DRAFT REPORT, ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
CONTENTS
Wednesday 23 November 1994
Draft report, Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology
St Lawrence Parks Commission
David Warner, superintendent, St Lawrence Islands National Park
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
*Crozier, Bruce (Essex South/-Sud L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Gigantes, Evelyn, (Ottawa Centre ND)
Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mrs Marland
Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Waters
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L) for Mr Cleary
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
Villeneuve, Noble (S-D-G & East Grenville/S-D-G & Grenville-Est PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1034 in room 228.
DRAFT REPORT, ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
The Vice-Chair (Mr Allan McLean): This morning we're dealing with the preparation of the report for the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. The information I have is that we'll be discussing some of the aspects of that report. I don't know where the committee wants to start, but perhaps we could have a little direction from our researcher of where we're at on this.
Mr David Pond: You should have in your package three or four documents. For example, "Summary of Recommendation and Comments Regarding the Council of Regents" is probably the most useful one to you this morning. I think you got it a couple of weeks ago. It's a summation of all the, or at least the most prominent, recommendations and comments made by witnesses during the week in which the committee reviewed the Council of Regents.
If you recall, some of the members here weren't here in September. In the last week of September we had four days of hearings on the Council of Regents. We began with Richard Johnston, some of his colleagues on the council. We then heard from, I think it's fair to say, all of the major stakeholders in the community college system: the boards of governors, the presidents, the student lobby group, a representative from OTAB, some of the other stakeholders.
This is our first meeting dealing with a possible draft report, so the job here today is to have a brainstorming session about what you would like to see in a possible draft report.
Ms Evelyn Gigantes (Ottawa Centre): Mr Chair, could I ask our research officer to give us the date of the summary document to which he referred? We have so many pieces of paper, I'm having trouble laying my hands on it now.
Mr Pond: The only date on the document itself, unfortunately, is October 1994. You probably got it quite a while ago now, three or four weeks ago.
Ms Gigantes: But it was October.
Mr Pond: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: You have nothing in writing; you have no draft report or anything.
Mr Pond: No. The decision at the last meeting was that before we could get to the stage of looking at a draft report, we had to have a preliminary meeting, as the committee always does, to discuss possible recommendations again.
The Vice-Chair: Then we're open for discussion.
Ms Gigantes: I'm prepared to make a motion for consideration of the committee:
That the legislative researcher should draft a brief report to supplement the research already prepared. This report should focus on whether the Council of Regents is appropriately performing the tasks recommended by the Vision 2000 report of 1980.
I can give you a copy of that.
The Vice-Chair: Is there any discussion on that motion?
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Could I hear that again, please?
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): Do you want a copy?
Mr McGuinty: A copy would be very helpful, yes.
The Vice-Chair: Really what it's doing, I guess, is directing our researcher to prepare some type of a report.
Ms Gigantes: There's a typo in there and I read it into the record, Mr Chair. It's the Vision 2000 report of 1990.
Mr Pond: Needless to say, I'll do whatever you direct me to, but I really should point out to you that this is precisely the issue the committee discussed for a week in September, and as members who were on the committee then will recall, it was pretty clear to me as an observer that there were substantive differences of opinion among the members on precisely this issue. As I say, it would be difficult for me to draft any report with conclusions in it at this preliminary stage without having heard from the committee, as it's constituted today, about what it wants to see in this report.
If you like, I can go on and sort of summarize some of the outstanding issues that members debated among themselves during the hearings, to illustrate my point. For example, there was substantive discussion about whether the Council of Regents should continue to be responsible for prior learning assessment and college standards accreditation. There was substantial discussion and disagreement about the appropriateness of the size of the Council of Regents' budget. There were substantive differences about the relationship between the Council of Regents and the governors and presidents. These are all issues with regard to which members substantively disagreed when we held our hearings in September, and there are probably other ones that I can check for you.
The document I prepared, the summary of recommendations and comments, if you read through that, I think fairly does illustrate the differences of opinion. There are also differences of opinion, as members will recall, between on the one hand the governors and the presidents, and on the other hand the Council of Regents with regard to issues such as employment equity on boards of governors of community colleges and how that should be implemented and the pace at which that should be implemented. These are very substantive differences which came out of the week of hearings. As I say, if you want me to draft a report, I will, but it will be simply a decision-tree type report laying out options for you. That's all I can do at this preliminary stage without further direction.
The Vice-Chair: I think probably that may be the appropriate channel to go.
Ms Gigantes: If I could speak to that, while I agree that certainly committee members may have come to the hearings with different points of view on some of these matters, I suspect that during the course of the hearings, as we heard testimony from the people who came before the committee, there was a fuller understanding by members of the committee about how these matters were being addressed, and there may not in fact at this stage be the same questions remaining as we started with in the minds of many of the members of this committee.
I certainly can't speak for all members of the committee. I wasn't present during the hearings. I did review the transcripts of the hearings and it seemed to me that the discussion that arose out of the discussions with witnesses was one that brought people certainly closer together in terms of an understanding of what was involved in the various issues that have been raised by Mr Pond.
While I agree that we may have had some discussions which indicated some disagreement, I think that if Mr Pond goes back over the Hansards now he'll find a greater degree of accord on many of these matters than had existed at the beginning of our discussions with witnesses.
1040
Mr McGuinty: I cannot support Ms Gigantes's motion. I think it unduly narrows the focus of some of the concerns that we examined in some detail during the length of the hearings connected with the Council of Regents.
There are a number of issues, as our researcher has pointed out to us, that are of great concern to a number of the players involved in the college education system in this province, including the very real concern about the relationship between the council and the college system. One of those that I have a particular concern with as well is the college governance system and the support or lack thereof for a constituency-based model. That is an issue that has sparked some controversy, to say the least.
There are others as well. The other issue, of course, is one dealing with the collaboration between and among our educational institutions. I think there are areas that fall under that subject as well which we ought to be addressing fully here. Ms Gigantes's motion only deals with one particular facet of the matters that we were reviewing here. I believe Mr Pond, our research officer, has told us that there were hearings specific to that very issue. Was that correct?
Mr Pond: Yes.
Mr McGuinty: So that matter has been dealt with. Let's expand the scope of the report, given that we had an expansive hearing looking into a number of issues.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Mrs Cunningham.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Well, I haven't seen the motion.
Clerk of the Committee: It's in front of you.
Mrs Cunningham: I guess I came here today wondering exactly what kind of information we would discuss with regard to the different topics of concern to us that came out of the hearings -- I have a list of about nine -- and how we could deal with each one, because I think some of them could be dealt with separately. Where we all agree that there isn't a concern, and we certainly found out during the hearings that there wasn't, we could probably come to some consensus around those areas. Then, when we think there is a concern, where we want to give some information or recommendations, whatever, to the government, maybe we could spend more of our time focusing on those areas.
But certainly, from my point of view anyway, there are some areas that I did have concern about that I'm not particularly concerned about any more. Then during the hearings, I am happy to say, I think there were some areas that were raised to all of us that we didn't even think would be a problem and that are.
I don't know how you want to go about it, but there's a lot of information that I think we should be sharing here and coming to some conclusion around under different titles. I think, if you take a look at Mr Pond's three reports that he gave to us, certainly the headings are there. We could say, "This is not an area of concern; this is," and that was what I wanted some direction on today. But I'm sorry, Evelyn, I haven't seen your motion.
The Vice-Chair: If I could just briefly say something, Mr Pond indicated he was looking for information and feedback from the members with regard to some of the specific issues that were raised. Ms Gigantes's motion, I think, is appropriate. I think it asks for input and for Mr Pond to look at it. So I would suggest that each committee member give Mr Pond what major concerns they have so that he could look at them and maybe incorporate them in some report.
Ms Gigantes: If I could, I'd like to ask Mr Pond the date of the previous hearings -- I'm not familiar with them -- that dealt with Vision 2000 and what was involved as the subject matter of that.
Mr Pond: Are you referring to this committee's review of the Council of Regents?
Ms Gigantes: I understood Mr McGuinty to say that there had been previous hearings which dealt with the subject of the motion.
Mr Pond: Not to my knowledge. This committee looked at the Council of Regents from September 26 to 29. That's it as far as this committee is concerned.
Ms Gigantes: So you're not concerned from the point of view of what is in the parliamentary record that this motion would be a repetition of a report which has been done before?
Mr Pond: No. As Mr McGuinty suggested, this motion deals directly with one of the issues that came up during the hearings; namely, how well the Council of Regents is implementing Vision 2000. But as I said earlier, that's an issue over which the witnesses and members disagreed in September. Certainly you'll get a different perspective from Mr Johnson than you'll get from the Council of Governors and the Council of Presidents, at least from what they said to this committee. Mr Martin, you were here. You'll recall some of those debates.
I can prepare a report for you; don't misunderstand me. But as I said earlier, it'll be one of these decision-tree reports where you get options: option A, option B, option C, that sort of report. I can't prepare something which is definitive and conclusive without more direction from the members. That's my only warning: caveat emptor.
Ms Gigantes: Could I continue for a moment, Mr Chair? I think that when Dianne suggests that there are areas where the discussion, as I had noted earlier, really led to a greater understanding of questions which had been raised, and I think in a very satisfactory way, to members of the committee, perhaps if she would indicate those areas to us, we could come to an agreement around that, and perhaps it's possible for us to narrow down and add to the motion to indicate where we would give further direction to Mr Pond.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): If I'm getting the understanding of this motion and the understanding of Mr Pond, you are then being asked to draft a report actually making a conclusion in some respect saying whether or not the Council of Regents is appropriately performing the task. There were discussions, you said, in the past that people disagreed whether or not they are and there are different parts of the Vision 2000 on which we should be focused.
Wouldn't you then, Mr Chairman, feel it's a bit kind of inappropriate to ask the researcher, Mr Pond, to do this, almost concluding what the members would then have to come to a decision on? What he could do is to say: Here is what is in there. Here is what we discussed. You then come with a conclusion. I think it would be a little bit inappropriate to do that.
1050
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I sat through the hearings that we had and was actually at some points quite excited by what I heard re how things were working, what people were doing and the progress that was being made in the areas that were indicated out of the Vision 2000 report, and also I guess somewhat enlightened re, yes, there were some challenges, there are some growing pains, there are some things that all parts of the system are struggling with around things like PLA and CSAC and all of that. Some of it was dealt with and some of it wasn't.
We, in my mind, got a bit sidetracked into a bit of a discussion about who was going to be in charge when we all know, in fact, the ministry's in charge. The Council of Regents was established in the wisdom of the people of that day to advise the minister, and over the years some professional organizations have risen up to be helpful to the system and the people in the system who run it.
Now we're at a point and in a day when we have some new realities in front of us, new dynamics, new demand that wasn't there before, and so with that come some tremendous growing pains and a working out of how all this is going to fall into place. I suggest that if anything is going to come out of that discussion, this motion will get us certainly a distance down the road anyway to getting some of the information that we need so that we who have some responsibility to give some direction or advice can in fact do that.
Yes, there are some concerns, and yes, there are some issues that need to be looked at. I went back after these hearings and spoke myself with the president of Sault College about all of this. His concern, to be frank with you, wasn't who was in charge, he knew who was in charge; it wasn't the relationship between the various organizations, he knew what the channels were, and like any good healthy relationship there are good moments and there are bad moments, there are times when we're communicating and everything's clicking, and there are times when it isn't clicking, and that's normal, that's natural.
His concern, though, given that we're a relatively small college up there, without the enrolment base that some of the bigger colleges have in some of the larger centres, is how this piece of work flowing out of Vision 2000 was going to be doable in Sault Ste Marie. Little movements of one or two people for half a day affect the budget of that institution significantly and affect its ability to operate.
To give credit where it's due, certainly the Council of Regents has brought into the game, into the process, a vast number of people from all the various sectors of the system to work on the design of how PLA will work so that we can have something that is consistent across the province and how CSAC will work so that we can have something that's consistent across the province that will reflect the concerns of students and teachers and the administrators and the governors of these facilities.
I don't think it would hurt anybody to do a little bit of a study, as is suggested here, to perhaps more clearly identify what the snags are, what the challenges are, what the problems are, so that then we can maybe more intelligently give some direction or suggestion or whatever.
In light of my feeling and sense and understanding of where we are at the moment, in light of my having sat through the discussions that we had with the folks as they came forward and some of the discussion here this morning and what Mrs Cunningham said earlier, I think there are some things that we can certainly agree on and disagree on, but this motion, I think, will give us what we need, then, to really do the job that is called of us as legislators around this table.
Mr McGuinty: I think that if we were to support Ms Gigantes's motion, that would represent, at the end of the day, a very, very feeble effort on the part of our committee to address the many and varied issues that were raised during the course of our three days of hearings. The subject-matter, I'll remind committee members, was, according to the memorandum here: Agency Review, Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. It doesn't say that we're going to restrict ourselves to Vision 2000 and the developments that issued from that. There's no restriction whatsoever.
I am my party's colleges and universities critic, and one of the things that becomes a sore point after a while for anybody who spends any time on these issues is that colleges, including the Council of Regents, are constantly treated as a poor relation in our post-secondary education system, and we're about to do that again by giving short shrift, very short shrift, to the depth and the breadth of issues that we really ought to be treating, because we've had one of the rare opportunities to learn about the various issues during the course of committee hearings.
Just a for instance: Ms Gigantes's motion asked us to focus -- it doesn't say it explicitly, but implicitly -- exclusively on whether the Council of Regents is appropriately performing the tasks recommended by Vision 2000. There is a very real issue as to whether the Council of Regents ought to be even performing those tasks or whether another body ought to be performing those tasks.
So what we do if we support this motion, apart from the other reasons which indicate that we're giving very short shrift to the other various concerns that have been raised here, we're implicitly buying into this notion that COR, the Council of Regents, is the one, is the body which is best suited to performing these tasks. I don't think we ought to be buying into that. We ought to be considering all of the arguments that were put forward. We may not agree at the end of the day, but I think in fairness to all the presenters who appeared before us we ought to be considering all of the positions put forward and not just this very minimalist motion, if I can categorize it that way.
Mrs Cunningham: I'm just going to go back to where I started. I certainly came prepared to talk to each of the titles. The one that I'm looking at, for anybody, is the agency review dated October 25. I started with that report that was given to us by Lynn Mellor, because that's the input. So that's the report that I used in order to bring the information together.
I think there are many topics that came to our attention with regard to not just the role of the Council of Regents but some of the weaknesses in the system that presenters pointed out to us that didn't directly relate to the Council of Regents but that they thought maybe should; for example, the difficulty that we have with OTAB and where the colleges will fit into the whole training structure. Where will the government get the best advice it can with regard to future training needs? Will it come from OTAB? Can in fact the colleges give us better information?
We heard a lot on this subject-matter, and I think that kind of detail has to be put into some kind of report for the minister and for the deputy. This is just one small area where we got a lot of good information, which isn't all in here; it's more in the Hansards.
The concern about the fact that we don't have good statistics in our college system: Since we found this out during the hearings, and since in fact it was the Council of Regents itself that brought it to our attention, we should be underlining that, because if that's something that the ministry should be dealing with in some way, do the colleges do the work themselves or is there some department within the ministry so that we can plan appropriately? Where are the students leaving? What courses do they not find useful? Are they really considered leavers when in fact they may take a job that's attractive to them? Those kinds of things, because I really think that the colleges are a very integral part of our training system, and we may be looking at them to do more work than what they're doing now.
A lot of this came out of this review, which was more useful than what we had expected. I think we have to put that kind of detail into the report. I'm not certain that Mr Pond, if he didn't hear from us in some regard -- and certainly I think all of us should have an opportunity to speak to each of these topics separately, and then at least he would have it on Hansard.
I'm not sure about the most efficient way of doing this, but I do know that I wouldn't expect us to be putting this in writing to Mr Pond and then him coming out with some kind of report that is just received by the committee. I wouldn't find myself particularly useful. I mean, anybody can do that. But as we represent different points of view -- Mr Martin certainly knows more about his community than any of us. I know about Fanshawe, so I'm obviously coming forward with those kinds of things. I think we could have a very helpful report as a result of the hearings, which were really intensive. I think it actually might be very interesting for us to see where we did agree, because I think there are a lot of areas. I would like to do it topic by topic. We should decide today what the topics are and come back prepared to do that and not take a lot of time.
But I think it's important that we get our remarks on the record for Mr Pond, and then we would be more capable of looking at a report that could have some very good information for the minister and the deputy, because I'm certain that we've got some things here that haven't always been stated to them, because there's not time, that I think would be very useful. I think it could be quite a good report.
1100
Our areas of concern should be underlined. I think there are three or four, I can tell you, where I don't think we came to a conclusion and where I don't think we will be able to. But I think we're going to have to take these areas under advisement for some discussion by the council perhaps itself and the ministry. But maybe not the council, maybe just the ministry itself should take a look at this seriously, and certainly the role of the Council of Regents with regard to prior learning assessment. I'm not sure we can agree on that, where it ought to take place or whose responsibility it ought to be, but I think we were convinced that it's an area that they're doing a very good job in.
Ms Gigantes: Who is?
Mrs Cunningham: I'm sorry. The prior learning assessment.
Ms Gigantes: Yes. Who's doing a good job?
Mrs Cunningham: The Council of Regents. I anticipated at the very beginning that this should not be their responsibility. I'm not sure it should be their responsibility, and I think that the minister should be looking at the management role of the Council of Regents. If they want to get into prior learning assessment as part of their responsibility -- I came here thinking it should be the ministry's; I haven't been convinced that it isn't the ministry's, but I am convinced that they're doing a good job, which is what we wanted to hear about.
I think the College Standards and Accreditation Council, since the meetings -- I've had a number of meetings, basically because I'm the critic and I was interested, and I have a lot of points that I would like to share with my colleagues here with regard to two or three good meetings of some of the groups that are part of OTAB, both labour, business and some of the sectoral groups, agriculture for instance.
I discussed our concerns, not just with the Council of Regents -- and I shouldn't say "concerns" -- the role of the Council of Regents, where they fit into OTAB, which is becoming a very big issue, I think, for colleges. I think we're going to be relying on them to do a lot of the training that's being recommended. So I think that would be useful information, and I'm sure my colleagues have some as well.
Ms Gigantes: Could I ask a question for clarification? Dianne, when you talk about standards and accreditation, do you see OTAB as a subset of that --
Mrs Cunningham: No.
Ms Gigantes: -- or are you seeing it the other way around? First you started out with standards and accreditation, then you sort of got off into OTAB. Are you considering this all part of one subject?
Mrs Cunningham: I'm considering OTAB as part of the whole issue of standards and accreditation, period, because we found out through some of the discussions at OTAB that there are certain -- I don't know how to describe it -- work and jobs that already have their standards within that particular area. We found out during the hearings that there are certain courses that might relate to that job. We don't really have to get into accreditation. They should be teaching the courses to meet the accreditation standards that are already there. But some of the colleges would like to have their own. I learned through these hearings that there's a duplication there, and that's something the ministry has to seriously look at, in my view.
Ms Gigantes: Can you indicate your conclusion as far as the role of COR is concerned?
Mrs Cunningham: The Council of Regents?
Ms Gigantes: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: My conclusion, at this point in time, would be that the standards and accreditation for courses that are related to a particular training and a particular area where there are no standards -- I can't give you an example, Evelyn; if I went back to my notes, I could -- should be with the college -- I'm sorry, I'm talking about the individual colleges -- with some kind of direction.
Ms Gigantes: "Some kind of direction." Do you mean CSAC?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, but where CSAC should be, I think it should be arm's length from the colleges. That's how I feel now. I'm not saying that this is the correct answer, but I was asked a question, and given what I've learned, I think there are too many independent groups that have already set the standards in the province, and we should be trying to help them meet those standards. All of these standards, by the way, are with the approval of the government. It's quite complicated, in my view.
Ms Gigantes: If I could go back just for -- I hope this will be helpful.
The Vice-Chair: If I could just for a minute -- we get a conversation going back and forth.
Ms Gigantes: It's because we're trying to define the areas of agreement.
The Vice-Chair: If Mr Pond is getting some good information out of this, that's fine. We've got 20 minutes left to direct him what he's to do, and if we're going to continue to go back and forth, if he's getting something out of it, fine, but if he isn't, I have three other speakers who want to be on the list. It's up to the committee how we want to handle this. Are you finished?
Ms Gigantes: It was my purpose, with the questions I raised, to try and see if we could work out what areas there was agreement on, which would provide guidance for Mr Pond. That's why I was trying to understand better just how you saw the role of COR as it relates to standards and accreditation and CSAC and whether that represented the kind of arm's-length-from-the-colleges process that you wanted to see in standards and accreditation; in other words, whether you think the current arrangement is actually meeting the need.
The Vice-Chair: Have you anything further?
Mrs Cunningham: For the purpose, and given the information and the follow-up that I've been able to do, my recommendation to the minister would be certainly that this particular standards and accreditation council should be at arm's length from the Council of Regents, because I think it's not just what we're doing in our community colleges. I think somebody has to take a look at where there may be some conflicts there and where there's a lot of work being done where there doesn't have to be work. That's all. But I have a whole list here.
The Vice-Chair: A point of order, Mr Curling.
Mrs Cunningham: I just want to say one more thing, and then I'll be quiet. I guess what we're getting into now is an indication of why we should have some discussion around whether we agree or disagree. I don't even know whether it's that important that we all agree or disagree. I think what Mr Pond should be doing as a result of these hearings is giving the government more detailed information where there are areas of concern, otherwise the hearings have been useful, and also information around where we just don't have concern. Like, "Don't put your efforts in here, because we all think that's working fine."
I think there are probably three or four areas where I have significant concerns, and I hate to say it's just about the role of the Council of Regents, because I think we learned more about them; it's probably more about the colleges themselves, because of what we heard from the Council of Regents and others, where we should be directing the minister and the deputy around areas that they've brought to our attention.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Curling, you're next.
Mr Curling: I was going to use a point of order, but the fact is I'll go into my discussion itself, because I really can't see that the debate that is happening now has anything to do with this. As a matter of fact, maybe it has in a way, because what is happening here is that the motion itself, I feel, is out of order, in that direction, to direct the researcher to come up with a conclusion.
Vision 2000 basically was written for 1990, and there are the colleges, 23 plus two, whatever they are, and there is the Council of Regents, which actually is the head body. The fact is, for us to conclude whether or not they are doing their job in carrying out their appropriate duties and then to conclude on that, I'd like to see if we could have a ruling on that, whether or not we can ask the clerk to conclude on something where it should be discussed by all members here after the review and after the interview to say, "Yes, now we will decide whether or not the Council of Regents is performing its duties accordingly," if that's one of the things, because the list of things down here is enormous: whether or not they are doing their duty in regard to this, are they doing their duty in regard to that? So therefore, whether or not we can ask Mr Pond to do that I feel is inappropriate.
1110
Ms Gigantes: Just to make my intent clear, I'm surprised that members of the Liberal Party in particular are expressing the view that the motion is a constrictive motion. Vision 2000 incorporated recommendations that dealt with each of the matters that have been before us, as members of this committee, in terms of the role of COR. Our mandate is to do a report on COR and its role.
While there are many things in the world that we could associate with what we've learned about the college system and training and education and so on, with what we've learned what we were dealing with was the role of COR, I in all good faith thought that to talk about that role in terms of policy which had been established, going back many years, about where our college system should be going, namely the Vision 2000 document, would be a kind of helpful setting.
I don't think it is restrictive in terms of the content that came before us at all. I really don't see that. I think that when Dalton talks about the question of whether COR is the best body to be implementing Vision 2000, that certainly is a question that is open within the meaning of the motion. There's nothing in the motion that rules that out. If that's an issue he wants to raise baldly and boldly, then let us deal with it.
I have a certain point of view on that. I think the roles that have been assigned clearly, directly by the Minister of Education and Training in the implementation of Vision 2000, those issues have been mandated for COR to move on. I think COR is doing a good job and it is the best body. I don't see an alternative body. I don't think we had evidence before us that there was an alternative body. If there's a specific kind of recommendation that Dalton wants to make on it that is different, I'd love to hear it.
But I think the motion was an attempt to be helpful to Mr Pond. If we can indicate within that motion specifically what areas we agree on, which ones we want to define for further discussion, fine, let's do that. That's why I was trying to ask Dianne exactly what it was she felt we had some agreement on and what remaining areas there would be for us to perhaps discuss a little further.
Mr Martin: I wanted to pick up a little bit from Ms Gigantes's remarks and just share some thoughts and maybe lay a question on the table. I heard Mr McGuinty speak to another organization or structure of some sort doing this work, the work of CSAC and prior learning. I'm wondering, as is Ms Gigantes, who he's suggesting does this.
We heard very clearly during the hearings that certainly the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario, that does a very good job in its own right as a professional organization for its members, does not have on it or have the support in any significant way of a very significant portion of the community college community, the teachers or the students, and they would have some real concern with that group taking on this task.
Given that, and then Ms Cunningham suggested that the ministry might pick up this task instead of COR, I guess my concern there is the ministry being in charge. What we need here is an arm's-length organization, and if Ms Cunningham is suggesting that another bureaucracy be set up, with all of the costs that entails in these very difficult financial times, and looking ahead a bit and not seeing it getting a whole lot better, I struggle with that in terms of how we'd do that.
Mrs Cunningham: Just for the record, I'm not suggesting that, Tony.
Mr Martin: Okay. Yes, maybe we need to hear more from you then on that.
Mrs Cunningham: Of course. How do you know what people are suggesting?
Mr Martin: If COR is doing a good job in most areas, according to Ms Cunningham, then why couldn't we, maybe through some recommendations of a report that we could get here on this particular piece, make some suggestions as to how they might in fact do that. If we have some concerns we can lay it on the table, and if the way they came forward as forthright and honest as they did in front of the committee a while back is any indication of the response they would give to any challenge that we throw to them, I'm very optimistic and hopeful that they will do that.
I've got great confidence in the group of people that has been gathered around the table that we call COR to do this very, I think, important work. Again, there was some reference by Ms Cunningham to the further work the college system will have to do probably before your question of OTAB, which calls out very loudly and clearly for the work of PLA and CSAC to in fact be done.
If they're going to be more involved, it just becomes much more important even than now, much more critical that we have standards that cross the whole province, that we have prior learning assessment tools that are the same everywhere, that we have an arm's-length organization which is working with this to make sure that no one particular interest group or stakeholder group or organization is served any differently than another.
If we have some concerns around the Council of Regents and the delivery of this particular piece, which I think, as I said, from having sat through these hearings, was the real reason for them, then let's focus on that and get it done, because we don't have a whole lot more time here. We've got about two more weeks left. If we want to get the job done in that time or whatever while we're still all around here -- we could always come back, I guess. I say let's get it done.
Mr McGuinty: I see that our --
The Vice-Chair: Ten minutes.
Mr McGuinty: Yes, we're running out of time here, Mr Chair, and our researcher is patiently looking for guidance. I'm not sure we've been able to provide that to date, to this moment in time. But he suggested something earlier that I think made some sense. I would support his efforts to prepare a draft report in which he defined the broader issues and then provided us with a series of optional recommendations. Then we'll all have something in front of us.
I feel that there would be certainly some agreement on some of those issues that would help us move along in more of a systematic manner rather than the way we are right now, which is essentially pulling these things out of the air in kind of a happenstance style and we may or may not touch on the issues that we feel are important. I think we should take Mr Pond up on his offer to prepare a draft report where he defines the broader issues and then provides us with a series of optional recommendations. We'll have those before us and we'll be able to deal with it I think in a more effective manner.
Mrs Cunningham: I don't have any problem with that. I just wanted to respond to Mr Martin because I just want to set the record straight. I specifically got on the topic of CSAC because it's where I tried to get some better information so I could bring it to the committee. In doing so, I was directed time and time again to different subcommittees of OTAB, so that's maybe why I raised it. But I want to be very clear that CSAC itself feels it should be an independent body. That was a recommendation to us. I want to be very clear on that.
I want to be very clear that CSAC should be kept independent of the ministry, the Council of Regents and ACAATO. The deputy minister said that himself and so did Walter Pitman, who's done so much work in this area. We should seriously think about making a different recommendation for CSAC if we've done our homework.
1120
The third point I'd like to make is that CSAC is developing system-wide standards, which can only be done outside the existing college structures for some of the reasons I tried to bring forward, what I found out. I think it's an area that we should seriously be thinking about with regard to where that body fits. That was Mr Jackson.
If we're getting CSAC themselves, they were very concerned about being independent. They said they had no substantive interaction with the Council of Regents but there was a perception that they were controlled by them. I think the good thing that came out of the hearings was the fact that we were pleased to hear that.
How do we give them the kind of credibility they need to get their job done so that there aren't these kinds of criticisms? I would say we have to make a different arrangement. I don't know which one would be best. I just wanted to respond to Mr Martin. I'm not talking about another bureaucracy here, but I do think we should give it some consideration. Maybe that's something the deputy minister, after all of the good advice he's had from Mr Pitman and CSAC themselves -- maybe they should be talking about it. But clearly the key players don't think it should be where it is.
I wouldn't want to speak for Mr Johnston, but I don't think he felt he had any particular need to be involved in it any more because of course he provided the leadership in the beginning. I think it's worthy of consideration. It's just one point and I wanted to be very clear on the record.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. I think Ms Gigantes and then we should deal with the resolution.
Ms Gigantes: I'll be very brief. We've had indication, at least from Dianne, that she feels that on the question of prior learning assessment, COR is doing a good job and that the committee hearings really did help us understand the full gamut of the work they're doing and the way that work was being treated by all the players. They all felt it had to be done and that COR was carrying it out well. I think we probably have agreement around the room on that.
The second large matter, CSAC, is one obviously that we could have more discussion upon. But I would note to Dianne that while everybody said CSAC should be independent and there was no argument about that, there was on the other side no criticism that it wasn't. In fact, I'd like her to reflect on the fact --
Mrs Cunningham: Oh, no, no. I was at the meetings and there was a lot of perception --
Ms Gigantes: -- that the perception is a perception that really our discussions helped dispel, because what CSAC is, in terms of COR, is a body which relies on COR for a lot of administrative functions. I think we have to face the fact that if you're going to make it any more arm's length and so you can put it out there and everybody can say, "Now we have a perfect perception," you're going to have to set up another administrative body to go with it, because that's all the overlap there is. I think we need to bear that in mind as we think about the further discussion we'll have.
If it will be helpful to this committee's work right now to withdraw this motion or to amend this motion or to have another motion, let's do it while we have a few minutes. Let's give the researcher whatever instruction we want, but let us say to him the things we agree on. If he has some sense of that from what we've had as discussion so far, good. If we need to pass motions on it, let's do that. I'm in your hands, Mr Chair.
The Vice-Chair: I would ask Mr Pond if with the direction he's received and some of the suggestions, if she withdrew the motion, he could prepare a draft to come back.
Mr Pond: Certainly, as I indicated earlier, I'm happy to do that. I'm in your hands. But I really want to emphasize, as Ms Cunningham said, there were real differences in this committee and between witnesses and members of this committee over the major issues, every single issue, and you decide now that you want to have a consensus report. That's fine, but I haven't heard that consensus yet here today. If you read my summary of recommendations and comments, the differences come through loud and clear.
I will prepare a draft report along the lines Mr McGuinty indicated, but they will be options and you will have to choose the options. They will be mutually exclusionary options on any of these issues. That's the reality.
The Vice-Chair: Then we'll meet --
Ms Gigantes: Can I ask on that, is it important, Mr Pond, at this stage to understand if Mr McGuinty feels that COR shouldn't be carrying out some of its given duties, that Mr McGuinty give some indication who he thinks should?
The Vice-Chair: I think we're going to have to come back on December 6. Mr Pond is going to do a report for next week, November 30. Then will the committee meet next week or December 6? We could meet both times.
Mr Martin: If I might, I really feel strongly that the report should be more focused. I agree with them that there was certainly a difference of opinion and in some instances it's a big issue and it's like, is government working properly? Can we discuss that here at this table and come up with some -- we all have differences of opinion on this one.
The piece that seems to be of most concern to people at the moment, because it's the evolving piece, is this question of PLA and CSAC and is it doing the job and where does it belong? Certainly, there have been some issues raised here today about that. For example, it's my understanding that CSAC is already an independent body. Can we get some suggestion from the researcher as to whether that is true, and the only question is, where should it be housed?
It seems to me that yes, we need a report, but we need a focused report because we need to respond to the issue that is of most concern and that we can probably do something about in the short term, as opposed to perhaps the long term. That's what I would like to do. I would like to see a more focused report and I would like to see the researcher come back with some facts and figures and information that reflect the reality of today as opposed to what he heard from folks who in some instances, like we all do, have some stake in this.
Mr Pond: One point, though, sir: Many of the issues Mr Johnston addressed himself and put on the table for the committee to consider did not flow out of Vision 2000. The college governance was the issue which led this committee to choose the Council of Regents for review. That's not in Vision 2000. The unreliability of the stats in Vision 2000 --
Mr Martin: That's been resolved, though.
Mr Pond: No, it's not been resolved, sir, with all due respect.
Mr Martin: It has. The rollout of the report, and now we're waiting for the ministry response, I think has lowered the level of anxiety around that particular question, and that's politics. That's the way this place has worked, it seems, in my four years. You know, it goes like this and yes, that was a popular, attractive issue at the moment, and from what I've gathered so far, from the response I've seen both locally and provincially to what has been suggested, we're getting there.
The Vice-Chair: We have a motion on the floor. We've run out of time. Are we going to proceed with the motion or are we going to withdraw it?
Mrs Cunningham: Could I just ask, through you to Ms Gigantes, that she withdraw the second statement. I think it's too narrow. We should focus on the table of contents of the issues that were discussed. That should be Mr Pond's direction. I think his own example of the governance and I would say the collective bargaining -- there were seven recommendations there -- we should be dealing with those. I don't think you wanted to preclude us dealing with either of those things in your motion, did you?
Ms Gigantes: No. I had actually hoped that in many cases there would be a good deal of consensus. I sense from this discussion that members opposite may want to carry on discussion around some of these items for some period of time. I have no objection. It's quite interesting. I'd just as soon be doing this as anything else.
The Vice-Chair: I want to say to you that you have a motion before us. Are we going to deal with the motion?
Ms Gigantes: I'll withdraw the motion completely and have somebody else bring a motion that they think is better.
The Vice-Chair: Would it be an agreement of the committee then to have Mr Pond prepare some type of a draft report for next Wednesday?
Mr McGuinty: With optional recommendations.
The Vice-Chair: Optional recommendations. Is that agreed? Agreed.
1130
ST LAWRENCE PARKS COMMISSION
The Vice-Chair: Next, we're dealing with Mr David Warner, superintendent, St Lawrence Islands National Park, Parks Canada. Would you like to have a seat, Mr Warner, at the front.
Mr Warner, you've been asked to appear before the committee. There have been some deliberations going on with regard to the St Lawrence Parks Commission and I think the committee was looking for some input from you. Do you have anything prepared?
Mr David Warner: Yes, I do. It's being distributed. What I'd like to do is speak for just a couple of minutes to a piece of graphic work that I'll use at the flip chart stand, and then I'll more or less read from my notes. I'll break from time to time, but it won't take me very long to go through my notes and then that'll leave ample time for questions if that's acceptable to you.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, that'd be great. You have half an hour allotted for your statement and questions.
Mr Warner: I'm sure that'll be more than enough.
As a bit of an introduction, I'll just draw your attention to the geographic area that I'm going to speak about, and that is the Thousand Islands.
If you look at the satellite image, you can imagine that it's the east end of Lake Ontario. The bottom centre would be the city of Kingston and as you go east along the river, you're in the Thousand Islands, and the satellite image ends just east of Brockville. The other reason for drawing your attention to this satellite image is that a predominant geological feature is highlighted there and it's called the Frontenac Axis.
If you can use your imagination, you can see a bit of a dark green colour in the satellite image that crosses more or less north-south the St Lawrence River from the United States, trending north to the top left-hand corner of your picture. That's a geological feature known as the Frontenac Axis and it's particularly relevant to what I'm going to talk about.
The St Lawrence Parks Commission has holdings along the St Lawrence River between Highway 401 and the St Lawrence; roughly from Kingston eastward out of the satellite image. I understand the committee's had an opportunity to hear briefs from other parties concerned with the same question and I understand that perhaps you've had an opportunity to see some of the facilities of the St Lawrence Parks Commission. Unless there are other questions about the satellite image, I'll leave that for the moment.
The other piece of information I draw your attention to is a brochure that I brought that concerns St Lawrence Islands National Park. It's perhaps a little more of a breakdown or a finer detail than what you see in the satellite image without the benefit of the geological features showing up.
The only other bit of introduction I will provide you is that I'm the superintendent of St Lawrence Islands National Park and that's part of the Parks Canada organizations, as is for example, the Rideau Canal, Banff National Park, a system of parks and historic sites across the country, and we're part of the federal department of Canadian Heritage.
I'll speak now from my notes and, as I said, I'll break from time to time for some elaboration, but there'll be ample opportunity if you like to ask questions.
First of all, both St Lawrence Islands National Park and the provincial St Lawrence Parks Commission share an interest in the geographical area known as the Thousand Islands. Geologically, this area is known as the Frontenac Axis, which is another name for a narrow neck of granite rock which connects the Canadian Precambrian Shield, for example, Algonquin Park with the Adirondack Mountains of New York state.
This overlapping or shared jurisdiction is significant for a number of reasons which I'll describe later, but for purposes of background, I should note that the Frontenac Axis provides this region with a significant character and its features. These include the internationally famous Thousand Islands which are literally the tops of an ancient and worn mountain chain.
On the mainland, the rocky ridges and granite outcrops contribute to the region's unique scenic qualities. These in turn provide the basis for the region's tourist activities which include camping, boating, picnicking, fishing, touring by car, motor coach and tour boat.
In short, the region's tourist economy is based on a unique geological feature and its intersection with one of the world's greatest rivers, the St Lawrence. If you can imagine yourself driving east along Highway 401, you would come into this area just east of Gananoque and you notice quite a dramatic change in the landscape until you're east of Brockville.
This does not mean that the two agencies are working in a recently discovered wilderness area of eastern Ontario. The prehistoric record of human occupation of the region dates back some 9,000 years. Early European explorers found large native villages; one of them Toniata, which is yet to be rediscovered. Early travellers and the first tourists of the 1800s remarked on the region's outstanding beauty. United Empire Loyalists settled and farmed many of the larger islands and the Canadian mainland. By the late 1800s, the Thousand Islands had become a destination area for tourists, and summer homes were being built here by both Canadians and Americans.
Against this background of agriculture, tourism and recreation, the idea of a national park was developed. At the turn of the century, local residents became concerned that many of their traditional recreational opportunities were disappearing as many of the islands were being developed, particularly by the wealthy.
Residents between Gananoque and Brockville petitioned the federal government to retain some islands for public use and enjoyment. By the way, this pressure for a national park began back in the 1870s, which is unique because there were very few national parks in the world at that time. In 1904, the government set aside nine islands in the St Lawrence and these, together with a parcel of land donated by the Mallory family at Mallorytown Landing, became the nucleus of St Lawrence Islands National Park, one of the oldest national parks in the world.
Today, the national park is still an important segment of the regional tourist industry. St Lawrence Islands consists of 21 islands or parts of islands scattered from Kingston to Brockville. The majority of park islands have a range of facilities for boaters including docks, campsites and picnic areas. It is the only public agency which provides this number and range of facilities in the Thousand Islands.
Because it provides recreational opportunities for boaters, the national park has complemented the role of the St Lawrence Parks Commission which provides high quality recreational opportunities for land-based visitors to the region. Although the national park operates a small campground and day use area at Mallorytown Landing, it still does not duplicate the facilities and services offered by the province in this area.
The role of St Lawrence Islands National Park, however, goes beyond the provision of recreational facilities for boaters. As inventories of natural resources were begun in the 1960s and 1970s, it became apparent that the Thousand Islands region was unique for a number of reasons. Several species of plants and animals are at the outer limit of their range here. Several species are found nowhere else in Canada and can be considered threatened, rare or endangered. As well, the diversity of plant and animal species is particularly rich considering the amount of development that has occurred on the Frontenac Axis.
Clearly, the role of the national park has been to protect these resources. This responsibility is spelled out in federal legislation, the National Parks Act. Herein lies the challenge for us because the national park is very small and it cannot guarantee the protection and survival of all significant resources in the region.
When this became apparent, about 25 years ago, there were various plans prepared to address the question of whether Parks Canada could fulfil its mandate.
1140
Mr Curling: On a point of order, Mr Chair: May I apologize first for interrupting you in your presentation. I just wondered though for the limited time, if you could just read the summary so some questions that we have you could clarify for us later on, because I think it's going to rotate three times for the three different parties. Would that be appropriate?
The Vice-Chair: Is that an agreement of the committee? Fine. Would you maybe just do that and then we'll have a question each probably by the time --
Mr Warner: Okay.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you.
Mr Warner: By way of summary then, both the St Lawrence Parks Commission and Parks Canada are concerned with preserving the heritage values of the Thousand Islands region. The economic health of the region depends to a large extent on the unique combination of natural and cultural history, which is evident on the geological feature known as the Frontenac Axis. Both agencies have been engaged in joint planning exercises for several years which illustrates the value of cooperation and coordination between the province and the federal government in this area.
The commission has a major influence on the development of the region and by continuing to work with St Lawrence Islands National Park and other agencies, it can help ensure the success of an ecosystem approach to land management.
The need for close cooperation is highlighted because the national park is small and its holdings are scattered islands in the St Lawrence River, yet the national park, Parks Canada, has been given a lead role in introducing the concept of ecosystem management.
The parks commission has significant land holdings, both shoreline and inland, which form a major part of the regional ecosystem. The commission therefore can also play a leadership role in protecting the heritage of the Thousands Islands region, both directly and by cooperating with other agencies. Through its careful management of undeveloped properties and recreational facilities, the commission will provide opportunities for thousands of visitors and residents to learn about and appreciate this unique heritage asset for many generations.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Warner. Mr Frankford, do you have a question?
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Yes, I was interested on page 5, the mention of one of a handful of land trusts in the province. In our hearings we had a lot of discussions about the private-public balance of land and responsibilities, and the question of land trusts I remember was raised and commented on favourably by one of the officials from the St Lawrence Parks Commission. Could you elaborate on what there is there and also your thoughts on whether this could be or should be extended?
Mr Warner: Yes, I'm glad you asked because I think the land trust move in general and the land trusts in the Thousand Islands are very important. It'll be very important for the future of protection and conservation of natural and cultural resources in the province. It provides private property owners with more options. For example, if they have significant, or what they think are significant, resources on their property, whether it's an old building or an archeological site or a woodlot, it provides them with an option for protecting that in the future without giving up ownership.
That's my personal view of land trusts and they can do that hopefully in the future with a number of mechanisms at their disposal: easements or just private stewardship whereby the land trust provides information to the private property owner about how to protect those resources on their land and, through a voluntary agreement with the land trust, those resources are protected by the private property owner.
It can extend to outright donation or sale of property to a land trust. It opens up a whole new toolkit of options, as far as I'm concerned, for the private property owner, who is concerned about protecting resources without having to sell their property or give it to the government. From the government's point of view, it means those resources are protected without having to have direct ownership and control of them.
Mr Frankford: As I recall when it was mentioned, the topic was brought up, we were told that there are few land trusts in the province and it requires some clarification of federal legislation. Do you know about that and can you tell us more?
Mr Warner: No, I'm not sure what the reference would be to federal legislation. The land trust in our area evolved out of an ad hoc committee that was concerned about one particular significant piece of property called Darlingside. They proceeded to organize themselves. They became incorporated and now have charitable status, so they're a bona fide, non-profit organization functioning as a land trust now. They're relatively new, so they spend a lot of their time getting organized. Now that they have charitable status, they'll raise funds, they'll encourage membership, but I don't think they need to wait for any other legislation, federal or provincial, to do their work.
The Vice-Chair: You have three minutes left, if there's anybody else who would like ask some more questions. I'm allowing seven minutes to each party. If you haven't anything further, then we'll move on to Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: Mr Warner, thank you for coming. We have, as you know, been reviewing the St Lawrence Parks Commission and there's no doubt that again I am extremely impressed with the great asset that is there and what can be done with it.
We're also concerned -- and especially Mr Cleary, who would have wanted so much to be here to ask some of those questions because he has raised some of the concerns that I know you must have heard about; for instance, the closing of the parks, some parts of the parks. From time to time he would voice the fact that tourists will be coming in from the United States and not even knowing that the parks will be closed. I know there must be some good rationale as to why this is so.
But the question he would have asked if he were here is whether or not these parks that are run by the government and closed should not be leased to the private sector to conduct the operation, continue to provide that service to the public and also to generate some more money within the community.
Mr Warner: Right. It's difficult for me to comment on because I don't work for the St Lawrence Parks Commission, although I know it has leased out some of the campgrounds that were closed and there are some that are still not open that were closed a few years ago. I'm not sure where their efforts lie right now, whether they're going to try to reopen all of them under a private lease arrangement or whether they're going to remain closed.
From the point of view of a private citizen living in that area, I know there are camping opportunities available and the busiest campground is at Ivy Lea. It's still open. It runs at almost 100% occupancy. It's well known. It's very popular. The other one that was closed some years ago was Brown's Bay, just east of Parks Canada headquarters. I understand from talking to parks commission staff that Brown's Bay was one of the least heavily used campgrounds and that was the main reason why it was closed.
As for people not knowing where camping opportunities are in the area, I really can't comment on it. The province has an excellent tourist information bureau on Hill Island at the international border coming into the area. There's a second one operated by the Rideau Lake-Thousand Islands travel council on the Thousand Islands Parkway, which also provides information on a range of camping opportunities in the area. I really can't comment outside the Thousand Islands. I know there are other campgrounds that were leased out and some that remain closed outside our area, but I'm sorry, I'm not familiar enough with them to comment.
Mr Curling: Do you see at all that any of those closures have any negative impact? I'm talking about those that are operated by the government itself. Do those closures have any negative impact on the economy there? Because to my understanding, and I'm no expert on that, I understand they would come to these parks. Now they are closed, and there are reasons why. At one stage, I heard there were some union concerns, a disagreement, and it was closed. Are you familiar with that?
Mr Warner: Not intimately, just what I've read in the newspaper, that some campgrounds remain closed and some have been reopened. I just want to reiterate, the one I'm familiar with near where I live is Brown's Bay campground and it was very underutilized, and I think that was one of the reasons why it was closed. That's not to say it couldn't reopen, but the statistics that I heard from the St Lawrence Parks Commission indicated that it was not a heavily used campground.
The other point I'd make is that there are private campgrounds in the area as well that operate in the Thousand Islands region, plus a provincial park called Charleston Lake nearby. So there is a range of camping opportunities in the Thousand Islands that I'm aware of. As I said, I can't comment on outside the Thousand Islands region about other campgrounds because I'm just not familiar with them.
1150
Mr Curling: It was felt too that to utilize the place more, some of the traffic that we have, for instance, in Toronto at certain times of the year could be redirected up into the St Lawrence to utilize those great assets there. Is there any suggestion, any recommendation, any thought you have on that, how that could be done?
I'll give you an example. For instance, they say in August, which we know, for the Caribana effort here, millions of people come to the city. Beyond that, it's not only Toronto that has these great assets of wealth, of things that we have in our country, but somehow some of that traffic could go to the St Lawrence park area, the Thousand Islands area. Do you have any thoughts on that or any concern that this could be done?
Mr Warner: Just a couple of comments: Parks Canada's involvement is of course related to tourism, because we provide a range of facilities on the islands for boaters. We're also working more and more closely with local communities in promoting tourism generally.
My personal observation is that events like Festival of the Islands in Gananoque which is held in August do attract a number of people who would not otherwise travel to our area at that time of year. So perhaps it's through the promotion of special events like this that we could help balance things out from one month to the next.
As far as the boating public is concerned, and that's the clientele that I'm more familiar with, there is a bit of a dropoff in August. But the fact is, interest in boating is growing and it will continue to grow for some time, and August is still a very popular month to travel to the Thousand Islands. I can't think of any special recommendations as far as the boating public is concerned in that regard.
The Vice-Chair: I'll use 30 seconds of Mr Curling's time. You say there's more use of boatage on the system. Why then are they cutting the hours back on the St Lawrence system?
Mr Warner: By the "St Lawrence system," what do you mean?
The Vice-Chair: The Trent-Severn waterway.
Mr Warner: Oh, the Parks Canada system. I understand that's an effort to help balance the budget, but again, I'm not the superintendent of those areas.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Runciman.
Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): David, you've been at the Mallorytown national park for quite a number of years now. I'm just wondering, when we're taking a look at the parks commission, trying to come up with some recommendations in terms of its operation, do you see any overlaps in terms of the things you're doing and that the parks commission is doing so that perhaps we could either be cutting back in one area or doing it jointly? Do you run across those kinds of things on occasion, and could you tell us what they are if indeed you do?
Mr Warner: I guess one of the points I was trying to make in this paper is that we think we've addressed that in the past several years, so that we've cut out or tried to avoid obvious duplication. Our role is one of resource protection and presentation of those resources, whereas the parks commission is more heavily into recreation.
Mr Runciman: So you don't see any, is that what you're saying?
Mr Warner: If there is, in my view it would be fairly minor. We both try to protect a good part of the ecosystem, and the St Lawrence Parks Commission has undeveloped lands in the area which complement our role, the Parks Canada role. We have a small campground at Mallorytown Landing. One might argue that it's a duplication if there's a better campground down at Ivy Lea, but I think if we focus our efforts at Mallorytown Landing on education and environmental awareness, that will avoid that duplication.
Mr Runciman: What kind of year did you have at Mallorytown Landing?
Mr Warner: Camping was up a little bit, as was day use. We had, as you know, good summer weather, so it was a fairly good year. Camping at Mallorytown Landing is still not at the levels it was, say, 10 years ago. There's been a dropoff there.
Mr Runciman: I guess I'm curious. A number of years ago there was a proposal on the table -- I can't recall what the political stripe of the government was at the time -- to develop what they called an interpretive centre along the parkway. You have, I guess, an interpretive centre at --
Mr Warner: A very small one.
Mr Runciman: It's a small one. But it seems to me that's the sort of thing both levels of government could work together to develop. It made good sense to me at the time that it should be developed perhaps jointly at the Mallorytown Landing site. Maybe there were some limitations there in terms of land, I'm not sure, but I know the government of the day, or whoever, perhaps it was the commission officers, decided at the time that they were going to go to Landon Bay, which is closer to Gananoque. I guess I'm wondering if you see that sort of thing in the future. Why couldn't the two agencies, the federal and provincial agencies, work together to develop something along those lines?
Mr Warner: I find it hard to speak for head office, but from my own point of view, from Mallorytown Landing, yes, it still makes sense for us to cooperate and try to develop a facility that we could run jointly. Whether it's a brand new building, I'm not sure we can afford that. There is a provincially owned facility at Reynolds Road which is now a tourist information office. Off the top of my head, that's something that maybe we should look at jointly, even including the current occupant, which is the Rideau Lake-Thousand Islands travel council. The Gananoque chamber of commerce, the Thousand Islands chamber of commerce, Parks Canada -- there are a number of agencies in the area that could benefit from that type of facility. I think the order of the day is partnerships, and the more partnerships, the more viable --
Mr Runciman: With the private sector perhaps.
Mr Warner: Yes.
Mr Runciman: Do you sit down on a regular basis with officials from the parks commission to talk about these kinds of things?
Mr Warner: Yes, we do.
Mr Runciman: Brainstorm about what you could be doing along the parkway and other areas?
Mr Warner: We do from time to time. In fact I met with a couple of officials just yesterday from the commission on signage. We provide interpretive educational signage along the parkway, and we'll continue to do so as long as we can afford it. We get together on a regular basis to discuss where that educational message should be conveyed.
Mr Runciman: My colleague has a question.
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Do you compare fee structures? I gather you have a campsite at Brown's Bay. Do you compare fee structures with the private sector, the parks of the St Lawrence etc? Are you aware we have the private camping association being concerned that the government owns prime waterfront property and yet may not be charging sufficiently, and in competition with the private sector that is unfair? How do you handle that?
Mr Warner: I think how we handled it in the past perhaps isn't as important as how we're going to handle it in the future, because I think both agencies have been put on notice that we have to work more quickly towards self-sufficiency. Speaking for Parks Canada, we're increasing our fees at Mallorytown Landing at our picnic area. At our docking facilities on the islands the fees will increase and they will continue to increase. The same for camping on the islands.
Parks Canada has been looking at those recreation facilities that are of personal or private benefit to the user and trying to match the fees with the benefit the user is getting from those rather than relying on a subsidy, so I think you'll see us increasing our fees, closer to what the private sector would be charging for similar facilities in the area.
Mr Villeneuve: Would you say your facilities are as good or better than most privately owned operations?
Mr Warner: It varies. In the case of docking facilities on islands, it's hard to compare because the city of Brockville is the only other agency with docking facilities. So in a sense there is no comparison. When it comes to camping facilities on the mainland, our campground is below standard. We do not provide the range of facilities that a private campground would at Mallorytown Landing. Our campground is some 50 sites. It's very --
Mr Villeneuve: All serviced?
Mr Warner: No.
Mr Villeneuve: None serviced?
Mr Warner: Just hot and cold running water and flush toilets; no showers, no hook-ups.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. You've exhausted your time, and I'll allow two minutes for Ms Gigantes if she would like.
Ms Gigantes: I just wanted to make sure that nobody was left with the impression that Brown's Bay was not open and used by the public. It's very active, just not for camping.
Mr Warner: Yes. When I was addressing that question, it was in reference to a campground.
Ms Gigantes: That's right.
Mr Warner: The picnic area at Brown's Bay complements what we have at Mallorytown Landing. It's a very active and very busy facility, and we refer a lot of people there, particularly tour buses.
Ms Gigantes: Very pleasant, yes.
The Vice-Chair: I thank you for appearing before the committee today. Your input will be a great asset to us, and thank you once again.
This committee will adjourn and the subcommittee will meet for five minutes now to deal with a couple of basic items.
The committee adjourned at 1201.