CONTENTS
Wednesday 3 November 1993
Intended appointments
John Arthur Geller, Ontario Securities Commission
Harold M. Brathwaite, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Patricia Blackstaffe, Eastern Ontario Development Corp
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga 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
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Yeager, Lewis, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1014 in room 228.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): Good morning. I would like to call this meeting to order of the standing committee on government agencies.
JOHN ARTHUR GELLER
Review of intended appointment, selected by the government party: John Arthur Geller, intended appointee as member and vice-chair, Ontario Securities Commission.
The Chair: This morning we are going to review three intended appointments and the first is Mr John Arthur Geller, QC. I would like to welcome you to come and take a seat, Mr Geller.
Mr John Arthur Geller: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: We usually proceed in rotation through the three caucuses. If you would like to make a brief opening statement, you may, and if not, we can just start with the questions.
Mr Geller: Why don't you start with the questions.
The Chair: All right, thank you. It's a selection by the government party.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Good morning. I am interested to read your résumé. You've been in this area for your entire career, presumably.
Mr Geller: I've practised corporate and securities laws ever since I got called to the bar in 1955, so yes, I've been at it quite a while.
Mr Frankford: And you're obviously familiar with the commission.
Mr Geller: I've had dealings with the commission, both on the corporate finance side and in commission hearings, for a good many years.
Mr Frankford: Do you see this as an interesting way of moving your career from --
Mr Geller: Yes, as some people, I think, like to go to the bench, I've never particularly wanted to be a judge, and I think this is an area where I've always been interested. As I tell my friends when they ask me why I went, after spending a number of years trying to work my way around policies, it would be nice to be involved in the making of policies and the administration of the securities law at the end of my career.
Mr Frankford: Have you given any thought to what policies you would particularly like to be pushing?
Mr Geller: Yes, with so much in the securities law area, policies are really responses to what's happening out in the marketplace, so it's awfully hard to predict what are going to be the crucial areas in the coming years. I've been particularly interested for a good many years in the area which is covered by the current policy, 9.1, which is the takeover bid area, the related parties area, the transactions area, which I think still needs working on. I think it's, in our economy, a rather crucial area, so that's an area I think I would like to pay a fair amount of attention to.
Mr Frankford: Something you worked on, I think it's on your résumé, was the Canadian Tire?
Mr Geller: Yes, I guess the most recent hearings that I've participated in before the commission is I represented institutional investors in the Canadian Tire hearing and in the Instinet hearing, which was a hearing with respect to the stock exchange and the question of allowing a computer-based system on to the stock exchange. Those are hearings that I've participated in relatively recently.
Mr Frankford: Are these going to raise policy issues that you'd like to deal with?
Mr Geller: The reason I got involved in Canadian Tire in the first place was I guess I've been known as being interested in the takeover area, and when some institutional investors were looking for somebody to represent them, they were referred to me by another law firm.
Mr Frankford: If I recall, Canadian Tire raised questions about different classes of shareholders.
Mr Geller: That's correct. There was what was supposed to be an effective coattail attached to the class A, non-voting shares so that if there was a takeover bid for the voting shares, the non-voting shares would have the benefit of it. Unfortunately, the language of it was somewhat deficient and the securities commission was asked to step in, in the public interest, and prevent the transaction from going ahead, which it did.
Mr Frankford: Is this something which is settled, or is this the sort of issue where you feel there's something more that should be done?
Mr Geller: It's been moving along, but it's not so much the question of non-voting shares, although I think the last word remains to be said on the question of non-voting shares generally. I think the related party transaction area of the same policy is one which is at the forefront now, and because it's new and the policy will need, I think, considerable refining in the next little while.
Mr Frankford: The capital markets are becoming increasingly globalized. Do you think there are things the OSC can or should be doing to ensure that Ontario's capital market remains viable in the global marketplace?
Mr Geller: Yes, obviously you're absolutely correct, sir, that the internationalization of markets is proceeding apace, especially with computer-based trading so that it's possible to have trading 24 hours a day in stock that's principally traded in one jurisdiction. Although Ontario's not one of the principal markets, it's a very significant market in the internationalization. I think there'll be more and more need for proper tie-ins in this area, at the same time protecting the capital market here which is not the strongest, although it is a significant and a strong capital market. That is an area where I think the events will force a lot of attention to be paid in the next few years.
1020
Mr Frankford: So in looking ahead, would that need some sort of cooperation or some sort of superbody to link up --
Mr Geller: At the moment, as you know, in Canada there is a reasonably effective association of provincial securities commissions which has been acting together to deal with the situation in Canada. Similar organizations have been created internationally, but the more players in any particular thing, obviously, the more difficult it gets to deal with.
I think there is a great desire for international cooperation to stop market-seeking by people to try to find the least effectively regulated market and I think there is a general movement towards similar if not the same sorts of regulation in the marketplace, but there's going to have to be a huge amount of work done to achieve that result. I think this commission has been really in the forefront. For the commission of a relatively smaller jurisdiction in the international scene, it has been remarkably active in recent years in pushing forward internationalization of regulation, I think very usefully.
Mr Frankford: In the national picture, should the federal level be playing a greater role in coordination?
Mr Geller: I've always been of two minds about that. Philosophically, in some ways, the idea of a national commission appeals to me. One of the great difficulties that's concerned me about that is the legislative time federally seems even more difficult to find than provincially. My experience with trying to get some minor technical amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act dealt with over the past 10 years has caused me a fair amount of concern about the extent to which there would be sufficient flexibility about that. So, as I said, I don't have a fixed view; I have concerns about both aspects of it.
I think that as long as the provinces move towards greater uniformity and move towards a common method of dealing with matters, which as I understand it is going forward, there will be less impetus for a national scheme. If that doesn't go ahead, obviously there will be more.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Welcome to the committee. With the experience that you have over a period of many years, do you feel that you have sufficient resources at the commission in order to administer the regulations?
Mr Geller: My starting point is, I've been on the outside rather than the inside, so I have really no way of answering that in any definitive manner. I would suspect that the commission, like every other organization I know, could use more resources. The difficulty with the commission is that it is to a very significant extent a reactive body, in the sense of much of what comes before it comes before it by action in the capital markets, and it would always be nice, I guess, to have sufficient staff to be able to cope with that sort of thing.
My impression at the moment -- and again, I have not been on the inside -- is that the commission is not starved for funds, that it is operating adequately and has the resources that it needs to deal with the crises, but this, as I say, is an inexpert view at the moment.
Mr Cleary: The other thing that I guess I might like to ask you: Do you feel that the government's wage constraint initiatives will affect the Ontario Securities Commission's ability to attract and to keep the present employees or to keep good employees who have the expertise?
Mr Geller: As you understand, the commission, because of the nature of the people it has to employ -- to a very significant extent lawyers, accountants, people from the investment banking community -- is always competing against salary levels that it has never been able to match. I think the people who go to work for the commission generally do so out of, to some extent, a sense of public duty because, if they were out in the private sector, they would undoubtedly be making more money.
I guess my impression -- and again my impression is as an outsider, because I have not yet been in the commission; I've been up in their offices for two days, but that's hardly enough time to really form definitive opinions -- is that the people in the commission, like public servants everywhere, have been upset by the social contract, but they are reacting well to it and they're performing their duties and doing what they should be doing.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Welcome, Mr Geller, to the committee. Over a couple of years now, people have had some sort of concern about how securities are being handled. It not only seems to be a Canadian concern but also almost an international concern about how securities are being handled. As you said, you're not yet inside but, as an outsider, I'm sure you would have some concerns about how these things are handled and protected; in other words, building the confidence of the people that it could be better handled. There are some uncertainties there, some anxious moments.
Do you think, first, that they should improve the optics or what's going on now in securities and how it is handled? If so, if you do see there should be improvement, how do you see we should go about building up confidence in the public eye again?
Mr Geller: Well, sir, let me start off by saying I don't think there is a feeling among people who are practising in this area, among the law firms, the accounting firms, the investment banking, that the control of the securities markets is being badly handled. I think in fact the commission has a great deal of respect, and generally the Canadian securities commissions across the country have a great deal of respect from the people who are dealing with them.
This is not to say that those people wouldn't like improvements. I think in recent years -- and I think partly because of the fact that the commission has expanded a good deal in recent years from a staff point of view and partly that its staff is relatively young, there has tended to develop a more adversarial relationship between the commission and the street. I don't blame this entirely on commission staff. I think the street generally has become more aggressive, lawyers dealing with lawyers and such. It just seems to be part of the times.
One of the things I would like to do up there, to the extent that I can, is to try to mediate that kind of situation, because I think a respect on both sides is extremely important from the point of view of a feeling of comfort that the securities administrators are doing what they should be doing. But beyond that, I would disagree with the statement that there is a concern among those people active in the area about the way securities are being handled.
There is one area that obviously the commission has been concerned with, and that's the question of penny stocks, where a policy was created which was considered necessary to protect the public interest. The judge who heard the matter at first instance -- mind you, could have come down either way on the matter -- came down against the power of the commission to impose policies in that sort of thing. As you probably know, the minister has set up a task force to attempt to deal with that question but, again, I'm satisfied that in reasonable time some method will be found to deal with that problem.
Mr Curling: Mr Geller, I don't want to interrupt you, but while you talk about the commission itself -- and you have no concern, you feel it's doing its job in a proper way -- I'm talking about the perception of the public wondering if things are being handled properly and building more confidence in the people that, yes, it is.
Of course, those who are within feel quite comfortable that, "Yes, we are doing a good job," but the people outside have been sort of shaken a little bit about how securities have been handled. I don't put a tag on Canada alone, or Ontario. I've seen the nervousness around New York, the United States and here. Do you see that at all, that there is comfort within the people that it is being handled properly, or is there any perception at all?
1030
Mr Geller: May I divide that question into two parts to answer it, sir? I'm no expert in values of securities. I think there's a general perception that all markets are overvaluing securities at the moment, and I think there's a concern about that.
The multiples at which stocks are trading at the moment on stock exchanges I think does cause concern, and that's not something the regulators can do anything about. The market price is going to be set by the people who are buying and selling stocks. In that area I think there is a concern, and I think there's a well-based concern, that this may not go on for ever. That will create problems for the administrators but isn't something the administrators can deal with.
To the extent that there is a public concern that the regulators aren't regulating well, I guess that, like everything else, communication is difficult and I'm not sure civil servants, regulators, are always the best communicators of what they're doing.
Beyond the communications, I'm not sure what can be done, in the sense that I think the regulation is taking place about as well as it could reasonably be expected to take place. So other than better communication, I don't have an answer for you, sir.
Mr Curling: Do I have more time?
The Chair: You have a minute and a half.
Mr Curling: This is a rare moment when the Chair tells you you've got extra time.
Let me pursue that a bit more, because I think I'm getting from you that things are okay within, and while people may have anxious moments about how the stocks and shares are being traded, you feel that it's just lack of effective communication why this is happening. I would like to hear from you if you can tell me if you think there is genuine concern of the public. I can't say forget about the communication, but is there a genuine concern that the public has some anxious moments about how things are being traded, how it's being handled?
Mr Geller: I'm afraid I can't answer that, sir, in the sense that the people with whom I deal don't express that concern, but it may well be that there is a widespread feeling. I just don't know the answer to that.
Mr Curling: Okay. Thanks then.
Mr Geller: Incidentally, on the other part of it, I don't want to give the impression that I think that the commission is the best of all possible worlds and that there aren't internal improvements necessary, both in organization and methods of handling and speeding things up. I don't think anybody's that perfect and I don't think the commission is certainly that perfect. Improvements in operations I think are necessary and will come. I just wanted to give the impression that from the regulatory point of view, I think they're doing a good job.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'd just like to ask you one question, actually, and it concerns the out-of-province witnesses. As you know, in February 1991 the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed an Ontario Supreme Court decision that the OSC did not have the power to compel a witness from British Columbia to answer questions, and as a result the OSC has expressed an interest in being given such powers through legislation. Would you comment on the need for such powers?
Mr Geller: Yes, thank you, I will. Until such time, if ever, as we get a national security system, there are always going to be lacunae in the operations between the various systems, and that case, the Bennett case, which you're talking about, is a perfect example of it. Neither the BC Securities Commission, which had jurisdiction over the people involved, and the Ontario Securities Commission, the market in which the inside information was used for the trade to take place, could effectively deal with it, British Columbia for a number of reasons, but in Ontario because in these situations the only evidence you're ever going to get as to whether there was in fact insider trading is from the people involved.
There was a phone call. People knew the phone call had been made, but nobody could say what happened in it. Without being able to subpoena those witnesses to give evidence, the commission was essentially powerless because it couldn't make its case, and our court found -- again, with respect, I think it could have gone either way on that. It went on the technical basis that it couldn't find the power in the act, and that effectively stopped a proceeding which I think, in the public interest, should have been held. I think it would have been good, if indeed there was no insider trading, and there may not have been, for the public to know that, and if there had been insider trading, it would have been good for the commission to be able to act on that.
I'm sorry Mr Curling has left, but I think it's that kind of situation, which to the extent that people generally out there in the public do get concerned, it's about that: Why can't something be done? The public will say, "If people in that position traded on the basis of insider knowledge, something should be done about it," and the commission not being able to do something about it would, I think, have caused some concern out there.
Sorry, it's a long answer, but the answer is yes, I think that's badly needed.
Mrs Witmer: I thought I heard you say that in the response and I appreciate that. Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Do we have any more time?
The Chair: No, we don't. Thank you very much, Mr Geller, for appearing before the committee this morning.
HAROLD M. BRATHWAITE
Review of intended appointment, selected by the government party: Harold M. Brathwaite, intended appointee as member, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
The Chair: I would like to invite our next person for review by the committee, Mr Harold Brathwaite. Welcome, Mr Brathwaite, to the committee this morning. If you wish to make some brief opening comments, you may, or if you like, we may just start with the questions from the committee members.
Mr Harold M. Brathwaite: I'd simply like to say that I was approached by the Ontario Public Supervisory Officials' Association as to whether I would let my name stand and I agreed. I didn't know it was going to involve this process, but I think it will be an interesting experience for me.
The Chair: All right, thank you. This was a selection by the government party also. Ms Carter and Ms Harrington.
Ms Carter: Welcome. You seem to have quite an interesting background in the field of education. I wonder if you could tell us something about it.
Mr Brathwaite: I've been in education in Canada for approximately 22 years. I previously have taught in the West Indies and in France for one year. I have been in the high school system. I started off in the private sector, a Catholic school in Don Mills. Then I went to the Halton board, where I worked for 10 years, and I moved from the position of a department head to principal.
I had the opportunity in one of those years when I worked at the board office to work extensively with staff from OISE. We organized a course for our coordinating staff and superintendents run by Ken Leithwood that went for an entire year.
I also have involvement with OISE. At one period in time, when the future of OISE seemed to be in jeopardy in the mid-1980s, J.W. Singleton, who was a former director of the Halton board, did a report and many of us in Halton were involved in writing on behalf of OISE.
I left the Halton board as principal of M.M. Robinson in January 1984 to come to Toronto. I have served in a variety of positions as superintendent for French-language schools, coordinating superintendent for secondary schools and now associate director for -- well, I started off as human resources; I now have curriculum and human resources.
Ms Carter: Okay, thank you very much.
Now I want to ask you a rather broad question. As we all know, the world's changing very quickly and there are all kinds of pressures which bear on education as well as on other spheres of life. It seems to me that there are pressures for the system to just turn out people for jobs, to have them, as it were, ready to fit into a slot in the world, and business is taking a big interest in education. I think with the NAFTA agreement, if that goes through, the pressures for privatization are going to be even stronger.
I'm just wondering what your philosophical approach is to what education is for and whether we need to stand our ground on some of these issues.
Mr Brathwaite: I am a very strong supporter of public education and I believe that we've got to work to preserve public education, make it more efficient, more cost-effective and certainly work hard to gain the confidence of the population as a whole in the graduates we put out.
1040
I believe there's nothing incompatible between our graduating from school young people who can go on to be productive citizens and people who are ready for the workplace, because the reality is that school is one stage of their lives, and they go on from school either to tertiary education or to work. Presumably the type of education one gets and the type of work one eventually has makes a difference in terms of one's lifestyle, where one lives, one's friends and a variety of things.
From my perspective, there's nothing incompatible in working with businesses to ensure that our young people acquire the appropriate skills. In any event, I can tell you, working in a school board, that we cannot afford to acquire all the technology that will be necessary to keep our young people upgraded, so we have no choice but to look for effective ways to work with business.
Ms Carter: I just wonder where this leaves what you might call the humanities. Do you feel those play a part in creating a person who can function in the world?
Mr Brathwaite: Absolutely. In our own board, we have gone to reorganizing our curriculum into four strands, and the arts is a very critical strand. I keep saying to people that there are ways of teaching math, science and technology through the arts. In fact, in our board there are teachers and there are people who are working to show teachers how to do this. This is an integral part of being a complete human being.
Ms Carter: Another point that occurs to me is that I think we often talk about education as though it were a consumer service, as though you can just hand somebody an education and, as long as all the facilities are there, they will get it; whereas -- I think there was an article in the Globe quite recently making this point -- in countries where they maybe spent a bit less but have better outcomes, the emphasis is on the student as the person who has to do the learning.
Mr Brathwaite: I very much believe we have to encourage students to take responsibility for their learning as they progress through school. That is part of what the learning should be about, how to take responsibility for one's learning. In fact, we know that our young people will have to continue to do that in order to upgrade their skills. Yes, from my perspective, that's very much a fundamental part of learning.
Ms Carter: Thank you. I'll concede to my colleague.
The Chair: Five minutes, Ms Harrington.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Thank you for coming. First of all, I'm wondering if you could summarize, in your view, the basic mandate of OISE.
Mr Brathwaite: OISE was set up with essentially two directions. One was to do research and to disseminate the findings of that research and to help boards of education, essentially through their field offices in many cases, to implement the findings of that research. It also had the responsibility for offering graduate courses, and I believe it has attempted to do that since 1965.
Ms Harrington: At this point, I think the taxpayers, the public in general, are looking at nearly every institution and evaluating, as probably they should. You're now affiliated with the University of Toronto. How would you see your mandate maybe changing, being more effective in the future, or what would be your vision as being part of a management team?
Mr Brathwaite: I don't want to be presumptuous or premature to suggest that I have a vision for OISE. I have not even been able to read the last board of directors' report because, as recently as two days ago, I was told it was not yet available; it wasn't printed. The last board of governors' report I've read is 1991.
Very clearly, one has to look at accountability. Very clearly, one has to look at the relevance of the research that's being done to what's actually happening in our education system. Presumably, if OISE is carrying out its mandate, it will help guide and direct many of the things we're doing in schools, so I would imagine that much of the research that's done would have some payoff for schools. At least that is one area I would very much want to see a focus on.
Ms Harrington: Would you see the institution working with this Royal Commission on Education?
Mr Brathwaite: Absolutely. I think that's vital. Given the fact that perhaps they are the repository of more information about education in Ontario than any other institution, that would be an important component of what they should do, to be providing information to the commission based on factual research.
Ms Harrington: I'm a great believer that every institution has to be evolving and an up-to-date and vital part of a community in our society.
My colleague George Mammoliti, who represents Yorkview and who unfortunately had to leave, has explained to me that he has a concern he wanted to express to you. His riding of Yorkview is also the Jane and Finch area. He's very concerned with his constituents, some of whom are on social assistance. He's also concerned about the proposal for Seneca College to hopefully go into that area, and has asked if you have any ideas about how education could help the community he represents there and whether Seneca College should be a part of that.
Mr Brathwaite: I believe a report has been done around this issue, and it was my understanding that there was even a possible site that had been looked at for the location of that particular facility.
There's no doubt in my mind that if that facility were there it would be an asset. Of course, the question of money always comes up, but there is no doubt in my mind that the location within that community would send a very strong message to those young people. It would make them aware that this sort of education was indeed meant for them and that it was indeed accessible. Also, the fact that members of Seneca College would be in the community and be visible would mean they would attempt to adjust the type of offerings they were making to the needs of the community.
There's lots of evidence, certainly south of the border, that where educational institutions have been set up in areas that are underserviced or underprivileged they have had a very positive effect on the learning and the aspirations of people who are served by that area.
Ms Harrington: That is a personal view, obviously. Is there any way you feel you can influence this further?
Mr Brathwaite: As I said earlier, I would want to believe that much of the research that OISE does will be relevant to what's happening in our schools and our communities.
We are all aware that there are some issues in Jane-Finch especially affecting young people, and I would like to believe that OISE would look at what are some of the best practices that have existed in other places and have contributed to success when you move into an underserviced or underprivileged area. I would like to believe they would have some say or work collaboratively with the North York board, with Seneca College, in trying to look at the needs and provide programs.
Mr Curling: Mr Brathwaite, welcome to the committee. As you said and as has been observed, you come with good credentials. You're going to an organization that I have watched over the years. I'll ask you to comment on two things for me.
One, I look at the dropout rates from the school system, especially among blacks. If you had the answer, I would suggest you don't sit on OISE or anywhere; that we set up an organization and maybe be well paid to find out what causes the dropout rates. I'm saying, then, that I don't think you have a ready answer.
Do you have any insight or comment on why it is in a province like ours, one of the richest provinces, which if it was a country could rank pretty high with compared to any country, our dropout rates are so high?
Mr Brathwaite: Let me start by saying that I think one of the most important things would be for us to get the factual information on where we stand today. The 1986 census suggested that the dropout rate was around 30%-plus. We had research that suggested to the conference board that the dropout rate was around 25%. The most recent Statistics Canada information that came after the 1991 census suggests that it is nearer to 19%.
The reality, though, is that whatever the percentage, we cannot afford, going into the 21st century, to have young people dropping out of schools at this rate; it is not productive. On the other hand, one of the things that's not factored in is the number of young people who drop out and then return to school.
1050
There used to be a time, 30 years ago, when there were reports clearly indicating that only about 45% of young people aged 14 to 18 were in school. Today, we are servicing more like 85% of those young people, so we are providing more young people with better education and they're staying in school longer. But what do we about young blacks and members of other communities who are dropping out? I believe that the school system has got to be more welcoming and it has got to be more responsive. I believe we have to start at a much earlier age providing resources to parents so that they know how to access the system but also be the first teacher to their kids.
I would say that is perhaps one of the most fundamental changes we could make if we are going to make a difference. There is, in many communities, a cycle of poverty and a cycle of limited education which we need to break. The responsibility lies on the part of the school system, in the one area, to be more responsive.
Obviously, places like OISE have a responsibility in that it can do significant research to identify what the problems are as perceived by the client. I think we have done enough studies that we know what some of the problems are; we don't need more studies. What we need are best practices to address the issue. If we can get far more parents feeling that the school system is one they can influence, that they can change -- more particularly, rather than a system, individual schools where their kids are at -- I believe that would be significant.
I also believe that changing the composition of the workforce in schools would be significant. I can give you an example of my own board, where in our secondary schools 30% of our students are Oriental by background and 10% are black by background. That makes 40% of them who are visible minorities. Only about 12% of our teaching staff are visible minorities. The whole question of access to teachers' colleges, access to information, access to places like OISE are critical issues because those kids need role models in their schools and they need people who understand them or people they would feel empathetic towards. A variety of factors I think would contribute to helping our kids to stay in school longer.
Mr Curling: I know you are quite well-versed in this field. Some of your comments I've heard before, from a lot of people. I too have concerns in some of those directions.
For instance, we always say if we just had the role models and other things, we could improve. I'm not quite sure about that. I've used this example quite often, that I have seen other people who are new immigrants who have come here -- and I'm using many of the blacks who are new immigrants -- and have no role models in the schools and have done exceedingly well. I just wonder, if we have that kind of role model strategy, whether or not that could be an answer, but maybe this is not the place to debate that.
What I'm saying to you is that I'd like to see an individual like you, who is quite outspoken, encourage a debate of this nature: Is it role modelling that will solve it? I go to graduations, and now it's convocation time. I went to one the other day that had maybe about 400 or 500 students graduating in the grade 12 and 13 area and it was appalling to see the low graduating of blacks. But that is another matter, not whether role modelling will assist in any great respect.
I want to move to another topic, though, because as I said, it's unfair for us to debate this.
Mr Brathwaite: Could I just comment on that? I think a critical element there is the whole question of teacher expectations. Therefore, I believe that the role modelling or having teachers who understand students or who are empathetic towards them is really critical. I believe that can make a difference.
The whole question too of the expectations that teachers have for certain minority groups that are quite different from those that they have for other minority groups makes a difference.
The whole question of whether or not a minority group perceives itself as a voluntary or an involuntary minority group is also a significant factor.
Mr Curling: I have issue to that, but let me move to one other topic, the topic of functional adult illiteracy, which OISE has resisted for years, until I presume it's accepting it now.
We have a great problem in this country, that over 20% of our adults are functionally illiterate. Really, I think it's over the last, I would say, eight or nine years that it's more or less acceptable that we can deal with that. Dr James Draper, for instance, has done a lot of work on adult illiteracy and fought that kind of battle. My concern now is that I have noticed that when we deal with illiteracy or functional illiteracy, we're dealing with teenagers or young people, and I don't think we should be focusing there on illiteracy.
The reason I'm saying that is we do have a broad, expensive system in place to let people be literate. We're talking about functional illiteracy. Do you see that as a concern? Do you see OISE playing a more active role in that area?
Mr Brathwaite: Absolutely. I think you know that I come from a board that is very much committed to literacy, and we have for years run programs for adults for literacy. I think that's absolutely critical. I talked earlier about breaking the cycle of limited education. Obviously, if you have parents who are not literate, that is going to affect the performance of their kids.
From my perspective, it makes good sense. It's a good investment in this country and in this province for us to look at adult literacy. And yes, OISE has to. At least from my perspective and based on my particular background and the areas that I'm responsible for, I would want to see OISE taking a more active role in this area.
The Chair: There's only one minute left.
Mr Cleary: I guess this is going to have to be brief. What new direction would you like to see your organization take in respect to improving education in Ontario?
The second part of that is, I have my own children, my own grandchildren and their friends who cannot even add without their calculator. I'd just like your comments on that.
Mr Brathwaite: I think that is unfortunate if that's the case. I personally believe that one must have the mental functioning capability, and I would be horrified if that were the case for my own kids. I strongly support students acquiring basic skills. That is an absolute must. But we have to go beyond those traditional basic skills, because in fact our young people will be working in a very different world. I am not going to repeat the clichés that we are all familiar with, but I think we know we have to equip our young people in skill areas that hitherto they have not had, particularly our young women.
In my own board, we are looking very significantly at how we introduce math, science and technology so that young girls in elementary schools are exposed to it and have an orientation that is more welcoming, because the socialization in our own community has not encouraged young girls to be involved in math, science and technology. I believe that is perhaps one of the most fundamental areas where we should be making a change and where OISE, with its cognitive research directions and a whole host of research that it does around learning, ought to be making a difference.
Mrs Witmer: It's a pleasure to have you here, Mr Brathwaite. I have quite a number of friends who have served on the OISE board and I've actually been involved in education my entire life before I came here too, so I do have some familiarity with the association.
I was pleased to hear your comments on the dropouts, because I think it's a bashing that takes place without people having all of the facts that I think you've indicated. We don't take into consideration the students who do come back. So the facts are quite misleading. Obviously, the critics can use those facts to their advantage.
1100
I was interested in the discussion that you had with Mr Curling because I don't think it matters. I'm finding sometimes in conversations that I have, particularly with secondary school students, it's a difficult time to be a teenager in this province or anywhere and I find it doesn't matter who you are, there are some insensitive teachers who do have some expectations for students and, when students don't meet those expectations, there is a putting down.
I guess my question to you would be, recognizing the fact that some of these teachers had their teacher training some time ago -- and I was a secondary school teacher; I think some of them perhaps have lost touch with what's going on -- what suggestions would you have in order that teachers perhaps have some opportunity for retraining, really coming to a better understanding of all the students they're serving? What can we do to be helping teachers?
Mr Brathwaite: That's an area that I have been working very hard at for the last 10 years, even before that. I think, first of all, the boards have to send a very clear message that there is an expectation that teachers will first of all be welcoming of young people, whatever their backgrounds, and secondly, that this welcoming means that you also allow parents as well as young people to have input into what goes on in the school environment.
This may mean a change in the type of extra- or co-curricular activities that are performed. It may mean a change in terms of the environment of the school, the visual images in the school, not that we take away what was there from the past but that we add images that reflect the students who are in the school, that we do a lot of training around intercultural relations.
Many teachers have no idea what that means or how it should be done. There's got to be significant in-service. The curriculum has got to be changed, not to include units about different groups of people but to completely change the nature of human history and the nature of knowledge to be more reflective of the contributions made by different peoples.
This is not something that teachers are going to do on their own. They don't have the time to do it. The resources have got to be put together and in Metro we've got a number of boards that have formed a consortium to develop materials of this sort and deliver in-service of this sort.
One of the concerns I've got has to do with the faculties of education themselves. Because many of the people who are instructors there have graduated for quite some time from teachers' colleges or from schools and are not as familiar with the types of strategies that might be appropriate for intercultural, multicultural and anti-racist education.
It is incumbent upon boards of education to try to provide this sort of training and to ensure that the people whom they choose as leaders in the schools -- principals, vice-principals -- have that sort of orientation, because it is clear that if the staff understand what the expectations are and what the leaders expect of them, they're more likely to try to deliver.
Mrs Witmer: I appreciate your comments and I just want to piggyback on something you said, and I think you've said it several times now: It's important that parents be involved.
Mr Brathwaite: Absolutely.
Mrs Witmer: Certainly studies indicate that is very true.
Mr Brathwaite: Yes.
Mrs Witmer: I just want to give you an example. We do see now on occasion teachers will call home and say to a parent, "Your child's not doing well." That's good. But you know what they don't usually do? They don't call that parent when the child improves. I had a parent call me the other day and she said: "You know, my child has had difficulty for two years now. I get the call saying, `He's not doing well.'" She said, "I finally had a call from a teacher who's saying, `You know what? He's doing well.'"
Those are the little things that teachers can do to make parents feel welcome and open up that discussion and that debate. It's a small thing but it certainly would build on what you're saying, where everybody has that opportunity for input.
I want to focus on the math and science, because I have to tell you, I'm personally extremely concerned about the fact that females in particular just are not accessing mathematics and science. In our own community we've got the University of Waterloo that offers a program for girls in grades 5, 6, 7, encouraging them. How can we, how can you at OISE help in making sure that we encourage more students, but particularly females, to access those two fields?
Mr Brathwaite: OISE having access to research can no doubt identify places where they have been successful in developing programs that have encouraged young women, at a very early age, to look towards career opportunities in the areas of math, science and technology. I think that's critical.
I think in terms of the type of teacher practices and strategies which facilitate or encourage young women to come into those areas, that's a critical area of research and teacher development that OISE can provide, because OISE runs a significant number of workshops through OCLEA every year.
I believe that in terms of staff development, in terms of the research that's out there about best practices, that will facilitate, but also something more long range, some sort of longitudinal study that would look at the changes we are attempting now in some of our schools to introduce young girls at a much earlier age, to determine whether in fact we're being successful, and monitor along the way attitudinal changes on the parts of young girls and boys, because there is no question about it that the behaviour of boys influences the behaviour of girls, and of course, as I said earlier, teacher expectations.
There's no doubt that we also have to do a job with the community at large, with businesses that have certain expectations about what types of occupations women do versus men, and parents who in many cases have some traditional notions about what their daughters should do versus what their sons should do. It's clear that if we can't influence parental opinion at an early age, those sorts of strategies that we put in schools will probably not be terribly effective.
Mrs Witmer: I wish you well. I think you'll be a welcome asset to OISE. I've always respected the work they do, and I hope that they will continue to carry on and provide leadership in this province.
Mr Brathwaite: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Brathwaite, for appearing before the committee this morning.
Mr Brathwaite: Thank you, Madam Chair.
PATRICIA BLACKSTAFFE
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Patricia Blackstaffe, intended appointee as director, Eastern Ontario Development Corp.
The Chair: I would like to invite our next intended appointment, Ms Patricia Blackstaffe, to come forward. Welcome to the committee, Ms Blackstaffe. If you would like to make a brief opening statement you may, or we may just start through the rotation of the caucus questions.
Ms Patricia Blackstaffe: Why don't you begin. I hadn't thought of making an opening statement.
The Chair: All right, that's fine. Then we'll start with Ms Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: Welcome this morning; pleased to have you here. I wonder if you could just briefly tell me why you would be interested in sitting on the Eastern Ontario Development Corp and what experience you feel you have which would be an asset.
Ms Blackstaffe: Okay. I believe you all have my CV and you'll see that I received an economics degree from the University of Toronto, and ever since then I've had considerable experience working in a variety of different industries and different places, different countries in fact. I worked in France doing statistical work for two companies. I worked in Britain as an economic researcher for the British Medical Association, and subsequently was research director of a trade union.
I have been sitting on a national economic policy committee too of the Canadian Labour Congress, the major labour central in Canada, for the last 10 years. So it seems like it's a natural interest of mine, in addition to which I have considerable experience in a number of areas, and I think probably I could bring a different perspective to the board.
Mrs Witmer: Do you have any views at the present time about the effectiveness of the EODC?
Ms Blackstaffe: I don't. I was familiar with the fact that government did make loans and subsidies and so on to different corporations, but I had never looked into the particular bodies that did this. So in fact I've only just received a briefing today more on the duties of the board and so on.
1110
Mrs Witmer: From what you've gathered today, what do you see as the main role, then, of the corporation?
Ms Blackstaffe: It seems to me that the main thing it's attempting to do is fill a gap, fill a need really that is not fulfilled by the banks to support a variety of corporations and different industries, with the attempt to ensure that there be some kind of considerable economic diversification within the province and also trying to ensure that companies that maybe have some difficulty getting bank support can actually maintain their viability.
Mrs Witmer: You've just indicated that you were not totally aware of what the role of the corporation was. What type of awareness do you think there is, not only in eastern Ontario but throughout the province, about the activities of this corporation?
Ms Blackstaffe: I can't specifically answer that, but I am aware that certainly with some of the employers, where we represent members as a trade union, the employers do attempt to work with government where there is a need for financial support. I've never looked into the specifics of this. I'm assuming that there is a general level of knowledge, but I can't honestly comment on how detailed that is at the different levels of organizations, different sizes of businesses and so on.
Mrs Witmer: There actually isn't a great level of awareness. I say that based only on my own personal experience, because obviously we all serve constituents. At times employers will come or there'll be a group of employees who are concerned about business, and there doesn't seem to be an awareness that this is available and they might be able to access some funds. Mind you, I have more people knocking on my door than funds available, so there is a desperate need for this type of assistance. But how can we improve the awareness? You've indicated that you really didn't know until today what the role was. I've indicated to you that there are lots of people out in this province who I feel don't know. How can we raise the awareness of this corporation and make the public more aware of the fact that this is available? What can be done?
Ms Blackstaffe: I'm assuming already that you reach out through different business organizations across the province. I'm assuming that is already being done. Then it probably is more to the business community to make the connections between the different companies and so on to ensure they are aware that this kind of support is possible. But I really can't comment in detail because I just don't have that level of information.
Mrs Witmer: Are you aware of the fact that there's been some concern expressed that the corporation you're going to be involved with has focused its assistance on the manufacturing sector and that there's been some criticism because of that?
Ms Blackstaffe: Actually, I just became aware of that this morning. I hadn't been aware of that previously, no.
Mrs Witmer: How do you see yourself making a change? What else do you think should be happening? Should there be this exclusive focus on the manufacturing sector?
Ms Blackstaffe: I really can't comment. Not knowing the discussions that have previously taken place at the board or the businesses that come up before the board for support, I really can't comment on that.
Mrs Witmer: So you don't see at present in what other direction you might head. Do you think this really is the best use of the taxpayers' money?
Ms Blackstaffe: As far as I'm aware, it appears to be, but my understanding is that there is a number of different funds that get funnelled though this. Certainly the attempt seems to be to branch out to more than just manufacturing companies. I know that's the intent, but I don't really know why the decisions have been made the way they have up to now to comment further.
Mrs Witmer: Just one last question: What impact has the recession had on industry in the eastern Ontario area?
Ms Blackstaffe: It's pretty devastating. A number of plants have closed down; certainly there are many layoffs taking place in the eastern Ontario region. It's been pretty decimated by the recession.
The Chair: Dr Frankford, Ms Harrington, Ms Carter, Mr Waters: 10 minutes.
Mr Frankford: I'll be brief. You obviously have quite a varied background. I'm interested in a number of things you've been involved with, the communications workers. I personally have an interest in the British Medical Association. You've got a degree in economics. Do these come together to give you any thought about the sort of economic activities you would like to be encouraging?
Ms Blackstaffe: I can't say. Not having had any kind of viewing of the kind of companies that come before the board, I can't really say. I certainly believe in the importance of diversifying the economic base, and that's really as far as I can comment.
Mr Frankford: You say "the companies that come before you." As I understand, you react to the applications that come in, so I'm not clear how much you can actively set directions, but maybe that's something that can be changed. Presumably, within the range of the applications, you can set certain directions.
Ms Harrington: Mr Frankford mentioned an interesting background. I noted you went to high school in -- is that in south London?
Ms Blackstaffe: It's in west London.
Ms Harrington: I was teaching in London for a while, and I came there with an outdoor education program.
Ms Blackstaffe: Is that right?
Ms Harrington: Yes, Notting Hill.
First of all, I want to ask you what types of things has the Eastern Ontario Development Corp done over the last while?
Ms Blackstaffe: I just had a very quick briefing this morning, and my understanding is that they've given loans to different organizations to support them financially; loans and loan guarantees.
Ms Harrington: So obviously your role would be evaluating the applications that come in.
Ms Blackstaffe: That's my understanding, yes.
Ms Harrington: And seeing how they fit with what is viable and what the future of eastern Ontario hopefully should be. At the moment it's a rural-type area. It's a beautiful area -- I grew up in Brockville -- and it's a tourism area in places, certainly Ottawa and the Brockville-Kingston area. How would you like to see the economy improved? What direction would you like to see it go?
Ms Blackstaffe: In specific industries, that's something I have not thought about. As far as I'm concerned, one of the interests I would have is with corporations, organizations that come to the board and have a more collaborative working arrangement with their employees, for example, rather than a top-down hierarchical approach. If they have some way of involving their employees in decisions, in the way work is structured and so on, those kinds of things would be of particular interest.
Ms Harrington: How in the role with the ODC would you be able to facilitate that?
Ms Blackstaffe: Again, I'm not sure of the process you actually go through, whether you get to interview the individuals or just see the materials, but it seems to me that could be one of the criteria for the board to consider in terms of whether or not it provides financial support to an organization.
Ms Harrington: But you have no particular things you think would fit with eastern Ontario with regard to the types of, say, manufacturing or high-technology or what kind of information industries you would see? We're talking in this province now about sectors and which sectors should fit in what parts of the province.
Ms Blackstaffe: I am aware of the high-tech area, of course, close to Ottawa, and then the manufacturing area around Brockville and along Canada-US border, and then it's a considerable resource sector, with paper mills and so on in that area as well. In terms of bringing other industry to that area, I really don't have the documentation. I haven't thought that one through in enough detail to really give you any further comment.
Ms Carter: Following the same idea through, we have already mentioned that traditionally most loans have been to manufacturing businesses. In my own area of Peterborough we have lost manufacturing firms in a very drastic way. It seems to me that even if manufacturing comes back, it's still not going to employ the numbers of people it once did because of automation and so on, so maybe we should be looking at other sectors.
For example, tourism is probably one that is going to grow in importance in my area, and I'm just wondering what types of business you would feel should be supported.
1120
Ms Blackstaffe: Again, I was aware of support to the tourist industry and to manufacturing and, I'm assuming, through your Innovation Ontario Corp to the high-tech industry as well. As I say, I haven't thought any more broadly than that.
Ms Carter: Another issue is small versus large industry. Traditionally, large industry has been much more easily able to borrow. We've learned the hard way that banks lend very easily to vast organizations, but somebody who just wants a few thousand to start a business sometimes can't get it. I believe they're expected to have collateral which is very concrete, very definite; otherwise, they can't get a start. I was wondering what your approach would be to the small and medium-sized operations that might be asking for loans.
Ms Blackstaffe: That certainly appears to be the area of growth in the economy at this point. I noticed the New Ventures approach, where you're giving relatively small loans to people who otherwise simply wouldn't have access to them to start businesses. It seems to me an excellent idea.
Ms Carter: Actually, sometimes the amounts required are exceedingly small. The government does have some oncoming projects for community lending, where people are going to be allowed to invest money in developments in their own communities, and the principal will be secure although the interest will not; the government will guarantee the principal. I'm just wondering if this is going to affect the operations of the EODC very much or how you would see it measured.
Ms Blackstaffe: I could see that there might be some way that those groups could collaborate. It seems to me it's in that kind of community development that there really is some kind of future. I was aware of small organizations being set up through the University of Ottawa, where they're starting to work on community economic development in eastern Ontario, and it seems to me an excellent idea. I could see there might be some possibility for these two groups meshing in their work.
Ms Carter: At least they should talk to each other and know what each other is doing.
Ms Blackstaffe: Yes, exactly.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): It's going to be an interesting problem for you to resolve. I'm actually with the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, but in my past life with the labour movement, I worked in Cornwall, and I've spent a lot of time within my ministry. One of the things I found was that when free trade happened, which was prior to the recession, Cornwall got hit with the fabric mills in a big way. These were employers that employed hundreds and hundreds of people in one location, and the job of trying to find employment for all of those people -- you're never going to get fabric back. It's gone to the Third World, low-wage areas that we can't afford to compete with. We have costs that make it impossible.
I look at the other part of what I do, which is tourism. In eastern Ontario there has been a move, through Gary Clarke and the Eastern Ontario Travel Association, to do things such as bike routes and things like that to enhance their tourist product, because you do have a very unique product in that area. I'm wondering whether the focus shouldn't be on more of that type of thing; not the traditional type of loan to an establishment but indeed maybe to a community-based or regional-based group that has a plan for something that will enhance the infrastructure throughout the community. I would like your opinions on that.
Ms Blackstaffe: I could see that that would be extremely valuable, setting up, as you say, that kind of infrastructural base in the different communities. That could encourage other industries, could draw other industries to them potentially in the future. One of the things that's become clear to me in travelling around eastern Ontario is that much of that infrastructural mechanism simply has not been maintained in the way it could have been because of the recession and the impact of free trade. Yes, I would agree with that.
Mr Waters: The other thing is that historically, it appears, in the background notes we got, the EODC has been looking mainly at manufacturing. I gather that when they go out and talk about what the EODC does, it's mainly with that group. In these times, let's say workers might have an idea, the general public who aren't part of the chamber of commerce or Rotary or any of those groups that EODC had traditionally talked to. I'm wondering if there isn't a place for EODC to go into the overall public and say, "Here we are and here's what we have to offer." It might be night school courses in the schools of Cornwall or a community college --
The Chair: We're running out of time.
Mr Waters: I was wondering if that would be of interest or something you would be looking at.
Ms Blackstaffe: I could see there would be a real benefit to doing that. Our own organization has been working very closely with some of the employers, where we represent people to try and encourage a change in product manufacture, for example. I could see that would be extremely valuable to have those kinds of approaches.
As I say, I'm not familiar enough with the EODC to know what the routes have been in terms of communicating this program, but I could see there could be some value in communicating some of this to the labour movement, to people who are unionized but also to somehow get access to employees who are not unionized, who, as you say, have ideas and want to suggest it to employers, but maybe the employers aren't aware of all the financial options that would be available to them if they did, say, diversify their own industry and try and expand it.
Mr Cleary: Welcome to the committee. I'm just reading your résumé, and I see you've been involved in a lot of activity since you started working. I'm just wondering how you found out about this opening on the EODC.
Ms Blackstaffe: I received a call from the minister's office.
Mr Cleary: Thank you. There's been a lot of activity in our part of Ontario and the EODC. One of the big things at the moment now is that companies that have downsized and restructured and maybe even shut down for a short time and are starting up again, and there doesn't seem to be any help from the EODC for startup money. I'd just like your comments on that.
Ms Blackstaffe: Through this New Ventures program, very small amounts of money, and I guess this Innovation Ontario Corp too; the two seem to be offering startup money for new ventures, so I'm not quite sure what --
Mr Cleary: New Ventures is only $15,000 and that doesn't go very far in starting up a company, so many companies can't take advantage of that. They don't qualify under the other program you mentioned. We have many that are looking for startup money. I have two or three right at the moment I've been working with, and the company officials have been up here.
The other thing I'm sure you're aware of is that there are so many changes in the administration office over here on Wellesley. I'd just like your comments on that.
Ms Blackstaffe: I'm afraid I don't know anything about the administrative changes on Wellesley that you're referring to.
Mr Cleary: Two of the top people at the head of that have been changed or left just in the last few months, three or four months.
The other thing I'd like to talk to you about is that there used to be interest-free loans in our part of eastern Ontario to companies, up until about a year and a half ago or so when this government changed that. That was just enough to get some companies back in business. I would like your comments on that.
Ms Blackstaffe: They've been cut off?
Mr Cleary: Interest-free loans, to my knowledge, have been cut off.
Ms Blackstaffe: In terms of ensuring the return on the money that is loaned or guaranteed, it would seem to me that's probably one way of ensuring the loan will be repaid. Maybe that's been the problem in the past. I assume it was based on decisions as a result of things that occurred that were not favourable to the board's decisions earlier. I'm afraid I can't comment any more than that, though.
1130
Mr Cleary: I'd also like your comments on another thing. We get lots of requests and work with the Ottawa office on tourism and the service industry. There doesn't seem to be any assistance at all for especially the service industry.
Ms Blackstaffe: I was reading material last night and it seemed there was. The annual report was talking about how moneys had been loaned to the tourist industry particularly.
Mr Cleary: It's possible. There was one program in tourism, TRIP, the tourism redevelopment incentive program, and a few others. But right now in the service industry it seems very difficult, in my experience, and I'm involved a lot, to get provincial assistance.
All in all, what changes would you like to see in the EODC? Anyone who's interested in a committee generally goes there with a small agenda. What would your agenda be?
Ms Blackstaffe: I don't necessarily see any changes in the board at this time, given that I'm not that familiar with the decisions that have been made in the past. I just consider that I have a useful contribution to make to the board. Once I'm there and I've had some experience on it, maybe I'll start thinking about changes. But my main aim would be to ensure some kind of economic viability and diversity of the eastern Ontario region.
Mr Cleary: I'm getting nudged by my colleague, so I'd better turn it over to him now.
The Chair: Mr Curling, there are five minutes left.
Mr Curling: Welcome to the committee. My colleague Mr Waters -- I know I'll get his attention now -- has mentioned free trade and some of the negative things that could happen with regard to free trade. He's alluded to that.
One of the negative things that I think this corporation must be extremely concerned with is the decision made by the Premier that many of the offices outside of Ontario -- in New York -- were shut down. While we make some developmental decisions to improve business here, we live in a global village, as they say, and compete internationally, and as we develop we realize we develop in order to attract people to buy our product and also to export. Do you have any concern about that decision, that some of the offices abroad have been shut down that would have been encouraging some of the customers or international relationships in our business?
Ms Blackstaffe: This is more from reading the paper than anything, but my understanding is that the government itself is playing some of that role without actually maintaining the offices themselves, that the ministers and the staff and so on travel in order to facilitate that kind of dialogue overseas. My understanding was that it was a budgetary decision that they chose to close down these offices, and I respect their right to make that decision. I'm sure they were not assuming that somehow they weren't going to be able to continue these dialogues with people we trade with regularly.
Mr Curling: There's an old expression, and presumably it's changing with our currency: penny wise and pound foolish. My feeling is that to make that decision has really harmed the expressions of businesses abroad. I have no confidence that the bureaucrats who will travel back and forth on these trips will be able to foster better economic relationships. I don't have any confidence even in the Canadian embassies abroad or federal trade offices abroad to represent Ontario efficiently, because the fact is that Ontario needs to be there. Quebec is there. Quebec is all over, making sure Quebec's role and trade happens.
Knowing you'll be appointed to this board, could I ask you to encourage the board to make an appeal to the government and say how important it is to have these offices so that when you make these loans, grants, development decisions, somehow there's a market out there you can plug into, not, as you said, hoping that the bureaucrats, when they travel for a two- or three-day tour, will be able to sell eastern Ontario on this matter? When opportunities come, the bureaucrats are either here or running back and forth on planes, and we're not getting our opportunity. Could I lean on you to carry that message to your board so your board could take to the Premier that that was not a sensible decision; that as a matter of fact, it will hurt not only eastern Ontario but Ontario as a whole? Could I depend on you for that?
Ms Blackstaffe: As I say, it was a government decision, and your assessment of what has happened subsequently, that the bureaucrats can't carry the message --
Mr Curling: No, they can't.
Ms Blackstaffe: My feeling is that they can. They made those decisions politically, and I'm assuming they did it with considerable knowledge that in fact not the same kind of work but something comparable could be done from the ministerial level and the level of the senior government employees to actually perform a similar kind of activity, so I would be reluctant to take that on.
Mr Curling: I'm extremely disappointed that you won't take that message. But I would say to you, think about it and watch the impact.
Ms Blackstaffe: I certainly will.
Mr Curling: You may be so moved to say, reading back the Hansard: "My golly, he was right; we're losing. Stop blaming it on free trade, but get on into the economic international market and do some business."
Thank you very much and good luck.
The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before the committee this morning, Ms Blackstaffe.
We would like a motion to approve the intended appointments for this morning. Are you moving all three of them, and is there any wish to vote on any of them individually?
Mr Waters: I am moving all three, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Mr Waters has moved the appointment of Mr John Arthur Geller as a member and vice-chair of the Ontario Securities Commission, Mr Harold Brathwaite as a member of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, and Ms Patricia Blackstaffe as director of the Eastern Ontario Development Corp.
Is there any discussion on that motion? All in favour of that motion? Opposed? You have to vote if you're sitting in your seat.
Mrs Witmer: We'll vote for it as they've all been pre-approved anyway. It really doesn't matter if we have concerns.
Mr Cleary: It doesn't matter which way we vote.
The Chair: All right, that motion is carried.
Before we adjourn, I would like to request that the subcommittee meet on the 17th at 10 o'clock; the WCB, the attendance of Mr Odoardo Di Santo and Mr Brian King, will be at 10:15 on November 17.
Thank you for your attendance this morning, and the committee is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1137.