CONTENTS
Wednesday 7 July 1993
Intended appointments
Doug McCaig, Ontario Hydro
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud 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)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC) for Mrs Marland
Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND) for Mr Waters
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
The committee met at 1033 in room 228.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
The Acting Chair (Mr Gary Carr): I'd like to call to order the committee for the hearings on the intended appointments.
DOUG MCCAIG
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition: Doug McCaig, intended appointee as member, Ontario Hydro board of directors.
The Acting Chair: Mr Doug McCaig will be our first participant. As the committee members will know, we have a half-hour, and during that period of time we will ask Mr McCaig if he has some short introductory comments and then we'll divide up the time for some questions at the end. Mr McCaig, if you could just come on up to the microphone, please state your name for the record so that Hansard can get it, and then you can just proceed if you have some short comments; if not, then we'll get right into the questions.
Mr Doug McCaig: My name is Doug McCaig, from Fort Frances, Ontario. I'm the past chair of the Municipal Electric Association and I'm looking forward to an appointment to the Ontario Hydro board of directors.
Through the Chair to the members of the committee, I'd like to say good morning. It is a good morning, and we should perhaps be out golfing or fishing or something rather than working like this, but that's the unfortunate part of it.
Again through the Chair, I would turn it back to you. I have nothing to say, and I'll be happy to field any questions I can.
The Acting Chair: Terrific. Thank you, Mr McCaig. We'll start off with the official opposition.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Welcome to the committee, Mr McCaig. First of all, how did you find out about this appointment? Who approached you or whom did you approach?
Mr McCaig: I really didn't approach anybody. The whole thing started in our district, district 3 of the province, which is the Thunder Bay area right to the Manitoba boundary. The people out there suggested that it would be a good idea, as I was on the MEA -- this is when I first started into the business with the MEA -- that I be a member of the Ontario Hydro board of directors so we could develop a partnership. My name was presented to the then Minister of Energy, Lyn McLeod. That's when the whole thing started, and it's been building ever since then.
Mr Cleary: You mentioned that you had been a chairman of the Municipal Electric Association, and that you know how valuable public hearings are, as well as the energy hearings that were to investigate Ontario Hydro books. Do you agree with the government of Ontario? Under the restructuring of Ontario Hydro, should there be public hearings on the restructuring?
Mr McCaig: I think there has to be some sort of contact with the public, some sort of accountability. Whether it's through a hearing or not, I can't really say. I don't know if you're referring to the Ontario Energy Board hearings, but the position of the MEA in the past has been that because Ontario Hydro is its own controlling agent or answers to itself, it would suggest that you don't really need a hearing. Sometimes the OEB hearings were an exercise in futility; as the major intervenor, this is what we found sometimes, but I believe there has to be some sort of accountability on the part of Ontario Hydro to the people of this province.
Mr Cleary: One other thing I should mention: You say more cogeneration should be encouraged by Ontario Hydro and that there should be more projects approved, is that correct?
Mr McCaig: At this particular time, I think we have to utilize the power we've got on hand. To go into cogeneration at this particular time, I don't know if it would be a cost-effective thing to do. I really question that at this time. The studies that we have taken and the agreement that the Municipal Electric Association is trying to bring on a partnership basis with Ontario Hydro suggests that some sort of penalty clause has to be invoked to buy into that sort of thing.
Mr Cleary: What's your position on nuclear power?
Mr McCaig: I guess you're referring to it on an environmental basis, or an efficiency basis? What are you referring to about the nuclear?
Mr Cleary: Well, I guess both.
Mc McCaig: I think we have to wait for the chickens to come home to roost on the whole thing. When you start looking at a study based on which is environmentally most threatening, there are many factors that have to be weighed. I know there's a great danger with nuclear; I'm very much aware of what has happened in Russia and this sort of thing. But all of a sudden, I can take a look at hydro-electricity, and now it is environmentally damaging.
To the natives of this province, hydro-electricity is more environmentally damaging than perhaps nuclear. It all depends where you're coming from on the whole thing and who you are. The natives are very much afraid of damming water and destroying the various environmental things around them. I would suggest to you that they are not as worried about nuclear as they are hydro. It all depends on where you sit. I can understand that in eastern Ontario they're very much worried about nuclear energy because they're sitting right there with it.
1040
Mr Cleary: Ontario Hydro has been told that the social contract target is $100 million. What impact do you think the $100 million will have on the ratepayers of the province?
Mr McCaig: One hundred million dollars is 1.25%; $83 million to Ontario Hydro means 1% on its bill to the electrical user.
Mr Cleary: Would you explain a little bit further?
Mr McCaig: I don't know quite what you're after.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Your comments seem to imply that the impact of the social contract is not very much. Are you saying that $100 million is --
Mr McCaig: No, quite the opposite; 1.25% is a great deal, because $83 million represents 1%. When you're in the business of selling electricity, it's what the traffic can bear, and at this particular time I don't think the traffic can bear very much. Five, six, seven years ago, that was not bad.
Mr Curling: So the social contract, you're saying -- I don't want to put words in your mouth -- has a great impact if it goes in that way on Ontario Hydro.
Mr McCaig: I would say it's an impact. It's a 1% impact but --
Mr Curling: I know it's an impact. Anything has an impact. Is that a bad or a good impact?
Mr McCaig: Any financial impact is bad.
Mr Curling: Even if you save money.
Mr McCaig: I don't know. You'd have to have a value-for-dollar audit on that basis, I guess, Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: My colleague had asked you a question earlier on: Are you in agreement with public hearings? You said public hearings, in a sense -- that it's the people Ontario Hydro is accountable to, because it's taxpayers' money. Do you believe in public hearings for Ontario Hydro, whether it has conducted any investigations or so?
Mr McCaig: I wouldn't put a blanket coverage on saying I'm in disagreement with all public hearings, but I think if we look back at when we started the Environmental Assessment Board hearings with Ontario Hydro, they were rather costly. The public was looking at it. There was a price tag of something like $6 billion going to be pumped into this thing, and the public was very much concerned about that $6 billion. That's a very significant figure, and people were wondering about the value of the hearings. I heard some real horror stories through the MEA about some of the things that were coming out of these hearings and what was being done. On that basis, I would say they're unwarranted.
If the hearing can truly regulate, as is the implication, and Ontario Hydro is self-regulating, then that's another story, isn't it? We're talking about something else again.
Mr Curling: But with the restructuring plans of Ontario Hydro -- I'm not quite sure I got your response when my colleague asked you, do you think it should be subjected to public hearings? I think I heard you say no. Did I hear you right?
Mr McCaig: What I am saying is that it all depends on what the public hearing is on.
Mr Curling: The restructuring plan of Ontario Hydro. Do you mean to say you'll take some out, that some part of it be public hearings and some part of it not?
Mr McCaig: I'm not sure what the restructuring plans of Ontario Hydro are at the present time. It's broken into three distinct parts.
Mr Curling: So you're not aware of this at all.
Mr McCaig: A lot of it I'm not aware of, no.
Mr Curling: I see. I thought you were a little more informed about that. I have no other questions. Mr Cleary?
The Acting Chair: You've got two minutes.
Mr Cleary: I've got some jobs for you if you get there. Anyway, I'll not get into that right now.
The municipal utilities are at the municipal table for the social contract talks, despite the fact that the utilities are not receiving any government money. Do you think the municipal utilities should be part of the social contract?
Mr McCaig: I think they have to be. At the start of all of it, no, I didn't think they should be there.
Mr Curling: Yes or no?
Mr McCaig: No.
Mr Cleary: You don't think they should be there.
Mr McCaig: No.
Mr Cleary: Why do you think they shouldn't be there?
Mr McCaig: Because they aren't a beneficiary of the government moneys, such as you indicated; for that very reason.
Mr Cleary: One thing I guess I'll mention here is that in our part of Ontario, eastern Ontario, right now the water levels are very low and we're getting lots of complaints from many areas, cottage areas. I happened to visit them on the weekend, and the smell and everything -- they're blaming Ontario Hydro for lowering their water level in the St Lawrence River. I know you're not there yet. Do you think that should be a big concern to Ontario Hydro, being it controls that?
Mr McCaig: I think if it's an environmental issue, definitely. They have to be environmentally aware. The new chairman of Ontario Hydro has indicated that he wants a sustainable business. "Sustainable" means in conjunction with the environment. We have to protect our environment, very definitely.
The Acting Chair: Mr Cleary, I'm afraid your time is up. We'll move to the government side.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Good morning, Mr McCaig. It's a pleasure to see you this morning. I, like you, would perhaps have enjoyed a round of golf, but fortunately or unfortunately, as the case may be, I'm not on the golf course. That's probably fortunate in my case. If you've ever watched me play golf, I'll tell you, it's fortunate that I'm here and not on the golf course.
Mr Curling: I know you're a better golf player than you are a ball player.
Mr Huget: I think everybody in the room, all the members of this committee understand the importance of Ontario Hydro to Ontario's economy, to Ontario's industrial activity, certainly to the consumers of the province, the importance of that very large public utility. The decisions that Ontario Hydro makes, I think all of us would agree, have a very large impact on day-to-day life in this province, whether that's industrial or from a consumer point of view.
Because of the importance of the corporation to the province as a whole and to its people, the appointments to the board, to me, take on a greater importance. Understanding that the decisions the Ontario Hydro board of directors will make on a day-to-day basis have a major impact on the people of the province, what I would like to know from you is what strengths would you bring to Ontario Hydro's board should you be appointed.
Mr McCaig: I think Mr Bradley was on TV a week or two ago and he was mentioning something in the House that government representatives of any particular area were a conduit to the people. I think the Municipal Electric Association is a direct conduit to the electrical users of this particular province. I think people sometimes neglect that we have regional differences in this problem that are much more extensive than any other area. Through the MEA you can respect those differences, because they are mostly elected or appointed representatives of each municipal utility.
I think that direct conduit to the people is very, very important, and if one can dwell on that perhaps a little bit, you can say that we could avoid a lot of duplication of services from the municipal utilities and also Ontario Hydro, and that way cut costs. This is one of the most important things we can bring.
I have a good friend of mine who has been a commissioner in North York for many years. We have agreed to disagree, because I come from the north and he comes from North York and we have totally different perspectives, but we present them like gentlemen and have a look at it, and they are representative.
I believe that I can take all these factors and bring them to the Ontario Hydro board. I have to admit, I feel a little intimidated when I look at some of the names they have there. There are some heavy hitters. I sometimes wonder why you brought a farmer like me with moose manure on my boots rather than one of those interesting people, but nevertheless, I am a little intimidated. But I think I can lend something to that particular board that it does not have now at the present time.
I would like to draw to the attention of the committee, it was only a few years ago that the MEA did automatically have two representatives on the Ontario Hydro board for that reason. With task force Ontario, that was effectively abolished and we have never regained it. I'm not going to say that I'm going to be the representative of the MEA, but I think I can honestly say, and I have to say it in all honesty, that I would represent the MEA, because it is in touch with the people. That's their job.
I would also like to dwell on it a little more from the fact that during my term of office as MEA chairman, I worked very hard to make sure that we moulded a partnership with Ontario Hydro, and I had presented that given case to the minister, Mr Charlton at the time, on any occasion we had met. We tried to get that partnership. I think we now have something going that hasn't been there for quite a few years, Bob.
1050
Mr Huget: I have a brief supplementary and then I'll defer to my colleagues. Thank you very much for that answer. I appreciate your giving me your point of view. I have just a very brief question.
I think all of us in this room know the issues that currently face Ontario Hydro and the province. I would like from you, if you could, some sense of priority in terms of dealing with the issues or identification of the issues facing Ontario Hydro, and your view on a priority sort of process of dealing with them.
Mr McCaig: Definitely, the issue with Ontario Hydro to the users in the province is price. But obviously we have to take a little more intelligent look at it than just the price, because there is something more or just as important as that also, and that's the reliability of the power in this province.
I realize Ontario Hydro has some significantly large problems, those being costs and cost control and this sort of thing. But there are some good things that have happened. They have built a good, reliable system in this province. A lot of people have ignored that in light of price.
Business or the communities can come up and say: "We need lower costs. We can go here and get lower costs." We can go to Bulgaria and get it a lot cheaper too, but they turn the energy off for two hours every day. We have to look at the reliability. Again this goes back to the contact with the public. This has to filter down to the public, some of the good things they have paid for.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): It's nice to have you with us. I want to speak on behalf of my riding. As you know, in Niagara Falls we have a great history with Ontario Hydro, and a lot of people there are very much concerned about the future of Hydro, and of course concerned about the rates, like everybody else. We have some heavy power users, members of the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, and they have been meeting with us and the government and with Hydro over the past years because of the desperate situation of the rate increases.
I want to say that your job now is I think of extreme importance, and we are charging you with a great responsibility for the future because Hydro is so important, I believe.
My two questions -- I think Bob got into one of them: the issues you see in the next few years as priorities to address, such as the restructuring. What is your ideal? How do you see Hydro functioning in a way that is efficient and serving the public of Ontario? I'm looking at the restructuring angle of it.
Secondly, the relationship of the MEA to the Ontario Hydro board: There have been some difficulties probably in the past. How do you intend to get them more involved as part of a system so that the customer doesn't feel distant from Ontario Hydro, that the municipal association is really part of serving the customer and part of Ontario Hydro as well?
Mr McCaig: Perhaps I can answer the last question first. With the municipal association, we have to advocate energy management obviously. The best way to do that to the electrical user is through the municipal utilities, because they are the ones most familiar with their area. This is one the problems they had in the past. Ontario Hydro would walk in with its people, and there's the survey or there's some sort of energy service, and nobody knew what the hell was going on. The municipal utility was the last one.
What we're saying is that if the municipal utility is charged with that particular duty, it's going to do it much better and much more effectively than Ontario Hydro. So you can reduce costs. This is where the partnership can work. Ontario Hydro and the MEA can work at this level, and we have a trickle-down philosophy, I guess, that it goes into the municipal utilities, but they handle it. At that level, the commissioners, as elected or appointed, are responsible to see that it happens in a workmanlike and efficient manner. That's one way. There are many other ways that the partnership can work.
I guess rather than a partnership you can say that maybe it's a marriage, because there's always a little bit of a rocky road there and you have to expect that. They're looking at it from their angle and we're looking at it from the customer's angle. The MEA is much more aware of the customer's angle on the whole thing, and I would like to say that as soon as the MEA loses that perspective, there are a lot of people around there who will kind of give him a little bit of a boot and get him back into position to truly represent the customer or end user.
What was the first question? I'm sorry.
The Acting Chair: We're almost running out.
Ms Harrington: How would you see the restructuring working well?
Mr McCaig: I have put in a great number of hours. I'm the chairman of the institutional restructuring committee for the MEA. We have had people in from the United States, Great Britain, Nova Scotia, we've had private people come in such as Great Britain and we've had people who were still publicly owned but it's on a competitive basis.
I think what has to happen -- I want you to listen very carefully to what my view is because it's a little tetchy. I always hear the word "privatize" and I have nothing against privatization, but why can't the public own and have something that competes? For instance, if the powerhouses go up for sale, why can't Thunder Bay buy Ontario Hydro's powerhouse in Thunder Bay, which is gas-fired, make it more efficient and it's owned by the utility and is going to be competitive? I think the key to Ontario Hydro in some areas, perhaps generation and energy services, is competition, not necessarily privatization but competition.
The Acting Chair: Jenny, do you --
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I don't have any time to cover what I wanted to ask, but welcome.
Hydro's cutting back on cogeneration and non-utility generation because at the moment it has an oversupply. I was just wondering whether you thought that's good policy in the long run, because some of the nuclear stations may not be able to continue performing for very long unless huge amounts of money are put into them, and maybe we should be looking at these other sources of supply.
Mr McCaig: The last part of the question again, please.
Ms Carter: At the moment we rely quite heavily on nuclear, so that although we have a surplus, if, say, some of the Bruce units go down because either they go down or we spend $3 billion on them, won't we then need other sources of supply such as cogeneration, which also has other advantages, as you know, such as environmental?
Mr McCaig: I think sometimes we make a mistake looking too far to the future, and I have to reiterate this or underscore this on the basis that this was a mistake that Ontario Hydro made. They were always looking 20, 25 years into the future. Sometimes I wondered if they could walk on water also, but nevertheless I think we look too far, Ms Carter, to the future sometimes, on that basis.
Big is not necessarily better. Darlington is a classic example of that, an engineering monstrosity. Rather than have big, why not have smaller units that are erected much more quickly and put into service much more quickly, and why look to future needs 20 years down the road? Four, five years ago we never would have dreamt we were going to run into this recession we got. Everybody was looking at the predictions. I know I ask our economist, and they're afraid to predict anything any more. I think small will be the answer and probably be the answer to the problem.
Ms Carter: So we have to keep our options open.
Mr McCaig: Yes.
The Acting Chair: A short supplementary.
Ms Carter: This leads me on to the next question. We're trying to keep costs down, and of course it's Darlington in particular and nuclear in general that have put prices up by putting Hydro into debt. Isn't there a paradox here that we want to decrease demand over the long term? I think everybody would agree with that about the long term, for environmental and cost and all kinds of reasons, so if, by letting the prices go up, we discourage demand, wouldn't that be constructive in the long run, encourage people to use less and also help Hydro not to go bankrupt?
1100
Mr McCaig: I guess it would be very effective, but whenever it hits the pocketbook, I have to question ita little. The thing is that if we can in fact sell energy at cost to the end user, whether the end user is a business or a residence, I think --
Ms Carter: Is it cost or less than cost? That's what bothers me.
Mr McCaig: Well, at cost; I'm saying power at cost.
Ms Carter: You're selling it at less than cost.
Mr McCaig: But we have a problem when we talk about power at cost, because there are so many other charges and everybody's grabbed on to that and milked it for a bit. For the sake of business in an industrial area like ours, I think we have to keep the energy costs down.
The Acting Chair: Mr McCaig, I'm afraid we're out of time, if you could just wrap it up very quickly.
Mr McCaig: I would hate to have the finger pointed at us because we've chased business out of the province.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr McCaig. We wish you well and thank you very much for coming in. If you want to take a seat at the back there, we will be a having a vote shortly. We appreciate you taking the time.
Mr McCaig: Thank you.
The Acting Chair: I would like, if I could, to call for a motion to concur with the appointment.
All in favour? Unanimous.
And now there is a little bit of business. With the committee's indulgence, there are a couple of appointments I wanted to discuss with you.
John Kelton, the intended appointee as a member of the health research personnel committee, was selected for review by the government, but he was unable to attend on June 23 since he was lecturing in Halifax, and he likewise had a previous engagement in New York on July 7. He has indicated that some time in the fall would be the earliest he would be available.
One of the other intended appointments, Bruce Davidson, the intended appointee as a member of the University of Waterloo board, who was selected by the official opposition, was unavailable on June 23 since he was attending an arbitration hearing in Kitchener, and today he is negotiating with General Seating in Woodstock and was not available. He has not indicated a time when he might be available.
At the time of the original selections on June 15, there was no indication to extend the approval dates for the appointments. Also, when this was discussed by the subcommittee on June 23, there was no indication at that time for a need to extend the approval dates for the appointments, which means that the appointments would go through automatically on July 15 without a review by the committee, pursuant to standing order 106(g)12. I would suggest that if there are any comments from the members on how we would like to proceed, then the Chair is open to some suggestions.
Mr Curling: The opportunities we have to interview candidates, so-called candidates, who come before us are quite limited. We know we can't interview everyone; it's unfortunate. And when the few we do select -- although the clerk explained to me their legitimate reasons for not being here, it puts us in a rather awkward position; awkward in the sense of the small role we play in this committee, not a very decisive role really, of going through the exercise of interviewing those who have already been ordained.
Therefore, it's rather disappointing to me that this individual is not here, especially as university boards are going through some rather difficult times. I had wanted the opportunity to put our point of view and our concern to those who would be appointed to boards, especially in the universities, that having maybe endorsed or confirmed that appointment, they go back to that board understanding the importance of the concern we have here. We have been deprived of that today.
I wouldn't really like to see that we hold up a board. There are many, many positions, I gather, that are waiting to be confirmed, and this is the process. Repeating myself, I'm saying it's unfortunate that the individual is not here for us to do that, but in the meantime, I would like to see the board have its complement. But again, it is of great concern to our party, the way some of the boards at universities are being conducted and the letters and concern we're getting from other people.
The Acting Chair: So are you suggesting that we do anything, Mr Curling?
Mr Curling: The clerk described to me, in all sincerity -- maybe we should go through with that one, because he won't be able to be here until what time, if he were called back?
The Acting Chair: Mr Davidson hasn't given a time that he might be available because he's in negotiations, so he doesn't know how long they would be.
Mr Curling: As I said, that's quite a legitimate reason for not being here and it's not his fault, really. It is serving in another capacity.
The Acting Chair: Would you like the clerk to suggest that when he does become available, he advise the committee?
Mr Curling: Do they have any vacancy on the board now, or is this of extreme importance?
Mr David Pond: Yes. This gentleman is one of a number of people being appointed at the same time to the board of governors.
Mr Curling: How many in total?
Mr Pond: I'd have to check the record, sir, but I know there's a bunch.
Mr Curling: But those have been appointed and they have gone through?
Mr Pond: I believe so.
Mr Curling: So he is the only one who has been called?
Mr Pond: Yes.
Mr Curling: Then I would prefer that we wait for him to come back, and see if we can get another date for him.
The Acting Chair: Any comments?
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Just to be clear, can we hold up this appointment or does he automatically become a board member?
The Acting Chair: Automatically.
Mr Marchese: So what Mr Curling is saying is that in spite of that, he would like him to come in front of the committee so he could ask those questions. Is that what he's asking?
The Acting Chair: What can happen is, it can become automatic or we can put a request in that it be withheld. If there is no request, it's automatic.
Mr Marchese: I personally wouldn't want to necessarily hold up appointments. I know how difficult it is for boards, agencies and commissions, usually. When they're asking for positions to be filled, there's usually an urgent need for that. We get to interview only 5% or 10% of all of the candidates anyway, so over 90% of the people are never interviewed, in any case.
It would seem to me that members will always have an opportunity to interview that new appointment that is about to go into that board because there are rotations. My sense would be that we not hold that up, because there will be other opportunities for other members to interview other people. My sense at the moment is not to hold up that appointment and to simply go through with it.
The Acting Chair: Bob, you have a comment?
Mr Huget: First of all, I would like to respond briefly to Mr Curling's allegations that I was a better golfer than a politician. That title clearly belongs to the member for Nipissing, and he's entitled to it.
I would concur with Mr Marchese's comments and would also not like to hold up appointments. On a point of clarification, are we dealing with two separate appointments?
The Acting Chair: Yes.
Mr Huget: I would like Mr Curling to perhaps suggest whether he was implying that one of them should be called back and not both of them, or what.
The Acting Chair: There are two. One was selected by the government, so the final decision on that one would be the government's; that's Mr Kelton, who has been away on the two occasions. The other one is from the official opposition, so the decision rests with the official opposition on what it would like to do with that appointment.
Mr Huget: May I ask another point of clarification? In terms of the legitimacy of people not being able to attend these committee hearings, what has been the standard practice of the committee?
The Acting Chair: What has happened is that when requests have been put in, most people have come back with an answer, like Mr Kelton, who has said that he's been in New York, he's lecturing in Halifax and so on, and Mr Davidson is in negotiations with General Seating in Woodstock. They haven't said, "No, I don't want to come." There are legitimate reasons, and of course you're talking about distances coming in. That's why, in the case of Mr Davidson, being the official opposition's appointment, it rests with them. I understand from the discussion from the government side on Mr Kelton, that they don't wish to hold it up and want to proceed. I just wanted some guidance from the official opposition whether you'd like to do the same thing.
Mr Huget: Thank you, Mr Chairman. You're most helpful.
Mr Curling: I've always taken the position that the cause is greater than the person, and the cause here about the university and the boards is extremely important. I'm not at all worried about holding up an appointment. An appointment is instrumental, mark you, in contributing to an effective board, and that is why we call the individual forward.
I think it is of such importance that, as I emphasize again, as Mr Marchese said, it's only about 10% that we get to interview, to rubber-stamp those who come through. Even with the rubber-stamping, I would have liked to see what kind of ink we're putting on that rubber stamp before we vote or not.
I would direct you, Mr Chairman, to request that when Mr Davidson is available, he come before the committee. I don't want to see him if it's just automatic, because what's the use of getting a sense of what contribution he can make on a board after the facts are done?
The Acting Chair: What the procedure is, as I understand from the clerk, is to put the request in to the Premier's office. We'll do that.
We have some other business as well. The clerk informs me that in discussions with the Chair she felt that, due to the other pressures on members and the need during the vacation season to try to give as much notice as possible to the intended appointees, the committee should suspend its business until the recess, at a date to be determined by the House leaders. I would ask for comments from the members on that.
Mr Curling: I appreciate what the Chair is saying, but my response is that, again, people talk about how we can't wait for these appointments because it's holding them up. If we suspend, will that impede in any way the appointments to the board? Will that hold us up confirming the appointments?
The Acting Chair: It really won't, because there haven't been any selections made for the two weeks we will be here.
Mr Curling: I have no problem with that.
The Acting Chair: Okay? All the business being taken care of, I will officially adjourn. Thank you, members.
The committee adjourned at 1110.