CONTENTS
Thursday 20 August 1992
Appointments review
Howard Morton
William Waite
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC) for Mr Stockwell
*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND) for Mr Marchese
*Mancini, Remo (Essex South/-Sud L) for Mr Bradley
*Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND) for Mr Ferguson
*Sterling, Norman W. (Carleton PC) for Mr Runciman
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffier: Arnott, Douglas
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1002 in committee room 1.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Consideration of intended appointments.
HOWARD MORTON
The Vice-Chair (Mr Allan K. McLean): We're dealing this morning with the intended appointment of Mr Howard Morton to the special investigations unit. Mr Morton, would you come forward and take your place at one of the microphones. You've been asked to appear by the official opposition, so I will ask Mr Grandmaître to proceed.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Mr Morton, the SIU has come under a lot of criticism in the last 12 months. What makes you the ideal candidate to become the director of this agency?
Mr Howard Morton: I come from a ministry, the criminal law division, which has a long tradition of being both objective and fair, albeit in the area of prosecutions as opposed to investigations. However, many of the cases I have dealt with, particularly those involving organized crime, corruption and white collar crime, involved working very closely with the police from the outset of an investigation, more akin to the model in the United States under the district attorney system.
Point number one, I would say that I'm qualified, should I be approved for this position, because I come from a tradition which values objectivity in terms of determining prosecutions -- if you're a prosecutor, the laying of charges -- and fairness, fairness to the accused and to the community in terms of prosecution; similarly, fairness to the potential accused and to the community in terms of the laying of charges.
The second tradition that I've benefited from as a member of the criminal law division is a tradition of aggressive public prosecutions. I've always believed that although a crown prosecutor must be fair and objective, the public is entitled to aggressive prosecutions just as an accused is entitled to an aggressive defence.
Perhaps "aggressive" is not the most appropriate term. I was trying to think of one that is perhaps more appropriate. Let's put it this way: In terms of going all out within the boundaries as a crown attorney, being fair, I always believed it was my responsibility to go all out to present the evidence on behalf of the public to obtain a conviction of an accused.
If I were approved for this position, I believe I would carry the same degree of aggressiveness, if you like, or going all out to ensure that investigations into any allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the police would be all-out, extremely thorough investigations while at the same time being objective and fair investigations.
The second point I'd like to make in terms of my suitability is that I believe I've had the benefit of long-standing experience in the area of police powers. Perhaps I could just give you one example.
Section 25 of the Criminal Code currently provides a defence for the use of deadly force on the part of police officers. It currently reads, and has read since 1955, that police officers could shoot somebody in the back if they were escaping from, say, a very minor theft offence.
I've been involved for a large number of years in the police powers project, which is a federal-provincial task force, if you like. One of our objectives was to amend section 25 so that the section would focus on public safety, the need to protect the officer or the need to protect a member of the public as opposed to focusing on the fact of arrest. In other words, some people are simply going to have to be permitted to escape rather than shoot them in the back.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Morton, can I interrupt you? We only have 10 minutes.
Mr Morton: I'm sorry, I didn't realize that.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Morton, a secret protocol was signed by your predecessor with the police forces giving police investigating a crime precedence over the special investigations unit. What are your comments on this secret protocol that was signed and then abandoned some time ago, some months ago? What are your thoughts on this secret protocol?
Mr Morton: The fact of its secrecy or the contents of the protocol or both?
Mr Grandmaître: The fact that it was signed and the fact that they had some kind of agreement.
Mr Morton: There has to be some understanding as to the role of the SIU.
Mr Grandmaître: Why was it secret, though?
Mr Morton: If you'd like me to focus on the secrecy, I don't know why it was secret. My personal preference in terms of most, if not all, government activity or government agency activity, in terms of guidelines or protocols, is that they should be made available to the public and they should in fact be public documents.
Mr Grandmaître: My next question: Stephen Lewis was very critical of the SIU. I can quote you from his report, but I'm sure that you're very familiar with Mr Lewis's report. What are your thoughts on his critical comments about the SIU?
Mr Morton: I don't have the benefit of the insight that Mr Lewis had into the workings of the SIU when he examined it, so I'm really not able to comment on his views with respect to that. I'd rather speak more in terms of what the SIU should be rather than in terms of what it has been.
1010
Mr Grandmaître: On the use of deadly force by police officers, let's talk about the Metro police force. Let's get away from all the others. How would you describe our Metro police officers?
Mr Morton: Generally as a force?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes.
Mr Morton: I think they're an excellent police force, perhaps unrivalled on this continent in terms of their accountability, their efficiency and their ability to protect the public.
Mr Grandmaître: One thing is the composition of the SIU. Is it your intention to increase the number of investigators?
Mr Morton: I guess, depending on the budget that's given to the SIU. It seems that given their current case load, there is not a sufficient number of investigators to fully investigate the allegations that are brought to their attention. It may be a little premature for me to say that it should be increased. If approved, I would like an opportunity to assess it from the inside as opposed to looking at it simply from the outside as I have been.
The Vice-Chair: One minute left.
Mr Grandmaître: Again on the use of deadly force and your investigations in the past 12 or 24 months, your predecessor was criticized, even asked to resign, because of his lackadaisical approach to his responsibilities. You were talking about your aggressiveness and how you will deal with the future investigations. You describe yourself as "that aggressive prosecutor" and that you will be more aggressive.
Mr Morton: Again, "aggressiveness" is a difficult word to use when you're talking about being crown counsel, but I guess most defence counsel describe me as being perhaps sometimes overly aggressive. But my view clearly, as a crown prosecutor, and more particularly in this role, if approved, is that the public is entitled to competent, aggressive investigators or prosecutors. In the words of Mr Justice Haines, you don't equate a fair prosecutor, or in this case a fair director, with a weak one. It is possible to be fair, objective and aggressive at the same time.
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Thank you for coming. I agree with you that we have an excellent police force. The polls are out there. From the ones I've looked at, most of the public believe we have an excellent police force in the province of Ontario in general. I'm talking about all the local forces and the provincial police.
Speaking to average citizens, they are fearful of what's happening out there. You can't turn on the TV locally, and now even in rural areas, without seeing a shooting, a murder, crimes dramatically up, where people don't feel safe. Yet we seem to be focusing a lot of attention on the police activity. Do you think we are spending too much time on monitoring what the police are doing and not enough time making sure our streets are safe?
Mr Morton: I don't feel we're spending too much time in monitoring the police. I do feel we should be spending more time on crime in general. By crime in general, I don't simply mean going out and investigating criminal offences. Sooner or later we are going to have to try to examine the causes of crime. In the United States, Ramsey Clark wrote a book in the 1960s called Crime in America where he attempted to link the causes of crime with literacy, poverty, socioeconomic causes and so on. Sooner or later we are going to have to do that in this country.
I've gone around your question in a way, but I think we have to spend a large amount of time in policing the police and ensuring that they are accountable. I think we should be spending more time, subject to resources, of course, in protecting the public, and the long-range protection of the public is to get at the causes of crime and hopefully to reduce crime.
The only point I would add is that the public perception of rising crime may not accurately reflect the reality. There is a federal-provincial study that has just started. I was working on it, and if approved I obviously won't be, but there seems to be a real discrepancy between actual crime rates -- some of which are rising, unquestionably, certain crimes of violence and so on, but the public perception which is obtained through the media may be far greater than the reality.
Mr Carr: I know in my area it has become a big focus, and of course I'm from Halton, where we've had the two murders of the two girls. We had an event called Take Back the Night, and 6,000 people came out in Oakville. I can't think of any other reason you could get that many people coming out. Historically in Oakville we always thought a lot of the rising crime was a Toronto problem that came first. Now, from the statistics I've seen, people are rating this as the number one issue, even ahead of taxes and everything else.
I see your role as very important, because, as you know, many groups have been critical of the police and their actions. If we get an investigation unit like yours, where the public has complete confidence and the police have complete confidence and all the numerous groups out there have confidence that you will do a great job, then I think we can alleviate a lot of the fears, if they know the investigation's been done properly and thoroughly and you're well respected. So you've got a very heavy responsibility.
Up to this point, do you think the investigation unit has done a good job, and where do you see the unit improving? I wonder if you could be specific. I know you don't like to criticize, but if you do have any criticisms, do you think they've done a good job, and, if not, what would you like to see done differently?
Mr Morton: I would prefer not to comment on their past performance, primarily because I viewed it from the outside. I have been involved in some policy work referable to what a future SIU should look like, but I do not have the knowledge of how good its investigations were. It's not a question of not wanting to be critical; it's simply a question of not having the knowledge to answer your question. I'd rather focus on where the SIU should go, if that would be okay, in reference to your question.
They obviously need the best investigators they can get. The act currently provides that you cannot be a member of a police force and serve on the SIU. So you've eliminated the possibility of seconding top-flight investigators having the opportunity of working for the SIU, thereby perhaps depriving the SIU of the best investigative minds available.
In allegations of criminality on the part of the police, because it is a police officer or police officers who are being investigated, you must have within the SIU the best investigative minds investigating those allegations, not only in terms of coming up with a charge but also in terms of doing the most thorough investigation possible, which will lead to a charge or will not lead to a charge. Quite frankly, those investigations cannot leave a single lead that is not followed. In my view, they would even rank ahead of organized crime investigations, in terms of the thoroughness that is required, in order to come up with a fair and objective assessment of whether there are reasonable grounds to lay a charge.
1020
Mr Carr: I agree with you on that. As I said earlier, I think we can alleviate a lot of the fears if you're able to establish the confidence which I don't think is there now. Like you, I don't know what's happened in the investigations, whether that's legitimate or not. The tough part -- you're almost like a politician -- is that you're going to have to overcome perceptions. You might develop the best unit but the public perception won't be there, and that's the difficult part.
On the issue of deadly force, as you know, there's much controversy. Some of the police chiefs right now have been critical of some of the changes and some have been for; the Halton regional chief is supporting some of the changes. So the members get an idea of your background, what is your feeling on the use of deadly force? Do you think it needs to be changed and, if so, if you had the decision how would you like to see it changed?
Mr Morton: As I said earlier, I've been working for a number of years on that very issue. My very strong belief is that the focus which triggers the use of deadly force should be restricted to situations where it is necessary, in the subjective belief of the officer, to protect herself or himself or another member of the public should that person escape.
If there is no danger to the public or to the police officer, then we're just going to have to let that person temporarily escape. Modern law enforcement detection techniques will catch that person sooner or later. If the person is dangerous or violent, then the officer may well have the belief that it's necessary to use deadly force to prevent the escape. But unless she or he is satisfied that there is that danger to the public, then the officer may simply have to let a few of the shoplifters or other offenders go. The current code would permit the use of deadly force for escaping for any offence.
Mr Carr: Would you see it protecting the public's or the police officer's own life, or would that also include the threat of injury? I'm thinking now of the recent case where the chap who was shot had a baseball bat; some people say they shouldn't have shot and should have attempted to deal with it in another manner. With the use of deadly force, would that mean any time there's a threat of any injury to the public and to the police they could use deadly force, or only if it's a life-threatening situation, if you follow the difference?
Mr Morton: It certainly has to be more than just life. In the homicide report, which I wrote, we recommended that police officers be allowed to use deadly force if they have a belief, based on reasonable grounds, that either their life or a member of the public's life is endangered or is in danger of serious harm. We avoided the archaic word "grievous" bodily harm and used "serious" bodily harm. I would include serious bodily harm as being a criterion which would permit an officer to use deadly force, unless there was a less intrusive means of preventing the person from escaping, of course.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Carr, your last question.
Mr Carr: A quick question regarding the special investigations unit: Again, the perception is most important. You can do the greatest job, but if the public doesn't have confidence in you, I'm afraid we're still going to be facing some difficult situations. Do you have any thoughts on what you can do? Should the special investigations unit be doing some of the outreach to different communities, or do you think it should step back and just let its own particular efforts be judged? How do you see us improving that perception out there?
Mr Morton: If you view the SIU as a mini-police force with special responsibilities, my view is that any police force, any government organization has to involve itself with the community, has to receive advice, has to receive input and has to be in touch on a continual basis with the community it's serving. I don't know how any organization within the public service can operate without being in touch with the community. I would see an outreach type of program. I haven't thought it through, how it could best be done, but I think that's very important.
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I'd like to make some comments on your statements as you went through your presentation. I certainly agree with you that the police force in Metro -- the area I represent -- is clearly second to none on this continent.
I also understood you to say, in terms of your aggressiveness, that you were aggressively fair and that in this particular position you would pursue the issues faced by the SIU with this level of aggressive fairness so that all facts and issues are considered before judgements or decisions to lay charges are made.
In terms of your comments with respect to the public's absolute right to monitor the police force, I can't agree with you more. I think we've seen the results of how some societies, some countries, have simply allowed their police forces to do what they feel is right and have abdicated their right to monitor the police forces. When I go home at night, take off my tie and become Steve Owens, private citizen, I still feel I have a right to question the activities of the police force. As a taxpayer, I believe it's my right to ensure we are getting the highest level of efficacy possible.
My last comment before my question is that you're absolutely right once again in terms of your view that we have to start probing the aetiology of crime, that it's simply not enough to pour more and more money into police resources without actually taking a look at the recent crime increase. I represent a riding in Scarborough, and to those of us who read the newspapers, almost on a daily basis there's a report of another violent crime in Scarborough. My constituents are concerned about that. It's my view that we need to start taking a look at the root causes rather than the symptoms of the problem.
Finally, my question: Mr Carr raised an excellent point in terms of your visibility to the public and trying to engender the trust that is so needed so you can pursue any investigations you undertake with that aggressive fairness you stated in your answer to Mr Grandmaître's question. How would you go about bringing the SIU more into the public light? How would you encourage public involvement in decision-making around policies and processes that so directly affect us as private citizens, as well as officers on our police forces?
Mr Morton: I guess I'll fall back on the term that seems to be currently in use in terms of an outreach to the various community groups. For example, Clare Lewis of the Police Complaints Board I think has been very successful in involving the community in terms of advice, feedback and an understanding of the community needs in terms of policing.
I can't be much more specific than that. I'd like to be more specific but I would rather have an opportunity, should I be approved, to be in the position for a very short period of time in order to determine what would be the best mechanism to use to involve the community. But I certainly agree with you that I, too, when I go home at night and take off my tie -- if I wore one that day -- like to think that as a citizen I have a say in the body that we've created through our Legislature to enforce the laws that our Legislature has passed and are there to protect us. I feel as strongly as you do about that.
1030
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Several of the members have talked about deadly force and the changes and the concerns over it. I think if we go to change it, something has to be done about the training of our officers. I would like to have some of your feelings on what type of training, how often and I guess various aspects of what you feel the training should change, how it should change for police officers, if indeed we are going to restrict or change the way in which they deal with a fleeing person at this point in time.
Mr Morton: In terms of training, I've been involved at the Ontario Police College in a couple of its courses. My quick answer is that you should insist on the most intensive, best training that you can afford. There's simply no limit to the amount of training that police officers require in order to perform their jobs satisfactorily to the public and in a way that they find satisfying in the public service as public servants.
In terms of specific types of training, we have a police college and officers are required to go back every once in a while. As I say, I've been involved in a bit of that. But I think there's too much of a gap. There's a lot of training at the beginning, when an officer is a cadet, then there is a lot of training as an officer is being considered or would like to apply for promotion to become a sergeant or a corporal. My view is, you shouldn't gear training around promotions but rather have a scheduled, ongoing, consistent, thorough training and that it should not be totally given by police officers.
That's the case now. For example, as a crown counsel I designed one of the courses on informants there, but I think the more you can expose the police in their training, general training for the moment, to other disciplines, to sociological phenomena, the better your police force is going to be.
In terms of technical training, the use of deadly force and various holds, that training is improving and has been improving over the years. In Europe they're considering the use of things like capsicum -- Cajun pepper, as it's called. There has to be a close look at that, because there's now some recent information that for people with certain allergies or for asthmatics it can be almost deadly.
But we have to continue to explore new ways, through training, of having police officers do their job effectively. We can't compromise protection of the public, but that is not to say that we have to continue to rely on traditional ways of policing. I think that sort of training must be upped, and as I say, the more money you can put into that, the better it would be.
Mr Waters: You actually led into what I wanted. My second question was, do you think we have been supplying our police forces and, indeed, officers with modern technology at a rapid enough pace that takes away from using the firearm, the old way of dealing with it? In other words, we as a society are saying, "We don't want you to use your firearm as often." Basically I guess we're asking them to almost do away with it, except in the extreme case. Are we supplying them with the modern technology at a rate which would allow for that or assist them to do their job?
Mr Morton: From an outsider's point of view, as I've been, I think in the last two or three years we have been. The courses at the police colleges and what used to be called firearms training, they had to go every second year and pass a test with firearms. That's slowly being supplemented with other sorts of training.
Again, I'm not a police officer, but from the crown's perspective, one of the areas that should be explored, in my view, is the area of persuasion, the area of dealing with an altercation, whether it be a domestic dispute or a Saturday night do on Yonge Street or any other sort of situation that might be resolved. It's sometimes referred to as psychological abatement of situations, but I don't want to use the term; I prefer to call it more persuasive. I think there's a lot of development being done in other countries that we could look at in terms of training our police officers to resolve situations, take the steam out of them, without ever using any kind of force whatsoever.
The Vice-Chair: You've exhausted your time, but Mrs Jenny Carter had a question. I will allow that, if she'd like to ask it.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Thank you. Mr Morton, it seems to me we've given you the compliment of asking your opinions rather than focusing on your qualifications, but you do have unique qualifications for this position, both knowledge of the kind of issues that might arise and of the institution itself. Would you like to tell us something about that?
Mr Morton: As I said earlier, I've had the benefit of being a crown attorney, a special prosecutor, if you like, in terms of organized crime and white-collar crime. Criminal law is a very narrow field, and I've been very fortunate in being able to move within that narrow field. I spent the last six years in the area of criminal law policy trying to reform criminal law. Lawyers are very hesitant. It's often said that the law is far too important to leave to lawyers, and to a certain extent that may be true, but I've had the benefit of being in the policy area, which is trying to drag our criminal law into the 20th century.
From the outset I've had a special interest in police powers because I see the investigation as being the key to any successful prosecution. If you don't have a good investigation, with advice from the crown, with the crown and the police working together -- they may not always agree, and in the end it's the police officer's decision as to whether or not to lay a charge, but I've had the benefit of working very closely with police officers on several major and lengthy cases. I feel that this has given me an insight into the world of policing and investigation that's been very lucky in that way.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Morton, for appearing before the committee this morning.
Mr Morton: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: We've exhausted the time that's allowed for this interview. We wish you all the best.
Committee, William Waite is this afternoon. We tried to get him to come this morning but it's impossible, so the committee will adjourn until 2 o'clock this afternoon.
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I have not sat on this committee before, and I'd like a point of clarification. We vote on the confirmation or rejection of the person this afternoon, is that correct?
The Vice-Chair: That's what our agenda reads.
Mr Sterling: In the history of the committee, approximately how many confirmations have we dealt with?
The Vice-Chair: I don't know. Our researcher should --
Mr David Pond: About 150 as of today, roughly speaking.
Mr Sterling: How many rejections have there been, of the 150, Mr Chairman?
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Douglas Arnott): The committee has never not concurred in an intended appointment.
Mr Sterling: They must be extremely good appointees.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Oh, they are. They are excellent.
Mr Sterling: Is there any sense in having the vote this afternoon, Mr Chairman?
The Vice-Chair: That's the agenda for the committee.
Mr Sterling: Okay. I just wanted to get a feeling for what's happening here.
Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): I have a separate point of order. I noted today that we had a photographer roaming the chamber. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but when we have an outside person standing over the shoulders of a couple of members for the entire duration of a witness's appearance before the committee, it makes it absolutely impossible for members to pass private information to each other. I don't think it's appropriate. On a couple of occasions I wanted to ask questions and pass information to my colleagues. I felt I was unable to do so, and that hindered my participation with the witness that we had here this morning. I don't think that should be acceptable. It's fine if the gentleman or lady wants to come and take a few photographs and move around the room, but I think there should be a limit to that, Mr Chairman.
The Vice-Chair: You raise an excellent point, and perhaps it was my oversight. I should maybe have asked him to do his pictures and move to the back.
Mr Waters: What I'd like to say on that is I know that we've suffered through this -- yourself, Mr Chair, and pretty well everyone who has been a permanent fixture on this committee. Maybe it is something that we should look at: just come in and take your occasional picture. But I agree that it does become somewhat difficult at times to talk or to pass notes back and forth with them, especially when they seem to lodge themselves in one spot.
The Vice-Chair: I will pass that on to the Chair and advise him of your concern.
Mr Wiseman: On the same point of order, the use of the flash is not necessary in this room. There is plenty of light with a high-speed film, and the flash can be both distracting to the committee member and to the person answering the question. So perhaps we could investigate that. I know with 400-speed film you could shoot -- push it to 800. You don't need to have a flash any more.
The Vice-Chair: Well advised. The committee is adjourned until 2:00.
The committee recessed at 1042.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1402.
WILLIAM WAITE
The Vice-Chair: This afternoon's business is Mr William Waite, who is the intended appointee to the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute board of governors. Welcome to the committee. It's a half-hour review. Each party has 10 minutes to ask you questions. Short questions and short responses are the order of the day. Mr Carr.
Mr Carr: Welcome. I am interested in your background and your reasons for wanting to get involved in something along these lines. What spurred you to become involved?
Mr William Waite: I am concerned with the skills ability of our industry. I have been speaking out on apprenticeship training -- you may have seen that on TV or in the newspapers -- but I find I am not accessing enough change, let's say. This attracted the attention of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute. They have invited me, from industry, to come on the board with respect to my concern about skills in industry.
Mr Carr: Along those same lines, as you may be aware, there is some concern out there with the government's Ontario Training and Adjustment Board situation. Some colleges and universities are concerned, particularly some colleges, about what will be happening. Essentially what OTAB is saying is that the colleges won't be as involved as they are now. Do you agree with that? Maybe you could give us some idea of how you see the discussion paper on OTAB and what your feelings are on what the government's doing in that area.
Mr Waite: I'm very concerned with the environment surrounding OTAB right now. I believe we need this focus and I believe the colleges will be more involved than they have been up to now. It's a matter of focusing on the sharing of training between industry and the colleges. I do not see, let's say, a receding role of the colleges here but an expanded role. This is being reviewed in industry right now. In fact, I just came right now from a task force in this respect. I believe fully the colleges have to take more of a role. They need better communication with industry, though, to do this. This is part of what's driving me to examine this opportunity.
Mr Carr: I agree. I think we need more participation like that. We're facing some major challenges. I honestly believe that the standard of living of the next generation will be in direct proportion to the skills and training we give them through our colleges and universities. It's a big question and we're all debating right now what to do.
Maybe you could just give us some idea of what you would like to see happen as it relates to our colleges and universities in order that we are able to move ahead. Where would you like to see it go?
Mr Waite: My concern, basically where I'm coming from, is the role of Canada in free trade. As the head of a company, I have been trying to offset the recession here with our operations in Canada with an expanded role on a free trade basis. We have taken on seven mandates already inside North America that have led, through excellence developed in our staff, to three world mandates. We have moved our blue-collar workers from 800 to 3,000.
If I project this kind of growth -- and I just came back from Mexico yesterday on the free trade discussion down there with our staff -- we have to attract more young people to skills training, and this is going to demand some changes.
One of them is recognition by universities and colleges of apprenticeship training so that apprenticeship training is not a dead end, as it is right now. It attracts dropouts. It attracts everything but motivated young people, and this is an issue I would want to try to influence, if I were on the board of governors speaking out about recognition of a revised apprenticeship training system here so that young people can make a decision to go into apprenticeship training and go on to university receiving accreditation.
Certainly in my role as head of a multinational operation in Canada, I have access to insight in Europe. For example, 65% of the engineers graduated in Germany have gone through apprenticeship training, hands-on training, which I would say gives them an altogether different approach in the decision-making in industry. They've done this because they receive credits for their apprenticeship training going on to university. That's what I feel has to happen, among other things, at the college and university level.
Mr Carr: I believe Norm has a question as well.
Mr Sterling: I'm glad to see you here and I'm glad to see that in spite of your numerous directorships and your very busy life, you're willing to give up some of your time to Ryerson. I want to tell you that as a member of this committee, I appreciate it. I guess as the only engineer in this Legislature myself --
Mr Carr: He always reminds us of that.
Mr Sterling: -- I am very glad to see an engineer like yourself take a quasi-political role in terms of your involvement with the board.
My question to you is this: I think Ontarians and Canadians in general feel that they're not getting good value for their dollar in the education system. That's what I read in my constituency. I am concerned about the OTAB, as Mr Carr said as well. I don't think it's going to help get any better bang for the buck than we are with regard to our education system.
Would it not be better for us to give that money to the employers and say, "Look, you train the people. You know what jobs are there. You train the people for what they should know in order to compete in the next economy that's going to take place," and we would allow private industry to give proper accreditation to people who had passed various levels of education within systems which would spring out of that kind of funding. Do you not think we would get better value for our money, rather than setting up a large bureaucracy to try to divide money among varying institutions and, in my view, waste a lot of the money in making that decision?
1410
Mr Waite: I feel like I'm walking into a wasps' nest, but anyway, I believe industry knows what qualities, education and experience we need with our employees. But if an employee comes into a system of training that's, let's say, just set up by our company, or Northern Telecom or IBM, he will feel that he is confined and will feel captive of that particular company. They need to have the mobility and recognition on a broad level, not only across the Ontario industry but across the Canadian industry.
Industry alone cannot do that, I'm sorry to say. OTAB might bring some focus. I'm not so sure what OTAB's going to look like when it's finished, but we're searching desperately for somebody who's going to bring this focus across Canada. We cannot do it by industry alone. I just came from a group of industrialists and unions. "No, we need the government and we need education."
The Vice-Chair: You have 30 seconds left.
Mr Sterling: I don't have any further questions.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Do you have strong connections with Germany?
Mr Waite: No.
Mr Frankford: Ryerson is a very distinctive institution of a technical nature, and I believe there are many more institutions of that nature in Europe and in Germany. I wonder if you'd like to comment on what direction you would like to see Ryerson going in and if there are European models you would like to follow.
Mr Waite: No, I'm not looking at this opportunity to change the program at Ryerson. I feel Ryerson has been underestimated in the quality of its graduates and I'm very pleased with some of the issues that are being decided right now with recognition of its degrees. I believe they're on the right track and I believe that as an industrialist in the public arena I can bring more accreditation to the quality of their graduates. I don't think their courses need changing, no.
Mr Frankford: Do you think the nature of the status needs to change? I guess it is changing.
Mr Waite: I believe that Ryerson offers a very practical insight into the technologies in its faculties. I believe they have a definite role, and this has to be recognized more. I like them as a polytechnical institute. It's something different and they're just not receiving the proper recognition out there for the practical training they're offering their graduates. It's interesting to industry to have access to this and not just to an engineer -- they have other faculties than engineering -- who has been theoretically trained. I feel they're offering a very good compromise that fits into the Canadian scene.
Mr Owens: Just in terms of your comments with respect to its proper recognition, Terry Grier from Ryerson has written to Nancy Pearson from the appointments office and has indicated that in fact the engineering courses have been now accredited by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board and that is the first time that's happened. I'm wondering if you can explain to myself and the committee the significance of that accreditation, and also the importance of having a person with your background on the board.
Mr Waite: The importance of accreditation it that it will elevate the respect for a Ryerson graduate. It's bringing him into being a recognized engineer. That's very important. In my role, if I go on this board -- that's already been done. I can't assist that any further. I can only speak out about how I feel about the quality of Ryerson and upgrade it from personal experience.
Mr Owens: Sure. I felt it was important for the committee members to know that this has in fact happened.
My second question is a macroquestion. Some of the criticism that has been levelled at the college system is that we train a bunch of people for jobs, but by the time the training is completed, the jobs are no longer there. My question is, how is it going to fit within your mandate to track the kinds of training and education that we need, both from your industrial perspective and with your Ryerson hat?
Mr Waite: On the board of governors I intend to stress the aspects of education that industry needs. That's all I can do. It's a simple answer to a very complicated question. I believe business or industry needs to be on boards in the educational field.
Mr Owens: Great.
Mr Wiseman: I'm going to preface this by saying that I spent 15 years teaching in high school, economics history, and one of the aspects of the courses that I tried to teach was the history of technological development: who did it and what kinds of skills they brought to the development of new technologies and new ideas.
Invariably, what I found is a consistent theme throughout. The people who did these new technologies in the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries weren't institutionally educated people. They were also people who had hands-on experience on the shop floor and thought of a better way of doing something. Our society seems to be so hung up on giving a piece of paper for everything that I believe this gets in the way of some of the real innovative skills that are being developed by people who don't necessarily have that piece of paper.
How do we attract the kids away from being stockbrokers, doctors and lawyers, to attract them to doing what you and I both seem to agree has to be done? We need kids who know advanced trigonometry to operate the new CAD-CAM computers. I know this because one of my small businessmen who has a tool and die shop said, "I need somebody with advanced trig to be an apprentice." They aren't there.
Mr Waite: I would love to see a billboard that reflects what I saw when I was growing up in Brantford during the war years. I saw billboards that said: "Join the forces. Save your country." I believe this billboard today should be reading: "Become skilled. Save your country."
The parents, if you're talking to them today, want their kids to be doctors, lawyers or engineers. If you talk to the kids -- and I've spent time out in high schools and in public schools talking to kids -- they don't realize what earning power skills have today. They don't realize that we're paying a tool and die maker well above $50,000 a year today.
The teachers have missed the opportunity of realistic input into the young minds of our children. I feel that to turn this around a number of things have to happen. I addressed one, which was mobility. That means standard recognition or standard training across Canada. It has to be integrated into the educational system. That's a big job because you have skills and education at different parts of government.
1420
I believe the unions have to also give security to apprentices during their training time. I'm asking for three years past that because so many apprenticeships have been broken up in the recession or through seniority layoffs.
I believe we need to get our newspapers, the teachers, the unions and our parents talking more positively about skills and the future of Canada. We have to get these changes made to apprenticeship training, embedded in the educational system, giving the recognition there. The public has to turn around and realize that our chance with free trade -- otherwise we should never have gone into it -- is with skills.
Mr Wiseman: I agree with you. One of the things I always tried to do was to give kids an option. Not everybody is going to be a securities dealer; not everybody is going to be a lawyer; not everybody is going to be a doctor.
We've had apprenticeship people from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology go into the schools to talk to the kids about what's available. We've talked about all the money they can make and what the skills are. The bottom line is that they're so embedded with the ideas and the notions of what it is they want to do -- I was a secondary school teacher; I didn't have them any younger -- that they don't listen. I wish you luck. I don't know how you get through to them that there are a lot of good things they can do other than work in a stock exchange.
Mr Mancini: Mr Waite, welcome to the committee. I've so far found your comments to be quite exciting. I think it's an achievement that we found a candidate like yourself to want to serve on the board of Ryerson. I was looking over this long list of companies, institutions and associations that you're associated with. Do you have the time for this job?
Mr Waite: I believe it's so important that I have to make time.
Mr Mancini: I think you've alluded to this but you've probably been too polite to say it. What are your feelings in regard to some community colleges which want to pass themselves off as quasi-universities or want to try to become universities? I don't in any way at this point in time ask that question based on what Ryerson wishes to do but upon what I've seen a number of community colleges wishing and wanting to do, and acting in a certain manner as to almost try to pass themselves off as quasi-universities. What's your opinion on that?
Mr Waite: I believe there's a role for colleges and I think they should stick to their knitting. I'm not referring to Ryerson here either.
Mr Mancini: Neither am I.
Mr Waite: I think they're in a classification by themselves. If we talk about the colleges that are using the name "college," I believe they have a role. I believe they should stick to knitting and I believe when we get through with this task force on apprenticeship, we'll give them a higher profile and they'll appreciate their role better. They'll feel they're doing more. We don't want them as universities. We need them where they are.
Mr Mancini: Do you feel that funding assistance for students who want to attend a community college is important?
Mr Waite: That's a difficult question to answer. I went through my education earning my own money -- it can be done -- and gained a lot of practical experience doing it. On the other side, in our present economy, I believe students need help. I'm not sure what's the right solution. I believe if you give a student too much, he doesn't work hard enough.
Mr Mancini: I understand your views on the ethics of improving yourself and it's noticeable right away. I think I can agree with most of your views on that. Having said that, I wonder how you're going to achieve what you wish to achieve when the present situation is such that the Ontario student assistance program is being diminished, when you're telling us we need to encourage more people to go to the community colleges to be trained so that we can compete in the next millennium. I think that's a point you may want to give some further thought to.
Mr Waite: Apprenticeship training has to be a combined role of industry and education. I believe industry will carry more load if we can somehow get better applicants and students coming into apprenticeship training. I've been quoted as saying, "Garbage in, garbage out." If we only get dropouts coming into training, industry will not support it. There is funding in industry to do more, but we're somehow not able to get motivated applicants. They're only dropouts who come to us as a last resort.
Mr Mancini: I understand that point and you've made it before, but I'm very concerned to put in place the system that you say is necessary. I have no reason to in any way disbelieve you. I believe you're absolutely right on. The truth of the matter is we're losing jobs here in Ontario and Canada to high-paying countries. We're not only losing jobs to low-paying countries; we're losing jobs to high-paying countries. I don't think we're any better than 10th or 11th on the payroll list in the world any more, so it's a fallacy that we're only losing jobs to low-paying countries.
I'd like to know from you, why it is important for Ryerson to become a university?
Mr Waite: As I said, I don't want to mix these two.
Mr Mancini: Sir, you're going to be a member of the board and I believe this committee has at least the right to be able to ask you your views because you're going to have a vote there. I want to know why you believe it's important for Ryerson to become a university.
Mr Waite: I just want to separate this from apprenticeship training. That's why I said I didn't want to mix the two. I've been addressing apprenticeship training.
Ryerson is putting out graduates with a mixture of theoretical and practical training that I believe deserves a university status and recognition as such, because you cannot become a professional engineer today unless you have accreditation.
Mr Mancini: That's the goal, it seems to me, and that's why I asked my questions earlier on. Having had some experience in government, having a community college nearby where I live and having visited a number of others in different roles and responsibilities, you scratch the surface and every community college president wants to be a Ryerson and Ryerson wants to be the University of Toronto. I kind of get this feeling and I think that goes contrary to what you want to accomplish.
1430
I wonder if you could reconcile that for me. It appears that in one way you can reconcile that and in another way you say you have no difficulty with Ryerson becoming a university or having some type of university status. That's only going to encourage the other community colleges to do the same, and it's going to have a counterweight to all of the things that I believe you wish to accomplish.
Mr Waite: On the board of governors of Ryerson, I certainly will be speaking up to recognition of apprenticeship training. That I can combine. In talking to community colleges as an industry, I do hope to give them more of a sense of responsibility in the skills training area, and that is not Ryerson.
Mr Mancini: Pardon me, but if I was associated with another community college and I was looking at a new appointee to the board of governors who was a graduate of Ryerson and who was saying in one breath, "We need our community colleges to go back to doing and being what they were initially set up to do and be," and at the same time was saying, "Oh, no, but that doesn't in any way interfere with my wish for Ryerson to have some type of university status," I'd have some difficulties with your views. In some small way that would take away from the other things that I think you're very capable of selling, the things that I believe are needed to be sold in this province and in this country.
My next question in regard to that is, do you think that the administration at Ryerson should have been more careful in overseeing the accreditation of some of their staff?
Mr Waite: Yes.
Mr Mancini: Do you think that was an embarrassment to Ryerson?
Mr Waite: If it wasn't, it should have been.
Mr Mancini: As a member of the board of governors, what would you institute in order to make sure something like that didn't happen again?
Mr Waite: I can't answer that question. I need a better feeling for the responsibility in those decisions. I haven't got a feeling whether the board of governors can really influence that. I certainly will talk up to it, because I don't think it was good for the reputation of Ryerson and our educational system. I can't tell you how the board of governors can affect that; I'm sorry. I can only talk up to it.
Mr Mancini: Mr Waite, the only thing wrong with this process is that we get good people like you to come in and we are allowed 10 minutes to ask you questions; but thank you for coming. I found your comments to be quite enlightening. Best of luck.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before us, Mr Waite. I wish you all the best. I wish the ministry's recommendation were to make you the Deputy Minister of Skills Development. I think it would be an asset. Thank you very much for coming.
Mr Owens: We'll move that right now if you wish.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, committee, we have one item of business to deal with. We'll deal with the determination of whether or not the committee concurs in the intended appointments we have reviewed today.
Mr Waters: So moved.
The Vice-Chair: Moved by Waters. All those in favour? All those opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Vice-Chair: One other item of business is that we had two people who were not able to attend today. They are Joan King, Waste Reduction Advisory Committee, and Judith McCormack, Ontario Labour Relations Board. I'll ask our clerk to bring us up to date on that procedure.
Mr Mancini: Are we at the stage where we can discuss new business?
The Vice-Chair: We can after we deal with this item.
Clerk of the Committee: The committee asked the subcommittee to review possibilities of scheduling Joan King and Judith McCormack, and the subcommittee directed me to discuss this with the public appointments secretariat, who did consult with the two ministries, found that they could exercise their discretion to see the one appointment withheld, that of Joan King, until well beyond the normal time for the committee's opportunity to review it, until the House returns. So that would be the committee's first meeting on September 30 when this appointment could be scheduled.
The other one could not be extended beyond September 11, given the need to have the new chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board in place to replace the outgoing chair.
Mr Wiseman: I move that we extend the one. I guess it has to be done on the basis of concurrence with whoever asked for it. Which party asked for it?
The Vice-Chair: The official opposition. If we could have the advice of the official opposition. Mr Grandmaître, you asked for Judith McCormack as your choice. The clerk has indicated that they have to have it by September 11 and therefore it could not be put on for longer.
Mr Wiseman: Doesn't the secretariat have the right to refuse the extension?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes.
Clerk of the Committee: Beyond the 11th, yes.
Mr Wiseman: I understand, through what they said to you, that they're in fact refusing the extension.
Clerk of the Committee: They feel they're not able --
Mr Grandmaître: Nothing unusual about that, about being turned down. So I think we should agree today that both Ms King and Ms McCormack be appointed.
Mr Wiseman: I wouldn't agree to that.
Mr Grandmaître: I don't know why we shouldn't appoint them today, because it's automatic, and I think it's a waste of time. We should approve them today.
Mr Wiseman: I disagree and I want to review Ms King.
The Vice-Chair: The third party chose Ms King, so I guess we'd like to hear from the third party if it would like to prolong it or approve it today.
Mr Grandmaître: Both mikes are on.
Mr Carr: Politicians not talking. Isn't that strange? I look to our elder statesman here, seniority here. My feeling on the two appointments is that the one in particular for the labour board is obviously very important because of the critical situation; the other one, I would have no problem if we proceeded with approval today.
Unfortunately, these things don't work out sometimes logistically to get them on, but I would have no trouble approving it. The one I would have liked to have had a chance at was the one regarding the labour board, because I think that's very important, particularly in light of what's happening, but I guess we won't get a shot at that one.
Mr Wiseman: I make the motion that Joan King be reviewed on September 30.
The Vice-Chair: We have a motion before us. All those in favour that we proceed with it on September 30? All those opposed?
Motion agreed to.
Mr Mancini: I'm abstaining.
The Vice-Chair: That's all right.
Mr Wiseman: That's usually what it means when you don't raise your hand.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. That concludes that business. Mr Mancini, do you have a point of new business?
Mr Mancini: I've heard a lot about this committee, and I've really appreciated the opportunity to have had the pleasure of substituting for one of my colleagues. I find the process --
Mr Grandmaître: Fascinating.
Mr Mancini: -- fascinating. I think we could do the Legislature a better service if and when we chose these candidates if we allotted different time periods for review based on the importance of the appointment, based on the political considerations of the day. For example, if the chair of the Art Gallery of Ontario was going to be replaced at this particular time, I think because of the political situation of the day that might merit more time for a prospective candidate than maybe under normal circumstances.
I think we've helped the government appoint a number of capable people this past week. We certainly have appointed people to some very sensitive positions. I won't at this time pick out any one particular candidate we reviewed this week, but I find in some instances and circumstances that the half-hour or 10 minutes per party doesn't do the situation any justice whatsoever. There was one in particular that I felt we could have spent all day with the person, not because of the person but because of the sensitivity of that person's appointment. I'll accept the fact and have always accepted the fact that the government of the day has the right to make appointments, and if the government of the day chooses to be generous and chooses to ask for and listen to the advice of members of the opposition, I guess that's a bonus.
Having sat in Legislatures that have been run by three different governments, I see the process being used by all three somewhat similarly. But if we're going to go through this and if we're actually going to bring people in -- I remember one individual actually thought and said out loud that he found the process somewhat -- what's the word he used?
Mr Sterling: Useless?
Mr Mancini: No, not useless; intimidating. He found the process intimidating. How interesting. But when you're only allowed 10 minutes per party and 30 minutes per group to ask questions, just how intimidating can you be? How thorough can you be?
Without elongating the discussion, I just wanted to let the committee know that it would be appropriate to possibly have different time periods for different candidates.
The Vice-Chair: I can inform you, Mr Mancini, that is in the rules. We could have had one-hour appointments today if that's what the subcommittee had selected to do. However, we selected half an hour. There are some that could be an hour, and perhaps the ones today could have been an hour.
Mr Mancini: Is an hour the maximum?
The Vice-Chair: Is an hour the maximum?
Clerk of the Committee: There's not a time limit now.
Mr Mancini: There's not a time limit.
Clerk of the Committee: No. The subcommittee has regularly been making recommendations --
Mr Mancini: Over the period of the many months this committee has sat, have you ever given anyone more than half an hour?
Clerk of the Committee: Yes; three hours, actually.
Mr Mancini: Then why would you not give the person --
Mr Sterling: We should have Marc Eliesen back and find out why he was fired.
Mr Mancini: Yes, we should.
Interjection: Which one?
Mr Mancini: The special investigations unit.
Interjections.
Mr Mancini: Well, good luck to all of you.
The Vice-Chair: If there's no other business, could we adjourn the meeting?
The committee adjourned at 1444.