CONTENTS
Wednesday 20 November 1991
Appointments review
Marie Rounding
Lilian Yan Yan Ma
Margaret Pitawanakwat
Subcommittee report
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)
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough NDP)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East NDP)
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East L)
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent NDP)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York NDP)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West NDP)
Substitutions:
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC) for Mr Stockwell
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North PC) for Mr McLean
Clerk pro tem: McMillan, Nicole
Staff: Pond, David, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1009 in room 228.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Resuming consideration of intended appointments.
MARIE ROUNDING
The Chair: The first matter on our agenda is the review of the intended appointment to the Ontario Energy Board, as member and chair, of Marie Rounding. Before we ask Ms Rounding to come forward, I know all members have received a copy of an opening statement and this is a little bit unusual. We only have one hour to deal with Ms Rounding. I want to get unanimous consent to hear this because it is going to eat into your one hour of time to ask questions.
Mr McGuinty: I have no objection to the statement being read in but I would prefer that it be done outside the one-hour period during which we have time allotted to ask questions of Ms Rounding.
Mr Wiseman: Is it not customary, Mr Chairman, that we always ask if anybody has an opening statement or opening comments? I do not remember in the past ever having put a time limit on the --
The Chair: I do not put a specific time limit but I ask, if you have a comment, to make it very brief because we do have time restraints and this is probably going to take 10 minutes.
Mr McGuinty: I might note that we are looking at a typed statement here of some 5 1/2 pages. That is something we could read or, as I say, if Ms Rounding prefers to -- perhaps the members of the government would be prepared to give up some of their time but I am not, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent to have Ms Rounding read this without it being taken off the one hour of questioning time?
Mr Waters: Is this read into the time allotment?
The Chair: No, it is not. So we do not have unanimous consent to that. In my view, we have one hour of questioning time allotted. If that is the case, I will simply allow Ms Rounding to have about 30 seconds to a minute and not read this into the record. That is if we cannot get unanimous consent.
Mr Wiseman: I would need clarification from the clerk on this but I do not think there has ever been a time limit allocated to this. The hour set aside is the hour and all statements to be read or questions to be asked are within the time frame of the hour.
The Chair: I am going to make an arbitrary decision on this with respect to the view that under the standing orders the intent is to make a request for time allocation for questions and responses. If someone comes in here with, for example, a 30-minute opening statement or a one-hour opening statement, I think there has to be some element of authority granted to the Chair with respect to making a decision on this. I think this is unusual. We have not had this kind of an opening statement request made to us.
Mr Wiseman: I move that we should allow the deputant to make a 10-minute comment, with a maximum time of 10 minutes.
The Chair: Outside of the one hour.
Mr Wiseman: Inside the hour.
The Chair: I am going to have to consult with the clerk, because I personally have great difficulty with that in respect of the intent of this committee. The Liberal Party have requested an hour. It was their request in terms of time and what you are doing in the motion you were making, I believe, is out of order with respect to the fact that the Liberal Party has made a request for one hour of questioning time. What you are saying, by your motion, is that we are going to simply remove 10 or 12 minutes of that time. I do not think it is appropriate and I think the motion is out of order.
I stand to be corrected on that. You are putting our new clerk in a tough position on her first day here. I am going to recess for 5 minutes. I personally cannot see why we do not go ahead and have the 10 minutes outside the one hour, but if you are going to insist on pursuing this I am going to call a recess to deliberate with the clerk. Are you persisting with the motion?
Mr Wiseman: Yes.
The Chair: Five-minute recess.
The committee recessed at 1014.
1017
The Chair: We will come to order again. We have reached an agreement and we are going to ask Ms Rounding to come forward. She is going to have up to seven minutes. Ms Rounding, welcome to the committee. I apologize for the unsettling circumstances with respect to your appearance here. I will let you begin your opening statement right now.
Ms Rounding: Members of the committee, I apologize for the length of this opening statement, but I felt that some concerns had been raised and that it would be to the benefit of everyone to address those concerns in the opening statement. You will have to pardon me if I speak quickly.
I am honoured to be the Premier's nominee for chair of the Ontario Energy Board. The position is challenging and stimulating and I would look forward to the opportunity to serve the people of Ontario, if the committee recommends approval of my appointment.
I understand the committee has received a copy of my curriculum vitae, which outlines my educational and professional experience. It shows that after several years as a secondary school teacher and a lawyer in the private sector, I joined the Ontario government in 1980 as legal counsel at the Ministry of Energy. I have served with the Ontario government ever since, in a number of capacities.
At the Ministry of Energy, I performed solicitor's functions associated with government practice. I also appeared as an advocate before the National Energy Board to represent the interests of Ontario in the TransCanada Pipe Lines rate facilities application hearings. To develop skills in rate regulation, I attended a regulatory studies program sponsored by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners at Michigan State University in the summer of 1983. I also had considerable exposure to environmental concerns when representing the ministry before the joint board on the London Victoria Hospital energy from waste hearing and at the National Energy Board TCPL facility application hearings, where I addressed various ministries' concerns related to the environmental impact of pipeline construction.
Before my appointment to the Ontario Energy Board in 1984, I served briefly as the acting director of the legal services branch, in my first exposure to management experience. I served on the board from 1984 to 1987 and sat as a member and later as presiding member of board panels relating to the regulation of the natural gas industry, including setting of rates, authorizing construction of transmission lines and approval of franchise agreements.
I was also privileged to chair a hearing of all nine Ontario Energy Board members regarding the awarding of costs and related procedural matters. This was considered a progressive approach under existing legislation to provide for greater public participation in the hearing process prior to the introduction of the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988. I was also responsible for preparation of the board's report and for implementation of the cost award assessment procedure.
At the end of my three-year term I returned to the Ministry of the Attorney General in order to further develop my legal skills and to obtain management experience that would qualify me for more senior positions.
My first management position was as legal director at the Ministry of Financial Institutions from 1987 to 1990. There I was responsible for the delivery of legal services to the client ministry in the program areas of pensions, insurance, provincial deposit institutions and mortgage brokers. While at the Ministry of Financial Institutions a Best Management Practice award was received from Management Board of Cabinet that recognized the innovative management techniques I introduced in the legal services branch.
In 1989 I was selected as one of five representatives of the Ontario Public Service to attend a three-week course at Queen's University entitled Program for Public Executives for senior civil servants from across Canada.
In April 1990 I became the director of the crown law office-civil law in the Ministry of the Attorney General. This central office with 35 lawyers is responsible for providing legal services for all major litigation for the Ontario government. It also provides key legal opinions to other ministries, the Cabinet Office, the Premier's office and government agencies. In this position I am responsible for providing legal advice on a wide variety of sensitive matters, including conflict of interest. In my year and a half there I have undertaken a complete reorganization of the office, introduced a new management structure, and initiated procedures to ensure quality assurance and improve client service.
I believe that my administrative law and management skills acquired in the last four and a half years at the Ministry of the Attorney General, in addition to my previous energy law and board experience, have uniquely qualified me to meet the selection criteria for the position.
Now let me address an issue that has been the subject of a letter to the Premier and a press release by the Coalition of Environmental Groups and a letter to this committee by the Industrial Gas Users Association. These letters make allegations of possible bias on my part. Apparently the problem the coalition and IGUA have is with my husband, Ronald Atkey, to whom I have been married since 1976.
Notwithstanding our personal commitment to each other and our two children, we have pursued separate professional careers which have been very much independent of each other. We have carefully kept an appropriate distance between our differing professional obligations and allegiances: in my case, to three separate ministries within the government of Ontario as well as to the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal and the Ontario Energy Board; in his case, to his cabinet colleagues as a federal minister in 1979-80, to the government of Canada as chairman of the security intelligence review committee from 1984-89, and to partners and clients of his law firm, Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt, of which he has been a partner since 1976.
Given this background, I am both surprised and disappointed by allegations that I would somehow be biased in the discharge of my professional obligations as board chair, not because of who I am or what I have done but simply because of who my husband is, and what he or his law firm has done. This seems to indicate an outdated view that professional men will always be able to influence and manipulate their female companions who achieve senior positions, and that such women are incapable of exercising independent judgement and are unable to distinguish between personal relationships and professional responsibilities.
I am sure that I can depend on you, as members of the provincial Parliament, to appreciate the implications of this allegation for all professional women who enjoy spousal relationships with professional men, yet do not want to be hindered in pursuing independent careers to the highest level.
Be that as it may, let's deal with the facts. My husband has been a member of the law firm of Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt since 1974. It is one of Canada's largest firms, with 244 lawyers in Toronto and Ottawa, as well as four offices abroad. In his practice he has been a member of the corporate law department and has personally represented a broad range of individuals and corporations in a variety of business sectors, including banking, finance, communications, manufacturing and energy. He is a director of corporations in each of these sectors, including British Gas (Canada) Ltd, a holding company established four years ago solely for the British Gas investment in Bow Valley Industries of Calgary.
In recent years he has not appeared before provincial or federal courts or tribunals, since this is a function within his firm normally undertaken by members of the litigation department. His last appearance before the Ontario Energy Board was in 1978.
In anticipation of my proposed appointment as chair of the Ontario Energy Board, my husband, in a memorandum to the managing partners of his firm, has outlined certain steps he would take and certain procedures his firm would implement to avoid any public perception of reasonable apprehension of bias on my part or passing of confidential information. The procedures outlined in this memorandum have been accepted by the managing partner of his firm, who has allowed me to file copies with you today.
The memorandum indicates that he would avoid discussions with any lawyers within his firm, clients of the firm, or any third party regarding matters that are or might come before the board. Also he would not take on any matter in his own practice that would involve the board or its staff. The memorandum also contains specific procedures that would be implemented by his firm respecting Centra Gas.
Dealing briefly with the specific allegations of anticipated spousal bias made by the Coalition of Environmental Groups, allow me to place these facts on the record:
1. I am advised that neither my husband nor any member of his firm is currently representing British Gas or Consumers' Gas on matters before the Ontario Energy Board. The periodic rate applications by Consumers' have been presented by the firm of Aird and Berlis.
2. Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt does not have a continuous retainer with the Ontario Natural Gas Association and has only one current matter involving a member of Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt. This is an environmental assessment matter before the Ontario Hydro demand/supply plan hearing and is not a matter before the Ontario Energy Board.
3. The situation regarding Centra Gas is dealt with in detail in the memorandum I have shared with you.
Dealing with the concern of IGUA that my husband will benefit from his firm's involvement in proceedings before the board and that I will share in those benefits directly or indirectly:
1. The fees generated from Centra Gas before the board are discussed in my husband's memorandum. My husband has indicated that if deemed appropriate, he would be prepared to forgo his portion of the fees earned from Centra Gas in respect of board hearings while I am serving as chair.
2. Centra Gas and its predecessors have been represented by Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt for over 30 years since its commencement of business.
In conclusion, it is my view that the allegations of possible bias made by the coalition and IGUA are unfounded, given all of the information I have provided today, and that my husband's professional activities, as described, are not a bar to my appointment as chair of the board.
Before responding to your questions, I would like to make some brief comments about the mandate of the Ontario Energy Board. I am sure this committee is well aware that the Ontario Energy Board regulates the natural gas industry through setting of rates, authorizing construction of transmission lines and approval of franchise agreements under the Ontario Energy Board Act and six other statutes. The board also assumes an advisory role on matters referred to it relating to natural gas issues, Ontario Hydro and other energy matters.
The traditional reason for utility regulation is to secure for the public fair and reasonable prices and an adequate level of service from a natural monopoly. Rate regulation will allow recovery of reasonable costs and provide a reasonable return to the utility. Other objectives include the fair allocation of costs between customer groups and the promotion of efficient use of the services and discouragement of wasteful use. Regulation provides a mechanism for balancing conflicting interests.
In recent years, the regulatory environment has changed substantially. It has become increasingly more complex and time-consuming, with a wider range of interests being represented before regulatory bodies. The definition of the public interest, which has always been a difficult judgement to make, has become even more challenging as it changes.
As we are all aware, environmental considerations are becoming more important in business decision-making in Ontario. This is as true for the energy industry as it is for the rest of our society. The government, I believe, has indicated in many ways the prime importance it attaches to energy conservation. In addition to conservation, a prosperous economy needs reliable supplies of energy, including electricity and natural gas.
Within this context, a major challenge for the board is to involve the public and all sectors of our society in a process that is sensitive to broader social, environmental and cultural considerations. It must be a process that will balance our need to improve the economic efficiency of energy use and to provide adequate, reliable supplies while minimizing environmental impacts.
If this committee recommends approval of my appointment, I would welcome the opportunity to participate in meeting the challenges the Ontario Energy Board faces in the coming years.
The Chair: That was quickly and well read. You did not quite make the seven minutes, but no one complained.
We will begin the questioning with the official opposition, who selected you for review. Mr McGuinty.
Mr McGuinty: Welcome, Ms Rounding, to our committee. I have just today received the statements contained in your opening statement and the copy of the memorandum prepared by the managing partner of Osler's. I had no prior knowledge of them. Have you discussed those matters with IGUA or the coalition and do you believe you have alleviated their concerns?
Ms Rounding: I have not discussed the matter with IGUA or the coalition. I did not feel that would be appropriate. I hoped these steps would alleviate their concerns and they are directed to the concerns outlined in their submissions.
Mr McGuinty: I am not sure whether you fairly categorized the concerns of IGUA and the coalition and -- as I hope you will understand -- my concerns with respect to your appointment. No one here, to my understanding, is alleging that you would be biased. Our concern here is that in light of the importance of the role of the Ontario Energy Board and the economic repercussions its decisions have throughout the province, it is absolutely crucial that there be not only no bias, but no apprehension, no appearance of bias. That is what we are after here, merely the apprehension and appearance. That in any event is my concern, and I believe that IGUA and the Coalition of Environmental Groups are concerned about the same thing.
1030
You raise an interesting point, which has been made before, that in this day and age it is no longer acceptable to lump husband and wife together merely by virtue of the marriage relationship and to imply they cannot have separate career paths. I wanted to read something to you and then I want to have you comment on it. It was contained in the brief prepared by government solicitors in the Attorney General's department in connection with the environmental assessment hearing and the concerns that were raised regarding a very similar circumstance, and in case government members or any of us here are not familiar with that, it is the environmental assessment hearing which is presently considering Hydro's demand/supply plan.
A law firm acting for a party or an applicant at that hearing has within its partnership a partner who is married to Ms Grace Patterson, one of the persons sitting on the panel. So we are dealing with a very similar circumstance. The government lawyers were very concerned with that, and as a result they introduced a factum. To show you just how concerned they were about it, that factum is 31 pages long. I want to tell you what they said about the matter I just referred to:
"In approaching the question of spousal bias, we acknowledge that it is increasingly the trend in the law as well as society to treat spouses as separate and independent individuals. Spouses frequently have separate careers, own properties separately, and hence, in many cases, they function professionally and financially as separate individuals.
"In spite of this trend, however, spouses continue to be closely linked to one another. Spouses usually live together, they likely own some property jointly, and it is almost inevitable that financial benefits received by one spouse will be enjoyed, at least indirectly, by the other. The preamble of the Family Law Act...expressly recognizes marriage `as a form of partnership' and the act ensures that in situations such as marriage breakdown one spouse can share in the property of the other."
It goes on to quote Mr Justice Parker who considered the Sinclair Stevens matter. "The commissioner recognized the `reality of marriage as an economic partnership' and pointed out that recent reforms in the area of family law had been `to create regimes where each spouse has a clear pecuniary interest in the financial activities of the other.' In the commissioner's view, `These legal changes have only enhanced the social reality that spouses usually have a profound impact on one another.'
"It is also possible to discern a growing trend to approach questions of bias and conflict of interest with even more rigour than in the past."
I would suggest, Ms Rounding, that the trend today in matters of government and government agencies is to be even more rigorous in taking all the necessary steps to ensure there is no apprehension of bias. How do you respond to that?
Ms Rounding: First of all, Mr McGuinty, this was the original submission of the Attorney General in that hearing. It was based on the facts they were aware of at that time. I believe that subsequent to that, McCarthy Tétrault submitted a further submission as to how they proposed to deal with the situation. The arrangements they proposed were similar to the ones my husband has proposed. After that was submitted, the Ministry of the Attorney General, through its counsel at the hearing, made a further submission. I would like to refer to that.
"Firstly, with respect to whether prima facie reasonable apprehension of bias exists because of the indirect pecuniary benefit that may accrue to Ms Patterson as a result of Mr Sorell's share of fees earned by McCarthy's from AECL in respect to the DSP hearing, McCarthy's has provided information to establish that such a pecuniary benefit is not significant. McCarthy's has also provided information to indicate that their firm's position in the environmental community is already well established and is therefore unlikely to be affected in any substantial way as a result of their presence at the DSP hearing. Additionally, McCarthy's has provided information to establish that their firm has a well established and long-standing relationship with AECL. Consequently, a favourable outcome for AECL at the DSP hearing is, in our view, unlikely to be a significant factor in any decision by AECL to retain McCarthy's to do further legal work."
It then goes on to address the question of the perceived problem of exchange of confidential information which I will not go into, but the conclusion is, "Having regard to all of the information that has been provided by McCarthy's, we feel there is an adequate basis upon which the DSP panel may find that any concerns that may have existed with respect to a prima facie reasonable apprehension of bias and with respect to a perceived problem of confidentiality of information have been satisfactorily addressed."
I would say the situation is very similar to my husband's situation, and the steps he has proposed to take in terms of putting a cone of silence around him, and also in terms of forgoing any share of the profits from this particular client before the board, I think adequately meet the concerns that were initially raised in the first factum of the government.
Mr McGuinty: I can understand, Ms Rounding, why you would want to have this committee come to the same conclusion the government lawyers came to ultimately. We should indicate for the record that the panel has not yet addressed the situation, as you quite properly indicated, so we do not know what the panel is going to decide. Government lawyers have decided that you have satisfied their concerns, and what we are trying to do is to determine whether you have satisfied our concerns.
I just want to confirm Mr Atkey's involvement with the gas industry. First of all, I understand he is a director of British Gas (Canada) Ltd. You indicated that. You can stop me if I am wrong here. He personally represented British Gas at the Investment Canada hearing; is that correct?
Ms Rounding: There was not a hearing in dealing with Investment Canada. He did represent them on the federal matters, yes, and one of them was Investment Canada.
Mr McGuinty: And that was with respect to the sale of Consumers' to British Gas?
Ms Rounding: Yes.
Mr McGuinty: His firm today acts for Centra Gas?
Ms Rounding: His firm acts for Centra Gas, that is correct.
Mr McGuinty: And of course Centra Gas's rates, like the other two Ontario utilities', are regulated by the Ontario Energy Board. Correct?
Ms Rounding: Yes.
Mr McGuinty: The firm has in the past acted for the Ontario Natural Gas Association?
Ms Rounding: It has one matter before the Ontario Hydro demand/supply hearing.
Mr McGuinty: The Ontario Natural Gas Association, as I understand it, is an association to put forward the common interests of all three Ontario natural gas utilities?
Ms Rounding: Yes. This, I must make clear, is not a continuing retainer. It is just a retainer for this one isolated hearing.
Mr McGuinty: I understand that the firm acted for British Gas at the OEB hearing with respect to the sale of Consumers'?
Ms Rounding: Yes, and again that was one isolated hearing.
Mr McGuinty: Is your husband a director in any other gas company, other than British Gas?
Ms Rounding: No, he is not.
Mr McGuinty: Does he have any kind of interests in the gas industry I have not referred to today?
Ms Rounding: Not that I am aware of.
Mr McGuinty: I understand one of the matters the OEB has yet to consider is that there was the matter of British Gas, pursuant to undertakings it was required to enter into when it bought Consumers' Gas, being required to spend $30 million in Canada on research and development. I also understand it is up to the OEB, pursuant to section 12 of the British Gas undertakings -- that would be your job -- to determine if the $30-million expenditure should be borne by British Gas shareholders or Consumers' Gas customers. Is that correct?
Ms Rounding: I am not familiar with the details of the undertakings.
Mr McGuinty: I want you to go along with me and take my word on that, and I just want you to explain to me the difficulties, if any, you might have -- here we are not dealing with your husband's relationship with the law firm, but rather the fact that he is a director with British Gas. How does that tie into this?
Ms Rounding: He is a director of British Gas (Canada) Ltd, which has nothing to do with Consumers' Gas. The company's sole reason for being is to hold the investments of Bow Valley Industries, and it has nothing to do with the other side of the business.
Mr McGuinty: You are saying that there are no ties whatsoever, that there is no reason that he, as a director of British Gas (Canada) Ltd, would favour Consumers' Gas customers paying that $30 million R&D over British Gas shareholders?
1040
Ms Rounding: No, I think the link is far too remote. My husband, as a director of the company, has a fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests of that corporation. Even if you could take that obligation up to the parent, which I am not sure you can, a fiduciary relationship founded on good faith and integrity should not require the director to take advantage of or use that confidential information or to breach integrity in order to secure a benefit from the board.
I think that takes us back to the point that my husband and myself have held sensitive positions over the years. That is why I took the time to outline them in my opening statement, to show that this is not a new problem for us. We have both held very sensitive positions and have had to be in a position where we have kept information from each other. I think the scenario you outline assumes that either or both of us would somehow be breaching our professional obligations or somehow acting improperly.
Mr McGuinty: Again, I am always concerned with the apprehension here, Ms Rounding. I do not want to be misconstrued. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am never alleging that you are in fact biased, or that you would do anything to lead us to believe that you had acted in a biased manner.
I want you to cast your mind back to September 1984 when you were a member then of the Ontario Energy Board. At that time the panel consisted of the chair, Robert Macaulay, also acting as the presiding member, Ian MacNabb and yourself. Do you know what I am going to talk about here, by any chance?
Ms Rounding: Yes, I do.
Mr McGuinty: First, I should note that the chair himself raised the concern, and it was not at the prompting of any particular party. He said there may be a problem in that your husband was associated with the firm which was representing a party.
Ms Rounding: That is correct. In fact, I asked him to disclose that at the beginning of the hearing.
Mr McGuinty: Why did you ask him to disclose that?
Ms Rounding: Because I felt that in order to dispel any apprehension of bias one should always declare in advance of a hearing if there is a potential problem.
Mr McGuinty: So you recognized that there was potentially a problem with you sitting on this and hearing this matter when --
Ms Rounding: I think disclosure is very important in any of these issues.
Mr McGuinty: Now, I do not have the information as to what happened, what took place after this, but when this hearing continued you were no longer on the panel. Did you withdraw?
Ms Rounding: Perhaps I could explain what happened. First of all, no one objected to my presence on the panel. What happened was that Peter Thompson, counsel for IGUA, indicated that because the association has a number of members, he would like to canvass the membership. He only had the executive director with him that day. He did not object. In fact, the transcript indicates clearly that he said, "I am not objecting; I simply want to canvass my membership."
What Mr Macaulay proposed at the time was that because it was a first-day procedural -- it was not exactly a hearing; I guess you would call it the first-day proceeding before the actual body of the hearing begins and they were only dealing with procedural issues -- I would step down for the rest of the day while they heard procedural issues. Mr Thompson would canvass the IGUA membership and when the hearing resumed, and I think it did not resume for another month, the issue would have been dealt with, and if Mr Thompson had an objection he would raise it at that time.
In the interim, however, Mr Macaulay decided that he would not proceed in that fashion, although he had indicated so on the record. He called me that night and asked me to step down. I did step down. I would have preferred to have stayed until Mr Thompson had reported back to the board, but that is what happened.
Mr McGuinty: I want to make clear that we have precisely the kind of circumstance which the coalition has talked about, which IGUA has talked about, and which I am talking about, and in those circumstances you withdrew. What happens if in the future you are asked to withdraw again?
Ms Rounding: First of all, I would like to say that at that time the issue had not before been raised before tribunals. In fact, there are only two court cases on the topic in the Canadian authorities and they both involve judges. I might add that in both cases the courts found that it was not necessary for the judges to step down where a member of their family was appearing before them.
That aside, I do not know why Mr Macaulay made that decision, but I could surmise that at that time the issue had not been well thought through. It had not come up before, and I think the thinking regarding spousal relationships -- I must say it is not a conflict; it is an apprehension of bias, and I think we have to distinguish between those situations. That issue has now come up in several situations. You have already alluded to the Ontario Hydro demand/supply hearing. In that hearing an almost exact situation has come up. What has happened is that proposals are being undertaken by law firms to deal with those situations. In the situation in 1984 nothing had been proposed by the firm to deal with it. Now there are definite steps my husband and his firm are proposing to deal with it so that we will not have that apprehension of bias.
Mr McGuinty: Are you confident, Ms Rounding, that if a party in the future raises this concern about an apprehension of bias -- I think for the person on the street, it is quite understandable to think: "You've got a couple living together. There may be, not advertent, not deliberate disclosure of information, but rather inadvertent. You pick up a phone call for somebody. Somebody leaves some work lying on a particular desk and you see something that maybe you shouldn't see." I think the person on the street might tend to think like that, and if a party, as I say, were to raise this concern about this apprehension of bias because of your relationship with your husband and his relationship as a director with British Gas and a partner in a law firm, you are comfortable that you can say at that point: "Listen, there is no bias here. I am sitting on this matter and we are going to proceed, notwithstanding your concerns."
Ms Rounding: Yes. Given the facts, as I have outlined them in my opening statement and as my husband has outlined them in his memorandum, and the steps he and I are prepared to take, I am confident I could preside over any hearing before the board. That having been said, it is open to any party to raise a concern or even an objection at the time of a hearing. Certainly, if that is raised, I would be very sensitive to the issue as it was raised at that time and the circumstances surrounding it, and certainly I and my panel members would consider it very carefully. I think we have to recognize that there is not an apprehension of bias if it just does not look good; it has to be more than that, and I think the Canadian authorities and the courts have said, and it is in the Attorney General's original factum, that only in cases of a substantial interest will a reasonable apprehension of bias arise. They have also said it is only in exceptional circumstances where anything other than an economic link would be a factor.
My view is that we have taken whatever steps we can to deal with the situation now. If a situation arises in the future, we will look at it then and see if the steps we have taken are adequate or whether anything else can be done to solve the problem.
The Chair: You have 30 seconds left, Mr McGuinty.
Mr McGuinty: All right then, my final question, Ms Rounding: If a party were to raise such a concern before the OEB, would you be involved in making the decision as to whether you constituted a problem, or would you stand back and let the other members sitting on that particular panel deal with it?
Ms Rounding: No, I would be involved in the decision as a member of the panel, in the same way that Ms Patterson is a member of that panel and in the same way, in the authorities that are in the submissions before the Hydro hearing, that the judges have made a decision on whether they should step down or not, and those are judges sitting alone.
Mr Jordan: Thank you, Ms Rounding, for appearing before the committee this morning and giving us a lesson in speed reading.
I would like to dwell on the fact that even with all these legal precautions you have shown in your documentation here and through questioning, regulatory agencies cannot afford even the appearance of bias. This is the part that really concerns me. Even though you have all these protective clauses and procedures and so on, so that in fact legally there is no bias, how do you respond to that appearance of bias which the public no doubt is going to perceive?
1050
Ms Rounding: It is not only that we have taken legal steps, but we have gone beyond that. The steps we have taken are meant to deal with that apprehension of bias. If my husband does not know anything about what is going on with regard to matters before the board, if he does not talk to the lawyers involved in the Centra case, if he has nothing to do with them, if he does not see any information relating to it -- all the members of the firm are apprised of the situation -- how could he possibly be in a situation to pass information on to me? In the same situation, I, with my professional obligations and oaths of allegiance, would be in the position where I would not disclose any information to him.
We get back to the question of whether it is the fact that it does not look good, or if there is really a substantive interest that needs to be dealt with. These steps we have put in place will deal with those concerns. He will not share in it financially. There is no direct benefit for him there and we are going to isolate him in terms of being exposed to information that might relate to anything that comes before the board.
Mr Jordan: So you feel quite comfortable in accepting the position?
Ms Rounding: Yes, I do.
Mr Jordan: Do you not see that in carrying out your responsibilities at the Ontario Energy Board you will be frequently excusing yourself from decision-making, partaking in the discussions on many items, setting rates and so on for the gas companies?
Ms Rounding: As I indicated before, I do not see any reason why I would have to do that with the procedures that have been put in place. There would be no reason for me to do so. I would not be privy to other information nor would I be conferring a benefit in any way. These steps are to remove that apprehension of bias.
Mr Jordan: By what means would we convey that to the public?
Ms Rounding: I presume that if the issue were raised in a hearing we would deal with it with a decision of the panel.
Mr Jordan: The Ontario Energy Board will no doubt be making important decisions relative to Ontario Hydro and the generation of electricity. Those decisions will eventually come down to whether we are going to expand our nuclear base or use natural gas as a source of energy to generate electricity. There is such a broad area where you cannot have direct conflict, but it could lead to a decision where it did have a direct effect on the gas companies and the amount of generation by gas because of a recommendation from the Ontario Energy Board. Do you not see that as a problem as chairperson?
Ms Rounding: No, I do not see that as a problem. If my husband does not benefit from any decision I make, why would I make a decision that would favour a utility or anyone else? First of all, the assumption is that I would be breaching my professional obligations to do so and I would be offended if anyone would say that.
Mr Jordan: No, excuse me, but anyone professionally advised would not be making that assumption. My concern is that there are others who are not and do not understand the protections that have been put in place.
Ms Rounding: As I indicated previously, I would be happy to disclose if there were a situation where I felt there was potential for someone who might not be familiar with the situation thinking there was an apprehension of bias. At the beginning of a hearing I would definitely disclose that situation as I have done today. I frankly welcome the situation today because it gives us an opportunity to discuss these issues.
Mr Jordan: From your general knowledge of the work of the board, how frequently would you see having to excuse yourself from the decision-making process?
Ms Rounding: As I said before, I do not see myself having to excuse myself from the decision-making process.
Mr Jordan: May I ask you some questions relative to the board itself, the functioning board?
Ms Rounding: Certainly.
Mr Jordan: In this year's report, regarding Ontario Hydro's rate increase, the board stated, "The board recommends that Hydro integrate cost-control measures into productivity programs and pay for performance enhancement in order to improve its cost control."
Earlier this month I asked the Minister of Energy, in a statement in the House, to conduct a thorough review of the operation, maintenance and administration budget. The board has suggested that the OMA and capital budget for energy substitution should not be increased for 1992 and that instead the money should be reallocated to the programs which generate the highest dollar per megawatt. Do you have any other suggestions on that relative to decreasing the size of that budget for operation, maintenance and administration?
Ms Rounding: I think one of the things the minister has already indicated he is going to refer to us is the issue of salaries. When I was preparing for this hearing and taking a look at some of the Hydro decisions, I was amazed to find that 30% of the revenue requirement is directed towards staff compensation. That is quite a large amount. The board will be looking at not only executive salaries but all the staffing levels and levels of compensation. It has in the past, but there is a particular emphasis requested for this coming year. If I were to be at the board, we would make sure we explored that area very carefully.
Mr Jordan: But the chairman has stated that the "reports stating that Hydro is overstaffed and that Hydro employees are overpaid are `unfair and uncalled for.'
"`It's one thing for my salary to become a political issue,' stated the chairman, referring to the recent government decision to have the Ontario Energy Board review the salaries of Hydro's senior executives. `But it's quite another to have that carry over into criticism of all Hydro employees.'"
Ms Rounding: I cannot speak for the board, because I have not been there, but from what I have read in the decisions, it appears as though this issue has been raised more than once in the last couple of years. There has been some concern that the staffing levels were high -- I believe there were targets for each year to keep the hiring to -- and there is also concern that the levels of compensation were higher than comparable positions in the private sector. Although he may say it is unfair, I think it is something we are going to have to examine again in detail.
Mr Jordan: It has been clearly pointed out to the people of Ontario that this moratorium by the government on nuclear generation has, you might say, frozen a whole department of Ontario Hydro. The public is wondering what has happened to those staff members. Surely with their expertise and technology they are not being used to distribute light bulbs or some silly function such as that, costing the ratepayers another $7 million. I would be interested in your comments on these people with the expertise to perform relative to nuclear energy. I understand they are now being used on simple conservation programs because that is where the money is available.
Ms Rounding: I am not familiar enough with the operations of those staff to be able to comment, other than to say I hope Hydro would make sure that if it is redirecting them into another area, their skills would be properly utilized.
Mr Jordan: The Municipal Electric Association has recommended that an audit be done to consider the numbers of management staff and the salaries paid. Do you know if Ontario Hydro has initiated any activity on this?
Ms Rounding: I do not know whether they have initiated activity. I know the board did recommend in HR 20 that a management audit be conducted.
Mr Jordan: Do you as an individual feel that 30% is high?
1100
Ms Rounding: I am not in a position to say right now. As I indicated when I read the materials, it leaped out at me; but without knowing everything that makes up the revenue requirement of Ontario Hydro and having figures before me, it would be difficult for me to comment whether that is high or not. As I indicated earlier, it is certainly something the board has commented on in the past. We will be looking at it again.
Mr Jordan: How much direction does the Ontario Energy Board take from the Minister of Energy?
Ms Rounding: As you know, in the Ontario Energy Board Act there is not a policy directive provision as there is with some other boards, such as the Ontario Municipal Board. Therefore the board, based on a number of well-known cases, such as the township of Vespra and Innisfil case, is required to follow government policy but it is not bound by government policy.
Mr Jordan: But do you not see that Bill 118 is going to change that relationship? If the bill proceeds, the Minister of Energy will in fact have the power to direct the board.
Ms Rounding: If Bill 118 proceeds with regard to Ontario Hydro matters, yes, the government will have power to direct and the board will enforce whatever policies of the government refer to Ontario Hydro.
Mr Jordan: So the freedom of the board to assess, evaluate and make a decision is going to be seriously affected?
Ms Rounding: I do not think so. If there is a decision made by Ontario Hydro as a result of a government directive, I think the board will have to consider that. Last year the board, with regard to some concerns raised with regard to the Rio Algom and the Elliot Lake situations, indicated that it was important that Hydro indicate to the government any impacts policy directives would have on Hydro customers. That having been said, I think if Hydro does that, then the government, when it gives a direction to Hydro, has taken into account the impact it will have on the customers, which is what the board is concerned about.
Mr Jordan: I can understand that is perhaps how it should work, but in actual fact, with the power given to the Minister of Energy bypassing the Legislature, it is not a statement any more; it is going to be a directive to Ontario Hydro. So as you have previously stated, the board would not have power to override a directive from the Minister of Energy. Is that correct?
Ms Rounding: That is correct.
Mr Jordan: The president of Falconbridge stated that the "ongoing uncertainty over energy cost and supply is the biggest issue industry in this province is facing. Bigger than any. Bar none." What comments can you make regarding future power supplies in Ontario, taking into account the government's moratorium on nuclear expansion and Ontario Hydro's conservation programs?
Ms Rounding: There are two areas where Hydro is developing programs to deal with this. One is non-utility generation. They are putting a great deal of emphasis on this. The board has asked Hydro to develop a program to assess the cost-effectiveness of those programs to make sure they are getting the maximum development of the non-utility generation. Also, its energy conservation programs are going to be very essential to reduce that demand in the future, because even without the moratorium on nuclear development, there is still the problem of the lack of nuclear capacity; that is, the nuclear facilities are functioning at only 60%, I believe, rather than the expected 80% of capacity.
Mr Jordan: Yes, but I believe those figures have been reviewed and are actually in the 75% range. Those were the figures given to me recently. Pickering, for instance, had dropped from the 75% range into the 60% range and, following retubing, had come back to the 75% range.
We still have the problem of sitting down with industry, which is very uncomfortable with the present uncertainty of supply. We all accept conservation. I do not think anyone is against conservation in a reasonable method of application, but to try to actually convince industry, "Rather than build a generating plant, I can conserve enough to feed new industry. Go ahead and expand your plant. We can supply you at a reasonable rate," that guarantee is not coming across in the boardrooms. As stated by the president of Falconbridge, it is one of the major concerns of industry in this province. It was electricity at cost with a dependable supply that made Ontario an industrial province. We can see it turning around very quickly today and we are being reminded daily that this is one of the major reasons. Do you have a comment on that?
Ms Rounding: It is obviously a difficult problem. Whatever means you choose to increase the supply, there are always problems attached to it, whether it is cost problems or environmental problems. So there is no easy answer to increase the generation. I think that is why the emphasis on energy conservation. There is concern as to whether Ontario Hydro is going to be able to make those targets. The board is doing everything it can to use the most cost-effective programs in terms of designing its demand-side programs.
Mr Jordan: When using the term "cost-effective," we must include the giving of confidence to the people, the users. We cannot just assume this is going to be cost-effective because we use the term, "A kilowatt saved is a kilowatt made." What about the kilowatt that is not sold? If you just transfer 700 megawatts from one form of generation to another, that is not conservation, that is just using another source to provide the generation. We are looking at an increase in CO2 emissions. By the year 2000 we had planned to have it capped and now we are turning around and looking at ways of generating power that are going to increase CO2 emissions, in my opinion. We are putting aside another method which was the most benign to the environment of the group. Do you have any comments relative to that?
Ms Rounding: I think there is always an environmental impact from any method you use, as I indicated before. There are certain technologies now that are reducing CO2 with the use of clean coal and so forth. I think it is a balancing act to determine which is going to be the least environmentally sensitive. I do not think you can choose one over the other.
Mr Jordan: Would you be in favour of planning for a base supply of electricity for the province, leaning towards the surplus side rather than the other side, where you are not only forced to conserve but where we could be facing shortages of electricity? Would you be in favour of developing an electrical industry where we made sure we had enough to reach our peak demand, and if we had a little spinning reserve, on off-peak periods we could market that reserve as an income to the utility?
Ms Rounding: I think that is really an issue that is not properly before the Ontario Energy Board. This is an issue that is before the Ontario Hydro demand-supply plan hearings. Those are the sorts of issues they are grappling with right now and I would leave it to them to come to conclusions on that issue.
Ms Carter: I am going to give you credit for being your own person. I do not think we are going to resolve all this conflict-of-interest stuff here. That is something women in particular need to get clarified.
I am interested in how you perceive the role of the energy board. Is it something that is there just to carry out government policy or do you see it as having real quasi-independent, decision-making powers, where you would look into questions and, on the evidence, come up with decisions and you would stand by those decisions because you felt in the circumstances they were correct? In other words, should it be part of a system of checks and balances where the power over our provincial energy decisions is not all in one place but is distributed between the ministry, the government, Hydro, the energy board and so on? If that is your view, do you see yourself needing some vision as regards energy matters in this province? If so, could you give us some idea as to what that might be? Then I have another supplementary after that.
1110
Ms Rounding: We have to remember that this is a quasi-judicial board and its prime function is mandated by the Ontario Energy Board Act, and that is to set rates. It is not a policy-making board. It will follow government policy, but it is not a policy-making board. We have to keep in mind that when we sit, we are sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity, so I do not feel it would be proper for the board to take an initiative; it is up to the government. If the government has a policy it wishes to have implemented, then the board will follow that, but I do not think it should be the board that takes the initiative in making policy.
Ms Carter: I see. You say its power is rate-setting, and of course that is true in the gas industry but it is not true as regards Ontario Hydro. I know it comes before the board and the board has a review, but it does not make the final decision. Do you have any opinions on that?
Ms Rounding: The role the board plays is always a very difficult one. It is trying to balance a number of competing interests, and as I indicated in my opening statement, there are more and more interests now to be accommodated. It has always been a difficult juggling act to determine which public interest is the prime one at any given time. We have to try and accommodate all the concerns that are raised before the board, and that is not an easy thing to do.
As we move into the future, certainly other issues are before the board. On the gas side for instance, there will be an integrated resource planning hearing coming up soon and I think the board will have to grapple with a lot of the things that you are raising within its mandate. There is a question as to whether the board has jurisdiction to get involved in integrated resource planning or not and that may be one of the things it is looking at, but there will be a delicate balancing act in terms of looking at demand-side issues and supply issues and taking into account the broader issues such as the environment and societal impacts.
Ms Carter: Do you see the board as what you might call a source of expertise? Even if it is not setting policy, it has the staff and the expertise to look into certain problems and at least advise the government.
Ms Rounding: That is correct.
Ms Carter: On that basis, there are just one or two things I would like to ask you. For one, do you see the free trade agreement as limiting our jurisdiction in any serious way? I know this is only a province; it is not the federal government and we cannot change that directly, but it does affect quite directly the kind of powers the government and the Ontario Energy Board have. I am thinking particularly as regards gas. We have no control over export decisions, pipeline decisions, that kind of thing, or even how the pipelines are paid for. Could you enlarge on that?
Ms Rounding: I am not sure, Ms Carter, that it would be appropriate for me to make a comment on that sort of issue.
Ms Carter: I see. My colleague Mr Jordan raised some broader questions about energy supply and what we are looking at in this province. I disagree with you; I do not think the nuclear power stations are doing better than 60% at the moment. But of course when we look at nuclear power, it is not just a question of how well it is performing -- and as I said, that is poor -- there is also the question of the expense it has got the province into, which, combined with the poor performance, is becoming quite a serious problem I would say.
I just wonder what ideas you have on that. How much do you feel we can achieve through efficiency? The main thrust of our policy is that, rather than generate new electricity in the future, we are going to try and get the same results, the same heat and light and everything else, by using less. I wonder what thoughts you have on that, whether you have any thoughts on renewables as a part of the future scenario, and a little bit about the whole energy picture.
Ms Rounding: It is a difficult issue. With regard to renewables, I think that is something the Ministry of Energy is looking at. The whole issue of conservation is one I am not really in a position to speak to at this stage, in the sense that I have reviewed the board decisions but have not sat in on a hearing. I realize there are some concerns as to whether one can actually conserve as much as Hydro is hoping to conserve. I think there is an appreciation that it must concentrate its efforts in the areas where it is going to achieve the most conservation for the least cost. That is going to be very important in the future. We have to remember that in Canada, and I guess in Ontario, we are one of the highest per-capita energy users, and so I think there is a lot of education of the public that can be done out there.
We have seen very recently that the public has begun to pick up on recycling. They picked up on that more than people thought they would. There does seem to be an interest in conserving. What we need to do is recognize that and somehow get to the public on the issue of energy conservation, if there is a way to make them more aware that when you leave a room, turn out the light. In Europe you would never find somebody leaving a light on in a room when he leaves it. I think there is a consciousness-raising that needs to be done. If Hydro, the government and others can do that, I think they will be a long way towards the success of energy conservation programs.
Ms Carter: Would you agree that includes industry and commerce as well as individual householders, who are actually only a fraction of the problem?
Ms Rounding: Yes, we all have to work towards it.
Mr Marchese: I just have one question. I am satisfied with the steps you and your spouse have taken in removing apprehension of bias. Nevertheless, I still think, and I think you will agree, that many believe there is still a perception of bias to be dealt with. Many would run away from having to deal with the kinds of questions Mr McGuinty raised, because it does put an emotional strain on people to have to deal with that issue, even if you have already dealt with it appropriately with the steps you have taken. In that context, why are you still interested in being the chair of the Ontario Energy Board?
Ms Rounding: That is an interesting question. I began to wonder.
I think I am still interested. This has been an opportunity to have the air cleared, to have a public airing of the issue of apprehension of bias, and to indicate to you, and hopefully to others, the steps that I intend to take. I will not say it has dealt with the issue once and for all, because as I indicated before, it may come up in the context of a specific hearing, but I would be happy to deal with the issue at that time. I think in reality it will not be a big factor. In the day-to-day work that I will do before the board, I think I will find it just will not come up.
Mr Wiseman: That is interesting. You led into my question, because I am really interested in the day-to-day working of the board and the role you are going to play within that context and how you are going to deal with that. How many members are on the panel? When the panel sits, how many people are there?
Ms Rounding: Usually we sit as a panel of three. Sometimes we sit as two if there are not enough members, but it is preferable to have three in case you get into a tie situation.
Mr Wiseman: How many people would be available to sit on these panels? How many could be sitting at the same time?
Ms Rounding: There is a problem right now because the board is short-staffed. I believe they have three vacancies. It is creating difficulty for them in terms of getting enough panels and having conflicting hearings going on at the same time.
Mr Wiseman: In case of a tie, how would the decision-making process take place after you have heard all the evidence? What would happen? What would be the procedure?
1120
Ms Rounding: As you know, on a rate case there is no one issue. There are a series of issues that need to be decided and, at the end, if you take a look at a board report, you will know that after each section there is the position of each party on an issue and there are the board findings on an issue. There are a series of issues that have to be decided throughout a report. It may be as many as 50 issues -- that is just a guess -- but it depends on the nature of the hearings. It is a question of weighing the evidence and looking at both sides of it and coming to a consensus on each of those issues.
Mr Wiseman: A consensus, which means the decision would be made by all three.
Ms Rounding: That is correct.
Mr Wiseman: If there was a dissenting voice, then that voice would be overruled by the other two. Would that be the case?
Ms Rounding: Yes. I am not sure there has ever been a dissenting decision in an Ontario Energy Board case.
Mr Wiseman: So in fact it would be very difficult for you as an individual to make your weight any greater than the other panel members.
Ms Rounding: That is correct.
Mr Wiseman: Okay. Now, as the chair of the panel, would you be voting on all matters or would you only vote in cases of a tie?
Ms Rounding: It would depend on what hearing I was sitting on. Obviously, as chair of the board I will not be able to sit on as many hearings as other members would. We have to keep in mind, many of the hearings that are before the board are not necessarily decision-making hearings. For instance, the integrated resource planning hearing, when it comes, will probably be a policy or advisory hearing, and there are a number of generic issues that are referred to the board by the government where the government is looking for recommendations.
I do not think I would call it voting on an issue. There is discussion and coming to a consensus. Very seldom does it come to a point where people declare themselves one way or the other on an issue. The board has to think through the arguments about the parties and weigh those very carefully, so it requires some discussion on the issues.
Mr Wiseman: How would the panellists be determined in terms of who would listen to which cases? Would it be done on the basis of the individual expertise of each panellist or would that just be an arbitrary, random type of assignment?
Ms Rounding: It is a combination of both. Because the board is so short-staffed right now, it is very difficult. Whoever is available takes the next case that comes on, and if there are two hearings at the same time, it does become very difficult. But the Chair would make the ultimate decision on who would sit on which panel.
Mr Waters: I find this one of the most interesting hearings we have had. This is the first time I can recall where the interest has been with the spouse and not with the person coming before us. Seeing as how we have spent so much time dealing with the spouse situation, I would ask just one question. I do not think anybody has actually asked you what qualifications you bring to the board that make you feel you should have this appointment. I think it is important that we have that on record.
Ms Rounding: Thank you, Mr Waters. I might dare to say that those who have raised concerns about my nomination for this chair position know very little about me and my qualifications. The main thing they know about me is that I am married to Ron Atkey, which seems to be the biggest problem.
If I turn towards my qualifications, I think I covered them fairly extensively in my opening statement. My background has been focused on administrative law since joining the government in 1980. I have sat on two administrative tribunals, the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal for a brief time in 1980 and the Ontario Energy Board for three years. I have also had considerable management experience in the last four and a half years with the Ministry of the Attorney General. I have taken quite a lot of pride in the fact that I have been able to introduce management techniques in two branches of the Ministry of the Attorney General that have been considered progressive and have made, I hope, differences in terms of the quality of legal services we provide to our clients.
Mr Waters: That was basically my only question. I wish you well in whatever endeavour and in the outcome of this.
Ms Rounding: Thank you, Mr Waters.
The Chair: The government party has about four minutes left in its time allocation.
Mr Hayes: Ms Rounding, there is one question here dealing with pay equity. For example, I am wondering what role would you play, or do you think you could play a significant role, in your dealings with companies in achieving that goal? As you know, this government is certainly very serious about pay equity.
Ms Rounding: First of all, thank you, Mr Hayes. I am a firm believer in employment equity. In the management positions I have held recently I have tried to outreach to the underrepresented areas. For instance, in the legal stream the aboriginal lawyers are underrepresented and in my present office we deal with native issues quite a bit in civil litigation. We contacted every aboriginal lawyer in the province to see if he or she might have an interest in joining our office. The outreach to the underrepresented groups is very important to me.
Are you referring just to pay equity or more broadly?
Mr Hayes: I am sorry, I should have said "employment equity."
Ms Rounding: I interpret it more broadly in terms of employment equity, pardon me. But until the government brings in legislation that would mandate employment equity in the private sector, it would be difficult for me as a member of the board to enforce that with regard to the utilities. But I think there would be certain steps you could take really to encourage the utilities to be mindful of it. You could require information in your hearings asking them to indicate what steps they have made in the direction of employment equity, and in the same way you could make sure they are enforcing pay equity principles as well.
The Chair: That concludes the questioning, Ms Rounding. Thank you for your appearance here today. We wish you well.
Ms Rounding: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Before I call our next witness I want to take this opportunity to introduce our clerk for the next three weeks, Nicole McMillan. Nicole is currently clerk for the foreign affairs committee of the Canadian Senate. They are dealing with the issue of free trade with the United States and Mexico, as some of you are aware. She has spent the bulk of her career since 1978 with committees of the Parliament of Canada and is currently with the Senate. Nicole is participating in an exchange program. Our clerk, Doug Arnott, is filling in for Nicole on the Senate committee in Ottawa. Nicole will be with us for the next three weeks and we welcome her to the committee.
Clerk pro tem: Thank you. It is nice to be here.
Mr Wiseman: Mr Chair, while we are waiting I would like to put a motion on the floor to change Carmer Sweica's originally scheduled date from December 4 to November 27.
The Chair: If you do not mind, Mr Wiseman, I knew that was coming up and I would appreciate it if we dealt with that in the subcommittee report. That is part of the subcommittee report, and I think we can handle it then.
LILIAN YAN YAN MA
The Chair: Our next witness is Ms Lilian Yan Yan Ma. Would you come forward, please? I hope I pronounced your name correctly.
Ms Yan Yan Ma: That is correct.
The Chair: Welcome to the committee. Do you have any brief opening comments you would like to make before we get into questioning?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: No, you can proceed with the questions.
The Chair: You were selected for review by the third party. I will ask Mr McLean to begin questioning for a maximum of 10 minutes.
Mr McLean: Did you make an application? On what basis did you make it? Were you notified that there was an opening?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: Yes. I was notified there was an opening. My name was put forward by the group I have been working for as a volunteer for over 11 years.
The Chair: Can I ask you to speak up a little bit?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: Yes. Can you hear me? Sorry. I have to sort of lean towards this thing because I am so short. Can you hear me better now?
Mr McLean: That is good.
Mr Grandmaître: We do not see you.
Ms Yan Yan Ma: You can choose either one or the other. As I said, I was a volunteer for this community group I have been working with, and the group has traditionally been recommending names for appointment to boards, commissions and agencies for various levels of the government, and it has been doing it on an ongoing basis.
Mr McLean: What is the name of that board?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: It is the Chinese Canadian National Council.
1130
Mr McLean: Right. Were they asked by the government to submit names?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: I am not aware of whether they have or have not been asked specifically but, as I understand, the council has been submitting names as a matter of routine because we have been asked by governments before, like for the past 10 years.
Mr McLean: Are you familiar with the Liquor Licence Act at all?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: Yes. I have taken a look at it, yes.
Mr McLean: The chairperson of the LLBO had a discussion before this committee dealing with special occasion permits and she recommended there be testing for servers for special occasion permits. Do you agree with that assumption?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: I suppose education for the servers is always a good thing. Education of the people of Ontario, and the servers in particular, that consumption in moderation is a desirable thing is something we have to have. However, I am not so sure how it could be carried out. The method, I guess, is the thing I would have to look into before I could take a position on that.
Mr McLean: Special occasion permits are ones that are just got for one function mainly. I guess some organizations, whether it be a Kiwanis Club or a Rotary Club, that wants to get a permit for a special function may apply for that. But for some organizations that want to have just one in five years, for them to have to supply a server who has had a course may be a more difficult thing to do.
What do you think about beer being served in Maple Leaf Gardens?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: So you are switching from special occasion permits to a permanent outfit. I understand that when people go to apply for special occasion permits they are now given some sort of pamphlet or some educational material. So to a certain extent that education purpose might be achieved through that.
In terms of permits in stadiums -- is that the question now?
Mr McLean: Right. I made it specific so it would be easy.
Ms Yan Yan Ma: Right. I am not aware of whether or not they are serving liquor in Maple Leaf Gardens now.
Mr McLean: No, but would you be in favour of their serving beer in Maple Leaf Gardens?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: You would have to look at what the application would be like and what the specifics are. As I understand it right now, in stadiums the servers have to be trained. They have to go through some mandatory training for the servers. So you would have to balance the interests of the public if they want to have alcohol consumed in that area, and as to whether it could be carried out in a responsible way. I think you would have to look at it case by case.
Mr McLean: Peter Kormos indicated back in the spring that he intended to eliminate sexism in alcohol advertising. What would your comments be? Do you agree he should initiate that? What is your view of that type of advertising?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: The type of advertising that is a sexist type of advertising? Is that what you are saying?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Ms Yan Yan Ma: I think sexism is probably offensive in all types of advertising, I suppose. But if you are talking about one specific ad or two specific ads, then you would have to look at the ad and decide whether there is a sexist element in that ad or not. I suppose the Ontario Human Rights Commission would be a good place to look into whether it is a sexist or racist type of advertisement, be it any type of advertisement.
Mr McLean: From what you see now, do you think the guidelines should be tighter than they are?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: I am not very familiar yet with the guidelines as they are right now. I would certainly like to take a look at it. It is an issue that is worth looking into, but in overall terms, I would say that sexist and racist advertisements are not welcome in this province.
Mr McLean: Right. One final question: In your position on the board, would you believe that beer and wine in the corner stores would be a good thing?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: I am not so sure on that. I have not even thought about that issue, but I might be able to take a look into that when I am more familiar with it.
The Chair: You have a couple of minutes left, Mr Jordan. Do you wish to ask any questions?
Mr Jordan: Not on this topic.
The Chair: Okay, fine. Mr Frankford.
Mr Frankford: On your résumé it says you were a member of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee.
Ms Yan Yan Ma: Yes, I was.
Mr Frankford: Was this because of your technical knowledge?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: Yes. I have a PhD in chemistry, and I was working with drugs -- the design of drugs, the efficacy, the reason why drugs are effective -- for 10 years in the biochemistry department at the University of Toronto. I carried out original research in that area. A lot of them have to do with neuroleptic, psychoactive and Parkinsonism drugs.
Mr Frankford: Was this essentially a technical position, or were you representing the public interest?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: It is both. You would require a very technical background to be on that committee. In fact, all the members of the DQTC, as far as I remember, have a very technical background. They are pharmacists or medical doctors, pharmacologists; in that area. I myself was a biochemist, specializing in drugs. You need that because you have to figure out the applications, whether they actually comply with the technical requirements they have sent to you, and there is lab testing and all that.
Mr Frankford: Do you see any ways in which your experience there is going to help you in this position?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: Yes. In a way, DQTC sort of ensures that the qualities we have in terms of the drugs we have available in the Ontario drug formulary would comply with the criteria that have been set out. So in some sense you are balancing the supplier, the drug company's application, with respect to the government's expenditure and people's accessibility to these drugs. Liquor licensing is in many ways also a balancing act, in the sense that you would be looking at the person who is doing the application. We look at a number of factors that would affect the application, and also we want to ensure that the general public would have convenient access to having liquor served and so on. So in that sense, yes.
Mr Frankford: The approval of licences clearly has an impact on the applicants and businesses, small or large, in a particular area. I am thinking in terms of my riding of Scarborough East, which has a lot of small plazas and small businesses. Have you thought about ways in which you would balance between accessibility, between helping businesses and trying to restrain or limit access to not allow for the overuse in alcohol?
1140
Ms Yan Yan Ma: I believe the way we license or the criteria we use would be, on the one hand, to ensure that there is easy access for people who want to have this privilege and right in Ontario to apply for a licence or obtain a licence but, on the other hand, to comply with the act. There are certain exceptions or certain circumstances in the act that you would have to look into before you could issue the licence as a right or a privilege to them.
The central idea, I suppose, under all this licensing would be to ensure that the service and the consumption of beverage alcohol would be done in a manner consistent with moderation and responsibility. On the other hand, you want to ensure that there is good access for the small businessman.
Mr Frankford: As you look around southern Ontario, have you developed any thoughts about whether there is too much access or too little access?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: I am pretty impartial on it right now. From my personal experience I have not found it to be too much or too little at this point, but I would probably have to look at it some more if I were going to be on the board. What I am saying now is just as an ordinary citizen. I am not affected in one way or another by the Liquor Licence Act itself.
Ms Carter: You may have partly answered this already, but it seems to me you are a very accomplished person. You have a good background educationally, professionally and in public service. I am just wondering what your particular reason is for wanting to be on this board, what your mission is or what you hope to achieve by it.
Ms Yan Yan Ma: I have always been interested in work with administrative tribunals. As you may be aware, I have quite a diverse background. I have worked hard to get my technical degrees, my expertise in the technical area. I have worked quite a lot with communities and I have always tried to be an advocate for the interests of the community.
What I see in the work with the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario is the broadening of that experience, to be able to make use of what I have had so far in terms of my knowledge and background. On the other hand, I will not be bogged down with a lot of legalese because I have a broad community experience. I believe that type of background can contribute to fair liquor licensing enforcement in Ontario, and that is the reason I am interested in this area. It is a very pervasive area. Liquor licensing affects the lives of many Ontarians. It reaches every corner of the province.
Ms Carter: It is also important that it be absolutely aboveboard and unbiased.
Ms Yan Yan Ma: Yes.
Ms Carter: Just one other point. In Ontario we are trying to encourage the use of food and drink produced in this province or at least in Canada. I was just wondering if you thought there might be any scope to encourage that, to help the Niagara wine growers.
Ms Yan Yan Ma: I do not quite understand. Are you saying the food that is being served?
Ms Carter: We are concerned from an economic point of view in this province that we should use our own products, which obviously do include some liquors. I was just wondering if you had any ideas on that.
Ms Yan Yan Ma: I guess I am not very familiar with this area yet.
Ms Carter: It might not be relevant.
Ms Yan Yan Ma: I might look into it if I am on the board.
Mr Waters: I represent cottage country. We have a major problem in cottage country which is we see the deaths or maiming of a lot of young people every summer. Some of these establishments where they partake of this have been warned for years and I would like to know your opinion on how these people should be dealt with, because it seems to be, shall we say, two or three licensed establishments. Nothing ever seems to happen but every year there are at least one or two deaths as a result of people leaving them. I would like your opinion on how that should be dealt with.
Ms Yan Yan Ma: Are you addressing the area of concern about people who are drinking and boating at the same time? Yes. As I understand it, there has been some amendment to the legislation with respect to that and you cannot now operate a boat at the same time as you are drinking. It is something like, "Do not drink and drive at the same time."
Mr Waters: No. What I am getting at is the fact that these people go to bars. For the most part, a lot of them are even under age. Even if they are of age, they are away over the limit, and this happens habitually year after year with the same bars. Then they go out and they either jump in their car or jump in their boat and leave. It is not so much the alcohol that they consume either in their car or their boat; it is the alcohol they have consumed at this licensed establishment. I was wondering how you felt we should deal with that particular aspect of it.
Ms Yan Yan Ma: Obviously the board would have jurisdiction over the licence of the person who is serving these people you might be talking about. I suppose the board has a mandate to inspect the area to find out what is going on, to see if they had actually been serving minors. That would be a pretty serious offence. I suspect in a case like that the board could exercise a certain power, either suspension or revocation, or attach conditions to their licences.
As to whether the people should be better trained, it could be the board should order that they should better train their servers not to serve people who are already intoxicated. I suppose that might be the reason why --
The Chair: We are two minutes over the time allocation.
Mr Grandmaître: Just two brief questions: What are your thoughts on the drinking age in Ontario? Should it be lowered or increased?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: I believe the age right now is 19. If there are any particular reasons why we should lower or increase it, then I would be happy to look into that. Unless there are some particular problems that you could think of because 19 is not a suitable age, then I suppose we should look into that, but as of now I am not aware of any particular reason.
Mr Grandmaître: You say you are not aware. Are you not concerned about the number of teenagers who are being killed on our highways every week because of alcohol and drugs and so on? Do you not think that is a good reason to review this?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: I am concerned, yes. Of course I am concerned. The question is whether the age of 19 being used right now as the standard is the cause of that or whether these teenagers who may be 17 or 18 years old have been drinking. It is not that the rule of 19 is the problem but the question is --
Mr Grandmaître: Is it being enforced?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: Yes.
1150
Mr Grandmaître: One last question, Mr Chair. What about hours of business, bars, hotels and so forth, in Ontario? Do you think we should have shorter hours or longer hours of doing business?
Ms Yan Yan Ma: I have not thought too much about that, whether it has to be tied to licensing or how it should be looked at.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you.
The Chair: Doctor, thank you for your appearance here today. We appreciate it.
Ms Yan Yan Ma: Thank you.
The Chair: Good luck.
MARGARET PITAWANAKWAT
The Chair: Our next witness for a half-hour review is Margaret Pitawanakwat. You have been selected for review by the third party. This is a half-hour review, 10 minutes to each party. Do you wish to say something briefly before we get into questions?
Ms Pitawanakwat: No.
The Chair: Mr Jordan, do you have any questions to lead off? I know this is putting you on a spot as a substitute on the committee.
Mr Jordan: I have not had the proper time to prepare. It is your desire to serve on the Board of Parole, no question about that. I would like you, if you do not mind, to give me some idea of your qualifications and your interest in wanting to serve in that capacity.
Ms Pitawanakwat: I want to work in something in which I am dealing with native people. There are concerns of native people I would like to be able to voice. The cultural aspects of the native people is one area where I feel I can help.
My qualifications are that I have a general BA. I just graduated this year. I have some background in administration. I have been the administrative assistant to the director for a native halfway house in Sudbury and I have done a great deal of volunteer work. I do not think it is listed on my résumé, but from the time I was a small child my mother brought me along to work in the church, and from that time on I have worked a great deal and have chaired meetings and prepared workshops. I occasionally still prepare workshops for cultural views.
Mr Jordan: Given the rate of -- I would not want to say failure -- but the rate of crimes being committed where decisions for parole have been made, and where hardships have been brought to the community in some instances by decisions to allow parole, do you feel the criteria at the present time should be reviewed so that more information is sought before a decision is made to release the individual to the community?
Ms Pitawanakwat: I have not really thought about changing the criteria. I had not considered that. I feel, though, that if the criteria are looked at by the board, the chances of an individual getting out who will then be an undue risk to re-offend or to society should not happen. Perhaps the information the board uses, that is, its record, the pre-sentencing record, the institution liaison officer's report, could be more elaborate, but then you are looking at money and time. You are the individuals in the government who have the opportunity to allocate more money or individuals so that we have more information.
Mr Jordan: Do you feel the victim of the original offence should be contacted and advised that parole is being considered for this individual?
Ms Pitawanakwat: I think it would be good for the victim to know the person is out on parole, in consideration of his or her safety.
Mr Jordan: It is my understanding that at the present time the board is made up of one permanent person and two part-time. Is that correct?
Ms Pitawanakwat: That is correct.
Mr Jordan: Do you feel that is the proper experience, to have that trio of two part-time and one permanent staff doing the reviewing?
Ms Pitawanakwat: Again, this is the first time I will have worked on the board. I have not really considered making changes at the moment or looking at what could be appropriate changes, so I cannot answer that.
Mr Jordan: Sometimes it appears that because of the crowded conditions in our institutions, perhaps when they come forward for parole there tends to be a leniency towards allowing the parole. This is just an observation. We do not have the institutions to keep everyone for the full term of his or her sentence, so there is a certain amount of pressure on the board as the person comes up for parole. I would like to hear your comments on that.
Ms Pitawanakwat: I do not believe in making a decision based on the financial aspects or whether our institutions can keep the inmate in. I believe you have to look at the criteria that are given to you. That is, you are considering the whole community, you are considering whether or not this individual has got maximum benefit from his incarceration, and whether it is going to help that individual if he or she is placed on parole, not for financial reasons.
Mr McLean: Do you believe the one-third term of a sentence being served is long enough, or should it be half your term before you are eligible for parole?
Ms Pitawanakwat: I think that rather than one third or one half of the term, if there are to be changes made, it is to the length of the original term to begin with, that is, it is the sentencing that could be longer. If we feel an individual is not going to get maximum benefit within that one-third time, then our laws should be stricter in terms of sentencing.
Mr McLean: Two years less a day, I guess, is what most provincial courts give.
Ms Pitawanakwat: That is right.
Mr McLean: One third is what it is before they can have an assessment or evaluation by the parole board as to whether they should get out or not. Do you believe one third is a long enough time before they are assessed, or should it be half their sentence?
Ms Pitawanakwat: I think they should be assessed as soon as possible. The reason we are placing these people in prison is because they have done something to society. That means they need to have help in terms of changing, in terms of rehabilitation. They should be assessed as soon as possible so they can be helped. The reason an individual would be placed on parole is if his or her rehabilitation would be helped in the process.
Mr McLean: Have you ever had an opportunity to talk to some parole officers?
Ms Pitawanakwat: Yes. When I worked at Newbery House under the National Parole Board, I worked closely with the regional parole office in Sudbury.
1200
Mr McLean: Really the question I want to get at is, do you think that those parole officers have had enough experience, enough training, and do you believe they are doing justice to that individual once he is on parole?
Ms Pitawanakwat: I do not know about every parole officer, but the people I dealt with there at the Sudbury regional parole office I felt were very reasonable, open and considered the inmate.
Mr Frankford: Could you share your observations about the contribution of alcohol and maybe other drugs to criminal activity in native communities?
Ms Pitawanakwat: Native communities? There is a great deal of it. I really do not know what else I can say about that. There is a great deal of alcohol involved in many crimes, and not only in the native community.
Mr Frankford: Is it a cause, and should we be doing something about it? Should we be doing more about it?
Ms Pitawanakwat: Certainly we should be doing something about it, a lot more. A change that could be made in terms of how we are dealing with society is to help them before they get into trouble, that is, to rehabilitate them or to help them in programs. If alcohol is a problem, then certainly we need to have more programs to deal with that problem at the source.
Mr Waters: A couple of things. I am looking at a background paper we have on the northern region. I look at where you have to travel, and I am wondering whether you feel that it is adequately covered by the parole board as it is now.
Ms Pitawanakwat: I do not know. I have been to one hearing that I sat in on so that I could see what they do. It takes two days for a hearing of, say, fewer than 10 people. How much time is required to cover all of these areas? Of course it is travel by plane.
Mr Waters: There are 11 facilities ranging from Kenora down to Parry Sound. When I look at some of the other areas that are somewhat closer together, this is a lot of long-distance travel. I was curious about that and also about the fact that you are dealing with people for whom, as Mr McLean indicated, two years less a day is the longest sentence they can receive. Do you think we should be doing more while they are in the institution to deal with their problems and maybe assist them with education or whatever? Do you think we are doing enough work on that at present, or should that be increased?
Ms Pitawanakwat: No, I do not think we are doing enough for the individuals. Again, these individuals have problems. They have social problems. They have problems relating. Part of the difficulty will be that when they come out, they do not have any means of support. They are going to have a hard time getting jobs because of the fact that they have a record and a lot of the people who are in prison are not educated. I think that is a good point and I think that is something that could be worked on. Everything could be worked on.
Mr Waters: Do you think we are moving towards a better way of dealing with the people from the native community who end up incarcerated in assisting them in some of their specific needs? Is there a better way of dealing with not only the native community but also a lot of the different ethnic communities? Our laws are based on white-Anglo-Saxon-type rules. Do you think maybe we should, shall we say, expand our horizons and look at things from different angles?
Ms Pitawanakwat: I think there is some progress being made in terms of trying to help native inmates or to have an understanding of the differences that there are at this point in time. I know they do have some different sets of rules in terms of using the elders in a community way up north, and I think that is very good in terms of trying to find some way to balance your culture and our culture.
Mr Hayes: Of course, drugs and alcohol have a great effect on some of the crimes. We know that for people who have an addiction problem, when they are up for parole and then they go out back into society, there is often no help for them out there or they do not know how to get that help. My question really is, very briefly, do you feel that we should be looking towards better treatment programs for people with drug and alcohol abuse problems within our correctional institutions, to help rehabilitate those people before they are put back out into society?
Ms Pitawanakwat: Yes, if it is possible.
Mr Wiseman: My question has to do with education and what you were commenting on that. Given that there is no way to force an inmate to take a course or to participate in a rehabilitation program, do you have any ideas on how you can get them to take these programs? I am really quite interested in this. I do not know if you know I am the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Correctional Services. This is something we are trying to grapple with and any insight you can give me at this point would be most welcome.
Ms Pitawanakwat: Is that for any inmate or for native people specifically?
Mr Wiseman: I will take any insight you can give.
Ms Pitawanakwat: You are correct in saying there is no way of forcing someone to take a program. If you do tell them, "You have to take this program if you have any intention of going on to parole," that is still forcing them, and they are going through the program but they are not gaining from it. In the places where I have worked in alcoholism counselling programs, you can only be there to support the individual, to have that there for him, and it is entirely up to him. I really do not have any insights.
What I have insights on is not so much for the individuals who are in the system now, but to change the educational system so that minority groups have more freedom to be able to get through the educational system, because one of the things I learned by taking sociology is that it is geared entirely to middle-class society. I think the changes that have to be made are overall changes in terms of viewpoint and attitude, and the children are the individuals we can work with, to make changes.
1210
Mr Grandmaître: Margaret, I will not hazard your second name. You were one of nine people who applied for this position, and luckily for you, you were interviewed. By three people?
Ms Pitawanakwat: No, four.
Mr Grandmaître: Four? It was not three?
Ms Pitawanakwat: No. There were three ladies and the vice-chairman.
Mr Grandmaître: The vice-chairman of the parole board?
Ms Pitawanakwat: Of the northwestern region, yes. The vice-chairman there.
Mr Grandmaître: Were they all members of the Ministry of Correctional Services or the parole board?
Ms Pitawanakwat: Of the parole board.
Mr Grandmaître: I see. By the way, congratulations on your BA. There was glee in your eye when you said you had just graduated.
Ms Pitawanakwat: Yes. I was quite happy to graduate.
Mr Grandmaître: What are your thoughts on native self-government, and should natives be responsible for their judicial system?
Ms Pitawanakwat: As I have said, and I studied the sociology of education, I learned that we are winnowed out very early, and without education I do not think native people have the expertise to be able to have self-government. Therefore, I do not think self-government would work at this point in time. Your other question was?
Mr Grandmaître: The judicial system: Should you have your own? I suppose if they are not ready for self-government, they should not be responsible for their judicial system.
Ms Pitawanakwat: Again, I believe in a whole. I believe the changes that have to go in terms of native society have to come from an overall, that is from your society, and that changes have to be made so that minority groups are allowed in terms of viewing them in their culture and their points of view. If there are changes that should be made I think it has to come from your system.
Mr Grandmaître: Do you think there is any discrimination right now in the parole board system against native people?
Ms Pitawanakwat: I have never run across it myself but I would imagine that there is, knowing, as I grew up, the amount of prejudice that was levelled towards me.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Pitawanakwat. We wish you well and thank you for appearing here today.
The next matter on our agenda is the report of the subcommittee, which includes the selections for review by the subcommittee and the selections of agencies for potential review during the break period. I know we are going to have a motion. Usually we do this by unanimous consent. Since I was contacted by a government member and I know Mr Wiseman has a matter he wants to raise as well in respect to this, I am going to ask for a motion to accept or adopt the subcommittee report and then Mr Wiseman can move an amendment to it.
Mr Wiseman: Prior to that, should we not be doing the determination of whether the committee concurs on intended appointments?
The Chair: Yes, you are right. My apologies.
Do we have everyone's attention on this? Do we want to concur with the appointments reviewed today or does any member wish to delay the motion in respect to the reviews today?
Mr Marchese: I move concurrence.
The Chair: I cannot do that without agreement here.
Mr McGuinty: With respect to Ms Rounding, in light of the fact that first of all we are dealing with a very important appointment, and second, given the information she has provided to this committee today, to her credit and to the credit of her husband and the credit of her husband's law firm, I can indicate that without that information I certainly would not have been able to support the appointment. But now I need time to consider it to see if it properly addresses the concerns I have raised and that other parties have raised. I would like to run those by the other parties as well and then come back and decide this.
Also, I think it is important to note that next week the environmental assessment panel will be making a decision on the exact same issue. I think we should allow time for them to make that decision so we will have that before us as well. Armed with that information, we can give a full and considered decision.
The Chair: The official opposition has requested a delay in respect to a decision related to the appointment of Marie Rounding. I gather no one has any objections to dealing with the appointments of Dr Yan Yan Ma and Ms Pitawanakwat. Can we have a motion to concur with those two appointments?
Mr Marchese moves that we concur with the appointments of Dr Yan Yan Ma and Margaret Pitawanakwat.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: We will deal with the Marie Rounding appointment next week.
Mr McGuinty: I am concerned that the EA panel considering the same issue will not have made a decision until the end of next week, so I am wondering if we can put this over for the week after that.
Mr Wiseman: I do not believe we can do that under the rules.
The Chair: We require unanimous consent to do that. Otherwise it will be in violation of the standing orders, and we do not have that consent.
Mr McGuinty: Just so the government members understand, there is a high-powered panel with tremendous expertise that is going to consider this issue, and for us to say that we are not really interested in --
Ms Carter: Explain.
Mr McGuinty: All right. The environmental assessment hearing which is looking into Hydro's demand-supply plan is now dealing with the very same issue. There is a lady sitting on the panel whose husband is a partner in the law firm which is representing a party before the panel. They are considering this, and that is why the government submitted a 31-page legal memorandum dealing with the issues and setting out the law. The panel has yet to make a decision on that.
One of the members sitting on that is Mr Justice Saunders, a man who sat on the bench for some 35 years. I think it would be extremely helpful to our committee to review that decision once it comes in. What if we decide that we are going to go ahead with this appointment and this panel decides that no, it would not be appropriate to do so. We will be lacking consistency when we could have had consistency.
Mr Wiseman: Within the framework of that discussion, Ms Rounding indicated there had been a further submission by the firm which had in fact, if I remember correctly, indicated that by putting up the walls of silence, they had gone beyond what was required within the law and that if we were to wait for that, we would also have to wait for the further case on Chinese walls of silence. I do not think we need to delay, given that the previous decisions had been that what they had suggested to do with their documents here went beyond what was necessary or even required. I am not convinced of the need to wait for somebody else to make my decision for me.
The Chair: I am not going to allow a debate to continue. I will give the third party an opportunity, if it wishes, to put something on the record in respect to this.
Mr McLean: I do not think it is necessary. I think the rules are there and we are going to deal with it next week.
The Chair: All right. I guess that is the majority view, and we do not have a unanimous opinion in respect to deviating from the standing order.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: The next matter of business is the subcommittee report. As I indicated, we have two matters in the subcommittee report, the selections for review by the official opposition and the government party and the agencies for review during the break period, if we are allotted the time by the House leaders. I would like to have a motion to accept the subcommittee report, and Mr Wiseman has an amendment. Could we have a motion to accept it?
Mr Marchese has moved to adopt the subcommittee report. Mr Wiseman has an amendment, I believe.
Mr Wiseman: My amendment is that we move Carmer Sweica from December 4 to November 27 for review.
The Chair: Mr Wiseman has moved an amendment to the report. This is a selection of the government party, putting Mr Sweica into next week's review period. The implications of this are that the committee would have to either start half an hour earlier or run a half-hour later or try to make some changes to our agenda, which is already laid out in respect to Mr Kruger's appearance or the Canadian Bar Association's.
Mr Grandmaître: What is the reason for advancing the date to November 27?
The Chair: As I understand it, there is some urgency -- Mr Wiseman may want to expand on this -- from the board to have Mr Sweica appointed and on the job as soon as possible.
Mr Grandmaître: I do not agree.
The Chair: It is not a question of agreement; it is a question that we have an amendment, and it is an amendment to the subcommittee report. I am opening it up for discussion if we want to have some discussion. Mr Grandmaitre said he does not agree. Mr McGuinty?
Mr McGuinty: I would be interested in hearing specific reasons.
Mr Wiseman: The reason, as I understand it, is that the board is short-staffed and needs this in order to carry out its work and that the sooner he is appointed, the better.
Mr McLean: The only question I have is, next week, when we are dealing with the other ones who are on the agenda, does our committee have a mandate to start half an hour earlier if it is not in the rules?
The Chair: We can do that by majority vote. The other option, of course, is that as this is a government selection, we simply withdraw it for review and it would proceed immediately. Since it is a selection of the government party and it is making this request -- and that is a matter you can consider as well -- we would just simply not call the gentleman for review.
Mr Waters: In other words you are saying if we just do not call him for review, he is therefore automatically in this position.
The Chair: That is right; he is your selection. There is a time period, but that ties into whenever we go through the review, so what you are doing actually is moving it up a week or two weeks, if you look at this original schedule.
Mr Wiseman: I move that we waive the review of this particular person.
The Chair: All right, fine. I do not think anyone will have any difficulty with that.
We have an amendment moved by Mr Wiseman to delete Mr Sweica from review. All in favour of the amendment?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: We will move the original motion moved by Mr Marchese that the subcommittee report be adopted as amended. All in favour?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: That concludes the regular meeting. Before we adjourn, we have on the schedule for a subcommittee meeting, but we only have one order-in-council appointment coming to us from the executive council. I was going to suggest that we have the subcommittee meeting next week when we will have this week's cabinet appointments before us as well, so we will have a number of people to look at rather than one individual. Do we agree on that?
Mr McGuinty: Mr Chair, with respect to Ms Rounding's appointment, I believe I am entitled to put forward a motion to deal with that matter in terms of when we can consider it, and I would like to put forward a motion that we delay this committee's consideration of her appointment until two weeks from today.
The Chair: I am advised the motion is out of order and we would require unanimous consent to have the motion placed. Do we have unanimous consent? We do not. Meeting adjourned.
The meeting adjourned at 1225.