Intended
Appointments
Dr Eda Kranakis
Mr Royal Poulin
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair /
Président
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington
L)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex PC)
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West / -Ouest ND)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean / Ottawa-Ouest-Nepean
PC)
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane L)
Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 1004 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Jim
Bradley): We'll open the meeting for Hansard purposes
and other purposes today. The first item is the report of the
subcommittee on committee business dated Thursday, April 13,
2000. It says "see attached." I believe there were no
appointments asked for, for that period of time.
Mr Bob Wood (London
West): I move its adoption.
The Chair:
Moved by Mr Wood. Any discussion? All in favour? The motion is
carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
EDA KRANAKIS
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Eda Kranakis,
intended appointee as member, Ontario Graduate Scholarship
Selection Board.
The Chair:
Under appointments review, we begin our half-hour review of
intended appointments as follows from a certificate received on
March 24, 2000, a selection of the opposition party. The first at
10 am is Dr Eda Kranakis, who is the intended appointee as
member, Ontario Graduate Scholarship Selection Board. You may
come forward, please, and you will correct my pronunciation if I
have mispronounced your name.
What happens is, as you will
probably have been briefed, there is an opportunity for you to
make an initial statement, should you wish to do so, and then we
commence questioning from the political parties for 10 minutes
each. If you'd like to make a beginning statement, you're welcome
to do so.
Dr Eda
Kranakis: I'll just review briefly my qualifications,
which I gather you want to know about.
My basic qualifications for
this position are, first of all, that I have served on an OGS
panel, which means I've done the process of actually having to
read through huge piles of applications and selecting the most
meritorious; second, that I have served as the director of
graduate studies in my department, which was one of the largest
graduate programs in the faculty of arts at the University of
Ottawa; and third, that I direct graduate students. That's
all.
The Chair:
Very good. I'm going to commence with the government caucus
today, I'm told, because I've had some advice that the last day
the NDP commenced. If it's all right, I'll start with the
government caucus.
Mr Wood:
We'll waive our time.
The Chair:
You're going to waive your time. OK. That means I will go the
official opposition. Mr Ramsay.
Mr David Ramsay
(Timiskaming-Cochrane): I have no comments at this
time.
The Chair:
Ms Dombrowsky.
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky
(Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): You indicated
that you have served on a panel of Ontario Graduate Scholarship
previous to this. For how long? I know this is in the
background.
Dr Kranakis:
You always serve for one term.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: For one term. We are always interested to
know about any political affiliations you would have had.
Dr Kranakis:
I don't have any.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: You don't have any. Oh, very good. Well, not
so very good, but it's always interesting when we get that
information. Those are all the questions.
The Chair:
Any further questions from the official opposition? If not, we'll
move to the third party.
Mr David
Christopherson (Hamilton West): Thank you for your
comments. Thank you for coming in. I think you'll do an excellent
job; I'll be pleased to support your nomination.
Dr Kranakis:
Thank you.
The Chair: I
should tell you that this is one of the easiest ones I've ever
seen, so you must be pleased at that.
Dr Kranakis:
This is all there is?
The Chair:
Yes, that's all there is. The members have no further questions.
They must be very impressed with your credentials and with your
initial statement. If you like, I'll give you time for any
wrap-up statement you'd like now.
Dr Kranakis:
Increase the funding to OGS?
Mr
Christopherson: They're not going to say yes.
Dr Kranakis:
Well, that's my statement. There is some talk about increasing
funding to OGS, and I think it would be a good thing. There are a
lot of financial difficulties for students, and I think those
grants have to keep up with the cost of living.
The Chair:
Perhaps as Chair, I can exercise my prerogative of asking some
informational questions. One of the very good things about this committee, in
addition to finding out about the appointees, is finding out
about the area in which they are involved and getting some
indication of how programs work. Perhaps you could help us out.
We don't have our next appointee here at this time and I'd be
interested in knowing how the Ontario graduate scholarship works,
if you would give us a little bit of background.
Dr Kranakis:
There's a deadline in your department by which you apply and the
students prepare their proposals, their packages. They focus a
lot on-actually your GPA is extremely important. That has good
aspects because with high GPAs you are definitely getting top
students. It doesn't mean that a person with a somewhat lower GPA
is not a top student. For example, one of the-
The Chair:
What does GPA stand for again?
Dr Kranakis:
Grade point average.
The Chair:
OK.
Dr Kranakis:
That's the bottom line in academia.
The Chair:
See, we politicians are notorious for using acronyms and everyone
wonders what they are. I always ask our members-in the
Legislature, for instance, when we're asking questions of the
government-not to use "CCAC" or something like that because the
public doesn't know what it is.
Dr Kranakis:
Sorry.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. Keep going.
1010
Dr Kranakis:
There are cases where even when a student has a lower grade point
average, it's due to completely other circumstances. For example,
one of my graduate students was actually trained to be a
classical pianist, and at the same time was doing an
undergraduate degree. It's an impossible combination, and because
of that her undergraduate degree grade point average was lower
and probably she would never have gotten an OGS. But she was
actually an excellent student, did a thesis considered worthy of
a prize and has gone on to a very good job based on her
thesis.
They get their files
together. Then what happens is that they have to get the letters
of recommendation or these confidential reports from the
professors who know their work. Then a committee of the
department that's linked with the graduate studies committee
meets and has to rank all the candidates. This is called the
departmental ranking. This is extremely important because we're
the people who know all the students, and since it's a committee,
you can't have favouritism, where one person favours their
students over everybody else's, because it's a committee.
I actually chaired that
committee when I was a chairman of graduate studies. You have to
write a little blurb about each candidate that tells their
particular strength if you want to help to maximize the number of
your students who get the OGS. You're trying to say something
positive, but you have to rank-order them from the one you
consider the top, down to the bottom.
That all goes off and then
the panels are formed, of people like myself, professors who do
graduate teaching. We have to adjudicate all the people applying
from all over Ontario. You adjudicate by discipline for the most
part, except in one case, which is the case of the international
scholarships. That's the actual panel I served on. There you
don't adjudicate by discipline. You get a whole package of a lot
of different disciplines. Adjudication by discipline is important
because different disciplines have different approaches,
different methodologies, different ways of thinking about the
world, and you have to be judged by people in your field.
The panel members meet. They
have to read through this huge pile of applications and then they
rank-order them. They meet and discuss who should go first and
who should get the grant and who shouldn't. Finally, in the
spring, I can't remember exactly what date it would be, the
results go out.
The Chair:
What kind of dollars are we talking about for students on
this?
Dr Kranakis:
On the OGS?
The Chair:
Yes.
Dr Kranakis:
It was something on the order of $11,000. That, as I understand,
is supposed to be like-that is the flagship of support from the
province of Ontario. Part of the problem is that the national
one, the SSHRC, has gone up and OGS has stayed the same. That has
a couple of negative impacts.
First of all, if you want to
make a really positive statement about Ontario, you don't want to
have your scholarship considered second-best, which is clearly
what it is now. Part of the problem with the OGS, as I see it is,
that it is single-year funding, whereas the SSHRC has gone over
to multiple-year funding. A real problem students have is that
they're on a very short funding leash and they never know. You
need to get continuity of funding. They're starting a long
program of study. If they don't know whether they're going to
have any funding next year, it creates anxiety. It actually can
interfere with their studies.
This is why if you have won
the award, to have to go back to the whole process again for the
second year I find to be a bit counterproductive. You've already
established that they are qualified for the scholarship. To give
them continuity, you could set conditions such that they can't
fall below a certain grade point average or something. That's one
area where the OGS might want to consider strengthening it to
make it more attractive and give that continuity of funding that
students need.
The Chair:
That's very interesting to hear. Is it all right if we allow
members a question or two? I think this is more informational
right now.
Mr Wood: I
have no problem with that. I was going to say that we hope Mr
Poulin may arrive early. We're working on that right now, so
we'll let you know as soon as he arrives on the scene.
The Chair:
That would be fine.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: This has been excellent conversation and
your comments have raised some questions for me. I was interested in the statement you made
when you indicated it's your understanding that there may be some
increased resources coming to OGS, that you would be looking
forward to that.
Dr Kranakis:
I would look forward to it if they would-
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Did I understand you to say, though, that
you had been given that impression, that there would be some
additional resources coming to OGS?
Dr Kranakis:
I don't know. I know we want it.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: All right.
Dr Kranakis:
I don't know that it has been increased. I know we want it to be
increased.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Indeed, and understandably so. I understood
you to say that you had heard there were going to be some
additional resources available and that you would be looking
forward to-
Dr Kranakis:
No, I haven't heard anything of that. I haven't heard that
there's going to be. I know that our graduate school wants
additional resources. I know other graduate schools want
additional resources. I know the faculty wants additional
resources. I know the students want additional resources. But
what's going to be done with that, I don't know.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: So there would be a need for additional
resources and, additionally, for a commitment over a period of
years.
Dr Kranakis:
That's as important, for the reasons I've explained. If the
students have no continuity of funding, it's demoralizing,
particularly if you're starting a PhD. You know you're going to
be there for four years. What if you put in two years of the work
and suddenly your funding just drops out? It puts a big stress on
students.
Mr Garry J. Guzzo
(Ottawa West-Nepean): Good training for politics.
Dr Kranakis:
Yes, well-
Mr Guzzo: I
apologize.
Dr Kranakis:
There is another thing I could say about the issue of increased
funding. I know you guys probably hear this all the time: "We
want more funding for this, we want more funding for that." But
the issue with higher education is particularly unique. The whole
function and social role of higher education is really changing.
Much more than previously, it's becoming a direct productive
force.
I'd like to give you an
example of my own students. This was the one who was training as
a classical pianist. This student came and took a course from me.
I teach the history of European integration; it's one of the
things I teach. I always indicate what topics they could do for
graduate work. She chose to do a topic that has to do with
standardization in Europe. They have the European Commission, the
European Community, and they're working on European-level
standards. The question is, how does that affect access for
Canadian companies to the European market?
She started to work on that
topic. She went to interview some of the Canadian companies. They
were so impressed with the fact that she had done this topic that
she is now the standards analyst for one of these companies-she
works in England-who does relations with the European Community.
She got that job directly out of her thesis topic in the history
department.
Twenty years ago, to see such
a thing would have been much rarer. You had the idea that the
humanities in particular were the ivory tower. Now you're
training people who actually can make a direct contribution to
innovation, to economic growth, because regulation is a whole big
part of the technological development.
The whole area of growth of
jobs is in fact in a more highly skilled sector. It's important
to maximize Canada's chances in the world, to try to maximize the
opportunities for students to get that higher education, because
it leads them to jobs they wouldn't otherwise be able to do.
There's no way she could have gotten this job if she hadn't done
that work.
It's a new world we're
entering and I think the funding programs we have to do have to
reflect that changed reality.
The Chair:
I'm at the committee's mercy. Mr Poulin has arrived at this time.
However, if Mr Spina would like to ask a question, he can do so;
if not, I'm going to call it to a conclusion. The committee has
been kind enough to have a little bit of flexibility this
morning, and I appreciate that.
Thank you very much for your
appearance before the committee. A decision will be rendered
today on whether your appointment is endorsed by the committee or
not. I think you've got a pretty good hint of whether it will be.
Thank you very much.
Dr Kranakis:
Thank you.
1020
ROYAL POULIN
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party and third
party: Royal Poulin, intended appointee as chair, Ontario
Northland Transportation Commission.
The Chair:
Our next candidate is Royal Poulin, who is the intended appointee
as chair, Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. Mr Poulin,
please come forward. Our practice is that if you wish to make an
initial statement, you are welcome to do so. We welcome you to
the committee. Thank you for making the trip to Toronto for these
purposes.
Mr Royal
Poulin: Thank you for having me here. It's always fun to
come to Toronto, always fun to go back north. I would just like
to give you a quick overview of my career. You all have a copy of
it, so I won't bore you with facts, but I just want to say that I
was born and raised in northern Ontario, educated in northern
Ontario, and worked all my career in northern Ontario. I have
worked for the private sector and also the public sector.
I started my career as a social worker for the
Nipissing District Social Services Board, and that board covered
all of Nipissing district. Then I moved on to being a municipal
adviser in North Bay for five years, at which time my area of
coverage was from Hearst to Parry Sound, Timiskaming district.
Then I moved on to being the manager of municipal affairs in the
Sudbury office, and then I covered the rest of northeastern
Ontario. In 1991 I was appointed the director of economic
development in the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines,
and that covered all of northern Ontario. In 1996 I was appointed
the general manager of the northern Ontario heritage fund and
also was given the responsibility for the administration of the
northern highways.
I just want to impress upon
the members that I'm very familiar with the issues in northern
Ontario, very familiar with economic development. My job has
given me the opportunity to meet with the mayors and reeves,
elected municipal politicians and businesspeople over the last 30
years, so I'm very familiar with the issues in northern
Ontario.
I also served on various
volunteer boards. I was chairman of the Nipissing Board of
Education. I was also the chair of the west Nipissing hospital
and a member of the Laurentian Hospital in Sudbury. So as you can
see, I've done a lot of volunteer work in the area.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, sir. I will commence with the official
opposition this time.
Mr Ramsay:
Welcome, Mr Poulin. Nice to see you. I guess officially you're a
constituent of mine. It's very nice to have you down here,
although I know you work out of the Soo a lot at the heritage
fund office, and Sudbury, I guess. I would just say right off I
support your appointment to the ONTC. When I found out yesterday
from Bruce Crozier that you were going to be here, I took this as
an opportunity to start to discuss some of the areas of concern
that probably you and I would share about the commission, and the
minister also. Actually, I sent you a letter about a week ago
about the railway with some ideas on how I thought maybe we
should go about reinventing that Northlander train. As I said in
the letter, I would like to work with you on that.
Over the years I've been
critical of the organization that you're now going to head, and I
hope you bring a breath of fresh air to it and start to look at
in a new way. When I look at all the different functions that the
ONTC carries out, from telecommunications and the challenges
there to the train service-there's no longer an air service-that
the private sector could carry out, I almost have to ask, do you
think you might be the last chair of the ONTC?
Mr Poulin: I
can't answer your last point, but I want to thank you very much
for your letter and also your kind words. I certainly want to
work with all the customers and the residents of northern
Ontario, the corridor, and to listen to them. I've heard some of
the same complaints that you've heard, Dave. I've read in the
papers some of the same complaints. I've read some of the
comments you've made about privatization, maybe, or partnership.
I guess I have to go in there with an open mind and work with my
board to try to find solutions that will meet the needs of our
customers. The mandate is to look at the services, how they can
best be provided. I guess all options are open.
Mr Ramsay:
That's very refreshing to hear. I think the key words there are
certainly "an open mind," because in my dealings over the last 15
years with the ONTC, there are very good, well-intentioned
people, but they have a very bureaucratic mindset. There have
been various administrators in the past who basically ran the
thing like an empire, like it was their personal empire. That has
changed over the last few years, for sure.
To me, one of the areas of
most narrow mindset has to do with passenger rail service. It
seems to me there has been the prejudice that we should just get
out of that. It's very refreshing to hear the minister say he
would like you to look at it again and see if we can improve it.
As you know, I've been kind of-pardon the pun-railing about the
train service for the last couple of years, in a positive way,
trying to make some positive suggestions to basically convert
this train service into some sort of tourist attraction by
modernizing it, putting in very attractive amenities and
attractions.
I know the Chair of this
committee won't be too pleased to hear it, but I've proposed a
casino in that train, snowmobile cars, and to really get back to
the idea of providing people here a northern adventure. We have a
mechanism here. It probably should be run by the private sector;
maybe he would pull it. There would be some partnership there,
but we should really get back to the excitement of coming north
to all the wonderful things we have to offer, especially with the
rejuvenation of snowmobiling over the last few years, and make
the trip an entertainment itself, make it into an
income-generator, a profit centre. For the needs of the elderly
and others who have to come to Toronto for medical care, there
would be a whole range of class of services and accommodations
that would be affordable, because this train could generate some
revenue.
This would be very different
thinking from what the ONTC has had in the past. At least it's
worth a look, I would hope. Maybe we would get not just some rail
consultant but a first-class tourism consultant. I would be
interested to hear your ideas and what your approach might be on
this.
Mr Poulin: I
read with interest the comments you made a month or so ago about
the passenger train and a casino. Since I've been named the
chair-not appointed, but named-I've received a lot of letters and
faxes from the mayors of the area. As you know, I know them very
well, and they are very supportive of my name being put forward
for chairing it. I've listened at great length to some of their
comments, and a lot of what you've said, I've heard.
I certainly intend to have
consultation with the people in the north. A lot of people have a
lot of emotion about the passenger train, and the mandate is to
look at the customer service, how we can improve it, and if we
improve customer
services maybe we'll improve the bottom line, the revenue line,
at the end of the day. We all want to make sure that the best
possible service is offered to the customers of that corridor. So
I hear you, and the municipal politicians have certainly got to
me since my name has appeared in the paper, so I'm open to
suggestions. I look forward to working with these people and
hopefully we can come back with the right solution.
1030
Mr Ramsay:
I would hope from that that you have some sort of formalized
process to involve all those partners up the corridor, to
initially get their ideas and then maybe sit down and say, "Are
you willing to be part of this?" I think that's where we need to
put it back in their court too and say, "OK, I'm willing to work
with you; let's form some partnerships."
Mr Poulin:
Consultation will be a very key and important issue, to make sure
that people are heard. We need to do that in order to come up
with the right solution.
Mr Ramsay:
One of the biggest frustrations the people of the northeastern
corridor have with the ONTC is in regard to the competition of
long-distance rates. They see the ONTC as an impediment to the
opening up of those rates. We're one of the last areas of the
country that doesn't have competitive long-distance rates. The
CRTC keeps extending it, and every time Northern Telephone wants
to make some moves, it's usually the only TC that comes before
the CRTC that makes an objection. I've really got to ask you, do
you think government should be in the telephone business today?
Shouldn't we get this cleaned up and let the private sector run
this?
Mr Poulin:
I can't give you a fast and straight answer here because I don't
have all the facts in front of me. It would be very premature for
me to say yes, I agree that it should be privatized, but
certainly we're going to look at the service. We want to provide
the best service to the customers. We've heard from the customers
saying exactly what you said. They've said it publicly. Not only
have they said that for telecommunication, but they've said that
for freight, they've said that for passengers, they've said that
for the ferry. So I hear you. We have to address these issues
during the review process.
Mr Ramsay:
Chair, how much time do I have left?
The Chair:
You still have three minutes left.
Mr Ramsay:
It seems to me, looking down the list at some of the services you
provide, that the agency is an IBM business partner offering IT
planning and consulting services and marketing IBM computer
systems. I believe the government should be there when the
private sector can't do things-I fully believe that-but when the
private sector is there and can deliver, why are we doing stuff
like this?
Mr Poulin:
I can't give you the answer because I don't have all the facts in
front of me, but certainly the point you're making, at first
hand, makes sense. Why should we be in there when the private
sector is in there? Maybe the private sector doesn't want to be
there. I don't know. I don't have the answer, David, but I
certainly intend to review all of the comments you've made.
Mr Ramsay:
Do you have a sense about air service? Do you think we'll ever
see some regional air service in some of the smaller centres in
the northeast again?
Mr Poulin:
There is some air service now being provided by various carriers.
I'm not familiar with where it's at now because it's not under my
responsibility, but I've read documents since being named as the
chair-not appointed but named-and I know this has raised a lot of
questions. But I can't give you a yes or no answer here.
Mr Ramsay:
There were some subsidies after the cancellation of norOntair but
they've all gone by the board now, so the nine centres that used
to have some air service no longer have it. You see much better
air service in the northwest. I think there are some ideas there,
to look at the companies and have them make some suggestions
about where air service should properly run out of the northeast.
Rather than dictate that it's got to be Earlton or Kirkland,
let's bring in those partners and say: "Let's design and work
together on providing some regional air service. How do you
people in the industry believe it should be done?"
Mr Poulin:
I've been talking with some mayors, especially the one from
Elliot Lake, Mr Farkouh. He has advised me that they have a
working group looking exactly at air service and how it can be
delivered. He's asked me to meet with him as soon as I'm
confirmed, and I said I would, so I'm looking forward to meeting
with him.
Mr Ramsay:
Good luck.
The Chair:
I think we're out of time for the official opposition. We now
have the third party.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you very much for coming in. Let
me say at the outset that as much as I'm here representing the
NDP caucus, specifically I'm here expressing some of the views of
Gilles Bisson, Shelley Martel, Tony Martin and my leader, Howard
Hampton, in terms of their concerns as northern representatives.
They were unable to be here.
I note when we look at the
background, the news release of March 8 that was put out by the
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, it says, "HUDAC
announced that the Northlander train will continue to run while
the board considers options for improving passenger train service
in all other ONTC operations. The minister said, `I believe the
Northlander can and should be improved and I will not be
satisfied until every possible avenue for providing better
service for the people of northeastern Ontario has been
explored.'" Not a lot of comfort, I wouldn't think, to the people
of the north when all the minister's really saying is that until
we make a final decision on the recommendations of the committee
that was struck, it'll continue, but no sense that it's going to
be there in any shape or form after the review.
I further note in the
background material that clearly the primary reason they're
running a deficit is that the operating grants for the operation
of the ONTC have been slashed dramatically. When I go back to the
beginning of the last decade, there was $21 million in operating
grants. As we all know, all train service-GO, for instance-is subsidized.
There's nothing unique about that.
For the first three years
of the last decade, it hovered around $21 million, give or take a
few hundred thousand. As the depths of the recession took hold,
it dropped to $16 million in 1993-94 and to $15.8 million in
1994-95, which was the absolute bottoming out of the recession.
As we came out of the recession, the grant level reflected the
economy starting to come back. In 1995-96, which was half under
the NDP and half under the current government, it shot up to $24
million, the highest of the decade. Then in the first full year
of the Harris government, it was slashed from $24 million to $8
million. Then it dropped to $4 million again, back up to $8
million, and the estimates for this year are $4.171 million.
Obviously the reason there's a financial problem is because the
government has pulled the financial underpinning out from
underneath the Northlander.
First of all, I guess, your
thoughts on that, your comments just on that history and what
that says to you.
Mr Poulin:
The mandate has been clearly stated by the minister that it's a
service review for the customers. We have to listen to the
customers, and the customers have said to us that they have some
issues regarding the service that's being provided; the cost too.
That's what the board and myself will undertake to review. If I'm
confirmed today, I will start the process immediately.
Mr
Christopherson: I appreciate that, but we're still not
getting to the crux of it. There's a financial problem, a crisis,
if you will. That's why the special committee was struck. They're
reviewing what to do about it. But when we look at the dollars,
when you go from $24 million in 1995-96, initially at least under
the NDP estimates for that year, and then drop to $8 million the
next full year of the Harris government, it's pretty hard to
avoid the argument and the reality that the crisis was caused
because the government pulled the funding out.
Then the government steps
in and says, "Now we've got to find a way to solve the crisis."
Just like in health and education, I think most objective people
would argue, "There's your problem."
Mr Poulin:
All I can say is that I don't have with me all the information
that you've just quoted, but part of the review will be the cost
of delivering the service, how it can be delivered, and customer
service. That's what the review will be.
Mr
Christopherson: I have to tell you, that's not very
satisfying. I appreciate what you're saying, and I understand the
dilemma you're in, that you've got to step into this position.
The government has a majority and it will probably carry the day,
but that's not a lot of comfort. I say that as a southerner. I
imagine northerners wouldn't feel really comfortable.
You're currently the
general manager of the northern Ontario heritage fund. Do you
report to the minister?
Mr Poulin:
No.
Mr
Christopherson: That heritage fund comes under the
responsibility of which minister?
Mr Poulin:
The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, Tim Hudak.
Mr
Christopherson: That's where you now work. That would be
the same minister who's responsible for the Ontario Northland
Transportation Commission.
Mr Poulin:
That's correct.
Mr
Christopherson: Here's our dilemma. I'll tell you right
up front that all of my colleagues had very complimentary things
to say about the public service that you've provided in the
north. They're very up front about that. That's not our
issue.
1040
We've got two problems that
we can't seem to get past. One is that you're already working in
a department that ultimately answers directly to a minister, the
same minister where you're going to be the chair of another
commission. Arguably there is an inherent structural conflict
there. If that minister is giving off signals that he doesn't
want you, as the chair, to be pointing the finger at grant money,
there's an argument that it would be difficult for you, and not
in your best interests or those of the organizations you work
for, to bell that cat, to say, "Well, it's the minister's
grant-cutting that's caused all the problems." You're going to be
a little reluctant to do that. That's problem number one.
Number two: It's possible
that even if the ONTC made a recommendation that the money be
found and one of the options was from the northern Ontario
heritage fund, like a transfer in terms of the northern
interests, and you shift priorities, then again you have a
conflict in terms of one entity you're responsible for can be
helped, but only at the expense of another entity that you
represent.
So there are these two
inherent structural conflicts where you're tied to the minister
on both ends of what you're doing, both your regular job and then
this appointment. Secondly, you're also responsible for an entity
that may indeed be looked at to cough up some of the money to try
and keep this important transportation service available to
people in the north.
I have to say to you, sir,
that unless you can totally alleviate all of our concerns about
that, we're not going to be able to support your appointment. I
don't think that's going to block it, but it's enough to prevent
us from being able to say we're supportive of this. It's not
personal; it's about the structure. But please comment on what
I've described and perhaps you can alleviate those concerns.
Mr Poulin:
It's a good question, and ever since Mr Bisson raised it at the
time my name was put forward I have been giving a lot of thought
to that. In my 33 years of experience working for the public
sector, I've worked with various MPPs, and I've always looked at
a service that I'm providing to the elected officials.
I've also looked at my
career in the past, where I served as mayor of Cache Bay in my
younger days and on the board of education. I was also working
for a district social services board and working for the Ministry
of Municipal Affairs at that time. I was always able to keep my
integrity. I made the right decision for the hat I was wearing that day. So yes, I've
given it a lot of serious thought, but I feel that with my years
of experience I've been able to handle both sides. I feel I can
do the same with the ONTC.
Mr
Christopherson: Let me just say, sir, that I believe
you'll do that. Again, I want to emphasize that my colleagues
speak very highly of you as an individual and as a public
servant, all of them. I believe that you will reach in and use
the wealth of integrity that I believe you have and they believe
you have, but we're all still human, and at the end of the day
there are sometimes conflicts. That's why we have some laws about
arm's length and not building in conflict. Sometimes there are
just things that we can't overcome as humans. To that degree,
this is not a good appointment. Keeping both of those
entities-for reasons I won't repeat, we just think it's not good
government.
I think you'd be an
excellent fit perhaps in another role. I think you're a benefit
to the north. My colleagues believe you're a benefit as an
appointee and a representative of the public service, but this
fit doesn't work, with this potential for conflict. Please don't
believe for one second that I'm suggesting we think you're going
to do anything untoward; quite the opposite. But we think it's
beyond reasonable expectation that a human being can assume both
of these roles and not find that conflict in some way getting in
the way of the best decisions. For that reason, we will be
opposing it.
Please understand that my
colleagues emphasized very strongly that it was not personal,
that they had the highest personal regard for you, but this is a
bad appointment. The government has made a bad fit. We're sure
there is somewhere else where your experience and background and
integrity could be put to use without this shadow of doubt that
exists.
Assuming that the majority
will carry here today, we do wish you the best on behalf of the
citizens of northern Ontario, sir.
Mr Poulin:
Thank you.
The Chair:
For the government caucus, Mr Spina.
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): Mr Poulin, thank you for coming here
today. You understand that I have to work hard to call you Mr
Poulin, since I know you better than that.
Mr
Christopherson: I didn't know that part.
Mr Spina:
In my previous role as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of
Northern Development and Mines, I was certainly very familiar,
and still am very familiar, with the operations of MNDM.
I wanted to address a
couple of things first, if I may. I wanted to address some of the
issues that Mr Ramsay spoke of that I think had some validity.
That had to do with economic development opportunities that
perhaps the ONTC could capitalize on or perhaps has missed
capitalizing on because of-I'm using Mr Ramsay's words-the
"bureaucratic mindset" of management.
Do you feel there are
enough economic development issues that are now coming forward
from industry, in northeastern Ontario particularly? I know that
even though the members from northwestern Ontario may have an
interest, essentially ONTC has virtually no interest in the
northwest. I'm talking about financial interest. Do you think
there are enough economic development initiatives, Royal, in the
northeast to help pull the ONTC into a better, more independent
operating body?
Mr Poulin:
Well, being involved in economic development over the last 33
years in my career, we certainly see the ONTC as a vehicle for
economic development. There's certainly sufficient interest in
that service from an economic development point view that, yes, I
do believe the rail passenger and all the other services that the
ONTC is providing are very important to the community. There is
certainly economic benefit to be had.
Mr Spina:
I appreciate that you probably have not been really briefed on
the actual inner workings of the corporation and the financial
statements, but there were some structural changes to ONTC that
made it a more accountable corporation. What it did was it
divided the corporate accounting system, clearly identifying the
different segments of ONTC, because it is really a conglomerate
that is not just into rail service, passenger and freight; it's
into the ONTel, as Mr Ramsay indicated, and it's into shipping,
going into the Chi-Cheemaun, the Pelee Island ferry and those
other elements. Frankly, I was surprised that Mr Ramsay would
support the norOntair, because I think that was a good move and,
in fact, if there is any shortage of service from the air side
right now, I would suggest that it's probably just a matter of
time before smaller airways like Bearskin or Georgian will move
in to fill that gap and take some of the pressure off northern
ONTel, or at least ONTC, to provide additional service, if you
will, for passengers.
I don't know how familiar
you are with that structural change, but do you think that is a
positive element towards identifying which portions of the
corporation might be better able to support other parts of the
corporation?
Mr Poulin:
I've had a few conversations with Dick Grant, the present chair
of ONTC, and he has certainly pointed out to me the changes they
have made. You see some very positive signs in this. I tried to
identify which divisions are supporting themselves and which are
not, one that's making profit and the one that's not making
profit. Dick Grant has really given me the impression that the
restructuring they've done is starting to pay off. I look forward
to getting more familiar with it so I can understand it better,
and this will help in our review process.
1050
Mr Spina:
I'm going to shift over now to some of the comments Mr
Christopherson made that, frankly, were not entirely accurate.
His numbers may have been accurate but I guess it was, with all
due respect, David, the way it was presented.
Mr
Christopherson: The facts are the facts.
Mr Spina:
Let me shed some light on it, if I may, for a minute. You talked
about a $24-million grant dropping down to $8 million. The
reality is you conveniently left out that that's when norOntair
was sold, which reduced the amount of liability on the part of the
government that was owed to subsidize that service. In addition
to that, there was $11 million in proceeds from the sale of
assets that went to the corporation, which reduced the necessity
of grants needed from the provincial government. I just wanted to
set that-
Mr
Christopherson: It's just a coincidence that the grants
were cut at the same time there's a deficit crisis.
Mr Spina:
The grants were not-
Mr
Christopherson: Meanwhile, we get the same thing at the
Henderson hospital in Hamilton.
Mr Spina:
Come on, you're way off base.
The Chair:
Order, please. Questions must go from Mr Spina to Mr Poulin.
Mr Spina:
The reality is that there was no longer a need for that subsidy,
which is why it was reduced.
But I want to get to the
question of your integrity. I am pleased to see that the northern
members actually endorse you as an individual; however, they
think you're human and you could be prey to some sort of problem.
I am thinking of the structure of what exists at this point, and
I don't think there will ever be a problem, in my mind, for these
specific reasons: The NOHFC is a crown corporation, correct?
Mr Poulin:
Correct.
Mr Spina:
You are employed by the NOHFC?
Mr Poulin:
Correct.
Mr Spina:
As the general manager, you report to a board of directors?
Mr Poulin:
Correct.
Mr Spina:
The funding philosophy of the NOHFC is fundamentally different
today than it was when Mr Christopherson's party was in
government. Is that correct?
Mr Poulin:
Correct.
Mr Spina:
So when the NOHFC puts funding out, it seeks a public-private
sector partnership, generally speaking, and it must meet fairly
stringent criteria before dollars are let out.
Mr Poulin:
Correct.
Mr Spina:
OK. The ONTC is also a crown corporation reporting to an
independent board of directors.
Mr Poulin:
Yes.
Mr Spina:
So the reality is that before there is any consideration for
dollars to cross from one corporation to the other, it has to be
essentially approved by two boards, fundamentally controlled by
the private sector. Is that not right?
Mr Poulin:
Correct.
Mr Spina:
So as chair of one board or general manager of the other, you
really don't have the personal authority to transfer those funds.
It's up to the decision of those private sector board members, is
it not?
Mr Poulin:
That's correct.
Mr Spina:
Thank you. And I say that because it's not just Mr Poulin's
integrity. I think it's very clear that these two corporations
would be more than enough check and balance to ensure that that
kind of situation does not exist.
Mr Poulin, thank you for
coming. I fully endorse your appointment and I look forward to
nothing but positive things to come from your role as chair of
ONTC.
The Chair:
The time has expired for the government caucus, Mr Spina. In
fact, I think it's over, but you were going in such an
interesting direction.
Mr Poulin, we're pleased to
have you before the committee to answer questions. You may now
step down.
Mr Poulin:
Thank you.
The Chair:
We have had opportunity to interview and hear from the two
applicants.
I'll deal first of all with
the intended appointee as member, Ontario Graduate Scholarship
Selection Board, Dr Eda Kranakis. I'll accept a motion.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence.
The Chair:
Any comments?
Mr Guzzo:
If I could just make one declaration, being from the nation's
capital, I'd like you to note that the good doctor commenced her
teaching career in the United States at Yale University in the
United States. She moved to Harvard University in 1989, and in
the last eight years she has been at Carleton University and the
University of Ottawa. We in Ottawa, particularly alumni of both
those places, feel that she is moving in the right direction and
that this is a positive progression. I simply wanted to put that
on the record in defence and support of Ottawa's two locations of
higher learning.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Guzzo. Any other comments?
Mr Guzzo:
There may be some who don't agree with me, but I would like to
tell you that in Ottawa we'd certainly adhere to that.
The Chair:
We're glad to hear of your patriotism. Notice I didn't say
"parochialism"; I said "patriotism."
Any other comments? No?
I'll put the motion then.
All in favour of the
motion? Opposed?
The motion is carried.
Next is Royal Poulin,
intended appointee as chair, Ontario Northland Transportation
Commission.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence.
The Chair:
Mr Wood has moved concurrence. Debate? No one wishes to
comment?
Mr
Christopherson: Recorded vote.
The Chair:
A recorded vote will be the order of the day for the motion for
Mr Poulin by Mr Wood.
AYES
Dombrowsky, Guzzo, Kells,
Ramsay, Spina, Wood.
NAYS
Christopherson.
The Chair:
The motion is carried.
Any other business before
the committee? If not, the committee meeting is adjourned.
