Wednesday 12 June 1991


Big Sisters of Sudbury Act, 1991, Bill Pr11

South Ottawa Services Foundation, Inc Act, 1991, Bill Pr13

May Court Club of Oakville Act, 1991, Bill Pr69

London Foundation Act, 1991, Bill Pr71

Wolfe Consortium for Advanced Studies Inc Act, 1990, Bill Pr46




Chair: Hansen, Ron (Lincoln NDP)

Vice-Chair: O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York NDP)

Abel, Donald (Wentworth North NDP)

Ferguson, Will (Kitchener NDP)

Fletcher, Derek (Guelph NDP)

Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton NDP)

Miclash, Frank (Kenora L)

Ruprecht, Tony (Parkdale L)

Sola, John (Mississauga East L)

Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford NDP)

Wilson, Jim (Simcoe West PC)

Clerk: Decker, Todd


Fenson, Avrum, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service

Hopkins, Laura A., Legislative Counsel

The committee met at 1017 in committee room 1.


The Chair: I call the meeting to order. Identify yourself for Hansard.

Mr Fenson: I am Avrum Fenson of the legislative research service. I provide the committee with legal research on the subject of its review of regulations. I have come to seek the committee's instructions as to when to deal with Ontario regulation 144/91, made under the Police Services Act, 1990, which establishes new oaths for persons becoming police officers or members of police services boards. Metropolitan Toronto and the city of Toronto have asked that the committee review the regulation to test its constitutionality and they have also expressed an intent of going to court to find the regulation unconstitutional.

Mr J. Wilson: My question is to Mr Fenson. When do you expect the city of Toronto to be going to court? I guess more important, were they serious in their comments about going to court?

Mr Fenson: I just could not comment on that. I do not know. I have not spoken to them.

Mr J. Wilson: The question before the committee, as I understand it, is when, either sooner or later, do we receive the opinion from legislative research on the constitutionality of the removal of reference to the Queen from the police oath?

Certainly my opinion and the opinion of my Ontario PC caucus would be that we get that opinion forthwith. It is a serious issue to our constituents. As I said previously, we have had a number of petitions that we are continuing to present on almost a daily basis in the House. I have received dozens of letters from my own riding and from ridings around the province on this issue, and people are very curious as to whether the Premier's comments that swearing an oath of allegiance to Canada and the Constitution has the same force and effect and is in fact the same as swearing allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen.

I would be very interested in legislative research's opinion on the constitutionality of that. As I have said to the government members, you can either vote with us on this one now or you are going to have the opinion come forward and you are going to drag this out in the normal course of events perhaps towards the end of this year when legislative research would normally report back to the committee. I suggest that we hear that opinion now, as soon as possible. Perhaps you will find that it upholds Mr Rae's comments on this.

That is all I have to say at the moment.

The Chair: Mr Fenson, just for Hansard, would you give the two options that we have so we know what we are all discussing here?

Mr Fenson: The options are just to have me review the regulation in the ordinary course of events; that is, to review the regulation with the other 1991 regulations, which I would probably do around new year, in time to catch the last of the year's regulations, or to instruct me exceptionally to look at this regulation right away and to report back to the committee so that the committee can decide what opinion it wants to express to the Legislative Assembly about this regulation as soon as possible.

Mr O'Connor: I want to put forward a motion that would put this off until next week so we do not use up the time of our witnesses, whom we have called together for the normal course of what we have on our agenda. Then perhaps we can take that up from that point in time. I do not think we should be using up the time of these witnesses who have come forward today, if we could put that forward in the form of a motion that we defer this to next week.

Mr J. Wilson: We would agree to that.

The Chair: You agree to that? Okay, fine.


Consideration of Bill Pr11, An Act to revive The Big Sisters Organization of The Regional Municipality of Sudbury.

The Chair: Would the sponsor identify herself and the witness, please?

Ms S. Murdock: Good morning. I am Sharon Murdock, the MPP for Sudbury. I would like at this time to advise that Karen Maki, the executive director is not here. Instead we have the president of Big Sisters of Sudbury, Josie Calabrese. I would ask that the bill be approved. Do you want an explanation?

The Chair: Yes. Does the sponsor have any comments?

Ms S. Murdock: Just that it was an oversight and an inadvertence in not renewing the corporation and continuing the corporation. We are asking for the revival now.

The Chair: Okay, fine. Can the applicant speak to the bill, please?

Ms Calabrese: We were instructed about a year ago that we had lost our incorporation status and we have been working over the last year with the people down here in Toronto to try to revive that. We have been acting almost on a daily basis to try to do that.

The Chair: Mr Fletcher, you are speaking on behalf of the government today?

Mr Fletcher: Yes. We have no problems with this bill as far as meeting all the requirements is concerned.

The Chair: Can I call for the question from committee members?

Mr Sola: I suggest we accept the renewal. As a former Sudburian, I would find it hard to resist renewing the Big Sisters for the region of Sudbury. I guess since all of us have some connection with the north, we all feel in the same boat.

Mr Ruprecht: I second that.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

Fee-waiving motion agreed to.


Consideration of Bill Pr13, An Act respecting South Ottawa Services Foundation, Inc.

The Chair: Would the sponsor identify himself and the witness, please?

Mr Grandmaître: My name is Bernard Grandmaître, MPP for Ottawa East, and I would like you to meet Laird Rasmussen, solicitor for the South Ottawa Services Foundation.

Very briefly, the South Ottawa Services Foundation has been in operation for a good number of years. It was incorporated back in 1982 as a non-profit organization. It operates a 50-room hostel and provides accommodation for parents and young children treated at the Ottawa General Hospital and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

The city of Ottawa, the Ottawa separate school board, the Ottawa public school board and the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton have all agreed to this exemption.

If you do have any specific questions, we are open.

Mr Sola: Was this just an oversight as well?

Mr Grandmaître: Not an oversight, Mr Sola. This bill was introduced two years ago and it died on the order paper. I am not going to blame the last election. That is the only time I will not blame the last election.

Mr Sola: I would move we call the question.

Mr J. Wilson: If there are no objections.

Mr Grandmaître: No objections, Mr Wilson.

Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

Fee-waiving motion agree to.



Consideration of Bill Pr69, An Act to revive The May Court Club of Oakville.

The Chair: Would the sponsor identify himself and the witnesses, please?

Mr Carr: My name is Gary Carr, MPP for Oakville South, and I have with me Patricia Williams, who is legal counsel, as well as Tricia Kennedy.

This bill is to revive the May Court Club, which is a charitable organization that some of you may be aware of because it does have chapters in Barrie, Brockville, Ottawa and Kitchener. It is a charitable organization that is involved in raising funds for community projects. This bill is just to revive the club and get it active again.

The Chair: Does the applicant have any comments?

Ms Williams: I would just like to say this is a charity that has been going on for some time. It was dissolved in 1979 for failure to file the corporation notices. We do not know where they went, because the solicitor for record had become a judge four years previously. It was just discovered in January 1991 that the corporation was dissolved, so this is an application to have it revived.

Mr J. Wilson: I would like to thank Mr Carr and the other participants for coming forward and to assure Mr Carr that because of his credibility alone this committee would be pleased to revive the May Court Club of Oakville.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

Fee-waiving motion agreed to.


Consideration of Bill Pr71, An Act respecting The London Foundation.

The Chair: I call Bill Pr71, An Act respecting the London Foundation.

Mr Peterson: Unfortunately the sponsor is not here.

Mr J. Wilson: She got tied up. I would be pleased to sponsor it on behalf of Mrs Cunningham in her absence.

The Chair: Would the sponsor and the witness please identify themselves?

Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased, in the inadvertent absence of Mrs Cunningham, the member for London South, to sponsor this bill before us, Pr71. The witness today is Gordon Peterson of the law firm of Harrison, Elwood in London, Ontario.

The Chair: Does the applicant have any comments on this bill?

Mr Peterson: There are just a few technical amendments to the bill. The act was originally incorporated in 1954 and we are just bringing it up to date to bring it in line with the Corporations Act as well as to expand the board of directors.

Mr J. Wilson: There has been no controversy surrounding this bill and no objection. Perhaps, though, the witness would like to explain, first of all, why the board of directors is being expanded and why new flexibility in terms of appointment is being introduced.

Mr Peterson: Just to give you a little bit of history on what happened, The original London Foundation Act was incorporated in 1954. For about 25 years after that nothing really took place. The London Foundation was in place but there was no real activity. It was resurrected in 1979 and when they started raising funds and they obviously grew. They recently had quite a few large donations made to them, such that they now need an expanded board to deal with all the interested parties in London.

They have gone from a board of seven to 10 and they want to provide that there will be a flexible board in terms of the duration of each term from a minimum of one year to a maximum of five years. Currently each director is required to serve three years, so this gives them a little bit more flexibility but at the same time prevents one member from being on the board for an extended period of time.

The Chair: Any comments from the government?

Mr Fletcher: I was wondering if you are going to be filing your information notice under the Corporations Information Act.

Mr Peterson: Yes, I believe it is already filed under that act.

Mr Fletcher: The government has no real concerns with this one.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

Fee-waiving motion agreed to.


Resuming consideration of Bill Pr46, An Act respecting the Wolfe Consortium for Advanced Studies Inc.

The Chair: Would the sponsor come forward with the witness, please.

Dr Anderson: I understand Mr Runciman had another conflict today.

Mr J. Wilson: I would be happy, in the inadvertent absence of Mr Runciman, to also sponsor Bill Pr46. I do not know whether that is necessary, but I would be happy to do so because this is a bill that has been before us before.

Clerk of the Committee: This bill is back on the agenda. Members will recall that it was first dealt with, I believe, on 20 December, at which time the Ministry of Colleges and Universities asked that the committee defer further consideration of it pending review by the Minister of Colleges and Universities of a report from the Council of Ontario Universities, I believe it was.

Subsequent to that, the committee has received correspondence from the minister, the Honourable Richard Allen, which members have in front of them, stating that he does not support passage of this bill. Dr Anderson has asked that, in the face of that final statement by the minister, the bill be brought before the committee today and dealt with.

The Chair: Does the applicant have any comments?

Dr Anderson: I have prepared a sheet in case it is difficult for me to be heard. May I go through what I have to say to you as I have prepared it?

The Chair: Yes.

Dr Anderson: First of all, I want to thank you very much indeed, in case I do not have an opportunity later to say so, for the courtesy of this committee and for the help of Mr Decker and his assistant, Mrs Marshall. I greatly appreciate the concern that the committee has represented to the ministry on this.

It is six months to the day since we discussed it before and I request formally this morning that you finally put this to a vote. I plead to each member, of course, that you recommend passage of the bill. In saying that, I challenge you not to defer to the ministry which has, according to my view of matters, a deep conflict of interest here.

It has a conflict of interest because it is the operator of the huge public system and therefore does not represent our interests in any way. It is a competitive opponent, if that is not too strong a word, of Wolfe. I say that, admitting that we are comparing an elephant with a mouse. I think it is quite improper for the ministry to take a position in this matter as an interested party. I do not mean that you should not seek their opinion, of course, but you should recognize that their opinion is that of an operating institution which is in direct opposition to private institutions such as I hope Wolfe will be.


Now there are precedents, not many, but there are precedents for your committee taking a position independent of that of interested ministries. For example, you almost did this last 5 December when the chairman of the day, Mr Sutherland, had to break a tie vote on an amendment to Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the Town of Richmond Hill. That was a near thing.

On that occasion, Mr Sorbara, representing Richmond Hill, said to you: "You are elected to make a decision, not to simply ask the parliamentary assistant what the ministry thinks of this, that or the other thing. That is called bureaucratic government." I cite Mr Sorbara's expert commentary to encourage you to think independently, if you are able to do that, in this case.

Because this is such a contentious matter, I have to say once again--but I will be much briefer than I was last time--what we think is the utility. I cannot understand for the life of me why anyone would oppose any university anywhere in the world, because universities have been known for 900 years out of the European tradition, and even out of the Asiatic tradition of the Muslim Empire, to be useful entities. I have never heard of a university that was thought to be inimical to the public interest.

In the five years of my promotion of Wolfe, even from my opponents who were ideologically opposed to private institutions in education, I have never heard a single word of criticism about our motives or the details of what we propose to do except, of course, to break the monopoly that the Ministry of Colleges and Universities has in operating the public system.

My claim to you is that there is no risk whatsoever to the government in Bill Pr46. If we fail, we go bankrupt. Those who have been opposed can say, "I told you so," but there is no overt risk to the government in that eventuality. I claim on the other side that there is potential good to arrive for Ontario from our being able to apply our brains in our own way to help solve Ontario's education problems. I would be glad to hear your questions on that point, but I feel very strongly that this is the case.

The most important point to me is an ethical point. There are the legalities and there is the usefulness--

The Chair: Excuse me. We have questions if you could answer. There is a question from the floor for you.

Mr Ruprecht: I am in support of this bill, but could you tell this committee whether it is true that the majority of privately funded Ivy League institutions in the United States, the 10 big ones, the 10 best ones, are indeed private or public? Do you know that?

Dr Anderson: Some of them, I am sure, are public; some of them, I am sure, are private, such as the University of Chicago, Stanford and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Mr Ruprecht: Harvard? Private or public?

Dr Anderson: The ones I mentioned are private. There are thousands of private institutions in the United States. Of course, you are speaking about the 10 best. The University of Michigan, for example, is public and one of the best institutions in the world. One cannot say in advance that private or public in the United States counts for quality. There are excellent public institutions. I cite the University of Michigan as a prize example, but then there are all the equally good, and perhaps better, private institutions. You mentioned Harvard, which I suppose is, along with Oxford and Cambridge, one of the three premier institutions in the world.

Mr Ruprecht: You have told the ministry, without doubt, that you would be subject to any of its regulations.

Dr Anderson: Of course. It is interesting to note, though, that on the one hand there are no private universities in Ontario currently and so there are no bodies to be subject to the regulations. The governing legislation does not lay down any conditions upon private universities, or public universities for that matter. The public universities are subject to the operating regulations of the ministry, of course, financial and legal and so on. We, as Wolfe Consortium for Advanced Studies, are subject to the Business Corporations Act, so of course it goes with emphasis that we would be subject to all the regulations pertaining to a business corporation to begin with, and to an educational institution to end with.

Mr Ruprecht: So academically you have no problem in fitting in.

Dr Anderson: No, sir. I do not see any problem at all.

May I add, in supplement to Mr Ruprecht's question, that those of you who are not familiar with it must remember that most of the universities, the older ones, Queen's and so on, were private. Queen's, for example, was private for a century, and I have never heard any criticism whatsoever of the operation of Queen's as a private university for 100 years. It has only been public for the past 20 or 25 years. You do not just have to take my word for it, Mr Ruprecht. You can look at the history and see in Ontario the same situation to which you referred in the United States. On the other hand, the University of Toronto has been public since 1853 or so, and it has done a good job too.

Mr O'Connor: I want to thank you for coming here today, Dr Anderson. One thing that concerns me is the whole issue around accountability. If we have someone here from the ministry, perhaps he could talk a little bit about it. I know in some of the more reputable private and publicly funded universities there has been a lot of discussion around accountability and I just wonder if the ministry could--

The Chair: Okay, Mr O'Connor. I will call on the two ministry advisers here, if they would identify themselves, please.

Mr MacKay: My name is Jamie MacKay. I am the director of the university relations branch in the ministry.

Ms Rowe: I am Frances Rowe. I am legal counsel for the ministry but I will defer to Jamie on this one.

Mr MacKay: Certainly the matter of accountability for universities is something we are very much concerned with at the moment. In fact, another committee of the Legislature is dealing with that subject at this moment. Our concerns, of course, focus around the accountability for the expenditure of public funds.

I might remind the committee that really universities are private in that they are privately incorporated by the Legislature and boards of governors are given full responsibilities for running universities. They are, however, in receipt of public funds, which the Legislature votes on their behalf, so we have a balance between the autonomy of a privately established university and the need to account for the taxpayers' dollars that go in there. This is something that is difficult to achieve, the appropriate balance, but the government is very concerned with that, and the Provincial Auditor is very concerned as well.


Mr O'Connor: I am on the committee that is actually taking a look at that, so that is why my interest is keen. It is the standing committee on public accounts. One thing that we have been looking at has been the aspect of value-for-money audits. Perhaps there might even be a change in the Audit Act in that respect.

When we take a look at standards that the ministry sets up for the institutions that are receiving ministry funding, is there any way there will be a direct relationship to a private institution that does not have the money accountability? Is there any way the ministry can then make sure that academic standards are not compromised in any way?

Mr MacKay: Of course, that is exactly one of the difficulties the ministry is wrestling with as it tries to develop and determine what this government's policy should be with respect to private universities. We certainly would see that the government should have a role in ensuring that degree problems meet Ontario standards, whether privately or publicly operated. We even have some minimal standards that we require for religious institutions that want to grant religious degrees. We want to make sure that they are at least financially stable, that they have the support of the religious community they wish to serve and that kind of thing.

Mr O'Connor: Then in reference to the standards set that the ministry expects for the publicly funded institutions, is there any way of ensuring that the same degree and quality of education is behind that degree that is being granted? Can the ministry feel totally satisfied that any degree granted from either institution is actually representative of the quality of education?

Mr MacKay: Because we do not have any universities operating outside the publicly funded sector at this moment, I cannot really answer that. But as I mentioned before, I think what we would see as important is that if we are going to have private universities, we have some kind of process or regime that would ensure quality. If there were going to be private universities, they would have to jump through some kind of academic assessment hoop so that the public would be assured there were some quality standards being adhered to, whether or not those institutions were in receipt of public funds.

It is that kind of question, what would those hoops be if one were going to do it, that the ministry is thinking about right now. That is one of the reasons why, unfortunately, we have not dealt with the advice we have received on this question as quickly as we had originally anticipated and why the matter is still under deliberation. It is a very interesting and complex question that we are examining right now.

The Chair: Are there any more questions from the committee members?

Dr Anderson: Mr Chairman, may I speak?

The Chair: Mr Wilson? I saw your hand go up one time. I am sorry, Dr Anderson. Mr Wilson did have his hand up.

Dr Anderson: No problem.

Mr J. Wilson: I am glad the representative of the ministry, Mr MacKay, did give some explanation of why this is taking so long. I do not think I am wrong to say that it has been going on for years and the government has not been able to come up with policy. It seems a little unfair to Dr Anderson and Wolfe Consortium. Perhaps if we have any more such private bills come before this committee, or proposals for those, we should inform them that in the case of people wanting degree-granting powers in a private university the committee is not able to deal with those because the government has not yet brought forward a policy. That may stop the inconvenience to some people.

Of course we do have, as Dr Anderson has pointed out, the University of Toronto as a publicly funded public university but sections thereof--for instance, the college I went to, the University of St Michael's College, and Victoria College--are private universities. They receive block funding from the U of T. Have you given any consideration to affiliation with an existing university or a post-secondary institution?

Dr Anderson: No, we have not, for two reasons. One is that the process of affiliation has not worked in the 25 years that it has been in existence as a potential solution under the Robarts policy. So it is practically non-existent, although it is theoretically a possibility.

The second reason is more fundamental, though. Our proposals would not fit in with any institutions in Ontario; I mean our philosophy and our methods of operating. For example, Wolfe may be unique in its plan that it be owned by people who put money into it as investors. I do not think even Mr Ruprecht's private universities in the United States are operated in that way. That is a unique feature which is absolutely essential to me, because it is one of the ideological planks on which I have proposed the university and without that I simply would not have any interest in proceeding. So on both routes, the practical and the ideological, it is not working.

For example, the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College wants to affiliate with a public university, not with a private one. They have tried very hard over the past 30 or 40 years and they have never succeeded to this day. So it simply is not a vehicle for a variety of reasons I could explain to you but which might take too long here.

Mr J. Wilson: The question of public funding seems to be one of the stumbling-blocks with the ministry, and I can understand that in accountability, but I do not recall in your original submission to us here at the committee that you were really asking for any public money.

Dr Anderson: On the contrary, Mr Wilson, it is another equally strong plank that we would not accept any public money directly. Of course, we all get public money indirectly through police services and so on, but grants and subventions we would not accept. As an ideological matter again, we do not think it is proper for us. I have no criticism of the public system on those grounds. That is for others to decide. But in our case, part of our private belief is that we should pay for things ourselves when we can, and if we cannot, we ought not to be in business.

Mr J. Wilson: To get over the ministry's concern on that, it is a commendable ideology. Is it written down anywhere, in the sense that--

Dr Anderson: It is not in the act, though I offered that it be put into the act.

This point is raised with me frequently, and may I in responding to you refer to Mr O'Connor's questions on accountability. There is the financial accountability. We have complete financial accountability through the Business Corporations Act in the same way that any corporation does, so our accountability is built in through the protections offered to investors and the public and so on through the requirements of the Business Corporations Act. Unless there is some weakness in there that I have not heard about, I cannot see that there is any concern for you about business accountability.

On the side of academic accountability, for those of you, unlike Mr Wilson, who have not had experience with the universities, I should tell you most plainly that the kind of accountability Mr O'Connor is referring to as sort of legal accountability does not exist in the public institutions at the undergraduate level. It does at the graduate level. The University of Toronto here has no accountability of the kind you are talking about in undergraduate education except for the indirect effects through the professions in medicine, dentistry, engineering and so on. But in the arts, there is no accountability at all, except that which is the most important accountability, the integrity of the professoriate.

I find it very puzzling indeed when I am questioned on this point. I am a product of the system that Mr MacKay presides over. I was a graduate of the public institution here. If we were starting from scratch, if there were no universities in Ontario and I came forward to you to talk about this, then you could talk about academic accountability. But to me, as a professor for 30 years, it is ridiculous to talk about accountability, because all universities everywhere in the world are subject to the accountability of their students, their colleagues, the geniuses who preside over things academic, people who are far brighter than most of us. We all have to meet the standards of the marketplace. If our students do not do well, we hear about it. So accountability in the public institutions to me is not an issue at all, in comparison with accountability in other directions.

Accountability is wonderful. If it is to apply to us, though, I have said from the very beginning of this process two years ago it has got to apply to the public institutions too, not just to us. I should tell you too, on behalf of the existing private and university level institutions, their accountability academically is far greater than at the University of Toronto, for example. I am speaking about the professional groups, like the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College.

If I had longer to speak to you, I think I could resolve your concerns on the financial and the academic accountability.


The Chair: Dr Anderson, we have quite a few questions. We have got at least three more members, if we can get through them.

Mr Fletcher: Just a couple of things. First, how long have you been trying to get your school to this position where it can grant degrees? Mr Wilson said it has been going on for a lot of years.

Mr J. Wilson: This has been going on for a while too for Wolfe Consortium, but my comments were more towards MCU and the fact the government--it is not just your government; previous governments--has been trying to come up with a policy on private universities.

Mr Fletcher: Okay. My question is, how long have you been trying?

Dr Anderson: I have forgotten the exact date, it is so long ago. About 25 years ago I propounded the idea. First of all, I was turned down then.

Mr Fletcher: No, how long have you come here?

Dr Anderson: Currently five years.

Mr Fletcher: So the previous government did not act on this either. They did not do anything.

Dr Anderson: No. Until a year ago January I was waiting on this process, which is still going on after six years this coming September. It was September 1985 when Mr Sorbara, then minister, asked for a recommendation. Naturally, we waited and waited and waited, but I gave up on that process a year ago January and propounded the bill at that time. That is when I started with Ms Hopkins over there to bring the matter to a head, which I hope we can do today in our case.

Mr Sola: I just want to ask one question. In your summary, sir, you make reference to the Oratory of Saint Philip Neri, and I am wondering what connection there is with Wolfe. Is Wolfe a religious-degree-granting institution or is it a general-degree-granting institution?

Dr Anderson: This comes under the ethical heading, which I think is so important. I believe that it is a natural right of professors to teach according to their own views and that the government, in our case through the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, should have no moral right, no ethical right, no legal right to interfere in that process, except through accountability of an academic and financial sort, which I take as a given.

In the case of Ontario, the private institutions have been destroyed for reasons that never have been explained to me. I have never been able to find from the ministry any source of record showing what the debate was that led to the destruction of the private universities in Ontario. However, because of the religious connotation of some institutions, the ministry has allowed private religious institutions to give, as Mr MacKay said, limited degrees of a religious sort. The Oratory came under that provision, along with, as he said last time, maybe a dozen such institutions.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. This country is just rife with claims for equal treatment, fair treatment, the Charter of Rights, minorities being treated in an equitable way. So it is my claim to you, and it always has been my claim, that the right for private universities, which the Oratory is in a narrow way--it is a seminary, I believe--to do their work should be a right that we, as a non-sectarian institution, should also have. It is as simple as that, an inalienable right.

I cannot understand at all any argument that says that as long as we are not spending public moneys--if we were asking for public moneys, the game would be entirely different, of course. But since we propose to go our own way financially, then I think we ought to have the same right you granted the Oratory on 5 December, to grant our degrees in the ordinary way that every professor is allowed to do throughout the world.

It is a question of inalienable natural rights, in my view, and this is a very deep and serious point, I know, and it is one that I have had no response to from the ministry previously, but to me it is the major point, my freedom as a professor to teach and talk to students in the way that the student and I find mutually agreeable.

Mr Sola: I can agree with the point that you should have the right to teach, but I cannot see any connection between a religious community granting degrees for those religious functions as a result of finishing that course and drawing a parallel with a general-degree-granting institution which will be competing with general degrees granted by publicly funded universities, because if they are non-denominational, they cannot give out religious degrees. Each religious institution has to set up, I think, its own degree-granting institution, to carry on the religious practices of whatever religion we are talking about. That is why I found it a little bit difficult to make the connection between you, who are non-sectarian, comparing yourself to a sectarian college.

Dr Anderson: If I can say further to that, your point may be well taken, but the fact is that the public university across the road gives degrees in religion, of course, just as the Oratory does, through St Michael's and through the school of theology, Knox College, Wycliffe, Trinity, Emmanuel College. There is not a distinction here between private and public. The public institutions, and others no doubt too, do the same as the Oratory. All I am asking for is the same right that they have.

One hears a great deal about religious discrimination, which is improper, these days, but there is irreligious discrimination too. It is the other side of the coin. If you are going to not discriminate against a person for hiring or teaching or anything else on the basis of his religion, you cannot discriminate on the basis of his doing the same sort of thing without a religious basis. In other words, atheists in our country have the same rights as Christians or Muslims.

Mr J. Wilson: Dr Anderson, I am going to support you on this bill for a number of reasons, but first and foremost is because we absolutely do believe in academic freedom. The question of accountability of curriculum, it seems to me, is very strange in the instance of a postsecondary educational institution like a university, for instance, where we know very well there really is not any accountability of curriculum, in the sense that, you are right, the professors and the faculty are responsible to the students and the board of governors. When I was on the board of governors at U of T, we never really discussed curriculum. That was up to the academic freedom of the professors teaching. They taught whatever they thought was necessary to attain a degree in, for example, political science. It is not like a local school board where you go through the curriculum each year and sometimes twice a year.

Second, and it is important and I wish all the government members were here, the big question, I think, before the committee is that you are here to seek a remedy because you have not yet received fairness or justice. You have been caught up in the Ontario Council on University Affairs and the MCU process for years. Our committee, to remind all members, has the authority to pass your bill and to recommend it to the Legislature, and it seems to me that some six years or more is long enough. If the government, and successive governments, cannot come up with a policy, why should you and your group suffer as a result? That is exactly why you are before this committee. I think this government talks a lot about fairness, and this is a perfect case for it to put its money where its mouth is.


Mr Sola: Let's put it to a vote.

Mr J. Wilson: We will vote. You have not received what I think you are entitled to. I know it brings up the larger question of private universities and public funding and that, but I think the more important question is fairness to you and to Wolfe Consortium, so I would call for the vote, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: We have one more question from Mr O'Connor. Oh, you called for the vote.

Mr J. Wilson: I'll waive it.

Mr O'Connor: Actually, I was going to move a motion here. This is not something to be taken lightly. I know it is something you have been advocating through the previous governments for a period of five years now and in fact trying to get this motion pushed forward at this point in time without allowing the ministry an adequate time to make sure that it has considered all options. I think that would be perhaps pushing things just a little bit quickly, seeing that we have been in government just since 1 October, and in practical terms the period of time has been much shorter than that for the ministries actually to act and to come up with a policy on this.

What I would move today is that we defer this until October, until we can then get a direction from the minister's office. I would like to move that motion. Of course, it has been called, so--

The Chair: Is there a debate on the motion?

Mr J. Wilson: I just have a real quick comment. I would agree with the motion, but--

The Chair: You called for a vote.

Mr J. Wilson: I withdrew. I would agree with the motion, with the trailer though of, is it possible that MCU and the government will have its policy or are we just going to go through this again? We asked for it last time and all we got back was, "No, the continuing policy is we do not have a policy."

Mr O'Connor: That is right.

Mr J. Wilson: So are we expected in October to have before this committee the government's policy so that we can do this within a context?

Mr O'Connor: Of course, I cannot speak for the minister on that and say, "Yes, we will." We have to keep in mind that this has gone through two previous governments and no policy was set, so I think it is acceptable that we wait until October, and hopefully we will get a direction and a policy statement from the government. But to drive it through, put it to the question, is not going to do justice to Dr Anderson or to the bill itself, so perhaps we could defer it until October.

Mr J. Wilson: I think we should just ask Dr Anderson if that is appropriate. I mean, if you are just going to drag him out for a few more months, I would think that would be fair.

The Chair: Dr Anderson had called me and this was the one thing he wanted to know, whether we are doing something today. We will let him reply to this. He wanted to appear, he wanted to know yes or no. At this particular time it will be up to Dr Anderson in a sense. Not up to him, but let's hear his reply on this.

Dr Anderson: Two points: One, it is none of the business of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities in this case legally in connection with this bill. Mr Ruprecht last December used the phrase, "The ministry passed this bill." Mr MacKay then replied quite properly that it is not in the hands of the ministry.

As it happens, it is a curious legislative fact that private universities, or public universities for that matter, are creatures directly of the Legislature and therefore directly of this committee. The Ministry of Colleges and Universities has nothing legally to do with it at all, any more than Ontario Hydro has, for example.

It is not within the purview of the ministry to take the position that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs might take in connection with some bill before it. It is none of the ministry's business, and I did not know this when I was here on 12 December. No one had told me, and I found out myself and verified with Legislative Counsel that this was the fact. I am dealing as the petitioner in this case directly through you with the Legislature; nothing to do with the ministry.

The second thing is that the ministry has had the report since last 14 November, according to Mr MacKay. I think that is quite long enough to make up their minds about anything, let alone this.

So I press you, sir, to a vote today. I would sooner be dead today than suspended animation. I may not live another six months. My time is short. If it were 25 years ago and I were here before you then, I would agree with Mr O'Connor that October was not a bad time perhaps. But after six years, six years is enough.

Mr O'Connor: It appears that Dr Anderson then does not agree with the motion. I would not want to put an unfair motion before him. If he feels that we are wasting his time, perhaps I should withdraw the motion and the question should be called.

The Chair: Okay, we are going to wind up calling the question.

Sections 1 through 3, inclusive, negatived.

Preamble negatived.

Bill negatived.

The Chair: It having failed on the vote, I will report to the House that the bill is not reported.

Mr Ruprecht: Strong objections.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr Anderson.

Dr Anderson: Mr Chairman, in your regulations there is room for remission of the fee. It does not say anything about a failed bill. Is it improper to ask you to consider remission of the fee in this case for educational institutions?

The Chair: What was that? The fee?

Mr Ruprecht: Mr Chairman, you have the discretion of the fee. I would move to withdraw the fee, whatever fee it is.

The Chair: You put a motion on it?

Mr Ruprecht: Yes, I just made the motion that if there is a fee, then I would move to withdraw that fee.

Fee-waiving motion agreed to.


The Chair: There are two more items on the agenda. Members have in front of them copies of correspondence from the city of Toronto which requests that its Bill Pr35 and Bill Pr36 be withdrawn. Shall I report to the House that these bills are not reported, they have been withdrawn by the applicant?

Agreed to.

The Chair: The last item is outstanding invoices from the last Parliament. I will have the clerk report on this.

Clerk of the Committee: Members of the committee will recall that at several meetings past I raised with the committee complaints that had been received from three applicants for legislation in the last Parliament. In the middle of their application procedure, the printing contracts that the Legislative Assembly had were changed. This resulted in roughly a 50% increase in the cost of printing their bills which they had not anticipated. When they got their final invoices, they were concerned at the cost. They have asked that the committee consider some sort of redress, because they had not expected that.

The committee asked me to get more information about the cost of printing the bills and the printing contracts, and I have determined that the change in printing contracts resulted, as I said, in roughly a 50% increase in the cost of printing. My proposal is that a fair resolution to this problem, if the committee agrees, is to take their final invoices, reduce them by approximately a third, which would give them a net amount roughly equivalent to what their printing costs would have been if the contracts had not been changed. If the committee agrees, I would propose that to these three applicants to see if they are satisfied with that.

Agreed to.

The committee adjourned at 1120.