INTENDED APPOINTMENTS ROBERT SARACINO
CONTENTS
Wednesday 2 November 1994
Intended appointments
Robert Saracino, Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services
Stanley Sadinsky, Ontario Racing Commission
Bruce Ryan, Ontario Graduate Scholarship Selection Board
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
*Crozier, Bruce (Essex South/-Sud L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Gigantes, Evelyn, (Ottawa Centre ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
McClelland, Carman (Brampton North)
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1034 in room 228, following a closed session.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS ROBERT SARACINO
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Robert Saracino, intended appointee as member, Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): Welcome to the committee, Mr Saracino. If you wish, you may make a brief opening comment or we can just start right into rotation of questions with the members.
Mr Robert Saracino: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members. May I first of all express to each and every one of you my prestige, honour and privilege to be here this morning as an intended appointee to the OCCPS.
I would certainly hope to believe that my knowledge and my experience will serve to work towards the betterment of all citizens in Ontario and that my expertise and my experience will be a meaningful help to work on the civilian board. If I may, I would like to give some of my background, if that's permissible.
The Chair: Actually, your background in detail has been furnished to each of the members of the committee as part of the material that they receive about all the appointees. But I'm sure that in answering questions you will be able to use and highlight some of that information as well. We will start with the Liberal Party, the official opposition party.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Welcome, Mr Saracino, to the committee. This is one of the most responsible positions that any of the people can take up these days. I'd like to ask you a question first on the matter of your status. Are you now seeking re-election to be mayor again?
Mr Saracino: No, sir, I am not seeking re-election.
Mr Curling: You're not seeking for that any more, eh? If there is anything, Mr Saracino, that the community at large is concerned about, it's an issue of safety and policing that they are looking at very closely. As a matter of fact, even news releases are showing cutbacks in money all over; I'm not talking about Ontario but about around the world. I saw something that said that police now are on bicycles because they can't find enough money to even pay their pensions or to fuel their vehicles.
But there are some other issues here that have been quite pertinent to police and also to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services. One of the issues is employment equity, and although the police themselves have their own employment equity, which is quite a forward move on their part and for the province, how familiar are you with the employment equity policy of the police services? If you are familiar with it, what grade would you give the progress at the time of the police services commission?
Mr Saracino: Thank you very much, sir, for the question. My understanding is that it eliminates the systematic barriers, which allows for the recruitment and promotion of certain members of a prescribed group. I believe that is an excellent move on the part of police services which I fully support. I believe it gives everyone in Ontario an equal opportunity, especially those of the visible minorities, to apply for these positions in the municipalities.
Mr Curling: Women also are one of the designated groups that have not been properly represented in the police force. Do you think there is sufficient progress being made at this time since that has been brought about?
Mr Saracino: Yes, I believe that the police services boards have made substantial gains in that regard. I know that there's a lot more work to be done but I certainly support the police services boards in their attempts to hire females to serve in the police departments.
Mr Curling: Government has been paying lip-service to the training of police officers, meaning that the funding for training has been completely inadequate itself. Do you feel that way too, that the funding for police training has been inadequate?
Mr Saracino: I believe the government is like every other municipality, whether it be regional or provincial. There's a time of economic restraint and certainly they must review their programs and priorities, and perhaps there are other areas that they could adjust, but I strongly support the government's position, especially in today's economic climate.
Mr Curling: But do you support the government's position that they are putting inadequate funding into police training?
Mr Saracino: I do not believe that to be true, sir. That is my humble view. I believe that they are amply supplying additional funds for police training.
Mr Curling: So you feel that sufficient funds are there with which to train police officers? Because that's a complaint we hear from the police officers, that there are not sufficient funds for training.
Mr Saracino: I believe the funds are allocated in a proper manner, sir.
Mr Curling: You're seeing that it's adequate there?
Mr Saracino: Yes, sir, I do.
1040
Mr Curling: There was a new policy on wife assault, which, if you speak to any police officer, they'll tell you that it's one of the most difficult missions to be on. There are procedures to be followed. Are you familiar with that policy?
Mr Saracino: I am not at this time very familiar with that policy, but I hope to make myself most familiar with that. It's an important issue that we must address. I'm very disturbed at the amount of wife assault and female beatings that go on in this province. I certainly will make myself very familiar with that.
Mr Curling: I thought you would have been, as a mayor, familiar with some of that policing policy on wife assault and how police officers carry out their duties. You're not familiar with the new policy at all?
Mr Saracino: I'm in contact with our local police detachment on a frequent basis, and I'm very familiar with some of the mechanics that they have in place. I'm pleased to see that my municipality is certainly well policed, and I think the issue is well in hand.
Mr Curling: The use of deadly force by police officers, there was quite a debate about two years ago or more, and there were procedures that police officers were asked to follow. As a matter of fact, if they draw their gun, they don't need to report it, but if they do fire the gun, they should report it. Are you familiar with that policy?
Mr Saracino: Not entirely, sir, I am not, but I understand the pressures that the police officer is under when he is confronted with an assailant who draws a weapon and he fires upon that person. It's instantaneous. I trust that the officer uses his or her own good judgement in the use of that firearm.
Mr Curling: Do you have any problems at all with a police officer drawing his gun and reporting it? Do you see any problem with a police officer doing that?
Mr Saracino: I personally see no problem with that.
Mr Curling: So you would support the fact that once a police officer draws his gun he should then report that, regardless if he uses it or not?
Mr Saracino: I believe that there should be some form of statistics on how many times a police officer draws his weapon, whether it be for use or what have you. Yes, I do.
Mr Curling: What changes do you see that you would advance while you sit on that board? What would be one of your priorities?
Mr Saracino: I'm personally very, very pleased to see the community-based policing program. In fact I take great pride that my municipality, the city of Port Colborne, was one of the first municipalities in the region of Niagara to implement community-based policing. It gives the opportunity to the citizen to be part of the decision-making programs with the police itself. It has worked extremely well not only in my municipality but in all municipalities that I'm aware of with community-based policing. I feel that the citizens want to take part in decision-making programs and that they want to be part of policing.
As you know, policing is a very important institution in this land, as all the citizens have the right to expect proper policing and protection of themselves, their families and their properties, to see that their neighbourhoods are free from crime.
In my own area, and I'm speaking generally for the Niagara region, community-based policing has been a major improvement and certainly a movement in the right direction. I see police services boards have done an excellent job. There's a little more work to be done, granted, yes, but I believe the police services boards are on the right track.
Mr Curling: Mr Saracino, I want to wish you well in your appointment.
Mr Saracino: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate your comments.
The Chair: There are three minutes left. Any further questions by the Liberals? The Conservatives, Mr McLean.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Welcome to the committee, Mr Saracino. The application for this position, how did you hear about it? Did you make application, or how did it come about that you applied for it?
Mr Saracino: Thank you for the question. Quite some time ago I expressed an interest to serve on a provincial board or agency, and I wrote to the provincial appointments secretary and asked if consideration could be given that I would be very honoured to serve on the board. Recently I was in touch with a representative of the provincial secretariat, who indicated at that time that there perhaps might be a vacancy on OCCPS, and I expressed a sincere desire to be considered for that should the time come into place. I'm very honoured to be before you here today, sir, and this panel for that.
Mr McLean: As mayor, you would be probably speaking the same as a lot of other mayors in this province with regard to the police services boards. As you know, the majority are appointments from the province. The budget is a very large budget in most municipalities, and most mayors who talked to me felt the majority should be from the municipality and not from the government appointments. What's your opinion on that?
Mr Saracino: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate the question. Having been involved with the police services board in my particular region as well as a member of regional council, that question used to come up very, very frequently. However, I do believe the provincial appointees are just. They are local people. They know the area and certainly want to do the best job that they can.
The matter of budgets are of all great concern. I recall back in the late 1970s, as a member of regional council, when the budget was then appealed to the former Ontario Police Commission with regard to the excessive amount of money that was budgeted for. I extremely believe, sir, that if proper and more dialogue and communication would have taken place, that appeal would not have been launched. I feel that the police services boards in all their good wisdom and their good judgement strike a budget to enhance the policing services and also to protect the citizens of their various municipalities throughout this province. So I think with more dialogue, more upfront discussions, that a lot of those appeals could be overcome.
Mr McLean: The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services: If the commission finds that a municipal police force is not providing adequate or effective police services or is not complying with the act or its regulations, it may communicate that finding to the police services board. How would they find out whether that police services is not complying with the act? Would that have to be laid by a complaint, or how would that happen?
Mr Saracino: Perhaps, sir, in most cases the citizens who feel that they were unjustly treated or unjustly done by would lodge a complaint, and there is a mechanism in place to lodge complaints against police officers as well as members of the police services board. They can do it through their local police stations or the regional detachments or through the Solicitor General's office, and I believe at that time perhaps a chief of police could address that, and if they're not satisfied they go to the services board and up through the chains of command.
Mr McLean: Are you familiar with any of the other members on the Ontario civilian commission?
Mr Saracino: No, sir, I'm not. I just had the pleasure of meeting the chair about a week ago and it was my pleasure to meet that person.
Mr McLean: Who is the chair?
Mr Saracino: Murray Chitra.
Mr McLean: I'm curious about your position with regard to the amount of female officers who are on the forces in Ontario today. To me there appears to be a need for increased numbers because of the people they're dealing with. What is your opinion on that?
Mr Saracino: Yes, sir, thank you very much. I believe the equity employment plan will address such matters as that with regard to female persons to serve on police forces. I certainly do support that and I believe the local police services boards are attempting to do just that and they've made some substantial gains. I do believe that they are on the right track and I look forward to that.
Mr McLean: I wish you well.
Mr Saracino: Thank you, sir. I appreciate your questions.
Ms Evelyn Gigantes (Ottawa Centre): Mr Saracino, welcome. I want to commend your response to Mr Curling's question on training, because in fact this government has increased the amount of training moneys provided for police officers, particularly in the area of the use of arms.
I also noted your support for community policing. I would think that some community policing, certainly in my municipality, is carried out very effectively on bicycles, which are not looked upon as second-class vehicles by the police personnel who use them, and who are in very good shape, I might say.
I'd like to ask you about your understanding of the process of accountability of police forces in Ontario, and in particular about your experience as a member of the Niagara Regional Board of Commissioners of Police during what I believe was the period 1985 to 1989?
Mr Saracino: That is correct, ma'am.
1050
Ms Gigantes: There was also a judicial review of police services of the Niagara Regional Police in and around that time, and I wonder if you could give us some description of your understanding of the reasons for that review, the recommendations, your feeling about those recommendations and your experience as an individual member of that board of commissioners -- how you felt about it.
Mr Saracino: Thank you very much, ma'am, for the question. In so far as accountability, I don't believe there could be enough accountability, especially in light of when municipal agencies are collecting taxes to provide for the services rendered by the police services board. I believe, ma'am, that you're referring to the Colter inquiry --
Ms Gigantes: Yes, indeed.
Mr Saracino: -- which was conducted into the allegations with regard to conduct of the Niagara Regional Police force, of which I happened to be a member at that particular time.
In my view, it was a very, very costly expenditure, one which the taxpayers of this province could not afford. The length of time it took was substantial and I believe the recommendations of His Honour Judge Colter were fair and reasonable. I happened to be a member of that police services board and I am proud to say that those persons conducted themselves in a very, very professional manner.
We based our decisions on the facts that were presented to us and I feel, in all good conscience, that with the information we had at our disposal the right decision was made. However, hindsight is better than foresight. After the recommendations came forth, many of those decisions were left with perhaps persons who are not alive today, and I believe it had a profound effect on their families and it had a very, very spinoff effect. However, I believe that the democratic process does work, it is working and I believe the citizens of Ontario have a right to inquire into the conduct of their police force, as well as the police services board.
So I believe, ma'am, it was done in a fair and just manner, and I believe the results -- sometimes I don't understand that some of the decisions that were made perhaps may not have been implemented today, but I think it was a lesson that all parties certainly learned from. I believe our Niagara Regional Police force is second to none and I'm very, very proud of the officers, the men and women who have conducted themselves in a very, very professional manner. I think the Colter inquiry certainly drew a lot of attention to the Niagara region as well as throughout this province of Ontario and I have the utmost regard for all men in uniform and women in uniform.
It was a very, very costly lesson to learn, but I believe that lesson will prove to be beneficial as time goes on.
Ms Gigantes: In effect, the commission you are nominated to join is a kind of alternative method of reviewing the kinds of difficulties that arose during that period. Would you agree with me on that?
Mr Saracino: Yes, ma'am, I would agree with you.
Ms Gigantes: It's certainly not unusual for judicial inquiries to be long and drawn-out, in the experience of members of this Legislature. I think we could all agree that that tends to happen with judicial inquiries.
I guess my question relates to how, as a former member of the Niagara regional board of commissioners, you would see the role of the commission for which you are now nominated and how you would see doing a similar kind of review in a different way. Could you give us some notion of that?
Mr Saracino: Yes. Thank you very much for the question. I believe one of the roles of an OCCPS member is to hear discipline disputes that arise between officers who have been disciplined as well as to settle budgetary disputes that do arise between municipal police forces and their services board as well as from municipal council, and I do believe that my experience I have had with the Niagara Regional Police Services Board will benefit not only myself but benefit the OCCPS board as well.
Ms Gigantes: Could you give us some specific example of how?
Mr Saracino: I've been involved with the Colter inquiry and certainly the knowledge and experience that I've gained from that hopefully will be a tremendous asset to this board. I know the appeal positions of the conduct of regional police forces, the discipline action that has been taken, policies -- as a member of the services board, it was one of our mandates to implement policies for the operations of a police service there and to make sure that the chief of police complies with the Police Act and that his reporting system to the police board members is fair and honest so that they can make their best recommendations on the information they have before them. I believe, with all due respect, ma'am, that the experience that I have gained certainly would, I hope, be an asset to the OCCPS board.
Ms Gigantes: Would it be your understanding that the police services board, following along recommendations of Judge Colter, should be a more active body than the former commission was in the Niagara region?
Mr Saracino: Not knowing the exact amount of work and what OCCPS actually does, I certainly believe that it would have a major impact on that. Yes, I do.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Good morning. In this committee, we've interviewed many police board appointees in the past, which gives us some idea of the needs of policing in many different areas, large and small. One of the things which is interesting is trying to compare the needs and get some fix on what's going on there. It seems to me that this ties in with the question of crime statistics, which I think also have considerable potential uses in overall planning. I wonder if you could make any comment on what happens with crime statistics right now and any thoughts that you have on what should develop in the future.
Mr Saracino: Thank you, sir, for the question. Statistics are always a very interesting subject. Hopefully they are done in a meaningful way and in a very productive manner and are used perhaps to diminish crime or to improve the quality and the level of services. However, if they're used for academic purposes or just for number crunching, they do not have a meaningful operation.
But in regard to crime statistics, I feel that stats are most, most important. It certainly gives the chief of police and his force an idea as to what types of crime are being committed in that particular municipality, whether it's wife assaults, murders, B and E or arson. Once you review those types of statistics, I believe that a police services board and the chief respond to that, to know what type of work maybe should be done: more public education such as in the line of wife assault, implementing programs that would address that, to try and curtail some of that particular type of crime.
I do believe stats are most important in administering a police force and I do believe that all the police forces do have those stats. I understand that they use them extensively. Perhaps it's a mechanism and a way to eliminate crime and to deter further types of that particular issue.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Thank you very much for coming up, Bob. I want to talk about employment equity. Obviously there is a policy and it's had varying degrees of success across the province. What would you recommend, say, for the Niagara area? What percentage should be female officers and how are we going to get to that point?
Mr Saracino: Thank you very much for the question, ma'am. I would like to see more female officers, truly, and in contact with our local police chief, certainly he feels of the same view. I do believe that employment equity should have a basic goal and should be reasonable in its manner of approach of implementation. I feel now that more public education needs to be done as to what employment equity is. I believe the message will go out into the communities and hopefully those visible minorities, as well as female-type persons, would address those and take part. I believe that would certainly go a long way towards getting many of our female persons on the police force.
The Chair: Thank you for your appearance this morning before the committee, Mr Saracino.
Mr Saracino: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
1100
STANLEY SADINSKY
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Stanley Sadinsky, intended appointee as member and chair, Ontario Racing Commission.
The Chair: Good morning, Mr Sadinsky. If you would like to have a seat, make yourself comfortable and welcome to the committee. This interview was selected by the government members, so we will start with the government members.
Mr Frankford: Good morning. I represent a suburban, largely residential riding in Scarborough, so one might say there's no direct connection with horse racing. However, the question of teletheatres interests me, and we do have one, which I understand is doing quite well.
This seems to me something which has many potentially useful benefits both for the local economy of areas like mine and for the industry and the more rural areas that that tends to support. I wonder if you'd share some thoughts about where you see that going and perhaps ways in which we could use this to, let's say, increase the market in the urban areas, presumably with benefits for the whole industry and the province.
Mr Stanley Sadinsky: Teletheatres certainly are a recent and important innovation. There's a dilemma, I think, connected with teletheatres. The more people who attend at teletheatres and bet on horse racing, presumably, or arguably, the fewer people might attend at the tracks themselves. So there's a tension between promotion of teletheatres and of course the great desire of track operators and horsemen to ensure that as many people as possible still attend the races. I frankly think this is one of the important issues and challenges that we have to deal with in the future.
Teletheatres of course arise from the technology that's become available to us. We've had experience in the past with difficulties in attracting patrons to the track, and this is a natural way of bringing the track to the patron. Obviously, the industry has embraced it and taken advantage of this opportunity. I think it has enormous potential for growth. I think this growth has to be monitored carefully, and what I'd like to see is a status that encourages teletheatres but at the same time finds ways of trying to attract people to the track itself. I think that's very possible, because the more people who become involved in the industry and in the sport and in the fun of the sport, the more likely I think they are, if they started out with teletheatres, to attend the races. So they're not incompatible necessarily, but we have to keep our eye on that one very carefully.
Mr Frankford: As you can tell, I come from the UK originally, where betting shops are commonplace on every High Street. I think that perhaps teletheatres are a better approach, because it controls things and it also has the spinoff effects of encouraging bars and restaurants.
Mr Sadinsky: Right. I spent six months in Australia and I can tell you that the teletheatre operation, that idea, is prevalent in Australia. In Sydney there is a teletheatre in every district, in every neighbourhood. I also attended the races in Sydney as often as I could, and the attendance at the races is fabulous. One feeds on the other. So I see it as a tremendously attractive and challenging opportunity.
Mr Frankford: I know you're going to be asked about casinos, but it seems to me that this is sort of a more local, smaller-scale option to casinos, which in my case I think works well. I don't think my area is looking for casinos.
Mr Sadinsky: Casinos of course pose a different scenario. In a sense, every gaming entertainment dollar that goes to a competitive kind of use like a casino may be considered not to be in the best interests of horse racing. On the other hand, I think there are ways in which horse racing can benefit as a result of the existence of casinos.
As a member of the commission, if I become a member of the commission, we of course don't control questions as to whether there should or shouldn't be casinos in Ontario, but if there are and if they're near tracks, or even if they're not near tracks, it seems to me that we have a role to play to ensure that horse racing benefits as a result of casinos. There are ways, I think, of doing that.
Mr Frankford: I think this segues into Mrs Harrington's question.
Ms Harrington: Yes. Your position is, I would believe, a mandate for a regulatory control, but I wanted to get into major changes in the horse racing industry. One can't go back to the past; one has to evolve and address the concerns and have a vision of what will be successful in the future. I guess we're probably at that kind of turning point now, so I wanted to ask you to express your vision of where you'd like to see the industry go. I know that's not directly your mandate, but I imagine you would be part of a planning process in some way. In five or 10 years, what changes would you see?
Mr Sadinsky: Obviously, the major objective is to ensure that the racing industry remains viable and that it adapts to whatever changes are ongoing in the entire gaming and entertainment industry. My focus, of course, if I was on the commission, would be to promote as best I could the best interests of racing. That would be the primary function.
Depending upon the nature of the developments in the other areas of gaming and entertainment, I would hope that the racing industry would seek ways of integrating itself with those changes so that racing continues to play a major role as an entertainment by itself, but also possibly as an integral part of the other operations.
Ms Harrington: We hear from the representatives from across this province, especially from rural Ontario, the importance of horse racing not just as an entertainment but also as part of our economy and the farm economy, so we realize that's another reason that we as legislators have to be concerned about this.
But I want to ask you the question, because I represent the city of Niagara Falls, about the connection in the future between, say, a casino and the racetrack. As you know, in Niagara we have the Fort Erie Race Track, which is a beautiful setting and I think is doing fairly well these days. We want to protect that and all those jobs -- there are up to about 4,000 or so associated jobs -- and look at the possibility of a casino and have both prosper. Can you see that kind of thing working?
Mr Sadinsky: We have had a very recent experience in Ontario that we can look to. Mind you, it's in its infancy, but Windsor is, I think, the place to look to begin with. My understanding is that Windsor recommenced its live racing just this past month, and of course we all know about the casino that's in place in Windsor. The attendance and handle at Windsor were dramatically up during its first week of operation live. I'm told that the handle is up 17%, which is a remarkable increase. Now, how is that possible in light of the fact that there is this large casino operating in Windsor?
Ms Gigantes: There's no baseball or hockey, though.
Mr Sadinsky: That's true. I don't know that we can do anything about keeping it that way, but perhaps that's been helpful to racing.
I take that to be a very positive sign. Obviously, the management of Windsor has found ways of attracting a live audience to Windsor to participate in horse racing in spite of the competition that exists practically in their backyard. I'm not in the business of operating racetracks, nor would the commission be in the business of operating racetracks, but clearly there are tons of marketing opportunities to attract people to the area, people interested in gaming and entertainment, some of whom would go to the races, some of whom would go to the casino, to the benefit of both operations.
It's like Eaton's and Sears being in the same shopping centre. Why are they both there? It's because it attracts consumers, and sometimes they'll shop in one area and sometimes in the other. In a way it doesn't matter which. They know in the long run it'll benefit the entire centre. I see that as possible for areas like Niagara.
I'm not in a position, though, to advocate for or against a casino in Niagara, except to the extent that it affects racing. That's, of course, the principal mandate of the commission, and that is to protect the interests of racing in the public interest. So I would do whatever I could to ensure that that happened, but by no means do I think that means you must take a stance that there can never be anything else.
Ms Harrington: I think what you're saying is that the bottom line is a positive attitude of working together.
Mr Sadinsky: Absolutely. I think we're in an extraordinarily exciting time for horse racing and for this whole area. Horse racing has to be and is optimistic right now about its future, and should be.
1110
Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Good morning, professor, and welcome.
Mr Sadinsky: Good morning. Thank you.
Mr McClelland: It's a pleasure to see you and hopefully have an opportunity to meet you and chat personally after our session this morning.
Concerning your response to my friends opposite, in response to Ms Harrington, you indicated that one of your grave concerns is with respect to the health of the industry. I wonder if you'd comment on that in light of the fact that in terms of the announcement of your pending appointment, the minister indicated that your role would hopefully shift from one of promoting the industry and having a proactive position, as had been the case in the past, and she used the word -- I'm sure not in a pejorative sense, and I hasten to add that; I don't want to attribute that to her. It was called "downgrading" to a part-time position so you could focus on the regulatory aspects of the business.
You've indicated that you have some concerns, I think rightly so, about the health and the viability of the industry, and you talked about your vision in response to that. How do you see your role with the focus, to use the minister's words, shifting to regulatory as opposed to the proactive, promotional, seizing on, as you say, the tons of marketing opportunities to promote the best interests of the industry? How are you going to harmonize those apparently not necessarily contradictory but different directions?
Mr Sadinsky: I don't see it as being problematic for this reason: I understand the shift in emphasis the minister has addressed herself to. I agree, and I think the prime function of the commission is regulatory in nature. That's its mandate, that's what the statute says. When I was on the commission in the 1980s that was basically the function it performed, and I think that is its prime function, to regulate the industry in the public interest. So I would expect that by far and away most of our time would be spent on a broad range of regulatory matters.
On the other hand, another function of an administrative tribunal is to advise the government when the government asks for advice, and it may well be that in the area of the development of the industry from time to time advice will be sought. When it is, I certainly won't be shy; I'll be ready and willing to offer that advice and hope that from time to time it's taken.
Mr McClelland: What advice would you give to a government with respect to the situation at Greenwood with the racing assistance program, wherein the government committed 50% of that funding, subject to continuance of racing? We're now in a situation where I think it can be said without being alarmist that there's significant financial pressure on the Ontario Jockey Club. I suspect they would be asking the government to forgive the 50% loan, which, as you know, involves some considerable millions of dollars. What advice would you give to the government, sir, with respect to that issue?
Mr Sadinsky: That's a very good question. My understanding is that the racing commission basically is responsible for the administration of those funds. I would think that if an issue arose as to what should happen to those funds, the commission would hold a hearing and would hear all parties and their positions with respect to just that. I would assume that the jockey club would make representations to the commission, as would other interested parties, and the commission, I think, would react on the basis of those submissions.
That's what I see the function of the commission as being, that is, an independent body that hears problems, listens to them, comes to a conclusion based on the information it gets and either makes a decision or advises government on the basis of that.
I think it would be premature to prejudge that without hearing what the parties have to say as to what should happen to those funds.
Mr McClelland: On the other hand, bearing in mind of course that the principal parties involved are indeed the OJC and the commission itself, being the two contracting parties, surely as the chairman of the commission you would not be necessarily there -- and I throw this out in a rhetorical sense for your response -- to perhaps receive information, although that would be an interesting and certainly a necessary function of your responsibilities, but also to advance a position in terms of a contract to which you were a party, as the chair of a commission which was the second party to a contract.
Do you see therein somewhat of a dilemma, inasmuch as you're suggesting that you'd be seeking information, but on the other hand, you have a contract that is enforceable and has specific terms that quite frankly aren't being met, in my opinion?
Mr Sadinsky: Mr McClelland, I've never read that contract, as you can well appreciate, and when I say "seeking information," what I mean in this context is hearing the submissions and representations of the parties as to what the contract says, what it means, how it should be interpreted and how it should be applied in the circumstances of the case. As I say, it would be premature and unwise for me at this stage to try and prejudge that kind of issue without hearing what the parties had to say.
Mr McClelland: I appreciate that, sir, particularly coming from somebody who is quite well read and learned in the law, indeed a professor of law.
Mr Sadinsky: For example, I'd want to hear what the horsemen had to say about that.
Mr McClelland: Let me pick up on that for a moment. As of today, to the best of my knowledge, the Ontario Jockey Club has not yet applied for dates for the 1995 season, nor has there been agreement reached for the winter simulcast from Florida, which commences approximately a month from now. It commences December 9, as far as I know.
In your "regulatory" role, with the focus on a regulatory role, what do you see that you could do to affect the resolution of what would appear to be an impasse with respect to the winter simulcast, which I think is critical for off-track betting, for the viability of the industry and the exposure and maintaining of the market share? As part and parcel of that, what would you see being done to facilitate the arrival at some sort of solution to the setting of dates by the Ontario Jockey Club so the horsemen in point of fact aren't effectively -- and I use the word "effectively"; I think that's the operative word -- locked out for the 1995 season?
Mr Sadinsky: I don't mean to put you off, but my approach to that particular question is similar to the approach I took to the last one, and that is that when the jockey club or any other track makes an application to the commission for race dates, the entire commission sits and hears that application. It hears the submissions that are made as to why the jockey club, in this case, wants particular race dates or doesn't want particular race dates. It hears the submissions of other tracks, of the horsemen, of all interested parties. Those are public hearings. And on the basis of those submissions and the information that's provided, a decision is made by the commission.
I don't see the role of the commission on a matter such as that as being proactive, of prejudging the situation, deciding what it thinks is in the best interests of the parties and then trying to impose a solution on them. My view is that the commission should be reactive in a situation like that and hear first what the parties have to say.
Mr McClelland: Would you care to elaborate and maybe help me with that in the context of your suggestion that indeed a significant role of the commission is to ensure the viability and health of the industry. I hope I'm not being prophetic, and I don't like to speak hypothetically, but as we approach the December 9 date, less than a month away -- you said you wouldn't want to be proactive. I guess somebody has to come to the table at some time to help an impasse. Do you see your role, sir, as chair of the commission, to facilitate that impasse being dealt with, and hopefully moving from strength to strength in the industry, I think at a very critical time for the health of the industry?
Mr Sadinsky: I think we're perhaps forgetting one other factor in this equation: the current work that's being done by the industry council proposal. As you well know, a body has been put together and has been meeting since the beginning of the year, composed of representatives of the industry. One of the objectives of that particular initiative, of course, is to provide a forum where disputing parties, if there are disputing parties within the industry, can debate and have it out, so to speak, as between themselves without in effect turning every problem over to the regulatory body for a decision.
In a case like this, and I don't know the answer at this point, I'd be very interested to know what that body has been doing with this particular problem and what recommendations it might have. I would expect that there would be input from that side of the equation as well.
Mr McClelland: I don't want to prejudge your answer, but I have a sense of where your previous responses might come from. With respect -- and I don't mean to be trite about it. We have a group of people -- the public generally, owners and horsemen and the bettors -- all with sometimes apparently conflicting agendas, and I use the word "apparently." In the sense of not wanting to be proactive but reactive to that, how do you see bringing all of them together and balancing those oft-times difficult situations, when you think of the small racetracks, by way of example, and their need to continue their market share, their need to plug into the telecasts of the OJC and the potential conflict of the small horseman, who is effectively the minor leagues, if you will --
The Chair: You're just about out of time.
Mr McClelland: Okay. If you could make a quick comment, then I have one personal note on conclusion.
The Chair: Just finish your question.
1120
Mr McClelland: That's the question, essentially, trying to pull all those groups together in light of the small industry and maintaining the minor leagues. My friend Ms Gigantes made reference to the Blue Jays not being here. Well, the minor leagues are playing. The minor leagues are in the horse racing industry and they need support too, or it's going to crumble from the bottom up as opposed to the top down.
Mr Sadinsky: The sector strategy planning that has been going on has been addressing this question of cooperation within the industry as one of its major, major topics and functions. I certainly welcome that, because when I served on the commission in the 1980s there was no such body in place and, from time to time, I as a member of the commission dearly wished there were, because there were impasses in those days, as you may well recall.
Mr McClelland: Yes, indeed.
Mr Sadinsky: There was no body in effect where the parties could vent their concerns except to bring them before the commission. There was no body composed of industry members themselves who were there to look after the concerns of the industry and to encourage them to basically try and resolve their own business problems. To the extent that those issues impact on the public interest and seeing racing move forward, of course the commission has a concern and an involvement in that.
Mr McClelland: Sir, I wish you well in pulling that together for the benefit and the health of the industry, which I think is at a watershed in many respects. I wish you success in your role.
On a personal note, I want to indicate that in the 1993 commission report, on page 9, it appears there is a McClelland who did considerably well in the Ontario Sires Stakes. I want to inform you, regretfully, that's no relationship to myself at all.
Mr Sadinsky: I read that report with some interest.
Mr McClelland: I regret very much that I didn't have to go to the --
Mr Sadinsky: Perhaps next year, Mr McClelland.
Mr McClelland: One never knows.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee, Mr Sadinsky. Did you seek out this appointment or were your sought out to fill it?
Mr Sadinsky: I left the commission in 1985, and I must tell you, I was very sorry to leave because I loved the work, I enjoyed it enormously. When the current government came into power, you may recall that it basically advertised that persons who were interested in joining tribunals, commissions and so on ought to write and let the government know of their interest. I took advantage of that and, in March of 1991, I wrote to the director of public appointments, Office of the Premier, and told my story. I basically told them that I had experience on the commission, that I loved what I did on the commission and that I would love to go back some day and be a part of the process again. I got a letter about a month later saying, "Thanks very much. We'll put your letter in the talent bank," as they called it. I didn't hear anything from anybody until just a few months ago.
Mr McLean: How long did you serve on it, in the end?
Mr Sadinsky: Five years.
Mr McLean: You served on it for five years? So it was probably in the fall of 1985 that you weren't reappointed.
Mr Sadinsky: It was, as I recall, in the fall that my term was terminated, yes.
Mr McLean: You still have your law practice?
Mr Sadinsky: I have a very small consulting practice. I'm a professor at Queen's. I teach law, but I also do some civil litigation. I came out of private practice in Toronto and I teach in those areas and I like to keep my hand in, but it's a small litigation practice, civil.
Mr McLean: What amount of time do you think you'll still be able to spend on that and what amount of time do you think you'll spend with regard to the commission?
Mr Sadinsky: I think much less on my law practice as it is, but you must understand that it's always been very, very small. I just hoped I'd get a case or two that would take me into court every year so that when I got up in front of a group of students I could tell them about how it actually works as well as the theory of it.
Mr McLean: Since you were at the commission before, has there been an increase in staff now? What has changed at the commission? Has there been much change there? Have you observed or are you aware of it?
Mr Sadinsky: I'm not fully aware of it. You must understand that in the nine years between the time I left and now I was just a member of the public who was very keen on horse racing. But having been a member of a commission or a body, you always stay interested in what's going on because you see the regulatory side of it every time an issue comes up and you wonder, "What would I do if I were in that position?"
But I have reviewed the annual report, for example, the 1993 annual report that Mr McClelland referred to, and I recognize some familiar names who were there before. The administrative structure does not appear to me to be all that different. It's been augmented to some extent. One very good change that I see is that the commission now has a staff lawyer to basically represent it at hearings. That's something we did not have when I was a member of the commission, and I think that's of great assistance; I hope it's of great assistance.
Mr McLean: So will you work with the staff that's there or will you bring in a special assistant to help you? What do you anticipate doing as the new chair?
Mr Sadinsky: I honestly haven't addressed that at all but my expectation would be that I would work with the staff that's there.
Mr McLean: How many staff are at the commission?
Mr Sadinsky: I think there are between 15 and 20 permanent staff members.
Interjection: Seventeen, I believe.
Mr Sadinsky: I added it up and I think that's right. Excellent, by the way: The people I know and recognize from my past experience -- we've got a fabulous staff.
Mr McLean: The vice-chair gets $185 a day but it doesn't say in my notes what the chair will get. What will you be making?
Mr Sadinsky: The truth is, I don't know. Believe it or not, that issue has never been addressed, at least to the point of settling on the method or amount of compensation for the job. I'll let you know, though, as soon as I do.
Mr McLean: I notice that the number of days that have been approved are 1,700; it was the same last year. The year before it was 1,800. What is the reason for the days being less? Is that because of Greenwood being closed? What would cause the number of days to be down?
Mr Sadinsky: You mean the number of race dates? I'm speculating again, without being absolutely privy to that information, but I imagine the recession has had its role to play in this. I know there are fewer owners involved in horse racing. What that means, of course, is that the population of horses is probably down. That affects the ability of tracks to mount programs. If some of the tracks have been in some financial difficulty, in order to save costs I expect they've applied for fewer race dates. Those would be my suppositions as to why the number is down. I'm frankly delighted to know that it's not down more than that, given what we've all been through.
Mr McLean: Are you aware, does the office have any trouble hiring veterinarians or judges or racetrack officials? Is there an abundance of them looking for work?
Mr Sadinsky: I don't know that, Mr McLean. I looked again at the list of judges and stewards that were reported in the annual report and recognized a number of names of ex-jockeys, harness drivers, trainers, experienced people who had been involved in the industry. It looked to me to be a very long list. What the number of applications is for jobs of that kind, I honestly don't know.
Mr McLean: You were in Australia, and you indicated that the telemarketing theatre is pretty popular there. Do you think it's going to become as popular here?
Mr Sadinsky: I think the Australians have a different culture when it comes to horse racing. The Australians of course are Irish stock, and I think they brought their love of horse racing with them. I'm not saying we don't have Irish stock here in Ontario and in Canada as well, but they have a love of the turf that I think is different from the way Ontarians and Canadians view horse racing. I think we're in a different culture to some extent.
Mr McLean: Do you think that will change the role of the commission in any way, with the increase in teletheatres?
Mr Sadinsky: Yes, I do. I know, for example, that one of the functions of the commission is to license these teletheatres, so I imagine we'll be engaged in hearing applications to license. My understanding of the setup of teletheatres is that the federal government has an involvement in it because they are betting operations and they have to be licensed as such by the federal government, its agency, as well. But obviously, if the number of teletheatres or the style of teletheatres evolves and changes, I expect that the commission will be approached from time to time, and quite often, to consider various matters with respect to teletheatres.
1130
Mr McLean: The concern I have is, I know that some who have them got them because they were a friend of somebody in the raceway. How are they going to regulate and how do people apply? Now what do they do to have it in their place of business? Do they go and deal with the raceway individually?
Mr Sadinsky: You must understand that I'm coming back into this and teletheatres are new to me in a sense, But my understanding is that the federal government in its regulations has indicated that it's prepared to license teletheatres, provided --
Mr McLean: The federal government is?
Mr Sadinsky: Yes, as betting operations. I understand that they basically have to approve them for betting purposes and then the province basically approves them because of their physical setup, their arrangements and so on; that is, the commission has to license them as well. That's my understanding.
I understand that one of the prerequisites is that the teletheatre be connected to the local or regional racetrack in that area, and that explains the connection between the racetracks and the teletheatres. As you probably know, there are a number of different regions in the province that have been divided up for the purposes of telemarketing under the auspices and aegis of the racetrack or tracks in that particular area.
Then it becomes in effect a business matter as to how the tracks then go and develop locations, and I don't know to what extent the commission plays any role in that, other than to hear the application that subsequently comes to the commission for licensing. Of course, the commission is interested in the propriety of the facility, the physical setup, how well it operates and so on.
Mr McLean: Are we now getting theatre from the States, racing in Toronto somewhere? I don't know. I'm curious.
Mr Sadinsky: Yes. My understanding is that some American thoroughbred programs have been brought into Greenwood, and to Woodbine, I believe; certainly to Greenwood during the winter in particular. I also know that feature races, big races on the weekends, both thoroughbred and standardbred, are brought in as part of the local program to augment the local program.
Mr McLean: Who approves of that?
Mr Sadinsky: Again, I assume the initial development of that is the responsibility of the track and that presumably as part of its application, its licensing procedure, that's disclosed to the commission and the commission indicates its approval or disapproval.
Mr Frankford: Madam Chair, I wonder if you could suggest to the subcommittee to discuss that in the winter break.
The Chair: Actually, I was going to say to Mr Sadinsky that I know at least Ms Carter and I would like to think that some of the Australian people came from Britain as well as Ireland.
Mr Sadinsky: I knew that I was in trouble on that one, Madam Chair.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): There are more Irish people here.
The Chair: Anyway, we would like to thank you for your appearance before the committee this morning, Mr Sadinsky.
Mr Sadinsky: Thank you very much.
BRUCE RYAN
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Bruce Ryan, intended appointee as chair, Ontario Graduate Scholarship Selection Board.
The Chair: Our final interview this morning is Dr Bruce Ryan. Welcome to the committee, Dr Ryan. This is a selection this morning by the Conservatives.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee, sir. Can you give us a little outlay of what this scholarship is? Is this to pick the ones who are already scholars, who's going to be the top one?
Dr Bruce Ryan: No. This is a board that selects the winners of the Ontario graduate scholarships. I don't, on my fingertips, have the total numbers, but we're talking hundreds of awards here. They're available to any graduate student in the province of Ontario, a student who is applying for admission to a graduate program or is already in a graduate program.
The scholarships are worth approximately $12,000 each annually and you're awarded for one year at a time. The chances of winning an award are about one in five. There are about five times as many applicants as there are awards available, and that is even in spite of the fact that the application average required has been recently raised to an A- level as opposed to the B+ that has been in place for a long time.
Mr McLean: So the post-graduate scholarships can be $16,000 approximately, according to the figures I have here, comparative scholarship statements?
Dr Ryan: Sure.
Mr McLean: I noticed here, and I'm maybe getting off the subject a little bit, but tenure: That means that a professor has a job for life. Is that what tenure means?
Dr Ryan: Tenure? No, it does not. It means that you cannot be dismissed except for cause. That means that you cannot in a sense simply be declared redundant, that someone has to make that case that you be dismissed.
Mr McLean: Eligibility for the scholarships: Give me the broad scope of how the eligibility would pertain to an individual who was kind of on the borderline. I mean, it would be pretty sad if you didn't qualify, being so close. How do you define that?
Dr Ryan: Yes, it is terribly difficult at that margin to make the decisions, but perhaps I can explain a bit how the system works.
The Ontario Council on Graduate Studies, through the graduate deans in Ontario, supplies approximately 300 names to the board. These persons, all professors in the universities, serve as members of selection panels, and there are approximately 100 panels. Each panel is composed of three persons, one of whom is the chair of the panel. Each panel is assigned 100 dossiers from applicants.
The job of each panel member is to go through and review the contents of the dossier and identify which ones ought to be the winners. Each panel member then independently submits their rankings of the dossiers to the panel chair, who then does a largely mechanical calculation of scores and then rank-orders, in a sense, the integration of the information from the panel members and submits those rankings to a member of the selection board, who in a sense routinely reviews them but very rarely makes a change to any of the information that comes in.
The panel members are making decisions based on, first of all, student grades and other achievements, including publications and presentations at conferences, other awards received. There are letters of reference, typically academic references, other professors the student knows or who know the student's work, and then each department rank-orders the applicants from among its students so that the panel member has the separate bits of information that get reviewed.
Each panel is asked out of its 100 files to make 20 awards, and then it will be invited to make a number of recommendations for students to be in a reversion list in case some of the award winners decline, which typically happens.
Identifying the top dozen winners out of 20 is generally not a problem. Those students stand out. But as you point out, as you get down to the cutoff point, it becomes quite agonizing. I served a number of years as a panel member, and you feel really distressed at very good students who aren't getting awards. You feel that on that particular day that's how it came out, but if you came back another day and looked at the information in a slightly different way, it might come out a different way.
One hopes that because you have more than one person making recommendations, these things will work themselves out. In general, I've found as a panel chair there is a very high degree of agreement among the panel members. Wherever you find a level of disagreement that's substantial among your panel members, the responsibility you have as a chair of the panel is to go back and resolve these what are called anomalies, and through some discussion, generally through a telephone conference, you are able to resolve the differences.
Sometimes it involves a shifting of the student from a non-win to a win situation, depending on how things are reviewed. But I can assure you that this matter is dealt with extremely seriously, because we're all terribly aware of the consequences to a given student of making a mistake.
1140
Mr McLean: The students, if they fail, the ones who didn't make it one year, could apply for the --
Dr Ryan: To be sure.
Mr McLean: And if you can get it one year, can you get it two years or three years?
Dr Ryan: It's an annual application and an annual award, and quite often students will win one year and not the next.
Mr McLean: I see foreign students attending university on a visa are ineligible for institutional awards, scholarships.
Dr Ryan: Institutional awards, yes. There's a separate competition for visa students and they're awarded separately from the Canadian students.
Mr McLean: I see the universities eligible to make such nominations are Brock, Lakehead, Laurentian, Trent, Wilfrid Laurier and the University of Windsor. Would they be ones that did not have the opportunity to participate in the program at one time and now they are?
Dr Ryan: No. The students from those universities can compete in what is called the open competition, but there's also a separate set of awards for those institutions. They have that special added group of awards because they're regarded as small graduate programs, and in a sense they feel they may not be able to compete as successfully in the major open competition.
Mr McLean: Thank you. I wish you well.
Ms Carter: Welcome, Dr Ryan, to this committee. You've already demonstrated that you're very familiar with this whole process, and you suggested it's a very agonizing thing when you get to the point where one person is going to be successful and another not, although the margin can be quite narrow. How important are these Ontario graduate scholarships to graduate education in Ontario, and what would happen if they weren't there? Why should the taxpayers keep contributing this money?
Dr Ryan: Well, the number of students gaining awards out of the total number gaining is really quite small, but when the universities assemble the various sources of funds from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada graduate fellowships, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council scholarships and OGS scholarships, plus the graduate teaching assistantship awards, quite a high proportion of students will be funded at least partially with modest amounts of money to help them pay for the cost of their graduate education.
If the OGS funding was removed, I think we're looking at quite a substantial loss of one of the pieces that keeps students there. It wouldn't kill graduate studies in Ontario obviously, because it's perhaps 20% or a quarter of the funding that goes on now, but it would certainly be missed if it wasn't there.
Ms Carter: Okay, thank you. I keep in touch with Trent University, which of course has recently welcomed Leonard Conolly from Guelph as its new president, and there is considerable alarm at what the federal government seems to be considering doing. Mr Axworthy's recent paper on social security reform recommended eliminating support from the federal government for colleges and universities to zero, although last year it was $2.6 billion.
I know that universities have cut to the bone already -- Trent in particular I know is very strapped for cash -- and I just wonder how you think universities would cope if this kind of cut were to be made, whether tuition fees would be the means for making up the shortfall and what the consequences of that might be.
Dr Ryan: I think any sudden shift in the system funding around any institution would have devastating effects on how it could cope and what it could do. Perhaps the economy and the culture, the society over a decade or two decades, could work out another system so that the thing was functioning again. But anything that would happen quickly like that I think would be devastating: a loss of support for students, a loss of faculty positions, a loss of support staff. We're already pretty thin.
I know that the kind of support I've had as a professor is definitely much less now than it was 15 years ago. The students I'm teaching are getting substantially less attention to the details of their programs mostly because you just can't gain any more time. Just about virtually everybody I know works much harder now than they did 15 years ago.
Ms Carter: Of course, there are suggestions for how loans to pay higher tuition fees could be paid back as people got better-paying jobs and so on and so on, but none of that really sounds very satisfactory from the point of view of making sure that everybody can go to university whatever their background.
Dr Ryan: I know that students graduating with huge debts to pay are at a terrible disadvantage. In my experience, most students don't actually appreciate how hard it is to pay back loans. You're starting way back behind the race when you have that debt to convert.
Mr Frankford: In academe, when one starts at the undergraduate level, the enrolment is 50-50 men and women, but as one proceeds up, I think, getting into post-graduate programs and then within faculty, the proportion of women participating gets less and less.
Dr Ryan: Yes.
Mr Frankford: Do you have any thoughts on if there's any influence by the awarding of scholarships or the application of scholarships? Is there something that this process contributes to that inequity?
Dr Ryan: It may have some role to play; I'm not sure. At the University of Guelph this year, the first-year class is 68% female and anxiety is building, "What is happening to the men now?" The graduate programs are shifting very rapidly. I think faculty positions would shift reasonably quickly too if replacements were permitted. A major problem is that there's been so little turnover in faculty positions that it's very tough to find opportunities to appoint women to faculty in certain programs. There are serious shortages of females at the graduate student level, and unless they're there first they will not eventually be in the faculty complement.
The Ontario graduate scholarship program is so small in relation to the job that needs to be done that it's difficult to see how easily one could take a substantial part of that money and target it on a subgroup. Certainly when the selection board has considered this problem in the past, since I've been a member of the board, it's felt that it wanted to stay committed to using academic standing as the major criterion for the selection of winners. It certainly was not averse to seeing that targeted awards be made to minority groups of various kinds, but only if additional funds were made available. To take some of the relatively small existing funds to do it would really undermine a lot of things that I think the scholarships are able to contribute to now.
1150
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Welcome to the committee. When I looked through some of the background material we had, I found something that I've never seen before, and it's the candidate search process and a statement of criteria by which the appointee was chosen. It says, "The outgoing chairperson of the OGS selection board nominates one member from the present OGS selection board to become the next chairperson." The statement of the criteria is that, "The chairperson has been nominated by the outgoing chairperson of the OGS selection board."
How well does this work? Is there a process? Is it just a personal decision by the chair or is there an internal process that brings your name forward, or, should you ever decide to move on, brings the next person's name forward?
Dr Ryan: This will be my third year on the board. I've served with two previous chairs, both of whom were excellent. I can only hope to do as well as they did.
It's a relatively small group of people, about eight or nine people. We meet twice a year to do some very important work for some people. It's not a huge job in the light of the things that are done in this province, but it's important for some people.
As one sits around the table with one's colleagues, some are obviously more interested than others. Some are a bit more attentive to the details than others. Normally out of that, with eight or nine people, there might be one or two persons who surface looking as if they're interested enough to stick around another year to do something else. I guess I must have looked a little more interested than some of the others and that's how I got tapped on the shoulder. I didn't ask the other fellow how he decided; he just did.
Mr Curling: Dr Ryan, thank you for coming before the committee. My other two colleagues would like some questions, but let me just try to quickly put one or two questions to you.
I know you are quite familiar that the cost of education is escalating tremendously. You touched a little bit on the fact that students leaving with just their first degree, at 23 or 24, will come out with a debt of about $20,000 if they're on OSAP. It's a shock to them to know if they can continue with their education. And you're quite familiar, because you're in the graduate part of it, how important it is that even a first degree is not sufficient these days, and the hesitancy of people even applying for a scholarship to go on to do post-grad and the inadequacy of this.
What kind of pressure, and I really call it pressure, could you put on the government or even private industry to put more money into scholarships? As you know -- you're quite an academic here, you must have gone through quite a few studies -- you have to almost fish around if you want to get a scholarship in 10 or eight different areas and finally get qualified. What kind of pressure do you feel should be put on the government, considering this government's cutback even in OSAP grants? There are no more grants any more; there are completely loans. Tuition fees went up under this government -- but I don't want to be partisan -- over the couple of years. Is there any pressure that you feel could be placed on the private sector or the public sector?
Dr Ryan: Are you asking me as the potential chair of the board or as a faculty member at the university?
Mr Curling: I'm questioning you as the chair of the board to say if there is something that could be done in order to address this very, very serious concern to students.
Dr Ryan: I see two directions of action. One is towards the government through recommendations that the board makes, and it did it at each of the three previous meetings that I attended. There was a recommendation to increase the value of the awards as well as the number of awards. We feel grateful when the number of awards hasn't gone down in recent times. They've held constant. Even that, we feel, is evidence of some support. At the same time, there's a crying need for additional support for students, and we will not resist making recommendations for increases.
At the same time, we can also make recommendations back to the graduate deans in the universities to seek funding. Our board, being an agent of government action of course, can't do a lot to go to private donors and ask for additional funds, but the universities can. In fact, my experience is that the universities are a lot more active at this kind of thing than they were 10 years ago. My own university is completely different. There is a very powerful awareness of private money and constantly working to get some more of it.
Mr Curling: My other question is rather difficult for me to ask. Considering the fact that there's a shortage of funds, Canada on the whole is not one of the leaders in having student visas and attracting the scholarship of people who are on student visas here. Ontario's record is not all that great either. There are great investments that can be made in actually awarding scholarships to people on student visas that pay back in great numbers. Is there anything that could be done in your area, specially in graduate studies, of more scholarships being offered to visa students?
Dr Ryan: Certainly it's part of our constant recommending that the number of awards be increased. We say the same thing with respect to the visa scholarships as well. There's no question that foreign students bring value to this country and future investment of relationships. In many cases, those students assume positions of leadership in their own countries. One frequently speaks to a colleague whose former graduate student is now a deputy minister or a prime minister or something like that. We're dealing with leadership potential with these students and I think that in this increasingly international world these kinds of connections are quite productive and important to build and sustain.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Welcome to the committee. As you said earlier, the reason that you were chosen as chairman was because you seemed to show more interest. Well, I'm sure that you could tell us some other reasons too.
Dr Ryan: In terms of my own technical qualifications for this post, in my own university I have served as the chair of the awards committee for my own college and I have served on the awards committee for the university. I alluded to memberships on OGS selection panels for a number of years, and chairing the panel and so on. I've had a building of experience around scholarships both within and outside of my own university, and that's probably what got me on to the board in the first place. These are recommendations that come from the Ontario Council on Graduate Studies. Then once you get on the board, if you do the work and you act interested and you didn't say anything too foolish, you get to serve a little bit longer.
Mr Cleary: With the number of years of experience you have, I'm sure there are some changes you'd like to see.
Dr Ryan: I have had a good look at what the board is doing and it's very difficult, given the current context and the amounts of money one's dealing with, to see better ways of doing it. There's a lot of commitment from faculty all over the system to making it work. Hundreds of professors are making a contribution. It's not clear to me how it could be done any more efficiently than it is. It's terribly well organized, terribly effectively managed by the ministry staff.
The biggest change one would want to see is simply an increase in the number of awards made and, for the sake of students, an increase in the value of each award.
Mr Cleary: That was my next question: Are you satisfied with the value of the awards?
Dr Ryan: No.
Mr Cleary: I take from what you said that you weren't.
Dr Ryan: No, they simply are not adequate for most graduate students, many of whom have families to support. It's terribly difficult to see them do this. Graduate students tend to be at a different stage of life than a typical younger undergraduate who is single and looking forward to an adventure. By the time they get to be a graduate student -- and increasingly today, we're bringing people back out of the workforce into advanced study who have families. Making do on the kinds of money that we give them is terribly hard.
1200
Mr Cleary: I wish you well. My colleague's got some questions.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Mr Ryan, thank you. It's a pleasure to have you here this morning. My questions will be brief, I think. When an award is given, do you simply write a cheque?
Dr Ryan: I'm not sure I know enough about the technical workings of the ministry system to answer that question.
Mr Crozier: This relates, in this area of awards, as well as it was spoken to by one of the members opposite about student loans and the cost of university education and so forth. What disturbs me, and I guess maybe not in your position as chair but in your position with the university, with either student loans or grants or scholarships is that -- and I think it's a very few, but I travelled home the other night and met a young man who is going to university. He was travelling off to Michigan to meet some friends and he said, "Well, you know, you've got to use your student loan somehow." Then we hear, I think very few, but these stories about, well, the $11,000 bought the car or whatever.
Should we, and if we should, is there any way that we can be sure the public money that's contributed towards these types of disbursements goes to either the educational institution or it goes for the support of a family or whatever? Is that a concern of anyone besides me?
Dr Ryan: I think it's a real concern. It really concerns me, not only as a faculty member but as a taxpayer, to hear stories like this, and occasionally I encounter them too.
Normally, the students I see talking like this, my sense is they're tremendously immature. In fact they're taking the money intended for one thing and doing something quite different with it, and in the end they don't have the money to pay for what they need the money for in the first place. So it's not as if they don't need the money. They in fact need it. They just spend it on stupid things.
But I think that's, as you point out, a very small percentage of the students, and I don't know how one can clear all of those out without getting tremendously heavy-handed on the policing. My sense is, the OSAP people at the university who do the screening and so on do a very good job on the whole. There will always be some folks who get by them, and I think there has to be a rigorous attempt made to collect loans that are not being repaid either. Failure to collect those loans is simply hurting other students, and I think we have to be very serious about that.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr Ryan, for your appearance before the committee this morning.
The Chair: Now, members of committee, we have some committee business to complete. Just before we go to the subcommittee report, I would like a motion to approve the appointments from this morning. Moved by Dan Waters. Do you wish to vote on them individually or all three of them together?
Mr Waters: I don't see any need to break them up.
The Chair: That's fine. All right, then we are moving the appointment of Mr Bob Saracino as a member of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, Mr Stanley Sadinsky as member and chair of the Ontario Racing Commission, and Dr Bruce Ryan as the chair of the Ontario Graduate Scholarship Selection Board. All in favour of that motion? That motion is carried.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: You have before you the subcommittee report, and just before we start it, I want to draw attention to the fact that in your packages for today's meeting you already have a document prepared by Mr Pond with regard to the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology.
This is an important document for the committee members to read and maybe discuss with your individual caucuses, because it contains a summary of the recommendations that came out of listening to the deputations before the committee on the subject of the Council of Regents. So you would want to read this document and discuss it before coming to the meeting on the 23rd, when you're going to give direction to Mr Pond to write the report. I'm respectfully suggesting that this is a very valuable tool to enjoy in the next two weeks.
Our clerk is asking me to read the subcommittee report into the record, and I always do what I'm told. It's the report of the subcommittee of today, Wednesday, November 2, 1994:
"Your subcommittee met on Wednesday, 2 November 1994, to consider future business with respect to the committee's reviews of the St Lawrence Parks Commission and the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology, and the selection of intended appointees for committee review.
"1. St Lawrence Parks Commission:
"Your subcommittee recommends:
"That David Warner, superintendent, St Lawrence Islands National Park, Parks Canada, be scheduled at 11:30 am on Wednesday, 23 November 1994 for one half-hour;
"That no new witnesses be invited before the committee, and the St Lawrence Parks Commission and OPSEU not be scheduled before the committee again until the report on the review of the St Lawrence Parks Commission by Management Board of Cabinet has been received;"
I'm not sure that this is worded quite correctly. I think the committee decided that no new witnesses be considered to be invited before the committee. I think you wanted to leave it open about who you might want to have come back after the report comes back. Am I correct, Mr Waters?
Mr Waters: I concur with that, Madam Chair, but indeed I also think that it would tie our hands. We wanted to leave that sort of open so that the next paragraph would depend -- if indeed the Management Board review was going to take a long period of time, I think Mr Cleary and myself and Mr McLean all agreed that might shed new light on it and we might want to have them back in advance to resolve some of these issues.
The Chair: Why don't we just eliminate that paragraph, the second paragraph of item 1, and then we're not making any comment about new witnesses or who comes back or anything, just eliminate it?
Mr Waters: Yes, I agree.
Mr Curling: Would that give us the opportunity to have witnesses come before us?
The Chair: It leaves it continuous and open, and also who you would want to have would be left open.
"That the Chair of the committee write a letter to Management Board of Cabinet with respect to the review," and we haven't mentioned the review yet, so we'll have to remove that. This will have to be reworded.
The committee did discuss the fact that we were informed that a review was being conducted by the Management Board of Cabinet, and with respect to that review the committee has asked the Chair to write a letter to the Management Board "requesting the parameters and time frame of the review and who is preparing the investigation, and requesting that the reply be received within one week." We also wanted to include some of the letters that we received and the excerpts from Hansard which will clearly indicate to Management Board what information was brought before the committee.
1210
"2. Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology:
"Your subcommittee recommends:
"That at 10 am" -- until 11:30 am I'm adding in here -- "on Wednesday, 23 November 1994, the committee provide direction to David Pond, research officer, regarding preparation of the report on the Ontario Council of Regents, and that the committee schedule a meeting on Wednesday, 30 November 1994 to review the draft report.
"3. Your subcommittee recommends that the review of Peter Gallant, intended appointee as member of the Ontario Council on University Affairs, be postponed pending notification of the results of his election to the position of rector of Queen's University and his eligibility to serve on the council should he be successful in the election.
"4. Re: certificate of 12 October 1994:
"Your subcommittee recommends that the following intended appointees be selected for review:
"Selection of official opposition party:
"Agency: Ontario Development Corporation.
"Name: Roy G. Steel.
"Time recommended for consideration: one half-hour.
"Date for consideration: 16 November 1994.
"Selection of third party:
"Agency: Custody Review Board.
"Name: Roger West.
"Time recommended for consideration: one half-hour.
"Date for consideration: 16 November 1994.
"Selections of government party" -- none selected?
Mr Waters: It's because of the way it's worded. It's fine. Keep going.
The Chair: "5. Re: certificate of 21 October 1994.
"There were no selections from the certificate of 21 October 1994" --
Interjection: Just say "or the 27th."
The Chair: Or the 27th.
Interjection.
The Chair: Well, I think I'll read it as it's printed.
"6. Re: certificate of 27 October 1994.
"Your subcommittee recommends that the following intended appointees be selected for review:
"Selections of the official opposition party," and, "None were selected because they had already made their selections" is the way I think it should be worded, and therefore there were two remaining selections to be made by the government party.
If we're doing this on the record, we might as well explain that there are four selections made every time and we rotate the extra selection to each party in turn.
The agency selected by the government party is the Financial Disclosure Advisory Board, and the name is Patricia Meredith.
"Time recommended for consideration: one half-hour.
"Date for consideration: 16 November 1994.
The second one, the agency is the Public Service Grievance Board.
"Name: Sig M. Walter.
"Time recommended for consideration: one half-hour.
"Date for consideration: 16 November 1994.
Mr Curling: I had a point to raise. In the first paragraph you say that your subcommittee recommends that David Warner come before the committee for half an hour. I don't know if he's making a statement when he comes, because what it leaves us is three minutes to ask a question.
The Chair: It's a good point, and I want to advise committee too that Mr Warner is someone we did try to schedule when we were in Cornwall, and he wasn't available at that time. He is a regular deputation and we were giving half-hour deputations to everyone. He will be advised by the clerk to keep his presentation to a maximum of 15 minutes, which is the advice we gave everybody, and then it's five minutes per caucus for questions.
Mr Curling: But I find now on this situation in the St Lawrence Parks that has come to be quite a concern, that really five minutes for --
The Chair: No, but he is not with the St Lawrence Parks Commission; he's with Parks Canada. They do have some property in that area and we wanted to hear from him, but he's not with the St Lawrence Parks Commission.
Mr Waters: Yes, and he's also not David Warner, MPP. It is somebody totally different.
Mr Curling: We know that.
Mr Waters: So I don't see why he should be treated any different than any other deputation.
Mr Curling: Don't get panicked about it. My feeling was that --
The Chair: No, they were here. They know that it isn't David Warner, MPP. But the thing is --
Mr Curling: My concern is, and again you can accept or reject it, I do find that half an hour when people make statements of 15 minutes, to give any one of us five minutes, we find we don't get adequate time to do a proper interview.
The Chair: Public hearings normally are conducted with half-hour interviews. In fact sometimes they're 20-minute interviews, and the individuals who came before the committee in Cornwall got 15 minutes each to make a presentation. But I'm talking about individuals in terms of staff who came before us when we had a request at the end to have a lot of people added. We gave them 15 minutes in order to include them all.
Everybody else other than the commission itself and OPSEU, I think, all had hours, but other organizations, the camping associations, the chambers of commerce, the municipal councils, everybody else had half an hour. This man is representing Parks Canada, which is a property owner in the area, and I think half an hour is appropriate for him, because he can't address the concerns that have been raised anyway because he's not with the parks commission. Am I summarizing it correctly?
Ms Carter: That's fine.
Mr Waters: I would move concurrence of the report, as altered by you, Madam Chair, when you referred to section 1 of the report.
Mr Cleary: I was just wondering when are we going to get the rewording on a couple of paragraphs there.
The Chair: If you like, we can have the clerk fax it to your office this afternoon. Are you not willing to approve it with the rewording that I put on the record? I'll tell you what we can do. Let's move a motion to approve the subcommittee report now, and if there is a major concern when you get the draft, just advise me and the clerk and we'll change it. We all know what we wanted to say.
Mr Curling: May I make a suggestion? I just feel that, to clarify really, I think the concerns were raised and it's okay. I think you targeted the concern and I think you would get the wording now. You're the one who would pick that up because we here had that concern and you picked it up then, so we're quite confident and comfortable with the fact that the rewording will address all concerns.
The Chair: That's fine. We have a difficulty because the committee is in the process of reviewing two agencies right now with COR, the Council of Regents, and the St Lawrence Parks Commission, and we have four meetings before we recess. I would like to see the committee complete its work, if possible, before we recess again. I don't have any further business. Does anyone else?
So the motion does carry to approve the committee report as recorded on Hansard? All right. That's all in favour. Thank you, the committee stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1218.