ALLEGED BREACH OF CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
CONTENTS
Friday 12 August 1994
Alleged breach of conflict-of-interest guidelines
Audrey Moey
Beverlee Bell
Evelyn Gigantes
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
*Chair / Président: Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
*Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud ND)
MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton ND)
*Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex ND)
McClelland, Carman (Brampton North/-Nord L)
Morin, Gilles E. (Carleton East/-Est L)
Sterling, Norman W. (Carleton PC)
Sullivan, Barbara (Halton Centre L)
*Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND)
Villeneuve, Noble (S-D-G & East Grenville/S-D-G & Grenville-Est PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Callahan, Robert V. (Brampton South/-Sud L) for Mr McClelland
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L) for Mrs Sullivan
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC) for Mr Villeneuve
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND) for Mr Dadamo
Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC) for Mr Sterling
Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L) for Mr Morin
Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND) for Mrs MacKinnon
Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND) for Mr Wessemger
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Kristjanson, Freya, legal counsel to Audrey Moey
Clerk / Greffière: Freedman, Lisa
Staff / Personnel:
Cronk, Eleanore, counsel to the committee
Hourigan, William, counsel to the committee
McLellan, Ray, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1011 in room 151.
ALLEGED BREACH OF CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
The Chair (Mr Ron Hansen): Good morning to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, day five of the hearing on alleged breach of conflict-of-interest guidelines.
AUDREY MOEY
The Chair: Our first witness is Ms Audrey Moey. I ask that the clerk will administer the oath. Welcome to the committee.
Ms Audrey Moey: Thank you. Could I just go on the record, if I could be indulged, by saying that my last named is pronounced "moy" and it rhymes with "boy." Thank you very much.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I don't want to interrupt counsel when she gets started, so I'll do it now.
Ms Eleanore Cronk: I thought you had a question about her name.
Mr Callahan: No, I got it: Moey and boy.
You recall that I requested whether or not we could find out if Marc Collins, who is the policy assistant to the minister, was one of the recipients of the rather lengthy document that was prepared July 14th by Brian Sutherland. I don't know whether we've been able to do that yet. If not, I'll await the answer on that.
Ms Cronk: I can inform the committee that we've made a number of inquiries concerning outstanding items, so there's sort of a list of housekeeping matters. But just to deal with this one first, information has been provided to me through the Ministry of Housing that indicates -- and this was with respect to Brian Sutherland's notes made on or about July 14, 1994, pertaining to his recollections of the June 17, 1994, meeting? That's the document we're speaking of, Mr Callahan? Yes.
The information provided to me is that Mr Sutherland produced and distributed that document to those present at the staff meeting held, you will recall, as referred to in the documents before you, on July 18, 1994, in the office of the assistant deputy minister, housing operations division. He distributed the document to those in attendance at the meeting. That of course was his own evidence, and that appears from the face of the document.
Present were Shirley Hoy, assistant deputy minister; her administrative assistant, Ms Da Costa; Patricia Redmond, the executive assistant to the deputy minister; Mr Brian Sutherland; and also Mr Robert Stupart, counsel for the Ministry of Housing. After the document was described and before it had been dealt with in any detail, all copies were returned to Mr Sutherland so that it would serve as an aide-mémoire for him should he need it. The information provided to me is that on inquiries made at my request, both by Mr Stupart and individuals connected with the Ministry of Housing, they are aware of no further distribution of that document after the meeting of July 14 until it appeared at commencement of the hearings this week in the exhibits prepared by us as your counsel.
"The document was not included" -- I'm reading now from a written confirmation of this information provided to me. "The document was not included in any other binders compiled in the ministry, in particular in those prepared for the use of the minister and her staff." I can inform the committee that the document was provided to us by Mr Sutherland at our initial interview of him, and I saw at that time what I understood to be the original that he had in his own materials. That's the information available to me.
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I'm wondering if counsel can confirm to the committee whether Mr Sutherland's memo of June 17 made at 3:33 pm the day of the meeting was also one of the documents that was available or dealt with at the meeting of the 18th that you just referred to.
Ms Cronk: I don't know that, Mr Chiarelli, and because it wasn't asked previously, I have not made that inquiry. I can certainly attempt --
Mr Chiarelli: Is it possible that we might get an answer to that as soon as possible?
Ms Cronk: I can certainly make those inquiries today, and I'll provide you the information when I get it, sir.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you.
Ms Cronk: You're welcome.
The Chair: Okay, we'll start over again. The clerk will administer the oath.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lisa Freedman): Do you affirm that the evidence you shall give to this committee touching the subject of the present inquiry shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Ms Moey: Yes, I do.
The Chair: Ms Cronk, your witness.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, Mr Chair. Good morning, Ms Moey.
Ms Moey: Good morning, Ms Cronk.
Ms Cronk: As I understand it, Ms Moey, you are a member of the constituency office staff of Evelyn Gigantes, the Minister of Housing.
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: How long have you held that position?
Ms Moey: Since late September or early October of 1991.
Ms Cronk: And you are a resident of Ottawa, as I understand it?
Ms Moey: Yes, I am.
Ms Cronk: If I can be permitted, I also understand it's your birthday, so thank you very much for being with us today.
Ms Moey: You're very welcome.
Ms Cronk: I'm not foolish enough to inquire further on that line. I'll leave that one alone.
In your capacity as a member of the minister's constituency office staff, were you involved from time to time in matters related to the Van Lang Centre, in the sense of receiving information about it and meeting with individuals about it during the course of the period June -- or let's say the spring of 1993 through to June of this year?
Ms Moey: Yes, it would be within that time period.
Ms Cronk: The committee has received information that you took a leave of absence from your role in the minister's constituency office for maternity leave.
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: When exactly were you on maternity leave?
Ms Moey: From about early or mid-August of 1993 through to March 21st of 1994.
Ms Cronk: On completion of your leave, did you return to work in the minister's constituency office?
Ms Moey: Initially on a part-time basis, from March 21st till about the first week of June, after which I returned as a full-time staff member.
Ms Cronk: And when you were working on a part-time basis, how many days a week was that?
Ms Moey: It varied. On average, it would be two days one week and then three the following week, although there was a period, I think two weeks it was, when I was there all five days of the week but only in the morning.
Ms Cronk: During the period April 1993 up until early August, when you went on your maternity leave, with whom did you work in the constituency office? Who were the other members of the minister's staff?
Ms Moey: Sue Lott, Paul Dewar, and there was a part-time correspondence assistant, Carolyn Emond.
Ms Cronk: As among Sue Lott, Paul Dewar and yourself, generally how did you divide your responsibilities?
Ms Moey: Generally, there were two people who would be dealing for the most part with case work and inquiries and that sort of thing, and one person would be responsible primarily for scheduling of Evelyn's time when she was back in the riding.
Ms Cronk: And who, during that period -- we're talking April through to August 1993 -- was doing the scheduling, or do you now remember?
Ms Moey: I don't recall.
Ms Cronk: Okay. And when you went back to the minister's office on a part-time basis towards the end of March of this year, what role did you assume at that time?
Ms Moey: I assumed a case work role.
Ms Cronk: Does that continue to date?
Ms Moey: No. When I started back full-time in the beginning of June, I took on the scheduling responsibilities for the minister.
Ms Cronk: Is that your current responsibility for her?
Ms Moey: Yes, it is.
1020
Ms Cronk: I'd like to gain a better understanding of the realities of the scheduling role for a minister in a constituency office. You'll forgive me, but I am not familiar with how, in practical terms, that often works. When a request comes forward -- and obviously we're talking about your minister, Ms Gigantes -- from a member of her riding for a meeting with her and that request comes in initially to the constituency office, how is that generally handled?
Ms Moey: It depends what the subject of the constituent's meeting with Evelyn is to be. If the request was for a Housing-related matter, normally the scheduling person in the constituency office would not deal with that directly. That request would be forwarded up to the minister's staff in Toronto.
Ms Cronk: Why is that?
Ms Moey: We at the riding office try to have a very clear demarcation between Housing-related matters and constituency-related matters. We've found in the course of our work there that a lot of people, because Evelyn is also the Minister of Housing as well as MPP for Ottawa Centre -- that a lot of Housing-related issues and questions and requests for meetings come to our constituency office, and the reality is that we just don't have the resources to deal with all that on top, of course, the regular and varied constituency requests that come in.
Ms Cronk: All right. If I understand the two streams that you're describing, if it's a non-Housing-related request for a meeting with the minister, that's handled right out of your constituency office in Ottawa.
Ms Moey: Yes, it is.
Ms Cronk: Is it correct that whomever in the constituency office is at that time responsible for scheduling would then speak with the minister and try to work it into her schedule or make a determination as to whether the meeting should occur?
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And on a Housing-related matter, just explain to me how that would work once a request for a meeting was received.
Ms Moey: Almost immediately, once it's been identified as a Housing-related request, obviously we try and see if it also was within the riding or within the Ottawa area. If we had any background knowledge at all about the issue, we would supply that with that request and we would just forward that, everything, to the minister's staff in Toronto.
Ms Cronk: And from that point, is the constituency office or its staff further involved in making a determination or a recommendation or considering whether a meeting should occur, if it's a Housing-related matter that's been passed on to Toronto?
Ms Moey: It varies. Normally, we would not make the determination. In fact, most of the time we would not make the determination about whether or not to have the meeting. However, if the meeting was to be set up in the Ottawa office, then obviously the person who was responsible for scheduling in the constituency office would have to be asked to do the logistics of calling the people or the person involved and picking a time and that sort of thing.
Ms Cronk: So the constituency office would facilitate the actual arrangements for the meeting?
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: But not be involved in determining when or if? Is that fair?
Ms Moey: Well, we would be able to tell the scheduling assistant, our counterpart in Toronto, whether or not a proposed time would be suitable, because there might be an event already on the books.
Ms Cronk: With respect to the Van Lang Centre, is it in the riding of the minister?
Ms Moey: It is not physically in the riding of Ottawa Centre, as far as I'm aware.
Ms Cronk: We spoke about the procedures followed when a request from a constituent or, I take it, a member of the public generally -- would the same procedures apply that you've described --
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: -- for a meeting came in, how you would handle that. What was the normal procedure for correspondence received at the constituency office?
Ms Moey: If the request came in through the postal system, it would be logged into our mail log. If it was a Housing-related request, again it would then be faxed up directly to the minister's office in Toronto. Are you talking just about requests for meetings, at the moment?
Ms Cronk: No, just general correspondence from members of the public or constituents.
Ms Moey: General correspondence? If it was a question or if it was an issue that didn't require a meeting per se, the correspondence would also go up to the Ministry of Housing if it were Housing-related.
Ms Cronk: Do you keep records in the constituency office of correspondence or documents on Housing-related matters sent to Toronto, for example records of when they're sent?
Ms Moey: There is no formal procedure for that, no.
Ms Cronk: In the time frame we're discussing -- and again recognizing that you left on your maternity leave in August 1993, we'll just concentrate on the spring and early summer for the moment -- did you have occasion to meet a woman by the name of Trinh Luu?
Ms Moey: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Approximately when did you first meet her?
Ms Moey: To the best of my recollection, I first met Ms Luu in, I think, December 1992.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember the circumstances?
Ms Moey: Yes. She had come into the riding office to pick up some printed material by the government of Ontario, and that was the first instance I met her. She had just, if I recall, been offered a job with the minister's office in Toronto and she had wanted, before she took up her duties there, to familiarize herself a little bit with the government of Ontario, so she dropped into the office to pick up some of that material.
Ms Cronk: Did you have any impression as to whether she'd accepted the job, whether she was intending to go?
Ms Moey: At the time I met her, she certainly was intending to go and she had certainly accepted the job, because she was trying to prepare herself.
Ms Cronk: And that, you believe, was in about December 1992?
Ms Moey: To the best of my recollection, yes.
Ms Cronk: In the event, to the best of your knowledge, did she accept the position and go to Toronto to work in the minister's office?
Ms Moey: She subsequently, I think, withdrew her acceptance of the position.
Ms Cronk: And when did you next come into contact with Ms Luu, that you recall?
Ms Moey: It might have been in the late winter or early spring of 1993.
Ms Cronk: And did there come a time when you had some contact with Ms Luu relating to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Moey: Yes. To the best of my recollection, that would have been in the early summer of 1993.
Ms Cronk: Over the course of time, did you, with others in the constituency office or by yourself, strike up a form of friendship with Ms Luu?
Ms Moey: I suppose it was in the process of becoming a friendship. I remember having lunch with Ms Luu in the company of Ms Lott twice in that time frame, that is to say, in the late winter through to the early summer of 1993.
Ms Cronk: And what about in 1994? Did you from time to time have lunch with her thereafter?
Ms Moey: I have not since had lunch with Ms Luu.
Ms Cronk: All right. Would you describe her as a friend?
Ms Moey: I would have, yes.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard evidence, for example, that she attended your baby shower.
Ms Moey: Yes, that's correct.
Ms Cronk: So she was then someone, I gather, who over time became known to the constituency office, in the sense that you came to know her, and Ms Lott did as well, I take it?
Ms Moey: Yes, that's correct.
Ms Cronk: To your knowledge, and please tell me if you don't know, when did Ms Luu first meet the minister herself?
Ms Moey: As far as I'm aware, the first meeting they had was at the official opening of the Van Lang Centre.
Ms Cronk: Did you attend that?
Ms Moey: No, I did not.
Ms Cronk: When did you first become aware yourself of concerns held by Ms Luu with respect to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Moey: It would again be in the late spring or early summer of 1993.
Ms Cronk: At that time, did she speak with you about concerns she had?
Ms Moey: Yes, she did.
Ms Cronk: Ms Moey, the work of this committee is concerned, as you know, with what occurred at the June 17, 1994, meeting held at the Rideau Centre among members of the board of the Van Lang Centre and the minister. Were you at that meeting?
Ms Moey: Yes, I was.
Ms Cronk: All right. In that context, the background history with respect to the Van Lang Centre and in particular about many of the concerns that were expressed over time, regardless of their source, is not directly relevant to what's at issue before the committee, so I'm not going to ask you the details of concerns raised by Ms Luu or others, but is it fair to say that towards the end of June 1993, she did draw to your attention at the constituency office specifically a number of concerns that she had?
Ms Moey: Yes, that would be fair.
1030
Ms Cronk: And did you learn at that time as well that she had been in contact with representatives of the Ministry of Housing offices in Ottawa in mid-June, if not earlier, to express similar concerns?
Ms Moey: If I recall correctly, I think it was upon the suggestion of Ms Sue Lott and/or myself that she make that contact with the local Ministry of Housing officials.
Ms Cronk: All right. Did you actually meet with Ms Luu towards the end of June 1993 to discuss her concerns?
Ms Moey: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask, if you wouldn't mind, Ms Kristjanson, if you could show Ms Moey, please, exhibit 2. Ms Moey, if you turn to tab 6, you'll see a fax cover sheet that appears to be from Trinh Luu to Sue and Audrey dated June 29, 1993. Was that a fax sent to you and to Sue Lott?
Ms Moey: Yes, it is.
Ms Cronk: Attached to it is a letter dated June 29, 1993, again addressed to "Dear Sue and Audrey," and Ms Luu has indicated that that was her signature. Did you receive a copy of this letter?
Ms Moey: Yes, we did.
Ms Cronk: Does this assist you in recalling and being able to confirm for the committee that you did meet with Ms Luu and hear a number of concerns that she had relating to the centre?
Ms Moey: Yes, it does.
Ms Cronk: Was this the first time that she'd raised any concerns with you or did that occur earlier?
Ms Moey: Well, in a phone call to our office prior to the meeting that occurred, she did let us know that she had concerns about the Van Lang Centre and could she talk to us about it, and we said, "Of course, come on in."
Ms Cronk: Was this a formal meeting or did she just drop by?
Ms Moey: I think we probably did arrange a time for her to come in.
Ms Cronk: Did she provide any documents to you with respect to the Van Lang Centre when she came in towards the end of June?
Ms Moey: I seem to recall that she showed us many documents and she might have left some of those with us.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard in other evidence that in mid-June, that is, about two weeks before the date of this letter, Ms Luu had prepared a report addressed to Brian Sutherland of the Ministry of Housing offices in Ottawa. Did you know Mr Sutherland in June of 1993?
Ms Moey: I knew of him and I think I might have had occasion to make his acquaintance, to meet him at Housing openings that I was accompanying the minister to.
Ms Cronk: All right. When Ms Luu came in and met with Ms Lott and yourself, did she provide you with a copy of any letter or document that had been prepared for Brian Sutherland or do you now remember?
Ms Moey: I don't remember exactly what she left with us, but it's very possible that she might have left that particular document with us.
Ms Cronk: And when she came in at the end of June -- my question assumed -- did she in fact meet with you and with Ms Lott?
Ms Moey: Yes, she did.
Ms Cronk: And did she speak with both of you about her concerns?
Ms Moey: Yes, she did.
Ms Cronk: And would it be accurate or inaccurate of me to suggest that she raised with you at that time, again leaving aside the exact detail of it, several concerns about the Van Lang Centre, some of which had to do with the superintendent of the facility, some of which had to do with the secretary of the facility, a Dr Can Le?
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: If you take a look at page 2 of the letter that Ms Luu sent to you, some of those concerns are set out in the letter and it concludes by indicating in the second-last paragraph that she had had some communication with Bill Clement. Did you know who he was?
Ms Moey: I knew that he was the Ministry of Housing official at the local Ottawa office.
Ms Cronk: So did you understand then upon your receipt of this letter and following your meeting with her that she had been in contact with Ministry of Housing officials to express her concerns?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And the individuals with whom she'd been in contact included Brian Sutherland and Bill Clement?
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: She concludes the letter by asking: "What do you think? Shall I formally write to Evelyn?" Do you see that?
Ms Moey: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall whether you replied in any way, either casually in a conversation with her or in writing, with respect to her inquiry as to whether she should write the minister?
Ms Moey: I know that I didn't reply to her in writing.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, you did not?
Ms Moey: I did not reply to her in writing, but it's possible that either I or Sue Lott might have indicated to her over the telephone that she should indeed write to Evelyn.
Ms Cronk: Do you now recall doing so?
Ms Moey: I don't recall one way or the other.
Ms Cronk: All right. And looking at tab 7 in the same book, there's a handwritten note. It appears to be -- and it's been confirmed by Sue Lott and Trinh Luu that it was -- a note from Ms Luu to Sue Lott dated June 29, 1993. Do you know whether Sue Lott took any action with the minister with respect to this correspondence?
Ms Moey: I'm not in a position to say.
Ms Cronk: You don't know?
Ms Moey: I don't remember.
Ms Cronk: Okay, did you in the sense of speaking to the minister about the fact that Ms Luu had met with you and provided you with documents concerning issues related to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Moey: I might have mentioned it in passing to the minister, yes.
Ms Cronk: When do you now recall first discussing with the minister issues being raised by Trinh Luu about the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Moey: It would have been before I left on maternity leave, of course. That would be before early August of 1993.
Ms Cronk: When you say "of course," do you remember doing that actually before you left?
Ms Moey: I do remember one specific occasion in which I did speak directly to the minister regarding this particular file.
Ms Cronk: And when was that?
Ms Moey: I don't remember the exact date.
Ms Cronk: Sorry, do you mean before August, before you left?
Ms Moey: Yes, that's right.
Ms Cronk: All right. And in what connection did you speak with the minister?
Ms Moey: I wanted to see if she had been made aware of the existence of this file and I wanted to be sure before I left on maternity leave that it was going to be looked after in my absence by the appropriate people on her staff.
Ms Cronk: And when you spoke to the minister, was it -- did you have any impression as to whether she was aware of the file or did you understand that you were bringing it to her attention for the first time?
Ms Moey: To the best of my recollection, I think she was aware of the file and she certainly wasn't surprised when I spoke to her about it.
Ms Cronk: And you think that discussion was some time before the beginning of August?
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Did she indicate whether she had met or had any discussions with any of the participants, if I can put it that way, any of the people associated with the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Moey: No, she didn't.
Ms Cronk: And then you yourself went off on maternity leave at the beginning of August, and you're not back until the beginning of March, and then it's on a part-time basis.
Ms Moey: Late March.
Ms Cronk: Sorry, late March.
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And in late March 1994 -- during the period of time that you were away, some people go on maternity leave and their office is right there with them for the entire time of their leave and sometimes people are lucky enough to not have that happen. Did you have any involvement with the constituency office or matters related to the Van Lang Centre while you were gone?
Ms Moey: I was in the happy position of not having had any involvement during that period with the Van Lang Centre and the file.
Ms Cronk: Did you see Ms Luu at any point while you were on your maternity leave, apart from the shower, in the context of her raising or discussing with you matters related to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Before you went on maternity leave, had you ever met a woman by the name of Sharron Pretty?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you subsequently in 1994?
Ms Moey: Yes, at the June 17th meeting.
Ms Cronk: Was that the first time that you'd met her?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. When you returned to the minister's offices at the end of March 1994, did you thereafter have any further involvement with this file in the sense of the Van Lang Centre issue?
Ms Moey: Not any direct involvement that I would characterize as such. I remember having a phone conversation with Ms Luu some time in the spring of 1994. I was calling her on an unrelated matter and she was the one who started the discussion about the ongoing problems at the Van Lang Centre.
Ms Cronk: And was that the first time that you'd spoken to Ms Luu in several months?
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And during the course of that discussion -- do you recall when that was approximately?
Ms Moey: I would say it would have been in late March. I know it was right after I had started on a part-time basis back at the office but before I was full-time. So it would have been late March, perhaps April.
Ms Cronk: Did she outline any concerns to you at that time regarding the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Moey: She started to.
Ms Cronk: Did you engage in a discussion with her about it?
Ms Moey: I tried hard not to.
1040
Ms Cronk: Did you learn at that time whether her concerns had been resolved or did you have the impression that they were still unresolved and outstanding?
Ms Moey: I had the very strong impression that they were still outstanding.
Ms Cronk: Did Ms Luu say anything to you during that telephone discussion about the media becoming involved on matters relating to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Moey: Yes, she mentioned that a woman by the name of Sharron Pretty -- I didn't know who that was at the time -- was about to go to the media.
Ms Cronk: And was this a -- you said this was a telephone discussion on another matter.
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Were you actually working at that point? Did you return to the -- I don't mean when you physically made the call, but had you gone back to the constituency office? Had you returned to work?
Ms Moey: I think I had.
Ms Cronk: And after having that conversation with Ms Luu, did you take it up with others at the constituency office in the sense of relaying to them what you had heard about the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Moey: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: And did you make inquiries about what the situation was?
Ms Moey: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: And what were you told at that time, as you recall it?
Ms Moey: At the very next occasion that I had, I asked Sue Lott what the current status was of the Van Lang file. She replied that, "Well, it's still outstanding, it hasn't been resolved," and that if I wanted to I could look at the file. I did. I took a look at the file and realized how much it had grown in my absence and decided that I shouldn't involve myself in this, as I knew that very shortly I would be taking on scheduling responsibilities for the minister.
Ms Cronk: And why is it from that that you felt you shouldn't be involved?
Ms Moey: Because I had been away for a number of months and I didn't want to have to go back into all that time, discover for myself after the fact what had been occurring and try to inform myself. I felt it was too big a job to try and squeeze in before I took on my new responsibilities.
Ms Cronk: I see.
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: During this discussion with Ms Luu, did she indicate to you that she had requested a meeting with the minister about the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Moey: I don't recall one way or the other.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall any indication from her as to whether she was waiting to hear from the minister about anything relating to the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Moey: I did get that impression, because the first thing she said to me after I identified myself and she -- it took her a moment, I think, to place me. She said, "Finally, we hear from somebody in Evelyn's office." So that was what gave me the impression that she had been waiting to hear.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard, Ms Moey, that in early March of 1994, so just a couple of weeks before you're indicating this discussion took place --
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: -- Ms Luu and Ms Pretty had jointly written directly to the minister at the constituency office requesting what they described in the letter as a special and urgent meeting with her. Did she make any reference to that letter or to the fact of having done that in your discussion that you now recall?
Ms Moey: No, I don't recall one way or the other.
Ms Cronk: All right. And by that point the committee has also heard that there had been other requests of the minister from both Ms Pretty and Ms Luu for a meeting with the minister about matters related to the Van Lang Centre and that they were made in the fall of 1993. Did she mention anything about that?
Ms Moey: Not that I recall.
Ms Cronk: Well, when she told you that a woman by the name of Sharron Pretty, whom you've indicated you didn't know at that point, was getting ready to go to the media? Do I have your words approximately?
Ms Moey: She said that Sharron Pretty was about to go to the media, or words to that effect.
Ms Cronk: In what context did she make that remark? What did you understand it meant?
Ms Moey: It meant that things had not been resolved, and I take that to mean they had not been resolved to their satisfaction and that Sharron was about to go to the media. That was all I took from it.
Ms Cronk: Did you speak with the minister about that telephone discussion?
Ms Moey: No, I didn't.
Ms Cronk: Did you communicate to Sue Lott what Ms Luu had said?
Ms Moey: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: And do you know whether there was any follow-up on it from Sue Lott's end or anyone else in the constituency office following that as a result of the discussion?
Ms Moey: I don't know.
Ms Cronk: All right. What I'm getting at, so that you're clear, Ms Moey, is that Ms Luu appears to have told you in the discussion, at least in her initial remarks, "At last we hear from the ministry." She seemed to be implying that she'd been waiting and you had that strong impression --
Ms Moey: Right.
Ms Cronk: -- that she'd been waiting to hear, and then she indicated that someone you didn't know, a woman by the name of Sharron Pretty, was about to go to the media. In those circumstances, did any alarm bells go off in your mind, or did it raise a flag that this was something that should be brought to the attention of the minister?
Ms Moey: Um, yes and no.
Ms Cronk: What do you mean?
Ms Moey: Yes, it did raise an alarm in my mind, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the first thing I do is talk directly to the minister. It raised an alarm in my mind and therefore I spoke with Sue Lott, who had been involved with this file all along while I was gone. She had indicated to me that this file was being looked after basically out of the Ministry of Housing. It was a Ministry of Housing responsibility and she really was just passing on whatever information she got, on to the appropriate person.
Ms Cronk: Did she give you any indication as to whether it was being dealt with out of the normal course, or did she make any comment about that? What I mean by that is, the committee has heard evidence this week that one of the requests in particular, from the fall of 1993, was being dealt with outside the normal course, in the sense that it had been pulled for a response.
Ms Moey: I was not aware of that.
Ms Cronk: All right. I neglected to ask you about one document that I should ask you to look at for me, Ms Moey. Could you look at tab 11 of the same book of documents that you have?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Can you tell me whose notes these are?
Ms Moey: That's my writing.
Ms Cronk: All right. And do these notes relate to a meeting held on July 20th with Trinh Luu?
Ms Moey: They would appear to be.
Ms Cronk: And again, there are a number of concerns that appear to have been expressed by her to you at that time about Van Lang?
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And you're making notes during the course of the meeting as she's, I assume, telling you these things?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Is that correct?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And then after this discussion in March of 1994 with Ms Luu, what was your next involvement with matters relating to the Van Lang Centre? Did you have any contact in April that you now recall?
Ms Moey: Well, I'm not certain if that phone call took place in March or April, but that was the only contact I'd had with Ms Luu up to the time when I called her to arrange a meeting between her and the minister.
Ms Cronk: All right. Well, could you tell me about that?
Ms Moey: About?
Ms Cronk: Your calling her to arrange a meeting with the minister. When did that occur?
Ms Moey: It would have been prior to June the 10th, because that's when the meeting occurred, but I don't recall the exact date.
Ms Cronk: All right, I'm sorry; so your contact with her, that you're remembering, had to do with the meeting that ultimately took place on June the 10th?
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Did you become aware, in the month of April or early in the month of May 1994, of any suggestion that the minister would be meeting with Trinh Luu, that early?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall any discussion at the constituency office about a meeting with Trinh Luu at that time, or with Sharron Pretty?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Do you have any recollection of any further involvement with them during those months?
Ms Moey: Yes, I remember that at one point, and I don't remember the month or the day, Sue Lott had had a phone conversation with Ms Pretty and I think it was about a meeting, and I remember Sue Lott being quite agitated at the end of that phone call.
Ms Cronk: Did she speak with you about it?
Ms Moey: Briefly, yes.
Ms Cronk: And what, if any, information did she give you at that time about what had occurred during the discussion?
Ms Moey: She was upset because she couldn't understand why Ms Pretty was calling her to ask about a meeting, because she indicated to me that that whole issue, the issue of the possibility of a meeting, had been referred to Karen Ridley on the minister's staff in Toronto.
Ms Cronk: Did she tell you anything else about her discussion with Ms Luu?
Ms Moey: I don't recall the specific words or phrases, but I seem to recall that she mentioned that her last understanding from Ms Ridley was that there wasn't going to be a meeting because Ms Pretty had launched some legal action, and she was very confused as to why Ms Pretty was now calling her -- "her" being Sue Lott.
1050
Ms Cronk: The committee has been told, Ms Moey, that on May 19th, 1994, there was a discussion between Sue Lott and Ms Luu about the Van Lang Centre and --
Ms Moey: Ms Luu?
Ms Cronk: -- I'm sorry, between Sue Lott and Trinh Luu -- and Sharron Pretty, you're quite right, sorry -- about matters relating to the Van Lang Centre and specifically about a meeting with the minister. Does that help you fix the time frame?
Ms Moey: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: Does that seem about right to you?
Ms Moey: I have no reason to doubt that.
Ms Cronk: Did Ms Lott, after that discussion with Sharron Pretty, indicate to you whether Ms Pretty had said anything about a legal action?
Ms Moey: I'm sorry, could you say that again?
Ms Cronk: When you spoke to Sue about the telephone call she'd had with Sharron, did Sue tell you whether Ms Pretty had said anything about a legal action or a court case?
Ms Moey: She didn't say that, no. She didn't tell me that.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall anything further about what she said to you concerning the call?
Ms Moey: No. That's about all I remember.
Ms Cronk: Did she provide you with any details of what Sharron had said during the conversation, apart from what you've just described to the committee?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: And what did you understand Ms Lott was going to do about the call, if anything?
Ms Moey: I assumed that she was going to talk to Ms Ridley, but I don't know what action she may or may not have taken after.
Ms Cronk: And did the issue of a meeting with Sharron Pretty or a legal action involving Sharron Pretty come up when you were there or in any discussion in which you participated at the end of May after that call between Sue Lott and Sharron Pretty? Do you have any recall of anything like that?
Ms Moey: I don't recall.
Ms Cronk: All right. What was the frequency of contact between the constituency office and the minister's offices in Toronto, in the sense of scheduling matters or Housing-related concerns? Was there a procedure in place for speaking on a daily or a weekly basis, or how did that work?
Ms Moey: We do have a weekly conference call between the riding office and the minister's office in Toronto, and for the most part that call would deal mostly with scheduling issues for Evelyn's time in Ottawa, and we also discussed any contentious issues that might have arisen during the week.
Ms Cronk: Would you participate from time to time in those conference calls?
Ms Moey: If I was physically in the office, I would, yes.
Ms Cronk: And do you recall in the month of April or May the issue of a meeting between the minister and any of Sharron Pretty, Trinh Luu or other representatives of the Van Lang Centre coming up in the weekly conference calls?
Ms Moey: Not that I can recall.
Ms Cronk: Was your next involvement, then, as you suggested a few moments ago, when you were asked to arrange a meeting with Trinh Luu?
Ms Moey: Yes, as far as I recall.
Ms Cronk: And who asked you to do that?
Ms Moey: It was Evelyn herself.
Ms Cronk: And what did she ask you to do in that regard?
Ms Moey: She asked me if I would set up a meeting with Ms Luu and with the board of directors, and I understood that to mean two separate meetings.
Ms Cronk: Did she tell you why she wanted those meetings set up?
Ms Moey: No, she didn't.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember when she asked you to do that?
Ms Moey: It must have been in early June because I had just taken on the scheduling responsibilities. So it must have been from the time I started as a full-time person, the first week of June and before the 10th of June.
Ms Cronk: Did she make any mention of Sharron Pretty?
Ms Moey: Not that I can recall specifically.
Ms Cronk: Did you have any understanding as to whether Sharron Pretty was to be included in either of those meetings?
Ms Moey: I understood that Ms Pretty would be included in the board meeting because I understood her to be a board member.
Ms Cronk: Did you talk to the minister about that or was there a discussion between you?
Ms Moey: There was no discussion.
Ms Cronk: So given your understanding that Ms Pretty was a director, you just assumed that she'd be at the board meeting?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did you set up the June 10th meeting with Trinh Luu?
Ms Moey: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Why did you understand the meeting was being held?
Ms Moey: I understood that the meeting was being held because there were ongoing problems at the centre, and I assumed from the phone conversation that I had with Ms Luu that perhaps the minister wanted to be able to meet directly with Ms Luu to hear first hand from her about those ongoing problems.
Ms Cronk: Had Ms Luu, to your knowledge, requested the meeting or was this coming from the minister, or did you know?
Ms Moey: At the time that the request to set up the meeting came to me from the minister, I had no knowledge of a formal request for a meeting from Ms Luu.
Ms Cronk: All right. This was around the beginning of June, because that's when you assumed scheduling responsibilities again.
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: On June the first, 1994, Ms Moey, an article appeared in the Ottawa Sun under the byline of James Wallace concerning the Van Lang Centre. Did you see that article at or about the time of its publication?
Ms Moey: At or about the time. I don't know what day of the week it was. If it was a weekend date, then I would have seen it on the Monday following.
Ms Cronk: All right. Do you have a memory, looking back on it, of knowing of the article and the issues raised in it around the time that it appeared in the press?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you personally read the article?
Ms Moey: I looked at it very briefly.
Ms Cronk: The article indicated, among other things, that charges had been initiated -- I'm not suggesting that was the verb used, but there were charges involving the Van Lang board of directors. Do you recall that?
Ms Moey: Yes, I do recall that.
Ms Cronk: It also contained or summarized certain allegations that Sharron Pretty was making with respect to the Van Lang Centre. Do you recall that?
Ms Moey: It's possible that it did.
Ms Cronk: Well, do you recall any discussion in the minister's constituency office after that article appeared in the press about what was alleged in it?
Ms Moey: I remember that it was faxed up immediately to the minister's office in Toronto.
Ms Cronk: Who did that?
Ms Moey: I don't remember who did it; it wasn't I.
Ms Cronk: All right.
Ms Moey: I recall that I said, "Well, I guess Ms Pretty has made good her threat," or words to that effect, "about going to the media."
Ms Cronk: Did you at any point discuss the fact of the article or what was in it with the minister?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you receive any contact from any member of the minister's staff in Toronto about it that you remember?
Ms Moey: Not that I can remember, no.
Ms Cronk: So at the time that you were asked by the minister to set up the meeting with Trinh Luu, I take from what you're saying that you had seen the Wallace article and knew that there was an issue now about charges involving directors of the centre.
Ms Moey: I knew there was some sort of legal proceeding going on, as mentioned in the article.
Ms Cronk: Did you have any discussion with Ms Lott in the constituency office about the article, once it appeared?
Ms Moey: I might have had a brief exchange with her. I remember that I was quite upset that the article had indeed appeared, because I had been told by Ms Luu that Sharron Pretty was going to go to the media. I remember thinking to myself, "Why couldn't those problems have been resolved before this, before the article appeared?"
Ms Cronk: Did Sue Lott say anything to you at that point, that is, when the article appeared, about her earlier conversation with Sharron Pretty? I guess what I'm asking you is, did this trigger a conversation between Sue and yourself about what was going on and what the situation was at Van Lang?
Ms Moey: Not about the situation at Van Lang or what was going on. We were basically exchanging our frustration that this file had been so long in being resolved.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall at this time learning anything further from Sue Lott, after the Wallace article appeared, concerning information that she may have had relating to the legal action involving Sharron Pretty and the directors of the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Moey: I don't recall.
Ms Cronk: Okay. I'm assuming, and perhaps incorrectly, so tell me if this is wrong, that things were pretty casual in terms of communications between Sue Lott and Paul Dewar and yourself in the constituency office. It's not that big a place. So that if there's some --
Ms Moey: We wouldn't be sending memos to each other, no.
Ms Cronk: Exactly. So if there's some new development or something of interest with respect to a constituent or some matter that you had some interest in, there'd be a lot of chitchat about that, because you were working in close circumstances, right?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember a discussion about the Wallace article and Sue telling you anything further about her earlier discussion with Sharron Pretty as a result of that hitting the press? That's what I'm asking you.
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: No? All right. Do you remember speaking to the minister about it in light of the fact that you were surprised and upset to see the article or Sue indicating that she was going to speak to the minister about it?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: I'm assuming it was after the Wallace article that you were asked by the minister to arrange the meeting with Trinh Luu, because it was around the beginning of June, that is, the time of the article, that you assumed the scheduling duties. Is that fair?
Ms Moey: That would seem to be a fair assumption.
1100
Ms Cronk: And did the minister, in asking you to set that meeting up, give you any indication as to why she was asking you to do so?
Ms Moey: No, she didn't.
Ms Cronk: Was there any discussion between you, in the context of your being asked to arrange the meeting, about the legal action involving the Van Lang directors and/or Sharron Pretty?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: And did you contact Trinh Luu to set the meeting up?
Ms Moey: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: And how did it come about that it was on June the 10th, in the sense that, were you given a date, or were you simply asked to arrange a date for the meeting?
Ms Moey: I was not given a specific date. Evelyn basically asked me, would I please set up a meeting with Trinh Luu and a meeting with the board? I did so. I called Ms Luu up. Originally, I had intended to schedule both those meetings on the same day.
Ms Cronk: The same day being?
Ms Moey: June 17th. That was the next available Friday that had that much time free in order to schedule both those meetings in. So I called her up to ask her if she would be available for a time on that date.
Ms Cronk: On the 17th?
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And was she?
Ms Moey: She didn't say if she was or not immediately. She was very upset again at this conversation, as in the first one. I told her that I was calling because Evelyn had asked if I could set up a meeting with her and with the board. She immediately wanted to be at the meeting with the board.
Ms Cronk: Did she indicate that to you?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And what response, if any, did you make to that?
Ms Moey: I said that that was out of the question because she was, as far as I was aware, not a board member.
Ms Cronk: And did you at that point indicate that the minister also wished to meet with her?
Ms Moey: Yes, I did. Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did you tell her when it was proposed that the minister would meet with the board?
Ms Moey: Yes, I told her that I was hoping to be able to set up a meeting with Trinh Luu, perhaps in the morning of that day, and that some time later on in the day I would try to set up a meeting between Evelyn and the board.
Ms Cronk: Did you receive any instructions from the minister or any members of the minister's staff specifically as to who was to be informed of the board meeting and who was to be invited to attend?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Was it then simply an expectation on your part that Sharron Pretty was going to be there because of her status as a director, or did somebody tell you she was to be there?
Ms Moey: No. I took it upon myself, given my -- I did have a little bit of background, you'll allow, on the problems at the Van Lang Centre, and I took it upon myself to try and ensure that all current board members, whoever they might be, be made aware of this meeting.
Ms Cronk: How did you go about doing that?
Ms Moey: I called Karen Ridley, the scheduler in Evelyn's office in Toronto, and asked her if she would please set up this meeting. I told her I would be in touch as to the time and the place, but if she could please get a list of current directors and make sure that each and every one of them be informed of this meeting.
Ms Cronk: Did you have any discussion with anyone connected with the Minister of Housing in that connection?
Ms Moey: After I spoke with Karen Ridley, I did subsequently speak to Bill Clement, I think his name -- I don't know how you pronounce it.
Ms Cronk: For what reason?
Ms Moey: When I checked back with Ms Ridley as to whether or not she had any information regarding whether or not all the board members had been informed and whether or not this time was convenient to them, she said that she had just made her request to Mr Clement and that I should check with him.
Ms Cronk: Could you look, if you would, please, at exhibit 1, volume 3, Ms Kristjanson, tab 66? Do you have that, Ms Moey?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: This is an e-mail message to Rob Sutherland from Karen Ridley dated June the seventh, 1994.
Ms Moey: I'm sorry, I don't think I have the right one.
Ms Cronk: Wrong one? Exhibit 1, volume 3, tab 65. I beg your pardon. Sorry; 65. This is an e-mail dated June the seventh, 1994, to Rob Sutherland from Karen Ridley.
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: It appears to indicate that Ms Ridley had spoken to Audrey. I take that to be you?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: With respect to a meeting with the Van Lang board. Do you see that in the first line?
Ms Moey: Would you give me a minute just to read this?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Ms Moey: Thank you.
Ms Cronk: You're welcome. Actually, in fairness to you, you should probably look at tab 64 as well. This is another e-mail message from the same day, that is, June the seventh, about 20 minutes earlier, and it is to what has been described to me as the information liaison section from Karen Ridley.
Ms Moey: Right.
Ms Cronk: It appears to be indicating that, "The minister would like to meet with the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre and Ottawa regional office staff" -- that is, I assume, Ministry of Housing staff?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: The minister would like to meet with the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre and with Ottawa MOH staff to discuss ongoing complaints about that co-op. That's in the first paragraph. Do you see where I'm reading in the first paragraph?
Ms Moey: I hope I have the right one.
Ms Cronk: We're at tab 64. It's an e-mail from 5:01 pm on June seventh.
Ms Moey: Thank you. I was at the wrong one. Okay.
Ms Cronk: I'm suggesting to you that it indicates in the first paragraph that the minister wanted to meet with the Van Lang board and with Ottawa MOH regional staff to discuss ongoing complaints about the co-op.
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It also indicates that, "The minister will be meeting with Trinh Luu on June 17th in the morning in her constituency office."
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Was that your understanding at the time?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Is that what you were trying to set up?
Ms Moey: Yes, that was.
Ms Cronk: Then it goes on to say that, "She" -- meaning the minister -- "would also like to meet with the board of directors in the afternoon."
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Then if we go over to the next tab, tab 65, this indicates that Ms Ridley spoke with you concerning the meeting with the Van Lang board and that the time and the date and the place had been set.
Ms Moey: Right.
Ms Cronk: And it refers specifically to June 17th at 10 Rideau.
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: That's the Rideau Centre?
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: It indicates that, "Bev has booked the room."
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Who's Bev?
Ms Moey: Beverlee Bell.
Ms Cronk: What is her function in terms of bookings as you understand?
Ms Moey: She works out of Management Board Secretariat offices at 10 Rideau, and whenever we have a meeting that involves a number of participants greater than what would be contained comfortably at the constituency office, we ask Bev if she would book us a room there so that we could accommodate everyone.
Ms Cronk: Then the e-mail concludes by saying, and this is Ms Ridley speaking: "I am working with ILS to contact the board. Will keep you posted." And that's the end of the e-mail.
Ms Moey: Right.
Ms Cronk: Then there are some handwritten notes. Do you know whose those are?
Ms Moey: I don't.
Ms Cronk: Could I draw your attention to the second -- there are sort of three portions to the minutes -- the second one down. It begins with the word "Audrey." Do you see that?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: There's a dash, "Wants list of board members." Did you want a list of the board members to assist in making the arrangements for the meeting?
Ms Moey: I wanted to have a list of board members just to be sure that, if needed, I could contact them personally, if I was made aware that some of them or all of them had not been contacted, and also to be able to see who was whom at the meeting when it occurred.
Ms Cronk: The next line appears to indicate, "Please put a note on every tenant..." I don't know if it's "tenant's door," and then a word that I can't make out and "Sharron Pretty." "Bill to make sure every board member know" or knows.
Ms Moey: Right.
Ms Cronk: Is that what you told Ms Ridley to do?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Sort of to make sure that every board member knew?
Ms Moey: Yes. And I think the first word in the previous line might be "Pres."
Ms Cronk: Oh, "pres." That's right.
Ms Moey: President, perhaps. "Pres."
Ms Cronk: "Pres put a note on every" --
Ms Moey: President. The short form of "president," perhaps. I'm not sure.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. It's really the third line I'm directly interested in.
Ms Moey: Right.
Ms Cronk: Was that your request of Ms Ridley, to make sure that every board member knew about the meeting?
Ms Moey: Yes, indeed.
Ms Cronk: Was the meeting then arranged directly with Trinh Luu?
Ms Moey: Yes, it was.
Ms Cronk: Who attended the meeting?
Ms Moey: With Trinh Luu?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Ms Moey: Myself, the minister and Ms Luu.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Ms Cronk, did Ms Moey tell us what that word is after "door" in that line?
Ms Cronk: Can you help us with that? Ms Marland is referring, Ms Moey, to the second line under your name, where it's referring to you. It says, "Audrey -- wants list of board members." Then I started to read and made at least one mistake in how I read the next line. You think it says, "Pres put a note on every tenant's door." Can you read the next word?
Ms Moey: If I had to guess, I would guess that it is "discrediting."
1110
Ms Cronk: Where's the "g"? Sorry. I don't mean that to sound the way it sounds.
Ms Moey: I know. Like I said, if I had to --
Ms Cronk: Is it "creditors"? Is it "dis" --
Ms Moey: It could be "discreditors" or it could be "dis" --
Ms Cronk: You can't read it any better than the rest of us, is basically where we are.
Ms Moey: Yes.
Mrs Marland: Do we know whose writing this is?
Ms Cronk: Ms Moey has indicated she does not. My information is that it's Ms Ridley's, but that evidence isn't confirmed before you.
The next line -- am I reading the rest of it correctly? "Sharron Pretty. Bill to make sure every board member know"? I've got it right?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Where was the meeting on June 10th held?
Ms Moey: At the constituency office.
Ms Cronk: I was asking you -- and I'm sorry, I forget your answer -- who was in attendance at the meeting?
Ms Moey: It was myself, Ms Luu and the minister.
Ms Cronk: Were you present at the meeting for the entire time that Ms Luu was there?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: How long did the meeting last?
Ms Moey: I would say at least an hour.
Ms Cronk: Did you make any notes at the meeting?
Ms Moey: Very few.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look, if you would, please, at tab 72. Are these the notes that you made at the meeting?
Ms Moey: Yes, they are.
Ms Cronk: Were they intended to be a verbatim recording of what was discussed at the meeting?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you make them actually during the course of the meeting?
Ms Moey: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Could you tell the committee, please, to the best of your recollection, what was discussed, just by subject matter, during the course of the meeting and, to the extent you can, the way in which the meeting unfolded: who started it and what got discussed in what order, to the extent that you can remember it.
Ms Moey: I'll do my best. It started with Evelyn and Trinh greeting each other, and Trinh got right down to it. She sat down and pulled binders of information on to the table and started to talk about, I guess first of all, the most current problems that Sharron Pretty was having, ie, access to minutes of board meetings and other related issues; I don't remember exactly what. She talked then further about the board of directors trying to remove Ms Pretty from the board. She also mentioned that they had tried once before in the fall and had failed.
Subsequently, Ms Luu brought forth her information regarding the problems that she felt existed at the Van Lang Centre regarding the tenant selection process and the vacancy policy at the centre. There was also some discussion about the superintendent's competence and how he was hired.
Ms Cronk: Anything else that you now remember?
Ms Moey: Well, there was so much.
Ms Cronk: Who was doing most of the talking?
Ms Moey: It was Ms Luu.
Ms Cronk: Did she cover a lot of ground?
Ms Moey: She sure did.
Ms Cronk: With a lot of documents?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Did she actually show many documents to the minister or was she simply referring to their contents?
Ms Moey: She referred to a lot of documents, but I do remember her showing a few of them to Evelyn.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember what she showed the minister?
Ms Moey: No, I don't.
Ms Cronk: Did she leave a copy of any documents with the minister?
Ms Moey: She left copies of two sheets with the minister.
Ms Cronk: Did she come with the copies or did someone make them for the minister?
Ms Moey: I made the copies for the minister.
Ms Cronk: Could you look at tab 71, please. The documents at tab 71 have been described by Ms Luu as those shown to Ms Gigantes at the meeting, and she has indicated that two of these documents were actually left with the minister. If you move about halfway through, you'll see a document; at the top it says "Ministry of the Attorney General" on the left-hand side. There are a lot of numbers down the left and names on the far right.
Ms Moey: Yes, I have it.
Ms Cronk: This is a court docket slip. It's a court notice. Do you recall whether this was one of the documents shown to the minister at the meeting?
Ms Moey: I don't recall specifically.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall whether this was one of the documents left with the minister, copied and left with the minister?
Ms Moey: I don't recall specifically. I should perhaps explain that I wasn't shown the documents that the minister was, so I can't identify by sight any of these documents.
Ms Cronk: But who made the photocopying of the two left with her?
Ms Moey: I did.
Ms Cronk: So do you remember whether this was one of them? If you don't, please just indicate that.
Ms Moey: I don't.
Ms Cronk: The second-last page of this document has been described by Ms Luu as the second document she left with the minister. This is a notice, dated June 8, from the Van Lang board of directors concerning a meeting to be held on June 19th for the removal of Sharron Pretty. Was this one of the documents left with the minister, or do you remember?
Ms Moey: For both this one and the one previous, I know those were the documents that I took copies of for the minister. However, I cannot identify them by sight.
Ms Cronk: But these were the two documents you were asked to copy?
Ms Moey: Yes, that's right.
Ms Cronk: And do you remember having --
Mr Callahan: Excuse me. Can I just find out, when she says, "These are the two documents," is she talking about the court docket that she now remembers?
Ms Cronk: Is that correct, Ms Moey?
Ms Moey: Yes, that's right.
Ms Cronk: The second document being the notice about the resolution from the board to remove Sharron Pretty. I take it, if these are the two you copied, these are the two that were left with the minister?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Was there any discussion about the first document that you now remember, the court docket?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: What do you recall of that discussion?
Ms Moey: I recall that Ms Luu was saying to the minister that Sharron Pretty had initiated these legal proceedings against the other board members but that they were denying this. It was in that context that she was showing what I now know to be a court docket to the minister and pointing to a date, I think a specific date on that document.
Ms Cronk: There's a date of June 2 on the far left, and then there's a handwritten date of June -- I'm sorry. Did you get to it?
Ms Moey: It's all right. I found it.
Ms Cronk: On the far left, June 2, and then in the middle there's a handwritten date of June 16th that's crossed out and it has July 21 above it. Do you recall what date was being discussed?
Ms Moey: No, I don't.
Ms Cronk: And the words in handwriting, "new court date" -- now, this meeting's on the 10th of June and the words "new court date" appear and then, as I say, there's an entry "June 16th," and on our copy that's crossed out and above it "July 21st." Do you remember if the words "July 21st" were there at the time this was given to the minister?
Ms Moey: No, I don't. I'm sorry.
Ms Cronk: You do, however, recall, I take it, mention of a court date, from what's been said.
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And do you remember what was said in that connection?
Ms Moey: I remember Ms Luu pointing to a date, and saying: "It's right here. How can they not have been aware of it?" -- something like that. I'm not sure as to what her words exactly were.
Ms Cronk: Who is the "they"? Who was she talking about?
Ms Moey: I would assume the other board directors.
Ms Cronk: I see. And did you have any impression, based on what you remember Ms Luu saying, as to whether there was a court date coming up soon? Was there any sense of that, from what she said?
Ms Moey: Are you asking me if I remember that --
Ms Cronk: Was she telling the minister, "There's a court date coming up soon on this matter"?
Ms Moey: My impression around that discussion was simply that Ms Luu was trying to tell the minister that Sharron Pretty had indeed initiated some sort of legal proceeding.
Ms Cronk: Did she tell the minister what it involved, what kind of legal proceeding it was?
Ms Moey: To the best of my recollection, I think she was saying that the legal proceeding had to do with their, ie, the board directors, denying Ms Pretty access to minutes and other information about the corporation.
1120
Ms Cronk: Was there are any mention of the Corporations Act?
Ms Moey: I don't recall specifically.
Ms Cronk: Was there any mention of the crown or a crown attorney?
Ms Moey: I don't believe so, but I don't remember one way or the other.
Ms Cronk: Did the minister make any inquiries or ask Ms Luu any questions about the court action that Ms Luu was talking about?
Ms Moey: I remember at one point them talking about letters patent, but I don't recall anything other than that.
Ms Cronk: Did you have any understanding, based on what Ms Luu described about the court proceedings, as to whether it was or was not a civil action?
Ms Moey: No, I don't recall.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall any other discussion about this document or the legal action that Ms Luu mentioned at the meeting?
Ms Moey: No, I don't.
Ms Cronk: Do you have any recollection of the minister asking any questions about that, apart from asking for the document itself?
Ms Moey: No, I don't.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall any discussion between the minister and Ms Luu, as distinct from Ms Luu just talking to the minister, about the second document, the resolution to remove Ms Luu as a director?
Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Excuse me. Ms Luu as a director?
Ms Cronk: Sorry. To remove Ms Pretty as a director. Thank you.
Ms Moey: No, I don't recall that there was much discussion. To the best of my recollection, Ms Luu was showing a notice about a special meeting to remove Ms Pretty from the board of directors.
Ms Cronk: Did you understand from the discussion that that was to be dealt with by the board in a matter of a week or so, that is, June 19th?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: That was specifically discussed? That's what the document says.
Ms Moey: I think, yes, the date was discussed. Yes.
Ms Cronk: How did the meeting conclude?
Ms Moey: The meeting concluded with Ms Luu asking the minister when would she hear back from her, and the minister indicating to Ms Luu that she would hear back within two weeks.
Ms Cronk: At any point during the meeting, did anyone else join you in the constituency office, in the meeting?
Ms Moey: Not during the meeting. At the end of the meeting, after the point that I thought the meeting had concluded, the formal part of the meeting had concluded, Ms Bell did come into the room to remind Evelyn that they had to go to their next appointment.
Ms Cronk: I just want to clear up one point. Was there any discussion while Ms Bell was there or before or after she was in the room about Ms Luu becoming involved in some committee or some matter on behalf of the minister?
Ms Moey: I don't recall that at all.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall anything related to that?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: And was Ms Bell there for more than a minute or two?
Ms Moey: Not that I can recall. She was in there very briefly.
Ms Cronk: Did she leave with her documents when the meeting broke up?
Ms Moey: Who, Ms Luu?
Ms Cronk: Ms Luu.
Ms Moey: Yes, I believe so.
Ms Cronk: Did you have any discussion with the minister after the meeting about what had occurred at the meeting?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Did the minister ask you to seek or find out any further information for her about any of the matters that had been discussed?
Ms Moey: No, she didn't.
Ms Cronk: Did she say anything to you about the information that had been provided to her by Ms Luu?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Did she make any comment to you about what you'd been told concerning the court docket or the proceedings involving the Van Lang board?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Not even in casual conversation with her?
Ms Moey: No. She had to go off to her next appointment.
Ms Cronk: So did she leave then immediately with Beverlee Bell?
Ms Moey: Very soon after.
Ms Cronk: Did you subsequently have any discussion with the minister about what had occurred at the June 10th meeting, over the course of the next couple of days?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Was your next involvement, then, attendance at the June 17th meeting?
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Between the period June 10 to June 17, did anyone from the minister's office in Toronto or from the Ministry of Housing contact you to discuss who would be in attendance at the board meeting?
Ms Moey: It might have been in that week that I spoke to Bill Clement regarding whether or not all the board directors had been notified of the meeting.
Ms Cronk: Was that discussion initiated by you or by him?
Ms Moey: It was by me.
Ms Cronk: For what purpose?
Ms Moey: I wanted to be certain that the notification for the meeting had gone out to every board member, as far as I could and as far as it was appropriate for me to do so.
Ms Cronk: What were you told in that regard?
Ms Moey: Mr Clement told me that he had sent a letter to either the secretary or the president of the board -- I don't remember which, but one of those individuals -- with the date and time of the meeting, and that he was confident that that individual would then notify the rest of the board.
Ms Cronk: Was there any discussion about Sharron Pretty?
Ms Moey: I might have indicated to him that I wanted to be absolutely sure that Ms Pretty was informed of the meeting.
Ms Cronk: You wanted to make sure she was going to be there or at least had the opportunity to be there.
Ms Moey: Had the opportunity to be there.
Ms Cronk: Was there any longer, given the meeting that had taken place on June 10th with Trinh Luu, any suggestion of her being at the meeting?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Am I right that the only suggestion of her being at the meeting with the board came from her, because she suggested to you that she wanted to be there?
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Nobody from the minister's office suggested that?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: All right. Apart from your discussion with Bill Clement about who should be at the meeting, did you discuss with anyone from the minister's office, or receive any communication from them in that week before the meeting, as to who should be there?
Ms Moey: No. Well, no, I should not say that. Yes, I was trying to determine who from the regional housing office would be there as well and I was told it would be Brian Sutherland.
Ms Cronk: Did you learn that from the minister's staff in Toronto?
Ms Moey: I don't remember who I learned that from first, but I think I remember speaking to Mr Clement, who confirmed that Mr Sutherland would be there, and I might have spoken to somebody else in the minister's office just to confirm again on that issue.
Ms Cronk: Did anyone at any time suggest to you during that week before the meeting, June 10th to June 17th, that Sharron Pretty was not to be at the meeting with the board?
Ms Moey: Absolutely not.
Ms Cronk: And do I take correctly from your evidence that your expectation was quite the reverse?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: In fact, you were seeking to ensure that she knew about the meeting so she could be there if she wished to be?
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And for that reason, you spoke with Bill Clement on at least two occasions, from what you said.
Ms Moey: At least twice that I remember, yes.
Ms Cronk: And you also raised the matter with Karen Ridley.
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: During the week of June 10th to June 17th, did you have any discussion with the minister about either the purpose of the meeting on June 17th, its preparation or the agenda or items to be discussed, anything of that kind?
Ms Moey: None.
Ms Cronk: When a meeting is arranged by the constituency offices, as you did in this case for the minister, whose responsibility is it to prepare an agenda for the meeting?
Ms Moey: There normally is no agenda for a meeting, or at least it's not from our side that an agenda might be produced.
Ms Cronk: So you set the meeting up and that's it.
Ms Moey: Well --
Ms Cronk: Sorry, I'm not meaning to minimize your role, but I'm saying you're not involved in dealing with the actual subject matter of the meeting or what's to occur at the meeting?
Ms Moey: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: And you sometimes accompany the minister to these meetings.
Ms Moey: Sometimes, yes.
Ms Cronk: In this case, were you the person from the constituency office who went to the meeting?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Was there any particular reason for that? I mean, did the minister ask you to do that or was that as between you and Sue Lott? How did that work?
Ms Moey: Between the three of us, we basically have to pull straws.
Ms Cronk: Do I understand you to be saying that you had no discussion with the minister prior to the June 17th meeting with the board?
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: About either its purpose or what was to be discussed at it?
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Did you go to the meeting with the minister or meet her there?
Ms Moey: I met her there.
Ms Cronk: Did you have any discussion with her prior to the commencement of the meeting?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: What did you think the meeting was all about?
Ms Moey: I thought the meeting was to enable Evelyn to meet personally with the board directors and perhaps to play some sort of mediating role in perhaps alleviating some of the problems that were ongoing at the centre.
Ms Cronk: And was that based on your prior knowledge of the file, or on something that either the minister or someone else had said to you?
Ms Moey: It was based on my prior knowledge of the file.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard that at the meeting that day -- and there's no debate about this, I don't think; I just want to confirm it with you. The committee's heard that at the meeting, in addition to the minister and yourself, the following people were in attendance: Brian Sutherland from the Ministry of Housing in Ottawa.
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Sharron Pretty.
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And four directors from the Van Lang board of directors. Now, had you met any of the directors from the Van Lang board before?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: And you had earlier indicated to the committee that this was the first time you'd met Sharron Pretty.
Ms Moey: That's correct.
1130
Ms Cronk: Did the persons at the table introduce themselves?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you now recall their names, or would you just be accepting from me who the names were if I gave them to you?
Ms Moey: I think I could recall the names, yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. It's been suggested to the committee that a Dr Tang, a Dr Can Le, Dr Hieu Truong and a Mr My Nguyen were in attendance.
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: You can confirm that?
Ms Moey: Yes, I confirm that.
Ms Cronk: All right. Was there anyone else at the meeting?
Ms Moey: No one else that you haven't mentioned.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, I didn't mention Beverlee Bell.
Ms Moey: Oh, sorry.
Ms Cronk: She was there, wasn't she?
Ms Moey: Yes. Yes, she was.
Ms Cronk: I didn't do that deliberately; I just forgot.
Ms Moey: I know.
Ms Cronk: She was at the meeting?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you make any notes at the meeting?
Ms Moey: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: And did anyone else that you observed make any notes at the meeting?
Ms Moey: I don't remember seeing anyone making copious notes at the meeting, no.
Ms Cronk: Making any notes of any kind?
Ms Moey: I'm afraid I wasn't looking around the room. I was looking down writing notes.
Ms Cronk: Had you been asked to do that by the minister --
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: -- or did you just automatically assume that role?
Ms Moey: The latter.
Ms Cronk: And that was because you'd accompanied her to the meeting from the constituency office?
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Did you see the minister herself making any notes during the course of that meeting?
Ms Moey: I can't say that I did.
Ms Cronk: Where were you sitting at the table in relation to where the minister was?
Ms Moey: I was to her right.
Ms Cronk: And who was on your other side?
Ms Moey: I believe Brian Sutherland was to my right, but a little bit removed from the table.
Ms Cronk: Where was Sharron Pretty?
Ms Moey: She was across the table from me to the right.
Ms Cronk: Across the table from you to the right, and the minister was on your left?
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Does that mean then that from where the minister was sitting, she was looking across at Sharron Pretty but on an angle to the right?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And where was Dr Tang sitting?
Ms Moey: Dr Tang was sitting to the left of the minister, but at the perpendicular side of the table.
Ms Cronk: Was this a boardroom table?
Ms Moey: It was a square table. It was a huge table.
Ms Cronk: Okay. And were people sort of spread out or in close proximity at one end of the table?
Ms Moey: There were people all around the table on three sides that I can -- sorry, no, four sides. They were pretty much spread out, yeah. It wasn't all grouped together.
Ms Cronk: Sometimes people do that, they cluster at one end, and sometimes they go way off on the other end. People were spread out, or they were just all around the table?
Ms Moey: They were pretty much spread out, yeah.
Ms Cronk: Where was Dr Can Le sitting?
Ms Moey: Dr Can Le was sitting across, directly across from the minister and to the right of Ms Pretty.
Ms Cronk: How far away from the minister would Dr Le have been at the table?
Ms Moey: About perhaps the distance from where I am to slightly in front of Mr Sutherland, I believe.
Ms Cronk: I'm no good at that. For the record, how far would you say that is, 20-plus feet? A car and a half, depending on your car? About right? How far away would Sharron Pretty have been? The same kind of distance from the minister?
Ms Moey: Yeah. She would be where Mr Marchese is sitting. Well, I would say five feet to the front of where Mr Sutherland and Mr Marchese are sitting.
Ms Cronk: So this was a considerable distance across this -- this is a big table?
Ms Moey: It was.
Ms Cronk: All right. Did anyone record the meeting that you observed?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: How did the meeting begin?
Ms Moey: To the best of my recollection, the meeting began with, well, people introduced themselves, and then the minister made some introductory remarks.
Ms Cronk: What did the minister say by way of introductory remarks?
Ms Moey: I think she thanked everyone for being there, and she said that she had learned of the ongoing problems at the Van Lang Centre and that she was saddened by it. She had also heard that the board was going to remove Sharron Pretty, or thinking of it, and she asked if that was the solution -- is this the solution?
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last part?
Ms Moey: She asked if that was the solution to their problems.
Ms Cronk: Did she say anything else initially?
Ms Moey: Not that I can recall.
Ms Cronk: Did she explain what she meant when she said that she was aware of the ongoing problems at the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Moey: No, she didn't explain.
Ms Cronk: Did anyone ask?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: And how did discussion at the meeting then progress? Was there any set agenda, formally or informally, or did people just join in discussion on various issues?
Ms Moey: The latter.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 81, please. There's a fax cover sheet dated June 20th, 1994. You may not have that.
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: I have that in mine. All right. Then there's a series of handwritten notes. Are these the notes that you made at the meeting?
Ms Moey: They are.
Ms Cronk: Please explain to the committee how you went about making these notes, how you were physically doing it during the course of the meeting.
Ms Moey: These are not verbatim notes. I tried as much as I could to record the topics of conversation and what I thought were perhaps responses or questions that would give a reasonably accurate picture of the discussion under that topic or about that topic.
Ms Cronk: In your view, do these notes include everything that was said at that meeting?
Ms Moey: Most certainly not.
Ms Cronk: Are they intended to have captured or have highlighted every topic discussed and some of the discussion around it?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: What were you trying to do, then?
Ms Moey: I was trying to have a reasonable record of what was being discussed, or at least the more important topics that were being discussed, and also, the reason I take notes to begin with is to make sure that I can refer to them if, during the course of the meeting, the minister makes a request of me to do something or to find something, that sort of thing.
Ms Cronk: Mm-hmm. When the minister arrived at the meeting, did she say anything to you about the presence of Sharron Pretty at the meeting?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Was any comment made of any kind?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Did she seem to you to be surprised in any way that she was there?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: By anything that you observed?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: And with respect to -- I'm just going to look at your notes for a moment because mine are a bit different; excuse me. Can I just ask you to look at page 4 of your notes, Ms Moey.
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: As I read the first four pages of your notes -- first of all, was the entirety of these notes made during the course of the meeting?
Ms Moey: Yes, they were.
Ms Cronk: Was any portion of these notes made after the meeting?
Ms Moey: The only thing that was made after the meeting on these four pages are the page numbers at the top of each page, and there's an asterisk on page 4, towards the bottom, and a little bracket. That was added after the meeting.
Ms Cronk: Who added that?
Ms Moey: I did.
Ms Cronk: When?
Ms Moey: When I was asked to fax up my notes from the meeting, and I did that as a -- what I thought to be a helpful thing.
Ms Cronk: Were you doing that to identify what you thought was a relevant portion of the notes?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And was any other portion of these notes made after the meeting, apart from the asterisk and that bracket?
Ms Moey: I assume the little box on the bottom is --
Ms Cronk: Oh, I'm sorry, yes. That was added by our offices.
Ms Moey: Yes, that's right.
Ms Cronk: With respect to page 4, then, and the part of your notes that you identified with an asterisk, would I be correct in assuming that the initials Ev refer to Evelyn?
Ms Moey: Yes, you would.
Ms Cronk: Are the remarks, then, written down here next to her initials, remarks that she made at the meeting?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And while you made these notes, were you trying to write down the words that the speaker was using or were you paraphrasing as you went?
Ms Moey: I try not to paraphrase, but of course I often don't have the opportunity to capture the entire sentence, but I do try to use the words that were being used.
1140
Ms Cronk: Should I take from that, then, that the words that you record are the words used by the speaker but you might not get all of them?
Ms Moey: Absolutely.
Ms Cronk: And this particular entry reads, "Ev -- to the board," and then there's an arrow. What does that mean?
Ms Moey: That means, in my fashion of taking notes, that Evelyn said to the board in general.
Ms Cronk: To the board in general?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: "Can these things be resolved without legal proceedings and removal of directors."
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Am I reading that correctly?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Then the initial "S" appears and "Pretty" -- I take that to be Sharron Pretty -- with a dash, "doesn't think she can work with this board." Am I reading that correctly?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Did the minister make the comment that you've written down there?
Ms Moey: No, Sharron Pretty did.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, the one attributed to her. Did the minister make the comment beside the initials "Ev" that you've written down?
Ms Moey: Yes, she did.
Ms Cronk: Did Ms Pretty make the comment beside the dash attributed to her name on the notes?
Ms Moey: Yes, she did.
Ms Cronk: All right. As I read the notes, Ms Moey, the only prior reference in these notes, as I read them, to the removal of directors is the entry on the first page of your notes, right at the beginning of the notes, concerning the "removal of S. Pretty -- is that the solution?"
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Would I be correct in assuming that that's a statement made by the minister during the course of her introductory remarks at the outset of the meeting?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Right. Do you remember at any point between the start of the meeting and the entry recorded at page 4 any further discussion about the issue of removing Sharron Pretty as a director?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall any discussion at any point in the meeting up to that entry at page 4 about legal proceedings?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall any discussion or anyone mentioning up to that point in the meeting outstanding actions, whether by the board or by Sharron Pretty?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Or referring to actions generally in the context of what the parties around the table were or were not doing with one another?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall any discussion prior to this point in the meeting of a court case or a lawsuit or charges?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember any discussion up to this point in the meeting of a crown attorney, of a prosecutor, of the justice system, anything like that?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: All right. Could you please explain to the committee, as best as you now remember it, the context in which that remark was made by the minister and how the discussion unfolded? Before you do so, to be fair to you, I'm assuming that this entry, like the others that you've described, does not include all of the discussion on that issue.
Ms Moey: Thank you, yes.
Ms Cronk: Is that correct? Sorry, Ms Moey, just for the record, am I right in that it doesn't include all the discussion on that issue?
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Okay. Could you describe to the committee, please, the context, as you recall it, at the point in the meeting when this came up and what you remember being said?
Ms Moey: Well, prior to this point in the meeting the discussion had been on the issues of tenant selection at the centre, referral lists from the local housing authority, questions like that. It was mostly to deal with tenant selection, just prior to this point in time in the meeting, also about the maintenance at the building. There was some discussion regarding the superintendent and an outside consultant for preventative maintenance. I remember Brian Sutherland had joined the discussion at that point to say that he had recommended to the board that perhaps this was not the typical way of doing things. At this point then, the minister asked the board in general if these issues, these preceding issues, could be resolved without legal proceedings and removal of directors.
Ms Cronk: What happened then?
Ms Moey: Sharron Pretty said that she didn't think she could "work with this board."
Ms Cronk: Did the minister make any reply to that?
Ms Moey: Not that I can recall.
Ms Cronk: Did the discussion continue or turn to other things?
Ms Moey: Shortly after this point, the minister asked the board in general if they could think about meeting one final time to discuss the two major concerns and then focus on resolving those questions.
Ms Cronk: Was there any response offered from anyone at the table to that suggestion?
Ms Moey: Some of the board members were indicating by nods or by smiles that they were amenable to the suggestion. I can't remember, you know, who nodded or who smiled, and Evelyn was -- I remember her saying: "You don't have to give me an answer now. Please take some time to think about it."
Ms Cronk: Had she said that kind of thing at any prior point in the meeting?
Ms Moey: Yes, actually she had.
Ms Cronk: To whom?
Ms Moey: She said it to all the board members, but I remember particularly she said it to Ms Pretty.
Ms Cronk: Earlier in the meeting or at this point?
Ms Moey: Earlier in the meeting and also at this point.
Ms Cronk: Was there agreement to a further meeting?
Ms Moey: I think my reading of the room at the time was that there was agreement to consider this meeting.
Ms Cronk: When you say your "reading of the room," that's your interpretation of what was happening around the table?
Ms Moey: Yes, that's right.
Ms Cronk: Did, by what was said at the meeting, it seem to you to have been an agreement to meet?
Ms Moey: Some people were whipping out their daytimers to look at a possible date. I think actually one of the board directors approached Sharron Pretty and said, "Would this date be" -- or something to that effect -- "convenient for you?" and she said that she would have to check, she didn't know. So that's what I mean when I say that my reading was that there had been general agreement to think about having this meeting.
Ms Cronk: What was the tone of the meeting at that point?
Ms Moey: Um --
Ms Cronk: Did it seem in any way stressful? Did it seem like the meeting was building in any way to that discussion? Were people relaxed? How did it seem?
Ms Moey: Well, I would characterize that particular point in the meeting as a point at which tension had been lifted.
Ms Cronk: That's when people were taking their books out to look at dates and Ms Pretty said she'd have to check her calendar?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: What about immediately prior to that, when the minister asked if these things could be resolved without legal proceedings and removal of directors and whether people, the board, could meet in general to discuss the two outstanding issues?
Ms Moey: There wasn't a lot of time devoted to that particular discussion. It wasn't particularly tense at that point, I don't think.
Ms Cronk: At what point in the meeting did this part of the discussion come up? Your notes conclude over on the next page. There are very few further entries. At what point in the meeting do you recall this one entry?
Ms Moey: It was probably towards the very end of the meeting. I would put it maybe within the last 10 or 15 minutes of the meeting.
Ms Cronk: Just looking at page 5 of your notes for a moment, or at least the last page of them, in your last entry there are words again attributed to, I take it, the minister.
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: "Ev suggested a facilitator to come to meetings, ie, someone from ONPHA?"
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: "Hieu...accepted this proposal. Board will set up meeting. Brian to ask someone from ONPHA to facilitate."
Now, just stopping there for a moment, that entry suggested to me, Ms Moey, that you thought agreement had been reached to set up a meeting, because you've got, "Board will set up meeting."
Ms Moey: Right. Well, if I could explain that, I guess sometimes people's notes are only understandable to the author. What I meant by this entry, Ms Cronk, is that when Evelyn suggested, in response to what Ms Pretty had previously said about the ministry staff person who had been at previous meetings, Evelyn suggested that perhaps a facilitator could come out to the meetings and she suggested somebody from ONPHA. Mr Hieu said yes, that would be fine. That's what I meant when he said "accepted this proposal" for a facilitator.
And the next entry, "board will set up meeting," to the best of my recollection, by that I meant that the board will have a meeting if there's an agreement on a date, that sort of thing. It was more that if there was to be a meeting, then "the board will obviously set it up. We'll send out the notices and that sort of thing."
1150
Ms Cronk: I see. Could I back you up then, Ms Moey, and have a better understanding from you of certain aspects of what you've told the committee. Let me just back up. Looking at your own notes, the preceding entries at page 4 in part concern a discussion of deep-core referral matters, the OCHRA referral list -- it seems to be a discussion about the tenant access issue. Is that fair?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And Sharron Pretty, by virtue of the entry in the middle of the page at page 4, appears to have suggested, according to your notes, that she was putting together documents to prove that there was still a problem in that connection?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And she also seems to have suggested, according to your notes, that people had been solicited, I take it, to live at the Van Lang Centre from outside the Ottawa area for the last few vacancies. That was an assertion she was making?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Right. And then you have the entry, to which I've drawn your attention, concerning the query or question by the minister. Would you agree with me that in the matters outlined in your notes before that point in the meeting, you have made recordings of a number of topics being discussed, and based on the introductory remarks of the minister, two of the matters referred to early on in the meeting were the compliance review conducted by the Ministry of Housing and the removal of Sharron Pretty. Those were mentioned at the beginning of the meeting?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And then there's discussion of a number of topics, and you've recorded various people saying various things.
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And there's further discussion of the compliance report at the bottom of page 2 of your notes.
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And then, as I read it, at the bottom of page 2 it's the minister talking. There are comments attributed to her, specifically the comment about the compliance report.
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And over at the top of page 3, the following entry appears: "Stress and strain on board -- is a concern -- tends to undermine the capabilities." Who was speaking at that point?
Ms Moey: The minister was.
Ms Cronk: All right. And then the next topic discussed is how certain of the individuals on the board got along with one another. It seems to be a response to the comment that there was a problem, that there was stress and strain on the board.
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: How am I misreading that?
Ms Moey: The "stress and strain on the board" entry was indeed by Evelyn and she said this was a concern because this sort of stress tends to undermine the capabilities of people who otherwise have very fine abilities and who have come together to work towards a common and worthy goal. The next entry really was a response -- I'm not sure if it's a response, but this was Dr Tang and Dr Le talking about Ms Luu and the superintendent and that whole issue.
Ms Cronk: And how they did or didn't get along.
Ms Moey: Right.
Ms Cronk: All right. So the minister's made a comment about stress and strain on the board and how that was an undermining influence, if I can put it that way, undermining the capabilities?
Ms Moey: Yes, that's right.
Ms Cronk: Then if you go over to page 4, the second comment attributed to her at the top of the page, again by her initials: "There's a breakdown in board members' ability to work together." You see that?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: So that in the context of how the meeting progressed and the discussion leading up to the comment to which I drew your attention, the minister appears, at least by those comments -- and I recognize other matters are discussed as well. She's asked, for example, Ms Pretty to be more specific about her concerns concerning tenant participation and access, but the minister has identified at the table and has raised the issue of problems at the board level, there being stress and strain. Her language, as you recorded it, suggested a perception by her of a breakdown in the board's ability to work together. Correct?
Ms Moey: Correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. What did you understand the minister to mean when she said to the board, "Can these things be resolved without legal proceedings and removal of directors"? Am I right that the only removal-of-a-director suggestion discussed in any way at the meeting related to the removal of Sharron Pretty?
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And that the minister had indicated from the outset that she was aware of that?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And you certainly knew she was aware of it, because you'd been at the meeting on June 10th when she was given a copy of the resolution concerning the removal?
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Was there any discussion about any legal proceedings at any point prior to this remark?
Ms Moey: Not prior to this remark, no.
Ms Cronk: Did she explain what she meant by that?
Ms Moey: By --
Ms Cronk: By the use of the phrase "legal proceedings"?
Ms Moey: No, she didn't.
Ms Cronk: Is it your evidence to this committee that, to the best of your recollection and based on the way you make notes, those were her words?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Were you paraphrasing at that point?
Ms Moey: No, I wasn't.
Ms Cronk: What legal proceedings did you understand she was referring to?
Ms Moey: I understood that she was referring to whatever legal action Ms Pretty had initiated against the other board members that had been reported in the Sun article of June 1.
Ms Cronk: You were aware of those proceedings, you told the committee, because you saw the Wallace article on June 1.
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: You had some discussion, although of minimal nature, with Sue Lott about it.
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And you knew that the minister was aware of that, as were you, because there had been further discussion about it at the June 10th meeting with Trinh Luu.
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Indeed, she'd seen the court docket, as had you.
Ms Moey: Well, I didn't look at it, but --
Ms Cronk: I mean you physically had it copied; I don't mean you read it.
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: But the minister received it, and there was discussion about it.
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: What did you understand was being suggested by that remark by the minister?
Ms Moey: I understood it to be a suggestion that the board of directors, including Sharron Pretty, think about whether or not they could try one more time to resolve their differences. Her suggestion would be if they would think about having one last meeting to do that before proceeding with whatever actions they were proposing at the time.
Ms Cronk: Was there any discussion about possible outcomes of that further meeting, what that further meeting might lead to or result in?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: What was the discussion on that aspect?
Ms Moey: Ms Pretty indicated that the legal action that she had initiated was not in her hands. She said, "It's not in my hands; it's in the hands of the crown" or "the crown attorney," words to that effect. Ms Gigantes said: "Yes, you're right. It's not in your hands. It is in the hands of the crown. However, if after you have this meeting, should you decide to have this meeting, you felt that these matters were on their way to being resolved, then perhaps that would be of interest to the crown."
Ms Cronk: Did Ms Pretty make any reply to that?
Ms Moey: No. After her initial "It's not in my hands," I don't believe she did.
Ms Cronk: What did you understand the minister to be saying?
Ms Moey: I understood the minister to be saying, "First of all, you have to decide if you even want to have this last meeting that I'm suggesting, and if you do, after this meeting, if you felt that your differences with the rest of the board were on their way to being resolved or had a good possibility of being resolved, then perhaps you might want to indicate that or that might be of interest to the crown."
1200
Ms Cronk: Was there any discussion of what the other board members, what the board might do or not do as a result of a further meeting of that kind?
Ms Moey: I think by implication -- I don't know if that was specifically discussed -- that they would on their part after that meeting, should they decide to have it, if they also felt that things were on their way to being resolved, they might reconsider removing Ms Pretty from the board.
Ms Cronk: Did the minister say that?
Ms Moey: I don't recall that she did.
Ms Cronk: And when you say you don't recall, do you recall one way or the other?
Ms Moey: I don't recall one way or the other.
Ms Cronk: It's been suggested in other evidence before the committee that in fact the minister strongly recommended to the board that they reconsider removing Sharron Pretty as a director. Is that your recall of the meeting?
Ms Moey: That's not my recollection of the meeting. At no time during this meeting did the minister strongly do anything, in my opinion.
Ms Cronk: Either to the board or to Sharron Pretty?
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And with reference to what the discussion was concerning this proposed further meeting, did you understand from what the minister was saying and the exchange she had with Sharron Pretty that it was being suggested that if the parties met again for one further meeting to see if they could work things out, and if Sharron Pretty on the one hand was satisfied that things were either resolved from her point of view or were on the way to being resolved, she should reconsider or could then reconsider her action and that might be of interest to the crown?
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Have I got that right so far?
Ms Moey: You've put that much better than I have. Thank you.
Ms Cronk: I'm not trying to do that. I'm just trying to understand. Is that the essence of that part of the suggestion, as you understood it?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that was coming from the minister in the sense of what she was saying?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And was the additional part of that that from the board's perspective, if that further meeting went ahead and if the board were satisfied that things were being resolved, they would also be able to reconsider and perhaps not proceed to remove Sharron Pretty?
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Did she ever specifically say that?
Ms Moey: I don't recall one way or the other if she specifically said that.
Ms Cronk: Ms Moey, we've been here, as you know, all week, and the committee has now heard from virtually everyone who was at that meeting. There is, as perhaps there always is when you have that many people at a meeting, variance of recall and variance of evidence as to what exact words were. All right?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: I've asked many questions of people about precise language that was used. You are the only person who made detailed, although not complete nor comprehensive, notes of what occurred at the meeting. I want to ask you quite simply: Based on what the minister said towards the conclusion of the meeting with Sharron Pretty and to the board, was there any doubt in your mind that what was being proposed was that if the parties would consider a further meeting, they might yet be able to work things out? Have I got the first part right?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that were that to occur, if that further meeting were to be held, and if Sharron Pretty on the one hand were satisfied that things were either resolved or on their way to being resolved, to use your language, she might reconsider her court case and that might be of interest to the crown?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And that the board, on the other, might reconsider its position, including refraining from removing Sharron Pretty as a director?
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: That's a clear understanding on your part?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: So if I don't get the right language of how it was said, there was no doubt in your mind that that's what was on the table?
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Did you think, based on what was said at the meeting, that an agreement had been reached to consider meeting for that purpose, or to actually meet for that purpose?
Ms Moey: It was my understanding that there was an agreement to consider to meet, but -- and this is just my interpretation of the mood in the room at the time -- that a meeting was very possible, very likely.
Ms Cronk: Indeed, wouldn't it be fair to suggest, based on what you've described -- you said a couple of directors whipped out their daybooks, were looking at appointment books -- you had people on that side of the table getting a meeting on the table.
Ms Moey: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: They weren't going to put it in writing. They were prepared to meet.
Ms Moey: Right.
Ms Cronk: Ms Pretty, on the other hand, said she couldn't agree to a date. Is that right?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did she say or do anything, though, that indicated to you an unwillingness to meet, or was it just an unwillingness to name a date, a time, a specific time? What did you understand from what occurred?
Ms Moey: What I understand from what I observed was that she was unwilling to name a date at the meeting. She was unwilling to name a date.
Ms Cronk: Did she say or do anything that suggested to you that she was unwilling to meet per se, as distinct from being unwilling to name a specific time at that meeting?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: It has been suggested in evidence, again by others before the committee, that during the course of the meeting Ms Gigantes used the phrase "drop the charges" or "dropping the charges" and that -- there's no mystery to this; this is Sharron Pretty's evidence before the committee and her statements elsewhere -- during the course of that meeting on more than one occasion the minister said to her that she should consider dropping her charges or raised the prospect of the charges being dropped. Do you recall that language being used by the minister at any point in the meeting?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Did anyone that you now recall -- and you may not remember one way or the other, and if so, it's very important that you tell the committee that. But do you remember whether anyone else at the meeting used those words "drop the charges" or "dropping the charges"?
Ms Moey: I don't remember hearing that phrase used at the meeting, or that language, I should say.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall at any point the minister suggesting to Ms Pretty or saying to Ms Pretty words which led you to understand that she was suggesting that Ms Pretty go to see the crown to discuss withdrawing her proceedings?
Ms Moey: Only in so far as -- I mean, she prefaced that -- I don't know how to put this. She said that if Sharron Pretty felt, after this meeting, should it occur, that the problems were on their way to being resolved or were resolved, she might -- "she" being Sharron Pretty -- that might be of interest to the crown, that Sharron Pretty might reconsider. That's what I took from that particular portion of the meeting.
Ms Cronk: Was anything said at the meeting or did anyone at the meeting use the word "deal": "Let's try to make a deal" or "work this out so that we have a deal"?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Was there at any time during the course of the meeting a suggestion by Ms Gigantes that she would speak to the crown?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Or that she would have someone do so?
Ms Moey: Absolutely not.
Ms Cronk: And no one suggested that at the meeting to her?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Was there any suggestion at the meeting that this matter, meaning the action, and information that might or might not be of interest to the crown shouldn't be discussed? Did anybody say that at the meeting?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you understand that what was being proposed was that the parties meet to try to work their difficulties out and if they could do that or if it looked like they might, then Ms Pretty should drop or -- I shouldn't use the controversial phrase -- should withdraw her charges and the board should refrain from removing her as a director?
Ms Moey: There was no direct referral to such a concrete set of actions at all. As far as I can recall, it was a suggestion that people first of all consider to meet and then afterwards they could then reconsider.
Ms Cronk: Their respective positions?
Ms Moey: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: And in the case of Sharron Pretty, that reconsideration was withdrawal of her charges or not proceeding with her charges?
Ms Moey: That wasn't specifically mentioned, but by logical -- well, "withdrawal of charges" was not mentioned, to the best of my recollection.
Ms Cronk: All right. What language was it, then?
Ms Moey: It wasn't any language. As far as I can recall, the suggestion was merely this: that people think about having one more meeting to see if they could resolve their differences, and after that meeting, should it occur, those people then would be in a better position to reconsider whatever actions they were contemplating at this point. There was no further elaboration on what those actions might be.
Ms Cronk: Save in the case of Sharron Pretty. You said there was specific reference to what "might be of interest to the crown."
Ms Moey: That's right, if she were to reconsider, then --
Ms Cronk: And the only thing that she would reconsider that might be of interest to the crown is what the crown was involved in, and that was her court case.
Ms Moey: Right.
Ms Cronk: And with respect to the board, the only thing that was on the table to be reconsidered was removal of Sharron Pretty, right?
Ms Moey: Yes, that I was aware of.
Ms Cronk: So that's what you understood was meant by that.
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Okay. At any point during the course of the meeting, did the minister say to any of the people at the meeting: "Don't feel pressured. You're not to feel pressured. Take your time"?
Ms Moey: Yes, she did.
1210
Ms Cronk: Specifically with respect to not feeling pressured?
Ms Moey: Yes. Specifically she said that to Sharron Pretty several times.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember this suggestion of the further meeting, with that possible outcome we've discussed -- I'm not going to ask you about it again -- people reconsidering in the way that you've described, being suggested more than once or simply once?
Ms Moey: Would you ask that again, please?
Ms Cronk: Yes. I just don't want to ask about with the exact language of it again. You said there was a proposal for a further meeting where if things either were resolved or looked like they were going to be resolved, certain things might happen, and you've described what they were. I'm saying, did that come up once or more than once?
Ms Moey: The proposal of a meeting was repeated, I think, one other time.
Ms Cronk: In the context of what might or might not happen at that meeting or follow on that meeting?
Ms Moey: No. The proposal of the meeting was made again, and it was just that: "Can people think about having another meeting?"
Ms Cronk: At any point during the course of the meeting, did Sharron Pretty indicate that she was feeling under pressure or felt intimidated by what was going on?
Ms Moey: I remember a few times during the meeting when I thought that Sharron Pretty must be feeling -- must be wishing she wasn't sitting next to another board director.
Ms Cronk: Who was that?
Ms Moey: I think that would have been Mr Hieu Truong.
Ms Cronk: Why did you feel that?
Ms Moey: Because those two directors had a few heated exchanges.
Ms Cronk: And is it correct that at one point in the meeting she effectively called him on the way he was behaving towards her or the way he was addressing her?
Ms Moey: She very well might have.
Ms Cronk: Did you hear her doing it? Didn't she at one point turn to him and challenge what he was saying or the way he was saying it to her?
Ms Moey: Yes, she did.
Ms Cronk: Sorry. You might not have understood the expression I was using. Didn't she basically call him on the way he was behaving with respect to her?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And she seemed upset about that?
Ms Moey: No. I thought she handled herself really well.
Ms Cronk: Was there then tension evident to you, at least between Sharron Pretty and Dr Truong?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Generally, did you feel from time to time during the course of the meeting that there was tension in the room?
Ms Moey: Yes, between and among the directors.
Ms Cronk: Was it, from your perspective, a difficult meeting?
Ms Moey: I think it was difficult for a number of people who were participating in the meeting.
Ms Cronk: Did Ms Pretty seem to you to be under stress during the course of the meeting? Was she acting as if it were a difficult meeting for her?
Ms Moey: Only during her exchanges with Mr Truong.
Ms Cronk: Was Ms Pretty pressed at any point by a co-director or by the minister to answer clearly to a date either for the proposed further meeting or to agree to reconsider her charges?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: At any point, did Mr My Nguyen make that suggestion to her?
Ms Moey: I don't recall Mr Nguyen saying very much at the meeting.
Ms Cronk: Was there a point at the meeting when all eyes seemed to be on Sharron Pretty?
Ms Moey: Not in my recollection, no.
Ms Cronk: Or that the attention of the meeting was focused on Ms Pretty and her response to anything that was being proposed?
Ms Moey: I think that whenever she was speaking, everyone in the room looked at her, just as whenever somebody else was speaking everyone looked at them.
Ms Cronk: So from your perspective, that was no different for her than for others at the table?
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: When the meeting concluded, did you have any discussion with Sharron Pretty?
Ms Moey: We shared an elevator downstairs and we walked together, for a part, through the Rideau Centre.
Ms Cronk: Who's "we"?
Ms Moey: Myself, Ms Pretty, Ms Gigantes and Ms Bell.
Ms Cronk: Did Ms Pretty at that time -- how did she seem to you?
Ms Moey: She seemed fine.
Ms Cronk: Did she seem upset in any way?
Ms Moey: Not that I noticed, no.
Ms Cronk: What were your lunch plans that day?
Ms Moey: Ms Gigantes and I were going to buy something to eat at the Rideau Centre and take it back with us to the riding office before the next appointment.
Ms Cronk: Did any discussion concerning lunch take place between Ms Pretty and the minister that you heard, or with yourself?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: What was that discussion?
Ms Moey: When I indicated to Ms Gigantes that we should perhaps stop at a certain food establishment at the Rideau Centre on our way out and perhaps get our lunch there, Ms Pretty asked the minister -- us, I mean. She didn't preface it by a specific name. She just said: "Oh, are you having lunch here? May we join you?" She had earlier indicated that she was meeting Ms Luu. I answered that no, unfortunately our schedule did not allow us to actually have lunch in the Rideau Centre and we were going to have to buy our lunch and leave, and then we said our goodbyes.
Ms Cronk: Was Ms Luu with Ms Pretty at that point, or was she en route to meeting her, as far as you knew?
Ms Moey: As far as I knew, Ms Pretty was en route to meeting Ms Luu.
Ms Cronk: At any point from the time you left the meeting and went down in the elevator, when you were walking through the Rideau Centre or had this discussion about where you were or were not going to have lunch, at any point did Sharron Pretty seem to you to be upset?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: I assume that you, the minister and Sharron Pretty were together throughout that.
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: At any point, did she say to the minister, that you overheard, that she had felt pressured or intimidated at the meeting?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Did she have any private conversation with the minister during that period of time that you observed?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you, finally, to look at volume 3 -- I think you still have it in front of you -- at tab 90, if you would, please. This is an e-mail by Brian Sutherland to Steve Shapiro of his offices on Friday, June 17. Mr Sutherland, of course, was at the June 17 meeting with the minister.
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It's an e-mail that was prepared -- when do you recall the meeting breaking up?
Ms Moey: About 1 o'clock.
Ms Cronk: If that was the case, this would appear to have been prepared within approximately two and a half hours of the conclusion of the meeting.
Ms Moey: It would appear so.
Ms Cronk: A short time thereafter?
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: In this e-mail message to Mr Shapiro, among other matters, Mr Sutherland comments with respect to the June 17 meeting and what had just occurred at it, "In any event, I believe that the minister was able to convince Sharron and the other board members to work toward a resolution of the matter prior to the charges being considered by the court early next month."
Stopping there, was there mention at the meeting of the next scheduled or anticipated court date?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember any discussion about a court date at all?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: With respect to what occurred at the meeting and the exchanges between the minister and Sharron Pretty that you observed, do you agree or disagree that the minister was attempting to convince Ms Pretty of anything?
Ms Moey: I disagree.
Ms Cronk: Do you agree or disagree that the minister was attempting to convince the other board members of anything?
Ms Moey: I disagree.
Ms Cronk: Well, looking at the language of what Mr Sutherland is saying, the actual language used is "that the minister was able to convince Sharron and the other board members to work toward a resolution of the matter." Do you see that?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Wasn't the minister trying to persuade these people to get together and work their difficulties out?
Ms Moey: Yes, to work their difficulties out.
Ms Cronk: Towards a resolution of their difficulties?
Ms Moey: Perhaps I misspoke myself. What I meant to say was that the minister was trying to get them to consider to have this other meeting to work their difficulties out, if possible.
Ms Cronk: Wasn't she trying to persuade them to get together to try to come to a resolution of their difficulties?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And wasn't she trying to convince them to get together to do that?
Ms Moey: I don't think she was trying to "convince" anyone.
Ms Cronk: So it's the connotation of the word that you're having difficulty with.
Ms Moey: Yes.
1220
Ms Cronk: Is that because you felt she was or was not attempting to persuade them to decide anything?
Ms Moey: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: All right. Apart from that, do you agree that what the minister was attempting to do at the meeting was to achieve the result of having these people come together to try to work out a resolution of their difficulties? She wanted them to get back together?
Ms Moey: I think that would have been the best-case scenario in her mind, but I don't think she had any preconceived notions of whether or not that would happen, could happen.
Ms Cronk: Was there any other option put on the table by the minister or anyone else as to what might occur in the future?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, Ms Moey, those are my questions. I have two housekeeping items for you, if I might. They're unrelated to the June 17th meeting.
A number of questions have arisen during the course of the week concerning a letter of October 29th, 1993, written by Sharron Pretty to the minister, Ms Gigantes. I recognize that you were on maternity leave at the time, but you are the last witness from the constituency office, so I'm just going to ask you to verify a date stamp on a couple of copies of letters, if I might.
Ms Moey: Of course.
Ms Cronk: I'm showing you an original copy of a letter dated October 29, 1993. It's to Ms Gigantes and it appears to be signed by Sharron Pretty. Am I correct that there's an address of the sender, Ms Pretty, in the top right-hand corner, together with a telephone number?
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Is there a date stamp on the back of this document?
Ms Moey: Yes, there is.
Ms Cronk: What does it say?
Ms Moey: It says, "Received November 5, 1993, minister's office, Ministry of Housing."
Ms Cronk: All right. November 5, the minister's office, Ministry of Housing. I take it at some point you've seen this letter.
Ms Moey: I understand now there is more than one version of this letter.
Ms Cronk: Yes, that's why we're having this discussion. But have you seen a version or more of the October 29th letter?
Ms Moey: I have seen at least one version of this letter, yes.
Ms Cronk: Okay. I'm showing you a second version of this letter, also dated October 29, 1993. This one, would you agree, is on the letterhead of the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Moey: Yes, it appears to be.
Ms Cronk: And there's a stamp on the top right-hand corner of it?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: And that's November 2, 1993?
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Can you confirm that this copy of this letter also came from the constituency office's files, or do you know?
Ms Moey: I'm sorry. Are you saying that the previous copy that you showed me came from the constituency --
Ms Cronk: No. I'm saying the one before you, bearing this date stamp of November 2, 1993, came from the constituency office files, or do you know?
Ms Moey: I think this copy was sent here from the constituency office.
Ms Cronk: Was sent "here," meaning Toronto?
Ms Moey: Yes, to the committee.
Ms Cronk: Okay, thank you very much. With respect to the copy that's on the letterhead of the Van Lang Centre, there's a fax stamp on a duplicate copy of page 1, and is that expressed to be "To: Marc Collins" --
Ms Moey: "Housing," I think it is.
Ms Cronk: "Marc Collins, Housing." And then "From" -- can you read that?
Ms Moey: Yes, that's Carolyn Emond.
Ms Cronk: Who is that?
Ms Moey: She is our correspondence assistant, part-time.
Ms Cronk: All right. Does that suggest to you that this was faxed to Marc Collins, from the constituency office, as you just suggested?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: In the comment section, does it indicate that "Ev has asked that you look into this letter"?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Underneath the fax stamp, there appears to be an address of the person who wrote the letter?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: But no telephone number?
Ms Moey: Not that I can see.
Ms Cronk: But you can't really tell because the stamp's on top of it.
Ms Moey: Well, there's the 613, which indicates the first part of a phone number.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry; you're quite right. But it's not written in the same way as on the first letter I showed you, because on the first one it's in handwriting.
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: So we have two different versions here. Thank you. I'll have copies of these made for the committee, Mr Chairman. I don't have copies yet.
Ms Freya Kristjanson: Ms Cronk, just to clarify, the Van Lang letterhead which Ms Moey has identified as coming from the constituency office -- I don't know if it's clear when it was sent to Toronto by fax, as she indicated.
Ms Cronk: There's nothing on it to indicate that. We'll have the witness confirm. I'm showing you the copy of the letter with the Van Lang letterhead.
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Is there anything on it indicating to you when it was actually faxed?
Ms Moey: For the first time, do you mean?
Ms Cronk: Well, at any time. Is there a date indicating when it was faxed to Marc Collins?
Ms Moey: No, not that I can see.
Ms Cronk: Thank you very much.
Ms Kristjanson: Excuse me just one second, Eleanore.
Ms Cronk: I'll come back to this in a moment.
Finally, there's a third piece of paper I want to show you. It appears to be a photocopy of a correspondence control log entry from the Deputy Minister of Housing's office indicating that a letter dated the 29th of October, 1993, was received in the deputy minister's offices on the 22nd of December, 1993. Is that correct?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. I'll have copies of that made as well. For the record, Mr Chairman, so that there's no confusion about this, it's my understanding that the first time a copy of the October 29th letter bearing the letterhead of the Van Lang Centre was received and provided to counsel was yesterday. I got it yesterday, as did she, from the constituency offices, but there's no indication on the letter itself as to when it was faxed from the constituency office.
Ms Moey: Could I just say something?
Ms Cronk: Ms Moey, can you help with this?
Ms Moey: I also wanted to say that yesterday was the first time that I had seen that particular version of this letter.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. I'm perhaps doing this awkwardly. Was the first time that it came to the attention of you or others from the constituency office yesterday? It was the first time you learned of it?
Ms Moey: It was the first time I learned of it.
Ms Cronk: But it was contained in constituency office files.
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And it was drawn to the attention of your counsel for the first time yesterday.
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: But it doesn't tell us on the document itself when it was sent to Marc Collins.
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Except we know he seems to have gotten a copy of it.
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Kristjanson: I don't know that you have established that in evidence, that particular copy of the Van Lang letterhead version. I don't think --
Ms Cronk: Well, Ms Moey, I thought there was a fax stamp on it saying that it had gone to Marc Collins.
Ms Moey: There is a fax sticky on it saying it was being sent to Marc Collins, but I don't know for a fact if he received it.
Ms Cronk: I see what you're saying. Finally, with respect to October 29th, a date I hope to move off for a considerable period of time, I'm showing you a copy of an agenda for the minister from the riding office for Friday, October 29th. Is that the type of agenda that is kept or prepared for her at the constituency office from time to time? It applies to her office in Ottawa?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Does it indicate whether the minister was in Ottawa on October 29th?
Ms Moey: It indicates that she had a meeting in Ottawa at 9 am on October 29th and an event at 6:30 pm.
Ms Cronk: Thank you very much. And the events do not, as described, have anything to do with Van Lang; it simply indicates that she was there.
Ms Moey: Right, at least for those times.
Ms Cronk: From the time of 10 am through to 6:30 pm, there are no entries for the minister.
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: But there is at 9 am an indication that she had a function or an occasion --
Ms Moey: A meeting.
Ms Cronk: -- a meeting to be at in Ottawa?
Ms Moey: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Thank you very much. Ms Moey, those are my questions.
Ms Moey: Thank you.
Mrs Marland: Ms Cronk, since I was the one who requested the minister's agenda, and I really needed it in order to ask Ms Moey a question -- at this point, you will be giving us copies, but at the time I get my copy Ms Moey will no longer be before the committee, in all likelihood. The reason I asked for it, as we know, is to confirm whether there was a possibility that the minister might have been in her constituency office on the 29th, not just in Ottawa at large. It has already been said that she was in and out of meetings, but we didn't know what day, and I'm just wondering how the agenda reads.
Ms Cronk: Could I just see that, too?
Ms Kristjanson: One moment, please.
Ms Cronk: Ms Moey, can I just ask you one or two more questions and see if I can maybe get this part of it right?
Ms Moey: Certainly.
Ms Cronk: I don't want you to tell me where the minister was or who she was meeting with. Right?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: But does the document I've just shown you that we're immediately going to make copies of, with expurgations -- but once I make the expurgations, you're not going to see very much on the document.
Ms Moey: Thank you.
Ms Cronk: Without saying where she was or with whom she was meeting --
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: -- does it indicate that there was an agenda in place involving commitments for the minister connected with her riding office for Friday, October 29? Does it indicate in any way that she was at the riding office, as distinct from Ottawa?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: It simply records that she had functions to attend at 9 am in the morning and at 6:30 pm in Ottawa?
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And attached to it are photocopies of an appointment book or a daybook. Is that an appointment book maintained in the constituency office?
Ms Moey: Yes, it is.
Ms Cronk: And again, there's an entry for 9 o'clock in the morning and, I suggest, an entry for 6:30 pm.
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And they both reflect commitments in Ottawa?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: But there's no indication, I suggest, and I'm asking for your confirmation, that there was any commitment, requirement or engagement actually at the constituency office?
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Thank you very much.
Mr Chair, I wonder if we could just rise for a very short break while I get copies of this made.
Mrs Marland: I just have another housekeeping question to ask you, Ms Cronk. This morning when we were dealing with tab 65, exhibit 1, volume 2, which is the e-mail from Karen Ridley to Rob Sutherland, the one with all the notes on it, the handwritten notes, I raised the point of, had you established whose handwriting it was, and I think your answer was, "I think we understand it to be Ms Ridley's writing."
Ms Cronk: Sorry. I didn't mean to be that tentative. We made inquiries and I've been informed that the writing is Ms Ridley's.
Mrs Marland: All right. I understand Ms Ridley works in Toronto?
Ms Cronk: Ms Moey, can you confirm that? We've had that evidence from others, but does Ms Ridley work at the minister's offices in Toronto?
Ms Moey: Yes, she does.
Mrs Marland: So it's of interest, I think, to me that this is an exhibit that came from Ms Gigantes's office. Where it says "EG," is that not her constituency office?
Ms Cronk: No. It's actually from the minister's office in Toronto.
Mrs Marland: All right. Then that's clarified it for me. Thank you.
Ms Cronk: You're welcome.
The Chair: Okay, we'll have a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 1233 to 1247.
The Chair: Mr Callahan, your caucus has 15 minutes and we start in rotation.
Mr Callahan: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Ms Moey, you've described to us the atmosphere that was prevalent in the room during this meeting of about an hour and a half. You've also explained to us how there seemed to be little side confrontations between one or more of the directors and Ms Pretty. Now, when those took place, I gather they were rather confrontational, were they?
Ms Moey: They were heated.
Mr Callahan: Heated. When that was going on, did the minister intervene at all?
Ms Moey: No. She let them run their course.
Mr Callahan: Okay. So she let them have at one another, I gather.
Ms Moey: If that's how you want to describe it.
Mr Callahan: Okay. Just one other thing: You said that the notes that you made, you were asked to fax them to someone. Who did you fax them to?
Ms Moey: I think it was either to Marc Collins or Carol Whitehead. I forget.
Mr Callahan: You're not sure, eh?
Ms Moey: No.
Mr Callahan: Marc Collins is the policy adviser to the minister.
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Mr Callahan: Okay. And was it just your notes or did you give him a greater detail explanation of the notes?
Ms Moey: No. They asked for the notes and I -- after indicating, marking that paragraph, I faxed it up to them.
Mr Callahan: Okay. And finally, you were at the meeting of June 10th at the constituency office with the minister when Trinh Luu was there.
Ms Moey: Yes.
Mr Callahan: Were you there for the whole meeting?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Mr Callahan: Were you there when the minister offered Trinh Luu -- I don't know whether "offer" is the right word, but offered Trinh Luu a job on a health board or something to that effect?
Ms Moey: I don't know that the minister did.
Mr Callahan: You didn't hear anything of that type?
Ms Moey: No.
Mr Callahan: All right. Thank you.
Ms Moey: You're welcome.
Mr Chiarelli: I'm going to refer to several documents in exhibit 1, if you can have that available: firstly, tab 90, volume 3, the memo from Brian Sutherland of June 17th, 3:33 pm. It's already been referred to. I'll just read the first sentence to you to refresh your memory. "As you might have imagined, the meeting between the board of the National Capital Vietnamese Canadian Non-Profit Housing Corp (including Sharron Pretty) and the minister today was a lengthy ordeal." Now, keeping in mind that Mr Sutherland is the senior manager for eastern Ontario and has over 10 years' experience with the Ministry of Housing, do you think he was unreasonably coming to a conclusion in describing the meeting as a "lengthy ordeal," or do you think that someone sitting in the meeting couldn't reasonably have come to the conclusion that the whole context of the meeting was an ordeal?
Ms Moey: I'm not in a position, I'm afraid, Mr Chiarelli, to comment on somebody else's view of the meeting.
1250
Mr Chiarelli: But you've just acknowledged to Mr Callahan that there were times when there were heated exchanges between Sharron Pretty and others and no one, including the minister, intervened. Was that your evidence just now?
Ms Moey: Yes, it was.
Mr Chiarelli: And you don't feel that that type of communication in a meeting to someone like Mr Sutherland might reasonably be called an "ordeal"?
Ms Moey: I can't comment on his choice of words, Mr Chiarelli.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you. And to go on further in his memo, he indicates that, "In any event, I believe that the minister was able to convince Sharron and the other board members to work toward a resolution of the matter prior to the charges being considered by the court early next month." Now, as you know, this memo was prepared by Mr Sutherland several hours after the meeting. Given the context of the meeting -- I'm not asking what your conclusion is, but do you think it might be reasonable for a person such as Mr Sutherland to come to that conclusion, given the nature of the exchanges over a period of an hour and a half?
Ms Moey: Again, Mr Chiarelli, I don't think it's fair of you to ask me what was in the mind of Mr Sutherland either at the meeting or when he wrote this memo.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you. I want to refer to the minister's briefing notes, which are tab 96 in the same volume. I'm going to ask whether or not you have any information that the notes you took at the meeting were used in any manner for briefing the minister.
Ms Moey: I have no way of knowing that, sir.
Mr Chiarelli: The minister says in her notes which were prepared for her for question period -- if I can refer to the third paragraph, it says: "During the meeting we talked about a range of ways the board could resolve its differences. One of the options discussed was whether it was possible to resolve the issues without legal proceedings. It was simply one of several options we discussed. Nothing more."
Do you think, in that briefing note, that can be a fair characterization of what happened at the meeting, one of the things that happened at the meeting?
Ms Moey: What was one of the things that happened at the meeting?
Mr Chiarelli: That description of the meeting. You're aware of the fact that that's a briefing note that was prepared for the minister and it indicates, "During the meeting we talked about a range of ways," and it goes on to say, possibly resolving the issues "without legal proceedings." Do you think that's a fair characterization of what happened at the meeting?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Mr Chiarelli: Additionally, I want to refer you to the minister's statement which she provided at the start of these committee hearings on Monday, tab 106, in which case, if we can look at the second-last page, it says, "At one point, I said that if each side could back off all actions against the other, that it might be possible to resolve the current issues and create an atmosphere in which the board could work together in the future."
Ms Moey: I'm sorry, Mr Chiarelli, I haven't found it yet. Could you indicate to me where on the page?
Mr Chiarelli: It's tab 90.
Ms Moey: Tab 90?
Mr Chiarelli: I'm sorry, tab 106. The pages of the minister's statement are not numbered, but if you turn the pages, 1, 2, the bottom of the third page, starting at the last sentence:
"At one point, I said that if each side could back off" -- and "each" is underlined -- "all actions against the other, that it might be possible to resolve the current issues and create an atmosphere in which the board could work together in the future. Sharron Pretty stated that she could not back off the court action as it was not being advanced by her, but by the prosecutor. I agreed with Sharron that the matter was in the hands of the prosecutor, and said I did not know what the prosecutor would decide if Sharron was satisfied that the issues with the board of directors had been resolved."
Is it clearly your recollection that the minister used the word "prosecutor"?
Ms Moey: No, it's not.
Mr Chiarelli: Now, in your answers to counsel, I made a note of the fact that she asked you that question and you said no, and then later on, in subsequent questions, you said, "Yes, Sharron Pretty mentioned prosecutor and crown attorney," and you also said, "She," meaning the minister, "used the word `prosecutor.'" Can you clarify that for us?
Ms Moey: I'd like to verify if that's indeed what I said. I think I said that the minister said, "Yes, it's in the hands of the crown." I don't believe she said "prosecutor." I don't recall that she said "prosecutor."
Mr Chiarelli: But she at least used the word "crown"?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Mr Chiarelli: And in your briefing notes that -- not your briefing notes but the notes that you took at the meeting -- to your understanding, did the minister take any notes?
Ms Moey: No.
Mr Chiarelli: Did anybody else from your office take any notes?
Ms Moey: I was the only one from my office there.
Mr Chiarelli: Is it likely, then, when the minister was briefed for her question period briefing, that your notes were available to her?
Ms Moey: I have no way of knowing that.
Mr Chiarelli: Were your notes available to the office in Toronto at Queen's Park?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you.
Ms Moey: You're welcome.
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Just a few questions and then the ordeal will be almost over. I think we've heard from other witnesses who work for the minister either in her minister's office or in the community office that at some point you had seminars on conflict- of-interest matters. Did you ever have one?
Ms Moey: No.
Mr Murphy: Have you dealt with constituency office case work where a constituent has come in and said, "I want the minister to help me out. I have a parking ticket," or, "It involves a court case and I want you to help out"? Have circumstances like those arisen?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Mr Murphy: No surprise; we all have them. And do you have a clear protocol or regulation of what you should do when someone comes in like that?
Ms Moey: As soon as someone mentions, you know, that they're involved in a legal proceeding of any kind, we usually tell them firmly but politely that if they are involved in a legal action currently we could not help them.
Mr Murphy: I think that's excellent advice. And if they persist, do you basically firmly tell them that there's just no way and they'll have to pursue it through a lawyer?
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Mr Murphy: The meeting of June 10th with Trinh Luu -- you were at that, and the issue of the court cases came up at that point with respect to Van Lang. Did either you or the minister tell Trinh Luu that because legal proceedings were involved, you couldn't be involved any more?
Ms Moey: No, because Ms Luu, as far as we were aware at the time, was not herself involved in any legal proceedings.
Mr Murphy: And equally so, that was never said by you or the minister, as far as you're aware, to Sharron Pretty?
Ms Moey: I had not met Sharron Pretty until the --
Mr Murphy: No, at any point to the end of the June 17th meeting. I'm sorry, that was my fault. I should have made that clear.
Ms Moey: Sorry, at this June 17th meeting?
Mr Murphy: At any point between -- in fact, let's just put it: At any point from the time you found out that charges had been laid with respect to the Van Lang Centre directors, did you or the minister, to your knowledge, advise Sharron Pretty that because of that, you could no longer be involved?
Ms Moey: First, I should clarify that I only became aware that there were charges laid much after the June 17th meeting.
Mr Murphy: Okay. As soon as you were aware that there was legal proceedings of any sort involved, did either you or the minister, to your knowledge, say that you couldn't be involved because of those legal proceedings to Sharron Pretty?
Ms Moey: I know that I did not.
1300
Mr Murphy: And to your knowledge, in your presence, did the minister?
Ms Moey: No.
Mr Murphy: And you still work for Ms Gigantes in the community office in Ottawa?
Ms Moey: Last I checked.
Mr Murphy: Yes, well, you know, I won't touch that. To be fair, I won't touch that.
Now, between the meeting on the 17th and in fact your evidence today, have you followed this matter in the press?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Mr Murphy: And you've read what those press reports have detailed Minister Gigantes as having said at those meetings?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Mr Murphy: And did you read the statement that Minister Gigantes provided to us at the beginning of these proceedings, before the --
Ms Moey: I haven't as yet, except for the one paragraph that Mr Chiarelli took me through.
Mr Murphy: Okay. Thank you.
Ms Moey: You're welcome.
Mr Chiarelli: Just one short question. You indicated that you didn't become aware of the charges until after the meeting of the 17th. Had you heard anything about court cases, litigation, as opposed to charges, beforehand?
Ms Moey: At the meeting at June 10th.
Mr Chiarelli: Yes, so you were aware that there were court proceedings of some type.
Ms Moey: Right.
Mr Chiarelli: And so when you answered that you weren't aware of the charges until after the meeting on the 17th, you were speaking very specifically of the informations that had been sworn, the Corporations Act etc, but you had some knowledge that there were court proceedings and litigations which had been commenced or were about to commence.
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you.
Ms Moey: You're welcome.
Mr Callahan: I'd just raise a question. At the meeting, we understand that the minister was given a briefing note before she went into the June 17th meeting and according to your notes that you made she started out by saying, "I understand all the issues."
Ms Moey: No, she said she had learned of the ongoing problems at the --
Mr Callahan: I thought your notes said that she understood all the issues. What tab is that, somebody?
Mr Chiarelli: Eighty-one.
Mr Callahan: Eighty-one. It must be someone else's notes, I guess; I thought it was your notes. But in any event, she did have a fairly lengthy briefing note, did she?
Ms Moey: Uh, I don't know that.
Mr Callahan: Well, did you give her anything in preparation for going into this meeting?
Ms Moey: I handed to her just before we went into the meeting a fax that had come in from her office in Toronto, but I'm aware that it was not the typical background note or briefing note that we --
Mr Callahan: How many pages was the fax?
Ms Moey: Perhaps two.
Mr Callahan: Two pages? Legal size?
Ms Moey: No.
Mr Callahan: Letter size?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Mr Callahan: Typewritten?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Mr Callahan: Do we have that fax?
Ms Moey: I don't know.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Could I --
Mr Callahan: Just a second, Mr Sutherland. Do we have that fax?
Ms Moey: I'm sorry? Do we have that fax?
Mr Callahan: Does this committee have that fax?
Ms Moey: I don't know.
Ms Cronk: I need to hear more, Mr Callahan, about what it is.
Mr Callahan: Right. Can you tell us where that fax is presently residing?
Ms Moey: I have no idea.
Mr Callahan: Well, what did you do with the fax?
Ms Moey: I gave it to the minister.
Mr Callahan: Did she give it back to you after the meeting?
Ms Moey: No.
Mr Callahan: And who was it from in Toronto?
Ms Moey: I don't recall.
Mr Callahan: Marc Collins?
Ms Moey: No.
Mr Callahan: Who was it from?
Ms Moey: I think it was from the legal branch.
Mr Callahan: The legal branch.
Ms Moey: Of the ministry.
Mr Callahan: Did you read it?
Ms Moey: No, I didn't have time to read it.
Mr Callahan: Do you know what the date on it was?
Ms Moey: No.
Mr Callahan: Do you know whether it was cc'd to anybody else?
Ms Moey: No, sir. I did not read it.
Mr Callahan: So was this in an envelope when you handed it to her or was --
Ms Moey: No. I just handed her the fax directly.
Mr Callahan: How long did you have the fax before you handed it to her?
Ms Moey: From the time I left the riding office until the time I arrived at 10 Rideau, where the meeting was to be held. I handed it directly to the minister.
Mr Callahan: All right. And when you handed it to her, did you observe that she read it?
Ms Moey: I didn't observe that she read it, no.
Mr Callahan: All right. Can I ask you to look at tab 79, if you would.
Mr Murphy: Sorry, to be clear, does that mean you didn't see whether she read it or not?
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Mr Callahan: Would you look at tab 79, please, Ms Moey.
Ms Moey: Yes.
Mr Callahan: Take a look at that and tell me whether or not that appears to -- well, first of all, there's a facsimile transmittal form attached to it.
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Mr Callahan: Does that help you at all that it was from Patti Redmond?
Ms Moey: No. I don't believe I've seen the facsimile cover page before, sir.
Mr Callahan: I see. So that doesn't appear to be the fax. Can you arrange to turn over to, or to use your best efforts or have the ministry use their best efforts, to locate that fax and have it turned over to this committee?
Ms Cronk: Mr Callahan, may I interrupt?
Mr Callahan: Sure. Go right ahead.
Mr Chiarelli: Can we stop the clock on that one?
Ms Cronk: Before we make inquiries about it, could you perhaps ask the witness if she saw the attachment to the fax as distinct from the fax cover sheet at tab 79? She's told you that she didn't see the fax cover sheet. She may have seen the attachment.
Mr Callahan: Well, perhaps you can do that, because I've run out of time.
Ms Cronk: Sorry.
Mr Callahan: I think it's important, Mr Chair, that we find out about this. It's a document that if the committee doesn't have it, it should have it, and perhaps it already has it, and if it does already have it, then we don't have to bother commission counsel by getting it for us in order for us to have it. How's that?
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): That's very circuitous.
Mr Callahan: I come from Brampton riding, you see. The fellow that represented Brampton before me used to speak in that vein too.
Interjection: And who might that have been?
The Chair: Excuse me. Your time has run out.
Mr Callahan: We always mention Brampton South.
Interjections.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, just before you start the clock, I have a housekeeping matter to ask Ms Cronk about. Since I seem to now be belabouring the point about the letter of Ms Pretty's dated the 29th of October to Ms Gigantes, I already identified that there were two different versions of that letter, and now we have just been given a third version of the letter, and I need to know where the third version of the letter has come from, because the third version of the letter is particularly interesting. We now have a version of this letter on guess who's letterhead: the National Capital Region Vietnamese Canadian Non-Profit Housing Corp, the Van Lang Centre. So I need to know how Ms Pretty's letter to Ms Gigantes gets on the letterhead of the Van Lang Vietnamese centre.
Ms Cronk: I don't know the answer to the last question as you framed it, but so that it's clear, this version of the letter, bearing the letterhead of the Van Lang Centre, came to me last evening as a result of inquiries that I asked counsel for Ms Lott and Ms Moey to make, which she immediately agreed to do, and it's my understanding -- this of course is not evidence before you -- that it came to her attention as counsel and to the attention of the witnesses from the constituency office, meaning Ms Lott and Ms Moey, for the first time yesterday. And we got it last night and you got it today.
It's also my understanding that it was in a file at the constituency office that was not part of the case file on Van Lang. It contained miscellaneous and other documents not related to Van Lang.
That's all I know about it, Ms Marland, apart from what the witnesses said in evidence this morning. So it was given to us as soon as it came to the attention of counsel and representatives of the constituency office, but I have not been told and I don't think they can help you. You'll have to ask the witness if she knows anything about it. As to how it came to be on the letterhead of the Van Lang Centre, I have no idea.
Mrs Marland: Well, since it was given to you, Ms Cronk, by the lawyers for the constituency office staff, and I know that originally, as counsel for the inquiry, you had asked for all material subject to the inquiry to be released to you from the files of everyone, including my office and Ms Gigantes's office and so forth, I guess I have to ask you, is it of concern to you that a letter, particularly a letter like this, which is somebody else's letter on Van Lang Centre letterhead, was not forwarded to you until last night?
1310
Ms Cronk: I can and should reply as counsel, if I might, Mr Chair, and then I know Ms Kristjanson has something to say on this level. Counsel were very cooperative with me in this regard. I did make that request for each and every document. It is my general view that people have made every effort to be as diligent in that search as they can. We're talking about a lot of paper. As counsel of the committee, I have no reason to believe that that diligence didn't apply yesterday, and I received full cooperation as soon as the issue arose to find it. Of course I'm not happy that there are pieces of paper out there that got overlooked, but neither am I surprised.
Ms Kristjanson: If I might just explain, since there seems to be at least some problems here, yesterday we were asked to make inquiries as to whether the October 29th letter had been logged in in the constituency office. We had evidence yesterday from Ms Lott as to how letters, when they are received by mail, are logged in in the office. At that time it was found to have been logged in on November 2, 1993, as I informed Ms Cronk. It was only when I asked exactly what version of the letter had been logged that resort was made to a separate file, which is kept by the correspondence assistant, Carolyn Emond.
The individuals who have testified today and who have had involvement in the Van Lang file do not keep this separate correspondence file. It was not contained in the case work or the constituency office main file, the entirety of which was provided to Ms Cronk. So this letter was not in the constituency file and had not been seen in this form by Ms Lott or Ms Moey, but it was logged, apparently in a separate area of the office. I think that there was full cooperation in the inquiries that we made. There was simply another area of the office in which some correspondence was kept, and that was overlooked.
The Chair: Same subject, Mr Murphy?
Mrs Marland: May I just finish?
Mr Murphy: Can I, if I may, just briefly --
Mrs Marland: I think I have the floor, Mr Chair.
The Chair: But maybe he has something to add.
Mr Murphy: Point of order, Mr Chair: It may just be me, but I'm confused why any of this matters.
The Chair: Okay, maybe you can answer that, Ms Marland.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, it's up to the members to decide what matters.
The Chair: Okay, but maybe you could tell the other members what route you're travelling.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, this letter, this version that we now have, came from another file in Ms Gigantes's constituency office. I would have assumed that when counsel asked for all material matter to this subject of this hearing, all files would have been presented.
The Chair: What I understand --
Mrs Marland: May I just finish? We now have learned that this wasn't included, this private letter that has been now reproduced on somebody else's letterhead was not provided because, "It wasn't in the main file; it was in the mail file under the jurisdiction of Carolyn."
The reason that this letter is important is because there is an indication on it that it was faxed to Marc Collins. I acknowledge we have no confirmation that Marc Collins received it. But I would think that had Marc Collins received it, he too might have wondered how it got on the letterhead of the Van Lang Centre.
My difficulty, Mr Chair, is this: We have now finished with the witnesses who have direct responsibility for the Van Lang Centre, ie, the president, the past president and so forth. I have no opportunity now in this hearing to ask our witnesses for the Van Lang Centre why this letter is in this form.
The Chair: I understood that it was in a miscellaneous file, and so when Ms Cronk went there, they pulled everything from the other files but that was filed in a different area of the office. I don't think it was done intentionally. What I understand -- Ms Moey?
Ms Moey: Would it help the committee if I tried to perhaps explain how that might have occurred? Would it be helpful?
Ms Kristjanson: If you're simply speculating without knowledge, I don't know that that would be helpful.
Ms Moey: Well, I'm concerned that there seems to be concern on the part of at least one member on this committee that anybody in the riding office was knowingly concealing evidence or has been negligent in their duties to provide all documentation relevant to this inquiry to counsel. I'm very concerned about that. There has been no effort at all from anyone in the constituency office to thwart this committee in any way, shape or form. When I first learned of the existence of this version of the letter yesterday, I was as shocked as anybody else.
The fact that this letter was found in the correspondence file -- okay, if I could just explain how that works, when a letter comes in and it's a housing-related issue, for example, it usually is faxed directly up to the minister's office. However, at the time that we are talking about, there were two staff members who were there as replacements for myself and for Mr Dewar, and they may not have been perhaps as familiar with that practice at the time and they could have inadvertently put that letter in the in basket of our correspondence assistant, who then treated it as she subsequently did perhaps. I don't know what happened, but that's how she came to file it in her correspondence file and I did not know of its existence until yesterday. I hope that's helpful.
Ms Cronk: Ms Moey, as counsel to the committee, and speaking only in that capacity, may I just reassure you of a couple of things? As counsel to the committee, and coming from this source, there's absolutely no suggestion nor was any made here of any kind that there was a withholding or any deliberate or careless attempt to withhold documents.
The issue that's being raised by Ms Marland, and on the evidence, as counsel, I have to say it may be at the end of the day of some relevance -- I can't judge that, and that's where the committee's to decide -- is that the parties involved, as opposed to the witnesses who've supplied documents, that is, the Van Lang participants and Ms Pretty and Mr Collins, who received at some point a copy of this document -- that it may have been authored in circumstances other than what has been given to the committee in evidence. That's not something about which you can have any personal knowledge.
So, on that level, thank you for your remarks on behalf of the committee. The suggestion was not there from this source and I've never understood Ms Marland to be suggesting that. She's trying to get at the facts of how the letter got authored, by whom, when and who it went to, and that's all entirely legitimate.
Ms Moey: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Okay.
Mrs Marland: Thank you, Mr Chair, and I would confirm exactly what Ms Cronk has just said. That was the purpose I was raising it. Thank you. And I am ready to start my --
The Chair: Mr Sutherland.
Mr Sutherland: I'll pass.
Mrs Marland: So I'm ready to start my questions.
The Chair: Ms Marland, you're on.
Mrs Marland: Thank you. Ms Moey, this morning when you were asked if Trinh Luu discussed the Van Lang Centre with you when you returned from your maternity leave, you said, "I tried hard not to." You also said that you would have described her as a friend.
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Mrs Marland: I'm asking, first of all, what do you see your job as in working in the constituency office with constituents, recognizing Ms Luu is a constituent? Does all of her involvement with this subject not suggest to you that there was some emergency, in her mind, about this matter? And when you say you tried hard not to discuss it with her, was there a reason for that?
Ms Moey: Yes. If I could explain the context of my remark, when I said that I tried hard not to discuss that with her during that phone conversation, it was because her broaching of the subject took me completely by surprise. I was calling her on a completely different matter. I had not dealt with the file for many months. When she started to talk about it, she became very emotional. She was almost in tears, if not actually in tears, and I felt at the time, Ms Marland, that having been absent for so long and not knowing of the latest developments in this file, I could not have any useful comments or suggestions to offer her at the time, and therefore that's what I meant when I said I tried hard not to discuss it with her.
1320
Mrs Marland: I understand your answer now. You also said that -- Ms Cronk asked you if you would have described her as a friend, and you said, "I would have." Do you mean that's past tense now?
Ms Moey: It is.
Mrs Marland: It is past tense?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Mrs Marland: This person who came to your baby shower and had lunch and so forth. Why it is past tense?
Ms Moey: Well, Ms Marland, I don't know about you, but when a friend tapes a conversation with a friend, I think that betrays certain fundamental principles that I think friendship should hold.
Mrs Marland: Okay, thank you.
Ms Moey: You're welcome.
Mrs Marland: You also said that when the James Wallace article came out on June the first, you only glanced at it. Is that correct?
Ms Moey: I said I read it very briefly, I believe.
Mrs Marland: Yes, I think you said, "I only glanced at it," and yet you went on to say that: "I was quite upset that the article had appeared. I wondered why the problems could not have been resolved earlier." I wondered why you would say that when you had only glanced at it. How would you know what the content of the article was?
Ms Moey: I believe that's not a true representation of what I meant. Perhaps I misspoke myself, Ms Marland, earlier. What I meant to say was that I read it very quickly and very briefly, but without any real attention to detail.
Mrs Marland: Okay. Your answers will be in Hansard, so I can look at them there.
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Mrs Marland: You wondered why the problems could not have been resolved earlier. Can you explain that statement?
Ms Moey: Yes. I was frustrated that during the time between when I left the office for maternity leave and when I returned, that this file was still unresolved; it was still ongoing.
Mrs Marland: And you said when you came back you looked at the file and you just looked at it and saw that it was now a huge file, but you decided to set it aside because you were now going to be the scheduler and you wouldn't be responsible for the file.
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Mrs Marland: So it's fair to say that at that point you had no knowledge of what the file contained.
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Mrs Marland: Okay. Ms Cronk asked you if you had any knowledge about what the meeting on June the 17th would be about and your answer was, "I guess the meeting was to resolve problems at the Van Lang Centre, based on my prior knowledge of the file." That's what you said. You agree?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Mrs Marland: And yet you've just said a minute ago that you actually hadn't looked at the file.
Ms Moey: Ms Marland, I think I should have perhaps -- I thought about it at the time -- clarified that I had knowledge of the contents of the file up to the time I left on maternity leave. Anything that came into the file after that I had no knowledge of.
Mrs Marland: So what you're saying is, then, that the -- and you went on maternity leave, I believe, in August.
Ms Moey: Yes.
Mrs Marland: From August till March.
Ms Moey: That's right.
Mrs Marland: So all those letters and all the phone calls and all the faxes and all the contact and the involvement of the top Ministry of Housing person in Ottawa, him going to board meetings, all of that stuff that would have been in the file between August and March, you would have had no knowledge of.
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Mrs Marland: So why, if you didn't have any knowledge of it, would you think there was a meeting to discuss it?
Ms Moey: I'm not sure I understand your question.
Mrs Marland: Well, if you didn't have any knowledge of how bad things had become because you hadn't reviewed the file --
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Mrs Marland: -- and you've said you didn't discuss it with anyone else in the office --
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Mrs Marland: -- why would you suddenly think, "Well, that must be why we're having this meeting," if you didn't know that there were problems?
Ms Moey: Ms Marland, I never said that I didn't know that there were problems. Of course there were problems. Obviously the file is still ongoing, so therefore I don't think it's a quantum leap to make to think that there still are problems. I may not have known to what extent those problems went.
Mrs Marland: But you acknowledge you didn't know what was in the file.
Ms Moey: I didn't know what was contained in the file from the time I left until the time I came back.
Mrs Marland: Would you agree that most of the difficult scenarios that had emerged had emerged after August 1993?
Ms Moey: I would. Yes, I would agree.
Mrs Marland: Thank you.
Ms Moey: You're welcome.
Mrs Marland: Ms Cronk asked you if you thought the meeting was stressful. Do you agree that it was a stressful meeting?
Ms Moey: I think I said that the meeting might have been stressful for some participants.
Mrs Marland: You said in answer to Ms Cronk: "At that point the tension had been lifted. Wasn't tense any more because everyone was getting their calendars out." Would you agree that tension is related to stress?
Ms Moey: I don't think I'm in a position to make that determination, Ms Marland.
Mrs Marland: Well, they're your words. They're your words, they're your words, they're not mine. If you're using the word that the tension had been lifted, maybe you could tell us what you mean by that.
Ms Moey: Well, there had been tense moments and it was obvious to me that relations between some of the board members were quite strained. So what I meant by that statement, Ms Marland, was that at that point in the meeting, at the end of the meeting, that tension between the board members seemed to have lifted.
Mrs Marland: And you don't think, in your mind, that a tense atmosphere for some people and a tension being lifted would -- could also describe a stressful meeting?
Ms Moey: Ms Marland, I don't think that just because there were certain points during that very long meeting where exchanges, heated exchanges occurred, that necessarily was the tenor of the entire meeting.
Mrs Marland: Who would you think the meeting was the most tense for, to use your words?
Ms Moey: Ms Pretty and Mr Truong.
Mrs Marland: Thank you. You also said that -- Ms Cronk asked you about -- I think she asked you, did the minister -- actually, I didn't write down her question but I'll give you your answer. You said, "The minister did not strongly do anything." I think it was related to the fact that Mr Sutherland said the minister had been able to convince Sharron and the board members. That's what Mr Sutherland said in his memo and you said, "The minister did not strongly do anything." Could I ask you, Ms Moey, if the minister gently did anything during that meeting? Is that a better word, in your mind?
Ms Moey: I think that her demeanour throughout the meeting, Ms Marland, was extremely solicitous towards all participants.
Mrs Marland: And would you say that it was solicitous when she was -- when the minister was making the special suggestions for the solution to the problem of the removal of Ms Pretty and the problem with the legal charges, as per your notes?
Ms Moey: She was solicitous every time she posed a question or a suggestion.
Mrs Marland: So then, could we perhaps understand that the people who weren't gentle or solicitous -- well, solicitous is your word -- were perhaps Dr Truong or Dr Tang or -- you did say Mr Nguyen didn't speak. But is it Dr Tang and Dr Truong who were not like that in the meeting?
Ms Moey: No, I think it would be Ms Pretty and Mr Truong; to each other, I might add.
Mrs Marland: Okay. And you said, "I remember feeling sorry for Sharron Pretty during the meeting, that she must have been feeling very uncomfortable sitting between Truong and Tang."
Ms Moey: No, I think I said she must have been very uncomfortable sitting beside Mr Truong.
Mrs Marland: Okay. And you said you thought she handled herself very well.
Ms Moey: That's correct.
Mrs Marland: Those are all my questions. Thank you, Ms Moey.
Ms Moey: You're welcome.
Mr Owens: Ms Moey, I want to thank you for your testimony and your forthrightness this morning. I think it's been an ordeal for yourself --
Ms Moey: I don't like that word any more.
Mr Owens: -- particularly in light of your comments with respect to your former relationship with one of the parties.
It's been alleged that the minister pressured Ms Pretty to drop her charges but, from your testimony as I understand it, I take it that you didn't see anything that would make you think that that's what she was doing. Is that right?
Ms Moey: That is absolutely right.
1330
Mr Owens: I would take it then that you were surprised to see those allegations in the newspapers?
Ms Moey: I was more than surprised. I was flabbergasted.
Mr Owens: From your testimony, I would take it that when you left the meeting you thought the minister's actions would be seen and taken as a positive step, in a positive way.
Ms Moey: Yes, that certainly was what I believed to be the feeling of the participants at the end of the meeting.
Mr Owens: You didn't anticipate any negative perception at all?
Ms Moey: Not at all.
Mr Owens: In fact, from what I understand your testimony to be, it doesn't sound like you recall the minister doing anything that could be cast in a negative light at all, does it?
Ms Moey: No.
Mr Owens: It would be my perception or my understanding that you would be in a fairly unique position, as you're one of the few people who was both at the meeting and to actually compare the public reaction to these events. In what you've seen and heard about this issue, is it your sense that people have been reacting to what you recall happening at the meeting, or is the negative reaction only to the allegations that don't match your recollection of the meeting?
Ms Cronk: Excuse me, Mr Chair; I'm sorry to interrupt Mr Owens. I don't understand the context of the question. In one interpretation of it, it's asking this witness to speak to how other people whom she doesn't know are reacting to the allegations. That would be an improper question. I may be that I've misunderstood it.
Mr Owens: I guess that's what I'm trying to understand myself. Based on what I understand from testimony from this witness and other witnesses during this proceeding, I'm trying to understand: Are people reacting to precisely what happened at the meeting, or is the reaction based on allegations that have been floating around through media reports or through some of the testimony that has been made here during this proceeding?
Ms Cronk: I understand the dilemma and also its relevance, but I offer you by way of advice that it's not a proper question to put, in my view, to this witness.
Mr Owens: Thank you.
Mr David Winninger (London South): Thank you, Mr Chair. Ms Moey, I also have a question. As a lawyer, I'm aware that the courts are frequently interested in the status of complaints or disputes after the swearing of informations, and frequently the crown attorney will interview potential witnesses to determine whether there's been a resolution or restitution made in a particular case, because that might be a circumstance highly relevant to the court.
You've said that at the meeting on June 17th you heard the minister tell Sharron Pretty that whether the matter had been resolved may or may not be of interest to the court. Just to be fair to you, at one point during your examination by Ms Cronk I wrote down as best I could what you said. You said, "If after the meeting things were on their way to being resolved, that might be of interest to the crown."
I would like to ask you whether, when you heard the minister say to Sharron Pretty that a resolution may or may not be of interest to the crown, you heard her to say that this might be relevant to the crown or the court, or whether you interpret that to mean that the minister was asking Sharron Pretty to go to the crown and ask the crown to drop charges.
Ms Moey: I'm not sure I fully understood the question.
Mr Murphy: Neither did I.
Mr Winninger: Just to restate the question at the end, when you heard the minister make that statement to Sharron Pretty, was it your interpretation of the statement made that she was asking Sharron Pretty that she may consider letting the crown know because it may or may not be relevant to the crown, or whether she was suggesting that Sharron Pretty go to the crown and ask that the charges be dropped?
Ms Moey: The former, Mr Winninger. Thank you for that clarification.
Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Ms Moey, we have copies of the notes you took at the meeting of June 17, and we also have copies of original notes taken at the meeting by Ms Pretty, Brian Sutherland, Dr Tang and Dr Le. All of these notes do not refer in any way to a "deal" to drop charges in exchange for Ms Pretty being retained on the board. All of those people at the meeting made notes, and they say nothing about a deal to drop charges, a deal to retain Ms Pretty on the board. Are those notes consistent with your notes?
Ms Kristjanson: I don't know if the witness has reviewed those other notes. You'd have to put those notes to the witness before she could answer that question.
Ms Cronk: The suggestion, however, may be consistent with her notes. I'm just suggesting you may want to rephrase the question so there won't be an objection to it.
Mrs Mathyssen: All right. The notes made by Mr Sutherland, Ms Pretty, Dr Tang and Dr Le do not refer to a deal for Ms Pretty to drop charges or a deal that the board retain Ms Pretty. Is that consistent with your notes made at the meeting?
Ms Moey: If I understand correctly, my notes made at the meeting do not contain any such entry as that.
Mrs Mathyssen: Is that consistent with your memory of the meeting?
Ms Moey: Yes, it is.
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Excuse me. I have a problem with that question, simply because I think there's some misstatement of the facts.
The Chair: Wait a minute, Mr Harnick. The question's coming -- we have two legal advice here.
Mr Harnick: No, hear my objection. That's all I'm asking you to do. You've referred to the notes of Mr Sutherland. Mr Sutherland says, "In any event, I believe that the minister was able to convince Sharron and the other board members to work toward a resolution of the matter prior to the charges being considered by the court." And now you're --
Mr Paul Johnson: The notes made during the meeting?
Mrs Mathyssen: I am talking about the notes made at the meeting, not after the meeting, not on Saturday, Sunday or Monday.
The Chair: Ms Mathyssen, address the Chair.
Mr Harnick: I think you'd better bring all of them to order.
The Chair: Ms Mathyssen, ask your question.
Mrs Mathyssen: The notes made at the meeting by Mr Sutherland, Dr Tang, Dr Le and Ms Pretty do not refer to a deal for Ms Pretty to drop charges. They do not refer to a deal for the board to retain Ms Pretty. Are those notes made at the meeting consistent with your notes made at the meeting?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Mrs Mathyssen: Is that consistent with your memory of the meeting?
Ms Moey: Absolutely.
Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you.
Ms Moey: You're welcome.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Ms Moey, I have a few questions myself. I too was struck by the words that "Ms Gigantes did nothing strongly," I think is what you said, and I made some interpretations about that. Ms Gigantes is not generally passive, as I know her, but in this particular instance, with respect to what happened at the meeting, you were very emphatic about the fact that she "did nothing strongly," and I understood it to mean that she understands the whole issue about being careful and cautious, presumably because of the matter of legal proceedings and the conflict in the board that exists between the board members. Is it a fair assumption to say that "did nothing strongly" means she understands that she would be very cautious under these circumstances, or not?
Ms Kristjanson: Ms Moey cannot speculate as to what was in the minister's mind. I'd ask you to rephrase your question perhaps.
1340
Mr Marchese: That's fair. I make the point because I understood by that to mean that the minister would logically assume that she would have to be very careful in this kind of situation and not put pressure on anybody.
Ms Moey: I'm afraid I can't --
Mr Marchese: I also related that in the context of the comment you made that there was an agreement to consider a meeting, and in this context didn't pressure them to have a meeting but rather to consider having a meeting. Is that a fair assumption?
Ms Moey: That is absolutely fair, yes.
Mr Marchese: Also, I was interested in ascertaining another comment you made. I think you said there was no direct referral to anything with respect to charges or other things that I can't recall what "referral to" meant, but I think you said that people were being asked to think about having a meeting to resolve the issues and that they then would be in a position to consider whatever action they would want to pursue with respect to their own problems. Is that a fair characterization of what went on?
Ms Moey: Yes, it is.
Mr Marchese: Thank you very much.
Ms Moey: You're welcome.
Ms Cronk: Ms Moey, could I please ask you to turn back to tab 79, just to clarify, to make sure I understand where we ended up on that portion of your evidence. I believe it's volume 3. There were questions being put to you by Mr Callahan regarding the fax you remember giving the minister, I take it just as she was about to enter the meeting on June 17. Is that right?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I think you told me you met her there?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: So you didn't see her or have an opportunity to speak with her at the constituency office that morning.
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you bring the fax with you and give it to her just as she was going into the meeting?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Mr Callahan asked you if you recognized the fax cover sheet at tab 79 as being the document that you provided to the minister, and you'd indicated, I thought, no, or that you didn't remember or you don't -- I'm not sure.
Ms Moey: I'm almost certain that I've never seen this before today, this fax cover sheet.
Ms Cronk: Okay. When you gave that answer, did you look at what was attached to the fax cover sheet? What I'm getting at is that there are two documents set out at the tab: one's two pages in length; one's one page. Did you provide these documents to the minister just as she was entering the meeting, or do you now remember?
Ms Moey: Because I didn't read the document when it arrived -- I was asked to wait for something that was being faxed to Ms Gigantes and I needed to bring that with me to her for the meeting, and because they were so late in arriving I was almost late for that meeting, so I did not have time to read the document. I took it as soon as it came off the fax machine, and I rushed off to meet Ms Gigantes for the 11:30 meeting. So I can't identify this document.
Ms Cronk: I understand. In addition to not being able to identify the document, you have no recollection as to its content that would help us clarify what it was?
Ms Moey: No. I'm sorry.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. We'll just ask the minister.
Ms Moey, as I understand it, this was an exchange that started first in questioning by Mr Murphy and then subsequently by Mr Chiarelli, and I just want to make sure that I understand what the evidence is on this. It had to do with your suggestion that you did not know until after June 17th that charges had been laid. Mr Chiarelli asked you whether that related to your understanding of charges being formally laid. He pointed out to you, of course, and I think you were quick to say, that you knew about legal proceedings because you'd been at the meeting on June 10th, right?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: So I want to put a couple of propositions to you. Leaving aside what Sue Lott may or may not have told you prior to the meeting on June 10th, based on her discussions with Sharron Pretty -- because you've told the committee that you learned something from her about the fact that it was a legal proceeding, but you couldn't remember any more detail. Am I right on that so far?
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: So you knew that before the June 10th meeting. You had some indication from Sue Lott. You told me about the conversation that she had with Sharron, and she was upset after the conversation and you couldn't remember too much detail, or indeed whether she'd given you any, but there was some suggestion of a court action or a legal proceeding.
Ms Moey: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Then you go to the June 10th meeting. You've confirmed that Ms Luu specifically discussed that with the minister at the meeting, that is, the court case, the legal proceedings. She gave her a copy of the docket. You made a photocopy. You didn't look at it yourself, as I understand it, in any detail.
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Nor do you remember the minister asking any questions about it, right?
Ms Moey: Not specifically, no.
Ms Cronk: But Ms Luu spoke to the minister in the course of the meeting about that legal proceeding. Right?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It's Ms Luu's evidence before the committee that she told the minister that charges were pending against a number of directors of the corporation and that she told her that at the meeting on June 10th. Do you remember that?
Ms Moey: Are you asking me about the exact words or --
Ms Cronk: No. I'm just saying, do you remember her saying there are charges against members of the board; the directors have been charged by Sharron Pretty?
Ms Moey: I don't remember her exact words, but I think I do remember her telling the minister that Sharron Pretty had indeed initiated some sort of legal proceeding against the directors.
Ms Cronk: And that wouldn't come as an earthshaking surprise, because that was in the Wallace article on June 1, that there were charges against the directors from Van Lang. You had seen that article, so you knew that feature of it before you went in.
Ms Moey: Right.
Ms Cronk: It's also Ms Luu's evidence that she told her that the crown was involved. Do you remember that being said?
Ms Moey: I don't remember that being said, one way or the other.
Ms Cronk: It's also Ms Luu's evidence that the minister understood that it was not a civil proceeding.
Ms Moey: I don't remember that at all.
Ms Cronk: Did the minister read the two documents that Ms Luu gave her at the meeting? Did she look at them during the course of the meeting?
Ms Moey: She looked at them.
Ms Cronk: Would I be correct in assuming that given the nature of your job and what you do, you, unlike lawyers and perhaps ministers of the crown from time to time, don't have much experience in looking at court dockets? Would that be fair?
Ms Moey: It would be, yes indeed.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you, with respect to the June 10th meeting -- and I apologize. I should have asked you this before, and I'm hoping no one will take strong objection to this, because I just want to have your evidence before the committee on it. Ms Luu made some notes at that meeting, and if you turn to tab 70 -- I just forgot to ask you about a portion of them.
If you look at the last page of her notes, page 6, I asked you whether you had any conversation with Ms Luu after the June 10th meeting. In the top portion of these notes from Ms Luu, she's recording what she suggests was a conversation she had with you after the meeting. Could you just take a minute and read that paragraph, please.
Ms Moey: Yes, I've read it.
Ms Cronk: Have you ever seen these notes before?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall having a discussion with Ms Luu at the conclusion of the meeting on June 10th?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Was that just the two of you?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Not involving the minister?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you, in the course of that meeting, express to her concerns about the whole situation?
Ms Moey: Not in the way that she's expressing it, no.
Ms Cronk: Does the paragraph accurately reflect, in your view, the substance of your discussion at that time?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember the discussion you had with her?
Ms Moey: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Would you tell the committee what you recall being said?
Ms Moey: After the meeting, I walked Ms Luu out of the office and I took that opportunity to ask her if she felt better now that she had had a chance to directly tell the minister about her concerns, because I remember how upset she had been when I first called her, I guess it was in April -- how upset she had been. I don't remember what her response was.
I also took great pains to assure her at that time that the minister had undertaken to get back to her within two weeks and I reiterated that: "Evelyn has said that she will get back to you in two weeks." In addition, I also said to Ms Luu at this time, "Although Evelyn is concerned, there are certain things that she may not be able to do." For example, I remember saying, "She cannot go in there and wave a magic wand and make all the problems disappear, but she will indeed try and do everything that is appropriate for her to do to help resolve these problems."
Ms Cronk: Did the matter of Ms Luu being in contact with the opposition party come up in that discussion?
Ms Moey: Not at all. I did not learn about her involvement with an opposition party until I think just before these hearings began.
Ms Cronk: Did the question of the James Wallace newspaper article of June 1 come up in your discussion with her?
Ms Moey: I don't remember that.
Ms Cronk: Did you say to her, "We do not blame you at all, Trinh," or words to that effect?
Ms Moey: Not that I recall.
Ms Cronk: And did you say to her that you had been fighting very hard to get the minister to meet with her?
Ms Moey: No. Not in those words, to be fair; not in those words.
Ms Cronk: Did you suggest to her that you had been urging the minister to meet with her?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Or supportive of the idea that she should meet with her?
Ms Moey: What I was trying to convey to her was that I did not see why the minister shouldn't meet with her, Ms Luu.
Ms Cronk: Did you say anything to her -- regardless of the verb; I understand that people take different meanings from the words that are used -- that suggested that you had been trying to make that meeting happen?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: And did you suggest to her that you had faced opposition in any way from others to that meeting occurring?
Ms Moey: No.
Ms Cronk: Even in a casual comment about -- I don't want to know who or what. I'm not asking you to get into what you said to your colleagues. But did you convey to Ms Luu the impression that there were people who thought there should be no meeting, whereas you had been working on her behalf to get the meeting?
Ms Moey: If I could try and supply an answer, I think I did indicate to Ms Luu that there were people who didn't understand the necessity for a meeting with Ms Luu but that I did not see anything wrong in having a meeting with Ms Luu, and that was all I meant to say.
Ms Cronk: Thank you very much, Ms Moey.
Ms Moey: Thank you.
Mr Callahan: Mr Chair, I just wanted to, with committee counsel --
The Chair: Can I just dismiss the witness?
Mr Callahan: Well, it may have some bearing. Committee counsel was asking her about the fax that she referred to. I'm sure we can ask the minister what the fax was that was handed to her when she comes, but I'm wondering if, just to be perfectly clear and perfectly sure that we're talking about the same document, perhaps this witness could be around just to identify the document if the minister says, "Yes, it is tab 79." I don't know whether anything turns on this fax that was given to the minister, but I'm always a little concerned when I hear about a document that may have no meaning whatsoever but then may have a great deal of meaning -- I don't want to put you to a great deal of trouble to try to get it.
Ms Cronk: I understand what you're saying. Could I explore over the break, rather than taking the committee's time, with Ms Kristjanson what the witness's travel plans are, as she's come here from Ottawa and she's been here for several days?
Mr Callahan: All right.
Ms Cronk: If she's not personally here to provide that confirmation, perhaps I can explore arrangements so that that might be done in sufficient time that it could be pursued in examinations.
Mr Callahan: Or in the alternative, the minister's office, if they're contacted, may be prepared to fax over here whatever she gave them.
Ms Cronk: The difficulty I have, Mr Callahan, is that I'm supposed to have all that already, and what I've got you've got. But I hear you.
The Chair: Ms Moey, I'd like to thank you for coming. I imagine the work piled up on your desk while you've been gone all week.
Ms Moey: Most undoubtedly.
The Chair: Safe trip home.
Ms Moey: Thank you.
The Chair: We're going to have a half-hour recess. We'll be back here at 25 after 2.
The committee recessed from 1354 to 1436.
BEVERLEE BELL
The Chair: I'd like to welcome Ms Beverlee Bell to the committee as our next witness, and the clerk would like to read you the oath.
Clerk of the Committee: Do you affirm that the evidence you shall give to this committee touching the subject of the present inquiry shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Ms Beverlee Bell: I do. Can you hear me?
The Chair: Yes, we did. We heard that, but you'll have to sit up to the mike there so we can hear you.
I'm going to hand it over to legal counsel here, Ms Cronk.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, sir. Mr Hourigan will have a few questions for you, Ms Bell, but I have just a couple of housekeeping matters first, if you don't mind.
Mr Chairman, I have available for the committee now, to be marked as an exhibit, a copy of the control log sheet that Ms Moey referred to in her testimony. This is the one indicating that from the deputy minister's side of things, Ms Pretty's letter of October 29th, 1993, or a version of it, was received in the deputy minister's offices on December 22nd, 1993. I wonder if that could be marked as the next exhibit. Is that 12, I think?
The Chair: No, 15.
Ms Cronk: The next document, Mr Chairman, that I'd ask that we mark is a copy of the October 29, 1993, letter from Ms Pretty to Ms Gigantes. This is the one on the letterhead of the Van Lang Centre. That would be 16.
Mr Owens: Is this version number 4?
Ms Cronk: Three. The next document is again a version of the October 29, 1993, letter to Ms Gigantes from Ms Pretty. This is the one bearing the receipt stamp in the minister's office of November the 5th, 1993, and I'd ask that that be exhibit 17.
Thank you. That's all my housekeeping matters, sir.
Mr William Hourigan: Ms Bell, I understand you're employed by the Management Board Secretariat?
Ms Bell: Yes, I am.
Mr Hourigan: What is your position there?
Ms Bell: I'm a special assistant in Ottawa.
Mr Hourigan: How long have you held that position?
Ms Bell: Since 1991.
Mr Hourigan: Okay.
Ms Bell: End of August.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Can you outline briefly for me your duties and responsibilities in that post?
Ms Bell: I assist cabinet ministers that travel into Ottawa, and PAs also, in assisting with their scheduling, setting up press conferences. When ministers ask to come into town, I try to facilitate those needs.
Mr Hourigan: All right. During the course of your duties, were you requested to involve yourself in setting up the meeting that's the subject matter of this inquiry?
Ms Bell: Yes, I was.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Who did you receive that request from?
Ms Bell: I got a call from Audrey Moey asking if there would be a boardroom available for a meeting with Evelyn and the Van Lang Centre for June the 17th at 11:30. There was, so I set one up.
Mr Hourigan: All right. When was that request made?
Ms Bell: Some time the beginning of June, but I don't know the exact date.
Mr Hourigan: Do you say it's a week before, two weeks before?
Ms Bell: A week or two before is about as close as I could get.
Mr Hourigan: Okay, fine. You mentioned that it was with the Van Lang Centre. Who did you understand was going to be attending from the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Bell: Audrey may have mentioned that it was with the board, but I'm not sure.
Mr Hourigan: Were you ever provided with a list of participants for the meeting?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Murphy: I'm sorry. I should have done this earlier and I apologize. Did we clarify whether Ms Bell is exempt staff or a civil servant?
Ms Bell: I'm political staff.
Mr Hourigan: If I understand your evidence then, you simply set up the boardroom?
Ms Bell: That's right. I booked the boardroom.
Mr Hourigan: Did you do anything else in terms of setting up the meeting?
Ms Bell: No, I didn't.
Mr Hourigan: Prior to the meeting, were you provided with any information about the purpose of the meeting?
Ms Bell: No, I wasn't.
Mr Hourigan: Were you provided information with respect to the background of the problems at the Van Lang Centre?
Ms Bell: No, I wasn't.
Mr Hourigan: Again, prior to the meeting did you have any discussion, other than the discussion you had that you mentioned with Ms Moey, with Ms Gigantes or any of her staff about the meeting?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: Were you in attendance at the meeting?
Ms Bell: Yes, I was.
Mr Hourigan: Is that normal practice for you to attend meetings that you've set up?
Ms Bell: Yes, it is.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall who was in attendance?
Ms Bell: I don't know the names of the people that were there because I arrived about 10 minutes late into the meeting. As they were starting the meeting, I got a phone call, went back to my office and responded to that, so I don't know all the names of the participants there.
Mr Hourigan: All right. So you missed the first five to 10 minutes of the meeting then?
Ms Bell: I'd say about the first 10 minutes, yes.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Do you recall today anybody who was there?
Ms Bell: Evelyn was there; Audrey Moey; I've met Brian Sutherland at Housing events with Evelyn, so I recognized him; and the other people I did not know.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Did you know Ms Sharron Pretty?
Ms Bell: No, I did not.
Mr Hourigan: All right. What time was the meeting set up for?
Ms Bell: Eleven-thirty.
Mr Hourigan: Did it start right at 11:30 that you recall?
Ms Bell: I think so.
Mr Hourigan: All right. How long did it run approximately?
Ms Bell: An hour and 15 minutes, an hour and a half.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. You mentioned that you arrived late. Did anybody else either arrive late or leave the meeting?
Ms Bell: No one left the meeting, but Brian Sutherland arrived late.
Mr Hourigan: When you say he arrived late, did he arrive after you had entered the meeting?
Ms Bell: He arrived about, yeah, maybe five minutes after I got into the meeting.
Mr Hourigan: All right. So you were about 10 minutes late. So you would estimate that he was 15 minutes late. Is that fair?
Ms Bell: That would be fair.
Mr Hourigan: When you arrived in the meeting, had discussions already begun?
Ms Bell: Yes, they had.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Did you observe whether anyone was running the meeting? Was there a chairman of the meeting?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: No? You didn't observe one --
Ms Bell: I didn't observe one, no.
Mr Hourigan: Did you take notes at the meeting?
Ms Bell: No, I did not.
Mr Hourigan: Did you notice if anybody else did?
Ms Bell: I noticed Audrey jotting down notes. Sharron Pretty, who I now know was Sharron Pretty, was jotting down notes. To the best of my memory, that's about it.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. To your knowledge, was the meeting recorded in any other way?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall what was being discussed when you entered into the meeting, the topic of conversation?
Ms Bell: I seem to recall that Evelyn was talking that sometimes within groups, organizations, it can be difficult for individuals to agree on things, and Mr -- Dr Le, I believe his name is --
Mr Hourigan: Yes.
Ms Bell: -- was mentioning how the Vietnamese community in Ottawa was a young community.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. I want to take you to some specifics of the meeting, but before I do that I just wanted to ask you what your impression was of the general tone of the meeting.
Ms Bell: When I walked in?
Mr Hourigan: When you walked in and throughout.
Ms Bell: When I walked in, it was fine. There were some moments where the discussion was heated.
Mr Hourigan: And can you describe those moments for me?
Ms Bell: Um, it seems to me Sharron was saying that she was trying to get information from the board.
Mr Hourigan: Yes.
Ms Bell: And it either wasn't forthcoming or she wasn't getting it, and the gentleman who sat to her left -- I don't know his name -- was saying, "Well, you don't come to board meetings; that's why you don't get the information," and she said, "I can't come on the specific day that you have them," and I don't remember the date. He said, "Well, you asked for that day," and she said, "My schedule changed," I think, but I don't know what day she said she had changed to.
Mr Hourigan: Right.
Ms Bell: And I believe she said she'd made a request, but to who I don't know, to have the meetings changed, and that was a bit of a heated discussion.
Mr Hourigan: Were there any other heated discussions that you can recall?
Ms Bell: Around the superintendent.
Mr Hourigan: Yes. What was the nature of those discussions?
Ms Bell: Again, I believe it was the gentleman to the left of Sharron Pretty who said that the superintendent was very stressed out because of pressures -- I was led to believe by Sharron, because he was directing the statement to her -- and that he had to take a leave of absence from his job. He had a pay cut. She'd asked if his rent had been reduced and he said yes. That was a bit of a heated back-and-forth.
Mr Hourigan: Anything else that you can think of in that vein? Any other heated discussions?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. During the course of the meeting, at least when you were in attendance at the meeting, do you recall any discussion of an upcoming board meeting to remove Sharron Pretty as a director?
Ms Bell: Yes, I do.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. What do you recall was said about that?
Ms Bell: I believe it was Sharron -- the first time I recall it being brought up was Sharron saying, "Well, I'm not going to be on the board much longer anyway because they're going to remove me" or "kick me off," something like that. And, um --
Mr Hourigan: That was the first time --
Ms Bell: That was the first time I remember it being brought up.
Mr Hourigan: Do you remember the context of her making that statement?
Ms Bell: I think it was after the discussion about her not attending the other board meetings. The discussion was getting heated, and I seem to recall Evelyn saying, "Let's keep cool heads here; let's try to, you know, see if we can work this thing out," and Sharron saying, "Well, I'm not going to be on the board that much longer anyway."
Mr Hourigan: All right. Was it mentioned again that you can recall?
Ms Bell: Not to my knowledge, no.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. The reason I asked was because when I asked you the first time, you said the first time you recall.
Ms Bell: Oh.
Mr Hourigan: But you're telling me that it was only the one time as far as you can recall. Is that right?
Ms Bell: Mm-hmm.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. And that was the extent of the conversation? Did anybody reply to Ms Pretty when she indicated that?
Ms Bell: Again, it's difficult for me because I don't know the names of the people that were sitting around the table.
Mr Hourigan: Without giving the names, was there any reply by anybody sitting at the table to the topic?
Ms Bell: I believe Evelyn said to her or said generally to the people in attendance, would they consider perhaps not having this meeting, but they didn't have to make that decision now.
1450
Mr Hourigan: Okay. When you say "consider not having this meeting," what meeting are you referring to?
Ms Bell: The meeting to remove Sharron from the board.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. And what response, if any, was given by the board members to that statement?
Ms Bell: I don't recall a specific response being given because Evelyn said, "You don't have to respond right now and I'd like you to think about that."
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall the context of the minister making that statement?
Ms Bell: The context of her saying "think about it"?
Mr Hourigan: The context of her making the suggestion that they think about not holding that meeting.
Ms Bell: It was from when Sharron said that they were going to have the special meeting --
Mr Hourigan: All right.
Ms Bell: -- I believe on the Sunday, to remove her.
Mr Hourigan: So when Ms Pretty indicated earlier that she wasn't going to be on the board much longer, it was at that point that the minister made this suggestion? Is that what you're telling me?
Ms Bell: That's right. That's what I remember, yes.
Mr Hourigan: And you don't recall any further discussion on the issue?
Ms Bell: No, I don't.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Did anyone appear to agree or disagree with the suggestion made?
Ms Bell: No, I think it was -- to me, I just seem to recall it as being a general statement or a general option.
Mr Hourigan: And that was the only reference that you can recall in the meeting to the issue of removing Sharron Pretty as a director at the centre?
Ms Bell: I think so, yes.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. During the time that you were in attendance at the meeting, do you recall any discussion with respect to Corporations Act charges that were pending or any other legal proceedings pending by Ms Pretty against the other board members?
Ms Bell: I don't recall Corporations Act coming up at all. At one point in a conversation, Sharron said: "It's out of my hands; it's in the crown's hands," and I do not remember in what context that was said in.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Can you help me then with specifically what she said? You told me that --
Ms Bell: I seem to remember her saying: "It's out of my hands; it's in the crown's."
Mr Hourigan: Did she say what was out of her hands?
Ms Bell: Not to my knowledge.
Mr Hourigan: And did you take from that that she was discussing charges of some sort?
Ms Bell: No, because I had no idea there were any.
Mr Hourigan: Sorry. Let me be fair to you.
Ms Bell: Okay.
Mr Hourigan: Let me be fair to you. Before you went into the meeting, did you have any knowledge of the Corporations Act charges?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. So there was a reference to something being out of her hands?
Ms Bell: Mm-hmm.
Mr Hourigan: And you don't recall what she -- or you don't recall whether she indicated one way or the other what she was talking about.
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: And you don't remember the context of that discussion. Is that fair?
Ms Bell: That's fair.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Do you remember if there was any response to that statement?
Ms Bell: Because I don't know the issues around what the concerns are, it's difficult for me to remember what exactly was said or even vaguely said.
Mr Hourigan: No, I appreciate that.
Ms Bell: I remember Evelyn saying somehow that would it be possible for people to work together and come to some kind of perhaps consensus.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Was that statement made before or after the statement you just told me about by Sharron Pretty about being out of her hands and being in the crown's hands?
Ms Bell: I remember actually Evelyn saying that a couple of times.
Mr Hourigan: Okay.
Ms Bell: So I don't know where in --
Mr Hourigan: Do you know if it was mentioned at or about the same time or in a general discussion when that statement was made by Ms Pretty?
Ms Bell: I think it was really a general discussion.
Mr Hourigan: All right. So you don't -- as far as you can recall, was the statement by Ms Pretty that it was out of her hands and in the hands of the crown a response to the suggestion made by Ms Gigantes?
Ms Bell: Not that I can recall.
Mr Hourigan: One way or the other or --
Ms Bell: One way or the other.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. So you just don't remember the context? Is that fair?
Ms Bell: That's right.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall any reference in the meeting, while you were in attendance, to the term "drop the charges"?
Ms Bell: No, I do not.
Mr Hourigan: One way or the other?
Ms Bell: I don't recall it.
Mr Hourigan: You don't recall it at all.
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. What about "withdrawing of charges"?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: Anything similar to that in terms of not proceeding with actions or not proceeding with legal actions? Anything of that nature do you recall being mentioned?
Ms Bell: Again, it was around a general discussion and I don't know the exact wording that was used, but Evelyn said if there was an indication to -- I don't know what word was used there, it could have been "crown," I'm not sure --
Mr Hourigan: Right.
Ms Bell: -- that the issues had been resolved, it might be of interest.
Mr Hourigan: It might be of interest to whom?
Ms Bell: Again, the crown; I don't know.
Mr Hourigan: You don't recall one way or the other who she was referring to?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: You told me one specific reference to the term "crown." And you're suggesting to me that there may have been a further reference by Ms Gigantes to the term "crown." Do you recall any further discussion or reference to the term "crown" or "prosecutor," "crown attorney?"
Ms Bell: No, I don't.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. The suggestion was put forward, or this idea was put forward by Ms Gigantes, that perhaps something would be of interest to the crown. All right? Do you have any idea what specifically she was referring to would be of interest to the crown?
Ms Bell: I remember it as being very general, that if issues were addressed or concerns met.
Mr Hourigan: And did you understand what she meant by those phrases?
Ms Bell: No, because, again, I don't know what the issues were.
Mr Hourigan: And that's fair. That's fair. I'm just trying to get your best recollection.
During the course of the meeting when you were in attendance, do you remember a discussion of a future meeting?
Ms Bell: Yes, I do.
Mr Hourigan: Can you tell me about that?
Ms Bell: Evelyn wondered if the board members would be interested in having a future meeting to discuss issues, that they should think about it and not say one way or the other if that's what they wanted to do, but if they did, I believe Brian Sutherland was either offered as a facilitator or he said he would, and some group also could be there as facilitator, some Ontario non-profit group.
Mr Hourigan: Right. You used the term "issues." Was that the phrase, or the term, that Ms Gigantes used in making the suggestion? You said, "a future meeting to discuss issues." Is that what she said, "issues?"
Ms Bell: That's what I remember.
Mr Hourigan: And do you remember her elaborating on that, or anybody else elaborating on that at all?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Do you know when this suggestion of a future meeting was raised, at what point in the meeting?
Ms Bell: I think towards the end of the meeting.
Mr Hourigan: And was there any response by anybody to the suggestion?
Ms Bell: People seemed to be looking like, yes, that would be a possibility. I don't recall anybody responding yes.
Mr Hourigan: Do you recall anybody responding no?
Ms Bell: No, I don't.
Mr Hourigan: But you seem to perceive some indication that there was some agreement to this idea. Is that fair?
Ms Bell: That was my sense.
Mr Hourigan: Who was indicating that to you?
Ms Bell: Just by looking around the room and people seemed to be --
Mr Hourigan: Specifically, was Ms Pretty one of the people that you were observing at that point?
Ms Bell: I think before that suggestion came up, Evelyn asked if she thought progress had been made, and I do remember people, everybody, nodding their head.
Mr Hourigan: Including Ms Pretty?
Ms Bell: On that one, yes. On the one with the future meeting, I can't be a hundred per cent sure.
Mr Hourigan: That's fine. So as far as you're aware, there was no resolution of that idea. There was no decision made about a future meeting or when it would be held or anything like that.
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: Is it fair to say -- I'm just getting a general impression, and I want to be fair to you -- that this was a meeting that you knew nothing about in terms of what was going to be discussed, and would it be fair to say that you weren't really paying a great deal of attention to what was going at the table?
Ms Bell: That would be a fair assessment. That would be a fair assessment, yes.
1500
Mr Hourigan: All right. During the time you were in attendance at the meeting, do you recall any reference to an agreement or an understanding whereby the board would not proceed with a motion to remove Ms Pretty if Ms Pretty would agree to withdraw charges or not proceed with charges?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: Leaving the meeting, was that your impression, that there had been any type of agreement or an understanding in that matter?
Ms Bell: No. Excuse me, that there was an agreement that if there was no special meeting?
Mr Hourigan: No. Sorry, let me be clear. Was it your understanding leaving the meeting that there had been an agreement or an understanding that if the board, on the one hand, decided not to proceed with an action to remove Ms Pretty, and Ms Pretty, on the other hand, proceeded to ensure that the charges were dropped or not proceeded with or that the legal proceedings that she had were not proceeded with, that there would be an agreement of that nature?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: All right. You don't recall anybody else discussing that?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: What was the -- how would you describe the minister's tone in her dealing with the board members and with Ms Pretty?
Ms Bell: She was very calm. She was very soft-spoken. The phrase I remember her repeating a lot was: "Take your time. You don't have to say anything now. I don't want people to feel pressured."
Mr Hourigan: Who do you recall her saying that to?
Ms Bell: To board members whenever she was talking to them.
Mr Hourigan: To board members generally?
Ms Bell: Board members generally, to Sharron.
Mr Hourigan: Did the minister indicate any surprise that Ms Pretty was in attendance at the meeting?
Ms Bell: No. Well, I must say that I walked in late, so I don't know.
Mr Hourigan: All right, that's fine. Ms Pretty's evidence, to be fair, is that she felt pressured into accepting this deal or compromise that we were just discussing, whereby the board would not remove her and she would withdraw charges, and she felt that she was pressured by the minister to make a decision about an agreement of that nature at the meeting. To your observation, do you believe Ms Pretty was ever pressured by the minister?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: Do you believe that any of the board members were pressuring her in any way?
Ms Bell: It could have been perceived as pressure when there was that heated exchange between Ms Pretty and the gentleman to her left over board meetings that she was not attending.
Mr Hourigan: Right.
Ms Bell: It got a bit heated at that point.
Mr Hourigan: Anywhere else where you would perceive any type of pressure put on Ms Pretty?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Did you feel that the minister was putting any pressure on the board members to make any type of decision at the meeting?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: Did the minister ever strongly recommend that the meeting to remove Ms Pretty not go ahead?
Ms Bell: No, I believe she presented it as an option that they should perhaps consider, think about.
Mr Hourigan: And at that point -- we may have touched on this earlier -- was there any response from the board members about that option as it was put out?
Ms Bell: I don't remember a discussion ensuing around that with the other board members to say yes or no one way or the other.
Mr Hourigan: All right. During the course of the meeting when you were in attendance was the term "deal" ever used?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: Was the term "compromise" used?
Ms Bell: I don't know one way or the other if the word "compromise" was used.
Mr Hourigan: Fine. How did the meeting end?
Ms Bell: It ended with people thanking Evelyn for having the meeting and then I left to go pick up my messages, so --
Mr Hourigan: Sorry, when you left, were people still in the meeting room?
Ms Bell: They had all stood up and they were walking towards the door at that point.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. After the meeting, did you have any discussions with anybody who was in attendance at the meeting?
Ms Bell: No. I went down in the elevator with Evelyn and Audrey and Sharron Pretty, but I didn't say anything.
Mr Hourigan: All right. Were there discussions ongoing when they were all in the elevator?
Ms Bell: It was a very general discussion. I don't recall, actually, the details of the discussion.
Mr Hourigan: At that point, did Ms Pretty seem upset to you, rattled at all?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Hourigan: While you were in attendance at the meeting or afterward, did Ms Pretty ever indicate that she felt pressured by anyone at the meeting?
Ms Bell: I think at one point she said something, and again I think it's to the gentleman to the left. It was a discussion about the superintendent: "Stop yelling at me," or something like that, but I'm not quite sure of what the words were that she used.
Mrs Marland: Sorry. What was the last sentence about the superintendent? I didn't hear.
Ms Bell: There was some discussion about the superintendent between Ms Pretty and the gentleman to the left of her. I think it was at that point. That was a little bit of a heated discussion also. I think it was at that point she said something like, "You're yelling at me" or "Stop yelling at me." I can't remember.
Mr Paul Johnson: Could I just ask for a little clarification? When we speak of the gentleman speaking to the left of her, I'd like to know --
Ms Bell: I don't know his name; I'm sorry.
Mr Paul Johnson: Oh, no, I don't need to know his name, but because there will be some inferences as to who sat where from earlier evidence, I just wanted to know, was it to her left or was it to your left?
Ms Bell: To Sharron Pretty's left.
Mr Paul Johnson: Okay, thank you.
Mr Hourigan: So, I'm sorry: Getting back to the question, there was that one instance when Ms Pretty indicated to the gentleman to her left that he should back off. Was there any other time when she indicated she was feeling pressured at the meeting?
Ms Bell: Not to my knowledge, no.
Mr Hourigan: Is there anything else about the June 17th meeting that you think I should know about that we haven't dealt with?
Ms Bell: No. As I said, I wasn't aware of the issues surrounding the meeting or the issues discussed. It was a very general thing for me.
Mr Hourigan: All right. On June the 10th, there's been evidence that there was a meeting attended by the minister, Audrey Moey and Trinh Luu. There has also been evidence that you may have been in the constituency office at the time of the meeting. Do you recall that?
Ms Bell: Yes, I park my car at the constituency office and walk up to my office every day. It was late on a Friday afternoon. It could have been anywhere from a quarter to 5, to 5; I'm not too sure of the timing. Often I will pop in to say: "Goodbye. Have a good weekend, folks." Evelyn was in her office with Trinh and Audrey.
Mr Hourigan: Did you hear or witness any of the discussions that were ongoing at that time?
Ms Bell: No. I did go in, though, because Evelyn, I know, had an event after that meeting outside the riding office. The meeting was running a bit late and I went in to say, "You're going to have to hurry up," or something to that effect.
Mr Hourigan: Were you attending the meeting or the event afterward with Ms Gigantes?
Ms Bell: No, Paul Dewar took Evelyn there.
Mr Hourigan: When you were in the constituency office on the 10th, was there any discussion of the possibility of Ms Luu being offered a position of any nature by the minister?
Ms Bell: Not to my knowledge.
Mr Hourigan: You don't have any recollection of that?
Ms Bell: No, not at all.
Mr Hourigan: Okay. Those are all my questions.
Mrs Marland: Did you say that you park your car regularly at the constituency office?
Ms Bell: Mm-hmm.
Mrs Marland: So every Friday, as another weekday, you would be popping in to say: "Goodbye. Have a nice weekend."
Ms Bell: Not every Friday, no.
Mrs Marland: So it would be useless to ask you if you recall popping in on Friday, the 29th of October.
Ms Bell: I wish I knew, but I don't know that.
Mrs Marland: Thank you. That's all my questions.
Mr Owens: Nice try; such decisive questions, counsel for the prosecution.
The Chair: Where were you, Margaret, October 29th?
Ms Cronk: She's going to be able to tell you.
Mrs Marland: I can tell you, because I --
Interjections.
1510
Mr Sutherland: We don't want to know.
I just have a couple of questions and I just want to reiterate some of the points that counsel has asked. In response to questions from counsel, you indicated that you thought the minister was in a -- or her tone was she was soft-spoken, I believe you used that terminology, and didn't seem -- and maybe you didn't use these exact words, so I'll have to be cautious -- upset or anything like that?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Sutherland: Would you describe her as being somewhat -- do you have any sense as to whether you got the sense that she was trying to act as a facilitator, a mediator, or trying to be a helpful person?
Ms Bell: Yes.
Mr Sutherland: Okay. You also indicated that you remember the minister saying on several occasions to, "Take your time to make decisions and don't feel pressured to make decisions"?
Ms Bell: That's correct.
Mr Sutherland: Okay. You also, I believe, gave evidence that you don't recall any terminology such as "a deal" being used?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Sutherland: Okay, that's it for me. Thanks.
Mr Owens: Thank you for your testimony, Ms Bell. As part of your job description or description of duties, do you arrange and attend a lot or a number of meetings with cabinet ministers?
Ms Bell: Yes, I do.
Mr Owens: Is it your recollection and understanding that you did come in late to the meeting? Did you hear anything during the time period that you were at this meeting that caused you some concern that you perceived may be cast in a negative light?
Ms Bell: I don't understand. Did I hear anything --
Mr Owens: Yeah, did you, in terms of the discussion --
Ms Bell: -- during the meeting?
Mr Owens: Yeah, during the meeting, in terms of the discussion that was going on, the exchanges, anything that the minister may have said at that time that you may have perceived, that may have been perceived in a negative light?
Ms Bell: What do you mean by "negative light"? I'm sorry, I don't understand.
Interjection: The lights were turned down.
Mr Owens: Yeah, the lights were turned down. I think my lights are turned down today.
In terms of the kinds of discussions that --
Interjection.
Mr Owens: Charlie's are off, so --
Mr Harnick: I didn't say that; that was Callahan. You'd better apologize to him.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, order, order. Okay, Mr Owens.
Mr Owens: We'll try this one more time. Was there anything that you felt that caught your attention more than anything else at that meeting that may have been perceived by others outside the meeting in a negative way?
Ms Cronk: Sorry, Mr Owens, I would prefer to do it --
Mr Owens: Okay, I'll stop trying to ask that question. Somebody better give me batteries.
Mr Marchese: Could you rephrase it again?
Mr Owens: In terms of the recollections of your time in the meeting, did you at any point hear the minister ask Sharron Pretty to drop charges?
Ms Bell: No, I did not.
Mr Owens: Did you, in your perception of the meeting, have any understanding that there was any type of persuasion being utilized by the minister to have Sharron Pretty drop the charges?
Ms Bell: No.
Mr Owens: Do you believe that there is a qualitative difference between mediation and persuasion?
Ms Bell: Oh.
Mr Callahan: Is this Jeopardy, or what?
Mr Hourigan: I don't quite understand the question.
Ms Bell: Yeah, I don't understand the question. I'm sorry.
Mr Callahan: I think it's double jeopardy.
The Chair: That's three times you've struck out.
Mr Owens: Anyway, I'll return to the other batters.
Mrs Mathyssen: At certain risk, I think I may have understood Mr Owens's meaning and perhaps I could ask you, Ms Bell, is your job to arrange meetings for cabinet ministers?
Ms Bell: Yes.
Mrs Mathyssen: All right. As such, you're acquainted with rules or protocol surrounding what cabinet ministers may say, may not say, how cabinet ministers should behave? Is that correct?
Ms Bell: Are you trying to say that I'm supposed to know how they are supposed to behave?
Mrs Mathyssen: No, that's a mystery, but --
Ms Bell: I'm getting lost here.
Mrs Mathyssen: All right. Are you familiar with what is appropriate in terms of what a cabinet minister might promise or say to someone in terms of dealings with an individual?
Mr Hourigan: Hold on for a second. I don't think that this witness is qualified to answer that question.
Mrs Mathyssen: All right.
Interjection.
Mrs Mathyssen: Then I'll pass.
Mr Harnick: Does that answer your question, Steve?
Mr Owens: Absolutely.
The Chair: Okay. Are you finished there?
Mrs Mathyssen: Yes.
Mr Callahan: You've told us that there were conflicts in the meeting. Did the minister do anything to interfere in those conflicts or did she just sit there and let them go on?
Ms Bell: No, my sense was that she tried to draw everybody back to calm and keep cool heads.
Mr Callahan: I'm thinking most specifically of the time that Ms Pretty was having the argument with the fellow sitting next to her on the right. That was quite a --
Ms Bell: On her left.
Mr Callahan: -- hot discussion, wasn't it?
Ms Bell: I wouldn't describe it as quite hot. It was heated.
Mr Callahan: All right. Well, we'll leave the degrees. But she didn't step in and say, "Back off buddy," to leave her alone, or anything like that?
Ms Bell: During the period I recall two heated discussions. Evelyn did say -- I kind of remember her going like this, "Let's have calmer heads prevail here."
Mr Callahan: And just one final item: Do you read the Ottawa Sun?
Ms Bell: No, I don't.
Mr Callahan: You don't. So you weren't aware of Mr Wallace's article that appeared June first, 1994, in the Ottawa Sun?
Ms Bell: No, I wasn't.
Mr Callahan: I see. That wasn't the topic around town in Ottawa?
Ms Bell: Not to my knowledge.
Mr Callahan: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Hourigan, any questions?
Mr Hourigan: No, nothing further, thank you.
The Chair: Miss Bell, I'd like to thank you for coming before the committee today.
Ms Bell: Thank you.
The Chair: Can we have a five-minute recess to allow the press to come in?
The committee recessed from 1518 to 1527.
EVELYN GIGANTES
The Chair: I'd like to welcome the Honourable Evelyn Gigantes as our next witness. The clerk will administer the oath to you, Evelyn.
Clerk of the Committee: If you could take the Bible in your right hand: Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give to this committee touching the subject of the present inquiry shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I do.
The Chair: Ms Cronk, your witness.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Good afternoon, Ms Gigantes.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Good afternoon.
Ms Cronk: Ms Gigantes, I know that your colleagues in this room know, certainly better than do I, your background, but I want to make sure that I understand it before we begin our discussion today. So may I just confirm very quickly that you are the MPP for Ottawa Centre.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that you were first elected as an MPP in 1975, I believe.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Correct.
Ms Cronk: And you served in the Legislature through the years 1975 to 1981 --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- 1984 to 1987 --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- and currently serve, of course, in the House as well as Minister of Housing.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And you have been responsible for that portfolio since when, Ms Gigantes?
Hon Ms Gigantes: August of 1991.
1530
Ms Cronk: Ms Gigantes, I have indicated to each witness as the course of the week unfolded, and I wish therefore to indicate it to you as well, that the terms of reference, as you know, of this committee are concerned specifically with the events on June 17, 1994, at a meeting which, we understand, you attended at the Van Lang Centre with representatives of that group and some of your own staff. Much, therefore, of the background relating to the Van Lang Centre, various concerns and allegations expressed about it over the course of time and, as I've framed it before, the adequacies or inadequacies of responses to those concerns or allegations are not, in my view, relevant to the work of this committee. I wanted you to understand that, and I assume you do.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Having said that, I am obliged to ask you certain questions concerning the general background relating to the Van Lang Centre and, in particular, relating to information that was or was not provided to you at various points and, as well, your own personal involvement, when you had any, with respect to the participants involved in the Van Lang Centre. May we agree to discuss it on that basis?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Absolutely.
Ms Cronk: All right. I've been here for a long week, Ms Gigantes, and I suspect it has been a long week for others. So if my questions to you are not clear or you don't understand the meaning of my question, would you indicate that to me?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. I think you've been doing fine, though.
Ms Cronk: Well, that's very nice. Thank you. But it's late and it's Friday afternoon.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I know.
Ms Cronk: My point is, I'll try to make my questions quite specific and I'd be grateful if you'd tell me if they're not and I'd be grateful if your answers were, as well, specific, if you can make them that.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Thank you very much. I'd like to begin, if I could, by discussing with you certain aspects of the conflict-of-interest guidelines and your understanding of them. There's a mountain of paper in front of you.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I know that you're represented by counsel and I assume that they're here, although I can't see them. Is Mr Brown or Ms Lovell here with you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: They're not here in this room.
Ms Cronk: All right. Is that your preference?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, it is.
Ms Cronk: All right. May I ask you then, if you need assistance in finding the paper, would you indicate that? I will do it in their absence.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I will. Thank you.
Ms Cronk: But you'll need exhibit 1, volume 1.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Exhibit 1 -- got it.
Ms Cronk: If you turn to tab 2 of that book of exhibits, Ms Gigantes, you'll see that we've reproduced a copy of the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines. Do you have those?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I do.
Ms Cronk: I take it that as a cabinet minister in the government you acknowledge that you are bound by those guidelines.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, and in fact cabinet participated in their creation.
Ms Cronk: All right. At that time that that occurred, were you one of the cabinet participants in those discussions?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: So you were involved both in their formulation and in the considerations of cabinet of them?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Would it be fair of me to suggest that because as a minister of the crown you are bound by the guidelines, you therefore are obliged to be both sensitive to conflict-of-interest issues and alive to the prospect that they might arise?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, indeed.
Ms Cronk: And, when they do arise, to seek that advice that you are either required to seek or that you think appropriate in the circumstances?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And as well, without in any way meaning to be fatuous, to exercise a measure of good judgement and public responsibility about it?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. If I could ask you to consider, first, the purpose section of the guidelines, it is indicated in section 1 that the purpose of the Premier's guidelines is, "To increase public confidence in the integrity of government...," and for that purpose the "guidelines impose upon cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants more stringent standards of conduct that those imposed by existing conflict-of-interest legislation and policies." Do you endorse that expression of the purpose of these guidelines?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: Is it your understanding, as I suggest the language implies, that the intended purpose is to set a standard of conduct for those bound by the guidelines, that is, cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants, that is higher than that imposed in other ways legally on others involved in the process of government?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: So that whatever standard might apply to a member of Parliament, that standard is higher for a cabinet minister or a parliamentary assistant?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: Looking at the fundamental principles section of the guidelines, specifically sections 4 and 5, section 4 provides that, "Ministers shall at all times act in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny."
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: May I assume that as a member of government you also endorse that principle?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I certainly do.
Ms Cronk: With respect to section 5, "Ministers shall perform the duties of office and arrange their affairs in such a manner as to maintain public confidence and trust in the integrity of the government"?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And -- could I just ask you to confirm -- I assume as well that you endorse that principle wholeheartedly as well?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I certainly do.
Ms Cronk: With respect to the balance of the guidelines, you'll be relieved to know I'm not going to take you through every section of these, but could I ask you to look, if you would, please, at section 24. Am I correct in my reading of it that that section is concerned particularly with a minister's activities in and about their constituency office duties as a member of Parliament?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: That section contemplates or provides that "Where a minister's constituency office undertakes activities in which members" -- I take that to be members of Parliament --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- "normally engage on behalf of constituents," there is an obligation and a duty on ministers to "take all reasonable steps to ensure that their office as minister is not used to further the interests of the constituent"?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You have a considerable -- you probably have many, Ms Gigantes, but you've got one certainly -- advantage in respect to this discussion: I am not as fully familiar with the realities of running a constituency office as a member of Parliament or the many duties that are associated with being a minister of the crown, as you are, by a long, long stretch. So I want to make sure that I'm understanding this section correctly. Is this saying that there is a difference to be borne in mind between a member of Parliament's duties with respect to -- let me rephrase it -- there's a difference to be borne in mind between a minister's responsibilities in their capacity as a member of Parliament in the constituency sphere as distinct from their responsibilities as a minister of the crown?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And that in the exercise of those duties or in fulfilling the activities that you undertake as a member of Parliament with respect to your constituents, that's quite different from what you do as a minister of the crown in respect to the portfolio for which you're responsible.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: And that's to be borne in mind?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It is.
Ms Cronk: Okay. With respect to paragraphs 21 and 22, without reading them, would I be correct in assuming that you endorse the principles contained in those sections as well?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I certainly do.
Ms Cronk: With respect generally to the issue of conflict of interest and the approach reflected by these guidelines, Ms Gigantes, I'm going to ask if you would look with me at a portion of a copy of the annual report of the Commission on Conflict of Interest from 1993-94. I think we have copies of that.
Mr Chair, this is an extract from the annual report for this year, 1993-94, from the Commission on Conflict of Interest. May we mark that as the next exhibit?
The Chair: Number 18.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Ms Gigantes, could I ask you to look with me first, if you would, please, at the second-to-last page of this extract, which is in a section entitled by the commissioner "Take Time to Reflect." Have you got that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. I'm going to direct your attention to the comments contained in the column on the right-hand side, which appear to concern the Premier's guidelines that we just spoke about. Do you see that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Specifically, in that column of this part of the report reference is made to sections 21 to 24 of the guidelines.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: We just looked at those.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Then in the concluding paragraph to the report and to this column of discussion about the guidelines it's suggested as follows: "Ministers always wear the cloak of ministerial responsibility. There is no way that their actions, whether verbal or written, and whether in the member's position as an elected member of the Legislature or as a minister, can be considered by the recipient as other than actions by a minister, and thus could reasonably be considered as attempting to influence a decision contrary to s.4 of the act."
Stopping there for a moment, that's clearly a reference to section 4 of the conflict-of-interest legislation, which we're not concerned with here today.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: But do you agree with the principle that "Ministers always wear the cloak of ministerial responsibility"?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I do.
1540
Ms Cronk: When I suggested to you a few moments ago with respect to section 24 of the guidelines that there's this distinction between what a minister does qua ministerial duties and what a minister does qua his or her duties as a member of Parliament with respect to constituents, I wouldn't want to leave the impression that there isn't an interplay, because this clearly suggests there is.
Hon Ms Gigantes: There can be an interplay.
Ms Cronk: In respect of both, if one is a minister of the crown, one's always coloured with that position.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That is correct.
Ms Cronk: It is also suggested by the commissioner in this portion of his report that there is no way that actions by a minister of the crown, whether in writing or oral -- he uses the phrase "whether verbal or written, and whether in the member's position as an elected member of the Legislature" -- that is, as an MPP -- "or as a minister, can be considered by" those who come into contact with them, by "the recipient as other than actions by a minister." Do you agree with that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't know if I would agree with that. I would have to sit and think about what the commissioner means by that, because I find it a somewhat unclear statement, frankly. But that's personal.
Ms Cronk: Well, I'm asking for your views on it. Can we go this far together, and please tell me if we can't, that in whatever appearance or attendance you are involved -- by that, I mean, Ms Gigantes, when you hold the position of Minister of Housing and also your status as a member of Parliament -- that those that you deal with, when you're there in an official capacity, whether as a member of Parliament or as a minister, that those with whom you deal know that, and in the minds of the public with whom you deal, you are a minister as well as a member of Parliament, and that's sort of hard to forget.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Without seeming to be facetious or light about this, I often go to meetings where people don't know who I am. I often talk to people at meetings who are unaware of the responsibility that I carry as minister. So that's not always true. I think that different people certainly look upon my activities -- and I would suspect that this would be true of all ministers -- in aspects of work that I carry out which I would be calling constituency work, which have nothing to do with the ministerial responsibilities which I have in a much less formal sense as a minister.
Ms Cronk: I fully accept that. Are there, however, situations where, if your attendance is brought about by virtue of the fact that you are a minister, that we could agree that the people with whom you deal in those kinds of situations may be taken to be conscious of the fact that you are there in your position as a minister and a member of Parliament?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes, absolutely.
Ms Cronk: And in that context would you agree with me that the actions of a minister in those kinds of situations -- that in those situations the people who deal with ministers will see the minister as acting as a minister as well as a member of Parliament; in other words, the roles become somewhat merged?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, that's correct.
Ms Cronk: Is that fair?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, it certainly is.
Ms Cronk: So I take your point that if you're there unannounced or unintroduced in a formal way and not in an official position as a minister, then the situation may be different.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I have been at meetings where I've been introduced in a formal way and then had discussions with people who asked what I do.
Ms Cronk: I see. All right. Well, where they know who you are and you're introduced as such, the situation, you'd agree, is different.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, and there are situations -- and I think this may be the point that you're trying to clarify with me -- where in fact the role of being a minister is such that one has to be extremely careful about how that role affects people.
Ms Cronk: In short, Ms Gigantes, when you are a minister of the crown, it's not something that you can forget when you're dealing with people. That's the reality.
Hon Ms Gigantes: You can forget it. There are lots of times in lots of situations in both my ministerial job and in my job as an elected member where people treat me just as if I were a normal person. There are many occasions like that, and they're very heartwarming and they're great.
There are other occasions, which I think is the point you're trying to make, where the role of minister is one which requires enormous care and enormous -- well, I would say care about what you write and what you say and how you behave.
Ms Cronk: And would you agree with me -- because I thank you for that and it is in part what I am getting at -- would you agree with me that as a minister of the crown, you must ever be alert to that reality?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes --
Ms Cronk: And whether people make you feel --
Hon Ms Gigantes: -- I agree most definitively.
Ms Cronk: All right. And whether people make you feel at ease -- and I can understand why that would be both refreshing and welcome on a personal level -- notwithstanding that, when you're there as a minister of the crown and it's known that you are, it is not something that can ever really be forgotten.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That is correct. And in fact we are verbally reminded of that.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you perhaps while we're in the same volume to look at tab 3, which is --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Is this exhibit 1, volume 1?
Ms Cronk: Sorry, you're out of the volume. It's exhibit 1, volume 1, tab 3.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Tab 3.
Ms Cronk: Which is an extract from Hansard from the proceedings of the standing committee on administration of justice from the 18th of February, 1991, when, as I understand it, the --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm sorry. I've got December 12th, 1990.
Ms Cronk: That's fine. We'll deal with that page and then, following that, I think you'll find it from the 18th of February, 1991.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I don't believe so. Yes, that's correct.
Ms Cronk: And as I understand it, on both of those days, Ms Gigantes, both the 12th of December, 1990, and February 18th, 1991, the topic of discussion before the standing committee was the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It would appear so. I wouldn't remember that personally.
Ms Cronk: Okay, but just taking a look at the title of discussion on the top of the page, both pages, would you agree that appears to be the case?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Exactly.
Ms Cronk: And on both occasions, looking at these extracts from Hansard, it appears that the Premier, Bob Rae, appeared before the committee and made -- in the February extract appeared before the committee and made a statement, and in the December 12th extract is also making a statement on conflict of interest generally.
Hon Ms Gigantes: In the House.
Ms Cronk: In the House.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Then dealing with the December 12th entry, if we could, and dealing first with the first full paragraph of the statement by the Premier, the following is attributed to him:
"Hon Mr Rae: I am pleased to announce that today I will be tabling a new set of guidelines with respect to conflict of interest. The 31 articles of these guidelines will impose upon cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants clearer standards of conduct than those imposed by existing conflict-of-interest legislation and policies."
Stopping there for a moment, that's much of what is embodied in the "Purpose" section of the guidelines that we looked at.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Correct.
Ms Cronk: Then he goes on to say:
"These guidelines do not replace the existing standards or the law that was passed in the previous Parliament, but rather they extend and strengthen them."
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you agree with that, given your knowledge of the guidelines --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: -- that that's their import?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And then he goes on to say:
"First, I consider it essential to establish certain fundamental principles. It is to be our governing principle that we must at all times act in a manner that will not only bear the closest public scrutiny but will go further and ensure public confidence and trust in the integrity of government."
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And do you endorse that principle as well?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, I endorse the principle. I don't know if we ever ensure public confidence and trust in the integrity of government, but I certainly believe that it is our responsibility to promote it, and to promote it by our actions.
Ms Cronk: And that implies proactive actions?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: So are you saying that the obligation is both to maintain it and do what you can to promote it and enhance it?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And then looking to the second column, that is, the column on the right, if I could ask you to look at the first full paragraph in English after the paragraph in French.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: The Premier went on to say -- and I take these statements to have been made at the time of introduction of the guidelines.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: In that paragraph he says:
"Few principles are more fundamental to our democratic system than the independence of our justice system. Accordingly, we set out in some detail guidelines regarding communication with judges, tribunals, prosecutors and the police, mindful that these guidelines are part of and subject to the fundamental duty to maintain public confidence and trust."
Stopping there, do you agree with those principles?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Absolutely.
Ms Cronk: And moving down to the second-next paragraph, he continues:
"In my view these guidelines are only part of a process we must continue. The guidelines are limited to those matters which do not require legislative implementation."
And then his concluding comment, immediately above something about the moose tag lottery, which you'll be relieved to know I am not going to ask you anything about, the last paragraph immediately --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I actually know something about that.
Ms Cronk: I don't. That's why I'm not going to ask you about it. The paragraph immediately before it reads:
"As committed as I am to the establishment of guidelines and codes in legislation on ethics in government, I realize all too well that nothing we commit to writing can substitute for common sense and a well-developed sense of public duty."
Do you endorse those principles?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I certainly do.
1550
Ms Cronk: All right. Now, as I understand it, in your particular case, Ms Gigantes, you actually served on the standing committee on administration of justice that considered these guidelines following their introduction. Am I right in that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I served extremely briefly, unfortunately -- well, unfortunately and fortunately. The situation was that I had resigned my responsibilities as the Minister of Health. I assumed some committee -- as an ordinary member of the government, I assumed committee responsibilities, and then, before I could carry out many committee responsibilities, I was appointed to responsibilities as the Minister of Housing.
Ms Cronk: Did you then, for the portion of time that you participated in the work of the committee, actively engage yourself, together with your colleagues, in consideration of the guidelines and in considering their content and the wisdom of any amendments or expansion of them?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I believe I participated briefly, and I couldn't tell you for how long. I will also note that my best memory of discussion of the guidelines would come from the period of discussion that we had in cabinet.
Ms Cronk: All right. Well, perhaps we could come to that.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Could I just understand more clearly then the role that you had on the subcommittee? You did participate in some of its discussions?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm afraid -- had I known, I would've looked up to assure myself of the length of my participation or the fact of my participation, and I'm afraid I cannot recollect. Again, I would say that I might confuse discussions that we had in cabinet from discussions in committee, though it does seem to me that I can recall some discussion in committee.
Ms Cronk: Right, thank you. That's helpful. Can you confirm for me that in addition to your own involvement, and you've clarified what that was, the other members of the committee included, as it happens, Mr Harnick, Mr Chiarelli and Mr Winninger?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I'm sorry, I can't confirm that.
Ms Cronk: All right. I'm going to show you the report and perhaps you could just look at the membership section --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- and indicate whether I've put that to you accurately.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Thank you.
Ms Cronk: Does that suggest that Mr Chiarelli, Mr Harnick and Mr Winninger -- I just thought that was sort of interesting -- were also members of that committee?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And then, in fairness to you, if I could take the report back --
The Chair: Ms Cronk, you have to talk into the mike. It might not pick up when you're walking and talking.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. I was saying I need to borrow it back. I don't have another copy here.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's fine.
Ms Cronk: I'd like to put one or two propositions to you that are reflected in the majority report of the committee and then ask you if you agree or disagree. All right?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: At page 1 of the report there's an introduction to the work of the committee and to the fact that the committee was struck to consider the guidelines and to report back on any amendments or changes proposed to be made to them; and again dealing with the purpose of the guidelines and what's described as the debate of whether the guidelines are necessary, it says the following, and the quote's not very long. If you'd like to look at it after I've read it, I'll show it to you.
In much the same language as used by the Premier on his introduction of the guidelines in the Legislature, it says the following:
"Public confidence in the integrity of the political process and in those elected to govern is an essential element in maintaining the vitality of our democratic institutions."
Do you agree with that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I believe that very firmly.
Ms Cronk: Right, and it continues at page 2. There's a brief summary of the evidence of certain witnesses in very much of an overview way, and it says:
"According to one witness, the guidelines appropriately address public perception and the appearance of conflict because in politics perception is often just as important as reality."
I'm not a politician, but do you agree with that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I agree that perception is a very important element. I don't know that I would say that I think perception is as important as reality, but I agree that the public's confidence is very much dependent on perception.
Ms Cronk: And the public's confidence both in the integrity of government and in the independence and impartiality of the justice system are underpinnings of our system of government.
Hon Ms Gigantes: They are.
Ms Cronk: And by virtue of serving on the subcommittee -- and I recognize that you've clarified that it was a more limited involvement than I had understood -- but by virtue of the involvement that you did have would it be fair of me to assume for the purposes of the balance of our discussion today that you had a high degree of awareness, not only as a member of Parliament with knowledge of your government's introduction of the guidelines but also by virtue of your status as a committee member and a member of cabinet that dealt with it, that you had a very high level of awareness of the purpose of the guidelines, the perceived need for them and the importance of adhering to them?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can recollect further that before the 1984 by-election, in which I ran, I had a private discussion with Bob Rae on this subject and encouraged him to think in the future about what we could do to improve public confidence in government.
Ms Cronk: Was it then your personal view that that should be -- and I'm not attaching any priority to it in asking you this question, but that that should be on the action list, as it were, of your government as matters to be looked at?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. Yes, indeed.
Ms Cronk: And am I correct in my understanding as well, Ms Gigantes, that consistent with that discussion that you've relayed, on a personal level you have been a proponent in the past of stronger conflict-of-interest legislation?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I have.
Ms Cronk: And then dealing just with two or three other general principles as really the basis of our discussion of some items this afternoon, I'd like to talk for a moment about principles of governmental accountability and ministerial responsibility so that I understand your perspective on some of these issues as well as your experience.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Please.
Ms Cronk: Would you agree that government must be accountable for its actions in a public and transparently open way if the confidence of the public in government is to be maintained?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And would you agree that that is, by extension, true of the agents of government, if I can put it that way, that is, both members of Parliament and more particularly ministers of the crown?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, indeed.
Ms Cronk: All right. Again, do you still have a copy there, Ms Gigantes, of the commissioner's annual report on conflict of interest that we looked at a moment ago?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: The same section we were looking at before under part C, the second-to-last page of the document, and the commissioner is saying in the first paragraph the following: "From the" -- sorry, under part C, "Take Time to Reflect."
"From the anonymized inquiries included in this report and from others referred to the commission, it would appear that considerable misunderstandings still remain with respect to activities which may be carried on by ministers, parliamentary assistants and their staff with regard to courts, quasi-judicial bodies, agencies, boards and commissions."
And he continues:
"The Ontario political system is based on the Westminster model of parliament -- a cabinet government with its accompanying constitutional conventions of,
"(1) ministerial responsibility;
"(2) political neutrality; and
"(3) public service anonymity."
Do you agree with that characterization of the Ontario political system and its underlying conventions?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, I don't think that's how I'd define it, because I'd like to understand how he would link political neutrality to the Westminster model, because that's not the first description I'd give of the Westminster model. But I think that the idea he is trying to convey is one in which there is a public service which provides service to members of the public in a way which is accountable and which is not dependent on anybody's favours.
Ms Cronk: And with respect to the concept of ministerial responsibility as opposed to the obligations of the public service, do you agree that this basic concept is, as he suggests, fundamental to our model of parliament?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
1600
Ms Cronk: In that connection, that is, concerning ministerial responsibility, would you agree or disagree, Ms Gigantes, that ministers of the crown -- perhaps I should put it to you a different way. If a member of your staff, be it your political staff or your policy advisers or your constituency staff, are aware of circumstances which could give rise to a potential conflict for you --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- and the facts giving rise to those circumstances, are you as a minister concerned both to be informed of those circumstances and, as well, do you regard yourself as fixed with the knowledge of your staff in that kind of a situation?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Fixed with the knowledge of my staff?
Ms Cronk: That's perhaps awkwardly put, in a lawyer's way of putting it, perhaps badly. What I'm saying to you is, and I don't know your views on this, if your staff, be it at the constituency level or in your offices in Toronto, out of the minister's offices, know, have actual knowledge or have facts available to them that could give rise to a potential conflict for you --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- do you regard yourself as a minister seized of their knowledge? What I'm asking you is, what is the connection --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Do I expect them to tell me?
Ms Cronk: That was part of my question. Let's deal with that first. I assume that you would wish to be informed of those circumstances as soon as it came to the attention of your staff.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, indeed.
Ms Cronk: Right. And that would be so, both to be consistent with the need to be responsible as a minister and also because there's a political import to that: You need to know if there's a potential for a conflict.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. Apart from the need and your expectation that you would be informed --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- of those circumstances, if they know and you do not, is it your view as a minister that you are responsible or should be taken as having their knowledge in those circumstances? Do you understand what I'm getting at?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Ah, so you're saying, if a staff person has information which might suggest that there was a conflict, a potential conflict in matters that I was concerned with, would I be held responsible if they did not tell me?
Ms Cronk: I don't mean in the legal sense. I'm not asking you for that, but is their knowledge in so far as you're concerned --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- when you're dealing with the members of the public involved in that situation, to be taken as your knowledge?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Is their knowledge to be taken as my knowledge?
Ms Cronk: You still don't -- all right.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, sorry.
Ms Cronk: I'm putting it to you badly. Let me give you an example. Tell me if you think it's an inappropriate one.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: As a lawyer, if you are a partner in a law firm, for example, and you have less experienced lawyers assisting you --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- in dealing with a client or a member of the public, what they learn about that client's business colours your knowledge, whether they actually tell you or not, so that if there's information that comes to their attention --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- that affects the client's interests --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right.
Ms Cronk: -- and if you are the senior individual responsible for the interests of that client --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- then you're responsible for events as they unfold, whether you actually knew the details or not -- or could be; I'm not suggesting a legal conclusion. In other words, as the senior person responsible in that context for dealing with a member of the public --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- or a client, you are responsible for all aspects of the client's interests. By analogy, what I'm saying to you is, if your staff have information available to them on a matter in which you are involved or concerned that suggests the potential for a conflict, in so far as the member of the public is concerned who is affected by the situation in their dealings with you, is it fair or unfair in your view, appropriate or inappropriate, for the member of the public to assume that what your staff knows you know?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, I think that members of the public would make that assumption and it might in some cases be an assumption that should be made. In other cases I can think that there might be circumstances in which that might not be such a cut-and-dried matter. It would depend, it seems to me, on the circumstances. You don't want me to invent scenarios --
Ms Cronk: No.
Hon Ms Gigantes: -- but that would be my answer.
Ms Cronk: All right. Should I take from that, then, that in so far as members of the public are concerned, there may be circumstances where your actual knowledge is important but there may also be circumstances where what they, the public, have told your staff or persons connected with you can be taken and expected by them to be known to you, to be communicated to you, it varies?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think that there might be situations in which staff might have some knowledge and, for some reason or other which was an acceptable reason which the public would accept if that reason were known, staff would not or could not convey it in a timely manner. I guess here I'm thinking about circumstances related to time or events.
Ms Cronk: So there might be situations where you don't actually have the information that's available to staff, for whatever reason.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, not just that, but where the lack of that information might be caused by circumstances which are entirely reasonable.
Ms Cronk: All right, where they're prevented for some reasonable reason and not communicating the information to you.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right, but as a minister of the crown, in your own ministry do you have and do you expect that members of your staff, be it the political staff or the policy side or the constituency arm, will bring to your attention information of which they are aware that could give rise to a potential conflict?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, that's the operating principle.
Ms Cronk: And that's the expectation you have of the people who work for and with you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Could I ask you then, generally, how some of these concepts might apply? I'm going to, again, put some general propositions to you and I invite you to make whatever comment you wish about your own views on them.
I'm going to suggest to you that there are different kinds of situations of potential difficulty where conflicts might arise in circumstances where legal proceedings have been commenced and are pending. I want to make clear the context in which I'm going to put the question.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Very good.
Ms Cronk: There's a legal action that's been initiated and pending before the courts. In a situation of that kind, is it important to know, first, the type of legal action and whether it's a civil suit or involves criminal proceedings or those that might be regarded as quasi-criminal? That's an important factor?
Hon Ms Gigantes: In my view, yes.
Ms Cronk: Yes. Would you agree that there are situations where, if legal proceedings have been commenced, a minister of the crown might be precluded from meeting with persons involved in that lawsuit? For example, one of the witnesses before the committee this week suggested that where a minister of the crown was actually named in a lawsuit, the minister would be completely precluded from meeting with, qua their ministerial position, individuals involved in the lawsuit. That was an example that was provided.
What I'm suggesting to you is that there are situations where a minister would be precluded from meeting, for conflict or appearance of conflict reasons, from persons who are involved in pending legal proceedings. Would you agree with that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think there are situations. However, I think there are -- I do agree there are situations in which a minister is precluded, absolutely. I do think that there are situations, even when a minister is named in a lawsuit, where in the course of normal duties you end up meeting with people who are associated with an organization, for example, which is suing the ministry and the minister.
I wouldn't doubt that -- in fact I have been in a meeting with landlords, for example, who have had actions against the ministry over rent control matters. We just don't have any discussion about that. The meeting is a large group meeting and the subject never comes up. So there aren't, I think, rules that you can nail down terribly easily. I don't check, before I go to a meeting with an organization, whether a member of the organization I'm going to meet with might, in private business, have a suit or a claim or an action against the Ministry of Housing.
Ms Cronk: I understand. Given the realities of the duties that you have, undertaking those kinds of inquiries every time you wanted to accomplish anything in the course of a day or a week would be humanly impossible. But what I'm suggesting to you is that there are circumstances where, by virtue of the relations between you as minister of the crown or your staff or your ministry and the people involved in the pending lawsuit, you would be precluded from meeting with them.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes. Absolutely. Not only that, when I get some kinds of correspondence, as a minister I frequently have to write back and say: "I can't comment. I can't assist until this matter is resolved."
Ms Cronk: Indeed, just on that note, would I be correct in suggesting to you that, once a minister of the crown is aware that legal proceedings are pending and before the courts, the standard reply, when people solicit comments or seek to engage a minister in discussion about it, is usually that you can't comment, that the matter's before the courts? That's often the response?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, and it's a good starting point, in my view and in my experience.
1610
Ms Cronk: It's also a cautious one and appropriate for that reason?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Would you also agree with me that in addition to situations where, by virtue of the relations of the people involved, the status of the people involved, leading to preclusion of a minister from meeting, that there are situations in which, although it might not be precluded, it would be inappropriate or unwise for a minister to meet with the individuals involved in a pending lawsuit?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm sure there are such circumstances.
Ms Cronk: What I'm getting at there is that there are circumstances where perception alone may dictate that a meeting of that kind would be inappropriate, as distinct from any legal requirement. Again I'm not asking you for legal conclusions that you couldn't make.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I agree completely.
Ms Cronk: You explained to me your views on perception as reality a few moments ago. Would you agree with me that perception goes directly to the issue of the confidence of the public in the integrity of government and in the objectivity and fairness of the administration of justice?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It does.
Ms Cronk: As a minister of the crown, you've acknowledged that it is your duty both to maintain and indeed, you suggest, proactively enhance that form of public confidence.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Whenever there is an opportunity.
Ms Cronk: Should I take from that that you'd agree it would equally be your obligation to avoid doing anything which would undermine public confidence, either in the integrity of government or in the independence of the administration of justice?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I believe that very firmly.
Ms Cronk: Would you also agree with me that that's an obligation of every member of Parliament, let alone a cabinet minister?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, but especially ministers of government.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. You told me a few moments ago -- and although it may have seemed that I did, I didn't forget that you said you had some involvement at the cabinet level in consideration of the Premier's guidelines.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I'm not going to ask you and I'm not interested in actual discussions that occurred in cabinet about it, but were you an active participant in consideration of the policy reasoning behind the guidelines?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, indeed.
Ms Cronk: And were you a proponent of them?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. It was of special interest to me because of my interest in these matters, how difficult it is to frame words that suit all cases.
Ms Cronk: Following their introduction, did members of Parliament and cabinet ministers receive a general orientation to them in addition to the remarks made in the Legislature about them?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't give you a detailed description of what would have happened with members of Parliament.
Ms Cronk: What about ministers of the crown?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Ministers of the crown certainly went through a great deal of discussion. We didn't go to a study session or a briefing session, because we had participated in the cabinet discussion.
Ms Cronk: Do you on an ongoing, annual basis as a minister of the crown have a requirement to meet and discuss, with representatives of the Commission on Conflict of Interest, the guidelines? Do you have any annual requirement to ensure that you are complying with conflict-of-interest legislation?
Hon Ms Gigantes: We have to make reports annually, and during discussion with the commissioner around those reports we raise questions and get advice. It's not as if we have a presentation concerning the subject, but I believe it would probably be the case -- it certainly has been in our government -- that there are frequent discussions among members and among cabinet members on issues that are involved with conflict of interest.
Ms Cronk: In terms of your own staff, do you require or do you provide them upon commencement of their working with you with materials relating to the guidelines to ensure that they're aware of the contents of the guidelines and the obligations that are imposed on you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Our caucus services, as I understand it, has provided training sessions for constituency assistants, and I believe the same kind of training exists for staff at Queen's Park. I personally have never sat down with the conflict-of-interest guidelines and gone through them item by item with the people I work with, but I have felt confident that they understand what is expected of them and I have felt very pleased with what I have seen in their work that reflects that consciousness.
Ms Cronk: In so far as you are aware, did you either require or request that when you became, for example, Minister of Housing, your staff be aware of the contents of the guidelines?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I personally did not make that request, but I do know that there have been sessions in our office and I believe provided through caucus services, though I'm not certain of that; it may in fact be through -- I'm not quite sure how to identify the source of the training sessions that have occurred. But I do know that staff in my Queen's Park office have also been through training sessions.
Ms Cronk: What about your constituency office?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I believe they have, and I certainly have had evidence in my work with them that they are very conscious of the principles involved.
Ms Cronk: All right. May I ask you just a few questions about the reporting arrangements between members of your constituency staff and yourself and your political staff so I understand a little bit more clearly, on a day-to-day basis, how all of that works?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: With respect to scheduling -- let's deal with that first -- if a member of your constituency requests a meeting with you in Ottawa, is it the responsibility of your constituency people to line that meeting up or your Toronto people out of your office here?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That would be done in Ottawa at the constituency office.
Ms Cronk: Do you require or expect that requests of that kind be brought to your attention when made by constituents?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. They exercise a fair amount of judgement. These staff are experienced. They have a good understanding of which issues and which kinds of problems that constituents bring forward are going to be usefully addressed by meeting with me. They will frequently handle constituents' requests for assistance on issues and problems by working on those issues and problems themselves. I very infrequently have had anybody say to me that that's insufficient. Where they make a judgement that it will be useful, from the constituent's point of view, for me to meet because of the nature of the problem or because they have come to the end of their resources working on a problem, then they will make a judgement about who to meet. I get a preview weekly of the proposed schedule. I make very few changes to it, because their judgement has been very, very good.
Ms Cronk: All right. As I understand it then, both in Toronto and in your constituency offices in Ottawa, the first assessment of persons with whom you should meet is made by your staff and you have come to rely on their judgement.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I do. As I say, I get a preview of the proposed schedule for meetings in the constituency office, but it's rare that I change the proposed schedule.
Ms Cronk: Would I be correct in assuming that the final decision in any particular case is always yours?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, if I get enough time to take a look at that proposed schedule, but again, there have been very few instances when I've had reason to make changes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Could I ask you to direct your attention and your mind back to events particularly related to the Van Lang Centre. In particular, the time frame I'm going to ask you some questions about begins in the spring of 1993, leading up to June of this year. First, when do you recall first meeting a woman by the name of Trinh Luu?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Trinh Luu I met before 1993. Trinh Luu I met at the opening of the Van Lang non-profit. It was late summer or early fall of 1992.
1620
Ms Cronk: And the committee has actually heard in evidence that there was a point when Ms Luu was offered a position with your offices here in Toronto, initially accepted it and then subsequently declined for reasons personal to herself. Is that correct?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct, yes. She had been interviewed by my staff as a potential employee in the Ottawa Centre constituency office before I met with her, so she was already known to members of my staff when I met her.
Ms Cronk: Did you interview her then in respect of the potential position in your constituency office?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I didn't interview her.
Ms Cronk: So I misunderstood what you said. Did you subsequently interview her with respect to the prospective position in your Toronto office?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. And the decision that came out of that was to offer her the job?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct, yes.
Ms Cronk: That didn't come about, but she was offered the job.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct. In fact, she indicated initially that she was interested and then because of personal reasons decided against taking it.
Ms Cronk: It's been suggested to the committee that that was some time in late 1992. Does that sound about right to you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, that sounds about right to me. I think that at the turn of the year we found out from her that she had changed her mind and that she would not take the position.
Ms Cronk: And following that, as one moves into the spring of 1993 and then the summer of 1993 and in the following months, is it fair and can you confirm that Ms Luu had rather frequent contact with your constituency office about matters related to the Van Lang Centre?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't think I'd call them initially "frequent," but she certainly did have contact, and to my recollection it would have begun not too long after -- am I getting my years right here now? I met her in 1992. It would have begun in the spring of 1993.
Ms Cronk: My question was, from that point forward in the following months -- let's take it from the spring through to the end of December 1993 -- she had more than casual contact with your constituency office. She became a figure known to them in the sense that she contacted them from time to time. Is that a fair general description?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, and she also, I think, had a more personal contact in the sense that a couple of staff in my constituency office, Sue Lott and Audrey Moey, struck up a fairly friendly acquaintance with her.
Ms Cronk: And were you aware of that at the time? And by that I mean in 1993.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I was.
Ms Cronk: And when did you first meet Ms Sharron Pretty?
Hon Ms Gigantes: To my knowledge, I'd never seen Sharron Pretty until June 17, 1994.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard that she also began to communicate with your constituency office staff in the fall of 1993. Were you aware of that at the time?
Hon Ms Gigantes: There was a communication from her in the fall of 1993, shortly after, as I understood it, she had become a member of the Van Lang Centre board of directors. It was a lengthy communication, and I certainly recollect it.
Ms Cronk: All right. What I'd like to do is ask you a number of questions about events in the fall of 1993 and the winter of 1994. As I indicated earlier, there is a large number of documents before the committee, and if you feel you would like to have reference to any one or more of them, please just indicate that to me. There are few that I wish to actually show to you, but if you feel you wish to look at them, please let me know that.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I may do that from time to time.
Ms Cronk: That would be fine. The committee has heard that in the spring of 1993, Ms Luu was then employed as a property manager at the Van Lang Centre. You've indicated that you attended the opening of that centre the preceding fall. Is the centre actually in your riding?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. It's in the riding of Ottawa West.
Ms Cronk: Why then would you have attended at the Van Lang Centre opening?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I, as Minister of Housing, attend as many non-profit and co-op development openings as I can. I do that throughout Ontario, and I take advantage of being based in Ottawa to go to as many as I can in that area.
Ms Cronk: "In that area" meaning the Ottawa area?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: While you were at the opening, did you meet a number of the directors of the Van Lang Centre?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I had previously met the only member of the board of directors whom I was then familiar with, to my recollection, and that was Dr Can Le.
Ms Cronk: And you recall meeting him in the fall of 1992?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I knew him before then.
Ms Cronk: I see. And how was that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I had known him over many years as a person who was very active in the Vietnamese community in Ottawa-Carleton and who was very active politically.
Ms Cronk: And did you know Trinh Luu in that connection, or was she simply a woman you met at the opening in November 1992?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I'd heard about Trinh Luu from my staff and she acted as the master of ceremonies at the opening, and I was very taken by her.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard that in the spring of 1993 difficulties arose in Ms Luu's employment with the Van Lang Centre in the sense that she developed concerns regarding the Van Lang Centre and certain of what I've termed its management practices, issues related, for example, to its superintendent at the time, and that that led to correspondence by Ms Luu with representatives of the Ministry of Housing in Ottawa in June 1993. Looking back on it now, do you know whether as early as June 1993 you were made aware of concerns being expressed by Ms Luu regarding the Van Lang Centre?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You've said, "Yes, I do remember," and were you --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I do remember.
Ms Cronk: Were you so informed?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I was.
Ms Cronk: And did you know at that time that she had provided quite a lengthy report in mid-June of 1993 to Mr Brian Sutherland, of the eastern regional offices of the Ministry of Housing, setting out her concerns, and that she had as well met towards the end of that month with members of your constituency office staff to discuss some of her concerns?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I knew she had met with the staff. I cannot now say whether I knew at the time that she had done a lengthy report to Brian Sutherland.
Ms Cronk: Did you subsequently, over the course of the summer, learn that she'd been in touch with Ministry of Housing representatives in Ottawa?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Again, it's very difficult for me to recollect exactly what it was that I knew during that period about her relationship with the Ministry of Housing. I can say this to you: that I would expect that if she had not already initiated contact with Ministry of Housing officials, both I and the constituency staff would have directed her to do that, so that's what I would expect would have happened.
Ms Cronk: So you think it likely that that occurred --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: -- but there's an element of reconstruction in there for you.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, in terms of my recollection. I understand that there are documents before this committee that indicate that that's the case. But in terms of my personal recollection, that's all I can tell you.
Ms Cronk: In fairness to you, I assume that you have, to refresh your memory about a number of matters related to this in preparation for these hearings, looked at a number of documents.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And it becomes difficult to determine what one knows now cumulatively as opposed to what one knew at a particular point in the past.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can tell you what I know now because there is paper about it, but to tell you what I remember from that period is quite another thing.
Ms Cronk: Where you are uncertain and I ask you that as we move through this chronology, it would be important from my perspective that you tell me that.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do I take from what you've said that your constituency office staff, at some point towards the end of June or thereafter, told you that Ms Luu had been in touch with them, at least, about her concerns?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes indeed.
Ms Cronk: Did you have occasion personally to go to the Van Lang Centre, to physically be at the Van Lang Centre, at any point in 1993?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I did not.
Ms Cronk: Have you been there in fact since the date of its official opening?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I have not.
Ms Cronk: The committee has also heard that in August 1993 the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre underwent certain changes to its composition and that that resulted in the assumption of the presidency of the Van Lang corporation by a Dr Hieu Truong and the introduction to the board at the same time of Ms Sharron Pretty as a tenant representative on the board. Did you have any knowledge in the summer or early fall of 1993 of those events, or did you learn that much later?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't tell you when I learned that. I certainly became aware some time in the fall of 1993 that Sharron Pretty, who was a resident at the Van Lang development, had become a member of the board. The way I learned that was to learn of her dissatisfactions, which were very much along the lines that had been raised previously by Trinh Luu.
1630
Ms Cronk: Just to make sure I understand that, when you came to know of Sharron Pretty's concerns, it's in that context that you learned of her status as a tenant-director?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's it.
Ms Cronk: Is that it? And at some point during the early fall of 1993, did you learn that Trinh Luu had been in touch with Ministry of Housing officials in Ottawa about Van Lang Centre issues? Can you pinpoint for me when you first became aware of that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I'm afraid I can't, not by personal recollection. I know there is paper that indicates what happened, and I was probably made aware by paper.
Ms Cronk: We'll come to some of that in the fall, then.
Did you at some point become aware of the fact that Trinh Luu had left the employ of the centre and actually had embarked on legal studies?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes. In fact, this helps me remember, and I'm glad you've raised that. By the time I went to the shower for Audrey Moey, who was about to have a baby, and Trinh Luu was there, I certainly was aware that she had been in touch with the constituency office about her continuing dissatisfactions and that she had continued to be in touch with the constituency office from June, and that she was planning to leave her work at the Van Lang Centre and go to the University of Ottawa to study law. When I encountered her at the shower, which was a delightful event, she spoke to me about her continuing concerns. She took advantage of the situation to elaborate her concerns.
Ms Cronk: Was that the second time you recall meeting Ms Luu personally?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't think I had met her -- I can't say. It may have been the third. I may have met her some time between June 1992 -- oh, of course, because I had been involved in the interview, finally, about the Queen's Park job. So I would have met her again then, and certainly I met her at the shower, and I think there was another occasion. I don't recall what it was.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall when that shower was held?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, it was in August.
Ms Cronk: August 1993?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Because Audrey was leaving. We just got the shower in in time.
Ms Cronk: Was it your understanding, then, that Trinh Luu had not yet left the employ of the Van Lang Centre but was about to?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. She was just about to leave and she was going to start her studies.
Ms Cronk: Did she outline to you in the course of that social event some of the concerns she had about the Van Lang Centre?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes, and she made it clear that she had been talking to the staff at the constituency office in full, and she reminded me of that.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard that in early November of 1993, Ms Luu actually wrote to you directly and outlined some of her concerns and requested a meeting with you. When do you remember becoming aware of that request and that letter from her?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't tell you exactly the date when I became aware of the letter, but I do recall very clearly trying to make sure that it was responded to before Christmas. I was going to take some time off at Christmas and I wanted to have a response to Trinh before Christmas so it wasn't hanging around over the break.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look, if you would, please, at exhibit 1, volume 2, at tab 12, Ms Gigantes. The document at that tab is a letter dated November 8, 1993, and it's addressed to you at a Queen Street address in Ottawa. Do I understand that correctly to be your constituency office?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right.
Ms Cronk: There is no date stamp on it, but I can direct your attention to tab 14, and you will see there a letter dated December 6, 1993. Is this December 6 letter a reply by you to Ms Trinh Luu's letter of November 8?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: In her letter of November 8, Ms Luu specifically requested a meeting with you on matters related to the Van Lang Centre, and in your letter of December 6, as I read it, and please tell me if I'm misinterpreting this, what you were basically saying was that you had not yet received a copy of the compliance report relating to the Van Lang Centre but that once you had the report you would be in contact with her, first, and that you would let her know if other actions appeared to be necessary. Is that correct?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I note in the case of this particular letter that it's -- first of all, it was the Christmas season, the beginning of December, but it seems to be a more personalized letter than many that ministers, including yourself in the documents we've seen here, sign after preparation by their staff. Did you personally prepare this letter, or do you recall that? Its tone, I'm suggesting, is less formal than many would write.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I know I had a hand in it. That's not actually that unusual for me.
Ms Cronk: You think, then, that you either prepared this or had a hand in its preparation, that it wasn't staff originating for you. Would that be fair?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Staff may have originated it, but I do recall having a hand in it.
Ms Cronk: By the time that letter came in from Trinh Luu, the committee has received evidence that there had been an earlier letter, a letter dated October 29th, from Sharron Pretty. The state of the evidence before the committee at this point is that there were at least three versions of that letter; the main substance of the letter is unchanged as among the versions. But it is the evidence of Ms Pretty and Ms Luu that a copy of Ms Pretty's October 29th letter was delivered directly to your constituency office shortly after its date of authorship on October 28th or 29th and indeed that they had met together with members of your staff on either the 28th of October or the 29th to request a meeting with you.
First, did your staff tell you in the fall of 1993 that Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty were asking or that Trinh Luu and someone else from the Van Lang Centre were asking for a meeting with you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, they did.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall when they conveyed that information to you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall seeing the letter from Sharron Pretty? Would it help you to take a look at it?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I've taken a look at it, and indeed I do recall seeing the letter from Sharron Pretty. It was a very substantial letter, and it was very consistent with the kinds of concerns that had been raised in the past by Trinh Luu, and it contained new items of concern.
Ms Cronk: One of the exhibits before the committee is exhibit 17. This is a copy of one of the versions of the October 29th letter. This one bears a date stamp on the back of "November 5, 1993, at the minister's office, Ministry of Housing." I'm just going to hand it to you and ask if that's the letter that you remember seeing from Ms Pretty, and if so, whether the date stamp assists you in indicating to the committee when you personally saw that letter for the first time.
Mr Sutherland: Did you say tab 17?
Ms Cronk: No, I said exhibit 17 is a copy of the October 29th letter with a receipt stamp.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I certainly am familiar with this letter. When I actually saw it, I cannot tell you.
Ms Cronk: The receipt stamp on that particular copy of the document is from your office in Toronto, I take it, "the minister's office." Is that a correct interpretation of the stamp?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
1640
Ms Cronk: When letters are received at your Toronto office, what is your expectation as to the reasonable time frame within which their arrival is to be brought to your attention? How long after it comes in at your office in Toronto do you want to know about it?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I want to know about it immediately.
Ms Cronk: How often, as a normal practice, does it take for correspondence that is unexpected to be brought to your attention?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I guess the best I can do is say to you that the ministry has worked out an average length of time for a response to a letter --
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, "has" or "has not?"
Hon Ms Gigantes: Has.
Ms Cronk: And what is that average length of time for a response?
Hon Ms Gigantes: As I recollect, it was 33 days. But there is much correspondence that takes a lot longer than that before I see it, and I usually don't get to see it unless one of my staff has reason to feel I should see it before it goes to the correspondence section, where there is a draft response prepared.
Ms Cronk: In this case, Ms Gigantes, the facts before the committee thus far are as follows. A copy of that letter, as you've just seen from exhibit 17, arrives in your Toronto office on November 5. I don't mean by that that it arrives on your desk, but it arrives in your office in Toronto on November 5. Your constituency office receives a copy of the letter, and there is a version of the letter -- with at least one version, there's a November 2 receipt date on it at your constituency office level. Then, in the latter part of December, on December 21st, a copy of the letter is sent to Marc Collins of your staff in Toronto and he in turn transmits a copy to the deputy minister's office, who records receiving it on December 22nd.
What I'm saying to you by all of that is that at various points in the months of November and December we know that there is at least one copy of the letter coming from your constituency office in the latter part of December to Marc Collins, a member of , I take it, your political staff in Toronto -- can you confirm that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Correct.
Ms Cronk: -- and going to the deputy minister's office, but there's also a copy coming in to your office directly, much earlier, around November 5. Does that assist you at all in when this letter came to your attention?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I wish it did.
Ms Cronk: When you became aware of Trinh Luu's request for a meeting, by virtue of her letter of November 8, did you know then that you'd also heard from one of the tenant-directors of the Van Lang Centre with a detailed description of her concerns?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I wish I could answer that. I don't know.
Ms Cronk: You don't know one way or the other?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. Looking at the date of your response, December 6, to Trinh Luu, does that assist you in recalling whether you knew then of the concerns being expressed by Sharron Pretty?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I wish I could answer you. I don't know.
Ms Cronk: Do you have any recollection of a draft response letter to Sharron Pretty, to the letter of October 29th, being shown to you in January or early February 1994 and, for whatever reason, the response not being sent? Do you remember ever looking at a draft reply?
Hon Ms Gigantes: In preparation for this hearing, I asked myself the question, looking back over the correspondence that existed, why did it take so long? I had checked what had happened with the response, and I believe it was the case that it went through more than one draft.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember being shown a draft and it not going out, for whatever reason?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Once I had been given the information that it went through more than one draft, it seemed to me I recollected that, but raw.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. I missed the last part.
Hon Ms Gigantes: "Raw." That's very difficult to recollect.
Ms Cronk: The only information the committee has in that regard is that there is a draft reply letter dating from about January 11, 1994. The committee has heard that the actual reply to Sharron Pretty was not sent until a letter dated April 25, 1994. Do you remember seeing a draft on or about the month of January or February?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It seemed to me, once I had asked why it was that it took so long to answer this letter, that I could recollect having seen a draft, but that's a pretty backwards way of getting at memory.
Ms Cronk: That's a reconstruction.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It is a reconstruction.
Ms Cronk: And given that you've told me that the average response time is 33 days --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Please don't take that as the gospel, because that's my recollection. We were actually responding to a tabled question on the order paper in the Legislature not too long ago, and that's my recollection.
Ms Cronk: Even doubling it or tripling it, Ms Gigantes, would it be fair of me to suggest that the time that elapsed between either November 5, when we know a copy of this letter arrived in your office from Ms Pretty -- not in your personal office but in the minister's office -- until April 25th, or even working from the December 22nd receipt time frame in the deputy minister's offices through to a reply of April 25th, is a very long time.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It was a very long time.
Ms Cronk: And, I suggest to you, an inordinately long time for a reply to be forthcoming to a letter of that kind.
Hon Ms Gigantes: There are letters of that kind which take an inordinately long time to answer. It is not without precedent.
Ms Cronk: I don't want to attach too much significance to the question, but I am suggesting to you, and I'd simply like your view, wasn't that too long a time frame, looking at it now, for a reply to Ms Pretty?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I thought so at the time.
Ms Cronk: You thought so at the time?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Are you saying to me that when you found out about the letter and realized a reply hadn't gone, that that's when you made your inquiries? You weren't happy then and you're not now. Is that fair?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. I made my inquiries in preparation for this committee hearing, but I would have made inquiries in any case, because the inquiries to my constituency office during that period continued.
Ms Cronk: Let me understand that. We have a situation where you've received a letter from Sharron Pretty expressing concerns about the Van Lang Centre, at least your offices have, right? You're not certain when it actually came to your attention, but you certainly saw and responded yourself to Trinh Luu's letter of November 8, and we've looked at your response letter of December 6. You've indicated, I think now two or three times, that many of the concerns being expressed by Sharron Pretty, as you understood them, were similar to those being expressed by Trinh Luu.
The difference in that, if I can put it that way, is that Trinh Luu actually, in her written letter to you, requested a meeting, and you've replied by saying, "I'll be in contact with you once I've seen the compliance review." Let's talk about that for a moment. Should we take from that that you were aware at the time that the Ministry of Housing had undertaken a compliance review with respect to the Van Lang Centre and that, as at December 6, when you wrote to Trinh Luu, that report was still in progress, or at least that you didn't have it yet?
Hon Ms Gigantes: In fact, I knew that the ministry had undertaken a compliance review in the early fall.
Ms Cronk: And how was that brought to your attention?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It was brought to my attention because I asked what steps the eastern regional offices of the ministry were taking to respond to Trinh Luu's communications.
Ms Cronk: Were you aware of more than one communication from Trinh Luu about these matters in the fall of 1993?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Certainly with my office.
Ms Cronk: Your office being the constituency office?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. The only documentation before the committee in that regard, just to help you with the time frame, in what material we have is that there's the letter to you from Ms Luu from the beginning of November. There's earlier correspondence from her to Brian Sutherland, but that dates from the end of June.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct. But she had been in contact with the staff in my office.
Ms Cronk: Are you saying that you spoke to your staff to see how they were responding to that contact?
Hon Ms Gigantes: My staff?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. My staff told me about these contacts.
Ms Cronk: I see. And in that context, you learned that a compliance review was being undertaken and --
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. I learned in the context of asking at my Queen's Park office, was the ministry in the eastern region responding to the issues that had been raised?
Ms Cronk: I see. I'm sorry. I misunderstood.
Hon Ms Gigantes: And in that context, I learned about their decision to undertake a compliance review, which was going on in the fall of 1993.
Ms Cronk: From time to time, did you see briefing notes that were prepared concerning the Van Lang Centre, some of which date from the fall of 1993?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't now recollect that off the top of my head. There certainly are briefing notes and they would range from mid-1993 through to, well, right up until the end of June of this year.
1650
Ms Cronk: When is the first time, Ms Gigantes, that you have a clear recollection in your own mind of being aware that Sharron Pretty was involved in this, in the sense of concerns being expressed by her as distinct from Trinh Luu?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't tell you that. I can't tell you whether it was through her correspondence or through my knowledge about her involvement from my constituency staff.
Ms Cronk: Regardless of the source, whether it was through her correspondence or information from your constituency staff --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Definitely by the fall of 1993.
Ms Cronk: So you did know by the fall of 1993 that Sharron Pretty was expressing concerns as well, that there was someone called Sharron Pretty and she was expressing concerns.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes indeed.
Ms Cronk: Did you know around that time of the fact that she was both a tenant at the Van Lang Centre -- which of course was not case with Trinh Luu; she'd been an employee -- and that this was a director who was expressing concerns?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I knew that. In fact I recall, when I talked to Trinh Luu at Audrey's shower in August, learning about Sharron Pretty. I believe I heard that from Trinh then.
Ms Cronk: Did you learn as well, during the fall of 1993 -- and please tell me if you did not -- of an effort or an issue associated with the potential removal of Sharron Pretty as a director of this corporation?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Late in the year, and I'm not sure how I learned that.
Ms Cronk: But you think it was before the end of 1993.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I believe so.
Ms Cronk: The committee has received evidence that by the end of December 1993, the situation on the board of directors of the Van Lang corporation was such that -- and this is my language -- one might almost interpret it as dysfunctional in some respects. The language used by Ministry of Housing staff was that acrimony and antagonism had developed to the point that relationships between the various directors were interfering with and bogging down the business of the board. Were you made aware in the fall of 1993, up until the end of December or beginning of January, that there was that type of problem at that facility?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't know that I was aware during the fall of the difficulties at board meetings and the fact that board meetings were becoming more and more a problem. But I certainly was made aware of a very long and troubling list of issues brought to the attention of my constituency staff and to me through communications. I probably became aware also that there were communications with the ministry in Ottawa in terms of written communications. So I was aware of all that.
I don't know that I was aware of the strenuous difficulties in holding meetings of the board until early 1994, when I received a briefing note -- I can't tell you the date, but I'm sure you will be familiar with it -- which indicated that Brian Sutherland had attended the December 30th meeting of the board and that he had witnessed a board in great distress. We --
Ms Cronk: To help -- I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's fine.
Ms Cronk: There is a briefing note before the committee dated February 14, 1994. I mean, there are several, but in particular there is one dated February 14, if I can just find that for you. If you look at volume 2 of exhibit 1, at tab 23, you'll see there a covering memorandum from Lisa Heaton to Patti Redmond dealing with the Van Lang Corp and indicating that a briefing note updating the status of the compliance review was being attached. Do you have that at tab 23?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: From the cover memorandum it appears that Marc Collins received a copy of it -- do you have that? -- from the cc's.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And if you look at the background note dated February 14, can you tell me, did you receive or see in the normal course this background note?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I certainly did see it. Whether this was the first background note I saw which would have -- I'm trying to follow the thread of your earlier question -- indicated to me that the board itself was getting bogged down, as you were describing --
Ms Cronk: If you look at page 2 of the briefing note, there's a topic, "Board Antagonism," and three bullet points appear dealing specifically with this issue.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, but it does seem to me that I had an earlier briefing note which indicated that Brian Sutherland had appeared at a board meeting.
Ms Cronk: There's one at tab 1. This is a draft background note dated January 21, 1994 -- it appears to be a draft -- and that does indicate that Mr Sutherland attended the December 30th board meeting.
Hon Ms Gigantes: And he noted then there were --
Ms Cronk: My difficulty with that and the reason I took you to the February 14th one -- I'm not sure that much turns on whether you knew in January or mid-February.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, but that's the first time I remember hearing directly about the board and the struggles at the board meetings. He noted that --
Ms Cronk: Did he speak to you about it?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. I don't recollect speaking to Brian about that, but I do recollect reading information about his attendance at that meeting.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 21, then. This is a draft January 21st briefing note. I'll direct your attention to the middle bulleted paragraph. It confirms that Mr Sutherland attended the December 30th meeting at the Van Lang Centre, but it does not address the topic of acrimony or antagonism at the board level.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Just to assist you with this, I can tell you that the only other briefing note with which I have been provided, and through me to the committee, on this issue is one dating from July 1993, in which there is no mention of this issue. In that context, unless you spoke with Brian Sutherland --
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Ms Cronk: No, you did not?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I did not. The other possibility is that I heard verbally a report of his attendance at the meeting.
Ms Cronk: Do you now recall receiving an oral report in that regard?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I don't recall that, but it might well have happened. I'm trying to answer your original question, which was, "When did you first find out about the antagonism and difficulties at the board meetings per se?" We knew there were lots of problems in terms of the views of the member of the board of directors and disagreements among people on the board of directors, but about the board meetings I can't remember anything until Brian Sutherland's appearance at that meeting.
Ms Cronk: Do I have it, then, that your best memory of that is that it was some time early in 1994?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And it may well have been earlier than the date of this February 14 briefing note?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That may be, yes.
Ms Cronk: Certainly by the time of the briefing note you would have been aware of it, because it's quite clearly stated in the note itself.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, that's correct.
Ms Cronk: Indeed the note, I suggest, and would you agree, indicates that it was really a matter of concern because there was "considerable antagonism at the board level"?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It says, "Considerable antagonism."
Ms Cronk: And what I'm suggesting to you is that that would have been a matter of concern at the time, because you now had received and were aware of expressed concerns from Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty, you knew that a senior representative of your Ministry of Housing offices in Ottawa had attended the December 30th board meeting, and now you're getting a report back, if you didn't know earlier some of this, that there was a real problem at the board level. Is that a fair characterization of events at this point?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It is indeed.
1700
Ms Cronk: The background note indicates, under "Action Required," that the ministry had determined to send a representative to the next several board meetings?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: In early January 1994, a letter from the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre is sent to you, it's addressed to you, and in it the board as well is requesting -- "as well" meaning there'd been a request from Trinh Luu earlier. The board, this time, is requesting a meeting with you to discuss matters related to the Van Lang Centre. Do you recall when the request from the board, as distinct from others, was first brought to your attention?
She probably saw that, but you have to say no.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm sorry. No.
Ms Cronk: The committee has seen a response letter and had confirmed through evidence of directors that towards the end of March 1994, March 25th, the letter goes to the board essentially declining a meeting. It's graciously done, but in the letter it says --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think what it says is, "Not right now," more or less.
Ms Cronk: Yes, I was going to suggest to you that what the language of it says is that you weren't in a position to commit at that time to a meeting.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right.
Ms Cronk: My point being that it was March 25th.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Does that assist you at all in recalling, first, when you had a conscious personal awareness of difficulty at the board level and, secondly, that there was an increased level of Ministry of Housing involvement by virtue of the intention to attend board meetings? Does that assist you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I would have to look at the correspondence, but I would expect that I would find in the early communications from Sharron Pretty during the late fall and early new year indications that would lead me to suspect that board meetings weren't working well. But certainly it was clear following the reports to me of Brian Sutherland's meeting with the board on December 30th, and it became even clearer as time went by in the spring.
Ms Cronk: At the beginning of March 1994, Sharron Pretty writes to Brian Sutherland again in a very detailed letter, some 20 pages in length, recounting the concerns and identifying the concerns she has with respect to the Van Lang Centre. She does so again on the 20th of March. Both of those letters are, on their face, copied to you.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall knowing by March of 1994 of that level of concern from Sharron Pretty with respect to the Van Lang Centre?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I do. I recall in this way: I had hoped, and indeed I'm sure the ministry staff had hoped, that the compliance review and the work around the recommendations of the compliance review which the ministry staff in eastern Ontario took with the board of directors would have helped ease the level of concerns of Sharron Pretty as a board member, but in March both the communications Sharron Pretty had with Brian Sutherland which I was copied on, and also a direct letter to me from Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty, indicated that now there were new problems, and the new problems focused on the adequacy of the compliance report.
Ms Cronk: That leads to a number of questions. First, when do you remember yourself first seeing a copy of the compliance report?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't pin it down, but it would have been, I think, early May.
Ms Cronk: The committee has seen, through the documentation filed with it, that throughout the fall of 1993 and the early months of 1994 Marc Collins of your political staff in Toronto is being copied on or is receiving from your constituency office or others correspondence relating to the Van Lang Centre. Did Mr Collins from time to time speak with you and brief you about what was going on at the Van Lang Centre, as he understood it, up until the period March 1994?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. Further, when he was sent materials from my constituency office, I would be told that, not only by him but by my constituency office, because there were not only written communications but there were also telephone conversations, I think with both Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty, during that period.
Ms Cronk: Involving Mr Collins?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, involving my constituency staff. In other words, there would be correspondence either addressed to Brian Sutherland primarily and I would be copied on it and so would a whole lot of other people, or to me, and in addition there would be follow-up by telephone with the constituency staff.
Ms Cronk: Perhaps I could come back to that and ask you some specific questions about it, but for the moment could you look at exhibit 2 as distinct from volume 2?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. Exhibit 2, volume 1?
Ms Cronk: Exhibit 2 only has one volume, so you've got the right book. That's exhibit 2, and it should be at tab 33. Do you have that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: At this tab is a copy of the March 1, 1994, letter from Sharron Pretty to Brian Sutherland, and I suggested that it had been copied to you because at page 20, which is the signature page that Sharron Pretty has signed, it shows that a copy went to you together with a copy to Marc Collins and Mr Newton Vanriel. As I understand it, Mr Newton Vanriel at the time was also a member of your staff in Toronto.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, he worked at the Queen's Park office.
Ms Cronk: Did you receive a copy of this letter?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I believe I did.
Ms Cronk: In that letter, on page 1, you'll see that Ms Pretty was asking -- well, first, that she was asserting that Mr Sutherland at a meeting held with her in November 1993 had promised to undertake an official investigation with respect to the Van Lang Centre matters on three fronts, which she described as board organization, board's management of funds and staff hiring practice. Mr Sutherland has given evidence about that and he did not describe it as a commit to undertake an official investigation, but that's the way this letter begins.
Hon Ms Gigantes: In point 2.
Ms Cronk: Yes. Could I ask you to look at page 19 as well. I'm doing this only to show you where in the document you can find this, but I'm not suggesting that you'd be aware at this stage of particular paragraphs and particular letters. The second-last paragraph at page 19 makes it clear, I suggest, that Ms Pretty was saying in writing, with some emphasis, that this was her last attempt to request the ministry's response to her concerns. Do you see that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: It contains quite specifically an indication that if she did not receive a response satisfactory to her, then the public would learn about what she felt had happened at the centre, and she has confirmed in her evidence that that was an indication that she would go to the media. Do you recall in March 1994 being aware of, either through this letter or reports to you from Marc Collins or other members of your staff, the possibility that Sharron Pretty was preparing to go public with this matter if an adequate response, adequate in her view, had not been received?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I believe that by March, some time in March, I was aware of that offer by her.
Ms Cronk: That --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Offer.
Ms Cronk: Is that what you thought it was, an offer?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yeah, that's what I'd call it.
Ms Cronk: You didn't take her up on it, I take it.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, it was up to her whether she was going to take it up.
Ms Cronk: My point to you being, did that signify to you when you learned of that that this situation was becoming increasingly grave?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Of course it would, but also there was the response that existed to the compliance report, and I'm going to underline that to you because in a sense that was the mechanism that we hoped -- I hoped and I'm sure the ministry staff hoped -- was going to provide a way out of some of the difficulties which had grown up at the centre. So there was a lot of hope put in the compliance report and work around that as a tool to help straighten things out there.
Ms Cronk: And in fairness to you, Ms Gigantes, there are documents from the Ministry of Housing in the form of background notes and the like before the committee in which emphasis is -- "emphasis" is the wrong word -- in which mention is made that the compliance report is outstanding or not yet received or about to be completed. And it's clear that it was considered to be a response measure and was --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- it was hoped that it would achieve some solution. But I'm going to suggest to you that by March the 20th at the very latest, and indeed even in the March first letter to Brian Sutherland, because, of course, by then the compliance report had been discussed with the Van Lang board of directors --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Correct.
Ms Cronk: -- that it was quite clear that that report was not, in the view of Sharron Pretty at least, a satisfactory response to her concerns. Is that a fair suggestion?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu.
Ms Cronk: Mm-hmm. So what I'm saying to you is that by the end of March, and indeed perhaps even by the beginning of March, it was clear that to neither -- you're saying Trinh Luu is included; I'm saying to you certainly by those letters from Sharron Pretty, she didn't regard that report as a satisfactory response at all.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. So when you asked me the question about whether the offer to go to the media or go public, as Sharron put it in her letter, indicated problems, the response by Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu to the compliance report was a very clear indication.
Ms Cronk: And very worrisome in that sense.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Very worrisome.
Ms Cronk: All right. And is it not also the case that -- indeed I think you mentioned it a few moments ago, that on or about March the fourth, Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty sent a joint letter, again to your attention, asking for what they described as "a special and urgent meeting"?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Special and urgent, yeah.
Ms Cronk: All right. And do you recall that letter being brought to your attention?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, indeed.
Ms Cronk: All right. Would it be accurate or inaccurate, Ms Gigantes, for me to suggest then that by March of 1994 you had a situation on your hands of which you were aware, in light of what you said, with respect to the Van Lang Centre where you had a tenant director in the person of Sharron Pretty, a former project manager in the person of Trinh Luu, requesting on an urgent basis a meeting with you at a time when it was known to you by at least Sharron Pretty's correspondence, or known to your staff, that the compliance report that the ministry had undertaken rightly or wrongly had not resolved their concerns?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Is that where we are in March?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's where we were.
Ms Cronk: All right. And affecting that as well was the factor, of whatever significance or insignificance, that Ms Pretty at least is raising threats of going to the media. Is that fair?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Well, as at the end of March 1994 -- Mr Chair, may we take a very brief break?
The Chair: Okay. We'll take a 10-minute recess.
Ms Cronk: Thank you.
The committee recessed from 1713 to 1729.
The Chair: There's just one request that counsel's asked for, that the photographers not come up behind the Chair and counsel here and the witness; if they could stay back a little bit. It's throwing counsel off when asking questions, and the witness, maybe, possibly.
Ms Cronk: Thank you.
The Chair: Okay? And a chair is there, Ms Cronk.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm grateful for that.
Ms Gigantes, I'd been asking you, before the break, a series of questions about what was occurring in March of 1994. Did you also become aware during that month, if not earlier, that concerns were being expressed by another tenant of the Van Lang Centre?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, indeed.
Ms Cronk: A Mr Michael Séguin?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct, and in fact I heard of Mr Séguin surrounding the issue of Sharron Pretty's status on the board of directors. And I don't know at what point -- I can't tell you by recollection -- but I know I received material that he had written that expressed his concerns about what was happening with her status near the end of 1993. I don't know that I received it then, but I certainly received it and it related to the period at the end of 1993.
Ms Cronk: All right. Well, there is correspondence before the committee dating from mid- to late December 1993 from Mr Séguin on exactly that issue, both to the tenants' association and to the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre, indicating concerns about that.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you, though, in the context of March 1994, to look at volume 2 of exhibit 1, and specifically at tab 24. This is a letter addressed to you, Ms Gigantes, from Mr Séguin in which I suggest he sets out a number of concerns with respect to the Van Lang Centre, many of which are similar to those expressed by Sharron Pretty in her March first letter to Brian Sutherland, although they're not set out in as much detail and indeed he does not raise as many issues as does Ms Pretty. Do you recall receiving this letter?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: And being made aware that he too was echoing some of these concerns?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, and there was further correspondence initiated by Mr Séguin, sent to the board of directors of the corporation, which also came to my attention. Again, that related to the period that I spoke of earlier, and I don't know when I would have received that.
Ms Cronk: The earlier correspondence?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right. I'm not sure it was earlier correspondence. Yes, it would have been earlier correspondence; I don't know whether I received it earlier.
Ms Cronk: All right. With respect to the March letter, however, at tab 24, which is dated the second of March, would it be fair or unfair to assume that it would have been brought to your attention, if not by actually seeing it, then by being informed of its contents, some time during the month of March?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And we saw earlier, we discussed earlier, that in Sharron Pretty's letter of March first to Brian Sutherland, she had raised the issue of taking the matter public if some response satisfactory to her was not soon forthcoming. You remember we looked at that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, we did.
Ms Cronk: And we have also heard in evidence from a member of your constituency office staff, Ms Audrey Moey, that in the spring, and I suggested to her and I believe she confirmed, that in the month of March 1994 -- certainly that is Sharron Pretty's evidence -- that she spoke with her and Ms Pretty raised at that time with her the possibility of going to the media if she did not receive what she was describing as some action and response from the ministry. Did Ms Moey bring that to your attention?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't remember specifically, but certainly by March I feel confident in saying to you that suggestions that the issue would be made public were probably known to me.
Ms Cronk: All right. And that would be either from the letter of March first to Brian Sutherland and/or from communications with your constituency office staff? Would that be fair?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I would believe that.
Ms Cronk: All right. And if you look at the immediately next tab, tab 25, this is a letter dated March 4, 1994, again addressed to you. This time it is a jointly signed letter by Ms Pretty and Ms Luu, and you alluded before the break this afternoon to having been aware of the fact that they had written to you and you acknowledged that you were aware that they had asked for a meeting that they described as being necessary on an urgent basis.
Hon Ms Gigantes: "Special and urgent," I think it was.
Ms Cronk: And do you remember seeing this letter in or about early March 1994?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't say that I can remember seeing it, but certainly in March we had all the indications that you are speaking of and that are contained in the written documents before us that indicated that the problems at Van Lang had not been resolved, to put it mildly.
Ms Cronk: They hadn't gone away at all.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Correct.
Ms Cronk: If you would look at page 2 of the March fourth letter, the first paragraph on page 2, Ms Pretty and Ms Luu indicate, "We also have many important and pressing questions regarding the findings of the compliance review, the ministry's funding of the centre's operations, and the understanding of the access and tenant participation issues among the ministry's staff."
Would you agree with me that that's another indication that the results of the compliance review were satisfactory to neither Ms Pretty or Ms Luu at that point?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I would certainly agree.
Ms Cronk: All right, and if we go over to tab 27, this is a fax dated March 14th, 1994, to the attention of an Ezia Cervoni from Sue Lott of your constituency office. Is that correct?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: In the fax she indicates first that she was sending a copy of a letter in which a meeting was requested with you. I take that to be the March fourth letter from Ms Luu and Ms Pretty?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It would appear so.
Ms Cronk: She also indicates, that is, Ms Lott is indicating, in her handwritten note that she had sent all their, meaning Ms Luu's and Ms Pretty's, previous correspondence to the attention of Marc Collins. She goes on to say, "...and the woman, Sharron Pretty, is getting so agitated about all of this, that she wants to go to the media." Do you see that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Is it then correct that from a variety of sources, either Sue Lott at your constituency office or Audrey Moey at your constituency office, or because of her correspondence with Brian Sutherland, or perhaps some combination of those sources of information, you did, as you've indicated, know in the month of March that this may be mediabound, if I can put it that way?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't say to you I knew in March that there were, but I think by March I knew.
Ms Cronk: All right. So it may have predated that, but the documentation would suggest that certainly your staff had that information.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
Ms Cronk: And you're accepting that you did by March.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Then the question that I'm obliged to put to you, Ms Gigantes, is, what did you do about it in March when you had all that information in hand?
Hon Ms Gigantes: We certainly had discussions about what to do, and when I say "we" had discussions, I can't describe to you who the "we" was at one point in time and the nature of the discussions at a given point in time, but in March it was clear to my staff, both at Queen's Park and in the constituency office, that there were some decisions to be made about what to do now.
It was clear too to us, to all the people I've just mentioned, that the ministry had paid attention to the indications of problems, had undertaken a compliance report, had taken the compliance report to the board of directors, had from December 30th and indeed back in the spring met with the -- the spring of 1993, I believe -- met with the board of directors and had had contact with the board throughout the period of the fall, off and on, conducting the compliance review. The regional manager had been at the December 30th meeting of the board.
Subsequent to that, at meetings of the board, I believe at almost all the meetings of the board, including some special meetings, if my recollection is correct, during the early part of 1994, leading into March, there had been Ministry of Housing staff attending board meetings. The indications of problems continued and in some aspects looked as if they had increased.
So then what? We did have discussions -- again, I wish I could tell you what and the exact people involved and when; I can't do that -- that led within a matter of weeks to my coming to the position that it might be useful for me to hold a meeting with the various parties involved at Van Lang.
1740
I think that you have and that the committee has before it probably many indications that coming through March and into April, probably up to mid-April, there was discussion about a meeting: whether to do it, how to do it, when to do it. In the meantime, because of the rejection, what I felt to be the rejection, of the compliance report by Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu, and because the notes that I had received from the ministry did not give me the complete compliance report and left some questions in my mind considering the issues that were being raised by Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty, I decided I should read the compliance report myself, and I guess I indicated to you earlier I think it was late April or early May before I actually received a copy of the compliance report.
Ms Cronk: When do you remember asking for it?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think I didn't ask for it early. I think I expected to receive it as a matter of course, and instead what I received as a matter of course -- and this was a period in which I did not probably every week check when I was here at my Queen's Park office and see, you know, where has it come; has it come yet? But I remember making an issue of the fact that I wanted to get my hands on the compliance report and read it for myself and try and make an assessment of how this corresponded to the changes that were being noted, and the improvements that were being noted, to be perfectly straightforward about it, by the ministry staff in operations at the Van Lang development, to check how much progress had been made from the compliance report itself and how that corresponded in turn to what was still being raised by Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu.
So through March into April came the conviction that if the ministry had indeed done all that it was possible for ministry staff to do in this situation, and if both sides in this conflict were requesting that I meet, then there was some obligation on me to meet and see if I could assist.
Ms Cronk: If I could just understand parts of that, in March, you'll recall I suggested to you, and you recalled and agreed, a letter had gone back to the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre dated March 25th, indicating that you were not then in a position to meet with the board.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Now, that was actually a reply to a letter from the beginning of January of 1994. May I take from that that as at the date that you signed that letter, March 25th, you had not then concluded that a course of action should be to meet with the board?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, I'm not certain of that. What I do know was by then I didn't have the compliance report, and I felt I wasn't really prepared to meet without having read the compliance report and in a sense having done adequate backgrounding myself about where things were at and how much progress had actually been achieved.
Ms Cronk: There is documentation before the committee which suggests, Ms Gigantes, as you suggested a moment ago, that in the month of April there was a determination by you at some point to meet with respect to the Van Lang Centre.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: With whom did you intend to meet?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't be certain what format was being discussed then.
Ms Cronk: Well, regardless of what was being discussed, what was your intention?
Hon Ms Gigantes: There were two sides that had asked for a meeting. Again, I can't be certain of my recollection when I try to think back at that stage, but I would guess -- and it is a guess -- that I had intended to meet the two sides, as it were.
Ms Cronk: Meaning the board on the one hand and Sharron Pretty on the other?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu had requested the meeting.
Ms Cronk: Sorry; so Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu on the one hand and the board on the other.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't tell you that I remember that, but if I were to guess, and it is a guess, that's what I would think.
Ms Cronk: In addition to the letter of March 25th -- perhaps in fairness we should do it this way: Could I ask you to look at tab 33 of volume 2? This is a transcription of an e-mail message between members of your staff, Ms Gigantes. It's dated April 14th, 1994, and it indicates that you "would like to meet with Sharron Pretty et al of the Van Lang Centre and include Brian Sutherland in the meeting. The meeting will be in Ottawa Centre, her riding," and then there's an inquiry made about who should initiate arrangements. Now, stopping there for a moment, that suggests to me -- and I'm asking whether you're in a position to confirm it or otherwise -- that by at least April 14th you had expressed to someone on your staff that you'd decided to meet.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, that's how I would read it.
Ms Cronk: And then, thinking about the time frame, from the middle of March to the middle of April, during that month, on March 25th a letter goes back to the board indicating that you weren't then in a position to meet, and if you look at tab 29, you'll see the exact language of your letter. It's addressed to Dr Truong, and there's a stamp indicating that the original was signed by you and it indicates that you could not "commit to meeting in the near future" -- I'm looking at the second paragraph -- and you suggest in it that "...you" -- meaning Dr Truong -- "and the other directors continue to meet with staff of the regional office for guidance and to keep them apprised on operations." Should we draw from that letter that as at March 25th you were not prepared to commit to a meeting with them, but it may have been in your mind, based on what you're saying?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes. I think it was in my mind. What was also in my mind was that there had been a January request for a meeting and there hadn't been a response to it.
Ms Cronk: And then the other fact perhaps relevant to this is that on March 29th, if you look at tab 30, there is what's been described as a standard advice form from Ministry of Housing personnel in Ottawa dated, as I say, March 29th, 1994, advising against the meeting requested by Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty. Were you made aware, towards the end of March 1994 or the beginning of April, that it was the advice of Ministry of Housing staff in Ottawa that you not meet at that time with Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't say to you that I was made aware. I suspect that I was made aware.
Ms Cronk: In the normal course of events, when a meeting is requested of the type requested by Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu, involving a particular part of the ministry, would their advice or input be sought by you as a normal protocol as to whether the meeting should take place?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
Ms Cronk: If I understand what you're saying to me, you have no clear --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Recollection.
Ms Cronk: -- direct recollection of knowing this, but you assume that you did.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I do.
Ms Cronk: That being the case, it seems to me that on March 25th -- I'm expressing this badly. The request for the board of directors for a meeting had been outstanding for almost three months.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
1750
Ms Cronk: Having been outstanding that long, I would have thought there was no particular magic to replying at the end of March unless you had a clear indication of the nature of the response that you wanted to make.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That is correct.
Ms Cronk: And that being the case, a letter goes on March 25th indicating that you weren't then prepared to commit to meeting.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, in the near future.
Ms Cronk: In the near future, I'm sorry.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right.
Ms Cronk: And on the documentation that's available to your ministry and to your staff, you're getting a recommendation from the Ottawa eastern regional offices --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- against meeting with Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty at that point in time. That's the end of March, and presumably when it came to your attention it would be some time thereafter, towards the beginning of April, if not later in the month.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, perhaps not. The time frame is -- once my staff had received this, they have, I think you've heard testimony, a weekly meeting with people concerned with meetings. I call it where the body gets put. So it might have come to my attention very quickly.
Ms Cronk: And if you take a look at tab 32, this is an expurgated form of Invitations and Meeting Request form --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- dated April 13, 1994. It's been Mr Collins's evidence that on a weekly basis, as you've just alluded to, there were meetings held on a regular basis by your Toronto staff as to which events you were going to attend --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- and which commitments you were going to engage in.
Hon Ms Gigantes: And I would get recommendations from them.
Ms Cronk: And on this particular form dated, as I say, April 13th, 1994, item number 6, which relates to the Van Lang Centre tenants -- I understand that at this point presumably to be Sharron Pretty and, potentially associated with that, Trinh Luu or Michael Séguin, but it's certainly not in response to the request from the board of directors. Would you agree with me?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, I'm not sure about that. I guess that -- well, seems reasonable; seems reasonable.
Ms Cronk: A response has already gone to the board at this point, on March 25th.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, that's correct. That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And what I'm suggesting to you is that what's outstanding at this point is the letter from Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty, so that --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, that's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. And this form suggests and confirms that the ministry was advising against a meeting because of what's described as ongoing complex problems, and they are suggesting that Brian Sutherland of the Ottawa offices of the ministry attend the meeting instead of yourself.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. And then what puzzles me, and I invite your comments, is the next thing I see in the chronology is an e-mail among your staff indicating that you would like to meet with Sharron Pretty at Ottawa Van Lang Centre and include Brian Sutherland.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Should I take from that that whatever the state of thought or assessment of the request by your staff at that point in time, April 14th, you had made the decision that you wished to meet with these people.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And thereafter --
Hon Ms Gigantes: But again, I don't know how completely we can rely on an interpretation here and now of the April 13th note; in other words, the invitation and meeting request. I'm not sure myself whether to read that as a report that says there is advice against it, which I may have -- it may not be -- the "ministry advises against." That doesn't mean that my staff, at that particular point in time, were of the same opinion. This is provided as clear indication that the ministry --
Ms Cronk: I see.
Hon Ms Gigantes: -- as opposed to --
Ms Cronk: Your staff in Toronto.
Hon Ms Gigantes: -- the minister's staff.
Ms Cronk: I see. All right. So you're distinguishing --
Hon Ms Gigantes: So I don't know. I'm simply saying, I don't know how firmly we can read that.
Ms Cronk: All right. And if I understand what you're saying, at least the ministry --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh yes.
Ms Cronk: -- through their Ottawa offices were advising against a meeting at this time.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, that's correct.
Ms Cronk: But that's not to say that's what your own staff in Toronto felt at the time.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't know.
Ms Cronk: All right. And then, as I understand what occurs, at least in terms of the documentation before the committee, and we can look at this, if you wish --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: But very shortly thereafter, and perhaps, in fairness, we should look at the first subsequent relevant e-mail -- that's at tab 35 -- it appears that the direction goes out, for lack of a better word, that the meeting was not to be arranged until you'd had a chance to look at the compliance review --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right.
Ms Cronk: -- because you had made your intention known that you wished to see it --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- and look at the background before a meeting was actually scheduled. Is that correct?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, that is correct.
Ms Cronk: And this e-mail at tab 35 in which that's communicated is April 18th, 1994?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's what it says.
Ms Cronk: And if you look at the handwritten note, it appears that on April 19th, Sue Lott of your constituency office is informed that the meeting was on hold until you had looked at the background.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And we also have before the committee, Ms Gigantes, several tabs back, at tab 31, a handwritten note which reads, "Where is the operational review report?" -- sorry, tab 31 --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- with a question mark, and then it says, "Please," and then there's the initial "E." Is that your note?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
Ms Cronk: And by that note, were you requesting a copy of the compliance report relating to the Van Lang Centre?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I believe that's what it was about.
Ms Cronk: And do you know the time frame, because this particular note is undated?
Hon Ms Gigantes: The note's undated. I can see there's something else copied at the bottom there that says March 25th, '94. I don't know whether that helps us place it in time or not.
Ms Cronk: All right. Subsequently, during the balance of the month of April and through to the beginning of May, the committee has seen a series of e-mails between various members of your staff either in Ottawa at the constituency office or in the minister's office in Toronto that suggest, as the author of one e-mail perhaps aptly put it, that there was some debate "to meet or not to meet." Is that fair?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's Jenny, our poet.
Ms Cronk: Your poet? I see.
Would it be fair of us to conclude then that until you had seen the operational report, which you had requested, the confirmation of a meeting, at least in so far as your staff was concerned, was uncertain?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: In so far as you were concerned, had you formed a fixed intention at that point to meet with this group, the timing only of it being subject to your review of the compliance report, or were you in fact uncertain and as yet unfixed in your own mind as to whether to meet at all, depending on what was in the compliance report?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, I think it was my intention that we have a meeting or two meetings again, and I don't know what my intention was specifically then, and I don't know, I don't recollect any hesitancy based on what I might find in the compliance report, but one can never be sure about these things. I don't know.
Ms Cronk: So looking back on it now, it could have been that you hadn't firmly decided in your own mind to meet, but what is clear is that you wanted to look at that compliance report before doing anything further about the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I would agree with that.
Ms Cronk: All right. During the month of April, when all of this is happening, is it fair of me to suggest to you -- and again, if you wish to see the paper, we can do that -- that as a result of your request for the compliance report, there is then documentation generated on a number of occasions among various of your staff members to get you a copy of the report? What I'm suggesting is, it took you some time to get it, and people at your office in Toronto appear to have been, in the language of one of the authors, "chasing the report for a couple of weeks for you." Is that fair?
Hon Ms Gigantes: When I wrote the note, whenever that was, I had already made it clear verbally, I guess, that I wanted a copy of the compliance report and I wanted an opportunity to read it. But I'm not certain of the date of that note, so I don't know. I do know that in my mind it was taking a long time for me to get the report, but I don't know how clear I had made it to people until I wrote that note, and I don't know for sure the date of the note.
Ms Cronk: All right. When you say "the date of the note," are you saying that you wrote a note in addition to the one that I asked you to look at a moment ago?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I believe not.
Ms Cronk: That is the note that you're speaking of.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's the note I'm speaking about.
Ms Cronk: You just don't know the date. All right. Was it ever suggested to you by any member of your staff that there was some reason that you shouldn't see that compliance report?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Ms Cronk: Or that it was inappropriate for you as minister to look at it for any reason?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, certainly not.
Ms Cronk: Do I take from the way you've answered the question that that would not have been an acceptable suggestion to you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, no.
1800
Ms Cronk: The reason I ask you that is that we have -- I was going to ask for exhibit 14. Let me see if I can find you another copy of it.
Interjection: Do you want a copy of it?
Ms Cronk: Yes, I do. Thank you very much. Exhibit 14, Ms Gigantes, is another series of e-mails that were marked as a bundle, together, and I'm looking at one. I don't know if our copies are numbered the same, but do you have one with a 12 in the upper right-hand corner?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, it's just been handed to me. Thank you.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. And is that dated April 13, 1994?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It is.
Ms Cronk: And that's an e-mail between two members of -- one member of your staff and a member, as I understand it, of the deputy minister's staff.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. No.
Ms Cronk: Or two of yours?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Neither of these people are members of my staff. They are ministry employees.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry. All right. So they're Ministry of Housing people.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right.
Ms Cronk: All right. And the e-mail indicates, "In signing a letter to this group, the minister" -- sorry. The reference, the subject on the e-mail is "Van Lang Centre," and the e-mail indicates:
"In signing a letter to this group, the minister requested a copy of the operational review report.
"Is there any reason I shouldn't give it to her?"
I thought I'd best ask you about that.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It looks like I was creating that note on March 25th, doesn't it?
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. It looks like?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It looks like I was creating that note on March 25th, signing off.
Ms Cronk: When you were requesting it, yes, that that be --
Hon Ms Gigantes: The letter to -- but that would have been the letter to the board.
Ms Cronk: That's right. And it looked -- well, the implication of this that I'm asking you about is twofold: First, it seemed to me in reading this e-mail that at least by April 13th your request for a copy of the report had been made clear to Ministry of Housing people.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It looks like.
Ms Cronk: All right. And I put no more moment on it than that, but there appears to at least have been an inquiry -- perhaps that's quite standard; I don't know -- about whether you should be given a copy, and I thought I'd ask you about that. As far as you were concerned, if you asked for it, I assume you expected to get it.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Absolutely.
Ms Cronk: And ultimately you do get it --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- but I'm suggesting to you it takes some time?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, again, it may have taken me some time to make it perfectly clear, quote, unquote.
Ms Cronk: You don't think it was clear from that e-mail that you'd asked for a copy of it?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Hon Ms Gigantes: But before that, I may have said, "Where's the report?" You know, "Why am I not seeing the report?" I can't recall.
Ms Cronk: All right. But it took some time after the middle of April for you to get the report, based on what you've told the committee?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I believe that I received the report late April, early May.
Ms Cronk: And when you read the report, were you satisfied by its contents that it adequately addressed the issues that you understood had been raised by, at this point, Trinh Luu, Sharron Pretty and, to a certain extent, Michael Séguin?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I had questions about how what was in the report related to what the ministry -- the work the ministry was doing in an ongoing way with the board to put some of the report's recommendations into action. I was trying to get a picture as of now, if I could put it that way, and trying -- so I recollect asking for some information, once I had read the report, that would give me a picture, a current picture, of what the report -- well, I knew now what the report said exactly -- where the ministry was at in its work with the board around the recommendations of the report and the progress that was being made there and how that related to the complaints, the most recent outline of concerns that had been raised by Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty.
Ms Cronk: So that when you got the report, which of course was dated from some months earlier, you were concerned to ensure that you received sufficient updating information --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- that your state of knowledge about the matter was current? Is that what you're saying?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. Apart from that, though, the currency of it --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- and I appreciate the need to get an update on what the situation was, with respect to the contents of the report itself, were you satisfied that it adequately addressed the concerns that had been raised?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It certainly addressed many of the major issues which had been raised. I can think of, for example, the question of the adequacy of maintenance, the adequacy of the operations of the centre in terms of tenant selection, tenant placement. I did ask for additional materials to confirm, additional information to confirm what had been happening on some of the recommendations, but I felt that in general it should be a report that could make Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu, given what I knew, from their correspondence, of their concerns, feel like some of the problems that they had identified had been reviewed and where the ministry could make recommendations for improvement, those improvements were being undertaken. Some of them I wanted to try and confirm were in place.
Um, there was one other thing I was going to mention before I got into that long-winded sentence. It's gone from my head at the moment.
Ms Cronk: All right. Well, when you think of it, please feel free to indicate that to me.
At that point, Ms Gigantes, when you read the report, you knew that neither Sharron Pretty nor Trinh Luu were satisfied with its contents as an adequate response to their concerns?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Ah, that's -- thank you for the question. Now I'm remembering. I also knew from the background notes that the ministry had been providing that in fact Sharron Pretty had not been in attendance at the major portion of some recent meetings. In other words, she had come at the beginning of meetings but indicated she wasn't able to stay. So one of the questions I had in my mind was, is Sharron Pretty fully informed about the changes that are taking place or have taken place following on the compliance review? If she weren't able to attend a large part of recent meetings, was she up to date?
Ms Cronk: I see. Marc Collins has given evidence before the committee, Ms Gigantes, that following upon your request for a copy of the compliance report, he set about to get it, effectively --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- my language, not his -- and that ultimately he as well as yourself received a copy.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right.
Ms Cronk: And that upon his review of it, he was not happy with it; he had concerns about it. Did he express that view to you, and if so -- I'm sorry?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I believe that we did discuss the compliance report and I think also that we discussed the additional information that we thought would be important to have.
Ms Cronk: You got that report, based on what you've recalled for the committee, towards the end of April, beginning of May?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's what I recollect.
Ms Cronk: All right. At what point did you learn, Ms Gigantes, that Sharron Pretty had initiated charges involving other members of the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre with respect to alleged infractions of the Corporations Act?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't know at what date I became aware of that.
Ms Cronk: All right. Can I --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't know at what date I first heard that there might be any kind of legal actions undertaken, let alone under the Corporations Act.
Ms Cronk: All right. Can we talk about that a bit? And I may be able to help you with some documentation.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yup.
Ms Cronk: The committee has heard that in mid-May, on or about May 12th and May 13th, 1994, Karen Ridley of your Toronto office staff, I take it, spoke to Sharron Pretty --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- and during the course of that discussion Ms Pretty provided to Ms Ridley information relating to the fact that there was a court date of June second coming up. To assist you, if you look at tab 38 --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Was that Karen Ridley?
Ms Cronk: Yes. The evidence before the committee is that Sharron Pretty and Karen Ridley spoke by telephone.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I didn't think there was a date mentioned here.
Ms Cronk: If you look at the handwritten note --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: There's two handwritten notes. One is May the third, 1994 --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, there are three.
Ms Cronk: -- indicating a call to Sharron Pretty. The second entry is May 12th, 1994 --
Hon Ms Gigantes: And a third.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry?
Hon Ms Gigantes: And the third.
Ms Cronk: And the third's May 13th, right. So there's an entry for May the third --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, but I didn't recollect that in this document there was an indication, and therefore -- from Ezia an indication that there was a date for a court --
Ms Cronk: I see. In the body of the e-mail, which is the main document that you're looking at at this tab, there's no reference to a court date.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: But in the handwritten note written for May the 12th --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right.
Ms Cronk: -- which concerns a telephone discussion between Sharron Pretty and Karen Ridley --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. Oh, there it is: June 2. Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: -- there is an entry. And just to assist you, if I could read it for you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It says, "Called" -- perhaps I should read the whole thing.
Hon Ms Gigantes: "It's too late. Going to court June 2."
Ms Cronk: Right.
Hon Ms Gigantes: "Illegal refusal to hand over agency documents."
1810
Ms Cronk: All right. And what I'm suggesting to you, and we've had evidence about that, is what appears to have occurred, based on the evidence before the committee, is that Karen Ridley calls Sharron Pretty --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- and either speaks with her or leaves a message --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- that if she is concerned after receiving your letter, the April 25th letter, in response to her earlier October 29th letter, she was to call.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: On May the 12th, Ms Pretty calls Karen Ridley back and says that she's not happy, and Ms Ridley indicates that she would call ministry staff and get back to her, and she does get back to her on the same day, according to the handwritten note. I should tell you as well that this is a telephone discussion that was taped by Ms Pretty unbeknownst to Ms Ridley and that during the course of that second telephone discussion Ms Pretty provides her with certain details about both her feelings about a meeting with you at that point in respect of which she says that she thinks, as recorded in Ms Ridley's note, that she feels it's too late, that the matter is going to court June second.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: She also tells her, according to this note, that it concerns an "illegal refusal to hand over" -- and that word may be "agency" -- "documents."
Hon Ms Gigantes: It looks like, yes.
Ms Cronk: There is also evidence before the committee of a discussion between Sue Lott and Karen Ridley on May the 12th, before Ms Ridley gets this additional information from Sharron Pretty, in which Sue says that she would speak to you and get back to Karen. Are you with me so far on the recounting that I'm giving you here of this note?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Get back to Karen.
Ms Cronk: Ms Pretty calls Karen Ridley, and they have a conversation.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Karen says she will speak to ministry staff and get back to her.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right.
Ms Cronk: Karen Ridley then speaks to Sue Lott at your constituency office --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- all according to this note.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Ms Lott indicates that she will speak to you and get back to Ms Ridley.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Karen Ridley then has another conversation with Sharron Pretty in which it appears that she's provided these details concerning Ms Pretty's reaction to the suggestion of a meeting and also quite specifically information indicating that there's a court action and a court date of June the second.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Then Ms Ridley speaks further on the next day, May the 13th, to Sue Lott.
Hon Ms Gigantes: To Sue.
Ms Cronk: I'm looking now at the note at the bottom of the page. Do you have that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I do. "Evelyn wants look compliance report."
Ms Cronk: Right, and my question to you is this: Did either Ms Ridley or Ms Lott, with that information now available to you, speak to you in mid-May 1994, to the best of your recollection, and tell you that there was a court action with a June second date, or with or without any mention of the date, involving Sharron Pretty and Van Lang?
Hon Ms Gigantes: My recollection -- and I cannot tell you when this happened, but I have this image in my mind. I am in the constituency office. Sue Lott says to me: "We were working on setting up a time for a meeting. I spoke to Sharron Pretty, and Sharron Pretty told me that she's involved in court actions" or words to that effect.
Ms Cronk: Who do you remember telling you that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Sue Lott.
Ms Cronk: Sue Lott, and you can't fix a time to that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right. Now, in many ways that's a perverse image, because I can find nothing in records that would indicate that it was likely Sue who told me that, but that's my image, that's my recollection.
Ms Cronk: Well, the committee has also heard, Ms Gigantes, if this assists you in any way, I don't know whether it will, that on May 19th --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- Ms Pretty had a telephone discussion with Sue Lott.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: A transcript of that telephone discussion is before the committee. Have you seen that transcript?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I haven't read the transcript.
Ms Cronk: All right. The information before the committee is that during the course of a telephone call on May 19th, Ms Pretty provides quite specific information, in some respects, to Ms Lott.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I heard the earlier evidence to that effect.
Ms Cronk: All right. My question to you is, does that date, May 19th, and knowing that it is at that time that Sue Lott gains further details, or perhaps obtains for the first time details, of this court action involving Sharron Pretty and the Van Lang board, does that help you fix the memory that you have in your mind of having been told about a court action?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It could.
Ms Cronk: You're not sure, but it could?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Do you have a specific recollection in your mind of Sue Lott at any point coming to you and saying, in a casual, formal or informal way, "I've learned from Sharron Pretty that there are proceedings out there involving the board of Van Lang and it's in court and it involves access to documents issues," or words to that effect?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I remember something very like that and I remember that her response and my response was, "Well, that sort of puts things on hold for the moment." Because I certainly wasn't the least bit clear about what was happening.
Ms Cronk: All right. So you recall being told something by Sue Lott --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I do.
Ms Cronk: -- that caused you to say, "Things are on hold as a result" --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- "until I get more detail."
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: But you can't -- or can you help me as to what, to the best of your recollection, she communicated to you then, the details of it?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Merely that she had had I believe a telephone conversation with Sharron Pretty and learned that Sharron had undertaken court action of some kind. I don't recollect details further than that, and we both said, "Well, that sort of puts that on hold for now."
Ms Cronk: Would you agree with me, Ms Gigantes, that if you were to go forward with a meeting with Sharron Pretty, whether or not it involved others connected with this, that it would be important for you to have details of what that legal action involved, given that you now knew that there was some kind of a proceeding out there?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Absolutely.
Ms Cronk: All right. The committee has heard that shortly thereafter, shortly after this discussion between Sue Lott and Sharron Pretty in point of time, on or about May 27th, contact is made by Mora Thompson of Ms Marland's offices and Marc Collins of your political staff in Toronto in which they have a discussion first about Trinh Luu's outstanding -- sorry, Sharron Pretty's outstanding request for a meeting. Let me back up and do that again.
The information before the committee is that they have a discussion about the fact that Trinh Luu has come in and met with Mora Thompson, that Trinh Luu has not received a response to the request for a meeting, and details are provided to Marc Collins in that conversation about a legal proceeding being outstanding and in progress. And the evidence before the committee at the moment is that also during that discussion, which he acknowledged could fairly be described as a favour, that it was a professional communication --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- in which he was being alerted to the fact that the opposition party had been informed about this and contacted, that he was told that it would be monitored and that effectively, if there wasn't a response or action taken, it might be raised in the House. Now, did Marc Collins tell you of that discussion with Mora Thompson?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. I don't know how detailed he was, but I can clearly recollect Marc telling me about the call.
Ms Cronk: And do you recall whether in talking to you or telling you about the call, he mentioned that Mora Thompson knew about the court proceedings or about court proceedings or that she'd mentioned that to him?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I cannot remember that detail.
Ms Cronk: All right. Well, do you remember anything about what Marc Collins told you that reinforced or corroborated in any way the earlier information you'd received from Sue Lott about a court action?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I don't recollect that. I don't recollect that. This was a new element to all the discussion that had gone on and I do remember that my response was, "Well," you know, "that's it, that's fair; she's got a right to go and talk to Margaret Marland or whoever," but it was another fact.
Ms Cronk: Would you agree with me that it was an additional fact that also lent some potentially added focus or seriousness to the issue in the sense that you were aware of previous intimations in March of 1994 that this might be taken to the media?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And there was more than one of them; we've talked about them. Am I right so far?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Right. There was one in writing to Brian Sutherland and --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I have agreed that I probably knew about that.
Ms Cronk: Yes. So at that point there was intimations that it might be taken public --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- if an adequate response wasn't received.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
1820
Ms Cronk: You're in the course of trying to obtain a copy of the compliance review for the purpose of either deciding to hold a meeting or finalizing arrangements for the meeting, and then by the end of May you learn that there's a court action, as yet unfully described to you, out there involving Sharron Pretty and Van Lang, and now you're being told by one of your political advisers that the opposition offices have called and told him that this matter might be raised in the House.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right.
Ms Cronk: All right. And did that at that point add an additional level of significance or seriousness to the matter for you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It's another fact about a serious situation.
Ms Cronk: The facts are building, are they not, at this point?
Hon Ms Gigantes: They are indeed.
I'm going to take a moment, if I might, and say that over years as both a broadcaster, an elected representative and working in other capacities, I've dealt with people who have felt that they had issues that were terribly important, and they have, in the course of my connection with them, decided to --
Mr Murphy: Excuse me. Can I get you to move closer to the microphone? Sorry about that.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. I was saying, in the course of my connection with people who have had serious concerns of one nature or another, they have very frequently said, "If I don't get action from you" -- that would be as a broadcaster or as an elected representative or as somebody who worked in another capacity where I was expected to be able to provide a service -- "then I will go to someone else," or "I will go to the media." My attitude is always "That's their right."
So when you say, does it add to the seriousness, the seriousness of the situation in my mind was not focused on the politics of it. As it turned out, when I look back, I think that it was the public discussion and the nature of the public discussion which has troubled me most.
Ms Cronk: And by that do you mean the disclosure in the public through media reports about the matter?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, in particular starting with the June first articles.
Ms Cronk: By Mr Wallace.
Hon Ms Gigantes: By Mr Wallace, in which there were very large allegations cast about, quoting Sharron Pretty. It was that kind of thing, the potential for that kind of thing, which bothered me most.
Ms Cronk: May I ensure that I understand what you're telling me and examine with you some of the facts, as I understand them, in May, all right?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yep.
Ms Cronk: You knew, by virtue of the prior correspondence from Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu, that very serious allegations had been raised by them --
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right.
Ms Cronk: -- both, I suggest, about the management practices at the centre and certain of its personnel, its staff, the superintendent?
Hon Ms Gigantes: The staff and other board members, and some of those allegations were of the nature that they could be extremely hurtful, and I think they were hurtful once they became public.
Ms Cronk: Well, indeed, would you also agree with me that some of the allegations made alleged wrongdoing with legal implications, leaving aside whether they were correct or incorrect, accurate or inaccurate?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, there were wrongdoings alleged with legal implications, and there were also allegations of reverse racism practised by a Vietnamese group.
Ms Cronk: And that was a matter of concern.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That bothered me intensely.
Ms Cronk: And in addition to that particular allegation, what I'm suggesting to you generally was, the allegations, almost from the outset, in Sharron Pretty's correspondence, certainly in Trinh Luu's, were of a very serious nature?
Hon Ms Gigantes: They were indeed.
Ms Cronk: Many of them, and again I'm not in any way implying or making any observation on the accuracy or inaccuracy of them, but the fact of them and the nature of them impugned the integrity and good character of a number of individuals. Isn't that so?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, they did.
Ms Cronk: And I'm suggesting to you, Ms Gigantes, that based on that correspondence, you and your ministry staff -- there was nothing new about that at the end of May. You'd known that for some considerable time.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, but the offer -- huh -- to go to the media really did imply that allegations of that nature would become public. The politics of it, in the sense that it would be raised in the Legislature, didn't bother me as much as the notion of such allegations being made publicly. That did bother me.
Ms Cronk: In fairness to you, there's evidence before the committee that indicates that in that discussion between Mora Thompson and Marc Collins, Ms Thompson may, as well, have indicated to Mr Collins that Trinh Luu had indicated that the matter might be taken to the media as well as raised in the House. Did he make you aware of that? Do you associate that with your information at the end of May?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't recollect that.
Ms Cronk: Would it also be fair of me to suggest that by the end of May -- May 27th or thereabouts, when this discussion or communication is held -- you also knew, because of the correspondence in March from Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty, both to yourself directly and to Brian Sutherland, that neither of those individuals were content, indeed quite the reverse, with the findings of the compliance review?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That is correct.
Ms Cronk: In that sense, they were unhappy with the Ministry of Housing action as well as actions by people at the Van Lang Centre.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That is correct.
Ms Cronk: Would I be correct, therefore, in suggesting to you that the spectre of the matter going to the media -- and I don't impute any significance to it -- but the fact of a renewed intimation of going to the media at the end of May now carried with it the possibility of some criticism of Ministry of Housing personnel, in addition to the very serious allegations that had been made about Van Lang-associated individuals?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I felt that potential had been there for a long time. It was very explicit in the March 4th communication because it was a rejection of the best efforts of the Ministry of Housing. But certainly in their direct appeals to me, particularly through the constituency office staff, the message I was getting for some time before that was that the Ministry of Housing was not performing adequately.
Ms Cronk: Whatever might have been your anticipation earlier in terms of what might have been taken to the media, what I'm suggesting to you is that by the end of May that was certainly potentially in the cards that it might.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, it certainly was.
Ms Cronk: Van Lang plus ministry.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
Ms Cronk: Were you informed by Sue Lott following her discussion with Sharron Pretty in May that Ms Lott had expressed the view to her that your meeting with Sharron Pretty in the circumstances of a pending or outstanding legal action would place you in a very difficult or very awkward position? Did she tell you that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: If I'm reconstructing this image that I have about the information being received by me from Sue, we both said, "Well, that sort of puts that on hold for the moment," and that Sue said, "Well, that's what I told her." It's as simple as that.
Ms Cronk: It's based on your recollection you had --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't remember any details further than that.
Ms Cronk: I'm obliged, in fairness to Ms Lott, to put this to you, Ms Gigantes.
Hon Ms Gigantes: She doesn't remember.
Ms Cronk: That's right.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Have you been listening to the evidence?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I listened to her, yes.
Ms Cronk: I don't mean to be facetious; you're of course entitled to do that. You understand, then, that Ms Lott has said that she does not remember speaking to you about that call to Sharron Pretty.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Sure, right.
Ms Cronk: Are you saying to the committee that you think you knew some information of that kind had been -- some view of that kind had been expressed to Sharron Pretty by Ms Lott?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I have this image in my mind of it.
Ms Cronk: Well, did Ms Lott say that to you? I understand what you mean by an image. You're recalling, you're seeing her in a discussion with you.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: In the context of your recall of that, do you remember Ms Lott expressing a view to you about the wisdom of a meeting with Sharron Pretty, given the legal action?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I don't remember the expression of view. It was a kind of mutual, you know, a double kind of statement in which we both said, "Well, that sort of puts that on hold." I think I recollect her saying, "That's what I told her," that nature of thing.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember asking of Ms Lott further details as to what she'd told Sharron Pretty?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
1830
Ms Cronk: Did you know that she had also said to Ms Pretty that, in the circumstances of an outstanding court action involving the province by virtue of the involvement of the crown, that it was not a question of whether you wanted to meet with Ms Pretty, but it was a question of the perception of the situation?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. I don't remember further details other than that. When I say "image," it's because I can see us -- I can see where we're standing in the office and I also have the image of a discussion that goes on sort of between engagements and in a fairly fast kind of interchange.
Ms Cronk: Was it your own view at the time, that is, when associating this recall that you have of the discussion with Sue Lott --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I hope I have.
Ms Cronk: Well, I assume you wouldn't be telling me about it unless you do have that image.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's true.
Ms Cronk: When you think of that, and knowing what you did have before you in May of 1994, was it your own view that it would place you in a very difficult situation to meet with Sharron Pretty, given an outstanding legal action?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I didn't -- again, I'm going back to that picture I have in my mind and I don't remember any weighty thoughts, just, "Okay, hold it." Just, "Hold it." That's what I remember. And we both said, "Well, that puts it on hold." That's what I remember, and I think I remember Sue indicating -- no, that's what I said to her.
Ms Cronk: And is that because, Ms Gigantes, the fact of an outstanding or a pending legal action of whatever kind, as you're telling me -- at that point, you don't know the details.
Hon Ms Gigantes: You want to know what it is that's going on.
Ms Cronk: Just to pursue that a bit, is it because that raises, with all that you know of the potential for conflict, a red flag in your mind?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
Ms Cronk: And is it therefore also because at that point, as a minister of the crown conversant both with the guidelines and generally the propriety of meeting in those circumstances, something in you says, "I've got to know a lot more about this before I can go forward"?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes, absolutely.
Ms Cronk: And did you at that time consider that it might not be possible to meet with these people any longer because of that action?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Did you therefore at that point, yourself, seek further details as to the nature of that legal action?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't have any recollection of that, but I know I wanted information. I don't have any recollection of speaking to a particular person or making a particular request, but I do have a recollection expressing a need to know.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall to whom you expressed that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. I wish I could.
Ms Cronk: All right. Can you, by thinking of the date of Mr Wallace's articles, which appeared on June the first, associate for me in time your image of this discussion with Sue Lott? In other words, what I'm saying to you is: Do you, in looking back on it, recall how long after that discussion with Sue Lott and how long after you learned of the communication between Mora Thompson and Marc Collins it was that those articles were published?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, we have a constituency week in May, but I don't know if that was constituency week or not. Somebody else in the room may. But she would have been talking to me if she was conveying the 19th information. Maybe on the 20th or maybe on the 27th; probably on the 20th. I don't know. And I would have --
Mrs Marland: Maybe I can help the minister. The constituency week is the week that follows the 24th of May holiday, so --
Mr Sutherland: That was later this year.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Okay, but that would mean that I would regularly, on -- the week when she would have talked, on the 19th, to Sharron Pretty, if my schedule were normal, and I don't know whether it was then, I would have been in the constituency office and in and out of the constituency office certainly on the 20th, which was a Friday.
Mr Winninger: If it assists the committee, constituency week was the week of the 23rd of May to the end of that week.
Hon Ms Gigantes: So the possibility is that that was when this image occurred.
Ms Cronk: All right, so it could then have been some time in the week preceding publication of those articles by Mr Wallace, from the 23rd through to the first of June.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, but if we're being told that it happened the week -- constituency week was the week of the 24th, then I probably would have remained, throughout that week, in Ottawa.
Ms Cronk: All right. So it's likely then that it would be through that week?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, but the reason I raise that as a bit of a difficulty in my understanding of it is that I would have thought that I would be asking the question in Toronto, but I simply may have asked the question from Ottawa to Toronto to find out what was happening.
Ms Cronk: Thank you for that on the time frame. There's one other aspect --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't know if it was much help.
Ms Cronk: Well, it may then have been several days before the Wallace articles appeared, and you've told the committee that you asked for more detail, although you can't remember of whom.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, and I'm not -- see, I'm not sure whether I did ask for details in that time period or whether I asked for information after the Wallace articles.
Ms Cronk: Well, I wanted to --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm not certain.
Ms Cronk: I wanted to ask you about that because --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yeah. I don't know.
Ms Cronk: May I explain to you why I want to ask you about it?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: If a red flag went up in your mind when Sue Lott told you this, as you said it did --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- sufficient for you to say, "That's on hold until I find out more" --
Hon Ms Gigantes: "Hold it," yes. Right.
Ms Cronk: -- and if that led you to seek further information about it, you had a woman there who might have been in a position to provide it to you, Sue Lott, because she's had a discussion with Sharron Pretty.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, but why would you -- I wouldn't consider Sharron Pretty an adequate -- I mean, this person is a person who says she's involved now legally. I wouldn't rely on her alone as information as to what was happening.
Ms Cronk: No, I understand, Ms Gigantes, and I wasn't suggesting that. What I was trying to understand is that did it enter your mind that Sue Lott herself, leaving aside the reliability of the information, that Sue Lott herself may have had further detail at that point concerning this lawsuit because she'd had a discussion with Pretty?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't remember it entering my mind.
Ms Cronk: And you don't remember asking her that, because you've told the committee that you didn't.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't remember. What I remember is that when -- I think -- I have this image of Sue telling me. It was in a very quick kind of passing exchange of information and I don't recollect further discussion with Sue about it, I don't recollect further discussion with any particular person about it, but I do know that I made efforts to find out, to get information about what was going on.
Ms Cronk: All right. If I understood correctly what you are saying, whatever the refinement of your thinking on this in the latter part of May, certainly when the Wallace articles are published on June first, that changes things in the sense that those were quite serious allegations and now it is public that there are charges involving Sharron Pretty and directors of the Van Lang Centre.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct. When I read -- or when I was approached by James Wallace, which I was, at the Legislature -- which, again, is strange. Was that really our constituency week? What was I doing down here talking to him that week?
Ms Cronk: May I suggest this?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Before members of the committee --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, I see, I see. It's the next week, yes.
Ms Cronk: Now you're going to have to help me. What's the next week?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Okay. If we assume that I was in the constituency throughout the period Sunday the 19th through to Monday the 27th, then I would have been approached by Wallace just before the June first article, some time in the period Monday the 27th, 28th, 29th. In my recollection, it was probably the 29th or 30th.
He approached me at the Legislature and he, to the best of my recollection, said that he had learned of serious allegations being made by a director of the Van Lang Centre, that there were charges involved, that the allegations included a long list of allegations. I said I was unwilling to discuss it with him because I did not know what matters were involved in legal proceedings, which I couldn't discuss.
Ms Cronk: Is it your recall that that discussion with Mr Wallace took place before or after publication of his article on June first?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It was before. I think it was the day before, so it might have been the 30th.
Ms Cronk: All right. Thank you, Ms Gigantes. Excuse me. Mr Chair, I know that dinner for the committee has arrived. I also know that I'm not finished and I certainly will not be in the next 15 minutes. I'm in your hands, if the committee would like to rise now.
The Chair: No, just finish it. That's fine.
Ms Cronk: What I am saying to you, sir, is that I cannot finish before, I would think, 7:15 to 7:30 and my bet is 7:30-plus, and I know it's going to haunt me whatever I say. So do you wish to rise now or do you wish me to finish?
The Chair: I think we'd better rise, with the food that we ordered.
Ms Cronk: Thank you.
The Chair: Okay. This committee's going to recess for one half-hour.
The committee recessed from 1840 to 1926.
The Chair: Okay. We'll resume the hearings and, Ms Cronk, the witness is yours.
Ms Cronk: Thank you, Mr Chair. Ms Gigantes, I wanted to go back to one thing, because it is possible that I misstated in one of my questions to you the facts as I understand them, so I want to correct it. It has to do with the discussion held between Mora Thompson and Marc Collins of your offices on or about May 27th.
It is the evidence before the committee, as I understand it, that during the course of that discussion Ms Thompson indicated to Mr Collins that if Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty asked her offices to bring the issue into the House and to take it before the media, then in those circumstances, if there had not been a response from your offices, they would do so.
The reason for my restating of it to you is because I want to make it clear that based on what I recall of Mr Collins's evidence, the opportunity was being afforded through the phone call from Mora Thompson to your offices through him to deal with the matter, and only if it wasn't dealt with and only if requested by Trinh Luu or Sharron Pretty would the matter be taken further. Now, did Mr Collins communicate any of that aspect of the matter to you in his discussion with you about that contact?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I remember the information that he had a call; that he considered it a very good-intentioned, good-natured call; that he had made Ms Thompson aware of the work that was going on around the issue and the fact that certainly our office and the ministry were well aware of the problems and that it was a very active file. I don't remember any details of any other significant nature.
Ms Cronk: All right. Thank you. Coming back for a moment to the discussion held between Sue Lott and Sharron Pretty, and what she, Sue Lott, recounted of that to you, just so that I'm clear, as I understand it, what she told you in part in that regard was that she had indicated to Ms Pretty that a meeting would be difficult with you, very difficult -- that's the language at least in the conversation; I don't know what language she used with you, but that it would be very difficult -- potentially for you to meet, given the outstanding legal action. Do I understand that she did tell you that she'd expressed a view of that kind?
Hon Ms Gigantes: As I indicated, we both sort of said to each other -- this is my recollection. I know it's not Sue's, but it's my recollection -- that we indicated to each other after she had informed me of her conversation in very succinct terms that this meant things were on hold, as far as a meeting was concerned, and that she had expressed that view to Sharron Pretty.
Ms Cronk: Did she indicate to you whether she had told Sharron Pretty why it was on hold?
Hon Ms Gigantes: My recollection is such that that would've been implied. First, we say to each other, "Well, there, it's all on hold." And my recollection is that she told me something like, "And I told her that."
Ms Cronk: And you meant by that, I take it, because of the outstanding legal proceedings or the fact of a legal action.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Definitely.
Ms Cronk: And did you understand that that's what Sue Lott meant?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
Ms Cronk: And there's another feature of that that I want to propose to you and ask for your comment. Based on what Sue Lott has told the committee of that discussion, and even the very short version of that call that you remember her reporting to you, it seems -- would you agree that what appears to have happened is some, if I can put it this way, some form of mutual information sharing between Sue Lott and Sharron Pretty in this sense, that Ms Pretty told Sue Lott a number of details with respect to the legal action, those details you don't recall being communicated to you by Sue Lott.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, no.
Ms Cronk: But you now know, I take it, that there was considerable detail in that discussion between Sue Lott and Sharron Pretty about the legal action.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I listened to earlier evidence that indicated that was the case, and in fact that Sharron Pretty had called back -- according to the tape that Sharron Pretty made -- had called back and presented an argument in favour of a meeting.
Ms Cronk: Mm-hmm. And the argument being that Trinh Luu was not involved in the action and that the charges related to the Corporations Act, whereas what she wanted to discuss with you related to tenant access, tenant participation and the core issues.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Housing issues.
Ms Cronk: That's right. And what I'm suggesting to you is that in that call, Sharron Pretty gave information to Sue Lott in some degree of detail concerning the legal action. Whether or not it was communicated to you, Sue Lott received it at that point.
Hon Ms Gigantes: But I didn't --
Ms Cronk: Know that at the time.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I didn't know that.
Ms Cronk: All right. If that is the case, if that's what occurred in the telephone discussion, you did know that Sue Lott expressed, in some form, reservation to Sharron Pretty about the potential for a meeting going forward because of that legal action. That at least you knew.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's what I believe I remember.
Ms Cronk: And what I'm suggesting to you then is that Sharron Pretty was learning something in that telephone call as well, and that is that in the circumstances of a lawsuit of that kind it would, in the language of Sue Lott, be very, very difficult potentially for you to meet with her.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, I don't know. I can't speculate what Sharron Pretty was learning or what she was attempting to learn, or indeed how clear either of them were about the distinctions that were apparently discussed.
Ms Cronk: Your point's well taken, and I shouldn't have invited you to be speculating. What I'm suggesting to you is that if it is the fact that Sue Lott said in that conversation with Sharron Pretty that because of the lawsuit, the legal action, it would be, in Sue Lott's words, very, very difficult potentially for you to meet, and that it would put you in a difficult or awkward position if only perceptionally, then that's information that objectively was communicated to Sharron Pretty at that time, whether she knew it before or not. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. My recollection is that Sue told me that she had indicated to Sharron that the existence of legal proceedings was a problem as far as a meeting was concerned.
Ms Cronk: And that means, doesn't it, that from at least that point, if not before -- and I'm not asking you to speculate on that -- but from at least that point, Sharron Pretty knew that meeting would be problematic for you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Unless she thought that the distinction that she was attempting to draw between the Corporations Act proceedings, which she referred to apparently in that taped telephone conversation, and Ministry of Housing policy matters, which she was indicating she considered a separate matter, was going to be a good argument in favour of a meeting.
Ms Cronk: So, if that was a sufficient distinction, the meeting would not be problematic; but if it wasn't, she was at least on notice, if I can put it that way, from the point of her discussion with Sue Lott, that there was an issue, because of the lawsuit, as to whether you would be able to meet with her or whether you should meet with her.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That was my recollection of what Sue told me and that is what the evidence before the committee, in terms of the transcript of the taped conversation, would indicate to me.
Ms Cronk: All right. Then on June first, moving forward in time, you learned of the articles published by Mr Wallace and you told the committee of a discussion that you had with him, you believe shortly before publication of the articles.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I believe it was probably the day before.
Ms Cronk: Am I correct that in addition to very specific allegations made by Ms Pretty, it was disclosed that "Pretty filed a complaint," to be precise, "with the crown attorney's office to get employment and other records from the non-profit housing corporation that runs the complex because the government wouldn't act on her complaint." That was information reported in the article.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, I don't have the article in front of me, but I certainly trust your reading of it.
Ms Cronk: Thank you for that, but let's be sure. Could you look at tab 53, exhibit 1, volume 2. And if I can draw your attention to the third full paragraph.
Hon Ms Gigantes: "Pretty filed a complaint"?
Ms Cronk: Yes. If you could just take a minute to read that. I was reading from it when I put it to you a moment ago, and what I'm suggesting is that from the time of that article, it was clear that Pretty had "filed a complaint with the crown attorney's office," stopping there, and therefore that the crown was involved. It's clear on the basis of this article that that was --
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's what the article said.
Ms Cronk: Right. And secondly, some description of the nature of the complaint was provided; namely, that it related to accessing certain kinds of information.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's what the article says.
Ms Cronk: All right. And then, as you pointed out earlier, there are a number of specific allegations set out, and indeed a comment is attributed to you that you said that you "knew about the allegations but wouldn't comment on them because of the court case"?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That I "ignored allegations" in the first paragraph -- "Gigantes said she knew about the allegations but wouldn't comment on them because of the court case." That is not exactly how I recollect having expressed myself, but it's not a bad representation.
Ms Cronk: What do you recall having said?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I recall having said that I didn't know the exact nature of what was involved in whatever legal proceedings might be under way and therefore I was very reluctant to comment on anything surrounding the allegations because I didn't know which of the allegations might be involved in legal proceedings. Maybe I didn't put it quite so laboriously to him, but that's my recollection of what I was trying to express to him.
Ms Cronk: Am I correct then in suggesting -- and perhaps I should ask you to look at the sentence in between those two paragraphs, which says, "The case goes to court tomorrow in Ottawa."
Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm sorry. Um, yes.
Ms Cronk: After the paragraph I quoted and then the second, "The case goes to court tomorrow in Ottawa"?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right.
1940
Ms Cronk: Am I correct in suggesting to you that at this point in time, after June first, after publication of the article, on the basis of the information in the article and on the basis of what Sue Lott had told you, you knew that there was this action or complaint, that there was a court date, according to the article, scheduled for --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I'm not asking you to accept the accuracy or inaccuracy of it, but in terms of information then known to you as suggested --
Hon Ms Gigantes: And it was a repetition of an earlier date that had apparently been mentioned in telephone conversations too. Yes.
Ms Cronk: So there's mention of a court date, there's mention of involvement by a crown attorney, there's some description of the nature of the complaint and the fact that it involves Sharron Pretty and the Van Lang Centre. Is that where we are in the state of it at that point?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, in terms of -- did you mention the allegations? There is also a list of allegations.
Ms Cronk: Yes, but there's no suggestion in the article that her case involved those allegations, is there?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, there is no such suggestion.
Ms Cronk: So I'm just focusing on the case.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right. Yes.
Ms Cronk: And am I right in the details that I suggested to you about the complaint or the case involving the crown attorney, that those were the facts?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, that's how I read the article.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. And then, as I understand it, and there's evidence before the committee, on the following day, Marc Collins, as it happens, had a discussion with Trinh Luu, and during the course of that discussion information was provided to Mr Collins by Trinh Luu regarding the case and regarding Ms Luu's and Ms Pretty's position with respect to Van Lang, or their concerns. Did Mr Collins make you aware of that telephone discussion in the first couple of days of June, or the early part of June?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't recollect that. Now, partly that may be because I was not speaking to him. Let me look at the dates here. I would have returned home on the 30th of June if I were following my normal routine, which would put me in the constituency office, again if the schedule were as normal, on June first, the Friday, and I might not have had occasion to talk to Marc until the following week.
Ms Cronk: Assuming even that it was the following week, at that point did Marc tell you about the conversation he'd had with Trinh Luu?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't recollect that.
Ms Cronk: All right. Do you recall learning more the following week from Marc Collins about the case or the complaint that Sharron Pretty had initiated?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't recollect what I learned about the case or indeed when I learned it. What I do know is that I learned something at some point over the next few days which made me feel that it was still a useful idea to contemplate a meeting.
Ms Cronk: Do you remember what the something was that made you think that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It was confirmation that as far as we could understand things, the description contained in the Sun, the information provided, either to Marc or to Sue or to both, and also, I guess, earlier to Karen Ridley, about the nature of the case was accurate; in other words, that it was a Provincial Offences Act charge, that it related to the Ontario Corporations Act and the specific charge was the non-production of documents which should be available to a board of directors of that corporation.
Ms Cronk: Are you saying, Ms Gigantes, that when that confirmation was received, it relieved some of your concerns about having a meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, it did.
Ms Cronk: Why?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Because it did not involve the Ministry of Housing, to begin with. It was a matter of one member of a board of directors who had brought an action under the Ontario Corporations Act against other directors, and many of the concerns which seemed to be preoccupying both Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty for many, many months were outside the scope of the relationships among the board of directors and dealt specifically with issues which could be resolved by reference to Ministry of Housing guidelines or to assistance from the ministry in terms of the operations of the non-profit corporation.
Ms Cronk: And as I understand it, a meeting was arranged for June 10 involving yourself and Trinh Luu?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Was it your intention that that meeting should be solely between yourself and Trinh Luu?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It is certainly not my recollection that it should be that meeting. My recollection is very specifically that I said, and I cannot tell you to whom, that I wanted two meetings, that I wanted to meet both sides separately, one after the other, that I would hear both sides, and I think I even used an expression something to the effect of "Let's line them up and do them -- bang, bang."
Ms Cronk: Meaning the meetings?
Hon Ms Gigantes: The meetings.
Ms Cronk: And you don't recall to whom you said that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't.
Ms Cronk: You don't recall to whom you said that.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you, in concluding that you could proceed with those meetings, Ms Gigantes, seek advice on the matter from your -- let's start with your political staff.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Did I receive advice?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I had been receiving consistent advice both from the ministry and my political staff all the way through this piece, certainly intensely during the spring leading into June.
Ms Cronk: My question to you was a little bit more specific and in fairness, I want to make sure that I've said it clearly enough. Between the time when you had reservations about whether you were in a position to go ahead and meet and the time that you concluded that you could do that, for the reasons that you have explained, did you seek advice from your political staff as to whether it was advisable to do so?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't think I said, you know, "Would you give me your advice on this?" My staff give me advice.
Ms Cronk: Did you receive their input?
Hon Ms Gigantes: They always provide input.
Ms Cronk: All right. Do you remember them doing so on this occasion?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Which occasion?
Ms Cronk: The occasion when you were trying to determine whether to go ahead with the meeting with this group and whether you were in a position to do so.
Hon Ms Gigantes: We had all discussed concerns around the fact that there were legal proceedings under way. We had all been concerned to find out the nature of those proceedings and to figure out what impact that had on potential meetings. So we certainly had discussions about that. Does that help?
Ms Cronk: Yes, but I'm afraid I can't leave it yet. Do you recall whether it was a formal request of him for advice -- I don't know how you ask these things, so whether you asked him for his views --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I just say, "What do you think?"
Ms Cronk: Exactly. Did you ask Marc Collins for his views, for example, or any other member of your political staff as to whether in the circumstances it was advisable to go ahead with the meeting with this group?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Everybody was providing views; it wasn't just Marc Collins.
Ms Cronk: Okay.
Hon Ms Gigantes: We were all discussing what was involved at this stage.
Ms Cronk: And what was the advice you were getting from your political advisers?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Originally, we all felt concern. As we found out the exact nature of what was happening, our concerns resolved themselves.
Ms Cronk: Did any of your political advisers advise you not to hold the meeting or meetings?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't recollect that anyone did at that stage. Certainly, earlier, back in March, we had had a lot of discussion around it, in April. You know, the discussion continued, "What was happening?" and there were new pieces of information coming all the time. The legal proceedings was the last piece.
Ms Cronk: I understand. And would it be fair of me to suggest and for the committee to conclude that as the facts changed, obviously the nature of the discussion would change and the relevant considerations would change?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And it's for that reason that I was trying to focus on what became the issue that caused you to say, "Well, it's on hold for a moment," that is, the legal action.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: What you've told the committee is that after that you did find something out that lent you sufficient comfort, that you were prepared to go ahead.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that was that you learned the nature of the action.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
1950
Ms Cronk: What I'm saying to you is, in that period of time, when you were learning more of the action and determining whether you were in a position to go ahead with the meetings, did any of your political advisers suggest to you that you should not proceed with one or both of those meetings?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I recall nobody saying, "You shouldn't do this meeting." I recall discussion around the significance of the legal proceedings.
Ms Cronk: Did any of them, that is, your political advisers, raise with you the prospect that holding one or both of those meetings might give rise to the perception of a conflict?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't think that any one of us over the period all the way through ever used to each other the formal word "conflict." What I can tell you is that it was very clearly identified in all our minds all the way through that we had to understand what was the appropriate role for the minister. That question arose once again, and quite sharply, when we learnt that there were legal issues involved.
Ms Cronk: Again, just confining our discussion to the period of time that followed thereafter, that is, when you found out that there were legal issues, or a legal court case, I understand you to be saying that no one at that point among your political advisers suggested to you that it was inappropriate for you to proceed with one or both of those meetings.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, not in those terms. We had lots of discussion around the issues, though, which to me -- you know, I would like you to understand by that that everybody took that question very seriously, because we discussed the appropriateness: What is the significance of these legal proceedings? How does that affect the question of the meeting? In that sense, yes, we were all considering whether it was appropriate.
Ms Cronk: So as you look back on it, no one, to your recollection, held a sufficiently strong view of it that someone said, "You really shouldn't do these meetings."
Hon Ms Gigantes: Nobody said that to me at that stage that I can recollect, no.
Ms Cronk: All right. Did Marc Collins at any point in that week or so, because we're talking about the period we reviewed in the chronology up to the time of the Thompson-Collins discussion on or about May 27th -- we know your meeting with Trinh Luu was the 10th of June. Just dealing with that time frame for the moment, did Marc Collins at any point in that interval indicate to you that he had, in a conversation with Trinh Luu on June the second, expressed reservations about whether you would be able to proceed to have a meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't recollect that.
Ms Cronk: Did he at any point that you can now recall, during that interval, that time frame that we're talking about, indicate to you that he had said anything to Trinh Luu suggesting that having a meeting in those circumstances would be very delicate or awkward for you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't recollect that.
Ms Cronk: All right. Then, as I take from your evidence, the meeting, although you had intended that they be back to back and that you meet with both sides, as the world unfolded there was a meeting on June the 10th and it did not involve any of the relevant participants save for Trinh Luu. Is that right?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, in fact, if I could explain, I had originally thought of the two sides as Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty on one hand, and the other members of the board, who had requested a meeting, on the other. In other words, those would be the two groups that I would have meetings with. I looked upon the meetings originally as a question of hearing one side, hearing another and attempting to see if there was any assistance I could offer.
The meeting on the 10th was with Trinh Luu alone. I was surprised that it was with Trinh Luu alone. At the moment when the meeting began, I was surprised that it was only with Trinh, but I did not question that, the reason being that I knew that Trinh was quite familiar -- in fact, it was like Siamese twins in terms of Trinh and Sharron Pretty and their expressions of concerns. Trinh is also, as members of this committee have reason to know, an admirable exponent of what she has to say. So I didn't feel that Sharron Pretty was not being well represented, to put it that way.
Ms Cronk: Are you saying, then, that when you arrived at the meeting on June 10th you'd expected Sharron Pretty to be there?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't know that I arrived. I think I was probably, in the course of a day -- I can't remember exactly what time in the day it happened -- but I think I was in my office and Trinh came. I'm not certain. I may have been in and out of the office during the day. However it happened, when it was Trinh alone I thought, "Oh," but I didn't question that Trinh could carry their position.
Ms Cronk: No, I understand. You weren't concerned when she arrived alone, because based on your knowledge of her, as I understand what you're saying, you felt that she could more than adequately outline for you whatever it was that she and Sharron wanted to say. Have I got that part of it right?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That is the case.
Ms Cronk: Okay. What I'm getting at is that when she did arrive for the meeting -- whether you arrived or she arrived, at some point you're in the same room together -- were you at that point expecting Sharron Pretty to have been there?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I was.
Ms Cronk: I asked you what advice, if any, on the advisability of that meeting you'd received from your political advisers in that time frame I identified, May 27th to June 10th. Did you seek and -- and I don't wish you to tell me what it was -- obtain any legal advice during that period as to whether a meeting with Trinh Luu and, according to your expectations, Sharron Pretty could proceed in the circumstances?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Ms Cronk: Did it occur to you to do so?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Legal advice?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Ms Cronk: From any source within government?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Ms Cronk: As the meeting unfolded on June the 10th, the committee has heard -- and I'll just ask for your confirmation; we can go through the evidence in detail if you like, but am I correct that Trinh Luu covered a fair amount of ground, in the sense that she was communicating considerable information to you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. She was having a good day at communicating.
Ms Cronk: All right. She was effective at it, is what you're saying.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: She brought with her a considerable number of documents, the committee has been told.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Very considerable.
Ms Cronk: Right. Could I focus on one aspect of the discussion, and that is the court case then outstanding. Did that come up, as you recall the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes, it did, and in fact she had complete documentation in terms of background. She showed me the Corporations Act and the section of the Ontario Corporations Act. She said that the allegation that was being carried in court was that the documents had not been produced according to this section. So it was quite detailed.
Ms Cronk: Do you recall at what point during the course of the meeting the issue of the court case came up?
Hon Ms Gigantes: She began at the beginning. She gave me a chronological history of her experience and Sharron Pretty's experience at the Van Lang Centre. So while I can't tell you at what point the court case came up, I would guess that it came up near the end, because this was a chronology.
Ms Cronk: Did you obtain from her or were you given during the course of the meeting a copy of any of the documents that she'd brought with her?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. There were two pieces of paper that I said, "Trinh, could I have copies of these?" One was the notice to remove Sharron Pretty from the board of directors. That notice was dated two days before our meeting. It was dated the eighth of June. I had no knowledge of that before our meeting. The second was a list which she told me indicated who the charges were against and what they specifically -- I think they were supposed to help me understand specifically, but I found them confusing. I'm not familiar with court documents, and I found them confusing, in fact. I took a copy. I asked Audrey, who was with us, to make copies of those two pieces of paper.
2000
Ms Cronk: Was it just the three of you at the meeting: Audrey Moey, yourself and Trinh Luu?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And how long did the meeting last, as you recall it?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It was quite a long meeting, and I wouldn't be surprised if it went an hour and a quarter to an hour and a half.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 71, which I believe is in volume 3 of exhibit 1, Ms Gigantes?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It's number 71?
Ms Cronk: Yes. At this tab are documents that Trinh Luu has testified were among the documents that she had at the meeting, and that these are among the documents that she showed you, and she has indicated that -- unfortunately, the pages aren't numbered, but if you flip through it, you'll find a court docket slip, or document.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It has a date on it of June the second and, on this copy, handwriting at the top saying, "Call Jeanne." Is this one of the two documents that she gave you at the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Except for the additional information, which is "New court date." First it has June 16th. That's scratched out and it says "July 21." My recollection of the document that I received was that it just had the June second date on it.
Ms Cronk: And beneath the "July 21," do you recall whether it had "June 16," or no?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't remember that and I don't believe it was on the document I received from her, but this is essentially, otherwise --
Ms Cronk: The document you got from her?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: All right.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't think mine had "Call Jeanne."
Ms Cronk: On the top of it?
Hon Ms Gigantes: On the top of it, no.
Ms Cronk: All right. And if you could just perhaps keep your hand at that document and look to the second-last document at the tab, this is a copy of a notice from the board of directors of the Van Lang Centre dated June eighth, 1994, concerning an intended meeting on June 19th to deal with a resolution to remove Sharron Pretty as a director. Is this the second document that you were given at the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's it. Now, mine did not have "Rec'd Fri June 10" on it.
Ms Cronk: Yours was a clean of that handwritten note?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right, yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Could I ask you to go back to what I'm calling the court docket slip?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did you, when -- first of all, did Ms Luu show this to you, hand it to you or just tell you about it at the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, she showed it to me.
Ms Cronk: And did you look at it?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I looked at it, but again, I still find it -- I still don't know what it means. There is an indication of four items noted beside the name of one director, and I've never understood the significance of that. I don't to this day.
Ms Cronk: I see. Did she speak to you about the names of the individuals involved in these charges when you were looking at this document?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I believe so.
Ms Cronk: And did she make any reference to the date of June second as having been a court date, or did she say anything about that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't recollect that.
Ms Cronk: Ms Luu has indicated to the committee that when she showed you this, what I'm calling a court docket form -- and I should also ask you, on the form itself it says, "Ministry of the Attorney General," and then there's writing over the emblem of the province on the left-hand side. Do you see that, where it says, "Ministry of the Attorney General"?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. I do.
Ms Cronk: Ms Luu has indicated that in the course of the meeting, with reference to the court docket, but more particularly the case, she gave you, or outlined for you, considerable detail about it, and I want to indicate to you what she has said to the committee and then I'm going to ask you whether you remember being told these things by Ms Luu at the meeting.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I'm reading from Hansard at page -- from the proceedings of this committee Monday of this week at page M-411, and she said to the committee that she told you the nature of the charges, that she gave you a description of the charges by describing to you that Ms Pretty had been denied access to documentation by the corporation and that these charges related to that. Did she tell you that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, that certainly describes what she told me, yes.
Ms Cronk: She also indicated to the committee, and you've confirmed, that she left a copy of the court docket sheet with you, or what I'm calling the court docket sheet.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. She left a copy like this.
Ms Cronk: She also indicated that she told you at the meeting that it was not a civil court case and that it involved charges under the Corporations Act. Is that correct?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. I knew that already.
Ms Cronk: You knew that charges or a complaint or proceedings with relation to the Corporations Act was not a civil proceeding.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I knew that.
Ms Cronk: She also indicated that she told you that the crown was contemplating a fraud charge against Dr Can Le. Did she tell you that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: She also said that the crown had -- she says that she told you that the crown had all the evidence with respect to a fraud charge and that it was possible that those charges would be coming up. Did she tell you that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: She also said to the committee that she told you the date, that is the June second date, of a court appearance and that the charges involved certain of the board of directors. Did she tell you that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: This was on June 10th.
Ms Cronk: Yes, June second, that she referred to June second.
Hon Ms Gigantes: She did refer to June second, I believe, and I believe she said that they hadn't appeared.
Ms Cronk: She also indicated that she told you that the crown was involved in the charges brought by Sharron Pretty. Did she tell you that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. I knew that.
Ms Cronk: And you knew that.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: She also indicated that she left you a copy of the resolution to remove Sharron Pretty as a director and you've confirmed that that's the case.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: She indicated to the committee that she told you that she challenged the legality of the board's action in that regard and went on to explain why. Do you remember her telling you that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, my, I don't recollect that. I must say that when she told me about this motion and showed me the copy of the motion, I was a bit taken aback. This was news to me. So I may not have incorporated everything she told me. She may remember more about that than I do.
Ms Cronk: So you're not saying it didn't happen; you just don't have a present recollection of it.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct; yes.
Ms Cronk: You've indicated that, I take it, it came as some surprise to you, this resolution.
Hon Ms Gigantes: A very unpleasant surprise.
Ms Cronk: Unpleasant in the sense that it was of concern to you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, it was.
Ms Cronk: Why was that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I didn't think that it was going to help promote a resolution.
Ms Cronk: Why is that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Because I didn't think that Sharron Pretty was going to quietly accept that she be removed from the board of directors, and I did not think that it was going to be easier to find a resolution, if a resolution were possible, if the board of directors were to undertake removal of Sharron Pretty from the board.
Ms Cronk: Would it be fair to say that it carried with it the spectre of the situation becoming worse?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And the antagonisms between or among the parties accelerating considerably?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, and they were bad enough already.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to turn next, if you would, please, to tab 78 of the same book. At this tab, Ms Gigantes, while you're finding it, is a copy of what's described as a background note dated June 15th, 1994. Again, there's a covering memorandum from, in this case, Lisa Heaton to Karen Ridley of your staff. It appears to have been copied to Marc Collins. Do you recall seeing this background note?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I do.
Ms Cronk: Did you see it before the meeting on June 17th?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to turn to page 5 of it, please. At page 5, Ms Gigantes, looking at the -- did you read it when you got it? Sorry, I should have asked you that.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: I understand you to have confirmed before the June 17th meeting.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, it was.
Ms Cronk: Looking at the entries in the middle of the page dealing with June 16th, 1994, am I right that there appears in that paragraph and the next two paragraphs or so commentary with respect to the outstanding court case or some observations about it?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That is correct.
2010
Ms Cronk: Am I correct that it indicates that, "Summons had been received by all directors to appear in provincial Divisional Court on this date," that being June 16?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And further, that the purpose of that was "to respond to charges by Ms Pretty that she has been refused to inspect various corporation documents"?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And it indicates as well, does it not, the board's response to that position as known to the author, namely, that the board was "adamant that Ms Pretty has been supplied with all information she requested"?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And it suggests that a log had been kept in that regard?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And it confirms as well in the second paragraph below with respect to June 19th what you knew already from your meeting with Trinh Luu, and that was that another special -- a meeting of the board of directors had been called for June 19th "for the sole purpose of removing Ms Pretty from her office as a director"?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right.
Ms Cronk: And if you could look back to the prior page, page 4 of the background note, the entries dealing with June 3, 1994, include, I suggest, in the last two paragraphs on the page, some comment about the Van Lang board's responses to the allegations that had been made in the Wallace June first Sun article? That's the subject matter?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And in the first paragraph it refers, I suggest, to requests for information initiated by Ms Pretty?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And comments upon the board's view of that; that is, the board of Van Lang?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And if we look immediately above that, to the first entry relating to June 3, it indicates that the Van Lang board had a meeting on June the third?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that its purpose was to discuss, first, "the complaint filed by Sharron Pretty with the crown attorney alleging she had been denied access to corporation employment and other records"?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Correct.
Ms Cronk: And then, secondly, the meeting was also to discuss the article that appeared in the Ottawa Sun?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. So what I'm going to suggest, Ms Gigantes, is that by virtue of the contents of this background note with respect to this issue, the case then pending, some of this information had been known to you based on your meeting with Trinh Luu, but there was confirmation in it, first, that the crown attorney was involved with respect to Sharron Pretty's complaint?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Secondly, that the nature of the complaint concerned an alleged denial of access to corporate information?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And that that related to the Corporations Act?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Thirdly, that summonses had been received by all directors to appear in provincial court?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: That there was a court date of June 16th?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: That the board response to that was that she had been supplied with all information she'd requested?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right.
Ms Cronk: So that it provided information concerning the nature of the case, its status in the court, the involvement of the crown attorney and the -- well, we'll stop there; those three matters.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It provided all those things.
Ms Cronk: And it also confirmed what Trinh Luu had already told you, and that is that there was a pending motion to remove Sharron Pretty?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 79? At this tab, Ms Gigantes, there's a fax cover sheet from Patti Redmond of the deputy minister's office to Brian Sutherland of the Ministry of Housing offices in Ottawa dated June 16th, and attached -- I'm sorry?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't think --
Ms Cronk: Okay.
Hon Ms Gigantes: From Patti Redmond?
Ms Cronk: Sorry. If you look --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Which tab are we at? Am I at the wrong tab?
Interjection: It's the cover sheet.
Ms Cronk: Tab 79, the cover sheet.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, I'm very sorry. Good, good. Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: If you look at the right-hand column, it says that the fax is from Patti Redmond to Brian Sutherland.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Correct, yes.
Ms Cronk: And then if you look at the documents attached to it, can you tell me, have you ever seen them before? There's two memoranda, one from Andrea Baston to Patricia Redmond.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I saw both of those documents before the meeting of the 17th.
Ms Cronk: All right. Were you, when you went into the meeting on June 17th, handed any documents by Audrey Moey that you now remember?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I heard Audrey discuss that before this committee, and I would not have remembered. I think I have a vague recollection, but I would not have remembered. I would have said no if I hadn't heard her say that.
Ms Cronk: All right. So you're not sure? You're relying on her evidence to comment on that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. I think what I'm doing is I'm remembering because she said it, but if you had asked me cold, you know, "Did you receive any documents just as you went into the meeting?" I'd search my mind and I'd say, "I don't think so."
Ms Cronk: All right. Looking at these documents at tab 79, can you tell the committee one way or the other whether it was these memoranda that you received before you went into the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Quite possible. I believe that I had already seen them, though.
Ms Cronk: Before that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yep.
Ms Cronk: All right.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I should explain that staff, my staff have been very conscientious about trying to make sure that if I were supposed to have received something in Toronto and nobody's sure that it actually got into my briefcase when I was leaving Toronto to go back to Ottawa, then they send faxes to make sure that it's available to me in Ottawa. But I think I had already seen these. I think I received them before I left Toronto.
Ms Cronk: And you have -- you can't assist the committee any further as to what the document or documents were that were given to you before you went into the meeting; you just don't remember.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, if they were faxes, and if they were faxes of this material, it would have been duplicates, as far as I was concerned, I believe.
Ms Cronk: All right. Would I be correct in suggesting to you, Ms Gigantes, that because of what actually happened at the June 10th meeting with Trinh Luu, namely, that although you had expected her to be there, Sharron Pretty was not there, that you then expected her to be at the meeting on June 17th?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I did not expect her to be at the meeting at June 17th. I still had in my own mind two groups: one, the complainants, if you want to call them that, and two, the other members of the board. I did not expect to find Sharron Pretty at the second meeting.
Ms Cronk: Did you have any personal knowledge, and I'm not suggesting in any way that you should have, but did you have any personal knowledge of the arrangements that were made by your staff and Ministry of Housing people to set that meeting up on June 17th?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you know, for example, that --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, I knew that it was going to be at the Rideau Centre and that we were going to have a Ministry of Housing official, and I believe I knew that it would be Brian Sutherland. I'm absolutely sure I knew it would be Brian Sutherland. So I can't say I didn't know anything about the arrangements. I did.
Ms Cronk: Did you know, before you went to the meeting on June 17th, that Bill Clement of the Ottawa Ministry of Housing offices had been asked to ensure that all directors of the corporation were given notice of the meeting, including Sharron Pretty?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you know that a member of your own constituency staff, Audrey Moey, understood that Sharron Pretty was to be there and had herself taken steps to ensure that that in fact took place?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I did not know that.
Ms Cronk: That came as a surprise to you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, a surprise? I knew that somehow my vision of the meetings was different from what happened, so somewhere, somebody had not caught my vision.
Ms Cronk: All right. You said earlier that you'd been listening to the evidence today.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I take that to have included Audrey Moey's evidence.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, that's right.
Ms Cronk: And she gave evidence before the committee, as you are, I taken it, then aware --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- that she, as I took it, actually went out of her way to make sure that Sharron Pretty --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, she did.
Ms Cronk: -- got notice of the meeting. Did that come as --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Bless her heart.
Ms Cronk: I'm sorry?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I said, yes she did, bless her heart.
Ms Cronk: Did that come as a surprise to you today when you heard that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, I knew somebody had a different vision of what these meetings were going to be than I did, but I didn't know that Audrey had taken special care to make sure that Sharron was at the second meeting.
Ms Cronk: All right. Should the committee then conclude, based on your recollection of events, that whatever your intentions with respect to the attendance of Sharron Pretty at the meeting, they didn't get communicated to your constituency office, Audrey Moey, because we saw that she --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- took the extra effort to get Sharron there --
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: -- and certainly the Ministry of Housing people didn't seem to know that, because Bill Clement was making sure she was there too, or had been asked to take steps to ensure that all directors received notice.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, that's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. I'm going to suggest, Ms Gigantes, to you, and I'd ask you to confirm then, what the state of your information was as you walked into that meeting on June 17th.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
2020
Ms Cronk: May I ask you first: During the week following upon the meeting with Trinh Luu before you went to the meeting on June 17th, and accepting that your understanding of the meeting or your expectation was that Sharron Pretty would not be there --
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: -- did you seek advice during that week from your political advisers as to whether you should or whether it was advisable to proceed with the meeting on June 17th, given what you'd learned from Trinh Luu?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, there was nothing I learned from Trinh Luu which was different in the sense of the difficulties that might or might not be associated with legal proceedings, and so I certainly didn't seek any advice about that, and in terms of Ministry of Housing issues, nothing had changed.
The one difference coming out of the June 10th meeting, to me, was that we now were confronted with the issue of the potential removal of Sharron Pretty as a member of the board of directors, and I was uninformed about what would be required to remove a member of a board of directors in that kind of organization.
Ms Cronk: As a matter of law, as a procedure?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Right.
Hon Ms Gigantes: And so when I came back to Toronto I immediately sought information on that subject and learnt eventually by this memo, the second memo that you see, "Removal of a Director," it's called --
Ms Cronk: You're referring to the second memo at tab 79.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right, which essentially told me that the way they were proceeding was within the law.
Ms Cronk: The first memo at tab 79 concerns the status of the court application in relation to Ms Pretty's allegations.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Correct?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, and a description of the legal basis for the action.
Ms Cronk: And it specifically mentions that the case was "a prosecution in provincial court (criminal division) under section 304 of the Corporations Act."
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And it specifically indicates what the potential liability or penalty was upon a conviction for an offence of that kind?
Hon Ms Gigantes: "Up to $200."
Ms Cronk: Yes, and it specifically mentions the nature of the case, that is, denial of access to certain kinds of documents.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: And the second memo is specifically concerned with what's involved procedurally in bringing about the removal of a director of a non-profit corporation?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. Going into the meeting on June 17th, Ms Gigantes, you knew, did you not -- and again leaving aside the merits of it -- you knew that issues relating to access to information had been raised by Sharron Pretty for many months.
Hon Ms Gigantes: They had.
Ms Cronk: Because that was evident indeed in her early correspondence directly to you and in subsequent letters to Brian Sutherland.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That is correct.
Ms Cronk: And is it not also the case that in the spring, in the letters to Brian Sutherland and in some of the concerns being expressed by Trinh Luu, the response of the Ministry of Housing to their concerns was being raised as well.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And that was not just with respect to the adequacy, in their view, of the compliance report but also with respect to how Ministry of Housing people were responding to these various other issues, including the access-to-information issue.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. Is it then the case that when you went into the meeting on June 17th, you knew that there were multiple charges pending in the provincial court (criminal division) -- stop there for a moment.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Is that right? And you knew that they had been initiated by Sharron Pretty and that they involved directors of the Van Lang Centre, all of whom had received summonses?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You knew the nature of the charges in the sense of the act in respect of which they'd been brought, the Corporations Act, and the fact that it involved allegations of alleged denial of access to information.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: You knew the crown attorney was involved.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I did.
Ms Cronk: You knew that there was a court date scheduled for the day immediately preceding the meeting, June 16th.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: You knew that at least two court appearances, then, had been involved: the June second one referred to at the meeting with Trinh Luu and the June 16th one reported upon in the background note.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I should note, and I know that you will agree -- you're asking me what I knew immediately going in. I also knew that the court date of the 16th had led to a further court date being fixed about that hearing.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. I was going to ask you that.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right.
Ms Cronk: So you knew there was a further court date coming up?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And did you know the date or the timing of that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I did. I don't remember it right now, but I did know it then and it was a few weeks later.
Ms Cronk: And you also knew that it wasn't a civil case.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I knew that.
Ms Cronk: All right. In those circumstances, would you agree with me, Ms Gigantes, that in respect of those charges the justice system had been engaged?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
Ms Cronk: The process had been triggered?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, it had.
Ms Cronk: Would you agree with me also that in those circumstances, the gravity or the frivolity of the charges was totally irrelevant?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Absolutely.
Ms Cronk: And would you also agree with me that in those circumstances, the merits of the charges was totally irrelevant?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Absolutely.
Ms Cronk: And that the potential penalties upon conviction was equally irrelevant?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Quite correct.
Ms Cronk: What's important in the circumstances is that the administration of justice process had been triggered, was engaged --
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: -- and the matter was pending before a criminal court?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: All right. Did you in those circumstances seek legal advice? Please don't tell me what it was if you did, but did you seek legal advice from any source as to whether you should carry forward with that meeting on June 17th, recognizing that --
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I did not.
Ms Cronk: Okay -- recognizing that you knew at least that a number of people who were involved in those charges were going to be at that meeting, namely, a number of directors from the Van Lang Centre?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I didn't. But you will see that I did receive legal information and I fully believe that had our legal branch felt there was a need to provide me with legal advice further than this information, they would do it. They aren't shy.
Ms Cronk: Mm-hmm. In fairness to you, did any member of your political staff suggest to you that you should get advice on the issue, not just of the status of the case and its nature, but on the advisability of going into a meeting, given the case? Did anybody say to you, "Let's get some advice on this"?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't recollect anybody saying this. But let me repeat: My experience at the Ministry of Housing is that the legal branch, in a situation where they have concerns, will give it whether it's asked for or not.
Ms Cronk: Did they in this case?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, they did not. You see the memo which was provided me on June 16th.
Ms Cronk: It doesn't deal with it.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Ms Cronk: Ms Gigantes, you'll understand that I'm obliged to ask you some of these questions because it relates to the issue of one of the allegations of breach of the conflict guidelines this committee is dealing with --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
Ms Cronk: -- and that is whether you should have been at the meeting. Would you agree with me that given what you knew about the court case -- and let's leave aside your personal knowledge -- that in those circumstances, knowing the nature of the case, what was involved, that it was in provincial court (criminal division), that that kind of knowledge would require even an ordinary citizen to be careful in suggesting, in any way, to parties involved in those proceedings that criminal charges should be withdrawn, dropped, or that consideration should be given to retreating from carrying on with those charges? Do you understand what I'm saying?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I'm afraid I don't.
Ms Cronk: Okay, I've put it badly. What I'm saying is, there's a state of facts that existed as at June 16th, and that involved the nature of the case, the involvement of the crown attorney, the fact that it was the provincial court (criminal division) and essentially the engagement of the process of the administration of justice --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- and that in those circumstances any citizen must exercise care to refrain from suggesting that a party to those proceedings drop those kinds of charges or withdraw them. I'm not saying that you did that in this case. I'm just saying that in those factual circumstances any citizen must be very careful not to make that kind of a suggestion. Would you agree with me?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, I must say I haven't thought of it in terms of any citizen. I certainly have thought about it in terms of my responsibilities in government, and indeed as an elected representative previous to government, but no, I have not considered it in terms of any citizen.
Ms Cronk: All right, then let's deal with it just in terms of ministerial responsibility given --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right.
Ms Cronk: -- and what the requirement is for someone who is a member of Parliament.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. I'm suggesting to you that the standard's even lower, arguably, on that set of facts, but let's talk about it for a minister of the crown.
Would you agree with me that given those facts that a minister of the crown, particularly, must exercise great care not to suggest to anyone that they withdraw those kinds of charges, refrain from proceeding with them or in any way drop them, that that's the kind of suggestion that cannot be made?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I agree completely.
Ms Cronk: All right. Would you agree with me as well that the reason that that is the case is the pure and simple fact that the process of the administration of justice has been engaged?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Absolutely.
2030
Ms Cronk: Regardless of the seriousness of it, the potential penalties, the frivolity of it, all that doesn't matter. The fact is it's before the courts, and it's before, in this case, the provincial court (criminal division). It's that simple.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It is that simple, in my mind.
Ms Cronk: All right. Would you agree with me that, given that, a minister of the crown must exercise similar caution in making any suggestion that a party might consider withdrawing from that kind of a proceeding or taking steps to cause it to be withdrawn in exchange for some other action by the other party to the proceedings that would be beneficial to them?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, that's a lot to take under consideration. Rather than try and answer that, perhaps if I could try and explain how I feel about it specifically. I think that every person who goes to the justice system in Ontario has a right to expect that that justice system will treat them and their issues with absolute -- how can I say it? -- absolutely straightforwardly and on the merits of their case.
I also believe that from time to time in life legal actions get undertaken which exacerbate situations rather than leading to a resolution which might in some cases be more helpful to the party which initially undertook them. It certainly is the case, in my experience, that people will take out a legal proceeding and then withdraw from it, having thought about it. I've certainly known cases like that. If you're asking me whether I think it's important that a minister of the crown not try and pressure somebody to do that, I sure do.
Ms Cronk: That would be totally inappropriate, correct?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. That wasn't what I was suggesting, and I'm grateful for the context of your view of this.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Okay.
Ms Cronk: What I'm saying to you is a little bit different. You've agreed with me that in the circumstances that I've described, with that kind of a legal action, not a civil suit, all right --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right.
Ms Cronk: -- where the administration of justice is engaged --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes, that's right.
Ms Cronk: -- I believe you've agreed quite unequivocally --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- that a minister of the crown must exercise great caution in suggesting that a party to that kind of proceeding withdraw charges, drop them or take steps to have them stopped. That's something to be very careful about.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Absolutely.
Ms Cronk: What I'm suggesting to you is that isn't it also true that taking any step as a minister of the crown in that situation which would have the effect of suggesting that charges of that kind might not proceed in exchange for the person who initiated or caused the charges in the first place receiving some benefit or having some action taken or not taken which would be in their interest would be equally problematic, that a minister of the crown must exercise great caution not to be making that suggestion?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Absolutely.
Ms Cronk: Would you agree?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, never to make the suggestion that somebody should think about whether they want to proceed in a case where they've lodged a complaint which has been taken up by the crown when their concern can be resolved in another way, never to suggest that? I don't know. I don't know.
Ms Cronk: We'll come to the exact specifics of the meeting, but you and I know what we're talking about here --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I think we do.
Ms Cronk: -- and I'm trying to make my questions clear. Do you see a distinction in that context between a civil proceeding and one initiated that involves the crown and the criminal division of the provincial court?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, there is.
Ms Cronk: All right. Would you accept from me and do you agree with me that attempting to resolve by mediation or otherwise a civil proceeding that someone has initiated is not only an everyday occurrence but given our current court system a desirable objective?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, indeed.
Ms Cronk: We won't get into it, but some people even suggest that it's now an obligation of counsel to have that pursued at a very early date, but that, you'd agree, is fundamentally different, is it not --
Hon Ms Gigantes: It is a different thing.
Ms Cronk: -- than suggesting any form of settlement or abandonment of proceedings that involve the engagement of the administration of justice in a criminal division of the provincial court?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It is a different thing.
Ms Cronk: All right. And what I'm suggesting to you -- and I do not say, Ms Gigantes, that you did this. I'm going to ask you what was said at that meeting and what you intended to say and what you in fact said, but the proposition that I'm putting to you is that a minister of the crown, for all of those reasons, must be extraordinarily scrupulous to avoid the suggestion of settlement of proceedings of that kind where the process of the administration of justice has been engaged, settlement in the sense of one side receiving one thing and the other receiving another. You've got to be very careful about that.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I agree totally.
Ms Cronk: All right. In that context, can we turn to the meeting of June 17th, and may I ask you to look at notes which the committee has been told by Audrey Moey were prepared by her. The committee has heard that Ms Moey accompanied you to the meeting on June 17th. Was that correct?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, she did. Now, she was at the meeting.
Ms Cronk: Sorry. I don't mean she went with you.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right.
Ms Cronk: And in addition, in attendance, the committee has heard were Brian Sutherland, obviously yourself, Sharon Pretty, Beverlee Bell and four directors of the Van Lang Centre, namely, Drs Tang, Truong, Le and Mr Nguyen. Is that information correct?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And you've indicated that you did not expect Sharron Pretty to be at the meeting on June 17th.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Did anyone inform you before you got there that she was coming to the meeting, or did you just see her there?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I came into the room, and she was there, and nobody else in the room seemed the least bit surprised.
Ms Cronk: I see, but you certainly were, based on what you told me.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I was surprised. I didn't apparently let it show.
Ms Cronk: Okay. And the committee has been told that Ms Moey prepared notes of the meeting and that a variety of other people did, but not as it happens in as fulsome a detail. Do you remember Ms Moey making notes at the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes. She was -- I think she was seated to my immediate right.
Ms Cronk: At the meeting.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: All right. And could I ask you to look at tab 81, I'm sorry, volume 3, exhibit 1.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Volume 3, exhibit 1, tab 81.
Ms Cronk: Tab 81.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: And I just want to ask you first if you've read a number of these documents, because I want to make sure that you have before I ask you questions about them.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Have you read the notes that appear at tab 81?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I have.
Ms Cronk: And do you understand them to be notes prepared by Audrey Moey at the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: There are notes that appear at tab 82. The committee's been told that they're Dr Tang's. Did you have a chance to read those before today?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I looked at them.
Ms Cronk: Okay. And at tab 83, handwritten notes prepared by Brian Sutherland, the committee's been told.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right.
Ms Cronk: And at tab 84, by Dr Le.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And at tab 85, notes by Sharron Pretty.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right.
Ms Cronk: Did you have a chance to review all these?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I did.
Ms Cronk: The committee also has before it, and I'll come to it in due course, a press statement, as she calls it, by Sharron Pretty at tab 86. Did you have a chance to read that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And what she describes as a second press statement, June 23rd, at tab 87.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Correct.
Ms Cronk: Did you also review typewritten notes prepared by Brian Sutherland on or about July 14th?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Ms Cronk: In preparing for the hearing today --
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. I didn't look at them.
Ms Cronk: I see. Tab 103.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, I haven't looked at them.
Ms Cronk: Right. These are the notes I'm referring to. You've not read them.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. No, I haven't.
2040
Ms Cronk: All right. Then dealing with the events at the meeting, Ms Gigantes, the committee has heard that a variety of topics were discussed.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: The committee has also heard that there were introductory remarks made both by yourself and by one of the directors, Dr Tang.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Does that accord with your recollection?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, it does.
Ms Cronk: Could you outline for the committee to the best of your recollection what you indicated in your introductory remarks at the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I thanked them for being willing to meet with me. I told them that I was familiar with many of the issues that had proven difficult for Van Lang over many months. I referred to the compliance report. I told them that I knew of the motion to remove Sharron Pretty from the board. I told them that I knew that there were charges under the Corporations Act which had been initiated by Sharron Pretty against other board directors. I believe, if I did not tell them right then, I certainly indicated to them near the beginning of the meeting that I'd had discussions the previous week with Trinh Luu. I believe that's how I began my introductory remarks.
Ms Cronk: All right. So that, just to be clear --
Hon Ms Gigantes: And I also indicated to them that my hope was that I might hear from the members of the board, that we might have some discussion of the issues and that I might be able to assist.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. So that I'm clear, then, among the introductory remarks that you made, you informed the people present, essentially -- I take it you were indicating to them what your awareness was of the circumstances.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I tried to do that.
Ms Cronk: All right. And one of the things that you indicated to them was that you were aware of the removal motion with respect to Sharron Pretty. You've said that that's one of the things you told them.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I believe that I did that up front.
Ms Cronk: And one of the other things that you told them was that you were aware of the legal action involving Sharron Pretty?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And was there any further discussion about either of those items at the outset of the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. We went right into the issues, and the slanging and difficulties began.
Ms Cronk: What was the second thing you said? The "slanging"?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Slanging, yes.
Ms Cronk: What's that mean?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It may be an Ottawa Valley expression, but it means --
Mr Callahan: I think we got it. I think we got it.
Ms Cronk: I'm not sure I do. What does "slanging" mean?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It means that you're taking verbal swipes at each other.
Ms Cronk: Is that how the meeting proceeded?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, there was a fair amount of that on several issues, and we did have very -- we had some very tense moments. We had some very difficult moments. There were points at which I felt the meeting was just going to break down and everybody would get up and slam out of the room. But we did -- I did try and keep people focused. In fact, I can recollect using the word -- "Let us try," you know, "focused," "focused," "Can we get focused?" -- several times.
We discussed the personnel questions, including the superintendent. The superintendent has been a lightning rod for difficulties at Van Lang for months, months and months, and the rows around the competency of the superintendent and the role of the superintendent and the leave of the superintendent and the language capabilities of the superintendent and whether the superintendent was hired under false pretences and whether -- this has gone on for months and months and months. So when we discussed this, we got into a discussion of the compliance report.
Ms Cronk: All right. Could I stop you there just for a moment? If you feel you need to elaborate on this aspect of the meeting, please tell me, but would it be fair to suggest that there were a number of issues and areas of difference between the parties discussed at the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. One of the things I want to do is to find the opportunity, and if I could I'd take it now, to indicate to members of the committee something which I don't believe anybody else has indicated, which is that we did achieve agreement on a couple of major items.
One was personnel, and the fact that, I believe since Trinh Luu left in the fall of 1993, there had not been a full-time project manager. There had before that I believe been four project managers in the space of 18 months. I believe that was indicated in the compliance report.
And in the discussion around the superintendent -- the pay of the superintendent, the role of the superintendent, the fact that the superintendent's work had had to be supplemented by a contract with an outside firm to provide preventive maintenance in order to ensure that there was adequate service provided physically to the building -- around that discussion, the board, finally, in the person of Dr Truong, said, "If you think we should hire a project manager full time" -- and this had been a battle back and forth between Sharron Pretty and members at the meeting, and I had raised questions and cited Trinh Luu. He said, "If you feel we should hire a full-time project manager, we will do it. Would that help?" and Brian Sutherland and I both, I believe, indicated that it might very well help at this stage.
The second area of agreement was the issue which was one of the issues that Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu had called core issues/core housing issues. It was the issue of tenant placement and whether there was reverse discrimination going on and whether there was adequate working relations in terms of referral from the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Housing Authority in the deep-core sector of the building.
There was an agreement reached -- and this goes after much discussion with Sharron Pretty involved vigorously and other people involved vigorously -- that it would be acceptable to other board members if Sharron were provided on a regular basis with information that would allow her to monitor the vacancies and the referrals and the placements. They all came to an agreement on that.
Once we had achieved that, then the theme that I had been trying to bring forward at the beginning of the meeting, which frankly I didn't have an awful lot of hope for at the beginning of the meeting, started to look possible to me. I had said to them: "Can we put the past behind? Can we try and settle where things are at now?"
I thought it was a possibility that because Sharron Pretty hadn't been at major portions of recent board meetings, she was not up to date on some of the issues that she continued to raise. So I said, "Is it possible that we can find out where things are at now and try and get an understanding about that, so that if there is a sense of understanding about what's been achieved, what progress has been made, what has changed, what improvements have gone on, then perhaps it's possible to talk about working together in the future."
And in the course -- several times during the meeting I raised that theme, and I began to feel, after we had had agreement on those two major points, that it's possible, that we might be getting near to the point where that might be a possibility, and in that context, I kept using the phrase, "Can we just try and think about leaving all actions against each other aside?" I used that phrase several times.
Ms Cronk: Which phrase?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Stopping all actions.
Ms Cronk: What did you mean by that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I meant by that actions such as the motion to remove Sharron Pretty, the charges brought forward by Sharron Pretty, the public accusations by Sharron Pretty. I did not specify what I meant.
2050
Ms Cronk: Did anyone ask you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. People did not ask me except when we got very close to the point where, having reached some agreement, I began to suggest that perhaps the way to get a resolution was to -- it was clear we weren't going to be able to go through issue by issue during this meeting──that we think of another option, which would be to have another meeting where those issues -- I asked Sharron, you know: "Are the issues of tenant participation and tenant access," which involves the placement, the vacancy question and so on, "Are those your key issues? Are those the two that are the major outstanding problems, as far as you're concerned?"
Ms Cronk: And just, if I could interrupt you --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Just on that issue, what was her response?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Her response was yes.
Ms Cronk: All right.
Hon Ms Gigantes: And everybody in the room understood that.
Ms Cronk: I'd like to ask you some questions about where you'd gotten so far in the meeting. All right?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: I'd asked you a few moments ago whether at any point during the introduction that you'd made there was further elaboration by you or discussion of the legal action that you were aware of involving Sharron Pretty. Do I take from what you've just said that there wasn't, that there was simply an indication by you that you were aware of it?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. Now, that's on my part. I do believe that there was an outburst at one point by one of the other members of the board, not Sharron Pretty, around the fact that she had initiated charges, but it was just an outburst, and I don't really remember where it came from, who it came from.
Ms Cronk: And was that towards the beginning of the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It wasn't towards the end, in my recollection.
Ms Cronk: Did it, when it occurred, whoever caused it, generate any discussion of the issue or did people just move on?
Hon Ms Gigantes: There were sparks that flew. This was a meeting which was extremely volatile, in my view, and I've heard testimony that the committee has heard earlier that people said it wasn't -- they didn't feel tension. Well, I sure did. Maybe -- well, I sure did. It was a very tense meeting for most of the meeting, and then slowly, as we started to achieve some agreement on the issues that I mentioned, then the possibility of reaching further agreement in a further meeting became the option that I presented.
Ms Cronk: And for you, did the tension recede a bit at that point?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, because there wasn't immediate agreement and there'd be another outburst of give and take, take and give.
Ms Cronk: May I ask you this, Ms Gigantes? Given the volatility of the meeting, given the history of disputes among these parties which you were certainly aware of --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I was.
Ms Cronk: And you were aware that it had been going on for a very long time.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: Given what you knew of the legal case --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: -- did you, when you walked into that meeting, perceive that you were walking into a risky situation, risky in the sense of what you appropriately could discuss and what you could not discuss?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I had very clearly in my mind that there were issues around the court action which were extremely sensitive, delicate and had to be carried very carefully.
Ms Cronk: And you recognized that going into the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
Ms Cronk: Did it occur to you going into the meeting, given those factors, Ms Gigantes, that this might be a meeting that, although you weren't precluded from having, that it might be inappropriate to have?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I felt not. I felt rather, and quite the opposite, that it was my responsibility at this stage, given all the things that had happened, including the public attack, not so much the -- in my mind, not so much the laying of the charges but the, if I can say, insult that was implied by the allegations which Sharron Pretty had made to the media about the corporation.
Ms Cronk: There's no doubt, is there, that you went to that meeting in your ministerial capacity?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: All right. Walking into the meeting, was it your intent to attempt to have the parties come to some resolution of their differences, if that could be achieved?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, not walking in. Because walking in, I didn't expect Sharron Pretty to be there, so I certainly didn't conceive of the meeting as it unfolded.
Ms Cronk: Had you known that Sharron Pretty was going to be at that meeting, would you have embarked on it?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, I knew when I embarked.
Ms Cronk: Well, had you known in advance that Sharron Pretty was going to be there? Your expectation was that she wouldn't be there.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I, frankly, would not have expected it to have been productive.
Ms Cronk: Do I take from that that you likely would not have engaged in the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I would not have set it up that way because I didn't think that at that stage it was going to be productive.
Ms Cronk: Another way for me to put the proposition to you, and I'm seeking your view on it --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yeah.
Ms Cronk: -- is, was the presence or absence of Sharron Pretty at that meeting a significant factor in your mind?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh yes, because it changed the nature of the meeting.
Ms Cronk: Exactly.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It meant that I was not listening to the point of view of the other board members, which is what I had expected, but I was into a meeting that involved the two sides of the dispute and therefore it was a meeting where whatever assistance I was going to be able to offer would have to be offered to both sides at once and I would have to hear both sides at once too.
Ms Cronk: Would you also agree with me that the fact of her presence, although unanticipated by you, made it an even riskier situation in terms of your ability to discuss issues with the parties?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, because most of the issues we've discussed had nothing to do with anything that touched on legal matters.
Ms Cronk: Was it in your mind, or did you consider when you saw that Sharron Pretty was there, that there were issues that should not be discussed? Did that occur to you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, I was certainly sensitive during the meeting to the fact that any discussion involving the court case was something that was going to have to be very carefully bounded.
Ms Cronk: During the course of the meeting, at any point did you indicate to the parties that there were some issues that were off bounds for discussion and some that could be discussed, or did you just see how the meeting unfolded?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I didn't put any rules down as a starting point, but I did say at several points when discussion -- but this didn't have to do with legal proceedings -- when discussion got very heated that it was important for people to back off, that it was important for people to try and stop attacking each other, basically, though I didn't use that phrase, but to try to focus on the issues and see if we could find some resolution to some of these issues.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to look at tab 81?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I have it here.
Ms Cronk: And specifically page 4 of Ms Moey's notes.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: These notes suggest, Ms Gigantes, that at one point as the meeting progressed and, according to the sequence of the notes, well into the meeting, that you said the following to the board, and I'm looking at three paragraphs from the bottom, the remarks attributed to you, marked by "Ev," to the board, "Can these things be resolved without legal proceedings and removal of directors?"
Hon Ms Gigantes: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: Did you make that inquiry of those in attendance at the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I believe I did.
Ms Cronk: With respect to legal proceedings, were you referring to those commenced by Sharron Pretty?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, and some that might be anticipated.
Ms Cronk: Did you think there were others that might be anticipated in that regard?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: With respect to the removal of directors, I take it you were you referring to the pending motion to remove Sharron Pretty as a director?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I was.
2100
Ms Cronk: It's been suggested, Ms Gigantes, as I'm sure you're aware, by Sharron Pretty that during the course of that meeting you said to her not once, but several times, that she should either drop her charges or consider dropping the charges.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I did not say that and I did not use that language.
Ms Cronk: At any point in the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: At any point in the meeting.
Ms Cronk: May I ask the question this way: At any point in the meeting, did you use the phrase, "drop the charges," or "dropping the charges"?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I used neither phrase at any point in the meeting.
Ms Cronk: Did anyone else?
Hon Ms Gigantes: She may have used it. Let me think back. Because there was a point at which, when I said again, and I repeated this several times during the meeting, "If the people on the board could stop all actions against each other, stop taking actions against each other," she said, "I can't stop the court action; it's out of my hands," and I said -- I think she said, "It's in the hands of the crown," or "the prosecutor" -- I don't remember, and I said: "I agree, but if you were to come to an understanding about the issues of concern to you at Van Lang and you were to come to the position where you felt that those issues had been resolved and if you were to indicate that to the crown, that might be of interest. I don't know if the crown would choose to proceed in those circumstances. I don't know."
So it may be that she may have used the phrase, "dropping the charges" then, but I don't believe so and I certainly did not.
Ms Cronk: When you said to her, "If you were to come to an understanding that the issues were resolved and indicated to the crown, the crown might be interested in that," what did you mean by that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I meant by that I expected that she would be a witness to the court proceedings which had been lodged, and that if she were to indicate, as a witness to the crown -- I assumed that as a witness she would be in contact with the crown in the case. If she were to indicate that she felt that the issues that had concerned her were resolved, it might be of interest to the crown, but I also indicated that I didn't know whether the crown would wish to proceed or would decide to proceed or continue to proceed under those circumstances, and I don't.
Ms Cronk: Did you propose at the meeting that the parties have another meeting --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I did.
Ms Cronk: -- to try to reach a resolution?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And you're aware, I take it, Ms Gigantes, that it's alleged, in connection with that proposal, that you said to the parties at the meeting on June 17th that were that further meeting to occur, and if the parties could reach a resolution of their differences at that meeting, Ms Pretty might withdraw her charges and the board refrain or postpone from removing her as a director.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you make that suggestion at any time at the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I did not, but we did have a discussion of her status as a board member and it was around the same point in the meeting when we had the discussion about the actions, the legal actions being in the hands of the crown, not in the hands of Sharron Pretty. She said she wasn't interested in a situation in which she would have other board members defer a motion to remove her because it only meant another month in her term anyhow.
I responded to that and I said to her: "Well, this is something that you will want to think about or you may want to think about, because I don't know if you wish to continue on this board. But if you want to think about that and if you decide you do, then it might be that other members of the board would be pleased to have you continue as a director. I don't know. People change their minds." I remember specifically saying, "People change their minds."
Ms Cronk: And what reply, if any, did Ms Pretty make to that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, in fact it was at that point in the meeting where again I suggested: "Is there the possibility here that we could look at this other option, that we could look at having a meeting that was devoted specifically to the two major areas remaining that everybody agrees still need further discussion? Is this a possibility that this could be helpful?"
Ms Cronk: Was there an agreement reached on the proposal to have a further meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I suggested it at that stage in the meeting a couple of times. I asked the question, "Is this possible?" and some of the board directors said yes and Sharron said yes.
Ms Cronk: So there was agreement --
Hon Ms Gigantes: There was agreement.
Ms Cronk: -- reached on the meeting.
Hon Ms Gigantes: And there was a palpable feeling of relief in the room.
Ms Cronk: Once agreement had been reached as to the meeting, was there discussion as to possible outcomes of that meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, and in fact what happened next was, people started -- we all sort of giggled. There was such a change in the atmosphere in the room that you could physically feel it.
Ms Cronk: Ms Gigantes, can I just be very clear of your answer on this?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yep.
Ms Cronk: Was there, once agreement had been reached on the proposal which I take came from you to have a meeting, and you've confirmed there was agreement on that --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Was there any discussion whatsoever about potential outcomes of that meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, not outcomes. We did discuss how the meeting might occur, because she held back a bit and said, "Well, I'm not -- " and I said I was volunteering somebody from the Ministry of Housing and asking Brian, if that was okay and he said yes, to attend the meeting, and she said that wasn't enough, they hadn't had enough help from the Ministry of Housing. So I suggested somebody from ONPHA might join the meeting as a facilitator, and she seemed pleased with that idea. But we didn't discuss outcomes of the meeting.
Ms Cronk: All right. Ms Gigantes, I'm obliged to put to you the evidence of a number of other witnesses.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It has been suggested before the committee that when an agreement was proposed, when the option -- I'm sorry -- when the option of a meeting was proposed, there was discussion of potential outcomes of that meeting, and there is evidence before the committee from some that in that context it was suggested by you that if that meeting proceeded and there was a resolution to Sharron Pretty's satisfaction, or it looked like issues to her satisfaction might be resolved, then she might consider withdrawing her charges or speaking to the crown about that, and the board, on the other hand, might not have to proceed with removing her as a director. Now, was that or was that not discussed at the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, not in that kind of framework. We did discuss her removal as a director. We discussed the fact that the court case was not in her hands. What I suggested was that if she were satisfied by a meeting, it seemed to me something that she would end up saying in the course of her dealings with the crown, and I didn't know whether the crown would want to go ahead at that stage, and I told her I didn't know.
Ms Cronk: Well, leaving aside what the crown might or might not do, did you at any point in that meeting suggest or identify for those at the meeting a possible outcome of the further meeting which you had proposed which contemplated the possible withdrawal by Ms Pretty, on the one hand, of her charges, or speaking to the crown about that, and the board refraining from removing Ms Pretty as a director?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, certainly everything that I was doing in the discussion implied that if things were going to progress and if a meeting was going to work, I suggested very strongly to them that stopping actions against each other -- and those were the terms I used -- was going to be important. And the meeting, in the way I was proposing it, was one way to get to the point where there might be enough understanding so that people would stop taking actions against each other.
2110
Ms Cronk: I understand, and I just want to be clear on what your evidence is to the committee. Are you saying that in the context of the further meeting that you proposed, what you said to the people at the meeting was that stopping actions would be important?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: When I indicate to you, as I'm doing, that other witnesses before this committee have suggested that that was not the language that you used, but rather a possible outcome of that further meeting might be withdrawal by Sharron Pretty of her charges or speaking to the crown about withdrawal on the one hand, and the board refraining from removing Sharron Pretty on the other, are you saying that that did not occur?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That did not occur. Now, I will also say to you -- and I would expect that at this stage members of the committee will also have heard enough of the evidence from people who were in attendance -- that it is understandable that people saw that as part, felt it as part, of something that was all going to come together, because I couldn't see any way that the board could continue to work together if actions were going to continue being put forward. This was not, in my view, the limit of potential actions.
Ms Cronk: I understand. Did you at any point during the meeting explain to anyone what you meant by "actions"?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I think that I meant people to understand that it certainly encompassed what I had mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, which was that I knew that there were court actions which had been taken by Sharron Pretty and that there was a motion that had been put forward by the board to remove her. It certainly encompassed those and, in my mind, it also encompassed public attacks in the media.
Ms Cronk: Is it the case, though, Ms Gigantes, that the only actions discussed at the meeting by you were the legal action involving Sharron Pretty, which you'd acknowledged at the beginning of the meeting, and the intended removal of Sharron Pretty as a director? Those were the only actions that you'd identified at the outset of the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That is correct, but there were other people who certainly identified the public attacks in the media.
Ms Cronk: During the course of the discussions?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
Ms Cronk: Were you attempting at that meeting, Ms Gigantes, to persuade the parties to come to a resolution of their differences?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I gained faith that that might be a possibility, just, you know, the smallest possibility --
Ms Cronk: Well, leaving the --
Hon Ms Gigantes: -- about an hour into that meeting, yes. I started out telling them that that was what I was going to try to do. I didn't have an awful lot of faith at the beginning.
Ms Cronk: That was your intent?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That was my intent.
Ms Cronk: Could I ask you to turn to tab 90, please. This is a memorandum to Steve Shapiro from Brian Sutherland. I know that you're aware of it because I've shown it to you myself in the course of interviewing you with respect to this proceeding.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: It was prepared, the committee has heard, within some two and a half hours of the conclusion of the meeting.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right.
Ms Cronk: It indicates, in the middle of the document, Ms Gigantes, Mr Sutherland's view in the following language: "In any event, I believe that the minister was able to convince Sharron and the other board members to work toward a resolution of the matter prior to the charges being considered by the court early next month."
First, you knew going into the meeting, you've already indicated, that there was an anticipated court date within a number of weeks of the date of the June 17th meeting. Is that correct?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, that's correct. Yes.
Ms Cronk: Were you at that meeting attempting to convince the board members and Sharron to work towards a resolution?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Was I? I certainly was.
Ms Cronk: And did that resolution include a resolution of the intended action by the board to remove Sharron Pretty and of the actions already commenced by Sharron Pretty in court?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It certainly did in my mind imply that the board wouldn't remove her.
Ms Cronk: Did it also in your mind imply that Sharron Pretty's action, then pending in the courts, would not go forward?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, because that was in the hands of the crown and the crown has to make the determination about how to proceed. What I did say to her was that if she came to an understanding which allowed her to feel that the issues that she was most concerned about were resolved and if she indicated that to the crown -- I can't imagine the case going forward without that happening.
Ms Cronk: Forgive me, Ms Gigantes, but even raising that possibility in that language was an identification of the possibility that her charges might not go forward, wasn't it?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh yes, but anybody's charges may not go forward.
Ms Cronk: Yes. And in that context, when you were trying to persuade the parties to come to a resolution, were you, in your mind, because that's the language you used just a moment ago, including in that the deferral or withdrawal of the board's intention to remove Sharron Pretty and the withdrawal by her for the then pending court action?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, not at all. Let me see if I can go around the other way to explain what I'm trying to express. There is a court action undertaken based on complaints by Sharron Pretty. They relate to the non-production of documents. If there were no meeting on June 17th, that action would go forward and those charges could be found either innocent or guilty.
If Sharron Pretty, before that court case, comes to an understanding with the people involved, the people who have been charged and she is the witness in a case and she says -- I can't imagine that she wouldn't, as the witness, be talking to whoever is carrying the charge in court, on behalf of the crown, say that, "Actually, you know, these issues have now been resolved." That might make a difference to whether the crown wished to go ahead with the proceedings. In my mind, it might make a difference.
Ms Cronk: And accepting that, and accepting that this was in your mind, did you, in the context of trying to persuade the parties to reach a resolution of their differences, indicate in any way to them that a possible inclusion of the differences to be resolved was withdrawal by Sharron Pretty of her charges and withdrawal by the board of their intention to remove her as a director?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. Certainly never withdrawal of Sharron Pretty of her charge. I never felt that was, to the other board members, the key issue. Again, I'm going to say and try and underline to the committee that I thought that the thing that the other board members found hardest to bear about what had happened in the last few days was not necessarily the charges -- they could be found innocent, they could be found guilty -- but the -- I'm going to say that the public shame of the kinds of allegations that had been made in the media.
Ms Cronk: Ms Gigantes, looking back on this meeting and the controversy that has emerged about it in the context of your own behaviour and actions at the meeting, would you agree with me that there are at least two scenarios here -- and I don't suggest which of the two is correct, if either -- but would you agree with me that at least one scenario would provide that you should not, in all of the circumstances, have gone to that meeting, but that having gone, while you were at it, the language that you used, however you intended it, conveyed to the people at the meeting a suggestion from a minister of the crown that someone should withdraw charges or consider doing so and, on the other hand, other parties should refrain from taking action to remove a director from a corporation? That's one scenario; it's one way to view what occurred. I'm not asking you to -- I'm not suggesting that that is the correct way, but that is one scenario, is it not?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I have heard that.
Ms Cronk: Yes. There's another scenario as well, I suggest, and that is that what you said at the meeting has been distorted, either innocently or deliberately, but none the less distorted. That's the other scenario, right? Doesn't it come to that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I believe it comes to that.
2120
Ms Cronk: Considering those two scenarios and everything that you knew about the court case involving Sharron Pretty and the history of difficulties among these parties, do you today consider it appropriate for you to have gone to that meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I do. I believe that a minister in the end has to be willing to take initiatives which may be difficult, initiatives which may not produce the results that one hopes, but I think it worthwhile. Further, I'm going to say to you that just because some people, I now believe, have not acted in good faith does not mean that in the future you say, "Well, I assume that there will not be good faith."
Ms Cronk: Are you saying that you would go to a meeting of that kind in similar circumstances again?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I would. I believe it is a ministerial responsibility to take on that kind of difficult situation and attempt to resolve it. I do believe that.
Ms Cronk: If one or more persons left that meeting --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Because it's going to be up to the committee to conclude what evidence to accept or not to accept, but if one or more persons left that meeting with the understanding, by virtue of what you had said, whatever you intended, but by virtue of what you had said, that you were proposing to them as an option to resolve their differences the withdrawal by Sharron Pretty of the charges that she had initiated and the retreating by the directors of their intention to remove her as a director, do you as a minister of the crown consider that to be problematic, if people you met with left a meeting with that understanding?
Hon Ms Gigantes: The people all, as far as I've heard the evidence, left the meeting with the understanding that they had an agreement to a meeting and they had an agreement that they were going to be in touch with each other about a time for a meeting.
Ms Cronk: Well, at the very least, Sharron Pretty had quite a different understanding, didn't she?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't believe she did when she left the meeting.
Ms Cronk: I see.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I talked to her as she left the meeting, and if she had a different understanding, she went out of her way to hide that.
Ms Cronk: By that, are you referring to having left the meeting and accompanying her in the elevator --
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: -- and during the course of that trip in the elevator, about which we've heard from others --
Hon Ms Gigantes: And through the Rideau Centre for quite a bit. We were together informally in a group in which Sue Lott and Beverlee Bell and I chatted with Sharron Pretty. I did most of the chatting with her.
Mr Paul Johnson: Could I just point out that I believe it was Audrey Moey and not Sue Lott.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, you're quite right. Thank you. It was Audrey Moey. We chatted with her waiting for the elevator, in a slow elevator going down -- I think it's eight floors -- walking through the Rideau Centre. So we're talking five, seven, 10 minutes; I can't put an exact time on it.
Ms Cronk: Were the four of you together throughout that period?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, we were.
Ms Cronk: Did Ms Pretty at any point during that elevator ride, walking through the centre or before you left her company, in any way indicate to you that she was upset in any way at the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: About the meeting?
Ms Cronk: Yes.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. What she did say to me, because I said to her, "You know, I think you deserve some credit. You really have" -- I congratulated her for what she had managed to persist on in an isolated position over many months. I knew it was uncomfortable and I knew it was difficult. It takes a lot of persistence. I admired that and I said that to her.
She said, "Well, I felt very nervous during the meeting." She said that to me and I said, "Well, I thought you handled yourself very well." She said to me, "I'm not used to putting my position at a meeting." Casting my mind back now, I don't think that was the case.
Ms Cronk: You do not think that she was nervous during the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, I think she was nervous, but I think she was used to putting her case during a meeting.
Ms Cronk: When you said a few moments ago that Ms Pretty went out of her way to --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Hide -- if she had felt upset by the meeting, if she were troubled, if she were feeling resentful towards me in my role as minister, if that were the case, she hid it.
Ms Cronk: Did she ask you or inquire whether she might join you for lunch?
Hon Ms Gigantes: She -- I can't remember which way it went. I can't remember whether she said, you know, "I'm meeting Trinh for lunch. Will you join us?" or, "Can we join you?" I can't remember which way, but that was discussed.
Ms Cronk: She's also alleged, Ms Gigantes, that she felt pressured at the meeting and intimidated by what occurred at the meeting. Did you, looking back on your behaviour and what you said at the meeting --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Mm-hmm.
Ms Cronk: -- in your mind, pressure Ms Pretty at that meeting to either cooperate with the board or to withdraw her charges?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Certainly the board was -- if you want to count on what actually got achieved in terms of solid agreements, we had two solid agreements: One was about tenant placement, the other was about the hiring of a project manager. On those, the board brought forward agreement, not Sharron Pretty.
Ms Cronk: Yes. I'm sorry. I think I was talking about --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I understand what you're saying. So if people felt pressured during the meeting -- it was a tense meeting. It was a meeting of combatants who had been combating for many months.
Ms Cronk: You're describing situational pressure.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I am.
Ms Cronk: Pressure described by the --
Hon Ms Gigantes: And it sure was there, and anybody who says it wasn't there, you know -- I can't accept that. That wasn't my feeling at the meeting. I felt it was a very tension-laden meeting.
Ms Cronk: You are suggesting and are describing situational pressure.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right.
Ms Cronk: By virtue of the nature of the meeting --
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: -- the identity of the parties and the way the meeting progressed.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: My question to you is this: Looking back on it now, did you, by anything that you did or said at that meeting, exert pressure on Sharron Pretty to either cooperate with the board or to withdraw her charges?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I did not, and in the contrary, I would say that I said things during the meeting consistently and deliberately to attempt to reassure her, because she was one combatant on one side with four combatants on the other side, to reassure her that I was not going to allow her to be pressured.
Ms Cronk: At any point during the meeting did Ms Pretty indicate that she was feeling pressured?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. There was a spat, one spat that I can remember, and she certainly looked tense. She was not alone.
Ms Cronk: Between or among whom was that spat?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I've heard other witnesses before this committee identify a party.
Ms Cronk: What's your own recall?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. It was, as I recollect, Dr Truong.
Ms Cronk: All right. Do I have it then, am I understanding this correctly, Ms Gigantes, that this was a meeting, as you've described it, that was tension-laden?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: You certainly felt that yourself.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I sure did.
Ms Cronk: And you're very experienced as a minister of the crown, if I might suggest, in dealing with people in difficult situations. That's part of the job.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It's part of the job, but this was a very tense meeting.
Ms Cronk: Yes, and what I'm suggesting to you is that even you, with that experience, felt that at the meeting.
Hon Ms Gigantes: You're right.
Ms Cronk: You saw tangible evidence of Ms Pretty feeling pressure, at least in the encounter with Dr Truong.
Hon Ms Gigantes: She was -- well, she gave as good as she got.
Ms Cronk: And having done that, you understood that she was experiencing pressure at that point in the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, there was a spat, but I felt she looked nervous. I also felt the others looked nervous, but she was one combatant and they were four combatants, so I was much more concerned about her.
Ms Cronk: Mm-hmm. And I'm suggesting to you that in that encounter with Dr Truong, you were conscious of pressure on her at that point. I thought you said that to me; that's why I'm repeating it to you. Did you not acknowledge that that was --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Did she feel pressured? Yes, she felt pressured. She was in a room with people she'd been fighting with for months and she was being taken through a process in which we tried to sort through the issues. Yes, she was pressured by that.
Ms Cronk: And there was --
Hon Ms Gigantes: She was not pressured by me. On the contrary, I deliberately undertook to reassure her and to -- I said it, "Don't feel pressured." I said, "You don't have to answer this question."
Ms Cronk: I understand, Ms Gigantes, that --
Hon Ms Gigantes: At the end -- I'm going to repeat one other thing if I may. At the end of the meeting, when there was this moment of relief and people were saying, "Yes, we're going to have another meeting," and Dr Truong whipped out his daybook and the others took out their daybooks, I said, "No, no, no, no, no." None of the other witnesses before you remember that, but I distinctly remember saying, "No, no, no, we're not going to do that."
Ms Cronk: In terms of setting a date.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Are you finished what you want to say on that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, thank you.
Ms Cronk: All right. May I come back to the question I asked you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, please.
Ms Cronk: In the encounter with Dr Truong and Ms Pretty, did you recognize at that point in the meeting that she was feeling pressured?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, but he got pressured by her back, if I can put it that way.
Ms Cronk: Quite so, and as you put it, however, at that point in the dynamic of the meeting, there's four of them, there's one of her.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct, and I was very conscious of that.
Ms Cronk: There was also situational pressure in the meeting, as we've already discussed.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Ms Cronk: In those circumstances, you've indicated to the committee that you said a number of times at the meeting remarks that were intended to ensure that she wasn't feeling pressured.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, specifically I remember asking a question near the beginning of the meeting, and I think it was around the superintendent, though I'm not certain of that, because the fighting broke out about the superintendent. I asked Sharron a question, and then I said to her: "You don't have to answer, you know. I'm not a judge here."
Ms Cronk: The answer to my question is that, recognizing all of that, you did say things at the meeting that were intended by you to ensure that she didn't feel pressured?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't know if there was anything I could say that would make sure that she didn't feel pressured. The meeting was a meeting in which the participants felt pressured.
Ms Cronk: All right, and given that that was the case, Ms Gigantes, and given that those were the circumstances that applied to Ms Pretty at the meeting, mightn't it have been the better course of action not to discuss in any way the legal proceedings in which she was involved then pending before the courts?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I think that we had to deal with the real situation. There was no point trying to pretend that things didn't exist. There was no point trying to pretend that the board hadn't put forward a motion and was going to proceed in two days with a motion to remove her from the board. It seemed to me if there was going to be any possibility of a resolution, then one had to acknowledge all the factors.
Ms Cronk: When you left that meeting -- and I only have two questions left for you -- what did you think was going to happen with respect to that board meeting on the Sunday?
Hon Ms Gigantes: The board meeting on the Sunday. I didn't know. My staff and I had just a few words' chat after we parted from -- well, Beverlee's; not my staff -- but we chatted for a few moments before we split up and went our separate ways. I said to them, you know -- they were quite elated by the meeting.
Ms Cronk: "They" being?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Beverlee and Audrey. They thought, you know, a miracle had happened. I said: "Look, I don't know. I wouldn't count these chickens yet."
Ms Cronk: Was there any agreement or understanding reached at the meeting as to what was going to happen to the board meeting on the Sunday?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, there wasn't.
Ms Cronk: When you left, did you have any understanding as to what was going to occur?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Ms Cronk: Did you have any understanding as to what, if anything, was going to occur with respect to the charges involving Ms Pretty?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Those are my questions, Ms Gigantes.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Thank you.
Ms Cronk: Those are my questions, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Okay. We can take a break now? Okay, we'll recess for 10 minutes.
The committee recessed from 2134 to 2154.
The Chair: Would the clerk read in the subcommittee report, please.
Clerk of the Committee: The subcommittee has agreed to the following: the Liberals will go first for questions for 53 minutes; the Conservatives will go second for 52 minutes; the NDP will go third for 48 minutes or until midnight, whichever comes earlier. At that point, Ms Cronk will be allowed to ask any follow-up questions.
Mr Chiarelli: Ms Gigantes, I'm going to go over a lot of the same territory as counsel has and I'm hoping that we can garner some additional insights from you that perhaps counsel didn't have time to go over. And I do want to say that I appreciate the candour with which you've answered the questions to date and I'm hoping that most of these questions could be answered fairly quickly for the record.
The meeting of June the 17th that was set up essentially by your staff on your instructions or at least with your knowledge: How would you characterize on whose behalf the meeting was set up?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It actually wasn't set up by my staff in the first instance. It was set up by ministry staff. As Ms Cronk pointed out, the testimony by Audrey Moey today was she that had done follow-up.
Mr Chiarelli: But Ministry of Housing staff, and you're the minister for that particular ministry.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. When you use the phrase "my staff," I tend to think of the staff who work in my office at Queen's Park and my office in the constituency.
Mr Chiarelli: And on whose --
Hon Ms Gigantes: On whose behalf was it set up?
Mr Chiarelli: Yes.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It was set up at my invitation for the parties who had approached me to meet with them over the past several months.
Mr Chiarelli: We'll talk about the parties in a minute. I'm going to refer to several exhibits and I'm going to read from each of them before I ask you a question and I just want to hopefully have you retain the gist of each quote that I'm going to read from.
Firstly, I want to go to tab 96 on exhibit 1, volume 3, and tab 96 is a copy of a briefing note that the evidence has indicated was provided to you in advance of question period in June when the Legislature was sitting, and I'll just read the third paragraph of that and ask you just to retain the contents of it while I go on to the other two quotes very quickly.
"During the meeting we talked about a range of ways the board could resolve its differences. One of the options discussed was whether it was possible to resolve the issues without legal proceedings. It was simply one of several options we discussed, nothing more."
I want you to hold the words "resolve the issues without legal proceedings." Then I would like to go to exhibit 1, volume 3, tab 106, which is your statement which you provided to the committee on August the eighth, Monday of this week, when the proceedings commenced.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Mr Chiarelli: And in your statement, starting I think on the third page at the bottom of the line, it says, "At one point I said that if each side," and "each" is underlined, "could back off all actions against the other, that it might be possible to resolve the current issues and create an atmosphere in which the board could work together in the future." And the words I want you to remember there are "resolve the current issues."
The next reference that I would draw your attention to is tab 81 in the same volume, which are the notes of Audrey Moey which were taken at the meeting, and that particular reference says, "Evelyn to the board: `Can these things be resolved without legal proceedings and removal of directors?'"
And what I would like to get some insight on, having reviewed those three statements, is when we're talking about resolution and resolving without legal proceedings, who at the meeting could be beneficiaries of that type of resolution? Who would be the beneficiaries?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, you will have noted, as I believe you did when you read this just now, that from Audrey Moey's minutes or notes, what she'd suggest was that I had used this phrase, "without legal proceedings and "removal of directors." I believe I asked that question and I believe that all parties around that table could benefit if that were to happen.
2200
Mr Chiarelli: So the meeting was set up on behalf of all the parties who were there, effectively, and if there were any positive result, they would all be beneficiaries of it.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think that you will recognize, as most members would, that when there are people who have been fighting, then if they're going to resolve their fights and both sides are engaged in the fight, then both sides have to feel that there are benefits.
Mr Chiarelli: Now, I'd like to go on, and that's a good point to go on to my second point. In your testimony earlier you indicated that there were two groups: the complainants on the one side and the members of the board on the other side.
Hon Ms Gigantes: The other members of the board.
Mr Chiarelli: The other members of the board. And you also indicated, with respect to the court proceedings of provincial offence charges, that your ministry or the province of Ontario was not a party to that action.
Hon Ms Gigantes: The Ministry of Housing was not a party.
Mr Chiarelli: So they were private parties, in a sense. The directors you would characterize as private parties?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, there are always private parties involved in court actions, or there usually are; I guess governments take on governments in court actions. But in this case, the private parties were involved not in a suit against each other but there were charges based on complaints laid by one party against the other parties.
Mr Chiarelli: Okay. Thank you. Now, included in those parties, I think you will agree with me there were the six directors who were accused under the Provincial Offences Act, under the Corporations Act. They were at the meeting. In addition --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Four of those members.
Mr Chiarelli: Four of the six were at the meeting, yes. I stand corrected on that. Also at the meeting was one of the complainants -- you characterized them as "complainants" -- Sharron Pretty.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think I did that once.
Mr Chiarelli: Yes.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It's not how I usually thought of Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu, I must say.
Mr Chiarelli: And we have evidence that My Nguyen was at the meeting and he's one of the accused and his evidence is that he lives in your riding and he's a constituent. We also have evidence from you tonight that Can Le was present at the meeting and you indicated that he was a friend of some number of years, that you had known him, he was an acquaintance, at least, or --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, I certainly wouldn't describe him as a friend.
Mr Chiarelli: But you've known him and --
Hon Ms Gigantes: He was known to me and I'd met him in many instances in connection with Vietnamese community events.
Mr Chiarelli: Now I'd like to refer you to --
Hon Ms Gigantes: You know he's a very active Liberal, so he's not likely to be my friend.
Mr Chiarelli: He's never admitted that to me.
I will now refer you to several other matters, and these items that I will refer you to have reference to some perceptions of the outcome of the meeting and I'd like to get some insight from you on these particular matters. Firstly, I want to refer you once again to Mr Brian Sutherland's memo. Before I quote the particular passage, I think the evidence is that --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Do you know the number?
Mr Chiarelli: Yes, the reference is exhibit 1, volume 3, tab 90. It's the same book, tab 90.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Thank you.
Mr Chiarelli: Before I get to the exact quote, the evidence is that -- I'm not sure what his official title is, but he's the senior manager or director for the ministry in eastern Ontario. Is that correct?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Mr Chiarelli: And you've been working with him since you've been the minister?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Mr Chiarelli: And he's generally considered a very credible manager?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
Mr Chiarelli: Now, he came out of that meeting, and two hours after the meeting was completed he wrote the following -- and this is the only specific item that he put in the memo that has been directed to you -- about what happened at the meeting. I would say that this is his perception of the outcome. It may not be your perception, but I'll ask you about that in a minute. It says, "In any event, I believe that the minister was able to convince Sharron and the other board members to work towards a resolution of the matter prior to the charges being considered by the court early next month."
Now, is that your perception of the outcome of the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: The outcome of the meeting was, in my view, that there was a potential for a meeting which had the potential to resolve issues far enough to create an understanding that would form the basis for further work among those members of the board, but --
Mr Chiarelli: But it's fair to say that this is his perception of the outcome?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think when he was before you, if I heard his testimony correctly, what he was indicating was that this memo was designed to speak to people in the ministry who had been active on the Van Lang file, as bureaucrats call it, for some time and that they had developed ways of speaking to each other about their work and the people involved with the Van Lang development. He felt that this was a way to speak to them that would convey quickly and clearly to them what they needed to know.
Mr Chiarelli: But I think that some objective observers might say that that's his perception of an outcome. You may not agree with it or there may be nuances to it, but it's a perception.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, but you see, I think he was trying to suggest that he may have had other perceptions too but the purpose of this memo was to convey perceptions which were useful to his work colleagues.
Mr Chiarelli: Okay, thank you. Now I want to refer you to the Hansard quotes. I don't know whether you can get them in front of you very quickly, but they're not very extensive. I'm referring to the testimony before this committee of Dr Tang. I'm just going to read two very short quotes, but before we get into the quotes, Dr Tang is an engineer, I believe from his testimony, and is employed at Atomic Energy of Canada. He's an educated and very responsible person from the testimony that he's given here.
Now, he has a perception of outcome and I'd like to read his perception. He was examined by Mr Callahan about his perception of outcome of the meeting. Mr Callahan stated, "But as recognized by your transcripts, which the counsel for the committee has gone through with Ms Pretty" -- and that's a transcript of a telephone conversation between Dr Tang and Ms Pretty -- and Dr Tang says, "Yes," and Mr Callahan asks, "...you were of the understanding that Ms Pretty was to consider dropping the charges," and Dr Tang said, "Yes."
Okay, those are the quotes. Now, I am not suggesting for any minute that this is the only perception coming out of the meeting or that it was your perception. I would like to get your insight as to what your thoughts are that this was his perception of the outcome.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I find it very difficult to speak to other people's perceptions. I'm not surprised that people would have different reads of what was discussed in that meeting. The only thing that people were agreed upon was that they would think about the date for another meeting.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you. I now want to refer you to the same volume, tab 106. Again, a reference is made in the statement that you provided to the committee, and this is your quote, or part of your quote:
"I agreed with Sharron that the matter was in the hands of the prosecutor, and said I did not know what the prosecutor would decide if Sharron was satisfied that the issues with the board of directors had been resolved."
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right.
2210
Mr Chiarelli: I just want you to hold that quote for a minute, particularly "what the prosecutor would decide," and I want to also refer you to the quote that appeared in the Heather Bird article -- it's exhibit 1, volume 1, tab 7 -- of June 21st. This quote has been referred to before, I believe, and it says --
Interjection: What page is that?
Mr Chiarelli: And I think your evidence said that as well this evening.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Exhibit 1, volume 1.
Mr Chiarelli: It was page 41. Sorry.
Hon Ms Gigantes: This is tab 7?
Mr Chiarelli: Yes. Tab 7, volume 1, exhibit 1, page 41, and the quote is, quoting you, "I did suggest that the crown might find it of interest...that currently the board had brought itself into compliance both with the Corporations Act and the program's guidelines."
What I want to get some insight from you on is, in your own statement where you say you did not know what the prosecutor would decide --
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right.
Mr Chiarelli: -- so there was an implication that the prosecutor might have to make a decision with respect to a possible outcome of your meeting, in the first instance, and in the second instance the quote in the newspaper, you said, "I did suggest that the crown might find it of interest...that currently the board had brought itself into compliance...." So you were contemplating that some of the outcome might be of interest to the crown and it might be a factor in how the crown ended up dealing with the case.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Not the meeting of June 17th.
Mr Chiarelli: As well, in your testimony of a few minutes ago -- and we don't have the Hansard for it -- you indicated that if Sharron Pretty were going to be a witness, her testimony might be different if there had been a total resolution of the problems were she to be in a courtroom giving that evidence.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. No.
Mr Chiarelli: You did not say that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I did not say that, and we don't have Hansard, but I did not say that. What I did say -- I hope I will use exactly the same words again, because what I'm trying to suggest here is that this is charges being carried by the crown. She is the complainant and will therefore be a witness. If, going into a court hearing, the crown will want to know what it is she is going to say, what will she say if at that point she is satisfied and she is asked about her current feeling related to a charge from previously? I don't know what the crown will feel about what she might say if she were asked that question.
The Chair: You've used one third of your time.
Mr Chiarelli: I'm going to conclude very quickly.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Could I also, just because you've drawn it to the attention of the committee, note that in the article to which you've referred here, there is indication that there were other words said in the sentence that you quoted. You notice that there is a dot dot dot, which indicates that there were other words that I said, where I was being quoted, which were not included in the quote.
Mr Chiarelli: Yes. I guess the only point I was trying to make was that, as a result of whatever deliberations or outcome the meeting might have had, it would have impacted somewhat on what the crown attorney or the prosecutor --
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Mr Chiarelli: -- might have to do in his case --
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Mr Chiarelli: -- and that's the proposition that I'm making.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, because I think what may be a confusion here is, we were talking about a further meeting, not the meeting of June 17th. We were talking about a further meeting with the potential for resolution at that stage, not June 17th, because it was quite clear to all of us that we weren't going to resolve those issues on June 17th. We were talking about what might be the outcome of a meeting on June -- past; another meeting.
Mr Chiarelli: Yes. I just have a sense that from the words that you used in your own statement and the quotes that you acknowledged -- your references to "prosecutor," for example, "I did not know what the prosecutor would decide," and other references to "prosecutor," led me to the conclusion -- and I may be coming to a false conclusion -- that the prosecutor would somehow be impacted by the outcome of the meeting that you participated in.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Mr Chiarelli: But we'll have to agree to disagree on that, and I'll pass my time to Mr Murphy.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. We didn't have an agreement on June 17th. There was no potential for a resolution on June 17th. The best we could come to on June 17th, and I didn't even dare hope that it would actually happen, was that there might be another meeting where things could be brought to a common understanding.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you.
Mr Murphy: Ms Gigantes, I too actually want to thank you for your candour. I think you've been very honest. I don't mean to say that with such surprise, but it's been very nice to see.
I have a couple of questions. I want to ask you about what you've told us tonight, but I want to get rid of one point before I do that. I think you'll know, from having watched the proceedings that we've been going through this week, that there are some differences between your testimony tonight and what Sharron Pretty said happened.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, there certainly is.
Mr Murphy: And what I want to ask actually, without -- I don't want to ask whether or not you think Sharron Pretty's version is true, and I don't want to operate on that assumption, but if Sharron Pretty's version is taken to be true, which is that you made essentially an offer of a deal that she should go and drop the charges, and that you made that offer repeatedly in return for her remaining on as a board, would that, in your mind, if it were true -- I'm not saying it is, but if it were true -- constitute a breach of the conflict-of-interest guidelines?
Hon Ms Gigantes: You bet.
Mr Murphy: Okay. So now dealing with what you've told us tonight, if I can go to that, I do want to talk a bit about the -- I think counsel put to you the idea right near the beginning of your testimony that if discussing a settlement, you had to be very careful, as a minister of the crown. Do you remember talking about that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Mr Murphy: And I think she went on to say that settlement would mean where one side gets one thing and the other gets something else; in the context of withdrawing charges you had to exercise great caution.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Mr Murphy: And I just -- I want to read something from -- now, this is not meant in any way to say that this applies to your situation in any set of facts, but I did want to read a provision just to emphasize the care, because I think it was important in the context of an ordinary person's care. This is from an actual court case, and it says: "Similarly, an attempt to pay compensation to the complainant in order to influence the proceeding by, for example, persuading the crown to withdraw the charge, is capable of amounting to an offence." I'm not saying similarly --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Could you repeat --
Mr Winninger: Mr Chair, a point of order: I just need some indication from Mr Murphy as to where he's leading on this, because if he's holding a copy of the Criminal Code and reading from the Criminal Code, I would suggest that that goes well beyond the terms of reference for this inquiry and I would appreciate some advice from counsel on his right to put that kind of question to this witness.
Ms Cronk: I understood Mr Murphy to be reading from a case, which I took to be an annotation under a section of the code, and I assumed he was going to put a proposition to the witness that wasn't directly related to a section in the code. If that's not the case, I share your view. If I'm right, then I think he should be permitted to put the question and then it can be considered.
Mr Murphy: Counsel is right. I think I said in my preface to the question in fact that -- I'm not saying that the code at all applies to the situation, even on Sharron Pretty's version. All I'm trying to do is emphasize that even an ordinary citizen, in the case of a withdrawal of a charge where some kind of, you know, settlement can be involved where someone's getting a benefit, you've got to exercise some care. Even an ordinary citizen, on the basis, for example, of that excerpt from a case I read -- care has to be exercised in those circumstances even for an ordinary citizen.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can well contemplate the kinds of cases that you would raise in that context. I can well contemplate them. The question, as I understood it, being posed by counsel to the committee was that in all cases an ordinary citizen was under a total onus of this kind.
And I do -- I'm not a lawyer, but one of the things that impresses me about what the legal system does is that it considers each case as a specific case.
2220
Mr Murphy: I'm sorry if I missed this. Did you say whether at the June 17th meeting you discussed the question of access to information by Sharron Pretty, of board minutes and materials?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I did not raise that as a discussion point --
Mr Murphy: Was it discussed, though?
Hon Ms Gigantes: -- for reasons that you can well imagine. I believe that at one point during the meeting there was an outburst from one member of the board who said something to the effect, you know, "Then these charges; we've given you all the documents," that kind of thing that was just a brief outburst. And again, it was probably one of the situations in which I asked members to try and leave such matters aside and try and focus on specific issues where we might be able to get some agreement.
And as I indicated earlier, I believe that in two areas -- and I think that everybody who was at the meeting would probably agree -- in two areas, we definitely did address two issues and achieve some progress during the course of the meeting.
Mr Murphy: I think Mr Chiarelli took you to the transcript of the evidence of Dr Tang, and I don't know whether -- I don't want to take you to it again, but I think you eventually got that in front of you and you saw from that that it was his understanding that Ms Pretty was to consider dropping the charges as part of the deal, in essence, on his understanding; I'm not saying that you agree with that.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Mm-hmm.
Mr Murphy: That, I think, was his evidence. Is that fair, from what you -- from what Mr Chiarelli took to you? Not that it's --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think that that --
Mr Murphy: That summary of what he said is fair?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I watched the television proceedings as Dr Tang gave his evidence. My recollection of that evidence -- and in fact, I didn't have a good chance to look at the written script -- was that in fact he was prepared to say he thought there was, "on the one hand" and "on the other hand," and that was part of the agreement which he agreed hadn't been reached.
Mr Murphy: Now, do you think that the view that, even if it wasn't reached, let's say, but the view that part of what was proposed was that Sharron Pretty withdraw the charges, do you think that view of the meeting is an unreasonable view of the meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't think it was unreasonable on his part to say that this was a hoped-for kind of development. I think that in other parts of his testimony and the testimony of other directors, you'd see them refer to the meeting as the critical kind of step and that what happened around other actions would -- was undefined and would depend on whether the meeting was successful.
Mr Murphy: Would it be, in your view, an unreasonable conclusion for someone, let's say, who is watching that meeting but not a participant, for them, that person, to have reached the conclusion that one of the things Sharron Pretty was to do upon leaving the meeting, or as part of the hoped-for arrangement, was to make efforts to drop the charges?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Mr Murphy: Is that unreasonable?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That would be unreasonable. I think anybody who reasonably watched that meeting would agree that the onus on Sharron Pretty, if there was an onus, was, and there was an similar onus on the other board members, to find an agreement on a time for a further meeting.
Mr Murphy: Just as a last question, there is -- I think counsel gave you the 1993-94 commission on conflict report, and if you have it there --
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I don't.
Mr Murphy: -- I'd like to take you to page 6, under inquiry number 7. You have that there. Have you looked at this before?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes, I have.
Mr Murphy: In preparation for today?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I had looked at it earlier, as a matter of fact.
Mr Murphy: I think this report came out on June 16th, the day before your 17th meeting.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. I didn't read it before the 17th.
Mr Murphy: Okay. Would you agree with me that the implication of inquiry number 7, as applied to your attendance at the June 17th meeting, is that Mr Justice Evans would advise you not to go?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I thought about that and I also thought about his example number 27 on page 10, which seemed to me to be more similar in terms of the issues it raised. Have you looked at that one?
Mr Murphy: You haven't answered my question.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I guess by implication by answer is no, I don't think that this is a comparable situation. In the situation you're discussing, inquiry number 7: "A member/minister was asked by a local citizens action group...to investigate the reason why their contract with Jobs Ontario was terminated. Counsel representing the" local citizens action group "had filed a notice of intended action against Jobs Ontario," which is an action gainst the government of Ontario.
Mr Murphy: I don't particularly need you to read through it.
Hon Ms Gigantes: But that's an action against the government.
Mr Murphy: You'll agree with me, as I think you agreed with counsel, that the conflict-of-interest guidelines are intended to in fact set a higher standard than the conflict-of-interest act.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes. But if you take a look at page 10 and inquiry number 21 --
Mr Murphy: No, I don't need to. That's fine.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Okay.
Mr Murphy: Thank you.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Thank you.
Mr Murphy: I gather, in any event, that as far as you know neither you nor anyone on your staff, prior to the June 17th meeting, contacted Mr Justice Evans with respect to whether you should attend that June 17th meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Mr Murphy: And, I guess, would that include that you're certain that no one on your staff did, or at least as far as you know no one on your staff did?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm pretty certain.
Mr Murphy: And that would include that you did not direct your staff to contact Mr Justice Evans for any such advice.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right.
Mr Murphy: And final question: In your mind, was there any way in the long term to solve the Van Lang board difficulties as you saw them and dealt with them in the June 17th meeting, was there any way to resolve those difficulties without the charges that Sharron Pretty had instigated being not proceeded with?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes. I firmly believed that then, I believe it now, and in fact I was -- I don't remember which member of the board it was who said in testimony before this committee -- I think it was Dr Can Le who said it was not the issue of the charges; it was the issue of the public attacks. I believed that from the moment that I read the article written on June first. I believed the key problem as far as a resolution involving the other members of the board was concerned was the question of public allegations against them, not the charges but the other allegations.
2230
Mr Murphy: One final question, and this goes to, actually in part, our recommendations about guidelines: Given your experience through this meeting and this long week, is it your view that the conflict-of-guidelines need changes?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I don't believe so.
Mr Murphy: Okay, thank you.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't believe there was a breach in this case. I believe them to be useful. I believe them to be workable.
Mr Callahan: Ms Gigantes, you and I have been in the Legislature for a long time together. I guess, just to comment on the point you made, that you didn't expect Sharron Pretty to be at the meeting, that's the first time we've heard that. If that's correct -- and you're an honourable member; I'm prepared to accept that -- I have two questions arising from that. The first one is, if you weren't expecting her to be there, how were you going to negotiate any type of a settlement when all you had were the original directors? Didn't you have to have two parties to negotiate a settlement?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Um, you do, but you don't have to have them in the same room.
Mr Callahan: Is that the reason that you were separating -- Tre Linh, was it, I think?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Trinh Luu?
Mr Callahan: Trinh Luu.
Hon Ms Gigantes: And Sharron Pretty?
Mr Callahan: Is that the reason you were separating Trinh Luu and you saw her on one occasion and then you were going to see the directors on another occasion and Sharron Pretty on another occasion?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. I may not have made it clear, Mr Callahan, but I had contemplated two meetings of this kind: one meeting that included Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty and another meeting that included the other members of the board.
Mr Callahan: Without Sharron Pretty?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Without Sharron Pretty.
Mr Callahan: Well, I had to ask that question, because I somehow understand what your methodology is. You believe that something can be resolved by mediation, and that's an admirable task. Perhaps if we had a little more of that in our legal system, we'd have less backlog in the courts.
However, I was also astounded by the answer you gave to a question from commission counsel -- and they always say hindsight is 20-20 -- that given the facts that you've heard and what all of us have gone through, I think you said to commission counsel that you would do it the same way again. Was that your answer?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I would certainly go ahead with the meeting again, yes.
Mr Callahan: You would even go ahead with the meeting again with Sharron Pretty showing up out of the blue?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
Mr Callahan: Did it not occur to you -- I mean, you made a comment about not being a lawyer, and that's probably a blessing in disguise. But do you not understand that, as I think commission counsel put it very clearly -- and I've spent 30 years in the justice system -- the underpinnings of our civilized society require that justice not even appear to be tampered with? The fact at the outset of these hearings, after I'd read the material in preparation for this matter, led me to introduce or at least query of commission counsel whether or not the facts warranted a charge under the obstruct justice sections of the Criminal Code. I'm satisfied, on hearing the evidence, that that's not the case. I doubt that anybody would ever prosecute it.
But did you not know that you were walking a thin line, if you look back on it, whereby you and at least four directors were entered into an agreement -- granted, it was an agreement to have another meeting, not an agreement at that meeting but an agreement to have another meeting, and that is an agreement --
Hon Ms Gigantes: That was five members.
Mr Callahan: -- to commit potentially what could have become an unlawful act? What if Ms Pretty had walked away from that event and had gone to the crown attorney and said: "Well, I was mistaken. Withdraw the charges"? I suggest to you if that had happened, regardless of your good intentions and the rest of it, you and the rest of the people would have been perilously close to being perhaps charged with conspiracy to commit an unlawful act. Did that never occur to you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Callahan, I believe I indicated as clearly as I could when counsel questioned earlier that I thought it very important in the course of this meeting to be very careful what words were used by me, how discussion was guided in my presence and the kind of agreements that people came to. The agreement that people -- there were three agreements that people came to. I've described the two earlier agreements in the course of the meeting which led to the possibility that we could discuss whether there was enough agreement to have another meeting.
Mr Callahan: Right.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That was the third agreement.
Mr Callahan: Okay, but put yourself --
Hon Ms Gigantes: This is not a fine line. This is a line that is a line that's very clearly identified as within certain kinds of bounds, and it is a line followed in an attempt to bring parties who are doing each other damage and doing the non-profit corporation and the residents damage in the course of that --
Mr Callahan: But, but --
Hon Ms Gigantes: -- to bring them to some understanding that will allow that to start to ease.
Mr Callahan: Okay, I understand that, but put yourself in this position: Let's say that you had someone there who was not a party to the whole event observing this event. Seeing a minister of the crown at a meeting -- maybe your intentions were to mediate, but that person is -- that's the public. That's John Q. Public. That's the reason the conflict-of-interest requirements are so specific to people who are in public life. We choose to be in public life. Because that John Q. Public, who doesn't know what your good intentions are, is saying to himself or herself, "My heavens, there's the Minister of Housing, and she's there trying to negotiate a deal which includes charges under a quasi-criminal statute, and the quid pro quo for it is that this director will not, may not, lose her directorship." Now put yourself in those shoes, and I would suggest --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Are you asking a question?
Mr Callahan: Well, I am. I'm suggesting to you that under those circumstances -- I'm going to ask your comment on it -- under those circumstances, that's precisely why you are held at such a high level in terms of not just justice being done but the appearance of justice being done. Do you not understand that? Do you not understand that you owe a responsibility --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I certainly don't understand it the way you appear to understand it. I certainly do understand it, in my view.
Mr Callahan: Okay, so you would do it again if -- it wouldn't be red flags going off when you saw Sharron Pretty there. That's what you're telling us. You'd do it again with her there. Is that what you're saying?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I would carry out the same meeting, with the same participants, with the same objective and in the same manner.
Mr Callahan: Okay, notwithstanding the fact that your staff had been telling you, and in fact --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Could I --
Mr Callahan: Just a second; let me finish.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Could I make a comment?
Mr Callahan: Let me finish for a second.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Is it a question?
Mr Callahan: Yes. I'm going to ask you a question.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Good.
Mr Callahan: You agree that your staff, up until at least May 11th, and yourself were all in agreement that this was a dangerous situation when you heard that there were charges outstanding. Am I correct?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No. What I said was, as soon as we heard there were legal proceedings involved, we said, "Hold on, there is no meeting taking place until we find out what's going on here."
Mr Callahan: Okay, and did you find out?
Hon Ms Gigantes: We found out.
Mr Callahan: Okay. Now, when you found out and you realized that these were charges that were being conducted by the crown attorney -- the crown attorney handles criminal or quasi-criminal charges -- that didn't make you feel the same way you did before: "Hey, hold off. We better not do anything"? It didn't even reinforce your feelings that you shouldn't go ahead?
Hon Ms Gigantes: The request that we had had was to discuss Housing issues. The legal proceedings did not have to do with Housing issues. They had to do with the affairs of the board of directors of a non-profit corporation, and the obligations under the Corporations Act of Ontario.
2240
Mr Callahan: Yes, but I suggest to you, Ms Gigantes, that the Corporations Act is under a statute for which a minister of the crown is responsible. The crown is indivisible. The fact that you're the Minister of Housing and someone else, perhaps the Attorney General or whomever, Consumer and Commercial Relations, is in charge of the statute dealing with corporations -- you're still the same crown. It is still the crown bringing a charge against --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Can I address the question I think that you began to raise with me several minutes ago, and that is public perception?
Mr Callahan: Right.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I do believe that there has been damage to public perception of politics through the events that have arisen out of the June 17th meeting. I do believe that the allegations undertaken by Sharron Pretty around that meeting, which were not undertaken in good faith, have damaged the public's perception of the integrity of political life in this province, and I further believe that the allegations and the manner in which they were carried by the opposition of this Parliament further damaged public confidence in the integrity of the government of this province.
Mr Callahan: Well, Ms Gigantes, I think in closing, you've made a political crack, and I didn't want to get to that, but I really feel sorry for you because you don't seem to understand that you cannot -- I wouldn't. I've practised law for 30 years. I would not attempt to interfere with a charge that was going ahead and try to have it withdrawn.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's good. Neither would I, Mr Callahan.
Mr Callahan: And in essence, regardless of what your intentions were, that's what you were doing. That's what you were doing.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's what you claim I was doing. I believe you to be wrong.
Mr Callahan: That's what the facts -- certainly the facts would seem to indicate that on what -- on readings of either set of facts, that's exactly -- and the sad thing about it, Ms Gigantes, is you don't seem to understand that the minister of the crown has no higher right to interfere with the justice in this province than does John Q. Public. You don't understand it even now. That's the problem.
Hon Ms Gigantes: You don't have the right to say that I believe that a minister has that right, because I have said the opposite in testimony before this committee.
Mr Callahan: Well, Ms Gigantes, your actions that have been heard as a result of the evidence here, your own evidence, belies an entirely different situation. You in fact have demonstrated -- and as I say, I feel sorry for you because you still don't understand that you have in fact, as a minister, where a higher standard is demanded -- you in fact feel that what you did was not incorrect and that the people out there should absolve you from having done it. Well, with the greatest of respect --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Having done what, Mr Callahan?
Mr Callahan: With the greatest of respect --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Having done what?
Mr Callahan: -- you have overstepped the bounds of a minister of the crown, and I can tell you that as far as I read the guidelines, you have overstepped the guidelines.
Hon Ms Gigantes: You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I believe you to be wrong, and I believe your expression of it does not contribute to the public's right to have belief in the integrity of political life in this province, and the belief that the public is entitled to have about the absolute dedication of elected representatives, and in particular ministers, to the process of justice in this province.
Mr Callahan: That's right, but they also have the right to have the appearance by the ministers of the crown, who are people who have tremendous power -- we heard one witness here talk about a minister as being -- I can't recall what his terminology was but he was in awe of you. I said to him you certainly wouldn't be in awe of a humble MPP like myself, but he was in awe of you. Do you not realize --
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, you asked him if he was in awe and he said no, he was not. Do you recollect that?
Mr Murphy: No, he said yes.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, I heard another person say he wasn't.
Mr Callahan: Yes, he did. Do you not realize that the average --
The Chair: One at a time. I think he's making a statement here.
Mr Callahan: No, no. I'm trying to put it to you so you'll understand. The average person does not get to meet a minister of the crown every day. In fact, we had evidence before us from one of the directors on the board of Van Lang that he was, I think -- I can't remember his exact terms, but he almost, you know, puts you on a pedestal. That's where ministers of the crown should be, is on a pedestal, and that's precisely why the conflict-of-interest guidelines are there. They're not there to keep --
The Chair: I don't believe there's a question.
Mr Callahan: I'd like you to comment on that, Ms Gigantes, because you don't --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I will, Mr Callahan.
Mr Callahan: Thank you.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Dr Can Le was very flattering, I understand. I didn't hear that particular part of committee discussion, but I can also assure you that Dr Can Le is a very vigorous political opponent of mine in the riding of Ottawa Centre, so he's not in awe.
Mr Callahan: Well, that wasn't what I got from his evidence, Ms Gigantes. But as I say, I'll close by saying I feel sorry in this respect: that I think you honestly believe what you're saying, but I think if you reflect back on it and you stand back from it as an objective observer, as opposed to the minister who was involved, and think about it -- you're an intelligent person -- you would realize that the reflection you're giving to the average public out there has to be in contravention of at least the appearance of the guidelines, if not actually.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think that's your reflection, Mr Callahan.
Mr Callahan: Well, I'm banking the rest of my time.
Interjections.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Some bank.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, I think, in order to have a flow between the minister and myself, I would appreciate that you not allow either one of us to interrupt each other.
Minister, obviously, this is a very serious hearing for you --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Mrs Marland: -- and for your political career, and I want to ask you at the outset if you think that it was appropriate for any member of this committee, before hearing any evidence, to make a public statement on your guilt or innocence?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Considering what would have happened had there been no such statement made at the beginning of hearings, there would have been accusations by other members of the Legislature, including yourself, I'm sure, that there was no support by government members for the minister. So you do it one way, you do it the other. Let's be candid.
Mrs Marland: Okay. Well, let's be candid, because you obviously knew right away that I was going to speak to the fact that one of the government members announced at the outset there was no conflict. I worded my statement, my opening statement, very carefully and I never once drew a conclusion about what the outcome of this hearing would be in my opening statement. I felt that when we were dealing with your guilt or innocence of an allegation, and you may or may not believe this, but I sincerely felt it was important for the process and to respect the job that our counsel was going to be doing, which was to be extracting evidence for our benefit in order to make our decision, that it was important not to prejudge what that evidence would be.
I would also like to --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Does the pause allow me to respond?
Mrs Marland: No, I didn't have a question.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Ah, okay.
Mrs Marland: Right at the beginning, I want to establish what you think about a particular person whom you have described as, "I was very taken with her." This is the same person that in fact your Toronto office went on to offer a job.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Mrs Marland: And you now have told us that you went to a shower with her for Audrey Moey's baby.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Mrs Marland: So, would you agree that this person, Trinh Luu, at least at that time was someone who you at least felt had credibility?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I certainly felt that she had credibility, that she had talent, that she was a very capable advocate. I found her, as a person, a very attractive, warm, delightful person.
2250
Mrs Marland: So you would agree -- well, you knew she was a constituent, but you would agree --
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I did not as a matter of fact.
Mrs Marland: Oh, okay.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I didn't learn that until quite recently. I don't know if she was when I first met her or not.
Mrs Marland: Okay. Well, you didn't know she was a constituent, but this was someone that you received many calls from. In the statement that you filed at the opening of this hearing, you said that you had been following the events -- I'm paraphrasing -- you said, "I've been following their difficulties for more than a year."
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Mrs Marland: You knew that a lot of the generation, if not most of the generation, of the information about those difficulties in fact came from Trinh Luu.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It certainly did up until the fall of 1993, at which point most of the written correspondence, which was the material I was most familiar with, was generated by Sharron Pretty.
Mrs Marland: So to deal just with the material that came from Trinh Luu -- and incidentally, this pile on the floor here behind me, which you could just glance at, consists of six reports that Trinh Luu did while she was still an employee of the board. All of that material she filed with either Bill Clement or Mr Sutherland and she showed it to the people in your office. I mean, you know how she comes with documentation. You actually then confirmed that when you met with her on June the 10th of this year she indeed came with a great number of documents.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Mrs Marland: Knowing this person was so creditable in your own mind that your own ministry had offered her a job --
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, my own staff had offered her a job, not the Ministry of Housing.
Mrs Marland: Oh, okay. But your staff in Toronto?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct, at my Queen's Park office.
Mrs Marland: Okay. So that makes it even more personal, because your own staff wouldn't have offered her a job if she wasn't capable. So what I'd like to ask you is, if you knew all this about this person -- I mean, this wasn't just Susie Jones from out of the blue that you didn't know; this is somebody that you actually knew a lot about.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I didn't know a lot about her, though I had spent a fair amount of time with her and I also had read a lot of material that she had produced.
Mrs Marland: So what I really would like to know is, knowing that much about this individual and knowing that she was good enough that you were going to give her a job in Toronto, why would it have taken all of these months for her to get a meeting with you, in fact a whole year to get a meeting with you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, she hadn't been trying to have a meeting with me for a whole year. She had met with my staff. But I want you to understand, Ms Marland, that if a ministry is to operate and a minister is to operate in the most effective manner, and I think in the manner that we would all like to see, then the minister is not to be involved in the administration of a ministry. There is no way that can be done, number one. Number two, we do expect the public service to do the administration of a ministry.
Certainly Ms Luu had had contact with the Ministry of Housing. There had been activities undertaken by the Ministry of Housing because of the material she had brought forward. In most cases questions of this nature don't end up with the minister having to meet a group.
Mrs Marland: So if the problems that she had brought to you, starting over a year ago, had been resolved, there wouldn't have been any need for the meeting on the 17th of June, I would suggest to you, because there wouldn't have been any more problems.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That goes without saying.
Mrs Marland: Yes, okay. Thank you.
Hon Ms Gigantes: They were not resolved.
Mrs Marland: They were not resolved. And this leads me to -- I just want -- this is one small piece of information, but you and I were both in northern Ontario for the same tragic funeral on the 28th of October, which was a Thursday.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, that's right.
Mrs Marland: And I'm wondering if you recall the next day, Friday, the 29th of October.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Mrs Marland: According to your calendar, you were in Ottawa, and I wonder if you recall being in your office at the same time that Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty were.
Hon Ms Gigantes: On the 29th? No, I do not recall that and if I recall what happened on that day, I had had meetings scheduled in my office throughout the day. I found the funeral -- this was the funeral of Bud Wildman's daughter. I found the funeral emotionally draining and came back -- in fact got in touch with my constituency staff from Sault Ste Marie, asked them if we could put off till later most of the meetings during that day. I went to the office for an early meeting. I undertook a later engagement, but I cancelled -- I believe I cancelled most of the activities during that day.
Mrs Marland: Yes, your calendar confirmed you had a meeting at 9 and a meeting at 6.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Mrs Marland: And Ms Pretty and Ms Luu have both told us that you were smoking in the room next door to where they were in their meeting with your staff and that actually, as they left, Ms Pretty said you said hello to Ms Pretty.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I cannot --
Mrs Marland: You don't recall?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I cannot tell you that that's the case. I don't think I lingered in the office after the initial meeting.
Mrs Marland: Does that mean you don't recall or --
Laughter.
Mrs Marland: Just a minute. I have to get this right. Does that mean you don't recall it one way or the other or you don't know if it happened?
Mr Owens: You're not Eleanore, I'm sorry.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Let us try and get to your point. Your point is that if they were coming to the office to meet with my staff --
Mrs Marland: Right.
Hon Ms Gigantes: -- then instead, if I were available, they should have met with me. What makes you say that?
Mr Murphy: You didn't answer the question.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think that that's the point.
Mrs Marland: I think it's my prerogative to be asking the questions at this time. How do you feel this hearing could have been avoided, Minister?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I suppose that it is in the nature of what has happened at Van Lang with the knowledge that has come to me as a result of all the materials that have been collected, and it's the materials rather than the testimony. We have discovered that -- members of this committee have discovered that the people who were initiating the complaints over a period of a long, long time were people who were not prepared to see a resolution and who did not act in good faith. They did not act in good faith, they taped meetings, they taped telephone conversations without letting the other parties know that those telephone conversations were being taped. They appeared to take delight in withholding information from a person at a certain point in time, from creating little schemes and manipulations of people.
Mrs Marland: So you're saying --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think that they did not act in good faith with the people in my office either at the constituency level or at the Queen's Park level and I believe further evidence of bad faith was that Sharron Pretty -- I didn't know that at the time of the June 17th meeting, but she actually came to that meeting, she said in testimony, with a copy of her brief for court in her hand. She had tried to get a meeting. Then she argued that a meeting was too late. Then she gave Sue Lott reasons why, in spite of legal proceedings, there should be a meeting. The games that were played were thick and they were serious.
2300
Now, that is, in my mind, a lack of good faith. I am unwilling to say, and I don't think you would be willing either, Ms Marland --
Mrs Marland: The question was, how could we have avoided this hearing?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. I'm unwilling to say that because there were people who in this instance were prepared not to act in good faith, that in other cases one assumes that people are not acting in good faith. I'm not prepared to do that. I think that the situation as we knew it was a situation in which there probably was no possibility of resolution, but I don't think we should have assumed that.
Mrs Marland: So you think that it's --
Hon Ms Gigantes: In fact your office felt that we should be able to resolve the problem.
Mrs Marland: Yes, I think my office dealt very honourably with this as a matter of fact and I was pleased to hear your staff say what they did about my office.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. But certainly your conclusion --
Mrs Marland: But the point --
Hon Ms Gigantes: -- was that there should be a resolution.
Mrs Marland: Excuse me. I'll tell you what my office did, again, because the point is, my office was very concerned about the fact that two citizens involved with a multimillion-dollar non-profit housing project in Ottawa had been trying to get a meeting with the Minister of Housing for over a year. And yes, staff had been involved, but the point was that the staff involvement had not provided a remedy for the problems.
There was in one blatant example six months to respond to a letter, and what my office felt -- only, by the way, because at the request of Ms Luu and Ms Pretty, we were to try on their behalf to get a meeting with you, which they had not been able to do themselves. And when they phoned us, we had an option of two things, as you know. We had an option of taking it on to the floor of the House that day --
Interjection: What's the question?
Mrs Marland: Pardon?
We made the decision not to do that. We made the decision to do what those two people were asking us to do, which wasn't to go public and not to take it on to the floor of the House.
And I'm simply saying to you that when I asked you how this meeting, this hearing this week, could have been avoided, this hearing that has cost thousands of taxpayers' dollars could have been avoided, your answer is that two people, these two citizens, caused all the problem. There seems to be no acknowledgement on your part that your staff never resolved the situation so that it never had to get down the road so far that you would ever have been at risk, as a minister, of going into the meeting on the 17th of June where parties, both sides of parties to a legal action, were in the same room that you would now start to mediate, which was putting you at risk as a minister.
And I'm simply saying when I asked you, how did you think this hearing could have been avoided, your answer was, if these two women hadn't schemed and done their little tricks and things. I want to ask you if you think your staff have done their job in this past year, and particularly I'd like to ask you how you feel about the most senior manager in eastern Ontario, your regional manager, Brian Sutherland, who seems to think that it's fine to have two versions of a meeting, a private internal memo that focuses on one item and a three-page public memo that covers everything except the item of your discussing the charges.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It wasn't a public memo. You won't wish to say that because you know it was not a public memo.
Mrs Marland: The three-page one?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I assume you're referring to the notes that he wrote during the month of July about the meeting?
Mrs Marland: Yes.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That was not public and it was twice, to my knowledge, put in evidence before this committee that it was not public.
Mrs Marland: How do you feel about the difference between those two memos?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Can I go back to the original point you were making? Your office and you, as I understand it, Margaret, took the request and the information provided by Trinh Luu to you in good faith. I think you and your office treated Trinh Luu, when she came to see you, in good faith. You treated her as if she were acting in good faith, and I would put it to you that the evidence that you have seen before this committee would now convince you that that probably put you at risk. And I think we're all at risk when we deal with people in public life, and when we provide services to people, we have to assume good faith. I did in this case, and you did in this case, and I think that the good faith was not returned in this case.
Mrs Marland: Are you saying that Trinh Luu was not acting in good faith and in the interests of her Vietnamese community who have this housing project in Ottawa?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I believe that the activities undertaken by Trinh Luu and by Sharron Pretty were not in good faith. That's correct.
Mrs Marland: Minister, have you ever sought, personally, advice from Justice Gregory Evans, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. Each of us, as far as I know, seeks his advice and guidance at least on an annual basis.
Mrs Marland: No, I'm asking if you have sought his advice on a personal -- when we go for our filing, that's because that's something we're compelled to do under the act. I'm asking you, on an individual case, have you ever sought his advice about what your actions should be?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think I may have actually. I cannot recollect the occasion.
Mrs Marland: Well, I would like to tell you, when you suggest that I may have been at risk, that I often seek his advice and I sought his advice quite recently before going before the Ontario Human Rights Commission with a constituent of mine and I did not hesitate to seek his advice before I went. And I would suggest to you that perhaps that's what you should have done before you got involved with a case between two parties between whom there was a legal action.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Could I suggest to you in response that I have often sought the advice of the Premier of Ontario and the people with whom he works and I have had very good advice.
Mrs Marland: Is the Premier the person appointed to enforce the conflict-of-interest act?
Hon Ms Gigantes: We are -- we have been discussing an even more rigorous set of guidelines.
Mrs Marland: Is he the person -- is the Premier the person to enforce the conflict-of-interest act?
Hon Ms Gigantes: We're talking about the Premier's guidelines here.
Mrs Marland: I'm talking about the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and his role --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I do know who you're talking about.
Mrs Marland: -- and I'm suggesting to you that if you had sought his advice based on the examples that are in his annual report, which have already been discussed, in fact you may have saved yourself a lot of trouble and, most importantly, you would have saved this province the cost of this hearing.
Hon Ms Gigantes: The cost of this hearing was a direct result of the fact that the opposition members insisted on certain facets of the hearing, which made it expensive, as you well know.
Mrs Marland: Oh. Would you like to tell us what certain facets of this hearing the opposition members are responsible for?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Mrs Marland: Go ahead.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It is the fact that the hearings are complete with all the legal trappings.
Mrs Marland: On a point of order. Madam Counsel -- could we stop the clock while I ask the counsel a question?
The Acting Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): Go ahead.
2310
Mrs Marland: Ms Cronk, could you advise this committee at this point about how the decision was reached about whether witnesses coming before this hearing would have access to their own legal counsel if they wished, as you understood it?
Ms Cronk: My understanding on that issue is that the subcommittee determined, collectively and I understand unanimously, that, if witnesses who appeared before the committee sought to have their own legal counsel, that would be their right and that no effort would be made to prevent that. Is that the information you --
Mrs Marland: Thank you. Minister, I'm sure that you're aware that all the plans and all the decisions about the conduct of this inquiry were agreed to by a subcommittee representing each of the three caucuses and everything was agreed to.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Mrs Marland: So when you say that it's a fault of the opposition, it's almost ludicrous, because I would say to you, when you say that it's the opposition's fault that we had all these witnesses with all the legal counsel with them, have you had the advice of a lawyer?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I have.
Mrs Marland: And who's paying for that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: The Ministry of Housing will pay for that. I was conducting ministry affairs.
Mr Harnick: The taxpayers.
Mrs Marland: The Ministry of Housing, I would suggest to you, are the taxpayers.
Hon Ms Gigantes: The Ministry of Housing spends revenue which is taxpayers' revenue. That's correct.
Mrs Marland: Thank you.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Ms Marland, can I point out --
Mrs Marland: No.
Hon Ms Gigantes: -- in response to your comment --
Mrs Marland: You've answered my question.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, you don't ask questions.
Mrs Marland: I'm going to ask you another question: Do you think, since you had the advantage of legal counsel before this inquiry at the expense of the taxpayers, that any other witness should come before this inquiry without the benefit of legal counsel?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think that that is not the point. I think the point is that once the committee itself has decided to employ legal counsel, and that was an issue which was discussed, as I understand it, by the subcommittee -- and you're right; there was agreement -- our government did not wish to get into battles about how this committee was conducted, for the very good reason that all that does is give an opportunity for the opposition to say that we are resisting having a matter reviewed which we volunteered to have reviewed.
Mrs Marland: The ground rules for this inquiry actually were established with previous inquiries into other ministers of the crown that were being investigated, and I give you the example of another of your own ministers, Shelley Martel. I would suggest to you that the Premier called this inquiry because -- you know, it's ironical. We ask the Premier for a lot of commissions of inquiry, and we've asked him for particularly an inquiry into the Workers' Compensation Board etc etc, and we never get an agreement from the Premier unless he wants it. And he actually offered -- Hansard shows that the Premier offered to have this hearing.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right.
Mrs Marland: So don't blame this hearing, the process of it, the rules for it or the cost of it on the opposition, because the Premier offered to have it, and every other condition applying to how this hearing would be conducted was unanimously agreed upon, based on the precedent of the cost of the hearing in the Shelley Martel affair.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Ms Marland, I have the faith that at some point the Legislature of Ontario will become mature enough that we don't take every excuse to do entirely partisan things. I believe that it is part of the problem of public confidence in political life in this province. The same problem exists elsewhere, that the public lacks confidence in a situation where politicians engage in totally nonsensical partisan activities and arrive at situations where in fact we get into very extensive processes when, as the Premier suggested, we could've had a committee review without all the trappings of a Star Chamber inquiry.
Mr Callahan: You liked the Star Chamber when you were in opposition.
Mrs Marland: Excuse me. I would suggest to you that partisan activities had nothing whatsoever to do with you attending a meeting on the 17th of June in Ottawa between two sides of a legal action.
You went into that meeting knowing that there was a legal action. When you got to the meeting, you had a choice of withdrawing from it. You went ahead with the meeting between the person who had laid the charges and four of the people who had been charged. You knowingly proceeded with that meeting.
That has nothing to do with what you just said about partisan activities in the House, and you have said tonight that you have no concern about your attendance, you would do it again for the same circumstances, you have no regrets and you're obviously not worried about the cost of this hearing.
I ask you simply: Do you think, Minister, that you are above being investigated as a minister of this crown?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Ms Marland, when I first talked to the Premier on Monday the 20th of July about the reports and questions that had been raised about that meeting and we discussed it, he said to me, "Well, what's the best way to handle this?" I said, "To be as open as possible," and he said, "Well, would you be happy if I suggested a committee review?" I said, "Absolutely, because I think that that will allow an opportunity to be as open as possible."
Question period, as we know, is not a forum in which answers can be given in full and contacts can be given, nor are media scrums, and I did look forward to an opportunity before a committee of my colleagues in the Legislature to talk about what happened at the meeting.
I think that the Premier's offer was an offer made with the hope that we could have done this, as parliamentarians, in a way that was less fraught with exaggerated claims of all kinds and that we could've discussed what happened.
Mrs Marland: So you still don't understand the seriousness of the subject at this inquiry, do you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I consider it very serious indeed.
Mrs Marland: You're saying that you consider it serious.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Mrs Marland: And yet you think all we have to do is have a little friendly chat in the committee --
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Mrs Marland: -- and lead evidence, where witnesses are not protected, with counsel while you as minister, giving evidence, are protected by counsel?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, no, Margaret --
Mrs Marland: Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu --
Hon Ms Gigantes: -- I would not suggest that.
Mrs Marland: Excuse me, Sharron Pretty and Trinh Luu are two ordinary citizens. They're the same as you and I were before we were elected. They're ordinary citizens who are community minded. Whatever else you say about those two individuals, you can never take away from them that they are two individual women, bright, intelligent, tenacious and courageous, I would say, who had brought to your office --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Would you think it possible --
Mrs Marland: -- over a year ago concerns about a non-profit housing project in which they were involved. They are proud of that project. They want it to be successful. They found there were things going on. I have not taken the time tonight, because the time doesn't exist, but there are all kinds of issues that I can't bring up tonight that I will be bringing up with you in the future to provide a remedy for the problem, if you're still the minister --
Mr Owens: That's a cheap shot. That's really low.
Mrs Marland: -- the problems that go back to the 1992 Provincial Auditor's report about operating agreements, about the integration of tenants.
2320
Your own policies about how tenants are selected, who those tenants will be, the integration, the ages, everything else -- none of those policies today Van Lang Centre complies with. There are 70 units in that building and 58 of them are occupied by one ethnic group: the Vietnamese.
The problem is that in over a year your staff in your regional office in Ottawa have not addressed those problems. Two individual private citizens, Trinh Luu and Sharron Pretty, tried to address them and they've hit their head against a brick wall for a whole year. You go into a hearing and you try to mediate after court charges have been laid. If you had mediated earlier, the court charges wouldn't have been laid, you wouldn't have been at risk, and we could have saved the public the cost of this hearing. The cost of this hearing, in my opinion, Madam Minister, is on your head because your staff did not do their job.
Hon Ms Gigantes: And your question is, who's supposed to believe this fairy tale of yours?
Mrs Marland: Mr Harnick will take the rest of my time.
The Chair: Ms Gigantes, if you can just reach the mike a little.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Should I repeat the question?
Mr Harnick: Mr Chair, how much time do I have?
The Chair: You've used 34 minutes and you've got 52.
Mr Harnick: All right, 18 minutes.
Minister, you said something that was, I suppose, just in passing when you were being examined by legal counsel. What you said -- and I'm paraphrasing; correct me if I'm not accurate -- was, "Sometimes when there's a lawsuit started, it makes it more problematic."
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I'd never use that word.
Mr Harnick: Well, you said something to the effect that, "When lawsuits start, it makes it much more difficult to resolve these issues."
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
Mr Harnick: Do you agree that you said that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I believe that where there is conflict and then there are legal proceedings, getting out of the conflict becomes much more difficult.
Mr Harnick: And it was with that philosophy in mind that you went to this meeting.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Is that not a philosophy you approve?
Mr Harnick: You're answering the questions. I hope you'll respect my opportunity to ask you questions and for you to make answers. If you don't respect that, maybe we should stop and decide what the ground rules are. Is that okay?
The Chair: Mr Harnick, just say, "Answer the question."
Mr Harnick: It's with that philosophy in mind that I understand you went to this meeting. Is that correct?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I wouldn't describe it as a philosophy; I think it's a very practical approach.
Mr Harnick: All right. With that practical approach in mind, you went to the meeting. And you knew there was this outstanding lawsuit, correct?
Hon Ms Gigantes: There were outstanding charges.
Mr Harnick: That's right, criminal charges.
Hon Ms Gigantes: They're charges under the Provincial Offences Act relating to the Ontario Corporations Act.
Mr Harnick: It's with the idea that those are there that you have a much bigger problem, correct?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It has not helped.
Mr Harnick: At some stage during the meeting, and we didn't really dwell on this much, you said, apparently several times: "Take your time. Think about it. Don't be pressured."
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. Actually, I think I used those phrases separately as well as together.
Mr Harnick: I gather that those phrases came up towards the end of the meeting when people were going to go off and consider something.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I used them throughout the meeting.
Mr Harnick: Were they used at the end of the meeting as well?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I certainly said at the end of the meeting, when date books were whipped out about the potential meeting: "No, we're not going to be pressured about this. Go away, think about it before you decide."
Mr Harnick: What I find puzzling is how picking a date is a pressurized item. What's pressurized about everybody pulling out their diaries and picking a date?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I disagree with you. Oddly enough, I felt very conscious of the fact that while Sharron Pretty had agreed, and clearly had agreed, and everybody in the room understood she had agreed that there should be another meeting, she still needed time to reflect about that, I felt. And I felt that if I were in a situation where she was being pressured to nail down a date -- I'm not a negotiator here. I'm a minister. I felt very clearly that I was not just any old mediator here, that in fact because I was the minister, I had to make sure that she wasn't getting pressured to name a date.
Mr Harnick: Just so I understand it, the big pressure here, as you saw it, was (a) picking a date and (b) having another meeting, and that to you was a situation fraught with pressure.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. I believed that for Sharron Pretty, under those circumstances, that was a big move. I felt that the board of directors had made big moves on other items that got us to the point where it was possible.
Mr Harnick: You see, Minister, when I hear that, I have a lot of trouble believing that picking a date or coming to another meeting is a particularly pressurized situation, in that you haven't given anything up, you haven't taken any step that you can't take back. All you're going to do is either go to the meeting on a particular date or not go to the meeting on a particular date.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Do you recall --
Mr Harnick: Now, hear my question. I haven't asked you my question yet. The problem I have is that some witnesses say that what we have here is an arrangement, and that's, I think, the way Dr Tang described what he thought came out of the meeting.
I also have evidence before us from Mr Sutherland. Mr Sutherland says, "In any event, I believe that the minister was able to convince Sharron and the other board members to work toward a resolution of the matter prior to the charges being considered." He obviously felt "the charges being considered" were a consideration.
And then we have the evidence of Ms Pretty. I appreciate that you don't agree with it, but she says the same thing.
But the real kicker in all this, it seems to me, is what your own assistant, who took the most copious notes of anyone there, said. What she said was, "Ev to the board -- Can these things be resolved without legal proceedings and removal of directors."
When I listen to all that evidence, I say the real pressure is that people were about to give up the decisions they had just made: Sharron Pretty continuing with her charges and the board waiving their opportunity to remove Sharron Pretty as a director.
Hon Ms Gigantes: There was one member of the board, and I'm trying to recall which one -- I believe it was Dr Truong -- who gave evidence before this committee that he did not believe that the agreement to have a meeting implied that the board would drop the motion against Sharron, and there was a point at which I believe he said that he thought the charges would proceed. I think that was a reasonable conclusion out of that meeting.
I also would suggest to you that Brian Sutherland's memo immediately after the meeting which suggests a time frame before the charges were heard was a very reasonable kind of time frame, because if there were going to be a meeting which produced any resolution it would have to happen in the near future. I felt it would have to happen in the next few days.
Mr Harnick: What bothers me is that you said to people, "Go away and think about it." There's nothing to think about when it comes to, "What date should we have another meeting?" That's nothing to think about. But there is something to think about when you're thinking about: "Should I withdraw the charges? Should I revoke the opportunity to remove her from the board?" What bothers me about what you tell me is that I could almost believe what you're saying if I didn't have a number of people, reliable people, saying completely the opposite. That's what bothers me.
2330
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't think people said completely the opposite, except for Sharron Pretty.
Mr Harnick: I don't know what could be more clear. I don't know what could be more clear about the issue than your own assistant's notes: "Ev to the board -- Can these things be resolved without legal proceedings and removal of directors."
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. I believe I said that. Could I add, Mr Harnick --
Mr Harnick: Let me carry on. No --
The Chair: Are you going to let her answer, or is it going to be one long question, or statement?
Mr Harnick: Oh, I have an answer. I was quite content with that answer, so let me just move along.
Mr Owens: She hasn't finished giving you her answer, Charlie.
Mr Harnick: We've been coming at this from several different ways, and one of the things you've been telling us is that no one ever talked about "dropping charges." Correct?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
Mr Harnick: That phrase was never used.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It certainly wasn't used by me. It may have been spat out in one interjection.
Mr Harnick: But there was a phrase that was used by you, and that was "stopping all charges."
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, it was "stopping all actions."
Mr Harnick: I'm sorry: "stopping all actions."
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, against each other.
Mr Harnick: And what you said was that actions included making disparaging remarks about one another -- I think that's what you said -- actions included court cases, and actions included removal from the board.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That was what was implied in my mind.
Mr Harnick: That's what was implied in your mind.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Not precisely in those terms, but pretty close.
Mr Harnick: Pretty close. What I want to ask you is, how is that different from dropping charges, if that's what you were implying?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Can I remind you that when I --
Mr Harnick: Don't remind me, just answer me.
The Chair: Mr Harnick, let the minister answer. Hansard's having a hard time picking up because two conversations are going on at one time.
Mr Harnick: Can I ask legal counsel to instruct her to answer my question --
The Chair: She is answering your question, but you're jumping back in.
Mr Harnick: -- as opposed to reminding me? I don't want a reminder; I want an answer to my question.
The Chair: Let her answer.
Hon Ms Gigantes: When it was raised earlier by legal counsel, and that question was raised earlier by legal counsel, Mr Harnick, what I said -- now I've forgotten the question. I'm sorry.
Mr Harnick: The question's very simple. You said nobody talked about dropping charges.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right.
Mr Harnick: But what you talked about was "stopping all actions."
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right. Thank you for reminding me.
Mr Harnick: And I want to know what the difference is between you saying "drop charges" or saying "stop all actions."
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, absolutely. When I talked about actions including legal actions, I did say to counsel earlier that in fact -- I don't know if I expected, but I feared that there would be further legal actions undertaken. I also feared that there would be further -- you called them accusations against each other, but these were very serious allegations that were made to the media by Sharron Pretty. I expected further actions of that kind also.
Mr Harnick: But what I'm talking about is the existing actions. What you said, and you said it very clearly, and I have some real trouble with it -- you said that implicit in what you were saying was the fact that you were referring to the court case, the motion to remove Sharron Pretty and the public allegations.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, all those things too.
Mr Harnick: All right. So we're not just talking about potential things stopping in the future. We're also talking about your urging people --
Hon Ms Gigantes: To back off actions.
Mr Harnick: -- to stop what is already going on.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Racking each other. Yes, I did. Yes, I did.
Mr Harnick: Thank you. I have no further questions.
The Chair: Mrs Marland, five minutes.
Mrs Marland: Minister, in fairness to the Van Lang Centre and the millions of dollars invested in that project and the fact that it's part of the non-profit housing program, which we know will have a grand subsidy of $1 billion of taxpayers' money by next year, I think we need to know once clearly from you whether you think the fact that you have told this hearing in the statement that you filed with us that is part of the evidence, that you had been following these difficulties for a year, one year you'd been following difficulties. The taxpayers have all this money invested. What we need to know, recognizing that that project at this time is not in compliance with many of your own policies -- and as I said, I haven't had an opportunity to take you through what those policy areas are in detail, but it's --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't accept the premise of your question --
Mrs Marland: Excuse me. I haven't --
Hon Ms Gigantes: -- in several instances.
Mrs Marland: I haven't asked you the question.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, get to it, please. Please.
Mrs Marland: I don't think, Ms Gigantes, that you're directing this hearing yet.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I am here to answer your questions. Please ask one.
Mrs Marland: Some of the concerns that Ms Trinh Luu brought to your office a year ago and continued to be brought to your office and to your staff, all the way up to your top person, Brian Sutherland, some of those concerns are mentioned in the 1992 auditor's report.
Mr Owens: Oh, for God's sake.
Mrs Marland: They talk about accountability. They talk about tenant placement. One of the things the Provincial Auditor has said is that he has a concern that operating agreements do not exist in many of the non-profit housing programs under your ministry. He has the other concerns about lack of approved operating budgets. We have heard in the compliance review that the Van Lang Centre doesn't even review their financial statements, they don't even reconcile their bank statements, and haven't for a period of eight months.
Hon Ms Gigantes: But --
Mrs Marland: They signed blank cheques. I'm giving you all of these examples. With the fact that these concerns were identified by the Provincial Auditor in 1992, if you didn't want to listen to Ms Luu and Ms Pretty -- all they were doing was bringing concerns about the Van Lang Centre which are exactly the kind of concerns that the Provincial Auditor had identified. I ask you one more time, do you think that to let those difficulties carry on, which by your own admission you followed for one year, means that your staff are fulfilling --
The Chair: Mrs Marland, you're over the time.
Mrs Marland: -- their obligations to the public and doing their jobs?
The Chair: Okay. You can respond.
Mr Owens: I wouldn't dignify that with a response.
Hon Ms Gigantes: The work the ministry has undertaken with the Van Lang Centre indicates the seriousness with which the items which were raised by Trinh Luu in the first place and Sharron Pretty in the second were treated by the Ministry of Housing. The compliance report indicates the seriousness with which those concerns were treated by the Ministry of Housing. The continuing work of the Ministry of Housing with the board has indicated the seriousness with which the Ministry of Housing is determined to see any shortcomings --
Mrs Marland: Marc Collins is still concerned.
Hon Ms Gigantes: -- any shortcomings addressed and the required changes made. These things, as you will know, Ms Marland, don't happen overnight.
I want to point out for any concerned members of the public that the building is in good shape. The taxpayers' investment, as you put it, is in good shape physically. There have been reporting problems, which have been addressed. There have been agreements required about tenant placement, which have been addressed. There have been changes, so when you refer to Van Lang and you refer to what happened in the compliance report, I would like you to take the care from here on in to refer to those in the past tense when they have changed.
2340
Mrs Marland: Marc Collins wasn't referring to this in the past tense.
Mr Winninger: Minister, as you know, the inquiry was called to inquire into certain allegations of conflict of interest, and if I recall the Premier's words correctly, it was so that the facts of the matter could unfold, as they have during the course of this week. During the course of many hours, we heard countless versions of what led up to the June 17th meeting and what occurred at the June 17th meeting, and we've also reviewed an array of documents, somewhat bewildering, that were often conflicting and contradictory.
But at the end of the day, when I go home, I'm going to have to ask myself several questions. I'm going to have to ask myself whether you as the Minister understood the conflict-of-interest guidelines, what were your expectations going into the June 17th meeting, how you conducted yourself at that meeting, and finally, I'll be asking myself whether in fact you considered the public perception of what you were doing during the course of the meeting.
You've indicated to Ms Cronk during her examination earlier in the day that you agreed that the conflict-of-interest guidelines were designed to enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of government. Do you agree?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I certainly did that, and I do agree.
Mr Winninger: And I understand that you in fact, during your discussions in cabinet and elsewhere, were somewhat instrumental in helping to formulate those guidelines?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't want to make any special claim, but they are a matter of great interest to me.
Mr Winninger: When Ms Cronk read to you a statement that the Premier made on December 12th, 1990, when he introduced the guidelines, that he was committed to the establishment of guidelines and codes in legislation on ethics but he also realized that nothing we commit to paper can substitute for common sense and a well-developed sense of public duty, do you subscribe to that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think that's probably the case, but I do think guidelines are important.
Mr Winninger: When you were asked for the meeting of June 17th, you've indicated that you asked, and were told, whether or not legal proceedings had been commenced by Ms Pretty.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I was well aware that legal proceedings had been initiated by Ms Pretty, that the actions were by the crown.
Mr Winninger: And you assured yourself as to the nature of the charges, that they were in provincial offences court and that they were by Ms Pretty against board directors. Is that correct?
Hon Ms Gigantes: And they were related to the Ontario Corporations Act.
Mr Winninger: We also heard that Ms Marland, through her executive assistant, had contacted your own assistant, with a view to inquiring whether or not a meeting might take place between you and Ms Pretty and Ms Luu, at least.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I cannot give testimony to that because I don't know the exact nature of the request that was made, but I can give testimony that I was told by Marc Collins that the request was that we get it cleared up, and my understanding of what he was telling me was that I was supposed to take this in hand.
Mr Winninger: Given the contact from Ms Marland's office, and she knowing of the charges, it would seem that she at least thought it was proper that you consider meeting with the complainants.
Mrs Marland: A point of order, Mr Chair: I think it only fair that the references to what the involvement of my office was are accurate. At no time was I asking the minister to meet with Ms Pretty or the board.
Mr Winninger: I'll rephrase the question.
Mrs Marland: The meeting we requested was with Ms Luu. This member is misstating --
Mr Winninger: Could the clock be stopped for a moment?
The Chair: He's going to wind up changing the question.
Mrs Marland: He's misstating the evidence. The evidence is that my office --
Mr Winninger: Well, I said --
Mrs Marland: Let me finish.
The Chair: But the thing is --
Mrs Marland: My office asked for a meeting which --
Interjections.
The Chair: Ms Marland, they have until 12 o'clock. You're running their time out. They didn't run your time out.
Mr Winninger: I'll rephrase the question, Mr Chair.
Mrs Marland: You've tried that three times, Mr Winninger.
Mr Winninger: You've indicated, Minister --
Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm going to reject your initial question on the grounds that I couldn't speculate.
Mr Winninger: You've indicated, Minister, that you acknowledge that there are situations in which a minister has to be careful of how one's ministerial role does affect people.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes indeed.
Mr Winninger: What was your intention going into the meeting on June 17th? Was it, as you've stated, to try to solve problems if that were at all possible?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's why I stated it, but also I thought an initial step in the meeting would be to hear the sides. It was clear I was going to hear the sides confront each other for a bit. I expected that and, as I suggested to the people in the room at the beginning of the meeting, I hoped I would be able to assist.
Mr Winninger: Would it be fair to say that you weren't going into the meeting with a view to taking anyone's particular side?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Absolutely.
Mr Winninger: You've indicated, with a refreshing candour, a view of the meeting that was somewhat contrary to what some of the other witnesses said. They did say that your approach was one that was conciliating and one of calmness, but you've described a meeting where there were tensions and people at loggerheads with one another.
During the course of that meeting, however, you indicated that you were pleased that there was an accommodation reached on certain elements in dispute. You mentioned that those involved the access to information regarding vacancies, referrals and tenant placements.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. It was an offer by the board to provide Sharron Pretty with the information which would allow her to monitor and make sure that her concerns about tenant placement were being addressed.
Mr Winninger: It appears also, in your view, that the issue of personnel was also resolved?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm not sure about that, but the offer by the board chair that the board would be willing to look again at the issue of a project manager, as opposed to having a situation in which there was a superintendent and a part-time office staff, I considered to have been a hopeful kind of development.
Mr Winninger: Did it appear to you that the parties on the whole were happy with the result on those two issues, at least?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Were they happy? I don't think there was happiness about them, but they were earnestly and openly undertaking offers or agreements.
Mr Winninger: There were some other issues that were referred to and discussed. It was your evidence and it was also the evidence of Audrey Moey, and her notes apparently indicate, that there was movement towards a resolution of the other issues, and that might involve a future meeting and --
Hon Ms Gigantes: There was an agreement by Sharron Pretty that the remaining major outstanding issues in her mind were the question of tenant access and the question of tenant participation. She had identified those as the two core issues, and when I suggested to the board that they be willing to go through a meeting with her about those two issues, they expressed their willingness to do that.
Mr Winninger: And that meeting could or could not perhaps involve the intervention of the non-profit housing association?
2350
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, and I should also mention, as counsel did earlier, I believe, perhaps not with me, perhaps with another witness -- I've even lost track of testimony that far at this stage -- that there had been -- now I've forgotten what I'm going to say. I think I'm just getting too tired.
Mr Winninger: Sure. Well, fortunately we're going to wrap up the questions soon anyway. I indicated to you that it was the evidence earlier of Audrey Moey that if there could be a movement towards a resolution of these issues, then you said that may perhaps be of interest to the crown.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Ah, If I could go back for a sec, I remembered what I was trying to --
Mr Winninger: Yes.
Hon Ms Gigantes: -- say earlier. It was that there had been an identification for a long time by Trinh Luu, by Sharron Pretty, that the two major issues they wanted addressed, the two core issues they wanted addressed, as they call them, were tenant participation and the tenant access issue. Now, the other question -- so it was significant that there was agreement that the meeting would involve those two issues, the new meeting, if there was to be one.
The other question you were asking me had to do with -- I'm sorry.
Mr Winninger: Oh, the other question I asked you had to do with your comment, or words to the effect, if there could be a movement towards resolution of the outstanding issues at a future meeting or otherwise, your comment was that that might be of interest to the crown.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Mr Winninger: And at that point in time, was it your intention in any way to influence the course of justice, to encourage Susan Pretty to approach the crown and drop charges?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Not in the least, and I was engaging, following on Sharron Pretty's question, in an attempt to think through what the implications would be were Sharron Pretty to come to the position where there was an understanding that major issues which had been raised by her for many months were now resolved or getting resolved, and she could get an understanding that she hadn't had -- perhaps, in my mind, I thought perhaps because she hadn't been in attendance at the major part of meetings in the recent past.
Mr Winninger: And when people took out their date books to plan a meeting, it was actually your suggestion that people take time to resolve their own positions?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't think you will find out one other person who has come before you to present evidence who remembers it that way. That's the way I remember it, and I don't remember Sharron Pretty demanding that time be taken, which is the way apparently almost everybody else remembers it. I remember actually saying, "No, no," and putting my hand out like this to say, "No, no, no, we're not going to do that."
Mr Winninger: And it was your desire to reduce the pressure on Susan Pretty --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Sharron.
Mr Winninger: -- Sharron Pretty, so that she could make her own decision in that regard, just as you expected the other parties would come to their own decisions?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, but I felt it particularly important that she have that time.
Mr Winninger: And at the end of the day, it was your view that people appeared to be content with the resolution that was reached at that meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: There was a fair amount of almost jubilation. There was a relief that was tangible. There was -- people started to make a couple of jokes; you know, it was just a great relief.
Mr Winninger: I guess the final question I'd like to put to you is, in your view, do you think you used your influence as a minister to advance the cause of any particular constituent or to influence the course of justice?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't believe that I was aware that anyone in the room lived in the riding of Ottawa Centre, so I don't think that that's a matter that I, you know -- I'm sure that had no influence on me and it certainly was not my purpose, and I believe that I was very careful to suggest nothing in any way that would either influence the course of justice or influence anybody so that the course of justice would be changed.
Mr Winninger: Thank you.
Mr Callahan: Mr Chair, I didn't want to interrupt Mr Winninger when he asked the question, but it's really late at night and I think I'm losing it, but I just want to get something clear. He asked a question of the minister, what her intention was before she went into the meeting, and I thought she said it was to get them together, get those parties together. Is that right?
Mr Winninger: I believe that's what her answer was in response to my question, but also earlier.
Mr Callahan: Get the sides together --
The Chair: Mrs Mathyssen?
Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just one question, Minister: You stated that it was your responsibility as the minister to help the Van Lang board deal with its difficulties. If you had not had the meeting of June the 17th, what do you believe would have or could have happened to the Van Lang Centre?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, their annual general meeting was coming up. I wasn't aware when we were arranging our meetings that their annual general meeting was so close in time, as a matter of fact, nor did Trinh Luu in the meeting of the previous week indicate that to me. So I guess that they would have had a change of their board membership. Certainly I would expect that they would have gone ahead with the special meeting removing Sharron Pretty, which did not happen as things turned out, though she was not re-elected to the board at the annual general meeting, which I believe occurred about a week ago or so -- just a week ago, I believe; less than a week ago.
The world would not have collapsed, but -- and the building would not have collapsed. But if the level of accusations and actions continued to escalate, and I believe that there is still a potential for that, then it makes it much more difficult for a board to operate. It may be with the changes on the board at this stage and all that has happened, there may be a -- what has happened may mean that the new board will not face some things that otherwise they might have had to face. There's no way of knowing.
The Chair: Okay. Ms Cronk.
Ms Cronk: Thank you. Ms Gigantes, I only have one or two questions. In the course of an exchange with Mr Murphy, you started to indicate with respect to the annual report, this year's annual report, 1993-94, of the Commission on Conflict of Interest, that you considered incident number 21 in that report to in some way be analogous or helpful to consideration of the situation that you were in. You did not complete that answer. Was there something you wanted to add about that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, not really. I thought it was closer -- I don't know that it's analogous, but I thought it was closer to this case than the case that he was raising.
Ms Cronk: I wanted to give you an opportunity to do that, and I want you to take a look at it. Can you confirm two things for me: first, that inquiry number concerns a pending civil proceeding between a businessman and a bank?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It doesn't say that.
Ms Cronk: What is your understanding of the nature of the proceeding that's being described in that inquiry?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It says, "A constituent, a small businessman represented by a lawyer, is involved in legal proceedings with a bank." It doesn't describe the nature of the legal proceedings.
Ms Cronk: When you considered this as being closer or more helpful than the inquiry that Mr Murphy was drawing to your attention, did you make the distinction between the type of proceedings that we talked about earlier, that is, a civil proceeding, or one pending under the Provincial Offences Act?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I did not look at it in that light. The light I looked at it in was the case that he was raising was one involving an action against the government.
Ms Cronk: And that, of course, was not the situation either in that respect?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's correct.
2400
Ms Cronk: And secondly, still with respect to inquiry number 21, as I read it, and please indicate if you agree, what Judge Evans is saying is that in the context of those kinds of proceedings, it was permissible for the member to meet with one of the parties to the proceeding to speak about it, but that the legal issues should remain with the lawyers for settlement.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, yes.
Ms Cronk: And you also indicated in the course of your evidence -- and I'm sorry, it was this side of the room and I don't remember who, but there was something that you wanted to say about having discussed or considered the comments in Audrey Moey's notes that have been put to you. You know, the passage from Audrey Moey's notes that have been put to you?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: Were you about to offer to the committee some understanding based on a discussion that you had with her, because, if so, I'm not going to invite you to do that, but if it was your understanding of what was said at the meeting, then you should be given an opportunity to comment on that.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm sorry, I've completely forgotten what might raise this question with you.
Ms Cronk: Okay. You were being asked a series of questions and in the course of them you were asked to compare the difference between what was in Audrey Moey's notes of what you had said about legal proceedings and stopping all actions and in that context you started to say something about that passage in the notes and you were unable to complete it. I'm simply giving you the opportunity, if it is your understanding of events, to say whatever it was that you wanted to say. It's hard to go back, I know.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, it's not only hard to go back, I think that it's probably impossible to go back. I'm sorry, I'd love to --
Ms Cronk: Quite all right.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I'd love to --
Ms Cronk: Having now given you an opportunity to comment on those two items, I just want to make sure that I didn't misunderstand something you said, which I hope was in passing. Is there something about the way this investigation and hearing has been conducted by this committee since its referral to this committee that you regard as constituting a Star Chamber inquiry? Because if so, I would like to know about that before you leave.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, no, no, no. No, no. No, when I used that term, I certainly did not wish to reflect in any sense upon the conduct of this committee. What I'm reflecting on is the grand scale, and that has been a choice which has been pressed on the government by the opposition and it was a choice really that was determined by the fact that the committee has been constituted with independent legal counsel, which means in turn that every person who appears before the committee feels that it is wise to have legal counsel, which then means that the committee has to assist in the payment of legal counsel, and of course, that's what becomes the expense, and that's what I was talking about. And my criticism is not on the conduct of this committee, it is on the conduct of our House.
Ms Cronk: In that context, would you agree with me, Ms Gigantes, that it is important that members of the government and in particular ministers of the crown be and be seen to be accountable in and to the public?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Absolutely. We can do that, I think, much better than we do, and I would also like to say on that point that I didn't think it necessary that we call outside witnesses, frankly. I thought at the beginning that if the members here wanted to grill me and question me, I was quite prepared to have that happen without -- and have people make accusations outside this room which I'd have to respond to within this room.
Ms Cronk: I understood the point you were making earlier to Ms Marland and that you've now made to me, but would you agree with me about this, that if there are questions of public confidence that arise because of a particular minister's conduct on any given occasion and if it is the view that those require public airing, I take it you would not object to that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Quite the contrary. I was pleased by Bob Rae's suggestion that we should have a hearing; quite the contrary.
Ms Cronk: All right. And then finally, Ms Gigantes, again, so that I understand, you had an exchange with Mr Callahan in which he suggested to you that your approach as taken in this situation was in favour of mediation, or that it was a mediator's approach; I didn't get his exact language. Is that the approach that you intended at the time and that looking back on it you believe you pursued, with respect to the June 17th meeting?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, but there are certainly limits to a minister's role in mediation, in my view, because a mediator who, for example, acts for a government ministry, a mediator who is a private mediator who is hired by parties, is responsible to those parties, but a minister who takes on a mediating role is also a minister.
Ms Cronk: Would you agree with me that when one acts as a mediator and one is also a minister of the crown that that is potentially a very difficult thing to do when there are court proceedings pending?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Of course.
Ms Cronk: It's a very problematic role.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't use the word.
Ms Cronk: You don't like the word "role" or "problematic"?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Problematic.
Ms Cronk: All right. I'm suggesting to you that when Mr Callahan suggested that the concept is one of a fine line, that it's really more of a slippery slope, would you agree with that?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I think it's an area which has to be very carefully bounded, is how I'd describe it.
Ms Cronk: Can we go this far together, that it's very difficult to discharge that kind of a role when there are court proceedings pending and ensure that no one involved misinterprets what you're doing or that you don't cross the line; that's very, very hard to do?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think that it's possible for people to misinterpret and there to be no difficulty.
Ms Cronk: And for that reason if no other, it's very, very hard to do?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I fully agree.
Ms Cronk: Indeed, the very fact that people have come before this committee and appear to have a misunderstanding or an understanding different from your own in some respects as to what occurred at that meeting is an indication of how very difficult it is?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I think that what we saw before this committee is not so much a misinterpretation or a different interpretation of what happened at the meeting; I, frankly, attribute it more to the claims that have been made about what happened at the meeting and the public brouhaha that happened.
Ms Cronk: I certainly understand that in the case of some of the people who have come to testify before the committee that is your view, but we've heard from a great many witnesses; there were nine people there.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right.
Ms Cronk: Exempting yourself, there are variances on the evidence, which I know you have heard because you were good enough to tell me that, between their recollection of what occurred at that meeting.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Ms Cronk: And I'm putting the proposition to you that in a situation of that kind it is often ripe for misinterpretation and that too makes it a very, very difficult role for a minister of the crown to discharge.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It is difficult, but you will also accept with me, I believe, that witnesses who come before an inquiry such as this one, where there has been so much -- such a wide and woolly amount of public allegation, are going to feel a great deal more tension about speaking candidly than they would in other circumstances.
Ms Cronk: Well, what my own views are on that, Ms Gigantes, are probably totally useless.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Mine may be too.
Ms Cronk: May I suggest this to you as well, in fairness to you, there are also situations where sometimes people hear what they wish to hear as opposed to what is said.
Mr Owens: Absolutely.
Hon Ms Gigantes: We all do that.
Ms Cronk: When I require an answer from the right, I'll let you know.
Mr Paul Johnson: It wasn't me.
Interjections.
Ms Cronk: Is there anything else you'd like to add about the June 17th meeting that you haven't told the committee?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think that we have gone through it in as much detail --
Ms Cronk: As you care ever to.
Hon Ms Gigantes: -- as possible and certainly as my brain allows.
Ms Cronk: Thank you very much, Ms Gigantes.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister. That was eight and a half hours. I didn't think it would take eight and a half hours for a one-and-a-half-hour meeting that you attended.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, before we adjourn, I have one thing --
The Chair: Don't worry, Margaret. Margaret, I will get to you. The Chair has the floor right now. Okay, I'd like to thank all the witnesses that appeared before the committee, and I mean some of them had stayed here close to two to three days to wait their turn, and they had patience. I'd like to thank the subcommittee. Most of the decisions that were made for this committee were done by the subcommittee; had to only go back to the House leaders just to extend one day, I believe, so that's work well done by the subcommittee, and it was an honour to be a Chair of the subcommittee that cooperated and made a lot of changes and a lot of hard decisions, which no one wanted to move but everybody did move.
The other thing is that all the committee members that are here -- and the books that are in front of you, you can take them home this weekend and bring them back to committee room 1 so you have some good reading. The other thing is that the staff's been here -- we were supposed to finish at 6 o'clock and a lot of them had plans to leave at 6 and, as you can see now, it's after midnight, so I'd like to thank the interpreters and Hansard and the ones behind the cameras and the clerks also for being with us here. Especially, I'd like to thank Mrs Cronk on the excellent job that she has done, and Mr Hourigan for assisting her in her job.
The other thing is that I want to make an announcement before I go to Ms Margaret Marland, that we'll be meeting at 10 am in committee room 1 on Tuesday, and the materials that we've got here we can take down to the committee room. Tonight it'll be locked.
Ms Marland, you have a comment?
Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, I think it's appropriate, at the end of what has been an extremely long and difficult week for all of us sitting in this room for 12 and 14 hours at a time, to put on the record my personal appreciation, and that also of my colleague Mr Harnick, of the excellent job that you have done as Chairman. You have been completely fair to all three caucuses, and I think it's a credit to you that we have had almost no partisan difficulties at all and I think that reflects very much on your chairmanship.
The other thing I want to put on the public record is that I have never taken part in this kind of inquiry before -- my colleague Mr Harnick has -- and my experience, not knowing what to anticipate, I must say publicly that I think that Ms Eleanore Cronk and Bill Hourigan from Fasken, Campbell, Godfrey have done a tremendous professional and --
Mr Callahan: This is the commercial.
Interjections.
The Chair: Let's not break our record.
Mrs Marland: -- exemplary fulfilment of their responsibility of counsel to this committee. We are personally grateful for their performance, their role and the fulfilment of that responsibility.
Ms Cronk: Thank you very much, Ms Marland.
Mr Callahan: I don't want to go through the same accolades except to say that I practised law for about 30 or 35 years and I have to say I have never seen -- I don't know how you stayed awake, the two of you, to do it, because I'm falling asleep and I didn't do anything, but I really have to say that I'm amazed. I remember flipping through the notes here and there was something about -- I don't want to leave you out, Mr Hourigan -- but something about the whiz kid or something. I believe it and I think you did an excellent job, and Ron, you're a super guy. You kept us from punching one another out, so I thank you for that.
Mr Marchese: I move a motion of concurrence on that.
Mr Owens: Motion to adjourn.
The Chair: Okay, this committee is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 0013.