INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
HENRY FROESE
CONTENTS
Wednesday 27 May 1998
Subcommittee reports
Intended appointments
Mr Henry Froese
Mr Phillip Sweetnam
Mr James McKellar
Mrs Barbara Wellard
Mr Gerald Huck
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Présidente
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur L)
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth PC)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North / -Nord PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere PC)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon / Lac-Nipigon ND)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 0905 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Chair (Ms Frances Lankin): You have before you an agenda. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of subcommittee reports.
The first is the report of the subcommittee dated Thursday, May 14. May I have a motion to adopt that? Mr Grimmett. Any debate? Seeing none, all those in favour, please indicate. Opposed? That's carried.
There is a report of the subcommittee dated May 21. That is for witnesses who will be brought forward on June 10. Could I have a motion to adopt? Mr Grimmett. Any debate? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Just noticing the list from the subcommittee report of May 21, the number of witnesses who are being called to come forward will necessitate the committee beginning at 9:30 on June 10. Is there agreement to that? Perhaps we could make note of that then.
The second item on the agenda is the appointments reviews. Just before we begin that, I want to indicate that as a result of the decision the committee took the last time, there will be half an hour per witness. That time will be split three ways between the three caucuses. It will be my intent to proceed as we do in question period. The first questioning will begin with the official opposition, of the first witness, move to the New Democratic Party and then to the government caucus. When the second witness comes forward, we will begin with the New Democratic caucus, then the government caucus, and will continue to rotate like that.
I remind members that the committee voted to change the procedure so that each caucus will have 10 minutes and they may use up to those 10 minutes. If you do not use the full 10 minutes, the time will not be reserved at the end. We will just proceed to the next caucus.
As has been the practice of the committee, if any of the witnesses coming forward have a brief statement they would like to make to the committee, they will be allowed to do so and that time will be considered part of the government caucus time.
Do we have an understanding? Terrific.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
HENRY FROESE
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Henry Froese, intended appointee as member, Council of the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario.
The Chair: I call forward the first invited witness, Henry John Froese. Mr Froese, welcome to our committee. You may, if you wish, make a brief comment to the committee.
Mr Henry Froese: Good morning. I consider it a privilege to be able to attend an appointment council with you and I appreciate making a few remarks.
As you probably noticed from my CV, my career did not take me entirely into the health care area, and as such, through my industry and education background, it's perhaps rather unusual for me to be interested in health education. However, at the outset I might indicate that my experiential education and my cooperative education work that I've been involved in gave me a really good insight into what exactly I'd like to do at this particular time.
I was not an expert at that time in cooperative education and experiential education, as you see on my résumé. However, it is now probably the most recognized mode of education for high school and college students. Cooperative education now is totally involved in every high school in Ontario and possibly in Canada. I was one of those pioneers and I'm delighted to be involved with that.
Within co-op, for six years I developed secondary school curriculum. I was involved with 22 colleges of education and the universities to sequence this education through the learning of a student and giving them opportunities not only to do the math, English, science, geography, whatever they did in high school, but to continue it out in the practice of work in the real world. Accordingly, it would be interesting for a student to get one, two or three high school credits in physiotherapy as it would be in any other discipline which is related to high school studies.
While I was president of the Ontario Cooperative Education Association, we were granted $14 million to expand co-op ed in Canada. It was totally wonderful to understand that Ontario was leading, with a lot of other countries in the world such as Germany, Austria and Italy -- when I was over there -- to see that we were preparing students in these areas. Physiotherapy just happened to be one of those disciplines.
In my technical business life, I was involved in many areas, contacting industries and businesses and professionals. Updating of teachers from the computer era was of interest to me. I wasn't an expert when I started. Here I am now, not an expert, but I'm willing to work very hard on this commission.
In my avocational life, I guess I'm involved in coaching and instructing. Preventive work seems to be as important to me as working behind the scenes and trying to rehab somebody in the end. Consequently, I'm involved in trying to identify programs which enable people to get ready, in their autumn of their life like me or maybe winter of my life; I'm not so sure. Hopefully not? But I think we want to prevent injuries and try to work with physiotherapists and rehab people to prepare them for extracurricular things such as skiing and master's category of competitions and working in preparing them rather than working with rehabilitating them at the end.
I have no agenda where the commission is concerned. I recognize that I need to be updated on some of the arrangements and some of the work the college has done. I work towards perfecting programs and I try hard to look at lifelong learning. I think the college of physiotherapy along with other education should possibly continue to educate constantly. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr Gravelle, if we can begin with you, 10 minutes.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Mr Froese. I think clearly you're in the autumn, at the worst, of your years or so. You indicated to some degree why you're specifically interested in this particular position, but did you specifically apply to be a member of the council of the College of Physiotherapists? Did you actually ask to be on this particular board?
Mr Froese: Yes. I searched, through my constituency office, where exactly I could contribute some time. They gave me as much information as possible. I applied and I submitted my résumé, my CV, to this field.
Mr Gravelle: Then you obviously heard that your appointment was being put forward. You indicated the reason for your interest as well, in terms of your connection with sports, in essence. You have some awareness of the profession itself. Can you tell me what it is you do? You say you have no agenda. I appreciate what you were saying. Having said that, I'm sure you have some opinions in terms of the whole profession itself. I'm just curious: What do you want to accomplish? What are some of your goals if you are appointed today?
Mr Froese: There probably is no one outstanding issue. There are possibly half a dozen subcommittees, and within those I'll have to find out exactly how things work. To monitor, report, deliver and consequently look at the outcome of physiotherapy in its total realm is of interest to me. Perhaps more than anything else, continuing their education as new technologies appear constantly is of interest to me. When you're talking about TENS, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, whatever that is, when it's new on the market and practitioners have to go back to college to do their studies, that's very important to me. That kind of continuous education seems to be a focal point of my interest.
Mr Gravelle: Have you had much experience in a personal sense with physiotherapists?
Mr Froese: Sorry, I haven't been banged up lately. I really value that. But I have colleagues who have and they've attributed a lot of good to their services.
Mr Gravelle: What is your understanding in terms of their precise role? Is it fairly well defined in your mind?
Mr Froese: Yes, it is very clearly defined: to regulate their practice. They are a self-governing, self-regulating group, governing according to the law. They're developing standards of excellence through certification in knowledge and skills. Their code of ethics is very broad. It's a code of practice. Their code of ethics is extremely broad. When I developed curriculum to try to say that these students, whether it be college or high school students, should study these things, it was very difficult to delineate the confidentiality of those particular students who should be working with these highly professional people. It's a very highly respected discipline.
Mr Gravelle: Have you taken advantage of the opportunity to read up on the Regulated Health Professions Act and the Physiotherapy Act?
Mr Froese: Probably not as much as I should. I have work to do on that, absolutely, other than the code of ethics and the code of practice. Some of the details of their treatment -- I guess it's mostly treatment which has to do with mechanical and discogenical pain rather than drugs. As to that kind of information, I'm not that aware of it. I don't have any degree related to that work.
Mr Gravelle: Do you have any concerns about the profession itself? Is there anything that throughout your years, in terms of your interest in it, you might want to express to the committee?
Mr Froese: I don't have any. Within that, I have no baggage; I come in here with an idea of wanting to contribute, learn, monitor and report accordingly. I don't have any information of anything that's demeaning or contrary to what they are doing, that they shouldn't be doing. I'd just like to see that there is a monitoring procedure that makes sure excellence is pursued.
0920
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr Froese, I must admit that if it weren't for one of my daughters' interest in physiotherapy, this would not be a field I would think of, generally speaking, as something I would want to do as a member of the public. But she says she wants to be a physiotherapist. That's interesting.
You have answered most of my questions in terms of your introductory remarks. I was interested in what you might have learned in Germany and/or Italy about what they do in the field of physiotherapy as it relates to the secondary school system or something else. Did you learn something there that would be of advantage to us?
Mr Froese: I learned that they are into a school-work situation which is a dual system of practice and work. It continues for a long time, let's say like a chef has a seven-year apprenticeship. These apprenticeship systems are not that long in the Canadian scene. Since I work with technology and business, it relates very much to a shorter period of time. I think the Europeans honour their system very much, and they regulate that longer period of methodical, repeated, disciplined study. I think we can learn something from that part, in school and back on the job, in school and back on the job, continuously.
Mr Marchese: I suspect we could learn a lot from Germany in particular. I was there about 12 or 13 years ago. We looked at their apprenticeship system and realized how advanced it is relative to what I think we've got, where a lot of the corporations themselves spend billions of dollars doing apprenticeship programs, as opposed to government spending its dollars through an educational system to try to teach people various fields, which is always done better, obviously, in the actual field itself. But I'm not sure we could teach one or two courses of physiotherapy in high school because it's so crammed already with required courses. I don't know how we would fit that in. Do you have a sense of how we might do that?
Mr Froese: Yes. We do it through this experiential learning, which is called co-op ed. Every student has to take their mandatory number of credits for their grade 12 and then their OACs. However, they can move off to co-op ed, especially at the senior level. Most of us in this room probably didn't get high school credits by working at a bank if you wanted to be an accountant. It would be kind of nice to know exactly what an accountant does in terms of the particular specialty field and being in it. We probably apprenticed at McDonald's or something like that, which makes us proficient in some part, but not necessarily in the higher trades. Now it's very common for us to be involved in funeral directing, in police work, in doctor assistance, which you might think is very confidential and very unusual, but we have thousands of students involved as an add-on to their particular high school credits now.
Mr Marchese: Mr Froese, I think you'll be a good member of this council and I wish you the best.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Welcome, Mr Froese. I've just got a couple of questions for you. I've had the opportunity to meet with the chairs of government agencies as a group and discuss with them the concerns and requirements they have as far as the type of members they'd like to see appointed to government agencies is concerned. One of the characteristics they said they like to see in members is an ability to make decisions, write decisions and deliver those required decisions in a timely manner. Do you have any comment on your ability to deal with that requirement?
Mr Froese: I think each decision-making process requires solid research and knowing exactly where we're going with it. There would have to be a time of testing out that particular procedure before you absolutely put the program in place. I'd like to see that pre-test done as immediately as possible to try to expedite these activities. I like to get on with the job. I haven't delayed on too many projects. When we didn't have funding for particular programs, when they were cut off -- that's a very big issue in everybody's life -- I found alternative methods immediately to find funding by going to industry, by going to business, by going in other directions, to other professions, to get an answer and put something on the table and get on with it. I haven't delayed, and I've enjoyed that immediate activity.
Mr Grimmett: Thank you. That's my question.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): I have more an observation than a question, sir. Welcome here. If you can do anything to promote co-op education, you'll be doing one of the greatest services to this province that anybody can do. We don't have to go to Germany; we can go to Flint, Michigan, and see the cooperation between the education system and GM and the education system and the Cott Corp. For 24 hours a day the schools are working, 24 hours a day the schools are open, and that's as far as we have to go to find out how co-op education really does work. If you can do anything to promote that, you'll be doing a great service.
Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton): It's somewhat ironic that we should be talking about the profession of physiotherapy today, because my wife at this very moment is at a physiotherapist. She had to wait quite a while to get an appointment with the physiotherapist, and it leads me to believe that there may be a shortage of physiotherapists who are operating on their own to look after post-operative care, broken legs or other limbs. Would you like to comment on what your knowledge is about the supply of physiotherapists and how you would encourage more people to get into the field?
Mr Froese: I understand there are upwards of 5,000 physiotherapists in our employment, from what I read. I don't know what the fair ratio is of that. I just came off a coroner's jury -- this is not directly related, but immediately. That particular service of psychiatrists is absolutely appalling in Canada, where we have something like one to 50,000, when we should have one to 8,000 people. If that's a reality and the ratio is that bad in some of the disciplines, and if physiotherapy is that way as well, then we should definitely motivate people to an education process and show them exactly what should be available to them.
It's a fascinating field. It's a very specialized field, a non-drug type of work, and I think it doesn't require as long a study period as doctors, medical professional surgeons would, so it would be easier for a student to proceed on through that kind of a career. But I don't think too many people have absolutely been educated to that degree, to say, "These are the opportunities for that and I'll take a look at it." Schools should have more of those experts in those subject areas, those guidance departments, those career days, to understand what these specialized fields are. That's what I'd like to see.
The Chair: Thank you very much for joining us today, Mr Froese.
We'll be dealing with the motion for concurrence at the end of this morning's session, if that's acceptable to everyone.
PHILLIP SWEETNAM
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Phillip Sweetnam, intended appointee as member, Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal.
The Chair: I now welcome Mr Sweetnam. If you have a brief statement that you would like to make to the committee, please feel free to do so at this time.
Mr Phillip Sweetnam: Good morning, Madam Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen of the committee. I just thought I'd give you a few words about my background so you might judge my ability to serve on this committee.
My background is in the modular housing business. From the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, we built approximately 250 homes in the Stittsville area. In the mid-1970s, we built approximately 116 homes in a leasehold community. It was the first community to a full CMHC standard. During the 1980s, the balance of the 140 homes were built in the standard freehold way of producing homes.
I might say to you, in my view, there's no trick to being able to make good homes at $150,000; I think the bit of innovation that our company was able to do was to use the manufactured-type housing to create a cost-effective home perhaps 20% below market value, the selling prices in the area at the time, with a good-quality home, with an effective quality control program. We had few complaints to the Ontario New Home Warranty Program.
I'd say the process of dealing with the modular blocks has actually spawned a new house-moving business for us. The backbone of that kind of business is moving portable classrooms and lifting cottages so they can be floodproofed and so on, but there's also a prestige side of that, the heritage preservation. At Queen's University we were able to move around about six homes, and three large brick homes were moved from the core so the Stauffer Library could be built. They went out near the section of the prison for women. They're used for promoting education and so on in the area of prison guards and the like.
We've also moved the Walkerville town hall in the Windsor area, and a crew has recently just come back from Arctic Bay, where about six homes were moved from the mine near Arctic Bay to the town of Nanisivik.
In conclusion, I just hope that I can demonstrate to you that my background and knowledge of the housing business will enable me to effectively serve as a member of CRAT.
0930
The Chair: The third party caucus, 10 minutes.
Mr Marchese: Mr Sweetnam, you touched in part on the first question I'm about to ask. This tribunal obviously covers many areas, 19 statutes in all, but I understand about 400 cases are dealt with each year. Half of the cases that are dealt with by tribunal members arise under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act. You're familiar with that, I'm sure.
Mr Sweetnam: Yes. I've heard 40% to 45%, but yes, approximately half.
Mr Marchese: Clearly that's part of the main work you would be dealing with, and you commented about the experience that you've had as a developer. Could you comment on how that experience will lead you to be a good tribunal member in terms of hearings around those particular issues?
Mr Sweetnam: I think the important issue is to render decisions. As you know, with the new home warranty program, if people aren't happy with the way the builder treats them, they appeal to the new home warranty program. If they're not happy with the way the new home warranty people treat them, then they appeal to CRAT. I would think my knowledge of buildings and building codes and so on would enable me to help the committee reach an expeditious and judicious decision based on the evidence that comes before us. I think I could work well with the other members, in consultation. I would be there as one of the board members is my understanding.
Mr Marchese: I used to work in construction many years ago, and it seems to me that we used to build a lot better in the old days. That would be about 25 years ago. I'm not sure that we do a similar good job these days of construction. What is your sense of that as a developer? Are we still maintaining the same standards in construction as I think we used to, or what?
Mr Sweetnam: In terms of things like R factor and so on, I think the standards have generally gone up. There are other aspects which I would like people to point out to people who are purchasing homes, for instance, a chipboard floor, Aspenite-type floor. I would not like to see those, but it's an acceptable standard. If developers or people who are selling houses put forward some options they can explain to people, often people will take your advice.
As a person who has done sales, I know it's important to have a cost-effective product at the end of the day, but part of that comes in your success in the presentation of saying, "Are you prepared to pay the several hundred dollars extra in order not to have a chipboard floor?" as an example.
As a short answer, I believe the construction quality is going up and it needs a combination of good developers and discerning people to ensure that that quality continues on up.
Mr Marchese: Can I ask you, is everyone who buys a home aware that they're entitled to make a complaint under this Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act?
Mr Sweetnam: You sign up, you indicate what the problems are at the start and so on. I believe people are aware that that's their right. You outline at the move-in time what you think the problems are and what needs to be rectified.
Mr Marchese: A final question: There's a task force that has been set up which has released its report on regulatory and adjudicative agencies. The task force recommended that the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal be merged with the Licence Suspension Appeal Board, the Private Vocational School Review Board, the licensing function of the Child and Family Services Review Board and a new licensing appeals tribunal. The task force argued that this merger would achieve administrative efficiencies and save money. It would seem to me that merging all of these boards under one, yes, could save money, but I'm not sure that it necessarily would or that it would make it more efficient. Do you have an opinion on that?
Mr Sweetnam: First, I haven't been a member of the committee so I'm not sure I'm really qualified to make extensive comments on it. I did take the opportunity to go around to the office of CRAT and speak to the chair of the committee and he showed us some of the qualities of performance which are there. My recollection is, in the early days, there was perhaps 20% utilization of committee rooms. I think they've got that up because now that there are more houses being built and hence more appeals, I think the use of committee rooms is up to 60%. If they could achieve 90% use and have one office manager, perhaps there are some efficiencies.
I'm speaking theoretically. Really, the chair is the one who should say, "Here's the optimum point," because I know with hospitals, there's a certain point that you get to, a size where it's no longer efficient to get there. The chair of the CRAT committee would be a good person to ask about that, whether it's at an optimum size. Looking at the charts that were presented to me, I think there is some room for administrative efficiency there. They look like fairly sophisticated committee rooms, and when I was there, they weren't being used. If you could use those for licence board hearings -- or somebody whose wheel has come off his truck or whatever and feels that he's had an unjust suspension -- I think that would be effective utilization.
The Chair: Government caucus, you have about seven minutes.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Thank you, sir, for appearing. A couple of things: You had made comment that you were moving homes, but have you built under the Ontario New Home Warranty Program?
Mr Sweetnam: In my day, the way you make money is you develop what you have or sell what you own. The last homes we sold were in the 1989 period. At that time it was called HUDAC, but it's the predecessor of the current new home warranty program. Yes, I have built under that program.
Mr Stewart: Certainly some of the public that I've talked to over the last couple of years have had some concerns and some problems with the new home warranty program. First of all, what's your opinion of it? Second, do you feel there are ways it could be changed that would make sure the buying public is as well or possibly better protected?
You're talking about those types of floors. Those are the standards. I was a bit involved with the building code over the last six or eight months, and certainly those are the standards. Some of the people say that type of flooring is as good as some of the other that is not dried and so on and so forth.
Mr Sweetnam: But it does get wet in fact.
Mr Stewart: That's right. My concern more is, what do you think of the program, and do you think that there should be changes in it?
Mr Sweetnam: Any program like that you're going to find there's an ongoing need to update and review the program. I don't think it's anything to do with this committee, but my own view is in other jurisdictions -- in Ontario HUDAC has an exclusive right to be the representative of home sellers and say, "Here's the only game in town." Perhaps a way to do that is, as in other jurisdictions, you as legislators may look at whether it's appropriate to have, as they have in the west, an alternative.
In the mortgage insurance business, Canada Mortgage used to be the only game in town. Then MICC came in and I think now Canada Mortgage is the better for having that competition. That's a personal view of a way to upgrade. But I'm sure that the people at the Ontario New Home Warranty Program will update their programs and reflect what's necessary, and perhaps the decisions of committees like CRAT will somehow stimulate them a little bit to be more aware of what buyers' concerns are and so on.
0940
Mr Stewart: I guess that was the reason for my question. You may be on the tribunal and maybe things in that will come out that could improve the whole situation, because there is some concern.
Mr Sweetnam: As a committee member, if I am selected, I would certainly try to be proactive in making decisions, but you are bound by the law you're given and the evidence you've got before your committee and a bit of tradition there. Some of that may come in the realm of the legislation, which is really your prerogative.
Mr Stewart: In many areas, appeals seem to go on forever. I would hope that when you deal with an appeal, there is some thought given to the people who are appealing and then getting on with it and getting it done in a hurry. Any comments?
Mr Sweetnam: I think that's a very good point, having experienced some of those frustrations in the legal community. I spoke to the chair and his approach was -- I looked at some charts, and in the early days it was taking approximately 30 months to get an appeal heard; I think it was down to four or five months now as the time to hear an appeal.
Some of that is done in the way you say, that the hearing be four months after the date the information is received. It's not that you go to one counsel: "Would May 30 suit you? Oh, you're on holiday then. What would the next date be?" Pretty soon you're in September and an adjournment is sought and so on. I think you have to be a little bit ruthless and say: "Look, we all know when this is to happen. Arrange your holidays and so on so that we can get on with this expeditiously."
The Chair: We move on to the Liberal caucus. Mr Cullen, you have 10 minutes.
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Welcome, Mr Sweetnam, to this assembly. I'm glad to see you here.
Just so everyone knows, you would confirm to this committee that you've been a long-time supporter of the Conservative Party, a long-time contributor to the Conservative Party?
Mr Sweetnam: Yes. I'd like to put that in the perspective that since my dad was mayor of the town of Deseronto, we've always felt it was important to support good people in the political process, Mr Cullen, and that's whether it's federal, provincial or municipal.
I might say that although I have contributed to the Conservative Party, I have also contributed to the Liberal Party and, although they're not as frequent in our area, even the NDP have supporters in our area, and when I thought those people were good people, I have been prepared to support those people there as well.
Mr Cullen: Excellent. That's fine. It's not a crime, absolutely. We like people who support political parties, that's a fact -- some more than others, of course.
Is this your first appointment to a government committee?
Mr Sweetnam: A few years ago, perhaps eight or nine years ago, I was on the Eastern Ontario Development Corp.
Mr Cullen: That would have been an order-in-council appointment by the government of the day.
Mr Sweetnam: Yes, the government of the day.
Mr Cullen: As you know, I'm familiar with the work you do in Stittsville. You have a very good reputation there. This has to do with the subdivisions you have been involved in there.
One of the roles of this committee, and I'm sure you've already touched on it -- the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal will hear cases with respect to the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, as well as the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act. Do you think there will be situations where you may have to declare a conflict of interest?
Mr Sweetnam: First, understand that at the moment I'm not building. I am aware of the conflict-of-interest act. What I've found is the best way is to get stuff out on the table. If I felt there was any conflict -- let's say I'm developing a 550-unit subdivision. Suppose I was negotiating with Richcraft Homes to sell them some lots, and coming before us was an appeal concerning Richcraft Homes. I think I would get on the phone to the chair and say: "Do you see that there is a problem here? Maybe it would be better if you could ask another member to serve on this particular one." If I felt it was a tough one or whatever, I would discuss it with the chair. I think he would know.
I'm fairly aware, having served on the conservation authority and those other things, of what the conflict-of-interest act is. Sometimes, as you know, perception is as important as reality, whether there is really is pecuniary interest and so on. If I thought there was a problem, I would deal with it.
Mr Cullen: You've been involved in the development industry in Ottawa-Carleton for quite some time. I know the grey area where you know people who could come forward, but it's another kettle of fish, I believe, if you are actually dealing with a client who had an appeal before the tribunal.
I believe just last year you had an official plan amendment for conversion of land for development go through regional council, so I presume that land is open for development.
Mr Sweetnam: Yes.
Mr Cullen: We are now looking at an appointment to a tribunal, where you may develop that land or someone else may develop that land, and I'm hoping there won't be any appeal to the tribunal, I'm hoping the world moves smoothly, but we all know that from time to time there are hiccups. I have to assume that new homes that would be built on your lands would fall under the new home warranties act, and I'm sure anyone involved in politics knows a real estate agent somewhere who is active. We can think of a few.
I want to come back to that, because the integrity of the process is important. I know you prize your own integrity very highly. I have no qualms about that. I just want to get a better feel from you in terms of simply calling the chair or understanding that, if this is a client of yours, already that has to be separated.
Mr Sweetnam: First, you mentioned real estate agents. My understanding is that the expertise I would be called on for is in connection with the building industry. I don't understand that I would deal with car dealerships or real estate agent disciplinary actions. Those are not my field of expertise.
I'm comfortable enough with the situation that I'm not sure I would see where there is a problem. If I was negotiating with somebody to sell them property, I would not deal with their claim. It's as simple as that. The grey area may be that if two years ago I had spoken to somebody about it and we really haven't had any ongoing negotiation, I think it's appropriate to bring that to the attention of the chair and say: "Look, no ongoing negotiation. You've asked me to serve on this committee. I thought I should disclose that to you." That's the kind of integrity that I think is important.
In my community I had industrial land and served on an industrial commission. I think the easiest way is that you get it out on the table. You say: "Look, here's the land I own. If anyone thinks that there's a conflict, here is the information." People can judge you on your record.
Mr Cullen: Have you had experience with a tribunal?
Mr Sweetnam: At the conservation authority there's a tribunal mechanism. If you want to build in a floodplain area you can flood-proof your structures. The staff have guidelines that are set out, and if the applicant is not happy with the ruling of staff they can appeal it to a tribunal. I must tell you, in the 15 years I've served, we might have had seven or eight appeals to the tribunal mechanism. I'm not vastly experienced, but I at least know what the process is.
Mr Cullen: With this particular tribunal, have you had any experience with that as an applicant or an appellant?
Mr Sweetnam: When we built as what was then HUDAC or the new home warranty program, maybe three people might have appealed to HUDAC to say, "We don't agree with the way Sweetnam has fixed this." But we were still able to resolve that at that level, so it was never appealed.
The Chair: Mr Sweetnam, thank you very much for joining us today.
0950
JAMES MCKELLAR
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: James McKellar, intended appointee as member, Ontario Realty Corp board of directors.
The Chair: Would James McKellar come forward, please. Sir, if you would like to make a brief statement to the committee, please feel free to do so.
Mr James McKellar: I don't have too much to say. I think there was a brief biography. I'm a professor in the Schulich School of Business, York University. I'm also associate dean of the business school. I was asked by the ORC if I was willing to serve on the board. I agreed, and that's the reason I'm here this morning.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We begin with the government caucus.
Mr Grimmett: Welcome this morning, Mr McKellar. I had the opportunity to look at the background information about you. You certainly have an impressive list of qualifications. I'm assuming that the people who put your name forward saw you as a person who could provide useful advice to the Ontario Realty Corp. Have you had an opportunity to review the operations of the realty corporation? If so, I wonder if you could comment on your background, whether you've provided advice to these kinds of organizations before.
Mr McKellar: Yes, I have. I'm continuing work with the federal government, public works. I have done some previous work with ORC. I should even mention that tomorrow morning I'm giving a major address in Ottawa dealing with this whole issue of restructuring of public assets. I'm very familiar with the issues, both on the public side and the private side.
Mr Grimmett: One of the issues the ORC is dealing with is the sale of surplus lands. In my experience as a lawyer, about three quarters of my practice for 12 years was real estate type of work. It's probably fair to say that disposing of government land is quite a bit different from transactions involving waterfront or cottage property, which I did most of my work in.
I wonder about the government practice of, it seems almost, obscuring the sale of their property. There doesn't seem to be the use of some of the general marketing practices, of putting signs on properties and generally letting the public know that those properties are available for sale. Do you have any comments on that?
Mr McKellar: I don't have any direct knowledge of examples, but certainly government has always found it difficult to dispose of land, because the politics do enter into it. The public often view that public lands do not have market value, that they should be contributed for parks, social housing etc, and if a For Sale sign went up -- and I'm just being hypothetical -- you would probably see five, six, seven different interest groups. I'm very empathetic to the dilemma that government faces in this. It's not quite as simple as saying that you can adopt what the private sector does, because the private sector isn't subject to pressures to give their land away.
As an example of this, I was involved in a workshop with cabinet ministers on the Downsview airport, and on the day they said they would get market value, the Prime Minister announced that it was going to be a park. These are the kinds of conflicts you get into. It would be hard to put a For Sale sign on Downsview airport, for example.
Mr Grimmett: I'm not talking about that type of property, though. I'm talking about the standard office building or commercial property in a downtown area, be it in a large urban centre or a small urban centre. It seems to me that normal business practices would suggest that you want as much of the market to know about it as possible. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr McKellar: Again I'll use examples that are out of your sphere, but the federal government did try that route with the building on I believe Adelaide Street East; they brought in developers and then, for political reasons, withdrew it. The development industry was quite upset at the fact that it was following market procedures but at the last minute, for various reasons, it was withdrawn. They had put in a lot of time and effort.
Each side has valid reasons for their views, but as I indicated, it's not always quite as simple as it may seem. I think governments today are very aware that they have to be more expeditious and they do have to look to the private sector for some examples, but the transfer of some of those directly to the public side isn't always as easy as it seems.
Mr Grimmett: You originally were in the residential development business and then you became involved in academic work. Do you continue to have a close connection with the business world?
Mr McKellar: I am not an owner of a firm. I have a close connection with the business world as it relates to my credibility as an academic. I think that's a very important issue, in terms of mentoring, in terms of leadership, in terms of role models. I would say yes, I do have a close connection to the business world. I also have an equally close connection to the public sector.
Mr Grimmett: So if you're on the board of ORC and other members of the board are looking to you for advice, are you able to offer an analysis of private sector marketing practices, for example, that is up to date?
Mr McKellar: One of the areas I specialize in, in my research work, is the performance of real estate markets, because it's one area that the industry actually knows very little about. All you have to do is look at the débâcle of the late 1980s when we built things that no one wanted. Today the real estate markets have recovered, not because of the demand for space but because of the market for capital. That is an area in which I believe I do have a considerable expertise.
Mr Grimmett: Those are all the questions I have, Chair.
The Chair: We move to the Liberal caucus.
Mr Cullen: Thank you, Professor, for coming to us today. I have to assume that with the expertise you have, you also provide consulting work to the industry.
Mr McKellar: On a limited basis, that is correct. I don't actively run a consulting business, but I have been brought into situations by the federal government, I've been involved with the provincial government and with the private sector from time to time. I would say they are of a consulting nature, but I don't run an active consulting business.
Mr Cullen: Therefore, your appointment to the Ontario Realty Corp would not pose a problem for your consulting work and would not pose a problem for the Ontario Realty Corp.
Mr McKellar: None whatsoever.
Mr Cullen: Good. I was interested in the discussion we had earlier about disposal of public lands. I'm a former school board trustee and municipal councillor and I know that when those public bodies try to dispose of their lands, they're obliged by law to offer their lands to the next public level. In other words, the school board has to offer their lands to the city, the region, the province or the federal government before it can reach open market. The theory behind that is that it has been bought by public dollars -- sometimes expropriated with public dollars -- and it could serve a further public use. It may be that one public agency can't use it but another might. Then, when it gets there, there's a whole issue of, is it appropriately zoned? Oftentimes these things are zoned P.
Office buildings are straightforward, I would think, but many different classes of lands are going to be up for disposal beyond simple commercial buildings. Do you think there's some viability or some utility in having a policy that first offers these publicly purchased lands to a neighbouring public body for continued public use?
Mr McKellar: There may be reason to formulate that policy. I can't comment specifically on it. The dilemma that governments have is that one day they wake up and find they've got all these assets sitting on the books and they're not an asset, they're a liability, and for one reason or another they haven't been able to dispose of them.
Today, I think governments are looking at whatever policies would effect the more rapid disposition of these lands, because there has been a historic trend to just keep accumulating, for whatever reason. While those policies in the past may have been justified, governments today are beginning to look at them, because there's a fundamental in real estate, and that is that land is a liability; it's not an asset until you do something with it.
Mr Cullen: Until you do something with it? That's interesting. I was always told, "They're not making more of it, so it's better to buy now than later."
Mr McKellar: I always tell people that if you want to buy dirt, you can buy it in bags at Loblaws. What you're really dealing with is a right and you're trading in rights, so it really comes down to those rights. You're right, they don't make dirt, but there's a lot of it around.
1000
Mr Cullen: If we're dealing with, for example, the sale of land that the province owns, that could be continued in public use, do you think it would be a useful part of the Ontario Realty Corp to at least check into that? My best examples are school sites. It is a government regulation, as a matter of fact, that causes school boards to do this. It isn't because the school boards want to do this; the school boards want to get the immediate market value of these places. But the community has another view of the use of these lands. It's a safety check that at least you have gone and spoken to either regional government or city government to see if they have an interest; if there is, then a negotiation can continue there.
Mr McKellar: One of the problems I could see with that is that school boards today, using them as an example, have to be fairly dynamic and realize that population trends and so forth shift. So as one school declines, another school grows. If each school they've had in the past is given away and they have to replenish the new school sites, it becomes an onerous burden on that school board. They may feel that to be much more adaptable, to grow and so forth, they may have to look at ways to gain some revenue from the existing sale to offset the cost of growth. That has to be measured against the interests of that particular community, because that particular community may be getting a benefit at the expense of a future school site.
Those are the kinds of issues that are being imposed today, because each of these groups and agencies is finding that it has to be much more self-sufficient, that government doesn't have an endless amount of money to simply say: "Well, it was a school site. We'll give it to the community as a park, and we'll just go and build another school."
Mr Cullen: That's not quite how the world works, but the principle is there.
Interjection.
Mr Cullen: Well, that's not how the world works; that's not how the world works with school sites, because the school board would get compensation from the municipality. If the community wants to keep that school yard as a park, it has a right to; it has already paid for it through its taxes.
Coming back to the Ontario Realty Corp, because it does not deal with school sites, one of the concerns that have been raised is the contracting out of the management of government assets and the ability of the government to put forward building management policies -- I'm thinking of the green-office concept -- so we can have energy-efficient buildings, so we can have environmentally conscious buildings, building practices, all those things, whether it's the cleaning staff or what have you, because a lot of time, a lot of money and a lot of material goes into the maintenance of these assets.
Are you sensitive to this issue? Is this an issue that is important to you, that the Ontario Realty Corp retain the ability to set such policies or can transmit such policies to the people it contracts out to, the management, including the sale of assets, the purchase of assets, to the private sector?
Mr McKellar: Yes. In fact, I would take it one step forward. I think it's not just the greening of buildings; I think the emphasis today is on the quality of the work environment and how that environment affects productivity, how it affects people's wellbeing. We tend to take simple solutions and put a sticker on a building and say, "This building has been greened up." We forget that the reason for the building is that people go in there and work eight hours a day. It might be of some perceived value that it has been greened up a little bit, but I think today a lot of corporations are saying that real estate isn't the ownership and maintenance of the buildings; it's the provision of quality workplaces. The best examples of this at the moment happen to be in the private sector. We can look at companies like IBM and others, which have really pioneered, and many of these companies, because of what they've learned, are willing to assist others.
I have to say -- I mean, the speech I'm giving tomorrow -- outsourcing is a very important part of some of this pioneering effort. All you have to do is look at information technology. Corporations themselves cannot hire and retain that expertise; they outsource it. They outsource it because the market is changing, ideas are changing.
I think the general idea is that as long as you're clear on what your policies are, you can probably have a mixture. I'm not saying one solution, but certainly the marketplace is one place to find some new ideas. It has to go well beyond just the greening of buildings.
Mr Marchese: Mr McKellar, I was interested in some of your comments earlier on about the politics of selling land and how difficult that is. You talked about the problem, really, but you didn't talk about how you might deal with some of the politics that inevitably you've got to deal with. You mentioned the Downsview lands as an example of a problem. When faced with such a problem, what would you do?
Mr McKellar: There is the hard reality that we are a democracy and we elect people to make decisions. At the political level they have the right to allocate those resources. I did a study for the Auditor General on this topic a few years back, and our guess was that probably 30%, maybe 40% of decisions affecting real properly have political -- and there isn't much you can do. We're not going to switch over to a system of government other than what we have, so you live with that.
On the other hand, for example, one way to deal with this is the downsizing of these very large government departments that were in the real estate business, because many of them were there to perpetuate their own interests. Public Works Canada is an example of an enormous industry that did nothing but perpetuate its own interests. When I would advise them to sell the land, they would say: "Gee, maybe we should be in the housing business. Why don't we develop it? We can do a better job. We can make money." In doing it, they subjected themselves to even more of the political process.
I'll give you an example: the LeBreton Flats in Ottawa. When the Treasury Board decided to develop it, they had to go into partnership and go before the city government. The city government says: "Oh, you're the federal government. We expect you to do this and this and this." One solution to it is to get government out of the development industry per se.
Mr Marchese: Which in itself creates the problem that you were describing, obviously. Part of the problem is that the government is in the business and it should get out of it, and that would solve it, in part. That's what you're getting at, right?
Mr McKellar: I'm saying that government should realize that its business isn't to be in the development business or to duplicate what can be provided in the market. Its business is to set political agenda and to make sure it has skilled people who can carry out those agendas.
I'm not being critical of government in this case, because many business corporations did this. Bell Canada was in real estate, IBM was in real estate, Famous Players was in real estate, food companies were in real estate, Magna was in real estate, and many of these companies have said, "No, let's go back to our core business." So I don't mean to be critical of government, but in the old days everybody thought they could make a buck at this business and got into it. You're not following a trend that has not been now well-worn by the private sector, and that is to get back to your core business.
Mr Marchese: In the 1998 budget, Minister of Finance Ernie Eves announced: "A key goal of the proposed new structure is to ensure the capacity of the ORC to effectively and competitively manage the government's real estate portfolio. This includes ensuring that an adequate revenue stream is available to cover the costs of the real estate management responsibilities of the government." That's about all we heard. There's not much more detail.
It seems that the new chair of the Ontario Realty Corp, Joe Mavrinac, indicated, and he must have had some insights into this, that the projected new status of the ORC -- he discussed that and indicated that the corporation will become a fee-based agency, with the legislative capacity to earn fees from facility management, project management, real estate transactions and asset management. I'm not sure you are aware of those discussions. You might not have an opinion in that regard.
Mr McKellar: I think I've read the same material that you've read.
Mr Marchese: Do you have an opinion on that, a fee-based agency, legislative capacity to earn fees?
1010
Mr McKellar: Yes. I think it's indicative of the fact that governments are now saying that if departments and agencies carry on business, they have to understand the cost of that business. In the past, for example, an agency would say, "We're going to set up a new department or a new agency," and it might need 8,000 or 10,000 square feet. That was a freebie. Then they would have the 10,000 square feet and they would keep it.
I think what governments are saying today is that any function within government must view labour, paper, computers and real estate as a cost. What we are seeing is that agencies are now having to include in their budgets the cost of that space. Quite often it's done by paying rent for that space. I do understand that it's moving money from one pocket to another, but it's making the users of that space understand that they are consuming a dollar that might be used somewhere else.
Fundamentally, it's a very good idea. It's always a little difficult to put into practice, because it's easy to do for office space but it's a little more difficult to do for some assets that fall into that grey area.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr McKellar.
BARBARA WELLARD
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Barbara Morland Wellard, intended appointee as member, Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.
The Chair: Is Barbara Morland Wellard here? Please come up and join us. Ms Wellard is an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services. Is it Ms Morland Wellard or --
Mrs Barbara Wellard: Mrs Wellard is fine.
The Chair: You are free to make a few brief opening comments to the committee if you wish.
Mrs Wellard: I'd like to make just a brief opening statement, if I could.
Good morning. I'd like to thank the committee for requiring my attendance here this morning and I welcome the opportunity to respond to your questions.
By way of introduction, I've been a practising lawyer in the city of North Bay for 18 years, and except for my attendance at Queen's University for my undergraduate and law school, I've lived in North Bay all of my life.
My law practice is a general law practice with three other partners, and I have an emphasis on civil litigation. I have appeared before all of the courts in Ontario except the Supreme Court of Ontario and I have appeared before many administrative tribunals.
I first became interested in policing issues when I noticed an advertisement in the Ontario Report for part-time chairs for the Board of Inquiry that was going to be established under the Police Services Act, 1990. I applied for the position. I was interviewed by the chair at that time and received an appointment to the fledgling board.
I assisted in drafting the rules for the board and setting procedure for the board hearings. In my capacity as a part-time chair, I held two hearings with viva voce evidence, one in Sudbury and one in Sault Ste Marie, and I heard one appeal on the record.
Quite frankly, during my tenure as a board member, I and other board members were surprised at the low number of requests for hearings before the board. I admit that under that regime there was an unreasonable delay in having the hearings held. That was for many reasons, but I think a number of them were due to the beginning of the board and just the difficulty of having to deal with the northeast region, which is where I was hearing the actual hearings of police misconduct.
As a member of the board, I also attended a three-day workshop at the beginning of the Board of Inquiry sitting, and the part-time chairs met regularly to discuss issues affecting the board.
With the intended passage of the new amendments to the Police Services Act, the part-time chairs' orders in council were not renewed.
When I was advised of the opening in the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, I indicated that I would be quite interested in serving on that commission.
I have a commitment to public service. I have served on the board of directors for the Nipissing Transition House in North Bay. I've been involved with the Rotary Club in North Bay. I've been on the board of directors of a home for chemically dependent youth. I've been very active in our arts centre and with legal aid.
With my legal background and previous experience with the Board of Inquiry, I believe I would be a positive addition to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, and I'm looking forward to working with the chair, Murray Chitra, and the other members of the board if this committee sees fit to approve my appointment. Thank you.
The Chair: We'll begin with the official opposition. You have 10 minutes.
Mr Gravelle: Good morning, Mrs Wellard. How are you?
Mrs Wellard: Good, thanks.
Mr Gravelle: Your background is very impressive, and certainly your previous involvement in terms of the board is very interesting. There obviously are some pretty dramatic changes in the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services in terms of the Police Services Amendment Act. One of the most controversial is eliminating the police complaints commission. There was a great deal of debate around that and obviously it's a very different system that's in place now. I would be curious as to your thoughts on the elimination of the police complaints commission, how you think the process will work and whether you think it will be fair.
Mrs Wellard: First of all, the police complaints commission, in my involvement with the board, didn't even apply to any place other than Metropolitan Toronto until the act was passed in 1990. In northeastern Ontario, southwestern Ontario and southeastern Ontario we didn't have any means of complaining or filing complaints against the police other than within the internal police forces.
I wasn't that familiar with the police commission until I became involved with the board of inquiry. Their involvement then in the board of inquiry was to basically take the role of a crown attorney for the complainant, to do the investigation and present the evidence. That was my involvement with the commission.
Yes, the commission is gone, but under the new system the complaint can still be filed. The complainant has to present his or her own evidence, that's true, but for every stage of the complaint process now the complainant has the ability to have the commission review the decision made by the police chief on many issues, whether it's a frivolous complaint, whether it relates to conduct or to a policy or services.
I don't see the abolition of the commission as a serious problem. I saw it as an expensive commission. When I did the board of inquiry hearings, I thought that it was a very expensive process that could have been done a heck of a lot more cheaply. The board of inquiry hearings had the police complaints commissioner and their investigator present evidence. The complainant was there to present evidence if he or she wished. Then the police officer presented his or her side of the case. We had a tripartite tribunal, we had a lawyer chair, we had an appointment from the Association of the Municipalities of Ontario, we had an appointment from the police association, and we travelled to wherever the incident took place. It was a very expensive procedure, and I think quite cumbersome from time to time for the board of inquiry to be conducted in that way.
Mr Gravelle: That may be the case, but it comes down to a question of just how important you think the process is in terms of fairness and allowing people a sense of justice being done in that process. One of the concerns about the process now is that it is up to the complainant to appeal a decision that's made by the chief. A number of people have registered concerns about that.
Mrs Wellard: It was up to the complainant under the original process to file the initial complaint at the police station.
Mr Gravelle: You think the system is no less fair now; you don't think the system that has been set up would make people perhaps somewhat more reluctant to --
Mrs Wellard: Based on what the chair tells me, he has done 400 hearings in 15 days. I don't think it's preventing people from filing complaints.
Mr Cullen: I would like to pick up on this. I sat on regional council and we received the agenda for the police services board and we received a listing of complaints. It was absolutely amazing, the response from the internal police sergeant, the sergeant who was always assigned to every investigation: 99.999% was that there were no grounds for the complaint, and you had all kinds. I can expect a high rate of rejection, but after reading agenda after agenda and seeing completely the same pattern, one of the things that I thought was salutary for having the police complaints commissioner was that if anyone filed a complaint with the police chief, he or she knew that the police complaints commissioner would see that same complaint. The chief of police acts on it and it's up to the complainant if they're not happy with the behaviour of the police to then take any further action.
Do you not think that there is a salutary effect by having some oversight so that someone else is watching what's going on? Then the only people who file an appeal are those who are aware that they can appeal and those who do not feel intimidated who will appeal. We're dealing with people here in a large instance who are, in the majority part, not familiar with the process and dealing with authority to begin with and the police, for whatever reason, will have a tendency to --
Mrs Wellard: Trivialize it.
1020
Mr Cullen: Okay, trivialize it. Not in all cases. There is integrity in the system. But the point is, the absence of this I don't think is a benefit. What do you think?
Mrs Wellard: I don't think it's absence. I think the role of the police complaints commissioner has been subsumed under the new commission or the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, and if a decision is made by the police chief that it's frivolous -- "frivolous complaint" I think is the terminology -- complainants, as I understand it, are advised that within 30 days all they have to do is write a letter to the commission. They don't have to file a formal complaint.
There are no specifics that you have to fill in a form, like a statement of claim, or anything like that. You can write to the commission and say, "I filed a complaint against Officer Joe Blow and the police chief of the city of North Bay says it's frivolous and I don't think it is." We have that review. The commission now can review that decision and say to the police chief: "It isn't frivolous. Go back now and have the hearing." So that review is there and they're advised of their rights. They're going to be advised of their rights.
Mr Cullen: The way it works in Ottawa-Carleton, and I don't know if we're unique there, is that there is a session with the complainant conducted by this specific police sergeant. During the course of that, the complainant is advised of his or her rights. But of course the complainant is also advised of the probability of success.
Mrs Wellard: Then maybe the sergeant is going too far in his advice.
Mr Cullen: But how would you know? I know because I still read the stuff that goes across the desk. But I think there's a big difference if people know that someone else is aware of the complaint, and therefore, because someone else is aware of the complaint, there would be a greater tendency to due diligence, which I think is important, and a greater incentive away from trivializing cases. I think because we're dealing with a public body that uses the force of law, which is the only legal force that's allowed, that can for good reasons but sometimes not because we're humans and we make mistakes -- mistakes are going to happen.
This is the problem I have. After three years of watching the police board and knowing what they're doing -- and these are all good people; I've worked with the police and in my opinion they're all good people -- one cannot believe that out of three years no mistake ever happened, that nothing --
The Chair: Mr Cullen, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up.
Mr Cullen: Sorry. Perhaps you could respond to that.
Mrs Wellard: I don't know that I can. I just think we have to give the new commission some time. It has only been since November 1997 that the legislation has come through. Maybe if we spoke in a year and I was on the commission I might agree with you and make recommendations to see if things can be improved if they have to be. That's also the role of the commission. If servicing isn't working, and that includes all servicing, this is part of it. The complaints process is part of police servicing.
Mr Cullen: The last question, if I can, Madam Chair.
The Chair: I'm sorry. You've used up your caucus time. If we can move on now, Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: Ms Wellard, in the same vein, briefly: The bill does not empower the commission, obviously, to conduct its own investigation on the merits of the complaint on the appeal.
Mrs Wellard: Not like it did under the old system.
Mr Marchese: Right, and that is an oversight of an ability the commission would have had that it no longer has. I don't see that as a problem; I see that as a plus, as a further protection for the public, for individuals.
From the points you're making, you're obviously saying that isn't necessarily necessary, and that because people are advised about their rights to write a letter and appeal, that more or less suffices. Is that the way I am to understand the argument?
Mrs Wellard: Yes, that's one of the reasons. The other concern I think we have to have is that we have to have a balance of costs of systems to protect the average citizen. Look at what's happened to legal aid. There are all kinds of people being denied legal aid who have legal issues that should be dealt with and they should be given lawyers, but there isn't enough money to fund every person who has to go before the courts. It's the same sort of thing. The commission was a very expensive entity to maintain. So is there some way that we can provide similar protection in a cheaper vein, I guess?
Mr Marchese: For me, sometimes these issues are not matters of cost when we're dealing with matters of justice, and to have that oversight ability is something that I think is a very positive thing. To put the onus on individuals who are sometimes victims, who are therefore very vulnerable because they may or may not have the skills to deal with these problems or with an appeal or even having to deal with the issue of an appeal against a chief, these are complicated matters, often psychological by nature, and often matters of education by nature. My sense is that a lot of the victims end up possibly being hurt by a lack of these oversight capabilities. But you don't see it?
Mrs Wellard: I don't see it, no.
Mr Marchese: Can I ask you, Ms Wellard: I used to be a trustee with the Toronto Board of Education and a teacher before that, so I've had a lot of experience dealing with the various linguistic and racial communities in my community in Toronto. Having had that experience taught me a lot about how to deal with the various communities. I tell you, if I didn't have that experience, I might not have known how to deal with some of the problems we faced in our educational system. Dealing with racial communities was a learning experience for me all the time, and it was in listening to their problems that I learned how to deal with what they expressed and what they experienced in issues of racism in the system or issues of racism in other areas of society.
Our racial communities have a lot of complaints against the police, generally speaking, and sometimes that conflict continues unresolved. What is your experience as it relates to people like that who have had problems with the police system?
Mrs Wellard: My experience is more with native Canadians in northern Ontario, where we have a number of Indian bands who reside in the North Bay area. The two hearings that I did under the board of inquiry were issues of native rights and were claims of police misconduct and misunderstanding of native issues.
With respect to other races, I don't have a tremendous amount of experience but I'm willing to learn. It's going to be a learning curve coming to this commission and there are members on the commission who I'm sure have that experience and can pass that on to me.
Mr Marchese: I think having experience with aboriginal people is as good as anything. We know that aboriginal people face the same difficulties as people of colour, and if you are well connected to those communities, you will understand the problems we're dealing with, by and large.
As a final question, what challenges do you think you'll be facing as a member of this commission?
Mrs Wellard: Some of the challenge certainly will be, if this continues, the volume and in making recommendations for changes if they're required and if they're necessary. It's going to be different for me, because under the board of inquiry I did mostly just the quasi-judicial hearings. This commission is much more involved than that and I'm not totally familiar with that. I've been reading in the newspaper about the complaint by the Toronto police officers, and obviously that's work the commission is going to be dealing with.
Challenges are going to be again, I guess, in some of the municipalities, changing their policing services, maybe going with the OPP or amalgamating with some of the adjoining forces and to help municipalities deal with that. I understand that's one of the mandates of the commission. So I'm looking forward to it.
Mr Marchese: Do I have another second?
The Chair: Yes, you have five minutes remaining.
Interjections.
Mr Marchese: Given that, Madam Chair, my colleague would like to have some questions.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Thank you, and welcome. I apologize for the lateness. We're a small, dedicated group. Nevertheless there are other commitments to be addressed and I'm sure you'll understand.
You have mentioned, en passant, that you have some experience with first Canadians, with aboriginals.
Mrs Wellard: Some.
Mr Pouliot: By virtue of location, North Bay.
1030
Mrs Wellard: Yes.
Mr Pouliot: I must ask you this, and please, I rely on your benevolence. North Bay brings a Mike Harris connection. Have you ever been a member of any political party?
Mrs Wellard: Absolutely.
Mr Pouliot: Can I ask you which party?
Mrs Wellard: Sure you can. I'm a member of the provincial Progressive Conservative Party.
Mr Pouliot: Oh, you are a member of the government party.
Mrs Wellard: Surprise.
Mr Pouliot: Please, with respect, I do not personally impute motive. I'm here to ask the questions. Have you made a political donation, attended a fund-raising dinner?
Mrs Wellard: For Mike Harris or for Bob Wood?
Mr Pouliot: Either one.
Mrs Wellard: Both.
Mr Pouliot: How much does this tenure pay, are you aware? Is there an annual sum?
Mrs Wellard: Yes, I am aware. It's $15,000 a year. It requires me to be out of my law office approximately three to four days a month.
Mr Pouliot: We'll stick with the $15,000. For a person like myself, you can understand that it's a rather large sum.
Mrs Wellard: I can only tell you that for a person like myself --
Interjections.
The Chair: I'm sorry, could we keep some order and some straight faces in the room.
Mrs Wellard: It is a large sum, but you must remember as well that I have a law office with four lawyers that I must maintain, that I have staff, that I have overhead. You can rest assured that I'm not making money on the appointment; in fact, it's costing me because I can make more money daily at my law office.
Mr Pouliot: Maybe it's time to sell.
Who told you about the possibility of joining the conglomerate, the ensemble? I'm sure you know some of the people on the board.
Mrs Wellard: On what board?
Mr Pouliot: On this appointment. Did you inquire about it? Did someone call you?
Mrs Wellard: I was originally appointed by the NDP to be on the board of inquiry under the Police Services Act. When it was disbanded, I asked the then board chair, Gary Yee, to keep me advised if there was going to be any sort of a replacement board. I also left my name with my local member of Parliament's office and indicated that my interest was in something similar to the board of inquiry. When this became available, I was advised by my local MPP's office and I indicated that I would have an interest.
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): Welcome, Mrs Wellard. I'm very interested in the volunteer work you've done in your community. I understand you have worked quite extensively both within the native community and outside the native community, particularly as it pertains to battered women, abused women, and their children. Could you give me a little bit of background as to your volunteer experience in your community and how that experience would assist you in decision-making at the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.
Mrs Wellard: The volunteer work I'm most proud of is my involvement with the Nipissing Transition House, the home for battered women in North Bay, which I was fundamental in starting. I was on the first board of directors. We went from having one office to renting a building, to owning a building, to actually building a new home, a 19-bed facility. I think it's 19 beds; I haven't been on it for two years. My tenure expired. I was on that board for 13 years.
In my capacity as a civil litigator I do a lot of family law. I regularly represented women in the transition house who had been in violent situations, on a pro bono basis and also on a legal aid basis. I'm very pleased that transition home still is very -- I'm going to say active in the community. We always hope to have a zero capacity at some time in the future, but that's a long way off. The staff at the transition home as well have been active in the victim assistance program in North Bay.
I also was very involved in the refurbishment of our North Bay Arts Centre, an old theatre on Main Street in North Bay which was completely refurbished. We had a very large fund-raising drive for that in 1985-87 and I was the co-chair of that.
Ms Mushinski: So you've had more experience fund-raising for non-profit volunteer organizations than you have for political parties, obviously.
Mrs Wellard: Absolutely.
Mr Preston: Regarding Mr Cullen's attempt to indict a particular sergeant on the internal affairs of one of the best police forces in North America, if not the world, do you have any idea how many of these 99.9% frivolous charges came to appeal?
Mrs Wellard: No, it's only been since 1997. Do you mean that came before the board of inquiry? I really don't have any --
Mr Preston: If they were turned down by this particular sergeant or advised that they had no chance, they would automatically go to appeal, would they not, if they wrote this letter?
Mrs Wellard: If they wrote the letter, they would go to a review by the commission.
Mr Preston: I see.
Mrs Wellard: But that would only have been since November 1997.
Mr Preston: All right. Thank you very much. I think I've made my point.
Mr Stewart: Just a question, if I may, and it may be a little bit of a motherhood issue, but I have a great deal of difficulty these days when we talk about frivolous complaints. I think the police in some cases, and maybe in many cases, are getting the short end of the stick. Unfortunately, whether it's a frivolous complaint or not, I still believe it tends to appear, maybe not in writing or whatever, but on a police person's record.
I guess my concern is, have we gone too far in allowing -- this may be a bad choice of words -- some of these so-called frivolous complaints. I have a difficulty if somebody may be coming to attack me and I don't really know and I may grab them a little too hard, and then all of a sudden somebody lodges a complaint against me as a policemen because I used brutality. Have we gone from the sublime to the ridiculous?
Mrs Wellard: Absolutely not. We need civilian oversight of police conduct. You have to have the ability of the individuals whom the police are there to serve to question that service.
Mr Stewart: But it appears to me that unfortunately they are becoming the, they're not getting the -- how will I put this? It seems to me that there are so many frivolous complaints coming through that the police today are being made out to be the bad guy.
Interjection: To where they can hardly do their job.
Mr Stewart: To where they can't do their job, and I am worried about that.
Mrs Wellard: But as long as those are determined to be frivolous and the decision of the chief is upheld, then the protection is there. It's the reason we have, "You're not guilty until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," because we want that one person where it isn't a frivolous complaint to make the complaint. We want that protection in the system.
Mr Stewart: You say that, but does it not work both ways? Shouldn't it work both ways?
Mrs Wellard: It can, but it happens in every profession. I've had frivolous complaints filed with the law society that we all have to deal with as lawyers. But I know that at least people are not being prevented from filing complaints. That's why we have the system to determine. If it's frivolous, out it goes; if it's serious, it goes to a hearing.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Wellard, for joining us today.
GERALD HUCK
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Gerald Huck, intended appointee as member, Ontario Casino Corp board of directors.
The Chair: Gerald Huck is an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Casino Corp board of directors. Welcome. You may, if you wish, make a brief statement to the committee.
Mr Gerald Huck: Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of the board. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to give a brief overview of my qualifications. I would like to be considered for the position on the Ontario Casino Corp.
Growing up as part of the third generation in the marina business in the Thousand Islands has been a very rewarding experience. My home town of Rockport is located in eastern Ontario between Gananoque and Brockville.
As a youth I was involved with sports and minor hockey as head coach in the Gananoque minor hockey system for a number of years. I was also a delegate to the Ontario Minor Hockey Association. As a team, I played organized hockey and travelled the province, as well as the eastern United States. In the summer months, when I was not working at the family marina, I raced power boats and travelled around the countryside to many racing events.
1040
As I grew older and took a more serious interest in the marine business, I became involved locally with the chamber of commerce and tourist councils, which I continue to find important for the interest of small business.
Over the last 25 years of my participation as president of Ed Huck Marine, I've been involved with dealer advisory councils, such as OMC Canada, Johnson and Evinrude and Bombardier International, the Sea-Doo personal watercraft, as well as industry associations, such as the Ontario Marine Operators Association. This association is celebrating 30 years this year and I am proud to say I've been there since the beginning in many roles, from president and vice-president to government liaison officer.
One example of the goals of this particular association has been its cosponsorship of the Toronto International Boat Show and the Ottawa Boat and Sportsmen's Show. Having been president at the time of this important relationship, I was directly involved at many levels.
In 1989, the Huck family business celebrated 100 years of operation, from a small boat-building and livery shop to a major marina in the Thousand Islands, offering docking accommodations for over 200 boats, boat slips for several world-renowned companies and employing 20 full- and part-time employees.
I've travelled throughout North America, both on business and vacationing with my family. I especially enjoy visiting areas that attract boating enthusiasts just so I can see how the industry relates to other parts of the globe. Some of the boating-related councils I've been involved with include the national recreation boating council, specifically the boat licensing and operator efficiency committee in 1995; also with Parks Canada, the canal divisions for the Trent and Rideau systems, and the tariff review board on boating.
After retiring in 1996, I've been doing marine consulting and I'm frequently called upon as an adviser in the area of marina planning. I'm at present a member of the board of directors of the Thousand Islands regional tourism development corporation. This international council promotes the Thousand Islands and eagerly supports and promotes facilities and attractions with an annual $1-million promotional budget.
I enjoy the outdoors and like to keep active. Tennis, golf and hockey are some of the activities I enjoy in my leisure hours. My wife of 34 years, Rebecca, our three children, their spouses and my four grandchildren all share my enjoyment for water sports and of course boating.
In closing, my past and present experience demonstrating management skills for our growth industry, participation and leadership on numerous advisory councils, both in Canada and the United States, as well as my firsthand knowledge of the rural and urban geography of this province, suggests that I would have the necessary qualifications to objectively fill this position. Thank you.
Mr Marchese: Thank you, Mr Huck, for coming and for giving us all of that background. One of the things that is in our minds these days, as you might know, is the Niagara Falls casino and some of the problems that have arisen as a result of the bid that was given to Falls Management. A number of things have come out of all of this in the last week or two, much of which has been revealed by the Toronto Star in terms of the articles that have been connected to that and their revelations about many of the people who are connected to this bid, and how in the view of many of us -- our colleague Peter Kormos, who is from that area, said that this deal stinks to high heaven, and some of us tend to believe that very much -- there are some problems connected to it. The Falls Management bid came in third in terms of the bidding contract, yet it was awarded the final bid. So a lot of people believe it isn't because of its merits but because of the political connections they've had to this party. Do you have a comment on any aspect of all of this and how you might deal with all of that, once you become a board member?
Mr Huck: Just yesterday as a matter of fact, I read some of the media comments in that regard. I'm not familiar with those people or if they were board members or employees of the commission who have taken those positions to join the casino commission, so I really can't comment on it, not being a part of it.
Mr Marchese: We've got a problem, in my view. The government selection committee which chose this Falls Management consortium had five members. Three were members of the Ontario Casino Corp board of directors. That means they have a big say in this stuff.
One of them is David Nash, another one is Joanne DeLaurentiis, another one is Brian Wood, the corporation chair and president, and there are a few others. But David Nash is a prominent Tory hack, for lack of a better word. Leslie Noble is connected to this consortium and, as you know, is one of the architects of the Common Sense Revolution. Another member of this group was Andrzej Kepinski. The article spoke very clearly about this person's connections and his past, which were, in my view, malodorous, at least as I read them in the article.
Mr Pouliot: To say the least.
Mr Marchese: We learned that this other person, Michael French, who advised this group, oversaw the bidding contest for the Niagara casino and that the Ontario Casino Corp was "told": "Michael French will be running the Niagara process. We have no choice. It's political." So it seems to me that this whole thing smells and I'm not sure how you're going to deal with all of this. I sense you would have a problem. Based on all this, I think we all have a problem, but you have a problem in terms of how you would deal with this. It's important to me to know what your connection is to the party, how you would deal with these issues when they come before you. You might want to tell us that.
Mr Huck: Obviously there's a mechanism in place where they weren't part and parcel at the same time. Being an employee, they obviously left the commission to join this company and I don't know what mechanism is in place in that regard, but I would certainly deal with it in a businesslike manner related to the morals of good business practice.
Mr Marchese: That worries me. "Morals of good business practice" worries me a great deal because these people who won the bid made a very substantial donation to this political party, a $48,000 donation. I suspect that's a good business practice.
Mr Huck: I don't know that that's a good business practice. My assumption is that if they were in fact employees of the commission and, so-called jumped ship or took -- it would certainly be their privilege to leave the government for whatever period of time is allotted. I'm not familiar with that of course. But we all have hired employees who've gone with someone else. That's happened to me, employees who have gone with my competition, for whatever reason. Maybe this is a different situation, but it's still a business decision.
Mr Marchese: The deal that was made with this particular Falls Management consortium, do you think that agreement should be made public and give everyone an opportunity to see how that process was handled and how the decision was made?
Mr Huck: Is not the operation of the commission public?
Mr Marchese: I don't think their decisions are public. Some aspects of the operations would be public, I would assume, but in terms of this particular deal and this agreement obviously it isn't and we've been asking the government to make it a public matter. I'm just asking for your opinion as to whether we should --
Mr Huck: Certainly as a member of the board I would want to weigh all those different options of the tender. Obviously it would be a selection of both cost and design. That, to me, is what the decision should be based on.
1050
Mr Pouliot: Mr Huck, I for one appreciate your qualifications and I sense some sincerity. I also appreciate your turn of phrase when you tell us about people jumping ship. It's only fitting with your past, being in the marina business, that you would be familiar with people going with a competitor or with someone else.
You don't seem, and I say this with respect and I need your help, to have any preconceived opinion vis-à-vis process, and I take it, vis-à-vis -- because he knows -- you seems to be candid in your approach and you're willing to serve and in the collective you will put your best foot forward.
When my friend talked about the scent of money and what he did -- because you did read the newspaper and knew so as well, of course -- he painted the picture which is, alas, too often, where in this instance you have a request for proposal, an RFP. Many people come to the table and make a bid, a submission. Then they are short-listed, after being ranked. These people come third; not only do they come third, but they do not address the mandate of the region. The project they have in mind is solely focused on the casino.
The Chair: Mr Pouliot, you have about three seconds left.
Mr Pouliot: Yes, thank you, Chair. It's the very kind of endeavour, the very kind of scenario that not only the opposition but the people of Ontario are questioning. We in our party actually couldn't care less who gets appointed. We want to wish them well, every one of them. We mostly meet good people, but we don't wish to have a reward for being a political hack, for greasing the tracks, because it goes beyond the trough.
The Chair: Mr Pouliot, can you put your question?
Mr Pouliot: Can you assure the committee that you come to this tenure candid, with no prejudice, with no true political affiliation, that you don't have any debt to pay or any reward to get from the government?
Mr Huck: I would certainly make my decision based on my own past experience in good business.
The Chair: Thank you. We will move to the government caucus. You have about six minutes.
Mr Grimmett: Welcome, Mr Huck. We, as members of the committee, are provided with some background and I try to familiarize myself with the operation of each of these agencies. We're told that this particular corporation has a variety of functions, including making sure that the operations of casinos are conducted and managed in accordance with the Criminal Code, the Ontario Casino Corp, the Gaming Control Act and any regulations, and I think when we look at people who put their names forward to sit on these kinds of bodies, we want to make sure the judgement they are going to bring to bear is going to protect the public interest here.
I see from your background, sir, that you've served in a number of functions related to, I guess, your business to a certain extent. I wonder if you could comment on how your business and your previous voluntary activities on a number of these bodies might assist you in bringing the kind of judgement that's required to the casino corporation.
Mr Huck: I think with my experience as a small business operator in making decisions that vary from time to time and making judgement calls, that alone puts me in a position to serve on the commission in good faith.
As a tourism involvement, to me the commission is a form of tourism. It plays a big part in tourism, reading from what the casinos have done for Niagara Falls and the city of Windsor and the other locations. My involvement in tourism promotion with the various councils would again be an asset to me as a member of the board.
Mr Stewart: I think it's rather unfair for you to be put in the position today of the questioning that was going on regarding the Falls Management situation because, first of all, you aren't appointed to the board yet, second, we're not involved with that, and third, that contract is not signed. But to get back to that, have you in business ever won or lost a contract?
Mr Huck: Yes.
Mr Stewart: Probably a good many of them, I assume. Of the ones that you lost, I assume you did not think that every one of them smelled in some bad way.
Mr Huck: No, sir.
Mr Stewart: It's called a business. Again, I guess these days, whether it be an RFP or a tender or whatever, many of those have right in them that some of them may not meet the criteria. In most cases it's not necessarily the lowest bidder to be accepted. It's very easy to criticize, I believe, that somebody is being awarded something, not knowing the full details. Part of it is to make sure that they meet the criteria as set out.
I have a great difficulty when you get criticized that you are suggesting that it should be done in a businesslike fashion. I believe that many, many business people are very honest and I get very upset when I hear people say that just because you're in business you're a crook. I have difficulty with that so I just want to make sure that it was on the record that, yes, people do win and some do lose, but it's the end result that counts and you've got to make sure it adheres to the criteria that were put out. Thank you, sir.
The Chair: We will move to the official opposition.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My first question, with your background in tourism, is about the Niagara Falls casino and the anticipation of the community that along with the casino would have gone a lot of tourist attractors, because I think the Niagara Falls casino is characterized as a tourist destination casino.
Some of the people who were bidding -- and I'm not getting into individual bids -- but some of the things people talked about for tourism were an indoor water park, an amphitheatre, computer-simulated theatre, golf course, indoor-outdoor promenade of shops and restaurants, a six-pad hockey rink, a 200,000-square-foot convention centre, a family entertainment centre, an aquarium, things of that nature.
It seems to me -- and I understand the contract has not been signed yet, but ultimately the one that was chosen didn't seem to have many of these other attractors. I know the city council, for instance, in Niagara Falls and some others were really hoping that not only would they have the casino itself but a lot of other good tourist things to go with the casino. They thought that could be part of the package. Do you think it would be a great advantage to have many of these other things instead of simply the casino itself?
Mr Huck: I think in tourism destination locations all these other amenities are necessary, and ultimately they will be available in a tourist destination area. If you are going to hold the tourists to an area, I think you have to give them things to do. They might not necessarily be the water slides or whatever that you've mentioned, but they have to be things of interest, whether it's a winery tour or nature trails. There are various other amenities in a tourist destination area. Yes, they are important.
Mr Bradley: Would you advocate in favour of, I'll call it, a restoration of and an emphasis on the Gateway program, in other words, a program which was to gather tourists as they come in? There were a lot of Gateway projects mentioned; the big convention centre, for instance, was one in Niagara Falls. Would you advocate in favour of that as part of a package that would be related to this casino or any future casino that might go into Niagara Falls?
1100
Mr Huck: I think it's natural apparently from the Gateway location to the American -- I guess 80% was the number down in Windsor in the media, that 80% of the attendees to the casino area were from the US. But I think the travelling, the motorcoach business is also very important to whatever tourist location. I think restoration would probably be an asset to that location.
Mr Bradley: One of the problems that was described with one of the bids or something like that was -- I want to deal with the process as opposed necessarily to the people. Was it Mr Brown who was one of these people who's involved in this from the government end of things? One of the people anyway said that they had done only a preliminary search of the background of some of the people involved.
I would have thought it would have been a great advantage at a fairly early stage to do a very careful scrutiny of the business background of some of the people who were bidding. It avoids this bit of a cloud that comes as a result. This was a couple of weeks ago. This was not the story on Monday, but a couple of weeks ago there was talk about there not having been what you'd call a secondary or careful search of the background of people. Do you think it would be a good idea in the future to do that at that early stage?
Mr Huck: I'm not totally familiar with casinos. I've been to various locations like most of us. I think, in all fairness, the casino business gets probably painted with a bad brush in areas that we've probably talked about, Las Vegas or wherever, but in what we're calling the Canadian-made casino I think it is important that the people involved are of the highest standards.
Mr Bradley: And that would be best determined at an earlier stage with a more -- I don't know whether you'd call it a secondary search of the background as opposed to just a preliminary. I just think the government could probably have avoided a bit of a problem with this because today now they're having to react to it as opposed to being -- I don't like the word "proactive"; I don't even know if it exists -- but rather than being proactive, they're being reactive in a situation where a couple of the people involved, one of them had some business dealings that have been called into question.
I don't know whether that's relevant or not, but my worry is that this wasn't done at the preliminary stage, that somehow this is discovered down the line. Do you think it would have been better to, in any case, generally speaking, deal with a very careful search of the background of the applicants ahead of time instead of just before you're going to finally sign the contract?
Mr Huck: It certainly is. If I was chosen to be a member of the board, that would play an important role in my decision, yes.
Mr Cullen: Just a couple of small questions. You're an owner and operator of a marine operation in Rockport. I've been to Rockport, a lovely place. What brings you to the Ontario Casino Corp? Did you apply for the position? Were you called and invited to apply? How did this come to pass?
Mr Huck: I was getting bored with retirement. Seriously, I wanted to pursue further tourism-related activities. In checking with my constituency office I found that there was something on the Ontario casino board which was related to tourism and it sounded challenging to me.
Mr Cullen: Fine. I have to assume, because it seems from your CV that you've certainly been active in liaising with previous governments, that you have been active in party politics as well.
Mr Huck: Yes.
Mr Cullen: One has to assume, therefore, because of the nature of the appointment that it would have been Conservative Party politics.
Mr Huck: Yes, sir.
Mr Cullen: Fine.
Mr Bradley: There's a surprise.
Mr Cullen: Yes, there's a surprise. Just coming back, I can understand your emphasis on tourism. How do you square it with those municipalities which are concerned about the rather aggressive approach of this government to promote gambling as a form of revenue source? You're going to be in the business of promoting and advancing casino operations.
Ms Mushinski: They started it.
Mr Stewart: They started it.
Mr Huck: I think again it's tourism. Casinos are a form of tourism.
Ms Mushinski: A form of entertainment.
Mr Huck: Some people call it quality. That's their activity, participation. Some people go to hockey games. I think it's a matter of having good facilities and, number one, giving people what they want. Certainly taxes are received from all other forms of entertainment and this just seems like an obvious one.
Mr Cullen: What would be the corporation's point of view in terms of advancing or expanding its operations if it found communities that didn't want to have it?
Mr Huck: I think if a community doesn't want to have it -- and there again I think there are some communities that voted in the fall municipal elections that have now decided that they would in fact like to be part of it.
Mr Cullen: But if they don't want to?
Mr Huck: If they don't want to, no. There's somebody else waiting to get it, so I would say no.
The Chair: Mr Huck, thank you very much for joining us. We appreciate your presence here today.
Mr Huck: Thank you, ma'am.
The Chair: If we can at this time move to motions of concurrences, let's deal with them in the order that the witnesses appeared before us.
The first individual was Henry Froese, intended appointee as a member of the Council of the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario.
Mr Grimmett: I move concurrence.
Interjections.
The Chair: If we could just have some order for a moment, please, gentlemen, I have a motion before us at this time and we should be dealing with that motion first. If you would like to make a procedural suggestion following that, I'll come to you, Mr Marchese, and others who have indicated that they would like to speak, I'll come to them at that time.
Before us is a motion to concur in the intended appointment of Mr Henry Froese and there's been a request for a recorded vote as well. Is there any debate? Seeing none, we will move to vote. All those in favour please indicate.
Ayes
Cullen, Grimmett, Marchese, Mushinski, Preston, Spina, Stewart.
The Chair: Those opposed? Unanimous. Thank you.
Mr Marchese, you had a procedural suggestion?
Mr Marchese: I'd like to move concurrence on all the other appointments.
The Chair: If I could just ensure that we have those covered, that would include the intended appointment of Phillip Sweetnam to the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal; the intended appointment of James McKellar to the Ontario Realty Corp board of directors; the intended appointment of Barbara Wellard to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services; and the intended appointment of Gerald Huck to the Ontario Casino Corp board of directors.
Debate on that motion?
Mr Cullen: I don't mind speaking to all of them at once. I would ask for separation for the last appointment because I do wish to record my opposition to the last appointment. The other appointments I don't have a problem with. I want to make some comments about the appointee to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, but I am in favour of that. My concern is this procedural motion and I do want to separate. I would ask that we divide --
Mr Marchese: Okay. Madam Chair, just to facilitate then, move concurrence on the other three appointments and then we'll deal with that matter --
The Chair: With Mr Huck as a separate appointment.
Mr Marchese: Sure.
Mr Cullen: That's fine.
The Chair: That's agreeable. Is there any debate on the motion for the concurrence in the intended appointments of Mr Sweetnam, Mr McKellar or Mrs Wellard?
1110
Mr Cullen: Certainly the appointments that came before us are I think people worthy of appointment. That's not a problem at all. As a matter of fact, I've known one of the applicants for some time and he will do, I'm sure, an excellent job.
Just on a point that was raised on the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, I thought the applicant made an excellent point about the requirement for public oversight over the activities of the police. It's not because there's something bad or evil going on there; not at all. As a matter of fact, through my observation of the police services commission in one of the finest police services in North America, if not the world, as a colleague of mine has said, I have noted that many of the cases, an overwhelming majority of the cases have been fairly dispensed with. Absolutely.
But one cannot say that everything operates perfectly. One strives for perfection. We all strive for perfection and those of us who achieve it are saints, but when we're dealing in an urban metropolis such as Ottawa-Carleton with a diverse population, with issues even within that police force, it is important to make sure that the system has integrity and that there is every ability for anyone who has been unfairly treated to exercise their rights.
People say, "No question." It's easy to say that when you are educated, well spoken, belong to the dominant linguistic majority and indeed the dominant demographic majority. But when you are not those and are not sure of your rights, then it becomes even more important because your rights are not any less reduced because you do not belong to those majorities. If you are not sure of those rights, and any system, any bureaucracy tends to mitigate away or move away from those things that threaten it, that's the most immediate natural human reaction and that's why we must make sure those additional steps are there.
It is good to know that most of these complaints are dismissed. The system is working. But it's also important to know that people have absolute freedom and ability to make their complaints. I for one know that if I'm being allowed to operate in my own corner with only my buddies on the police services commission who will look at it and they're part-time and they're not looking at this stuff, it's so much easier to sweep things under the carpet, that grey area stuff. The one area where you cannot have grey is in the enforcement of the law. That's why justice is blind.
That's why these things are important. I was very pleased that the applicant for the position made that point, and it's an important point. We just can't assume that because of our own experiences, that's the way the world is. It's not. The world is far more complex and these rights are precious. They are precious rights, something that I feel strongly about.
The Chair: Is there any further debate? Seeing none, I'll move to the motion put forward by Mr Marchese. Mr Stewart is asking for a recorded vote. All those in favour please indicate.
Ayes
Cullen, Grimmett, Marchese, Mushinski, Preston, Spina, Stewart.
The Chair: Those opposed? It's carried unanimously.
I require a motion with respect to the intended appointment of Gerald Huck.
Mr Grimmett: I move concurrence.
The Chair: Is there discussion?
Mr Cullen: We are dealing with profound issues here in terms of the integrity of the process, in terms of tendering, in terms of good business practice, relating to a public agency that is obviously being subject to a lot of, shall we say, lobbying or what have you. There are many different interests competing for the lucrative contracts that this particular agency is going to provide.
I know that Mr Huck is an outstanding member of his own local community and has served it well, but I have to say I was not satisfied with the answers about the need for good business practices. When asked directly if the report that dealt with the Niagara casino would be made public -- here we are dealing with the public's money, here we are dealing with integrity of the process -- Mr Huck would not give us the answer that indeed it ought to be.
I think it is important that we ensure that a public agency does its work without reproach. With respect to Niagara itself, I'm sure more things will come out as things go along, but we have to make sure that due diligence is provided, due process is adhered to. On that basis, with regret, I find that we will be opposing this appointment.
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I take issue with that because in all fairness to Mr Huck, the candidate, he is coming into a position where he has no awareness of the actual processing of how this is taking place within the board. All Mr Huck can bring to the table is his good business practice. When Mr Cullen mentions that you have to deal with this with integrity, I think Mr Huck is prepared to do that to the best of his knowledge, to the best of his experience.
To unfairly taint him as not being able to answer how he would deal with this situation, the questions on both of the opposition members' part were phrased in such a way that he is not close enough to the situation or to the process to be able to actually answer it in a way. If he was a director, if he had been there, if he had been involved in how the RFPs were created, then I can understand the detail of the questions that the opposition members presented to Mr Huck. But in all fairness to the intended candidate, he is bringing his skill sets to the table and will not have that opportunity to reply to that question until he is at the table, until he is privy to the process. Therefore, I think the castigation or the unfair slight that is put on the candidate, on Mr Huck, is exactly that, an unfair evaluation of his position, of his skill sets.
Based on his background, based on the integrity that he has demonstrated, based on the community service and business that he has been involved with, both as a business person but also as a volunteer, I think he clearly brings skill sets to the board of directors that are needed and will be valued.
Mr Marchese: Briefly, I think that what we do as members is to raise questions that are of importance to us on the basis of protecting the public trust. We don't impute anything when we ask questions of people who come before us, but we raise them so that he or she is aware of the concerns we have on the basis of the concerns we think the general public has. Once he's become aware of that, that's all we can rely on.
We rely on the individual to be ethical, and I personally assume that Mr Huck is a man of integrity and ethics and that he will pursue his goal here in that way and in the interest of the public trust. I have no doubt that this gentleman will do that. So I will be supporting this --
Mr Preston: Call the question, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Mr Marchese was in the middle of a sentence when you did that.
Mr Preston: I'm sorry, Mr Marchese. I thought you had finished, but I just wanted to get it in there in the pause.
The Chair: Okay. No one else has indicated that they wanted to speak, so we'll move to a vote on this. Mr Stewart has asked for a recorded vote.
Ayes
Grimmett, Marchese, Mushinski, Preston, Spina, Stewart.
Nays
Cullen.
The Chair: The motion carries. If I may just indicate to committee members, the last round of questioning of the last witness began with the New Democratic Party caucus. Just so I've got it on the record, when we get together next week, we will begin questioning with the government caucus.
Thank you very much. There being no other business, this meeting is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1120.