CONTENTS
Monday 17 August 1992
Subcommittee report
Appointments review
Donald William Ross
Jacob Thomas
Fran Reid Endicott
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Président: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)
*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC) for Mr Stockwell
Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L) for Mr Bradley
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND) for Mr Ferguson
*In attendance / présents
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes: Murdoch, Bill (Grey PC)
Clerk / Greffier: Arnott, Douglas
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1403 in committee room 1.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Robert W. Runciman): I call the meeting to order. The first item, attached to your agenda for today, is the report of the subcommittee on committee business. Does anyone have any questions or comments in respect to the report of the subcommittee? It's essentially a list of the selections for review, the individuals we will be reviewing in the next few days. No questions or comments?
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): A comment about the apparent inability of Joan King to appear: Could I have some clarification on the procedure that should be followed in terms of when this person could be reviewed?
The Chair: Do you want to comment on that?
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Doug Arnott): I'm sorry; you want clarification on when?
Mr Wiseman: Yes. What would happen at this point, according to the rules?
Clerk of the Committee: The committee can indicate that it does not wish to review the person and is satisfied to see the intended appointment go through for processing; you could ask the House leaders for permission to meet at a special date within the 30-day time period from the date of your last subcommittee meeting; you could ask the public appointments secretariat to withhold processing of the proposed nomination until a period well after the 30 days -- in the past, the public appointments secretariat has indicated it cannot normally do this except in extraordinary circumstances, given the long time lines already in place for getting nominations through.
The Chair: Perhaps this is something we should refer to the subcommittee. The subcommittee would perhaps have an opportunity this week to have a quick meeting and deal with it.
Mr Wiseman: Okay.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Consideration of intended appointments.
DONALD WILLIAM ROSS
The Chair: We'll move to the next matter on the agenda, and that's a half-hour review of the intended appointment of Mr Donald William Ross as a member of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board. Mr Ross, come forward please and take a seat. Welcome to the committee, sir.
Mr Donald William Ross: Thank you.
The Chair: It's a 30-minute review, with 10 minutes allocated to each party. You've been selected for review by the official opposition, so we will look to Mr Grandmaître to begin the questioning.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Mr Ross, you do have quite a bit of experience in dealing with OMERS. I would like your thoughts on the invitation that you received from the Treasurer of Ontario some time ago to invest some of your funds in the Ontario investment fund. In my riding -- I don't know about the rest of the world or the rest of Ontario -- I've received between 600 and 700 letters from participants who are saying no way should we participate in the Ontario investment fund. What are your thoughts?
Mr Ross: I'm with the Municipal Retirees Organization of Ontario; I'm the vice-president. In early March of this year we sent out a newsletter, of which I was the editor, denouncing the Ontario investment fund and encouraging all our membership, some 13,000 people across the province, to contact their former employee association or union, to contact the OMERS board directly and to contact their local MPPs and express their views.
Mr Grandmaître: They did.
Mr Ross: I would imagine that you all received some response from that.
Then in the late spring -- June, I think it was -- I took part in a meeting with the OMERS people where we set up a coalition of different organizations which belong to the pension plan. This coalition -- I'm only indirectly a member; our organization is a member -- has also gone on record as being against the Ontario investment fund.
Mr Grandmaître: What were the reasons given for not investing in this fund? I can tell you what my notes are saying: They don't trust the government with your dollars. Is that the real reason?
Mr Ross: To be blunt, sir, I don't put faith in any government in its investment policies, and I am not only looking at the current provincial government but any government. For instance, the public service pension plan in Ontario is a good example. It looks good that it's got $8 billion in assets until you look at the other side, where there's $12 billion in liabilities. The Canada pension fund is another example of government investment of money. The Alberta heritage fund is another prime example. Governments in general do not, in my opinion, have a very good record when it comes to investment of funds.
Our pension plan is well run. The latest financial statement that just came out showed that in 1991 they earned 14.1%, I believe it was, on investments. We thought the reserves were going to be cut to a minimum because of the funding that was necessary for the indexing that was put in a year ago, but we found out at the end of 1991 the surplus was back up to approximately $650 million, I believe; I don't know the exact number off the top of my head. So the fund has been well run, well invested, and why mess with a good thing?
1410
Mr Grandmaître: I see that your portfolio is quite diversified and lately you've been increasing your mortgage portfolio; in other words, you're investing more money in mortgages. Is this a new trend, because when we talk about mortgages and investing and properties in the province of Ontario, and not only in the province of Ontario but right across Canada, right now people are very concerned, very leery of the real estate business in Canada, and now you're increasing that portfolio. Do you know something, then, that we don't know, and you're investing?
Mr Ross: No, sir, I don't. I'm not familiar with any new policy that the OMERS board may have come out with in regard to mortgages. I know it has been investing in real estate to diversify its portfolio. It's still a fairly small percentage, if I remember correctly, something like 7% --
Mr Grandmaître: It was 5% and now they're increasing it to 15%.
Mr Ross: Yes, 15% is the eventual target. I could be wrong, sir, but I think at the present time it's only something like 7%, which in the overall is not a very high percentage.
Mr Grandmaître: And what about your foreign investments? Do you know anything about your foreign investments versus Canadian investments?
Mr Ross: I know the fund is invested over 70% in the province of Ontario. The investments outside continental North America make up a small percentage, actually, of the overall fund and they are diversified, but at the same time I believe they are -- what's the word I want? -- shall we say "politically correct"? For instance, there are no investments in South Africa, things of this nature.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes. Do you have a policy somewhere where it states that no more than 25% or 30% of your dollars should be invested outside Ontario? Do you have a policy, or could you decide tomorrow morning to invest 50% of your assets outside Ontario?
Mr Ross: I am not familiar with foreign policy per se, but I know what they have told us, that they intend to have the majority of their funds invested in Ontario for the benefit of the people of Ontario, because this is where our membership base is. Naturally, to get some diversification they do invest outside, but their latest financial statements -- and I wish I'd brought one with me to refresh my memory, but I think Ontario was something like 73% or 74%.
Mr Grandmaître: Since the invitation of the Treasurer to invest in the Ontario investment fund, is it now a foregone conclusion that you will not participate in the OIF?
Mr Ross: We may not have any choice, from some of the rumours we've been hearing.
Mr Grandmaître: We're being told that it's voluntary, but I know what the government means by "voluntary."
Mr Ross: Yes. If it is on a voluntary basis, the OMERS viewpoint is that at this point in time it wants nothing to do with it. They do not know what management has been put in place. They do not know what their track record is, what their experience is. They do not know what type of people are going to be giving them advice on the investments or what type of investments they're really looking at. So at this point in time, no.
One thing they have suggested is that if you -- "you" being the government -- see an area where some funds are needed, if they would like to recommend them or point them out, the OMERS board has said that it will have its investment people check into them and if they are feasible and good investments it would certainly go along with them.
Mr Grandmaître: One last question, then, Mr Chair. Maybe I should take advantage of this forum to bring out a personal viewpoint on OMERS. I was a contributor of OMERS for 13 years as a politician, and I found out back in 1984 when I was first elected at the provincial level that my OMERS pension wasn't portable. Did you know about this? Everybody else, apparently -- teachers, you name it, any kind of employees, non-teaching staff of school boards -- all these people are permitted except former municipal politicians.
The Chair: Very brief response.
Mr Ross: I'm not familiar with that. I understood that the OMERS benefits were portable, but I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that.
Mr Grandmaître: That's what they told me: "We're sorry."
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Just to clarify that, they're only portable if you continue to work in another municipality.
I have a couple of questions for you, sir. Are you familiar with the workings of the board? You've been on the board for a while?
Mr Ross: No, sir, I've never been on the board. I've been before the board to make a presentation, but that's all.
Mr McLean: Do you know how many people are on the board?
Mr Ross: At the current time I believe it is 11. It is being increased to 13.
Mr McLean: Did you apply for the position, or were you asked to apply?
Mr Ross: I applied for the position, sir.
Mr McLean: Why would you want to be involved in this board?
Mr Ross: I think it's very important that we have a pensioner on the board, because the pensioner is the one most affected by any actions taken by the board. I think a pensioner can give that viewpoint towards any discussions they might have, and to me it looked like an interesting challenge. I would look forward very much to being on that board.
Mr McLean: On May 27, 1992, the board sent a letter to all members of OMERS to inform them that a coalition of employer, employee and retiree organizations participating in OMERS had been formed to criticize the Ontario investment fund proposal and support the board's position. What's your opinion on that?
Mr Ross: Yes, the Municipal Retirees Organization of Ontario is part of that coalition. The president of our retiree group is the co-chairman of that coalition and we support it 100%.
Mr McLean: What is the per diem for board members? Do you know?
Mr Ross: On OMERS?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Mr Ross: Just from a document I got the other day, it said $192 a day, but I don't know what that's supposed to cover. If it's to cover accommodations in downtown Toronto, obviously it's not very much.
Mr McLean: There will be over and above that, I'm sure.
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Like most people, I've had many contacts with people who are opposed to the Ontario investment fund. In fact, I was at my son's hockey game and one of the chaps who was playing goal in practice came running over when he saw me to register his protest.
I've looked through your résumé, and it would be impossible for me to support anybody who didn't come on and say categorically that he would never, never, never approve of using the funds in the way the government intends with the Ontario investment fund. Can you give me that assurance today, that you will never, never agree to that?
Mr Ross: No, sir. The way the Ontario investment fund has been put to us to this point in time, there is no way I would ever support it. If some new thing comes out in the future, by all means I would be willing to take a look at it. But to say that under no circumstances, never -- I don't think I can go quite that far. But certainly the way it has been put to us so far, there is definitely no way I'll go for that.
Mr Carr: The feeling is that the way it is now is it's voluntary, and the way the government will get around it is that it will make loan guarantees. In other words, they will say, "You invest, and if for whatever reason we should lose some money, we'll put in the amount that is lost." I suspect that's the way they're going to go. If in fact they would guarantee it in terms of losses, would you support it at that point in time?
Mr Ross: With all due respect, sir, if the loans were being guaranteed, I'm sure the chartered banks would be willing to give them the money ahead of us.
1420
Mr Carr: That's what they're looking to do, because it's voluntary and every one of them listed there said, "There's no way we're going to give any money." So the government is now taking a look at underwriting, for want of a better word. The problem is that the government wouldn't underwrite the banks. Politically, they wouldn't do it to the banks, where they could to pension funds, because they could say, "See, we're protecting the people." I want to ask you again, if they guaranteed it and said, "Whatever amount of money you've lost, the Ontario government will back it up," would you then support it?
Mr Ross: I don't believe so, sir, because I can't see how it would work. If the government was going to guarantee this money, why wouldn't it just make the loan itself? Why go through us?
Mr Carr: They don't have the amount of money they need. They can't borrow right now because, quite frankly, they're broke and then some. What they will do is use your buying power and then, should they lose money because they put it into investment for political reasons, for whatever good causes, and say a company went under and lost $10 million, at that point they would just put in $10 million. So what it means is the government doesn't have to borrow a huge amount of money. What they're looking at doing is guaranteeing it.
I just want to be clear, and forgive me for pushing this point, but if the government came along and said, "We guarantee that we will reimburse the pension fund any money that is lost through this investment fund," you would still be opposed to it under those circumstances?
Mr Ross: Yes, sir, because from what I can understand and from what little I've read on it and what you've told me, they're guaranteeing the investment, but what about the interest that has not been made or the interest that has been lost? As I said, they made 14.1% on investments last year, and it's this return on investments that we depend on to keep our fund in a good, healthy condition.
Mr Carr: You don't have any party affiliation, then, with any of the major political parties?
Mr Ross: No, sir. I've dealt with them all and I've argued with them all.
Mr Carr: Good. Maybe you could give us your vision of what you would like to see happen when you come on the board so the members will know exactly what you see happening. Give us a little bit of an idea of your vision, where you see it going.
Mr Ross: I would like to see their investment policies maintained. They have had a high standard over a number of years and earned a very good return on their money. I would like to see this maintained. I would like a little more information, perhaps some input, on the property investment. There is some of the investment side I don't understand very well.
There are some changes in the benefits package that I would like to see, for instance, an increase in the spousal benefit to the maximum allowable under the Income Tax Act, which would be an additional 6 2/3%. I would like to see a provision for the board to act autonomously on an ad hoc capping up of a pension increase. As you know, we are right now a 70% index, and if funds are available, it may be topped up to 100%, but that is always subject to approval of cabinet. I believe that if the reserves are not cut below approximately 2% of liabilities, the board is responsible enough to make this decision for itself.
So there are changes I would like to see made in the legislation that covers it, and changes in the regulations as far as benefits payable are concerned.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): When you're on the board, you'll be technically in charge of a really very significant pool of capital.
Mr Ross: It scares me. I'm from the school, sir, that I don't know a million, and when they start talking billions, my gosh.
Mr Frankford: On this question of investment funds or otherwise, whether or not you go with that, you now have the possibility of directing funds into investments, into enterprises which can do various things to help both your members and the province of Ontario.
Mr Ross: That's correct.
Mr Frankford: You talked about ethical investments. Presumably you don't deal on a day-to-day basis with investments, but I imagine you will have some chance to give guidance about the companies that are invested in.
I notice in the list of investments that this was on December 31, 1991. As far as I can see, the biggest US consumer non-durable investment was 5.31% invested in Philip Morris tobacco company, $41 million. How do you feel about that?
Mr Ross: Being a non-smoker, I would like them to take another look at that. What I meant by ethical investments was in countries such as South Africa and others like that. I was not referring to the smoking issue or something like this, or even, say, pharmaceutical companies.
Mr Frankford: But tobacco is pretty controversial and there are companies that would not invest in it.
Mr Ross: As I said, I am not on the board as yet. I have never met as a member of the board, so I'm not really privy to any of their policies on that issue.
Mr Frankford: In domestic investments, we have $127 million, or 3.25%, invested in Imasco, so I guess you could look at that in the same way as another tobacco company.
Mr Ross: What company is that, sir?
Mr Frankford: Imasco.
Mr Ross: I don't know what that company is.
Mr Frankford: I think it's Imperial Tobacco. Then to a smaller extent I think you are in Rothmans. So I gather you would ask to take another look at this. There really is a policy decision here, isn't there, about whether a health-damaging product should be invested in?
Mr Ross: It would have to be a policy of the board, yes. By the way, I've never seen a complete list of their investments.
Mr Frankford: It's available. I guess it's an annual report.
On the property or real estate aspect here, I think you mentioned you would like to look at some aspects there. In the Toronto Star last Friday, there was an article about a possible bailout of SkyDome; it said that some unnamed pension funds might be participants in that. Do you have any thoughts of whether you would like to see OMERS participating there?
Mr Ross: Definitely not. I saw the same article and I was waiting for today so I could get hold of some people to find out if these "unnamed pension funds" happened to be one of ours. But definitely no; I wouldn't want to get into that.
Mr Frankford: But I believe your real estate arm, OMERS Realty, is headed by Mr Magwood, who I believe had a connection with this.
Mr Ross: He has connections, yes. It scares me.
Mr Wiseman: It scares you?
Mr Frankford: Do you know in detail about your real estate investments, or is this just a general thought, that you would like to --
Mr Ross: No, I don't know any details.
Mr Frankford: One thing I notice, as a Scarborough member, is that last October OMERS purchased a 50% investment in Scarborough Town Centre from Bramalea Ltd. Obviously there's an investment judgement there, but any comments?
Mr Ross: No, sir. I haven't been in the Scarborough Town Centre in quite some time. The last time I was there it seemed like a thriving concern.
Mr Frankford: Maybe it's good. I guess we need the capital in the building as much as anywhere else.
Mr Ross: I'm not an investment expert, but from the little I've seen of the real estate values in my own area, the property values seem to be depressed at this particular time. Had I some extra funds, I would think it might be a good time to look at real estate investment over the long term, because historically they do go up. The house I currently live in is not worth as much today as it was three years ago, but it is certainly worth considerably more than it was when I bought it 12 years ago. So I would think that with some wise background checking, some of these real estate investments at this time might be a good idea.
1430
Mr Frankford: I wouldn't ask you to be totally authoritative on this, but on the policy I think you mentioned, that you should be aiming at 15% in real estate, do you have any comment on that?
Mr Ross: That was a policy announced by the board, and as I said, I'm not on the board yet, so I really don't know how they come up with this 15% figure. What was explained to us as members was that largely they wanted to diversify their portfolio with real estate as the long-term investment and the bonds, stocks etc, as the more shorter term.
Mr Frankford: Do you have any comment on the wisdom of foreign investment?
Mr Ross: I believe there is a time and place for foreign investment, particularly if they want to keep the fund healthy and continue to make a good return. There may be times when investment in Ontario may falter slightly and foreign may go up, so you need something to counterbalance these things.
Mr Wiseman: I'd like to pursue the question you raised in your response to Mr Frankford that you're not an investment expert. I would assume that OMERS would have access to an agency or a group of people who would be investment counsellors. Is that not correct?
Mr Ross: They have employees of the board who are investment counsellors. They have, as has already been mentioned, the real estate division whose prime concern is real estate. They have people who concern themselves mainly with stocks and some mainly with bond issues. These people make recommendations and the OMERS board sets the policy.
Mr Wiseman: In the draft document on the Ontario investment fund, it clearly indicates that the Ontario investment fund would be at arm's length from the government and that it would employ people to advise it on investment counselling in terms of where the money should go. Given that scenario, what people are telling me is they are afraid that if this fund is created, it will open up a window of opportunity, not necessarily with this government but with some future government, to seize control and mandate that the pension money will go into that. Is that what you see as well? Is that what you fear?
Mr Ross: We do not see that they will get the funds on a voluntary basis. What we have seen outlined to us for this fund is that they must get 5% of the income in order to make it viable and if they don't get that much money, from what I've read, they just won't be able to function. The only thing we can see them doing is saying it's voluntary and then, lo and behold, we only get 1% of the investment and they turn around and say, "With a stroke of the pen, we'll change the regulation and 5% will be diverted to the fund."
Mr Wiseman: What I have a little trouble with is that I come from a teaching background and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation is my pension fund. Since 1911, up until just recently and under this government, the money was automatically taken back by the government at lower rates of interest -- absolutely abysmal rates of interest if you look at the history of the fund -- and put into unfunded liability situations.
It seems to me, given the history of the past and what I've learned about legislative ability, that any government in the future can do whatever it wants. I find it a little difficult for OMERS to oppose the Ontario investment fund based on some speculative notion of what some government can do in the future anyway. I've been telling people who have been contacting me that that's the case. If it's voluntary and the Ontario investment fund is making money, why wouldn't you get into it?
Mr Ross: I just can't see that it's applicable.
Mr Wiseman: That's what the business community and the union advisers said about the labour-sponsored venture capital fund and they --
The Chair: The time has expired. Thank you, Mr Ross. We appreciate your appearance here today.
Mr Ross: What is the next step, if I might ask?
The Chair: The committee will be voting on these matters later on and you'll be advised in the very near future.
Our next witness is an intended appointee as a member of the Board of Funeral Services, Mr Douglas Porter. Is Mr Porter present?
Interjections.
JACOB THOMAS
The Chair: My apologies. The next witness is Mr Jacob Thomas, who is an intended appointee as a member of the McMaster University Board of Governors. Hopefully, Mr Thomas is here. Mr Thomas, please come forward and have a seat. Welcome to the committee, sir. We appreciate your appearance. Do you understand the process, Mr Thomas?
Mr Jacob Thomas: Not quite.
Mr Wiseman: He doesn't quite understand the process. Maybe you'd like to explain it to him.
The Chair: Mr Thomas, I'm asking you a question, whether you understand the process and how this works.
Mr Thomas: No, I don't.
The Chair: Okay. It's a half-hour review. Each party has an opportunity to question you and have your responses within a 10-minute period, for a total of 30 minutes. Your selection for review was a request of the government party, so we're going to begin the questions with a member of the government party, Mr Wiseman.
Mr Wiseman: I was the one who called for your review and I'm pleased that you're here. I have a master's degree from McMaster University, so I was interested in talking with you.
You have an interest in promoting native studies within the faculty of McMaster University. Is that correct?
Mr Thomas: Yes. I believe it would be necessary to understand that there are other universities and colleges that are interested also to set up native studies the same as where I have worked for 14 years at Trent University. It would be a similar type of native studies.
Mr Wiseman: I remember going through your CV and it was quite lengthy in terms of what you've been able to contribute to the area of studies. Could you perhaps just give us a quick synopsis of what you're bringing to the board of governors of McMaster in terms of what you've done in the past and what you can contribute?
Mr Thomas: The thing I brought in at the time when I worked with the department of native studies at Trent University is an interest in native culture, traditions and history, and also language was one of the main things we are losing. Native people are losing their language. Myself, I went back to school to learn how to write. I went to the University of Western Ontario to complete four years to understand how to write native languages. So I took linguistics and this is what helped me also when I was teaching language at Trent University; two languages, Cayuga and Mohawk.
Mr Wiseman: Would you also be doing this at McMaster? Would you be doing some teaching as well as being on the board of governors, or just on the board of governors?
Mr Thomas: No, I didn't. I went there a couple of times. I've been called to give a short lecture.
Mr Wiseman: Do they have native studies and language courses at McMaster now? I don't recall it when I went.
Mr Thomas: I believe they're trying to have one there, but the last I heard, I was told that they were seeking to get funding for the startup of native studies at McMaster. I was asked if I'd be interested in teaching the same as it was set up in Peterborough and I said I would, but I've never heard any more about it.
Mr Wiseman: Excuse me. I didn't quite catch that. They asked you if you would be interested in teaching and then you said you would, but you still haven't heard from them?
Mr Thomas: Yes.
1440
Mr Wiseman: I'd like to take another direction here and perhaps my colleagues will have questions. We've heard some criticism from other institutions that the senates, that sometimes the way universities are being administered add a great deal to the cost of the administration of universities without the students benefiting from the amount of money that is going into the universities.
First, do you see this as a problem? Second, do you foresee any way that the administrative costs of universities could be streamlined in order to maximize the use of dollars for students as opposed to administration?
Mr Thomas: No, I don't believe so.
I don't quite understand the situation, if there are any problems with any other university. But you always get that anyway, no matter where. I've also been on the board of directors for the Iroquoian Institute for four years. We sort of get a backlash and criticism about that, but I guess you get that everywhere no matter what you try to do.
Mr Wiseman: Primarily, it comes out of a comparative study of what is happening with the colleges and what is happening with the universities. It seems that some of the community colleges are much more efficient with their dollars than the universities in terms of how they're applied to the students and what courses are being taught.
There is some voicing of frustration that if some of the universities were to be more streamlined, there would be more dollars available.
I have no more questions.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): First of all, as the representative for Peterborough and somebody who has strong connections with Trent University, I'd like to thank you for your past and ongoing involvement. I know you've made an enormous contribution. Of course, I also represent Curve Lake and take an ongoing interest in what goes on there.
As you probably know, there's an ongoing controversy as to whether university teachers should be mainly teachers or mainly researchers, whether we don't place too much emphasis on their ongoing research rather than on their abilities as teachers. I just wonder what your opinion on that issue might be.
I believe there's been a report, in October of last year, on the Commission of Inquiry on Canadian University Education that was chaired by Stuart Smith. They have said that professors in universities tend to value research more than the teaching, and they're suggesting they're being too skewed in that direction. What do you feel about that issue?
Mr Thomas: Would you please repeat it? I have a little problem with hearing.
Ms Carter: Traditionally, university teachers have been respected and hired more for their research or other contributions they've made rather than for their abilities as teachers, which is very often not proven or tested out in any way. The recent commission under Stuart Smith suggested that maybe we should move in the other direction and be more interested in the teaching abilities of people hired by universities. Do you have opinions on that?
Mr Thomas: I believe there was a point there at the time, in 1976, when Trent University started to teach -- only Ojibway culture and language was taught at the time, but they were researching into a possibility of who could qualify as an Iroquois, if there was anybody who could teach that. People were researching at the time who would be able to teach it, but they were not really looking at, I guess you would probably say, the difference between native people in what we call experiential learning. A person who grew up on the reservation understood more about their culture than people who lived in a city, even though some did not have qualifications, did not go through college or university. I think they have just as much to compare with a person who had gone through college.
Myself, I didn't have any kind of a degree when I was first hired, but I seem to have worked myself into it, did some more research about different things which I didn't know, because I wanted to have more input into the department of native studies. But it seemed like it was possible for a university to know who would be able to teach it at that time. They wanted a person who understood the language fluently, and so I took up the teaching job because I had experience and knowledge of my own culture and language. In fact I speak all five different Iroquois languages.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Thomas. We'll have to move on.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Thomas, our universities and colleges in the province of Ontario are being criticized, and also the governments are being criticized, for the lack of dollars, not only for teaching but, as pointed out, for research and development. What are your thoughts on our university system in Ontario?
Mr Thomas: I believe that it always runs into problems of dollars to do funding. If you have a good program going, I don't think you have a problem getting those dollars. I started at Trent University in 1976, and for 14 years I taught one of the best courses that was ever offered for culture and language at Trent University. They didn't have any problem about funding and researching for funds for that program; it became very strong. Also, it was based on elders to whom they looked for support.
So that's what it was at that time. In fact I was an elder at the time, and there was another elder from the Ojibway, and this was really a good program. It seemed like the money that was going in for this native studies program, I don't think they had any problem. I think you'd have to prove what you're doing so that people realize how good a program you have going, and I don't think you'd have a problem.
Mr Grandmaître: You didn't have a problem? Most universities and colleges are complaining about types of allocation or grants received from the provincial or federal government. So where would you put our university system, as compared to just any other system in the world? Would you say that we're number one, number two, number three, number four, or we're way down the list as far as competitiveness, as far as technology, research and all of these great things are concerned? Would you say that our system in Ontario is one of the best?
Mr Thomas: I figure it would probably rate number one, because I remember a few years ago -- and even now I think they are also thinking about starting up another native studies at McGill -- I was also asked if I would be interested to set up courses for McGill, but I said that's out of my reach because it's too far away. I think this would become very popular no matter where if it's offered, in any other colleges and universities. I don't think you would have a competition. I don't think we look for competitions either, you know. I don't know whether that is the right answer or not, what you're looking for.
1450
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Mr Thomas, how did you find out about the opening on the board? Were you asked to apply or did you take it on as your own initiative?
Mr Thomas: Would you please repeat that? I have a little problem with hearing.
Mr Cleary: The position on the board, how did you find out about that? Did someone ask you to apply or did you take it on your own to apply?
Mr Thomas: No, I think I would have to consult my colleagues on what I felt about it. Even right now we have consultation with other universities, our interest in bringing what is called the Iroquoian Institute. We also try to work with Trent University, and I've also been working part-time, teaching at Mohawk College. So I sort of would see what my colleagues would -- it would have to be decided by my colleagues which direction we would have to take if I was asked about setting up some kind of teaching, whether it's native studies or whatever.
Mr Cleary: The other question: How did you find out about the opening on the board? Were you asked to apply for it, or did you take that on on your own?
Mr Thomas: You mean the --
Mr Cleary: The position on the board of governors, were you asked to apply for that or did you --
Mr Thomas: Yes, I was asked.
Mr Cleary: You were asked?
Mr Thomas: Yes.
Mr Cleary: Just to follow up a little bit on what my colleague said here, what do you think are the most important changes that you would like to see take place in the university?
Mr Thomas: I have approached Trent University and it's the same, it has not got off the ground. But my interest is to have more of a -- what I'm trying to say is that our culture is disappearing and our language is disappearing. If that disappears from knowledgeable elders, because we have not that many elders left, then there are no more native people, I would say, because that's what makes them native: their culture and their language. It's not really too much of colour. But if they still have their traditions and their history, and I believe that universities could go in that direction to support what we call apprenticeship programs, that would bring in some -- it depends on what they want to apprentice on, whether it's culture or something to do with art or anything like that, but it is all the same thing. It seems to come together with arts and crafts and things. So I would like to see that happen.
The university or college should go to that direction, more people to train and also to support the language, because language is the same thing. We only go so far. We seem like we're backing up and going and backing up. It seems to me we don't get any further. What I would have liked to see, which I was going to set up at the university by the time of my retirement, was that I should have had three different levels: first year, first level, second level, third level, and maybe fourth year. It would take four years to graduate in the language, the same as others.
Mr Cleary: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Carr: I was interested in how you found out about the position. You said you were asked. Who was it that asked you if you'd like to come on the board at McMaster? Do you remember?
Mr Thomas: I think his name is Bob Carter.
Mr Carr: Is he on the board now? Do you know?
Mr Thomas: I don't know. I don't even know Bob Carter.
Ms Carter: I don't know him.
Mr Carr: Not related to Jenny.
Mr Thomas: He called me over the phone one evening and told me that my name came up. He said, "Would you be interested to sit on the board?" I said, "Maybe I would, if I'm good enough, I guess I would."
Mr Carr: In terms of what you would like to see happen at McMaster, maybe you could give us an idea, a vision of what you would like to see changed or happen at McMaster. Do you have any idea, if you get on the board, what you would like to do, specifically what areas you would like to work with and what you'd like to see happen?
Mr Thomas: As I mentioned before, I would like to pursue the language more, all the different languages, not just one language. That is number one. Also more on culture, and I think I would give more recognition to traditional people today, their own culture. I think it should not be lost. This is one of the main goals.
I have this paper here. Maybe you would like to read that. That is something that I have done to preserve the language and culture. I think what young native people -- I also have worked with native people in counselling, and I think I have brought a lot of students back to normal and also to know who they are. When they go to university, they say, "I don't know where I come from, but I'm here at university and I don't know what I'm here for." But then they see the direction, who they are.
It's a pity that they don't know. Myself, I know where I come from and my background, and I think this is what they mean. It's because they don't know what makes their identity as native people, where their roots began. Now most of them don't even have the language. They don't even know, because at different times -- I think it goes back, a long history.
Even when I went to school, I was forced at the time to learn the English language. Also, all these residential schools, that is where most of the languages have been lost. I think what we have to do is bring that back. We've got young people who want to learn their language and they want to know their identity. I think the universities or colleges should be interested in bringing in native studies, and not only just culture but traditions and history. There are so many things about their own history and traditions that they don't even know. Tradition goes along with who they are and how they practise their culture.
The Chair: Mr Thomas, that concludes the questioning. We appreciate your appearing here today all the way from Wilsonville and we wish you well.
1500
FRAN REID ENDICOTT
The Chair: The final witness for today is an intended appointee as the chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Fran Endicott. Welcome to the committee again. We appreciate your appearance here. Your review is at the request of the Conservative Party. I look to Mr McLean to begin the questioning.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee. You serve on the commission now as vice-chairman?
Ms Fran Reid Endicott: As the vice-chair, yes.
Mr McLean: Has the backlog been a major concern to you over that period that you've served as the vice-chair?
Ms Endicott: It certainly has been, as it has been to the entire commission. I guess the good news is that we seem to be getting it under control. It certainly has been reduced significantly from its all-time high. We're now looking at a case load of roughly around 2,000, which is a significant drop from where we were in February, when it was indeed very high.
Mr McLean: How high did it go to?
Ms Endicott: I'm sorry, I don't have that, but we're now 33%, so it must have been about 3,000 and some; probably much higher than that.
One thing I must ask the committee to do is to forgive me if I appear to be squinting. I have a problem with my eye at the moment.
Mr McLean: The Cornish report indicates that 45 days should be the maximum for any turnaround time. Do you agree with that report?
Ms Endicott: I'd like to approach that in a different way. I think the recommendations that are coming out of the Cornish report are as they should be: ideal situations. To have to place a figure on any, to say that it should be 45 days, presents for me a little bit of difficulty. I think the shortest possible time should be the turnaround time.
What I have become aware of, though, is that quite often there are cases which, if we are to do justice both to the public interest as well as to the individual complainant, you perhaps have to take more time with. What we have to ensure is that when we are taking more time, both the complainant and the public are aware of why and what we hope to accomplish by taking that time.
Mr McLean: We have only 10 minutes to ask questions, so the shorter the questions and answers, the more questions we can get in.
The Cornish report is recommending dividing the commission. Do you agree with that report?
Ms Endicott: I am, as is the rest of the commission, intrigued by the possibilities. I'm sorry, but short answers sometimes don't do justice to the seriousness of the question. One of the things we have to recognize is that if we are to create a net of social justice, we have to do it in the most efficient way possible. Certainly it would seem that the recommendations that are coming out of the Cornish report with regard to the setting up of a tribunal system would help us in doing so.
Mr McLean: Last year's budget was approximately $15 million. As the new commissioner, do you feel you could keep your budget within the government guidelines of 1%, 2% and 2%?
Ms Endicott: I think that as the chief commissioner I would indeed be forced to do that. I would hope, however, and part of my pleasure in addressing this committee as a whole is that we would come to recognize as a society that human rights should not be considered on the lower rung of the ladder in terms of financing. I would hope that one of the things that would come out of this kind of interchange is that this committee would become a strong voice within the Legislature for recognizing that for the Ontario Human Rights Commission to function the way we all want it to function, we need to be funded appropriately.
Mr Carr: My question was along the lines of the backlog as well. As you know, you come into a very difficult situation. You've got a little bit of time, having spent it as vice-chair. Maybe you could let the committee know where you see the problem and the reason for it and what you see being done specifically to alleviate it, because as you know there has been a lot of things tried. We had Coopers and Lybrand in and a lot of things. We increased the amount of money being spent and things kept getting worse. Could you tell this committee specifically what you will do as chair, where you see the problem and what you see as the answer?
Ms Endicott: Can I take those in a different order?
Mr Carr: Sure; whatever.
Ms Endicott: The backlog: I think one of the things we have to remember is that the Ontario Human Rights Commission was set up 13 years ago and it was perhaps set up in a context that was not envisioned today, so that as people became more vocal and as institutions became more or less responsive, depending on how you look at it, to the issue of human rights, then we had more complaints coming forward.
I think we have to recognize that the backlog was almost a natural consequence of the way the commission was set up at that time. I don't think this is to blame anyone. It was set up to meet a social need at that time. But I would like to point out that today we're talking about a commission that has 160 to 180 people to serve the province of Ontario and we're talking about serving a province as diverse as from Sioux Lookout to downtown Metropolitan Toronto, so you're talking about people carrying quite significant case loads.
What I think I, as chief commissioner, would like to do is to certainly continue the work that has already begun within the commission in managing the case load; that is, in developing criteria, developing ways of managing cases that are the most efficient and the most effective.
Tied to that is clearly the need for a technological strategy, which the commission is now in the process of developing and which I think will help considerably.
Over and above that, I think what we have to recognize is that the Ontario Human Rights Commission itself would have to change significantly to meet the demands of today. By that I mean we have to recognize that the protection of human rights is not the job solely of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission should be the strongest, loudest voice, but what the commission has to do is work with other government agencies, other government boards or with ministries and with the private sector, to ensure that human rights become simply a part of the fabric. It is not enough for us to deal just with the code, although we expect the code to continue to have supremacy, as well it should, but what we have to do is to inspect and review the other legislation that affects the lives of people, that comes in other jurisdictions, whether we're talking about the Employment Standards Act or other labour laws, whether we're talking about laws governing accommodation or whatever so that they are reflective.
Without that kind of mesh what happens is that you have a single agency bearing the responsibility. When you have that happening and you have people coming to the Ontario Human Rights Commission for remedies, then you will have an unmanageable backlog.
1510
Mr Carr: So even with the case load increasing as it has -- if I follow you -- you see it as being more the role of advocacy with other ministries rather than trying to solve it. I see what's happening with the amount of people you have with the number of case loads that are coming before you. You can have all the technology and all the case management, but it's still going to get out of control unless you have more people.
Ms Endicott: I see both things happening.
Mr Carr: You see both.
Ms Endicott: I see the commission managing its case load. But what I'm saying is that the case load can quickly grow to unmanageable levels, because we have a number of cases that are brought to us which perhaps should be dealt with in other arenas. But because they somehow smack of human rights, they're seen as the sole responsibility of the commission. I suppose what I'm looking for and what I would be working towards as a chief commissioner with the other commissioners and with the agency is developing -- as I said -- that fine mesh, so that we don't have people falling through the cracks.
Ms Carter: Ms Endicott, could you tell us something about your own past activities and experiences which qualify you for this post? I believe you have been involved in many relevant activities.
Ms Endicott: Yes, I have been. I've been in Canada now for 23 years. I describe myself as an accidental immigrant, because I was on my way seeing the world. I had spent a year here in Toronto when I was 16, and then I came back. I was on my way seeing the world. Then I got married and I didn't see much more of the world than Canada.
While I've been here, I have worked with the Third World studies project, coordinating that project of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education for a number of years. Then I became a school trustee at the Toronto Board of Education, and there I chaired and was very much instrumental in working with other trustees to develop and implement our race relations policy, our affirmative action review policies as well as, of course, working with a number of community groups and community institutions dealing with issues of racism and sexism.
I don't come before this committee lightly, and I don't take the appointment lightly. It is at some significant personal risk, if you like, that I agreed to the appointment. I'm here because in some ways, I guess, it's a culmination of work that I've wanted to do. I've always seen the Ontario Human Rights Commission as an organization of which I wanted to be a part. I also have at this point the great fortune of following Catherine Frazee. So I'm inheriting in a sense, a commission that's already on the way to reform. I've had a year of working with her, which has been for me not just a personal pleasure -- I hope it has been for her -- but it has also been a great learning experience for me. I work with commissioners and with a staff that I have come to have a great deal of respect for.
I believe that originally I too shared the feeling that perhaps the commission was not doing as much as it should. What I've come to realize over the past year is that there are people on the commission for whom human rights is simply a way of life, and who work enormous hours under very difficult working conditions. I think that the recognition I have, the understanding I have about organizational structures as well as the issues involved in human rights, make me a quite reasonable candidate for this post.
Ms Carter: Thank you. As you said, you've been on the commission for a year now already. You said that some of the backlog is already being overcome. Do you think the commission is on the right lines now, or do you have ideas as to how it needs to change and do things differently?
Ms Endicott: I think the commission is on the right track. I do have ideas, some of which I'm already helping to implement. Internally, I think we have to be very, very sure that our own structures, our own policies, our own practices, are above reproach, if you like, and can act as models for other institutions and other organizations. Externally, we have to establish very close working relationships with the public, both the private and the public sector, with advocacy groups and with other individuals committed to human rights. I think we've begun to do this. I want to continue to do that work and to find the most efficient and the most effective ways of doing that.
Ms Carter: What about the suggestions by the task force that were already mentioned, that there should be three institutions for enforcing human rights: an equality services board, a Human Rights Commission, renamed Human Rights Ontario, and an equality rights tribunal? Do you think that's the way to go?
Ms Endicott: As I said, I think, in answer, it's an intriguing possibility. The reason I'm not prepared to commit myself at this point in time is because we are just at the moment ourselves, as a commission, reviewing the report and coming to terms with its implications.
What I am excited about are the principles on which the Cornish report are based and because those principles are talking about giving over greater control to the complainants and freeing the Human Rights Commission to do what it can do and is beginning to do very well, which is systemic investigations and so on.
On a broad level, yes, I am pleased, but, as I say, I think we need to look very closely at what the implications are, especially with regard to the question that was being asked over here about budget and efficiency.
Ms Carter: I certainly wish you every success.
Ms Endicott: Thank you.
Mr Wiseman: I was looking at a table here of inquiries from the public. In 1988-89 there were 60,440, in 1989-90 there were 61,901, in 1990-91 it was 56,448, and in 1991-92 it was 92,053. That's a huge increase.
Ms Endicott: Yes, it is.
Mr Wiseman: It's 1,500 inquiries a working day, or more. Have you any idea what the source of that increase is? Was it because they physically couldn't get their complaints before the board before and they can now? I guess the second part of the question is, is 92,053 complaints in 1991-92 an upward limit or are we looking at even more accessibility to the board in terms of more complaints?
Ms Endicott: I think the figures you're quoting are inquiries to the commission, and those inquiries we will deal with in a number of ways. For instance, we might refer them to more appropriate areas. These are inquiries, people asking about, "How should we go about laying a complaint?" or, "Do I have reasonable grounds for a complaint?"
But I would like to address your question about why we're seeing that increase. That is, as you say, a huge number, and I think inquiries will increase, particularly at this time when we're in an economic recession, when we're finding, for instance, that people are in situations where they can't find jobs or they're being denied jobs, where people are finding it very difficult to find affordable accommodation. A number of reasons will contribute to that.
Equally, we're also living at a time when events impact upon us. For instance, at the time of the Anita Hill affair there was an increase in inquiries around sexual harassment, because when people step forward and take stands, you're going to find that inquiries will increase.
I suspect that there are going to be more inquiries and in fact more requests for boards of inquiry from handicapped people, for instance, who for a long time have been a neglected and hidden part of our society. Race-related cases are going to increase. In fact on all the grounds for which a commission has the role of being a protective agency, there will be that increase.
Could I just say that I'd like you to remember, though, that this does not necessarily mean a failure on the part of this society, that I interpret this as people are beginning no longer to be quietly oppressed, and I think we should be able to congratulate ourselves as a province as making that possible.
1520
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): You come before this committee with tremendous qualifications and a great respect in the community. You also come before us with a lot of optimism, and I wish I could share that with you. I'm not so ready to share that optimism.
What you need, as a matter of fact, is the fullest cooperation from the minister, the political staff and the bureaucrats, or else, with all respect to your ability, you're going to be just completely destroyed in the process.
My question to you is, in the recent past there have been some reports, as you know, within the Ontario Human Rights Commission, of low morale and discrimination. Do you see this as one of your priorities, to address that immediately within the commission itself?
Ms Endicott: That is indeed one of my number one priorities, and perhaps I might explain that why I am optimistic is because we already have in train several mechanisms to deal with these issues.
We've got a very active anti-racism committee. We've got a very active organizational health and effectiveness committee and we are engaged in developing a strategic plan that will deal with our own internal structural inequities and developing a communications strategy so that people who work within the commission will feel plugged in to what's happening and will be very much a part of developing the solutions and the strategies.
I assure you, Mr Curling, that one of the things is that I'm not foolishly optimistic. Eight years on the Toronto board, I think, would have stripped the stars from anyone's eyes, but I am optimistic in the sense that this is Ontario, that there are differences in Canada from the United States or England. I believe that there is within this province a level of concern, a fairly heightened social sense, and I think, as you say, with a Legislature and a government committed to these issues, we can make significant differences. And don't dampen my optimism.
Mr Curling: No, I don't want to. I don't think anybody can dampen your optimism when you are focused.
I have the view that we would help the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I feel that the inclusion of all parties within the political process, with their briefings and their ideas, if they want to be shared -- I'm talking about within the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, and I'm going to that end -- that to be invited and to give contributions can be of assistance.
Would you commit yourself, as a commissioner, as a chief, whenever there are opportunities in which we can give contributions that way, to include us in the process?
Ms Endicott: I'm certainly prepared to make that commitment. I hope that you're equally prepared to make the commitment, that when the commission comes to you and says, "Listen, these are the ways in which you can help," you will cooperate happily.
Mr Curling: Definitely. Systemic discrimination, as you said, is one of the focuses you want to work on. Over the past few years we have only had about two cases, really: Northwestern General Hospital and the employment agency. Is it because of lack of aggressiveness in investigation by the Human Rights Commission, or is it that there's a decline in systemic discrimination in Ontario?
Ms Endicott: I wish I could say there was a decline in systemic discrimination. No, I believe, as I said before, we have to remember that the commission, in terms of people, is very small. So we have a systemic unit, for instance, that has about two to three people. I think the way that we're going to be effectively dealing with systemic discrimination is to work together with other agencies -- I'm thinking of, for instance, the Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat or the Employment Equity Commission, when that is established -- and not to work in isolation, because I think that's the way we will maximize the resources we have at our collective disposal to deal with systemic issues.
I believe that in dealing with discrimination and bigotry on whatever grounds, going to the root of the issues, dealing with it systemically, is the way to go, because when we get individual complaints, while of course we must address those individual complaints and seek individual remedies for that, really they are symptomatic of a systemic discrimination that's endemic in a number of our institutions.
Mr Curling: Could you comment on this for me? It seems to me that government, when our parties get into power, forms a lot of bureaucracies. Many people come into my constituency office with a sense of being discriminated against. They seem to be confused whether it goes through the government equity, whether it should go through the human rights or whether it should go to the Ombudsman. As more bureaucracies are formed there seems to be more confusion in the system. Do you think the government should be moving towards reducing all this bureaucracy, or from formulating it, and maybe giving more clout to the Human Rights Commission and looking at expanding in other areas?
Ms Endicott: You'll excuse me if I sidestep part of your question, and that is on what governments do, because I think the people around here are far more comfortable with that.
Mr Curling: Take my word for it, yes. When the Liberals were there, they expanded; when the NDP comes in, it expands.
Ms Endicott: People are confused and are not clear on where they should go for effective redress. The very least we need to do is provide effective signposts for people. I think the way of doing that is by doing quite an extensive public education campaign, both with people who are potential complainants and people who are potential respondents.
Quite often we've found that we are faced, as commissioners, with cases that we cannot deal with because it's not part of our mandate. So the question of number is important, but even more important for me is the clear explanation and the clear delineation of what the mandates are and the setting up of a system that allows different organizations and institutions to work together, recognizing that we're moving towards a common end.
Mr Curling: The government is intending to proceed with its cabinet committee on racism. Again, I'm going to give my own opinion: It doesn't work. The Liberals had it, and it didn't work, and they're going to start it here. It's not going to work again. Do you have any comment about that, that the way to go is the cabinet committee on racism?
Ms Endicott: I'm not sure if that's the way to go or it's the only way to go. I have no opinion because I have no knowledge of what happened under the Liberals or whatever, but it seems to me that to have racism discussed at the highest level of government is a useful exercise. Whether it works or not will depend very much on the way it is structured, on the kinds of advice that that cabinet committee seeks, on how it makes its findings known and on how much support it gives to the implementation of its recommendations. So I don't think the problem is with the existence or non-existence of a committee but with how the committee functions. Before I could make a comment on that I would need to --
1530
Mr Curling: One last question?
The Chair: You don't have any time, I'm sorry.
Ms Endicott, that concludes the questions and your responses. Again we thank you for your appearance here today. Good luck.
Ms Endicott: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Members of the committee, the final matter on the agenda is the determination of whether or not the committee concurs with the appointments we've reviewed today.
Before we get into that, are the members of the subcommittee receptive to the idea of a brief meeting after the regular meeting to deal with Mr Wiseman's concerns? Mr Grandmaître and Mr McLean?
Mr McLean: What's this?
The Chair: About a witness who didn't make an appearance.
Mr McLean: Okay.
The Chair: It won't take too long. We'll stay around and do that.
As members know, we can deal with these as a group or on an individual basis. How do you wish to proceed?
Mr McLean: Individual.
The Chair: I'll require a motion in respect to Donald William Ross, a motion to concur with Mr Ross's appointment.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): So moved.
The Chair: It has been moved by Mr Waters. Any discussion on the motion in respect to Mr Ross?
Mr Frankford: I'm sorry there wasn't more time because I think a very important issue was raised here. This is $14 billion of capital that we're dealing with and police commissions and many of the agencies we deal with pale by comparison. I know this is only one government appointee so this committee doesn't have the opportunity of really reviewing an agency like this. It was very useful to have the opportunity of questioning him, but we just touched on the many issues.
With respect to him, he was lacking in background information. He didn't even have a copy of the annual report, although he's apparently an active member and he edits the newsletter. So he wasn't able to see very basic, important facts which I think would have made him think twice about some of the rather dogmatic statements that he finds himself allied with around the supposition that government spending is somehow bad and private investment is inevitably good. We didn't have time to get into questions around real estate. We didn't get into the question of why a 50% share of Scarborough Town Centre was bought by OMERS from Bramalea, in which OMERS still has a significant interest.
So this was one review where we really should have had a great deal more time; a number of questions remain. Some of the things he said I'm not at all sure are correct. He said that OMERS is 75% invested in Ontario; this does not seem to be the case from what I have here at all. It has significant oil and gas investments, paper and forest products, none of which I think are Ontario investments, although maybe if it's a Toronto Stock Exchange quotation that's what counts.
I'm going to vote for him, but I think it's really worth noting that the level of information he has received in the past is probably what one would reasonably expect from someone in his position, but I think it has not been enough to give him a critical perspective, and I think this is more a reflection on the system, maybe on the staff of OMERS, I don't know. OMERS has significant investments in the Thomson Corp, which is probably where many people get their information. It has 250,000, or it did on December 31, shares -- $16 million -- in Dun and Bradstreet Corp of New York, which of course publishes the Wall Street Journal.
As I said, I think there are a number of conflicting questions here which I appreciate the opportunity of raising with Mr Ross. They will also be of great interest to OMERS members across the board, the people who have written to us. As I say, I will support this but I'm pleased to have had the opportunity of mentioning these matters here.
The Chair: I just want to mention, Mr Frankford, that with respect to the OMERS board, as a committee we have the authority to call the board before us. If indeed we're ever afforded the time to get back to the committee's original mandate, we can call them.
Mr Carr: I just have a quick point. I am going to be voting against Mr Ross, the reason being that all of us know the big issue now is the OMERS pension. While he didn't support using that for the government, I didn't believe he was strong enough. I suspect that the people who have written to me want to hear very clearly that under no circumstances would he support it. The term he was using was "not at this time." So with all due respect to Mr Ross, I'm going to have to vote against him.
Mr Wiseman: I'd like to add a comment just in terms of that. If I were to fault Mr Ross with the OMERS board, it would be in terms of its lack of understanding of what the discussion document on the Ontario investment fund contains. I received those letters that you've received, and one of the things that has struck me in all of them was the "what if" syndrome, which we hear so much of today, and not the direct potential of that fund in terms of offering an investment vehicle to the cash-strapped businesses of Ontario.
We have heard from the federation of manufacturers and we've heard from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that in fact it's not a problem that there aren't any funds. Well, let them come to Pickering and talk to my businesses that have been shut out by the banks and shut out by the other funding institutions and find out from the people who are right down there preserving the jobs, creating the industries, how difficult it is to find funds.
One of the things I have to say is that I get just a little annoyed -- it happened during the employer ownership and labour-sponsored venture capital investment funds hearings -- that people are pretty quick to condemn a vehicle that is being put forward that they can either use or not use.
The mere fact that $29 million was raised from the labour-sponsored venture capital fund, against the advice of the federation of independent business and against the advice of some of the unions, tells me there is a group of people out there that is prepared to invest.
The Ontario investment fund, an arm's-length agency with independent people applying to administer the fund, is another vehicle they can either choose or not choose to be invested in. The fact that they're so willing to condemn is unfortunate, and I think doesn't do the economy any good.
Mr McLean: On a point of order, Mr Chair --
The Chair: Well, I was being generous there, but it was totally off base in respect to the motion. I'm just pointing that out.
Mr Grandmaître: Will you be fair enough to give me 30 seconds?
The Chair: I will give you a couple of minutes, Mr Grandmaître, but I want to encourage members again: We have a motion dealing with a specific appointment here. Let's confine our remarks to that or we'll be here all day when we get into these comments.
Mr Grandmaître: I will confine my remarks to the appointment to the OMERS board. Mr Chair, I don't think that Mr Ross -- as you know, I never vote on these people, for or against. I've never voted before and I won't start now, because I think it's a sham. Anyway, I just want to make sure that I'm on record as far as the William Ross appointment is concerned.
I don't know the man, but he's being appointed to the OMERS board and I don't think we should judge this man on the way he thinks about the OIF or not. Those are his personal feelings or his personal thoughts on a government program and I don't think that we should punish anybody because he agrees or disagrees with the government. So I think we should get on with the job of whoever wants to vote for or against William Ross.
The Chair: All right. We have a motion on the floor, moved by Mr Waters, that the committee concurs with the appointment of Donald William Ross as an appointee to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board.
All in favour of the motion? Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Now we require a motion for Mr Jacob Thomas to the board of governors of McMaster.
Ms Carter: I so move.
The Chair: Mrs Carter moves that we concur with the appointment. Any discussion on this motion? All in favour? Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: The final motion required is for Ms Fran Endicott.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I so move.
The Chair: Mr Marchese moves that the committee concur with the appointment. Any discussion?
Mr McLean: I would like to make a couple of remarks. I've listened to the questioning that went on with regard to Ms Endicott's intended appointment. My feeling is that she's been there as vice-chairman, she's part of the problem and I don't see how she's going to be able to solve the problems that are there, due to the fact that she has been part of the problem. I just find it hard to support her in the Human Rights Commission chair as the chief executive officer when she has been there and has not turned it around. I just wanted to express my concern.
The Chair: I suppose that'll encourage some additional remarks.
Mr Marchese: Briefly, as a response to Mr McLean's remarks, simply to say that someone is a commissioner or part of it and therefore an integral part of the problem is a rather vast and unfair remark to make about an individual.
I think you might point to problems of the commission; you might point to problems of government -- governmental, non-governmental and the private sector -- in terms of how we deal with these issues, but to simply dismiss the person as being part of the problem because she's there and hasn't solved it, therefore the candidate is unacceptable, I just think those remarks are very difficult to take.
Mr Carr: I'll be very brief. My concern with the appointment wasn't because we all know there are problems there. The reason I was disappointed is that I didn't hear anything that would lead me to believe that she had the answers to the problems.
Of course, as you know, having been there a year -- some of the people that we've had come before this committee don't know really what they're getting into -- she's fortunate enough to have had that experience, and knowing that this obviously was going to be the number one question asked, I would have felt much better -- and I must admit I would have loved to have had more time. As you know, holding interviews in such a short space of time, when you divide questions, on such an important role as this -- I think back to the people I hired in far less important positions that I spent more time interviewing and discussing with.
My big concern, and the reason I'll be voting against it, is I didn't hear anything to lead me to believe that anything was going to change for the better. There's nothing specific about what she was going to be able to do to change it. I think all members of this committee realize we have a major problem there. I would have hoped there would have been something to give us some hope, and I wish her luck in turning things around. I don't think she had the answers today and unfortunately I won't be able to support her.
The Chair: Okay. We have a motion, I believe Mr Marchese moved it, to concur with Ms Endicott's appointment. All in favour? Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: That concludes the regular meeting. Meeting adjourned. We'll see you tomorrow at 10 am.
The committee adjourned at 1542.