Legislative Assembly of Ontario

INTENDED APPOINTMENT
LINDA THOM

CONTENTS

Wednesday 22 April 1998

Intended appointment

Mrs Linda Thom

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Chair / Président

Vacant / Vacant

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur L)

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth PC)

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North / -Nord PC)

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)

Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South ND)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr Douglas Arnott

Staff / Personnel

Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1108 in room 228.

INTENDED APPOINTMENT
LINDA THOM

Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Linda Thom, intended appointee as member, Ontario Trillium Foundation board of directors.

The Vice-Chair (Tony Silipo): Good morning. I call the meeting of the standing committee on government agencies to order, with my apologies for keeping members of the committee waiting and keeping Ms Thom waiting. We're here to review the intended appointment of Linda Thom as a member of the Ontario Trillium Foundation.

Ms Thom, if you would like to come to the table, welcome to the committee. As you probably know, we have up to half an hour to spend with you. We will give you an opportunity to make any opening comments that you may wish to make and then we will have a round of questions from members of the committee.

Mrs Linda Thom: Thank you for inviting me here. I apologize for not being able to make it last week, but I had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity; I was invited by the astronaut Dave Williams to go to his launch in Florida. It was a really wonderful experience, so thank you very much for indulging me.

I would like to make just a few comments. I'm honoured to be appointed to the Trillium Foundation. I'm looking forward to making a solid contribution to this board. You all have my résumé and I'll take that as read. Basically I'm a concerned citizen, that is, with the wellbeing of the community, the province, the nation. I followed up my Olympic win with public involvement by speaking to schools, community groups, women's groups and businesses, and I'm happy to be able to speak in both languages, although of course English is my maternal tongue.

I've been very happy to be in the position to be able to encourage women in their hopes and dreams, whether they be business, sports or political involvement, and also by serving on boards and committees. I had the honour to serve on the Ontario Sport Medicine and Safety Advisory Board, also with the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, and most recently the National Forum on Climate Change federally. Over the years, I've been asked and have been delighted to help many charities in many areas; I won't bore you with the details there.

Serving for the Trillium Foundation is in fact an extension of my public involvement. Thank you.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Thank you and welcome to the committee, Mrs Thom. I'm from Ottawa, and as you know, we're very proud of your accomplishments at the Olympics.

Going through your résumé, I notice that you neglected to mention that you were a candidate in the 1995 election for the Conservative Party in Ottawa South. Can we take it from that that you wouldn't consider yourself an arm's-length Conservative?

Mrs Thom: I'm sorry. I would or I wouldn't?

Mr Cullen: That you would not consider yourself an arm's-length Conservative. You're active in the Conservative Party, you ran as a candidate, you support the Conservative Party's goals and objectives.

Mrs Thom: Yes, I indeed was a candidate. I am a member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, but I simply feel that that does not in any way bear on my contribution to the foundation.

Mr Cullen: No one's saying that being a member of the Conservative Party is a crime, not at all. I couched my question in the context of whether you consider yourself an arm's-length Conservative, because the Trillium Foundation is to operate at arm's length from the government. One of the concerns we have on our side is with the nature of appointments. We know that appointments have to be made and we understand that there are people of good talent in every party, but we are very concerned about the politicization of the board when only Conservative appointees -- people active in the Conservative Party; a former candidate -- are being appointed to the Trillium Foundation, without any sense of balance.

Coming back to the notion of arm's length, I take it that you're an active member of the party. Good for you. How do you see that relationship continuing if you are a member of the Trillium board?

Mrs Thom: Although I'm continuing as a member of the party, I'm of course not an elected official. I believe the effort has been made to strike quite a balance on the Trillium Foundation board. I believe what they're looking for in the 25 members are people from various backgrounds who have broad interests and have exhibited their broad interests and/or perhaps have expertise in an area that brings depth to the board. That is the way I believe the Trillium Foundation will be balanced. I also believe that there are 14 members who have sat on the board who are continuing to sit on the board and will provide good continuation for those of us who are new to the board; in other words, that there will be a continuous flow. It isn't a matter of the board being completely changed or anything like that.

Mr Cullen: We have some differing opinions over that, but I'll just leave that.

According to the foundation, the goal is to contribute funds to voluntary social service organizations which provide assistance to people in Ontario who have been affected by adverse social circumstances or disabling conditions. That means that from time to time you'll be dealing with groups that have been affected by the agenda of this government and groups that, in trying to deal with those members of the public who find themselves disabled or in adverse social circumstances, often also include advocacy as part of their activity. What's your view of that? Is that an attribute that a group can be expected to have, ought not to have, in applying for Trillium funds?

Mrs Thom: I believe some groups exhibit advocacy and some don't. If indeed by the meaning of the word "advocacy" you mean that they are really aggressive in representing that particular group's point of view and less likely to admit arguments from others and so forth, or points from others, as I understand it, my own view is that an awful lot of groups take a different approach. Naturally they are for their group, but they take a more what you might call educational approach to it. But that's a fact of life. Some people are very strong advocates, some are not, and some of them are with very reputable organizations. I don't see that, advocacy or non-advocacy, as being a difficulty in applying for funds as long as they meet the criteria.

Mr Cullen: I'm pleased to hear that, because certainly the message that has been sent out by this government to a number of social agencies, particularly those who deal with the poor, is that advocacy is not considered a positive item. This is particularly in light of the 21.6% cut in welfare rates, which all the authorities -- the regional government, the social planning council, the churches, other social agencies in Ottawa-Carleton which I am familiar with -- have acknowledged has created great stress within that community, within that large portion of Ottawa-Carleton. I think one person out of five is on social assistance in Ottawa-Carleton.

The issue of advocacy is very important as these groups come forward in applying. It says here, "affected by adverse social circumstances or disabling conditions." We have groups that are trying to deal with ensuring that there's adequate funding coming from special assistance supplementary aid. If those things are cut, as we expect them to be capped by this government, they are going to be coming to the Trillium Foundation to make up the difference because their clients will have been disabled.

I'm hearing from you, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the fact that they are advocating to the government and to the public that there ought to be other policies followed will not be held against them.

Mrs Thom: I'll just have to follow the guidelines of the foundation. I'm not trying to paraphrase the Premier, but perhaps what he and what others have often felt is that sometimes extreme advocacy actually works against a group instead of for it.

Mr Cullen: Then it becomes a judgement of "extreme." This is why I'm coming back to the notion of arm's length. When people are being appointed to the board who do not have an arm's-length relationship with the government and there is a disagreement between, say, the groups that deal with the clients on the street, such as Centre 454, for example, that deals with the homeless, or any of the groups that deal with -- Mothercraft. I can talk to you about the $37 pregnancy money that the government has just cut for welfare recipients. When they advocate and say, "This is a wrong thing to do. We have this clientele. We're trying to make up the difference through an application," you're saying, "There may be a line you have crossed," even though they are trying to represent their community. Is that what you --

Mrs Thom: Is that a statement or a question?

Mr Cullen: That was a question.

The Vice-Chair: You're able to comment on that if you wish, Mrs Thom.

Mrs Thom: I think I've commented, Mr Cullen. There may have been a subtlety in your statement that I missed, but I thought it was a reiteration of what you asked before.

Mr Cullen: I haven't heard from you that the issue of advocacy is not going to be a factor. I've heard from you that it may be a factor.

Mrs Thom: I would imagine that whatever groups bring their bids -- proposals, bids, what have you -- to the foundation, they would meet the criteria. I believe that is the aim of the foundation.

Mr Cullen: So if they meet the criteria, advocacy is not an issue for you, is it?

Mrs Thom: I haven't seen that advocacy was specifically excluded in the foundation's guidelines, but perhaps it is.

Mr Cullen: It's not. That's why I'm coming back to it. The issue is, if it's not part of the criteria, therefore should it be an element in your judgement?

Our concern is that this government doesn't like advocacy, particularly since its policies have created new advocates. The churches in our community are saying that the government has gone too far. They are coming forward and trying to meet the needs of their community because of government policies. So is it going to be a factor or is it not?

Mrs Thom: I'll follow the guidelines for the foundation, Mr Cullen.

Mr Cullen: I think I've gone as far as I can on that one.

The Vice-Chair: That also is the end of your time.

1120

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'd like to welcome you to our committee. It's always good to see that there is never a shortage of people who want to serve this great province, and it's certainly good to see you here. I take it that's what you're trying to do. But I have some concerns and I have some questions, and I think they need to be answered before we give you the approval or non-approval of being appointed.

I want to read to you what the goals of the foundation are. It's very short. It says, "According to the foundation, its goal is to contribute funds to voluntary social service organizations which provide assistance to people in Ontario" -- and listen to this part -- "who have been affected by adverse social circumstances." Do you believe there are more people who can be categorized as being adversely affected by social circumstances in Ontario today than there were three years ago?

Mrs Thom: I don't want to appear glib, Mr Bisson --

Mr Bisson: I'm sure you don't.

Mrs Thom: Not at all, but on a per capita basis, on a proportion basis of the population?

Mr Bisson: Are there more people --

Mrs Thom: Because of course the population of Ontario is increasing.

Mr Bisson: Let me put it really simply.

Mrs Thom: People are coming to the province for jobs, so there is a larger population. There may be more people seeking social services because of the larger population, but if you mean proportionally, I would imagine it will vary. I imagine there will be, proportionally, a big increase from year to year sometimes because of the economy or particular circumstances. Perhaps somebody has shut down a plant or a firm in an area of the province, which could really affect -- you come from such an area. You've seen a lot of towns close down in northern Ontario. So that can affect an awful lot of people from there.

Mr Bisson: That's for another time, but let me ask you this: There have been a number of cuts in the health care system. Do you think it's more difficult today for people to access health care services than it was three years ago? Is it harder to get services?

Mrs Thom: Is it harder to access health services? No, I don't think it is.

Mr Bisson: How would you explain the increased waiting lists for issues like heart bypass surgery, where people are dying because they can't get in? Would you say that something this government did might have affected that? Just a yes or no; that's all I'm looking for.

Mrs Thom: But it's much more complicated than a simple yes or no.

Mr Bisson: Mike Harris says it's real simple. Like Mike Harris, I like to keep things simple.

Mrs Thom: I'm quite acquainted with the hospitals in my community. There are quite a lot of hospitals in my community, so I've been very concerned and I have watched very carefully. What we're going through is a transition. In a transition, there are things that occur that appear to worsen and there are things that appear to get better as you go through the transition. We're in a great period of transition right now, and what I see a move to is an increase actually in health services, not the other way around. A lot of people, because they see the hospitals themselves changing or shrinking, think that therefore there's a shrinking in health care, but there really isn't.

Mr Bisson: If you look in the Ottawa area as an example, is it more difficult today for people to access services such as health care services or social services than it was three years ago? In other words, is there a greater demand put on the volunteer communities of your community to pick up the slack where government has withdrawn? Let me try it from there. Are volunteer organizations having to play a much more important role today as compared to three years ago vis-à-vis all the cuts that we've seen?

Mrs Thom: Well, three years ago there was an attack on volunteer organizations by your party. They wanted to eliminate volunteers. Some volunteer organizations had really quite a tough time and they got discouraged and they lost volunteers. So maybe we see a coming back of volunteers to the community to serve again, because volunteers are an absolutely critical part of our community.

Mr Bisson: Let me ask you again, and it's a very simple question: Is there a greater reliance put on our volunteer organizations today, in your community as in mine, than there was three years ago because of the cuts this government has made? In other words, are they having to pick up the pieces in some cases, such as the cuts to welfare, the cuts in health care, the cuts to social services in our communities? Are they having to pick up more and more of the pieces?

Mrs Thom: I don't think so.

Mr Bisson: I have a great problem, because I don't know what province you're living in, quite frankly. Certainly, I think it could be said that volunteer organizations in our communities are playing a much stronger role today than they were three years ago because of the cuts that were going on.

Anyway, let's move away from that and let's go to the second part. Do you support the policies of the Harris government and the general direction that it's taking?

Mrs Thom: Yes, I do.

Mr Bisson: You do. If you support that particular direction and you, along with a whole bunch of Tory appointees, are put on the board -- because we know that you're a former candidate, which I think is great. People should aspire to run for office, nothing wrong with that, or people wanting to even serve on boards who may have political tendencies one way or another. The problem I have is, I look at this board and it's going to be all Tories, and people like you come to this committee and say, "I support the direction of this government and its policies."

The Trillium Foundation has said, "The foundation will operate at arm's length from the government." I ask you, how much of an arm's length can you get when there are nothing but a bunch of Tories on the board? How will you stop from -- anyway, answer the first question. Do you believe there will be an arm's length with nothing but a bunch of Tory appointees on this board?

Mrs Thom: "Do you believe?" Yes, I certainly do, absolutely. I've seen --

Mr Bisson: You do. Hang on a second. You just said --

Mrs Thom: Mr Bisson --

Mr Bisson: All right, go ahead.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Bisson, just let Mrs Thom answer the question.

Mrs Thom: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

What you're saying is you don't believe that people who are Conservatives or who in their own private opinion support the government of the day can hold arm's length away from the government, and I couldn't disagree with you more --

Mr Bisson: What I'm saying is --

Mrs Thom: -- because there have been many, many people from all political parties, and political parties that are not represented in the Legislature, who've been represented on boards of this government and other governments who have certainly managed to hold themselves arm's length.

Mr Bisson: Here's what I'm suggesting to you --

Mrs Thom: That is why the board of course has been appointed to be at arm's-length from the government, so that it avoids direct political interference.

Mr Bisson: Here is what I'm saying: There's nothing wrong with a person who supports one party or another being appointed to the board. That's not the issue. The issue is that boards are supposed to have a balance. There is supposed to be a balance of people from different parts of our community who represent different points of view who sit on the board and make decisions, in this case about who is going to get a grant from the Trillium Foundation. I look at what the Mike Harris government is doing. It is basically appointing a bunch of Tories. You come to this committee and you say to me, "I support holus-bolus the direction the Harris government is taking."

Mrs Thom: No, no. I'm sorry.

Mr Bisson: Let me finish.

Mrs Thom: You're putting words in my mouth, Mr Bisson.

Mr Bisson: Okay. Do you support the direction --

Mrs Thom: Your original question, and I'm sure the gentleman from Hansard can read it back, was "in principle and in large," and not holus-bolus. Okay?

Mr Bisson: All right. Do you support in principle and in large --

Mrs Thom: Of course, in any government individuals will --

Mr Bisson: Do you support in principle or in large the direction of the government?

The Vice-Chair: Mr Bisson, sorry, excuse me. I think some latitude is always useful in terms of having a flow back and forth, but we do have to make sure that if you put a question, you give Mrs Thom an opportunity to answer, and vice versa. So let's just try and do it that way, okay?

Mrs Thom: Okay. I think what it boils down to, Mr Chairman, is that Mr Bisson doesn't think I can be at arm's length, and I know I can because I've served on other boards.

Mr Bisson: No, all I'm saying --

Mrs Thom: I'm much more concerned that the members of the board really do represent, as you've said, various segments of the communities of this province in and outside of greater Toronto and that they come with a varied background of services and business and NGOs and so forth so that through our intricate weaving of our backgrounds we can really bring to bear a wealth of experience to the board in being able to fairly judge all applications that meet the criteria of the board.

Mr Bisson: I have no problem with you individually being on the board. I'm sure you're quite competent. That's not the issue. What I'm saying is that the board has to have a balance of various people from our communities so that when people go before the board in order to ask for grant money to start up or support an organization that is having to pick up a lot of the slack in the void that the government has left by its cuts, I want an assurance that this board is not just going to carry out government policy as far as the decisions it makes.

If you're individually on that board, along with other people who represent various points of view and different political parties, I think they'll get a fair hearing. My problem is I look at the appointees of the government and they're all Tories. That's my problem, not you individually. I'm sure you're quite competent. That's not the issue.

1130

My first question to you was, do you support the general direction this government is taking by way of its policies? You answered yes; am I correct?

Mrs Thom: The general direction.

Mr Bisson: Do you support its policies in regard to welfare, the various changes in social services?

Mrs Thom: Including the Trillium Foundation, which has been expanded now, we are getting more money -- I shouldn't say "we," because I haven't been confirmed.

Mr Bisson: That's not the question.

Mrs Thom: You're continuing to pursue a rather narrow direction, if I may be permitted to say so --

Mr Bisson: I think this board's going to be narrow; that's the problem.

Mrs Thom: -- and are ignoring the breadth of the experience being brought to the board, and also the expansion of the board, the moneys that are being given out by the board, the different areas in which groups can come and ask for grants from the board, and also the institution of community groups of the board, which will be composed of leaders from the communities themselves. I think that will further enrich the balance in the backgrounds of people in judging the applications for grants.

The Vice-Chair: That concludes the time. We go to the government caucus.

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Good morning, Ms Thom. Congratulations for past efforts you've made at volunteering in your community to help people and for stepping forward to offer to serve on the board of the Trillium Foundation.

I feel obligated to respond to a couple of things that have been said that are not exactly as they should have been said. Mr Bisson talked about all the cuts our government has made and asked you about more people requiring social services and so on. In actual fact, almost 300,000 fewer people in our province are dependent upon welfare than were when we took office and inherited the sad state that the NDP left us with. That's 300,000 fewer people dependent upon social services. Certainly, that is because of the economy of the province and several things our government has done.

He also talked about cuts to health care. In actual fact, we're spending $1 billion more per year on health care than we were when his government was in power. So that's not exactly a cut.

One cut that is a reality is the cut that the federal Liberal government has imposed upon this province and all provinces in the transfer payments for community and social health services. If there has been a cut in this area, we can blame our fellow Liberals, Mr Cullen's colleagues in Ottawa, and put the blame where it rightfully belongs.

Mr Cullen: How far back can we go? Can I talk about Mulroney?

Mr Carroll: I do want to make some reference to the comments about the Tory flunkies and about your inability, as they see it, to be an objective participant in the Trillium Foundation because you're associated with the Tory party and because you support the Mike Harris government. We've appointed a lot of people to agencies, boards and commissions in the last two and a half or three years -- some Tories, some NDP and, Mr Cullen, even some Liberals. The fact of the matter is that in that period of time, 1,833 people appointed by the Liberals and by the NDP have been reappointed by us to agencies, boards and commissions. I believe that speaks to the issue that we are looking for good, qualified people; we're not necessarily interested in the partisanship of people.

The whole idea of a legislative review of this process was one we give the NDP credit for. They instituted that. They didn't always follow it, mind you, but they did institute it. It is interesting that back in 1986, when the Breaugh commission recommended legislative review of appointments to agencies, boards and commissions to Mr Peterson and the Liberal government, they chose to ignore that recommendation. It's sad that it took the NDP coming to power to enact a policy that was recommended to the Liberals many years before that.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Carroll, this praise of the NDP is very nice to hear, but there is a question coming, I'm sure.

Mr Carroll: Yes, there is eventually a question. Actually, Mr Grimmett may ask a question.

I did want to talk about the fact that I understand from the last couple of weeks that the Liberals prefaced every appointment, the three they reviewed, by saying, "We agree that you're a qualified person; however, on the basis that you are a Tory," they voted against them. I think that's pretty flimsy.

I just want to say that we've appointed three new people, who were reviewed, to the Trillium Foundation, and some others who weren't reviewed: George Burton, Charles Cheechoo, Vincent Ching, Paul McCabe, Frank Paznar, Robert Power and Donna Vendramin. I believe Mrs Thom is also a very qualified candidate and would be a fine representative on the board of the Trillium Foundation.

Mrs Thom: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair: Mrs Thom, do you want to comment at all on that? That wasn't really a question, Mr Carroll. As a committee, I want to try to give lots of latitude, but we ought to leave the time for questions to be used generally for questions. Of course, people can debate when we get to dealing with the motion to appoint the individual or not. Are there any other questions?

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a question. Welcome this morning, Mrs Thom. I note from the information you provided that you have quite a rich background in recreation. I notice that under the newly constituted foundation there's now an opportunity for the grants to be made in recreation, sports, arts and the environment. Do you have any comment, having come from the sporting and recreation world, as to how that might benefit the recreation and sports community you have been a part of in the past?

Mrs Thom: Thank you very much, Mr Grimmett. I was very happy to see that enlargement of the foundation's aegis, because sports and recreational organizations will be able to apply for many different things, I'm sure. One that springs to mind, for example, is to enable disabled people to attend clubs they couldn't before because there weren't proper ramps or proper access for them. That's just one small example. They will be able to encourage and I hope institute things such as Web sites, access by computer for women and children, and anybody else in the population of course, and encourage their participation and actually probably become seen where they weren't seen before. I think this serves to encourage and enrich our communities.

Mr Grimmett: So you see this as an opportunity for the disabled community to access sporting ventures?

Mrs Thom: Yes, I do, and also women, sporting venues.

The Vice-Chair: Other questions? That concludes the time.

Interjection.

The Vice-Chair: No, we can't flip the time around. Thank you very much, Mrs Thom, for appearing before the committee.

Mrs Thom: Thank you very much, Mr Silipo.

The Vice-Chair: We'll proceed now to dealing with the appointment. Is there a motion?

Mr Grimmett: I move concurrence.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Grimmett has moved concurrence. Discussion?

Mr Cullen: We've had lots of people come before this committee, and a large number of them actually have gone through this committee with all-party support. But as Mr Carroll has pointed out in his prepared remarks, there is a concerted effort on this side of the table in dealing with appointments to the Trillium Foundation, and that is because the Trillium Foundation deals with those affected by adverse social circumstances or disabling conditions and is supposed to act at arm's length from the government.

1140

If we had a variety of appointments that showed there would be balance on the Trillium -- when you talk about balance, there is left, right and centre in all this -- then certainly we would be prepared to ensure that and we would recognize that. But the appointments we have been dealing with in this committee for the Trillium Foundation involve not only former candidates, but lobbyists with this government, golfing buddies of the Premier, people who have family relatives working for Tory ministers, and quite frankly we are concerned how the Trillium Foundation is being stacked. It has $13 million for 1997-98. It is getting additional funds from the travelling casinos, and therefore it's finding its mandate being expanded to include recreation, sports, arts and the environment.

One has to wonder, with a board like this, how much of the original $13 million will stay dealing with those organizations that provide assistance to people who have been affected by adverse social circumstances or disabling conditions, particularly when I do not know of an organization that deals with clients who have been affected by adverse social circumstances or disabling conditions who aren't in turn advocates. Multiple sclerosis has been out there; I know that. They've been advocating; also, the churches in my community. I could make a long list.

We are concerned when it's clear that the members who are being appointed to the foundation have such close ties to the government that they cannot be deemed to operate at arm's length. It is one thing to have been a candidate, and I understand all that. If we're talking about balance, maybe having a candidate every now and again would provide balance to the board. But we're not seeing balance here.

That is why we are opposing these kinds of appointments to something that is supposed to deal with contributing funds to the voluntary social services sector, providing assistance to people who basically fall between the cracks. By definition, who is creating the cracks? The other side may very well say there is a limit to what government can do, so therefore there are going to be cracks and this is one way of stuffing those cracks. It can't work if you stuff the board with so many partisan adherents to the government agenda.

On that basis, and leaving aside the individual qualifications -- because there are good people who are being presented here, if they were part of a package that showed balance, criteria that showed that when the board dealt with these agencies that are coming forward, we could expect to see and hear fair play. But even on the simple question of organizations that dare to advocate for those who have been affected by adverse social circumstances or disabling conditions, I can't get a straight answer. We haven't got a straight answer.

Yet every organization that I know out there, especially in my community, has to advocate because of the effects of government policies on their clients. It's straight up. If the government intends to present candidates who will gain support from the opposition side, then it has to provide a balanced slate, and it has not done so.

Mr Bisson: For the record, I just want to say a couple of things directly to the committee in the presence of Mrs Thom because I think it needs to be said. My argument is not that Mrs Thom is not individually as qualified as anybody else to sit on the committee; I'm sure she is. I look at her résumé. She has served her province and her country in a number of very admirable ways. I don't take issue at all with the qualifications of Mrs Thom.

What I have a problem with, and I want to lay this out, is when a government -- I don't care what the political stripe is -- in this particular case the Conservative government of Ontario, is now, in the later part of its mandate, starting to stack committees. We see at the Trillium Foundation the recent appointments that are being made. I look at this list. There are about 10 or 11. I don't think I can take issue with any one individual because I am sure they are all trying to do the best they can. But the one thing these appointees all have in common is they are all Tory members. The problem with that is, once you get them on a board, they then think alike because they share the same political persuasion, the same political ideas, and then start to make decisions strictly according to what is the political view of the Tory party, and I think that's wrong.

I look, for example, at the Social Assistance Review Board as one. I am appalled at what this government has done in the appointments of the people they've put on the Social Assistance Review Board. It's there to review cases where people have been denied access to social benefits through MCSS, and is the only appeal they've got to have the decision reversed. If you have a board that is strictly a bunch of Tories, I can tell you the chances these people will have to get a hearing that will give them what they justly deserve.

I have no problem with the government coming and saying, "Mrs Thom, as a Conservative, should sit on this board," if in doing that you were making sure that the board was bringing other people as well who were equally qualified but who shared different political persuasions, so that when the Trillium Foundation looks at an application it says: "Let's look at this particular project that's being brought forward to our committee. Should we be giving it money?"

I'm sure Mrs Thom would argue what she believes is right, and what you believe is right in your heart and soul is what you believe in. I can't fault you for that. Another person may bring a different point of view and say, "No, there's a social reason we should be funding this particular organization," whatever the reason might be.

At the end, a good debate happens. People exchange ideas at the board level. The application is looked at from different points of view and a decision is made. Some you will win, some you will lose, based on what you believe in. But if you're all a bunch of Tories and you all have the same point of view, what do you think is going to happen? Only organizations that share the same type of idea in terms of the direction this government is going in will have the best chances of being funded. That is not right.

While I don't take issue for one second with the qualifications of Mrs Thom, I take exception to what this government is doing in the later part of its mandate: stacking committees. The ship is sinking. They're sending all their Tories on to the committee and they're saying, "We're going to have the opportunity to ram as much as we can through in the last year or two of our mandate."

I say to the Tory members across the way, put yourself on the other side of this room. Imagine it was a Liberal or an NDP government in place. Let's say it was the NDP and we were making appointments to the Northern Ontario Development Corp, which lends money to businesses and communities across northern Ontario, and the NDP, for whatever reason, decided it was only going to appoint New Democrats with the same point of view to that board. What would you say? You would say it's wrong, and I would agree with you.

But that's something we didn't do when we were in government, for the very reason I argue today. In terms of the people who come to the boards, there were New Democrats appointed when we were government, as there were Tories and Liberals. If you look at the NODC or other economic development boards, there was a good mix of people from different political persuasions who made those boards strong.

I look at people who were appointed like Jean Paul Aubé, who certainly is not a New Democrat, who was the chair of the board. He was an identified Liberal. He brought a valued contribution to the board. But his experience, balanced with the experience of other people who were on that board from different political persuasions, made it a stronger board. I argue that this can't be a strong board when only Tories are being appointed.

You have a responsibility to the people of your riding, who elected you, and you have a responsibility to the people of Ontario in general as government committees. In our system, this is a parliamentary dictatorship; they can damn well do what they want. My speech or Mr Cullen's speech don't matter. You hold the majority in this House, and you have a responsibility with that majority to ensure that we try to do things in a fair way.

How is it going to be fair for people if the only people appointed to boards are Tories? You're going to have like-minded people making decisions from one point of view. That's what it's going to get you. That point of view at times might be right, but it's not always right. That's why you need to balance it off.

That's what I feel. I don't take exception for one second with her individual qualifications. I do take exception to a government that says: "In the later part of our mandate we're sticking a bunch of Tories on the boards. We're going to make darn sure that we leave our impression in this place and we're just going to do things the way we think is right." That's not what governing is about, and I think you're letting the people of Ontario down by doing it.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I had some comments I wanted to make because I wanted to say some things about this appointee. She brings a wide and varied experience from her background to this board. I'm old enough that I remember Kate Aitken being on television and giving culinary instruction and recipes and things like that. I may go back a little bit further than some.

We're heard the problem with advocacy and those advocates. Indeed, my view is that even Mr Cullen -- he may not want to admit it -- is an advocate.

Mr Cullen: Of course I am, and damned proud of it.

Mr Bert Johnson: Certainly he's an advocate here this morning on the part of the Liberal Party of Ontario. I don't think we have to think that Linda Thom will make decisions only because of the viewpoint of the advocates in front of her. I expect that her background and experience will lead to making those decisions on the criteria that are laid down.

I did want to point out too that we've heard terms such as "stacked" and "bunch," and I don't think that leaves anything to the part of debate. I wouldn't want Member Cullen to confuse arm's length with politics. No one, in his view, can be arm's length unless he shares his political views or lack thereof.

I'd like to finish up with this. Mayor McCallion from Mississauga once made the comment, when asked why she wanted to make all the appointees to the police services board of Mississauga rather than share those appointees with the province, that "I would rather have my friends on that board than their friends." I wouldn't mind just leaving that thought here.

I find that Linda was forthright. She gave her answers honestly, and I have absolutely no qualms in supporting her appointment this morning.

Mr Bisson: I was hoping that the Tories would at least start to understand that it might not be a good idea to only have like-minded people on a board. The comment Mr Johnson made is interesting. He said that if you only appoint Tories to a board they won't make like-minded decisions. Well, what do you think happens in your caucus? You're a bunch of Tories, you go to a caucus meeting, you have discussions, and according to your Tory ideology you make decisions. That's what's bringing people together in a political party is all about. It troubles me when a member of a caucus doesn't understand that basic principle. Why do you think we join parties? When you come to my caucus meeting, I guarantee we don't have the same points of view as you. We have points of view that are part of what we are as New Democrats, and I expect it's the same for yours.

This is amazing. He said, "Let's not confuse arm's length with politics." That's the whole point. We're saying we have to have the Trillium Foundation at arm's length from the political process. When a government member who is charged with the appointments of these boards doesn't understand what that means, it tells me we've got a serious problem.

The Trillium Foundation in its own mandate says that one of the goals is that they must operate at arm's length from government. That's in their own literature. That means they make decisions independent of what the government's ideology is.

When you come in saying, "Let's not confuse arm's length with politics" -- it has everything to do with this. It's because we want to ensure that our boards work independently of the political process and that they are not influenced by the political process and that they do things for the benefit of the people. You making that comment, Mr Johnson, makes me think we have a bigger problem than we thought.

Then, to close it all off, the fine words from Mr Johnson are, "I'd rather have my friends on the board than theirs," making the comparison to the comments of Hazel McCallion. It definitely tells me we have a problem.

I say again, and I'll just end on this point, that what makes a strong board is diversity of political views, diversity of political ideology, diversity of how we look at issues depending on where we're from: rich and poor, socially advantaged or not. That's what makes for a strong board. If you only put Tories -- as if you only put New Democrats -- on a board, it would not be a good thing. If you think it is, we are definitely in trouble. Judging by your comments, you seem to think this is perfectly okay, so I think we are in trouble.

The Vice-Chair: Can we proceed to a vote?

Mr Cullen: Recorded vote, please.

The Vice-Chair: A recorded vote has been requested.

Ayes

Carroll, Grimmett, Bert Johnson, Newman, Bob Wood.

Nays

Cullen.

The Vice-Chair: That carries.

That concludes the committee's business for today. Just for the information of committee members, our next meeting will be determined when we are reconstituted as a committee by the Legislature, with the new session beginning tomorrow.

The committee adjourned at 1155.