr Ford: Mr MacInnis, thank you for coming this morning. In October 1995, Minister Runciman introduced some reforms. These include not granting parole when there are documents missing from the file, standardized risk assessment of offenders being considered for release, a 24-hour call for parole officials and a policy of reviewing cases in which an individual commits a serious offence while on parole. Will these positive measures help to ensure greater public safety to the people of Ontario?
Mr MacInnis: I don't think there's any doubt about that. I've read some background on that and I thought the previous government made some very positive steps towards improving the safety of the public as well.
I recall a case a few years ago -- this is specific to the public safety issue and the point that was made with respect to not having all the materials available -- of the young police officer, and it really struck me because he was the former captain of the Carleton Ravens football team, young Mr MacDonald, who was shot down. From what I understand, in part at least, the individual who shot down Officer MacDonald was on parole, but I understand there was somewhat of a breakdown in communication between the time the gentleman -- I forget his name now; I think Suzack was his name -- was sentenced to the time he was paroled. I don't believe certain information made it to the parole board to enable the parole board members at the time to make a more informed decision. I don't think the parole board had the documents from the court that would have tipped them off perhaps, and perhaps a different decision may have been made.
There's no question that no one should be paroled unless all the materials are there, absolutely everything you can get your hands on, from the pre-sentence reports done by the probation officers to the actual reasons for sentencing from the judge himself or herself, the police occurrence reports, the crown's reports, the pre-parole reports, and the victim should have an opportunity to have input on potential parole being granted, all the experts, the correctional facility staff. Every piece of paper you can get your hands on should be available before you make the decision. It's an informed, reasoned decision, and that's what the public demands of us.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Good morning, Ian. How are you?
Mr MacInnis: Fine, thank you.
Mr Gerretsen: I'm sorry I missed this. I guess we got started a bit earlier today. Could you give me your attitude towards parole in general?
Mr MacInnis: Yes. Keeping in mind that public safety is paramount in considering the granting of parole, I believe parole is something that should exist. If an individual who doesn't pose a risk to the community has a plan to reintegrate into the community with the necessary support systems by way of family, employment pursuits, educational pursuits, the treatment he or she may require, the counselling he or she may require, I think it's a lot better to allow that individual out on parole under certain conditions than simply to say, "Sorry, you're staying in jail until your sentence has expired," and the individual walks out with no support systems at all.
Mr Gerretsen: Do you have any views as to the legitimacy or otherwise of -- I've forgotten the exact terminology -- these ankle bracelets that have been talked about in monitoring people's whereabouts as opposed to having actual parole officers deal with individuals on parole? Do you have any views on that?
Mr MacInnis: I really don't know a whole lot about that; sincerely I don't. It certainly begs the question, if a tracking system is required, why? If you need to track someone, you probably have some serious doubts as to whether or not he should be out. Maybe you made the wrong decision. Other than that, I really don't know. I'd have to investigate other jurisdictions perhaps where that's being used and find out what criteria they apply to determine who should have an ankle bracelet for tracking.
Mr Gerretsen: In your curriculum vitae you state your previous experience. I take it that you only stated the experience you have in related areas, because I believe you've got a much broader experience than this, don't you, in the construction area as well?
Mr MacInnis: That's right. Actually, I've run a few businesses. The construction work that you're referring to goes back to my experience in Calgary years ago, just after I left the Alberta correctional service. I ran my own concrete and mortar supply business for two years in Calgary. Then, as you all know, in 1982 interest rates went up to about 22% or 23% and building permits were not being issued any longer in Calgary. As a result, I left that business.
Mr Doyle: Did you ever meet any hardened criminals?
Mr MacInnis: Hopefully, I wasn't a supplier to any of them. So, yes, I was in the construction business.
Mr Gerretsen: When were you involved with the Manitoba Police Commission? I think that's just when I walked in; I didn't get the years.
Mr MacInnis: From 1974 to 1976.
Mr Gerretsen: So that was well before that.
Mr MacInnis: Yes, and then with the Alberta correctional service from 1976 to 1980.
Mr Crozier: I'd like to refer you to the same figures I discussed with the previous witness. Maybe I'll have to lend this to you as well. You'll see by that table that in actual numbers the applications for parole have gone down by about a third, a pretty drastic drop, in the years that the table was set out, from somewhere in the neighbourhood of 6,000 down to 4,000, yet it's my understanding that our institutionalization of offenders has gone up in that period. Secondly, you'll see that the percentages, as I pointed out previously, of those granted parole and denied parole have just about reversed. You were here when I was asking the other witness; maybe you've had a little opportunity to think about that and if that says anything to you.
Mr MacInnis: I think you said "liars figure"?
Mr Crozier: Those are my words, yes, it was pointed out.
Mr MacInnis: I would hesitate to draw a conclusion by simply looking at this table and saying, "Here's why I think this is happening." I think I'd be better advised to find out. I'd like to know the answer to that. I don't know the answer, but it is interesting to note those numbers. Why, I don't know.
Mr Crozier: If it were that parole boards were becoming, if I could put it like this, more strict or less inclined to grant parole, would you like to know that as well, why that's happening?
Mr MacInnis: As far as being strict is concerned, it's fairly clear that this government -- and I certainly support the notion of putting public safety first. Not only do I support that, but the public supports that and it's legislated. The federal government has legislated it. That is what Canadians want. I would like to think that anybody appointed to the parole board would adhere to that legislation and to the demands of the public.
Mr Crozier: Does that imply, though, as I asked before, that previous parole boards were less concerned about public safety, do you think?
1110
Mr MacInnis: I don't know the answer to that.
Mr Crozier: I raise this because I think you have a very interesting and difficult obligation that you're taking on. Goodness knows I don't know how parole boards arrive at the right and wrong decision. As Mr Kormos said, you can have the most expert of boards or you could have a board made up of non-experts, and who knows whether one or the other will make the right decision? I just say you have a difficult decision. It's always like armchair quarterbacking or hindsight: If you make all the right decisions, fine; if you make one wrong one, then all hell breaks loose.
I suspect the appointment will carry through and I wish you well, because it's not an easy task.
Mr MacInnis: Thank you. I'll do my best.
Mr Kormos: You've been a little peripatetic. Are you from the Kingston area originally? I notice you did your BA at Waterloo.
Mr MacInnis: Yes. My dad was air force, so we've been all over. I'm quite proud of that, by the way.
Mr Kormos: Was that your western connection, or how did you end up out west?
Mr MacInnis: In 1973 I finished at the University of Waterloo, and to tell you the truth, my wife and I at the time didn't have jobs. We started doing a job search and ended up in Winnipeg. That's where I started with the police commission, and went on to Alberta from there.
Mr Kormos: And back to Kingston.
Mr MacInnis: Came back to eastern Ontario, to Kingston, yes.
Mr Kormos: And that's when you were a city councillor in Kingston.
Mr MacInnis: That's right.
Mr Kormos: Are you currently a city councillor?
Mr MacInnis: I'm not on city council now, no.
Mr Kormos: How long have you been doing the paralegal work?
Mr MacInnis: Almost two years.
Mr Kormos: And that's with your own firm?
Mr MacInnis: That's right. I'm an independent. In fact, Mr Gerretsen was one of the people who kind of encouraged me when he was deputy judge in the Small Claims Court. He was helpful in answering some of my questions --
Mr Kormos: He and I have talked about that.
Mr Gerretsen: I'd like that stricken from the record.
Mr MacInnis: He's a big supporter of mine.
Mr Kormos: The provincial parole boards are dealing with sentences of less than two years, so you're not dealing with an offender who's in the midst of serving, let's say, a 15-year sentence after five, six, seven years of custody and may be able to demonstrate that he or she has gone through programs within the system etc.
You talk about what the public wants. I suppose my question to you, and I don't want this to indicate that it reflects a particular viewpoint on my part, is that people would say, "Why parole?" There's already statutory remission, which is designed to guarantee your prompt good behaviour because you get that by not screwing up while you're in custody. You know judges and/or crown attorneys who say, "What's the sense of imposing a two-year sentence if somebody's only going to serve one third of it?" So in your mind, why parole? Especially in shorter-range sentences, provincial sentences, because we're not talking about 15 years, where there's been a substantial portion served, where somebody could have matured, somebody could have taken programs, somebody could have been in all the stuff that goes on -- AA, anger management. People out there are saying: "Why parole? Why should there be any parole?" What's your response to that?
Mr MacInnis: I think the presumption here is that people who are serving two years less a day are somehow not to be taken quite as seriously as those who are serving federal sentences of five or 10 or 15 years, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of people who are sentenced to two years less a day have been involved in some pretty serious matters. The root cause of their involvement on the wrong side of the law might have to do with their abuse of alcohol or drugs or, for that matter, they just might be plain unemployable and have decided to start their own business, and unfortunately it's one of break and enter and stealing.
Mr Kormos: Quite right. It's been said, "Some men rob you with a six-gun, others with a fountain pen."
Mr MacInnis: To answer your question, if an individual is serving 18 months -- and you referred to earned remission, meaning he'd be let out after 12 months -- then why not provide him with whatever support you can for six months with conditions attached to it where he's got to be responsible? That's keeping in mind, by the way, and I don't know if a lot of people understand this -- you probably do with your background, Mr Kormos -- that when a person applies for parole, he's giving up that earned remission. I don't know whether you're aware of that, but if you're serving 18 months and you've earned six months off by way of earned remission and you apply for parole, you've given up that earned remission. You are now going to be placed under conditional release for the entire sentence of 18 months. If you breach those conditions, you'll be back in prison likely till the end of your original sentence. So there's a responsibility on the part of the parolee to embrace the opportunity that he's been given. At the same time, he's rolling the dice himself and taking quite a risk. So I think those supports are important.
Mr Kormos: We haven't seen the map yet of the proposed new superjails. One of the jails targeted to be shut down, for instance, is Niagara Detention Centre, which is among the newer jails in the province and serves Niagara region, and where obviously a lot of sentences of 90 days and less are served. There's concern about the effectiveness of rehabilitation if people are removed long distances, great distances, from their community to serve their sentence, if they're isolated from their family, from their community, be it church community, be it support groups like AA, other things in the community.
Have you had a chance to reflect on how effective superjails that could well take people -- and out west you've certainly witnessed the impact of that on inmates, haven't you?
Mr MacInnis: There's no question that being away from your family or your community a good distance is not so desirable to the individual. I can certainly understand the notion of having so-called superjails for economic purposes, but I think you've got to go more towards the beginning of the process. Forget about corrections for a moment and go back to the stage at which the individual is appearing in court in front of a judge. It seems to me that the judges in this country should be more knowledgeable with respect to the kinds of community programs that are available, like community residential centres or a fine option program, people who are serving time for having not paid a fine, or community service orders where people pay restitution back to the community for having damaged something rather than serving time. The public embarrassment of course is attached to that as well, automatically.
Those kinds of programs have got to be available to the judges from which to choose, rather than judges saying, "Let's incarcerate this person because I have no other option." So if there were more community correctional programs that would help that person not only in terms of punishment but in terms of rehabilitation, if you will, reintegration: Pay back your community where you did the damage.
Mr Kormos: Most judges also haven't been in any of the correctional institutions to which they sentence offenders. Is it important for them to know where their clientele, if you will, is going?
Mr MacInnis: I wouldn't single out just judges. I would suggest that people working in the criminal justice system should all learn a little bit more about what the other branch is doing.
The Chair: That completes the length of time for discussion with Mr MacInnis. Mr MacInnis, thank you very much for coming before our committee.
Mr Preston: Mr Chairman, could I just get something on the record? It wasn't a question; it's more of an observation.
There's been a lot of talk of the YOA and the ability of judges to put people in certain spots and no programs. In case of YOAs, judges have no power as to where a YOA goes. They cannot dictate the placement of YOAs; they must only dictate sentence, and that's taken up by other bodies as to where that sentence is carried out.
Mr Kormos: If I may respond to that -- I feel I should be charging for this --
Interjection: I thought you did these pro bono.
Mr Kormos: Only for people for whom I have sympathy. But neither can criminal court judges. It's for a judge to impose sentence; it's for corrections to determine where it's served.
The Chair: Thank you both for that, adding some substance to the morning. We're now ready for the concurrences.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Brock.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Does anyone wish to speak to it? Are you ready for the question? All those in favour? Opposed? It's unanimously agreed to.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Ms Fletcher-Dagenais.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Does anyone wish to speak to it? Debate? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried unanimously.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr MacInnis.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Any debate? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried unanimously. Thank you for that.
Just before we adjourn, just a gentle reminder that if any of you have any interest in bringing forward a suggestion for the committee to deal with an agency, board or commission after we've adjourned, if we adjourn, for the winter break, you should do so. Let me know and we'll call a meeting of the subcommittee.
Mr Crozier: I just wanted to mention for us to think about that it seems to me earlier on we were in some discussion about going into the north and looking at some issues there. I just didn't know, since the government pretty much controls that, if they had given any more thought to that. We can take it up at a later time, but --
Mr Bob Wood: To date, we've not been able to engender a high level of interest in the House leader's office in doing this.
Mr Crozier: That's why I asked. It's my understanding that the Legislature's going to be sitting on into February anyway, so perhaps we wouldn't get an opportunity to do that.
The Chair: I had heard that nasty rumour myself. I don't know if it's true or not.
Mr Crozier: Nothing nasty about it. I like the idea, because I can't afford to go to Florida like many of them and I just want them to be miserable here with me.
Mr Kormos: Chair, please, in view of the outrageousness of the American intervention into Canadian affairs with the Helms-Burton bill, surely nobody is contemplating going to Florida.
The Chair: No, we'll see you all in Cuba. Any other business? If not, we're adjourned. Thank you.
The committee adjourned at 1124.