CONTENTS
Wednesday 12 June 1991
Appointments review
Chisanga Puta-Chekwe
Catherine Anne Trebinskie
Richard Johnston
Status of recommendations
Review of intended appointments
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
Vice-Chair: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East PC)
Bradley, James J. (St. Catharines L)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East NDP)
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East L)
Haslam, Karen (Perth NDP)
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent NDP)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West NDP)
Substitution: Elston, Murray J. (Bruce L) for Mr Bradley
Clerk: Arnott, Douglas
Staff: Pond, David, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1018 in room 228.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Resuming consideration of intended appointments.
The Chair: I am going to see a quorum and get under way. We have witnesses who are waiting to appear and I do not want to delay the proceedings any longer than we already have.
The first item on the agenda is the report of the subcommittee on committee business, which is attached to your agenda. I just wonder if any members have any questions or comments they would like to make with respect to that report. As you see, we agreed to waive the right to review a significant number of potential appointees simply because of time constraints.
CHISANGA PUTA-CHEKWE
The Chair: We will move on to the next item of business, and that is the half-hour review of Chisanga Puta-Chekwe, who is an intended appointee as a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Welcome to the committee, sir. Would you like to make brief comments?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: Just one or two minor points: First, I apologize for my late arrival, but unfortunately I was not in control of the traffic in Toronto. It took longer to get from the airport to downtown Toronto than it did to get from Ottawa to Toronto. That is one minor point.
Second, there have been some minor changes to my curriculum vitae, and I have an updated CV, if that is of any interest to this committee.
The Chair: The clerk can take that from you.
Mr Puta-Chekwe: Unfortunately I have only two copies.
Third, there is likely to be a further change in my status in the sense that I appear for my citizenship interview on 4 December. I could not get it any earlier than that.
Other than that, I think we are on track and I have no further comments.
The Chair: Mr Puta-Chekwe, you were the selection of the official opposition and we are going to begin the questioning with Mr Elston. Mr Elston, would you like to have a copy of the revised CV?
Mr Elston: Yes, it would be fun, Mr Chair, if you could, although I suspect that my questions will be brief. Welcome to Toronto. We have to live with this traffic here. If this government would just get around to putting some money into roads, it would really make things a lot easier.
Mr Wiseman: You have a lot of nerve saying that, Mr Elston, coming from eastern Ontario.
Mr Elston: I recall having been buffeted on the odd occasion by other people, and even by a guy by the name of Richard Johnston, who will appear later for some merciless interrogation about his appointment.
I was going to ask, actually, if you were involved in any sort of public partisan activity, but then it says you have "the ability to write concise and learned decisions," which automatically excludes you from political activism, I presume.
Mr Puta-Chekwe: I do not know if it excludes me from political activism, but I am not involved in political activities.
Mr Elston: You have been in Canada for how long?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: We have been landed here since February 1988.
Mr Elston: Have you followed the development of the criminal injuries issues at all prior to your making application for the position?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: Yes. I was interested generally in what it does. I cannot claim to have followed that with any detail, but I was interested in the concept of compensating people who inadvertently happen to be victims of crime, because that is a major gap in law practice that I found to be quite bothersome.
Mr Elston: Are you practising now in Gloucester, or Ottawa?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: No, I do not practise law as such, but I do act as a legal consultant on English law.
Mr Elston: You have practised English law?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: Yes, I have.
Mr Elston: In criminal areas?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: I had a general practice in Zambia, and criminal work and constitutional work was the bulk of my practice.
Mr Elston: It mentions here specifically that you have the admirable attribute of being compassionate. How would you take that as part of the briefing notes that we have received, to contribute to your role on the board?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: I do not know the context in which that remark was made.
Mr Elston: It is just, "The proposed member has the following skills and qualities," and one of them is "international experience," which of course we know about, and the legal education, and "is compassionate and has the ability to write concise and learned decisions," which of course may be that you are compassionate enough to write concise decisions. Maybe that is part of it. But I wonder. Sometimes when we deal with issues of compassion it is kind of nice to know from whence you begin the assessment for the use of compassion, if I might say that.
Mr Puta-Chekwe: In the context of service on the board, I think it is an important attribute to have, because if you have that attribute, you realize that persons seeking a remedy in terms of the act are not subjecting themselves to the normal rules of procedure that would pertain in a normal court. You therefore have more time to listen to them. You are authorized to a fairly large extent to waive some of the more restrictive procedural constraints that would obtain in an open court. I think that is an indication of the kind of compassion that is required.
Mr Elston: In terms of your membership on the board -- it is a little more difficult; I know you do not have the experience there yet -- have you set for yourself any general goals or guidelines in terms of the way you hope to approach your dealings on the board?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: Yes, I hope to make a contribution mostly in the area of speed. The people appearing before the board have suffered damage, have suffered injuries. They are not looking forward to a Spanish Inquisition. On the contrary, they are looking forward to a speedy settlement of their claim and I think speed in that context would be of use to them. So a major goal would be to speed up the process or to contribute to speeding up the process.
Mr Elston: Some of the issues with which you will be faced, I suspect, would be quite daunting, in a way. I suspect the circumstances by which people arrive at the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board will develop from very difficult times for the people. How do you see your role in entertaining the application and then perhaps doing interviews with people who have come through things like sexual assault or brutal assaults, for instance? Can you explain how you might approach one of the applicants in a case like that?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: When people are victims of sexual assault, first they have to be victims of crime. The crime has to be established, but not in the sense that it would be established in a court of law. In other words, as the act provides, you could have a victim of crime being eligible to get compensation, notwithstanding that there has not been a conviction of the criminal. That is worth bearing in mind.
Of course, specifically in the case of sexual assault, we have to bear in mind the kinds of constraints that victims of sexual assault complain about in the regular court system. Again, you have to be very sensitive when you solicit information from them. You have to be very sensitive in the kinds of questions you put to them. The minute you establish a prima facie case, you really ought to stop and get on with preparing an award.
Mr Elston: Let's talk a little bit more about after some experience there. Do you find yourself thinking of a role in developing the business of the board, developing policy, doing any writing with respect to the way it is performing in terms of providing advice, in addition to dealing with case materials?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: I do not think so. The duties of the board are fairly well and are clearly stated in the act. I must say it is one of the clearer acts of Parliament.
Mr Elston: Who passed that one?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: I think a great deal can be done within the confines of that act of Parliament. The challenge I face is to really ensure that as much is being done as speedily as possible.
Mr Elston: Do you see yourself, though, having an obligation if you find something sort of out of line in the way the act is either being run or perhaps in the way the background procedures are operated? Would you see it as your obligation to inform the authorities or the Chair or whomever?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: Certainly, if the act was not being administered as intended, there would be an obligation to inform the Chair, yes.
Mr Elston: What about the issue of the amount of compensation you are allowed to award? Do you see any problems currently, from what you know of the board and its limitations?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: Yes. There is a limitation in terms of a lump sum of $25,000, I think, and in terms of payments of about $1,000 a month. There is also the limitation that the total amount that can be disbursed with regard to one crime incident, for all applications, must be about $150,000. That is a matter for the Legislature. If the amount is inadequate, then there are channels for lobbying for an increase in that amount. But other than the exceptions that are specified in the act, I do not think it is open for a board member to exceed those limits.
1030
Mr Elston: I suppose even if you found that in certain circumstances there may have been a larger amount warranted, you might not state that, but merely state the award itself.
Mr Puta-Chekwe: There would be nothing wrong with stating obiter dictum, as lawyers would say, that had the act allowed, you would have gone for a higher level of compensation. However, the act does not allow it, and therefore we are obliged to award only $25,000.
The Chair: I am going to take up some of Mr McLean's and Mr Stockwell's time. What brought you to Canada? I know you were working for the Canadian International Development Agency. What prompted you to emigrate to Canada?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: I was brought to Canada because I found it increasingly difficult to practise law in my native country.
The Chair: Can you expand on that a little bit.
Mr Puta-Chekwe: Yes, certainly. In the days when I left we had a one-party state in Zambia. I was running a general law practice. I was a human rights lawyer. I defended a lot of people in prison without trial. I myself was subsequently imprisoned without trial. In those circumstances it became very difficult to pursue a law career or any kind of career in an honest fashion.
The Chair: How long did you have to serve in prison? What time period were you in?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: Three years.
The Chair: What was the charge laid by the government?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, I was imprisoned without trial.
The Chair: Without trial?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: Also without a charge.
The Chair: When you left the country and emigrated to Canada, was it a process of simply leaving the country, or was there difficulty leaving the country, or how did you go about that?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: Actually when I left Zambia, in the first instance, I was not allowed to travel, so I had to wait for about a year. I then left and went to England, where I worked as legal counsel of a small international bank. They moved their African head office back to Lusaka in Zambia, so I was in Zambia for another year, and during this time we had applied to emigrate to Canada and our papers came through and we left.
The Chair: When you were a resident of Zambia, did you have any political affiliation, any political involvement at all?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: Not in any formal sense, but as a human rights lawyer it was very difficult not to attract certain political labels from the ruling party.
The Chair: But you were not personally involved in any movement to democratize the country or to change the political climate at all.
Mr Puta-Chekwe: Only incidentally through my work.
The Chair: I see. So you were never associated with any movement that could be described as political in nature.
Mr Puta-Chekwe: No.
The Chair: How did you come to be made aware of this opportunity on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: I knew that boards of this nature existed and I was anxious to keep in touch with the law, since I could not practise under Ontario's regulations. I therefore phoned the Ministry of the Attorney General and it sent me a list of boards available. I wrote back and indicated two or three boards, I think, that I was interested in, and this was one of them.
The Chair: So then you simply submitted an application indicating your interest.
Mr Puta-Chekwe: Yes, I submitted an application.
Mr Waters: Is there any one thing in your past working life and background that you feel would set you in good stead for this position, and if not, do you feel it is your general life experience, working experience, and if so, could you elaborate on it?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: I think my general life experience tends towards this position, but also in a law practice you write opinions not just directly for your clients but also for other legal firms, especially if you are attached to a prominent law firm. I have expressed opinions on criminal injuries. I have pursued civil litigation arising from criminal injuries. I feel I am acquainted with that line of work.
Mr Waters: It is a most impressive resume that you have. I have no other questions.
Mrs Haslam: I am aware of people who are on criminal injuries and I would like to ask a question. Perhaps Mr Pond, the research officer, could clarify this, because it was not in the overview. It said that "periodic awards can be made up to $1,000 in monthly instalments." My question is, are those indexed?
Mr Pond: Against inflation? No.
Mrs Haslam: No, they are not. So once an award has been made, if it was $500, if it was $800, if it was $1,000, if it was five years ago, three years ago, two years ago, that is all they receive.
Mr Pond: Yes.
Mrs Haslam: Okay. I was wondering if you would comment on that, because I know of a particular situation where they received X amount of dollars. It is their only source of income. The rent on the apartment went up the food costs went up, and that is the only money they have coming in. I wonder if you would comment on the idea of an increase. Apparently the last time the board's payment scale was increased was in 1986. Do you have an opinion on that?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: Yes, certainly, I do have an opinion. 1986 is five years ago, so there is a case for increasing the basic amount. Second, there is also a case for indexing the monthly payments. But as I said, I think in answer to Mr Elston's question, as a member of the board, one can only bring this to the attention of the public in one's rulings and leave the lobbying to appropriate authorities.
Mrs Haslam: That was the only question I really had. I think the curriculum vitae was extremely well put forward and I have no questions as to ability or experience. It was just that clarification I wanted to have answered.
Mr Hayes: On your resume it says you litigated a number of human rights cases, some of which became landmark decisions. I just wonder if you would mind elaborating on one of those to give us an idea of what one of these landmarks may be.
Mr Puta-Chekwe: Yes. It is a term that students of constitutional law like to use, but we had one case in particular where a former governor of the Bank of Zambia had been in prison without trial. He was given grounds of detention as required by emergency regulations which purported to authorize that imprisonment. I challenged this and said, "Look, you not only have to give grounds of detention, but the grounds of detention have to be clear, limited in terms of duration, in terms of the allegation, and you must afford the detained person an opportunity to make an intelligent response to them."
Prior to that, if you gave grounds of detention and they seemed to have some consistency, however vague they were, the detention would be upheld. On this occasion, we managed to persuade the High Court that saying something like, "Between 1 January and 31 December of that year you engaged in activities prejudicial to state security," making a statement like that, did not qualify as a clear enough statement to constitute lawful and constitutional grounds of detention. That is an example of one decision that changed the way of thinking in the judiciary.
Mr Hayes: Very good.
Mr Frankford: Do you have any idea what proportion of justifiable or claimable cases come to the board?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: No, I do not have a clear percentage of what you call justifiable claims, but I get the impression that the majority of cases that do come up are successful.
Mr Frankford: Do you think there are a large number of cases where people just do not know of the existence of the board?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: I think so, yes. I really think there are a large number of cases that could come across if people knew about the existence of the board.
1040
Mr Frankford: But at this stage you really do not have any good idea of where that would be?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: No, at this stage, I do not.
Mr Frankford: Would you want to initiate some studies?
Mr Puta-Chekwe: The standard answer to anybody who wishes to initiate a study these days is that there are no resources. If there were resources, certainly it would be something worth while doing because it would serve an interest in society.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chair, my question is really directed to you or to the clerk. How many vacancies are there on the board? Second, how many people apply to fill these vacancies?
The Chair: I suspect that neither of us can answer that question. We can pursue it on your behalf. We can certainly make inquiries and get answers for you for next week, if not sooner.
Thank you, sir, for appearing before the committee this morning. Someone from either the clerk's office or the appointments secretariat will be advising you of the committee's decision next week.
CATHERINE ANNE TREBINSKIE
The Chair: Next is Catherine Anne Trebinskie, an intended appointee as a member of the Algonquin Forestry Authority. I hope you are not offended if the Chair takes off his jacket. It is getting a little close in here.
Mrs Trebinskie: I am not offended.
Mrs Haslam: I would be.
The Chair: I do not care.
The Chair: Welcome to the committee, Mrs Trebinskie. Would you like to say anything before we get into questioning?
Mrs Trebinskie: No, thank you.
The Chair: Again, you are a selection of the official opposition. We will begin questioning with Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: I only have a few questions. Could you describe yourself and tell us why you are the ideal candidate to sit on this board?
Mrs Trebinskie: I hope I am an ideal candidate to sit on this board. I am the mother of four young children. I come from a family with a history in the logging industry. I am the daughter of a farmer, who made his living on farm land and bush. I live in a one-industry community. We solely survive on logging. I have a direct interest. My husband is a logging contractor. He works on crown land outside of Algonquin Park and on private land. He owns logging equipment. I have two very young children who insist that they are going to have a future in the forest, and if that is their choice I would like to be responsible for making sure they have a future in the forest.
Mr Grandmaître: How did you find out about the opening on this board?
Mrs Trebinskie: I found out several ways. I found out through the association of which I am president, the Forest Industry Survival Association. I found out publicly from some local people. I also found out through the local ministry that there would be positions on the board of directors of the AFA.
Mr Grandmaître: Did you apply or did you get a phone call to apply?
Mrs Trebinskie: I was asked by several people to apply. I considered and I then decided to apply.
Mr Grandmaître: Several people in the industry or what?
Mrs Trebinskie: In the industry and my community.
Mr Elston: I notice that your husband is involved in logging adjacent to Algonquin Park, although not inside Algonquin Park. Do you see any chance, as a result, of there being a conflict in your duties in administering the crown timber in the forest with respect to your husband's practice outside?
Mrs Trebinskie: No, I do not. My husband has applied for several years to work under the Algonquin Forestry Authority. He is a small, individual logger. The authority seems to accommodate larger, established contractors. I do not see it being a conflict at all.
Mr Elston: Even if the situation was that the award of a contract in the forest would have a direct effect on your own business by volume or reduced volume of contracts available?
Mrs Trebinskie: I do not quite understand your question.
Mr Elston: If you allocated a lot more timber to people inside the forest, is it possible that may affect the nature of the success of your husband's operation? Or if you reduced the amount of timber allocated out of Algonquin, would those people with smaller volumes be the direct competitors of your husband?
Mrs Trebinskie: I really cannot make a comment. I am really not sure. I do not see it as being a conflict or as being a problem.
Mr Elston: Is your husband is an independent logger in the sense that he goes from one job to another and markets directly to a sawmill or --
Mrs Trebinskie: He does that very seldom. Usually he works under a larger contractor. He is sort of considered a subcontractor. He has very little direct connection with marketing.
Mr Elston: So he basically goes out and helps with a contract that has already been issued.
Mrs Trebinskie: He goes out and harvests the timber.
Mr Elston: What is your view with respect to parks and the extraction of raw materials from parks, including, obviously, timber in this case? Do you see a conflict with respect to the operation of parks?
Mrs Trebinskie: In my view, and it is only my view, no, I do not see a conflict.
Mr Elston: But it would become one view on the authority.
Mrs Trebinskie: It will become one view on the authority. I feel, in all due respect, if things are done properly and well managed, there is no problem with extracting timber from parks.
Mr Elston: So you are looking, really, at applying a balance in relation to resources in Algonquin? Is that fair to say?
Mrs Trebinskie: Pardon me?
Mr Elston: You are looking to establish a balance between use of the park --
Mrs Trebinskie: Yes.
Mr Elston: Do you have any rules of thumb you might use to develop that balance?
Mrs Trebinskie: The only thing that comes to mind is public awareness and the openness to have the public more involved, especially in the management of timber so that they have a say in what is going on and are well aware of what is going on.
Mr Elston: Would you feel yourself to be an advocate for the logging industry?
Mrs Trebinskie: Yes.
Mr Elston: Do you think that might pose a problem with respect to your relationship to other people on the authority?
Mrs Trebinskie: No. I think it would benefit the authority to have people who are concerned about the industry.
Mr Elston: You grew up on a farm in Renfrew?
Mrs Trebinskie: In Round Lake in Renfrew county.
Mr Elston: Your husband, I take it, has been involved in logging for some years, his family as well, presumably.
Mrs Trebinskie: It is the third generation of logging in both of our families.
Mr Elston: I presume your farm operation when you were a child also made use of the woodlots that were around. I presume there probably were some.
Mrs Trebinskie: No, we only dealt with our own private bush.
Mr Elston: I was just trying to find how your experience or knowledge of harvest and regeneration would assist you in striking the balance. That has to be critical for this authority, and I am just trying to figure out if you followed the practice, if you know what I mean.
Mrs Trebinskie: On harvest and regeneration, the only comment I have is that I have great insight on well-managed private land versus crown land and so forth. My father owns a quite large farm with a very well managed bush. A lot of the people around my homestead own farm land with well-managed bush.
Mr Elston: Would you describe yourself as a commonsense type of individual?
Mrs Trebinskie: I would hope to describe myself as that.
1050
Mr Elston: Well, do not hope. You do it, I guess, is the way.
Mrs Trebinskie: Yes, I would.
Mr Elston: You really are striving for the balance that will give your children and the folks whom you know, anyway, a chance for continued economic activity and a lifestyle which is well-established in your part of Renfrew county, a chance to survive and expand, if possible. Is that a fair assessment?
Mrs Trebinskie: I look at it as giving my children and my grandchildren a future.
Mr Elston: Good answer.
Mr Stockwell: Do you have any political affiliation?
Mrs Trebinskie: No, I do not.
Mr Stockwell: Did you work in the last election?
Mrs Trebinskie: No, I did not.
Mr Stockwell: You have not made any contributions to anyone?
Mrs Trebinskie: No, I have not.
Mr Stockwell: Who approached you for the job?
Mrs Trebinskie: As I said, members of the community approached me.
Mr Stockwell: Anybody in government?
Mrs Trebinskie: Yes.
Mr Stockwell: Who?
Mrs Trebinskie: When they approached me for the job they questioned me. I had spoken to Marty Donkervoort, a policy adviser to the Minister of National Resources.
Mr Stockwell: I see. How do you think he would have known about you? I am curious.
Mrs Trebinskie: How would he have known of my existence?
Mr Stockwell: Yes.
Mrs Trebinskie: Through my work with the Forest Industry Survival Association.
Mr Stockwell: I see. Can you explain that industry to me a little bit.
Mrs Trebinskie: That association?
Mr Stockwell: Yes, I am sorry. That association. I am a little unclear about its role.
Mrs Trebinskie: We formed that association in the fall of last year, as I mentioned earlier. I come from an area that is a one-industry town, which is logging and sawmilling. Right now about 75% to 80% of our people are laid off and unemployed and very close to the welfare list. A lot of us experienced the chance of losing our homes and everything over what was going on in the forest industry, and we felt it was time to group together as a community and fight for survival.
Mr Stockwell: Do you think this appointment would be an extension or an outgrowth of this association that you are part of or that you formed? Is there any way at all that you think it will benefit or else carry forward the message that you hoped to carry forward upon --
Mrs Trebinskie: Definitely.
Mr Stockwell: How will that be?
Mrs Trebinskie: It is a voice for the people who are directly involved in the industry. It is a voice to represent those people. Those people have had questions and concerns for years and they have never gone anywhere, they have never been heard. There was a comment made to me earlier in the fall when I met with the minister that people throw up their hands and feel they cannot fight Queen's Park, and I am really glad to see the approach you have taken and that you are willing to make your stand and hold with it. I feel, by being part of the board of directors of the AFA, that it is also a great stand for our community and for our future.
Mr Stockwell: So this will give your community an opportunity for input and discussion that maybe you would not have had otherwise.
Mrs Trebinskie: Yes, I feel that very strongly.
Mr Stockwell: Maybe too much of the ear of the government was taken up by people in Toronto or whatever.
Mrs Trebinskie: People who possibly did not have a direct knowledge of both sides, and I feel I do have a knowledge.
Mr Stockwell: I am sure you do.
Mr Wiseman: I would like to begin with a number of concerns. Where exactly does your husband's logging company extract logs now? Can you give me a geographic area?
Mrs Trebinskie: The Barry's Bay area, usually, in around -- do you want townships, or is that --
Mr Wiseman: Yes, please.
Mrs Trebinskie: Mostly Hagarty, Richards, Sherwood, Jones and Burns. He has done some work up in the Whitney area, but I do not know the individual townships.
Mr Wiseman: That is northwest of the park, then.
Mr Waters: That is almost due west.
Mr Wiseman: Due west. Okay. I would like to talk a little bit about the method of extraction of logs. Could you describe for me the rules around the extraction of logs as they would apply in the park?
Mrs Trebinskie: In the park? Are you talking about the selective harvesting?
Mr Wiseman: Yes. I would like you to describe that.
Mrs Trebinskie: As I see it now, in my view, I see our ministry taking out our future trees, our future growth, taking away our security. I do not see us preserving for the future. I agree with the selective cut in certain areas. I would go as far as to say that I think if we combined a selective cut with a diameter cut, we would have a very unique system.
Mr Wiseman: What is a diameter cut?
Mrs Trebinskie: A diameter cut is what was used several years ago where a certain diameter of tree was measured and those were the trees you took out. At that time, when they strictly used diameter, they never took out what you would call your damaged trees, which presented a big problem.
What we are suggesting is that if you combine your diameter with your selective and selectively cut your bad trees and so forth, but do not cut out all your future trees -- if you are cutting out a tree with a six-inch stump and leaving a tree with a 20-inch stump and not coming back to that tree for, say, 20 to 40 years, by the time you come back your chances of rot, your chances of insect damage, your chances of blow down are very high on that tree you have left, and you have taken out your little, small, future tree. So if by nature's will that other tree goes, what is left of your security? Absolutely nothing. I strongly feel we should be looking at another view on how we are harvesting our timber.
Mr Wiseman: I just have a couple of more questions. I am a little concerned because where I drive up to my cottage, they are doing some cutting along the road.
Mr Elston: So when are you inviting us?
Mr Wiseman: Are you kidding? When I go up there I want to get away from the office.
The question evolves out of the cutting that is going on along this road. I am really quite concerned because these big machines go in there and they rip up the road and there is a wide swath. As they cut, they only take the best parts of the tree and they leave a lot of scrap behind. I would like your comments on that kind of cutting because it is almost clear-cut, leaving a lot of bush and mess behind.
Mrs Trebinskie: I thoroughly disagree with any clear-cut. I think it is a very bad sin of the past and I am very much against it. I really disagree.
As far as leaving the stuff behind is concerned, I agree with you and I think it is a disgrace, but I think the blame has been put on the wrong person for several years and maybe it is time our government and our public understand who is really to blame. Take a look at our sawmills and at what they are utilizing. Instead of being so harsh on the logger and the contractor -- it is not their decision what they take out of that bush. They are made to cut it. If the mill does not want it, they cannot load it on the back of their truck and take it home. It is left there.
Mr Wiseman: Then you are making mills probably the worst --
Mrs Trebinskie: I think the mills really have to make some changes. I think it is crucial that we have to find markets for this low-end material. We have an overabundance of it and we need local markets that will utilize it.
Mr Wiseman: My last question is a quote. It says: "An authority employee is present on each contractor job site. His or her responsibilities include quality control and the enforcement of authority cutting regulations. The employee ensures that only the marked trees are cut and that the minimum damage is done to the trees left standing." Is that your job? Is that what you would be doing?
Mrs Trebinskie: No.
Mr Wiseman: What would you be doing?
Mrs Trebinskie: I would be sitting on the board of directors. We would meet, I believe it says, six times a year and we would discuss policies and so forth. That is a bush foreman. I am definitely not applying for a bush foreman's job.
Mr Wiseman: Would they be responsible to you in the long run for what is going on?
Mrs Trebinskie: They would be responsible to the board.
1100
Mrs Haslam: I must be very open and say I had some trepidation about your going on the board with your direct connection to logging. However, your answers have really changed my mind and impressed me. I want to go to one quick question. You talked about more public awareness and I wonder if you could elaborate on that, how you see more public input or more public awareness. That was the comment you made.
Mrs Trebinskie: I would like to make it a point to bring it up to the board, either through meetings or perhaps through a little newsletter or something, that the public should be more involved with the process and with the policies and so forth. Presently, we know there is an Algonquin Forestry Authority that manages the timber in Algonquin Park. If you call them up and ask them to take you in to show you timber management in the park, they will do so. Basically that is what we know publicly about the Algonquin Forestry Authority. I feel there should be a lot more public awareness about what they are doing and why they are doing it. Also, it would give the public a chance to comment back to them if the public agrees with what they are doing. The timber is not the government's to own. It really is the property of every person in Ontario. I feel that once in a while we should have a chance to comment on how our resource is being managed.
Mr Waters: This is more out of curiosity. I know the Algonquin Forestry Authority covers more than just the Barry's Bay area. Mr Wiseman said it was the west, but it is not; it is the east side that you represent.
Mrs Trebinskie: The east side of the park.
Mr Waters: I know they are in the Huntsville area. They have an office there.
Mrs Trebinskie: Yes.
Mr Waters: Where does the authority cover and are the representatives geographic representatives from different areas around there or did they just --
Mrs Trebinskie: No, they are geographic. They are from different areas. There is a lady from Petawawa, which is northeast. They are geographic areas. There is representation from different areas. I do believe there is representation from Huntsville and that end also.
Mr Waters: Okay. On the question of the cutting, do you find that a lot of people's perceptions on forestry that we hear of in the news are accurate? In other words, do you feel logging is being painted as not necessarily a good industry where in reality it is? How do you feel it fits?
Mrs Trebinskie: I feel logging is a good industry. It is a very valuable industry. What is our main natural resource in Canada? I feel there is just cause by a lot of the groups that are questioning logging in and around the park. I myself, as a person who has an interest in my husband's position in logging, question it. He himself has come home several nights very annoyed with what he has been issued to do. He has come home so upset, that has been at the point, "There's no future in it for me or for my boys if I continue to do the damage I'm doing." That is really what fired me up. If loggers can recognize that, then it is time they start standing up and it is time they stop getting pinned as being the destructors, when in all reality they are the ones who are very concerned and who want to preserve. You take your home. It is your pride and joy. Your car is your pride and joy. Well, that forest is their pride and joy because that is their tomorrow and that is their children's tomorrow also.
Mr Elston: I have just a couple of questions. I notice from our notes that another colleague of yours from the association, Ish Theilheimer, is also a member of the authority. Do you think that may compromise the authority and change it into a part of or an extension of the Forest Industry Survival Association?
Mrs Trebinskie: I very much doubt it. I understand there are 12 seats on the board and I do not think we are that powerful.
Mr Elston: Mr Theilheimer is an active partisan, is he not?
Mrs Trebinskie: Pardon me?
Mr Elston: He is a member of a political party.
Mrs Trebinskie: I really do not feel I should have to answer for Mr Theilheimer.
Mr Elston: I think he is a former New Democratic candidate, is he not? Did he not run in the last election?
Mrs Trebinskie: I really do not feel I should have to comment for Mr Theilheimer. I am not Mr Theilheimer.
Mr Elston: No. I was just interested to see that you and he would be there together.
The issue for me, though, is that he has written some very interesting materials that would appear to compromise or at least set an agenda, at least by members of the Forest Industry Survival Association, and I wonder if you have any sense that you are going to be promoting the association's work as a member of the authority.
Mrs Trebinskie: No, I do not think we will be promoting the association's work. Mostly the work with the association has to do outside of Algonquin Park.
Mr Elston: Did Mr Theilheimer approach you to become a member of this authority? Did he speak to you about it?
Mrs Trebinskie: We spoke about it, but I had been approached before he was aware.
Mr Elston: Just one final question: Mr Stockwell said that he would ask my question, but I can maybe ask it directly rather than through him. Can you tell me what your view is with respect to the indication of the Minister of Natural Resources that he is going to expand the natural reserves and also is approaching the development of Algonquin Park from the point of making sure there is more and better fish and wildlife habitat as opposed to extraction of timber? Can you comment on what conflict that may lead you into with the minister or his policy person?
Mrs Trebinskie: I am not really aware of where he is going on issues like that. I fully support wildlife and fisheries and so forth in the park and I think there has to be a compromise.
The Chair: That is it, Mr Elston. I am sorry, but that is the way this committee works, on a very tight time frame.
Mr Elston: There are very good questions still to come. Maybe Mr Stockwell would like to ask a few more.
The Chair: I appreciate that, but I cannot get into that situation. One of my responsibilities is to try and keep track of time. If we start exchanging times like that, it would be a virtually impossible task.
Mrs Trebinskie, thanks very much for appearing before the committee. We appreciate it.
RICHARD JOHNSTON
The Chair: Our next intended appointee, again selected by the official opposition is -- I am not sure I can pronounce this name -- Richard Johnston. Mr Johnston is the intended appointee as the chair of the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. Welcome to the committee.
Mr Johnston: Nice to be in this seat.
The Chair: I appreciate your appearance here this morning. Would you like to make a few brief comments before we open the questioning?
Mr Johnston: Not in particular. I think it probably makes more sense for members to ask me questions. They know me and so it is probably more a matter of them raising their concerns with me.
The Chair: Okay, fine. We will begin the questioning with Mr Elston.
Mr Elston: Richard, A pleasure to see you here. I cannot help but ask the first question, which is, have you any political affiliation?
Mr Johnston: There is some vague connection between myself and the NDP, but if you talk to certain members of the party they would question it as much as you probably would. Yes, of course I do.
Mr Elston: So you would cast yourself as an independent appointment from the administration.
Mr Johnston: An absolutely independent appointment.
Mr Elston: I remember your having made a speech or two in the House. Do you have any concerns that you may be receiving a salary from the province at the same time as you are taking pension? Have you made any arrangements not to take your pension while you are in this place?
Mr Johnston: I have asked for some advice about how not to take it and it is not very easy to avoid receiving it, unfortunately. I am hoping the government will pursue its intention that it has stated publicly to remove the double-dipping as soon as possible, but at this stage there is virtually nothing you can do to stop the cheque flow. You cannot sort of write a letter and say, "Don't send it." Apparently that is not an option, so my hope is that in the very near future the legislative changes required will be made, because as you rightfully say, I have never accepted the notion that we should double-dip.
1110
Mr Elston: For instance, I suspect you could say to the people who pay you under this job that you would remit the balance of the salary that would account for your pensionable time as well. Had you thought of that as an option?
Mr Johnston: I would consider that practically, but to be honest I do not know what the job pays, so I am not sure what the difference would be.
Mr Elston: I think it is more than you used to make as a member.
Mr Johnston: Is it? I am pleased then. Actually, I would look at that, Murray, in the interim, but my real hope would be that within the next few months the government will move on this and put a number of us ex-politicians out of the invidious position of having to accept this money. As you know, the overall impact on pension plans for trying to do something generally on this is difficult and maybe that is what is causing the delays. I am really not sure.
Mr Elston: Richard, just to get back to some of the substantive stuff, I noticed in your credits here that you have a long-standing role in peace activism. Do you think that will be one of the primary attributes you will have in your job?
Mr Johnston: No. My role in the Bill 30 hearings, being in Mr Runciman's seat during that period, might perhaps be of more use in terms of some of the battles that are forthcoming than my peace activism. But I do think, just to be momentarily serious, that my role as a critic for three years in this area and my role as a member of the standing committee on social development for 11 years sets me in pretty good stead for an overview of the college system.
As I was saying to the Chair before I was called up, before the meeting started, I did not want an appointment for the sake of an appointment, frankly. As you know, I planned to leave politics and it is only the surprise of an NDP government victory that has put me in the position of wanting to be of some assistance, in general terms. As you know, I am a bit of a reformer. If I did not think there was a lot to be done in the college system, that it needed reform and that I could play a role in that, I would not accept to be presented to you for nomination today.
Mr Elston: Actually, I was being quite serious about your role, because I recognize the issues which are going to confront you. Do you believe -- your experience is one thing; your connection with the administration is the other -- that you will have sufficient latitude to deal with what I believe is a time when there must be some things undertaken? That was why I used your one CV entry as an entry into the discussion and the topics that are at hand.
Mr Johnston: As you know, as well as being partisan, which I have been, I have also been a fairly independent player. I have met already, since the election, with the heads of the colleges on several occasions and during that period have advised them to get themselves more politically active, both in terms of working with the government and in working with the opposition, than they used to be, in terms of meeting their goals. I do not think I have any difficulty in being useful to them, of assistance with ginger as well as with advice to the minister. I would see it as a double-edged kind of approach that the chair has to take.
Mr Grandmaître: Richard, knowing your great knowledge of education in Ontario -- I have seen you in action for five and a half years and I am not doubting for a minute your sincerity -- you will be asked to advise the ministry or the minister, from time to time, about the colleges and universities in this province. Could you give me your thoughts on the possible expansion of the number of colleges in the province?
Mr Johnston: As you probably know, I play a fairly large role in trying to push for more French colleges, and am still of the belief that as soon as it is practical, we should be trying to develop the southwestern francophone college, as well as the northern college. I hope that my limited abilities in French will assist actually with changing the face of both the Council of Regents and the presidents in terms of the bilingualism that we now would expect.
Rather than further expansion, outside of the francophone colleges, there is a real need now for a serious look at the quality of education in the college system, looking very strongly at standards for various kinds of programs so that we can have some system-wide standards established. That might become the basis for such things as equivalencies for programs when people are trying to enter university, which is one of the great problems at the moment for people who are in the college system. I think there are internal matters that are in dire need of being addressed.
Governance is another issue, as well as these questions of standards and program, that I would want to put my head to before I would be anxious to see a holus-bolus kind of expansion of the college system at this stage.
M. Grandmaître : Je voudrais simplement te remercier des annees que j'ai passees avec toi en Chambre et de l'appui que tu as toujours donne a la communaute francophone. Alors, merci et bonne chance dans le futur.
M. Johnston : Merci, Bernard. J'ai grand espoir d'aider la communaute francophone dans ses espoirs d'avoir une vraie education totale avec les quelques collèges, et peut-être un jour pas si eloigne, une universite française.
Mr Stockwell: Since you left the political field, I see you have had a few appointments to certain committees and boards by the government. What is this "political consultant, commentator, lecturer"? Is that a job?
Mr Johnston: That is a good question. It is a strange life after politics, Chris. Immediately following the election, a large number of people were looking for individuals from the NDP, or from a background with the NDP, who could explain what this new government might be about. So I ended up doing an awful lot of speaking to businesses, some of it through corporations like Public Affairs International, some of it through Susan Murray and other organizations, some of it independently, that kind of framework. That is the consulting talked about.
The commentary things have been an extension of work I did as a member, in terms of requests by CBC, CTV and others for commentary about various matters.
Mr Stockwell: So it was a job, basically.
Mr Johnston: Yes.
Mr Stockwell: And you were paid. You were successful.
Mr Johnston: I have not been called lately by the networks, so I am not sure how successful I was.
Mr Wiseman: I see by your CV that you are very much interested in the Vision 2000 statement and the lack of adequate links between schools and universities. I wonder if you could elaborate on how you might see yourself as proceeding to forge these links and to expand them.
Mr Johnston: One of the important things to understand is that as chair of council, although you have administrative responsibilities in terms of the office, you are also chairing a group of individuals, and it is a more a matter of trying to bring the group around to dealing with certain kinds of issues. Again, they are primarily advisory. Their powers, if you want to look at their strength or powers, are really in terms of appointments to individual colleges. That is where they have some oomph and control. But other than that, it is an advisory capacity.
I think it is a matter of taking some of the things that came out of Vision 2000, setting some priorities around those in co-operation with the presidents and the boards of governors of the various institutions, and trying to work through some of those matters. I have raised a couple of them already, like standards within the college system.
On the question of access, the college system has been far better, in my view, than the university system has been in taking people whose qualifications are maybe not specifically correct in terms of academics, but giving them the kind of upgrading they require and then incorporating them quickly into the mainstream and giving those people the kind of re-entry into education that I think all of us would want to see.
I hope the college system will expand its efforts in that area. You remember that when it was first formed it was hoped it would pick up a lot of the general-level students in the old streamed system from the 1960s. In point of fact, if you look at who is going to the college system, more and more it is the people with the OAC level of education coming out of the high school system, and not so much the general-level student any more. I think it is time that is looked at in a fairly serious way.
The linkages with the high school system are even more complicated. Clearly there has to be a greater linkage between the technical training at the high school system and what people can expect to enter as they move into the college system, and a greater interaction between the two levels of education for those kinds of students. At the same time as that, there is a self-evident kind of thing that developed. We have in fact had a dropoff in the number of technical students at the secondary level and so the linkages have become a little more difficult to maintain than one would want them to be. There are a number of very major challenges that exist now, including, one might argue, the viability of certain of the colleges to be able to maintain themselves.
1120
Mr Wiseman: What is the relationship between your group, which is the Council of Regents, and the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario?
Mr Johnston: They are two different groups. One represents the administration, if you want to put it that way, or the college system, and we are an advisory group to the minister but with linkages to the college system. As you know, for years there has been this strange anomaly right from the beginning that the negotiating with the college faculty and staff was done by the Council of Regents, even though it was not the management and it was not the crown. The government is now in the process of changing that. The present negotiations under way at this time will be the last where the Council of Regents has responsibility, and I think that is a good thing. There have been some confusing roles.
Increasingly, though, this group will be advisory and policy, trying to set direction and advise the minister in terms of larger policy goals for the system and then working with the presidents through that association to work in some of the nitty-gritty. I would have to say that the work that has been done over the last number of the years, with Mr Pascal and most recently with Mr Turk as an interim chair, has really forged some good links with that organization, and they are now working hand in glove in terms of trying to meet some of these major challenges that exist.
Mr Wiseman: Have you ever met Chris Trump?
Mr Johnston: Yes, several times. He in fact was the one who invited me to come and talk to the members after the election. I have had a number of conversations with him. In fact, the issue of standardization did not begin with me, but a discussion we had was certainly a catalyst, when he was sitting in this chair and I was in the opposition raising questions about the standards for early childhood educators in the college system and how diverse they seemed to be in terms of programs across the system, yet the best of them seemed to be better qualified to teach our kids in the primary section of our school system than people coming out of the faculties and they could not get any credit to go into the faculties.
That is the first time I actually met Chris and raised that issue with him. He took it back to the community colleges and I think was one of the people responsible for getting the Visions 2000 documents and starting to raise this question of what are the standards and how can we expect Georgian College and Algonquin and Centennial all to have the same kind of product coming out of their system, which we do not have at the moment, and without that we can never talk about equivalencies for people to go on to universities.
Mr Wiseman: One of the interesting features of Durham College in Durham, where I am from, is that they really promote co-op. They have made some inroads into co-operation, with the local businesses, the community colleges and universities, as sort of a way of creating partnerships. I am just wondering if you see that as something that maybe all the colleges might want to get into. Also, there is a movement with the Durham Region Manufacturers' Association to what are called centres of excellence. Do you have any comments on this trend?
Mr Johnston: Durham College has actually been an innovator in the field, but many of the colleges are now pursuing those kinds of programs. I was teaching a course for Trent which worked out of Durham College, so they have an excellent relationship with Ryerson, York and Trent, all using the college for university-level courses. Their work with the manufacturing organization to try to develop centres of excellence is something I am not as familiar with as I will become if I am confirmed in the appointment.
I think one of the strengths of the college system has been the strong linkages with the business community over the years. It was a good conceptual kind of thing to start off with, and it has been well maintained.
It has had some other weaknesses, in my view, in terms of a lack of representativeness on the boards of the community at large. It has been fairly good for the local business but not for the nature of the community. One of the principal challenges of the system is to become much more representative in terms of its governance.
Mr Hayes: Richard, I am thinking back to when I sat on county council and I attended a meeting with the mayors and, as a matter of fact, the Premier at that time, and top people in the corporations and labour all went to Kitchener for this meeting. It was to discuss new technology and to discuss the need for skilled trades in this province. Of course, I have not see any improvement since that time, and I believe that was back in 1976 or 1975.
One of the things that happens, I think we all know, is that whenever we happen to get a building boom or if business picks up and we get industry into an area, we always seem to be in a position where we have to actually go to other countries to get the skilled tradespeople, the journeypersons. Can you maybe just help us out a little bit and give us your opinion on what should be done to bring labour, management and governments together with colleges and universities to address this issue and to see if we cannot come up with a program to meet the needs of this province as far as skilled trades are concerned?
Mr Johnston: I think you have put your finger on an enormous problem that any of us who have been around this place for a number of years could readily identify with. That is a continuing issue that arises. Why is it that we keep importing skilled labour and do not produce it as well as we might or as sufficiently as we might here at home? I personally believe one of the real problems has been a lack of co-ordination between the federal and provincial governments around job training strategy. I do not know whether with a new federal plan that is going to be better or worse. My reading of it at this stage is very unclear. But as chairman of the advisory council provincially, it would be my responsibility to start to make some linkages with our federal people to see if there are not ways we can start to co-ordinate training programs a lot more successfully than we have.
I do not know what you think but I have also felt that our tradition of antagonism, our confrontation, between management and labour has caused problems in trying to work out these kinds of co-operative deals in a meaningful way. Questions of apprenticeship are always vexed questions because from the union's perspective it is often seen as a threat in terms of a reduction or watering down in some cases of the value of a particular apprenticeship if we move into a major expansion of that. I think we have run into a lot of problems because of that kind of confrontational attitude.
My sense is that most of us understand that the restructuring taking place in this province now is so major and so extreme that if we do not start to co-operate much more, whether it is government or labour or business, in terms of coming together and working out strategies that make sense in a co-ordinated way, we are going to fall way behind and the present economic difficulties we have are going to be nothing to what we will face in the future. My hope is that we will start to develop those linkages and I would like to play a role in trying to do that.
1130
Mr Elston: Do you see yourself as working for the province or the colleges? How would describe yourself?
Mr Johnston: I think it is mildly schizophrenic, and that is probably another reason why I am appropriate for the job, never having been clear about whom I was serving in the past. I think the primary job is advice to the minister. However, I think it would be wrong for the council to place itself between the college system and the minister in a funny kind of way. It has to try to make itself represent the college system as much as is possible as well. If you look at the bulk of the membership on the council to date, they have been people who have had experience at the local board level. They are coming with that kind of connection to the colleges. I think that is really vital if there is going to be credibility both ways.
If you look at difficulties there have been in the system over the years, it has always been at times when there was a major gap between what the council was talking about and what the colleges were talking about, and therefore two very different lines of communication were going forward to the minister. So I would see that you actually have to play it both ways, Murray. It is not necessarily the most comfortable role to be in at times.
Mr Elston: I think you have put your finger on a problem, which is of course the negotiations you are in now. The issue for me is how are you perceived to be representing the colleges if you are also taking the message back about settling the monetary disputes.
I suspect now that the biggest problems that are associated with settling matters in the colleges are going to be working conditions and a whole series of other items. Do you think you can be seen to be separate enough from the administration to have credibility when you have to deal with very difficult issues? My peace activist question was a little bit funny perhaps, but that is why I wanted to get back to you and ask you about that role.
Mr Johnston: The chair has always been in that strange position, and I think the council has managed over the years to be seen to be at arm's length from the government. I think of some of the big strikes we have had over the last period of time. It was clear who was doing the negotiating. It was the council, not the government, and it was not doing it on behalf of the government. They were sometimes stuck with the funding problems -- right? -- that limit their ability to negotiate.
What Mr Turk has done in the interim is actually to bring in one of the past college presidents to chair a committee of presidents to do the negotiating. The ultimate responsibility until the law is changed will stay with the council, but essentially the managers are now going to be given the direct line negotiating responsibility for the first time, and I think that is a very positive step.
Now it may be that things will be so tough that the chair and the council are going to have to come in one last time on this. I hope we can avoid that. My hope is that this committee will set the stage for the new situation between management and labour. But I have no difficulty in thinking of myself as separate from government and doing those negotiations if I am forced into that position, which I would much rather not be in. I have supported for many years the Gandz commission's recommendations, which the government now is moving on over the next number of months.
Mr Elston: This just opens up a whole series of other questions, but I thank the Chair for being kind enough to let me explore those two areas. I wish you well, seriously, because I think you rightly have indicated this is a time when we have really got to put a lot of effort into the community college areas.
I just have to say that I think you have shown a fair degree of independence. You could have been more liberally inclined in some of those areas, but I am quite prepared to say that I look forward to your tenure there.
Mr Johnston: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Richard, for your appearance here this morning, and I am sure we all wish you well in your new responsibilities.
Mr Johnston: I appreciate that.
Mr Elston: That is if we concur.
The Chair: Yes, I am assuming that might be forthcoming.
Mr Johnston: I am most worried about the group over here, frankly.
The Chair: It is touch and go. The whole province is worried.
Interjections.
Mr Elston: I have two proxies for the guys who are not here.
STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Chair: Before we adjourn, there are a couple of matters I would like to deal with. Number one, the clerk circulated -- and you may want to take more time to consider this, but I think it is relatively straightforward -- a request -- I think it was from Ms Haslam, was it not? -- with respect to finding out what has transpired with respect to recommendations made by this committee on the past agencies, boards and commissions.
The clerk has done some work on this and is making a recommendation, which is essentially the last paragraph of his covering letter recommending that we can request a report being filed with the committee no later than Tuesday 3 September and with the requirements spelled out. I am sorry; I thought the clerk had circulated this.
Does anyone have any difficulty with proceeding with this, so that we will have that status report ready for our sittings later this year? It is pretty straightforward, but I think the clerk requires the committee's approval. We are all in agreement? Okay, fine.
The other thing I would like to suggest, given the tough schedule we have in a couple more sitting weeks, is that we consider dealing today with the appointees we have reviewed. That requires unanimous consent since we are changing the rules, if you will, so I am just looking for unanimous consent to deal with the appointees right now rather than next week. All in agreement?
Agreed to.
REVIEW OF INTENDED APPOINTEES
The Chair: We are going to require separate motions on the three appointees.
We require a motion to endorse the appointment of Mr Puta-Chekwe to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Moved by Mr Waters. All in favour? Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: A similar motion for Mrs Trebinskie to the Algonquin Forestry Authority; moved by Mr Waters.
Mr Elston: I have to raise just a bit of a concern. I do not think there is anything that leads me to believe she will automatically fall into some kind of conflict, but her husband operating next door and under contracts to other people, and also her being a member of the association of which there is already one member of sitting on the board, raises just a small issue with me.
I find her to be quite a balanced presenter, but I could not go ahead and vote on the motion without raising that as an issue. I do not know what they do when they provide orientation to the authority or anything, but it must be underscored that sometimes unhappy events occur most accidentally. I found her to be quite reasonable in her responses, but I am not sure that she may have thought long enough about the potential for some difficulty, even though her husband would be described as a jobber or subcontractor to others' licences. That issue alone for me is enough that perhaps we should make sure she is reminded of her responsibility to remove herself from any potential difficulties that may be faced as a result of the issuance of licences or decisions about how the park is to be logged.
Mr Waters: I think what we had before us is a community activist representing the community. I have been over there three or four times over the last few years. In fact, I spend a fair amount of time, off and on, in the area. Their whole industry, their whole life there, is what she said: logging. For the last two years it has been in steady decline. That town is just totally devastated, so I can see some of her frustration. She is looking at her children, who want to be loggers too. In my way of thinking she would bring a good balance, because she wants the industry to carry on but at the same time she wants to have some form of logging so that there is an industry for her children and for the community afterwards. In that particular area I know they are just really hurting, that whole town.
1140
Mr Elston: I have no concerns about how she expressed her desire to maintain the industry. It is quite clear that her membership in the association would at least seem to indicate that. I have not read a lot about the association in its entirety, but she maybe has not spent enough time understanding how quickly and how quite accidentally you can get yourself into problems as a member of a public board, because somebody in your family is directly logging someplace else and because there is a decision to enforce an expansion of the non-loggable areas that Bud is undertaking as part of his plan in Algonquin, of the fact that there are to be fewer roads perhaps built in the park. All of those issues can amount to the appearance, anyway, of those people who log outside the park being given a substantial advantage, because if you have the licence outside the park, obviously there may be a closing down inside.
It is not something I would raise to prevent the candidate from going forward. I really want to raise it as an issue I felt should be highlighted for her, because the most unintentional decision could lead, if her husband were one of the people working and somebody who logged inside the park was not, to a very big, bad local dispute. I raise that only as a concern in the very back of my head and not as something to condemn her, but merely that she be allowed to study how she can make herself free from any accidental problems.
That is my real concern, not her per se, because there is no question that she is looking to the future of the community. But it is just that uneasiness when you have difficult economic times. That whole industry, as you have said, not only in that part of Ontario but right throughout the logging portions of our province, is very much under pressure. I think maybe if there were some way to provide some instruction I would recommend it.
Mr Wiseman: I would like to comment on what Mr Elston has just said. I concur with you. I think you have raised very good points on this and I shared the same trepidation when the presenter was making her presentation. As you have probably gathered from my comments to her, I am very concerned about the way logging is done, but the way she answered the questions was quite refreshing from the point of view of presenting from the point of view of the loggers, in the sense that they are also very concerned about what is happening and the methods and the way logging is being done.
If her position with the Algonquin Forestry Authority has a positive advantage, it might be bring to some higher level of appreciation for her views in terms of that kind of sustainability. I think that is an important consideration as well and I would concur with you in saying she needs to be very aware of the potential of accusations of conflict of interest, if not the reality of conflict of interest. So I would concur in saying that perhaps a note should be sent along as well.
Mr Hayes: I think Mr Elston has brought up a legitimate concern there and we have all looked at that, but I have to agree that she certainly shows a lot of knowledge and interest in the future of the forestry industry, and that is very important.
The other thing is that there does not appear to be any hesitancy in her resume for her to come and point out to us that her husband is directly involved in the logging operations in that area, so I think she is probably expecting us to raise that issue. As far as the appointment is concerned, we support that, but at the same time I agree that we have to let these people know what they may be faced with and how they might have to tread.
The Chair: We have a motion from Mr Waters with respect to this potential appointee. I point out to members that transcripts of the deliberations with respect to the appointees are provided to them so she and they are all made aware of the discussions that took place surrounding their appointments. All in favour of the motion? Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
Mrs Haslam: Can I ask Mr Stockwell why he did not vote for her?
The Chair: You can ask him after the meeting. I do not think that is an appropriate question at this point. Can we have a motion with respect to Mr Johnston's appointment? It is moved by Mr Hayes.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Johnston appears to be a well-suited candidate for the position, clearly having a life before this appointment. He obviously comes with some baggage, I suppose, that I would suggest makes him less than unbiased when it comes to certain decisions, certain negotiations, and when advising the government. It appears this process we are going through is again a rubber-stamp approach and will have a favourable decision, I am sure, for Mr Johnston as well.
I just want to get on the record, not specifically for this candidate, that it is becoming abundantly clear to me that anybody who ever was an NDP supporter is clearly getting government work and this is --
Mrs Haslam: Like Andy Brandt.
Mr Elston: He supports the government now.
Mr Wiseman: Andy Brandt is taking out a card next week.
Mr Stockwell: This is another example of a party which opposed the process in previous lives and is now fully endorsing it. The suggestion made by members on the other side that Andy Brandt was appointed -- there is no doubt there are certain token appointments to camouflage the obvious, and it seems to me that this is a typical statement. Then we have to go through this process, this charade, to again add some credibility to the entire process. I really have some concerns about that. I have some concerns, considering this government in power was so vocally opposed to the system when it was in opposition.
It is really very shameful that this government is absolutely no different than any other government when it comes to partisan political appointments. I think this is probably the clearest indication. Again I want to make it clear that I think Mr Johnston was a valued member of the House, and certainly being from Metropolitan Toronto, I know of him and he is well respected.
I will say this, that there is going to be a problem in the future with this chair and the government and the group that he is supposed to be representing. I think Mr Elston's question was a very intelligent, insightful question, because there is going to come a time when there is going to have to be a decision made by this board and this chairman, and I do not know whether he can forget his past political life and his party affiliation. I think if you are going to set up advisory committees to offer unbiased, reasonably fair advice, you cannot stack them with political baggage.
Mrs Haslam: Talking about typical, it is very typical for Mr Stockwell to get on the record as usual with his biased opinions, but I would like to point out --
Mr Stockwell: Partisan too.
Mrs Haslam: Partisan too, yes, but I would like to point out that with the number of people who have come before us the question has been asked time and time again, and we have appointed more non-political, non-partisan people than ever before and there have been definite people in other parties appointed. I want to get on the record as saying it is not uncommon, as Mr Bradley likes to point out, to have someone appointed to a position who agrees with the direction of the government in power and he would not disagree with our right to do it.
If the life skills, experience and qualifications of a candidate fit the job, then that is what is most important right now. I would just like to point out that there have been a lot of people come before us where the question was asked, usually by the third party and usually by Mr Stockwell, "Are you a member, have you worked, have you donated?" In a majority of those cases, I would estimate 98% of those cases, it has been said: "No, I'm not a member. No, I'm not politically active. No, I've never given any money." I would like to go on record and say that those things should be brought forward too.
Mr Stockwell: Ninety-eight per cent?
Mrs Haslam: Oh, sure.
Mr Stockwell: Okay, let's check that.
Mrs Haslam: Please do.
Mr Elston: I do not think there is any question that Mr Johnston will make a valuable contribution. I have no concern about his remark about independence. I know him to be independent, but I also know him to have some difficulties which can be ascribed to his partisan background and could eventually cause some problems.
I believe there will be some interesting steps to be taken in the community colleges area. They are an important sector for us. The issue is not one so much of real difficulty, but more of perceived difficulty in having a clear channel of interest, as sponsored by people who are at various community colleges, because the chair is seen to be part of the administration. That is the reason I asked the question. I know Richard feels uneasy because of the dichotomy of the job. He called it mildly schizophrenic. I think it is probably an error to describe it in that manner, but there is certainly more than one single employer and one interest here that Richard has to deal with.
My concern is that the validity of the work that has been done by people who have not been active partisans on that council, who have set it up to do some very good work in the last little while, is to be noted. The change now to a person whose credentials are solidly public interest and whose awareness is rated most highly by me and probably by most of the people here in this committee still has to be considered to be slightly compromised by the tie Richard has to the administration.
In the days of really tough going, people might very well sort of step out of line and say, "Well, there's no point going through that council, because of course it's headed by Richard Johnston, who is a New Democrat." Jim mentioned Durham College, but it is clear that a whole series of the colleges have a certain independence. I think each of us has our own colleges locally that express a certain point of view and will that are not seen to be easily moved into a consensus or even a unanimous position with respect to something that the chair could say or deliver as policy mandate or goal to the minister he will be advising.
I have no problems with the person, but I have this interesting twinge of concern about a time when things need to be done in a pretty progressive and maybe even aggressive way, that the fallout might come from the perception as opposed to what is seen, I think, to be the reality of Richard's independence.
I wish him well, as I said to him when he was here, because I know he will be endorsed. I will vote for him, but again the issue for us all is to really ask ourselves if, at a time of presumably quick, needed change and aggressive activity that is required in some ways -- maybe "salvaging" is not quite the right word; it is the one I can put my tongue on at the moment -- to re-establish the credibility of the community college organizations, to deliver them into a mode of providing the co-operative effort that Richard himself spoke about as a product -- I am not sure I would like to describe people who graduate from our educational institutions as "products," but I will take his name. They have to deliver a product that now needs to be far more versatile, flexible, skilled and knowledgeable as they go into unknown workplaces.
Developing that interesting consensus and co-operation among labour, business and the community colleges may be just slightly more difficult if it is seen that a fully active New Democratic Party partisan is leading the advisory group. I raise that as just the issue that sits in the back of my mind at the moment.
Mr Hayes: I think the most important thing here is Mr Johnston's resume and the things he has been involved in. You know he was a critic for Education and Colleges and Universities on the select committee on education. In the 10 or 11 years he spent in this Legislature, I have never heard anyone actually say anything derogatory about Mr Johnston and his caring for the education system and caring for people. I think it is really a shame that some people want to play their game about --
Mr Elston: Pat, you have not been listening to the internal gossip in the old days.
Mr Hayes: I have not heard it; that is what I said, okay? But I think just to say that because the person is a New Democrat, you do not like that, I think this is kind of a poor and weak excuse. But certainly he must believe in the policies of this government and this party because he was part of implementing that. I think it is good that we have an aggressive person like him there, who is interested in the welfare of the colleges and universities in this province. I would support him even if he was not a New Democrat.
Mr Wiseman: I would like to make a couple of comments. I find it rather interesting that there is sort of an unwritten assumption here, that once you become a New Democrat or a Liberal or a Conservative, you sort of become a part of this great monolithic body that has arms and legs and only one head. I would suggest that, given the history of Richard Johnston in the past, he will have an independent voice. He will have to represent the group he will be chairing. I fully expect there will be times in the future when, with his dedication to the principles he has been fighting for and interested in and the ideas he has put forward over the years in education and the need he sees having to be met, he will from time to time have some conflict, probably with the government.
I do not see that as an unhealthy thing. It think dialogue, discussion, debate often bring out points of view and ideas that may have been missed. I see that Richard Johnston has this ability to facilitate, to get to the point, at the same time as being very critical in a positive way. From what I have heard, I believe that paramount in his mind is the idea that the colleges have to move, have to get into playing a role of leading the technology and the education and the standards of the colleges forward at a time when we are undergoing some tremendous economic changes.
I have a great deal of confidence that Richard Johnston will continue to be the Richard Johnston of the past: independent, fair, facilitating and critical. That would be a good job, so I have no problem with that, and I would like to add that if we excluded all the Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats from public office, we would probably be excluding an awful lot of talented, well-intentioned, dedicated people.
The Chair: Further discussion of Mr Hayes's motion? All in favour? Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Thank you all very much. That concludes the business for the day. See you next week. Meeting adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1159.