DRAFT REPORTS
ONTARIO FOOD TERMINAL BOARD
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
CONTENTS
Wednesday 13 April 1994
Subcommittee report
Draft reports
Ontario Food Terminal Board
Workers' Compensation Board
Ontario Human Rights Commission
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)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC) for Mrs Witmer
Klopp, Paul (Huron ND) for Mr Mammoliti
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND) for Ms Harrington
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC) for Mrs Marland
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel:
Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Yeager, Lewis, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1003 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Vice-Chair (Mr Allan K. McLean): I call the standing committee on government agencies to order. The first item of business on the agenda is the report of the subcommittee meeting held on Wednesday, April 6. If that report is satisfactory, a motion to adopt would be appropriate.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): So moved.
The Vice-Chair: Any discussion on the report? If not, all those in favour? The subcommittee report is carried.
DRAFT REPORTS
ONTARIO FOOD TERMINAL BOARD
The Vice-Chair: The next item of business is to review the draft report of the Ontario Food Terminal Board. Our researcher, Jerry, has a few comments he'd like to make.
Mr Jerry Richmond: Thank you, Mr Chairman, just a few housekeeping matters. I distributed a press clipping on the truckers' strike in the States. I spoke the other day to Mr Carsley, the general manager of the food terminal. You see there on the second column, the third paragraph, there's mention of the food terminal. Mr Carsley confirmed that the Teamsters truckers' strike in the US is not having an impact upon produce shipments by truck into the food terminal. He indicated to me that most of those long-distance truckers who come up from the States are non-unionized, independent operators, so to date the strike has had no effect. I just thought I'd bring that to your attention.
A few other matters in the body of the report. In looking at it, I came across a few housekeeping changes, so I'll very briefly bring those to your attention. What I'm looking for at the end, I guess, is concurrence on the committee's part that when I revise the report I would incorporate these housekeeping changes plus any other changes the committee agrees to today.
On page 1 of the report, the main body of the report --
Interjection.
The Vice-Chair: It is the food terminal report. What date is on that? Some of the members are not informed.
Mr Richmond: There's a covering memo dated March 22, 1994, addressed to Mrs Marland from me. The title is Draft Report on the Ontario Food Terminal.
The Vice-Chair: Has everybody found that?
Mr Richmond: That's the covering memo, then there's the report itself. Page 1 of the main report has "Introduction" at the top. Everyone's with me? There are some things I wanted to bring to your attention.
On page 1, the second paragraph, the last sentence will be expanded to reflect this committee's deliberations on March 30, 1994, and the deliberations of today, something to the effect of "On March 30, 1994, the draft report was presented to the committee," and then there'll be a following sentence making reference to today's discussions. If we finish the report today, that will be it. If there are additional days, I will make reference to those.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): We've got to finish today.
Mr Richmond: Okay. That's one thing.
On page 22 now, at the top of the page, there's a draft recommendation relating to the food terminal's conservation and waste reduction efforts. In looking at that, I feel it would be better for the wording to be changed, and I'll just suggest the wording. What I've done in the wording change allows the recommendation to stand on its own. It essentially says the same thing. The wording will be along the following lines, "The efforts of the food terminal board to date, to practice waste reduction, reuse, recycling and conservation are to be commended and the committee encourages..." and then the recommendation will remain the same. It's just a wording change.
The other change is on page 23, draft recommendation 12. As we discussed earlier, and the clerk has received confirmation, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has recently been renamed Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. The reference in that recommendation, if it should remain, will be to the ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, just to reflect its current name.
That it's it in terms of housekeeping changes. I just wanted to bring those to your attention.
The Vice-Chair: Do the government members have any changes that they foresee should be done in the report?
Mr Waters: There's something I wanted to pursue a bit more, because we had a fair amount of discussion last week about it. I can't remember who was sitting in on the other side -- Mr Mahoney, I believe -- and he brought up the topic, and I can't remember what page offhand --
The Vice-Chair: Page 10, I think.
Mr Waters: It was about the C unit, as I believe it's called, at the food terminal. It was decided that they wouldn't go ahead with it, and there was some discussion about the return of money that was put down by, in this case, I think a Mr Vetere. We just got these answers, and I was wondering if we could take a moment to read them over so we could indeed have a bit of understanding. I believe it is an important issue.
1010
When I read the letter, by the way, from Agriculture and Food, I get the feeling that it was indeed this gentleman's lawyer who contacted the food terminal and said he no longer wished to proceed, as it states in paragraph 2. The feeling I received from discussions with the food terminal, and it says in the report, was that the food terminal had decided to no longer proceed. In there lies a problem. We have to determine who didn't want to proceed here. If indeed it was the food terminal, maybe it does owe this gentleman his money. If it was he who decided he didn't want to proceed, he knew up front that if he backed out he'd lose his money. I was wondering whether anyone had any answers to that.
The Vice-Chair: Do you want to recess for five minutes to caucus it or talk about it?
Mr Waters: I'm looking at the researcher. Maybe he has some answers for us that would help us make our decision on this. I don't know whether we really need to caucus or whether, as a committee, we have to come up with a decision.
The Vice-Chair: When the original draft agreement was signed, they were proceeding with the other C units, and it was later scaled down to five units. From information I have, the food terminal recorded a loss trying to accommodate proceeding with the C units. I presume the agreement made with the new tenants and the food terminal -- does anybody have a copy of that? That agreement is what would dictate whether they would be allowed to get any money back or not.
Mr Waters: If I might, Mr Chair, I think the key thing -- as I read the letter from Ag and Food, it implies that indeed the proposed tenant decided he no longer wished to proceed with his commitment to lease the new wholesale unit, but when I read the report, it says it was cancelled by the board.
The Vice-Chair: After they got that letter, perhaps.
Mr Waters: I think that's what we have to know. If the board made the decision and as a result of that decision the letter came from the lawyer, the board should have some responsibility. But if the letter came from the lawyer in advance and initiated the decision not to go ahead with unit C, then I think this gentleman is out of luck.
The Vice-Chair: There's nobody here who is going to be able to answer those questions. I think it's going to have to come from either the legal people of the food terminal or the legal people from the ministry to give us a definition. We can't solve it.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): To elaborate on that, it seems to me that this is exactly what is under litigation right now. Who are we to give an opinion which is clearly being reviewed by a court?
The Vice-Chair: Yes. We're not going to be able to resolve that, and there's nobody here who's going to be able to give us that opinion.
Are there any other sections of the report that somebody has a concern about? If there aren't, once we get this clarified we will be able to approve the report, but we can't do that until we get this clarified.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): What are we trying to clarify? The question Dan brought up was an interesting question, but quite clearly, in the minister's letter dated April 11, 1994, the solicitors of both the tenderer and the board will continue to discuss this and make a decision. That's the clarification, and as far as I'm concerned it's clarified. It's in the hands of litigation. Leave it at that.
The Vice-Chair: Fine. If that's satisfactory with the government, that's fine with me. Are there any comments from the opposition?
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): No, I just think it should be cleared up there at some time shortly before the final comes in. I can see what the members are talking about.
The Vice-Chair: So we can accept this report subject to the clarification or accept it as it is. What do you want to do? It's up to the committee.
Mr Richmond: The discussion in the report of the return or non-return of the deposits for the construction of the C units is covered beginning on the bottom of page 8 and moving into the top of page 9. If appropriate, I'll just read those sentences. If you wish, you can relate that to the correspondence we've received from Mr Carsley at the food terminal and the response of the minister, then the committee can make a final determination whether this wording is appropriate.
The sense that I got generally, though, from the committee is that you appear to be regarding -- this matter of the return of the moneys is still subject to legal action; therefore, the sense I got is that there's this sub judice rule. I'm not a lawyer but I've heard that one before and I can certainly consult with our lawyers in legislative research. Let me just read you those sentences, then maybe we can make a decision as to whether you feel that description is still appropriate.
Let me just read into the record the whole paragraph, if I may, at the bottom of page 8, just to put it into context:
"In 1988 the OFT board, in response to recommendations by the government agencies committee (1988 report) embarked upon a project to build 10 new `C' produce warehouse units," and these were to have been located at the south end of the food terminal property, "which would be leased to tenants without the perpetuity clause. This building, which would also have included second-storey office space and additional truck loading docks, was planned to be built along the southern limits of the terminal property." As an aside, the food terminal did incur costs. They employed engineers and architects to actually design these structures. So they did incur, my recollection is, several hundred thousand dollars in consultants' costs in doing up the designs for these buildings. "This project was later scaled down to five units."
Now here's the key part, these next couple of sentences: "In 1990 because of a change in economic and financial conditions three prospective tenants who had signed agreements to lease in this new facility indicated that they were no longer interested. The `C unit' project was therefore cancelled by the board and has not been reactivated. The OFT retained the deposits made in the case of these cancellations. The expenditures associated with this aborted project resulted in the OFT recording a loss in 1990-91."
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. I think that clarifies it. I think what we need is a motion to adopt the report.
Mr Waters: I have one more question.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Waters and then Ms Carter.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): What troubled me was whether they'd undertaken the expansion at the request of those people in the first place. Whose idea was it to have the expansion?
The Vice-Chair: The food terminal wanted to expand and there were requests for people who were looking for units. When they got all these requests they thought, "Okay, we'll proceed and expand," and several of them, I guess, put money down to be part of it. They're the ones, when the economical times turned around, that withdrew their support.
Mr Waters: Page 14, item 5: I think we would have a problem with this, because if indeed we open up the act, which it would require in order to have only Ontario at the farmers' market, whether we like it or not we would probably seek the wrath of the interprovincial trade barriers and those negotiations we could affect as well as NAFTA and the free trade agreement.
Everyone knows that I'm not a great lover of NAFTA or free trade, but the reality of it all is that, if indeed we change the rules by opening that act and saying, "Only Ontario-grown produce," I think we might be seeking the wrath and indeed it could end up on the international trade discussions. Do we want to do this?
Ms Carter: But we're not talking about legislation here, are we?
Mr Waters: In order to have Ontario-grown only at the terminal in the farmers' market, you have to change the act.
Ms Carter: Are you sure?
Mr Waters: That's what I was informed by the Ministry of Ag when I asked.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): The Minister of Agriculture told you that?
Mr Waters: The staff did. In order to do what recommendation 5 says.
Mr Curling: I thought that was discussed, and they said it had no impact on it. We went through that in detail. Raising the NAFTA stuff again, with all respect, is irrelevant. That was discussed at length, and they said it had no impact on it. The minister's staff was here.
The Vice-Chair: Any other clarification?
Ms Carter: I think we should stick with this policy until something happens that would appear to be obstructing it, in which case we'll meet it when it happens.
The Vice-Chair: That's right.
Mr Waters: Other than that?
The Vice-Chair: Fine. Really this is just a recommendation to the ministry, and the ministry will still do what it thinks is right. All it is is recommendations.
Mr Waters: You know it and I know it, eh, Al?
The Vice-Chair: Do we have a motion to adopt the report? Any discussion? If not, all in favour? Opposed? Carried.
The next report is the Workers' Compensation Board.
Interjections.
The Vice-Chair: That motion was to adopt the report as it was, and that motion was carried.
Mr Waters: Yes, it was.
Ms Carter: What about the change of wording that was recommended? Have we adopted that?
The Vice-Chair: We adopted this report.
Mr Waters: We've adopted the report as presented.
The Vice-Chair: The researcher indicates to me that some concerns were brought up, but we have had a vote. The draft report, as in here, has been presented.
Mr Waters: Maybe I should clarify because we did probably procedurally do it wrong. The researcher had some recommendations --
The Vice-Chair: We can't open it now.
Mr Waters: The researcher had some recommendations that we should've dealt with.
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm quite pleased, actually, with the report as far as it goes. We're talking about the workers' compensation report?
The Vice-Chair: No. We're talking about the food terminal.
Mr Arnott: I'm sorry.
Mr Waters: I understand why the researcher is looking quizzically at us because he had recommended in one place that we adopt the new name of Ag, Food and Rural Affairs.
The Vice-Chair: That's right. There are some others on that.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Do we have to reopen this now?
The Vice-Chair: No, we don't have to.
Mr Stockwell: Then what are we talking about?
The Vice-Chair: The researcher indicated to me there are some concerns that he had with the report. However, the committee has adopted it as it is, and that should be the end of it.
Lynn is out making copies of the WCB report that our researcher has. We can either proceed with the Human Rights Commission or wait for that.
Mr Waters: Is it going to be a lengthy period of time or five minutes?
The Vice-Chair: No.
Mr Waters: Then I would move a five-minute recess while we wait for the clerk to come back with the appropriate information.
The Vice-Chair: Fine. Okay.
The committee recessed from 1025 to 1031.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
The Vice-Chair: I call the government agencies committee back to order. We are dealing with the draft report on the Workers' Compensation Board. Our researcher has a couple of small items he would like to relate to the committee, if he would care to do so at this time.
Mr Lewis Yeager: Thank you, Mr Chairman. At the end of the last committee meeting Mr McLean asked me to review the recommendations of the standing committee on resources development when it looked at service delivery at the WCB. I've provided the clerk with a number of copies of those recommendations, which she'll provide shortly.
They basically made four recommendations. Three of them seem to have been already taken up by the board in the presentations we received. These related to an operational review of the service performance of the board; that was the first recommendation. The second called for the enhancement of the office of the worker adviser. The third asked that appeals should be monitored and the relevant decisions communicated to the adjudication staff. The fourth recommendation is perhaps the most relevant to the work we have been doing to date. The fourth recommendation stated that "The board should develop a simple, straightforward client satisfaction survey in order to elicit client feedback concerning the ongoing service improvement efforts of the WCB."
If I recall from the presentations we received from the board officials when they came, they have done some of that type of work, but a recommendation of that sort, asking for client satisfaction information on a more ongoing basis, would work quite nicely into the strategic planning section of the existing report, just as an additional source of information for the planning process. That's about the limit.
I see from the previous recommendations of that committee --
The Vice-Chair: That could be added on page 22, the planning.
Mr Yeager: Yes, that would fit in nicely, perhaps as a recommendation 13 at the top of page 22, with a little bit of discussion.
Ms Murdock: That's the fourth recommendation.
Mr Yeager: That's the fourth recommendation of the little handout, on the page labelled 41.
I believe the remaining three recommendations of that committee have already been implemented, or partially implemented, based on the information Mr King provided.
Ms Murdock: Are you suggesting that we just for the moment give it a number like 13?
The Vice-Chair: No, no. "The board should develop a simple, straightforward client..." -- just add that.
Ms Murdock: I have no objections to that.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, that's fine. Then we'll add that as number 13 in the report.
Any other discussion? Ms Murdock, did you have anything else on the report?
Ms Murdock: I know there was some discussion of it at the last meeting, and I know Mr Yeager has supplied the summary of recommendations, but for those who had expressed an interest, the rest of the report with the rationale behind it is quite interesting reading, and it probably would behoove us to look it up, as Mrs Marland suggested, in our files.
The Vice-Chair: Has the official opposition any comments on the report? None. Do the third-party members have any discussion?
Mr Arnott: Is this the 123 report we're talking about?
The Vice-Chair: This is the draft report on the Workers' Compensation Board.
Mr Stockwell: The entire draft report? Do we have any comments?
The Vice-Chair: Yes.
Mr Arnott: Yes, we do. The report is good as far as it goes. Our critic, the member for Waterloo North, has made a number of specific recommendations to the government, in the form I believe of a seven-point plan, of certain things that should be done to clean up the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board, and many of her ideas appear to be reflected in this document.
We're concerned, though, in one respect, in that the report doesn't go far enough because there doesn't seem to be any realization or understanding or plan of action to deal with the unfunded liability problem over the long term. So we have a dissenting opinion we'd like to present to the committee as well to add to what the report suggests.
The Vice-Chair: So you'll just be tabling that report and that will be added, part of the overall report.
Mr Arnott: Yes. I would table it at this time, Mr Chairman.
The Vice-Chair: Tabling a minority report. Is there any other discussion with regard to the draft report? We'll have a motion to adopt this, as amended, and have it sent for translation.
Ms Murdock: That we adopt the --
Interjection: No, no. It's to adopt the whole thing.
Ms Murdock: The whole WCB report? No. I have a few areas I'd like clarification on.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. Let's hear them.
Ms Murdock: First, on page 19, both recommendation 2 and 3. I understand the thinking behind 2, but I would also say that there should be no preclusion from applying for such a position just because you're a politician. The way it's worded here, it implies -- and I would hate to think this would be true of any of us in this place -- that because you're a politician you should automatically not be eligible for a position in any government agency, let alone the Workers' Compensation Board. I would want that language changed so that implication is not there.
The Vice-Chair: Do you have some wording you would like to see? If you'd like those two recommendations changed, perhaps you could read what --
Ms Murdock: Well, the third one is a different reason. The third one is "The Minister of Labour should hire a qualified insurance executive..." and in my view that's far too restrictive. I would remove "insurance" and just put "qualified executive."
The Vice-Chair: You're asking to remove number 3?
Ms Murdock: Just the word "insurance." While I understand the rationale behind that, and in all likelihood someone with an insurance background would be considered in the upper numbers in terms of eligibility for the job, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be limited to an insurance executive. There are accountants and everything else.
The Vice-Chair: Let's deal with that word. What does the opposition have to say?
Mr Arnott: I like the way it's worded. I think we've come to the point where sound administrative practices have to be applied to the board. In our party we've come to the conclusion that this is the appropriate way to go: to hire someone who is qualified, with previous relevant experience. The practice of hiring a retired politician as the chairman has on balance, to be fair to all the parties that have made appointments, probably not been the most effective way to provide leadership to the board. I think that's a fair statement that all of us would agree with.
1040
Mr Klopp: I understand where you're coming from, but how far do you carry it? Say I'm an insurance agent and I'm also a politician, and I apply for this and I'm the only one who actually applied. It doesn't mean I'm the best one to get it just because I'm an insurance agent. I think we all agree that we want the best person hired. Quite obviously, we've shown that we've taken some major changes around there and moved things around. I hear where you're coming from, but I think we should word it so it's the best person possible and not have that word "insurance."
The Vice-Chair: Let's solve this problem by a vote. The members want this word taken out. We will vote about whether it comes out. All those in favour of removing the word "insurance"? Opposed? The motion is carried. The word "insurance" is taken out of that paragraph.
Ms Murdock: On number 2, if I might, and it will change the wording completely but it should not change the intent -- at least I hope the members of the committee see that. "The board of directors, under a new, bipartite structure of the board, would hire the chair and vice-chair, and the hiring would be by consensus of the bipartite board."
The Vice-Chair: We'd better see that in writing.
Mr Waters: The recommendation would be that the board become a bipartite board and that the board would pick them.
Mr Curling: Will the bipartite board have equal representation?
Ms Murdock: Under the act at present the composition of the board is designated, but within the act, basically they have formed themselves into a bipartite board in terms of numbers.
Mr Curling: Equal numbers on each side?
Ms Murdock: Yes.
Mr Arnott: Equal numbers of what?
Ms Murdock: Equal numbers of labour and equal numbers of management. Now, the thing is that under the existing legislation, the chair has a vote; the appointment by the government of the day has a vote on the board. But the board itself, the existing board, has recommended that they operate on a bipartite basis, where they select the chair and the CEO, or vice-chair, as he is presently called.
Mr Arnott: I'm totally opposed to that recommendation. It would appear to further limit the amount of accountability the government has with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board. If the government is prepared to pass on its power to appoint the chair of the board, then it doesn't even have the power of appointment for the senior position in the board.
Ms Murdock: That's what the board itself is recommending.
Mr Arnott: I know, but in my view that would reduce the level of accountability to the government and the people of Ontario, if the government is willing to devolve appointment power.
The Vice-Chair: Could I have clarification? Are you asking that this replace 2?
Mr Waters: Yes.
Ms Murdock: Recommendation 2 is, "The Minister of Labour should end the practice of appointing former politicians to senior executive positions at the Workers' Compensation Board." That would eliminate the Minister of Labour, in any government, from appointing anyone to the position; the board would go through a hiring process. This would fit in with 3, where the qualified person would be hired.
The Vice-Chair: So you're asking us to replace 2? I just want it to be clear for the researcher.
Ms Murdock: Yes.
Mr Arnott: I'm opposed to it.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. All those in favour of having that replace 2? We'll put it to a vote. It's the only way to do it.
Ms Murdock: Alvin wanted to speak.
The Vice-Chair: Sorry, Alvin.
Mr Curling: There could be another factor in whether to delete that completely. What you're replacing it with I think will also make it complex. In other words, if you're taking out 2 altogether -- I'm against a recommendation that they should end the practice of appointing former politicians and I agree with you that that shouldn't be there, but to replace it with yours I also disagree with it. Now I'm being forced to vote on the replacement, which I don't like, and I don't like the first one either.
Ms Murdock: If Mr Curling is suggesting that we remove 2 altogether and put nothing in place of that, I would be in agreement with that.
Mr Curling: That I could go with.
Mr Arnott: I still want to register my own personal position and that of our party, that we've not been well served over the past number of years with political appointments, where former politicians have taken the responsibility as the head of the Workers' Compensation Board. We know that the problems there are persistent. I still believe very, very strongly that if we were to hire someone who has a direct professional qualification and direct professional experience of a similar nature, we're more likely to solve our problems.
Ms Murdock: If I might, Mr Chair, number 3 would handle Mr Arnott's concern. As number 3 is now stated, "The Minister of Labour should hire a qualified executive to chair the Workers' Compensation Board and supplement the executive with an entirely new management team, also recruited...."
The Vice-Chair: I think we could agree with that. We'll just delete 2, and then your motion is redundant, so number 3 will stay. The motion is to delete number 2 on page 19.
Ms Murdock: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried. Anything else?
Ms Murdock: Yes, page 25. "The committee therefore recommends" both 16 and 17. We can recommend all we want in this instance, but the act as presently worded precludes us from doing this. We are actually recommending a contravention of the law, and I don't think that's proper for us to do.
The Vice-Chair: Which one is that?
Ms Murdock: Numbers 16 and 17.
The Vice-Chair: And you want to put another one in there?
Ms Murdock: No.
The Vice-Chair: You want 16 and 17 deleted. What does the opposition --
Mr Arnott: Is it in any way inappropriate for a standing committee of the Legislature to recommend a legislative change to the government?
The Vice-Chair: We can recommend all we like, but it's up to the ministry to do it.
Mr Arnott: But there's nothing stopping us from making a recommendation that legislation be amended. That's our job.
Ms Murdock: I can speak as the government here and I have no difficulties. As to 16, there is no way our party would agree to changing the net benefit level, and I'm certainly absolutely opposed to any form of copayment. I think that makes it pretty clear. We're going to vote against both of them.
The Vice-Chair: And I'm pretty sure the motion will carry. Do you make a motion to delete 16 and 17 on page 25?
Ms Murdock: I so move.
The Vice-Chair: Ms Murdock moves that the committee recommends that 16 and 17 be deleted.
Mr Arnott: Mr Chairman, could we have some discussion on that point?
The Vice-Chair: Yes, you can speak on that.
Mr Arnott: This is part of what our critic and our leader have been saying, the member for Waterloo North and the member for Nipissing. We feel there has to be some sense of fiscal sanity applied to the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board. We look at some of the neighbouring jurisdictions that are part of Canada that we compete with that still show, I believe, a very sensitive regard to injured workers and are endeavouring to deal with this problem, in my view, in a practical way and in a responsible way such that the future liability will be managed, that the sustainability of the system will be assured.
The provinces of Manitoba and New Brunswick specifically have taken action to reduce the net benefit levels, I believe, for new claims, and it's something the government should be looking at in terms of its fiscal responsibility and in terms of the necessity of demonstrating that this Workers' Compensation Board is being well managed.
1050
Ms Murdock: I know where the member's concern is and we've discussed it on any number of other committees. I'm actually not disagreeing with him in terms of the funding problem at the board. No one's disagreeing with the problems that exist at the board in terms of the money and the cost to small business employers, especially in this day and age.
I'm not disagreeing with any of the preamble in the financial position, the discussion in the financial position. All of that makes inordinate good sense. I'm simply saying that with the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee represented on both sides, labour and management -- the discussions around all of that are going to be made at some future date by a bipartite board, they are not going to be made by us. But I know that, speaking as a New Democrat, this side will not agree to a benefit level change. It is going to be a consensus decision made by others, should that ever occur.
Having said that, I think when the next statement following 17 says, "The committee held extensive discussions on many aspects of improving the WCB's funding strategy," and we therefore recommend that "The Worker's Compensation Board should develop a new funding strategy which addresses the viability of the system into the future," it is absolutely imperative that remain. Also "The board should conduct consultations with the workplace parties and provide a report to the Minister of Labour."
I do not feel it is this committee's role to put those kinds of specifics in there.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, no further discussion on it?
Mr Arnott: What the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour --
Ms Murdock: Yes, responsible for workers' compensation.
Mr Arnott: -- has indicated is troubling to me, because I think what she's indicated is there's a board set up, a bipartite board I think she said, labour and management, advising the Premier on this, that they're coming together to make recommendations. Is that the same board that had made a recommendation and then it fell apart?
Ms Murdock: Yes.
Mr Arnott: Is there any likelihood in the short term that they're going to be able to get back together with a series of recommendations in the next two to three months? I would suspect they're going to have problems reconstituting that board.
Ms Murdock: History has been that --
Mr Arnott: I suspect nothing's going to be done.
Ms Murdock: -- discussions have fallen through before and they've gotten back together again.
Mr Arnott: Right, but I suspect there's not going to be too much action in the remaining mandate that the New Democrats have on this issue and I think, in terms of what she said, essentially if indeed there's a recommendation from this bipartite board to reduce benefit levels, you would accept it, but otherwise not.
Ms Murdock: If there were to be a consensual agreement between labour and management, I personally would have difficulty with it. But if it's a consensual agreement, then far be it from me to tell labour and management that they aren't negotiating properly.
Mr Waters: I guess I get a little bit tired of the inference by the Tories that indeed -- I get the feeling that they feel everybody out there is ripping off the system and I know so many people, especially young people who have been injured, who have lost arms, who have lost hands working in industrial places. They're working at minimum wage and their compensation is based on that for life. Damn it, the workers aren't all guilty.
Mr Arnott: Mr Waters, you know I didn't suggest that.
Mr Waters: That's what you keep going back to: "You've got to cut the rates." How do you cut the rates to somebody who is getting minimal to start with and they've lost their arm and their whole livelihood is gone? How do you cut their rates? In fact their rates should be increased as the cost of living because their potential was never allowed to develop.
The Vice-Chair: We have a question before us to delete sections 16 and 17.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Waters went on a bit of a rant there. I'm not sure where he's coming from, because it says in 16, as I see it -- I understand the rant, it's typical -- but it says right on recommendation 16, I put it to Mr Waters, "benefit level to ensure claimants do not receive more in compensation than they would if they were on the job." Would that not in some way put at ease your concern about the fact that people would be receiving less if the benefit package were cut?
Mr Waters: I guess my concern with this, Mr Stockwell, is that right now we have a number of people who are working at wages, because of the recession, of less than their potential.
Mr Stockwell: Hold it. Can you clarify that last statement for me, please?
Mr Waters: Because of the recession, the wage structure is down from what it traditionally has been in some cases. We have a number of students out there who get injured as they work as students. They're making minimum wage.
I can tell you of a young lady who lost her arm in a meat grinder; I can tell you about a young man who lost his hand in a wood shaper in a factory. These people were working at minimum wage. They were students, they were going to university. Their potential income would have been much greater than minimum wage, but because of the system that we have, their compensation is hooked to the wage at the time of the injury.
Here's a student who has lost an arm or a hand or has been injured permanently and can never, ever get to the job that he would have had, the income level he would have had. What you're saying is that not only do you not want their compensation to be prorated on what they probably could have had, but you want to cut it back, because you want to cut it down from 90%. I guess I have a problem with that philosophically, because you're putting them on welfare, less than welfare, actually, in a lot of cases.
Mr Arnott: I guess we're looking at the long term, Mr Waters, and you understand the unsustainability over time of a $12-billion, wherever it goes, unfunded liability. I guess where we differ is that you assume the money is going to come from somewhere, and I guess you assume it's going to come from higher premiums or it's going to come from the taxpayers, one or the other. We're concerned that the long-term viability of the whole system is at stake unless something is done that affects the bottom line. If you're suggesting that this is not the case, I would submit to you that you're not looking at it from a long-term perspective.
Mr Waters: But look at 18.
Mr Stockwell: The difficulty, I think, Mr Chair, through you, is what benefit, what incentive is there for the labour groups to come to the table and negotiate reduced packages under any compensation plan? And you say, "The Workers' Compensation Board should develop a new funding strategy which addresses the viability of the system into the future."
If you're not going to look at reduced benefits, you're not going to deal with the copayment issue, you're not going to deal with -- how is it you're going to produce any strategy that is going to do nothing other than increase premiums or tell the taxpayers to fund the unfunded liability?
The rub to me is that you continue to make the arguments such as you made, and valid and fair, and I think we've all heard them and we've all seen them, but by the same token, you don't offer any other solution. How are you going to fund the unfunded liability unless you're going to simply say higher premiums or the taxpayers have to fund the unfunded liability? The question needs to be put. Don't give me the rhetoric. Don't give me the specific examples. I understand it. How are you going to do it if you don't deal with a reduced package or copayments or some kind of program like that?
The Vice-Chair: I wish we could get back to the report and deal with what's in the report, whether we're going to accept some of the recommendations here or not. I think we can talk all the next hour about WCB, for the next days if we want to, but we're dealing with this report and we were referred by Ms Murdock to recommendations 16 and 17. She would like those two deleted. I think it's time we put the motion.
Mr Stockwell: Thank you, Mr Chair, but I think I'd like the question answered.
Ms Murdock: I'll be happy to answer.
Mr Stockwell: If you do delete these two particular recommendations, how are you going to deal with the unfunded liability?
Ms Murdock: It is not for the taxpayer to pay workers' compensation injuries. In 1914, when the Workers' Compensation Board was instituted, it was because employers were being brought to court and were losing in the court for injuries on the job.
The reality is that the whole system was set up to ensure that workers, when injured during work, were going to be receiving some benefits so they weren't out starving on the streets. As a consequence of that, I think Mr Stockwell will agree that the health and safety provisions and so on have increased, child labour was reduced and so on. All of those things have happened.
I think that this report, given the discussions and the preambles to the recommendations, states very clearly this committee's concern about the moneys and the problems at the board.
I don't think and I don't agree with 16 and 17, where we're getting into those kinds of specifics where the change in the unfunded liability and the moneys that would be gathered come off the backs of the workers. It is the worker who got injured. The worker has to receive payment for that injury. I don't care how we all work our rationales around it; those are the realities of the workers' compensation system.
If we do that, then what we're doing is, first of all, in 16 we're saying: "Well, okay, you've been injured on the job, but we're not going to get 90% of net. You're going to get less than that."
Mr Stockwell: I understand all that.
1100
Ms Murdock: And in 17 you're saying, "Oh, and even though you were injured on the job, we're asking you to pay a partial payment so that you can pay for the injury yourself." I mean, like, no.
Mr Stockwell: But you're not answering the question, with all due respect. The question is, if you do strike those two recommendations, you refuse to even examine those two recommendations --
Ms Murdock: Yes. You leave it then to 18, where, "The Workers' Compensation Board should develop a new funding strategy which addresses the viability of the system into the future," on the basis of the previous discussion and articles in there, where it is going to be and the board itself has recommended a bipartite system.
Mr Stockwell: So, with all due respect, then it's just more rhetoric. You've given them no recommendations --
Ms Murdock: Speak for yourself, Mr Stockwell.
Mr Stockwell: That's what I am.
Ms Murdock: Well, we know.
Mr Stockwell: I understood I was speaking for myself when I said it's just more rhetoric.
Ms Murdock: It's the rhetoric, yes.
Mr Stockwell: But the bottom line is this: I heard what Mr Waters said. You said nothing different. You've said that we are cognizant of the unfunded liability, but we have no idea, no concept, no game plan in dealing with the unfunded liability except to say, "We'll strike a bipartite board," which constantly breaks down, constantly can't get agreement, and they'll solve the problem.
Ms Murdock: No. I'm not talking the PLMAC on this. I am talking about the board itself as a bipartite body.
Mr Stockwell: And if the board comes forward with recommendations to reduce the benefit levels and talk about enhanced accountability through copayments by claimants?
Ms Murdock: It'll be a consensual agreement; that's right.
Mr Stockwell: And you would then buy into it?
Ms Murdock: If a bipartite group were to make that decision.
Mr Stockwell: Then can I ask finally one last question? What possible benefit would it be for union-represented or worker-represented people on a bipartite board to reduce payments, reduce benefits or talk about copayments? What possible benefit would it be to them? I mean, deal in reality. What possible benefit would it be for these people to come to the table, negotiate lower payments, negotiate copayments from workers? What possible motivation could there be for these people to do that?
Ms Murdock: But you are saying, Mr Stockwell, that it is the only way to resolve the unfunded liability, and I disagree with you. There are all kinds of other options that can be made.
Mr Stockwell: Name one.
Ms Murdock: Well, the board has frozen premiums to employers for the next while. I'm sure that they're going to be --
Mr Stockwell: How is that reducing the unfunded liability?
Ms Murdock: But the thing is --
Mr Stockwell: Name one alternative.
Ms Murdock: Well, would you mind waiting?
The Vice-Chair: For Hansard's ease, we should have one speaking at a time.
Ms Murdock: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. That means there could be all kinds of recommendations.
Mr Stockwell: Name one.
Ms Murdock: Just what we've done on our own public service salaries. If you freeze it, you save money. You can freeze pension levels. There are all kinds of things that can be done, but it's not for us to say what they are, I don't think.
Mr Stockwell: Name one. Freezing will not reduce the unfunded liability. Freezing may freeze the unfunded liability. Name one recommendation you've spoken --
Ms Murdock: If you're not putting that money out --
Mr Stockwell: -- about that is going to reduce the unfunded liability.
Ms Murdock: Excuse me, Mr Stockwell, but if you're not putting the money out, then it can be applied.
Mr Stockwell: Then it can't what?
Ms Murdock: It can be applied. Then there is a whole aspect of we don't know what's going on at the board in terms of the efficiencies that are going to result, the whole idea of the technological change that was instituted just pre-1990 with all the imaging equipment that was put in. All that has been frozen. The thing is, that does save money when you have not got your staff off the equipment and not utilizing it. It does. There are all kinds of efficiencies within the system which, if you -- well, I don't know if you were on the committee when it sat here for a week, when the board people were here and explained many of the things they are already doing and have reduced the unfunded liability as it is over the years.
Mr Stockwell: No, reduced the growth of the unfunded liability. Nobody's reduced the unfunded liability.
Ms Murdock: But it would have grown dramatically otherwise.
Mr Stockwell: So it's growing less dramatically. It's still growing.
Mr Arnott: And dramatically.
Mr Stockwell: And dramatically, yes.
Ms Murdock: Well, I am not going to agree. When all is said and done, Mr Stockwell, I'm not agreeing to 16 or 17.
Mr Stockwell: Well, when all is said and done, we'll be in Shangri-La one day.
The Vice-Chair: We've come to the time when I think we should put the vote. There's no further discussion. Ms Murdock has moved that sections 16 and 17 be deleted from the report. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
Mr Yeager would like a clarification.
Mr Yeager: I was wondering if the committee would want these former recommendations moved into the text as just suggestions by some of the members, to get them on the record, and then a statement that no recommendation could be derived from them.
Ms Murdock: How would you do that, Mr Yeager?
Mr Yeager: Take, for example, former recommendation 16. "Some members felt that the Workers' Compensation Board..." blah, blah, blah. "Other members suggested that the board should investigate some form of copayments." Just move it into a textual discussion there and then not have a recommendation come out of it; that's something that's done often. I just wondered if you wanted to do that.
Ms Murdock: The sense would be that some members -- I wouldn't feel comfortable with even leaving that idea in there, although it's been discussed. You could put in that there was a discussion around that --
The Vice-Chair: That's all he wanted to put in.
Ms Murdock: -- but that the committee had no agreement.
The Vice-Chair: That's right, no recommendation.
Mr Yeager: Yes, that it did not develop a recommendation around this topic or something of that sort.
Ms Murdock: I don't want it softened. We have absolutely no agreement with 16 and 17, as long as that's clearly understood in the language.
The Vice-Chair: The next one you have is which?
Ms Murdock: The last one is recommendation 21: "The board should declare a moratorium on all new types of entitlements, such as stress compensation, pending a long-term plan to manage the Workers' Compensation Board's unfunded liability." While I agree with the thinking behind it, I don't believe we should be recommending a moratorium on anything, so I ask that it be removed as well.
Mr Stockwell: You're in fact suggesting that you don't support 21 so that there could be expansion of benefits and programs?
Ms Murdock: No, not necessarily. It conflicts with the independent panels that already exist.
Mr Stockwell: You're not averse to expansion? You're not opposed to expansion?
Ms Murdock: It's not for me to decide, Mr Stockwell. It's for the board to decide, or the independent panels such as the Industrial Disease Standards Panel.
Mr Stockwell: We could direct the board, request the board -- we probably could direct it, I suppose --
The Vice-Chair: Recommend; that's about all we can do.
Mr Stockwell: -- recommend, yes, not to cover such conditions as workplace stress, correct?
Mr Klopp: Is that what you're recommending?
Mr Stockwell: I'm asking, could we not? If we don't do that and we allow them to examine that, are we not therefore expanding the opportunities for an increase in payments and so on and so forth, that they take into consideration workplace stress?
Ms Murdock: If we don't do that, they would automatically take it to mean they could? Is that what you're saying?
Mr Stockwell: We could give them a direction by saying, "Don't take into consideration workplace stress," to keep the lid on the unfunded liability.
Ms Murdock: I think we've made it very clear in this report that the unfunded liability is a concern.
Mr Stockwell: It would seem to me that if we don't give some direction to discussing workplace stress, the board then would feel --
Ms Murdock: Well, if you could word it in such a way -- I would not agree to the moratorium statement.
Mr Frankford: It seems to me really contrary to the philosophy, and probably policy, to exclude things. We have no idea what new types of injury are going to be developing as the nature of work and industry develops, and I think it would be unsustainable to preclude new types of claims. We perhaps have got a bit sidetracked by the stress issue as though that's the only thing, but it seems to me we could have all sorts of new injuries or diseases.
1110
The Vice-Chair: Could I have clarification? Is Ms Murdock asking that 21 be deleted?
Ms Murdock: Actually, I was willing to look at some change in language, but now that I've read the PC caucus's dissenting report --
The Vice-Chair: I don't think that was to be made available until after we're done with this report. That's just there for your information until after this report is finished. If you're going to move to delete 21 --
Ms Murdock: I move to delete.
The Vice-Chair: Let's deal with that. All those in favour of deleting 21? All those opposed? Section 21 is deleted from the report.
That's the end of your recommendations?
Ms Murdock: That's the end of my recommendations. And thank you very much, Mr Yeager. I appreciate all the time you've put into this.
Mr Yeager: Could I ask for one little bit of clarification?
The Vice-Chair: You sure can.
Mr Yeager: There was some discussion on page 20, recommendation 7, last week, concerning the word "systems." "The Workers' Compensation Board should immediately find ways to tighten controls on access to WCB systems." Is insertion of the word "computer systems" adequate there? Is that what you were trying to get across?
Ms Murdock: Not just the computer systems, I don't think. I believe it was Ms Carter who raised that issue. That was the question she was asking, what systems they were, but my own view is that it wasn't just the computer systems.
The Vice-Chair: Do you want to leave it the way it is?
Ms Murdock: It included human resources systems, communication systems and so on. I think it included all of the systems.
Mr Yeager: Would you like to approve some wording before --
Ms Murdock: "Operating systems."
The Vice-Chair: Are there any other sections, Mr Yeager, you were interested in clarifications of?
Mr Yeager: No, I think that's the only one that was ambiguous.
The Vice-Chair: With regard to the report, could I have Ms Murdock move the adoption of the report?
Ms Murdock: I will so move to accept the report, as amended.
The Vice-Chair: All those in favour? Are you going to vote, Mr Klopp?
Mr Klopp: Yes. Sure.
The Vice-Chair: Those opposed? The motion is carried.
Now we have a dissenting report from the Progressive Conservative members. Mr Stockwell, did you want to address that?
Mr Stockwell: By way of commenting on our report, you kind of flow through the report that was just adopted and -- I suppose, if there's a colossal waste of taxpayers' money, it has to be when we write these kinds of reports.
Mr Klopp: You are referring to your report.
Mr Stockwell: I'm referring to the report you just adopted. It's absolutely shameful that this committee can sit through this kind of public debate and simply omit and not deal with one of the most pressing and urgent issues surrounding the Worker's Compensation Board, that being the unfunded liability.
As a caucus, we believe there are many facets involved in workers' compensation, not the least of which are benefit levels, payment packages, reasonable living wages and so forth. But the fact remains that one of the most pressing and urgent things that must be dealt with is the unfunded liability. Clearly this government, through this committee, represented by the parliamentary assistant to the Ministry of Labour responsible for workers' compensation --
Mr Curling: What a title.
Mr Stockwell: Quite a title -- absolutely has no care, concern or real policy plan to deal with the unfunded liability. They talk in code words about "efficiency savings" at the board level and some kind of "new program" development. You know full well that is absolutely a lot of bunk. There is no chance that efficiency savings at the Workers' Compensation Board is even going to begin to address the unfunded liability problem.
They seem to be crowing over there about the fact that the growth of the unfunded liability has retarded to some degree over the last couple of years. Well, I would add that there are probably a lot fewer people working than there was when they came into government; maybe that has something to do with the growth factor.
Further, the growth factor is still dramatically increasing. There's a growing concern that the unfunded liability continues to grow year in and year out. When we want to deal with this issue as a third party, in opposition, and when the report from legislative research puts forward some reasonable recommendations to begin to deal with the unfunded liability, you're met with this ideological socialist opposition that is an absolutely head-in-the-sand, Shangri-La attitude towards the unfunded liability.
They continue to bellyache about the fact that they are downgraded on a yearly basis by the financial institutions of this world. The number one reason they're continually downgraded by the financial institutions is because of the unfunded liabilities and the debt and deficits they keep absorbing year in and year out. It seems counterproductive to me to complain and worry about the debt and the higher cost of the debt and the downgrading in your credit rating when you continue to take no approach to dealing with the unfunded liability.
I don't think these were controversial recommendations, but I knew full well that this head-in-the-sand approach taken by this government would not deal with it. That's why we came forward with our dissenting opinion. We did so because we understand that the biggest problem in WCB today is the unfunded liability. Do you realize that if you tried to go out today and collect that unfunded liability through premium increases, you'd bankrupt thousands and thousands and thousands of businesses, literally bankrupt them, because they could not afford to pay the premium for this completely mismanaged operation at the government level.
So the question needs to be asked, how are we going to deal with the unfunded liability, and then you've got to have a plan. The government's plan consists of striking a couple of bipartite committees to yick about this problem, like they've yicked about the problem for the last three years. We offer a comprehensive review, an overview that needs to be undertaken immediately if we're ever going to bring some tenet of reality back to the unfunded liability issue.
Mark my words: When people look into locating in this province, at issue is the tax level, the municipal tax level, the personal tax level, the corporate tax level. Also at issue are these unfunded liability charges that potentially could jump up and bite them in five or 10 years, should this government or the next government decide they have to get a handle on this because they can't afford to see their credit rating downgraded any further.
I put in the dissenting opinion because it's an opinion that I share with all members of my caucus. It's an opinion that I think begins to deal with a long-term approach to the unfunded liability. I don't believe any citizen of this province is prepared to say today that they accept the fact that the unfunded liability continues to grow. It's a millstone around our necks, it hinders us in attracting new business, it hinders our financial capability and does nothing but increase the cost of government because it significantly contributes to the downgradings we receive worldwide.
I put it forward because I knew the salient recommendations brought forward by legislative research would not be accepted by this government because of its ideological, head-in-the-sand, socialist-pap approach to finances, which is, "We can't really concern ourselves with finances," either because they're way too complicated or simply "We don't want to deal with them because it's not our constituency."
I'm proud to represent a caucus that can put in a dissenting opinion that deals with the issue head-on. I hope that when the election rolls around we'll allow ourselves the opportunity of debating the unfunded liability, because I think the people in this province are very interested in WCB.
Finally, with the people I speak to about WCB, there is an absolute venom-spitting hatred for that corporation, its inefficiencies, its grotesque, overregulated, overbloated operation that is so messed up, I'm not certain it's not going to take more than three or four decades to fix this absolute, black cesspool hole we've made.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Yeager would like to comment.
Mr Yeager: Just a point of clarification. While on occasion legislative researchers are asked by committees to develop recommendations, in this case the report recommendations came entirely from members of the three caucuses at our previous meetings and none was developed by legislative research.
Ms Murdock: If I might, Mr Chair, that's why I wanted to thank Mr Yeager for all the work he's done on this. I recognize that.
1120
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
The Vice-Chair: The next one is the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Does everybody have a copy of the report? Mr Pond, do you have any comments?
Mr David Pond: No, I'm in the hands of the committee. As you recall, we left it last time that the caucuses would come back to this meeting with their ideas, so I'm in your hands.
The Vice-Chair: Do the government members have any concerns with regard to any of the sections in this Human Rights Commission report? Mr Curling, did you have some?
Mr Curling: The government has no comment on that? As a matter of fact, the recommendations here are all accepted and all that? I expected them to make some comment. I do have some comments.
Let me start with page 10. Was that the impression of the committee, just below the bullet points, that "The committee was impressed by this program of renewal," and they spoke about how things were progressing in the commission, "as well as Ms Brown's personal commitment to the task of reforming the commission"? I'm a little bit uncomfortable with that.
I'm comfortable with "Ms Brown's personal commitment to the task of reforming the commission." I saw that indication there when she presented her position. But I wasn't quite sure it was overwhelming that we were impressed by the program renewal itself. I just wondered if that was sort of the consensus. That is quite heavy wording for all of us to say, "The committee was impressed by this program of renewal." I'm just a little bit troubled by that.
As a matter of fact, the second paragraph of that actually indicated some of my concerns too, that "the committee did hear abundant testimony" -- it sounds contradictory to me -- "from other witnesses working in the field of human rights which appears to indicate that delays in processing complaints continue to be a problem." There is a little bit of contradiction in those two things. That's what I was concerned about.
But again, I wanted it to be noted on record that yes, I was extremely impressed with Ms Brown's personal commitment to have this reform, but there are a lot of problems that we still have in that area.
The Vice-Chair: Are there no other comments?
Mr Waters: I have a few comments. Recommendation 1 on page 26 says, "The government of Ontario should formally respond to the Cornish report."
We've been in a process of changing, through evolution, indeed the Human Rights Commission. So far we've responded and taken action on a number of things that are in the Cornish report. But I really have a problem where, if indeed we were to do the whole Cornish report, basically what you're saying is: "Throw the baby out with the bath water. Don't take the good parts of the commission and evolve and fix the problems."
You're saying, "Rip it down and throw it out and start over." I think that I have a real problem with that.
Mr Curling: What page are you on?
Mr Waters: Page 26.
Mr Curling: All right. I wanted to comment on that because, with all respect -- and I have great respect for you, Mr Waters -- the Cornish report is commissioned by the government, paid by the government, rushed by your government to complete it quickly because they want to respond to it. Now you're telling me, "Well, we don't really have to comment on it formally."
What we're saying here is that they should respond to this report formally. I mean, you're just hanging out here and saying, "Okay, we took two lines out of the Cornish report and we're doing something about that." We're saying the minister has not formally come to the House and said, "Yes, we have received this report and there are areas in it that we like and areas we don't like."
That's why we get people like Mary Cornish and people like that to look at things formally. But to tell me now we've had it and put it on the shelf, that's why people are sceptical about task forces and all these committees. It's a sham, and we don't want that to go on as a sham. We feel that Mary Cornish made some very, very good comments. What we need to do, the leadership part of it where we spent all this amount of money, is to then say whether we don't agree with what she's saying or we agree with some or the other. You're saying we don't have to comment on it.
Mr Waters: Nobody is saying that we don't agree with the Cornish report or parts thereof.
Mr Curling: You haven't said anything.
Mr Waters: What we're saying is that we're acting upon the Cornish report, and indeed we're initiating a number of things. We are taking some of the things she's talked about in her report and we're dealing with those things: the administrative merger between the three equality groups, the eight organizational initiatives and administrative mergers of tribunals and all of those things. But to create an expectation that overnight we're going to change the entire Human Rights Commission, I would have a problem with that, and we do as a government.
Mr Curling: You're missing the point completely. It says, "The government of Ontario should formally respond to the Cornish report." Did I say to you to accept it or reject it? Just respond to it formally, and the minister stand in the House -- and I've asked her many, many times in committee and in the House, "Would you mind responding to this formally?" You're telling me you've initiated quite a few things in the Cornish report. Name two. Well, name one.
Mr Waters: I already have.
Mr Curling: What?
Mr Waters: I've talked about the fact that the three groups have come together. We're having cross-training. We're making it so that when you deal with equality groups, everybody knows where everybody else is. That's a very important step right there.
The Vice-Chair: Maybe I can have a clarification from the committee. Mr Waters referred to this item 1. Are you asking that that be deleted?
Mr Stockwell: What page is that?
Mr Waters: Page 26.
The Vice-Chair: "The committee therefore recommends that: (1) The government of Ontario should formally respond to the Cornish report." Mr Waters, are you saying that you don't agree with that, you want it deleted? What's the reason behind your query?
Mr Waters: I guess I have a problem with the wording. What the recommendation is is basically that we should respond. Well, we have been responding.
Mr Curling: Formally.
The Vice-Chair: Then it's fine then, if you've been responding.
Mr Stockwell: What do you want to say, that you shouldn't respond?
Mr Waters: No, it's implying that we indeed haven't listened to Cornish.
Mr Stockwell: No. I think you're reading too much into that, Mr Waters. It just says, "The government of Ontario should formally respond to the Cornish report." It hasn't said that you haven't responded in some fashion, some way. It's just saying that considering this report is before the Legislature, before the government, to lend the government credibility, why would it not formally respond to this report, addressing the issues it wishes to accept and suggesting reasons why it would not accept the others? I mean, you are government. That's what goes with being government. People issue reports and then you make decisions on those reports. If you're not prepared to do that, then why did you get yourself elected?
Mr Waters: And indeed we are --
The Vice-Chair: I think what I want to know as Chair is, do you want it changed or do you want it deleted? I think that's the question.
Mr Waters: I just have a problem with the wording, and off the top of my head I can't think of better wording to put in. That's the problem.
Mr Stockwell: Do you want to drop "the government" and just say "government of Ontario"?
The Vice-Chair: If you want to think about that one for a minute, are there any other issues in the report that somebody had some concerns about?
Mr Curling: On the employment equity, since you're on that page and I don't want you to move around --
The Vice-Chair: Page 26? Okay.
Mr Curling: Yes. I raised the concern under the employment equity that it did not reflect the diversity of our community, and they didn't have a composition there. They were going to get back to me, because there are two things. The commissioner stated to me that she didn't collect statistics in that manner, and I was concerned that the Employment Equity Act was asking employers to do so, yet the Employment Equity Commission itself did not do so, and they were going to get back to me on this. I had concern about that, whether or not it was reflecting the diversity of our population, that part of it.
1130
I also raised the question that the Employment Equity Act or the Employment Equity Commission was really a systemic discrimination branch that came from the Human Rights Commission, and that was made because the fact is that within the Human Rights Commission there's a systemic branch which deals with many systemic problems, but employment was one of the major areas where we find systemic discrimination.
My point was that they were taking a section of that systemic discrimination branch and calling it employment equity over here. I want that to be raised because of a little concern I have that it would then be a duplication and how the role would be played, because it has an impact on the Human Rights Commission and also the employment equity.
The Vice-Chair: Are you looking for a rewording of that?
Mr Curling: No, I'm not looking for a -- you're right again. Actually, that's okay. I'm just saying that the report itself I think should reflect some of that, but I have no problem with this wording and it should be enacted immediately. After the government sitting on it for four months, we have the regulations not even being drafted.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, that's fine. Could we go back to Mr Waters now and do you want to leave that as it is or was there some --
Mr Pond: Yes, a clarification. Mr Curling, are you recommending that the committee formally recommend that the Employment Equity Act should go into effect as soon as possible?
Mr Curling: Yes.
Mr Pond: The government members should hear that.
Mr Curling: It's in there.
The Vice-Chair: That's on the bottom of page 26.
Mr Pond: Yes, but it's not written up in the draft report as a formal recommendation. Mr Curling is suggesting that it be reworded as a formal recommendation.
The Vice-Chair: That's right, it's not there as a recommendation. Does the committee wish to recommend that the Employment Equity Act go into effect as soon as possible?
Mr Waters: The reality is that it's waiting for royal assent at this time; it's passed. Right?
Mr Pond: It's passed, but I think the issue is implemented: proclaimed and implemented.
Mr Curling: Yes. You have the regulation that you pushed through this Employment Equity Act from December and told us that we are holding it up. It's always that the Liberals are holding it up. We said, "Okay, it was passed," and the fact is, yes, it was personal towards the opposition but the fact is you have the regulations, you are sitting there for four months and we're saying we want to recommend that the Employment Equity Act go into effect as soon as possible. The regulation is the one that's holding it up to make it effective. Why don't you put it through?
Mr Stockwell: We all know why they don't want to put it through.
Mr Curling: The unions will give them a hard time.
Mr Stockwell: They don't want to put it through because they want to put it through so it'll get implemented before the next election because then they'll get major heat from their union friends and they don't want that.
The Vice-Chair: I would think that the government members should indicate whether they want that as a recommendation.
Mr Stockwell: They don't want that. Just strike it and get it over with. Admit it.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Can I just give an opinion here?
The Vice-Chair: You're welcome to do that.
Mr Stockwell: Once you've admitted it, your souls will be cleansed.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Marchese has the floor.
Mr Marchese: I think the recommendation at the bottom says, "Does the committee wish to recommend that the Employment Equity Act go into effect as soon as possible?" My opinion would be, yes, we do, and I would hope that the committee would feel that we should, as it relates to this particular recommendation.
While I have the floor, there are things in the body of this report that are not part of the recommendations at the back. I'm taking you back perhaps to the committee's work, but have you all dealt with the recommendations or the suggestions that are made on each of the pages that precede this? We haven't done that?
The Vice-Chair: It was sent to each party for their review. Each party was to come back, if they had some changes or recommendations that they wanted to make, and that's what we're dealing with now.
Mr Marchese: I understand.
The Vice-Chair: You may have some sections that you want to deal with.
Mr Marchese: But in some of those sections, there are questions that are raised and provoke answers or at least ask the members whether they want to move in that direction or not, and my sense would be to suggest that we do that.
The Vice-Chair: We'll deal with this page now and then we will give you the opportunity, if there are other pages you want to deal with, to raise those issues.
Mr Marchese: I'm only trying to help the committee.
Mr Stockwell: He's a lot of help. They were given an opportunity to comment on the report and they brought up one slightly innocuous comment, then we went down to this recommendation, and then we were supposed to be done.
Mr Waters: No.
Mr Stockwell: You were asked to comment and you didn't have any comments in the beginning. You were happy with the way it was written.
The Vice-Chair: Could I ask the committee if it wants to make the recommendation "that the Employment Equity Act go into effect as soon as possible"? If so, I'd like a motion.
Mr Curling: I so move.
The Vice-Chair: All those in agreement that it be one of the recommendations? Opposed, if any? The motion is carried.
Mr Waters, could we deal with that one of yours with regard to the Cornish report? Do you want some change there or do you want it left the way it is?
Mr Waters: I've thought about this. I've read it over again. If the minister responds, as long as everyone's happy that it will include the initiatives we've done already and that we're using Cornish as a basis for development, I have no problem with it.
The Vice-Chair: That's fine. Then we'll leave it as it is.
Mr Stockwell: Good.
The Vice-Chair: Do the committee members have any other recommendations they want dealt with at this time, other than Mr Marchese? He's here as a non-member but he can have all the input he wants -- to a degree.
Mr Marchese: There's an issue I would like to talk about on page 18.
The Vice-Chair: If there's a recommendation there, we should deal with that recommendation.
Mr Marchese: Part of what ARCH and CERA argue is "that the solution to the frustrating delays at the commission which their clients experience is to allow complainants to proceed directly to a hearing. The commission should no longer have exclusive jurisdiction over complaints.
"This recommendation would address the problem of delay and backlog by empowering complainants to circumvent the commission bureaucracy entirely. ARCH added that this reform would likely encourage respondents to settle complaints more quickly than they do under the existing code. Currently, because of the backlog and the delays it causes, respondents lack an incentive to settle expeditiously."
That raises particular problems. If the complainant were to go directly to a hearing, it would raise the problems of backlogging the hearing process and/or needing a permanent full board to deal with that. It raises a number of questions if you were to do that.
On the other hand, ARCH and people like CERA argue that they have been stymied or have had difficulties dealing with the number of commissioners with respect to their cases in that investigative process and in the decision-making process. They say, "When we go directly to the hearing, we have success in terms of being heard and in terms of making our case to the board as opposed to the individual commissioner," so they argue that they should have a mechanism to go directly to a board hearing.
My sense -- I'm interested in listening to others as well, whether they feel that would create yet another backlog at the board of inquiry level, or whether they think that if they go directly to the board or allow for a mechanism for them to do so, that would encourage the respondents and the complainants to come to a much quicker agreement or that it would directly settle those issues a lot more quickly than by allowing this other process, which is very slow, to go on. My sense would be that it would be useful to go in the direction they suggest.
The Vice-Chair: Can I have a clarification? On both of these pages it says, "Does the committee wish to recommend..." "Does the committee wish to endorse this recommendation?" Are you saying you think there should be some endorsement of some of these recommendations?
Mr Marchese: Yes. I'm in favour of moving in this direction and was looking to discussion from the other members, both government and opposition --
The Vice-Chair: If there's going to be some endorsement, I would like to see something in writing, either recommendations from our researcher or from the members, of what the recommendations would be and how they would be worded.
1140
Mr Stockwell: I assume the recommendations would be much like the last paragraph in the statement: "The solution to the frustrating delays at the commission which their clients experience is to allow complaints to proceed directly to a hearing. The commission should no longer have exclusive jurisdiction over complaints." I assume that's what you're recommending.
My dilemma is that you've got a funnel this big and so much water's got to go through it, and if you have too much water it backs up. It really matters not whether you go to a different sink. If the opening's just the same, you're still going to have the same amount of backed-up water.
The argument you put is as simple as expanding, making the complaint process larger through the process it is today. Maybe I'm not making myself very clear. Just expanding the process as we have it now would do the same thing, in my opinion. Maybe you can answer me why you don't think it would do the same thing. I see words in here like "respondents to settle complaints more quickly than they do under the existing code." Why would it encourage respondents to settle complaints more quickly? Why would that happen?
I understand when you go before a master in the legal process, it allows you to settle disagreements more quickly. Rather than going through a full-blown judge etc, they try to get you to reach an agreement. Why is it you think they would be settled quicker?
The Vice-Chair: I'll take the floor just for a minute and then you can answer that question. I want to get a sense from the committee. If there are going to be some changes made to this report, we're not going to be able to finalize it today, that's very clear. Our researcher could take advice from the members on how they feel the recommendations could be changed. I'll allow you to answer the question and then we can proceed. If we're not going to be able to finalize it today, we might as well have something come back to us that we can sit down and look at.
Mr Marchese: There are several points I would make. First, the experience we've heard from a number of commissioners who are coming before this committee, and part of the research, indicates that a lot of these hearings take a long time, they're protracted. For a number of different reasons they become protracted. Some have argued that the respondents are the ones who have an interest in delaying it, because if they tire out the claimant, that would force the person to simply say: "This is too long, too exhausting. I'm tired. I'm just going to drop the whole case."
If you went immediately to a hearing, it would have to be dealt with, for one. The board of inquiry would solve it rather quickly as opposed to having to wait that long. Second, if they knew this would go to a hearing immediately, it would force the two people, both the respondent and the claimant, to settle more expeditiously and perhaps much more fairly than through the current system, which drags it all out.
Mr Stockwell: That would happen for about a year and then you'd back up again, because everyone would be going through for a hearing.
The Vice-Chair: We'll give Mr Curling a few comments.
Mr Curling: I'm going to go by your direction, Mr Chairman. I agree with you that the government side seems to have a lot of problems with this report. I would say we just deal with what is down here, "Does the committee wish to recommend that the Human Rights Code be amended to reflect this recommendation..." as stated above. We would just say no.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Waters for a final comment, and then we will close off.
Mr Waters: It's frightening: I think Chris and I are coming from the same point of view, and this is really scary. I don't see moving directly to a hearing as resolving the problem. I'd say there's probably a way within the commission to deal with that faster and expedite it before you get to a hearing. I would hope they start getting down -- in fact I know they are working towards expediting it before the hearing so that you don't get to the hearing process that drags it out.
Mr Curling: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If we're going to deal with it as you said, I could do my little 10-minute speech too. Each of them are going to make their comments for the record. I'm saying, do we want it to go on? You have it in front of you: Yes or no? If there are a lot of arguments, put it in writing, as the Chairman said.
The Vice-Chair: We'll refer it to our researcher and we'll come back at another time.
Mr Stockwell: What's he going to research?
The Vice-Chair: The comments that have been relayed here will be made into some recommendations, and it's up to the government members to deal with it.
Mr Stockwell: Let's just vote on it. What do we need to research? That's why he wrote this.
The Vice-Chair: They want to make some recommendations, is my understanding.
Mr Stockwell: Well, make them.
The Vice-Chair: It's just not that easy. This will be tabled because we cannot finalize it because the government members want to make some recommendations. When would be an appropriate time to come back and deal with this? Could I have the committee's attention? We have an hour on the morning of the 27th when we will deal with it and try to finalize this report.
Then we will have all the reports translated upon completion of the condition. Agreed? Agreed.
Next on our agenda is a subcommittee meeting to select intended appointments, for review of the certificate -- that was April 7. Subcommittee members stay, and the rest can go.
The committee adjourned at 1146.