1

1 2 3 4 TORONTO EXTERNAL CONTRACTS INQUIRY 5 6 7 ******************** 8 9 10 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DENISE BELLAMY, 11 COMMISSIONER 12 13 14 15 16 Held at: East York Civic Centre 17 850 Coxwell Avenue 18 Toronto, Ontario 19 M4C 5R1 20 21 ******************** 22 23 24 October 20th, 2004 25

2

1 APPEARANCES 2 David Butt )Commission 3 Daina Groskaufmanis )Counsel 4 Linda Rothstein )City of Toronto 5 Andrew Lewis ) 6 Valerie Dyer (np) )Dell Computers 7 David Young (np) )Margo Brunning 8 Courtney Leyland 9 Robert Brent )Lana Viinamae 10 Melissa Kronick (np) )CUPE 11 William Anderson )Wanda Liczyk 12 Ball Hsu (np) )Ball Hsu And 13 )Associates 14 Conor O'Hare )Jim Andrew 15 Robert Mullin (np) )Jeffrey Lyons 16 17 Janet Smith )Registrar 18 Carol Geehan )Court Reporter 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

3

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page No. 3 4 PAUL SUTHERLAND, Sworn 5 Examination-In-Chief by Mr. David Butt 20 6 Cross-Examination by Robert Brent 84 7 Cross-Examination by Linda Rothstein 87 8 Cross-Examination by William Anderson 97 9 10 CAMERON ROBERT CURRIE, Sworn 11 Examination-In-Chief by Mr. David Butt 120 12 Cross-Examination by William Anderson 190 13 Cross-Examination by Andrew Lewis 217 14 15 16 17 Certificate of Transcript 248 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

4

1 --- Upon convening at 10:05 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry is now in 4 session. Please be seated. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Good morning. 6 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Good morning, 7 Commissioner. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Ms. Groskaufmanis. 9 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Commissioner, just 10 before we begin this morning, I just wanted to introduce some 11 new counsel to you, counsel for Margo Brunning will be 12 Courtney Leyland. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Good morning. 14 MS. COURTNEY LEYLAND: Good morning. 15 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Madam Commissioner, 16 we're here, before we being the hearings this morning, to 17 address the closing submissions that were received by the 18 Commission on behalf of Brendan Power. 19 And perhaps I can just give you a bit of 20 background and then we can hear from Mr. McPhadden who 21 represents Mr. Power. 22 As part of the -- the first Inquiry -- as part 23 of the Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry we asked all parties 24 to make their written closing submissions by Friday, August 25 13th, that being parties who were not going to be affected by

5

1 the recall evidence that we started hearing in September. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: That's if they wanted to 3 make -- 4 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: That's right. If 5 they -- 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- they didn't have. 7 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: That's right. If 8 they certainly wanted to make written closing submissions. 9 Mr. McPhadden and unquestionably it's a large job and it's -- 10 there's a lot of evidence to sift through and a lot of 11 transcripts. 12 But we advised all parties of those -- of that 13 date several weeks -- probably about two (2) months 14 beforehand, it was posted on our website. So, it was a -- it 15 was a well advertised date by which we required closing 16 submissions, if they were going to submitted it. 17 Mr. McPhadden contacted me on the Thursday 18 before, Thursday the 12th and asked for an extension of time 19 to complete them. He hadn't quite, as I understood at the 20 time, he hadn't quite counted on how big a job it was going 21 to be and indicated that he would be able to have them at the 22 Commissioner for Monday morning. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So -- so the extension 24 was from Friday to the Monday morning -- 25 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: That's right.

6

1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- he was asking for. 2 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Basically we -- it 3 was a -- well, if they're sitting on our fax machine on 4 Monday morning and they came in, you know, Sunday evening as 5 opposed to Friday evening at 5:00 there wasn't going to be a 6 significant difference. 7 And certainly he explained that he'd been 8 working on them and hadn't quite realized how large a -- an 9 undertaking it was going to be. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: You had asked my 11 acquiescence to this? 12 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: I did. And 13 explained -- and explained that and you'd agreed that Monday 14 would be fine and I communicated that to Mr. McPhadden. So 15 we should have received closing submissions on behalf of Mr. 16 Power, if they were going to be made, by Monday, August 16th 17 and we did not. 18 We didn't hear from Mr. McPhadden and I 19 contacted him about ten (10) days' later on August 25th and 20 asked when -- if we would be receiving closing submissions on 21 behalf of Mr. Power. He explained to me at the time that it 22 was a much larger undertaking than he had expected. 23 They still were not complete but he expected 24 to have them in very, very shortly. And they were, in fact, 25 received by our office on August 27th. So, while the

7

1 submissions were due on August 13th and we did receive -- for 2 everyone who was making written closing submissions we 3 received written closing submissions by that date. 4 They weren't received on the 16th which is the 5 extension of time to which you consented. And they were 6 received only on August 27th without any -- without an 7 explanation other than I had contacted Mr. McPhadden and 8 asked him if we would be receiving them. 9 And based on that timetable, I certainly 10 understand that you've raised concerns, Commissioner, that 11 this was an extension of time that you granted. There was no 12 further extension of time requested and while we do have Mr. 13 Power's -- or closing submissions on behalf of Mr. Power, 14 they -- they've come in about two (2) weeks late and contrary 15 to the direction that you gave, specifically to Mr. 16 McPhadden. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. McPhadden, good 18 morning. 19 MR. BRYAN MCPHADDEN: Would you like me to 20 speak from here or from the -- 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Wherever you wish. Do 22 you want to go to the podium? You're welcome. 23 MR. BRYAN MCPHADDEN: No, well, I'm -- 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Or you can stay here, 25 you're welcome.

8

1 MR. BRYAN MCPHADDEN: -- that's okay. I 2 certainly don't dispute the time line set out by Commission 3 Counsel as she indicated, it was simply a factor of the 4 exercise being much greater than I had anticipated. 5 The written submissions were sent under cover 6 letter that outlined that -- that that had happened, simply 7 just the number of issues raised relative to Mr. Power, the 8 volume of the material and just other work commitments that I 9 had at the time. 10 I apologize for that. In fact, I expressed my 11 regret in the letter. The submissions were received August 12 27th, insofar as I know. I don't know that anyone has been, 13 if you will, prejudiced by it -- by that delay. 14 The submissions, I believe, will assist other 15 parties in preparing their replies and in preparing their 16 submissions and further submissions that they may have to 17 make to the Commissioner. And generally that the written 18 submissions will assist the Commissioner in her 19 deliberations. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Ms. Groskaufmanis, what 21 was in the letter? 22 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: I'm trying to 23 recall that. I recall -- I pulled the û 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I think Mr. McPhadden 25 has it there before him.

9

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: I apologize. The 4 letter must have become separated from the actual closing 5 submissions, because I pulled those yesterday just to review 6 the file. 7 Mr. McPhadden accurately states in his letter 8 that he regrets the delay and was a consequence of a number 9 of the issues raised relating to Mr. Power, the volume of the 10 material and much more work that he -- than he anticipated in 11 the balancing of his other files. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 13 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Commissioner, I'm - 14 - we're obviously in your hands. As I said before, the other 15 parties with standing and other parties who wish to make 16 submissions, were in a similar -- frankly in a similar 17 position to Mr. McPhadden. It is unquestionably, there is a - 18 - the volume of transcripts, the volume of documents, the 19 number of days of hearings to sift through, it's significant. 20 That being said, no one else asked for an 21 extension of time, no one else required it. And we did 22 receive a large set of closing submissions, written closing 23 submissions by August the 13th. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Anything more 25 you want to say, Mr. McPhadden?

10

1 MR. BRYAN MCPHADDEN: No, thank you. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm trying to put -- how 3 long have you been called to the Bar? 4 MR. BRYAN MCPHADDEN: Sixteen (16) years. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Sixteen (16) years. It 6 puts me in an awkward position, Mr. McPhadden, vis-a-vis Mr. 7 Power. This Inquiry has been a little bit difficult, in the 8 point of view -- from the point of view of having submissions 9 done. 10 Because normally one (1) would have 11 submissions done after everything is over and in this case, 12 because of challenges to the Divisional Court there was -- 13 there were delays. 14 And it struck me that the fairest thing to do 15 was to split the submissions, so that those who were affected 16 by the recall evidence could get their submissions in on a 17 later date. Those who were not affected by the submission -- 18 the recall evidence could get their submissions at an earlier 19 date. 20 The advantage is really for me. I'm the one, 21 in the final analysis who has to write something. And during 22 the intervening period when -- when we're not sitting in the 23 hearing rooms, it's to my advantage at that point, to take 24 the submissions and to start putting together the facts of 25 the case.

11

1 And if I have the submissions of a party with 2 standing then obviously it's to that party with standing's 3 advantage, if they wish to put forward their case to me. 4 I don't have any difficulty with your having 5 asked for an extension. I mean, that happens, I understand 6 that one can get very, very busy in practice. I get very 7 busy too. 8 But, having granted you the extension that you 9 asked for, which I was happy to do on behalf of Mr. Power, 10 although you know, it put me in an awkward position, vis-a- 11 vis everyone else, if everyone else was asking for extensions 12 as well. But, I did it for you. 13 Then it's not fair to everyone else for Mr. 14 Power's Counsel to now have the advantage of another two (2) 15 weeks to get his submissions in, without even a request for a 16 further adjournment. 17 And to be frank with you, I'm the one who 18 asked where the submissions were. Because I was working on 19 stuff, and I had various other submissions and I was coming 20 to Mr. Power's area and said, where are Mr. Power's 21 submissions. 22 And it was at that point we discovered that 23 you hadn't sent them yet. Commission Counsel should not 24 have to sit on Monday morning and check whether or not, we've 25 received everybody's submissions. Having granted Counsel a

12

1 favour I think I'm entitled to assume that you're going to 2 comply with the direction and not be rude or cavalier about 3 what essentially is an undertaking to the Commission. 4 There was no request for any further 5 extension. We had no idea that, Mr. Power, was maybe even 6 going to provide submissions because as we've said all along, 7 no one has to provide submissions. 8 But, if you choose to do so then there are 9 certain parameters and everybody is subject to the same rules 10 as everyone else, otherwise it's simply not fair. 11 So, I asked how long you've been called to the 12 Bar, Mr. McPhadden, because this is the sort of thing I might 13 expect from someone who hasn't been around very long, who 14 doesn't know that if you don't meet a deadline, that you have 15 to ask for extra time. 16 But you're at the stage where you should be 17 being a mentor to juniors, not having -- not the other way 18 around. 19 I am not going to -- I accept your apology. I 20 have not yet read Mr. Power's submissions, because I wanted 21 to hear from you before I did, but I will read them. 22 Whatever displeasure I might have vis-a-vis you, will not be 23 visited on Mr. Power. However, I leave it up to the City, 24 quite honestly, who I understand is paying your retainer on 25 behalf of Mr. Power, to decide whether or not you should be

13

1 paid, for example, for coming here today or for any 2 preparation that you had to do, in order to be here today. 3 Personally, I don't see any reason why the 4 taxpayers of Toronto should have to pay for that. But I 5 leave that part up to the City and to you. 6 All right. Thank you Mr. McPhadden. 7 Okay, Mr. Butt, we're ready to go with Mr. 8 Sutherland? 9 MR. DAVID BUTT: Yes, Madam Commissioner, Mr. 10 Sutherland is here. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yes. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 THE REGISTRAR: Please state your name in 16 full for the record. 17 MR. PAUL SUTHERLAND: Paul Sutherland. 18 THE REGISTRAR: Could you spell both names 19 please? 20 MR. PAUL SUTHERLAND: P-A-U-L, S-U-T-H-E-R-L- 21 A-N-D. 22 23 PAUL SUTHERLAND, Sworn; 24 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Good morning, sir.

14

1 Thank you for waiting. 2 3 IN THE MATTER OF THE TORONTO EXTERNAL CONTRACTS INQUIRY 4 AFFIDAVIT OF PAUL SUTHERLAND 5 6 I, Paul Sutherland, of the County of Northumberland, in the 7 Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY: 8 9 A. Background 10 11 1. From 1985 to 1997, I was a Councillor at the 12 City of North York. During the last four years of my tenure 13 in North York, I was Deputy Mayor to Mayor Mel Lastman. 14 15 2. When amalgamation was announced in 1997, I was 16 one of six members appointed by the Provincial government to 17 the Toronto Transition Team to oversee the amalgamation of 18 the six municipalities. Because of this appointment, I was 19 not permitted to run in the 1997 municipal election. 20 21 3. In December 2000, I was elected to the new 22 City of Toronto Council. I did not seek re-election in 2003. 23 24 4. I am currently employed as a Senior 25 Associate, Municipal Affairs, at Hill & Knowlton.

15

1 2 B. The Transition Team: Responsibilities 3 4 5. The Transition Team dealt with everything 5 relating to amalgamation, except for matters within the scope 6 of the Financial Advisory Board (the "FAB"). Specifically, 7 the Transition Team's role was to make recommendations and 8 hire new staff. Ultimately, the new City of Toronto Council 9 adopted the Transition Team report. 10 11 6. We divided Transition Team responsibilities 12 among the six members. Alan Tonks was the Transition Team 13 Chair. Many issues to be discussed were brought directly to 14 Transition Team meetings for a decision. In other instances, 15 Transition Team members were delegated to do specific tasks 16 and report back to the full team with recommendations. 17 18 7. As we did our work, there were appeals to the 19 Ontario Court (General Division) and to the Ontario Court of 20 Appeal regarding amalgamation. There were also many 21 demonstrations against amalgamation. Many municipal 22 politicians and staff were opposed to amalgamation. 23 24 25 C. Selection of Tax System

16

1 8. The selection of the tax system was one of 2 many issues before the Transition Team. 3 4 9. In July 1997, the City of Toronto needed a 5 unified tax system in order to put out its tax bills by March 6 1998. At that time, there were six different systems in 7 place. These had to be discarded or merged into one new 8 system that was Y2K compliant. The new system also had to 9 manage the newly introduced provincial Current Value 10 Assessment legislation that allowed for the phasing in of tax 11 increases and decreases across different assessment classes. 12 It was also not known if the new Toronto Council would phase 13 in tax changes or if they would phase over two, three, four, 14 or five years. 15 16 10. As I recall, Lois Griffin, Michael Gee, and I 17 were the Transition Team members responsible for recommending 18 a new tax system to the Transition Team and subsequently to 19 the new Council. 20 21 11. There were two tax systems being considered by 22 the Treasurers of the amalgamating municipalities - the North 23 York system and the TXM2000 system being worked on in a joint 24 project funded by Scarborough and the City of Mississauga. 25 None of Toronto, East York, York, or Etobicoke had tax

17

1 systems that could work as required in the amalgamated City 2 of Toronto. 3 4 12. The Treasurers could not decide which of the 5 two systems they should choose, and it was therefore decided 6 to hire an outside consultant, Deloitte & Touche, to 7 recommend the best system. I do not recall if the Treasurers 8 made this decision on their own or with approval from the 9 Transition Team. In the end, however, the Deloitte & Touche 10 report was inconclusive. Deloitte & Touche advised that they 11 would not recommend a system without a much more expensive, 12 lengthy, and detailed analysis. 13 14 13. As I recall, I was the only Transition Team 15 member who attended the July 15, 1997 meeting to select the 16 tax system. The Treasurers from all the former 17 municipalities were at the meeting. However, only Brenda 18 Glover and Wanda Liczyk made presentations. 19 20 14. Brenda Glover was the lead in presenting the 21 Treasurers' decision to implement the TXM2000 system. She 22 said it was a six-to-one vote. I asked her questions about 23 whether the system would be completed on time and about cost. 24 Wanda Liczyk dissented, stating that the North York system 25 could be expanded for less money and was capable of meeting

18

1 all the new tax requirements. 2 3 15. Everyone at the meeting looked to me to make 4 the final decision to recommend to the Transition Team. I 5 decided to agree with the recommendation of the six 6 Treasurers and support the TXM2000 system. I had some 7 concerns because the City of North York system looked closer 8 to completion and more comprehensive. 9 10 16. I confirmed my decision with other Transition 11 Team members, but I believe this was done informally. 12 13 17. Although minutes of Transition Team meetings 14 were kept, this was not the case for informal working 15 sessions or meetings such as this. I do not have minutes for 16 the meeting regarding the choice of tax system. I do not 17 recall if I took informal notes of this meeting. 18 19 18. On July 18, 1997, a few days after the 20 meeting, Brenda Glover, the lead Treasurer in the selection 21 process for a unified tax system, sent me a letter confirming 22 the decision regarding the tax system (TEC013001). 23 24 19. I do not recall having to deal with the tax 25 system after the July 1997 meeting.

19

1 20. The Transition Team's authority to make 2 binding decisions was a matter of some debate. I never 3 reached a conclusion about whether the Transition Team 4 decisions were binding, or whether staff could change 5 Transition Team decisions. In practice I believe staff 6 followed Transition Team directions until the Mayor and 7 Council of the new City of Toronto changed them. 8 9 21. The tax system was not mentioned in the 10 Transition Team's December 1997 report to the new Toronto 11 City Council (COT040580). The tax system decision was 12 technical in nature and not relevant to a policy document. 13 This type of information would be reported by staff to the 14 respective standing committees in the course of regular City 15 business. 16 17 22. In July 2002, following Council's review of 18 the May 31, 2002 in camera report from Jeffrey Griffiths, the 19 City Auditor, regarding the contracts with Beacon and 20 Remarkable, I met with Rick Zwarun and Jim Andrew. I wanted 21 to know why the tax system that had been recommended by the 22 Transition Team had been changed. This was the first 23 information I had that the tax system in place at the City of 24 Toronto was not the one that had been approved by the 25 Transition Team. Rick Zwarun advised me that, because there

20

1 were a lot of problems with the TXM2000 system, as well as a 2 concern that it would not be ready in time, Wanda Liczyk, the 3 Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer for the City of 4 Toronto, had decided to switch to the TMACS system. 5 6 SWORN BEFORE ME at the City of Toronto, 7 in the Province of Ontario on the 14th day of October, 2004 8 9 PAUL SUTHERLAND 10 11 12 A COMMISSIONER, ETC. 13 14 15 MR. DAVID BUTT: Mr. Sutherland, welcome 16 back. It's always a pleasure. 17 Mr. Sutherland appeared in the Good Government 18 phase, and I think that's one (1) of the few occasions where 19 a witness can say it is a pleasure. 20 21 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 22 Q: Mr. Sutherland, you were a -- a 23 Councillor in the City of North York, during the last -- from 24 1985 to 1997; is that right? 25 A: Yes, I was.

21

1 Q: And during the last four (4) years of -- 2 of your tenure, you were Deputy Mayor, I understand? 3 A: Yes, until I was appointed to the 4 Transition Team. 5 Q: Okay, and can you just tell us briefly, 6 what -- what is the Transition Team? 7 A: The Transition Team were six (6) members 8 appointed by the Provincial Government to oversee the 9 amalgamation of the six (6) Municipalities of Metropolitan 10 Toronto and Metro Toronto Government -- Government. 11 Q: And from what -- what fields of -- of 12 activity, were the Transition Team members drawn? 13 A: All had political experience at the 14 Municipal level. So, for example, Alan Tonks, who was the 15 chair of the Transition Team, was also the Metro Chair at the 16 time. Lois Griffin was a Metro Councillor. I was a North 17 York Councillor, and the other three (3) had either been a 18 Mayor or a Councillor as well, either in Scarborough, East 19 York, or -- where else? I'm not sure of the other 20 Municipalities -- and Scarborough, East York and Toronto. 21 Q: So, as I -- as I hear you, both say the 22 names and give the positions, is it fair to say that the 23 Transition Team was a body of experienced and accomplished 24 politicians to oversee the -- the transition process; is that 25 -- is that fair?

22

1 A: Yes, I think that's fair. 2 Q: And given that that was your background 3 and those were the nature of your accomplishments as a group, 4 what was your approach, were you a -- were you a nuts and 5 bolts, hands on team, or what perspective did you take in -- 6 in your oversight duties, generally? 7 A: Well, generally keeping in mind that we 8 were appointed, through that whole process there were 9 referendums going on in each of the municipalities opposed to 10 the amalgamation. There were Court process -- proceeds going 11 on, trying to prevent the amalgamation. So, there was 12 certainly a lot of interest within Toronto about the whole 13 merger. 14 Our approach was actually both. It was 15 certainly, as policy makers we have to establish a strategy 16 and a -- a format for the new City to function under. So, 17 that was obviously the key role we had is to, you know, set 18 up, for example, the Standing Committees, Council, bylaws, 19 all the things that were required to function as a City 20 Government so, we were very much engaged with that. 21 And then policy in terms of where we thought 22 the new City would want to go. And then also bring to the 23 attention of the new Council all the issues that were facing 24 them, both budgetary and otherwise. 25 So, there were some nuts and bolts but mostly

23

1 it was policy and direction and we had -- we established a 2 transition -- staff transition teams across the board that 3 did the -- the technical work that brought -- and brought 4 those -- that information to the Transition Team for adoption 5 or approval. 6 Q: And we -- we've heard from other 7 witnesses earlier in this second Inquiry that the teams, the 8 staff teams that you established, roughly and with some 9 exceptions followed departmental or functional lines in the 10 pre-existing municipalities; is that accurate? 11 A: Pretty well. I mean, the treasurers had 12 a treasurer transition team, the works commissioners had a 13 works team. There were some variances because not all 14 municipalities operated the same. 15 For example -- I'm trying to think of some 16 examples. 17 Q: We heard one example, if I can help you, 18 where real estate, for example, may have been under one 19 department in one municipality and another department in 20 another but for -- for amalgamation purposes real estate was 21 dealt with as -- as -- 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: -- an entity. Is that an accurate -- 24 A: More or less like that. Yeah. 25 Q: -- example?

24

1 A: I'm just trying to think too, at North 2 York we had the animal shelters reported through legal 3 whereas they reported through public -- it was an outsource - 4 - the Humane Society through Public Health in Toronto. 5 So, they -- they had variances like that but 6 generally speaking treasurers were treasurers, works, works, 7 transportation was transportation. And those were the key 8 areas that needed to be -- policies needed to be developed 9 under. 10 Q: Now, the transition team was appointed 11 when? Do you recall when you were appointed? 12 A: You mean the month? I'm just trying to 13 think now. 14 Q: Well, I -- I -- we see from your 15 affidavit that -- 16 A: December -- let's see. 17 Q: Amalgamation was announced in '97 and you 18 became a member so -- 19 A: It would have been around June or July 20 was it? No, earlier. It must have been earlier. 21 Q: Okay. So, would -- 22 A: It was nine (9) -- it was about nine (9) 23 months that we had prior to January 1st. 24 Q: Okay. So, that would put it -- 25 A: About April.

25

1 Q: Okay. Early Spring of -- 2 A: Yeah. 3 Q: -- of '97? And at that time when you 4 were appointed were you a sitting councillor or -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And as a result of your being a sitting 7 councillor and being appointed did you hold both seats for a 8 period of time or how -- how did that work? 9 A: Well, as a -- as a City Councillor I 10 would do that then I would -- and then I'd bill time to the 11 Provincial Transition Team for time I spent there. 12 Realistically most of my time was spent at the Transition 13 Team office which was located on Yonge Street near York 14 Mills. 15 So you served, sort of, two (2) hats as did 16 Alan Tonks and Lois Griffin. There was three (3) of us that 17 were still municipal politicians and three (3) that were not 18 at the time. 19 Q: And when did you -- did you remain a 20 municipal politician, let me put it that way, throughout your 21 tenure as a transition team member right up until -- 22 A: Almost. The transition team tenure went 23 until the end of January if I recall and then Council went 24 until the December 1st at the time. 25 So, there would have been a short period of

26

1 time when I wasn't a councillor and still a member, briefly, 2 of a transition team. 3 Q: I take it from that answer then that you 4 did not run for re-election in the November '97 election? 5 A: No. I didn't. There was -- it would 6 have been a conflict of interest really because we were 7 establishing policy for the new council. Some of it might 8 have been ward boundary changes which -- so, I made the 9 decision not to run, for sure, that term. 10 Q: And I'd like to ask you a question we 11 discussed briefly this morning that flows from Ms. Liczyk's 12 affidavit which, Madam Commissioner, is Exhibit 11, Volume I, 13 Tab M, paragraph 66. 14 And, Mr. Sutherland, I wonder if we could 15 provide you with a copy of the document just so you can look 16 at the paragraph? 17 A: What volume? 18 Q: Volume I of the affidavits? 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: One (1). 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I don't think that's it? 24 THE WITNESS: That's not it? 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: It looks way too large.

27

1 THE WITNESS: Okay. What's the title? 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: The Affidavits, Mr. 3 Butt? 4 MR. DAVID BUTT: It's the affidavits. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: It should be right -- 6 the very first one. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 9 Q: And it's Tab M. And then at Tab M, page 10 20, paragraph 66. And I'll give you an opportunity to read 11 that, if you can just let me know when you've had an 12 opportunity to look at that. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 And as we all know now from having looked at 17 it that Ms. Liczyk deposes that there were instructions given 18 to North York staff not to participate in any amalgamation -- 19 amalgamation activities with other municipalities due to the 20 referendum. 21 And I'm just wondering if you could, as a 22 former Councillor, Councillor in North York at the time, help 23 us with your perspective on those -- those events? 24 A: Well, I don't recall North York Council 25 giving that direction. It may be that we did. Certainly

28

1 those were fascinating times because the municipalities were 2 opposed to the merger. And a lot of discussions had gone on 3 prior to this time about other options that the Government 4 might want to pursue, like having four (4) municipalities and 5 absorbing East York and York and the Mayor's had their own 6 committee looking at different governance issues. 7 So, it's possible they were either directed 8 through the Mayor's office or by Council to keep their 9 counsel through that process. 10 Q: Okay. And if you could just help me a 11 little bit with process, in terms of how North York did its 12 business. You've mentioned two (2) possibilities, one (1) 13 being a direction from Council or perhaps from the Mayor's 14 office. 15 And I'd like to ask you a little bit about how 16 each of those might have unfolded. If -- if it had come 17 through the Mayor's office, just practically speaking, how 18 did things work in North York? Would that have meant a memo 19 or an e-mail or a chat or how did things work there? 20 A: It would have been a chat that the Mayor 21 would have had with Wanda Liczyk in this case, and maybe some 22 of the other top staff. He would have normally spoken with 23 the -- his members of the executive committee on Council, 24 politicians, of which by this time, I would not have been 25 wandering around that time.

29

1 So, it would be informal. It could be by 2 phone call, simply saying, Look during this process, no 3 talking to other staff, until we see where this ends up. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: And who was Council -- then it would have 6 been some kind of report at Council with a recommendation or 7 a motion from a Councillor, making a recommendation and then 8 adopted by Council. So, that should be on the record 9 somewhere if it was a Council direction. 10 Q: Okay. Thank you. And I'd like to move 11 on now and just talk a little bit about the -- a little bit 12 more about the functions of the transition team. And you've 13 told us, your general approach, nuts and bolts, but, a lot of 14 policy. 15 How about the breadth of what you did, did it 16 cover the entire range of subject matters that had to be 17 dealt with for amalgamation or were there other bodies that 18 were working on other issues? 19 A: Well, it covered the whole range. It was 20 certainly very much -- I don't know about the depth, some 21 have more -- more depth than others, obviously depending, 22 especially in governance issues. 23 But, it certainly covered the whole range. I 24 mean you had seven (7) jurisdictions that had to become one 25 (1). For example, budgets which Lois Griffin and I did, we

30

1 actually had to re-write seven (7) budgets in '97 and make it 2 one (1) budget that was then taken to the City of Toronto in 3 order to function as a -- in order to developed a '98 common 4 budget for the New City. 5 So, that was a very detailed, very much in- 6 depth process that took a lot of time and work and effort. 7 But, each of the community council's, at the time people -- 8 I can remember the meetings right here were people were 9 opposed to the amalgamation, they didn't want to lose their 10 local governance. 11 And so, there was a -- you know, we had public 12 meetings which I actually chaired through all the 13 municipalities to try to develop a policy around how 14 community councils would function, particularly in the 15 planning areas, to satisfy that concern that residents had. 16 So, there was -- they were quite in-depth in 17 some areas, other areas, perhaps a little, you know, a little 18 higher lever. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Insofar as the budget is 20 concerned, who would have developed the budget then for the 21 New City? 22 THE WITNESS: Well, we had the treasurers 23 team, I was the -- Lois Griffin and I were the Transition 24 Team leads that oversaw it. And I'm trying to think who the 25 treasurer lead was -- I think that was -- the Scarborough

31

1 treasurer at the time, I think her name was Lo. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Estelle Lo? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, Estelle Lo. She was -- 4 she was very capable and I know she was very much involved. 5 Wanda Liczyk would have been involved and all the treasurers 6 would have been because in terms of the re-writing of each of 7 the budgets. 8 So, every City did their budgets differently. 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Hmm hmm. 10 THE WITNESS: So, we were trying to find 11 commonality wherever possible, in areas where there wasn't, 12 they were blended numbers that were put in -- 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Hmm hmm. 14 THE WITNESS: -- and then they were broken 15 out, to be broken out later by the new Council as the budget 16 process developed. Is that -- 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And who would -- who 18 would have had access to that -- to that budget then, was 19 that public? 20 THE WITNESS: Was it public.? No, most of 21 that reporting would have come from the treasurers directly 22 to myself and Lois Griffin, and then we would have presented 23 that to the Transition Team on regular updates on how we were 24 doing. 25 As I mentioned in my affidavit though, quite

32

1 often these areas we delegated out to each other, we -- we 2 each respected each other to -- and we also had a timing 3 issue, which we had to respect each other no matter what, to 4 get things done. 5 So, we -- you know, I was very much involved 6 with it, as budgets and community councils, but you know, 7 Michael Gee was involved with -- more directly involved, 8 actually, in IT and some other areas. 9 So we -- you know -- but it was basically 10 confidential, not to say that the staff didn't talk to other 11 staff, that I wouldn't know. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. Would other 13 -- would the Mayors of the municipalities, the existing 14 municipalities, have known what the budget was proposed to be 15 for the new City? 16 THE WITNESS: Towards the end when it was -- 17 before the election started -- 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 19 THE WITNESS: -- both the -- Barbara Hall, it 20 was mentioned to her what the budget situation was generally, 21 as well as to Mayor Lastman. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 23 THE WITNESS: I can't remember if it was 24 given to any other Mayoralty contender at the time. I know 25 those two (2) both got briefings on it.

33

1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 2 THE WITNESS: Not in the early stages, but 3 later. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Before the election? 5 THE WITNESS: Before the election, yes. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. Okay, thanks 7 very much. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 10 Q: Can you tell us what the relationship, in 11 terms of different functions that there was between you and 12 the Financial Advisory Board? 13 A: The -- at -- the Chairman mainly dealt 14 with the FAB we called it, the Financial Advisory Board. We 15 had -- I'm just trying to think. I think we only had as a 16 team, one (1) or two (2) meetings with them. 17 Generally we processed information that was 18 coming in, made recommendations when there was a financial 19 aspect to it that was referred to the FAB. And then they 20 dealt with it in terms of approving the expenditures, because 21 during that period of time they were -- had that 22 responsibility of expending funds between the -- the time 23 between the seven (7) municipalities and the new City. 24 So, there was a period of time there where 25 they had that key responsibility. And they generally, as far

34

1 as I know, approved the monies that were required, based on 2 decisions made by the Transition Team. 3 There was the odd one (1) that came back, I 4 know, around -- what was it called, the Enwave, there's -- 5 you know, there's sort of some big numbers out there; that 6 was a $30 million figure related to that. There was some key 7 areas that they would ask the Transition Team for more 8 additional advice on, but generally speaking, most things 9 were approved and the funding was forwarded accordingly. 10 Q: And in that example that -- that you've 11 given, where the Transition Team, or I mean, the Financial 12 Advisory Board had some additional questions that prevented 13 them from approving it first instance, did you hear back from 14 them? 15 I mean, I take it from your answer that -- 16 that you did, in the sense that they came back to you? 17 A: We heard back on at least one (1) time, 18 but whether we would have heard back again, or whether that 19 was just handled by the Chair, or events just took over and 20 the new -- you know, the new Council was elected, it would 21 have been a combination of things, would be my guess. 22 Q: What -- what I hear you saying, and tell 23 me if this is fair, even if it's based on a sample size of 24 one (1). If there were problems you would have heard back? 25 A: Absolutely.

35

1 Q: If there were no problems, you wouldn't 2 necessarily have heard back, because everybody was so busy 3 with those tight -- 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: -- timeframes. Is -- 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: -- is that fair? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Okay. Now, ultimately, in that very 10 short timeframe, you produced a very large document, the 11 document called, "New City, New Opportunities", which was 12 your report; is -- is that right? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And -- 15 A: We actually did a draft report that was 16 circulated to Community Councils and individuals who were 17 interested, then we did that final report. 18 MR. DAVID BUTT: And, Madam Commissioner, we 19 have provided in the affidavit binders, excerpts of that 20 entire -- excerpts from that report. Not the entire report, 21 given that as we've heard, it covers a number of subjects 22 that are not within our terms of reference. 23 And I -- I don't propose, Mr. Sutherland, to 24 take it to you but I just did want everyone to know that it's 25 -- it's a COT Document 40578, Exhibit 13, Volume IV, Tab 44.

36

1 And the excerpts that we've provided are Table of Contents, 2 the introductory chapter which describes the report itself 3 and the section dealing with tax policy. 4 Now, Mr. Sutherland, the report when it was 5 created went to the new amalgamated City Council; is that -- 6 is that your recollection? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And what did City Council do with that 9 report? 10 A: Their first business as a new council was 11 to adopt that report and -- and in doing so approve those 12 recommendations that were in there and direction for the new 13 City. 14 Around that time, it would have been at that 15 meeting or the next meeting of Council, they established a 16 governance committee to review the Transition Team work and 17 make amendments and changes as being appropriate by the new 18 Council and that was chaired by the Mayor, David Miller, who 19 was a councillor then. 20 Q: Who was a councillor, okay. Now, you 21 said earlier that you had circulated a draft of the report 22 and I'm just -- sorry, I didn't catch, how broadly did you 23 circulate that? So, who -- did the politicians have an 24 opportunity to see it or senior staff or both? 25 A: It was distributed to all stakeholders

37

1 that we were aware of that expressed an interest in the 2 process and they would have received a draft and we asked for 3 suggestions and recommendations from them based on the draft 4 report. 5 Q: And did -- and, generally speaking, did 6 you -- it's a big document, covers a lot of topics but, 7 generally speaking, did you receive that kind of feedback? 8 A: We did. We got some very good responses 9 back and made adjustments according to that. We tried to 10 come up with a document that was acceptable to most. 11 Q: And, inevitably, you can't please all of 12 the people all the time, particularly in the governance game; 13 is that -- is that fair to say? 14 A: Oh, it's fair to say. Especially, I 15 think, through the referendums. The population of something 16 like 80 percent were opposed to the amalgamation. So, you 17 know, you weren't going to please everybody for sure but I 18 think in context from what I heard back that people actually 19 read it and they were very pleased with what was there. 20 They thought it was a very visionary, 21 foresight and also had enough details in there to allow the 22 City to at least get its footing and then, you know, start 23 from there. 24 So, we were -- we were pleased with it really. 25

38

1 Q: And -- and did you -- once the report 2 went to Council and, as you say, their first order of 3 business was to adopt it, obviously that's, in some sense, a 4 vote of confidence at least at a -- a conceptual and 5 political level and did you continue to keep your ear to the 6 ground in terms of how the ideas in the report were playing 7 out in the new City? 8 A: I did for a while. Yes. I -- you know, 9 I was obviously interested in seeing how it would develop and 10 so I did stay involved, informally of course, I wasn't a City 11 Councillor at the time. 12 Q: Sure. 13 A: And -- 14 Q: And certainly your purpose, and correct 15 me if I'm wrong, in sending out the early draft for feedback 16 was to ensure, as much as possible, that a report that you 17 put out there, very publicly and so on, had as -- as high a 18 level of acceptance as it was possible to have in those 19 difficult circumstances you've described? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And were you -- were you disappointed, 22 neutral, elated, with the level of acceptance that the report 23 had as it played out in the months following amalgamation? 24 A: Well, I think, which is often the case in 25 politics, I'm not so sure the positives were emphasized by

39

1 people. I think it was more the big issue that really came 2 out of the report which, I think, coloured a lot of it was 3 the -- was money. 4 And the -- the commitment from the province to 5 provide a substantial amount of money to help us through the 6 transition process and then at the very end they -- they did 7 not provide that money. It was about $200 million that 8 should have -- that was budgeted for. I can say that because 9 I was doing the budget, that then, at the last minute, was 10 not available to the City. 11 And that created an animosity that really 12 coloured the whole process unfortunately because I think the 13 whole New City would have been -- much better off if we 14 hadn't gone through that process. 15 So, that -- that tended to colour a lot of 16 what our recommendations had been. 17 Q: Certainly I think clear to all of us, 18 that money fights can be ugly sometimes. If it's possible to 19 separate out a little bit though, were you aware of, or did 20 you have a sense that the substantive recommendations in 21 these reports were being received and people were saying, 22 that's a dumb idea, and not following them in any kind of 23 consistent or grand scale? 24 A: No I think for the most part, they were 25 followed and they're still being followed today, I mean, very

40

1 much, the committee structures, the staff structures of the 2 commissioners and the directors and working with clusters, 3 departments, in order to function across the City; those were 4 all recommendations from the transition team that are still 5 there. 6 There were some changes, like we, for example, 7 we had the heath board reporting through an emergency 8 services committee, the Miller Committee in recommendations 9 to Council changed that and had the Board of Health reporting 10 directly to Council. There was a few -- some adjustments 11 like that, which some might have been better, some might not 12 have been as good, in terms of my opinion. 13 But, for the most part, a big chunk of what 14 the City -- how it is functioning now, it is still based on 15 the Transition Team report. 16 Q: Now, I'd like to move from the topic of 17 the acceptance and implementation to report to the internal 18 functions of the Transition Team and the decisions, 19 particularly around -- or the issues particularly around the 20 tax system. 21 And first of all, you mentioned earlier that 22 you would divide up responsibility or decided to divide up 23 responsibility. Can -- can you tell me how that -- how that 24 worked? 25 A: A formal basis, for example, when the

41

1 team met, the chair asked Lois Griffin who was a Metro budget 2 chief at one point and myself to -- who did budgets at North 3 York, as well as the Deputy Mayor, to handle the budget 4 process. So, that was a specific direction and then report 5 back to the committee with our recommendations and adopt it 6 as a whole. 7 So, there were specific delegations like that. 8 And then in some areas, it tended to be a little more 9 informal, especially at IT frankly, Michael Gee, Lois Griffin 10 and I were all involved in that, we all had an interest in 11 it. And it's also far ranging, in the sense that it impacts 12 all the various departments in different ways. 13 In some cases, the IT would take different 14 leads, most cases the departments took leads. So, there were 15 -- so some of those things were done a little more informally 16 in terms of meetings. 17 But, everything -- or almost everything came 18 back to the transition team to -- for a final decision. 19 Q: So, as I hear you, you divide up to just 20 cover the ground as -- as it were, but you tend to have a 21 reporting back to keep your colleagues on the team in the 22 loop on -- on the various issues arising in the various 23 transition groups -- 24 A: Yes -- 25 Q: -- is that fair?

42

1 A: -- and the team met very regularly. I 2 mean in some cases, it met every day, as a full team. It 3 certainly met every week, you know, a couple of times. So, 4 it wasn't like you were waiting a month. You know, it was a 5 pretty fluid situation. We all got to know each other very 6 well during that period of time. 7 Q: And obviously in terms of the issues that 8 we're here for, the selection of a tax system, as you've said 9 in your affidavit, was one (1) of those issues that had to be 10 dealt with by the transition team? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: And who sort of took the lead in terms of 13 dealing with that, in the way that you've described reporting 14 back, of course, but who was -- 15 A: The treasurers. The treasurer transition 16 team had the lead on that. 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: There was Wanda Liczyk, if I remember 19 right, by the way, everything I'm saying is as I recall, 20 because it's been awhile now. But, I remember Wanda should 21 have been, was the lead -- IT as -- was the lead CAO and had 22 responsibility for IT recommendations to the transition team. 23 So, when you had a situation like that, so if 24 there was an IT component to recommendations then you might 25 get that kind of over -- overlap or overlay.

43

1 Q: And on the transition team who was the -- 2 was there a primary contact or a primary person to whom the 3 treasurers would go in addressing that issue? 4 A: Well, Jim Andrew was chairing the 5 transition -- the IT transition team group. 6 Q: Right. I'm thinking of -- of your -- 7 A: Oh, our group. 8 Q: -- Who was the -- 9 A: Well, Michael -- 10 Q: -- person or people -- 11 A: -- Michael Gee really was the lead at IT, 12 but generally, I was involved with it quite a bit and I guess 13 it was because -- and Lois as well, because of budgets. 14 Because again, a lot of them reflected in. 15 So, I -- I -- so in the end we were sort of 16 three (3) of us were, and it's a very big area, so Michael 17 was involved in areas, for example, all -- I think all six 18 (6) municipalities had different software systems, how they 19 ran their -- their municipal systems and then when we were 20 switching to Oracle, which was a Metro system that they had. 21 And so there was a whole IT component process 22 to switching that, you know. The municipalities had -- like 23 North York was on Corel -- Corel Word was it -- Corel 24 anyway, system. We swi -- we agreed to switch all the Cities 25 to Microsoft Word at the time.

44

1 So, there was a lot of IT components and -- 2 and things going on. The tax system was -- from that 3 perspective it was simply another, you know, issue that had 4 to be dealt with. 5 Q: And so as I -- as I hear you, tax systems 6 obviously had to be amalgamated, as you say in your 7 affidavit, for amalgamation. But in addition, there were IT 8 related issues and Y2K issues as sort of an overlay, because 9 the tax system obviously is so much a -- a IT system as well. 10 And then I gather there were also Provincial 11 legislative changes to the approach to Municipal taxation 12 that -- were those factoring into the mix as well, at that 13 time? 14 A: Well, it was unprecedented really. Never 15 -- it's never occurred before, that I know of, in Ontario or 16 Canada, because we had AVA, Actual Value Assessment coming 17 in, we had the Y2K issue, we had six (6) different collection 18 systems. 19 We actually found out -- I remember asking for 20 the report on the properties that we actually owned, for 21 example, in the City of Toronto, and we never did get a final 22 analysis of properties that we actually owned, because 23 everybody had a different way of producing that. 24 So, you know, it was quite a fascinating 25 process. But from the tax point of view, not only did you

45

1 have AVA coming in, but you also had to have a system that 2 could handle phase-in, because we heard that we were going to 3 have phases up to five (5) years, tax freezing by different 4 sectors, so you know, commercial/industrial versus 5 residential or multi-res. 6 It was -- and you have a million customers and 7 you've got a bill, because you don't bill, you don't get paid 8 and if you don't get paid, then you're borrowing and it 9 affects your budget process obviously, if you have to borrow 10 the kinds of, well, billions in this case, if you're not 11 getting your money in. 12 So, it was quite a -- that's a little lengthy 13 answer, but it was quite a -- yeah, it's an important system 14 obviously. It has to be done properly. 15 Q: And important system that covered a range 16 of -- of areas of concern, IT, tax -- tax policy, Y2K? 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: And just -- just another question that 19 I'd like to be a little more clear on, in terms of your 20 internal operating procedures with your -- your members. 21 You're -- you're talking about a fluid group that was meeting 22 regularly, keeping everybody in the loop. If -- if one (1) 23 of you met with senior staff who were engaged in the nuts and 24 bolts on a particular issue, and a -- and a report was 25 delivered, how formal were your proceedings, in terms of

46

1 quote/unquote, "making a decision." 2 I mean, would -- would that member go back and 3 there'd be some kind of formal vote, or was it more of an 4 informal, This is where we're going, sounds good. 5 Could you -- could you characterize how you 6 would, internally as a group, review and -- and accept or not 7 accept what your individual members had -- had come back 8 with? 9 A: Well, generally as politicians, in this 10 case Transition Team members, we would -- if you're meeting 11 informally with staff, what would generally come out of that 12 is a report. And the report would come to the Transition 13 Team for adoption. 14 So, you'd have a report with recommendations. 15 And obviously what we were looking for in all instances, were 16 reports from the various transition -- staff Transition Teams 17 with -- with recommendations of support for whatever it is 18 that we were looking to implement. 19 So, that was generally the way it was. So you 20 would have verbal meetings, discussions as -- as a, you know, 21 the policy person, or the Transition Team member, staff would 22 then take that as a direction. 23 We might chat informally as -- you know, with 24 the Chair or something like that, in terms of what -- what 25 came out of the conversation, depending on how important it

47

1 was, relatively speaking. And then -- then that would 2 generate the report as it came to the Transition Team. 3 Q: And in terms of the input of other 4 members of the Transition Team. So, you would -- you'd hear 5 a report from staff, you'd have a meeting, discuss the issue, 6 and then you'd go back to your colleagues at the Transition 7 Team. What would you do? 8 Would you hold a formal vote or you just talk 9 around the table; what would be your process? 10 A: Yeah, the chair would generally say, all 11 those in favour, opposed and carry on. We're sort of trained 12 for that so you'd often hear that. And, you know, but it 13 would be like everybody support the recommendation, all those 14 in favour, opposed, carried, next and we'd move through it. 15 And then we'd generally go into discussion. 16 And quite often we're getting presentations to the Transition 17 Team itself from staff and outside interested parties. 18 So, we would try to clean up the business at 19 hand and then be open to that type of other meetings -- 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: -- and presentations. 22 Q: Now, you -- just moving, again more 23 specifically, to the -- the tax system, you mention at 24 paragraph 11 of your affidavit that there were -- that the 25 two (2) tax systems that were really the -- the two (2) ones

48

1 that were being considered by the Treasurers, the North York 2 system or the TMACS system and the TXM2000 being funded by 3 Scarborough and Mississauga? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And you mention then in paragraph 12 of 6 your affidavit that the Treasurers could not decide on -- on 7 which of the two (2) systems they should choose and it was 8 therefore decided -- decided to hire Deloitte & Touche. 9 How did that process come about from -- from 10 your perspective -- from what you could see? 11 A: Well, I gather than when the treasurer 12 teams had met and, of course, they'd been meeting not with 13 transition team members most of the time, they'd been meeting 14 on their own to come up with policy to bring to us. 15 And when the tax system was brought up there, 16 there -- you know, there was dissenting opinions about the -- 17 the two (2) systems early in the -- early on in the process. 18 At the same time, with the pressure to come up with an answer 19 because they had to get moving on it and they could not agree 20 on which of the two (2) systems they should go for the new 21 amalgamated City. 22 So, they -- they hired Deloitte & Touche as an 23 outside consultant to come in in the hopes that they would 24 recommend one of the two (2) systems. Now, I can't remember 25 if that would have been formally approved by the Transition

49

1 Team or if that would have been monies used out of one of the 2 individual city's budgets at the time. 3 I don't recall that. But, anyway, I know that 4 they did hire the outside consultant. 5 Q: Could you help me, just appreciating you 6 don't have a recollection of -- of that decision and whether 7 or not the Transition Team made it, could you help me, 8 typically is that the kind of thing that the Transition Team 9 would be called on were you -- were you drilling down to that 10 level of detail? 11 A: We -- we did have -- we approved several 12 under twenty-five thousand dollar ($25,000) contracts to 13 consultants for various -- in various areas. For example, we 14 did one for when we were merging the fire departments, they 15 too had different radio systems that they used and they also 16 had -- the police had their own radio system. 17 You know, I remember I was of the view that 18 they could use the same radio system and we would have saved 19 a lot of money in the budgets which is what I was trying to 20 develop. So, we used an outside consultant to just look into 21 radio systems because most of us, of course, as lay people 22 don't know enough about them without a -- a, sort of, an 23 independent report. 24 So, I can remember that one specifically and 25 there would have been a few other ones too.

50

1 Q: So, what I hear you saying is that while 2 -- while you don't recall making decisions at that level of 3 operations, it was not uncommon? 4 A: No. 5 Q: Is that fair? 6 A: Yeah. And some we definitely did make 7 decisions on I know, like that one for example. And we may 8 very well have made a decision on this one, I just can't 9 recall it specifically. 10 Q: And you mention in your paragraph that 11 the ultimate -- in paragraph 12, that ultimately the Deloitte 12 & Touche report was -- was inconclusive. How did you come to 13 hear about that and know about -- about that situation? 14 A: That would have been at a meeting, if I 15 recall it right, of the treasurers where they recommended to 16 the Transition Team to go with the TXM2000 system and they 17 would have -- they -- they did explain that the -- 18 unfortunately the consultant did not come up with a 19 recommendation between the two (2) and that they would have 20 wanted a much more in-depth analysis of it and it would have 21 been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in terms of 22 doing a review. 23 So, I certainly said no to that and then we 24 had their recommendation. 25 Q: Help us with the "no" on that? It may be

51

1 obvious to some but can you -- can you put in context in 2 terms of whether there were time issues, was it a money 3 issue, was it a deadline issue? What was behind you -- 4 A: I think in that case, they would have 5 known obviously that I wouldn't have supported that. I think 6 that was one (1) of those things where they know to go into a 7 -- first of all, there was a timing issue and they wouldn't 8 have had the time in order for the Transition Team to have 9 some tax system recommended to the new Council as part of the 10 process. 11 So, they would have just, I guess, known 12 through how we operated that they would have not have been 13 able to take that next step. 14 Q: And the meeting as you recall in -- and 15 state at paragraph 13 of your affidavit, at which the tax -- 16 the subject of the meeting was to select the tax system; that 17 took place on July 15th, 1997? 18 A: Hmm hmm. 19 Q: And can you tell me your recollection is 20 that you were the only Transition Team member there. And do 21 you have recollections as to whether anyone, as you say in 22 your affidavit, all the treasurers from all the former 23 municipalities were there, were there others there, as well, 24 and specifically I'm wondering were there other senior staff 25 from the municipalities?

52

1 A: It's quite possible. Lois Griffin may 2 have been there as well. I don't recall. We were still 3 doing Council duties. So, in some cases, meetings were 4 called for the two (2) of us to be there, but, sometimes I 5 suppose I wasn't there and sometimes Lois wasn't there. As 6 long as one (1) of us was there, we would proceed. 7 So, she could have been there, I just don't 8 recall. Generally, we had a room there with a fairly long 9 boardroom table. And at almost everyone of those meetings, a 10 Transition Member, for example, in this case myself, would 11 sit at the you know, the Chair's position. 12 There would always be, thinking of six (6) or 13 seven (7) municipalities, just to have your lead person, 14 that's seven (7) people. Usually they had an extra person 15 with them. 16 So, you had anywhere from seven (7) to 17 fourteen (14) or even more people around the table at any 18 given time for those meetings. I remember the -- doing the 19 police budget, there must have been twenty-two (22) or 20 twenty-three (23), all related to the budget around the 21 table. 22 So, you really -- you see faces, and you know 23 some of the people, but, many of them are -- frankly are -- 24 you know, they're all from different municipalities and they 25 would not have been people I would necessarily recognize.

53

1 Q: And you tell us that Brenda Glover and 2 Wanda Liczyk made presentations. And could I ask you to tell 3 us what you recall about each of those two (2) presentations? 4 A: Well, that was interesting, because what 5 you had was the -- Wanda who was not really there as a 6 treasurer, but, there was a lead from the -- as the CAO lead, 7 but was a North York Treasurer for a number of years. So, 8 she certainly knew money issues and I think she had 9 originally brought in the tax -- started that tax system in 10 North York. 11 So, we had a presentation really where it was 12 made clear to me that the treasurers were recommending the 13 Scarborough Mississauga system. Brenda Glover spoke to that. 14 She made it clear that was the recommendation. But, that 15 there was a dissenting municipality. 16 And they needed a decision on how to proceed. 17 And then -- so she spoke as to why, you know, she chose to go 18 with the, it was called the TXM system and then Wanda spoke 19 on behalf of the North York TMAC system, as to why it was 20 important to carry on that system, because of all the issues 21 at hand, in terms of what we just talked about earlier, Y2K 22 and different issues. 23 And then they all waited for me to make the 24 decision on which way to go. 25 Q: Okay. And how long were these

54

1 presentations? 2 A: Well that meeting was probably, that one 3 (1) was probably an hour, an hour and a half, I would say, 4 the total meeting. 5 Q: And that would include the presentations 6 and then were there discussions following the presentations 7 or was it -- was the bulk of it taken up with the 8 presentations and then you made your decision, or how did it? 9 A: Just made them right away. There wasn't 10 really time, there would have been another meeting coming up 11 right away, so basically, it would have been listening to the 12 -- to the two (2) sides making a decision and next. Very 13 little discussion after that, actually, from my perspective 14 anyway. 15 Q: Yes. And the evidence that we've heard 16 to date, spoke about while the treasurers were doing their 17 work of evaluating the two (2) systems, they -- they sub- 18 divided and there was a business user group, in other words, 19 the tax billing people. 20 And there were -- was an IT group, so the 21 techies could look at the nuts and bolts of the -- of the two 22 (2) technical systems and those reported up and so on. 23 In the presentations, did -- as you recall 24 them, were they addressing sort of tax billing issues, were 25 they addressing technical issues, were they addressing both?

55

1 A: Well, it wasn't an easy decision -- 2 Q: Hmm hmm. 3 A: -- because they were addressing all 4 aspects -- first keep in mind that of all the municipalities 5 at the time, only North York system could actually handle the 6 billing at the time. They -- North York had developed the 7 system that could do the job. What was at stake in the North 8 York system was a conversion now to an Oracle based program, 9 which was what the new City was going to use, and that would 10 take a transition time to do that. 11 If you decided not to do the Oracle based -- I 12 guess it was Oracle based, then you would have been able to 13 just run the system; it was extra -- expandable across the 14 new City. So, in fairness to that process it was done. 15 The other Municipalities, with the exception 16 of Scarborough had nothing. They had no capacity or 17 capability of handling the new tax program. And -- and 18 various numbers of them had tried. Like I know Toronto had 19 purchased a very expensive system off the shelf from the 20 States. I can't remember all the details, but it didn't 21 work. 22 So, you know, it's not -- it's -- so -- so 23 certainly there was an -- 24 Q: Would that have been the Banner system? 25 A: I forget, I remember reading it -- I

56

1 mean, that was before the transition, but I remember it was a 2 $20 million purchase or something, and it didn't work. So, 3 that's a -- that's an issue in itself I suppose. But the -- 4 so we had that. 5 Now the -- the Scarborough system and 6 Mississauga had potential. And basically it was I think the 7 Scarborough system, it would have had greater security. In 8 other words, it was more supervisory aspects to the system -- 9 that system, which the North York system didn't have, because 10 it was more live. I'm just trying to remember now -- 11 Q: Hmm hmm. 12 A: -- but it was more real time. The other 13 system wouldn't have been, so there would have been I think 14 -- have been -- would you call a more secure system that was 15 being promised. But it was also one (1) that was going to 16 work with the individual municipalities. 17 It wasn't going to give a united system at the 18 time. It would have given a system for each Municipality, 19 and then that would have to be brought up and then united for 20 Council. So, there was at that time, a two (2) part process. 21 So, but there's already an investment in that 22 of six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) and so that 23 process -- so there was really -- you know, I can see why the 24 consultant would have a hard time deciding, because obviously 25 it wasn't -- it wasn't clear cut. The North York one (1) was

57

1 a little bit user friendly, but there were some security 2 issues, which -- which at the end of the day, I think the 3 treasurers thought it was the best reason why they should go 4 with the -- the 2000 system, the Scarborough and the 5 Mississauga system. They felt the security side was better 6 there. 7 Q: Okay -- 8 A: If I recall it right. 9 Q: Right. And -- and hearing what you're 10 describing, it certainly does sound like there's pros and 11 cons. Perhaps a reasonable view could be taken on either 12 side of that equation. 13 What was it that tipped the balance for you, 14 in the -- in the direction that you ultimately went? 15 A: Well, at the end of the day, you know, 16 I'm a policy maker, I'm -- I'm a Councillor, I'm not an IT 17 person, or a technology person. We hire people to make 18 recommendations, and they're experts in their field. And all 19 the treasurers to my knowledge, were very capable. And the 20 vast -- you know, the majority, six (6) to one (1) 21 recommended the one (1) system. So at the end of the day, 22 that carried a lot of weight. 23 I guess their interest was the fact that I was 24 from North York, and it was a North York system that I'd have 25 to basically exclude in the decision making in going forward.

58

1 So, I imagine the -- the politics of that would be to see in 2 fact what I would do. But I did go with the treasurer's 3 decision, so -- 4 Q: Let me just follow up a little bit on 5 that. Obviously everybody involved in the Transition Team, 6 comes from a political background, and the staff come from 7 different organizations, if I can call the municipalities, 8 that with perhaps different values and approaches. 9 Just at -- at a general level, can you comment 10 on the extent to which those sorts of political 11 considerations worked their way into the decision making. 12 Was that part of the landscape, or was it something that you 13 kept outside or welcomed? Can you -- 14 A: I can't -- 15 Q: -- tell us about that? 16 A: -- I can't speak for the other members. 17 For me, it was a -- always a consideration, because obviously 18 you know, a corporation or an entity can only function as 19 well as the people are able to function with each other. I 20 mean, that's what it's about. 21 And when you see corporate mergers, those that 22 succeed are because the individual, you know, the workplace 23 ethics of the individual organizations can match and grow. 24 Where they fail is because that doesn't happen. 25 And obviously we wanted to -- the new City to

59

1 succeed. But, you know, keeping in mind when you're there 2 with seven (7) treasurers we're also now broken out into 3 making recommendations to -- and actually hiring a treasurer 4 and CAO and what have you. 5 So, when you're looking at seven (7) of them, 6 they all know that only one (1) of them's going -- well, it 7 could go outside, but for the most part only one of them's 8 going to be the new City Treasurer. 9 So, there's obviously, you know, competition 10 and issues right through all the discussions we had there. 11 So, politics was important. You know, going with all things 12 being equal, if you could go, make a decision in a way that 13 would bring the City together versus creating a dissension, 14 clearly you'd want to go with bringing people together. 15 Q: Now, I'd like to just ask you a couple of 16 questions, again, about that -- that meeting and about the 17 presentations that flow from paragraph 87 of Ms. Liczyk's 18 affidavit. 19 And if you could just perhaps take a minute to 20 -- to look at that. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: And I'm just, again, going to ask you for 25 your recollection of those statements, particularly the --

60

1 Ms. Liczyk's statement that she advised that North York was 2 going to continue to complete the development of the TMACS 3 system because of the unacceptable level of risk. 4 Do you have a recollection of that one way or 5 the other? 6 A: Well, as I say, the -- as I recall it 7 anyway, the system essentially could handle the -- the new -- 8 you know, the new tax system across the new City but needed 9 that conversion and it may very well have been that there was 10 money in the North York budget to complete that. 11 And at the time then they would still be a 12 direction that you could -- you could argue that you could 13 follow that way. 14 On the other hand, when the Transition Team 15 made decisions, to my knowledge, they were followed. Unless 16 the new Council or the Mayor depending on whether it was 17 direction rather than, you know, a Council requirement for 18 adoption, unless they changed it. 19 Q: And just in terms of a decision like 20 this, sort of, of this magnitude with -- with these kinds of 21 operational implications, what would your expectation be, 22 indeed your experience, in terms of watching how your report 23 was then treated by the new Council? 24 What would your expectation be if there were 25 to be a change from what you had recommended at -- at this

61

1 meeting? 2 Would you expect this kind of decision to go 3 up to Council or to go to a committee or for any kind of 4 report to be generated? What would your expectation, both as 5 a Transition Team member and as an experienced politician be? 6 A: Yes. It should have -- to change from 7 one system to another system it should have been clear to -- 8 it would have either gone to a budget committee or it would 9 have gone to policy and finance committee explaining why one 10 system was being dropped and the other one introduced; that 11 would be my opinion. 12 Q: And if I could just unpack that opinion a 13 little bit. From a governance perspective, when you're 14 dealing with a change in a system like this, why does it 15 matter that Council be -- or a committee be given a report 16 and apprised? 17 A: Because there's other financial 18 ramifications potentially. You had a partnership with 19 Mississauga in this case. There was the potential to -- for 20 re-sale of the system to other municipalities, because these 21 are -- at the end of the day they are municipal systems and 22 it's very difficult and expensive for other municipalities to 23 do the kind of work that Cities like Toronto could do. 24 So there are, you know, there are financial 25 impacts, which I think Council should be aware of.

62

1 Q: Would you -- 2 A: Again if you have one (1) system in 3 place and you're making changes to that, that are 4 administrative in place, you wouldn't normally report that 5 out, but, generally you would let the chair of the committee 6 know, or you know and you know, because you -- that's 7 generally the kind of cooperation you want to have. 8 But, if you're actually changing a system, 9 there should be a reporting mechanism on that. 10 Q: You mentioned the partnership with other 11 municipalities which was obviously a feature of the TXM 12 system and I'd just like to ask you about the -- the legal 13 dimension. 14 Would that as a Councillor be the kind of 15 potential legal issues, that you as a Councillor, would want 16 to know about, or is it more the kind of routine 17 administrative legal stuff, that the Legal Department could 18 do and you wouldn't need to know about? 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry, Mr. Butt, 20 I'm missing your question. 21 MR. DAVID BUTT: The TXM2000 system was a 22 partnership --- 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. I see. Okay. 24 MR. DAVID BUTT: -- so there was an 25 arrangement, contractual, if you want to call it that, with

63

1 another municipality, if a decision was made that affected 2 that relationship with another municipality, as in this case. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 5 Q: Is that the kind of legal decision that's 6 important enough for there to be a report of, or is that more 7 a routine thing from a legal perspective, in your experience, 8 and what you see coming up? 9 A: Well, I'm not sure I fully understand 10 your question. But, in essence, if there's a change of an 11 agreement like that, which involves another municipality and 12 involves a financial implication, it's certainly common 13 courtesy for staff to report through the Council. That would 14 be my expectations, what I would have expected as a North 15 York Councillor and would have received. 16 If there were things that went on that we 17 didn't know about, that's possible. And there's -- there 18 might have been changes of the same magnitude that went in 19 the other municipalities that Council should know about, 20 that's possible. 21 But, I certainly think, the tradition would be 22 to report out substantial changes like that. And whether 23 it's legally required that would be, you know, beyond my 24 purview to -- to know. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Just when you say,

64

1 report out, you mean report to Council? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 4 THE WITNESS: Through a committee -- through 5 a standing committee. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Through a committee. 7 Okay. Thank you. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 12 Q: One (1) other paragraph from Ms. Liczyk's 13 affidavit, if I could please, Mr. Sutherland, paragraph 103. 14 And I apologize if I'm taking you, sort of, into the middle 15 of a discussion that has some context before and after. 16 But, the context is Ms. Liczyk describing and 17 explaining her decision or the decision, to continue with 18 TMACS development and upgrade. 19 And paragraph 103, now, I'll give you a chance 20 to read it, but, what I'm interested in asking you about is 21 the discussion that Ms. Liczyk offers in this paragraph that 22 she wanted to have the TMACS upgrade completed, as a backup 23 in case TXM2000 was not ready in time. And so, I'd just like 24 to ask you about that. 25 From your perspective, coming out of that July

65

1 15th, meeting was a backup something that was on the table or 2 necessary or desirable or debated? Can you just -- whatever 3 your perspective is on that from that meeting, could you 4 share it with us? 5 A: Well, certainly from a -- it would be 6 prudent to have a backup if you've got one (1) because of the 7 nature of the importance of the tax system. And if it was 8 treated as a backup only, then there is some -- you know, I 9 can -- because of the situation, how the cities were coming 10 into this and it was being budgeted, in terms of the context 11 of the time, I don't have a difficulty with that. 12 But, if it's actually a backup that you really 13 plan to use it and not really properly implement the system 14 that was approved, then that's obviously a different matter. 15 Q: Hmm hmm. Was your decision -- was there 16 any part of your decision to say go with one (1) and keep the 17 other as a backup, do you recall your decision taking that? 18 A: I don't recall, I mean, I don't think I 19 would have had a specific problem with that, as long as it 20 was clear the system we were going with. 21 You know, because the backup would -- would 22 dissolve fairly quickly. And in terms of dollars and cents, 23 the money was budgeted, probably most of it expended, and you 24 know, Council would be very thankful if in fact, boy, that 25 system didn't work, that Mississauga and Scarborough and

66

1 everybody else was working on, but we have this other system 2 that's there as a safety valve, and we can implement that. 3 And that's why I think it would have been very 4 important to bring it to Council. I mean, it would have 5 shown expertise rather -- you know, I think that's -- that's 6 what people -- the public wants to hear, that their 7 politicians and their staff are -- are there to do the best 8 job they can. 9 So, from that perspective, I -- as I said, I 10 don't think it would have had a problem. But the backup 11 would have dissolved very quickly, because your new tax 12 system's going to be in place within what, six (6) months 13 out. 14 And the assurances from the treasurers was 15 that -- and that was my question directly to them, will this 16 be ready in six (6) months? Can you say here today, 17 confidently, that you will have this system up and running 18 for the new City of Toronto, within six (6) months? And they 19 said, Yes, that's our commitment. 20 Q: And did both of the presentations make 21 that same commitment? 22 A: The -- that was the commitment from the 23 Scarborough/Mississauga system, the 2000 system. The -- the 24 other one (1), that -- the -- the discussion around the -- 25 the North York system was do we go with it or not go with it.

67

1 Once it was decided to go with the other one (1), then I 2 guess the issue would be, well, should we keep the North York 3 one (1) going as backup. 4 I can't recall -- I read the affidavit. I 5 can't recall if Wanda Liczyk actually said there, I'm keeping 6 it going regardless. Kind of the -- I just don't recall her 7 saying that. She may have said it. 8 Q: Just in terms of the decision at that 9 meeting, I -- I gather from what you've told us about the 10 timelines you're on, the next meeting's scheduled, the 11 decision to be made, I take it you were in the business of 12 making decisions and moving on to the next one (1), as 13 opposed to this meeting being, Well, yes, but let's wait and 14 see, or anything like that. 15 What was -- what's your perception of the 16 finality of your decision on that matter? 17 A: That was the final decision to move on, 18 absolutely. We had already gone through that with the 19 consultants, and you know that the time was over, enough was 20 enough and time to make a decision and move on. 21 Q: Now, in paragraph 16, you -- of your 22 affidavit, just at the bottom of the page, that you say you 23 confirmed your decision with other Transition Team members, 24 but I believe it was done in -- informally. 25 A: Hmm hmm.

68

1 Q: Is that what you were referring to 2 earlier when you'd have these fluid meetings and you'd get 3 together and keep everybody in the loop, or -- 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: -- can you expand on that recollection in 6 any way? 7 A: Well, after, I did receive a letter 8 confirming -- where -- from the treasurers, confirming that 9 they were going to go ahead with the TXM system. I might 10 have just circulated that and may have mentioned it to the 11 members. 12 I don't think it was an exciting issue for 13 most. You know, it's -- I think they would have trusted 14 their judgment and I would have talked with Lois, and you 15 know, they would have trusted our judgment on it, and gone 16 forward with it. 17 I can't remember a specific motion to it, at 18 the main -- at the main team level. 19 Q: And -- and that kind of discussion, again 20 you've told us you had a wide range of issues on your plate, 21 time crunch and so on. That -- that kind of discussion and 22 -- and sharing of information in reaching a final decision, 23 from what I hear you saying, correct me if I'm -- I'm not 24 fair, was -- was typical of how you'd make those decisions. 25 A: It could be.

69

1 Q: Is -- is that right? 2 A: Yeah, certainly a percentage of them were 3 made typically that way. 4 Q: And the same -- 5 A: Now, if anybody had an issue about it, 6 then it would be stopped and debated and brought out. So in 7 some cases if you were recommending something that, you know, 8 perhaps the other team members didn't agree with, or wanted 9 more information, then obviously you would, you know, work 10 through them and come up with a suggestion or a change, or -- 11 or an adoption. 12 Q: Right. And the letter that you mentioned 13 that you received, I'd just like to, if I -- I could please, 14 take you to that. It's Exhibit 11. I'm sorry, Exhibit 13, 15 Volume I, Tab 20. 16 But I'm wondering -- 17 A: Tab 20 -- so, what I have that? 18 Q: -- do you have Volume I in front of you? 19 A: Yes. Oh, I've got -- that's affidavits. 20 Q: Yeah. So it's -- it's a document -- 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Exhibit 13, Volume I. 22 THE WITNESS: Thirteen (13), Volume I. 23 That's twenty (20) did you say? 24 MR. DAVID BUTT: Yes. 25

70

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 MR. DAVID BUTT: And, Madam Commissioner, 4 that's 13001. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 8 Q: Mr. Sutherland, those are our 9 computerized reference numbers. 10 A: Okay. Thank you. 11 Q: We need to keep track of all our 12 documents. 13 The letter, having had a chance to look at it, 14 does -- does it strike you or not strike you that that's a 15 copy of the one you received? 16 A: Yes. So this confirms the tax system 17 that was approved. 18 Q: Yes. And just at the bottom you can see 19 the "cc" line there, Jack Pickard is cc'd on it I believe? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And who is he? 22 A: He chaired the Financial Advisory Board. 23 Q: And, again, was this, in particular, an 24 issue about which you heard back from the Financial Advisory 25 Board? Did they come to you like they did with Enwave and

71

1 say...? 2 A: No. I don't recall hearing back from 3 this. I would assume this is one that would be simply funded 4 and approved. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: This would be one that 6 would be what? 7 THE WITNESS: Well, what would happen -- 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Simply funded is that -- 9 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Any -- if there's monies 10 required to fund this recommendation then the -- the FAB 11 would then approve the dollar expenditures. So there -- 12 there should have been a report from the Transition Team 13 Group, Treasurers Group to FAB saying this is what is being 14 recommended for implementation and here's the estimated costs 15 of it. 16 Or there may have been no additional cost 17 because it was already in the individual municipal budgets. 18 In which case, the FAB should have been advised of that. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 22 Q: And, again, paragraph 19 of your 23 affidavit, that's the last you recall dealing with the -- the 24 tax system choice? 25 A: Yes.

72

1 Q: And we referred earlier to your report 2 that you provided to the City and we discussed the extent to 3 which it was accepted and implemented and we've excerpted the 4 tax policy section of the report and the tax system is not 5 mentioned in the report; is that right? 6 A: It -- well -- 7 Q: Tell you what, I'll tell you that we've 8 gone through it and it's not. Is that -- 9 A: That wouldn't surprise me. 10 Q: "Wouldn't surprise you". Okay. And so 11 the question that I really wanted to ask you is, can you 12 explain, sort of, at what level of detail you're coming at in 13 this report and why a decision like that might not be 14 contained in the report? 15 A: Yes. Because this is a technical issue, 16 this would be -- these types of things -- our report was an 17 overview, higher level policy. You know, what we recommend 18 in the tax system. 19 For example, we might have recommended there 20 that we did not recommend, what was it called, I forget. You 21 were -- we -- the City was empowered, for a period of two (2) 22 years, to actually pass bylaws that taxed certain areas of 23 the City for higher levels of service than other areas. 24 And you could tax for them and I just forget 25 the name of what that's called. But we, for example, we

73

1 might have mentioned recommend not to do that. To keep a 2 uniform tax base, things like that. 3 But it would have been very much more higher 4 level. This kind of thing is technical in nature. Most 5 Councils want to make sure it's just happening. If it's not 6 happening they hear from constituents or through their own 7 work and then they -- they raise concerns or issues with 8 these types of systems through the normal committee and 9 Council process. 10 So most of the technical issues approved -- 11 directed by the transition team would have come up to Council 12 probably -- well, some of them might still be coming up today 13 but most of them would have come up over a period of a year, 14 two (2) years after the new City was established and meeting. 15 Q: And then, I take it, again from paragraph 16 22 in July of 2002, you met with Rick Zwarun and Jeff 17 Griffiths -- 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Jim Andrew, I think. 19 MR. DAVID BUTT: I'm sorry -- 20 21 CONTINUED BY DAVID BUTT: 22 Q: -- Jim Andrew and Rich Zwarun about Mr. 23 Griffith's in-camera report, dated May 31st, 2002? 24 A: Hmm hmm. 25 Q: And at that time, in what capacity did

74

1 you meet with Mr. Zwarun and Mr. Andrew? 2 A: Well, when I got this report, Jeff 3 Griffith's report, that's the first I'd heard that the system 4 had changed. So, even though I had been Councillor with the 5 New City Council for while here, over a year, I was amazed 6 that it -- that it had had changed. 7 Q: And just to backup for a minute. You did 8 not run for re-election in 1997 because of your involvement 9 in the Transition Team? 10 A: Right. 11 Q: But, you were a Council in 2002, because 12 you did run again in the -- 13 A: In the last term, yes. 14 Q: In the 2000 elections? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Okay. 17 A: And that's how I would have become aware 18 of the in-camera report and so I was very surprised you know, 19 that a system that was not the one (1) that I knew had been 20 approved, was actually in place. 21 And so, I called Jim Andrew, as the IT person, 22 I wasn't sure who -- I didn't know a lot of the new people in 23 Council -- I didn't know him and staff -- and asked him if he 24 could explain what happened or why it was changed. 25 And that's why we got together. And then he

75

1 brought this other fellow, Rick Zwarun to that meeting. And 2 I didn't know him or don't remember -- don't recall him, and 3 he's the -- so he was brought because he was involved with 4 why the system was changed, according to Jim. 5 Q: And you mentioned being -- your words, 6 surprised or amazed, and I think we talked a little bit 7 earlier about this. Does that -- does your surprises or 8 amazement, and please correct me if I'm wrong, have to do 9 with your expectation, as you described earlier, that if a 10 major system like this was going to be changed, there would 11 be a report up to a committee or to Council? Is that why 12 you were surprised because you -- 13 A: Well, two (2) reasons, that, and then in 14 itself, I perhaps -- if it had of been reported out to 15 Council that's a simple question, was this reported out to 16 Council and if it was, well, then I'm not surprised any more, 17 it's a Council decision. 18 But, actually in the auditor's report, there's 19 a lot of suggestions in there of potential impropriety of how 20 this was handled. 21 And there's no discussion about how -- or I 22 can't recall now, but, I don't recall it saying that Council 23 did decide to switch the system. So those two (2) 24 ingredients obviously and knowing that I'd been on a 25 transition team and knowing the environment of Toronto City

76

1 Council, I wanted to make sure what had transpired, in case, 2 well, in case I'm questioned about it. 3 Q: Sure. As I hear you then, there's a 4 combination of both the concerns in the auditor's report and 5 the absence of a report up to Council that kind of come 6 together, to magnify your concern; is -- 7 A: Yes -- 8 Q: -- is that fair? 9 A: -- yes. 10 Q: Just to finish off, Mr. Sutherland, one 11 (1) more paragraph in Ms. Liczyk's affidavit and it has to do 12 not with these issues, but, back to your North York days. 13 And it's paragraph 45. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: And again, I apologize, I'm taking you 18 into the middle of some context. And the context is, a 19 proposal by two (2) outside consultants to provide project 20 management and technical assistance in developing a made to 21 measure North York tax billing system. And I'm reading from 22 paragraph 43. 23 And 45 deals with the question of what sorts 24 of approvals are and are not required to do that kind of 25 thing.

77

1 So, I'd like to give you an opportunity to 2 read that, and then I'd -- again, I'd like your perspective 3 on -- on that as a -- a former North York Councillor. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 A: Okay, I've -- so your -- I'm sorry, your 8 question is on this? 9 Q: Yeah, we -- we have a proposal from 10 outside consultants to develop a -- a made to measure tax 11 billing system, and we're talking the -- the early '90s. 12 A: Hmm hmm. 13 Q: And Ms. Liczyk's statement is that 14 Council approval was not required to develop a computer 15 system in house, other than budget approval. And Council 16 approval was required to purchase an outside product. 17 Do you have a perspective on -- on that 18 distinction? Or put it this way. As a Councillor, what 19 would your expectations have been in terms of staff coming to 20 you? 21 A: Well, I think what she's referring to is 22 -- this takes me back a long way now. 23 Q: Yes. 24 A: But it would have been a budget envelope 25 that would have been monies available for this type of

78

1 project. And then -- but it would be subject to the normal 2 policies and rules of Council, in terms of tendering, not 3 tendering, sole source purchasing, which I can't recall what 4 North York's would have been at the time. 5 Q: Right. 6 A: But so if the Treasurer at the time is 7 saying, as long as its internal and the money's in the 8 budget, what's not here, you know, just reading it quickly. 9 But what I don't see here is that -- and subject to normal 10 Council policy on tendering, then it seems to be correct. 11 If you go to an outside source procurement 12 purchase, then you're going to bring it through Council 13 for -- for recommendation or for -- 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: -- approval. 16 Q: And I'd like to know about this internal 17 versus external. I can understand if you're buying a product 18 that's out there, that's external. If your staff is 19 developing something that's internal. What about if you're 20 hiring an outside consultant to develop something in house? 21 Again, in terms of a Councillor wanting to 22 exercise oversight, would -- would you want to call that an 23 external acquisition, or is that an internal development? 24 A: Well, I -- you know, put that in context, 25 the -- in those days -- and I can remember bringing a motion

79

1 to Council in the late '80s to replace typewriters with 2 computers, and it was a close vote. Most -- a lot of the 3 Councillors didn't want to do that. 4 So, in terms of technology, thinking about 5 where this -- where society is going, where many Councillors 6 are at in terms of their thinking, and even where civil 7 servants are at, in terms of their knowledge and experience 8 with the technology that's happening, there's a quite an 9 interesting, not -- I wouldn't say disconnect, but it might 10 be. But certainly a dynamism there, which is -- you have to 11 understand. 12 So, it would -- I would -- my guess would be 13 there was very little money provided for IT people on staff. 14 In other words, if there was anybody in there, or there would 15 only have been a few. Plus it was always difficult to hire 16 IT people, probably -- I don't know if it still is today, 17 right now, but it went into a bit of a lull the last couple 18 of years, but basically it's always been hard to pay for the 19 good people that you need -- 20 Q: Hmm hmm. 21 A: -- in an IT area. Civil servant wages in 22 that area do not compete well. So, I would think it would be 23 pretty common practice, of all the Municipalities, to use 24 outside consultants to work on these types of projects, each 25 working under different types of bylaws.

80

1 Some bylaws, like in Toronto, if I remember, a 2 by -- there -- they, if I remember right, they would have to 3 bring forward every year to Council, the extension of 4 contracts to a bylaw. 5 A bylaw would approve a certain thing, but 6 they -- it would be going through for a normal referral each 7 year. Some Municipalities, I think North York might have 8 been one (1) of them, would have approved a project, and the 9 bylaw would have allowed for a continuance of hiring as -- to 10 complete that project, even if it went beyond one (1) year. 11 And I don't -- I don't recall or wouldn't know 12 the other ones. So there -- so I wouldn't think that would 13 be unusual during those times and perhaps even today wouldn't 14 be so unusual to -- to be going to outside people. 15 Q: And so -- it's -- just if I hear you and 16 understand you it's -- it's not unusual to go to outside 17 people in this -- particular in the IT realm and there would 18 be a Council bylaw or something that would say, yes, go out 19 and Council would set conditions around renewal and things 20 like that? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Is that what you'd expect? 23 A: That's a much shorter answer to what I 24 was saying. Well done. 25 MR. DAVID BUTT: Madam Commissioner, I do

81

1 have one other small area of questioning but I'm sensitive to 2 the break time. Perhaps we could take the break now. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. We'll break until 4 ten (10) to. 5 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will adjourn for 6 a fifteen (15) minute recess. 7 8 --- Upon recessing at 11:35 a.m. 9 --- Upon resuming at 11:55 a.m. 10 11 REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will now resume. 12 Please be seated. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 17 Q: Mr. Sutherland, just one (1) very brief, 18 follow up question related to an area, I already covered. 19 And it has to do with the meeting in -- on July 15th, 1997 20 when you had the pro and con presentations, Ms. Glover and 21 Ms. Liczyk. 22 And you mentioned the differences, one (1) of 23 the issues you were considering in making your decision was, 24 as I understood it, you were describing the fact that the TXM 25 system that Ms. Glover was reporting on, ran in six (6)

82

1 separate instances, I suppose if you can call them that, in 2 each municipality, whereas the -- the TMACS system that North 3 York had was the one (1) as you described it. 4 And I'm just wondering who -- who at that 5 meeting would have described the detail like that of each 6 system? 7 A: Well, if it was described at that 8 meeting, it would have been described probably by Wanda 9 Liczyk, I don't think I'm not so sure it would have been 10 described that way by anybody else at the meeting. 11 I may have just been aware of that from my own 12 reading too, I can't recall. But, I did know that was the 13 case. 14 Q: And in terms of your own reading, is that 15 in preparing for the meeting or the briefing documents or -- 16 A: Yes, I would have had some documents. I 17 usually tried to get the documents wherever possible so I 18 would be well informed, before I got into the meetings. And 19 the -- because it was the Mississauga/Scarborough system, the 20 way they were structuring it initially, not to say it 21 wouldn't have been into an amalgamated process, but, for 22 Mississauga that wasn't a priority. 23 So the partner in that system, you know, and 24 the decisions were made as a partnership with Mississauga. 25 So with that system being recommended by the treasurers, I

83

1 don't think Mississauga would have necessarily seen the 2 amalgamation aspect as a priority from their perspective. 3 There was other issues, Y2K, the actual value 4 assessment and everything else that had to be prioritized 5 first. So, you know, that was -- that was an issue about 6 that system. 7 Q: And as you've described earlier, it was 8 an issue obviously as you've told me, and correct me if I'm 9 wrong, it's an issue that you turned your mind to as a I hear 10 it, but, it was not an issue that caused you to depart from 11 the recommendation to go with that system? 12 A: No so long as they could bring in a fully 13 amalgamated system in due course. I was okay with it. 14 MR. DAVID BUTT: Thanks those are the 15 questions that I have. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Thank you Mr. 17 Butt. Who is next? Any questions? All right. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. Sutherland, this is 22 Mr. Robert Brent and he is the lawyer for Lana Viinamae. 23 THE WITNESS: Good morning. Thank you. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: You're welcome. 25 MR. ROBERT BRENT: Good morning,

84

1 Commissioner. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Good morning. 3 4 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBERT BRENT: 5 Q: Good morning, Mr. Sutherland. 6 A: Good morning. 7 Q: I have just a few questions, which I hope 8 will be fairly brief. 9 Mr. Sutherland, do you have -- do you have 10 your affidavit -- 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: -- in front of you there? If I could 13 just take you to paragraph 22, I think you touched on this in 14 responding to questions from -- from Mr. Butt. This deals 15 with the meeting that you had with -- with Jim Andrew, in 16 July of 2002, which followed Council's review of the 17 Auditor's Report dealing with the Beacon and Remarkable 18 contracts. 19 And as I understand it, you wanted to know why 20 the tax system has been changed to TMACS from the TMX2000 or 21 TXM 2000 system, recommended by the Transition Team. 22 If I could ask you to turn to Mr. Andrew's 23 affidavit, which is in the -- the first Volume at Tab I. And 24 in particular, if you turn to page 28, paragraph 96, and Mr. 25 Andrew also discusses this meeting and refers to the fact

85

1 that at this point he was at MPAC, that's correct? 2 A: Yes, I think it was around this time. 3 Q: And he says he received a telephone call 4 from you, is that your recollection, that that's how this 5 meeting was initiated? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Okay. And at this point Mr. Andrew 8 refers to you as a former Councillor, but I think you've -- 9 you've told us earlier this morning that by this point you 10 were back on Council, as of 2002? 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: Okay. And you sought out Mr. Andrew, I'd 13 suggest, because post amalgamation, he had been head of IT 14 for the City? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: All right. And you've told us this 17 morning as well, that he had served as the lead of the IT 18 Transition Team, prior to amalgamation? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: And you've told us this morning that 21 basically you wanted to know what had transpired, and to get 22 the answer to that question, you thought of Mr. Andrew as the 23 -- the person to contact? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: And he would have, based on his roles as

86

1 head of IT for the City and head of the IT Transition Team, 2 you would have expected he'd have knowledge and had a role 3 in the switch to TMACS? 4 A: Well, as Director of IT, he would -- he 5 would be involved in some way. Departments would take their 6 own leads, I wouldn't suggest that he would be able to make 7 a decision on which tax system the Treasury Department were 8 going to -- was going to go with, but he would certainly be 9 involved once the decision's made, and perhaps in 10 contributing, presumably contributing to that decision. 11 And then after a decision is made, an 12 implementation. So, his Department, as it is today, would 13 always be in that -- have that role. 14 Q: But as head of IT, he would have had a 15 role in supervising that -- 16 A: The -- the -- 17 Q: -- that process? 18 A: Absolutely. 19 Q: All right. And as head of IT, he also 20 would have had a role in supervising the work that was done 21 by Beacon and Remarkable in developing TMACS and 22 facilitating that process? 23 A: I would think so. You know, some -- 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: In developing TMACS, 25 you mean after amalgamation?

87

1 MR. ROBERT BRENT: That's correct, 2 Commissioner. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right, okay. 4 THE WITNESS: Yeah, after amalgamation. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 6 THE WITNESS: Each department, some have 7 more employees responsible for these areas than others. So, 8 he may have had a -- a bigger role or a lesser role, you 9 know, depending on circumstance. And I'm not sure if the 10 consultants handled everything on their own with -- with 11 internal finance staff, or if they would have used IT staff 12 as well. That I'm not aware of. 13 But he certainly would have been aware of the 14 -- of the IT implications of the -- the tax change. 15 MR. ROBERT BRENT: Thank you. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you. And this is 17 Linda Rothstein, who's the lawyer for the City. 18 19 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: 20 Q: A very few questions, Mr. Sutherland, 21 the deliberative process used by the Transition Team, I just 22 want to make sure that I understand that. 23 It was one (1), if I hear you correctly, in 24 which it was not uncommon for a single member of the team to 25 be present, to hear the presentations from the various civil

88

1 servant groups that were working on issues; is that right? 2 A: That's right. 3 Q: Okay. And so the July 15th meeting in 4 1997 your best recollection is that you were likely alone 5 for that meeting? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: That was not atypical? 8 A: No. 9 Q: There was no issue that, sitting alone, 10 you did not have the authority to make the required 11 decisions subject to some confirmation by the rest of the 12 Transition Team, fair? 13 A: Yes, that's fair. 14 Q: And the confirmation process that you 15 used as part of the Transition Team deliberations was 16 reasonably informal? 17 A: It was a mixture. 18 Q: Yeah. 19 A: It was informal. But obviously formal 20 as well as we met as a team. 21 Q: Okay. You used your discretion as to in 22 which situations you needed a more formal kind of 23 confirmation process and in which situations it was 24 sufficient to advise everyone and find out whether there was 25 any objection at all; is that --

89

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: -- fair? All right. And am I right, 3 sir, that no one ever suggested at the meeting on July 15th 4 that you were not in a position to make the appropriate 5 recommendations subject only to confirmation by the rest of 6 the team? 7 A: No. I think they were -- 8 Q: Everyone was content that -- 9 A: -- content. 10 Q: -- everyone perceived? 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: And am I correct, sir, that after the 13 meeting no one raised any concerns about the manner in which 14 you had made the decision effectively and confirmed it with 15 other members of the team? 16 A: No. Nobody raised a concern to me. 17 Q: And the politics, you talked about that 18 very briefly and I don't know if you can help us with this, 19 but are you able to assist us as to at what stage you, as a 20 member of the Transition Team, became aware that Ms. Liczyk 21 was a leading contender for the position of Treasurer at the 22 amalgamated City of Toronto? 23 We know that she became the Treasurer in 24 November of '97 so working backwards, can you assist the 25 Commissioner at all as to when that would have been in your

90

1 consciousness? 2 A: Well, she was actually a leading or a 3 potential leading contender for CAO -- 4 Q: Right. 5 A: -- because a number of them had applied 6 for that position. A number have applied for several 7 positions. So, in July we -- I can't recall now if we 8 started the interviewing process. We probably would have 9 start -- been getting going there because we were starting 10 to appoint -- I think we were trying to get the appointments 11 done -- well, I don't remember the timing it now but 12 certainly through the late summer and early fall we were 13 making some key appointments. 14 Q: And were you directly involved in the 15 decision to make Ms. Liczyk the Treasurer? 16 A: Yes. There was four (4) of us, I think 17 involved with that. 18 Q: All right. And can you assist us, 19 thinking backwards, as to how long before she became the -- 20 formally appointed into that position or your decision was 21 announced, the decision would have been effectively made? 22 A: Was it a tight timeframe? A longish 23 time frame? 24 A: Yeah. I can't recall when the 25 announcement was. You know, so --

91

1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Well, we could get -- 2 we have that in the agreed statement, I think, isn't it? 3 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: It says November '99 4 when I checked, Commissioner. But I didn't find it 5 specifically. Maybe Mr. Andrew knows? 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: November '99? 7 THE WITNESS: '97. 8 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Sorry, '97. I thank 9 you. But -- and Ms. Liczyk's affidavit is also missing a 10 specific date in November. My own recollection is it became 11 effective November 1, '99 but I may be in error. 12 THE WITNESS: It sounds about right because 13 we went -- the first appointment was for CAO -- or no, it 14 wasn't the first one, but it was the one we were trying to 15 get to first. 16 We were advertising nationally for that and 17 it took some time. But it sounds about right; the timing, 18 late October, early November for Treasurer. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: 21 Q: And so thinking back to July, Ms. Liczyk 22 made a presentation to you in which she obviously, quite 23 vigorously opposed the other Treasurers' selection of the 24 TMX2000 system, right? 25 A: Yes.

92

1 Q: Was it a factor at all that the person 2 who was leading the opposition to that recommendation might, 3 herself, be the Treasurer and responsible for the 4 implementation of the tax system? 5 Was that a factor for you? 6 A: No. I mean, that was always a 7 probability that -- that that was what all of them were 8 thinking at any given time in the meeting. So, I really 9 just discounted that. 10 Q: Okay. And I understood you to say, Mr. 11 Sutherland, that you can't recall with any specificity 12 whether in the course of Ms. Liczyk's presentation she made 13 clear that she intended to continue the development of the 14 TMX2000 system as either a backup system, or in order to 15 complete the billing for the North York municipality? You 16 can't recall whether she said that? 17 A: I can't recall. She may very well have 18 said it. I just can't recall right now. 19 Q: Right. And I take it, equally you can't 20 remember whether that was how she put it or she put I more 21 strongly in terms of, she was going to proceed with the 22 development of TMX2000, you used the word, "regardless", in 23 your evidence with Mr. Butt. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Sorry, Mr. Butt? 25 MR. DAVID BUTT: Just to keep the

93

1 terminology clear, I believe it's TMACS as opposed to TMX? 2 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Yeah, sorry, thank you 3 very much, I'm switching -- TMACS. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Could you repeat your 5 question? 6 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Yes, I'll repeat my 7 question. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: 10 Q: You can't remember for example, whether 11 she put it more assertively in terms of she, was going to 12 continue, North York was going to continue with the 13 development of TMACS regardless? 14 A: Well, I can tell you what I can 15 remember. 16 Q: Okay. 17 A: She certainly felt very strongly that 18 the North York system should have been the one (1) -- my 19 sense was that should have been the one (1) that we adopted 20 for the whole City. I think she had that in mind when they 21 were developing the system. 22 And frankly, that's to their credit, because 23 I mentioned earlier, a lot of the municipalities were 24 nowhere with it. And we would have been in real trouble. 25 All you can say it's very good that we had a North York

94

1 system and Scarborough working with Mississauga, started 2 developing one too otherwise, the system would not have been 3 up and running. 4 So, she was very strong about it and I guess 5 you know, if you look at it, in term -- objectively, it's 6 simply look, this is a system I've worked hard on, we know 7 it can do the job and we want to have one (1) amalgamated 8 City and this can do that, the other system can't. 9 And you know, we can finish it in a couple of 10 months, the other one (1) is still a commitment to have it 11 finalized within six (6) months. 12 So, you know, she made a very persuasive 13 argument of why the North York system should be the one (1) 14 adopted. So, presumably it was important that the -- 15 whatever decision was made there, was an important decision 16 because it certainly was well argued. By the end of the 17 day, I didn't go with her. 18 Q: Right. And in not going with it, sir, 19 if she did tell you in some way and you've acknowledge that 20 it's possible she did, that she intended to continue the 21 development of the TMACS system, in spite of your decision, 22 would you have seen it as your role, or the Transition 23 Team's role to stop her in some way? 24 A: No. 25 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Those are my

95

1 questions. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Just following up on 3 that. In your answer to, Ms. Rothstein, you said that you 4 thought that she had had that in mind when they were 5 developing the system, i.e. that TMACS could be used for the 6 amalgamated City when North York was developing the system. 7 I thought I heard you say that? 8 I got the impression that the North York -- 9 that the North York TMACS system had been developed a long 10 time before there was -- is it started a long time before 11 there was ever even any discussion of amalgamation. So I 12 just want to make -- I just want to make sure that I've got 13 what you're saying right? 14 THE WITNESS: I think it should be 15 clarified. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 17 THE WITNESS: The -- the North York -- this 18 system, the TMACS system was meant to replace an archaic tax 19 system -- 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right -- 21 THE WITNESS: -- of North York. Originally 22 it was twenty (20) years old or more. So, we were you know, 23 in terms of budgets in my involvement in North York, we were 24 definitely looking to get a new tax system in place. So, 25 that was its purpose.

96

1 But, as the discussions of amalgamation -- 2 you know, really it was a process of over a year or almost 3 two (2) years, where what's going to happen, are we going to 4 have amalgamation or not? 5 During that process there -- my -- I don't 6 know whether it would have been meetings that I had or maybe 7 it was my own thoughts I don't know, but, certainly once 8 that system was going, you'd want to know that it could 9 handle a fully amalgamated City. 10 But, that might be more hindsight on my part. 11 It certainly was not designed for that. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. Okay. 13 THE WITNESS: But, at some point in time, it 14 would have been known that it could evolve into that. 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. Okay. Thank 16 you. 17 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Thank you very much, 18 Commissioner and you too, Mr. Sutherland. 19 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 20 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Commissioner, I hope 21 you'll understand that I'm going to excuse myself and Mr. 22 Lewis is going to be here for the remainder. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. This is Mr. 24 Bill Anderson, and he's the lawyer for Wanda Liczyk. 25

97

1 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: 2 Q: Good morning. 3 A: Morning. 4 Q: If I could, I'd just like to clarify a 5 couple of issues around the financial advisory board or FAB 6 as you call it. 7 You gave in your evidence and also in your 8 affidavit that if decisions made, and I believe it's post 9 April the 21st, 1997, involved new commitments of -- 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Post when, sorry, post 11 which -- 12 MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: April the 21st, 1997. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: 16 Q: If decisions were being made by 17 municipalities, which involved new commitments of funds for 18 projects that those decisions would, in the ordinary course, 19 go to the FAB? 20 A: That's my understanding, yes. 21 Q: So, if the City of Toronto, for example, 22 was going to commit to a new tax system after April the 23 21st, 1997, which required an expenditure of money, you 24 would expect formal reports to go to the FAB, and you'd 25 expect to see documentation at FAB, where it was considered

98

1 and approved? 2 A: Yes, I would expect that. That would be 3 the preferred way. Whether it happened all the time or not 4 would be another issue. 5 Q: And did it on occasion, not happen that 6 the formal processes were followed during that transition 7 period? 8 A: Yeah, I -- I do -- I do not -- I never 9 saw copies of minutes from the FAB meetings, and what they 10 did, so I'm not sure how many formal reports went to them, 11 and what their reporting out mechanism was. 12 Q: Okay. Was there some confusion with 13 respect to the lines of authority during that period between 14 FAB and the Transition Team, and the ongoing operational 15 structures of the individual municipalities? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: Because bear in mind that each 19 Municipality approved their budgets legally in the year 20 leading up to amalgamation. And the expenditure of those 21 funds, presumably could be expended legally on whatever 22 systems they were developing. 23 Now, in the case of the -- I have to remember 24 now, but it seems to me on the Mississauga/Scarborough 25 system, the 2000 system, both Toronto Council and Etobicoke

99

1 Council approved that system for their individual 2 municipalities in June or July -- 3 Q: So -- 4 A: -- so around the time when we were 5 making this decision -- this decision, both those City 6 Councils had approved the -- those systems, and presumably 7 the money to go along with it. 8 So -- 9 Q: June -- I believe the date was June the 10 2nd, 1997. 11 A: June 2nd? So, if they'd approved it 12 with money, then that's where you get these blurry lines or 13 whether or not the FAB would have to get a report and 14 approve it again, or -- or they would have the sufficient 15 funds to -- to go forward, the individual City budgets, 16 until the new amalgamated City came into place. 17 Q: My understanding is that the FAB was 18 actually responsible for reviewing these new expenditures, 19 so that the City's wouldn't go off and spend the money that 20 they had in their budgets? 21 A: They did -- that -- that's correct as 22 well. 23 Q: So, in the ordinary course, a decision 24 of Council dated June the 2nd, 1997, committing to an 25 expenditure of funds for a new project ought to have gone to

100

1 FAB? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Okay. Now, I want to talk now about the 4 Transition Team's jurisdiction. In your affidavit you use 5 different terms with respect to the decision making process. 6 You actually used the word "decisions", you used the word 7 "recommendations" and you used the word "directives" or 8 "direction". 9 Now, the Transition Team actually did make 10 certain decisions, and those decisions were with respect to 11 hiring individuals, as I understand it? 12 A: Yes, we made those. 13 Q: Okay. And you made decisions on 14 recommendations? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Okay. The decisions on hiring, that 17 would have gone to a full compliment of the Transition Team, 18 and would have been voted upon? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And they would have been minuted? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Okay. And the recommendations that the 23 Transition Team made, that found their way into the report 24 that went to City Council, of the new amalgamated City, 25 those would have been voted upon by the full compliment of

101

1 the members of the Transition Team? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And those would have been minuted? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: All right. And then as I understand it, 6 there were these other directives, and they were more 7 informal, right? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And in fact, the only decisions and 10 recommendations that were ultimately approved by the City 11 Council of Toronto, were the hiring decisions made, and the 12 report that went to City Council in December or January? 13 A: Not so sure about that. 14 Q: Were there any other recommendations 15 that were in writing to City Council other than the hiring 16 that had occurred with the senior level staff and the 17 recommendations in the report that went to Council? 18 A: Well, as I recall, you would have 19 Transition Team staff members, so let's say we had a team of 20 Transportation Commissioners. Their job -- they were 21 directed by the Transition Team and during that Transition 22 Team process the provincial legislation directed that they 23 had to report to the Transition Team, correct, on -- on 24 implementation of the amalgamation. 25 So, they were under direction, legislative

102

1 direction, to report to the Transition Team during that 2 period of time for direction. So, they would send in their 3 reports and they'd have recommendations in the reports. 4 The recommendations would be changed, 5 approved, adopted or sent back but assuming they get 6 adopted, those recommendations are now, in fact, direct -- 7 they are now directed to implement those recommendations 8 until the new Council is in place. 9 Q: Okay. And those recommendations that 10 you're now referring to were directed to a full complement 11 of the Transition Team and were voted upon and either 12 approved or rejected by the Transition Team as whole? 13 A: I would say, as a whole, yes. That 14 would be the case. 15 Q: Okay. And they were voted upon, right? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Now, decision like -- 18 A: But they were all encompassing. So, you 19 might get a report from Transportation, Treasurers and 20 others, as a compilation and these reports coming in, all 21 those in favour, opposed, carried. Okay? 22 So, yes, they were done for me that way. The 23 details would not always be fleshed out by the team at that 24 level. 25 Q: But it was a more formal process and

103

1 that process was minuted in your meetings? 2 A: It would have been minuted in meetings, 3 yes. 4 Q: And then there was this other more 5 informal process that you've spoken of in relation to the 6 tax system, right? 7 A: In what way? 8 Q: It was a more informal process in that 9 there was never a vote taken in relation to the tax system 10 for the new City of Toronto? 11 A: I don't recall if there was a vote taken 12 or not. 13 Q: And it was never minuted in any of your 14 meetings that you've seen? 15 A: No. I -- but they may be there. I just 16 haven't seen them. 17 Q: Okay. But you understood that to be a 18 directive from the Transition Team? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And would it be fair to say -- 21 A: Well, it's probably why it was confirmed 22 in the letter to me because they -- the treasurers wanted to 23 be clear that that was the direction they were getting from 24 the team so they -- they covered their position on it by 25 sending the letter in and cc'ing it to the appropriate

104

1 people. 2 Q: Okay. But we're in agreement that the 3 process that was followed in relation to the formal 4 recommendations from the Transition Team was different than 5 the informal recommendations that went from the Transition 6 Team in that the formal recommendations went to Council for 7 approval. Informal recommendations were simply directives 8 of the Transition Team? 9 A: In practice they're both the same 10 really, to a large degree. But I suppose you could argue it 11 differently. 12 Q: Okay. And at paragraph 21, I believe, 13 of your affidavit you refer to that practice. You say in 14 the second sentence: 15 "The tax system decision was technical in 16 nature and not relevant to a policy 17 document." 18 Hence the reason it didn't go into your 19 formal report to Council? 20 A: Right. 21 Q: All right. And then you go on to say: 22 "This type of information would be reported 23 by staff to the respective standing 24 committees in the course of regular City 25 business."

105

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: All right. Now, of course, you weren't 3 at the City as of January the 1st, 1998, in effect? 4 A: No. I wasn't. 5 Q: You weren't a City Councillor? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: So, you're not actually personally aware 8 of what types of information went to the standing committees 9 for their review and consideration? 10 A: No. 11 Q: Okay. Now, I understand that there were 12 scores of other information systems throughout the various 13 municipalities prior to amalgamation, right? 14 A: Very much so. 15 Q: Systems like the parking permit system, 16 parks -- parks and registration system, site planning, GIS, 17 building permit, CAD system, licensing; all of these things 18 were implemented throughout the various municipalities in 19 different forms. 20 Did those systems ever make their way up for 21 a review and consideration of the Transition Team? 22 A: Some would have. For example, going to 23 Microsoft Word, some of those discussions would have 24 happened, but most of those types of systems would have been 25 discussed by the teams. And they would be shaping ideas as

106

1 to how to approach them. 2 In almost all cases, they wouldn't be done 3 overnight, they'd be done over a period of years in terms of 4 implementing and of course as there's the cost element to 5 all these things. So, the strategies of how to deal with 6 these various systems would have been -- the seed for those 7 discussions would have started during the Transition Team 8 period. 9 The actual implementation developing them out 10 would have occurred over a period of time. 11 Q: And you're not aware whether or not, the 12 choice of the various systems from the municipalities, these 13 other systems that we're talking about, were viewed and 14 implemented as administrative decisions by senior staff at 15 the City or, whether or not, they were in fact, reported 16 through standing committees to Council? 17 A: I'm not aware of that. And some of the - 18 - it may very well be that some of the directors would have 19 taken direction from the adoption to the Transition Team 20 report initially even if it wasn't specifically in the 21 report. 22 The -- when you adopted the report, you 23 adopted the work that was done around the -- by the 24 Transition Team around new governance and some would have 25 seen that as direction.

107

1 But, all individuals are different. Some 2 would have wanted to get approval. Some would have been 3 comfortable enough making decisions based on their own 4 experience and senior in authority. 5 Q: Okay. Fair enough. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: And you commented about, in reference to 10 the meeting that was held on July the 15th, about the fact 11 that North York, if they were in development of the TMACS 12 system and they had budgeted for the development of that 13 TMACS system that it was not beyond Ms. Liczyk's authority 14 to continue with the completion of that project, the TMACS 15 project? 16 A: No, I wouldn't have had a problem with 17 that during our -- like during the process of the transition 18 team into the new Council. 19 Q: Right. 20 A: That -- that presumably would have been 21 -- my feeling would be that a final decision on that would 22 have been made by the new Council. So, you'd go with the 23 one (1) system, the other one is being finalized as a back 24 up and then a decision would be made presumably to keep the 25 one (1) that was already approved, or to change.

108

1 Q: And again, you didn't have any problem 2 with the concept of a backup system. That seemed prudent to 3 you? 4 A: I didn't have a problem with that, no. 5 It was too important of an issue to play around with, 6 frankly. 7 Q: Right. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Now, you indicated in your evidence that 12 although you didn't have a problem with the backup system, 13 you would have had a problem if the intention was to switch 14 systems to the TMACS system, right? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: But, you're not aware of any information 17 -- you don't have any information that that was, in fact, 18 the intention of anyone back in July of 1997? 19 A: No. 20 Q: Right. And in fact -- 21 A: I took all the information at face 22 value. 23 Q: And, in fact, when you went to speak 24 with Mr. Andrew and Mr. Zwarun you were advised that there 25 were a lot of problems with the TXM2000 system?

109

1 A: That was their opinion, yes. 2 Q: That was both of their opinions? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Okay. And did they lay some of those 5 problems out for you? 6 A: Yes, I can't recall exactly what they 7 said to me about the problems. But, they'd said there were 8 a number of reasons why that system was not ready to be 9 implemented on time. 10 Q: And there certainly wouldn't have been 11 anything inappropriate or illegitimate about changing 12 systems from the TXM2000 tax system to the TMACS system if, 13 in fact, the staff working with that project were 14 dissatisfied by the results of the TXM2000 system? 15 A: Well, it assumes that those complaints 16 were legitimate complaints and you have to assume that. and 17 as I said, at the outset it would still, in my view, require 18 a political understanding of the reason for the switching, 19 which would normally be reported through a standing 20 committee and -- and Council. 21 Q: But, again you're not familiar with what 22 the actual administrator process was, in terms of, selecting 23 different types of systems, when the new City, January 1st, 24 1998, was commenced? 25 A: Specifically, no. Generally, I suppose

110

1 I could say yes. 2 Q: Those are my questions, thank you, sir. 3 A: Thank you. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Anyone else? No? Mr. 5 Butt, any reply? 6 MR. DAVID BUTT: No, thank you. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, the last 8 question is always from me. It's about the only perk I 9 have, I think, in this job. And it's a question I've asked 10 every single witness who has testified here at -- at the 11 Hearings part, as opposed to the Good Government part. 12 And that is at the end of the day when this 13 is all over, I have to write a report for the Mayor and 14 Council, and I want to know if you have anything that you 15 would like to tell me about, that you think would assist me 16 in making my recommendations and fulfilling my terms of 17 reference. 18 You don't have to say anything, some people 19 do, some people don't. It's up to you. You might think 20 it's not appropriate for you, or you might think you want to 21 say something. It's completely up to you? 22 THE WITNESS: As a former politician, you 23 know, we do like to talk. I suppose I could just say 24 something. 25 I guess what strikes me about this, because

111

1 it's just sort of remembering even as we discuss it back in 2 '97 but there is a context issue to these -- to these 3 things. 4 This might seem like a big issue, which it 5 is. You have to -- you do have to, you know, get your bills 6 out and collect your -- your monies. But in context, these 7 decisions -- there were many, many, many like this. This 8 was just one (1) of many. 9 And the -- the Transition Team operated in - 10 - in a very difficult vacuum, and in context that was not 11 always clear to everybody. 12 So, yes, we were making decisions, it was 13 clear that they had to be followed. But what -- but whether 14 or not -- what Municipalities had decided to do, subject to 15 FAB -- this was brought out in terms of budgets, was never 16 really clear, because really the ongoing expenditures of 17 municipalities, aren't always big million dollar ticket 18 items, there -- there are a lot of smaller ones that go on. 19 And it wasn't clear what the new Council 20 would do with the recommendations of the Transition Team, 21 during that process, until the actual adoption. 22 So, it was a very difficult time, and we were 23 working within the legislation approved by the Province, and 24 in a compressed timeline. So, once you're in there, you had 25 to get the job done. It doesn't mean it was done in -- as

112

1 appropriately as you might expect things to be done once 2 you've got your established institutions in place. 3 So, it is a very harried time I guess is what 4 I'm saying in shorter terms -- shorter words. Very fast 5 decisions made in the context of staff reporting out with 6 their own -- very often their own individual prejudices and 7 interests from their own Municipalities, which they've 8 always endorsed and supported and was endorsed and supported 9 by their Councils. 10 So, there's a lot of proprietorship for 11 everything that each would have brought forward to the 12 table, and each wanted to get their point across and to try 13 to get the new City to adopt their -- their ways of doing 14 things. 15 But generally, and I'd say like 95 percent of 16 the time for sure, they worked those things out amongst 17 themselves. It was -- in fact, I don't recall a dissenting 18 municipality voice on an issue -- on any other issue than 19 this one (1). 20 So, having said all of that, this was a 21 little bit different to see -- I've got a dissenting 22 municipality here, here's our -- our case. Most of the time 23 recommendations came to us with an agreement from all -- 24 whatever concerns they had amongst themselves, they came 25 forward with the united front, to the Team.

113

1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. All right. 2 Thank you very much. 3 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Okay, thank you, 5 Mr. Sutherland. 6 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you for coming 8 again. 9 THE WITNESS: You're very welcome. 10 11 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 12 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right, so we have 14 another witness. Do you want to start that -- the next 15 witness now, or do you want to take lunch now? 16 MR. DAVID BUTT: I'm in everyone's hands, if 17 people want a one o'clock lunch, we've got half an hour to 18 get well into the witness. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 20 MR. DAVID BUTT: On the other hand, if 21 people want to take an early lunch, I could do that too. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I see people nodding to 23 continue. So, why don't we do that. Yes? 24 MR. DAVID BUTT: Yes. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay.

114

1 MR. DAVID BUTT: Here he is here. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 THE REGISTRAR: Please state your name in 7 full for the record? 8 THE WITNESS: Cameron Robert Currie. 9 THE REGISTRAR: Could you spell all names, 10 please? 11 THE WITNESS: Cameron, C-A-M-E-R-O-N. 12 Robert, R-O-B-E-R-T. Currie, C-U-R-R-I-E. 13 14 CAMERON ROBERT CURRIE, Sworn; 15 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: You almost thought you 17 were getting an early lunch there, hey Mr. Currie. 18 19 IN THE MATTER OF THE TORONTO EXTERNAL CONTRACTS INQUIRY 20 AFFIDAVIT OF CAMERON CURRIE 21 22 23 I, CAMERON CURRIE, of the City of Toronto in the Province of 24 Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY: 25

115

1 1. I am currently a Supervisor, Computer Analyst 2 in the City of Toronto ("City"). This is a managerial 3 position. I have occupied this position since late 2001. I 4 work in Revenue Services in the North York Civic Centre, on 5 the TMACS (tax billing) and WMACS (water billing) systems. 6 7 2. Prior to my current position, I was a 8 Programmer Analyst at the City and, prior to amalgamation, at 9 the City of North York ("North York"). 10 11 3. I began working at North York in 1988 in a 12 programmer position. I have been an employee of North York 13 and the City since then. 14 15 4. Beginning in or about 1996, I worked on a 16 water billing system to replace the one that North York had 17 been using since 1990. My memo dated March 25, 1997 indicates 18 that as of that date, we had reached the form design stage 19 for the new water system (TEC005958). This skeleton water 20 billing system formed the basis of what later became known as 21 WMACS. 22 23 5. At some point in 1997 I was directed to start 24 working on the tax billing system, TMACS. When I started 25 working on TMACS, I stopped working on the water billing

116

1 system. 2 3 6. When I joined the TMACS team in 1997, it was 4 quite a small group. There was me, Mike Saunders (a 5 consultant), Dave Maxson (a consultant), Edwin Ngan (a 6 consultant), Robert Wrightman (an employee) and one other 7 employee who no longer works at the City. 8 9 7. I was mainly involved in programming of TMACS. 10 I would be told that the system required certain 11 functionality, and I would do the necessary programming to 12 provide that functionality. 13 14 8. My understanding is that Dave Maxson did the 15 original TMACS design. He also did programming. I considered 16 Saunders to be more of a project manager. He was in charge of 17 the TMACS projects. We took our instructions from him. 18 19 9. In or around October 1997, I was instructed to 20 go to a meeting about TXM2000 development in Mississauga. I 21 do not recall who instructed me to go to this meeting. I 22 understood at the time that TXM2000 was a tax billing system 23 created by Scarborough and Mississauga that was competing 24 with TMACS to be used in the soon to be amalgamated City. I 25 was sent to become a member of the TXM2000 conversion team.

117

1 10. Shortly after I attended the TXM2000 meeting 2 in Mississauga, I was told not to go to any further TXM2000 3 meetings. It was either Mike Saunders or Frank Vizzacchero 4 who gave me this instruction. I believe I was told that we 5 had to get TMACS done, so I was not to spend any time on 6 TXM2000. From that point until April 1998, I worked on TMACS. 7 8 11. In late April 1998 I was instructed to work on 9 the conversion of data from TMACS to TXM2000. It was likely 10 Mike Saunders or Frank Vizzacchero who gave me this 11 instruction. While I did this conversion work over the next 12 couple of months (May, June) not exclusively, others at North 13 York Civic Centre continued to work on TMACS. Around that 14 time it was my understanding that TXM2000 had in some fashion 15 been selected as the tax billing system for the whole City, 16 although I was not privy to the details. 17 18 12. I recall being told, though I cannot remember 19 by whom, that TMACS was being used as a "backup" to TXM2000. 20 21 13. It frankly never occurred to me that TXM2000 22 would be the system that the whole City would use. Work never 23 stopped on TMACS from the time I began working on it in 1997. 24 It was well known that Wanda Liczyk, who in 1998 was the 25 City's CFO, was behind TMACS, so I always assumed that TMACS

118

1 would be the system that the City would eventually use. 2 3 14. I worked on the TMACS system until around the 4 end of 1998, at which point I was informed that they wanted a 5 water billing system to replace the old systems in use in the 6 former municipalities. 7 8 15. At some point it was decided (by whom I don't 9 know) to replace the existing water billing systems in the 10 former municipalities and I was directed by Frank Vizzacchero 11 to work on that project. I wrote a memo dated January 11, 12 1999 setting out water system issues that needed to be 13 addressed (TEC006537). Consequently, I believe it was in late 14 1998 that I was directed to begin working on the water 15 system. 16 17 16. Saunders was the water billing project lead 18 and directed the team. Maxson was not initially involved as 19 he was still working on tax billing issues with TMACS, 20 although he did become involved later on. As stated earlier, 21 he did not design the WMACS system. 22 23 17. In 1999 the team working on the water billing 24 system was comprised of Edwin Ngan, Mike Saunders, and two 25 programmers from Corporate I.T. (Ramin Sarrami, Grace Lopez),

119

1 and me. 2 3 18. We developed the water billing system on the 4 same platform as TMACS. It became WMACS. WMACS is a separate 5 application from TMACS, but the intent at the outset was to 6 integrate customer and location information. The new system 7 did contain the ability to handle shared customer and 8 location information; however, due to time constraints 9 converted data was just loaded into the Water application 10 without linking this information. 11 12 19. Data conversions from the old water billing 13 systems in the former municipalities to WMACS took place 14 beginning in August 1999 and were completed for the entire 15 City in December 1999 16 17 20. From what I observed over my years of working 18 with Saunders, both on TMACS and WMACS, managers and end 19 users were reluctant to oppose him or speak their minds in 20 his presence. Part of this might have had to do with the 21 power he was afforded. It was assumed by all that he had 22 Wanda Liczyk's backing for whatever he did. He always 23 conveyed that he had her backing. As she was the City's CFO, 24 this backing, and therefore Saunders, carried a lot of 25 weight.

120

1 21. I make this affidavit in respect of the 2 Toronto External Contracts Inquiry and for no other purpose. 3 4 SWORN BEFORE ME at the City of Toronto in 5 the Province of Ontario on Sept 9th, 2004 6 CAMERON CURRIE 7 8 9 A COMMISSIONER, ETC. 10 11 12 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 13 Q: Mr. Currie, the first thing that I'll ask 14 you to do is make sure when you're giving your answers to 15 keep fairly close to the microphone because it's not just 16 amplifying, we're also making a transcript through -- through 17 the microphone system? 18 A: Okay. 19 Q: And the second thing is that you've -- 20 you've sworn an affidavit to help us out here and I'm going 21 to walk you through the -- the paragraphs in your affidavit 22 and it's, Madam Commissioner, in the affidavit Volume I, 23 which is Exhibit 11, and it's Tab A. And, of course, feel 24 free to refer to that and follow along as I ask you the -- 25 the questions.

121

1 Now, first of all, just to help us out, you're 2 a --as you say in paragraph 1, you're a supervisor, computer 3 analyst and you work in revenue services up at the North York 4 Civic Centre? 5 A: Okay. Actually, I did apply for another 6 job and I am now Senior System Integrator with the City. 7 Q: Congratulations. 8 A: Okay. Thank you. 9 Q: That's great. Where is that? So, you've 10 moved from North York or still at North York? 11 A: No, I'm working up at North York Civic 12 Centre working on the support for the TMACS and WMACS system 13 -- systems. 14 Q: And you were a programmer at the City of 15 North York -- programmer analyst before amalgamation; is that 16 -- is that right? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Okay. And can you tell us, before 19 amalgamation, what did your daily job consist of? What would 20 you be doing? 21 A: Our -- basically, the MIS area was 22 supporting systems across the former North York. I, myself, 23 worked on several different systems over my, I guess, twelve 24 (12) years with North York, from the election system to 25 systems in the public health department.

122

1 We had quite a variety of systems we were 2 supporting including tax and water. 3 Q: And these support functions, what did 4 they involve? Were you troubleshooting when you got a call 5 or were you working on development? All of the above? None 6 of the above? Can you help us with what -- what that -- what 7 that support meant? 8 A: Okay. Probably over that twelve (12) 9 year period we developed new systems as well as support -- as 10 well as supporting existing systems. 11 Q: And you -- just talk about North York 12 water billing system. At paragraph 4 you mention that around 13 1996 you began working on a water billing system? 14 A: Hmm hmm. Yes. 15 Q: And can you tell us how it came to be 16 that you were working on that water billing system back then? 17 A: I had, I guess, in 1990 worked on a 18 replacement system for the existing water system that the 19 former North York had. We designed a new system. There were 20 two (2) of us, myself and Margaret Wang designed a new 21 system, a Natural/Adabas system back in 1990. 22 Q: Okay. And, I'm sorry, the second person 23 who helped you was who? 24 A: Margaret Wang. 25 Q: And she's a North York City employee or

123

1 was at the time? 2 A: She's a -- she's a former employee. I 3 guess, she left probably in 1998. 4 Q: Okay. But at the time when you're 5 developing it, this was an in-house development was it? 6 A: Right. Yes. 7 Q: And that was in 1990 and in 1996 you were 8 continuing to work on it, I'm just referring to paragraph 9 four in your affidavit, are you continuing to develop it or 10 what's going on in 1996? 11 A: It was a brand new system to replace the 12 Natural/Adabas system which was a mainframe base system. We 13 were replacing, or I guess the plans were to replace that 14 system with a client server based application. 15 Q: Okay. So, the one (1) you designed in 16 1990 was mainframe -- 17 A: Yes -- 18 Q: -- a mainframe system? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And what you were doing then in 1996 was 21 developing roughly the same thing, but, on a client server 22 basis? 23 A: Yes. Hmm hmm. 24 Q: And who was working on -- on that? 25 A: Myself and Margaret Wang.

124

1 Q: And the system that you were designing 2 with yourself and Ms. Wang, was within the IT Department 3 generally at the City of North York, is that right? 4 A: Right. MIS -- the MIS Department at 5 North York. 6 Q: How big a Department was it at the time? 7 A: We basically had eight (8) employees. 8 There were eight (8) people including myself. And at that 9 time, there were two (2) -- two (2) consultants or three (3) 10 -- maybe three (3) consultants. 11 Q: Okay. And who were those consultants? 12 A: Mike Saunders, Dave Maxson and Edwin 13 Ngan. 14 Q: And who was the head of the MIS 15 Department? 16 A: That was Frank Vizzacchero. 17 Q: And the consultants that you referred as 18 of 1996, how long had they been working at the North York -- 19 working in the MIS in North York? 20 A: Okay. Mike Saunders and Dave Maxson, I 21 guess it was some time in 1992. 22 Q: And what were they working on to your 23 knowledge in the period of time between '92 and '96? 24 A: They were working on a mainframe version 25 of the tax system. It was a replacement to an older tax

125

1 system that North York had, prior to 1992. 2 Q: So, in 1992, they're developing a tax 3 system on a mainframe? 4 A: Correct, yes. 5 Q: And then you -- and I suppose you were 6 working in parallel on the -- on the water system; is that -- 7 is that fair to say? 8 A: No actually, the water system was started 9 in 1990 and I'm not exactly sure if it was completed by the 10 time the tax system was started. We actually worked on quite 11 a few different systems over the years so -- 12 Q: Okay. And in 1997, you mentioned again 13 in your affidavit that you were directed to start working on 14 the tax billing system. And is that the system that Mr. 15 Saunders and Mr. Maxson had been working on previously, while 16 you were doing water? 17 A: Well, they -- they had been working on 18 the mainframe system. And at that point, a decision I guess 19 was made to go forward with the client server of -- of that 20 system. 21 Q: So, much like you had -- along with 22 Margaret -- 23 A: I'm sorry forgotten her name, Margaret 24 Wang. 25 Q: Yes -- you and Margaret Wang had

126

1 developed water on a mainframe in the early 90's and then in 2 the mid-90's you were directed to now develop it on a client 3 server system. 4 In a parallel way, if I understand you and 5 correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Saunders and Mr. Maxson had 6 developed the tax system on a mainframe and were now 7 migrating it or developing it for a client server -- on a 8 client server basis; is that -- is that right? 9 A: Yes, hmm hmm. 10 Q: Who was it who asked you to -- or 11 directed you, to use in your affidavit, to stop working on 12 the water and to switch over to -- to work on the tax? 13 A: It was quite a while ago. It was -- it 14 was either Frank Vizzacchero or Mike Saunders. 15 Q: And can you tell us why it might have 16 been Mike Saunders, wasn't Frank sort of the head of the 17 Department? 18 A: Yes, he was. But, basically that was 19 Mike's project, and he was more or less in charge of it. 20 Q: How far along was the movement of the 21 water system from mainframe to client server, when you were 22 taken off it and put on the -- the tax system? 23 A: Well, basically we had some -- a skeleton 24 type application so, the framework was there. 25 It was just a matter of, I guess, filling in

127

1 the pieces, creating the actual data windows to access the 2 data, creating the, more than just the GUI functionality of 3 it. Like putting the business logic into the application. 4 Q: Okay, now you used the word GUI? 5 A: Well, it was a windows based application, 6 so it has a Graphical User Interface to it. 7 Q: Okay, you don't mean for those of us who 8 aren't technologically; you don't mean G-O-O-E-Y? 9 A: No. 10 Q: Okay. Graphical User Interface? 11 A: Right. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thanks for protecting 13 the transcript, Mr. Butt. That could have come out quite 14 oddly. 15 MR. DAVID BUTT: Well, I have young kids at 16 home, so there's lots of gooey interface. I don't think it's 17 the same kind. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 20 Q: And so, I just want to understand when -- 21 when you were told to move from the water to the tax, as I 22 hear you it was reasonably well along the way to completion, 23 you weren't sort of leaving something that was just going to 24 collapse when you -- when you left, or -- 25 A: No, I -- the framework was there, it was

128

1 just a matter of continuing with it. 2 Q: Okay. And -- and who continued with 3 that, to your knowledge, when you migrated over to the tax? 4 A: No one. One (1) of the reasons I guess I 5 was brought over to the tax system was that a few people had 6 left, so the compliment of staff had dropped in the area, and 7 they needed someone to work on tax. And it had become a 8 priority. 9 Q: So, it was a question just of shifting 10 priorities. We can't do everything, we need to stop the 11 water and get to work on the taxes; is that right? 12 A: Yes, hmm hmm. 13 Q: Now when you went over in 1997, again 14 this is paragraph 6 of your affidavit, there were a number of 15 people that you've mentioned already, Mr. Saunders, Mr. 16 Maxson and Mr. Ngan. And then a -- a Mr. Whiteman? 17 A: Yes, hmm hmm. 18 Q: And what role did Mr. Whiteman have in 19 the TMACS project, when you first went there? 20 A: Robert was basically doing programming 21 for different modules. 22 Q: And at the time, we've got just by -- by 23 a -- by a count here, five (5) people, including yourself, on 24 the -- on the TMACS Project. Now, you said that in the early 25 '90s, the -- the unit was about eight (8) people, and you'd

129

1 said some people had left. Were you -- were you down to 2 below eight (8)? 3 A: Basically I think they had every -- I'm 4 just trying to think. We actually had a Frank Colavecchio, 5 who was supporting the LGFS and CHRS systems. And we had 6 another person, Georgiana Yeung, who worked with me in 1997, 7 on the election. I was also working on the election project 8 in 1997. 9 Q: So -- so, two (2) other individuals that 10 you've named and that was pretty much it at the time? Was 11 that the department? 12 A: I can't recall. There was a DVA, Robert 13 Gliessle. I'm not sure if he had left at that time or not. 14 Q: Okay. So, maybe one (1) other individual 15 but we're still in the seven (7) or eight (8) person range, 16 five (5) of whom are working on the -- on the tax system; is 17 -- is that right? 18 A: Well, I'm trying to think back to people 19 that have left. Margaret left that year, in 1998, Vivien 20 Wong left, I believe in that year as well, Edwin Ngan had 21 left but came back, Robert did leave but I'm not exactly sure 22 what year and I guess that's -- that's about it. 23 Q: Okay. Now, when you're working on the -- 24 on the TMACS project, you're involved in programming; is that 25 right?

130

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And I understand from your affidavit, 3 paragraph 7, that you would be told what functionality was 4 required and it was up to you to program to achieve that 5 functionality; is that right? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And who would be providing you direction 8 on the -- the functionality requirement? 9 A: Well, it would either be Mike Saunders or 10 Dave Maxson. 11 Q: And, again, in -- in this environment 12 with Frank Vizzacchero as the -- as the Director, how was 13 that responsibility allocated or divided? I mean, in terms 14 of functionality one might think that, gee, it's best to get 15 the functionality requirements from the director of the 16 department who knows the City, on the other hand, you have a 17 project leader in place; how did that relationship divide in 18 terms of oversight? 19 A: Basically, Mike was running the tax 20 system and Frank was basically doing -- looking after our 21 men. Also, whenever we were dealing with other departments, 22 if we were doing work, say, on the election, Frank was 23 involved in -- in that. 24 Q: So, as I hear this and correct me if I'm 25 wrong, it appears that there were, sort of, two (2) directors

131

1 depending on what the function was; is that -- is that fair 2 to say? 3 A: Yes. Hmm hmm. 4 Q: How was -- how was Mike Saunders to work 5 with? 6 A: For the -- for the most part he was okay. 7 But he could be a challenge at times. 8 Q: What do you mean by a challenge? 9 A: Well, I guess he was under a lot of 10 pressure and, at times, you would know it. 11 Q: How would you know it? 12 A: Well, he'd be, I guess, kind of 13 concerned, you know. Someone who's, you know, upset or has 14 an issue tends to be a little less friendly, I guess, is a 15 good way of putting it. 16 It wasn't excessive or anything. It was just, 17 you know, you could tell if he was having a bad day or -- or 18 if there were problems. 19 Q: And this system was being -- 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Just before -- before 21 you move on -- 22 MR. DAVID BUTT: Sure. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- from that Mr. Butt, I 24 wasn't there obviously when you were there and it would be 25 helpful to me to have some kind of understanding of what the

132

1 work environment was like for you at that time. 2 So, when you say that Mr. Saunders was -- he'd 3 be upset or have issues, tended to be less than friendly, 4 it's not all that helpful to me in indicating what it -- what 5 it was like for you to be working there at that time. 6 So, if you could give me some examples or 7 something that may -- that might be helpful. 8 THE WITNESS: Okay. Well, at that time we 9 were working on quite a few different things and I think -- 10 I think Mike was probably getting some opposition from some 11 of the other cities on the project. 12 And I think at the same time, I think it was a 13 push to try and get TMACS done so I think there was a fair 14 amount of, you know, pressure. 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: What time -- when is 16 this, around? 17 MR. DAVID BUTT: We're asking about the -- 18 THE WITNESS: This is during the development 19 of TMACS. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: 1997? 21 MR. DAVID BUTT: Hmm hmm. 22 THE WITNESS: Well, I guess '98 through the 23 amalgamation period. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)

133

1 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 2 Q: Now, in terms of the system that's being 3 developed, it was a tax system that obviously had a 4 programming and IT component and then an end user or 5 functionality component. 6 A: Right. 7 Q: And was there input for you and your 8 team, the others on your team as programmers from -- and 9 users, was there input as to -- 10 A: What their requirements were? 11 Q: Yes? 12 A: My -- my take on the process was 13 basically Wanda brought Mike and Dave in because they were 14 familiar with tax, and basically they were providing, I guess 15 that extra service for the users. As -- the users of course, 16 did have input into the system but, I think Mike had the 17 final say on what was put into the system. 18 Q: Do you have any examples of when that 19 might have occurred? 20 A: Well, there would -- the users would come 21 over and ask for something to be done in the system and 22 basically, you know, he would -- if it sort of fit into what 23 he wanted to see in the system, then it would be put in. If 24 it was something that he didn't feel was necessary in the 25 system, then it wouldn't be put in.

134

1 Q: And I understand that perhaps one (1) 2 example is the Owner/Tenant Flag in the water billing system? 3 A: Right. 4 Q: Could you explain that and -- 5 A: Okay. The old North York system actually 6 had the ability to track owner information as well as tenant 7 information. 8 Q: And we should clarify this is the water 9 billing system? 10 A: Sorry, yes, the water billing system. 11 Q: So, you could tell a difference between 12 an owner's water use and a tenant's water use? 13 A: And -- and it had the ability to actually 14 track owner as well as tenant information. So, there were -- 15 any issues specific to the owner, the water billing staff 16 would be able to access that information. 17 When the WMACS system was being developed that 18 was put into the system, but it was removed later. It had 19 become a bit of an issue because we were getting data from 20 many different sources from different cities. 21 Some cities had that information, other cities 22 did not. And -- 23 Q: Who decided to take it out? 24 A: Well, I believe it was Mike. 25 Q: And from the user's perspective, did they

135

1 want that information in or out? 2 A: From North York's perspective, they -- 3 they wanted that in because North York's original system had 4 that information. 5 Q: Now, you mentioned you were doing -- 6 returning to TMACS in '97 -- '98 period you mentioned that 7 you were doing programming. You also told us earlier that 8 Mr. Saunders and Mr. Maxson had originally designed this as 9 the -- as the mainframe program, back in the early 90's? 10 A: Right. 11 Q: So, what were you doing? Were you 12 redesigning the program? I just need to know a little bit 13 more about this movement from mainframe to client server. 14 Were you redesigning or were you reconfiguring something that 15 was already -- 16 A: Well, moving from a mainframe environment 17 to a client server environment is -- is a change, there's 18 additional functionality that could be brought into the 19 system. 20 Because you're using a PC, there's additional 21 functions that you can do on the client server applic -- with 22 a client server application, that you wouldn't necessarily be 23 able to do on a mainframe application. So, there were 24 enhancements other than just taking the existing system and 25 moving it over.

136

1 Q: Okay. And just to go back in time for -- 2 for one (1) question, were you involved at all in the 3 development of the mainframe version of TMACS? 4 A: No, I was not. 5 Q: Do you know if anyone in North York other 6 than Mr. Saunders and Mr. Maxson were involved in the 7 mainframe version? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And were -- was anyone else involved, and 10 if so, who? 11 A: Yes. Edwin Ngan, and Vivean Wong. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 MR. DAVID BUTT: Madam Commissioner, I 16 believe we're at a bit of a break in subject matter. It's a 17 couple of minutes before 1:00 -- 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Hmm hmm. 19 MR. DAVID BUTT: -- but I don't know if this 20 might be a convenient time just because of the subject matter 21 break? 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: It's perfect. How long 23 do you think you -- you might be? I'm just trying to get a 24 sense of whether we should take an hour or an hour and a 25 quarter?

137

1 MR. DAVID BUTT: I -- I'd say forty-five (45) 2 minutes. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Oh, all right. Let's 4 take a -- let's take an hour and a quarter today. Okay. 5 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will adjourn for 6 lunch until 2:15. 7 8 --- Upon recessing at 1:00 p.m. 9 --- Upon resuming at 2:18 p.m. 10 11 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will now resume. 12 Please be seated. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Good afternoon. 14 MR. DAVID BUTT: Thank you, Madam 15 Commissioner. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 18 Q: Mr. Currie, just before we broke for 19 lunch we were talking about your development of the water 20 project and then I was just going to move on to your 21 involvement in -- I'm sorry, water and TMACS and then I'm 22 just going to move on to talk about your involvement in TXM. 23 But before we -- we do, I just want to ask, 24 you told us how you had developed the water project to a 25 certain level of readiness, as you've described and then

138

1 scarce resources, wanted to focus on the TMACS tax, what 2 happened to the water in the interim? Is it just, sort of, 3 there and not -- not being developed? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: Okay. Did you ever go back to that? 6 A: Sorry, go back to working on water? 7 Q: To -- yeah. 8 A: Yeah, well, eventually we did, right, in 9 1998 -- at the end of -- well, I guess it was more like the 10 end of '98, beginning of '99 when the project restarted. 11 Q: Okay. And in the interim had there been 12 any work done on it? 13 A: No. 14 Q: And when you went back, did you, sort of, 15 pick up where you left off? 16 A: More or less. We did make changes to -- 17 to the application to -- to get a better fit with the TMACS 18 system. 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: Okay. 21 Q: And I suppose in the intervening, that 22 would have been a couple of years, there was obviously 23 developments in technology and so on and so you're taking 24 that into account in your new development work; is that fair? 25 A: That's correct. Actually, we had moved

139

1 from PowerBuilder Version 4 to PowerBuilder Version 5, I 2 think at that time. So, we had gone up a release. 3 Q: And just -- just to help us, again, I'm 4 not as technical as you, what's PowerBuilder? 5 A: That was the development tool that was 6 used to -- to program the application. 7 Q: I see. Okay. And when you said, "we 8 went back to the water project", who was it that -- that went 9 back? 10 A: Well, it would be myself and then, I 11 guess, the new team members, Mike, Dave, Edwin and Robert. 12 Q: Okay, Robert Whiteman -- 13 A: Robert Whiteman, yes. 14 Q: -- you mentioned. Great. Okay. Okay, 15 so now I'd like to, having finished my questions for you on 16 the water, ask you a little bit about the TXM2000 Mississauga 17 project. 18 And you went out to Mississauga for the first 19 time in October 1997; is that right, from -- I'm looking at 20 paragraph 9 of your affidavit? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And -- 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry, what was 24 that? October -- 25 MR. DAVID BUTT: October 1997.

140

1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 4 Q: And do you remember, you say in your 5 affidavit: 6 "I was instructed to go out to the 7 meeting." 8 Who -- who told you to go out there? 9 A: I can't say exactly but it's -- it would 10 either be probably Frank or Mike. 11 Q: And I guess you were -- you were telling 12 us -- 13 A: Sorry, actually Margo might have also 14 been a person that might have instructed me to go. 15 Q: Okay. Can you help us please, because 16 that's Ms. Brunning, Margo Brunning? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And you've described the IT Department, 19 the small number of people in it and Frank is the head when 20 it comes to non-tax matters and Mike's the head when it comes 21 to tax matters; is that right? 22 A: Right. 23 Q: And where does Margo Brunning fit into 24 the picture in terms of your Department? 25 A: Margo was working with the TMACS system

141

1 and I -- I also believe she was somehow working on TXM2000, 2 or was involved with TXM2000. 3 Q: Okay. Do you know what her formal title 4 was at the time in North York? 5 A: What her job title -- 6 Q: Yes -- 7 A: -- or title on the project or -- 8 Q: Her job -- what position she occupied at 9 the City? 10 A: I think she was the Manager of Tax and 11 Collections or -- I don't' know the exact wording, but, I 12 think -- 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: -- it's down that line. 15 Q: All right. And then you say -- you asked 16 if I wanted the -- her job title or her title in the project, 17 can you tell me about that? Did you have a sense of -- 18 A: No, I don't know what her title was. 19 Q: Okay. Right. But, I take it from what 20 you're saying that you believed she was involved in the tax 21 project? 22 A: Yes. Hmm hmm. 23 Q: And just to set this in context, in 24 October 1997, what is the TXM program as you understand it? 25 A: Okay. It was a system that was being

142

1 developed originally by, I think, Scarborough/Mississauga and 2 later on I think Toronto and I'm not sure if Etobicoke was 3 involved. 4 Q: Okay. And you went out to Mississauga 5 and at the time you went out, again with reference to 6 paragraph 9 of your affidavit, what was your understanding as 7 to TMACS and what its future may not be? 8 A: Okay. Well, basically I went out to that 9 meeting, it was basically the start or the beginning of the 10 conversion from -- well, basically to TXM2000. It was an 11 introduction meeting. And at that point, I don't think a 12 real firm decision had been made one (1) way or another as to 13 what they were going with, either TMACS or TXM2000. 14 Q: Okay. And when you say, you don't think 15 that a firm decision had been made, how did you get that 16 understanding? 17 A: Well, I -- basically I went out there and 18 then afterwards, it was don't go out there anymore, we need 19 you to work on TMACS. So, I guess I figured that that was 20 what the situation was. 21 Q: Okay. And -- and indeed, you refer to 22 that in the next paragraph in your affidavit, don't you, the 23 fact that you're instructed not to -- not to go out? 24 A: Hmm hmm. 25 Q: And are you able to help us whether it

143

1 was Mike Saunders or Frank Vizzacchero who told you? 2 A: I -- like I say in the -- the affidavit, 3 I'm not really sure. 4 Q: Okay. And just to make a suggestion to 5 you, feel free to reject if it's not -- if it's not accurate, 6 you having said earlier that Mike would often take the lead 7 in the tax matters, would it be more likely because of that, 8 that it would have been Mike, or could it have been -- are 9 you able to say between Mike and Frank? 10 A: Well, I think it's -- in this case it's a 11 little muddled. Because I know Frank was a little bit 12 involved, I think with the TXM2000, so I can't really say. 13 Q: Okay. And you say Frank was a little bit 14 involved in the TXM2000, what -- how did he come into the 15 picture? 16 A: I'm not really sure. 17 Q: What -- what was he doing when you say he 18 was a little bit involved, that he wasn't doing when you're 19 working with Mike on the TMACS? 20 A: Well, I'm not really sure if he was 21 involved in the -- the selection process. I did attend one 22 (1) meeting where they were demoing both systems and he was 23 there, so I guess he was somewhat involved in the process, 24 yeah. 25 Q: When would that have been?

144

1 A: I guess that was in 1998. Maybe May -- 2 May/June timeframe. 3 Q: Okay. Now, you attended the meeting in 4 Mississauga and then you received the instructions not to go 5 because you were needed for TMACS. Was it just the one (1) 6 meeting that you went to in Mississauga before this 7 instruction came to you, or had you gone to several? 8 A: No, I just went to one (1). 9 Q: And after that meeting you say in your 10 affidavit, from that point until April 1998, you worked just 11 on -- on TMACS. Now, would that have been your -- your full- 12 time work, focussing on -- on TMACS, or did you deal with 13 other issues? 14 A: There were other issues, because we were 15 supporting other systems in the City. So, there -- there 16 were probably other issues, specifically I worked on public 17 health systems, the school health record system, the 18 environmental health system, the nursing system. 19 So, if there were issues with those systems, I 20 would have been called off to work on that as well. 21 Q: And you've described those as support 22 functions; is that -- is that right? 23 A: Mainly, yeah. 24 Q: So, if I understand, placing that -- that 25 period between November and April in context, your ongoing

145

1 development project was TMACS, but if you were needed to 2 support, you were called off to help those systems that were 3 already up and running -- 4 A: Right. 5 Q: -- to keep functioning? 6 A: Right. And I -- I was also supporting 7 the water system as well. 8 Q: Okay. And just help me, because we've 9 spoken about the water system? 10 A: The pre-conversion system. 11 Q: Okay. So, you had started a -- a 12 project, set it aside and then come back to it. 13 A: Right. 14 Q: But in the interim there had to be water 15 bills, so this was the other system? 16 A: Water bills, payments, you know, we were 17 receiving files from the bank, there would be issues at times 18 with those. 19 Q: Okay. And then you've -- you've told us 20 that you went back in your affidavit, in paragraph 11, you 21 tell us you went -- you went back in -- in April of 1998? 22 A: Hmm hmm. 23 Q: And can you tell us again, do you have 24 any sense of whether it was Mike Saunders or -- or Frank, who 25 would have given you this new instruction?

146

1 A: Well, it was -- I -- it could even have 2 been Margo that might have asked me to go back. So, I -- it 3 could have been any of them. It was quite a few years ago, 4 so -- 5 Q: Right. Right. Can you -- can you tell 6 me this. You -- you went back and you worked as -- as you 7 say, for the next couple of months, although not exclusively 8 on this -- 9 A: Hmm hmm. 10 Q: -- conversion project. From what you saw 11 when you went back, or perhaps from what you heard when you 12 were -- between November and April when you were at North 13 York, had other municipalities been continuing to go to the 14 meetings between October and April? 15 A: Yes. Well, that would be my 16 understanding, yeah. 17 Q: And had this development work been -- 18 being going on with TXM during that time, when you were not 19 involved? 20 A: For the conversion? Yes. Hmm hmm. 21 Q: And -- 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: What do you mean for the 23 conversion, because they -- weren't they already on TXM? 24 THE WITNESS: No. No, this is -- this is 25 prior to them going on TXM2000 --

147

1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Oh, I see. 2 THE WITNESS: -- like they converted in -- 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: They convert -- 4 THE WITNESS: -- 1998. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Whatever their old 6 system was -- 7 THE WITNESS: June/July. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- to TXM2000? 9 THE WITNESS: Right. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Not from TMACS to 2000? 11 THE WITNESS: Right. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And when you say you 13 went back, on paragraph 11, I'm not sure, did you have to go 14 to Mississauga to do this, or were you doing it in North 15 York? 16 THE WITNESS: Actually by that time it was in 17 Scarborough. 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: In Scarborough, okay. 19 THE WITNESS: That they were -- 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 21 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 24 Q: Now, the -- when you go back in -- in 25 April of 1998, you're saying this is a conversion project

148

1 now? 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: And let me just ask, coming in, in April, 4 with others having been there before you, were you, sort of, 5 as the North York person there, as up to speed or -- as the 6 others who had been there before? 7 A: Well, no. They had been working for 8 seven (7) months on their conversions and I was just showing 9 up in April. So, yes, they had -- they had much more time to 10 -- to prepare their conversions. 11 Q: And -- and through no fault of your own, 12 obviously, because you've been very clear about, you've 13 received instructions and you followed them, did that put you 14 a little bit behind the -- behind the ball? Or did that put 15 any more pressure on you in terms of what you had to 16 accomplish in the time you had available? 17 A: Yes. Yes, it did. 18 Q: And what was the -- was there a 19 conversion date that, when you went back you were working 20 towards? 21 A: I think in the first meeting that I went 22 back to I think they were looking towards, originally, 23 converting around the beginning of June. But I think some of 24 the dates slipped a little bit. 25 Q: Now, I -- I understand that you put

149

1 together a conversion plan -- 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: -- and we, I think, have a copy of that, 4 Madam Commissioner. It's -- it's document 1914, Exhibit 13, 5 Volume III, Tab 4. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 A: Could you repeat what document that was 10 again? 11 Q: Sure, it's Tab 4. 12 A: Tab 4? 13 Q: Yes. 14 A: Okay. 15 Q: Please take -- take a look at it and -- 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Do you recognize it? 18 A: Hmm hmm. 19 Q: And is that the conversion plan that you 20 came up with? 21 A: It is the conversion plan. I don't know 22 if you have a copy of the conversion document that I 23 prepared, if that's been submitted or -- I -- I prepared a 24 conversion document detailing how I was converting from TMACS 25 over to TXM2000.

150

1 Q: Okay. 2 A: Has that been -- 3 Q: I don't know. But I -- but I will ask 4 you about this one. This -- this is, sort of, an overview of 5 your plan; is that right? 6 A: Yes, Hmm hmm. 7 Q: And -- and the other document, you say, 8 is it a more detailed version or -- 9 A: Basically, it's just detailing what the 10 TXM2000 tables are, what the columns are in those tables and 11 where I would be getting the information out of TMACS and 12 additional information as to what type of transaction codes 13 and things like that would be applied. 14 Q: Okay. So it would be a -- a much more 15 detailed blueprint for the activity -- 16 A: Right. 17 Q: -- that's outlined in -- in this document 18 you have; is that -- is that right? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: Okay. And you -- you prepared this? 21 A: Yeah, I'm pretty sure I prepared this. 22 Q: Okay. I don't know. I wasn't there so 23 I'm -- 24 A: Yeah. No, I -- I might have worked with 25 the other team members to come up with this. But it looks

151

1 like a document that I would have done. Yeah. 2 Q: And -- and those team members, are they 3 the people listed at the top of the document or are you 4 talking about the other people from other municipalities? 5 A: No. This is the cut over plan for North 6 York specifically. 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: Each -- each of the former municipalities 9 did their own plan. 10 Q: And so when you say, "the team members" 11 then you mean the people listed here at the top of the 12 document? 13 A: Right. Hmm hmm. 14 Q: Okay. And there are some initials beside 15 each -- each person; what do those initials -- oh, I see, 16 there's just the -- 17 A: They're just the -- 18 Q: -- initials of the person's names as 19 they're referred to later in the document? 20 A: Right. Yes. Hmm hmm. 21 Q: And they allocate responsibility later in 22 the document as to who's going to be doing what? 23 A: Right. 24 Q: Now, just based on what you've told us 25 about the people in the MIS Department at the time, some of

152

1 these are non-MIS people; is that -- is that right? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And so, is it fair to suggest that, in a 4 -- in a cut over plan as you titled it, there's going to be 5 some people with technical responsibilities and some with 6 more business user implementation responsibilities and that's 7 why the team -- 8 A: Right. 9 Q: -- reflects that make up? 10 A: Yes. Hmm hmm. 11 Q: Okay. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: Now -- 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So, was it -- just so I 17 understand, was it -- was it only going to take a week or I'm 18 sorry, a weekend to complete conversion from TMACS to TXM? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes. Hmm hmm. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: That's all it was going 21 to take? 22 THE WITNESS: To run the jobs, yes. To take 23 the data out of one (1) database and put it into the other, 24 yes, one week -- the weekend. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: One (1) weekend.

153

1 THE WITNESS: Yeah, hmm hmm. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Let me see if 3 I've got that right, maybe Mr. Butt, are you going there? Is 4 that -- I'm trying to understand it, did it only take one (1) 5 weekend to convert whatever you needed to do from TMACS into 6 TXM, to then have it running through to TXM? 7 THE WITNESS: Well, the actual planning and 8 creating the programs, of course, took -- took much longer 9 but, the conversion cut over was planned on that weekend. 10 And it was only going to take that weekend. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I see. Okay. 12 THE WITNESS: Okay. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And do you know how long 14 it would -- would have taken to do the other conversion, I 15 mean the -- the planning of it? 16 THE WITNESS: Well, I started at the end of 17 April and basically, I guess, I was prepared with this at 18 June 10th. So... 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 24 Q: And just to set the broader context if we 25 could, again with reference back to your affidavit, at the

154

1 time you're working on this conversion, as you say, at the 2 top of page 3, you had an understanding that TXM2000 had in 3 some fashion been selected as the tax billing system for the 4 whole City? 5 A: Right. 6 Q: And you also told us you're not privy to 7 how that selection happened or what was involved; is that -- 8 is that right? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: And what was your understanding of the 11 role of TMACS, given that this was the apparent status of 12 TXM? 13 A: Well, I figured that we were converting 14 to TXM2000 and -- 15 Q: And -- and what would be the status of 16 TMACS after the conversion to your understanding? 17 A: At what point? 18 Q: Well, I'm -- at the time of conversion 19 and afterwards -- and I'm specifically referring to paragraph 20 12 of your affidavit? 21 A: That it would be gone, right? That it 22 would be replaced by TXM2000. 23 Q: And when you refer to TMACS being used as 24 a -- as a back up in paragraph 12, is that then before the 25 conversion or --

155

1 A: No, that was later after the TMACS system 2 had not been converted. 3 Q: Okay. So, at the time your working to -- 4 actually, let me just back up and set a little bigger 5 context. The City tax bills go out in August 1998. And 6 you're doing conversion work from April to June on TXM -- 7 A: Right. 8 Q: -- but, ultimately in August 1998, what 9 did the North York bills go out on? 10 A: They went out on TMACS. 11 Q: So, from that, am I right to infer that 12 the conversion that you'd worked on from April to June, did 13 not happen? 14 A: Yes. Hmm hmm. 15 Q: Okay. And I will want to ask you some 16 more questions about that but, when you're engaged in the TXM 17 conversion process from April to June, you're thinking is, if 18 I understand it that once it's converted TMACS is going to go 19 away? 20 A: Right. Hmm hmm. 21 Q: And then when that conversion doesn't 22 happen, is that when you're under the impression that TMACS 23 is functioning in North York as a backup and -- to issue the 24 bills? 25 A: More or less, yeah. Yeah.

156

1 Q: Did anyone tell you that it was a backup 2 system? 3 A: Well, I probably heard it from someone 4 but, I can't say who. 5 Q: And I'd like to ask you about paragraph 6 13, you -- you had heard that TXM had been chosen -- 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: -- is -- is it also accurate to say, as 9 we see in paragraph 13, that although you had been told it 10 had been chosen in some fashion, it would not be the -- the 11 system that was ultimately used; is that a fair 12 characterization of your perspective at the time? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And -- and why was it that you held -- 15 held that view? 16 A: Well, I -- I know that there had been 17 ongoing, I guess, series of discussions, as to which system 18 should be used. 19 And I was aware that Wanda preferred TMACS. 20 And having worked with her for quite a few years, she's -- 21 you know, if she puts her mind to something, I think she 22 would go forward with it. So, that I guess is one (1) of the 23 reasons. 24 I guess the other reason is they never really 25 stopped working on TMACS, we were still putting new

157

1 functionality into the system. So, you know, why were we 2 doing that? You know, if there wasn't the possibility that 3 -- that it still might be used in the future. 4 Q: From your perspective as -- as an IT 5 person, what about this notion of a -- of a backup, didn't it 6 make sense to keep developing TMACS just as a backup? 7 A: Yes. Yes. I'd heard from, maybe Mike or 8 Frank or even Margo, that there were some issues with 9 TXM2000, so they wanted to continue keeping TMACS, in case it 10 was required in the future. 11 Q: So, I -- I'm just trying to understand 12 sort of the -- the two statements that you've just made. On 13 the one (1) hand you're thinking that because work never 14 stopped on TMACS, it -- that undermined your belief that TXM 15 would ultimately be the City's system, and yet on the other 16 hand you're saying -- 17 A: Well -- 18 Q: -- I'm comfortable with the idea of a 19 backup, so I just -- 20 A: -- well -- 21 Q: -- I want to know how those two (2) sit 22 together here for a second. 23 A: -- well, it gave me the impression that 24 -- that there was still hope, that TX -- or that TMACS was 25 going to be chosen as the system. You know, I -- I guess I'm

158

1 slightly biassed, because I put a lot of time and effort into 2 the system. 3 Q: Hmm hmm. 4 A: So, you know, of course I was thinking 5 maybe TMACS would be a good system for the City. So, that's 6 my opinion on it, like -- 7 Q: Sure, which is great, that's what we're 8 here to -- to receive. 9 And did it give you additional hope that Ms. 10 Liczyk was behind that -- that project in the way that you've 11 described? 12 A: Well, I -- I guess, you know, I felt that 13 Wanda, I think, had confidence in us, that we were producing 14 something that was going to be possibly beneficial to the 15 City. So, I guess I take pride in my work, and, you know, it 16 would have -- would have, and it has been a good thing that 17 they picked it, I think, you know. 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: Okay. 20 Q: And -- and the -- if we can go back now 21 to talk a little bit more about that conversion period in 22 that April until -- until June period, were -- were there 23 difficulties in the switch that you encountered in -- in your 24 work, getting ready for that switch from TMACS to TXM? 25 A: Yes.

159

1 Q: And -- and I understand that there were 2 some difficulties in terms of balancing, and -- and working 3 out the -- the balancing of numbers; is that right? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Could you tell us a little bit about that 6 please? 7 A: Okay. Well, when I first went back to 8 work on the TXM2000 conversion, of course the staff from 9 other cities were, kind of, embroiled or whatever in their 10 own conversions and a lot of people, I think the -- the staff 11 person from York, had quit during the conversion. 12 So, I think Scarborough had to pick up York's 13 conversion as well. So, Scarborough was basically picking up 14 a lot of conversions. They were helping out Toronto, they 15 were helping out East York. 16 And, basically, they were helping me out but, 17 you know, I -- I think I probably got about three (3) days' 18 help from them because they were involved in their own 19 problem. 20 And then -- 21 Q: So just so I understand the difficulty 22 you're facing, you're coming into this project six (6) months 23 late and all they're able to give you is three (3) days of 24 help? 25 A: Right. And I guess the other thing is

160

1 the other cities of comparable size like Scarborough or 2 Toronto had two (2) or three (3) members in the team as 3 opposed to one (1). So, there was a discrepancy, I guess, in 4 the -- the resources. 5 Q: Were you ever able to go back to say, 6 Margo or Frank or Mike Saunders and say, hey, I'm one (1), 7 they're three (3). I mean, I'm good but I'm not three (3) 8 people good, can I have some more support? Did you 9 ever -- 10 A: Feel that I could do that? 11 Q: Feel you could do it? 12 A: Well, no because I was just -- I was told 13 that I was doing the conversion and I was to go for the 14 conversion and all the other resources were working on TMACS. 15 Q: So, you didn't ask because you knew what 16 the answer would be; is that -- is that fair? It was pretty 17 clear what your instructions were? 18 A: Well, I guess, I could have asked but, 19 you know, I think the answer would have been, well, no. 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: Okay. 22 Q: Yeah. So, I'm sorry, I interrupted you. 23 You were talking about getting a little bit of help and then 24 this balancing issue? 25 A: Right. I had a balancing issue on the

161

1 TMACS side and, not wanting to get too technical about the 2 conversion process, basically in the conversion the way 3 Mississauga had set up the conversion process, any credit 4 transactions had to go through as payments. Any interest 5 transactions that had been calculated within your system had 6 to be removed and then you basically had to go back and 7 recalculate the interest in their system. 8 So, it presented a bit of a problem because 9 you were, basically, going back and recalculating interest 10 and it was not a real guarantee that you were going to come 11 up with the same answer, right? Because the two (2) systems 12 were fairly new and, you know, they quite possibly were 13 working a little differently at that time. 14 Q: And so, when you have these difficulties, 15 did -- did you -- what did you do to try to work it out or 16 get help on that? 17 A: Okay. Actually, the conversion process 18 took a whole weekend. So, I think I spent probably three (3) 19 weekends trying to get things to balance before I alerted Bob 20 Ripley and Pat McDade. 21 Q: Okay. 22 A: And then they did come out eventually to 23 help. And I think they were a little -- at that point they 24 had become concerned that -- that this was a -- this was 25 going to be a problem.

162

1 Q: Now, we've -- we've spoken with Ms. 2 Notenboom and we've gone over that paragraph in Mr. Ripley's 3 affidavit and I'd -- and I'd like to give you the opportunity 4 to give your perspective on those events because that's 5 important. 6 And that's paragraph 38 of Mr. Ripley's 7 affidavit that I'm going to go to now, Madam Commissioner, 8 and that's Tab H of the same volume that we're in with Mr. 9 Currie. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: And you've read that paragraph before and 14 are familiar with it, Mr. Currie? 15 A: Right. 16 Q: And so, I'd just like to ask you a few 17 questions about it and most importantly get your own views on 18 this. And Mr. Ripley mentions Mr. McDade and the fact that 19 you were out to -- that they were there to help balance the 20 totals -- 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: -- from one (2) system to the other. And 23 he says that he and I -- he and Mr. McDade left the meeting 24 very frustrated and characterized the meeting as 25 argumentative rather than constructive. Could I just stop

163

1 there, and what is your perspective on -- on that meeting 2 with Mr. Currie and Mr. McDade? 3 A: Okay. Well, I'm -- I don't think the 4 meeting was argumentative. Like I had asked them to come and 5 I was asking them for help. So, I don't think that's being 6 argumentative. 7 Now, maybe they were frustrated. But, I also 8 was frustrated. Because I was trying to get this thing to 9 balance and I wanted this conversion to happen. And I think 10 one (1) thing that they could have done to -- something that 11 I couldn't do, which was tell Mike Saunders to give me help 12 in this, whereas they were at a level that they could have 13 probably approached Wanda and asked that Mike Saunder's 14 provide this extra help to Cameron to get this through. 15 Q: And let -- let me just -- I hear you on 16 that. Let -- let me just explore that a little. Had you 17 yourself tried to get Mike Saunders to help out on -- on this 18 problem? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And we are moving from TMACS to TXM -- 21 A: Right. 22 Q: -- and is Mike Saunders involved in this 23 conversion project? 24 A: No, no. 25 Q: And let -- let me just pause there, the

164

1 reason I asked that is just because in your cut over plan, he 2 is listed as one (1) of the people on the team -- 3 A: Okay. 4 Q: -- so I just -- I don't know -- you help 5 me what that might mean, maybe he's just being copied on it, 6 I don't know? 7 A: Yeah. I don't think -- let's see it 8 doesn't appear to be in the conversion part, this is probably 9 just to give him a copy of what the conversion plan was going 10 to be. 11 Q: Okay. And indeed perhaps others can 12 correct us, Mr. Currie, but, it appears that neither you nor 13 I see the MS initials -- 14 A: No. 15 Q: -- beside any of the tasks? 16 A: And -- and it was on a weekend, and 17 generally Mike was not here on weekends. 18 Q: Right. And just -- just to help us out, 19 you talk about working three weekends straight. You worked 20 those weekends before you -- you called in Mr. Ripley and Mr. 21 McDade; is that right? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: So, it's not as if you weren't trying to 24 get things done on your own; is that what I'm hearing? 25 A: That's correct.

165

1 Q: Okay. Now, I'd just like to ask you a 2 little bit more about your efforts to get Mike involved. You 3 told us and we've looked at the document and we see the same 4 thing, that he's not involved in the conversion plans. 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: Was there something that you needed to 7 know about TMACS in order to break this log jam? 8 A: Okay. Basically, the TMACS system had 9 many different types of adjustment transactions in them. And 10 I was running into some issues, because when I was doing the 11 conversion, I was running into the issues with interest, 12 there were interest reversal transactions, people were 13 reversing out interest with basically using the wrong 14 transaction codes. Things like that. 15 So, I needed to try and get a better 16 understanding of how all these different codes worked in my 17 conversion. 18 Q: Okay. And that entails understanding how 19 things work in TMACS as well as in TXM; is that right? 20 A: Right. Hmm hmm. 21 Q: So, you went to Mr. Saunders to ask for 22 help with the TMACS end of it; is that right? 23 A: That's right. 24 Q: Did he know anything about TXM -- 25 A: No.

166

1 Q: -- to your knowledge? 2 A: No -- to my knowledge, no. No. 3 Q: Okay. Just -- so, tell us about that, 4 what happened? You asked him -- 5 A: Okay. I basically asked him, and it -- I 6 didn't get any help. 7 Q: Can -- can you help -- 8 A: I can't -- I can't remember the exact 9 words or how it was expressed, but I don't think there was 10 the commitment from him. and I, to tell you the truth, I 11 think that commitment could have maybe been garnered if Bob 12 Ripley or Pat McDade had gone to Wanda or to someone higher 13 and said, look, you guys have to work on this. 14 I -- I think Margo Brunning probably was aware 15 of the situation as well. So... 16 Q: And -- and just in terms of again, the 17 hierarchy in the Department at the time, if Margo Brunning 18 had gone to Mike and said, Mike, give -- give Cameron a hand 19 here -- 20 A: Hmm hmm. 21 Q: -- would that have happened, do you 22 think? From your observations? 23 A: I -- I think so, yeah. 24 Q: And I take it then if -- if Wanda had 25 gone to Mike and said, Mike, lend a hand again, would that

167

1 have happened? 2 A: Yes, hmm hmm. 3 Q: Did -- did Mr. Saunders ignore your 4 request, or say no to it? Can you help us out to that 5 extent? 6 A: I -- I think it was more along the lines 7 that he was working on TMACS, he was not working on this 8 conversion. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: Okay. And I'd like to just finish off 13 with this paragraph 38, the last sentence. Mr. Ripley 14 saying: 15 "I recall that Michael Saunders and David 16 Maxson overheard our conversations and 17 seemed to be amused." 18 Do you have a recollection as to whether Mr. 19 Saunders or Maxson were around when this meeting was taking 20 place? 21 A: Well, we all worked, basically, in the 22 same area. It's possible that they maybe were in the next 23 cubicle, I'm not really -- I can't remember which desk we 24 were sitting at, so I can't tell you if they were across or 25 down or exactly where they were in the office.

168

1 Q: And do you have any recollection of the 2 reaction of Mr. Saunders or Mr. Maxson to this meeting you 3 were having? 4 A: No. 5 Q: So, in fairness, is -- is it accurate, 6 and please tell me if it's not, that you can't say whether 7 this statement by Mr. Ripley is or is not accurate; does that 8 -- does that capture your position on that statement? 9 A: Yes. Hmm hmm. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: How did you feel during this conversion 14 process? 15 A: Well, I felt like an outsider in both 16 camps. I felt like a middleman. 17 In all fairness, the staff at Scarborough were 18 helpful, they did provide me with help, but they were very 19 busy with their own conversions, with York's conversion, with 20 Toronto's conversion and with East York's conversion. And I 21 don't know, maybe they felt, because North York was late to 22 the party, that maybe they didn't garner the same attention. 23 I don't know. I can't say. 24 Q: Right. And how about the level of 25 support from your North York colleagues, were you satisfied

169

1 with that? 2 A: From what, Mike and Dave, or from other 3 team members? 4 Q: Anyone at North York. Were you -- were 5 you satisfied with the level of support you got in trying to 6 carry out this conversion? 7 A: Well, moral support, or support with the 8 system? Because basically Mike and Dave were probably the 9 ones that could have provided me with the answers at that 10 time. 11 As far as the other staff in the department, 12 there was no issues. 13 Q: Did -- 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I don't -- I don't 15 understand what you're saying. Mike and Dave could have 16 provided you with the answers or they did provide you with 17 the answers? 18 THE WITNESS: No, they didn't. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: They didn't? 20 THE WITNESS: They didn't provide me with the 21 answers. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. So, in terms of 23 when Mr. Butt was asking you about, were you satisfied with 24 the level of support, your -- am I understanding you to say 25 that from -- from your point of view you didn't feel that you

170

1 were getting support from Mr. Saunders and Mr. Maxson? 2 THE WITNESS: That's correct. Yeah. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. And from the 4 others in your office you were? 5 THE WITNESS: Well, -- 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Or -- 7 THE WITNESS: -- basically, the others who 8 would have, I guess, been Edwin Ngan and Robert Whiteman, I'm 9 not sure if this other person had left by this point, they 10 weren't really the architects of the system. 11 They were working on pieces of the system so 12 they didn't necessarily have a complete understanding of 13 every type of transaction code that was out there. 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So, the ones who had the 15 complete understanding of the transaction was -- was Mr. 16 Saunders and Mr. Maxson? 17 THE WITNESS: Yeah. More than likely Mike -- 18 not Mike Saunders. Dave Maxson. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Dave Maxson? 20 THE WITNESS: Hmm hmm. 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So, Dave Maxson was the 22 real architect of it, was that the idea? 23 THE WITNESS: Of the tax system? 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Of the tax system? 25 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Hmm hmm.

171

1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: What was -- what did 2 Mike Saunders do then? 3 THE WITNESS: Well, he, basically, I guess, 4 he met with upper management, dealt with political issues, 5 dealt with project issues. He was more of the project lead. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. So, was he, you 7 know, right down there getting his hands dirty, as it were, 8 on the -- 9 THE WITNESS: No. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: No. So, would he be 11 acting more like a director then like or manager? 12 THE WITNESS: Well, no. A project manager. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: A project manager. 14 THE WITNESS: Hmm hmm. 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 18 Q: What are some of the tasks that a project 19 manager discharges? 20 A: Well, okay, a project manager would be in 21 charge of setting up meetings, making sure meetings are 22 minuted, project plans, things like that. I guess meeting 23 with upper management, basically being there in meetings with 24 users, requirements gathering, things along that line. 25 Q: If I could just, while we're on that

172

1 topic, expand that out. You're describing his role in the -- 2 in the TMACS development around this time that you're working 3 on conversion? 4 A: Hmm hmm. 5 Q: But you were, of course, exposed to him 6 for a long period of time starting, I guess, in the early -- 7 late 80s, early 90s? 8 A: Right. 9 Q: Was that his role throughout this period 10 or did it change from what you observed? 11 A: I -- I believe he was always, like, 12 project leader on the tax system. But, really, I didn't have 13 to deal with him until, I guess, '97 or something. 14 Q: Okay. Now, I'd like to return to this 15 conversion issue and -- and you had the conversion plan, 16 you've done all that work, you'd had the difficulties you 17 described, but ultimately we know that, as you've told us, in 18 August '98 the bill went out on TMACS so how did this 19 conversion plan play itself out? 20 A: Okay. Basically, from my perspective, I 21 would have expected that I would have received some help and 22 that we would have completed the conversion. But, basically, 23 I was just told to stop working and to start working on TMACS 24 again. 25 Q: And when was that? Do you remember, when

173

1 you were told that? 2 A: It was probably not too late into July. 3 Maybe the first week or second week of July. 4 Q: And do you remember who told you? 5 A: Well, it -- it was probably Mike. But it 6 could have been Margo or Frank. It was -- it was probably 7 either Mike or Margo. 8 Q: Were you given any reasons? 9 A: No. No. 10 Q: And I just don't know the atmosphere, the 11 environment in that particular department, first of all, 12 would it have been at all inappropriate for you, to have 13 said, Hey, wait a minute, I put in all these long weekends, 14 really worked hard to play catch-up to convert this, now I'm 15 being told just to drop it, why? 16 Would it have been inappropriate to ask 17 something like that? 18 A: Well, I feel that at that point in time, 19 it might not have been the best thing to have said. 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: Okay. 22 Q: And -- and why is that? 23 A: Well, I just -- because I had spent 24 probably two (2) and a half months on tenterhooks trying to 25 navigate between two (2) divergent forces on these two (2)

174

1 projects. 2 Q: Tell me what those divergent forces were? 3 A: Well, you know, you had the TMACS people 4 wanting TMACS and you had the TXM2000 people wanting TXM2000. 5 And work, you know, in my affidavit I state that basically 6 TXM2000 was the choice, but, work never stopped on TMACS. So 7 -- 8 Q: And -- and those divergent forces, is it 9 fair to say that the center of the epicentre of the TMACS 10 forces was North York where you were; is that fair? 11 A: Yes, yes. Hmm hmm. 12 Q: And do I correctly read from your answers 13 that you hesitate to ask that question, that your sense was - 14 - 15 A: Well -- 16 Q: -- TMACS is going, I'm not -- I just 17 can't buck this trend even though it means I had to waste 18 some time working; is that fair? 19 A: Well, in some respects, I didn't feel it 20 was my place to be doing this. I felt that maybe if Bob 21 Ripley or Pat McDade or someone had gone higher up, then 22 maybe a decision would have been made. 23 Then I hear that basically to stop work. In 24 some respects, it was a bit of a relief, because I had worked 25 seven (7) weekends in a row trying to get this thing to work.

175

1 And that -- that's how I felt. 2 You know, I was -- it was good to have it 3 finished. But, I guess the other thing is, you know, I was 4 sort of wondering why we weren't at least trying to resolve 5 the issues. You know, like that's sort of why I thought 6 maybe, you know, TMACS had a better chance at that plan, 7 right? 8 Q: And just to pick up on what you last said 9 there, what I hear you saying is that, you abandoned it 10 really without finishing the job or solving all the problems 11 that remained to be solved; is that -- is that right? 12 A: Yes, that's correct. Hmm hmm. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: You say in paragraph 20 of your 17 affidavit, that people were reluctant to oppose Mr. Saunders 18 or speak their mind in his presence -- 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: -- and part of this might have to do with 21 the power he was afforded and the third sentence is: 22 "It was assumed by all that he had Wanda 23 Liczyk's backing for whatever he did." 24 Can I ask you, did -- did this situation, this 25 reality as you've expressed it here, form part of your

176

1 thinking that, Hey, if I've got to drop TXM, then I've got to 2 drop TXM? 3 A: More or less, yes. 4 Q: And just while we're on that paragraph, 5 what -- how did he convey that he had Ms. Liczyk's backing? 6 A: Well, he would say that he had it, that 7 he had either spoken to her or that he basically had her 8 backing on things. 9 Q: And help me with -- the kinds of 10 situations when he would -- when he would say that? 11 A: Well, it would happen if a user came over 12 and was asking for something and he didn't want to provide 13 it, he would say, well, No and I have Wanda's backing. Or, 14 no, we're not doing that, it doesn't fit into the plan. Or 15 -- or something like that. 16 Q: In a situation like that, would he say, 17 let me check with Wanda and get back to you as to whether 18 we're doing that, and then come back and say no, or would he 19 say -- 20 A: Well, I think in some situations, maybe 21 he might have said that. But I think if he felt that it 22 wasn't part of the plan, or whatever, he would just say no. 23 He wouldn't even consider it. 24 Q: And -- and from the kinds of things that 25 he was saying no to, and I have Wanda's backing, what level

177

1 of detail did it appear, from what Mike was saying, that 2 Wanda had knowledge of, with respect to this TMACS Program? 3 A: Well, I would say Wanda -- I -- I would 4 think that Mike was briefing her weekly, if not daily. I 5 think they were communicating a fair amount. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And this is at what -- 7 at what period, roughly? 8 THE WITNESS: Well, basically for the time I 9 was working with them, I guess since -- from 1997 right up to 10 the development of the water system, up into 2000. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 13 Q: How about before, now I appreciate you 14 told us you were working on water before -- 15 A: Hmm hmm. 16 Q: -- but were you able to make any 17 observations as to whether his position in the organization 18 was either the same or different? 19 A: Well, it -- I think there -- I think 20 Wanda trusted their abilities, they had produced a -- a good 21 tax system, and I -- you know, I think she trusted Mike. So, 22 I think they basically had that sort of relationship, you 23 know what I mean? 24 Like they were able to -- I guess they -- 25 he -- maybe he had her ear, like basically she talked to

178

1 him, sort of expressed what her vision was and then maybe he 2 was then able to formulate that. 3 Q: I assume you, like everyone else, has 4 read the papers in the last few days, and you're aware that 5 there's an affidavit from Ms. Liczyk that she had an intimate 6 relationship for a period of time with -- with Mr. Saunders? 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: I'd -- I'd like you to really focus on 9 your perceptions back in -- in the '90s, was that a 10 perception back then? 11 A: I -- I would say no. I think in all 12 fairness, you know, I think there had been rumours all along 13 that something had happened and -- and maybe Wanda knew Mike 14 from prior to 1992. 15 But you know, I'm not one to believe in 16 rumours. So, you know, to me it -- it was -- I didn't care. 17 Q: Could I ask you now about the -- the 18 water billing. 19 A: Okay. 20 Q: And that's roughly starting around 21 paragraph 14. And you were taken off, first of all, to -- to 22 join these two (2) events, you were taken off the TXM 23 conversion, in July approximately, of 1997, and told to work 24 on TMACS? 25 A: Hmm hmm.

179

1 Q: And you remained with TMACS until 1998? 2 End of 1998 -- 3 A: Sorry? 4 Q: -- is what you have in paragraph 14? 5 A: Right. I -- I was working on other -- 6 other things as well. Can you just restate that question 7 again -- 8 Q: Sure. 9 A: -- I feel like I missed part of it. 10 Q: I was just trying to get everybody on the 11 same chronology. 12 A: Okay. 13 Q: And we've heard that you were taken off 14 the TXM conversion in July of '97, and told to start working 15 on TMACS again? 16 A: Sorry? 17 Q: Is that right? 18 A: Yes. I'm getting all confused here now 19 with the dates. No, wasn't it 1998 or am I completely -- 20 Q: Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. My 21 apologizes I've got the wrong -- wrong year. 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: So it's April -- April until June '98 24 you're working on TXM conversion? 25 A: Right.

180

1 Q: July '98 you're told to go off the TXM 2 conversion and start working on TMACS again? 3 A: Right. 4 Q: And so then it's another period of months 5 until the end of '98 that you're working on TMACS? 6 A: Right. 7 Q: And what were you doing on TMACS? What 8 was your -- was it a continuation of this conversion to the 9 event-based -- 10 A: No. Actually, -- 11 Q: Or client-server, sorry? 12 A: Well, -- well, no the application was 13 already done. They were adding additional functions to it. 14 Additional screens. I can't really say specifically if I was 15 working on putting in tax certificates or -- or if I was 16 doing enhancements to payments. 17 You know, I can't say exactly what I was 18 working on. But I was working on TMACS, yeah. 19 Q: Okay. And -- and they were 20 enhancements -- 21 A: Enhancements -- 22 Q: -- to the -- 23 A: -- could have been bug fixes. Okay. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: Things like that.

181

1 Q: Yes. And then in 1998 the water project, 2 and if I heard you correctly from your earlier evidence, 3 essentially your water project, was revived; is that right? 4 A: That -- that's correct. 5 Q: And what -- what was your role in that 6 revived water project? 7 A: Okay. Because I had quite a few years 8 experience with the existing North York water system, I -- I 9 guess, provide a little more than programming in this -- in 10 this new system. 11 I was, I guess, architecting a fair bit of the 12 system because Mike and Dave really didn't have any 13 experience with water. 14 Q: And so I note from paragraph 15 of your 15 affidavit that you wrote a memo dated January 11th, 1999 16 setting out the issues that needed to be addressed? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And is it fair to say, based on that 19 paragraph and what you've just told us that you were the one 20 who could really provide the direction that this project 21 needed to go because you were the one who had the experience 22 to date in developing the latest water program as far as it 23 had come to that point? 24 A: I think I brought a -- 25 Q: It's important to be modest, but it's

182

1 more important to tell things accurately. 2 A: Well, okay. Well, I brought in 3 experience that maybe they didn't have. I think Mike and 4 Dave -- well, Mike specifically, was providing his experience 5 with billings. 6 Most billing systems are similar. So there's 7 not a huge difference between a billings -- a tax billing 8 system and a water billing system. But there are uniqueness 9 to a water billing system. 10 You know, dealing with meters, with readings. 11 The calculation of the bill. Things like that that Mike and 12 Dave didn't have experience with. 13 Q: And how -- how was it that Mike Saunders, 14 just from your perspective, who didn't have the previous 15 experience in water came to be the project lead as you 16 indicate in paragraph 16? 17 A: Well, I guess, I -- I would have -- well, 18 I'd be assuming that Wanda was happy with what happened on 19 TMACS and basically she wanted Mike in there to, sort of, 20 coordinate and be the project lead on that project as well. 21 Q: And you have listed in paragraph 19 -- 22 I'm sorry paragraph 17, the programmers who have worked on 23 the system throughout 1999, is that right? 24 A: That's correct. It's worth noting, Ramin 25 Sarrami only worked until June of that year and then he was

183

1 taken off to work on another project for Y2K. 2 Q: Okay. And Mr. Saunders was the project 3 lead and you've given us the programmers, was Mr. Saunders 4 role as project lead, the same kind of project management 5 function that you've described earlier? 6 A: More or less, yeah. 7 Q: Any significant changes -- when you say 8 more or less, any significant changes you'd like to tell us 9 about or? 10 A: No, he was basically, it was the same set 11 up he was dealing with the managers and users and 12 coordinating things. I was providing the expertise on how 13 the water system worked and he was basically running the 14 project. 15 Q: And in paragraph 18, you talk about 16 developing the water billing system and the -- on the same 17 platform as TMACS. And this is where I'd like some help from 18 the technical expert, what does it mean to build two (2) 19 systems on the same platform? 20 A: Okay. Both systems were built using the 21 same tool, Powerbuilder, and using the same database Oracle. 22 There was some integration between the two (2) systems as far 23 as customer and location information, or that was the intent 24 of building them on the same platform. 25 Q: And let me ask this, same platform is

184

1 roughly the same tools to build, so built in roughly the same 2 way? 3 A: Right, both applications had the same 4 look and feel. So someone from the Water Department could go 5 in and use the tax system and generally have the same visual 6 experience, the applet work, similar. 7 Q: Now, you had spoken about how you had 8 developed the project a fair ways along before you went off 9 to do the other things you told us about, did that involve, 10 sort of re-engineering to get it in the same or was it -- 11 A: Yes, it did. We or -- basically the team 12 had to change the customer tables. We had to use the 13 customer information tables that were being used by TMACS. 14 We had to change the way we were dealing with location 15 information. 16 There were some other changes that we had to 17 make to the system to make it look and act more like TMACS. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: And just the other, the last question 22 that I think I want to cover with you, is the notion of 23 integrating customer and location information. And you say 24 in paragraph 18 that that was the original intent. 25 Why is it that time constraints prevented that

185

1 linking from happening -- 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: -- when you had initially planned, as I 4 understand it. 5 A: Okay. Well, as you're aware, we had a 6 very small project team. 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: It was 1999 basically at the end of -- 9 well at the end of 1999, the Etobicoke system would not long 10 work, because they had a Unis system, so we didn't have any 11 spare time, at that point. We had to get everything into the 12 systems, get it -- get them up and running before the end of 13 the year. 14 So it was -- I guess one (1) of the decisions 15 that was made to load all the information in, but, not 16 necessarily have it have the tax and water address 17 information linked, at that time. 18 Q: And then in 1999, after this system was 19 designed to the extent that it was as you've described, it 20 was -- it was -- is rolled out, the right term, across the 21 City, in -- 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: -- in August to December 1999? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: And what did that involve, did you have

186

1 to go off site to various locations, or was that something 2 you could work on from North York? 3 A: Okay. As far as Scarborough and York 4 went, we were actually dealing with an external agency, 5 because it was Scarborough Utilities, so there was a little 6 more work getting that conversion done. 7 Dealing with the old Toronto system, we had to 8 work with some people from Toronto, because they had to 9 provide us with the data, and the same with East York and 10 Etobicoke. 11 And for that roll out, if I can call it that, 12 that process of working with the other former Municipalities, 13 again, were the roles roughly the same in the sense of the 14 programming jobs and then Mr. Saunders as the project lead? 15 A: Right. Yeah. 16 Q: Those are the questions that I have for 17 you. Thank you. 18 A: Okay, thank you. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay, do others have any 20 questions at all? Yes. All right, well why don't we take 21 the afternoon break here, and we will come back at twenty 22 (20) to. 23 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will adjourn for 24 a fifteen (15) minute recess. 25

187

1 --- Upon recessing at 3:25 p.m. 2 --- Upon resuming at 3:40 p.m. 3 4 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will now resume. 5 Please be seated. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. Butt, you're still 7 here. 8 MR. DAVID BUTT: Thank you. It's a bad thing 9 to take a break, Mr. Currie, because people think of more 10 questions. 11 THE WITNESS: Okay. 12 MR. DAVID BUTT: But this is a short one. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 15 Q: In your time when you were at North York 16 and Mr. Saunders was at North York, I know that in the early 17 period, '90 to '97 or so, you're not working with him. 18 But during that time are you able to say how 19 many days a week he would be there on average? 20 A: It was a long time ago but I -- I'd say 21 he was there more at the beginning than he was at the end. 22 Q: Okay. And when -- when you say -- this 23 is the '90 to '97 period, before you started working with 24 him? 25 A: Hmm hmm.

188

1 Q: When you say more, can you help us with - 2 - with numbers? 3 A: Well, maybe he would come on a Monday and 4 leave Friday as opposed to come on a Monday and leave 5 Thursday. 6 Q: Okay. So, more would be Monday to 7 Friday, less would be Monday to Thursday; is that -- 8 A: Right. Hmm hmm. 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry, which time 10 period is this? 11 MR. DAVID BUTT: That's the '90 to '97. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID BUTT: 15 Q: And then when you started working with 16 him in '97 and through the period you worked with him on both 17 TMACS and the water -- 18 A: Hmm hmm. 19 Q: -- right through until when was that? 20 2000, 2001, can you help me with that? 21 A: I guess, March of 2000 I went to work on 22 the election. So, at that point I think he was doing his 23 Monday and leaving Thursday at that point. 24 Q: Okay. And is that the same for '97 25 through to 2000?

189

1 A: I think at times he was there maybe 2 longer. Other weeks he may not have been there as -- you 3 know, I -- to tell you the truth, I wasn't really watching to 4 see if he was there or not. 5 Q: And nobody was -- nobody would expect 6 that you would have been. We just want to get a general 7 sense. So, if I hear you right on the '97 to 2000, Monday to 8 Thursday would be typical but sometimes Monday to Friday; is 9 -- is that fair? 10 A: Yeah. I think that's fair. Yeah. 11 MR. DAVID BUTT: Okay. Thanks. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: How about Mr. Maxson? 13 THE WITNESS: I -- I think Dave, basically, 14 came early Monday morning and usually left Thursday around 15 quitting time. So, I guess, maybe five o'clock. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. And that was, 17 sort of, his general routine for -- for all those years or 18 was there more or less frequently at different times? 19 THE WITNESS: It's just my impression that 20 they were there longer at the beginning but they might have 21 been there on Fridays as well. He might have been there 22 Friday as well. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And when you say longer 24 at the beginning, you mean around 1990 or '92? 25 THE WITNESS: In '92 when --

190

1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: In '92? 2 THE WITNESS: Right. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. All right. Mr. 4 Currie, this is Bill Anderson and he's the lawyer for Wanda 5 Liczyk. 6 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon. 7 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: 9 Q: Just to maybe to follow up in that last 10 train, when you were talking about the frequency of -- of 11 work for Mr. Saunders and Mr. Maxson at the beginning, that 12 was in 1992 when the TMACS project was originally initiated? 13 A: Right. 14 Q: But this was a long time ago, right? 15 A: Oh, it was -- it was a long time ago. 16 Sure. 17 Q: Your recollection is not absolutely 18 concrete with respect to their comings and goings? 19 A: No. Like I said -- 20 Q: Right. 21 A: -- I wasn't checking up to see when they 22 were there and when they weren't there. 23 Q: And in 1994, for example, during that 24 year, you couldn't tell us the frequency of their visits 25 during that year --

191

1 A: No. 2 Q: -- or in 1995? 3 A: No. 4 Q: Okay. And then later on in '97, when you 5 started working with them again, then you'd be more familiar 6 with when they were in attendance at the City of North York? 7 A: Well, I think -- I think there was a 8 period of time when they weren't working at they City -- 9 Q: Right. 10 A: -- that much. 11 Q: And that would have been in between the 12 development of TMACS, the first phase, and then the 13 development in the second phase, when you went to a client 14 server model? There was a hiatus in between? 15 A: Well, they were there, but they weren't 16 there four (4) days or five (5) days a week. Hmm hmm. 17 Q: Right. Now, I understand from your 18 evidence in your affidavit, that you were very busy 19 throughout the period, 1997, 1998, 1999? 20 A: Yeah. Hmm hmm. 21 Q: And you worked on a lot of different 22 projects? 23 A: Yes. Hmm hmm. 24 Q: And in North York, the IT, MIS Projects 25 that you were working on, did you see yourself -- you

192

1 meaning, sort of, the group as being sort of in the forefront 2 of IT within the City of Toronto? 3 A: At what -- after amalgamation or -- 4 Q: No, before amalgamation in the City of 5 North York, did you see your group as being one of the 6 strongest IT groups in terms of innovation and the types of 7 programming that you were doing? 8 A: Well, yes. 9 Q: Yeah? 10 A: Like I felt that we basically had done -- 11 done more than other City's had done. Because we had already 12 done a tax and water system re-write whereas Toronto was 13 basically using systems from what, 1970 or -- so -- yes. 14 Q: Were you familiar with the struggles that 15 the City of Toronto had in respect of their tax system, the 16 Banner system and the system before that? 17 A: No. 18 Q: No? 19 A: Not really. 20 Q: But, you would meet with other people in 21 your community and you'd generally be advised as to what 22 other groups were doing? 23 A: After amalgamation or? 24 Q: Before amalgamation and then I guess 25 you'd learned about it after amalgamation also?

193

1 A: Not really, no. 2 Q: And you worked on the election IT system? 3 A: The election system? 4 Q: Is that the electronic voting system? 5 A: I -- yes. 6 Q: Is that a system that then was 7 implemented later in the amalgamated City, is that the same 8 one (1)? 9 A: Yes. Hmm hmm. 10 Q: And was that at the vanguard of sort of 11 information technologies, in terms voting machines? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Certainly in the City of Toronto it was? 14 A: Hmm hmm. Right. 15 Q: And the group -- the -- of IT 16 professionals in North York, were very proud of the types of 17 work that they were doing there? 18 A: Yes. Hmm hmm. 19 Q: Now, in respect of the TMACS system, 20 there was a project team that was put together for TMACS and 21 we'll move to the 1997 era. Okay? 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: And the team had a mixture of consultants 24 and employees of the City of North York, right? 25 A: Hmm hmm.

194

1 Q: And that makes sense because you'd save 2 cost by not having all consultants right? It's cheaper to 3 use your own employees? 4 A: Well, yes. Right. 5 Q: And also it makes sense in terms of 6 assisting knowledge transfer within an organization; is that 7 right? 8 A: Well, yes it could. 9 Q: Well, you're still there and you're 10 familiar with the TMACS system -- 11 A: Well, yeah -- 12 Q: -- and you can impart that knowledge to 13 others, correct? 14 A: Hmm hmm. Yes. 15 Q: And this model of having external 16 consultants, as a project management team, mixed with 17 employees within the municipality, that's not an unusual type 18 of a project design? 19 A: I know some of the other Cities that 20 brought in consultants, as well, so yeah. 21 Q: I just -- I note that in the agreement 22 between the City of Mississauga and the City of Scarborough 23 they had a similar design, with a project manager, that was 24 an external and then they had their consultants and internal 25 employee users. Were you familiar with the structure of

195

1 their project in -- in Scarborough? 2 A: Basically, I was aware of, I guess, the 3 conversion team and that's about it. 4 Q: Okay. Did you meet their project manager 5 in Scarborough, the external manager? 6 A: I think that first week that I went for a 7 meeting, for the conversion meeting, he may have been there, 8 yes. 9 Q: Okay. And Mike Saunders happened to be 10 the project manager for the TMACS system, we know that? 11 A: Yes. Hmm hmm. 12 Q: And he was then responsible for 13 delivering the project to a successful conclusion? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: So, by necessity, as he's directing the 16 project, he has to direct the people that are involved in the 17 project, right? 18 A: Hmm hmm. Yes. 19 Q: Right. And as I understand it and 20 correct me if I'm wrong, Frank Vizzacchero assigned you to 21 that project, right? 22 A: Hmm hmm. 23 Q: As part of an employee group, right? 24 A: Hmm hmm. 25 Q: And then --

196

1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Can you say yes -- yes 2 or no, if -- 3 THE WITNESS: Sorry, yes. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: 7 Q: So, Frank would have assigned resources 8 to the project and then Mike Saunders would have then 9 directed those resources within the project itself? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And there's nothing unusual about that? 12 A: No. 13 Q: It would have been unusual to have Mr. 14 Saunders go to Mr. Vizzacchero to then ask you to do 15 something? 16 A: Well, I don't know if that would have 17 been that unusual. It may not have been as -- it would have 18 been more difficult probably. 19 Q: More bureaucratic. 20 A: Right, hmm hmm. 21 Q: And North York was not a terribly 22 bureaucratic system? 23 A: No. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I -- just on that last 25 part that Mr. Anderson asked you about. He asked if Frank

197

1 Vizzacchero was the one (1) who had you go to work on this 2 project, and I thought you told Mr. Butt that it was either 3 Frank Vizzacchero or Mike Saunders? 4 My notes say: 5 "Who told me to stop working on water and 6 move to tax." 7 And it's in that context -- 8 THE WITNESS: Right. Right. Yeah. 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And you said it was 10 either Frank Vizzacchero or Mike Saunders. And Mr. Butt 11 asked you: 12 "Why -- why would it be Mike Saunders? 13 Wasn't Mr. Vizzacchero the head of the 14 department?" 15 And you said: 16 "Yes, Mr. Vizzacchero was the head, but 17 it was Mike Saunders project, and he was 18 more or less in charge of it." 19 THE WITNESS: Right. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So, I just want to make 21 sure that I -- I don't have the wrong information here as to 22 who it was who put you on the -- on the -- 23 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- project. 25 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I guess I'm making the

198

1 assumption that Frank must have transferred me, but, yeah, I 2 guess I can't really say one (1) way or the other. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 4 THE WITNESS: Okay. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yes. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: 8 Q: But certainly Frank knew that you were 9 tasked to the TMACS -- 10 A: Oh, yes -- 11 Q: -- TMACS -- 12 A: -- yeah. Hmm hmm. 13 Q: Right. 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: I want to talk briefly about paragraph 13 19 of your affidavit. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: The second sentence: 24 "It was well known that Wanda Liczyk, who 25 in 1998 was the City CFO was behind

199

1 TMACS." 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: And that was no secret, right? She was 4 an advocate for that system? 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: And in fact -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- she was instrumental back in 1992, in 9 developing the infrastructure of that system, wasn't she? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Right. And she and Mike Saunders would 12 have talked about what her vision was for that system, and 13 then Mike Saunders, as the project manager, would have 14 implemented that vision? 15 A: That's -- yeah, my understanding. Hmm 16 hmm. 17 Q: Right. And Mike Saunders had a certain 18 expertise in tax issues, is that not right, from his previous 19 experience in Government? 20 A: I'm not sure about Mike, I know Dave 21 worked for AMS, on their tax system at one (1) point. So, I 22 know Dave for sure. I'm not really sure of what Mike's 23 background was. 24 Q: Okay. So, you didn't -- you weren't 25 aware that he was also at AMS?

200

1 A: I thought his brother or something maybe 2 had been there, I'm -- I'm not sure about him. 3 Q: And Ms. Liczyk and Mr. Saunders would 4 have spoken frequently about the direction of the TMACS 5 project, and how it was going to look? 6 A: Yeah. 7 Q: And you gave some evidence -- 8 A: I think -- yes. 9 Q: -- that you didn't know whether or not 10 that was weekly or daily. 11 A: Right. 12 Q: In fact, you don't have any personal 13 knowledge how frequently those discussions occurred? 14 A: Well -- well, no, that's not true, 15 because Mike would come back and say, Oh, I've just met with 16 Wanda or I talked to her on the phone. So, I have some 17 knowledge. But I can't say that there was a specific time 18 period when he did talk to her, like, I don't think they had 19 a specific weekly meeting set up. 20 Yeah, do you know what I mean. I -- 21 Q: You know that they were in communication, 22 you just can't say with any certainty as to the frequency? 23 A: The frequency or the regularity of it. 24 Q: Okay. And there's nothing unusual with a 25 project manager conferring with a Treasurer of a city about a

201

1 tax system? 2 A: No, I wouldn't think there would be, no. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Just help me on this, 4 Mr. Currie, because I -- again, I thought I heard you say to 5 Mr. Butt that he was talking to her weekly, sometimes daily? 6 THE WITNESS: Hmm hmm. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So when Mr. Anderson 8 says that you don't know the frequency or regularity of it, 9 are you saying -- 10 THE WITNESS: Oh, I -- I see. The -- well, I 11 -- I believe they were in fairly constant communication, 12 okay? 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Thanks. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: 16 Q: But when you were saying weekly or daily, 17 you were speculating? 18 A: I was speculating. Yes. 19 Q: And in the -- this paragraph 13 when you 20 say: 21 "So I always assumed that TMACS would be 22 the system that the City would eventually 23 use." 24 Again, you were speculating when you made that 25 statement?

202

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Okay. Because -- and I understand it is 3 a long time ago and there's some uncertainty with respect to 4 when things were said. In the previous paragraph you swear 5 in your affidavit that you were told that TMACS was being 6 used as a backup to the Tax Manager 2000. 7 And, again, you can't say with any certainty 8 when you were told that TMACS -- or the Tax Manager 2000 -- 9 sorry, TMACS was going to be the back up to Tax Manager 2000? 10 11 A: Well, I -- I really believe that it was 12 sometime in July after -- basically, after they decided to 13 stay on the TMACS system; that's when I heard the back up 14 analogy for the system. 15 Q: Okay. And, again, I know that you 16 sometimes you struggle with, in terms of, sort of, the 17 recollection of what happened seven (7) years ago, is it 18 possible that this concept of a backup system was discussed 19 earlier than July of 1998? So, July of 1997, for example? 20 A: I don't believe that it would have been 21 that early. 22 Q: Work continued on the TMACS system 23 through July, August, September of 1997? 24 A: Hmm hmm. 25 Q: Is it possible that there was some

203

1 discussion at that point about why they were continuing with 2 that project? 3 A: Well, there might have been but maybe I 4 heard it later on. 5 Q: Okay. Maybe you heard it later on in 6 reference to some decision that had been made prior to that? 7 A: Right. 8 Q: Okay. Now, in paragraph 9 of your 9 affidavit, you talk about going out to Mississauga in October 10 of 1997 because you were going to be part of the conversion 11 team, right? 12 A: Right. 13 Q: Okay. Now, I am right when I say there 14 was no conversion going on in October of 1997; that was the 15 development phase of Tax Manager 2000, right? 16 A: Well, basically, this was an introduction 17 and they were having meetings weekly after that. So, I'm -- 18 I -- I would assume that they were -- they were doing 19 something. 20 Q: Right. 21 A: Right. 22 Q: But you knew in October of 1997 that the 23 Mississauga project was still, the term that I've heard and 24 correct me if I'm wrong, Vapourwear (phonetic)? It was just 25 a project design. They actually hadn't started programming

204

1 and developing it yet? 2 A: I can't say that. 3 Q: Okay. But you knew there were designers 4 out there that weren't part of the conversion team for the 5 City of Toronto, they were part of the 6 Scarborough/Mississauga group that were doing the design and 7 development work for that software? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And those were the people that you 10 understood were meeting in Mississauga on a regular basis? 11 A: No. This -- the conversion team that 12 were going to be doing the TXM2000 conversion. I wasn't 13 aware of the -- what TXM2000, what they were doing with 14 respect to that project. 15 I was only aware of the TXM2000 conversion 16 that we had that initial meeting and that there were going to 17 be weekly meetings from then on. And that I was not to go 18 after that point until I was assigned to go April -- the end 19 of April. 20 Q: And then when you were assigned in April, 21 May, June to the conversion aspect of -- of this project, you 22 did have assistance from Mr. Whiteman and Edwin -- sorry his 23 last name is Ngan? 24 A: Ngan. 25 Q: Ngan?

205

1 A: Yeah. I'm sure there's different 2 pronunciation. 3 Q: I think we'll get it straight now 4 that -- 5 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: I believe the correct 6 pronunciation is 'Awn', but it's spelled N-G-A-N. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: On, as in O-N? 8 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: Close enough, yes. 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: A-W-N? 10 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: Yes, A-W-N, although it's 11 spelled N-G-A-N. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 13 MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: Okay. 14 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: I hope I'm right. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: 17 Q: They were assisting you in this 18 undertaking? 19 A: What the TXM2000 conversion? 20 Q: Conversion, yes? 21 A: No, they weren't. They were working on 22 the TMACS. They -- in this document basically Cameron 23 Currie, TMACS to TXM2000, Edwin was setting up the locals and 24 weeds, which are additional charges for the main billing. 25 So, it wasn't part of my conversion, that was

206

1 something else that had to be done. Prior to the main 2 billing, additional charges are loaded into the system, so 3 that when you get your tax bill, if you have a weed charge or 4 a local improvement charge, it's on your tax bill. 5 And those charges come from other systems 6 within the City. 7 Q: Okay. Am I correct though that the other 8 charges that he was working on, were part of the conversion 9 over to Tax Manager 2000, but not your particular conversion 10 issues? 11 A: Not really, because basically those 12 charges would be -- would have been put into the TMACS system 13 for its billing. So, basically it's something that is done 14 prior to the main billing every year; additional charges are 15 loaded into the system. 16 Q: Okay. When you talked about the team and 17 how the team, sort of, helped you, with the exception of Mr. 18 Saunders and Mr. Maxson, I'd understood that there were other 19 people involved in the team that were actually assisting you 20 -- 21 A: No -- 22 Q: -- to some degree with the conversion? 23 A: No, that's not true. 24 Q: Okay. And when you wrote your cut over 25 plan, as of June the 10th, and then I understand there was

207

1 another document, am I -- could you have done the conversion, 2 prior to billing in July, beginning of July, of 19 -- you 3 could have done that? 4 A: Well, I was having balancing issues. The 5 first weekend that I actually -- I'm trying to think what the 6 first weekend, I did a test on, it was probably the first 7 weekend in June or maybe the last weekend of May, I'm not 100 8 percent sure which weekend it was. 9 Q: Okay. But, I understand the struggle 10 that you were having the lack of resources that you felt, 11 but, if push came to shove, you could have done the 12 conversion in order to put out those tax bills in July of 13 1998? 14 A: Well, we did do the conversion. We 15 weren't able to balance, so they didn't want to proceed with 16 using TXM2000. 17 Q: Could you have de-bugged the program, or 18 however you'd like to say it, in order to rectify it so that 19 you could have put those bills out? 20 A: Well, I think if I was provided 21 additional resources at the time that it could have been 22 done, yes. Hmm hmm. 23 Q: Okay. And when Mr. Ripley says in his 24 affidavit, that you didn't understand what you were doing, in 25 relation to this conversion, do you agree with that comment,

208

1 or do you not agree? 2 A: Okay. I basically provided a -- or wrote 3 up a document which isn't included in evidence, which I can 4 provide, which basically detailed everything that I was 5 doing. I think I had a fairly good understanding of what was 6 happening. 7 But, as I explained, I had some issues with 8 how to treat certain transaction codes and there were other 9 issues with the recalculation of interest in the system. So, 10 do I feel that's fair? No I don't. 11 Q: When these people came to assist you from 12 Scarborough, Mr. Ripley, for example, how were you treated by 13 them? 14 A: Well, I think, maybe they were under some 15 pressure. I think they were a little concerned that we were 16 -- we were having balancing issues. I think they realized 17 there was certain timelines, and that time was running out, 18 and they were pushing -- maybe they felt a little frustrated, 19 I'm -- I'm not sure. 20 Q: But were they condescending with you, 21 were they argumentative with you, were they helpful to you? 22 A: Well, they really weren't helpful, 23 because they weren't able to provide any -- any information 24 that would resolve the problem. Were they condescending, no, 25 I don't think so. And were they argumentative, no.

209

1 Q: Okay, they just simply weren't helpful to 2 you? 3 A: Well, we weren't able -- in -- in some 4 respects, having them come didn't resolve the problem. 5 Right. So, at that point I would have liked to have had 6 their help to get at resolving this issue, you know. 7 Q: And it wasn't forthcoming? 8 A: Well, I don't really know if they talked 9 to Wanda or -- or what happened behind the scenes, okay, 10 because I wasn't privy to it. 11 Q: So, you were working away at the 12 conversion, and then you were advised that the conversion 13 wasn't going to go ahead and that North York was going to put 14 their bills out on TMACS? 15 A: And stop working. 16 Q: And stop working on it. 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: And you weren't part of the decision 19 making process -- 20 A: No. 21 Q: -- as to why that occurred? 22 A: No. 23 Q: Okay. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Did anyone ever ask you 25 how long it would take for you -- anyone at North York, did

210

1 anyone there ever ask you how long you thought it might take 2 to -- to fix the balancing problem? 3 THE WITNESS: No. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: 7 Q: Did you go to Margo Brunning and tell her 8 that you needed more resources in order to fix the balancing 9 problem? 10 A: Did I go -- I think she was aware that 11 there were balancing issues. I -- I think I have an e-mail 12 that sort of highlights that. 13 Q: Did you ask her for help specifically 14 though? 15 A: Did I ask her specifically? I think she 16 was aware that there was a problem. 17 Q: Okay. But she knew that you were trying 18 to work and resolve it? 19 A: Right. Hmm hmm. 20 Q: Right. And you never asked her for a 21 further commitment of resources, to try to fix the balancing 22 problems? 23 A: Well, I did ask for Mike and Dave's help 24 from Mike and Dave. 25 Q: Right.

211

1 A: And I didn't get it. 2 Q: But the question was did you ask Margo, 3 for a further commitment of resources for the barg -- or for 4 the balancing issue? 5 A: I can't say if I did or didn't. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: I want to ask you a couple of questions 10 about water, just sort of briefly. 11 I was a little confused with respect to your 12 evidence about the owner/tenant listings on the water bills. 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: And that Mr. Saunders refused to put it 15 on the water bills. It's my understanding that that 16 information in fact was on the City of Toronto water bills, 17 and that issue has only recently been addressed by City 18 Council. 19 Wasn't it on -- weren't the tenant's addresses 20 on the water bills, post January the 1st, 1998? 21 A: That's -- that's correct. But what the 22 issue is about is the system was basically holding tenant 23 information, but there would be no owner information. 24 So, in the previous North York system you'd be 25 able to actually see the owner and the tenant, whereas in the

212

1 current system you can only see one (1) name and address. 2 So, it's either the owner -- owner or tenant. 3 Q: Okay. And you don't -- you're not aware 4 of what discussions occurred at the user level throughout the 5 City of Toronto, with respect to that particular issue? 6 A: No. 7 Q: That was -- your preference would have 8 been to have both of them as it had been done in North York? 9 A: Well, that was the objective, right, to 10 -- to make the system very similar to what North York had. 11 Q: So, that it would be compatible with the 12 tax billing system? 13 A: Are we talking about the water system or 14 the billing system? 15 Q: Well, I thought we were talking about the 16 water system. 17 A: Right. 18 Q: And then you said the idea was to have 19 it... 20 A: Similar to the North York water system. 21 Q: Okay. Okay. When the water system in 22 North York was put on hold, how old was the water system that 23 you were working on back in 1997? 24 A: Sorry, what do you mean, how old was it? 25 Q: Was it -- was it a system that was ten

213

1 (10) or twenty (20) years old or was it a brand new system in 2 1990? 3 A: Oh, you mean the North York system? 4 Q: The North York water system? 5 A: It was -- it was a brand new system in 6 1990. 7 Q: Okay. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: In when, 1990? 9 THE WITNESS: 1990. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 11 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: 14 Q: And because I understand the legislation 15 that was being introduced with respect to the tax billing 16 system was going to amend the way the taxes in the City of 17 Toronto was issued, right? AVA of MVA? 18 A: Oh, CVA. 19 Q: CVA? 20 A: Current value assessment. Hmm hmm. 21 Q: Those issues were being addressed as part 22 of the updated TMACS system, right? 23 A: Yes. Hmm hmm. 24 Q: There were no similar, sort of, 25 legislative changes with respect to the water taxes were

214

1 there? 2 A: Well, there were some changes that we 3 encountered in 1999. 4 Q: In '99? 5 A: Yeah. The system had to be modified to 6 handle -- to move from a -- a single rate structure to a 7 multi-rate structure. So, from just one rate for all your 8 consumption to a blocking structure where, for the first 9 10,000 cubic metres you pay a certain rate. 10 For the next ten thousand (10,000) you pay a 11 different rate. So, that was actually introduced in 1999 12 while we were doing development. 13 Q: Okay. But there wasn't the same sense of 14 urgency to update the water billing system in North York pre- 15 amalgamation? There weren't big legislative changes that had 16 to be addressed through your software, right? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Okay. And in your evidence in-chief you 19 said when Mr. Saunders assumed the role as the project lead 20 on the water system, you assumed that Wanda had put him into 21 that role but you actually know -- have no firsthand 22 information about that? That's just an assumption of your 23 part? 24 A: Well, she was dealing with him. I -- I 25 did see her dealing directly with him in -- in that role.

215

1 So, although maybe I didn't hear those words, I did see them 2 talking about -- 3 Q: About the water system? 4 A: -- about the water system. 5 Q: Okay. But in terms of the process and 6 the logistics of him becoming the lead on the water system, 7 you're not aware of what transpired in that decision making 8 process? 9 A: Well, my understanding, it was just 10 basically carrying on from the tax project. He was taking 11 over the same role that he had with water -- with tax for the 12 water system. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And when was that that 14 you would see them -- you were seeing them talking about the 15 water system? 16 THE WITNESS: Well, she would come 17 occasionally -- 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: To North York? 19 THE WITNESS: -- into our area. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I see. Because she was 21 now downtown. 22 THE WITNESS: She was now downtown but she 23 did have an office, I think, in North York at that time as 24 well. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay.

216

1 THE WITNESS: And her office actually was 2 just on the other side of our area. It was a separate 3 department but you could walk through a meeting room to get 4 into where we were. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: You'd know when the 6 Treasurer was there? 7 THE WITNESS: Oh yes. Yeah. And -- and she 8 did come by occasionally. Yeah. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: 11 Q: Okay. But, again, in terms of the 12 process by which he was selected as a project lead for WMACS, 13 you're not aware of how that transpired? 14 A: No. 15 MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: Okay. Those are my 16 questions. Thank you, sir. 17 THE WITNESS: Okay. 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr. 19 Lewis...? 20 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: I'll just be one moment. 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. Currie, this is 24 Andrew Lewis and he's the lawyer for the City of Toronto. 25 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.

217

1 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ANDREW LEWIS: 2 Q: Just to start off, back in 1997 you left 3 working on the water system that you were working on, and I 4 think in your direct you weren't sure about the timing, but - 5 - 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Just so you know the 7 direct is the questions that Mr. Butt was asking you. 8 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. ANDREW LEWIS: 11 Q: But, you thought that it had to do with 12 some people leaving, you had mentioned that? 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: So Edwin Ngan in his affidavit, you don't 15 have to turn it up, but, in his affidavit, he said that he 16 left the City of North York on June 13th of 1997. 17 A: Okay. 18 Q: And that he was gone until pretty much 19 the end of the year. 20 A: Right. 21 Q: Is that the time frame you're talking 22 about? 23 A: Yes, actually, Edwin had left just prior 24 to him -- Margaret Wang left. 25 Q: In 1997?

218

1 A: Yeah, in 1997. 2 Q: All right. 3 A: Yeah. 4 Q: And it's around that time when you 5 started working on tax and dropped the water, is that -- 6 A: Yeah, I guess it would be about that 7 time. 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: I guess the other thing worth mentioning 10 is 1997 was an election year. So I was also working on the 11 election project. And in 1997 North York -- North York's 12 election also ran the East York election. So we actually had 13 to do changes to the election system, to integrate East York 14 into North York's election system. 15 Q: And this was the Mega City election in 16 1997, right? 17 A: Right. 18 Q: All right. Now, you said that in North 19 York pre-amalgamation, so up to 1997, you worked -- or as I 20 understand it, the MIS people worked in the same area, is 21 that right? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And sort of in one (1) room? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: With different cubicles?

219

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And Ms. Liczyk, you just referred to her 3 retaining an office after amalgamation and that was just, I 4 think you said, on the other side of -- of this room that all 5 of you IT people worked in? 6 A: Yes, hmm hmm. 7 Q: Is that the same office that she had 8 before she became the Treasurer for the amalgamated City? 9 A: No, I don't think so. 10 Q: Same sort of area, approximately? 11 A: It was in that area, yes. 12 Q: Okay. Now, I take it from what you said 13 that Ms. Liczyk did have a -- a keen interest in IT issues? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And she knew what was going on, to your 16 knowledge anyway, in terms of IT in North York? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: All right. And she kept herself involved 19 in IT matters? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And you -- post-amalgamation, everyone 22 worked in the same room, still the IT people, right? Now, 23 does Ms. Liczyk -- you said that she -- she came back on 24 occasion to North York and you would know when the Treasurer 25 was in the house, so to speak?

220

1 A: Hmm hmm -- 2 Q: Sorry, that's a yes? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: It's not natural for any of us, believe 5 me. And so -- can you recall how often, say in 1998, Ms. 6 Liczyk might have been around? 7 A: You know, it wasn't a regular frequency, 8 but she was there, I would say, at the most two (2) weeks 9 would go by probably. Like she'd be around. 10 Q: And I appreciate it's a long time ago, 11 but -- 12 A: Yeah. 13 Q: All right and would she -- who would she 14 be meeting with? 15 A: This is after amalgamation? 16 Q: Yes, after January 1, '98? 17 A: Probably with Mike. 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: And they wouldn't necessarily meet in 20 that area, maybe they'd go for a coffee or something. 21 Q: Okay. Did that frequency change as time 22 passed or was it the same? 23 A: Well, after amalgamation -- 24 Q: Well, remember, just to make sure we're 25 talking about the same thing, I had asked -- that was what I

221

1 had asked you in my previous question, was it -- this is 2 after amalgamation so -- 3 A: Right -- 4 Q: -- in 1998, so what about after that? 5 A: Okay, well, they actually completely 6 changed the work area at North York. So, I think it was 7 probably -- 1999 they -- they started re-designing the whole 8 office area. 9 So things sort of changed after that, because 10 certain offices were taken away, and part of the office was 11 under construction, people were moved, we were actually moved 12 out of our area into another area temporarily. 13 And I guess prior to me leaving for the 14 election, we had moved into the back corner of the new re -- 15 redesigned office space. 16 Q: So prior to the 2000 election? 17 A: Right, prior to -- to the 2000 election. 18 Q: So at some point there was a change in 19 the office, and -- and how does -- and you were giving me an 20 explanation for some reason to -- 21 A: Well -- well, at that point Wanda didn't 22 have an office there anymore. 23 Q: I see. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: All right. Did -- did she still come

222

1 around, or did you see her? 2 A: Yeah, I saw her. Not necessarily as 3 much, because we were in the back of the area, and Mike -- if 4 she was around, maybe they -- he went out to meet her 5 somewhere else, I didn't see her as frequently at that point. 6 Q: Okay, thank you. And you said that -- 7 and Mr. Anderson asked you some questions about this, but you 8 always assumed that Mr. -- Mr. Saunders had Ms. Liczyk's 9 backing and -- 10 A: Absolutely, yeah. 11 Q: All right. And you operated under this 12 assumption? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And I take it Ms. Liczyk didn't do 15 anything to disabuse you or anyone else, of that 16 understanding? 17 A: Can you explain what you mean by that 18 question? 19 Q: Okay. I'll restate it. Did Ms. -- did 20 Ms. Liczyk ever contradict Mr. Saunders' statements or 21 actions, which indicated that he had her backing? 22 A: Not in front of me. 23 Q: Okay. Well, that's what I'm -- 24 A: Yeah. 25 Q: -- to your knowledge?

223

1 A: No. 2 Q: Okay. 3 A: Not in front of me. 4 Q: And prior to amalgamation in North York, 5 is it fair to say that Mr. Saunders, in -- for all practical 6 purposes, reported to Ms. Liczyk, not to Mr. Vizzacchero? 7 A: I think the relation -- the reporting 8 relationship was a little different at that point. Like 9 earlier on, Frank was more involved. 10 Q: Okay. 11 A: It seemed to change over time, especially 12 with the -- the development of the new tax system. 13 Q: Okay. So say in 1997, when you're 14 working on the tax system -- 15 A: Hmm hmm. 16 Q: -- is that -- is that a fair statement -- 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: -- for that time period? 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: So is that a yes? 21 A: Yes. Yes, sorry. 22 Q: It's late in the day. And what about 23 after amalgamation, at that point, as you know, Ms. Liczyk is 24 downtown, although for the time changed her -- did retain an 25 office.

224

1 Is it fair to say that he was for practical 2 purposes, as you understood it, was he reporting to Ms. 3 Liczyk? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: All right. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: I just want to move ahead to the TX -- 10 the conversion to TXM in April, May, June of 1998. And I 11 just want to make sure we're using the -- the right terms. 12 When you talk about conversion, as a large term, are you 13 meaning also it's the planning process? Is that part of it? 14 A: Well, they -- 15 Q: Like for instance, and I'll start back. 16 When you say you go to a meeting in October of 1997 -- 17 A: Right. 18 Q: -- that had to do with -- an introductory 19 meeting to do with conversion? 20 A: Right. 21 Q: Right. Okay, so it's -- it's not just 22 about the actual transfer of data over a weekend, it's about 23 -- a lot of it's about -- there's a lot of planning for that 24 right? 25 A: Yes. Hmm hmm.

225

1 Q: All right. And I think you had mentioned 2 there's programming involved -- 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: -- in that process as well? 5 A: Analysis. 6 Q: Because it's -- it's not an uncomplex 7 thing. It's a -- it is a complex thing? 8 A: It's a complex thing, yeah. 9 Q: All right. And you said that you were 10 working on weekends in late May and into June on the -- the 11 conversions. And you're the IT person, so I'm -- I'm in your 12 hands here, but are these trial conversions? I mean, you try 13 -- 14 A: Right. 15 Q: -- is that what they are? 16 A: Yes. Hmm hmm. 17 Q: Okay, so you're -- you're trying to see 18 if it's going to work? 19 A: Right. 20 Q: All right. And so you actually have a 21 date at some point down the road where the intention is to do 22 the actual conversion and go live -- 23 A: Right. 24 Q: -- from one (1) system to the other? 25 A: Right.

226

1 Q: Right. So if the date -- I think the -- 2 the cut-over plan that we looked at talked about the weekend 3 of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th of July -- 4 A: Hmm hmm. 5 Q: -- is that -- that -- and if -- so that, 6 if I understand you correctly, that's the date you're looking 7 at for the actual, when you're really going to convert the 8 data over from TXM to -- sorry, TMACS to TXM -- 9 A: Hmm hmm. 10 Q: Sorry, yes? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And then the system is actually up and 13 running -- TXM is up and running? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Right. And so the weekends before where 16 you're spending time doing trial -- doing conversions, those 17 are trial conversions to make sure that the balance works? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: All right. And that's what wasn't -- and 20 that's when you weren't balancing? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And I guess the reason you want to do 23 that is because you don't want to have the problem with 24 balancing when you actually have the main event? 25 A: Correct. Yeah.

227

1 Q: Is that fair to say? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Right. I'll be an IT professional one 4 day. Now, you're having trouble with the balancing, what 5 side of the -- if it works this way, what -- was it the TXM 6 program side or was it the TMACS side where you were having 7 the issue or was it a combination of both; do you know? 8 A: Well, -- well, you're converting the data 9 from TMACS to TXM2000 so, basically, you're taking the totals 10 off of one (1) system and comparing them to the -- from the - 11 - the totals from TXM2000 and comparing it to the totals from 12 TMACS. 13 And, basically, you want to come up with the 14 same answer from both databases. 15 Q: Right. And so in order to understand why 16 you were having trouble with the balancing, you would need to 17 know what the problem what -- you would need to understand 18 TMACS and -- and how it worked; is that right? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And TXM as well? Is that -- or -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Is that right? 23 A: Hmm hmm. 24 Q: Okay. And so when you went to talk to 25 Mr. Saunders about getting some help with this, was it

228

1 because you needed help on understanding what's going on 2 inside TMACS? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: All right. And then you said he wouldn't 5 provide you with that help? 6 A: No. Because he was working on the TMACS 7 project, not the conversion project. 8 Q: Thank you. And what about the TXM side, 9 did you -- you said that Mr. Ripley and Mr. McDade came and I 10 think there was -- you said there were a few days of help at 11 some point that you had gotten from -- from outside. Were 12 they of any assistance in -- in trying to unpack this? 13 A: Who, Bob and -- 14 Q: Yeah, Bob and Pat? 15 A: Well, like I said, when they came they 16 were somewhat, I guess, frustrated because of the deadlines. 17 Really, there wasn't anything they could do because they were 18 -- Bob was more a -- a manager, user related type manager. 19 And Pat was just the project manager for the conversion. 20 He hadn't been working with the conversion. 21 Like, he was just leading the project. He wasn't actually 22 doing a conversion and I don't think he had a good 23 understanding of the TXM2000 system. 24 Q: So did you need an IT person that 25 understood it; is that what you needed from the TXM side?

229

1 I'm just trying to understand what it is that they could have 2 -- or someone on -- 3 A: Well, -- 4 Q: -- the TXM side could have helped you 5 with? 6 A: Well, yeah, someone from the TXM side 7 could have provided additional help. But I -- I think I've 8 already said that the Scarborough staff were basically doing 9 the conversions for York, East York, helping Etobicoke and 10 helping Toronto. 11 So, I guess, they could have provided -- 12 provided me with more assistance. 13 Q: But they were stretched a little thin, I 14 guess, with that? 15 A: They were stretched and maybe that's 16 something you can ask Bob Ripley. 17 Q: Okay. Going back to the -- back to the 18 water system that you were working on in 1997, there's an 19 attachment to your affidavit, if you could turn it up, do you 20 have it in front of you, this is the first exhibit, this is 21 the March 25th, 1997 memo? 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: And I don't know where this is in the 24 book of documents, but the Begdoc number is TEC005958. And 25 this memo, it's about the -- the new water system, and it's

230

1 to a number of people, Al Schultz, Denise Sanginesi, Mike 2 Saunders, and Sue MacDonald. 3 So I take it the only IT person that's on 4 there is Mike Saunders, is that right? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: Person that -- all right. So Mike 7 Saunders was obviously aware in 1997, at an early date, that 8 you were working on this water system, correct? 9 A: Right. 10 Q: And what -- there was no secret that you 11 were working on the water system in '97, right? 12 A: No. 13 Q: All right. And so was Wanda Liczyk aware 14 that you were working on it? 15 A: Yes, I -- I would think she would be. 16 Q: Okay. Why do you say that? 17 A: Well, Al was basically working with her 18 and she was aware of all IT activities that were happening. 19 Q: She was just -- to your understanding she 20 was aware of what was going on in IT, it comes back to that? 21 A: Right. 22 Q: Okay. Now, you said going -- now jumping 23 forward to when you start working on the water system again 24 at the end of '98, early '99, I want to just revisit 25 something that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Butt were asking you

231

1 about, which was you said that you heard them -- Mr. Saunders 2 and Ms. Liczyk talking about the water system? 3 A: Hmm hmm. Yes. 4 Q: And can you nail down the timing, at all, 5 on that as to when they were -- when you heard them talking 6 about it? Not at all? 7 A: No, I -- I can't. 8 Q: Okay. 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Do you remember whether 10 Ms. Liczyk was the Treasurer and CFO at the time? 11 THE WITNESS: I guess Wanda got that position 12 what in 1996 or so -- 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: No, '97. 14 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: Sorry -- 15 THE WITNESS: -- '97. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. ANDREW LEWIS: 18 Q: Well, I just want to make sure that we're 19 talking about the same -- same thing, so I'll start the 20 questioning again. 21 A: Okay. 22 Q: Ms. Liczyk became the Treasurer of the 23 amalgamated City, as I understand, it was in November of '97, 24 and amalgamated City -- 25 A: Right.

232

1 Q: -- started January 1, 1998. 2 A: Right. 3 Q: Okay. And you started, you said -- 4 A: But -- but prior to that in North York 5 she was the City Manager. 6 Q: Right -- 7 A: Right? 8 Q: Absolutely. 9 A: Okay. 10 Q: But you as you said, put down tools on 11 the water system, back in '97 when you started working on 12 tax, yes? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And you didn't start it up again until 15 say, the end of 1998? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: All right. And so is it after -- is it 18 before or after you started working on it again, at the end 19 of 1998, that you heard Mr. Saunders and Ms. Liczyk talking 20 about it? 21 A: I -- I can't remember. 22 Q: Okay. Fine. Thanks. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

233

1 Q: Mr. Ripley says at some point in his 2 affidavit, that one (1) concern he had about TMACS was that 3 it lacked automation. And I think what he was talking about 4 was that, Dave Maxson preformed a lot of manual functions. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Does that -- is that accurate? 7 A: Yes, that is, yes. 8 Q: Okay. And can you maybe describe that? 9 I mean what -- what manual functions was -- was Mr. Maxson 10 doing on -- on TMACS? 11 A: Basically -- well, the tax billing itself 12 was a process that was being performed and is actually still 13 performed by IT staff. Sup-omit (phonetic) billings was a 14 manual process that IT staff were involved in. 15 The phase in process, there was a fair amount 16 of manual intervention from their end. We've made it more 17 automated, so we're not involved as much anymore. 18 Q: Because there's been upgrades and -- 19 A: There's been upgrades. The water billing 20 was being -- 21 Q: I just want to talk about TMACS -- 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: -- for the time being. So, when you say 24 the tax billing that's performed by the IT staff, what do you 25 mean by that?

234

1 A: Okay. The actual creation of the -- the 2 bills, the process that we go through. IT staff actually run 3 it, and part of -- part of the reason for IT staff doing it, 4 is to ensure that the bills are done correctly. 5 Whereas if you had an operator at Don Mills 6 running the process, there's a possibility duplicate bills or 7 something might happen, that you know, we may not be aware 8 of, right? 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: So -- 11 Q: All right. And are there any other 12 manual -- within the tax system, manual functions that 13 require someone there sort of behind the scenes to -- 14 A: I -- I've -- basically I've heard some 15 complaints about being very manual and it was more to do with 16 letters not being produced out of the system. 17 Q: Sorry -- sorry, is that like a -- I'll 18 see if I can get it here. If a letter or if something 19 happened, like a late payment, that it didn't automatically 20 generate a -- a letter? 21 A: Right. 22 Q: Something like that? 23 A: Yeah, a letter like that, or some sort of 24 notification wasn't built right into the system, they 25 actually had to produce a list and create letters through

235

1 Word, as opposed to having it done through the system. 2 Q: And I just want to briefly talk about 3 documentation, and maybe we can talk about -- 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Is this on the same 5 thing, or is this -- 6 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: Pardon me? 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Is this on the same 8 issue, or we're moving to a different -- 9 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: No, we're moving on. 10 So -- 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. I just want to 12 ask you then, Mr. Lewis has been asking you about the manual 13 stuff that was being done by -- by people. So, what was -- I 14 don't understand what Dave Maxson was doing, in terms of the 15 manual component? 16 THE WITNESS: Well, he -- he was actually 17 running some of the steps. Edwin Ngan was basically more 18 involved with running tax billings, because it was something 19 that had to be done over the weekend. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I just want to know what 21 David Maxson was doing. 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. Basically with the phase 23 in process, there was setting up a year -- the year end -- at 24 the beginning of each year, the actual phase in amount is 25 calculated. That was the manual process, setting up

236

1 supplemental bills was a manual process. We would receive a 2 file from MPAC -- 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Is this what Mr. Maxson 4 was doing? 5 THE WITNESS: That's what he was doing. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. What -- what 7 would happen when Mr. Maxson wasn't there? Who would do the 8 things that Mr. Maxson normally did? 9 THE WITNESS: Well, there were some cases 10 where no one was able to do it, and -- 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: What do you mean? Did 12 anyone know how to do what he was doing? 13 THE WITNESS: Well, when we took over the -- 14 a transition project was set up, and basically we worked with 15 Dave Maxson to pick up the areas that people weren't familiar 16 with, so we were able to then take over support. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And when was that? 18 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: That -- I'm going to take 19 him through that. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Oh, are you going 21 through that? 22 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: I am. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay, fine. 24 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: So -- 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Well, I'll leave it.

237

1 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: Yeah, but -- 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: No, go ahead. I thought 3 you were going into another area, so I -- 4 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: I was going to work 5 towards that. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 7 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: But is there anything else 8 on what Mr. Maxson was doing, maybe before I move on to the 9 documentation, because I think they are -- 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: No, I'm -- if I need 11 more, I'll come back and ask for it. 12 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: All right. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. ANDREW LEWIS: 16 Q: So, then on the issue of documentation, 17 and we've heard people occasionally talk about that. Can you 18 maybe just briefly explain what your understanding of system 19 documentation is? 20 A: Okay. Basically, you would have an 21 entity relationship diagram of the database. You'd have a 22 data dictionary that would list out all the tables, the 23 columns within those tables, a description of the values that 24 would go into those columns. 25 And, basically, you could have physical data

238

1 flow diagrams detailing processes within the system. 2 Q: And is the purpose of documentation is, 3 in a large sense, is so that someone coming from outside of 4 the system can look at it and understand how it works? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: That's it's ultimate purpose? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: All right. And is it fair to say that 9 Mr. Saunders and Mr. Maxson didn't do a lot of documentation? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Okay. And by that it means that for 12 someone coming from outside of the system it's diff -- or 13 even a user or an IT person that didn't have an intimate 14 knowledge of how it was designed, would have difficulty in 15 understanding how the system operated if there is a lack of 16 documentation? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And one of the problems with that, as I 19 understand it, is that if problems arise with the system and 20 there isn't the documentation available, you can run into 21 difficulties in trying to address the problems, fix bugs, 22 that sort of thing? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And is it -- I'm going to come to the 25 transition process in a minute, but prior to that process, is

239

1 it fair to say that but for the most part, that the 2 information as to the design of the tax system and how it 3 worked resided with Mr. Maxson and Mr. Saunders? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: All right. Now, I don't think it's in 6 dispute that in 2001, in June of 2001, Mr. Saunders left the 7 City -- 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 Q: -- stopped working at the City? Is 10 that -- 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Is that right? 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: And I think it was in July is when he 15 left, is that -- that sounds right to you? 16 A: I'm not really sure of the exact month 17 that he left. All I know is I went up to work on the 18 transition project in September. 19 Q: Of 2001? 20 A: Hmm hmm. 21 Q: Sorry, that's a "yes"? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: All right. And the transition project, 24 as I understand it, this is a -- this was a project to bring 25 the knowledge of the tax and water systems in house; is that

240

1 correct? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Anything else? Any other -- I mean, you 4 can describe it, I -- what was the transition -- the purpose 5 of this transition process? 6 A: Well, it -- it -- there was in house 7 experience because I had experience, Robert Whiteman had 8 experience and Edwin Ngan had experience. 9 But the transition project was for corporate 10 INT to take over support of the tax and water system, to 11 produce documentation and, I guess, part of the mandate is to 12 make improvements to the system to try and remove a lot of 13 these manual processes. 14 Q: So, as you said, there was -- there were 15 a number of you that already had knowledge at the time 16 although Edwin was an external contractor -- 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: -- at the time; correct? 19 A: Yeah. 20 Q: Okay. So, the -- did -- did you and Mr. 21 Whiteman have all the knowledge that was required in order to 22 run the systems? 23 A: Well, I felt that I could take over the 24 water billing portion, no problem. 25 Q: Fine.

241

1 A: As far as the tax system goes, I've been 2 learning, I guess the last couple of years, learning the tax 3 billing. 4 Q: "The last couple of years", but I mean at 5 the time as of September 2001? 6 A: No. I don't think I could have gone 7 through that process. Although Edwin -- Edwin was there and 8 he was well acquainted with the process. 9 Q: Okay. Thanks. And so another purpose of 10 it was then you said to develop documentation? 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: Sorry, that's a yes? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And the documentation issues, because it 15 was lacking before, the idea was to create documentation for 16 both the tax and the water systems, yes? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: So that someone coming from outside could 19 have an understanding of the system and how it operated? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: All right. And the transition process, 22 that has been completed now, is that right? 23 A: Yeah, I think it was completed, I guess 24 about a year ago. The documentation process is ongoing 25 though.

242

1 Q: And that's because if a system continues 2 to develop your end has fixes and patches and so on that you 3 need to track that as you go along? 4 A: Right. And we've actually been adding 5 new functionality to the system, pre-authorized water 6 payments and other things. Removing the manual processes and 7 things like that so -- 8 Q: Right, you said, just a continual 9 evolving of the system and improving it and so on? 10 A: Right. 11 Q: And as you said, over the last couple of 12 years, you yourself have learned things about the tax side of 13 things, but, you had a better knowledge of the water billing 14 side of things? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Right. Now, as I understand it, Mr. 17 Saunders left in the middle of 2001, but, Mr. Maxson stayed 18 around until the middle of 2002, does that sound about right 19 to you? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And am I correct in understanding that 22 Mr. Maxson, actually was part of this process with the 23 transition team -- or the transition project in creating 24 documentation? 25 A: Yes.

243

1 Q: Is that right? 2 A: Hmm -hmm 3 Q: And he was involved in again transferring 4 knowledge to the in-house staff? 5 A: Yes. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: And the systems now, the tax and water 10 systems they're entirely maintained and operated and 11 developed by City staff, is that right? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Do you still -- are you still working on 14 it, involved in those systems? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: To the present day? 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: Madam Commissioner, that 19 was what I was going to ask him about the transition thing, 20 and I was going to move on. So if you had -- 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: How long were you going 22 to move on until? 23 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: A couple of minutes. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I -- before all -- 25 before the transition project got started, what would have

244

1 happened if Mr. Maxson had gotten hit by a bus or something 2 and didn't show up to work anymore? 3 Who would have been able to do what needed to 4 be done on TMACS or WMACS? 5 THE WITNESS: Okay. Well -- 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: WMACS you could? 7 THE WITNESS: WMACS I could -- 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 9 THE WITNESS: Edwin could handle tax. Robert 10 was familiar with both, but, really didn't have a complete 11 understanding of -- 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So Robert didn't have a 13 complete understanding, you didn't. Did -- 14 THE WITNESS: Of tax. 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Of tax. Okay. Let's 16 just talk about tax. 17 THE WITNESS: Okay. 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So in terms of -- who 19 could have done, who could have known exactly what Mr. Maxson 20 knew? Let's say just hypothetical? 21 THE WITNESS: Edwin. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: He would know 23 everything? 24 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. And did --

245

1 THE WITNESS: Because actually Edwin was 2 running the tax billings. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 4 THE WITNESS: He was working on the weekends 5 to produce tax billings. So he did -- 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And how long had he been 7 around? 8 THE WITNESS: Well, I think he started in -- 9 I guess the beginning of the 90's. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And he'd been an 11 external consultant, but, in Toronto for all that time? 12 THE WITNESS: In North York. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: In North York. 14 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Thanks. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: I may be done, Madam 20 Commissioner, just if you give me one (1) moment. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: Okay, those are my 25 questions, thank you very much.

246

1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 2 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. Butt, do you have 4 any more? 5 MR. DAVID BUTT: No, thank you, Madam 6 Commissioner. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I just have one (2), Mr. 8 Currie. When I'm finished this Inquiry I have to write a 9 report for the Mayor and Council, and I've asked this 10 question of every single witness, and I'm going to ask you 11 also. 12 Do you have anything that you would like to 13 say that you think would help me in making the 14 recommendations to the Mayor and Council. You don't have to 15 if you don't want to, some do some don't. 16 I just want to give you the same -- same 17 chance everybody else has if you want to? 18 THE WITNESS: Well, basically I guess it has 19 to do with amalgamation. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Hmm hmm. 21 THE WITNESS: I think -- 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I don't think we'll be 23 having a whole lot more of those. But you never know. 24 THE WITNESS: I -- really, I think a lot more 25 up front planning should be undertaken, and I guess people

247

1 should be assigned to positions if possible, prior to the 2 actual amalgamation taking place. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Hmm hmm. 4 THE WITNESS: Because there was a fair amount 5 of confusion during the first year of amalgamation, as to who 6 was doing what and what responsibilities people had. So, I 7 think if there was more planning up front, and I don't know 8 if this is a political possibility or reality, that could -- 9 could happen, but that would be my recommendation. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 11 THE WITNESS: Okay. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much, Mr. 13 Currie, and thank you for being here this long. 14 THE WITNESS: Okay, thank you. 15 16 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 17 18 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right, tomorrow 20 morning, ten o'clock, Mr. Bob Ripley? 21 MR. DAVID BUTT: Yes, that's right. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right? Okay. Thank 23 you. 24 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will adjourn 25 until tomorrow, Thursday, October 21st, 10:00 a.m.

248

1 --- Upon adjourning at 4:55 p.m. 2 3 4 Certified Correct 5 6 7 8 9 10 _______________________ 11 Carol Geehan 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25