CONTENTS
Wednesday 6 May 1992
Appointments review
Judith B. Simon
Shirley A. Dawe
Rebecca F. Jamieson
Cheryl L. Cottle
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Président: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
*Acting Chair / Le Président suppléant: Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)
*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)
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:
*Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND) for Mr Marchese
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes: Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffier: Arnott, Douglas
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1010 in room 228.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Resuming consideration of intended appointments.
The Chair (Mr Robert W. Runciman): Come to order, please. We're a little late so I'd like to get under way now.
JUDITH SIMON
The Chair: The first witness this morning is Judith Simon, who is an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Energy Board. Ms Simon, would you like to come forward, please, and have a seat. Welcome to the committee. This is a half-hour review. I'm sure you've been advised how the process works. We rotate between each party, each having 10 minutes to ask questions and you responding within that same time period. Your review is the selection of the official opposition, so I'm going to look to Mr Grandmaître to begin the questioning.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Ms Simon, your past experience with the energy board makes you an expert, I suppose. We're not experts -- far from it. Recently Ontario Hydro predicted a 44% rate increase. What do you think of a 44% increase over the next three years? You make recommendations to cabinet on those increases. Do you think they're reasonable?
Ms Judith Simon: I think the matter of rate increases would come before the Ontario Energy Board, and Ontario Hydro would bring forward its recommendations. If I were sitting on that panel, it would be up to me to weigh the evidence and to make a recommendation to cabinet on what the rate increases should be. I couldn't prejudge now on that increase. I really don't have any information on which to give you an opinion. I haven't seen the basis for their 44% increase, so I can't even offer you a personal opinion, other than that, as a consumer, it sounds high. Those are just my thoughts as a consumer.
Mr Grandmaître: Your recommendations on those rate increases are not binding on cabinet or Ontario Hydro. Do you think your recommendations should be binding? After all, you're the experts.
Ms Simon: I think that's a matter of government policy and it's up to the government of the day to make that decision. If the government decided that was the intended policy and asked the Ontario Energy Board for guidance, then I would be pleased to participate in that process if I had the opportunity.
Mr Grandmaître: But in a recent report you criticized the government for not accepting or paying more attention to your recommendations. What are your thoughts?
Ms Simon: I am not a member of the Ontario Energy Board; I'm a candidate for the Ontario Energy Board. I was not involved in any previous reports the Ontario Energy Board made. I did not sit at the hearings and can't comment on either the hearings or the recommendations. I haven't read them.
Mr Grandmaître: The Ontario Energy Board is a very important board. Do you think they should have as many powers as the Ontario Municipal Board, for instance? Whatever it recommends is binding. Do you think you should have the same powers?
Ms Simon: As I've said, it's a matter of the government making that decision. If you're asking me what my personal opinion is --
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, your personal thoughts.
Ms Simon: My personal opinion is, yes, I would like to see that the Ontario Energy Board be given that power. That's just my personal opinion and it's not based on any careful weighing of the issues. Personally that's my view.
Mr Grandmaître: As you know, the role of Ontario Hydro has changed dramatically in the last five years. Ontario Hydro has always been recognized as the provider of low-cost services, and now it seems like Ontario Hydro is being used to subsidize other projects. What are your thoughts on Ontario Hydro subsidizing other projects, for instance like Kapuskasing? I'm not saying I'm against the Kapuskasing deal, but what are your thoughts on the role of Ontario Hydro or Ontario Hydro being involved in such a deal? Do you think Ontario Hydro should be in the business of providing low-cost electricity, period?
Ms Simon: My understanding of Ontario Hydro's mandate is that it has a mandate to produce energy at cost that's safe and reliable. Certainly in the environmental proceedings I'm involved with before the Environmental Assessment Board, often the purpose has been to provide electricity in an environmentally sound manner. So I understand in certain cases that's Ontario Hydro's mandate, at least before the Environmental Assessment Board.
If I were to become a member of the Ontario Energy Board and the issue before the board was Ontario Hydro rates, my understanding is that the Ontario Energy Board looks at the social, economic and environmental implications of projects, but in terms of rates, there is a specific requirement in the statute that it be based on a rate base and a certain way of calculating that. The recommendation on Ontario Hydro rates would have to be based on the existing statute, so it would be limited in that regard. So my recommendations within the current legislative framework would have to respect that. If that were to change, then I would give those recommendations based on any changes that were made. I think the Ontario Energy Board is restricted in how it deals with Ontario Hydro rates in the existing legislation.
Mr Grandmaître: Ontario Hydro has been described as a group of fat cats. I think the average salary is $65,000 a year.
The Chair: That was three years ago.
Mr Grandmaître: Three years ago. We've just appointed a new chair and a new CEO -- with added responsibilities, mind you -- earning $240,000 or whatever the salary is. Nobody really knows; we hear all kinds of figures being thrown around. Maybe some day when he leaves we'll know exactly what his real salary was. They've received salary increases between 3% and 5%, whereas everybody else is being asked to hold back on these salary increases from 1% to 2%. Do you think Ontario Hydro is so different that they qualify for 2% to 5% salary increases?
Ms Simon: As a member of the Ontario Energy Board, if I were to sit on an Ontario Hydro rate hearing, I imagine it would be appropriate in the current legislative framework to look at salaries, because salaries are a traditional operating cost and they would be a factor in what Ontario Hydro uses to set its rates. That being an economic consideration, I guess I would be in a position to review it. Personally, I've never investigated Ontario Hydro salaries or done any kind of analysis, so I don't know whether they are reasonable or not, either in the Ontario context compared with the private sector or compared with other utilities across the country. I do know as a civil servant, when I was with the Ontario government, Ontario Hydro did pay better, but I don't know if that's appropriate or not.
1020
Mr Grandmaître: If the average salary is $65,000 -- you just said you were a former Ontario public servant, I'm sure you've never received a salary increase of more than 5%. Have you ever received a salary increase of more than 5%?
Ms Simon: If you include cost of living?
Mr Grandmaître: I'm not including cost of living.
Ms Simon: Actually, I have. I received a merit increase of greater than 5%, I believe, one year when times were good.
Mr Grandmaître: One year, and you remember that year.
Ms Simon: Yes, I do remember that.
Mr Grandmaître: If it's true that it is $65,000, don't you think -- I'm going back to the mandate of Ontario Hydro. I think Ontario Hydro has gradually, not overnight -- and I mean this -- over the last five, six, seven or eight years been forgetting what its real mandate is all about, and that has me very, very concerned.
The Chair: I'm sorry. That's it, Mr Grandmaître. Mr McLean.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): You're presently a member of the Ontario Hydro environmental advisory panel to the president?
Ms Simon: Yes.
Mr McLean: Will you be able to maintain that position, or will you have to quit that if you're accepted here as the appointee to the Ontario Energy Board?
Ms Simon: If I'm accepted here I will resign.
Mr McLean: Why did you leave the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology in 1989?
Ms Simon: For several reasons. The prime reason I left is that I was about to give birth, so I went on maternity leave. While I was on maternity leave, I thought about how I wanted to care for my child and, given my experience and background and the fact that I had always thought I would like to start my own business, that's what I decided to do.
Other reasons I left MITT were that I went to MITT because I had hoped to be in a position to promote the environmental protection industry and green industries, and I went to participate in the technology fund opportunities. I was very disappointed that any of the initiatives in that regard that I participated in didn't go anywhere; I became disillusioned and decided that after about 10 years of government it was time for a change.
Mr McLean: I observe from your papers that you've been involved in a lot of environmental assessments, policy developments and that type of thing, and you've done a publication with regard to the North Simcoe Waste Management Association landfill.
Ms Simon: Yes.
Mr McLean: What went wrong with those hearings into site 41, Tiny township?
Ms Simon: What I reviewed in that case was the board's decision. I didn't review any of the evidence, so all I can advise you of is what the board said to the best of my recollection.
Mr McLean: Did the board approve that?
Ms Simon: No. The board turned it down based on the planning process. My recollection is, the board concluded that the planning process was not traceable. A reasonable person could not follow the steps, understand what was done and come to the same conclusion. Even though the board concluded the site that was picked had, from a health and safety point of view, merit and it saw no reason why it couldn't be approved, from an environmental assessment point of view the planning process was so flawed that approval wasn't warranted.
Mr McLean: In your personal opinion, do you believe there should be another landfill site in that area?
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): That's not a fair question.
Mr McLean: She knows the area as well as anybody.
Ms Simon: I haven't reviewed the issues. I haven't reviewed the evidence. I believe the board's conclusion, at least my interpretation of it, is that a landfill in the area is needed. The board chided all the parties for not considering what would happen to the north Simcoe area in the event this particular site the north Simcoe association was putting forward was turned down, and indicated, "It's a shame," and, "Think about that next time when you're doing your planning, because something needs to be done with the garbage."
Mr McLean: I just have a final question, Mr Chairman. I'd like your personal opinion. Are you in favour of more nuclear plants, if necessary?
Ms Simon: If necessary? I suppose if it was deemed necessary I really wouldn't have any choice. Nuclear power, like any technology, has pros and cons. I'm concerned about the uranium mining and transportation of the fuel, the use of the fuel in nuclear power plants, the whole question of waste disposal. I'm concerned about the centralization of the power plants and I'm concerned about the economic cost, but I also realize that nuclear power has benefits with respect to the amount of power that can be produced in a small area, the quality of the fuel that's produced, the ability to have fewer rather than -- in fact, you can turn all the negatives around and turn those into positives. It's an issue that is really a balancing act.
My personal view, which I would put aside if this issue ever came before the Ontario Energy Board, is that -- I live in Ontario. Some 60% of our electricity is generated by nuclear power. I live here, so I'm obviously not so opposed that I can't live here and live near Pickering, near a nuclear power plant. So the issue for me is, should there be additional capacity? Ontario Hydro in its recent supply-demand plan has indicated that it doesn't feel that there's a need. I'm sure that's a conservative view. If I had the choice, all other things being equal, recognizing there are other problems with any technology you would choose, assuming that it wasn't necessary, no, I would prefer that there were no new nuclear plants.
The Chair: I want to move on to the government members. I want to point out that Mr McLean has been kind enough to save me two or three minutes to get a number of things on the record about my riding later. We have Mr Frankford, Ms Carter, Mr Waters and Mr Wiseman who want to all get in their questions in a 10-minute period, so keep that in mind. We'll start with Mr Frankford.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I've seen your résumé. In 1980-81 you developed and authored a discussion paper on the feasibility of an Ontario district heating program. Can you tell us what happened to that?
Ms Simon: I believe it's still on the shelf of the person I worked for, although it did get approved for publication before I left.
Mr Frankford: Can you very briefly indicate what it was about?
Ms Simon: Yes, to the best of my recollection; it was 10 years ago. I looked into the feasibility of using district heating on a more wide scale for downtown buildings and other concentrated urban centres, medium-sized and large-sized cities. I looked at the social, economic and environmental implications of doing so. The conclusion of the discussion paper was that I thought there was an opportunity and I recommended that further debate take place in Ontario and that we look at how to develop a strategy for implementation.
Mr Frankford: And you would advocate this at the present time again?
Ms Simon: I don't know. I haven't looked into any of these issues since that time. In principle, I support district heating because it's a sound energy conservation measure, so I guess the same principles would apply. Yes, I'm still a supporter of the policy of district heating.
Mr Frankford: I know you're not appointed yet so you don't really know what goes on, but do you see this as something you might bring forward in this position?
Ms Simon: I believe the Ontario Energy Board sets the rates for the Toronto District Heating Corp. If I were to sit in on a hearing dealing with those rates, I imagine one of those issues in setting those rates would be economic. I suppose whether or not to expand or shrink the existing system might come before that board at that hearing and I guess I would weigh the evidence based on what I heard and come to conclusions.
1030
Mr Frankford: I dare say that the board does other things. Under the Municipal Franchises Act it has some involvement with municipalities, so maybe there would be a place for it.
I'll defer.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'm particularly glad to see your strong background in environmental matters, because I feel that is particularly pertinent when we're looking at energy issues. But we also have to look at how to get the cheapest energy supply to Ontario consumers. As you know, Ontario Hydro functions on the basis of power at cost. But when we take cost into consideration, I think that causes us to give a second look at nuclear power as opposed to conservation on that basis, the relative costs, and I just wonder what thoughts you might have on that topic.
Ms Simon: The relative cost of conservation versus nuclear power?
Ms Carter: I think that when we look at the recent past and the present day, the hikes we're looking at now in power prices are largely due to Darlington coming on stream and the kinds of costs associated with that. Also, we've had massive costs in respect of retubing power stations -- I believe it comes to half a billion a shot for each unit -- and of course there's malfunctioning and not as much production as was expected and so on. Yet the people -- I refer partly to Mr Jordan, who's just come in -- who are emphasizing this cost aspect are also saying that nuclear power is a good thing. I'd like your thoughts on that.
Ms Simon: I'm not an expert in really the costs of any energy source. What limited knowledge I do have, I am aware that certainly the experience in the United States with conservation is that up to a point of diminishing marginal returns, conservation is the cheapest way to go up to a point. The key is to find the point at which it becomes prudent to add supply, and then the question becomes, what is the most appropriate supply source? This whole issue, at least from the electricity standpoint, is being debated before the Environmental Assessment Board with respect to Ontario Hydro and I certainly look forward to seeing what the board's decision is on that matter.
Ms Carter: Yes, I think we're very far from exhausting the possibilities of conservation.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Are you aware that all the executives and senior staff at Hydro had their salaries frozen, and also that the membership of their union, in showing restraint, have a 1% increase this year?
Ms Simon: I believe I read in the newspaper something about the senior staff salaries being frozen, but I wasn't aware of the unions.
Mr Waters: This is just following on some remarks earlier that Hydro doesn't show restraint. Indeed at this point in time, do you feel that is showing restraint compared to what Hydro has done in the past?
Ms Simon: I really couldn't say. You're only giving me fragments. I haven't looked at the whole situation. I don't know what the history of raises has been. I don't know how the salaries of Hydro senior staff compare with people in either a comparable utility or even with what senior bureaucrats in the Ontario civil service make and I don't know what kind of impact that has on rates. I would imagine that if I sat on a board hearing with respect to rates, salaries factor into the rate base and that would be something that would be coming before me and I would look at carefully.
Mr Waters: One other question that is probably off topic, but Mr McLean entered into it --
Mr McLean: It's not off topic. It's in the material.
Mr Waters: -- we both happen to represent north Simcoe. Coming out of your past, more out of curiosity than anything: When it was sent back, it was left to the people of north Simcoe to go back to the municipal board, I guess it is, with more recommendations -- environmental board, I should say. It's been something like four years now. Do you think that's a long time before they come back to the government to try to work this thing through, and do you think there should be some way of speeding up the process?
Ms Simon: I'm always in favour, within reason, of speeding up the process. I suppose in the cabinet decision there could have been a deadline that was set to expedite it. That not being the case, I am aware that the North Simcoe Waste Management Association's consultants and lawyers have been working very hard to address the matters that cabinet asked them to address. I guess they're doing the best they can, given other priorities.
Mr Wiseman: My question has to be pretty quick because there are only a couple of minutes left. I'd like to get to your own priorities that you would set or the criteria you would use in evaluating whether the prices that are coming before the board are legitimately requested prices and rate increases, given that the Darlington nuclear power plant is mired in debt, doesn't work properly and continues to function at only about 25% to 30% capacity and that traditionally the financing for Ontario Hydro has been offloading the debt responsibilities to the future, which is now. Have you given any thought to the criteria and the kinds of priorities you would set in making those evaluations?
Ms Simon: I believe the criteria are already set in the Ontario Energy Board Act, which lays out how rates have to be calculated with respect to a rate base and the criteria that have to be taken into consideration in determining that.
Should the government decide that the traditional economic accounting system is too narrow and it should be broadened, considering life-cycle costing issues or marginal cost pricing, which is I think what you're referring to, I would welcome the opportunity to sit on such a hearing where there was that mandate. But my understanding is that it's not the current mandate and that the board is confined to its current jurisdiction.
The Chair: The third party has four and a half minutes left, and Mr Jordan wants to ask a question. So I won't ask a question; I'll just put a couple of things on the record.
Two companies in my riding of Leeds-Grenville: We just had one shut down, an ammonia plant, Nitrochem. They laid the blame right on the doorstep of Ontario Hydro and its rate increases and their inability to negotiate some kind of agreement to establish a cogeneration facility. They've been working with Hydro for several years and simply getting the door slammed in their face. Black and Decker, another major employer, has expressed concern that if Hydro doesn't moderate its rate of increases, they are not going to be able to remain competitive in Canada.
So those are concerns that I think certainly the energy board has to look at on a broader scale right across the province. I think we also have to look at rural residents, who do not have the option of switching to natural gas and are faced with these astronomical increases as well.
In response to Mr Grandmaître and his concern about the use of Ontario Hydro for socioeconomic programs, you said, "Well, it's government policy and I have to live with it." I think it should be incumbent upon the energy board to also make comment upon these sorts of departures from the historic mandate of Hydro if indeed it is going to jeopardize the industrial infrastructure in this province, so hopefully you will keep that in mind.
Mr Wiseman: I think you're drifting a little bit away from the neutrality of the Chair.
1040
Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Thank you for coming before the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to meet you and quickly ask you for your opinion regarding how Bill 118 is going to affect the board of directors of Ontario Hydro. As you know, once the bill is passed, the board members at Hydro are no longer responsible for their actions. It goes back to the government, the Minister of Energy. Would you like to comment on how a corporation can function in that manner when I sit as a director yet I'm not responsible, I just rubber-stamp what's sent over from the government through the chairman?
Ms Simon: I haven't read Bill 118 so I'm not familiar with the specifics of what it says or its implications. I'm not aware that in every situation it's up to the government to dictate what Ontario Hydro does. I believe there is a provision that allows the government to give direction on policy, but that's not to suggest, I don't believe, that the government would choose to do that in every case. Otherwise the government would be spending all its time acting as the board of directors of Ontario Hydro.
Those are about all the comments I can make. I haven't looked at it more closely because I'm not aware, except in those specific situations where there would be direction, that it would encumber the board in any other manner.
Mr Jordan: How would you feel as a director, regardless of the company, if in fact you were not going to be held responsible for your actions?
Ms Simon: I'm not sure that's what the bill says. Are you saying the liability has been changed in some manner with respect to the board of directors?
Mr Jordan: Yes.
Ms Simon: I really don't know. I really couldn't comment. I'm not convinced that because they're not liable financially for the actions of Ontario Hydro it means they are not responsible. As a member I can comment where I serve on a board of directors and I do not have any fiduciary responsibility.
I'm currently a member of the board of the Canadian Environmental Law Association and I don't have any financial responsibility for any of the actions CELA takes, but that hasn't in any way affected my judgement or my ability to serve in that function. I don't believe that because you're not financially culpable necessarily has any direct bearing. I feel all the board members at CELA can provide well-informed advice and decisions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Simon. That concludes the time the committee has to direct questions to you. Thank you for being here this morning, and we wish you well.
SHIRLEY A. DAWE
The Chair: The next witness is Shirley Dawe. Welcome to the committee, Ms Dawe. Ms Dawe is an intended appointee as a director of the Ontario Development Corp. Again, this is a half-hour review and the applicant is the selection of the government party. Mr Wiseman.
Mr Wiseman: Thank you for coming today. First, how did you hear about this job, this position?
Ms Shirley Dawe: I was approached by telephone last October by a human resource firm that specializes in executive recruitment. I understand that they were given the mandate by ODC to develop an appropriate list of candidates for consideration for board appointment to the ODC.
Mr Wiseman: And then you submitted a résumé?
Ms Dawe: Before I submitted my résumé I asked for more information because I wasn't familiar with the ODC. Once I'd received that information I agreed to submit a résumé to that consulting firm and I guess about five months later I received a telephone call from someone in Diane Gumbs' office suggesting an interview, which I agreed to.
Mr Wiseman: What did you see about the Ontario Development Corp that you liked enough to want to be appointed?
Ms Dawe: I thought their aims were impressive, especially during this period of time as our province is going through a restructuring, and I felt that with my experience in consumer marketing, with my broad experience in management, with my board experience, I could make a contribution. Additionally, I felt I could learn a great deal with regard to the challenges that were facing businesses in southwest Ontario.
Mr Wiseman: Are you aware of the new ventures program?
Ms Dawe: I'm sorry. I really have to express some ignorance in some of the details of the ODC programs.
Mr Wiseman: Okay. Perhaps we'll go to the other end of it then. What would you like to see happen with the ODC in terms of the kinds of programs it should fund? Do you have any ideas about where it could do the most good or where it shouldn't perhaps be involved at all?
Ms Dawe: I'm sorry again. I have to say that I have not yet formulated a sufficiently strong opinion on any of those issues that you've just requested.
Mr Wiseman: Okay. I was just curious because when we have candidates before us -- those questions that I just asked are a little unfair -- I also try to see if there is some talent or some goal or some aspiration they have in terms of what they would like to bring to the board or agency they are being appointed to.
Ms Dawe: I'm sorry, I do not have a pre-determined agenda with regard to sitting on the ODC. All I can say is that I do believe I can fill perhaps a role on the board through my expertise in the retail area with regard to consumer marketing, with my understanding of large and small organizations, that perhaps some of that experience will allow me to assist in working with the other board members in making decisions that are correct for the ODC in fulfilling its mandate.
Mr Wiseman: Okay, here's a quick question. The Winter report, when it is talking about cross-border shopping, has indicated that in our retail industry we have a couple of levels of distribution that they don't have in the United States and that this is adding to the costs of the goods in our retail market. Do you think there's something that could be done, perhaps, through the board that would allow our retailers to become more cost-efficient by perhaps eliminating some of these other levels of distribution? Is there some mechanism that perhaps could be developed in order to have a more direct line of supply from the manufacturers to the retailers?
Ms Dawe: I think it's been reported in the newspapers that there are some companies, like the Hudson's Bay Co, which, through their own internal research, have determined that there are some ways of eliminating some of the costs that have had to be passed on to the consumer, and one of those ways is to eliminate the middle man and go direct in their procurement and, as a result, eliminate the importer and go directly into the overseas market or eliminate the wholesaler. That is one element.
I guess the other thing is, when you take a look at some of the research that's been done, not only by John Winter but by some other retail research people, the taxes in Canada are high relative to the US and that too is contributing to the requirement to pass on higher markups to consumers.
The Chair: I think Mr Sutherland would like a question.
1050
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I just have a couple of questions. First of all, let me say that your résumé or CV is extremely impressive for the appointment you are here being reviewed for.
I want to ask you about competitiveness in general. You just talked about taxes being an issue, and of course here in Canada we've taken a different sense of values from our neighbours to the south in terms of what we feel is important as a society. I think we pay a premium price in terms of that. Given all that, how do you define competitiveness? Everyone uses that word, but what is your definition of "competitive," and is this definition constantly changing?
Ms Dawe: That's the $64,000 question. I don't think we've got enough time to go through all the aspects of what defines competition. Obviously it's going to change by commodity, by business. The key thing is that we always have to relate competitiveness to how consumers perceive it. They are going to be the ultimate judges of whether a product or service is being delivered to them in a way they feel is delivering value. Hence the product then becomes competitive and worthy of purchase.
Obviously, if you're looking at it from a manufacturing point of view, it's going to have another element. Competitiveness there might be not just the low cost but how quickly that manufacturing plant can turn over its inventory and provide just-in-time service to the ultimate manufacturer.
Mr Sutherland: I notice here that you've also been a director of Gilmore's, a store in Michigan. One of the issues related to cross-border shopping and the retail sector is the question of quality of service. We've certainly been hearing more concerns expressed by consumers in terms of the quality of service provided in the retail sector within this province. I was wondering if you could give this committee some sense of where you think the level of service is here in comparison. Also, based on your wide consulting experience to many service companies, what do you do to improve service? How do you do that?
Ms Dawe: The terms "service" and "competitiveness" are the hot buzzwords throughout business today. How you define service again depends on how your target market perceives the need to be served best. In some cases, service is defined as having a fabulous environment to sell the product in and a very high level of sales staff. In other cases, service can be defined as just having very clear, wide-open spaces and a very quick, convenient exit and entrance. In other cases, service can be defined as hours of opening. We certainly saw that banks adjusted their service issue very nicely, probably because of some very heavy competition and finally some recognition of consumer research that today consumers want to shop in a bank on Saturdays and up to 8 o'clock. So they adjusted their hours. In the same way, I think some of the most recent research with regard to service is opening on Sundays or expanding the hours of opening more than they currently are, hence to Sunday.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): You mentioned in your opening remarks on the Ontario Development Corp that you could assist in southwestern Ontario. Well, we've got eastern Ontario and we've got the north too. I hope that was just an error on your part.
Ms Dawe: Just for clarification, I do believe this nomination is for the ODC, which focuses on those businesses in southwestern Ontario.
Mr Cleary: And not --
Mr Wiseman: No. You've got your own.
Ms Dawe: That's not to say I can't be, but for right now, I think we're dealing just with the southwest.
Mr Cleary: Okay. I apologize. My question might be out of order then.
Mr Grandmaître: Try it.
Mr Cleary: I'm going to try it. I'm from eastern Ontario and we've had lots of dealings with members of the Eastern Ontario Development Corp and staff people. They have worked very effectively over the years and were able to bring new business in that we might never have had before. There was a change in the policy within the last year where they wouldn't give a business a little boost it needed from an interest-free loan for a year or two. I'm going to ask you your views on that change in policy.
Ms Dawe: I'm sorry, Mr Cleary, I'm really not in a position to comment on that change in policy. I wasn't aware of it and I can't comment further.
Mr Cleary: Okay, that's all my questions then.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Allan K. McLean): Bern?
Mr Grandmaître: Pass.
The Vice-Chair: You can reset the time for 10 minutes and I'll ask a few questions, since the Chairman's not back.
Mr Wiseman: You're making very liberal use of the chair today.
The Vice-Chair: I think that's very clear. I want to congratulate you for coming forward. You have an excellent vitae. There's really not a question that I can ask you about the qualifications, but I observe that you're a member of the board of Ryerson Institute.
Ms Dawe: On the advisory board of the business school, the school of merchandising.
The Vice-Chair: What input do you have into that aspect of the institute? Do you have much input? Does the board meet once a month or --
Ms Dawe: No, the advisory board of the school of merchandising meets infrequently because we are in an advisory capacity. It would be on a quarterly basis at best and the biggest input was making suggestions on curriculum. I had an opportunity a couple of years ago to teach one of the courses there, replacing somebody on sabbatical. I felt that gave me a great insight into some of the strengths and weaknesses of that course, and we were able to have some input into the curriculum, but basically they make their own decisions.
The Vice-Chair: How many professors or key people would run the university, are really in charge of the day-to-day operations of it?
Ms Dawe: I can't tell you that.
The Vice-Chair: I don't know and I'm just curious to find out. If you're on the board, you'd just specifically deal with the one area, I presume.
Ms Dawe: Just that one school, the school of merchandising. They have about 10 different schools, one business, one engineering, one radio arts and television, one journalism and one general. I'm familiar with only one of those schools.
The Vice-Chair: What would be the average pay of a professor there?
Ms Dawe: I'm sorry, sir, I can't tell you. I could find that information for you and pass it on later.
The Vice-Chair: This really has nothing to do with your appointment. It was just something I was curious about and wanted to get some of your knowledge.
Mr Wiseman: More liberalism in the Chair.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before the committee. That'll be the end of your review.
Ms Dawe: My pleasure. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Mr Wiseman: Good luck.
REBECCA F. JAMIESON
The Vice-Chair: Rebecca Jamieson, intended appointee as member of the University of Waterloo board of governors. I wonder if I could start off with the official opposition.
Mr Grandmaître: You don't have a choice. You're the only member of your party, Mr McLean.
The Vice-Chair: Somebody will be back, but I'd like to wait for a few minutes. Go ahead.
Mr Grandmaître: No, you're up, third party.
Mr Wiseman: It's hard to know if we're setting a dangerous precedent with the Chair doing this much talking.
Mr Grandmaître: We'll trust him.
The Vice-Chair: I'd just as soon be over there and ask the questions.
Mr Grandmaître: Do you want to move?
Mr Wiseman: Bern, you go in the chair.
The Vice-Chair: Yes.
The Acting Chair (Mr Grandmaître): Now's my chance. You're out of order.
Mr McLean: You have a strong interest in the issues that affect the university in Waterloo. Did you apply for this appointment, or were you asked?
Ms Rebecca F. Jamieson: I was asked by the academic cohost, Jim Kalbfleisch. We met informally in a meeting dealing with post-secondary education issues in the region and from there he contacted me and asked if I would be interested.
Mr McLean: Have you ever sat on a board like this before?
Ms Jamieson: No, not at this level. I participated with the Brantford district health council, which is a much smaller scale and was certainly not directly involved in the actual decision-making of an institution, so nothing like this before.
1100
Mr McLean: That's what I was trying to get to with the previous witness, to find out really what the responsibilities would be as a member or as a director of a board. I have had, as many of the members probably have, some dealings with the OSAP problem. That has really nothing to do with you, other than the fact that I have a letter here from a student who is at Waterloo and who is having some real problems with regard to his OSAP loan.
I'm curious to know, and I would probably like you to look into it when you are a director, who in the school, and how many, look after this very aspect of when people come and apply for their loans. The information I have is that they're not returning the calls from the students. Have you had any dealings with that aspect of the university?
Ms Jamieson: No, I haven't and I don't know the structure of the university well enough to even comment on how many people there are or even where the entry point is for the students.
Mr McLean: Do you live in Waterloo?
Ms Jamieson: No, I live at Six Nations.
Mr McLean: How far would that be from Waterloo?
Ms Jamieson: It's a good hour's drive.
Mr McLean: You're in the education field now, are you not?
Ms Jamieson: Yes.
Mr McLean: Where are you teaching, or are you teaching?
Ms Jamieson: My background is teaching, but right now I work with the Six Nations community and they're looking at establishing their own school board and running their own education system. I'm in charge of that project right now. That's what I've been doing.
Mr McLean: I wish you all the best.
Ms Jamieson: Thank you.
Mr Frankford: One of the things that you do on the board of governors is in relation to faculty. One of the questions around the faculty is the representation of women. For a start, do you have any thoughts on that?
Ms Jamieson: Just reviewing the material that was provided to me by the university, I know it's been flagged as an issue within the university. I know they're talking about it, but what they have decided I don't know. I have no particular personal opinion on it. I believe if the person has the qualifications and the ability, then he or she should be provided the opportunity. That might be a very naïve approach, but that's the way I would look at things.
Mr Frankford: I think the experience in all universities -- I don't know Waterloo particularly -- is that at the undergraduate level there's a 50-50 representation of men and women and then, as one proceeds into post-graduate studies and into faculty, the proportion of women gets progressively lower. This has been a constant and systemic aspect of it. I was wondering if you had any thoughts about how you would go about correcting that imbalance.
Ms Jamieson: I can't say that I have a position or a particular view I would take as a board member at this point. I would be more comfortable to look at the situation at the university first and get a feel for what's being considered at the institutional level.
Mr Frankford: In 1991 the Ministry of Colleges and Universities announced that Ontario universities will receive funding to develop and conduct workshops to improve the conditions for women studying engineering. The aim of the workshops is to change the attitudes towards women faculty, students and administrative staff specifically at the engineering schools. Do you have any comment, any views on women getting into non-traditional areas like engineering?
Ms Jamieson: If there have to be some proactive measures, and obviously there have been some taken to correct underrepresentation, if that is in fact the case, I know engineering is one of the areas across the province and across the country as far as women's enrolment is concerned. Whether or not it's traditional or non-traditional, I guess I would even question that, but I don't really have any sort of position in terms of whether that is an appropriate thing specifically for that faculty or whatever to say.
I don't other than obviously it's been raised as a concern and some direction has been taken on it and I think if you're asking for a really personal-level response -- and that's about all I can give you at this point -- I'm pleased to see that there's some review of these kinds of things happening, not just for women but for all categories of students that are underrepresented in various fields of study.
Mr Sutherland: Miss Jamieson, you have a very impressive CV here in terms of the field of education. Also, from looking it over, it looks like you have a very impressive résumé in terms of belonging to institutions and belonging to groups that reach out to the community. Certainly one of the concerns or criticisms of universities is, how responsive are they to the community and to society as a whole? Do you have any thoughts as to how, from your past experiences, a university, particularly the University of Waterloo in this case, may become more responsive to all the communities that it has a mandate to serve?
Ms Jamieson: I know with Waterloo specifically I was quite pleased when Waterloo participated in the formation of a consortium of universities in the southwestern area -- it's very informal at this point -- and basically made the initiative to contact various communities, in particular, aboriginal communities where I come from, where students are underrepresented in the university climate. Just by that informal outreach, just a single meeting, an invitation to discuss, I'm hoping will extend into a lot of proactive sorts of undertakings jointly between the communities and the university.
I think it boils down to the fact that in the end the people you have sitting on your board are the people who can initiate that sort of reaching out into the community, and the way the boards are structured, it's my understanding you have a good cross-section of people. If your board members are active, I think a lot of the motivation can come from the board for this kind of thing, and certainly faculty. In the particular cases of both McMaster University and Waterloo there have been key faculty who have taken it upon themselves to do that very thing, but they had to have the support of the board. They had to have the support of that type of body.
I don't know in terms of strategies other than saying that, in my understanding, that part of the role of the board, in addition to making decisions for the institution, is to help raise the profile of the institution with the client base.
Mr Sutherland: One additional question: Waterloo is certainly renowned. It started in the co-op education area and has been extremely successful. I would suggest, even as much as I hate to say it, it has been the model, even more than many of the universities some of the rest of us have attended.
Mr Wiseman: Particularly loyalty to it, that you wear on your cuff continuously.
Mr Sutherland: That's right. But it's certainly been very innovative in that area. What do you feel about where it's been and some sense of where it's going on those areas?
Ms Jamieson: I know that Waterloo is strong in the co-op education area. My personal bias is, I think that's the way to go. The way to have education that's applicable is to use the cooperative approach. It's particularly amenable to things like engineering, those types of professions. The only area where it's not as strongly applicable is in the arts area. It seems always to get left behind.
It's my understanding so far from the university that its direction for the next 10 years is that it's going pursue and expand this cooperative education approach. I was pleased to see it, quite frankly, being an educational practitioner. I think it makes the most sense. Your students are more employable when they graduate. There are a whole bunch of benefits that come out of this kind of approach as far as I'm concerned.
1110
Mr Wiseman: I have two directions of questions, if I have time. How much time do we have?
The Chair: A little over two minutes.
Mr Wiseman: Two minutes? The first question is that I have a great deal of difficulty with the traditional administration structure at the university. I think it's too hierarchical and has a lot of people doing a lot of jobs that don't necessarily result in direct student productivity. There are models; for example, in my riding, Durham College has developed a model of administration where they don't really have an administration as such. They just disperse the administration throughout the faculty. Have you given any thought to the kind of traditional structure that exists in the university, where it could be changed and where it maybe should be changed?
Ms Jamieson: I don't have enough knowledge about structures of university administration. Just recently I've started to review the briefing kit sent to me from Waterloo and I'm trying to make sense of all the charts in it, how it all fits together and then how it all goes into functioning. What I picked up in that material is that there is a move with Waterloo to at least decentralize more to the faculties. How that's going to impact on administrative structure, I don't know. I don't know enough about it to comment on whether this structure needs review and, if so, how it should happen and so on. I don't know enough about it to say.
Mr Wiseman: Perhaps I could give you an example. At Durham College, which runs a campus for four universities as well, they've seen an increase of 18% in their student enrolment in this year alone.
Ms Jamieson: Really?
Mr Wiseman: They have seen their grants from the government increase only 1% and yet they have managed to accept all of these students, which is a greater burden of students, without laying off one single staff person, and to accommodate them. They've been doing this now for three or four years.
I think there's something to be learned from what Gary Polonsky at Durham College is doing, and the universities need to start taking a look at it. If a college can do this kind of change -- what they've done is taken all of the administrators and put them back in the classroom to accommodate this kind of change. The administration is dispersed over the entire faculty. So I hope you might take a look at that.
The Chair: We have to move on. Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: I'll pass, Mr Chair.
Mr Cleary: Just one question, Ms Jamieson. I see there's a familiar name here and I'm just wondering if you know or are related to our Ombudsman.
Ms Jamieson: She's my sister-in-law. I don't always admit that.
The Chair: You don't, or she doesn't?
Ms Jamieson: Sometimes it's both of us.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Jamieson. We appreciate your appearing here today and wish you well with your new responsibilities.
Our next witness is another intended appointment to the Ontario Energy Board, Cheryl Cottle. Is Ms Cottle present? She's not present.
I stand to be corrected, but I should advise you as well that I believe Claire Marie-Jeanne Narbonne-Fortin -- that's a mouthful and a half -- cannot be here today. Mr Grandmaître has indicated that he will remove that request, so we will not be seeing that individual either.
I'm not sure what to do about Ms Cottle and I look to advice from the committee. Our clerk has searched the halls for her and is unable to locate her.
Mr Grandmaître: May I suggest we take a five-minute recess?
The Chair: I'll suggest a 10-minute recess. It always seems to go longer than what I suggest; people tend not to straggle back for 15 or 20.
Mr Waters: Mr Chair, maybe you could meet with your subcommittee and take care of that problem, so you could all get out earlier. It's just a friendly suggestion.
The Chair: How does the subcommittee feel about that? I don't see anything wrong with other members remaining present as long as you don't participate and delay things. We can do that so we don't have to be here later. Perhaps I'll let the clerk take over at this stage with respect to --
Interjection: Are we on a recess?
The Chair: We're not going to be, no. I don't see anything wrong with continuing to keep this on the record. Do you see a problem with that, Doug, rather than people leaving and coming back?
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Doug Arnott): I think you should recess.
The Chair: All right. We will declare a recess and we won't record the minutes of the subcommittee meeting.
The committee recessed at 1116.
1126
CHERYL COTTLE
The Chair: Come to order, please. The next witness, who I have been assured is present, is Cheryl Cottle, an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Energy Board. Welcome to the committee. You have been selected for a half-hour review. I'm sure you've been watching this morning, so you know the process. You were selected by the third party for review and we'll ask Mr McLean to begin the questions.
Mr McLean: You were counsel to the board from 1985 to 1988.
Ms Cheryl Cottle: That's correct.
Mr McLean: Now you're going to be looking for this appointment on the board.
Ms Cottle: That's correct.
Mr McLean: Who's counsel for the board now?
Ms Cottle: There are two lawyers assigned to the board from the Ministry of the Attorney General's staff. Do you want their names?
Mr McLean: No, not necessarily. Are you working in the Cabinet Office now, or where are you working?
Ms Cottle: I'm on secondment from the Ontario Insurance Commission and I'm working with the automobile insurance review project.
Mr McLean: Are you in the Attorney General's office then?
Ms Cottle: Yes, I am.
Mr McLean: You're seconded to deal with that.
Ms Cottle: Seconded, seconded and seconded.
Mr McLean: What is happening with the insurance commission? Is there much going on there?
Ms Cottle: They're very busy, sir.
Mr McLean: What about the Ontario insurance board? I've referred more letters to the insurance board in the recent six months than I think I ever did for 11 years before that.
Mr Grandmaître: Now's the time to get an answer.
Mr McLean: I'm wondering, is the workload and case load of the board a lot heavier now than it was?
Ms Cottle: The insurance board or the insurance commission?
Mr McLean: The auto insurance board.
Ms Cottle: The auto insurance board no longer exists. It's the insurance commission. I think they are busier, yes, because the commission is an amalgamation of the old superintendent of insurance office and the automobile insurance board. By Bill 68, they became one.
Mr McLean: Are they busier because there are more people complaining about not being satisfied with the --
Ms Cottle: Not necessarily. It's just a more public body than perhaps the old superintendent's office was.
Mr McLean: Why did you apply for this position? You were probably asked.
Ms Cottle: I was asked, yes. Why am I interested in this position? I have a lot of interest in administrative law and regulation. I have a lot of experience in terms of my work experience in that area and I also have a demonstrated personal interest in the sense I'm on committees and I've done a master's in law and regulation.
I am a civil servant and I am a lawyer. As both, I am a servant in that I serve masters. To be a member of an agency is a more visible type of public service and it's one I'd like to do if I have the opportunity.
Mr McLean: They tell me that Ontario Hydro is one of the highest-paid boards in government jurisdiction, maybe $65,000 average, I have heard.
Ms Cottle: I've heard that.
Mr McLean: Do you find it offensive, so to speak, that some of the salary increases that have been given in 1992, some up to 14%, are excessive?
Interjection.
Mr McLean: You're next on the list. If you want to ask your question afterwards, you go ahead.
Mr Waters: We would like it to be accurate. Let's just not state something.
Ms Cottle: The salaries of employees and the executive at Ontario Hydro, no matter what they are, are costs of operating that utility, and they can be reviewed by the Ontario Energy Board at the hearing. If they're excessive, then I would assume the board would say so.
Mr McLean: This is a part-time position?
Ms Cottle: No, sir, it's a full-time position.
Mr McLean: Full time. So the other positions you hold now you will be --
Ms Cottle: I will leave those positions.
Mr McLean: Leave those positions. I have nothing further at the present time, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Ms Carter, then Mr Waters.
Ms Carter: As you just said, you've already worked with the Ontario Energy Board, but as you put it, as a servant, so you must feel that, as a member, you will be able to act in a more fulfilling way. I'm just wondering, do you have feelings about the kind of thing that you would like to do on the board, that you would like to see happen?
Ms Cottle: In terms of being a member, it's not that it's more fulfilling, it's just a different type of role than as a staff person. It's a more visible role in terms of the determination process. You're actually making the decisions, whereas as a staff person, as a lawyer, as a civil servant I provide advice and I'm not in the determination process. It's a different type of role.
Ms Carter: Yes. So from what you've seen, as it were, from the outside you feel you would rather --
Ms Cottle: Not rather, I'd like the opportunity to try it.
Ms Carter: Yes, yes, I see.
Ms Cottle: It's a different type of role. It's sort of broadening the experience.
Ms Carter: But you obviously have the knowledge and the background that should make it a very easy transition for you.
Ms Cottle: I believe I do have work experience that would assist the board, yes.
Ms Carter: Yes. Now, as regards this whole -- I don't know what you'd call it -- tug of war or what, as to what Hydro should be doing, do you think it's sensible for Hydro to be spending that $240 million on efficiency and conservation as opposed to putting it into planning for the next round of nuclear power stations?
Ms Cottle: What Hydro is doing with its money is part of the job of the board of directors of Hydro to decide in terms of whether it's appropriate. It can be reviewed by the board or by the government, but it's --
Ms Carter: Well, the board does give advice, I guess, on matters of that kind to the government.
Do you see that there's any danger of this province running out of electric power if we don't build new power stations in the near future?
Ms Cottle: I'm sorry, I just don't have --
Ms Carter: You haven't anything to go on?
Ms Cottle: -- enough information to respond to that question.
Ms Carter: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Waters.
Mr Waters: Are you aware -- indeed, it would be pleasant if the members opposite were to read the statement in its entirety and correctly -- that this year the salaries of the senior executives and staff of Hydro, are actually frozen and that, indeed, their unionized members in CUPE received a 1% increase? It's stated in our background material, pointing out that as of March all categories of staff at Hydro had better wages and benefits than equally skilled workers employed in the private-sector companies drawing from the same labour market. They go on to say that, indeed, clerical staff do receive 5.5% more and trade people do, but this is an historical difference and at this point in time Hydro is showing restraint, and that we have been able to sit down with Hydro to obtain this restraint. Are you aware of those facts?
Ms Cottle: Only from what I hear, sir, but that's neither here nor there. It's part of the public record.
Mr Waters: Yes, it would be pleasant if the members opposite would actually read this instead of just looking at the numbers. I'll pass to another colleague.
Mr Wiseman: My questions have to do again, as earlier, with this whole notion of energy at cost and my concern that what has actually happened in the past is that with the financing structure of Ontario Hydro and the way it borrowed money and then deferred the actual billing of the customers for the borrowed money, this has deferred huge costs into the future. Since you do have some experience with that, how do you see the way the financial structure of Ontario Hydro has existed in the past?
Ms Cottle: Although I was a staff person at the energy board, I had limited exposure to Hydro matters. I was never on a Hydro hearing, so I'm not very familiar with the financing of Ontario Hydro.
Mr Wiseman: You will be responsible for other energy-related matters, such as gas pipelines, the pricing of natural gas and so on.
Ms Cottle: That's correct.
Mr Wiseman: I think I'm going to drop Ontario Hydro and ask you a question about natural gas and the fact that there are some companies that are going around the province now, knocking on doors and asking people to buy into a rebate plan. Do you have any comments on that?
Ms Cottle: When I was at the board, actually it was a very exciting time, because it was the beginning of the deregulation of the natural gas industry. I know one of the issues we discussed at the time was the broker issue, which is what you're referring to now. It was always thought these brokers would operate in conjunction with the large industrial users and not necessarily the individual residential consumer. I know the board is aware of the broker issue. Now that it's come down to the common person in the street, I think they should look at the practices of brokers and determine if the practices are in the interests of the consumers. Other than that, I don't know anything more about it except what I get in the mail personally.
Mr Wiseman: The board will be responsible for things like pipelines and the cost of pipelines and transportation and those costs and so on. This is just a question. How would they be able to determine whether the costs of the pipeline are actually legitimate in terms of the costs being translated into consumer rates?
Ms Cottle: They look at the economic feasibility. When they're determining whether a pipeline should be built at all, they look at a number of factors, and one of them is economic feasibility. They look in terms of the market, what are they going to serve, the actual market and the potential market. They know what the costs of transportation and distribution of gas are. They also look at other items, the environment and other costs. So they do it through the evidence before them.
Mr Wiseman: One of the things that concerns me is, for example, California has had huge contracts with Alberta for natural gas and is currently in the process, I believe, of trying to either terminate them or renegotiate them at a lower rate. Is the board able to take a look at those kinds of things to see what that impact would be on the Ontario market? For example, if they're able to negotiate the rates lower, would supply and demand come into effect and would the board then be able to drive the rates lower in Ontario, or would the set rates still be maintained and kept higher because of the negotiated contracts? How would that work?
Ms Cottle: The board does look at the cost of the gas the utilities buy from Alberta. They do look at the cost. They approve the costs, actually, in their rate hearings. In terms of the length of contract, that's one of the terms of the contracts they look at in terms of their approval process. Whether they would approve a long-term contract for a utility or not because of that, because of the unknown, I'm not sure. It would depend upon the market at the time.
1140
Mr Wiseman: My last question is kind of a speculative question in an area I'm interested in. I have Eastern Power in my riding and it generates electricity from the burning of the methane gas from the Brock West landfill site. Would the board be responsible at all for looking at alternative sources such as that in the generation of electricity and the rates, whether that kind of methane gas could be used to serve other functions and whether that would enter into the whole scenario of, say, building a pipeline? Do you need to build a pipeline if you can have some kind of creation of gas closer to the source of the burning?
Ms Cottle: My understanding is that they regulate the natural gas industry. I am not quite sure whether that fits into the regulatory scheme at all.
Mr Wiseman: Neither am I.
Ms Cottle: I think that's a technical question that, I'm sorry, I don't have the background to answer.
Mr Wiseman: I guess a question that's more in line is, do you think the board would have to now start looking at these alternatives to sources of gas other than perhaps just okaying a pipeline through some part of the --
The Chair: A yes or no answer, please. We're over our time.
Ms Cottle: Yes.
Mr Grandmaître: I know you just told us that you're not familiar with the financing of Ontario Hydro, but let's go back to its historic mandate: providing power at cost. Do you think Ontario Hydro is deviating from its original mandate when it subsidizes other programs?
Ms Cottle: When it subsidizes other programs, it could be argued, I suppose, that it's performing a function as a business entity in the province and as a crown corporation. Whether that's a deviation from its mandate or not, I don't know. It might be.
Mr Grandmaître: Being a lawyer, what are your thoughts when I tell you that the mandate of a person is to do such-and-such a thing and he deviates from that mandate?
Mr Wiseman: It's not entirely clear that they have.
Mr Grandmaître: I'm glad you're not a lawyer.
Ms Cottle: When they deviate from a legislative mandate?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes.
Ms Cottle: I'd have to see the words. As a lawyer, I'm sorry, I have to see the words because if Hydro is to operate not just to produce the lowest costs but also to act in the public interest, that's a larger mandate. So it depends upon the wording of their mandate.
Mr Grandmaître: To act in the public interest to provide power at cost.
Ms Cottle: They are also a crown corporation and a business entity in the province and they may see themselves as having a broader mandate in that respect.
Mr Grandmaître: So you don't see anything wrong with buying uranium at four times the world price.
Ms Carter: Well, there was nothing seen being wrong with it previously.
The Chair: All right, please.
Mr Grandmaître: Is there an echo in this place?
Ms Cottle: It's not that I personally see anything wrong or right with that. I just don't know enough about the facts to answer that question.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you. Good luck to you.
Mr Cleary: Would you care to make a comment on the change of Ontario Hydro policy on cogeneration where it put a freeze on new projects on cogeneration?
Ms Cottle: I would have thought that would be part of their long-term strategy in terms of looking at their long-term needs for power in the province. If they have a current freeze on cogeneration, it's because they can't move in terms of short-term policy versus long-term policy.
Mr Cleary: Would you care to make a comment on the package of lightbulbs that each of us got? Do you think that was money well spent?
Mr Grandmaître: I didn't get mine.
Ms Cottle: No, sir.
Mr Cleary: No? Thank you.
The Chair: Mr McLean, you have about four minutes left.
Mr McLean: I don't need that much. The candidate search says "particular part-time position." Is this part-time or full-time?
Ms Cottle: This is full-time, sir.
Mr McLean: It's full-time. What is the salary range that the board members would get paid?
Ms Cottle: I'm taking a leave from my position as a civil servant and an employee at the Ministry of the Attorney General, so I will retain my current salary. I don't know what board members get. I just retain my current salary.
Mr McLean: I thought you were no longer with the ministry and you were going --
Ms Cottle: No, I'm taking a leave from the ministry and returning after my term.
Mr McLean: How long is your term? Three years?
Ms Cottle: Yes.
The Chair: Okay, thank you very much, Ms Cottle, and I wish you well.
That concludes the agenda for today. Members, I just want to point out that Andrew McNaught is going to be filling in as our researcher for the next three weeks while our regular researcher tours Europe. I'm sure he'll come back with some interesting stories. In any event, meeting adjourned.
Mr Wiseman: Don't you want to do the concurrence?
The Chair: Oh sorry, yes, we do have the concurrences. My apologies. I guess I'm in too much of a rush today.
Mr Wiseman: You must have something really hot cooking for this afternoon.
The Chair: You bet. Hold your breath.
We'll look to a motion dealing with all of the witnesses who appeared before us.
Mr Wiseman: I'll move it.
The Chair: Moved by Mr Wiseman. Any discussion? All in favour?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Now we can adjourn. Thank you.
The committee adjourned at 1148.