Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

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

INTENDED APPOINTMENTS PETER GALLANT

ROGER WEST

CONTENTS

Wednesday 30 November 1994

Subcommittee report

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

Intended appointments

Peter Gallant, Ontario Council on University Affairs

Roger West, Custody Review Board

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

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

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

*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)

Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)

Crozier, Bruce (Essex South/-Sud L)

*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)

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

*Gigantes, Evelyn, (Ottawa Centre ND)

*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)

Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)

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

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

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr McLean

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

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

Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn

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

The committee met at 1009 in room 228.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): I would like to call this meeting of the standing committee on government agencies to order. The first order of business this morning is the approval of the subcommittee report, which is dated November 23, 1994, and reads as follows:

"Your subcommittee met on Wednesday, November 23, 1994, to consider future business with respect to the committee's review of the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology.

"Your subcommittee recommends:

"That the committee review the draft report on the Ontario Council of Regents on Wednesday, November 30, 1994; and

"That the committee review the final draft report on Wednesday, December 7, 1994."

Is there any discussion on that subcommittee report? All in favour? Carried.

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

The Chair: We will now give direction to Mr Pond, who's sitting here poised with his pen and his notepad, on the review of the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology.

Ms Evelyn Gigantes (Ottawa Centre): Could I suggest that I think in general that readers of this report would find it a useful one if they hadn't participated in the hearings and that, perhaps to move our work along, if we turn to the draft recommendations and just proceeded through them, we could focus what we're doing this morning?

The Chair: That's fine with me.

Mr David Pond: Top of page 32.

The Chair: All right, the floor is open. Would you like to just take us through that first recommendation, David.

Mr Pond: The draft recommendations and options start on page 32. Just to finish this off, the first 31 pages are the general narrative of how the agency works, and I've cleared it with the Council of Regents to ensure that the narrative is accurate.

To start with the draft recommendations and options, the first one is the role of the Council of Regents. Members will recall that a principal topic of discussion during the hearings was the Council of Regents' role in introducing college standards and accreditation and its relationship to the College Standards and Accreditation Council, CSAC, and the Council of Regents' responsibilities for introducing prior learning assessment, otherwise known as PLA.

I won't read this. The Council of Regents' position is summarized on the bottom of page 32 and the top of page 33. If I could summarize it in a phrase, I would say that the council's position is that it's only concerned with implementing the concepts at a system-wide level, it's not concerned with implementing the details of the concepts at the operational level. That would be left up to the colleges themselves.

The council also said with regard to CSAC that while it had formal administrative responsibility for the council, it exercised no direct day-to-day responsibility over CSAC. CSAC itself said that it was substantively independent of the Council of Regents.

Moving on, I guess the principal witnesses on this issue, other than the council itself, were the Council of Governors and the Council of Presidents, which together are known as ACAATO, the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario. The Council of Governors' position is summarized on the bottom of page 33, top of page 34. The Council of Presidents' position is summarized on page 34.

I think it's probably fair to say that ACAATO has a different position than the Council of Regents on these issues. I guess ACAATO, to summarize very briefly and no doubt crudely, believes that the Council of Regents has exceeded its advisory role, that it has strayed into the realm of operational matters, that the council is now making policies which the presidents and the governors will be accountable for in the local communities, even though, allegedly, the presidents and governors have no direct control over it. I could go on. The presidents have some substantive concerns about the content of PLA. They feel it dilutes the credibility of an academic credential, and so on and so forth.

Another subtheme here was the role of the colleges' local program advisory committees. The presidents and the governors feel that these committees are now being bypassed by these new, allegedly centralized reforms introduced by the Council of Regents.

Then, on page 35, I summarized very briefly the principal statements of other witnesses on this particular issue. Again very crudely, they tend to line up either on the side of the Council of Regents or on the side of ACAATO. I'm being very crude and unfair here, but in the interest of time, I'll put it that way.

In italics on page 35 are some options you might want to consider for your recommendations. They're pretty self-explanatory. It's either 1 or 2. Then, depending on whether you choose 1 or 2, you might want to consider 3.

I'll stop there and leave it up to the members.

Ms Gigantes: First of all, thank you for that. On page 35 what our researcher has indicated to us is that there were three principal comment sources on the role of the council, which is essentially what concerns our mandate here. We're looking at the role of the council, as I understand our mandate. There are a lot of other matters which have been discussed before the committee, but that was what we are charged to look at.

On page 35 we've got a very brief summary of some of the other contributions; when I say "other" I'm referring to other than what our researcher is calling the three main contributors to the discussion of the role of the council.

First of all, I'd like to see those comments expanded a bit more, because it tends to suggest in this report that we don't consider what they had to say as having the weight of other people's contributions. I'd like to see the people identified as to their involvement in the issue, whom they represent, what their experience has been. For example, Garth Jackson is the chief executive officer of OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, and he is the former president of Canadore College. There is no mention of the comments that were made on the subject of COR and the appropriateness of COR's role in the whole prior learning assessment task by the students who were represented before this committee. I'd like to see that section, starting at the top of page 35, given a bit more flesh, as it were.

I'd also question bullet number 4 at the top of page 35, which says, "Charles Pascal" -- without identifying him -- "and Walter Pitman" -- without identifying him -- "argued that CSAC should be kept independent of the ministry, the Council of Regents and ACAATO." That almost suggests as if they said that this was not occurring now. Neither of those gentlemen suggested any such thing, so I think we should be a little more subtle in how we explain their position. They agreed that in fact there should be independence by CSAC, but they didn't see that there was any challenge to the independence of CSAC, and we had various comments from other witnesses also who gave their views that CSAC was independent.

This relates very closely to the whole main issue that is before us at the committee, which is the appropriate role for COR. When we look at the appropriate role for COR and we look at its relationship to CSAC, I think it's important for us to give weight to the fact, first of all, that Vision 2000 did suggest quite specifically that a function such as the CSAC function should be undertaken, that it should be taken in a way that is operationally independent from any other body associated with the administration of colleges and that it should be associated in an administrative way with COR.

If I could quote from Vision 2000, it said that CSAC "should be independently associated with the Council of Regents for organizational purposes and retain its independence." That's precisely what CSAC is, and the only direct relationship with COR in terms of the considerations of CSAC is that COR has one representative in the CSAC group. Apart from that, the operational independence is total. The administrative shelter which is provided by the Council of Regents is what was recommended by Vision 2000.

I think we have to be careful on the top of page 35 not to suggest, for example, which I think is suggested by bullet number 4, that Charles Pascal, unidentified, and Walter Pitman, unidentified, are in any sense suggesting that CSAC currently is not independent. They were underlining that they felt it should be independent. They didn't have any question that it did operate in an independent fashion as it's currently constituted in its relationship with COR.

The Chair: Well, Ms Gigantes, maybe we could address your concern quite simply in bullet point 4 by, after the word "should" and before "be kept," just adding "continue to." In other words, "Charles Pascal and Walter Pitman argued that CSAC should continue to be kept independent of the ministry...." Would that be acceptable?

1020

Ms Gigantes: Yes, that would be fine. I would, however, also ask that our researcher take a look at rounding out the identification of people and also including, and I think also rounding out, their points of view a bit, because it makes it sound as if what they had to say is much less important than what other people had to say, and I don't believe that, and also including comments from the student representatives who were before us.

The Chair: I just wanted to ask Mr Pond -- I was trying to look through the report ahead of that page. The first time that you refer to Mr Pascal or Mr Pitman, I'm sure you do have a definition of who they are.

Mr Pond: I probably do for Mr Pitman, but probably not for Mr Pascal. It's certainly no problem putting all that in.

Ms Gigantes: The problem is that some people will pick up the report and look only at the recommendations. That's why I think it's important to have that fully rounded.

The Chair: That's a good suggestion. We'll add it.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Just to get to the heart of the matter, it's my personal sense that the Council of Regents should retain its role as one where it's primarily responsible for implementing CSAC and prior learning assessment. But there's a problem, and that became very clear during the course of the hearings. I think I've spoken now with every college president and a representative of every governing council. There is a very real problem, and that is that there's a lack of trust today in our colleges of the Council of Regents.

It's my opinion that the presidents and governors are attempting to address this problem by saying that responsibility for CSAC and PLA should be removed from the Council of Regents, but it's also my sense that if there was that trust, if there was seen to be a greater relationship built on cooperation between the council and the governors and the presidents, then they would not be making these demands, they would not be asking that this function be removed from the council.

I think the question for us to ask, and one that has to be addressed, is: How do we ensure that our Council of Regents and our presidents and our governors are acting together in the best interests of the college system in general and of the students in particular? That's not an easy question to answer, but I've put my finger on what I think is the critical problem here in that there's simply a lack of trust between the council, the presidents and the governors.

This is partly a problem of personalities, partly a function of approaches, partly a function, given some of the problems that I've looked at, of somebody not picking up the phone and talking to somebody else and asking how we can fix things if there's something that's wrong.

There is a general sense felt by many of the presidents and governors that things are being imposed from on high as a result of discussions in a rarefied atmosphere in a room in a tall building in downtown Toronto. That's obviously a recipe for disaster if the people on the front lines feel their concerns really aren't being taken into account.

That manifested itself in some of the concerns that arose out of the general education obligations that were imposed on our colleges whereby our colleges were supposed to implement a new component to education. It was seen by many people in the technical fields that this was detracting from the technical education they were trying to give their students and it has been seen as general education would be given at the expense of the technical education.

That's just one symptom again, I say, of a larger problem where we have in this province today -- it's unfortunate and I'm not exactly sure how to address it -- a lack of trust between the council and the presidents and the governors.

That's it for me for now, Madam Chair.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Just on the point, I'm not worried about the wording where, if Ms Gigantes is concerned about the bullet point 4, I'll speak to that first of all, but it's clear in everything that leads up to it that there was a concern by Mr Pascal that there may be a perception that it's not independent of the ministry. That was written in the report. I'm absolutely positive it stayed in this version. I can't find it, but I read it late last night so I'm not going to look for it.

It doesn't worry me about putting any words in except to say that, certainly from my point of view, the perception is what we've all been concerned about, and I think what we did learn from the hearings, both from the Council of Regents themselves -- they had no intention of being in charge of CSAC, but all of us were concerned about how we could correct the perception. In my view, that's what we have to deal with, and how we do it I think is up to us and I hope we can have an intelligent discussion around that.

One of the recommendations that I would support is that the ministry formally review the mandate of the Council of Regents, and the reason that I would support that is not just because of CSAC but because of the legislation itself about the role of the Council of Regents.

I think now that they've got the concerns -- the ministry, that is -- because of the committee hearings, it would be interesting to see what they themselves can come up with in working with their own colleagues. I think they could come up with something. I don't think anybody was stuck in a corner on this one; it's just that it's a very real perception. I really did appreciate the public hearings in this regard, but I don't know how to correct the perception.

I was told that administratively they may have put another person at the helm of CSAC, as opposed to Mr Johnston. I'm not sure if that happened, but it came out either in the discussions privately here in the room or as a matter of public record. It may have been Mr Johnston himself.

I think everyone was convinced that it wasn't the intent that they, meaning the Council of Regents, take control of CSAC, but I think in listening to the members of different boards of governors and the presidents that the perception is out there. It's not what we do; it's how we do it. Certainly on a day-to-day basis there have been reasons for the perception.

I don't know how the other members feel, but I don't think we can correct it today and I think the ministry itself should be formally reviewing the mandate of the Council of Regents and taking into consideration the problem we have with that perception. I don't think anything more needs to be said about that at this time, if this is the point that we're talking about. I want to stay on the agenda. Is this what we're talking about now?

The Chair: What you have to do this morning is say which recommendations you want and --

Mrs Cunningham: That's correct, but we don't have a lot of time, so I think we should be going through the report methodically, and that's why I was making the point I was. There are eight different areas we have to take some action on, not just this one, although this is one of the larger ones. The other large one is whether we give direction to the ministry with regard to the concern about governance; that is, do we go to a constituency-based model or a community-based model and what's the intent? I think there is room for discussion around that one and I would like some direction on that. The others I'm not as concerned about, but those were the two large concerns that caused us to ask for this review of the Council of Regents, which I think was very healthy.

1030

The Chair: The writing of the report is entirely in the hands of the committee. You just give the direction to Mr Pond, and where he has these drafts, you can take either/or or do a text change totally in any of them. It's entirely up to the committee.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Pond didn't have a lot of time and I like the way he organized it for us. I know there are a number of places where we could be changing words and what not, but I'm interested in dealing with the recommendations, because even the point that was made with regard to the recommendation you made, Madam Chair, "should be kept independent" or "should continue to be kept independent," I don't think "continued" or anything even matters. Mr Pitman and Mr Pascal both argued that there was a concern here. It may just be perception, but there was a concern. I don't want to get into the semantics of it, but I want to deal with it. What do we do about CSAC, what do we do about governance and what do we do about the other issues? I think sooner or later we better get on to it, because we've only got an hour and a half left.

The Chair: Actually, we don't have an hour and a half.

Mrs Cunningham: What have we got?

The Chair: We have 25 minutes, because this part of this meeting finishes at 11.

Mrs Cunningham: And when else do we deal with this report?

The Chair: Next week. It was for an hour today, from 10 until 11. I have Mr Curling, Ms Gigantes and Ms Witmer.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I take the kind of view like Mrs Cunningham has said, if we're dealing with the report, to make sure the perception of the role of COR is quite defined. There are concerns in the colleges about the kind of role COR is playing, whether or not it has gone too far maybe in the operational part of things, for example in dictating or determining about curriculum. They are also concerned that COR moved somehow more into a ministerial role than more or less an advisory role, and also that when COR meets, the contribution of the presidents who sit at the table with COR should be worth something.

I would say as the report is drafted, in the final part of it, that perception is seen, that it is not another ministry that has been set up, so to speak, so that it flows in a way that is a matter of cooperation and all, and then we can get into the specifics afterwards.

Ms Gigantes: I think the discussion we're having now really in some sense is about what our job is and how we're going to tackle our job here. I think our job -- I said it once and I'll say it again -- is to report to the Legislature on our review of the role of COR and how COR is carrying out that role. Key to that, as mentioned both by Mr McGuinty and Ms Cunningham, is the discussion that was brought before us in an extended way of the relationship of COR to two major initiatives going on in the college sector, namely, prior learning assessment and the review of standards and accreditation.

I heard from both Mr McGuinty and from Ms Cunningham that the process of our hearings had in fact led them to a degree of comfort about the role that COR carries in the carrying out of those two tasks. If I could put it as simply as possible, when it comes to the question of standards and accreditation, the operation of CSAC is, despite concerns that have been raised, independent. We had witnesses from all sides who told us that, and as committee members, I think we can report to the Legislature that we felt satisfied that that's the case: that CSAC is operating independently; that CSAC's task is an important one which this committee recognizes as an important one; that it operates independently of any other agency on behalf of the minister; and that CSAC has administrative assistance from COR.

The question of prior learning assessment was also thoroughly discussed before us, and I think there is agreement among committee members that in fact COR's role in carrying out the first three years of the prior learning assessment task on behalf of the consolidated colleges is one which is supported by committee members. We all feel it's an important task, we feel it's important that it be done by a group which can carry it forward on behalf of the whole system, and we feel that the group that's been constituted to carry it forward is properly constituted and that it's carrying it out in an appropriate way.

If we can come to an agreement on those two matters, I think it's important for us as committee members to report that to the Legislature. We asked the question; we got some answers; this is our conclusion. If we can't deal with our conclusion, then we're not carrying out our own role. We've made a conclusion. We have to state our conclusion and bring that to the Legislature in this report. It's at the heart of this report to the Legislature.

The Chair: The role of the committee when we review an agency is to review any aspect of that agency. So it can be a very full, wide scope of anything that agency is involved with as part of its mandate.

Ms Gigantes: But these were the two key issues that had been raised before the committee started its hearings that were fully canvassed during the committee hearings and where now, on all sides, committee members have come to conclusions.

The Chair: I'm not debating it with you, Ms Gigantes; I'm just confirming for all committee members that there is a very wide and full scope available to all of you.

Mr McGuinty: I want to be perfectly clear that I think the report should draw a conclusion and that there is a problem with relations. Again, I want to make it clear as well that the best place for CSAC and PLA is with COR, period. But there's a caveat, there's an addendum: There's a problem with relations between the Council of Regents, the presidents and governors, and I haven't been around this place too long, but I've talked to a lot of people about this and I think relations may be at an all-time low.

There are 23 colleges, plus two more now, and I guess the concerns that I have are particularly heightened because of the source, and that is from college governors. College governors are volunteers. They don't get a piece of the action, they have nothing to gain, there's no power trip by sitting on your local college board of governors. They're there because they want to act in the best interests of the colleges, and they are telling us that there is a problem, and we should recognize that. I think that's something we have to attempt to address, and the least we can do is bring it to the government's attention.

I'm not disagreeing with the mandate that's been given to COR with respect to CSAC and PLA, and I agree with much of Ms Gigantes' previous comments, except I do not believe that they're carrying out that mandate appropriately. If they were, then there would be better relations between the governors, the presidents and the council. That's the crux of the problem, from my perspective. Relations are poor. The report should make specific reference to that, and whatever the Minister of Education and Training wants to do about that, then fine, that's up to him, but I think our obligation is to report that.

1040

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I kind of like what I'm hearing here in that there seems to be some consensus around some important issues. Mr McGuinty just stated them and I thought I heard Ms Cunningham a little while ago say somewhat the same kind of thing.

Certainly there is some struggle going on at the moment, and I think it's inherent with the kind of work that CSAC and PLA are trying to do. I don't think, from my experience in working with and on boards and with different organizations that are being challenged to rise to an occasion, which is I think what's happening here, that there isn't some area of difficulty and difference of opinion etc. I think myself that's what's happening here, and in my mind, given the people who are involved and the commitment of the colleges and the people on CSAC and PLA and the Council of Regents to making the college system in Ontario the best that's possible, I don't see where this won't play out in the end to a result that will give us that.

I don't know how you put in place any kind of structure or organization that's going to guarantee you that there isn't going to be that kind of difference of opinion, particularly when you look at the newness of this and the challenge it presents in the middle of a very difficult economic time to implement it. As I said last week, my conversation with the president of my local college stated very clearly that in this, particularly for the smaller colleges, there are some tremendous financial ramifications. So there's some unease and anxiety around that, and I think that's all part of what's driving this.

For us to all of a sudden in the middle of that change streams or change the horses or whatever I think could be starting from scratch again, starting the whole thing all over again and creating even further turmoil.

So I would agree with you that what we have here re PLA and CSAC under COR is rolling out, is experiencing some growing pains, some challenges. However, I don't share an opinion, if there is one in the room, that this is insurmountable or somehow different from other experiences and that it won't in the end resolve itself so it does achieve what was hoped in the Vision 2000 paper when they suggested very clearly that this is what happen.

On the issue of governance, which became actually in many ways the more dramatic of the issues --

Mr McGuinty: Tony, may I interrupt you for just a moment?

Mr Martin: Sure.

Mr McGuinty: Mr Martin's moving into the issue of governance. I wonder if it's possible for us to wrap up this section and then get into governance so that we can move on and leave this thing --

The Chair: We only have until 11 o'clock this morning, and Mr Pond also wishes to speak, so maybe at this point I will let Mr Pond respond.

Mr Pond: Just to sum up, just so I'm absolutely clear about what the committee is agreeing to --

Mrs Cunningham: Before, I want to speak to just one piece, and then maybe he can sum up.

The Chair: All right.

Mrs Cunningham: There is a memorandum of understanding between the Minister of Education and Training, CSAC and the Council of Regents I would like to put on the record, dated February 12, 1993, when CSAC was established by order in council. I think this memorandum stresses, and I'm going to quote, that "the effectiveness of CSAC will depend on the extent to which it can operate and be perceived to operate independent of the interests of any single organization, including the government."

I'm going back to the bottom line, and that is, because it was not perceived to be operating independently and because, in spite of anything anyone might say, it's not just a concern of those of us who are representing different colleges and universities -- there's no doubt in my mind that every college has made a statement of concern in this regard -- we can't ignore it.

Those of us on the committee felt that it is operating independently, but it is not perceived to be operating independently. I think it's up to the government to correct that and so I'm not agreeing with what's been said. I want to go on the record. I was not convinced that the colleges are convinced, because of these public hearings, that CSAC is operating independently. I have been in touch with the colleges, the presidents and some of the boards of governors. They still would like the government to look into that.

I am in favour of one of the alternatives that we have, on page 35, which says -- it's a question: "Should the ministry formally review the mandate of the Council of Regents?" I say yes, because this is a role that has been added, a responsibility that has been added, even though it's at arm's length and because the Council of Regents' role is in legislation, if this is something that is at arm's length, I think the legislation should be reviewed and it should be stated in that regard.

That's my position after hearing what I have heard and I've gone back to the beginning. I wasn't around when that particular memorandum was drawn up, but I certainly did read that in a document that we all received in responses to questions of the standing committee of government agencies submitted by the Ontario Council of Regents themselves, just putting everything into perspective.

I don't agree we should tell the government that everything's great, because it isn't. It wasn't when we started and we haven't done one thing to make it better and neither has anybody else, except to be reassured that there is some room for improved communications. But we can't make that happen here. My view would be that this committee should tell the ministry that they should review the mandate of the Council of Regents and I would put that as a recommendation, with particular emphasis on the administration of CSAC, with a view that it not only operate independently of COR, but that it be perceived to operate independently. That's my recommendation or my motion, Madam Chair, and we can see what happens to it.

Ms Gigantes: Have you recognized a motion, Madam Chair? We don't have anything in writing before us. I think if Ms Cunningham wants to put a motion and frame it the way she's just suggested, then we should have it and deal with it, because I'm quite prepared to discuss that; but let's focus.

The Chair: Usually, when we're doing a report at this point, we don't formalize them in motions, but if this is going to be a point at which there would not be some kind of consensus, except in the actual wording being finalized by next week, I'm happy to take it as a motion if the committee deems that necessary.

Ms Gigantes: I think we'd better have it as a motion because I don't think there is consensus.

Mrs Cunningham: Madam Chair, my motion evolved from one of the options on page 35, possible recommendations, which I thought we were coming here to deal with today. Unfortunately, I went through the whole report and have circled a recommendation for all the sections, because that's what I thought we would be doing. It's so frustrating. That's mine on this one. Actually, Ms Gigantes raised this one first and that's why we're dealing with it first. So that's my motion.

The Chair: You're right. We are here to deal with this report.

Mrs Cunningham: I thought so. I certainly came prepared.

The Chair: Okay, so your motion is as on page 35. Are you just taking that one sentence out?

Mrs Cunningham: I think I got my message across, the intent. To make it simple for everybody, I would say that the ministry formally review the mandate of the Council of Regents with regard to the operations of CSAC and its independents. Because if I don't get that in the motion, people might think I want to review the whole Council of Regents' role, which is not what I'm talking about here; I'm talking about in relation to CSAC.

If somebody's got another way of putting it that they could support, I'd be interested in hearing it, because I'm not going to be married to these words. I want everybody to agree that that be the problem and that the ministry review the mandate itself.

The Chair: Okay, discussion on that motion.

1050

Ms Gigantes: I will not support that motion and I'll take a moment to say why. Both opposition critics have said to us that the process of the committee hearings, the testimony of the witnesses who came before us, has brought us to the conclusion that in fact CSAC is being carried out appropriately -- no, I will take that word back --

Mrs Cunningham: I hope so.

Ms Gigantes: -- because that was contested, but that it is being carried forward in an appropriate way. But what they're saying is, there is a perception that it is not. What is the point of having hearings which convince members that what is happening is happening in the way it should, except that somebody out there perceives that it's not happening in the way it should? Where does reality begin and fancy take over on matters like this?

What is the purpose of a committee hearing if not to establish what is real here? What was established to the satisfaction of members of this committee, including the opposition members, was that the work that is going on in CSAC is the work that should be going on in CSAC, that the "problem" that has been raised is a problem of perception. I think that --

Mrs Cunningham: Madam Chair, I'd like to speak to that.

Ms Gigantes: Excuse me, Madam Chair, I'm trying to explain my opposition to this motion.

The Chair: It's all right. Ms Cunningham --

Mrs Cunningham: At the appropriate time.

The Chair: Excuse me. I think Ms Cunningham was just indicating that she wants to be down. I have you on the list. Carry on, Ms Gigantes.

Ms Gigantes: Thank you ever so. It is our duty as members of a committee in hearing witnesses to come to a conclusion about what is real. It is our duty to separate so-called perception from what we find to be reality. Anything less is an abdication of our duty. Anything less is to say perception is more important than reality. I might say that I, as an individual member of this Legislature, have perhaps a keener sense of the need for us to take on that duty with seriousness than some other members of this committee might have.

Mrs Cunningham: Good for you.

Ms Gigantes: You will reflect on why that is.

Mrs Cunningham: Good for you. I wish I were as good as you were, obviously, and felt that way about myself. I can't believe you said that, Evelyn.

Mr Martin: Let's not be rude.

Mrs Cunningham: Rude? "I think I'm better than everybody on the committee and understand things more"?

Mr Martin: She's saying to you that she's had ministerial --

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Martin and Ms Cunningham.

Mrs Cunningham: We've got somebody here who's been a faculty member of a college, for heaven's sake, and somebody says, "I think I'm better qualified."

Ms Gigantes: If I could, Madam Chair --

The Chair: Excuse me.

Interjections.

Mrs Cunningham: It's a joke, the whole thing.

Mr Curling: Of course it is.

Interjections.

Ms Gigantes: I had to leave a cabinet post, Madam Chair, because people said that perception was as important as reality.

Mrs Cunningham: Perception is part of -- you didn't listen -- the regulations, for heaven's sake. That word is in there.

Ms Gigantes: We have discovered, as members of this committee, and members of this committee opposite have said, that the reality is that CSAC is working well. There is a perception, they say, that there's a problem.

Mrs Cunningham: Bull.

Ms Gigantes: Is that parliamentary, Madam Chair? Really, what's the matter with you, Dianne? Why can't I say my piece?

Mrs Cunningham: Madam Chair, I would like to answer that question.

The Chair: I think the debate is deteriorating --

Ms Gigantes: It certainly has.

The Chair: -- and I would ask members to use some restraint. We are down to the last three minutes that we can spend on this --

Mrs Cunningham: And the idea is that I'm not going to be able to talk about what "perception" means. That's the idea.

The Chair: I think in fairness we should allow time for all members to --

Mrs Cunningham: We can go on accusing people of not knowing what "perception" means, and not having a chance to defend yourself because somebody says it over and over again is very frustrating, Madam Chair. I'd like to say it isn't just perception.

Ms Gigantes: You're being a bully, Dianne. You won't even let me finish saying what I'm going to say.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Is this a point of order? Wait your turn.

Ms Gigantes: What behaviour that is. It's absolutely ridiculous, Madam Chair. I appeal to you for some assistance here.

The Chair: Members, I'm going to adjourn this committee in a minute if we don't have some order. Ms Gigantes has the floor, and I think in fairness if you can sum up quickly, Ms Gigantes -- there won't be any time for the opposition to speak further on this matter today in any case, because we do have scheduled appointments at 11 o'clock this morning. Obviously, we are going to have to spend more time on this report, in any case.

Ms Gigantes: Shall I continue?

The Chair: You have the floor.

Ms Gigantes: We had many witnesses before us who did not think there was a perception problem. It's important for committee members to recognize that --

Mrs Cunningham: How do you know that?

Ms Gigantes: Because they gave us testimony to that effect.

Mrs Cunningham: I see. Name one.

Ms Gigantes: You can look through the Hansard and you will find it.

Mrs Cunningham: I was here for all the hearings.

Ms Gigantes: I read all the hearings, so --

Mrs Cunningham: Good for you.

Ms Gigantes: Madam Chair, I can't continue when I'm constantly being interrupted. I appeal to you for your assistance as Chair.

The Chair: I think you should just carry on, Ms Gigantes.

Ms Gigantes: I have not been able to carry on, Madam Chair. I ask your assistance.

Interjections.

The Chair: Excuse me. I think what we'll do if this continues is we will adjourn the remaining five minutes of this meeting and we will have to reconvene next Wednesday to continue giving direction on this report. I might like to indicate to members a great deal of money has been invested in conducting hearings of this committee into this subject matter which was an agency of the government selected for review. I think it's time we fulfilled our commitment and our work mandate, which is to complete a report on that review.

Ms Gigantes, you have the floor and we do have an appointment scheduled for 11 o'clock.

Ms Gigantes: I will vote against the motion. I will expect that once that motion is either supported or defeated, we will move to a follow-up motion that deals with the same subject, if it's defeated. If Mrs Cunningham's motion is defeated, we will consider an alternative motion.

I would be prepared, in an alternative motion, to look at the first suggestion that has been laid out for us by the researcher which is number 1: Does the committee wish to endorse the decision? Yes. In fact, we have heard yes from opposition members. They agree that the role that has been taken on by the Council of Regents (1) as an administrative role only with CSAC and (2) as the guiding group to see to a consistent and comprehensive implementation of prior learning assessment across the college system -- both those are good decisions and they're being carried forward effectively.

The one contention of the opposition is that there's a perception problem and I think it's very important for us as committee members who have sat and listened to the testimony or, as I did, read the testimony in lieu of that, to say what we have found as we became familiar with that testimony, that the perception is misplaced. I believe the perception to be misplaced. Now, if what the opposition members are saying is, "We believe that the perception is well placed," I'd like to know why they feel it's well placed. What was it that was said by those witnesses who came to us with those perceptions? What was it they said that made you feel those comments were well placed?

The Chair: Excuse me, Ms Gigantes. I'm going to stop you at this point because we have other people who wish to speak to this motion and at this point today the committee is out of time on this matter. I am going to suggest that the motion remain on the floor for other people to take part in the debate and that point is where we will pick up this matter next week, and it is at 10 o'clock next week that we have time set aside to deal with this report. We will continue the debate and the direction to Mr Pond next week.

In the intervening week, I would ask committee members to decide whether you want to request that time be set aside during the recess to complete this report, because it's obvious if the direction is only being given next week to Mr Pond and the House rises next Thursday, this report will not be complete, which will be disappointing because we won't have completed any of our reports of the agencies we've reviewed this year, this summer, because we won't be able to complete the report on the St Lawrence Parks Commission either, next Wednesday.

1100

I'm giving that direction as Chair. Is the committee in favour of that direction?

Ms Gigantes: Which direction?

The Chair: The direction is that we resume the consideration of the draft report on the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology, and on the floor at this point is the motion by Mrs Cunningham that the ministry formally review the mandate of the Council of Regents with regard to CSAC and its independence.

Mr Curling: Could I speak to that, Madam Chair? The motion is on the floor. One didn't get an opportunity to either support it or not to support it and time ran out on us and I think there should be time given, next time around --

The Chair: What I am saying is that when we start the meeting next week, we will start with the discussion on that motion because the discussion at this point is not complete on that motion. I am simply adjourning this subject at this point today and we will pick it up --

Mr Curling: My concern, though, is that there are some time limits going to be placed on us, because when we have Ms Gigantes speaking right out of time today, next time when we come around and Mr Waters or Mr Martin, who seem to be --

The Chair: No, next time we will start with Mrs Cunningham and yourself --

Ms Gigantes: I'm not finished.

Mr Curling: Exactly, that's the point I'm talking about.

The Chair: I think what we'd better do then, if we're going to start having difficulty with time and giving equal time to all members of the committee to speak, I'm going to have to go to allocating time and using the stopwatch which we do in other sections of this committee work. In fairness, I think every member of this committee on any side of the table should have an equal amount of time to debate the motion.

Mrs Cunningham: Madam Chair, just on a point, I think, of privilege here with regard to perception: Ms Gigantes, just so she can consider this, wanted specific examples. The examples are in that section on page 35, the examples are real. With regard to the perception, they are there. The council of governors and the council of presidents made their point and they are all in that paragraph.

The Chair: Mrs Cunningham, you're starting to debate it --

Mrs Cunningham: I think it's a point of privilege that perception has been backed up or well placed.

Ms Gigantes: Madam Chair, point of order: That is not a point of privilege.

The Chair: I think we are now going to take the course that I have suggested and we will resume this discussion next week. I have on the list Ms Gigantes to complete her comments, and I would point out, Ms Gigantes, that you have been speaking at this point for about 25 minutes.

Ms Gigantes: That's incorrect, and you will see that when you look at Hansard.

The Chair: All right. I have Mrs Cunningham and Mr Curling.

INTENDED APPOINTMENTS PETER GALLANT

Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Peter Gallant, intended appointee as member, Ontario Council on University Affairs.

The Chair: We will now move to the next part of this morning's meeting, which is to review an intended appointment by the government of Mr Peter Gallant as an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Council of University Affairs. Is Mr Gallant in the room?

Welcome, Mr Gallant. You've just had an education in parliamentary procedure.

Mr Peter Gallant: Good morning.

The Chair: We're glad you're here before the committee this morning. This review is a selection by the Progressive Conservative caucus and so we would start with you, Mrs Cunningham.

Mrs Cunningham: Madam Chair, you're going to have to get out of the Chair because I'm not aware of this at all.

The Chair: All right.

Mr Curling: Let's chase her out of the Chair.

Mrs Cunningham: Maybe somebody else could be the Chair while you make the points.

The Chair: The point is, I didn't select, I'm the Chair; this was a selection by the third party. We will move to the government members if the third party doesn't have any questions.

Ms Gigantes: On a point of order, Margaret: I hope I don't offend, but normally we allow people who come before us on appointment matters to say a few words on their own before they begin if they wish.

The Chair: That's not really a point of order, but what we do in the committee is that for quite a long time I asked if people would like to make a brief opening statement, and what I have found through the experience of giving them that opportunity is that the majority prefer not to. I have stopped asking them because I think it puts them under some pressure to think they're obligated to do it.

Mr Gallant: In fact I was asked, and I was told that the practice was generally not to give an opening statement. I'd be glad to say a few words if you wish. If you'd like, I could briefly introduce myself.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr Gallant: I'm Peter Gallant. I'm currently a second-year PhD student in the department of electrical engineering at Queen's University, and I'm very proud to have been asked to attend the meeting today as an intended appointee to OCUA. You may ask what my interest in being on OCUA is. I think it's one of the more important areas in which universities and government have a chance to interact and liaise; it fulfils a very important role in that respect. I have some experience in our university system in the areas that OCUA covers, particularly in the funding areas of universities.

If my résumé is before you -- I'm not sure if it is -- I was chair of the university's budget review committee for two years, and I was the first student to hold that chair, as far as I know. It was chaired before by Suzanne Fortier, who's a member of OCUA currently.

Subsequent to that I've also spent three years on the university senate and I currently serve as the university's rector, which I was just recently elected to. The rector is the only student member who's a voting member on the board of trustees, so there's a serious representation role to be played in that respect as well. Technically, I'm also the third officer of the university, behind the principal and the chancellor.

I don't know what else I would be able to add to my résumé. I guess I'd welcome questions at this point, since I didn't prepare an opening statement.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): You've already answered some of what I was going to ask. Do you feel it is important that there be students on OCUA?

Mr Gallant: Absolutely. I think that OCUA, being a buffer organization, should have internal representation and be able to hear representations from all the stakeholders in the universities. Those I consider the stakeholders are of course the university administrators, the government, and students, because they pay almost 20% of the cost of operating universities these days, and also the private sector and corporations.

Ms Carter: It's certainly a big concern of this government that consumers, in whatever field, have their opinions heard, because that's basic.

Personally, I'm very concerned about the whole financial crisis universities are going through, and it seems as though we're coming up to a real crunch on this. I know the amount of money available to universities has been whittled away over time, and now we hear that the cash transfers from the federal government are possibly going to disappear entirely. There is the question being raised of whether student tuition fees shouldn't be the means by which universities raise their money much more than has been the case in the past; of course this is something the federal government is putting forward.

I just wondered if we could have your thoughts on that whole issue.

Mr Gallant: I'll address my comments in two areas: one is tuition fees, the second being the general nature of university funding.

I was just recently at the OCUA hearings when they came to Kingston. I've been on the OCUA prep team for Queen's for two years. The message we sent recently to OCUA was that option C, which was the continuation of a corridor system of some form, is probably a good way to go, that the corridor system has not had a chance to stay in place long enough for all universities to get comfortable with it and to operate with it effectively.

1110

Anybody who's associated with universities in any regard is greatly disturbed by this idea of ongoing base budget cuts. Every year for the last several years, universities have been subjected to a 2% or a 3% or a 4% base budget cut across the board. In a budget review report I wrote two years ago, I said we really have to watch that universities do not get ground into mediocrity; in other words, by eroding our base budget to such a point that we lose quality. It's much more expensive to restore quality than it is to maintain quality. I'm very concerned about the level of payments to universities in that regard.

Ms Carter: Absolutely. I also hear from students in my own area that should this system be realized, where you pay back afterwards according to your job and so on --

Mr Gallant: Income-contingent loan repayment?

Ms Carter: Yes, that students from less wealthy backgrounds would feel themselves to be much more compromised than would those who had a little more financial backing, and we would fall short of the ongoing objective of making this education equally available to people, whatever their background.

Mr Gallant: A couple of points on that: I think ICLRP, or income-contingent loan repayment plan, is something students need now, regardless of whether or not tuition fees increase. There is a category of students that you will help right now with an ICLRP -- absolutely. ICLRP should not be looked upon as a licence to government to raise tuition fees excessively, but I don't think any student will deny their responsibility to pay into the system.

My personal belief -- this is my eighth year as a university student, so I've paid lots of tuition -- is that I still fundamentally believe university education is a bargain with respect to what you get out of it; I think it's a bargain with respect to what the country gets out of it. I don't think any student is coming forward saying they're going to welsh on their part of the deal with regard to tuition fees. It's just that no student can really survive another massive set of increases in tuition fees without some sort of loan and repayment support, and the dilemma you're faced with is that at the end of even a four-year undergraduate degree, you've got a $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 debt built up. So the income-contingent feature of any repayment plan is obviously desirable.

Ms Carter: I'll hand over to my colleague. You're obviously pretty well up on the financial side.

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Could you comment on fees as a barrier to admission, particularly as a deterrent to, let's say, women, immigrants and lower-income groups generally, and perhaps relate this to what happens at your university and your experience in discussions.

Mr Gallant: I think there's a perception at my university specifically that only the affluent attend, and I can tell you that's not necessarily the case. Tuition fees are not the only barrier to accessibility of universities. Tuition fees as a proportion of overall expenses that students incur is relatively small. The costs of housing and accommodation and books -- I was at the university bookstore a couple of months ago watching undergraduates purchase their textbooks and ringing up incredible bills. All of those factors are simply above and beyond the tuition fee issue itself. Tuition fees certainly add an additional component that does hinder accessibility.

I'm fairly proud of our university's record in providing bursary and tuition support which roughly tracks on to the percentage increase of tuition fees each year, so by doing that we are helping students with bursary support. If you look at one of those Maclean's surveys or almost any other source of data, our university is actually one of the top in terms of providing support, but that's done at extraordinary cost to the university. That money being, of course, with the corridor funding system, largely discretionary, there's nothing in the rule book for the university administration to do that, but they realize that without that the quality of our students will suffer, because there's also nothing in the rule book that says the best-quality students are the ones who come from the best financial backgrounds. The best students I've had interactions with, most of them, are on some sort of bursary support. It's part of the fundamental nature of universities to have that diversity.

Mr Frankford: Following up on your comment about the costs apart from the fees, I'm not sure if this comes into OCUA directly, but do you have any thoughts on ways in which one could be helping to make life easier in other directions?

Mr Gallant: I think an ICLRP will help with that somewhat. Students are relying rather heavily on other types of government assistance, OSAP and the like, to make ends meet right now. The university has a fairly good system of providing emergency bursaries, but additional government support of that side of the operation would definitely be appropriate.

There are large numbers of bursary funds now that are designed for emergencies. I'll cite one example. Our dean of women, Dr Pamela Dickey Young, has a fund set up to help women students who are in desperate financial need, and that fund is usually exhausted within the first month of the eight-month term.

Certainly some additional kind of targeted grant or support in the area of bridging emergency funds will help, but on a strategic level I think an ICLRP is the way to go, as long as the benefit of an ICLRP are not all absorbed by large tuition fee increases. There has to be some additional value in there.

Mr Curling: Mr Gallant, thank you for coming before the committee. I can see you have quite a good understanding of the struggles of students. I say that because there aren't many students who go through colleges who have an understanding of the struggles of students. Sometimes some of the struggles are borne by parents, by family. But you seem to understand, very much so, some of those struggles, especially in regard to the costs of education above tuition fees: housing and ancillary fees and books etc that really create the struggle.

I'm glad you commented on the fact that some people with undergraduate degrees are ending with a $20,000 loan on their hands. When this government wiped out OSAP grants, it really put a great burden on those students.

I'm not going to be very long with my questions, but a couple of things. I don't know if I'm repeating what has been said before in some of the comments you've made, but I would like you to touch on an area that is not really debated very much, at a loss to Canada: the foreign students and overseas students who come here to study. What is your view on that?

Mr Gallant: I was rather disturbed this year to find that our university was not alone in a trend that's been occurring. That is, this year for the first time our graduate student enrolment of international and visa students declined sharply. It dropped our overall graduate enrolment down to approximately 16% to 17% of the university population. Our stated target in submissions to both OCUA and to the government have been at the 20% enrolment target level, and a lot of the declines this year were seen on the international student side.

We can attribute that to a couple of things. One is that a lot of foreign granting agencies that were sponsoring their students from their own home governments are not sending students to Ontario as much any more, quite frankly, because of the high cost of our graduate tuition, because of the differential fee structure. Foreign students pay significantly higher tuition fees than do domestic students. Combining that with additional fee increases on the visa fee side as well have put strain on our system, and we've seen that reflected this year in enrolments on the graduate side.

Mr Curling: It is extremely unfortunate, because I think Canada loses out on not having more foreign students, overseas students, studying here.

What is your view of the recent incident that happened where the Ontario government, in agreement, requested the Quebec government not to accept students at McGill University in the faculty of medicine? I'm concerned about Ontario Canadians who would like to go to do some medicine, and later on maybe going to some other countries to practise medicine, but being refused at McGill.

1120

Mr Gallant: To be honest, I actually hadn't heard of that. The last couple of months I've been studying for my last PhD comprehensive exams, so I've had the blinders on to the news, unfortunately.

Interjection.

Mr Curling: Ms Gigantes always has a view without knowing the facts.

Let me put it this way to you: If a university turns down an Ontarian because there is some agreement saying they will not receive students in the faculty of medicine --

Mr Gallant: So they've reduced their enrolment target?

Mr Curling: They said they will not accept residents from outside Quebec, although Quebec also said that if you had residence there and wanted to go McGill, "We'll review the applicant." Do you see this as a progressive move, or do you have any understanding why that could happen? If that is happening, is there something on this issue you feel could be raised on the committee you sit on?

Mr Gallant: My view on that would be guided by more of a philosophical belief that beyond the intellectual and academic capabilities of students, any status attached beyond that really should have minimal impact on admission decisions. It's been a policy of our university, and I believe many other universities -- you hear the message again and again as an internal person who's working within the university system that "We want the best."

Mr Curling: Wherever you want to study.

Mr Gallant: If the best calibre of students are not only domestic students from within Quebec but students from Ontario and across Canada and from other countries, from a philosophical perspective I think I would say to get the best calibre of students first, because the dynamics of a diverse group are exciting to watch from the inside.

Mr Curling: Do you feel that professional associations should dictate how many students should be accepted in a faculty?

Mr Gallant: Professional associations? For example, the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, the APEO?

Mr Curling: Yes. The medical association, what have you, will say only so many people should be accepted in the faculty of medicine, the faculty of engineering. Should they be dictating that?

Mr Gallant: I think they have a legitimate say in that because they're part of the accreditation process. For example, take Queen's: If all of a sudden we tripled our engineering enrolment without increasing our lab space, and reducing the number of tutorials, reducing the number of courses, reducing the number of sections, are we giving the same level and quality of education? I think a professional organization does have a role in maintaining professional standards within the universities as well, so as part of the accreditation process, yes, they do have a legitimate role in that.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'm very impressed with the responses you've given. It's obvious that you have a very excellent knowledge of the university situation and also that you're very fair.

You talked about the ICLRP, and of course that was a position that the Ontario PC Party first put forward in 1992 in our education paper, and we were really pleased to see the student body follow through on that. We're very supportive, but I would have to agree with you, I hope it's not totally absorbed in tuition increases, because the reality is that the expenses go far beyond that.

I would agree with you too and was pleased to hear you say that students do need to recognize -- I'm taking it a little differently -- that there is a value to a university education. I think it is important that there be that acknowledgement.

I just have one question for you, and that is related to the discussion paper Sustaining Quality in Changing Times. I don't know how familiar you are with that, but when the hearings were held, as you know there were three alternative models of funding proposed. Model C has obviously proven to be very controversial, where the separate funding would be allocated for teaching and research and --

Mr Gallant: Essentially purchasing services on a contract basis.

Mrs Witmer: Yes. What's your reaction to that particular model?

Mr Gallant: I think that it's a very difficult and dangerous process to actually have to call in almost an auditor and assign numerical values to activities which really cannot be separated from each other. There is such a great interdependence between teaching and research. You always hear that classic debate in universities, teaching versus research, and the answer really is no.

Teaching and research are complementary activities and you can't really pull them apart and separately value them, because if you do it in the wrong way and you pull it apart in the wrong way, you're going to drive a wedge between our best teachers and our best researchers, and those individuals happen to be one and the same individuals in most cases. There's a definite synergy there.

On the teaching and research front I think it's very difficult (a) to assess a value and (b) to introduce some sort of diversification of a broad continuum of the services and responsibilities that a university provides. Also I think that when you're talking about governments engaging in contractual negotiations legitimately with universities, we are taking away a lot from the autonomy of universities as well.

If, all of a sudden, it was decided that Queen's is now going to be the teaching university in the province of Ontario and the University of Waterloo is going to be the research university in the province of Ontario, it's fairly simple for a government to be able to negotiate agreements that would certainly skew research and teaching in those directions.

We already see that in federal granting councils, the steering effect of research. In other words, you're being steered towards the dollars in research and away from the prime mission of the university, which is to engage yourself in intellectually stimulating activity and be at the leading edge, be it of research development or academe. By virtue of being on that leading edge you're also bringing graduate and undergraduate students up to that leading edge, and that's where the synergy occurs.

Mrs Witmer: Exactly. That's right.

Mr Gallant: We're quite aware of the steering effect of research. I don't know if there's any way necessarily of minimizing that. There are just the fiscal realities and the realities of the situation. But I would be rather vehemently opposed to contractual negotiations on universities just because of the potential for the steering effect and a loss of autonomy and also the fact that I think it's an impossible process. I think OCUA would be embarking upon a process which it really could not finish or do justice to. It's too difficult a problem.

Mrs Witmer: Well, having two universities, the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier, in my own riding, you can probably appreciate that they very much agree with the position you have just stated. Thank you very much. I wish you all the best and I know you'll be just an excellent representative.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Witmer, and thank you, Mr Gallant, for your appearance before the committee this morning.

Mr Gallant: Thanks. I've enjoyed being here.

The Chair: Our next intended appointment interview this morning is not here yet.

Mr Waters: He could be in the hall at the back. There's a gentleman sitting in the hall.

The Chair: The clerk is out in the hall looking at this moment and is shaking her head, so I'm taking direction from the clerk.

Why don't we move to our subcommittee meeting with all the members here and get that work done while we wait for Mr West. I had been advised that Mr West had to leave by 12 in any case, so if we can do our subcommittee work now that will be helpful.

The committee recessed from 1129 to 1137.

ROGER WEST

Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Roger West, intended appointee as vice-chair, Custody Review Board.

The Chair: We have completed the recess, in which we dealt with a subcommittee meeting, and we are now back to our agenda for this morning, which is a review of Mr Roger West, who is to be appointed as vice-chair of the Custody Review Board. We welcome you to the committee this morning, Mr West.

Mr Roger West: Thank you very kindly. May I initially thank the committee for accommodating me. Whether you are aware of it or not, my initial appointment was two weeks ago and because of pressures from work, I requested a different date. That was granted and I thank you.

The Chair: You're welcome. We were happy to be able to accommodate you. I also understand you have to leave by noon today and that's fine with the committee because some of the committee members have schedules that they have to meet too.

Mr West: Far be it from me to stand between anyone and lunch.

The Chair: We will start with Ms Witmer.

Mrs Witmer: Mr West, it's a pleasure to have you here today. I just want to ask you some questions related to the changes that are being contemplated by the federal Justice minister and were introduced on June 2, 1994, regarding amendments to the Young Offenders Act. Do you have any response?

Mr West: Not particularly. We have discussed this, as a matter of fact, at the board and the consensus there was that essentially our job is to administer or work with the act as it is. We feel that we can make the best contribution through, for example, the recommendations that we include in our annual report. So we're quite prepared to work with the act and its recommendations or limitations as it comes down to us.

Mrs Witmer: Given the fact that we have a Young Offenders Act presently and there are changes contemplated, I would like you to be a little more specific. Which of the recommendations do you feel are necessary, from your past experience, and will be helpful?

Mr West: Quite frankly, I'm not in a position to comment on that. There's been a great deal of public comment and public fears expressed and all the rest of it. I do feel the people who are in close this way will get a consensus and make the best possible of it and we'll simply go along with what comes along.

Mrs Witmer: What about raising the maximum penalty for first-degree murder to 10 years? How do you see that change, being positive or moving us in the right direction?

Mr West: Let me separate my thoughts here from the board's policy. This is what I take to the board. I must confess I share a certain level of the general public fear that is quite evident on the matter of what is perceived as very light penalties for very heavy crimes.

Personal philosophy: You do the crime, you do the time. I think something of that nature -- and you're specifically addressing murder -- yes, I would personally be in favour of an increased sentence for that, not as a matter of revenge but to give the excellent people who work in this system an opportunity perhaps to do something with someone obviously very, very troubled, who may well have come from a horrendous background.

Given the nature of the staff that I've met -- because we hold our board meetings at the facilities -- these are tremendous people and they work miracles in a lot of cases, but they do need time. Under those circumstances, I would think that would be most appropriate.

Mrs Witmer: Following along on that, and I appreciate that obviously the opinions you are stating are totally personal opinions, there's the other change where the youth courts will be empowered to request a psychological or medical assessment of the serious or the chronic young offender and they would lose their right to refuse treatment. What is your opinion of that particular section?

Mr West: Well, there's considerable of this assessment done now, court-ordered of course, in addition to the care program that is established for young offenders in the facility in which they find themselves. I'm an amateur in this. We have two red-headed sons who are now grown, but you get a certain amount of experience that way.

I think this type of assessment is very valid, because when you talk to the staff who deal with these people, although they of course don't open up on an individual or personal basis -- I referred earlier to the horrendous background that some of these youngsters come from and they obviously need assistance in that. The problem was created and the damage was done when they were much too young to be able to handle it on their own, and it has simply gone from there and so often, as we all see, it feeds on itself and it just goes from bad to worse.

If this is some way we can be of assistance, I'm all in favour of that because that's the way most of us were raised. We had the good fortune to come from good homes and didn't always like the medicine, but in the long haul it has worked reasonably well for most of us and I think that should be applied here.

Mrs Witmer: I would certainly agree with you. I think you can have stricter penalties and enforce the laws, but obviously there's a root cause for the behaviour and at the present time young offenders can refuse psychiatric treatment. Obviously if we're going to incarcerate them, we need to take a look at dealing with the problems that have contributed to the active violence, particularly where one has suffered injury or committed a crime of murder.

Thank you very much. I wish you well.

Mr West: Thank you.

The Chair: Government members? Mr Waters.

Mr Waters: I'm going to do something that the other side always does, so I'm going to beat Mr Curling. It says here you were a political candidate at one time.

Mr West: Yes.

Mr Waters: Can I ask if you have any political affiliation?

Mr West: Now? I maintain my political interests, yes, as I think people should.

Mr Waters: Do I dare, and you can refuse to answer if you want -- can I ask what party?

Mr West: Yes. I have long belonged to the Conservative Party. I have voted more than one way years ago, to the absolute disgust of some of my relatives, but that's another story. I've outlived them.

Mr Waters: I like that. We've had people here before from this particular board, and I guess the key thing that everyone has to understand is that you recommend and you do not place, that indeed the process, and I'm not exactly sure I'll ever get it down straight in my mind so maybe you can refresh it if you would, but the process is that somebody comes before you and you make recommendations in some way.

Mr West: Yes, and I think frankly that is perhaps the board's greatest strength. We have no ties and we have no authority to order things done, so when a young offender makes an application to the board because of a problem, the board has the opportunity to act almost as a mediator or conciliator in this. The board can be the "they" who won't recommend that you be transferred from here to there or who really won't recommend that you get that temporary release that you want so badly. So we provide a bit of an escape valve in that sense.

But beyond that in the fact that we can recommend only, we can work back and forth with everybody involved without being committed to anyone, and no one is going to be resentful of an order that we issue. I don't doubt for a moment that in ways the administration and staff of the facilities may at times see us as rather uneducated outsiders, which is part of the reason that we, as often as we can, hold our board meetings in the facilities, to talk not only to administration and to hear administration but we have lunch with the young offenders and we hear them.

Once they get past the shirt and tie, in the case of the males who are there, they'll relax and open up and just chat, and you can get somewhat of a flavour for the way these young people think and what they want and so on. They don't all have fangs and they're not all someone to be chained to the wall for the safety of the rest of us. With some of them, it's the wrong place at the wrong time. It's just a cross-section of life, which is a long-winded answer to your question. But I do think that recommendation only enables us to fulfil a much broader role or mandate and work to the betterment of everyone, the system included.

Mr Waters: So in a sense, you're like a mediator or a group of people who do mediation, and indeed not only at times does this work out to the benefit of the youth or the juvenile but can also work out to the benefit of the institution or the custodian, because you come to an agreement. Maybe it will work out better for both -- have this person placed elsewhere or explain to the person why they're in that particular facility.

Mr West: Yes, and that latter part, explained to the person involved, is very important to keep in mind, because the youngsters are involved in this. I mean, they make the request initially, and this talking or negotiating, whatever you choose to call it, isn't done behind their back or around them. They are part of it. You talk to the young offender first, you talk to the staff and maybe you go back to the offender again. Then if there's a hearing held on site, everybody will be involved, so there are no secrets and no secret deals made or anything to this effect. It's all out in the open, and the youngster knows why something is or is not happening.

That doesn't necessarily guarantee they're going to be happy with it, but at least they know that someone will listen to them and give them a hearing. I think in a lot of cases, it works out that in their heart of hearts they know that this was the best or perhaps the only possible solution. There's face-saving so they have to storm and stomp around, but this is where it comes in to be of assistance to the administration of the facility. It's the board that gets the blame, not the person who has to eyeball that young offender for long periods of time every day. So we feel, both as a mediator and an escape valve, that we have and serve a function.

Mr Waters: I guess out of that, obviously a young person wouldn't be able to say, "Well, I just don't want to be here." That wouldn't give them enough reason to get before the board.

Mr West: No, because the first you ask is: "Well, why not?" If they come up with a legitimate reason or argument -- the one most often used is, "Well, I want to be closer to family." Upon occasion we consult with the family as well, because that's not always a mutual thing. You hit, unfortunately, families where they just throw their hands up and say: "Hey, we've just had it for a while and we need a break from this. It's a long lug from home to the facility and we can't get there very often but we need that rest. We need that break to sort of refresh ourselves." And I'm not condemning those parents or that parent. We all have our limits, and some of the case histories are trying, to be charitable.

Mr Waters: Being a father of two --

Mr West: A grandfather of five --

Mr Waters: -- anybody who's been a parent, sometimes it gets trying.

Mr West: Sure. That's right.

Mr Waters: I think we'd all like a vacation for a day or two at times.

I can't remember; how long have you been on the board?

Mr West: I've completed two terms, and in light of the expansion of the board on a geographical, cultural basis and so on, I was very flattered to be invited to stay on for another term, this time as vice-chair, simply to provide sort of an administrative presence in Toronto. Our chair is from the Simcoe area and there are physical or mechanical ways that I could be of assistance by living literally across the street from the office. So that would be facilitated.

Mr Waters: Coming this time of the year, for the next two or three months, the commute gets a bit more difficult, because I understand that the chair is from Simcoe.

Mr West: Yes, that's right, the vagaries of weather being what they are.

Mr Waters: Yes, weather being weather. I wish you well. I think you've shown a lot of knowledge about it and a lot of care in your questions. I wish you well in the future.

Mr West: Thank you very much.

Mr Curling: Thank you, Mr West, for coming in. I must commend Mr Waters for his astute observation, after you placed in there that you're a political candidate, to ask, have you been a candidate for a political party? However --

Mr West: No, the province is safe from me in the future. I have no plans to be a candidate.

Mr Curling: I've visited quite a few of the young offenders or the institutions like Toronto West and areas that hold young offenders. I'll just ask you to comment again on the section, the part about "youth courts should be empowered to request psychological or medical assessment of serious or chronic young offenders."

What I have found is that there is a high rate of functional illiteracy there. What would be your feeling about assessing every young offender who comes in there not only psychologically but also where they are tested for literacy and other inadequacies that sometimes lead to frustration for creating crimes and the offshoots of things like that? Because I do find a high rate of illiteracy and frustration among the young people.

Mr West: I'm certainly not arguing with your assessment of the rate of illiteracy; of course it happens. But a certain amount of that is assessed when the youngster comes in and a program is initiated for that person. The interviewing is quite extensive and there of course are school opportunities within the facilities, in addition to shop and arts and so on and so forth. So in determining at what level the youngster should be, there is an assessment done of that, and if there is an illiteracy problem, there is material available from outside as well. That has been a relatively small area of interest of mine in trying to involve people who work to combat illiteracy by getting them to provide something that the facilities can work with.

That has only started, so I don't know how much success there will be on that, but I share your concern that undoubtedly quite a few of the kids come in with that problem and the frustration that goes with it. As to a heavier psychiatric or psychological assessment, that may well have been ordered by the courts or recommended as part of the parole or whatever. I do agree that there is a need. Whether we have the resources in terms of both people and money to apply that to everyone, I don't know, but where there's an obvious or crying need, I'm all in favour of it, yes.

Mr Curling: Yes, because my concern is that even when you go into the adult prisons, you do find that the illiteracy rate is extremely high. As a matter of fact, when you look at the young offenders too, they are many of the dropouts of school and there needs to be an assessment pretty early. Sometimes one could arrest some of that behavioural pattern that will continue later on. I'm not saying it's going to be the solution for all things, but I'm pretty concerned, because even in Ontario here we have a very high rate of functional illiteracy. We see the spinoffs of that.

I basically just wanted to raise that point. With your experience, I'm confident that you see the trend, you understand the issues, and I wish you well in your new role.

Mr West: Thank you very kindly. I appreciate that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr West, for your appearance before the committee this morning.

We need a motion, please, to approve. Mr Waters moves the approval of Mr Peter J. Gallant as a member of the Ontario Council on University Affairs and Mr Roger West as vice-chair of the Custody Review Board. All in favour of that motion? That motion is carried.

The committee stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1155.