CONTENTS
Wednesday 13 October 1993
Intended appointments
Robbie Goldberg, Travel Industry Compensation Fund
M.J. Cindy Dymond, Ontario Police Arbitration Commission
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Waters
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Yeager, Lewis, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1009 in room 228.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): Good morning. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the standing committee on government agencies. This morning we're going to review two appointments.
ROBBIE GOLDBERG
Review of intended appointment, selected by the third party: Robbie Goldberg, intended appointee as member, Travel Industry Compensation Fund board of trustees.
The Chair: I would like to invite Mr Robbie Goldberg to come forward, please, and have a seat. Make yourself comfortable. If you would like to make some brief opening comments to the committee, please feel free to do so. If you don't, we'll just start in rotation with our questions.
Mr Robbie Goldberg: Go ahead.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Good morning, Mr Goldberg. I would like to get some information from you, if I can. You've been in the travel industry for quite a few years, I observe. Is it Sunquest or Conquest?
Mr Goldberg: Conquest. That's my competitor.
Mr McLean: Is that a bad name to some of them or a good name?
The 2,400 registered travel agents: Do they each pay into the fund?
Mr Goldberg: Yes, they do.
Mr McLean: Is it about $240, or how much a year does it cost to register?
Mr Goldberg: There are two different types of registrants. There are the retail agents, who I think pay $3 for every $10,000 worth of business, and then there are the wholesalers; they pay more, about $12.
Mr McLean: For every $10,000?
Mr Goldberg: Yes, approximately.
Mr McLean: How much is in that fund? Do you have any idea?
Mr Goldberg: No. I'm not a member of the fund itself, but they just issued their yearly report and there's a deficit in it, I understand.
Mr McLean: There is a deficit? I haven't heard of many agencies or tour companies going bankrupt. I thought there'd be a lot of money in that fund.
Mr Goldberg: I'm not responsible for administering it, but there have been some bankruptcies in the last couple of years. It's pretty tough out there in all businesses.
Mr McLean: Do you think there are going to be more bankruptcies?
Mr Goldberg: I think over the past six or seven years there's been a weeding down and there are only a small number of big ones left. I believe that as far as tour companies are concerned, it's probably pretty well reached bottom.
Mr McLean: Are there any recommendations you would like to make that would make sure the customer is going to be refunded? Have there been some problems with that? Is it working now?
Mr Goldberg: There's no question the customer is well protected in the province. There's absolutely no problem there.
Mr McLean: But a while ago there were some people overseas and the company went bankrupt and they couldn't get them home for a few days.
Mr Goldberg: Which company was that?
Mr McLean: I don't know.
Mr Goldberg: As to the way it works, I'm the past president of the Canadian Association of Tour Operators and we have a trade organization. Even though we're competitors, we keep some standards for our own business. When a failure happens we get together as a committee on a voluntary basis. I'm currently the head of that and have been for the past while. We have to step in at the 11th hour, because we're not aware of when a failure happens until it does happen. We get together and we are responsible for bringing people home, or making recommendations to the government, which looks after this. I think the committee itself does a good job.
If you're referring to somebody not getting home on a certain day, the last bankruptcy that occurred this year was at the end of August, a company called Trendy Holidays, and on one given weekend there were about 500 people stuck in Italy. There are just not that many seats; there are regular people coming home. You can't invent an aircraft. But I know that the government took care of getting everybody home and I think the most anybody had to get home was a few days late or something because there were no seats.
Mr McLean: But at what cost to that individual? Would there be a cost?
Mr Goldberg: Nothing to the individual. The travel industry fund brought the people home on alternative equipment and it was up to the emergency committee, our private committee, to try to make the best deals with our own ongoing relationships with the airlines.
Mr McLean: Is that why you pay into a fund, to do that very thing, to help bring those people home?
Mr Goldberg: That's one aspect of it. The other aspect is that sometimes people pay money to a travel agency and then the travel agency closes its door and the customer obviously can't go on a holiday, so the fund pays them back what they paid to the travel agency. That's another aspect of the fund.
Mr McLean: I see. Does the board of trustees operate under the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
Mr Goldberg: I believe so.
Mr McLean: How many are on the board of trustees?
Mr Goldberg: I'm not sure.
Mr McLean: Has anybody briefed you with regard to the --
Mr Goldberg: I've been asked to join this board because of my experience in different aspects of the travel industry. I know the board is responsible for approving the claims that are put in. I know that aspect of it. How many people? I wouldn't know.
Mr McLean: Are rates up this year for people travelling on tours?
Mr Goldberg: A tiny bit because of the exchange. The rest of the components are pretty much stable. The world travel market hasn't come back yet.
Mr McLean: I have observed that some of them are up $100 over last year, based on a $300 to $400 fare. Would I be correct in assuming that?
Mr Goldberg: I don't know. Each tour company is individual. If you're asking me about my tours -- I'm answering for Conquest Tours -- we're generally the same, except for the exchange. However, if you get into an American exchange program, such as a $2,000 program to Jamaica or something that involves $1,500 worth of hotels, that's gone up 10% over the last year. However, some of the hotels have lowered their rates too.
Mr McLean: Do you think, then, that the fund adequately protects consumers?
Mr Goldberg: As far as the fund protecting the consumer is concerned, there's no question in my mind. I think the fund itself needs -- they are working on it now. We're trying to protect too many things. That's probably where there's a bit of work still to be done.
Mr McLean: The question I have is with regard to advertising. You'll notice a price advertised, but nine out of 10 times, that price is not available; it's sold out. You probably have four seats at that price. In the Michael Pepper 1992, the travel register indicated it was still concerned with truth in advertising in the industry. What's your opinion on that?
Mr Goldberg: I'll answer for my company. I disagree with you about the one seat available or whatever you referred to. It doesn't do us any good to promote something we don't have. We have people who work and answer the lines and sell our seats. I really believe that if that practice itself did occur some number of years ago, I just don't believe it's occurring now. There's just too much competition out there. There are too many seats, too few travellers. I believe everything that's out there, even from my competitors, is available. There could be others who are doing something wrong, but I don't believe the big companies --
Mr McLean: I've found that fares to Florida this year are up $100 over last year.
Mr Goldberg: I would disagree. I'm not sure who you're calling. This is not a push for my company.
Mr McLean: That's right. I'll give you lots --
Mr Goldberg: All I'm saying is we deal in charters. This is our business, leisure travel, and the charter fares that were released this year for the fall and winter of 1993-94 were exactly the same as for 1992-93, when they were announced. Now, granted, as the season goes on, there are fare wars and things change. But I can tell you the starting prices were exactly the same.
Mr McLean: Does your company purchase some planes, or do you rent them?
Mr Goldberg: We charter planes -- that's the terminology -- from different airlines.
Mr McLean: Is my time about up?
The Chair: You've got about 48 seconds.
Mr McLean: You can have my 48 seconds.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Just one question: Now that the Toronto separate board has indicated it's going to have two weeks of March break, will the fares for that second week go up, as they normally do during March break travel?
Mr Goldberg: Everybody's fares -- I can answer from my company: They won't. Our books are put out in August and it's up to us to determine when we're going to charge more and less. It's out. The specific answer is we do not charge more on the second week for our company.
Mrs Witmer: But is there a possibility that people could change their rates, now that they know?
Mr Goldberg: I don't think so. For the past few years there have been places like Hamilton that have had the second week off. It's had no impact on our sales in terms of a positive push.
1020
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I understood that with the airlines themselves, they don't pay into the fund.
Mr Goldberg: That is correct. I've been asked if the consumer is protected; I've said 100%. The biggest problem for the fund right now -- and I understand it's being considered in government legislation -- is airlines or people who don't pay into the fund. In other words, people can do business in the province without paying into the fund, yet the consumer receives payment if they go under. We have to pay it out of our funds.
Out of the failures over the last two years, over 50% of the payments have been caused by non-registrants. The actual policing of the industry and the state of the industry -- even though things are bad out there with everything -- is not so bad at all. It's these non-registrants that are causing us a drain on our funds. We have to pay into it.
Mr Frankford: In the US there have been all sorts of reorganizations and strange things happening with major airlines. Has that been one of the causes?
Mr Goldberg: I don't think it's any easier to start an airline today -- I think perhaps it's too easy to start one, but it's not changed despite hearing the word "deregulation." It's just that these airlines have started and they're underfunded and then after so many months they go under, and then people are getting paid back.
Mr Frankford: Yes, but when major ones get reorganized -- I can't remember any specific ones; was Continental one? -- does that put you at risk?
Mr Goldberg: There was, I guess a few years ago -- this is just my personal knowledge -- Eastern Airlines. There were some payments on that. Right now of course we have a major airline in our country where nobody knows the state of that. It's a concern.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): It seems to me that the travel industry as a whole is in a rather volatile, uncertain state at the moment, and the amount of money that your fund has had to pay out has rocketed from around $100,000 a month just a year or so ago to a million in June 1993. Are we looking at a real crisis in the travel industry? What do you think is the long-term outlook here?
Mr Goldberg: I think the business itself has reached its bottom and it's on its way up. There's no question that it's the same as anything else. With the recession today, people aren't buying washing machines; they're probably not going on trips either. So we have to be responsible.
I know in my own business we watch what we sell in terms of the number of seats. That's the controlling factor. I think the individuals who are there still are all long-term people. We're 21 years in business and most of the others ones have been there that long. I think we run responsible businesses. But as to the payouts, as I said, half of them have been from people who don't even pay into the fund.
When you consider that the business as a whole in the province is probably about $700 million or so and you have a payout of a couple of million dollars over a tough period, and half of it isn't even from registrants, I don't think it's anything worse than things like -- I'm sure it's not.
Ms Carter: I'm wondering what the longer-term outlook is here, because you depend on a lot of people having some disposable income. We seem to be looking now at a jobless recovery, so you wonder whether there's ever going to be as many people with money to spend on trips as there was in the recent past.
Mr Goldberg: Yes, it's a reasonable assumption. As an individual talking, we just take and change some of our -- last year we went to 15 destinations; now I'm going to 13. I've increased my business to Florida. We're finding people who, let's say, went to Hawaii before say, "Hey, it's too much money, but I will go to Florida." That's how we manipulate our business to stay healthy.
Ms Carter: But also there seems to a lot of turnover of companies within the business. Now obviously, some of you are well-established businesses, but there does seem to be this very temporary element of people who try and then fail.
Mr Goldberg: As far as travel agencies are concerned, I don't have that statistic; it's not my area of responsibility, of course. There may be some that start up, just like they start up a restaurant or something, but I know as far as wholesalers, there's only been two major ones in the last year and a half.
Ms Carter: Bankruptcies, yes. So one just hopes that this whole system is going to be able to meet its commitments over the longer term.
Mr Goldberg: I think the system does work as far as the consumer is concerned. There are some improvements that can take place to make sure the fund is healthy, and I think they are being worked on now.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr Goldberg, I was interested in the question Dr Frankford asked about airline failures. The fact that they don't pay into the fund but the fund pays out for their bankruptcies is a problem. I don't know how many bankruptcies there have been and what moneys have been devoted to that specifically. Do you know?
Mr Goldberg: Again from trade knowledge, it was one big payout. Over every month, I think, the fund meets and pays out some money. There was an airline, Yugoslavia, JAT, and I think they paid out close to -- they had a tour company arm and it failed and they paid out over $1 million last year approximately to people in Ontario. Of course, they didn't pay one penny into the fund, so that's a problem. We can't be covering the world.
Mr Marchese: Given that we can't regulate that because it's federally regulated, as I understand the problem, what would you recommend the Ontario government do in relation to airline failures?
Mr Goldberg: If we're going to make this a true consumer fund, which means the consumer doesn't have to worry --
Mr Marchese: Right.
Mr Goldberg: I'm just saying that's one option. I've looked at some numbers myself. Travel is a luxury, in my opinion, except for taking a bus trip to Gravenhurst to visit your mother. I think if you put a user fee of $1 per passenger, you'll come up with about $12 million in one year in the province.
We can protect most things. I'm not saying that's the complete answer because we don't know how big, if we want to protect every airline in the world. We're saying now that if you walk into a travel agency and you buy a ticket from South Africa to London, England, on British Airways, you're still protected if that carrier goes bankrupt.
Mr Marchese: But I was asking a different question. What you're saying is if the passenger pays into the fund, then we could take care of all --
Mr Goldberg: To a fund or whatever.
Mr Marchese: Right, but I was more concerned about the airlines not paying into the fund, as opposed to the individual paying into a fund when airlines go bankrupt.
Mr Goldberg: I'm looking at it the same way. Somebody has to charge the $1, okay? If the airline's going to charge the $1, then the fare's going to go up anyway. Somebody has to pay into a fund.
Mr Marchese: I see, but at the moment the tour operators pay into the fund.
Mr Goldberg: Yes, we pay into the fund out of our profits.
Mr Marchese: Would you suggest that continue, or do you suggest we somehow pass that to the traveller?
Mr Goldberg: At this point, we've costed that part in our business. We can survive with that. However, if we're going to continue to allow unlimited access to the fund, there'll come a day when we won't be able to pay the increased taxes if the deficit goes too high.
Mr Marchese: But in the same way that you pass on this cost to the fund through the profits that you made, presumably airlines could do that as well.
Mr Goldberg: I guess they could, but then you're going to get into this thing about federal legislation. You're not going to solve that overnight, and I think you have to solve this overnight.
Mr Marchese: That's why I wanted to ask you what you propose. Given that you get into federal legislation, what should the Ontario government do in relation to that?
Mr Goldberg: I think you should go back to this thing about the customer and the province, because you have control over it and hopefully even the slow wheels will move faster.
1030
Mr Marchese: You said that 50% of the funds paid out are due to those who are not registered.
Mr Goldberg: Of late, yes, and it's mainly airlines.
Mr Marchese: Ah, it's mainly the airlines.
Mr Goldberg: Yes. There are very few. There's probably one stray case of some tour company in Los Angeles that --
Mr Marchese: I thought you meant tour companies.
Mr Goldberg: No. They are watched by the government. You can't do business in the province unless you're registered.
Mr Marchese: I notice that most of the cases received compensation, in fact almost all; that very few are denied claims, in terms of the statistics we have in front of us. For what kinds of reasons might we deny someone a claim?
Mr Goldberg: I'm not part of that process yet, so I can only give you my understanding. If somebody dealt with an unregistered agent -- there are people out there that are sort of selling travel to friends or something, and you're just giving money like in any other business -- scam artists.
The Chair: I'm sorry, George, we're out of time for your caucus.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Thanks.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I don't have many questions; it's pretty well been covered. I guess everyone blames the recession on the problems affecting your industry. Are there any other problems that possibly we don't know about?
Mr Goldberg: No. Problems that maybe existed a number of years ago have been cleaned up. I think everybody in there is trying very hard to conduct business, and those that are having problems are just walking into some bad business decisions, more than anything.
Mr Cleary: One thing has been mentioned to me for some time now, especially lately. There are some big tours leaving for England in mid-November. These customers almost go annually, and they say the way they're catered to in that particular country is the reason they keep going back. Would you care to comment?
Mr Goldberg: You're asking me if people going to England are treated properly?
Mr Cleary: They say the way they're catered to there is the reason they go back on a yearly basis.
Mr Goldberg: I think it's true. I go there a lot.
Mr Cleary: You do, eh? Okay, thank you.
The Chair: Mr Cleary, did you want to give Mr Mammoliti a minute?
Mr Cleary: Give it to anybody.
Mr McLean: No, he doesn't have any more.
The Chair: No? Then we have completed the time allotted.
Mr Marchese: Mr Cleary said you can give it to anyone.
Mr McLean: No. You haven't got unanimous consent.
The Chair: All right. Mr Goldberg, I'd like to thank you very much for appearing before the committee this morning.
M.J. CINDY DYMOND
Review of intended appointment, selected by the official opposition: M.J. Cindy Dymond, intended appointee as chair, Ontario Police Arbitration Commission.
The Chair: Our next appointee is Cindy Dymond. If you'd like to come forward, Ms Dymond, we'd like to welcome you to the committee this morning. If you wish, you may make some brief opening comment to the committee about yourself or the appointment, and if not, we can just start in rotation with the questions.
Ms M.J. Cindy Dymond: Thank you. Good morning. I would just to say that I'm very glad to be here today and I'm very glad to be considered for this position as chair of the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission. I will do my best to answer any questions that you might have this morning.
Mr Cleary: We'd like to welcome you before the committee. We just wondered why you're so interested in this particular appointment.
Ms Dymond: The reason I'm interested in this appointment is because my background involves a lot of work in a wide variety of justice issues, for government, for the private sector and for the non-profit sector, and because the position involves alternative dispute resolution, which is a very important interest of mine.
Mr Cleary: Thank you very much. My first question: We all hear a lot about our neighbours to the east. The Quebec municipalities have called on their provincial governments to give police the right to strike and eliminate the current binding arbitration process for salary disputes. I guess we would like your opinion on that and your feelings on the benefits and drawbacks of both the arbitration process and the alternative of allowing police strikes.
Ms Dymond: Well, the right to strike is not permitted for essential services like police services by virtue of legislation, and I don't believe that in this position anything I would do would have any impact on that particular situation. I believe the function of the commission is to assist in the development of conciliation and arbitration services and that any focus of the commission would be related to those types of issues and not to making policy decisions about the right to strike.
Mr Cleary: What advice do you intend to give the Ontario government regarding these and other models for settling police salary disputes in the future?
Ms Dymond: For the next few years at least police salary disputes will, I expect, take not as much precedence as they have in other times because of the social contract. In this position, decisions about police salaries are subject to negotiation through conciliation or through the decision of an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators, so the decision would not be mine to make.
Mr Cleary: I think what you're trying to tell me is that your job may be easier for the next short period of time?
Ms Dymond: Well, in so far as salary issues are concerned. I'm sure there are other issues that arise in terms of grievances in the collective bargaining process, and the commission would still be dealing with those issues.
Mr Cleary: What role do you see for the commission in educating arbitrators with respect to policing matters and other working conditions?
Ms Dymond: One of the functions of the commission is to carry out research and to publish decisions of arbitration awards in police labour disputes. I think the main function of that information is an educational function for potential arbitrators so that they are well informed and are able to carry out their duties in a manner that gains the trust and the respect of the parties who are bringing the application before the arbitrator.
Mr Cleary: Another question I might have: How important do you view the part of the commission's mandate?
Ms Dymond: How important is which part of the commission's mandate?
Mr Cleary: Yes, the commission's mandate. How important do you view the part of the commission's mandate, the committee that you're going to be appointed to?
Ms Dymond: What part of the mandate are you referring to? The mandate in general?
Mr Cleary: I guess the grievances and --
Ms Dymond: The function of the commission, as I understand it, is to ensure that the entire arbitration process is carried out in a fair and impartial way. The commission itself is not conducting the arbitrations but is ensuring that a qualified panel of arbitrators is available to deal with those matters. That is the function of the commission, so obviously that's crucial.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): As the mandate states it, are you personally satisfied that it's going in the right direction?
Ms Dymond: Well, I'm not working with the commission now so I'm not involved in any internal matters or I'm not aware of any problems that have been expressed with respect to the commission. To the best of my knowledge at this point, yes, I am.
1040
Mr Curling: Let me ask you this then: Before being asked to serve on this, were you briefed at all by the commission?
Ms Dymond: No. The extent of my briefing was, when I applied for the position, I made a phone call to the commission staff and asked them to give me background on what position was available and how I would go about submitting my application.
Mr Curling: The reason I'm asking is because there are many competent people and people with great intentions serving on boards and agencies. What we have found is that some people who have come forward or been asked or who volunteer haven't got a full understanding of the mandate of that commission or agency. My understanding is that the ministries usually call those individuals in and give them a briefing about what is happening.
Ms Dymond: Prior to the appointment being --
Mr Curling: Sometimes prior to the appointment.
Ms Dymond: I conducted research myself on the mandate. I have the legislation, I have all of the public information that was available, but I conducted that research myself; I wasn't briefed by anyone in the ministry. I don't consider it appropriate to receive a briefing before an application is made.
Mr Curling: I'm glad you say that, because I have mixed feelings about that. Sometimes I think a briefing is important because some people want to serve on commissions and do not fully understand the implications of it and the time commitment of this. They have good intentions and then realize that it is more than what one offered. Sometimes we have feelings that when people who are briefed before, it is good.
On the other hand, when people come before us, it's almost like something has already been completed, that all we are over this side is a rubber stamp. We have no power to reject your application; the power lies over there. That is why I think my colleague was asking, "Having done your research, how do you feel about its mandate?" and you said you really don't know the intent or the full --
Ms Dymond: No, I didn't say I didn't know what the intent of the mandate was. I do know what the mandate is. I understand the mandate. I thought he was asking me whether I supported the mandate and I said, to the best of my knowledge, I support the mandate, because not being in the position yet, I'm unaware of any complaints about the mandate or any issues that have been raised with respect to that mandate. However, at this point I do support the mandate and I understand what it is.
Mr Curling: Okay, and I'm happy about it. Could I ask you one other question then? What other research do you feel would be most valuable at this time in order to improve the commission? Could you give me some comment on that?
Ms Dymond: The issues that would improve the work of the commission?
Mr Curling: Yes.
Ms Dymond: The commission's mandate is restricted to arbitration and conciliation services as they affect police bargaining rights and collective agreements, so any issues that arise would be issues that come within that mandate.
The commission also has a broader general goal with respect to promoting harmonious personnel relations in the police forces, so that any issues that arise that could be grouped under that broad umbrella could be dealt with in a conciliation format by the commission.
Mr Curling: Ms Dymond, I should apologize for jumping in on you like this because my colleague has taken over --
Mr McLean: Because you were late, that's why.
Mr Curling: As my colleague said, I was late.
Ms Dymond: You are not jumping on me. I am happy to answer your questions.
Mr Curling: No, I was just saying I jumped into the middle of all of this, and I appreciate your answers. It is of extreme importance, actually, how the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission works, as you know, because many of the processes have been in question.
Last weekend or two weekends ago, I was sitting on a panel with the police and the public, and in this interaction with politicians -- I think the members on the government side are not quite interested in the process, however -- I find people are quite suspicious. I would like to get rid of that kind of suspicion of the behaviour of how police work in the community. That is why we asked those questions about how you feel about the mandate and what kind of research would be useful in order to improve the process. My question is, do you feel that the process needs to be improved?
Ms Dymond: As far as I know, there are no problems with the arbitration and conciliation processes that fall within the mandate of the arbitration commission. I do read the papers and I understand there are other problems with the community perception of the police in some cases, but I don't think those are areas that necessarily fall within the mandate of this particular commission.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Curling: Not even one more?
The Chair: No.
Mr Curling: Can I comment?
The Chair: No, I'm sorry. Mr McLean.
Mr McLean: Ms Dymond, I'd like to ask you some questions with regard to your background. In 1982 you graduated from the bar?
Ms Dymond: I was called to the bar in 1982, yes.
Mr McLean: In your six years' experience as an independent legal consultant for a number of clients, did you work for any firm for any period of time?
Ms Dymond: Any law firm?
Mr McLean: Yes, law firm.
Ms Dymond: Not particularly during that period.
Mr McLean: I noticed you worked for Kennedy, Dymond from 1989 to May 1992.
Ms Dymond: Part-time. I also worked in a law firm shortly after I was first called to the bar, for two years.
Mr McLean: You were with Community Legal Education Ontario in the position of executive director, with overall responsibilities to a volunteer board of directors. What did that board do?
Ms Dymond: Community Legal Education Ontario is funded as an Ontario legal aid clinic with a mandate of public legal education for the province of Ontario. The clinic writes, produces and distributes materials about the justice system and legal issues for a broad range of clients throughout the province. They don't in fact offer legal services. Their activities are restricted to public legal education activities.
Mr McLean: What area in your résumé would reflect the experience that you have with regard to any arbitrations?
Ms Dymond: Well, that résumé is a few months old. I think I applied for this position in early June, and since then I have actually taken training as a mediator and I am qualified as a mediator now. I took that training with the Arbitration and Mediation Institute of Ontario.
Mr McLean: Is that a special course provided by the government?
Ms Dymond: Not by the government, no.
Mr McLean: By whom?
Ms Dymond: By the Arbitration and Mediation Institute of Ontario, which is a private institute that offers mediation training and arbitration training.
Mr McLean: You haven't had the chance to put any of that to use, what you've learnt there?
Ms Dymond: Well, I think the skills that the course teaches are skills that can be put into use in all kinds of practice, but I haven't conducted any mediation or arbitrations at this point.
Mr McLean: In your position as senior lawyer in a staff of nine providing research development with regard to the Ontario Task Force on Financial Institutions, was that report completed?
Ms Dymond: Yes. That was in 1985, I believe.
Mr McLean: What the essence of that report?
Ms Dymond: The task force was called in response to the failures of the various trust companies -- I think this is going back about 10 years now -- and it dealt with issues concerning the powers of the various levels of financial institutions and ways in which those institutions could be better regulated to safeguard public interests. I believe a number of the recommendations from the report have been put into place.
Mr McLean: Have you had any experience with regard to the Police Services Act? Do you know how it's set up?
Ms Dymond: I know how it's set up and I've read the legislation. I haven't worked directly in that field. My work with police has not been that direct, but I was involved with a number of representatives of various police forces across the country when I worked for the federal Department of the Solicitor General doing firearms control policy.
1050
Mr McLean: What about the arbitrators with regard to salary decisions? Would that be part of the job?
Ms Dymond: Salary of police?
Mr McLean: I'm talking about the salary of the police, yes. Would you be dealing with Lymer -- or who's the head of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association?
Ms Dymond: All of the municipal police associations and the police services boards have their own collective agreement with respect to salaries of police, and the commission is only involved when there is a dispute and one of the parties requests arbitration or conciliation. That could extend to salary matters, although I don't think it will under the terms of the social contract for the next three years.
Mr McLean: The commission's responsibility includes sponsoring research on the subjects of agreements, arbitrations and awards. That course that you took would put you in good stead as far as that type of thing, wouldn't it?
Ms Dymond: In terms of understanding the arbitration process and what's required of a good arbitrator and how the whole system works, I think so, yes.
Mr McLean: Good luck.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Thank you, Ms Dymond, for coming. We appreciate it.
You did mention earlier about the effect of the social contract. I'm sure all of us from across the province are seeing this right now in our newspapers, and certainly talk of the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission. Because I represent Niagara Falls, which is part of the Niagara region, we've certainly seen in the newspapers the importance of your work, from time to time, as a commission.
What I wanted to ask you, first of all, is your vision as the head of this organization; whether you would see any need for change or improvement or direction that you would want to take the commission.
Ms Dymond: The five commissioners who operate as the commission only meet once every month or once every two months or as issues arrive. It's a very part-time kind of operation with a small staff that operates the administrative aspects on a day-to-day basis. I don't believe it's the kind of position that requires day-to-day direction and a lot of initiative taken by the commissioners to overhaul the system or anything like that. I don't anticipate that there will be a lot of major issues that require that kind of revision or overall revision. I think the impetus for any kind of change or revision would be coming from issues that arise during the course of my tenure on the commission.
Ms Harrington: Do you feel that the commission is now operating very effectively?
Ms Dymond: To the best of my knowledge, yes.
Ms Harrington: I see.
You also mentioned, earlier, mediation. How would you see your background with mediation affecting this job? Would you be interested in moving towards mediation as opposed to arbitration?
Ms Dymond: The request for mediation or for arbitration comes from the parties or from one of the parties, so I wouldn't be particularly promoting one over the other. In some cases I think mediation is more appropriate than arbitration, but in some cases mediation can't resolve the dispute, and in that case people do have to go to arbitration.
Ms Harrington: Is the job of the commission to select arbitrators?
Ms Dymond: Yes. I believe the commission has on hand a panel of qualified arbitrators who are experienced in police issues.
Ms Harrington: And what are some of the main characteristics that you would want in these arbitrators?
Ms Dymond: Given the sensitivity of police issues, I think it's very important in this particular area that arbitrators have some knowledge of the Police Services Act and police relations and have some sensitivity to the complexity of policing in Ontario. Those are qualities that I think are especially important for these particular arbitrators. But in general, I think the broadest but most fundamental qualification that all arbitrators require is impartiality and neutrality, and they have to have a well-developed sense of fairness and they have to be perceived to be fair by the parties whose dispute is being resolved.
Ms Harrington: Just one last question before I pass to my colleague. How would you ensure that the arbitrators do in fact know or have familiarity with policing issues?
Ms Dymond: I think there is a panel in place now of arbitrators who in fact have quite a bit of experience in dealing with these issues. I think their competence and their impartiality have to be evaluated, and in that way the panel becomes more and more qualified and more and more respected in terms of their credentials.
For new arbitrators, I think they can benefit from the research and publishing function of the commission and they can become more knowledgeable about past awards and how disputes have been handled in previous cases.
Ms Harrington: Would you also ensure that all segments of the population are represented, as arbitrators?
Ms Dymond: I'm not sure what you mean by all segments of the population.
Ms Harrington: Similar to employment equity.
Ms Dymond: Yes.
Mr Marchese: Just on the issue of mediation versus arbitration, and you talked about not promoting one or the other, my immediate sense would be to say that we should encourage mediation at all times. Is it your sense that you would know that at some particular moment mediation wouldn't work and therefore you have to immediately move to arbitration? Is that why you would say you don't promote one versus the other?
Ms Dymond: No, I'm saying I wouldn't be the person making that decision. The request for arbitration or mediation services comes from one of the parties to the dispute. If people request mediation services, then the commission is there to make sure those services are available to them. If arbitration is requested, then those services are available as well. I'm just saying it wouldn't be my decision which case was more appropriate, but in general, I think that mediation offers in many ways a more satisfactory resolution of issues than arbitration does and I'm in favour generally of promoting mediation as a primary form of alternative dispute resolution.
Mr Marchese: So you basically respond to the request for mediation or arbitration.
Ms Dymond: That's what the commission does.
Mr Marchese: You don't at any point say to them, "Have you considered this?"
Ms Dymond: Perhaps the commission, in dealing with those requests, is asked for advice on those points. I'm not sure because I don't work there yet, so I don't know how these things work in fact. But I'm sure that all of the police services boards and police associations are aware -- I know they are -- of the availability of both forms of resolution.
Mr Marchese: I know they would be. My sense would be to say that presumably you would have a sense of what they might want to do and would offer a suggestion rather than simply saying: "We're here for mediation-conciliation or arbitration. You choose and we're there to do one or the other."
Ms Dymond: I think the forms are prescribed and they apply in writing for either one or the other.
Mr Marchese: On the whole issue of fairness, you talked about the need for arbitrators to be impartial, and I understand that. How do you as a commissioner decide what fairness is? Do you have a test for what fairness or neutrality might look like as you interview the arbitrators?
Ms Dymond: I don't think there is an absolute test for fairness. I don't think fairness can be determined by an appropriate answer to a single question or anything like that. Fairness is a very broad concept. It's kind of a generic concept, and it has something to do with the perception of fairness and not just fairness as an absolute principle, so there can be no simple test for fairness, but it has to do with experience, reputation and the perception of neutrality.
Mr Marchese: Have there been examples in the past where, through your experience, you might have encountered someone who was presumed to have been neutral but in the course of events it didn't turn out that way? Can we learn from those experiences about what to avoid or what to look for as we look for candidates?
Ms Dymond: As I say, I think it has a lot to do with the perception. In some cases, an arbitrator or a mediator may in fact be neutral and be impartial and be disinterested, but it may not appear that way to one of the parties. That's obviously a key component of it. Was there another part to your question?
Mr Marchese: No, that's fine. It's very difficult, this whole notion, but I understand you would base your opinion on experience and what people have done and the presumption of neutrality and all that.
Ms Dymond: Yes; and there is research done by the commission, and presumably that involves some analysis of previous decisions and whether they've been contested or whether there have been any problems with respect to them.
Mr Marchese: What would you do in the event that an arbitrator made a ruling and both parties felt that they were not treated fairly through the ruling?
Ms Dymond: There is provision for conciliation services where an arbitration award is perceived to be unfair by both parties. Presumably, they would be raising that issue and would be seeking some kind of conciliation or mediation services to deal with that. Is that what you mean?
Mr Marchese: Well, a ruling is made. Both parties say, "This doesn't satisfy us." If that is the case, what would you do? You said there's something in place that they can then apply for.
Ms Dymond: They can apply for conciliation, but arbitration is binding. That's my understanding. It's a continuum, like a judicial hearing.
Mr Marchese: So if there was a ruling made by an arbitrator and both parties are unhappy, then there's nothing that you as the commissioner can do about that?
Ms Dymond: It might depend also on what the circumstances are and why the parties are unhappy. It would be unlikely that a decision would be unacceptable to both parties unless the arbitrator was perhaps impartial, so it might require some investigation of that issue.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Dymond, for appearing before the committee this morning.
I would like to entertain a motion to approve the two appointees this morning.
Mr Marchese: I move concurrence, Madam Chair.
The Chair: All in favour of the motion? Opposed, if any?
Mr Curling: Are you voting on both of them at the same time?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Curling: Just record it that I voted on the second one.
The Chair: All right. We're voting on the appointment of Mr Robbie Goldberg as a member of the Travel Industry Compensation Fund board of trustees and Ms Cindy Dymond as chair of the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission. On that motion, all in favour?
Mr Curling: Again, I'd make the point that I am only voting on approving Ms Dymond's appointment.
The Chair: That's clear and understood.
That motion is carried. Thank you.
I'd like to draw to the attention of the committee that on the reverse side of your agenda this morning, you will see that we did reschedule the other two appointments, as we discussed last week.
Is there any other business? There being no further business, I thank you for your attendance. The committee is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1104.