Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

APPOINTMENTS REVIEW

AFTERNOON SITTING

MADELINE HARDY

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

CONFERENCE INFORMATION

DOCUMENT REVIEW

CONTENTS

Thursday 31 January 1991

Appointments review

Afternoon sitting

Madeline Hardy

Subcommittee report

Conference information

Document review

Adjournment

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Chair: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)

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

Bradley, James J. (St. Catharines L)

Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East NDP)

Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East L)

Haslam, Karen (Perth NDP)

Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent NDP)

McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)

Silipo, Tony (Dovercourt NDP)

Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West PC)

Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)

Wiseman, Jim (Durham West NDP)

Substitutions:

Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot NDP) for Mr Wiseman

Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex NDP) for Mr Waters

McClelland, Carman (Brampton North L) for Mr J. Bradley

Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South PC) for Mr Stockwell

Murdoch, Bill (Grey PC) for Mr McLean

Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre NDP) for Mr Frankford

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview NDP) for Mr Wiseman

Clerk: Arnott, Douglas

Clerk pro tem: Freedman, Lisa

Staff: Pond, Bill, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1004 in committee room 1.

APPOINTMENTS REVIEW

Resuming consideration of intended appointments.

The Chair: Can we come to order, please. I think we are going to follow Mr Silipo's advice unless we run into some problems in respect to the deliberation this morning. We will break it into time slots in respect to each intended appointee, both Mr Warder and Mrs McGillivray, up to a half-hour each to discuss those potential appointments.

We will start now and following the pattern we have been establishing in this committee, since these are the appointees the third party requested, we will give the third party representative the first opportunity to speak in respect to Mr Warder's appointment.

Mr B. Murdoch: I think there are a few things I have to explain here after I heard the questionings and things that went on yesterday. It is to do with the appointment so I do not think I am out of order. I feel there are a lot of people that do not understand what the Niagara Escarpment is all about with some of the questions that were asked. I really think that when members question people on these kinds of commissions and things like that, they should find out what the Niagara Escarpment is all about and especially some of the trouble spots that are in there.

I know when Steve Owens talked yesterday about Bill's Burger Bar in the Niagara Escarpment, it was in jest. I think, though, that what we have got to look at is that people, especially in Grey county, do not want to ruin the Niagara Escarpment, but they have had a long conflict over the Niagara Escarpment Commission being formed to look after their supposed problems.

If you look at the Niagara Escarpment, it starts in Niagara Falls and ends in Tobermory. It has pretty well been ruined in Niagara Falls and Halton and places like that, as you know, but if you ever look at the map, it starts there in a nice little thin line and when it gets to Grey county, it widens right out and takes in a lot of land that should not be taken in as far as we in Grey county are concerned.

I just want to make it quite clear that the people of Grey county want to protect the Niagara Escarpment as much as anybody else, whether they be in Toronto or Windsor or wherever, but the way it is being done is wrong. It is almost like a communist thing, with a board that are not --

Mr Grandmaître: Jeez.

Mr B. Murdoch: Well, I have said this before and I will say it again: That is what it is run like. There is no consideration of the people that live on the escarpment and we are quite upset about it in our area. And as I said, I know Mr Owens was just doing that in jest, but we do not have a lot of things along the bottom of the escarpment or anywhere near it.

When we get candidates like the two we did yesterday, they are going to make things worse. The people up there are upset enough now. I want to point out that the people that are on there right now from our area are quite capable and have done a good job; it is too bad that we are going to lose them. But people like we have interviewed in the last two days are certainly going to make things a lot worse, and I just want to tell you that. I know how you are going to vote, and that is fine -- at least I assume I know how you are going to vote -- and I cannot do anything about that.

I want to talk about the process, still talking about the people that we talked about. This whole process is just a farce, I feel, and it is a waste of our time and the people's time here. Today you are going to vote, and there are five people on this side to vote and six people over there to vote, but two of you people were not even here yesterday and you are going to vote on these candidates, unless you declare yourselves that you do not know what happened yesterday. There are two new faces over there today that are going to vote on this, and this shows me that this whole process is not the way we should be going.

You people are the government and you got elected to do a job in Ontario and I think you should be doing your job. Setting up this committee and allowing these people to come here and be interviewed is a farce, a charade. You are going to vote for them. Hell will freeze over before any of you people vote against Bob Rae's decisions. Mr Rae has put these candidates towards us, and you are not going to vote against them, so why are we sitting here interviewing? That is another process. People were interviewed yesterday. Now I may not be in favour but I may be. I am not going to say. But these people sat here and went through harassment for a $125- or $150-a-day job to which they go twice a month. That is totally ridiculous.

You people, the government, whether it is you people or whoever, the government was elected to do a job and I think it should do its job. Part of that job is to put people on boards and commissions. If they are no good, that is your problem, you will live with it. If they are good, that is fine, you will live with it also.

I am really upset that this whole process is going on like this and also the process of people having to come in here and being asked questions that really they are not getting paid to answer. Mind you, I asked some of them, but that was the process. I thought about it and I think, as I said, it is a charade, it is a waste of time. Therefore, Mr Chairman, I am going to leave this meeting and I am not going to vote on these people. My time is being wasted here and I think everybody else's is, so that is it for me.

1010

The Chair: Mrs Marland, you still have approximately 15 minutes, up to 15 minutes.

Mrs Marland: One thing that I would like to say is that I hope the people who have been before the committee this week have not felt harassed. As a member of this committee, I would not want to think that I had harassed anyone who came here, so I do hope that they have not felt harassed.

My impression has been that the people who have come before us have probably enjoyed the opportunity to come and talk to an all-party committee of the Legislature. I think the whole process of all-party legislative committees where the public is invited to come before them for any number of interests or causes, and now this most recent one, which is the appointment to government agencies, boards and commissions, is one where in my experience, which is limited -- my experience is only six years -- I do not think that people who come in to these committee hearings have felt harassed.

I think there are times, interestingly enough, depending on what the subject matter has been, that people have come and perhaps harassed all of us as MPPs, and that is the public's option as far as I am concerned. I think that is the good part about a public process on any matter with which we have to deal and on any matter with which we have to make decisions as legislators. I think it is great when the public has that opportunity to come in and talk to us.

In this case, this is a brand-new process, as we have all said a number of times this week. I am sitting here not as a regular member of this committee, as I have also mentioned. I am substituting for another member who has to be in another committee because that is a subject area for which he is the critic. My feeling is that this process that we are into in this committee has yet to be proved, and I think when it will be proved that it is not just an exercise in a waste of time is the day that the government members vote not as six people in a block but when they can vote individually, independently, should they choose. I am hoping that that will be something that you will at some time be able to do so that you disprove any accusations that anyone in the public makes about this process.

Ms Haslam: Mr Chairman, as a point of information, could we perhaps discuss what you and I discussed the last time we had a vote, the fact that I said I wanted to vote in a way and the assumption was that we were all in favour and I was not given a chance to vote? As a point of information, I want that on the record.

The Chair: Ms Haslam, you will have an opportunity when we make the circuit. If you want to do that, you can do that.

Mrs Marland: Karen, you can say that when you get to speak, but I also want you to hear how I am saying this. I am not saying it to offend you. What I am trying to put on the record is what I believe about this process that we are into.

The bottom line is that historically all governments, regardless of what party they are, have been accused of partisan appointments. Frankly, I thought when this process was announced that it was a very progressive step on the part of your government. I do not mind saying that because that is what I thought.

I thought that this is going to be good because it is going to give an opportunity to have people come before this committee who are up for appointment. They obviously have not been appointed until this committee approves them. I thought that this is great because for the first time those people are going to have an opportunity to come in and tell us why they are interested in serving on a government agency, board or commission and we are all going to have an opportunity to ask them questions about their interests and their background.

As I also said yesterday, we cannot judge in a 45-minute exchange their total competency so some of whether or not we support them has to be based on other people's impressions and information and some of the background that we may know about those individuals. I support the process. I am delighted that your government has introduced this process in terms of these government appointments, that your Premier is willing -- I should say our Premier -- to have at least some of his appointments under public scrutiny. I have to say "some" because in the interests of time, obviously we cannot get to meet all the government appointees to agencies, boards and commissions.

Where the system will fail is if absolutely everybody who comes in, if we through our questions -- and our questions must be sincere and genuine in order to make this system work -- if during that process there is something that perhaps makes any of us think, "This person is fine, but there probably are other people for this important job that might do the job better so I don't really want to support this individual automatically," this system will work as long as the six government members on this committee do not feel that they have to come in -- and do not be offended; I am not saying that this is how you are doing it because we have not been doing it long enough yet to know how you are doing it -- but the government members should not feel that they are going to come in with blinkers on and automatically support any of these people because their government has appointed them.

I think the fact of the matter is that these are people who have been recommended for appointment to your government and the appointments can only be made by your government so for you to do the job thoroughly you have to look at these people as thoroughly as we are. We are not automatically going to look at people and oppose them because they are recommendations of your government. That is not the process.

The process is that these people's names have been put forward for appointments. They may have been put forward from any number of sources and that is what we have discovered in these three short days, that these names do come forward for recommendation from any number of sources. I think for all of us to do the right job we have to come in and decide that there might be times when all six government members do not have to vote the same way, nor do you have to, automatically support people because they are appointments that have already been recommended by whoever is in charge of the appointments for your government.

If we want to prove that this system is worth while, then I think we have to see some flexibility in how the process is conducted. Up until now we have only voted on three people. We have not voted before this week so, frankly, I do not think after voting on three people I am in a position to condemn the process. I am not going to sit here and say that this is a farce, that it is not working, that the committee exercise is going to be a waste of time, because frankly, after only three appointments, I am not going to assume that this is not going to work.

1020

I recognize that my position is not in agreement with my other caucus member, but I think that proves to you the very point that I am making. The point is that we all come in here as individuals with a very serious responsibility and it is like everything in life. I am sure the six of you do not all agree on everything, and I respect my colleague's opinion and his right to his opinion, as I respect my own.

I feel that the process of having the opportunity to review these appointments is a good one. I look forward to it continuing. Actually, this colleague is a substitute on this committee as well, so we both are. So you may not have the pleasure of my company at future meetings unless I am a substitute.

Mr McClelland: Sorely missed.

Mrs Marland: Sorely missed, says the member for Brampton North. I hope this process will continue and be proven by all members that it is not a farce where the six government members will automatically support everyone and they will all vote the same way. I am sure there will be times when they will demonstrate their individuality and prove that we are not sitting here as government and opposition members on this committee for the purpose of a party stripe. I do not think we are. So when you get to speak, do not start refuting everything that I am saying because you think that is --

Ms Haslam: You prejudge me, Margaret.

Mrs Marland: Do not think that I am saying that is how it is all going to happen, because I am not going to say that is how it is going to happen in the future, because we have not got enough history on this committee yet. It has not been going long enough. So when it comes time to speak about -- and I suppose that is what we are doing right now, speaking about yesterday's appointments. Is that right?

The Chair: Yes, and you have approximately three minutes.

Mr Grandmaître: I think you should pass it on.

Mrs Marland: I did not know whether my colleague had raised a point of order and that was what we were discussing. Okay, so we are talking about two people from yesterday.

The Chair: We are actually dealing with one at this point.

Mrs Marland: And that is Mr Warder. Okay? It is hard to speak about one and not the other.

The Chair: Well, I think I am wrong in that. Actually, we are only being allowed one hour and we are slotting 20 minutes to each caucus, so your 20 minutes is going to be up shortly. I gather you are going to have to talk about both. We are all going to have to talk about both since we are only allotted the one hour.

Mrs Marland: Okay. I think that all of these agencies, boards and commissions work well if we have a broad spectrum of representation on them. We have not been furnished with a list of the existing members of the NEC, which I think might be helpful in the future perhaps so that we can look at the backgrounds of the existing members of a board so that when we are appointing new members we are looking for a balance of representation.

Frankly, the NEC should have a balance from many interest bases, and without knowing who the present, existing members of the NEC are or what their backgrounds are, I cannot say that Mr Warder or Ms McGillivray are not appropriate appointments. They are obviously people who have well demonstrated their grass-roots involvement in their community and there is no question they totally come from the environmental perspective and the conservation perspective.

I think if we do not agree with the NEC, then we should change its mandate rather than disagree with two individuals who may be appointed to it. If we do not agree with the mandate of conservation of the Niagara Escarpment, then that is an issue apart. I hope that the appointment of Ms McGillivray and Mr Warder will mean that there is a balance of all interests on the NEC, because only if it is balanced will it work to the interests of all.

Ms Haslam: I would like to just put it on the record that I had spoken to the Chairperson of this committee regarding the fact that it was a quick vote and I was not given a chance in the first sessional vote to vote the way I wanted. So I want to go on record as saying I agree with you, Margaret, that we vote our own individual positions and that I brought this to the attention of the Chairperson, that he automatically assumed that the six on this side were voting one way and the quickness of the vote meant that I really did not get a chance to raise a concern.

I spoke to him about it. I said that it would be fine, I was not going to bring it up, we would go with what had happened, but I asked him in future to be sure that he did not just assume the six people on this side of the committee were going to vote that way. I want to be very clear on that, Margaret. This is not the situation where we vote aye or nay and somebody tells me how to vote. I had a very, very strong opinion in the previous voting and unfortunately it was not given the opportunity to be done. It is done and that is fine.

The Chair: I think it is appropriate that I say something at this stage and I certainly will not take it off your time.

Ms Haslam: No, I am done. I just wanted to say that was the case and I had raised that interest.

The Chair: I wanted to respond to that as well and say that those were appointments where it certainly appeared there was unanimity. There was no division here. I looked around and did not see Ms Haslam's concern being expressed. I am just urging any member, if you have a view, do not depend on me seeing your hand being raised. Voice it and call my attention to it, and if indeed you want it recorded that you are opposed to a particular appointee, or whatever your view is, you simply have to, as an individual member, request a recorded vote and we will have a recorded division in the committee.

Mr Owens: I would just like to make a couple of remarks with respect to the process that is ongoing. As with Mrs Marland, I agree that we are clearly within a new process with respect to interviewing suggested appointees. The process that I see happening here and should be happening is that this should be an evolutionary process. We are not stuck within a set number of parameters, and I certainly hope, as I am only a substitute as well on the committee this week, that the full committee, or the subcommittee, more appropriately, will take a look at some of the things that have happened over the past week and perhaps make suggestions through a report as to how things can be changed and certainly improved. As I say, it is an evolutionary and ongoing process.

I have been disturbed from time to time by the line of questioning that has taken place. I am not quite sure what a person's party affiliation or who he or she donates money to has to do with the type of job that he or she would do on a particular board or commission. I certainly hope that as this process evolves we will try and restrict our comments and our questions to issues that are germane to the position that is being applied for.

With respect to the appointees that we are expected to vote on shortly, I feel that a person applying for this position, especially to the NEC, has to be committed to listening to both sides and that it is his or her goal on the commission to represent all interests and try to achieve a sense of balance without any accusations of having a vested interest with respect to one side or the other. I, for one, will plan on supporting the two appointments, as I feel that they will do a reasonably good job and will try their best, again, to achieve the kind of balance that these committee members are striving to achieve.

1030

Mr Silipo: I want to just cover a couple of things. I think it is unfortunate that Mr Murdoch has chosen to make his points in the way that he has and in basically orchestrating a little media show. That is fine. It is every member's right to do that, but I think it is, in my view, not the most effective way to try to underscore the kinds of problems that I am sure each of us are identifying as we are going through this process.

One of the things that he said I wholeheartedly agree with. I think it puts people who are coming in substituting -- and we all know the process of substituting here is a very common one -- in an awkward position of coming into a situation like this and voting on appointments when they have not had the opportunity to be here for the interview. Certainly whenever we get to discussing some changes, that is going to be one area where I will certainly push very clearly for some changes.

It seems to me that one of the easier ways to remedy that would be to have the rules changed so that in effect a decision about the appointee is made immediately after we do the interview. That way we do not run into the potential problem of people having to be substituted by others, unless there is a rationale for having it done at the following meeting that has escaped all of us. I do not think at this point it is something that I see that makes sense to continue, but that is the process we have so far and unless and until we are able to make those changes, then we make the best that we can of it.

I would agree with Mr Murdoch that it is an area that we need to try to improve upon.

Mrs Marland: You mean it is hard for Irene to come in and vote this morning?

Mr Silipo: Yes, absolutely. I am assuming that the two people who are substituting here today have some sense of what we are talking about, if they were to hear that there were some major concerns about the individuals we are discussing. I suppose we have bent the rules somewhat already. I suppose that nothing would prevent us from, in effect, deferring a decision to another time and in fact having the members who were here yesterday be present for the vote. We could do that. If people want to do that, I certainly would support that.

There are a couple of other things that I just want to say. I guess I disagree with my colleague Mr Owens about some of the questions. I have made it clear also that I tend to agree that in fact the questions that we ask the people ought to be as wide open as possible. My only concern has always been the effect on the individual, realizing that in most cases we are dealing with people in front of us who are not used to this kind of process. But other than that, I think any question is fair game.

As a member of the government, I quite frankly put myself in the position of saying, "If I were sitting on the other side, what kind of freedom would I like to have in terms of the kinds of questions that I ask?" I think that it is incumbent upon us on this side to be prepared to go as far and wide as we would like to go if we were sitting in opposition. I think it is only fair that that be the attitude we undertake.

With that, I think the question of party membership is there for a relevant question. It has been interesting, of course, to date that what we found from the people we have interviewed has been the fact that they have not all been members of the NDP. In fact, I do not know what the tally looks like so far, but it certainly does not put intended nominees in the NDP membership in the leadership in that category, by any stretch of the imagination. But I do agree that is just part and parcel of the questioning process.

As far as the individuals, I will support the appointment of both individuals and I will say that it is also quite clear from their own answers that they both acknowledge that they have a pro-environment approach in their attitude; more so, I suppose, with the second person we interviewed than the first. Again, I do not think we should try to hide that. That is what they said. But it seems to me that if the division of the vote is going to occur on that aspect of it, well, that is fine; then let's also be clear with each other that that is in fact what we are doing.

I do not have any trouble with our appointing to a commission like this people who have that kind of perspective. My only concern is, are they conscious enough of their responsibilities that they will undertake to be as fair as they can be in the process? If the answer in my mind is yes, then I will support it. In this case the answer in my mind is yes.

I may be mentioning this from time to time, but I have always worked on the presumption that each of us, and therefore any individual, has a particular bias one way or the other. In fact, I remember one of the first lessons in grade 9 history was from a teacher who put on the blackboard the word "bias" and then proceeded to talk with us about the fact that indeed each one of us has particular biases which have come about because of our backgrounds, because of our experiences, because of whatever we have gone through. So I think we ought not to pretend that anyone we appoint to any particular body should go in there without any particular slant or any particular preferences of doing things one way over the other.

I think what we are looking for is an acknowledgement of that, quite frankly, where it exists, and in addition to that, a reasonable demonstration that people can be fair and can be impartial and can deal with issues on an individual, case-by-case basis, as the people who will have to go to this body will have to demonstrate. Again, if there is enough evidence in their answers to show that is what they will do, then I think they are worthy of support. In this case I think they have demonstrated that and I will support their appointment.

Mr Perruzza: I would just like to make a couple of comments. I was really disappointed by -- let's call it the show this morning. I think we have come a long way, certainly as an outsider watching this process and watching it in the past, both on the federal scene and on the provincial scene. This kind of forum, this kind of opportunity, was never given to government members, let alone opposition members. It was a closed-shop deal. The Liberals did it their way when they were in office and the Conservatives before them did it their way and this forum was never available to any of the members of this Legislature. It is a forum that is available now.

A lot of assumptions were made this morning that we are all going to be voting the same way on these appointments as the government side on this committee and we are always going to vote down the opposition. A number of appointments have come through and I believe the question was asked of almost all the candidates who appeared before us which parties they belonged to. I cannot recall any of them saying that they had either been members or contributed to the NDP. There was one; I apologize for that. But the majority of them either have admitted to having been members of or supporting financially either the Liberal or the Conservative Party.

Mr Murdoch did not grandstand and walk out of that meeting, kicking the mud off his feet as he walked through the door with the cameras following him, yelling and screaming that this was simply a farcical show and it has all been staged and a setup. That did not happen with those appointments. It did happen, I guess, with one of the appointments yesterday and I do not know which of the two people we interviewed yesterday upset him to such a large degree that he did what he did this morning. But I found them both very interesting, competent, articulate people who will serve the commission well and serve the people of Ontario well. I have no problem with the people who appeared before us and I think we can argue competence until we are blue in the face. Who is competent? Who is not competent? I think we will all have varying opinions on that particular issue.

I have disagreed often with my colleagues on this side. I disagreed with some of the comments that were made by Mr Owens this morning about what the role and function of this committee is. I think that is my prerogative, as it is the prerogative of the members on the opposite side.

I think we have come a long way. I think this is a good process. Certainly there are some glitches in it that need to be ironed out. With perseverance, I think we will iron them out. But if we continue to have demonstrations, as we have had here this morning by both of the parties. then maybe we as a government have to look again at this process and reassess it and approach it from a different direction altogether.

1040

Mrs Marland: On a point of privilege, Mr Chairman: I would like Mr Perruzza to retract his statement about demonstrations by both parties.

Mr Perruzza: Margaret, I agree. When and if your leaders come to this committee and, I guess, speak for the party as a whole, then, you are right, I would make that comment, but when individual members of either party do as Mr Murdoch did this morning, then the label should only apply to members or the individuals of the parties. I agree with you on that, so I will retract it in so far as that goes.

Mr Grandmaître: I think our first responsibility this morning is to approve or disapprove Mr Warder's appointment. I want it to be known that I will be supporting the appointment of Mr Warder.

The Chair: We are dealing with both of them.

Mr Grandmaître: Are we dealing with both? I will be supporting both candidates. I feel a little sorry for these people, not only these people but all people appearing before this committee, because I have criticized the system before and I will continue to criticize the system for a number of reasons. I think it is flawed. I think we had a golden opportunity to make some changes, to amend our terms of reference.

We had a great meeting with Felix Holtmann, who gave us his experience of three and a half years as Chair of the federal committee. I think we should have taken maybe half a day. If everybody was really sincere about the ongoing system -- we all agree that it is not perfect. Nothing is perfect in this place; nothing. I have been here for six years and two months and 35 minutes and some few seconds. I was quick to learn that it is not easy to live in this place. It is not easy. But I would like to remind the members opposite that except for our friend Pat, who was here once before, that for six years we were the government. We were called liars, cheaters, bums, scum and --

Mr Owens: I was not elected.

Mr Grandmaître: No, I know you were not around. All of these great adjectives were used to describe us. For six years we were crooks because of our patronage appointments, for being partisan. I see that a member is shaking his head. He is still agreeing that we were crooks, that we were cheats. He is still agreeing with this line. I want to find out --

Mr Perruzza: On a point of privilege, Mr Chairman --

The Chair: I hope this is a legitimate point or we will be doing this all the time, Mr Perruzza.

Mr Perruzza: If Mr Grandmaître is referring to me, I would like to --

Mr Grandmaître: Did I mention your name? You were just bobbing.

The Chair: He is not pointing out any member specifically.

Mr Grandmaître: I am not. I agree with the government whip. We all have a little touch of bias in us -- let's be honest -- because we are politicians and we believe, as I believe, that the Liberal philosophy is the most perfect one and you might believe that the NDP philosophy is perfect, and also for our friend who has left, Mr Murdoch, he might believe that is the way to deal with the question of what our responsibilities are this morning.

I want to point out that I still do not agree with the system, the process. I have said it before and I will repeat it: I was very pleased when the Premier introduced in the House some kind of plan. so that members of the opposition and all members of caucus -- every caucus -- would be invited in the process of selection, but let's be honest.

Mr Owens: You want that recorded in Hansard, by the way?

Mr Grandmaître: I feel a little sorry for these people appearing before us, because do not forget, they are sitting there and they are saying, "I am the only one." They do not have a choice. They have to agree with me, because they do not have a second or a third choice.

I am going back to what Mr Owens was saying, that he did not agree with the types of questions. I want to remind you, Mr Owens, that for six years we were on trial by your party because we were cheats, bums, scoundrels, you name it. I think it is a golden opportunity for all of us today to say, "Hey, let's put all of these biases aside and let's deal with what we have to do." If we want to do a good job, I think the process has to be changed.

We were told that we, the members of this committee, would receive a list -- Mr Chairman, I am addressing this to you, particularly -- of different categories -- I qualify them as categories -- as positions or appointees or appointments that are not to appear, that are excluded to appear before this committee. We have not seen this list. We were promised that list last week. I am still waiting for it. I am telling you, Mr Chairman, on Tuesday if we do not have a list --

The Chair: I have it.

Mr Grandmaître: Thank you. You see, this is what I like about the Chair. He moves. Mr Chairman, I want to tell you that I think the process is a start, but the process has to be amended. It has to be improved, because after all I think the intention of the government was to make it more accessible. For people who never had an opportunity to open the great doors of Queen's Park, now the government was more accessible. I do not think the present process opens the doors to everybody. It is opening the door to the appointee. That is what it is doing, and we have to accept.

I know we are all going to vote independently, but let's face it, the final decision belongs to the Premier. Let's be honest. The people recommended to this committee are good people. I do not care if they are NDP, Tories or Liberals. They are good people and that is why they were referred. But it is the way it was done. That is what we are questioning. It is the way it was done. How did they get involved?

Perhaps I can refer to Mrs McGillivray, who has never attended a meeting of the NEC. She does not know what it is. But I think she is sincere. That is why I am approving her appointment. But how come this lady was chosen to be your representative -- and I say "your representative" -- on the NEC?

1050

Mr Hayes: She is a Liberal.

Mr Grandmaître: I said it could have been a Liberal, an NDPer or a Tory. We want to know how these people were approached, because the former government was continuously being accused of playing politics. Ladies and gentlemen on the other side, if you think you are not playing politics you had better smarten up, because you are in politics and we are all playing politics. That is the name of our game.

Mr Perruzza: You figure that if you get on a soccer field with shorts on, you play soccer.

Mr Grandmaître: No, I do not want to kick you around.

Again, I think we should meet on Monday or some time next week to look at our terms of reference because I think they are flawed. They have to be improved. At the same time, I want to point out that I think our clerk and our research people are doing an excellent job, especially for the newcomers who do not know these people. I think they are doing a great job and I hope they will continue to provide us with all the information necessary in order for us to make the right decision.

I want to conclude by saying, and then I want to pass to my colleague Mr McGuinty, that I think the time is now. I think we should look at the system, look at the process before this committee loses faith.

Mr McGuinty: I want to concur with the comments made by my colleague Mr Grandmaître and add the following to it. I think it is important to remember why it is that we are here. The objectives, as I understand them, are to achieve openness. If I might quote from the Premier's statement, he said: "The time has come to strip away the secrecy and mystique which have always surrounded government appointments. The process must be open to everybody. It must be understood by everybody." It is noteworthy that he says, "The time has come to strip away the secrecy and mystique." He does not say "some of the secrecy" or "some of the mystique."

If we want to set out to defeat those objectives, we could probably do the following. We could draw up a list of special appointments which we could not review. We could draw up a list of questions we would not be allowed to ask. We could prevent us from reviewing the screening process which has led up to candidates appearing before us. Then we could attempt to limit in any way the information we receive regarding the candidates who are about to appear before us.

I would caution the government members sitting on this committee against doing any of those things if their true intention and our true intention is to fulfil the objectives of openness and stripping away secrecy and mystique.

The terms of reference are sorely lacking and the sooner we can improve upon them the better. We have no power of veto and I would implore the members to understand the significance of that. Even if we, the members of this committee, unanimously agreed that a candidate was not suitable for a particular appointment, our decision could be overturned. What significance do we have? What role are we playing here? That is extremely important.

Again, there is the matter that we do not have equal representation. If we are truly to render this a non-partisan matter and bring a non-partisan and fair approach, then there must be equal representation.

With respect to these two candidates, again the general comments I offer is we have no perspective. It would have been very helpful for this committee to know how these two were chosen, what screening process was used, how they were selected from the original 17. We do not know whether any of the 15 others were better suited for the position than these two. For that reason, any opinion that we offer here will always be severely limited.

I have no doubt in my mind that these two candidates who appeared before us were openly biased and that they leaned towards environmentalist causes. However, I think some merit can be drawn from their candour. Better the devil you know than the one you do not, not that I am ascribing any demonic tendencies to these two. Also, I thought they had good life experience, something which always has significant merit. To my mind the gentleman had rendered tremendous public service in the past. I also take some heart in knowing that they will be sitting on a large body. If one of them individually was to sit in judgement of any of the matters appearing before them, I would have tremendous concerns but I think their particular slant, their bias, will merge in the larger body on which they are going to sit. For that reason I am supporting their appointments.

Mr McClelland: Approximately, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: Five minutes.

Mr McClelland: Plenty of time, thank you. Mr Chairman, thank you for the opportunity of making a few very brief comments. I do not believe I will even use the time you have allotted me. Mrs Marland made a comment with respect to the lack of track record of this committee. I wanted to comment on that. The point is well taken. None of us should proceed with any preconceptions with how people will undertake the responsibilities on this committee in the future. It is certainly my hope that individuals, and it has been expressed very ably, I believe, by Mr Silipo, will act as individuals and render their best judgement for the candidates who come before this committee.

I will not comment at length with respect to what Mr Murdoch said other than to say I understand, I think, the genesis of his frustration and concern with respect to the process. It seems to me I am in accord with him at least to the point that the government undertakes the responsibility of putting candidates before this committee. Having done so, his concern that the committee not simply put a cosmetic spin on that process I think I understand. I hasten to add though that to prejudge that would be inappropriate. As well as by a colleague, Mrs Marland, that there is no track record to date. We ought to proceed, as we are all honourable members, with expecting the best. In so setting that expectation, I believe that that can be achieved. That people will undertake the responsibilities without any preconception or bias towards the process itself.

Mr Grandmaître and Mr McGuinty have raised some concerns with respect to the process. I too have some concerns and I know that will be reviewed by the subcommittee and that the terms of reference will be refined. I would think one of the issues that would need canvassing is with respect to how individuals are selected to come before this committee. Which individuals appointments are scrutinized?

It is obvious, given the huge numbers of appointments that fall with the privilege of the government, the Premier and his colleagues in cabinet, that not each and every individual could possibly appear before a committee of this nature. I think then it begs the question of which individuals are brought before the committee. Is it done on an audit basis? Is it done by the committee? Are the names presented from the appointer? Does the committee have the opportunity to canvass the global list and then review from that point?

I will leave that with respect to the process and what happened this morning and just simply say I think many of the points are well made and bear our close consideration as to the process with respect to how this committee operates in reviewing appointments as refined. As a substitute member, I have appreciated the opportunity of sitting in and observing and participating, at least on the margins, with what has taken place.

With respect to the two candidates who were in consideration today, let me simply say that on a few points that were raised I take a different view, with my friend Mr Grandmaître, that one of the candidates had not attended any of the Niagara Escarpment Commission meetings. I find that perhaps refreshing and an opportunity for somebody to come with a different perspective, somebody to bring freshness and draw on her experiences and particular skills that she brings to that without any preconceived idea of the nature of the conduct of the meetings, without that frame of reference, that framework being predetermined for her. I think that is beneficial, I think one ought not to look at a person's direct involvement to measure his or her abilities. Many of us would not be sitting here if we did not have to have proven our records. The old chicken-and-egg process; how does one prove one's ability until given an opportunity to do it? I think that the candidates acquitted themselves well.

1100

I would not presume that any one of us would be in accord with every point any individual raises. I doubt if we have unanimity on our approach to virtually any subject or any matter that would come before any committee. But I think the individuals presented themselves as able, capable, thoughtful people and will bring their own particular skills and, more important, discharge their responsibilities with a sense of integrity with their best efforts and approaching it, I think, with a sense of enthusiasm and bringing, as Mr McGuinty said, their own particular life experiences to the NEC. I will be delighted to support them and vote in favour of their appointment. Mr Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity of making a few comments.

The Chair: I am now at the point where we will look for a consensus. There seems to be a consensus. I will deal with them on an individual basis. Does the committee concur in the appointment of Maitland Warder as an appointee member to the Niagara Escarpment Commission?

Mr Perruzza: I would like to request a recorded vote on both of those, please.

The Chair: Then we will require a formal motion to move concurrence of the appointment of Mr Warder.

The committee divided on Mr Silipo's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 10

Grandmaître, Haslam, Hayes, Marland, Mathyssen, McClelland, McGuinty, Owens, Perruzza, Silipo.

Nays -- 0

The Chair: Moving on to Mrs McGillivray; are we going to have a similar motion by Mr Perruzza and a request for a recorded vote? Agreed.

The committee divided on Mr Silipo's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 10

Grandmaître, Haslam, Hayes, Marland, Mathyssen, McClelland, McGuinty, Owens, Perruzza, Silipo.

Nays -- 0

The Chair: A couple of things before we break. As you know, the subcommittee is meeting at 11:15 and we are going to be discussing the schedule and a number of other matters. We will have some OIC appointments to consider as well. But I wanted to say in response to what Mr Grandmaître was saying earlier, indeed we did make a request of Ms Phillips, the appointments secretary, in respect to the order-in-council appointments that would be not subject to review by this committee. We have a response from Ms Phillips. It is a rather general sort of letter indicating that if we require further details there are avenues available to us as a committee. So perhaps we can take some time to digest that and this afternoon we may want to take some time to discuss it and see what, if any, further action we wish to take as a committee.

Also, later on today I will have a statement in respect to the matter raised by Mr McGuinty. It could generate some discussion. One of the things I am going to suggest to the subcommittee is that once I make that statement, that it circulate to members of the committee, that perhaps we take it with us for the weekend and slot in some time next week because we have a rather open schedule. If we want to talk about that particular aspect of it, and perhaps some of the other concerns that are being raised about the process, that perhaps might be the opportunity to do that.

Okay, nothing further; we will adjourn.

Mr Silipo: I have something and it relates to the question I addressed earlier about our rules with respect to when we make the decision. I do not have a copy of the rules here, but I think they actually are clear in saying that we make the decision at the meeting following the meeting at which we interview.

However, what I would like to ask is whether that is also within the realm of something we could adapt even now. In other words, could we decide to change that so that we would make the decision immediately following the interview? I ask that simply in terms of whether we can do it, because I know we have also applied the rules somewhat more flexibly than they are written. For example, the person we are interviewing this afternoon, according to a strict reading of the rules, really should have been interviewed on Monday or Tuesday, whenever it was. We have adapted them to fit, in that particular instance, I presume, the availability of the person.

It seems to me that if there is unanimous agreement on changing the rules, to the extent of our making the decision subsequent to as opposed to immediately following the interview, it eliminates one of the problems of people potentially voting on the appointment of people they have not interviewed. I do not know what it does procedurally, whether it is something we can do.

The Chair: Procedurally it is something we can do. If there is unanimous consent we can move in that direction.

Mr Silipo: Perhaps I will just raise that and people can think about that over the break.

The Chair: I think, as I suggested earlier, if we set aside some time next week we are going to have a number of things we can talk about──this is certainly one of them──rather than being pressed for time, as we are now, with the subcommittee meeting coming up in a few minutes, so that we can have a very lengthy and detailed discussion on what we would like to see occur and how we can go about doing it.

Mr Grandmaître: I have just a short question. Is Mr Silipo suggesting that we make an exception in that one case only or that we change the process?

Mr Silipo: Both. I certainly would suggest, for the one this afternoon, that it would be more appropriate to make the decision this afternoon rather than next week. I also think there is a lot of merit to our changing the rules to doing it that way. The reason I raise it now is because it would have implications for our slotting of time, but that is something maybe we can come back to. I gather from what we have been given that the list of potential appointees to be reviewed for next week is not that long. There are only two, so the most we could be doing is two hours of that, so it is not as big a problem for the near future.

Mrs Marland: In all likelihood I will not be here when you discuss the process next week. It is unfortunate because the people who might be here discussing the process next week may not have been part of it this week. In saying that, I would prefer, if I were to continue, that we leave it as it is so that if there is an exception -- I do not think it is necessary to leave it over a weekend. It is a scheduling thing. I think to leave it over one day makes sense.

It is interesting, because the first day I realized we were doing that I said to you. "Oh, we're not going to make the decision now," and you said "No, we decided we would do it the next day," and I thought, "Well, you know...." Now, based on my experience I see that as a good thing because then over that period of time when we are all as busy as we are, at least that gives me 24 hours or 12 hours to go over their biographies and review, and if I want to do any research about that commission after having met the person I have that added time to do it. I see that as an advantage.

Mr Perruzza: If I can just make a comment, I like that process too that we are following now. I know there are some deficiencies inherent in it, but I am finding that the next day the nominees themselves are not here and the other people waiting to be interviewed are not here either. I think you would run into a problem. They can be here because the door certainly would be open to them and they would be able to attend, but to have a frank discussion and a vote when they are not here is fairer to them.

I would be inclined to support the idea where if I sit in on the interview and I cannot attend the meeting the next day, or whenever you are going to be voting on the matter, I would like to give a proxy to one of my colleagues. I would support that kind of an idea, but I would be a little nervous about voting and having a debate immediately after we interview the individuals while they are still here and the following appointment is here as well.

The Chair: I am going to try to discourage further debate on this. As I said, I will try to do it next week. We will break now and reconvene at 2 pm.

The committee recessed at 1109.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The committee resumed at 1404 in committee room 1.

MADELINE HARDY

The Chair: We are starting off the proceedings this afternoon with the appearance of Madeline Hardy, who is an intended appointee as chair of the Planning and Implementation Commission. Dr Hardy, would you like to come forward, please. Would you like to say anything at the outset briefly or would you simply prefer to get right into the questions?

Dr Hardy: I think I would prefer to answer any questions you have.

The Chair: All right. fine. This was an intended appointment selected by the official opposition.

Mr McClelland: It was?

The Chair: That is what it says on my agenda. Are members of the official opposition ready to begin the questioning?

Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chairman, I have gone through the curriculum vitae and I think she qualifies for the job. Maybe I will pass to my colleagues Dalton or Carman to ask a few questions. if they have a few questions.

The Chair: We can come back later.

Mr McGuinty: Dr Hardy, I guess at the outset you would be aware that there have been problems in effecting transfers of schools from public to separate boards in a number of communities, and particularly in my community of Ottawa. What role do you feel the commission should be bringing to those negotiations, and in particular what skills do you feel will assist in effecting this job?

Dr Hardy: Of course I really have lived this in that when I was director of education in London, Ontario, the new legislation was effected. Then we had to begin to work with the separate school board locally to make all of the kinds of decisions that had to be made, so I really have had experience with starting right from the ground, working with trustees on both boards, getting committees together, getting subcommittees together and working through the myriad of problems that exist.

Of course it has been three or four years now since I have been associated with this at all, but I understand that there are still a few places in the province where there is still some work to be done, although there are many, I understand, where this has been successful, where the process has been successful and things are working well and young people are served well in both school boards and real progress has been made.

I think I do have some firsthand knowledge, and yet I have some distance from it which I think is essential too at this point, that I do not have any emotional involvement with this now. I can assure you of that. I was rather glad not to have that in the last few years, but I have been watching it, of course, from afar.

I think the role the commission should play is one of being very objective, of understanding the situation. I think the commission has to have a complete understanding of education in the province and has to stand back and be ready to receive reports from boards, receive requests for assistance, not always to go in and make decisions but to find people who can help when there are difficult problems.

I think the commission would work in a number of ways and I do not think there is any one way in which you would approach a problem, because each local situation is quite different and you would have to bring different skills and different personnel to each of those areas.

Mr McGuinty: Do you think the commission has any role in compelling a resolution of a problem if the parties involved seem unable, after protracted discussions and negotiations, to resolve it themselves?

Dr Hardy: I think that would depend on how the government views that, whether the government wishes to play that role. I think if it does and if it asks the commission to do that, then that could be done, but I do not think the commission would take the initiative in that without knowing how the government wishes to play that.

Mr McGuinty: You are familiar with the concept of province-wide pooling?

Dr Hardy: Yes.

Mr McGuinty: What are your feelings on that?

Dr Hardy: I do not think I am close enough to that now to comment on that. Province-wide pooling of taxation: Is that what you were referring to?

Mr McGuinty: Yes.

Dr Hardy: I am not sure that I know at the moment how far we are along with that.

Mr McGuinty: Okay, thank you.

Mr McClelland: Doctor, thank you for being here today. I just want to briefly solicit a response from you, if I could, with respect to comments that I have heard from trustees and indeed professional educators in the area I represent, which happens to be one of the biggest boards, the Peel Board of Education. There has been a concern that the move towards full funding of separate schools has been at the cost of funding for the public system. Inherent in that, of course, is a sense of, I will not say antipathy but certainly some tensions. I am just wondering how you would see your role, with your broad base in education, the international scope that you have had, in beginning to resolve those feelings of, I will not say lack of co-operation but certainly the tension that may prevent full co-operation.

How would you see the role of the commission in facilitating the collective creative solution──to use a trite but I do not mean flippant phrase──to getting the most bang for our buck out of the education dollars that are available? I know it is a very open-ended question, but I would just be interested in your reflections on that apparent difficulty and that undercurrent that exists from place to place and from time to time, depending on the people involved.

1410

Dr Hardy: I am sure it does. Shortly after 1984 I felt that the best solution would be a sharing of resources, not only of buildings but generally of resources and of personnel. But I understand that in many locations that has not been acceptable. I think that is too bad. I think that still has merit. I think the whole idea of sharing may still have merit and I think that vision or that concept is something I might be able to be of assistance with.

I think also that there may be a place for the commission to be more proactive in being out in the province in certain locations, providing leadership and providing a presence. I think a lot of it is providing a vision for people of what can happen and providing a philosophy or a rationale for what kind of education we want for our young people in two publicly funded education systems now, and what this can evolve to in the future. I think it is certainly something that is evolving and I do not think we have reached it yet.

Mr McClelland: One other question if I might: Dr Hardy, you served as a director of a large school board. Mr McGuinty asked a question with respect to your views on province-wide pooling. If that were to become a reality and the government were to move towards a policy of province-wide pooling, the offset of that is the sense of local autonomy. We have historically built in Ontario an education system that, I will not say gives primacy but certainly tremendous emphasis on local decision-making and autonomy and accountability at the local level.

Do you see a downside in terms of the political process in the sense of empowerment of the local taxpayer, mothers and fathers and people in and of a community who would feel that they were being distanced, who may on the one hand appreciate perhaps the more equitable distribution of tax dollars, but on the other hand feel they had lost their voice and/or influence and efficacy in terms of the local trustees? Also there is the sense of loss of accountability of local trustees in as much as they would be dealing with people's money from across the province as opposed to the local focus? Any reflections on that?

Dr Hardy: If indeed people would feel that way, I do not think that need be the case. In fact I think that local trustees in that scenario could have even more intimate involvement with the real things of education, which sometimes have been sidetracked in favour of the financial matters. So I see that as in some ways, after the initial shock, again, is over, as being a positive thing.

Mr Grandmaître: Because of the fact the loyal opposition insisted on seeing Dr Hardy, I feel compelled to ask her a few questions. Are you still operating your educational consulting firm?

Dr Hardy: Yes, I am, but I have not been as active in that in the last couple of years because I have been very active in London as the chairman of the Victoria Hospital Corp board of directors. That takes a lot of time. It is a large hospital, about 900 beds, so I have not been doing much consulting. The last major consulting that I did was in New Brunswick last summer.

Mr Grandmaître: Have you ever done any consulting for the present government? I should not say the present government, but the former government.

Dr Hardy: Yes, I did. In fact I think one of the most useful contributions I made provincially was chairing a committee in 1985-86 in which I met with 100 families of children who were appealing a decision by the government at that time to take their children who had learning disabilities out of the private schools they were attending, which was financed by the province, and to put them back in the regular school boards. I met with 100 of those families and children and made decisions about their future. That was a real privilege to do that, to meet with those people from all over the province and to help them plan children's education.

Mr Grandmaître: I wish you well.

Dr Hardy: I really enjoyed that.

Mr Grandmaître: Good.

Mrs Marland: I could not imagine reading a résumé of anyone for this particular commission that would be more powerful than your résumé. It is very impressive. Earlier this week we had another appointee-elect as a member of the commission, as you probably know, before this committee, Mr Eckert.

I come from a background of four years as a school board trustee on the largest public board in Canada as well.

Dr Hardy: I remember you.

Mr Grandmaître: Who would not?

Interjection: I would take that as a compliment, Mrs Marland.

Mrs Marland: Mr Grandmaître was not on Hansard, was he?

One of the questions I asked this gentleman earlier this week was about the redundancy now of the commission itself, quite frankly, since it was established almost six years ago with a very specific responsibility. I do not know the answer to that question myself, but I have been asked it so I am asking you about how you see the life of the commission in the years ahead. At what point would an implementation commission be redundant?

Dr Hardy: I think that is fair enough. I thought of that myself when I was asked to come to this interview. I feel that one of the things I would need to do along with the commission is an assessment of the past, what has been accomplished, what remains to be accomplished and whether indeed there is a need for some other kind of body, if at all. But I feel that the commission must have by this time reached a point where there is a new generation of problems coming up which may be quite different from the kinds that were in evidence in the first six years. I see moving on to a new phase of work, which might be looking at problems that perhaps wards are not even aware of at the moment.

Mrs Marland: That is a good answer, I think. Could I ask you what the SEECC report was in 1971?

Dr Hardy: That was Standards for Educators of Exceptional Children in Canada, and I chaired a cross-Canada committee of five people. We developed a set of standards for the education and training of teachers for special education. In fact, if I may say so, the book is still ahead of practice. Although it was published in 1971, it has never been implemented. It still could be a guide book to teacher education. I implemented it at York University when I went there to start the special education department in 1973. I implemented that model, and as you probably know, Mrs Marland, the York special education program is the largest in the university, with about 10,000 students taking special education, mostly in summer and night schools.

Mrs Marland: It must be rather disappointing to know that 20 years later a very worthwhile reference text, as this report would be, has not been fully implemented. Do you think that is related to funding?

Dr Hardy: No, I do not think so. I think it is related to a lot of kinds of inertia that are in teacher education. I think that is a field that needs a tremendous amount of work. I was in Newfoundland and did a study for the president of the university there from 1987 to 1989. I looked at their faculty of education and wrote a report which they are now implementing, which should make some major changes in teacher education in that province. But it takes will. That is what it takes to do these things. It does not take money; it takes will and vision and desire and wanting to change things.

1420

Mrs Marland: Why do you think in education in Ontario in the last 20 years that there has not been enough in the needs of exceptional children?

Dr Hardy: I do not think it is particularly exceptional children. I think teacher education generally has lagged.

Mrs Marland: But this report is exceptional children.

Dr Hardy: That was exceptional children, that is right. It is the methods of teaching that have not been implemented. I am not saying that there have not been tremendous strides made in working with exceptional children. Oh, my goodness--Bill 85, was it, or Bill 82?

Mrs Marland: No, Bill 82.

Dr Hardy: That was a long time ago. Bill 82 made a tremendous change.

Mrs Marland: Bill 82 made a lot of steps forward, but it has not fully been implemented either, to my observation.

Dr Hardy: No, not in the way it was envisioned, but I think that is the way with most things, and I think, coming back to the commission, that is exactly the stage that extension is at. If we were stalled now, there would be a lot of things left undone.

Mrs Marland: You have come from the public board system.

Dr Hardy: That is right.

Mrs Marland: You have been gone from the board──

Dr Hardy: This is my fifth year.

Mrs Marland: That you have been away from the board.

Dr Hardy: That is right.

Mrs Marland: So you were not involved with John Fraser and the group that headed the Ontario Public Education Network.

Dr Hardy: That was just starting as I was retiring, yes.

Mrs Marland: OPEN is what I am referring to.

Dr Hardy: Yes, but I never belonged to that. That was just beginning.

Mrs Marland: That was interesting, because John Fraser was on the commission. He was a charter appointee to the commission, and obviously saw some needs and some concerns from that public board perspective. I think the great thing about having you here today for this appointment is that you are from the public board perspective originally, and now I can see, because your experience in education has become even more diverse than it was, and the other appointee earlier this week was from the separate board perspective, that with yourself as chair and one new member──I am not sure; how many members are on the commission at the moment?

Dr Hardy: I really have no idea.

Mrs Marland: Do you know, David?

Mr Pond: Six, I believe.

Mrs Marland: Six? I just feel it is very important on all of these boards and commissions to have a balance of experience and in the historical perspective sense.

Ms Haslam: The criteria, if I may, are three public, three Roman Catholic, three male, three female, two French, one public. It is in our background information.

Mrs Marland: Is it? Thank you. Well, I wish you luck, Dr Hardy, in that challenge. It would be very exciting if the commission could fulfil its mandate and recognize other areas that it could make suggestions to the government where there may be very apparent voids that you will discover during your work. I am very grateful that we have people of your calibre who are interested and willing to take on a position like this. Thank you.

Mr Silipo: As I understand it, there will be five of the six commissioners who will be new in the commission. I think there is one member who is continuing. Does that pose any particular problems that you see in terms of the work of the commission?

Dr Hardy: No. In fact, I see it as an advantage because, as I said in answer to a previous question, I see this as a new generation of this commission and I do not think it wants to have too much baggage from the past. I think it needs some historical perspective, though, and I understand that will be provided through Mr McCordic staying on the commission, who was the chair. So that will be a nice carry-through there. Other than that, I see us with a broad new mandate.

Mr Silipo: What do you see are some of the major challenges that the commission is going to have to deal with over the next three years?

Dr Hardy: I think there is some unfinished business of the extension. There are certain areas that still are deadlocked and so I see that as a major one. Then I see the commission needing to take a fresh look at what are some of the other problems surrounding extension. Some of them I think have not been even uncovered and I would not like to say what they are even until I could get around the country or province and see.

Mr Silipo: This may be a bit of an unfair question, but what do you think will be the reaction out in the education communities to your appointment as chair of the commission?

Dr Hardy: I would hope that it would be positive. I think I am known as a fair person, an objective person. Of course, as the director of a public school board, I played a role. You all know that. So there is that, but that was quite a while ago. I think that it will be acceptable. I hope so.

Mr Hayes: Dr Hardy, there are some areas across this province right now, some problems with some schools with a low number of students and others that are overcrowded. Some of them are in the process of trying to work agreements between the public board and the separate board for accommodation purposes. Do you see a role of the Planning and Implementation Commission in any of these decisions?

Dr Hardy: Yes, I think so. I think we could assist with some of those. I hope we could. I think that is the unfinished business of the first six years.

Mr McGuinty: You spoke of a vision. With respect to the work of the commission, if the vision you have for the commission was fulfilled, what would the end result be? What could we expect?

Dr Hardy: If the vision I have were fulfilled, it would be that the first priority for education in this province would be that every young person received a thorough and well-founded publicly supported education in whatever system it were. The second would be that we would stop being a we-they kind of province and we would be working together towards that end by co-operating. I see that as really the new face that we should be aiming for. That should be objective. It will never completely happen──we all know that──not in my lifetime. I do not expect.

Mr Grandmaître: With the new government it could.

Mr Silipo: We will keep trying.

The Chair: Dr Hardy, I want to ask you a question. You may not want to respond to this in any event, but it in some ways I think ties in with your vision in respect to seeing more sharing. Certainly I think most who entered into that process a number of years ago were hoping that would indeed occur, and it has not to any significant extent, apparently, in many jurisdictions. One of the suggestions that has been made in respect to this concern is the idea of the formation of joint boards. Do you have an opinion on that? Do you think that concept could, would, should work?

Dr Hardy: I think that we are a long way away from that at the moment, but I think that eventually we will have that. I would see that in the long term.

Mr Silipo: I just cannot resist. I meant to say this earlier. I was actually quite interested and pleased to hear your comments on the question of sharing, having represented for 12 years prior to coming here a part of the west end of Toronto on the Toronto Board of Education which has three elementary schools which have been shared sites between the public and the separate school for almost 15 years now and have worked relatively well beyond the initial problems. I sort of have looked at the question, the strong objections that we see in the various parts to the concept of sharing with some element of surprise and disappointment. So I was interested to hear your comments about that. I do not know if your vision can ever come about across the province. I hope at least to a larger extent than presently is the case now that it can.

1430

Dr Hardy: Visions never do unless we have them and work at them. I am pleased to hear about the sharing, where it works, because I think that is the kind of information we need to demonstrate where it has worked.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr Hardy, for very concise, direct and informative responses. It is most appreciated by all members of the committee, and we wish you well.

Dr Hardy: Thank you. It was very interesting.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

The Chair: The next order of business is the report of the subcommittee which met this morning at 11:15. I will read it into the record.

"Your subcommittee on committee business met on Thursday 31 January 1991 to consider the selection of intended appointees for committee review and other matters.

"Your subcommittee advises that, notwithstanding paragraphs 3 and 5 of standing order 104(g), it has selected the following for review:

"Selection of official opposition, Monday 4 February at 2:15 pm or Tuesday 5 February at 10 am:

"1. John Martin for up to one hour.

"Selection of third party, Monday 4 February at 3:15 pm or Tuesday 5 February at 11 am:

"1. Maureen Radigan for up to one hour.

"Selection of government party:

"1. Maureen Radigan (previously selected and scheduled)."

The reason we have indicated the two time allocations is simply because the clerk up to this point has not been able to contact either Mr Martin or Mrs Radigan with respect to tying up their appearance times. So we have put both in the report from the committee.

Any questions or comments on the report of the subcommittee? Okay.

CONFERENCE INFORMATION

The Chair: Someone raised the point that I think one of our candidates perhaps attended a conference of Ontario boards and agencies. There have been two conferences of Ontario boards and agencies, one in 1989 and the second in 1990. This information is available for any member of the committee who wishes to take a look at it. There is no conference set for 1991, but the people involved are hopeful that they will indeed be able to schedule one for some time in the fall. It depends essentially on the volunteer organizers. So this information is available for any member of the committee who has an interest.

DOCUMENT REVIEW

The Chair: Next, I think the statement has just been circulated or it is going to be circulated now, and I will again read it into the record. This is in response to Mr McGuinty's concerns and inquiry of yesterday:

At yesterday's committee meeting, it was requested that I review a particular document, a letter from Ron Ellis, chair of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, that was supplied apparently in compliance with paragraph 10 of standing order 104(g).

I would like to begin by reviewing general principles and the purpose of the committee.

Under the new provisional rules, this committee's primary function is to review selected intended appointees and to arrive at a determination. The relevant question, placed by the Chair at the hour of judgement, is, "Does the committee concur or not concur in the intended appointment of this person?"

In my view, any evidence that is relevant to that question, whether supplied by the minister, committee staff, members or whomever, is proper material to form the basis of committee discussion and consideration. The question is how should such evidence be presented to committee.

The standing orders, supported by the Legislative Assembly Act, give standing and select committees the "power to send for persons, papers and things...except when the House otherwise orders." Standing order 105(b).

By paragraph 12 of standing order 104(g), the House has restricted this committee's ability to send for "persons":

"In reviewing an intended appointment, the committee shall not call as a witness any person other than the intended appointee."

However, the House did not set down a parallel restriction on this committee's power to send for "papers and things." Far from being a restriction on our abilities, the provisional rules set out, in paragraphs 1 and 10, the minimum requirements for documentation to be supplied by the appropriate minister. Beyond this, the committee retains the right to send for or receive such "papers and things" as it chooses, subject only to the time limits of the review process.

In examining the particular letter from Mr Ellis, a number of questions arise:

1. Does the letter provide information meeting one or more of the five requirements of paragraph 10? Does it provide: a description of the responsibilities of the position; a description of the candidate search process, or a statement of criteria by which the intended appointee was chosen?

I find that it does.

2. Do the requirements of paragraph 10 specify the format, contents or origin of the materials to be provided? Is a letter from an intended appointee's agency chairperson specifically prohibited?

The answer to both questions I find to be no.

3. Does this committee wish itself to place specifications on the format, contents or origin of materials provided pursuant to paragraph 10? Does the committee want to consider prohibitions on relevant evidence that may arrive unsolicited? I leave those questions, among others, to be decided by committee members as they prepare the report to the House on our permanent order of reference.

This is indeed a ruling by the Chair. It is not open to debate; it is certainly subject to challenge. But what I have incorporated at the end of this, following the ruling of the Chair, is to place a number of questions before the committee which, I suggested earlier, in the time we have allocated next week to talk about process, will give you some time to reflect upon those questions and to get into an in-depth discussion of this and other matters that have concerned members of the committee. I guess we have scheduled Tuesday afternoon for that discussion. Any problems with that process?

Mrs Marland: I do not have any problems with the process. I am being very careful about what I say, because I know this is not debatable and I respect that. I simply want to say that it is really unfortunate that a number of us who have been involved this week on the committee will not be here on Tuesday afternoon.

I know both our two members and I think at least two others will not be here on Tuesday afternoon, because we are all serving on other committees and in some cases the other committees we are serving on are travelling. So it is not like we can even switch for the afternoon within this building with a colleague in order to come back and be part of this debate.

I guess it is just a frustration that I feel, because I think the work of the committee is important and I think this week has been significant for all of us, but I do not see any way that we can get around it.

The Chair: The clerk makes a worthwhile suggestion in respect to the people who are gaining experience even in and out as substitutes and have some views which they would like to be part of our deliberations. When we set aside time to deliberate on our report to the House, which we are required under the temporary standing order to table by the end of May I believe, we can notify all of those members who have substituted on this committee that those discussions are going to take place.

You certainly do not have to be a member to attend this committee or be sitting here as a member or a substitute. If you wish to make a contribution, and I will say this to all of you, certainly the Chair is obligated to recognize you and listen to what you have to offer. The only restriction on that is if there are members or substitutes here who have requested to speak, they take priority. That is really the only restriction placed upon your ability to appear.

There is a bit of a difficulty, I suppose, in administrating and recordkeeping for the clerk, but he is prepared to do that to make sure that everyone who has substituted on the committee is aware of when this discussion is going to take place. Hopefully you and others will have an opportunity to appear and have input.

Mr Grandmaître: One more question before we leave. I feel sorry for Mr Murdoch. Does that mean he will not be back?

The Chair: You feel sorry for him?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes.

The Chair: You will have to ask Mr Murdoch, but I would suggest as a result of what occurred this morning he will not be back.

Mr Grandmaître: Do we need an official letter of resignation?

The Chair: He was a substitute.

Mr Grandmaître: Oh, he was a substitute.

Ms Haslam: Gee, Mr Grandmaître, where have you been?

Mrs Marland: I would like to point out too, for the benefit of the committee, that I spoke to Mr Murdoch at lunchtime and he is not accepting his per diem for today.

Mr Grandmaître: Does that mean we can have a party with that $78?

The Chair: Everyone have a good weekend and we will see you next Monday.

The committee adjourned at 1440.