Legislative Assembly of Ontario

DRAFT REPORT ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

CONTENTS

Wednesday 7 December 1994

Draft report: Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)

*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)

Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)

Crozier, Bruce (Essex South/-Sud L)

Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)

*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)

*Gigantes, Evelyn, (Ottawa Centre ND)

*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)

Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)

Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)

*Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Klopp, Paul (Huron ND) for Mr Waters

Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Malkowski

McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L) for Mr Crozier

Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn

Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1007 in room 228.

DRAFT REPORT ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): I'd like to call this standing committee on government agencies meeting to order.

First of all, I think it's important to recognize for our commuting members that it is a snowstorm out there. I've had a phone call from Ms Witmer, who had to drive from the Kitchener-Waterloo area, and she won't be here in time for the meeting in all likelihood. We've also had notification from Dianne Cunningham's office that she's attending a funeral in London this morning, so she won't be here. I guess you all sleep downtown, more or less, don't you? Or close enough to commute?

I think we should proceed with the meeting. We have a speakers' list that is being carried over from last week's meeting, which is what we agreed to do. I think in fairness, because we obviously have to get some resolution to finalizing this report, that we'd better start rotating in equal time amounts, and I'm going to suggest that we do it 10 minutes per caucus and just keep rotating.

In the last meeting, we had an hour to deal with the report, and according to a brief examination of Hansard, Ms Gigantes, you had a very large portion of that time in speaking. So I think in order that no one takes over the amount of time that we have left, we should go to an equal sharing of the time that's available. Since that's normally what we do on this committee, I think it makes it more practical. Otherwise, if we have five speakers from one caucus, other caucuses won't get a chance to speak. Is that acceptable?

Ms Evelyn Gigantes (Ottawa Centre): That's fine with me, in terms of direction. I haven't seen a transcript of the discussion last week so, like Shakespeare, I would say, "Who hath measured the distance?" But I think probably we could keep it down to less than 10 minutes, unless you intend having more than one speaker per caucus on a topic at a given time.

The Chair: All right. Do you want to try five minutes per rotation?

Ms Gigantes: Sure.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): That's fine with me.

The Chair: Okay, well let's do it that way, in five-minute rotations. Ms Gigantes, you still have the floor.

Ms Gigantes: I will be very brief.

The Chair: Then we had Dianne and then we had Alvin. We don't have either of the other two at the moment. So you would proceed.

Ms Gigantes: Dr Frankford would like to be included.

The Chair: And Dr Frankford.

Ms Gigantes: If I'm correct, we're dealing with Ms Cunningham's motion.

Mr McGuinty: I have a point of information. Given that we're dealing with Ms Cunningham's motion and given that she is not present to hear argument made on this motion -- I don't intend to speak to the motion, I don't intend to support it -- is it appropriate that we continue in her absence? Can we not move on to something else?

The Chair: I'll just ask the clerk about dealing with a motion. I think the motion becomes the property of the committee once it's placed. Am I correct?

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): Yes.

The Chair: So the mover of the motion doesn't have to be here. I think what we will do is just start resuming the debate on Ms Cunningham's motion, which is that the committee recommend that the ministry formally review the mandate of the Council of Regents with regard to the college standards and accreditation council and its independence.

I wonder if it might be a good idea, because of the weather, in case we can end up with a quorum, that we hold off the votes until the end of the meeting. Would that be acceptable?

Ms Gigantes: No. Let's do it.

The Chair: Pardon?

Ms Gigantes: We should do it.

The Chair: Legally, at the moment, Ms Gigantes, the committee doesn't even have a quorum.

Ms Gigantes: Then I wonder if it's worth our proceeding.

The Chair: The Chair is at the direction of the committee.

Ms Gigantes: Let me suggest, on a point of order, that if we're going to have all our discussions and then people are just going to come and vote, why bother having the discussions?

The Chair: We are in a difficult position because we don't have a quorum, legally, if somebody wants to challenge it. Secondly, I don't know if people will be here by the end of the meeting to vote on motions. But legally, if somebody wants to, they can say, "Look you can't place motions and vote on it with five members of a 12-member committee here."

Ms Gigantes: We have six members. You are a member of the committee too.

The Chair: But we need seven. Do you want to recess and come back? Or do you want to just put your --

Ms Gigantes: Why don't we recess for 15 minutes?

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Fifteen?

Ms Gigantes: Sure.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Who is liable to appear?

Ms Gigantes: I think some more of our members are liable to appear.

The Chair: Resume at 10:30?

Ms Gigantes: At 10:30?

Mr Klopp: Ms Witmer is planning on coming in. It's just getting slow on the road, right? Is that what your sense was from her phone call?

The Chair: Yes. Are you expecting Alvin, Dalton?

Mr McGuinty: I haven't checked. If we recess for 15 minutes, I can.

Interjection.

The Chair: But even Dan isn't here. Is Dan coming?

Ms Carter: He's not coming.

The Chair: Oh, he isn't.

Ms Gigantes: No, but we have a substitute for Dan.

The Chair: Okay. Well, it's 10:15. Why don't we recess till 10:30?

Ms Gigantes: By your clock, Madam Chair?

The Chair: Let's use that clock on the wall, since we've all got different times here.

Mr Klopp: That will make it 10:33.

Ms Gigantes: By that clock.

The Chair: Right. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 1015 to 1042.

The Chair: This committee will reconvene after the recess. We will resume the debate on the motion by Ms Cunningham. I have Ms Gigantes, Dr Frankford and Mr McGuinty on the list to speak.

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I want to stand down as a speaker, but can Mr Martin take my place?

The Chair: After Mr McGuinty, certainly.

Ms Gigantes: I think we'll find that the motion we've been debating from our previous meeting will not meet the satisfaction of most committee members. We are prepared to put forward an alternative motion, which we will do once Mr Martin has an opportunity to speak.

Mr McGuinty: I'm not prepared to support Ms Cunningham's motion, as I indicated earlier. I have had discussion, before we just reconvened here, with Ms Gigantes. She provided me with a draft copy of a motion which I would want to amend, so I'm in your hands now as to how we proceed with that.

The Chair: Until the new motion is on the floor we can't deal with it, so at the moment we are still dealing with Ms Cunningham's motion. I have Mr Martin on the list to speak, so I'll put you on when the new motion is on the floor.

Ms Gigantes: I'd like to call the question when the debate on this motion is finished.

The Chair: Mr Martin, you don't wish to speak to Ms Cunningham's motion?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): No, I spoke last week, and my comments stand.

The Chair: Okay. And Ms Gigantes, you're calling the question?

Mr McGuinty: Just before we vote, I gather that procedurally we are entitled to vote in the absence of the mover's presence.

The Chair: That's what I'm advised by the clerk. I think it's because when a motion is made, the motion then becomes the property of the committee. However, someone can object to that taking place.

Mr McGuinty: I also want to note for the record that there is not a single member here from the Conservative Party. I'm not trying to lay any blame on anybody; there are adverse weather conditions out there. But I personally feel uncomfortable voting on this when the motion has been put forward by a member of the third party and when there's not a single representative here. If we can defer this, I'd prefer to do that and deal with the next motion.

The Chair: The circumstances are a little unfortunate. The reason Mrs Cunningham isn't here to speak to her own motion today is because of a funeral in London this morning, so it isn't even connected to the weather; she is attending a funeral. I knew last night that she wouldn't be able to be here to speak to her motion because of the funeral.

It is possible for a motion to be tabled or deferred. Both those motions are in order, aren't they? I'll check with the clerk.

It may be that the deferral and tabling have to be by the original mover. I wonder if we could get on with something else while the clerk confirms that we're going to do this in an orderly manner.

Ms Gigantes: But in an orderly manner, we have to dispense with one motion, one way or another, before we can deal with another.

The Chair: Okay. Could someone move adjournment of the debate on Ms Cunningham's motion?

Mr McGuinty: I so move.

The Chair: We can then move to your motion. Is this motion going to stand in your name, Ms Gigantes, or Mr Martin's?

Mr Martin: In my name.

The Chair: We could move to Mr Martin's motion. After the clerk has had time to research the Cunningham motion procedurally, you could go back to that possibly, but I'm not sure. The motion at the moment, then, is to adjourn the debate on Ms Cunningham's motion.

Ms Gigantes: Is that debatable?

The Chair: What we're trying to do this morning, Ms Gigantes, is at least to give the clerk time to research what we are doing in order that we do it properly. If necessary, I will recess the committee in order for the clerk to check procedurally what we can do legally. I'm trying to facilitate a difficult situation here, and I would appreciate the help of members.

You're not going to lose your votes. I'm just suggesting that we adjourn the debate, and Mr McGuinty has moved adjournment of the debate, on the motion by Ms Cunningham, and then we will move to Mr Martin's motion, which we're awaiting copies of.

All in favour of the motion to adjourn the debate on Ms Cunningham's motion? Four in favour. That motion is carried.

Now we will move to your motion, if you could read it into the record, Mr Martin, please.

1050

Mr Martin: I move that the committee accept the text of the report, pages 1 to 31, on the Council of Regents, and that it be sent to the Minister of Education and Training for his consideration and review.

The committee wishes to note the general satisfaction with the work performed by the Council of Regents, but asks the minister to note the communication problems which were outlined by some college stakeholders, most notably the Council of Presidents and the Council of Governors.

The Chair: I would just like to ask Mr Pond if within those pages 1 to 31 there are any either/or recommendations.

Mr David Pond: Pages 1 to 31 are the narrative sections of the draft report. All the draft recommendations and options and discussion thereof start on page 32.

The Chair: So what you're referring to the minister is a report without any recommendations.

Ms Gigantes: Except that the motion does have a recommendation. It asks the ministry to note.

The Chair: I'll have to wait till I see it, I guess.

Are you referring to the noting of the communications problem, Mr Martin?

Mr Martin: Yes.

The Chair: But other than that, the portion of the report that goes to the Minister of Education and Training doesn't carry any of the draft recommendations or options.

Mr Martin: That's right.

The Chair: If everybody is clear about what the motion is saying -- from my experience on this committee, dealing with reviews of government agencies, boards and commissions, it is a little unusual to have staff compile a report and then have that part of their report only go forward, without directions and recommendations by the committee itself.

Mr Martin: If I might, what I'm suggesting, and I'm taking this from the discussion we've had around this table for the last number of weeks -- we're asking him to accept the text of the report, which I think has in it a full report of the discussion that happened here; it's also noting that there was general satisfaction with the work performed by the council except for the area noted, and that's the recommendation.

Mr McGuinty: I can't agree with the motion, for a variety of reasons. First of all, the ministry staff or the minister himself, if they ever had the time to look at the transcript -- the problem with transcripts is that they're pretty dry. In fact, in law, only in very exceptional cases can a judge ever accept evidence when a witness isn't right there in front of him or her. If you ever get a judge who's got hearing problems or eyesight problems, that presents as a real difficulty because you are not able to fully assess the people who come before you. In other words, you get a particular flavour from having sat in the committee and heard from witnesses which doesn't come across in the transcript. There are more problems, in other words, than would meet the eye through a cursory reading of a transcript.

I feel even stronger about this because I've dealt for some time now with the presidents and the governors and the various other groups who have an interest in our community college system, as my party's Colleges and Universities critic. There are some very real problems, and to categorize them as merely communications problems really doesn't do us justice in terms of our assessment of that.

At a very minimum, the presidents and governors and some other stakeholder groups view the Council of Regents with considerable suspicion; that is a minimal assessment of the problem. As a result of that, what we have here, in my estimation, is a very real danger. Because there's no relationship based on cooperation and based on trust and mutual respect, the proven strengths of Ontario's system of community colleges are at risk.

At a minimum, I think we should send the whole kit and caboodle, from page 1 to page 44, so that the minister could see the varying opinions that were brought forward in an easy-to-understand package. There are a number of issues which this motion simply does not address.

As I said, I think it's all founded on the suspicion with which COR is viewed by governors and the presidents. They don't trust them. They feel there is a concerted effort being made to usurp their authority, to assume responsibilities they've always had, to hijack their independence. That's a problem. At the end of the day, our concern is not the presidents, not the governors, not Richard Johnston, not anybody who sits on the Council of Regents, not you, Madam Chair, or me or anybody else sitting on this committee -- it's the students who happen to be attending these colleges. I think that, in a very real way, there's a problem we have to address, and this motion simply sweeps it under the carpet.

Ms Gigantes: I think the discussion we've had in this committee -- I wasn't a member of the committee when the witnesses appeared, but I did read the Hansards very carefully, and I did not find the Hansards to be dry or unevocative.

I think there is a difference of opinion among committee members on where to put the judgement on the issues that have been raised. The motion that has been put forward by Mr Martin is one which provides to the minister, to the ministry -- we can attach the Hansards -- the summation of what witnesses said before us, what committee members asked as those witnesses came forward.

I'd like to refer to one part of one witness's evidence before the committee, Penny Milton, who had been a member of the Council of Regents. The evidence comes from the Hansard of Wednesday, September 28, on page 969. She had been asked about the difference of opinion among some of the parties. And I would underline what Mr McGuinty has said: Essentially we have a Council of Governors, a committee of governors and a committee of the presidents, and they are raising concerns. We have to decide whether those concerns really deserve the weight which those people would put on them.

Ms Milton said about the relationship between those groups and the Council of Regents:

"I think it actually breaks down when parties decide it's time for it to break down. I'm a bit hard-hearted about some of these things, but what appear to be quite often conflicts about an issue turn out to be conflicts about who has power. In a healthy, democratic society, we should also always have those kinds of conflicts. I think we should think seriously about interfering and assuming that things might be wrong simply because two groups do not share the same perspective on questions of the allocation of power and responsibility."

1100

As I read the Hansard, it seemed to me that that contribution by Ms Milton summed up best what I could glean from what was not a dry and academic discussion at all. Some things that were said before this committee and some of the questions that were asked by committee members carried a lot of passion. But I think she summed it up, and the committee, having heard the testimony and what was stated in the questioning, now must move on, make a judgement about it, and give that judgement to the minister and to the ministry. Essentially, what Mr Martin is proposing is that we provide the minister and the ministry with the report Mr Pond has given us which synopsizes the testimony we've heard and outlines the issues in boldface, and says there have been communications problems.

I think that material, plus the transcript available in Hansard, plus our motion, is in fact a useful thing to be sending to the minister and the ministry.

The Chair: Perhaps it's important for the committee to look at the report and recognize that the motion that's on the floor includes pages 1 to 31, which is a summary and description of COR; the actual draft recommendations in this report, starting on page 32, are where the summary of what witnesses said before the committee is printed. I'm just pointing out to the committee members that if you want the ministry to know what witnesses before the committee said to the committee in this review, those witness contributions to the review start on page 32. It's a matter of whether you view a report to be complete without the comments of the witnesses before the committee included in it.

Mr Martin: In speaking to the motion, I suggest that it puts on the table for the minister a more balanced view of what happened here during the hearings than what the member opposite, Mr McGuinty, has laid out. He speaks very forcefully re the concerns that were raised by ACAATO and the Council of Presidents. They did raise some concerns, and that's why in this motion we have suggested that there are some problems, there are communications problems. I've raised this on a couple of occasions now, last week and the week before, suggesting that we didn't think on this side of the table that everything was perfect either.

But what the member opposite fails to recognize is that there were other groups who came before this committee -- students and faculty and staff -- who suggested that -- again, I don't think anybody has suggested that the Council of Regents was perfect.

I think that's always a mistake to suggest that any group has its act together totally and is operating in a way that's satisfying everybody, particularly a group that has the ability to advise the minister, who ultimately is in charge of making decisions re the operation of the facilities that they're responsible for. But certainly these other groups did not in the same way suggest to this committee that there were the kind of problems that are intimated in the comments by Mr McGuinty. The students and faculty were very clear in their support for the Council of Regents and the work they're doing, and as a matter of fact were very glowing in their evaluation of the distance that COR has come in the last few years to recognize the contribution that it can make and to be more inclusive in all of the ways that COR is trying to represent the larger community of stakeholders who have an interest in the community college system in Ontario.

I suggest that there are, yes, as I said last week, some difficulties. They're difficulties of a nature that are not inconsistent with a system that is growing, that is being asked to meet demands, that is being asked to change in an environment of some very difficult economic times. I think it behooves the minister to have a look at that, to look at this report in that light and to perhaps make some recommendations then or have some discussions with some people around how communications might be facilitated and made better.

If it would help the member opposite, Mr McGuinty, to accept this motion to include the rest of the report without the recommendations in it so that he might see that, then I'm certainly willing to entertain that kind of an amendment so that all that would go forward without the recommendations that are included in the next section, because we didn't vote on or agree on those recommendations, but certainly the copy that's there that, as the Chair has suggested, might give the minister a bit more of the flavour of the discussion that happened here, I have no difficulty with that.

The Chair: When you say we didn't discuss the motions that are in the report, as the Chair I want to say that that's a difficulty for me because I'm trying to chair a review of an agency to its full completion and now we have a report which was written by a researcher and I understand really that this report has two sections to it, and I've already said what the first section is. The second section that comes after page 31 is in fact a section that hasn't even been discussed by this committee and it's being set aside. So, as the Chair, I'm a little concerned about a process here.

I've served on the government agencies committee for a long time in the last decade and I haven't seen a report go forward in one half. I've seen a situation where all the recommendations were discussed and rewritten, which is entirely different because then it's the work of the committee, but if this report goes forward as the motion suggests, I would suggest, as the Chair, that there's no work there by the committee. You've got a report written by a researcher and the committee hasn't been part of writing it.

Mr Martin: With all due respect, I would suggest to you that a number of us have sat around this table for a number of weeks now working very hard to hear and listen to deputants who came forward, who have sat around here for a number of weeks now and this morning discussing back and forth the pros and cons. There's a lot of information now in Hansard, and I think there's a fuller understanding of some of the material in this report than there was two months ago before all of this started.

1110

For you to suggest that no work has been done is a bit off the mark. There has been, in my experience, significant work done here. What we're suggesting at this time is that this work, from our perspective, is reflected very much in the report, pages 1 to 31. The minister, I think, in reading that, will have some valuable information upon which to take some further action if he so chooses.

If it will get this piece off the table so we can get on with other things and the minister can get on with doing what he needs to do and the Council of Regents can continue to do with some degree of confidence what it needs to do, we should include the rest of the report without the recommendations, because we haven't agreed on those. If we can get the member opposite to agree to this, then, as I said, we're willing to accept that.

The Chair: Mr Martin, I just want to point out, the report is drafted by the researcher. Unfortunately, since we've had the report, the committee hasn't sat around for weeks discussing it. We've actually spent about an hour and a half on this report.

Mr Martin: We've been back at this table for -- this is the third week now that I'm aware of, discussing this thing. It may only have been for an hour to two hours at a time, but it still is a significant amount of time when you consider what we do here and the time we put into these things.

The Chair: I think you will recall that our meetings have involved --

Ms Gigantes: Madam Chair, on a point of order: I understand that as Chair, you want to facilitate our discussion here, but it's tending now to become a debate between the Chair and a committee member.

The Chair: The report has been discussed at these meetings along with interviews of appointments to committees.

Mr McGuinty: Prior to today's date, it's my understanding that only two hours were devoted to this --

The Chair: Ms Gigantes.

Ms Gigantes: I was just trying to catch your attention. I thought I was on your list.

The Chair: No. It was Mr Martin and Mr McGuinty. I will put you down.

Mr McGuinty: Prior to this morning, I understand we had devoted two hours, if I'm not mistaken -- somebody might correct me -- to dealing with this issue.

In any event, if I were the minister, pages 1 to 31 would not tell me anything I didn't know already. They're merely a historical record of the development of various issues within the community college system. There is nothing new there. They contain some statistics and they form a nice historical backgrounder. So there's nothing, as I say, from pages 1 to 31 that will be of any news to the minister. I think at a minimum we've got to give him the whole darn report, because that will outline for him, when we get to the draft recommendations, presumably none of which we're about to adopt -- at least he has an understanding of the issues that have been raised, which adds something, as I say, to a historical record of the developments in the community college system.

The government motion is suggesting that we merely describe the problems that exist as communications problems, and that is a gross inaccuracy. What we're categorizing as communications problems are the issues that were raised with respect to, number one, the role of the Council of Regents, that apparently that's a communications problem; number two, the Council of Regents and aboriginal education, that too is a communications problem; number three, college governance, that too is only a communications problem; number four, the status of internal governors and college boards, a communications problem.

Other governance reforms, collective bargaining, the role of ACAATO, the Ministry of Education and Training itself, university-college collaboration, a very important issue, we're putting that down too as a communications problem.

The 10th item, vocational education and applied learning, another area which warrants a specific recommendation on our part, is being deemed to be merely a communications problem; adult education, general education, very controversial; OTAB, French-language education, and the dropout rate. Fifteen separate issues are all being placed under the innocuous umbrella of a communication problem. I think that is, as I say, merely sweeping these very significant problems under the rug.

We owe it to the people who took the time to appear before us, whether that be the Council of Regents itself, representatives of the various governing boards, representatives of the presidents, representatives of the students and any other friends of our community college system, to do something more substantive than to say: "Well, everything's hunky-dory. There are a few communications problems, however, but, really, everything is fine." So I can't support this motion.

At a minimum, in my personal assessment, there is tremendous suspicion in which COR is held by the governors and the presidents. I always attach a tremendous amount of weight to governors. You know why? Because they don't get paid. They're not in it for their good. There's just not one hell of a lot of prestige to say, "I happen to be sitting on my college board of governors." They're there because they have a genuine interest in their community college. They've said that there are some problems, and I attach a lot of weight to that.

Ms Gigantes: Madam Chair, I'm going to call the question.

The Chair: The question is called, and this is the motion:

It has been moved by Mr Martin that the committee accept the text of the report, including pages 1 to 31, on the Council of Regents and that it be sent to the Minister of Education and Training for his consideration and review.

The committee wishes to note the general satisfaction with the work performed by the Council of Regents but asks the minister to note the communications problems which were outlined by some college stakeholders, most notably the Council of Presidents and the Council of Governors.

All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any? That motion is carried.

Now we resume debate on Ms Cunningham's motion. I think, Mr McGuinty, you were --

Mr McGuinty: Given that Ms Cunningham is not here, and neither is any other member of the third party for that matter, I would move that we postpone that motion, if that is in order.

The Chair: A motion of postponement is in order.

Ms Gigantes: Is it debatable?

The Chair: Postponement is debatable, yes.

Ms Gigantes: I believe that the motion from Ms Cunningham is now redundant. It dealt with one way of our processing a report. We have just concluded debate and passed a motion which satisfactorily wraps up that work. It is now redundant and it should be dealt with now and simply removed from the table.

1120

The Chair: You're speaking against postponement. Any other speakers? Mr McGuinty.

Mr McGuinty: I am very uncomfortable with killing a motion when neither the mover nor any representative of her party happens to be here to speak to it. I gather that procedurally we can do that, but it strikes me that there's something here that's contrary to natural justice or principles of basic fairness. If the good people of Ontario decide that I'm to share this table again with the members of the government at the next election, I want to assure them that I'd do the same thing for them. If they were sitting here and they were absent and one of them put forward a motion, I would ask that we not deal with it until there was somebody back here to speak to it. That may not be in keeping with the technical legalities, but it just strikes me that there's something fundamentally unfair in dealing with this motion and nobody's here to speak to it from that party.

The Chair: Any further debate? The motion is moved by Mr McGuinty to postpone dealing with the motion on the floor by Ms Cunningham which reads as follows:

"That the committee recommend that the ministry formally review the mandate" --

Clerk of the Committee: The question right now is Mr McGuinty's postponement. The next question is on the motion.

The Chair: But he's postponing this motion, so I wanted to record this motion.

Clerk of the Committee: The question is on postponement. That's the question.

The Chair: Okay. Then I will take the vote on Mr McGuinty's motion on the postponement of Ms Cunningham's motion.

All in favour? Opposed? That motion is lost.

Now we will vote on this motion that was placed by Ms Cunningham, which reads as follows:

"That the committee recommend that the ministry formally review the mandate of the Council of Regents with regard to the College Standards and Accreditation Council (CSAC) and its independence."

All in favour of that motion? Opposed? That motion is lost.

We now will deal with the report of the subcommittee from last Wednesday, November 30. I think you all have a copy of that subcommittee report, which reads as follows:

"Your subcommittee met on Wednesday, 30 November 1994, to consider future business with respect to the committee's reviews of the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology, and the St Lawrence Parks Commission.

"There was no consensus on the following question, therefore your subcommittee refers the matter to the full committee for discussion:

"`Should the Chair request time for the committee to complete its work on the Ontario Council of Regents and the St Lawrence Parks Commission during the winter break?'"

Ms Gigantes: Call the question.

The Chair: You're not going to have any debate on the subcommittee report?

Ms Gigantes: Call the question, Madam Chair.

The Chair: The subcommittee report is before the whole committee. There hasn't been any debate or discussion on this report. Ms Gigantes is moving that the question be called. Ms Witmer.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Yes. I apologize for the roads today, but --

Ms Gigantes: Madam Chair, on a point of order: I've asked that the question be called. Are you ruling on that?

The Chair: The Chair has the prerogative of deciding whether I have heard sufficient debate in order that the question be put.

Ms Gigantes: Very good.

The Chair: The only dealing with this report at this point by this committee is my reading it into the record. Instantly, you moved that the question be put.

Ms Gigantes: It's a simple yes or no.

The Chair: In my opinion as Chair, there has been no debate on this subcommittee report.

Mrs Witmer: Just some clarification, Madam Chair: Is this motion that we're moving then the one which indicates that there will be no further discussion on the Ontario Council of Regents or the St Lawrence Parks Commission during the winter break? Is that it? It's done today? Would you clarify exactly what is intended by this motion?

The Chair: At the time of the subcommittee, that was the discussion that was before the committee, and because there wasn't a consensus of the committee, this had to come back to the full committee. But already, earlier this morning, the subject of the Council of Regents has been dealt with by a motion; pages 1 to 31 of Mr Pond's report have now been referred by motion to the minister. In essence, the report on the Council of Regents has now been finalized by this committee.

Mrs Witmer: So that means that in reality we did not complete the work on the report for the Council of Regents.

Ms Gigantes: We did.

The Chair: It was just completed by a motion of the majority of this committee.

Mrs Witmer: All right. Thank you.

Mr McGuinty: Just on a point of information, what is the status of whatever this committee has done with the St Lawrence Parks Commission?

The Chair: The status of the work of the committee in its review of the St Lawrence Parks Commission has been in essence that we conducted public hearings on location in Cornwall, and as an outfall of those public hearings there is now an ongoing investigation into some allegations that were brought before the committee about the management and hiring practices of the commission. The commission has hired legal counsel through the Management Board and that investigation is now ongoing. We have been informed that the report finalizing that investigation would not be available until December 12, which of course is next week.

It has been an understanding of the subcommittee members, in particular Mr Waters, Mr McLean and Mr Cleary, that the report on the St Lawrence Parks Commission could not be completed until it came back from the investigation that is currently ongoing. If I haven't summarized that correctly, if any other member would like to contribute to answering the question of the status of the St Lawrence Parks Commission --

Mr McGuinty: All right, so it seems to me that the work of this committee in connection with the St Lawrence Parks Commission is incomplete. There's a report outstanding. You want to get that report, you want to look at it and you may want to do something with it.

I just want to look at this motion carefully now. "Should the Chair request time for the committee to complete its work?"

Mrs Witmer: Yes.

Mr McGuinty: I think the answer is obvious there. Yes, we need time to deal with that.

1130

The Chair: What this doesn't say is really that the committee would be requesting time of the House leaders. Isn't that correct? What we would do is request the House leaders for time and it would just be for the St Lawrence Parks Commission.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): What I would like to do when the House resumes -- I presume that will be in March -- is deal with the St Lawrence Parks Commission report. The intersession is normally used for the routine business of the appointments. That's what the committee should be doing in the future.

The Chair: You can amend this motion to say that, but the normal work of the committee during recess is both appointments and review of government boards and agencies. We did the Council of Regents and the St Lawrence Parks Commission in the recess between the summer and the reconvening of the House in November. So the normal work, to correct you, Ms Harrington, does include both. It includes the review of agencies and appointments.

If you want to change this subcommittee, this actually isn't a subcommittee report in terms of there was no consensus. I'm looking for a motion by the committee as to what direction you would like to give the clerk to approach the House leaders about the work schedule during the recess. Do you want to continue the review of the St Lawrence Parks Commission when the report comes in and do appointments?

Ms Harrington: I think I would like to make a motion, but I don't quite see how it fits with this thing that you have us debating at the moment.

The Chair: What you have before you is the subcommittee report, and it says: "There was no consensus on the following question, therefore your subcommittee refers the matter to the full committee for discussion." The subcommittee has referred the matter to the full committee for discussion and that is the discussion we're having. As an outfall from that discussion, we will need a motion.

Ms Gigantes: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I had assumed, when I first asked you to call the question, that as Chair you were putting the question to us and that we could vote yes or no, that in fact it constituted a paramotion, if you want, that you had placed it before us as Chair and that if we wished to say yes we voted yes, and if we wished to say no we voted no. Have I been acting on the wrong presumption? I thought that was the basis of the debate which you encouraged.

The Chair: All this report did was to refer a matter to the whole committee for discussion.

Ms Gigantes: You placed it before us, Madam Chair, so I'd like your understanding now. You asked us to debate it and we have debated it. Is it appropriate for me now to ask that you call the question and treat the yeses as affirmative answers and the noes as negative answers?

The Chair: I will re-read what is before you as the subcommittee report.

Interjection.

The Chair: I want to clarify the report. Ms Witmer, I have you down to speak. Just a second.

Normally, the subcommittee meets and reaches a consensus on whatever the matter is that's before the subcommittee and that becomes a report of the subcommittee to the committee as a whole. In this case, there was no consensus of the subcommittee. Therefore, there is no report from the subcommittee, therefore there is no question being referred to this committee by the subcommittee. We're simply telling you what happened, but at the moment there is no question and no motion before the committee.

I have Mrs Witmer and Ms Gigantes.

Ms Harrington: But you're asking us to vote on this.

Ms Gigantes: You've had us debating this question. I've asked you to call the question. You placed the question before us, you encouraged debate on it and then you tell us that it doesn't exist on the floor.

The Chair: I did not ask you to debate a motion, Ms Gigantes. I asked you for discussion of what was in front of you, and what is in front of says very clearly, "...therefore, your subcommittee refers the matter to the full committee for discussion."

Ms Gigantes: We've had discussion.

Ms Harrington: Can we put forward a motion?

The Chair: Yes. The speaking order right now is Mrs Witmer, Ms Harrington.

Mrs Witmer: I'm extremely concerned, and I guess I have been all fall: I thought I was elected to work on behalf of people in this province, but I'm finding that the government in power really is trying to stifle any debate or discussion on issues of interest and concern to people in this province. What I see happening here is the end of a discussion on the Council of Regents, a body which you know came under tremendous criticism from many sources during the discussion.

We're now looking at the St Lawrence Parks Commission. Again, we have a body that is subject to investigation. We're awaiting further information and certainly we would not be acting in a responsible manner to postpone the completion of that report, because what's going to happen, and I heard Ms Harrington say, "Let's wait until March" -- we know we will not be back here debating this because this government's intent is simply to keep us quiet in the intersession, make sure nothing hits the press and hopefully float into a spring session.

I'm concerned. We have a job to do and we'd better act in a responsible manner because, I'll tell you, it's very difficult to go back to the constituents and tell them you've only been here four weeks this fall and then tell them you don't know when you're going back in the spring.

The government is acting very, very irresponsibly and we're not doing the job we were elected to do. I say let's deal with the St Lawrence Parks Commission during the intersession. Let's do the job that we were elected to do.

The Chair: Is that a motion?

Mrs Witmer: I would like to make that a motion that we deal with the St Lawrence Parks Commission during the winter break session.

Interjection.

Ms Harrington: It's not clear to me --

The Chair: Are you raising a point of order, Ms Gigantes?

Ms Gigantes: No, I am not, Madam Chair. What made you think that?

The Chair: You said, "She has spoken to the motion and then placed a motion and that's not in order."

Ms Gigantes: I wasn't speaking to you, Madam Chair. I was speaking to a colleague.

The Chair: Oh well, that's fine, thank you. Ms Harrington.

Ms Harrington: We have all received the outcome of the subcommittee. I thought that you were putting it before us to either accept or reject the report. The report in itself does not make a suggestion of what we do. To me, it is a neutral statement of what happened at the subcommittee. But if you are asking us to vote on this, I think that's very straightforward, and then we decide what we as a committee will do.

You now have a motion, and I was prepared also to make a motion as to what this committee should do in the future. Maybe I could clarify with the clerk: Has the Chair asked us to accept this report of the subcommittee?

Clerk of the Committee: It's not a report. There wasn't a report from the subcommittee because the subcommittee didn't have anything to report.

Ms Harrington: So we don't need to vote on this at all.

Clerk of the Committee: They just referred the matter back to the committee.

Ms Harrington: Yes, I know.

Clerk of the Committee: There is now a motion on the floor by Mrs Witmer that the St Lawrence Parks Commission be discussed during the recess.

Mr McGuinty: I want to speak in favour of the motion that's on the floor and specifically that we do take some time to consider the St Lawrence Parks Commission during the winter break, for all of the good reasons advanced by Mrs Witmer.

You'd think you wouldn't even have to say this, but I guess you have to anyway: We were elected to do certain work around this place. We're going to get out of here tomorrow night at midnight and we're not going to come back until God knows when, but presumably some time in March.

1140

Try to explain that to the folks who sent us here. Just imagine you're in a room and they'll say: "Look now, let me get this straight. You ended on December 8 and you're not back till the end of March and maybe not till the end of May? Are you serious? Tell me, do you still get paid?" "Well yes, I have other responsibilities arising from my constituency work." "Yes, but tell me, I mean, you don't go back to the House? You don't go back to committee?"

That's reality out there. It's wonderful for us to be able to discuss these things in some kind of esoteric, academic way here in downtown Toronto, but out back home, where the rubber meets the road, people will have tremendous difficulty understanding.

If the members of the government want to assure me that we're going to be back here dealing with government agencies and appointments, all right; that'll help to justify it a little bit, but I haven't heard that assurance yet, when we're back here. At the beginning of January? I don't know.

Ms Harrington: We'll deal with this motion --

Mr McGuinty: But I need some assurance.

The Chair: Any further discussion? All right. The motion by Ms Witmer is that the Chair request time for consideration of the St Lawrence Parks Commission report during the winter break.

Mrs Witmer: A recorded vote, please.

The Chair: A recorded vote. All in favour of that motion?

Ayes

Witmer, McGuinty.

The Chair: Opposed?

Nays

Carter, Frankford, Gigantes, Harrington, Klopp, Martin.

The Chair: That motion is lost.

Ms Gigantes: Madam Chair, do we need a motion to request time to meet to consider appointments, which is the other mandate of this committee?

The Chair: The clerk advises me that motion isn't necessary because that request had gone forward with the consensus of the subcommittee.

Ms Gigantes: I wonder if the opposition members heard that, because they seem a little alarmed that might not be happening. Could you repeat that? I don't think they heard.

The Chair: There isn't a necessity to have a motion to request time to sit in the winter break to review appointments because the subcommittee agreed to that direction, which would involve perhaps one day a month and if necessary two days a month. It's been a maximum of two days a month that the committee has sat to review appointments, but because there was consensus by the subcommittee --

Mr McGuinty: So, Madam Chair, there would be a maximum days a month? There would be ample time, in other words, to deal with another issue such as the St Lawrence Parks Commission. Just so that the good folks out there see this in the right light, what we're going to do is proceed with government appointments. That's when you get to appoint to government agencies, boards and commissions people chosen by the government whom they look upon favourably and they want to appoint to agencies, boards or commissions.

Where I come from, they call that patronage, but I want to make sure that people understand that's what we're talking about here. The government wants to be able to continue the work of this committee in so far as political appointments are concerned but not in so far as dealing with a substantive issue like the review of the St Lawrence Parks Commission.

Mrs Witmer: I guess I am concerned to learn that the government is prepared to come in here and deal with the appointments to commissions as opposed to dealing with real work that needs to be done on the St Lawrence Parks Commission. It becomes very obvious that what the government is hoping to do between now and whenever an election is called is to make sure that those people who might not have jobs after the next election do receive political appointments and that we have rubber-stamped every individual who's come before this committee. Obviously, we will continue to function as rubber stamps for the next couple of months so that the government can make sure all its friends are looked after.

Mr Martin: Including a couple of Conservatives last week.

Mrs Witmer: That's fine, Tony.

Interjection.

Ms Harrington: I find some of the comments very regrettable. I think we've seen over the last four years that this committee does have a role to do for the public with regard to appointments. Compare that to the years before and how appointments were made. I don't think we need to go into that. Ms Witmer's comments are certainly not the intention of this committee. We're here to try and do a job.

My understanding was that the intersession time of most committees is used for travel, to do the work that cannot be done while the House is sitting, that the regular work of committees is done during the session here at the Legislature, and at that time, when the House resumes, we can continue the work of the parks commission.

Mr Martin: I would move adjournment of the committee this morning.

The Chair: Mr Martin has moved adjournment of this morning's meeting. All in favour of adjourning? Opposed? The meeting is adjourned and we will have a subcommittee meeting.

The committee adjourned at 1147.