INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
ROBERT POWER
CONTENTS
Wednesday 30 September 1998
Intended appointments
Mr Robert Power
Mr Russell Browne
Mr S. Allan Magnacca
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
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea PC)
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 0943 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Vice-Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): I call the meeting to order. I apologize to everybody here. I evidently had received a note yesterday saying the meeting started at 9:30. I didn't see that note so I assumed it was at 10 as usual.
Report of the subcommittee on committee business dated Thursday, August 20, 1998: I request a motion to adopt the report.
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): So moved.
The Vice-Chair: Moved by Mr Shea. All in favour? Any opposed? That carries.
Report of the subcommittee on committee business dated Thursday, September 3, 1998.
Mr Shea: So moved.
The Vice-Chair: Moved by Mr Shea. All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
Report of the subcommittee on committee business dated Thursday, September 24, 1998.
Mr Shea: So moved.
The Vice-Chair: Moved by Mr Shea. All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
ROBERT POWER
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Robert Power, intended appointee as chair, Ontario Trillium Foundation board of directors.
The Vice-Chair: We'll commence the half-hour reviews of the intended appointments as follows: Mr Robert Power, please. Mr Power, we normally give the opportunity to individuals to make some comments if they wish before we start the questions. If you have some comments, please do that. If not, we'll begin our questions.
Mr Robert Power: Perhaps a brief introduction to give you some sense of who I am and my background. Given that this is Trillium, perhaps a history of involvement with respect to the communities would be helpful. In the 1980s I was involved in corrections and drug and alcohol rehabilitation. I worked in a halfway house at the local community level for a number of years and had some strong sense of what volunteerism and community could provide to a local municipality or community.
In the last decade or so I've been particularly involved in environmental matters and standards development. Nationally I've been involved in setting standards, working through a national stakeholder process. Internationally, as you may know -- I understand my bio has been circulated -- there is my role as the international convenor of ISO, the International Standards Organization. My job there is to facilitate a group of some 40 experts from around the world, in a neutral position, to develop standards.
That particular role and those types of roles I think are helpful for the role of chair. The interesting thing we have as the board of Trillium is 25 people from around the province of Ontario, each of which has their own particular perspective to bring to bear. The role of chair, in my mind, is somebody who can create a process that they can all buy into, find some sort of common vision and then work together consensually to achieve the objectives of the organization. There is excellent staff to carry these things out, but I always feel the role of the board is particularly important. Those are all my comments, sir.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, we'll begin with questions from government members.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Good morning, Mr Power.
Mr Powers: Good morning.
Mr Grimmett: I want to ask you about your work in the past. You mentioned that you worked in a halfway house. I didn't notice that in your biography. What kind of things did you do there?
Mr Powers: That was the John Howard Society, and the house that I was in in western Canada at the time specialized in violent offenders and individuals with drug and alcohol problems who had had great difficulty integrating with society. My job was to live in seven days a week, share a room within the house, one shower for 20 people, take care of these people, assist them with working with the community, find some sort of outreach for their particular issues and, hopefully, assist them to the next stage of social development. Sometimes, occasionally, some people had to go back to jail, others slipped back into alcohol abuse, but we were there to help them.
Mr Grimmett: The Trillium Foundation is undergoing some kind of change in terms of the responsibilities it's going to have. I wonder if you could comment on your skills in dealing with the difficult task of making decisions on where public dollars are going to go into the not-for-profit and charitable sector.
Mr Powers: The great advantage we have here is that Trillium has a long established track record which is generally viewed as excellent and there is very good staff. They have been doing this type of work for some time at a rather smaller level. Their last granting was at $17 million; they are moving now to $100 million. I have a high level of confidence that the staff, even though they are going to have to grow rapidly, are going to be able to facilitate this process on the front lines. There is an objective selection criteria process that anybody seeking the funds has to go through. I expect that process is going to stay the same, maybe be ramped up. Really it's going to be a workload issue. With that much more in funds, I expect there is going to be a considerable amount of more applications and we're going to have to manage that.
The Vice-Chair: Other questions from the members?
Mr Shea: Do you have a sense of the areas the Trillium granting is addressing now, and areas you'd like to see it at least begin to reflect upon in terms of disposition of other funds?
Mr Powers: The history of Trillium has, to put it simplistically, I guess, been more focused on traditional community charitable needs. The new funding is going to enable the new Trillium to broaden out the type of perhaps, non-traditional areas of community support. For example a Don River clean-up group may not have qualified naturally because they might have viewed themselves as being environmental protection. We have some more flexibility to get into environmental protection, for example. That's an area I'm particularly interested in. What I see is being able to expand the traditional areas of charitable activities or community volunteerism and perhaps develop networks in these areas.
I'm particularly interested in how we can network communities from across the province. We had an excellent example a couple of weeks ago where we had some people from the north and some people from Hamilton and some people from Toronto. They each came at a social issue in a different way. If we have some way of getting these people to work together, to share their views, to share their infrastructure, I think we could do a great job there.
Mr Shea: Can you go farther on that networking? That's intriguing. Any further thoughts on how you can elaborate on that, how you can develop that across the province?
Mr Power: Yes, we're setting up a new Web site right now, which we intend to have a variety of self-help tools on. The big thing frankly is going to be staff. We're 20 now; I think we're going to have to go to about 60 to meet the demand. There's going to have to be a training program for staff very quickly. I think they are going to be the key people to help these groups in getting them up learning curves as to how they do what they want to do.
0950
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Mr Power, I certainly concur with your comments in regard to the staff at the Ontario Trillium Foundation. I've had the opportunity to actually get out there and meet with them. I think they've done a wonderful job in the past. But there's no question that the role of the Trillium Foundation is changing in a rather dramatic way, which is going to be incredibly impacted by the board itself, because the board is in a position to make the decisions.
One of the concerns that has been expressed is that it is an absolute turnover of the board. All previous members -- there have been no reappointments of people who have a sense of the history of the Ontario Trillium Foundation, which is an important history in terms of the role it has played in the province. Could you comment on that? It seems strange to me, if not unwise, to simply have a complete turnover. It makes one have some concern that the board will not be as independent as one expects the Trillium Foundation to be, will not have that arm's-length relationship that everybody agrees is absolutely crucial, if people are being given the ground rules from the start in terms of the government's role, which of course has changed a number of times. That's a great concern that we've expressed. I'd like your comments on that.
Mr Power: Sure. On the issue of the board turnover, just to let you know, I'm the new kid on the block but there are a number of people who have been around on the board longer than I have by about a year and a half, so we lean heavily on those people in terms of the transition.
In terms of the new board structure, because of the expanded mandate, we have developed a whole new committee structure with a whole new focus anyway, so I think you're going to find that the people who have been around for a year and a half to two years are going to be taking a leadership role in assisting those new committees as to where we're going with it. So I have some confidence that as a board you're going to have some continuity.
The second aspect to that is that probably an organization like Trillium is bigger than any of us. Times come and change. The staff are excellent. They have an objective program; they have a high degree of credibility in the community; they have a high degree of credibility throughout the province. I have a high degree of comfort that you and I may come and go, but the people of Trillium, the staff who carry the lion's share of the work, will make sure it gets done and done well.
Mr Gravelle: I appreciate your confidence in that. The issue still is that you made reference to the fact that there's representation from all parts of the province. One part where there used to be representation on the board was northwestern Ontario, which no longer has a representative. That's a huge part of the province, with obviously a very strong impact. In fact, one of the casinos that's scheduled to open, whether one describes it as "charity" or not, is in Thunder Bay, potentially. Obviously we feel there should be a representative from northwestern Ontario. Is that an issue that has been discussed by the board, or was that noted, that that's a loss?
Mr Power: It has, actually. There have been a couple of aspects of Ontario, if I may phrase it like that, which at the board we have had a preliminary discussion on. We haven't made a recommendation to anybody yet, but I can tell you we've clearly identified that and we'd be delighted to find somebody from northwestern Ontario. That might be part of my role that I can carry back to the minister I report to.
Mr Gravelle: So you would encourage that. I can tell you there would be no difficulty in finding a number of excellent representatives. It's important that all parts are represented. Certainly I pursued it with the minister as well, and will continue to do so.
The community council set-up which will be part of how the funds are distributed: Can you give us any insight into how those appointments will be made? That's my understanding of where the plan sits now, that there will be community councils involved in making decisions related to distribution of the funds.
Mr Power: My understanding is that there has been extensive consultation, particularly with the charities and the community groups throughout the province, as to what model they'd like to see. Out of that discussion across the province there has been a recommendation for some geographically based body to work at the local level. The details of that have not been worked out, to my knowledge. Personally I would support local individuals who have local knowledge of their communities having a role in providing or reviewing the funding applications that come through, but I can tell you quite honestly that we haven't got that pinned down yet.
Mr Gravelle: Do you think it's important that they not be patronage appointments? That's certainly one of the concerns all of us have about those community councils, if they end up being the arm by which you get recommendations. A concern we have is that if they are political appointments, that will destroy the crucial arm's-length relationship. Are you willing or able to comment on that?
Mr Power: I know where you're going. I guess that raises a question as to, are we concerned about patronage or are we concerned about qualifications? I have to deal with this all the time in my role as the independent facilitator at the international level. My committee there involves Germans, French, Japanese, South Africans, New Zealanders, industry, government and others, all of which have a different perspective and all of which have a bias. My job is to make sure that those people check their hats at the door, that they bring their professional capability to the table and that they do the best thing for the international community. That is my commitment here. We're always going to have to deal with patronage. It's a way of life. But if I can get people to check that bias at the door, then I'm content, as long as their qualifications are good.
Mr Gravelle: I very much appreciate your saying that because I think that's the greatest concern we have. The Trillium Foundation has a remarkable and very special reputation in terms of the work it has done in the past. We are pretty skeptical about the process being able to be maintained the way things are set up now. I hope you can indeed be sure that happens. Otherwise I think the process could be sullied. That would be a great concern.
If I may move to another area, there have been a number of changes. We all know about the 44 sites; we know that it has moved now to four sites, four communities. One of them is in my community of Thunder Bay. There's a fair amount of controversy about this and a lot of concern. First of all, I don't think one can honestly say these are charity casinos. They're licensed under a very different aspect in order to let the government go forward, it seems, but they're not truly charity casinos.
One of the concerns that has been expressed in Thunder Bay, aside from the fact that there's great concern about the impact of gambling on our community, is that if you have a casino in your community, you don't have any particular extra benefit. The municipalities get 5% of the slots in terms of extra costs, but the actual charities themselves do not benefit in any particular way. So it's still quite a controversial issue. Do you think it's a fair argument that the communities that are potentially taking these sites should be able to get a larger benefit in terms of the take of the $100 million that's committed?
Mr Power: I don't think I can help you there because Trillium isn't engaged in that debate, and I'm speaking here on behalf of Trillium. That involves a jurisdiction that Trillium simply has no role in. So we're neither here nor there. Our function is really to receive a cheque, for lack of a better expression, and we have an objective process to get funds out to the community through a variety of ways. We're not engaged in the charitable gaming debate at all. I don't think I can help you there.
Mr Gravelle: But the minister did indicate that the framework and the criteria for distributing revenues would be developed by the province, the charities and the Trillium Foundation, so there is a role you will be playing, it seems to me, based on what the minister has said publicly. You will be involved in that.
Mr Power: That may have been under the old regime. With the government having made an announcement to change its plans around charitable gaming, I expect that's going to change now too.
Mr Gravelle: It certainly is one concern that is expressed by the communities. Many of us do not believe these are charity casinos in any way at all, and the communities have some great concerns about them in terms of their other fundraising efforts. In fact, the Lakehead fundraising association has made a plea that if indeed Thunder Bay is to have a site, they want to have a much larger role in terms of the whole distribution of revenues and the whole handling of the operation. I don't know whether that will happen. These are concerns that to some degree impact on the Trillium Foundation, it seems to me.
Mr Power: I'm not confident they impact directly on us, but perhaps we might be able to assist others who have been affected negatively. If they have good programs in their communities, my bias, speaking as only one board member, would be that we would like to see that good work continue, and it may well be that our funding is a legitimate source to turn to while they build up other funding sources. I see us actually being able to assist groups and individuals, but I don't have anything specific in mind. If they've got something good, I don't think any of us want to see it wash away. So we'll see how we can help them.
Mr Gravelle: Can I ask you why you agreed to be the chair at this particular time?
Mr Power: Certainly. There's no particular magic to it. My interest in coming on the board was probably because of my environmental background originally. The past chair had announced that he was going to step down, there was a new rollout plan for this fall within the organization to be prepared for the next funding year, and frankly there was the usual sort of process, people interested in various positions. A couple of people approached me and, "Look, I know you do this international facilitation stuff." -- domestically I do it as well; I'm well-known in that area. "Would you be interested in assisting in getting this board up and running through this period of change?" I was quite content to do that.
1000
The Vice-Chair: One last question, Mr Gravelle.
Mr Gravelle: I just want to express on behalf of our caucus that we have great concerns about this whole process. The arm's-length relationship aspect is absolutely the crucial element here, and we have some concerns that this will not take place. I appreciate what you've said. As my colleague said earlier, good luck. Quite frankly, we don't believe that will be easy for you to do. But we do believe it's crucial, and we want to watch it closely. The Trillium Foundation does have a remarkable reputation in the province. We want this to be a process where it is indeed fair. We don't like the means by which we got here, and I still have some concerns about the end of the story, but we do wish you good luck and hope you're able to maintain that and hope you're successful in persuading the minister to have an appointment to the board from northwestern Ontario.
Mr Power: Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Power. There are no more questions. We thank you this morning for coming and making the time.
RUSSELL BROWNE
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Russell Browne, intended appointee as member, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario board of directors.
The Vice-Chair: The next intended appointee is Mr Russell Browne. Welcome, Mr Browne. You know the process now. If there are some comments you would like to make, please do that before we begin.
Mr Russell Browne: Good morning, Mr Chair and members of the committee. I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you to discuss my proposed appointment to the board of directors of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.
I am a 38-year-old lawyer and a member in good standing with the Law Society of Upper Canada. My legal experience includes a wide range of litigation in the areas of civil, commercial, criminal, municipal, trust and estate and administrative law as a plaintiff and defence counsel and as a prosecutor. I am married to Joan, also a litigation lawyer and a classical musician, and we have two children.
My community involvement includes doing volunteer and pro bono legal work and fundraising for the Canadian Cancer Society, our local church and our children's school. I am very pleased to be considered to serve on what I feel is an important commission for this province, a commission that ensures the honesty and integrity of the people involved with gaming and liquor service and that safeguards the public interest.
In closing, I would like to thank you once again for giving me the opportunity to appear before you this morning. I look forward to discussing with you any questions or comments you may have regarding my proposed appointment.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Browne. Liberal caucus members, Mr Bradley.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My first question to you would be, did you read an ad in the newspaper for this or did somebody call you up and say, "Wouldn't it be nice to be on the commission"? How did it come about that you're sitting before us today for this appointment?
Mr Browne: Actually, I was contacted and asked if I would be interested in serving on the commission.
Mr Bradley: Who contacted you?
Mr Browne: The MPP for Halton Centre, Terence Young, had asked if I'd be interested. They are looking for a lawyer to complete their board of directors. I looked at it, looked at what the commission did, and felt it was a very important commission. Certainly gaming is a very recent issue; it's one that requires honesty and integrity in the people who are running the business, and it also requires regulation. The public interest is paramount both in that and also in the liquor licensing matters. It was very interesting to me that the two functions were combined in February of this year. I thought it was a great opportunity to get into public service.
Mr Bradley: What is your connection with Mr Young?
Mr Browne: Over the past couple of campaigns I have provided legal counsel to campaigns in Halton Centre, where I was residing at the time. I've now moved to south Oakville.
Mr Bradley: This was for the Conservative Party?
Mr Browne: Yes, sir. I would be there if they required some interpretation of, let's say, the Election Act, or if they had some problems with the Constitution or whatever, I'd provide some comment in that regard.
Mr Bradley: Do you believe your connection with the Conservative Party helped you to be appointed to this position by the government?
Mr Browne: Initially, for me to be made aware of the opportunity, but once that happened, the rest of getting to this stage was certainly on my own merits. I was subject to quite an extensive Ontario Provincial Police investigation, which took approximately five weeks and occupied a great deal of my time in that regard. I also feel I have the experience and qualities the commission is looking for. I felt at that point that my application would stand on its own merits, and I'm very happy that cabinet has decided to bring me here today. I'm looking forward to, hopefully, your concurrence on the appointment.
Mr Bradley: May I assume that you would reject any attempts by the cabinet or anyone else to influence your decision-making on this particular commission?
Mr Browne: I would maintain being completely non-partisan in carrying out my role as a member of the board of directors, and I would certainly make that pledge to you today.
Mr Bradley: It is my submission -- and it's not shared by everybody in the world, I'm sure of that, but I suspect it's shared by a lot of Conservative backbenchers as well -- that gambling is just out of control in North America, right across this country certainly. There are some people who disagree with that, but it appears to be just out of control, and governments of all political stripes have a huge appetite for gambling revenues.
Do you think that the horse racing industry -- I'm talking about the horse racing industry now itself -- is really going to be enhanced by having video lottery terminals in the racetracks?
Mr Browne: As far as that very particular issue is concerned, I would have to get more information regarding that. From my own personal perspective, I'm not involved with attending horse races or the pros and cons of putting that type of a gaming operation into that institution. I would certainly look into it if I am appointed, and perhaps at that time I might be able to get more information on the pros and cons of that type of proposal.
Mr Bradley: Are you aware of a number of studies that are available now to all governments, which continue to expand gambling opportunities despite them? Are you aware of a variety of studies? Have you availed yourself of a variety of studies of the impact on the general population of expanding gambling opportunities? There are two examples I think of. There's one out that says young people are addicted. Did I not hear in the news today, Derwyn, there was one out about seniors? I heard that on the radio today. Have you availed yourself of those reports before you go into this position so that when you're asked to make any decisions you'll be aware of the very significant impact of gambling on the social fabric of the province or the country?
Mr Browne: I certainly have the impression that there is a down side to making available gambling activities in any jurisdiction. It is something that's being done in many jurisdictions in order to try to safeguard the public and to somehow give the people who enjoy this type of activity a safe haven to engage in this type of entertainment. The board is in place to ensure the integrity and the honesty of the people involved in running the casinos and regulating on a regular basis the activities involved in that respect.
But as far as that component of offering this type of service to the public, it's a serious one. Through the past few months of getting a little more used to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario and its function -- on the board of directors, we have a psychologist who has expertise in the area of addiction. I think that's something the board has to keep aware of. When you see a percentage of the people who attend the gaming institutions having a problem and yet contributing a larger portion of the gaming revenues, there certainly is a problem. My understanding is that both the government and the board look into that and take that into account.
1010
Mr Bradley: I recognize that it is the responsibility of the elected officials, and in reality that amounts to the cabinet, and maybe even people who advise the cabinet and aren't elected who make decisions, and I recognize they must make the policy. That's understood. Do you feel that as a representative on this commission you should try to influence the government's decisions, only in the sense of providing information as to what would be happening out there, what you see happening, what the problems are, so that when they make those decisions they'll be in a better position to do so? Do you feel you should take the initiative in doing that or only do so when the minister asks you?
Mr Browne: I know the governance role of the board of directors is one that would advise as to guidelines in the exercise of any authority that the board or the commission may have. In that function of providing guidelines, I would certainly think that if there is something that is a concern that we see in our role as adjudicator or perhaps in conducting public interest hearings and that sort of thing, if we do perceive a problem, then it's incumbent to notify the government through the chair and make sure that at least the problem is pinpointed and the government can then take the required course of action as they see fit.
Mr Bradley: I understand this is my last question. If your opinion were sought by the news media, keeping in mind that you're a member of a commission -- because you're going to be appointed, I can assure you of that. There are enough members here on the government side to always ensure that their appointments go through, so that's understood. That's why I say it in that context. If you were approached by a member of the news media and asked to give comment -- you're not a civil servant in this case; I expect civil servants don't necessarily give comments -- as a member of a commission, would you feel free to offer your opinions and comments to members of the news media if those were sought, even if those opinions were contrary to perhaps the prevailing opinion of the government?
Mr Browne: I would have to restrict my interaction with the media to cases of which I have knowledge. If they would like to ask me a specific question on a hearing that I may have been involved in, then I certainly think it's incumbent, if I haven't made it clear in a written decision, to discuss that with them if there is something they wish to discuss in that sense.
In the broader issues, I think I have to be careful and I have to also realize that I am a member of the board of directors and that there is a vice-chair and a chairman and also a minister who will be responsible for my comments, and I think they have to be carefully considered before I make a statement off the cuff if I'm approached in a hallway by a member of the press, for example.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Mr Browne, good morning. I take it from the exchange you had with Mr Bradley that you're someone who has been supportive or is supportive of the Conservative Party. Can I ask you if you're a member of the Conservative Party?
Mr Browne: No, not at this time. I believe I may have, as a result of voting, joined at one time. I don't believe I'm a current member.
Mr Silipo: Are you a member of any other political party?
Mr Browne: No, I'm not.
Mr Silipo: I don't know if that question has fallen out of use. I haven't been in this committee for a while, but people will know I used to ask all the time.
Mr Bradley: First question I always ask.
Mr Silipo: I'm surprised it hasn't been asked yet. So don't feel singled out, Mr Browne.
Mr Browne: No.
Mr Shea: Are you a member of --
Mr Silipo: Mr Shea, did you want clarification of that?
The Vice-Chair: Carry on.
Mr Silipo: I just wanted to ask you about one area, because Mr Bradley has covered the other area very well, coming back to the other part of your function, which is around dealing with applications for liquor licences. I raise this because in my own riding it has been a concern for some time; that is, the number of licensed establishments, which in and of themselves are not a problem. But when connected with other issues such as drug peddling and selling, it becomes in perception, and I think in reality, a problem, particularly in one area of the riding I represent and I know in other parts of the province as well as here in Toronto.
I want to hear your approach, assuming you're a little bit familiar with the process you would need to follow, in terms of dealing with those kinds of concerns if you were dealing with an application for a liquor licence in an area where there are already many licensed establishments, your approach in dealing with that concern that would be raised through a public meeting, let's say, that you would be calling under the provisions you would have to follow.
Mr Browne: Just so I understand the hypothetical, there is a business that has applied for a liquor licence, there has been notification and there's a public interest hearing which I am a part of, and part of the public's concern is that there are too many licensed establishments in a particular area?
Mr Silipo: Yes.
Mr Browne: How would I deal with that particular concern? Again, it would have to be weighed against the interests of the business establishment. You have to take into account if this particular establishment is going to make a go of it in that particular community. I think that particular analysis probably wouldn't enter into a public interest hearing, the financial stability of the particular applicant, so probably that wouldn't be an issue I would deal with.
I would have to weigh the witness's evidence as far as arguments of an individual witness, and also the number of witnesses who are coming forward with the same concern. At that point, I would make an assessment as to the validity of the concern of the public and see if that would supersede the interests of the business establishment in getting a licence. That would be my understanding of a public interest hearing. Then I would provide a written opinion in due course.
Mr Silipo: All right. Thank you.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have just a couple of questions. Would you agree with me that gambling in Ontario or in Canada has been around for a long time?
Mr Browne: From my own personal knowledge, I wouldn't be able to tell you. All I know is that casinos were in Vegas and Atlantic City, and my understanding is that people had to go there to do any legal gambling, so to speak. Other than that, I'm not really that acquainted.
Mr Stewart: I'm not necessarily just talking about casinos. I'm a little older than you, probably a whole lot older than you, and of course I remember back in the days of the Irish Sweepstakes tickets that were sold quite regularly across this province, bingos that go on in churches and so on and so forth, break-open tickets etc.
Your appointment to the commission, or indeed pending appointment to the commission -- I keep hearing these things that gambling seems to be just new here within the last couple of years. I don't believe that, and I believe that's why the commission -- I mean, we're looking at appointing a commission to deal with something that has been around for a long time. Why would we not, then, deal with it to make sure the standards are there, the qualifications are there, everything is done legally? Is that not what this commission is all about?
Mr Browne: I certainly agree with you, sir. The whole drive behind the commission, I agree, was that there was much illegal gambling going on and that it was not done by people with honesty and integrity. The public was not being properly served. The elements of crime certainly infested that type of atmosphere. To bring legalized gambling to the people who want to legitimately have that as an entertainment form I think was very important, and that's why the role of the commission. To ensure that this form of legalized gambling doesn't fall into the old standards of illegal gambling is paramount.
1020
Mr Stewart: I guess that's what I was trying to suggest, that gambling has been in this country for many, many years and that has necessitated commissions such as the one you're being considered for to make sure that all the guidelines and everything are there.
One of the things I want to clarify -- and I stand to be corrected -- is that slots are going into the racetracks, not VLTs. Certainly the racing industry is extremely pleased with the possibility of enhancing that industry that is gambling. It's kind of amazing, isn't it? Horse racing has been around for a long time. I guess it goes back to one thing, and that's self-control and self-responsibility on behalf of the people. I was thinking the other day that there are a lot of people addicted to food, a lot of them addicted to alcohol, a lot of them addicted to drugs, a lot of them addicted to a lot of things. That will happen, but I believe it's the responsibility of each individual to try and decide which way they want to go on this thing.
I think it could be part of your position on the commission to try and make sure that those safeguards are in place, because it's going to be there, whether we have additional casinos or additional bingo halls or additional break-open tickets or whatever. I wish you luck.
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Mr Browne, thank you and welcome this morning. I appreciate your interest in pursuing this appointment.
You've finished Windsor, so I'm presuming here that you graduated probably under Dean Ron Ianni.
Mr Browne: That's correct.
Mr Spina: You were under probably one of the best lawyers who could have deaned law school in this province. As an alumnus, I also have a little bias in that.
I want to switch to the alcohol side of this, the Liquor Licence Act enforcement side of it. I've had constituents who are local bar owners and restaurateurs, with for the most part very good records in compliance, complain to me about the vigilante, arrogant type of attitude of the liquor licensing inspector. I guess what I'm asking for is your opinion on what the role should be of the liquor licensing individual, the individual who works for the board that inspects the restaurants.
Mr Browne: As I mentioned earlier, one of the functions of the board is in the area of governance, and certainly we can make recommendations with regard to the exercise of any authority under the acts. If we were able to look into that situation -- I have no personal knowledge at this point of the abuse or non-abuse of liquor inspectors. However, taking it as a hypothetical situation, if those facts are presented and there's some indication that a guidance policy of some sort should be instituted with regard to that exercise of authority, then I imagine the board would act in that regard.
As far as the day-to-day operations are concerned, there is an enormous staff under the CEO and registrar of the commission. I understand there are some 90 seconded OPP officers and there are hundreds of staff involved in day-to-day operations. It's a massive task, and as far as a member of the board is concerned, to get into that type of situation I think it would have to be brought to our attention after some type of investigation had been done on the administrative side. If we start getting into that at that particular stage, I think that takes away from the board's ability to concentrate on hearings and public interest hearings and adjudication and some of the functions where I would probably have more expertise. The day-to-day operations of the commission I think would have to be investigated by the people who are either supervising these individuals or some other branches of the administrative side.
Mr Spina: You feel it should be limited to fundamental compliance policy, then, in terms of the board?
Mr Browne: I'm sorry?
Mr Spina: Compliance policy, or just reacting to the issues when they reach the commission level?
Mr Browne: I would have to get into the function of staff and board and the relationship between them. When you get into a new position, such as I hopefully will be in, you have to figure out who does what and not step on any toes. Down the line, when there is something that is my function and I want some assistance from staff, I don't want to appear to have stepped over my boundaries as a board member. I'm not that familiar with it.
Mr Spina: Yes. It's knowing your authority. I wish you well.
The Vice-Chair: We've run out of time. Mr Browne, thank you very much for coming and answering our questions.
S. ALLAN MAGNACCA
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: S. Allan Magnacca, intended appointee as member, Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board.
The Vice-Chair: We call Mr Allan Magnacca. Mr Magnacca, you're so lucky to have an Italian Canadian Chair who can pronounce your name correctly. Welcome. If you have some comments you want to make, please do that before questions begin.
Mr S. Allan Magnacca: Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity of coming this morning. I respect the opportunity to appear before the committee to present my qualifications and respond to any questions and comments.
I believe I'm qualified to sit on the Niagara police services board. During my business experience I've had the opportunity to live and work in many different communities, including Manitoba, Calgary, Edmonton and Scarborough, and for the past 16 years in Niagara. During that time, my wife and I raised three children, who also experienced the life and living in these various communities in growing up.
My background is both a business owner and a senior officer of a major corporation. I've had a great deal of experience in budgets and human resources, people and asset management. During my career I've also spent 30 years as a member of the military reserves. This included service in the ranks, as well as a senior officer. I have commanded battery and regimental positions within the military reserves. Prior to my request to go on supplemental reserve, I was also, for two years, the senior staff officer for operations in training for all militia in Ontario. This required liaison with a number of police forces across Ontario for various purposes during that time.
I have been a volunteer in both my community and my business-related activities and associations, including terms on the economic development committee in Niagara Falls. I attempt to balance my business and community commitments, and I'm just completing an extended term as a warden of my church in Niagara. I therefore have the time and I certainly have the sincere interest to be a responsible member of the Niagara police services board. I feel I can make a valuable contribution if my appointment is confirmed and would look forward to serving my community and the region on the police board.
1030
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. We'll begin questions with Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Mr Magnacca, good morning. Let me start with the question that I also asked Mr Browne -- I think you were in the room -- and which, as I said, I like to ask everyone who comes before us: Are you a member of any political party?
Mr Magnacca: Yes, I am.
Mr Silipo: Which party would that be?
Mr Magnacca: The Progressive Conservative Party.
Mr Silipo: I'd just say in passing that your being a member of the Conservative Party is not a factor, as far as I'm concerned, in whether or not I will vote for your appointment. Looking at what you said and your qualifications in terms of the background you bring, you have a varied experience, and I think that's quite valuable.
I'd like to talk a little bit about some of the issues you'll be dealing with as a member of the police services board. I'm assuming that you've seen the material we've been provided with as well.
Mr Magnacca: I believe so.
Mr Silipo: So you have a sense of some of the issues. I want to start with the one that deals with the rate of crime in the Niagara region, your sense of it going into this position and your approach to how serious a problem you would be dealing with.
Mr Magnacca: In looking at the statistics that were available, it's very difficult to take a comparison of one year versus another in a short time frame -- I think it was January to April -- and express a strong opinion on what did that. In terms of the Niagara region, some things like robberies and break-ins and these sorts of things were down. I think a lot of that has to do with the community policing that is going on and has been for several years in the Niagara region. I think that has some influence, but specifically, I don't have any other background on those numbers.
Mr Silipo: The whole issue of how one deals with that -- and one issue I have no doubt you will be dealing with, as all police services boards are dealing with, is how you respond in terms of the number of officers you're able to put on the streets and various other things you do. I'd like to hear your sense of where your priorities lie in terms of how you approach policing, given the range of choices you will have -- maybe not that many. Where do you put the emphasis in terms of what makes for good policing and what makes for good crime prevention, to the extent that we can do that?
Mr Magnacca: As a taxpayer and as a member of the community, I know it's very important to be as efficient as possible with both the human resources and the financial resources. It's a balance, a little give and take in terms of what they are. I certainly think issues such as community policing have been very important and very effective. In terms of the Niagara region specifically, there is always going to be an issue of the chief wanting to have more manpower because the taxpayers want more services or want the police to be responsible for more things. So it's a balance. If I am appointed to the police services board, I can use my experience to help understand those issues and respond to them.
Mr Silipo: The question of budget is of course one of the things that will come to bear on that. One of the things I'm assuming you will be involved in, in an ongoing way, is this whole issue of putting the argument to the regional municipality around the need for money to be provided. Do you see that there is going to be a bigger problem or less of a problem in the next year or so? Municipalities are now saddled with a larger proportion, having to balance more costs on the property tax base and to put within that mix the police budgets. Where do you see your role in terms of the priorities and urging the municipalities to put the priority on police services versus other services they need to provide?
Mr Magnacca: I think part of that is through the process of the budget and determining and listening to the needs of the chief and the board as to what the requirements are. Where the funding comes from, whether it's strictly the region or it's the provincial government or a combination of both, the budget is the budget. You can only work with the financial resources that are available. Again, in preparing budgets and going through that process, there has to be a balance and one has to be aware of the limits on those resources, whether it's through taxes or whether it's through straight provincial funding.
Mr Silipo: You may be aware that just this past summer the current Solicitor General, Mr Runciman, said to the media that he was in favour of reinstating capital punishment, at least for certain offenders -- for murderers of police officers and perhaps for others whose crimes were particularly vicious. I'd like to hear if you have a position on the issue of capital punishment.
Mr Magnacca: It's a very sensitive and debatable topic. Personally, I have been on both sides of the issue over a number of years. I am very concerned about the protection of our police officers and that there should be punishment for the crimes committed against police officers. The ultimate death penalty -- I'm swayed towards the position that it should be an option for the courts in dealing with the death or murder of police officers. I think it should be there as an alternative in terms of sentencing.
Mr Silipo: An alternative to be determined by the jury or the judge?
Mr Magnacca: Yes.
Mr Silipo: How do you see your position on that fit within the role you will be serving out as a member of the police services board? In other words, is it part of your job in that capacity to promote the point of view you have, or do you see it as something aside from the job you're being asked to do?
Mr Magnacca: Actually, I think it's something aside from the job. As I said, I think capital punishment is a very controversial, very debatable and very emotional topic. You really have to reflect on the position you take on that issue. As I said, I have a strong concern for the lives of police officers. They are our front line against crime and they are in a vulnerable position. I think we need to consider all the alternatives that make criminals aware of what the alternative punishment could be in the eyes of the court. As I said, it should be an option.
Mr Grimmett: Welcome, Mr Magnacca. I wonder if you might comment on how a person like yourself on a police services board, who certainly brings a varied background and a strong business background, might develop policies on that board that would assist the police force in getting more public support. From my own contact with people who are police officers, they tell me that investigation and solving a crime are usually directly proportional to how much help they get from members of the community. You mentioned community policing. Do you have any other thoughts on how the Niagara force might be able to get more assistance from the public in dealing with crime?
1040
Mr Magnacca: Certainly I think community policing, which I used as an example, has been helpful. The visibility of the police in the communities, the visibility of police in as many various opportunities as possible, in the schools, in the college in our area, in the Niagara College, and the public view and the opportunity for police to talk about what the community can do to assist them in carrying out their responsibilities.
As taxpayers and as residents of the community or the region, we have an obligation to make sure we do everything possible to assist the police force in carrying out their responsibilities -- I think more visibility, more involvement with youth. Our area, like every other region, maybe more so, is changing because of the mix in the area and the growth. I think the police need to be very visible to the youth and to the community in general.
Mr Shea: Allan, it's a great pleasure to see you here this morning. You have an impressive curriculum vitae. What many will not know is that you have an equally impressive one in terms of the church. It's in that capacity that you and I have met in the past year. I appreciate having you here today, particularly someone of your calibre offering yourself to serve on a very important agency in our community.
I'd like to ask you a question and I know it will scrape the bone. It is a difficult one and you would only be able to answer it as a member of your community, with no other particular experience. I want to pick up on the question of the Bernardo case. In my former life I've been a police commissioner and I understand the way police forces work and so forth. I have a real concern about interforce co-operation and I use that as a particular case in point.
You may not have been in the country at the time or you may not have been following it very closely, but because of your geographic location, you may have some comments to offer on what appeared to be serious interforce rivalry or confusion or misunderstanding of information flow and so forth. As a member of what is now a police services board, you would obviously be expected to make some kinds of comments in that regard, at least if it happened under your watch. Do you have any comments to offer about what you see happened during that period?
Mr Magnacca: I think it became quite evident, and maybe more so to us in the Niagara region, that -- maybe "rivalry" isn't the correct word; I think a lack of communication, a lack of means to communicate. If those things were in place, the readily available information on investigations in other jurisdictions, a data source to be able to find that information quickly, the exchange of that information and more teamwork would have gone a long way to having that particular case solved more quickly.
Mr Shea: Can I take from your answer then that as a member of the board, it would be your expectation to hold your employee, the chief, to accountability for not only communications within the force but between forces?
Mr Magnacca: Absolutely.
Mr Shea: In that end, can I just lead into one other question that is of significant issue for me? Do you have a sense of how you set quality control standards for policing in your community?
Mr Magnacca: Only from the point that the chief is the one who needs to bring forth his or her objectives and goals for the force and allow the services board to review and debate and discuss those, and then to ensure, once those are accepted and in place, that the mandate is to carry them out.
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Welcome, Mr Magnacca. My first question to you is, how do you come by this appointment?
Mr Magnacca: I put my name forward several years ago as having an interest in volunteer boards or commissions. I felt my experience and background would be of value and that it could be balanced between my business life and personal life.
Mr Cullen: Sure, and who did you put your name forward to?
Mr Magnacca: I put it through to the government at the time.
Mr Cullen: Which government at the time?
Mr Magnacca: It was 1996 or 1997.
Mr Cullen: So it's this government. Who called you?
Mr Magnacca: Actually, I had a call from our local member asking if I had a continuing interest and did I think I had the experience to serve on this particular thing if my name went forward.
Mr Cullen: Who is your local member?
Mr Magnacca: Tom Froese, St Catharines-Brock.
Mr Cullen: What's your connection with Mr Froese? Do you have a connection with Mr Froese?
Mr Magnacca: I have known him for a number of years prior to his being an MPP. He lived in the community -- a local bank manager.
Mr Cullen: Have you attended a police services board meeting?
Mr Magnacca: No, I haven't.
Mr Cullen: Reading from the background material here -- I've listened with some interest to your comments about budgets -- according to the information provided to us, the Niagara police service is understaffed by about 46 officers, or will be this fall. It's actually 51 at the moment but it'll fall to 46. I'm aware, because I was a member of regional council in Ottawa-Carleton, that in the last cycle as part of the downloading exercise the grants to police have been cut out. In Ottawa-Carleton we lost $8 million, and I think that in Niagara it would be about $5 million or $6 million.
Do you think that being 46 officers below the authorized strength of 592 there's enough policing going on in Niagara?
Mr Magnacca: That's a hard one for me to answer at this stage. I don't know why they are under the allotment or whatever the manpower budget is, whether it's because of suitable candidates coming out of the police college, is strictly related to budget --
Mr Cullen: It is budget. It's budget, because they require property tax dollars and they have to submit their budget to council for approval, and the council has a take-it-or-leave-it situation. But my question to you is: Here you are representing the community in dealing with the provision of policing in Niagara. Are there sufficient resources for policing in Niagara?
Mr Magnacca: Again, I'm not trying to be evasive on that but I'm not too sure how the chief is allocating his police resources. I know in Niagara-on-the-Lake, as an example, because of community policing there's a good profile of the police. We have a bicycle group as well as vehicles. Niagara region has taken over some of the highways in our area which have to be policed by Niagara Regional Police.
Mr Cullen: At additional cost.
Mr Magnacca: We see those vehicles out there. How that applies to the rest of the region -- is there satisfaction or is there not with the policing in some of those other communities -- I haven't been there.
Mr Cullen: But you're a member of the community and you know that regional council, in setting the budget or approving or rejecting the budget for the police services commission, must weigh these things off with the demands for additional responsibilities that have been offloaded by the province with the ability of taxpayers to pay for it. Are you going to be sensitive to those pressures at regional council? There is an independent role here for police services boards. I've been part of a council that has actually rejected a police budget and the police services board was smart enough to go back and recast it as opposed to going to arbitration, because the police are supposed to be accountable to the taxpayer. What are your views on this?
Mr Magnacca: The police services commission, in developing a budget to present to regional council, have to believe what they are asking for, and in discussions with the chief on the resources needed have to first of all justify it at that stage, taking it forward, and have to do whatever they can to try to win the support of their regional council to support that budget. So there's give and take in it, as you know from your experience.
1050
Mr Cullen: Yes, it's very political.
One of the tasks you will have on the police services board, and I've seen agendas, certainly at mine, where you will be reviewing complaints that are filed with the police chief with respect to conduct of his force members. Originally, all of these complaints would have been vetted by the police complaints commissioner to ensure that they have been properly investigated while they're being reported to the board. That's now been eliminated and it's now before the board to determine whether there should be subsequent action, given the police chief's resolution of the complaint.
Do you think you're going to have time to deal with the 50 or 60 or so complaints that come forward every month at your police services board?
Mr Magnacca: I don't know the number of complaints that come forward from the --
Mr Cullen: It will be in that number.
Mr Magnacca: The board's responsibility is to review those complaints and make sure that the chief is handling them properly. So, whatever time is required, the police services board should be prepared to make sure they thoroughly review them.
Mr Cullen: We've recently had the situation -- I just read the regulation in the Ontario Gazette -- where 12-year-olds are being given the ability to bear arms. Yes, they have to pass a hunting course but once they have passed that hunting course they can carry a rifle and use a rifle. We've had that awful situation in the United States where we had a schoolyard assassination by two boys of half a dozen teachers and fellow students. What do you think the police services board ought to be saying to the government about 12-year-olds and arms?
Mr Magnacca: About?
Mr Cullen: About 12-year-olds carrying arms.
Mr Shea: The federal government shouldn't have done it.
Mr Cullen: I'm sorry. It's in the Ontario Gazette. It's your regulation. It was just --
Interjections.
Mr Shea: It's also --
Mr Cullen: Never mind "also." I'm asking a question of the witness.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Shea.
Mr Shea: I just want to correct --
Mr Cullen: Mr Chairman, I've asked a question of the witness. I'm not interested in Mr Shea's opinion. I'm interested in the witness's opinion.
Interjection.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Shea, if you don't mind.
Mr Magnacca: I have concerns about gun control. I'm a hunter. I've held the permit. I had an acquisition permit when I was younger out in western Canada in the Prairies, where ducks and geese and so on are plentiful and are probably the best ones available. I've done my share of hunting. I learned at a very early age about care and custody and control from my father, certainly not at 12 years of age, and wouldn't have expected at 12 years of age to have had the care and custody of a firearm. Certainly, at a later age, properly trained and properly schooled in the use of firearms, I think it's appropriate.
The Vice-Chair: One last question.
Mr Cullen: The police have been among the strongest proponents of gun control and you are there on a police commission representing the community and presumably will be speaking for the community on these matters. Do you think that your police services commission in Niagara will have an opinion to represent the community on, on this particular issue of whether 12-year-olds should be able to bear arms?
Mr Magnacca: I don't know whether it will be on their agenda or not.
Mr Cullen: Would you not be interested? I mean, if your community is interested in this, do you not think there is a role to play?
Mr Magnacca: I think taxpayers, individual citizens, are interested in this issue and will make their opinions known to the parties of the day as to what their feelings are.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Magnacca, for coming and answering our questions.
We are ready now to move on a motion for concurrence on these intended appointments. Do we have a motion, starting with Mr Robert Power?
Mr Grimmett: I move concurrence.
The Vice-Chair: All in favour of the appointment? Any opposed? That carries.
Moving on to Mr Russell Browne, any motion?
Mr Grimmett: I move concurrence.
The Vice-Chair: Any discussion? All in favour? Any opposed? That carries.
Moving on to Mr Magnacca, a motion?
Mr Grimmett: I move concurrence.
The Vice-Chair: Any discussion?
Mr Cullen: We touched on lightly here -- and I know it will provoke some remarks on the other side, but quite frankly, in the urban areas most municipalities have laws against the discharge of firearms within their boundaries. Certainly that's so in Toronto and in Ottawa and, I have to say, in most urban municipalities.
The issue about letting 12-year-olds bear arms: Yes, I understand that they have to have parental permission. Yes, I understand that they have to pass a gun course. No one therefore monitors afterwards what happens with these kids when they have their guns. That horrible example in the United States where the kids -- I mean, they were qualified. I don't know what the story is in terms of how they got their guns but apparently it was legal. But it was well after the fact, after the supposed constraints and restraints, that they took it into their heads that something had to happen.
With all that we see on television, how can we let this go forward? My concern is that here we have a situation where in the urban areas people don't like this, they really don't like this. We're going to be hearing from a lot of police service commissions about this. The government may say on the other side that their hands are tied. I'm sorry. They did not have to pass the regulation. It's in the Ontario Gazette, printed in black and white, and it did not have to be passed.
I think this is a red flag issue. I know in my community out in the rural area, where urbanites have moved out for quality of life, they're already unhappy with trespassers crossing their lands hunting for deer or geese or whatever. But imagine 12-year-olds and trying to tell a 12-year-old to get off your land when he or she has the gun; mostly he. It's a very dangerous situation. This is a door that ought not to have been opened.
Mr Spina: I respect the fact that Mr Cullen might have opinions; however, I think they are way off topic with respect to the appointment of Mr Magnacca, who I think is excellently qualified to take the role on the commission.
He conveniently forgets that C-67 and C-68, federal Liberal bills, were the ones that set the standards in this country -- not just this province, in this country. The reality is that provinces like British Columbia in fact have it at the age of 10 and not at the age of 12. All we did was put the restrictions and the controls on something that was already there in order to ensure the safety of the public and the educational component of handling weapons by younger people.
The Vice-Chair: Any other discussion on this matter? Seeing none, all in favour of the appointment?
Mr Cullen: Recorded, Mr Chair.
Ayes
Grimmett, Bert Johnson, Shea, Silipo, Spina, Stewart.
The Vice-Chair: Against? The vote carries.
There is no other business. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
The committee adjourned at 1059.