INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
GLEN WRIGHT
CONTENTS
Wednesday 17 July 1996
Intended appointments
Mr Glen Wright
Mr Keith Norton
Mr Bill Ford
Mr Morley Carscallen
Ms Karen Okell
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président: Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
*Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)
*Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
*Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings / Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur L)
*Mr Bert Johnson (Perth PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
*Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC) for Mr Doyle
Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West / -Ouest PC) for Mr Fox
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND) for Mr Laughren
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC) for Mr Leadston
Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South / -Sud PC) for Mr Newman (morning sitting)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC) for Mr Newman (afternoon sitting)
Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick PC) for Mr Preston
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean PC) for Mr Wood
Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Clerk / Greffièr: Mr Todd Decker
Staff / Personnel: Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1004 in room 151.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
GLEN WRIGHT
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Glen Wright, intended appointee as chair, Workers' Compensation Board.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Tony Martin): Could I have the attention of the committee? As Chair, I'd like to welcome you all to today's proceedings, hoping that you're having a good summer, as I am, and looking forward to further nice days ahead.
This morning we have two appointments to consider, one for an hour and the second for a half-hour. The first will be the intended appointment of Mr Glen Wright to the Workers' Compensation Board. This was a selection of the New Democrat caucus. Would Mr Wright come to the table? Thanks for coming this morning.
While Mr Wright is making himself comfortable, I would entertain a motion from the floor re the adoption of the subcommittee report on business transacted on Thursday, July 4.
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I move adoption of the subcommittee report.
The Vice-Chair: Any questions or comments? If not, all those in favour, please raise their hand. The report is adopted.
We'll move on with the interview of Mr Wright. Mr Wright, do you want to make an opening statement to the committee?
Mr Glen Wright: No, not really. I'm just pleased to be here and look forward to answering your questions.
The Vice-Chair: Then what we will do this morning is two rounds of 10 minutes each. That will give us the full hour. We traditionally start with the government caucus. I don't see any reason to break with that today, so we'll start with Mr Ford.
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Good morning, Mr Wright, and welcome. This question I have is basic. What is the single biggest issue facing the Workers' Compensation Board over the next two years?
Mr Wright: In my opinion, there are two key issues. One is the issue that's been written about quite a bit, which is the financial concerns, unfunded liabilities and the capacity to maintain the system.
I'd say the second key issue is also the performance and the element of service, that through both anecdotal and published accounts there is a feeling that the organization is not as responsive to the people it should be helping as it should be, so the efficiency. I think it's pretty key that the organization is there to service and to take care of people who have been injured in the workplace, and it should function more efficiently and should make sure that the experience is an appropriate experience and that people get the appropriate care.
I'd say it's twofold, in my opinion. From my private sector background in the insurance business, cost is one thing, but ultimately the organization exists to deliver the service and to take care of the people who require the service. So it's twofold. It has to be balanced on the financial side, but it has to improve its delivery and performance on behalf of the injured workers.
Mr Douglas B. Ford: Thank you very much, sir.
Mr Smith: Welcome to the committee this morning, Mr Wright. As you're aware, the Carr-Gordon report recently identified the Workers' Compensation Board as the number one issue for business in the province. I'd be interested to find out what your thoughts are on the findings of the report, and perhaps you could share those with the committee this morning.
Mr Wright: I haven't had an opportunity to read the entire report, but it's my understanding that it comes out of the survey that went out to a large number of businesses and asked what are the deterrents or what are the problems they have in doing business here. It is no surprise to me that it comes up as the number one concern. I think it probably would come up very high on the workers' side of the issue as well.
The system is perceived as being very complex. It's one that doesn't seem to come to a conclusion very easily. It's frustrating. If you talk to injured workers or you talk to people who are in corporations that deal regularly with the board, there's a high degree of frustration.
I suspect by the nature of its function that it's not an organization that's likely to have everybody happy with it at any given time. It's an organization, when you're processing claims and making judgements on those issues, where people are not always going to be happy with the results. But I do think that by being more efficient in their operations -- anecdotally, I had a letter come across my desk as a result of the announcement last week. The individual was saying that they had phoned just to ask for some information about requirements on hiring somebody and had been on the phone for an hour and still had yet to speak to anybody who was in the correct department: extremely high-level frustration. I don't think that's necessary.
It's a large organization, and no matter what large organization you call, whether it's private sector or public sector, there are some bureaucratic aspects to it. But I think the frustration is compounded not just by decisions they make, but by the process through which people have to go. I don't think a lot of people who have had to go through the application process and the adjudication process come away feeling very good about it. Even those who are successful in getting their awards often feel the system is difficult. On the other hand, I think employers feel frustrated in their dealings with it.
It doesn't surprise me, and I would hope it is possible for the organization to be more responsive and to improve that image, fully recognizing that because of the nature of the work of the Workers' Compensation Board, it's likely to be difficult to please everybody in the long haul, but I think a more efficient and more focused organization could go a long way to helping dispel that.
1010
Mr John L. Parker (York East): Mr Wright, we have a few minutes available to us this morning, so I'd like to take some time to delve into one question and give you a chance to give a full answer to this.
The workers' compensation commission is a very large, complex, comprehensive organization and it represents a number of interests and must accommodate those different interests and achieve certain goals. You are being appointed to the commission itself, to the job of chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board. Can you just share with us your thoughts and your vision as to the specific role of the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board?
Mr Wright: Looking at the board itself versus just the chair's role, the chair, in my view, in the governance model that's being proposed, organizes and facilitates the functions of the board and the board of directors clearly makes the decisions on an ongoing basis. However, there's a lot to be done. There's a lot of pending legislation, the Jackson report and other things. The task of the board will be to implement the government's policy and the legislation as it flows out of that.
On the other side, when you step away from the policy side of things, I think one of the key functions of the board and the chair is to provide the strategic direction, not day-to-day management as it's a non-executive board. The senior executive and the CEO of the corporation is Mike O'Keefe, and it's his responsibility to manage the place on a day-to-day basis. However, it is the board's responsibility to provide vision and direction on strategic issues and strategic direction. I think that providing that direction and providing the follow-up and accountability is important. Obviously there's got to be a review and some efforts taken on the operations side to improve the performance of the organization, and then there's the challenge of implementing the new legislation as it comes down.
Then we have the other part, which is the perception or the responsibility to represent interests, as you mentioned in the early part of your question. I think that's a significant challenge, because there's the obvious interest of the employers who pay the premium and there's the obvious interest of the workers who are protected by the system, but the workers' comp is such a large and important aspect to our community and our province that there's a broader public interest as well. The better it's run, the more effective it is and the more efficient it is. It's a contributor to the competitive position of our industries, it's a contributor or could be a negative factor on our ability to create jobs in the province. It's not the only one, but it has a role to play.
In thinking about it, I think one of the interesting things about my background is that I have not been in the manufacturing sector or the labour sector as such, although I've provided advice to both over the years. My expertise lies in managing benefits programs and pensions and those sorts of issues. I think there is a situation here where there is a broad interest that needs to be served as well as the specific interest, in being responsive to the requirements of people who are under the care of or receiving compensation from the board as well as being mindful of the financial side.
It's a balancing act and it's going to take a substantial effort, but I think that improved efficiency and improved management of the place will bring benefits to everybody, to the province at large, and I would think most specifically to a focus that says the people who are injured workers are our principal responsibility, they're the people who are -- if you were to put it in a private sector type of context, you'd say the way for businesses to be successful in the 1990s is to be very focused on delivering results for their clientele. The clientele of the WCB are injured workers, and ultimately the quality and judgement of how the WCB performs I believe will be the results they produce in helping people get back to work and providing them with the care, treatment and compensation requirements that are needed.
The Vice-Chair: We're going to move on to the Liberal caucus now. You will have another 10 minutes once we go around again.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Good morning and welcome, Mr Wright. I think in your answer you said one of the roles of the new chair would be to try to develop a greater sense of communication and sharing through the stakeholders. Can you give us some background material with regard to your involvement with labour organizations or your interactions with labour organizations over the course of the last several years?
Mr Wright: I have not had specific membership or anything with a labour organization. Through our actuarial practice and benefits practice, we've provided advice and worked with a number of different organized labour groups to assist them with those issues. Also, through my primary business, we've acted as consultants to management.
On a broader basis of my personal experience, I've been quite active outside the firm as well through having served for a period of time in the early 1980s on Waterloo city council and regional council. I've served at the board of the CBC for four years. I chaired the human resources division there and there were a lot of issues of funding. As anybody who reads the papers and cares about broadcasting in the country knows, it's been a very difficult time there.
Through other organizations and through community groups and stuff I've had a pretty broad exposure. I spent 10 years on the board of Wilfrid Laurier University, and the makeup of a university board is from a very diverse group across the community. So I've had a lot of exposure to different organizations and different people and I think it has given me a pretty broad perspective of life in Ontario whether it's in the private sector or public sector organizations.
Mr Bartolucci: What's the annual remuneration for the chair of the Workers' Compensation Board?
Mr Wright: I believe it's set at $105,000.
Mr Bartolucci: It's $105,000 a year. You mentioned earlier in an answer to Mr Parker that one of the concerns you have is with financial responsibility to the WCB. How are you going to restore financial responsibility to the WCB?
Mr Wright: That's a bit difficult for me to answer in very specific terms because I haven't been there and I haven't started the job. It might be easier in three months for me to answer that. I think that some examination of internal operations has to take place.
There are two general areas of cost involved. One is the aspect of risk management and the actual claims cost; the other is how you operate the organization. In general terms, from the pieces I have read, which are not extensive, I understand that's somewhere in the area of $300 million a year. When you're dealing with some $2 billion of total cost, it would seem that, so to speak, the elephant in the living room is the $2 billion that's spent on claims, but I think you have to take a very close look at the $300 million. Those are controllable dollars. I think that has to be looked at very closely and the board has to take serious responsibility for that.
The claims side is something that is regulated to some extent. The risk aspect of what's there and available is a legislative thing so it's somewhat out of the purview of the board. But fast and effective and appropriate adjudication and cleaning up internal systems I think will go a long way to helping start to return that.
Some of the other broader issues: If you look at the unfunded liability issue, while there's a contributing aspect to the operating cost, the long-term situation is driven more by claims cost, which is affected more by the types of things that are in the Jackson report and will be ultimately dealt with by the Legislature.
1020
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Do you see the unfunded liability as a debt?
Mr Wright: It's a form of debt. I'd say in a lot of respects it's a very large road sign that says you can get by today, you might get by tomorrow, but you don't have enough money to meet your obligations, and in that context it's a debt.
If you were to use another example, to put it in context, I know there's always controversy over: Is an unfunded liability a debt or is an unfunded liability a serious problem? To look at two issues, if you go back to ordinary pensions for a moment -- that's typically where you will achieve unfunded liabilities -- we have very strict laws that have been passed here in the province of Ontario to protect workers that say you cannot have an unfunded liability in a pension plan in Ontario without having in place a plan that says how you will retire it over a specific number of years. There are solvency tests.
Mr Duncan: Can I just ask another question?
Mr Wright: Certainly.
Mr Duncan: To be more focused on it then, would you see it as a problem or as a crisis?
Mr Wright: I believe it's approaching crisis, yes; I think if no action is taken, you've got a problem.
Mr Duncan: Would you then think it wise to cut WCB assessments by 5%?
Mr Wright: You've got a balancing issue here which is that you have to meet the objectives of the stakeholders and at the same time try to provide financial strength.
Mr Duncan: Just back to the question then: Would you see a 5% cut in assessments right now as being a wise move, given that you've identified the unfunded liability as a crisis?
Mr Wright: The issue is the bottom line of where you end up on the unfunded liability. There are many components that go into that: what's insured, what costs are retained and --
Mr Duncan: Then you would support cutting benefits to injured workers in favour of cutting assessments for employers?
Mr Wright: There are other issues around the level of benefits. As an example, I haven't got the inside expertise on WCB to deal with some of the specifics in the Jackson report, but in a broad-based situation, as a general principle of insuring aspects, depending on the level of payment, it can affect the return to work and other issues. If you were to take the other extreme, the private sector side of long-term disability insurance and other programs that insure people for lost income, those sorts of programs would typically run in the 60% to 70% range. There are some issues around taxable or non-taxable --
Mr Duncan: That's an interesting point. You've raised two issues: the level of coverage of business in Ontario around WCB and then the percentage of current claims covered. In Ontario it is much lower than in most other jurisdictions. Would you not say a more reasonable target, rather than simply cutting benefits to injured workers, might be to get the current claims coverage figure higher? That is how other industry groups --
Mr Wright: I'm sorry, what do you mean by claims coverage?
Mr Duncan: The percentage of current claims that is covered by assessments in any given year. The Workers' Compensation Board, I think, is around 37% or 38% the last time I looked. The business community has argued to keep that number down and reduce it. In fact, it's come down from about 50% some 10 years ago to where it's at today. Would you advocate that a greater percentage of current claims ought to be covered by assessments? How would you rationalize that or logically make it work with a 5% cut in assessments?
Mr Wright: I'm having some difficulty, whether it's the language or the description of claims costs that you're using.
Mr Duncan: Current claims covered. This is in the Jackson report. I'm sure you've read that.
Mr Wright: I have read it, but I haven't had an opportunity to study it in depth.
Mr Duncan: I think you ought to have a look at that because there are a lot of interesting things in it that I would think the chair of the board would have looked at prior to coming to a hearing like this.
Mr Wright: I've read the report, but --
Mr Duncan: It is in there and it's raised in some detail. It's in the annual reports, the last five annual reports. Current claims covered represents the percentage of current claims covered by current assessments, which we can relate to other forms of insurance. I know you have a lot of background in that area.
Again to the question: Given the fact that current claims covered have fallen from roughly 50% to 37% in 10 years, do you think it's prudent to cut assessments 5% and cut benefits to injured workers at the same time, given that current claims covered are so much reduced over 10 years ago?
Mr Wright: First of all, as I understand the Jackson report, the reduction in payments only applies prospectively to new applicants.
Mr Duncan: I want to deal, though, with the current claims covered. It's in the Jackson report. The numbers are there; it's quite clear; it's well laid out. Is it your view that the percentage of current claims covered by current assessments is adequate, and should it be raised?
Mr Wright: You say as the chair. I'm not the chair yet and I haven't even been in the building. I haven't had a chance to examine that document and that kind of thing and I would have to take a look specifically at the number of --
Mr Duncan: You were outside the building on May 15, 1995, weren't you, with Mr Harris, during the campaign swing?
Mr Wright: Yes, as a matter of fact, I was.
Mr Duncan: The day he announced you would end political appointments to the WCB. You've been outside the building for a photo opportunity. You're telling us now, as a prospective chair of the board, you haven't read the Jackson report?
Mr Wright: I didn't say I hadn't read it. I said I'd read it but I don't --
Mr Duncan: And you're not prepared to comment on a major tenet of the Jackson report?
Mr Wright: The specific numbers you're referring to, I can't deal with, but if you wanted to show me the contents --
Mr Duncan: They're in the report. I think they're on page 14 or 15. I don't remember the report. I would --
The Vice-Chair: Mr Duncan, we're going to have to move on.
Mr Duncan: Oh, I'm sorry. Good luck.
The Vice-Chair: You'll get another 10 minutes in about 20 minutes. We'll move to the New Democrat caucus and Mr Silipo.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Mr Wright, I want to start by going back to the beginning, I guess, as I see it. You come to this table having been appointed by cabinet on the recommendation of the Premier of the province, that same Premier of the province who did very clearly say during the election that there would be no more political appointments to the WCB.
I've heard various reports about your involvement in the campaign. I assume, given your involvement in the Mike Harris campaign, you are a member of the Conservative Party and I would like you, for the record, to just confirm or clarify that, and secondly explain, please, to the committee what your role was during the recent provincial election campaign.
Mr Wright: Yes, I am a member of the Conservative Party and have been for a period of time. My role in the election campaign was to assist in managing the tour.
Mr Silipo: I gather you're also a close friend of Mr Harris. That's the case?
Mr Wright: Yes, Mr Harris and I are friends.
Mr Silipo: Going into this particular job, which I would have to say, and please feel free to agree or disagree, is both one of the most difficult as well as one of the most important jobs in the province in terms of the appointments a government gets to make. Doesn't it give you any hesitation to go into a job, particularly this job, in a situation in which you are going in completely contradictory to what the person who's appointing you to this job said he would do, that he would not put his friends on these boards, that he would not put political appointees to these boards? How does that make you feel, going into this position?
Mr Wright: I'd like to differentiate to some extent on it. I think the issue here is one of competence and background. There's no doubt -- I tell you freely -- that Mr Harris and I are friends. I rather suspect if Mr Harris and I weren't friends, I would be somewhat less interested in taking on this challenge. It happens that my background is pretty well-suited for this job.
The basic premise that has been applied to the policy, as I understand it from the Conservative Party and the election campaign, is to cease to put people on the board simply for political reasons, which has been a practice occasionally in the past, and to put people on who have qualified. One of the specific qualifications they spoke to in those days was people with insurance background and private sector experience in managing these types of organizations. My résumé, I believe, if you look at my experience -- whether or not I'm a Conservative or a Liberal or NDP, my experience and background I think demonstrate well enough that I have skills in these areas. I don't suppose it should preclude me because I've been politically active. It doesn't mean I'm not qualified for the job.
It's a tough job. It's not something I would step forward to take without a lot of serious thought because it will impact my personal life and my business life for a period of time, but I also think it's something that needs to be dealt with. It's one thing to promote change and to criticize things; it's another thing to go forward and do some of the work.
Mr Silipo: Mr Wright, let me just, for the record, be clear: I am not for a minute suggesting that by virtue of your being a member of the Conservative Party you shouldn't be eligible to be appointed to this board or any other board, but I'm simply juxtaposing that against the very clear statement that is now being contradicted that was made by Mike Harris, who is appointing you to this board. He's the one who set the ground rules, not me, on this and he has clearly contradicted that.
Let's talk a little bit about your background because I'm very interested in what you bring to the board in terms of your background and your skills and your current work in terms of your consulting firm. This position will pay $105,000, as has already been noted. Are you going to be doing the job on a full-time basis?
Mr Wright: By and large it will be in that range, yes. It's a bit hard to be entirely sure what it's going to require. My understanding is that the -- and I haven't been into it in a lot of detail. My expectation personally is that I'll have to spend a lot of time there. What's full-time, 40 or 50 hours a week? I suspect it will take that kind of effort.
1030
Mr Silipo: What is your relationship going to be with your consulting firm? Are you going to sever that tie?
Mr Wright: Sever the tie -- there are two aspects to my relationship with my consulting practice. One is ownership; I have a substantial ownership position in the firm. The second would be one of officer's duties or management duties. We have a president who manages the company on a regular basis. One of the advantages of having had a fairly successful business is that I am able to go and do this and still have my business survive and be under good leadership.
Mr Silipo: This is an area where I have some major concerns because while I agree with you that bringing the kind of background and expertise that you bring may be helpful to the board, I also worry about the potential conflict of interest and I want you to talk to us about how you see that whole area and whether in fact you see a problem.
My understanding is that section 60 of the legislation says that the WCB chair "shall not directly or indirectly,
"(a) have, purchase, take or become interested in any industry to which this part applies" -- that is the compensation act -- and shall not directly or indirectly,
"(b) be the holder of shares, bonds, debentures or other securities of any company that carries on the business of employers' liability or accident insurance."
Given your position as somebody who works in the insurance field, how are you going to reconcile that seeming contradiction and potential conflict?
Mr Wright: There is no conflict. I don't own any shares and I don't have any participation in anything that's in conflict with the workers' comp. None of our practice, in 16 years, has ever dealt with issues related to workers' comp. The only type of disability programs or anything we've ever been involved in is non-occupational, things that workers' comp does not deal with, so I've never dealt with employers' liability-disability issues. In fact in many respects, coming from the consulting side, a lot of our practice involves providing advice to employers and others as they deal with the insurance industry.
We're not owned by an insurance company, nor do I own anything involving any insurance company. I've consulted and had people take a look at my stuff and I've been told that I have no conflicts. Certainly on an ongoing basis I can't envision -- my company's prepared to undertake that there will be no commercial relationship between ourselves and the compensation board. It's never been part of our practice. It's not something we've ever participated in. I don't see any conflict there.
Mr Silipo: You don't see that in fact there is a potential for that happening, whether it's through your own consulting firm or indeed any of the other companies you've been associated with. The reason I raise that particularly is that, as you know, one of the directions that's come out of the Jackson report is that for the first six weeks of an injury the employer will now be directly responsible for paying or covering the employee. I think the presumption there is that in fact many employers will get private insurance coverage, which certainly, from where I sit, is simply the beginnings of the privatization of the workers' compensation system. I want to talk about that broader issue as well, either now or later if we have time, if we don't have time now.
I want to first of all just ask you again about the seeming conflict -- and I don't mean necessarily in a personal way in terms of any personal gain that you might make -- of putting as the chair of the board someone who very clearly has positions and has had positions in the insurance industry at a time when in fact the government is also clearly moving, as I would argue in this area, towards the beginnings of privatization of the system with the insurance companies, I would argue, playing a big role in that.
Mr Wright: There are quite a few issues in there. I have no conflict. I've had no relationship nor sat on the board of any of the insurance companies that potentially would be in the business. From a consulting perspective, I suppose that if those sorts of things were done, firms similar to mine would be asked to help establish financing principles or actuarially sound principles on which to fund those kinds of issues, if they were self-insured and those sorts of things.
At the risk of upsetting people in the private insurance industry, in the first six weeks I haven't had a chance to study that in depth. I understand it's in the Jackson report. Fundamentally, there are some things I'm concerned about in terms of proper return to work and rehabilitation and claims management. One of the principles that is at work is early intervention, and I'm a little concerned about some issues that surround that, that it might be better to have -- if you have different people dealing with different parts of the program, so the first six weeks is the employer, the next piece is the WCB. I'm concerned that there will be a continuity problem.
If I was to give you my advice as an insurance person who's been involved in these programs, I'd like the opportunity -- I believe that section suggests it would be referred to the WCB for examination and a report back in January 1998. I look forward to getting more information on it. You're suggesting I might have a conflict. I'm not sure that I would agree necessarily --
Mr Silipo: You might have some of your friends in the insurance industry upset at you, you're saying?
Mr Wright: I think it may be a surprise to you to find out that my natural position on it might not be to support that, that I'd want to look at it very closely. There are merits associated with it and there's a lot of issues around this, but the ability to provide service and continuity in things, there's issues there that have to be looked at. I don't have enough information to give you a full opinion on it, but I only cite that to give you an example. My role for the last 20 years has been essentially providing advice on these issues. I don't own an insurance company and I wouldn't benefit from that.
To put it on the table, you talk about privatization and things, the management of disability, rehabilitation, return to work and satisfactorily treating people has become very complex, and the private sector is struggling with it as well. The workers' comp board is not the only one having trouble dealing with these issues. Everybody who's touching any form of disability management issues is having troubling wrestling with it and they're trying to find new and innovative ways to try to make these things better.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Wright, we're going to have to move on to the next caucus.
Mr Wright: I was just getting warmed up.
The Vice-Chair: You'll have another chance to come back to that, I'm sure. The government caucus and Mrs Ecker.
Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): Thank you very much, Mr Wright, for coming to answer our questions today.
You made an interesting point earlier. You were sort of highlighting the clientele, that one of the things the board has to do is pay attention to its clientele, the clientele being the workers. Any thoughts or any suggestions about how you see the board representing the interests of working men and women out there, how you ensure that is represented at the board level, that particular interest, in the discussions and the decisions and the strategic direction that the board may well take?
Mr Wright: I think that's a very interesting problem. As you're probably aware, the initial round of appointments to the board would be the suggested appointments. There's myself and three other members plus Mr O'Keefe. There is a member, as I understand -- I haven't yet met with any of those individuals, but I'm very pleased at the mix of background that comes from that appointment. There's an individual with a very strong labour background. There's an individual with a very strong health and safety background who is now with the U of T, Mr Stewart. And we have somebody with a very strong financial background, Eileen Mercier.
I would say if you take a look at it, the responsibility for investing and managing a $6 billion to $7 billion fund that's there to help offset the future liabilities, there's big financial responsibilities, there's the understanding of different things. I think, considering it's only going to start out at five -- I assume there will be some additions later on -- there's a pretty decent group there to start with.
I think the other avenues that are available are advisory consultations, and obviously we need input from a broader range. One person from labour or one person from management respectively cannot do justice to all the views that are out there. I'm not too sure a roomful of people would do justice to all the views that exist on the workers' comp board, but consultation in the form of advisory groups will be what the board looks at pretty quickly.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Thank you very much, Mr Wright, for travelling to Toronto to meet with us. My colleague opposite, the member for Windsor-Walkerville, spoke about the Jackson report. You mentioned that you had read it. I want to get your views. Do you see it as the role of the board of directors at the WCB to legislate new laws outside of the WCB, or do you see rather that those responsibilities rest with elected officials with respect to, for example, many of the measures contained in the Jackson report?
1040
Obviously it's important to get on the record that those decisions are more properly made by legislators, people who are elected and accountable to the voters who elected them, and not by an unelected board. Could I get your thoughts on that?
Mr Wright: Very clearly that's my understanding of the responsibilities of the board of directors. The board of directors is there to live within the laws of the province and to implement the legislation as it exists. It's very clear in my mind that that's what is there.
I suppose that the board's existence in a supplementary sense would be to provide information and resources or whatever -- claims costs and other issues that come up -- to the Legislature as required, but essentially I see our responsibility, our governance responsibility, is to effectively steward the resources on the operation side and manage the adjudication and implementation of the program as the Legislature sees fit to make it.
Mr Baird: I also want to discuss the unfunded liability. Obviously today it's a real problem for the board and poses a real crisis in the years ahead for future benefits to be paid to injured workers. Why do you suppose the Ontario Legislature would enact a law that would say to private sector companies, "You can't operate with an unfunded liability"? Why do you suppose the provincial government would make laws like that?
Mr Wright: I assume you're referring to the unfunded liability issue on a pension plan.
Mr Baird: Sure, exactly.
Mr Wright: We have very stringent laws on those issues, and it's my understanding -- I assume that the motivation, when they were originally passed, was to protect members of those pension plans for future payments. If a company goes out of business or whatever -- we've had instances where corporations have gone out of business with unfunded liabilities on the books and it's been very damaging to the members of those plans -- I think it's there to protect the membership; it's there to protect the fact that you have to have a reasonable funding level to guarantee your ability to deliver on your promises.
Mr Baird: In your experience in terms of advising clients from both the management and labour sides on health plans, on funds -- when I read your résumé, you've got a terrific amount of experience in this regard -- do you think that in the public sector, for the WCB, it would be radically different, in terms of the law of economics being radically different in the WCB, in terms of other private sector corporations, where this Legislature and others have passed laws requiring a degree of solvency and refusing to allow an unfunded liability?
Mr Wright: The only organization that could get away with that type of funding would be a publicly owned one, or a public institution. The insurance industry on disability management is required to hold actuarial reserves against disability payments. If a 30- or 35-year-old is permanently disabled, on their balance sheet, their actuarial statements, they would have to hold a reserve that could approach $700,000 or $800,000 for one individual, but they're required to hold those reserves and prove that they can meet their obligations. Those things are very standard; we hold people to those sorts of tests.
If you go the other direction on the funding and say, "It doesn't matter; we can live out of current revenues," you start to approach the type of issue that's facing us with the CPP. There's a lot of concern these days about the capacity of the Canada pension plan to continue to function properly. So if you prolong it and allow it to get out of control -- whether it should be 90% funded, 100% funded, one could make an argument around whether it's 90% or 110% that you should hold as a reserve, but I would say that at 40% we're way behind the others. I think it's 40% funded.
Mr Duncan: It's 37%.
Mr Wright: Okay, now that we're on the right number I understand your question from before.
The 37% unfunded -- we're only 37% covered. That's too far behind. The other provinces have moved to try to correct it. But it's really only in the public sector. You go to other aspects of public sector life where these have become issues: School boards and retirement gratuities through the sick day programs have been issues for years. People have argued that they should be funded because there are huge, accumulated liabilities that have never been recognized on the books, so there will be a debate around it. On both sides of the issue it tends to get convenient occasionally, when an unfunded liability is important and when it isn't. But as a person who has worked in this industry for 20 years, I'd say I can't see a circumstance under which an unfunded liability makes sense.
Mr Baird: It's interesting to note that we wouldn't allow a private sector company to treat the beneficiaries -- the injured workers, the pensioners -- with one set of rules, yet when we govern ourselves in-house we do it in a radically different way. I think that's why it's been a significant issue with respect to WCB policy in dealing with the unfunded liability.
Another area I want to raise with you and get your thoughts on is client service. This is something that for each member from all parties is an issue we're confronted with almost on a daily basis. I separate your background in terms of service to your own clients at your firm with over 60 employees in two ways -- one for injured workers.
I talk to workers on a daily basis about delays and backups at the board. Delays and backups happen to us all in our daily lives, but it's probably worse for people who are under a significant amount of stress due to a major and significant health problem.
Some members in the Legislature from all parties have one staff member who deals exclusively with WCB caseload. I find that absolutely extraordinary, because in the case work that I do across many ministries I'm being called upon to deal with major problems, where people have had major problems in dealings with a public body or institution. For some members, from all parties again, to have one person dealing specifically with WCB, that says to me there's a major client service problem.
What activities in your background and views do you have in terms of returning a greater degree of priority towards client servicing? The whole purpose of the WCB is to provide a reliable insurance plan for injured workers in the province.
Mr Wright: As I said earlier, if one were to describe success criteria for the WCB -- set aside the financial thing; it's obvious you have to fund the thing correctly -- if you were to establish success criteria, they would say that injured workers who deal with this organization say that it works well. That's what it exists for. It doesn't exist to fill a building, it doesn't exist to help promote real estate prices in Toronto, it doesn't exist for any of those other reasons; it exists to provide services to employees and workers who have been injured.
If you take the example in the insurance industry where they've had similar problems, where for instance in drug claims and things you have inquiries, and the technology has changed dramatically over the last five years on your capacity to deal with inquiries and people and track calls, there's no excuse for somebody being an hour on the telephone and not being able to identify whom they should speak with. In this day and age that does not exist. I suspect that part of it is a cultural issue in terms of corporate cultures. We're the only ones in the game. If I don't take your call, you have to call back. I think that can be changed, but it's going to be a cultural change at the institution, it may be technology or it may be attitude. When I say "cultural," it's an attitude thing.
Other organizations have had to do it, because now in an insurance company environment if you are a long-term-disability claimant you phone in to a set of phone numbers and you get somebody within a moment who has your file on the computer in front of them, they understand why you're calling and they're there to service you. That doesn't mean the Workers' Compensation Board's responsibility is to say yes to every claim. Sometimes they might do somebody a favour if they said no meant no.
1050
The Vice-Chair: We're going to have to move on to the Liberal caucus.
Mr Duncan: I want to come back again to the unfunded liability and I want to come back to what we were talking about, because I think after John asked you some questions you got what I was getting at: 37% of current claims today are covered by current assessments.
Mr Wright: Yes, the existing liabilities are 40% coverage.
Mr Duncan: Yes, I understand that. If I can go on, the government has just cut benefits to injured workers by roughly 6%. The previous government had deindexed benefits to workers. Your government, the government that's appointing you, the government that you campaigned for, is now suggesting that it wants to cut assessments by 5%. Do you think, given what you've said about the unfunded liability and about the need to deal with what the government has called a "crisis," that it would be prudent at this time to cut assessments overall by 5%?
Mr Wright: What is prudent is to have the final results reflect the proper direction. It's a complex issue; it's not just assessment rates. One could argue that if assessment rates are unimportant, then why not just increase them by $2? Double the assessment rates and we'll solve the problem really quickly.
Mr Duncan: If I can, are assessment rates more important than benefits to injured workers?
Mr Wright: I think it's a balancing act. If you have assessment rates that are hugely uncompetitive and nobody's working, I suppose then it becomes a moot point.
Mr Duncan: When average lifetime pensions are less than 15% and this government has just cut benefits by 6% to injured workers on temporary benefits do you think there's balance?
Mr Wright: I understand that the cuts would be coming on future claimants.
Mr Duncan: In response to Mr Baird's question about government legislation, listen, I remember when we were in office -- and I know those were 10 lost years, so maybe I shouldn't refer to them --
Mr Silipo: You were only responsible for five of those.
Mr Duncan: -- and since the darkness has again descended -- we were often advised by the chair of the Workers' Compensation Board, Dr Elgie -- you'll know that Dr Elgie, of course, was appointed in 1985 and served I think with distinction. He often advised the government on policy and where the government should be going with policy.
Back to your comments, do you not think the chair of the board should be providing advice to the Minister of Labour and should have positions on issues around the unfunded liability, around benefits to injured workers, around proper assessment rates? Don't you think it's a copout to somehow suggest that simply the government should introduce legislation, or do you think the government shouldn't listen to the board and just do what it says without consultation?
Mr Wright: I anticipate that when the board exists and is functioning, the government would naturally consult with it. I have not been the chairman, I still am not in office as the chair and the board is not there now. I can't speak for the minister. I assume there's been consultation with the current structure over there on these issues and I would assume Mr Jackson has been consulting.
Mr Duncan: I understood you were responding to Mr Baird that you didn't think the chair of the board should be advising.
Mr Wright: No, what I said was it's not --
Mr Duncan: See, I think it's important to know what your views are on these issues. You are going to be very influential in a very important debate --
Mrs Ecker: Then you might want to let him answer the question.
Mr Duncan: He'll have lots of time. You people don't listen to the people in the audience, so he'll have lots of time to answer the questions to you. I guess my concern is, what is your view? The Premier said that you would end political appointments to the WCB's board. That's what you said. You were there that day, and here you are. Do you think the Premier should break his other commitment about the 5% cut in assessments, or do you think he should keep it?
Mr Wright: I would assume that the Premier should keep his -- do what he wants to do. Those issues are the Legislature's issues. If asked for advice on it, at the appropriate time in office at the board I will provide the best advice I can to the government.
Mr Duncan: Then he should keep his commitment on the 5% assessment cut, keep his commitment to cut benefits to injured workers, but he shouldn't keep his commitment about patronage appointments to the board?
Mr Wright: I don't know what one would consider to be the definition of a patronage appointment. The interesting --
Mr Duncan: Please don't take it the wrong way. I have no qualms about appointing people with political affiliations. We appointed Dr Elgie, who was a sitting Conservative member, to the board. But on May 15, the Premier, in front of the WCB office, said, "...an end to political appointments on the WCB's board," and you were on the bus that day.
Mr Wright: Yes.
Mr Duncan: I guess you helped organize the trip. Just to wrap, do you think you'd have the appointment if you weren't a close friend of the Premier's?
Mr Wright: I can't answer that in the sense that I didn't make the decision. What I can say, though, is that the hearing and this morning's discussion is to deal with my qualifications to do the job. I will put my qualifications forward to match anybody's on the capacity to go and deal with this in the context in which it's been put forward.
Mr Duncan: I agree with that. The problem I have is I asked substantive questions and you kept saying, "Well, I don't know; I haven't read that; I haven't studied that; I'm not the chair yet."
Mr Wright: Some of those questions it would be much easier for me to deal with in three to six months. I've read some of the material that's been available. I haven't had a chance to study it; I haven't had a chance to ask questions on some of it. It would not be prudent of me to make wild statements when I haven't had a chance to do the homework.
Mr Duncan: To come back to it, though, the Premier made the six points on the WCB. The points were very clear. Do you continue to endorse the six-point plan on WCB reform that the government espoused during the election?
Mr Wright: The fact that I support the government's position on WCB? Yes.
Mr Duncan: Yes, you do.
Mr Wright: Yes.
Mr Duncan: So do you continue to support the position that political appointments at the board should end?
Mr Wright: And that people with qualifications and experience in the insurance industry should be appointed to the board to help correct the problem.
Mr Duncan: Was that in the six-point document?
Mr Wright: I believe there was reference there to returning it to an insurance-oriented basis and properly functioning with qualified people.
Mr Baird: Insurance industry executives.
Mr Wright: Yes. I think you'll find that's in there and it's very consistent with that.
Mr Duncan: So you believe then that you can make an exception where there's experience -- is there any exception to cutting benefits to injured workers? How about a case where an injured worker is living below the poverty line on a lifetime pension?
Mr Wright: I don't have direct knowledge of those. It would be difficult to answer that question.
Mr Bartolucci: Just in summary, because there are lots of questions that he can't answer, maybe these are a few that he can answer. Have you ever raised money for the Progressive Conservatives?
Mr Wright: Probably, yes.
Mr Bartolucci: How much over the course of the last three years?
Mr Wright: The last three years, probably none.
Mr Bartolucci: How about any candidates in particular? The Minister of Labour, have you raised money for her?
Mrs Ecker: How much have you raised for the leadership campaign there, Mr Chairman?
Interjections.
Mr Bartolucci: You see, we're working at it, Janet. We're not being appointed to it.
Mr Wright: I can answer your question. I believe it would be zero.
Mr Bartolucci: Have you ever been appointed by any other Premier or maybe a Prime Minister to any other board or agency?
Mr Wright: Yes.
Mr Bartolucci: What's that?
Mr Wright: That was the CBC board, and I was offered reappointment by the Liberal government and turned it down.
Mr Bartolucci: What were your qualifications?
Mr Wright: My qualifications?
Mr Bartolucci: To sit on the CBC board. Who appointed you, by the way?
Mr Wright: That would be the Conservative government.
Mr Bartolucci: The Prime Minister?
Interjection: Perrin Beatty.
Mr Wright: Perrin Beatty appointed me, yes.
Mr Bartolucci: Brian Mulroney was the Prime Minister?
Mr Wright: Yes, I think that's true.
Mr Bartolucci: I suggest that if you're having trouble with the definition of political patronage, you might want to look back at your record as being vice-president of the Progressive Conservatives federally. You might want to look at your fund-raising ability for the Progressive Conservatives. You might want to look at your ability to raise money for particular members. I suggest that's a good way of defining political patronage.
The Vice-Chair: We'll move on then to --
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): We still have a minute.
The Vice-Chair: You still have a minute. I'm sorry. Yes, you do. Mr Crozier.
Mr Crozier: Thank you. Just a question on the advice regarding the 5% reduction in WCB rates. Did you advise the Premier during the campaign that this should be one of their points?
Mr Wright: No. I didn't participate in the development of that particular platform. I didn't get involved in the campaign until it actually started.
Mr Crozier: Did you give him some advice, since that was part of the campaign, considering that you were an insurance executive?
Mr Wright: My recollection at that time was that it was pretty much a set piece when the campaign started.
Mr Crozier: It doesn't mean you couldn't advise them as to whether it was good or bad.
Mr Wright: Oh, no.
Mr Baird: We don't write policy on the bus.
Mr Crozier: I'd like to see him swear to that.
Mr Wright: My days on that aspect were functional organization and I don't recall that ever being an issue that was discussed.
Mr Crozier: With your experience, it would seem to me to be odd that you wouldn't at least comment on it.
Mr Wright: I think there might have been other people around with similar experience.
1100
Mr Silipo: Mr Wright, the problem we're having here in terms of your appointment is that given the threshold your friend and colleague Mr Harris set in saying there would be no more political appointments, particularly to the Workers' Compensation Board but more broadly than that, and given that you're here in front of us with your close ties, as you described them earlier for us, the difficulty we're having is that what Mr Harris and you are asking us to accept now is that really we should redefine that election promise to say, "No political appointments except for Conservative members." That gives me great difficulty.
I want to come back to a point you've made in your defence -- and I understand that -- which is that you feel qualified for this job aside from the fact that you're a member of the Conservative Party and ran the tour for Mr Harris during the election, and that's because of the extensive business and insurance background you bring.
I want to talk a little bit about another piece of that, which is that, as you may know, under the law as passed by Bill 15, some of the changes the Harris government made to workers' compensation require the board, and obviously would require you, to manage in a financially responsible manner. You have that situation and you have a situation in which the cut in assessments of 5% for employers adds $4.5 billion to the unfunded liability, an unfunded liability which you said is approaching crisis.
As you look at that -- and I don't know to what level of detail you've managed to look at it -- if you were to conclude that reducing these assessments not just increases the unfunded liability, because it does -- it clearly adds a big chunk to the unfunded liability -- how do you feel about putting yourself in a position where you'd be saying and doing something that contradicts a fundamental promise Mike Harris has made to cut assessments by 5%? Would you be willing to stand up to him and say, "We can't cut those assessments because to do that would just make the unfunded liability even more of a problem and would force us to have to cut injured workers' benefits even further as a result of that"?
Mr Wright: First of all, the unfunded liability and what causes it or what affects it and where it goes up and where it goes down are complex. The assessment rate is obviously a key component of it, but also the claims and what's covered and what's paid are key aspects of it. The management responsibility is to deal with that within the environment that is put forward. I don't have a problem that we can implement the strategy and a lot of that's in the legislative side. As the chair of the Workers' Compensation Board, if I'm asked my advice or my opinion by the government, it will get my honest and direct answer, whatever the subject happens to be.
Mr Silipo: I'm asking you for your opinion now, sir, and I wish you would give it to me. But I'm also suggesting that unless the government is prepared to override the board, at the end of the day any reduction in assessments is going to have to be done by an action of the board. If that happens, if that's the situation, unless that changes, it's going to be your responsibility. How do you mesh that with your requirement under the law to manage the board in a financially responsible manner?
Mr Wright: I think I did answer the question, which is to say that it's not the only component of the end result. Whether it's assessment you're dealing with or somebody adding or taking away benefits under the program, it has an impact on the financial issues surrounding the board and the unfunded liability. Over the years, when the government chose to add benefits but not increase assessment rates, it was not a lot different. These things have to be brought into balance. It's an issue that --
Mr Silipo: You don't see a contradiction if on the one hand the government is saying it wants to reduce benefits to injured workers to reduce the debt, reduce the unfunded liability, but at the same time it's going to also say to employers, "You're going to pay less even though that's going to make the debt larger"? There isn't a contradiction that you see in that in terms of managing this whole thing in a financially responsible manner?
Mr Wright: There are answers that lie in there. In my initial reading of the Jackson report, I thought a lot that was addressed there was very interesting and in many ways appeared to address the issues. I want more time to study them in terms of the implementation criteria. Some aspects of what you're asking me to answer are really debate for the Legislature. If you're asking me if I have a problem implementing what potentially will come out of the Jackson report, I will not have a problem.
Mr Silipo: You're saying to me that you're not going to have a problem if, as a member of the board and as the chair of the board, you have to drive those decisions. That's what you'll have to do. It's not going to be Mr Jackson who will make that decision in terms of the regulations and the votes around the board; it will be you who will have to do that.
Mr Wright: I am unclear precisely, once the legislation is passed, what the mechanisms and what the implementation requirements will be, so when you refer to regulations and other issues I can't specifically speak to them. However, in a general sense, it's my understanding that it's the Legislature's responsibility to decide the level of benefit, and if the Legislature says that the assessment rates are reduced, then yes, the board would have the challenge of implementing those decisions.
Mr Silipo: But if it will be the responsibility of the board, how will you deal with that against your requirement to manage the board in a financially responsible manner?
Mr Wright: On any financial issues as they approach the board, I have a reporting relationship to the government and it will be my assumption that I report fully and completely on the financial status of the organization and any advice we might have on an ongoing basis as to what action should be taken.
Mr Silipo: We no doubt will be coming back to that issue.
I want to talk about another area, Mr Wright. It's been touched on in some ways through some of the earlier questions around service and the structure of the board; you commented about that and some changes you would be willing to take a look at making around the culture of the board. I find those comments helpful.
In my own constituency, I represent a lot of older injured workers, people who were injured many years ago and are quite frankly, years after, still fighting the system and trying to get a decent level of pension. One of the things they have managed to do is to get themselves organized through various organizations, one of them being the Union of Injured Workers of Ontario, and many others across the province; similar groups to that.
I want to hear from you because we haven't heard much, or anything, so far this morning about the relationship that you see between you as the chair of the board and injured workers individually and specifically through the various organizations. I think that's going to be a very important area for you as chair.
Mr Wright: I agree with you that it's important. I'm not completely sure. One of the early questions I'll have is how we facilitate some of that communication. There's always the thing that you get painted into a particular view of people, that they're corporate people or they're business people or they're here from the insurance industry, whatever. I would like to put on the record that I have a high degree of concern about the injured workers. I grew up in a situation where my father was a vet who was injured. We fought for his pension. I know what these issues are like.
Mr Silipo: Would you commit yourself fairly early in your term to sit down with the various organizations? I mentioned the Union of Injured Workers, the network of injured workers, the Ontario network. Its president is sitting behind you, watching these proceedings. I think you could send out a very good message by your willingness to sit down with those individuals and others fairly early in your mandate and hearing from them at first hand some of the concerns they have been dealing with over the years.
Mr Wright: I consider it part of my responsibility.
1110
Mr Silipo: One of the things your government has been talking about has been making the board itself more representative. We have on the board a representative of employer groups. I was glad to see one labour representation, a very different situation from the old bipartite board. But that issue aside, would you be prepared to advocate for the appointment of an injured worker to be part of the board?
Mr Wright: The board makeup is an interesting problem, and I think that's an interesting suggestion. I'd like to think about a bit, but I don't have an immediate concern about it. Obviously, I don't make the appointments, although I would hope that the board is in a position to at least make some suggestions. But it's an interesting suggestion.
Certainly the board needs to consult with these organizations that are essentially the clients of the organization, so not to talk to them would be silly. They're the ones who know what's going on in terms of service and everything.
Mr Silipo: I just find it odd that in all of this great concern around making the board more representative, the government seemed to forget about the group that it is supposed to be serving through this board, which you yourself said was really what the board exists for, which is to make sure that injured workers are actively --
The Vice-Chair: Your time is up, Mr Silipo.
I want to thank you, Mr Wright, for coming before us today. Your being here has been very helpful, and we wish you well.
Mr Wright: Thank you very much.
KEITH NORTON
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Keith Norton, intended appointee as chief commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission.
The Vice-Chair: The next item of business for the committee this morning is the review of an intended appointment, Mr Keith Norton, to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
Mr Norton, welcome. Please make yourself comfortable. Are you going to be opening with a brief statement?
Mr Keith Norton: I think perhaps just a very brief statement, although some of you around this table will recognize that I have a reputation for not being brief, but I'll try to stick to that this morning.
It was suggested that simply for the purposes of the record I might make a very brief statement in order to indicate what I bring to this table by way of experience. Most of you know all of this already, so I am not adding much to what you already are aware of.
I must say at the outset that I am truly honoured to be here as a nominee for chief commissioner of the Human Rights Commission, and I say that with all sincerity.
I have had probably one might say a series of careers or sequential careers, something of that nature. My first experience following university was as a secondary school teacher, and subsequent to that, as a teacher at the post-secondary level at community college, and part-time, subsequent to that, at the university level.
I then went back to university and studied law, was called to the bar and practised in primarily a criminal law practice with an orientation as well towards juvenile and family law.
Early in my legal career I became involved, as a result of volunteer work in the Kingston community, in municipal politics and was elected to city council in 1973. During my second term, while I was serving as deputy mayor, I was elected to the Ontario Legislature in 1975 and served for almost a decade until the election of 1985 when I was relieved of my responsibilities by the electorate. During that period I also had the privilege of serving almost eight and a half years in the provincial cabinet as Minister of Community and Social Services, Minister of the Environment, Minister of Health, and finally, for a very brief period, education and colleges and universities.
I then returned to private law practice and to a consulting practice in the community, moving to Toronto at that point, and was involved in a number of other small business ventures, including a publishing venture and a few other things of that nature.
In 1992 I was approached to consider, and subsequently did accept, the appointment as president of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, where I have been for the last four years until July 1 of this year. I'm just in the midst of winding up my involvement there at the present time.
I might just say that if at the end of the day this committee decides to confirm the nomination, I'm very much aware of the fact that I will be assuming the most important responsibilities of my career, and in so doing, I will be following some truly outstanding Canadians, several of whom I've known, who have served this province in this office.
One who comes to mind immediately is Dr Dan Hill, who also served with me on the federal tribunal until his health would no longer permit him to continue, and of course, the immediate past incumbent, Ms Rosemary Brown, whom I have known over the last few years in her capacity here -- I've known her many years in her public life -- and to whom I think we owe a great debt, considering the contribution she has made here over the last three years in addressing some of the problems that the tribunal has faced.
I would be quite happy now to respond to any questions that you might wish to address.
The Vice-Chair: We'll start this round of questioning -- each caucus will have 10 minutes; this is a half-hour interview -- with the Liberal caucus, since we started with the government caucus a few minutes ago.
Mr Crozier: Good morning, sir. Considering your experience, I'm sure you're very familiar with the procedure and with the part that this committee plays. You said just a moment ago, if this committee concurs with your appointment, you will be taking on one of the most important positions of your career. Would you agree with me, though, that it does not matter what this committee does? If we were to vote unanimously opposed to any person who comes before the committee, the government can still continue with the appointment.
Mr Norton: That might be so, but I think it would be an important consideration from my point of view if the committee were to do that.
Mr Crozier: Would it?
Mr Norton: Certainly. I respect the process that is in place and I think it's an important change from the past when I was a member of the Legislature. I think it makes the process more open and transparent, albeit, ultimately the decision does rest with the government. But it does give members an opportunity and the public an opportunity to have some idea of who the individuals are being proposed.
Mr Crozier: There may be others who don't understand that that certainly is a possibility.
Mr Norton: But I think it would give me pause for thought if the committee unanimously voted against my nomination, even if the government were still prepared to go forward.
Mr Crozier: I'm pleased to hear that. I'm not sure that's always the case, but I'm pleased to hear that.
Mr Norton, your proposed appointment as chair of the committee: Can you tell me in your words what significance there is to being appointed chair as opposed to being appointed as a member of the committee and the relationship you have with the commission and its activities?
Mr Norton: The first thing that comes to mind, I think, with respect to the position of chair, or chief commissioner as it's often referred to, is that it is the only full-time appointment on the commission. The other members are appointed on a part-time basis and serve as called upon on a regular basis, but it's not deemed to be a full-time appointment.
The chief commissioner has responsibility for working with the senior staff of the commission overseeing the operations of the commission, making certain, in conjunction with the other commissioners, of course, certain policy decisions and operational decisions with respect to the operation of the commission as a whole. Of course, the internal process with respect to considering the recommendations that come forward from the investigators is again something which is determined by the commissioners themselves. Ms Brown, for example, had made some significant changes there, I think, that made it a little more efficient in terms of the way that the commission broke up into subcommittees to deal with cases in order to expedite the process. But I think the chief commissioner is in a position to have a significant influence upon the way in which the commission operates.
Mr Crozier: You've pointed out the way it operates. Help me. In your opinion, does the chief commissioner have any undue influence on the decisions of the commission?
Mr Norton: I would think not, in terms of having any more influence than any other member of the commission. Each member of the commission is an equal partner or equal member. The chief commissioner doesn't have any second votes or third votes, or his or her vote doesn't count for any more than anyone else's.
1120
As I understand the current operation -- and, as in the case of the individual who was sitting here a moment ago, I have not yet had any direct involvement with the commission; I had a very brief, informal meeting with the executive director on Monday, which was my first contact. But my understanding is that under the leadership of Ms Brown, as cases come forward the commission deals with them in panels of three; in other words, the commission breaks up into panels of three. If the decision of the three is unanimous, that is accepted as a final decision. If there is a split decision, it goes to a meeting of the whole commission for final resolution. Bearing that in mind, I don't see how the chief commissioner can have any undue influence on the outcome.
Mr Crozier: Mr Norton, perhaps you already know this, but as a selection of the official opposition, it was my selection, as I sat on the subcommittee. With all due respect to you, sir, I didn't know any more about Keith Norton than what was on the order-in-council appointments.
Mr Norton: Things fade quickly in public life. There's nothing better than a retired politician.
Mr Crozier: I'm just a little rural member from southern Ontario.
I point that out, sir, because I could see that you had held significant positions in the Conservative government from 1975 to 1985, that you were a cabinet colleague of the Premier, so certainly you were known to others to a greater extent than I. When I saw that you were being appointed as chair -- over the past few years I saw Ms Brown and the commission in operation and I saw the Ontario Human Rights Commission as being an important one, as you've said that you will consider it to be. As well, I got the perception that this government may not be as sympathetic to human rights issues as perhaps other governments have been, but I only say that because that was my perception. It was only recently, as a matter of fact Monday, that I learned of the perhaps significance of your appointment to this chair.
Also, we don't get a lot of information. In other words, we don't get your views in something like this. We don't even get the public appointments secretariat information with your background, detail on your experience -- and you've had extensive experience -- until later in the process.
So I have to ask this. It comes written in someone else's words, but I'd like your comments. James Wallace in the Toronto Sun wrote on July 14, and I ask this because I have a number of new Canadians in my riding, "New Canadians who follow discriminatory practices, either cultural or religious [must] adopt Canadian values." Can you explain that for me?
Mr Norton: I can assure you, when I saw the headline on that article on Saturday --
Mr Crozier: It isn't the headline.
Mr Norton: No, but there was a headline that said something about pursuing "Canuck values," which were not my words at all. I think the article that followed on Sunday by the same journalist, being more lengthy, put things in a somewhat more accurate context. The abbreviated version on Saturday I think tended to be misleading in terms of the discussion we actually had.
During our discussion, the question was raised by the reporter about the situation with respect to some perhaps ethnic communities where, for reasons of cultural tradition or maybe religious views, women, for example, might be treated in what would be regarded as a discriminatory way under our legislation.
My comment was that I thought that it had to be understood by members of all communities that equality is equality, and that if women in those minority groups where their cultural tradition might have placed them in a subservient role wished to bring their complaint forward and it fit within the legislation -- for example, the workplace or accommodation or access to services and so on -- that would be dealt with in the same way as any other complaints, because one of the underpinning values in our society that everyone must understand is that equality means equality.
I'm not anticipating there will be, but there might be situations which would cause some conflict within a community where there's a conflict with values. Nevertheless, all citizens have equal access to the protections of this legislation. That's sort of the conversation we had.
Mr Crozier: I thank you for the clarification. It was also mentioned in the article the day before, and the way that article started was, "Immigrants must adopt Canadian values of tolerance, even at the expense of religious beliefs."
Mr Norton: But those are not specifically my words.
Mr Crozier: No, they weren't; that's not in quotation marks.
I need your view. There are Canadian religious views, not just from other countries, but there are a variety of religious views in Ontario that we might say are Canadian, although we were all immigrants at one time. To what extent must, in your view, tolerance by religious views be held as opposed to, as you see it, the right of a pluralistic society?
Mr Norton: Obviously, freedom of religion is an important consideration as well. All I suggested in that conversation was that if a member, an individual, felt their equality rights were infringed and they wished to bring it forward, it would be dealt with on the same basis as any other complaint.
May I just give you an example of a situation with which I am more familiar? It creates equally complex cross-cultural issues that have to be weighed very carefully, and that's within aboriginal communities in Canada, for example. At the federal level, with the tribunal over the last four years, although I didn't hear any of these myself, we had several cases where by virtue of tradition within an aboriginal community, women were treated very differently from men. For example, if a woman who was a resident on a reservation married a non-status Indian, she would lose her rights with respect to services and accommodation and so on on the reservation. But if a male resident of the reservation and member of the Indian band married a non-status female person, they would both have full rights.
Those kinds of issues do arise throughout our country, not just with newer Canadians, but there probably always will be some kinds of cross-cultural issues like that that arise.
The Vice-Chair: We'll move on to the New Democratic caucus and Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Welcome, Mr Norton. I want to say at the outset, before getting into some questions, that we've received, as you may know, as members of the committee, some letters with respect to your nomination. I'm quite troubled by the tone of some of the letters, which seem to me to be indicating an opposition to your taking on this position simply and almost exclusively on the basis of your sexual orientation.
Mr Norton: I've seen only one; I didn't realize there were others.
Mr Silipo: No, there were others. Those positions I find somewhat offensive and I disagree with. I just wanted to put that on the record.
I wanted to ask you, however, about the role you're going to be taking on in terms of some of the challenges. You've talked about some of the work that's been going on at the commission. We all know about the problems with the backlogs and some of the efforts that have been made, including the infusion of some additional funding during the tenure of the last NDP government.
One of the things that's happened recently, when the current government set out its business plans for the different ministries, was that it outlined the cut of 6.2% to the Human Rights Commission, which to me seems to be quite contrary to something the government said during the election, which was that a portion of the money saved by winding down the Employment Equity Commission, that other commission that as you know has been shut down, would be redirected to the Human Rights Commission. That clearly hasn't happened.
1130
We saw even after the government took office certainly a couple of commitments, one in particular by one of our colleagues here. Mr Clement, the minister's parliamentary assistant, in a committee reviewing Bill 8, the repeal of that employment equity legislation, said, "We certainly are intent on reforming the commission, and there have to be resources available for the commission to be reformed."
My worry, and I know the worry of many who advocate for people affected by the work of the commission, is that the funding cut of 6.2% is not going to allow the commission to continue the work it has been doing to deal with the backlogs, to not just get itself on a footing of being able to deal with cases expeditiously and well, but to be able to continue that. As you go into this job, do you worry about that and the level of resources that are available to the commission to do its work?
Mr Norton: I don't know precisely what the budgetary considerations are yet because, as you know, up until such time as there is a confirmation and I'm finally officially appointed, if that should happen, I have access to no information that is not available to the general public. Obviously, having heard those issues raised not just for the first time here -- I was aware of those issues through the media as well -- that would be one of the first things I would like to address in terms of my early dealings with the senior staff, to get a clear assessment myself as to the budgetary restrictions we're faced with and what the impact might be upon service.
Obviously it's going to be very important to maintain the level of service and to continue the efforts that have begun in terms of progressively reducing what is not so much, I guess, a backlog as it is the waiting period. It's been reduced, I have been told, from an average of 22 months down to 15 months, but that is an average. That still means there are cases that have been sitting around for perhaps several years. I don't know why that might be, but I would like to get a handle on that quickly.
I understand that some of the causes of that are beyond the control of the commission. The legal process being what it is, the internal decisions of the commission can be reviewed by the courts at every step as well. That, in the case of particularly well funded respondents, is often done, and that can delay, if every time a decision is made it's reviewed by the courts before you can go to the next stage of consideration. You can drag a case out several years just doing that.
I don't know yet what all the causes are, but I certainly want to address that, and resources are an important consideration.
Mr Silipo: One of the concerns that many have expressed is the increase in the commission's dismissing of complaints, and particularly with no reasons given as to why the complaints were dismissed. Many see that as simply another tool that the commission has been forced to use to deal with its backlog, which presumably will only get worse if resources are diminished. Again, do you have a concern about that, or what would you see yourself doing as chair to deal with that clear concern that's been expressed?
Mr Norton: I would certainly like to have a look at that as well. I don't know what the reasons for that might be.
The section, of course, under which those dismissals are taking place, section 34 of the act, does set out what the criteria are, the grounds for dismissal. Obviously there will always be some cases, I suspect, that do appear to the investigators and the commission ultimately to be frivolous and vexatious or whatever. I don't think, especially at a time when resources may be scarce, that you want to spend a lot of time with frivolous cases. But there may well be others that are not frivolous that have been dismissed, and I think that in those cases people ought to know why they're dismissed. I didn't realize there was no reason given. I think that if your case is dismissed, you should be told why.
Mr Silipo: One of the concerns that certainly I and many others have is that the Minister of Citizenship, who, as you know, is responsible for this body, has so far, to my knowledge, not met with groups like the Alliance for Employment Equity, who are very concerned about what has happened both prior to the elimination of that legislation and certainly since.
You obviously can't tell the minister what to do, but you can set a tone in terms of what you will do as chair of this commission. I'd like you to talk a little bit about your commitment to being accessible to community groups, whether it's this group or many, many others, of course, throughout the province who have concerns about the way in which the commission has been working and ways in which it can be improved.
Mr Norton: I have to be cognizant of the decision-making responsibility of the commission and therefore be very careful about the nature of discussions with individuals and groups -- or with government, as far as that goes -- with respect to any specific cases that might be before us or coming before us.
Mr Silipo: I'm talking about broader issues, not individual cases.
Mr Norton: With respect to the process or frustrations with the process or recommendations for ways in which it might be improved, I've already indicated, not publicly yet, but certainly to some of the individuals with whom I've had conversations, that I would like early on to meet with some of the stakeholders, for want of a better expression, to discuss those kinds of things. I know that even in the press recently some of the legal counsel who have appeared before the commission have expressed some frustrations, and if they have frustrations, then presumably they have some suggestions as well.
I would like, before launching into making any suggestions as to how it can be improved, to get a pretty good handle on what problems may exist and what those who are closest to the problems recommend, including the staff of the commission, of course, and I know they have some.
Mr Silipo: One of the concerns you may be familiar with is that there have been some allegations recently about racism within the commission or at the commission. I think one of the things that maybe have added to that concern is the virtual elimination of the systemic racism unit of the commission. Again, quite frankly, I'm not in a position to make a judgement as to what the problem exactly is, but it is a concern that's there and that's clearly been expressed by a number of people. I'd like to hear what you would do to make sure the commission deals with systemic discrimination both in terms of concerns that may exist within the commission itself but obviously in the broader mandate that the commission has, especially now that the employment equity legislation no longer exists.
Mr Norton: I certainly am not in a position to make any informed comment at this point on what may or may not have occurred internally to the commission. I hope, with respect to any internal tensions that may exist, that I can bring to the commission an openness with respect to staff that would lead to a workplace climate that will lead to the reduction of those kinds of things. If I can identify that there are such problems, I certainly will try to address them early on.
I do think it's fair to say that I have dealt in the past with a number of difficult situations -- in fact, there were times when I think I was deliberately put into difficult situations because they were difficult -- where staff morale and so on were problematic within at least a couple of ministries.
Mr Silipo: I know at least about one of those.
Mr Norton: I see Mrs Ecker smiling. I think it's fair to say that I was successful in addressing those internal concerns, and I hope I could bring some of that experience to bear in dealing with any such problems that may exist in the commission.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We'll now move on to the government caucus for some questioning.
1140
Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): Mr Norton, if this committee concurs, you'll be getting involved in a very important position which also contains high visibility as well as high responsibility. It would be no surprise to you that just as others in the past have attacked the chair of the commission for holding personal views or holding personal interests or having something in their personal background that someone disagrees with, you're now in the spotlight and people are training the howitzers at you.
There is a point of view out there which Mr Silipo alluded to that suggests that somehow you are going to take your own personal interests and your own personal background and make that the agenda of the commission and the agenda of the government. I was always taught in school that it was the government and the Legislature that struck the public policy for the province of Ontario, but I wanted to get your views on record. Whose interests do you think you're representing as chair of the commission?
Mr Norton: I think as chair of the commission it is my responsibility to represent the public interest -- not the interests of any individual group exclusively and certainly not my own personal interests, but the public interest. That's an important consideration and it's something I think I'm quite capable of doing, given the fact that I've just finished, for example, four years in a quasi-judicial position where I had to do that all the time.
If I might just take this opportunity, because I did see one of those letters which implied that there might have been some bias, I suspect -- that was the implication -- in a recent high-profile decision which I as chair of a panel made. I just want to say this one thing: If anyone wishes to take the time to read that decision, they would understand that my personal views had little or nothing to do with the ultimate decision. The law on that case was law that was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. We could have probably come to no other conclusion than the conclusion we came to.
I think the implication is itself suggestive of discrimination, and I just say this not to be provocative. If sexual orientation is a basis for apprehension of bias -- my two colleagues were heterosexual, so why is the bias not the other way? I don't for a moment imply that they were biased either, but I think all of us were quite capable of dealing with the issues objectively, applying the law to a fact situation with which we were presented and came to the correct decision; that's my view. Under no circumstances would I pursue my own agenda or the agenda of any particular interest group over and above the other interest groups. I think the broader public interest is the only interest I serve in this office, if appointed.
Mr Clement: As you know, our government is absolutely committed to hiring on the basis of merit. That is the only criterion that we see as relevant in hiring and promotion in the workforce. Clearly, the hiring of the chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the chief commissioner, should be a beacon for that philosophy. We should be hiring on the basis of merit as well, not on the basis of extraneous factors or background. You've outlined in your opening statement, high school teacher, post-secondary teacher, minister of the crown, lawyer, your impact and your experience on the federal tribunal, all of which are positions that you've held. What skill sets do you derive from those previous positions in your life that you wish to apply to this commission, particularly as you were talking with Mr Silipo about changes that have to be effected in the way the commission operates? What are the skill sets that lead one to conclude that merit is the basis of this appointment?
Mr Norton: I think probably there are a variety of things I would identify. Certainly, decision-making is one. I have obviously very extensive experience in making decisions in areas of public policy for many years now, I think with a reasonably good track record -- not perfect, I'm sure; none of our records are perfect.
In terms also of the broader mandate of the commission, one of the things that I see as particularly significant, especially in a day and an age when there's significant misunderstanding out in the broader community as to the role of the Human Rights Commission -- you hear people expressing suspicions that it has an agenda that is not necessarily serving the public interest, and I think those are based on misunderstanding.
I think an important component of the responsibility of the commission is public education. I would like to build upon my experience as an educator to try to develop effective public education programs that are going to bring people to a better understanding of what this is all about and the fact that the human rights legislation of this province does not serve any special-interest group; it serves everyone in the province.
Anyone in the province who feels they have been discriminated against has a right to bring a complaint before the commission regardless of what racial background they may come from or religious or ethnic or gender -- everyone. That's often mistaken, especially by those of us who may be members of a visible majority. Some individuals may think, "Oh, it doesn't serve my interests." Well, it sure does. If the rights of any individual are trampled upon in this society then it affects all of us.
Sorry, I got off on a tangent there.
Mr Clement: Do we have time for one more, Mr Chair?
The Vice-Chair: You have about 10 seconds.
Mr Baird: Can I go for a quick one then?
The Vice-Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Baird: You're a former member of provincial Parliament. You served for 10 years. It's been a big issue around here over the last number of months with changes to our own pension plan. Being here for 10 years, I assume you're collecting an MPP pension. What arrangements would you make in terms of that and collecting a full-time salary?
Mr Norton: The discussions I had with the deputy minister -- I want to make it clear I've had no discussions with any elected official at all about this from day one, but in the discussions I had with the deputy minister we arrived at an understanding that the remuneration package would be $112,000. That's a few thousand dollars less than my predecessor, according to the media. I don't know whether that's true or not, but that's irrelevant. We agreed upon $112,000 as the package. Offset against that is my provincial pension, which amounts to something in the neighbourhood of $27,000, I think. It may be $27,500 at the present time. So that would mean that the actual remuneration for the position would be about $84,500, which hopefully will contribute to solving the budgetary problems a little bit, because it's about $30,000 less in salary, because of the pension component being factored in, than the $115,000 that previously was required.
Mr Baird: It contributes far more than money; it says a lot about your --
Mr Norton: There was never any question about the offsetting. That was never a question on either side.
The Vice-Chair: That ends our questioning, Mr Norton. Thank you very much for coming before us today. You're being here has been very helpful. We wish you well.
Being as that's all the business on the agenda for this morning, we will break and come back --
Mr Baird: Mr Chair, I was hoping we would have the opportunity at this time to move concurrence of the appointments we did this morning. I think it's important -- we've just spent an hour and a half to two hours questioning the appointees -- that while it's fresh in our minds, I could take the opportunity to move concurrence this morning.
The Vice-Chair: The normal procedure is that we do concurrence at the end of the day, although I am in the hands of the committee. We still have 10 minutes before noon when we're scheduled to break. If you want to do that, that's fine by me.
Mr Crozier: If his memory is that short, I think we better get at it right now.
Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, could we deal with them separately?
The Vice-Chair: Yes. I will entertain then a motion of concurrence.
Mr Baird: I move concurrence in the appointment of Glen Wright as chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board.
Mr Crozier: I just want to point out -- and we've had it happen again where the government takes the position that they're holier than thou and that they don't take into consideration at all a person's political affiliation when it comes to appointments. The public is not that naïve. He's very well qualified, that very well might be, but to say that he's the best qualified may be questionable. I assume there are others out there who have the -- any of us who feel that we are better than anybody else better take a second look in the mirror. I just wish we wouldn't continually be told that there's no consideration for political affiliation on these things.
Mr Silipo: I have some concerns with Mr Wright being appointed to this position, not just for the political affiliation issue. From some of the things that I heard, I would have thought that particularly somebody as close to the Premier as Mr Wright clearly is would have come to this table with a broader sense of the balance that he has to strike at the Workers' Compensation Board between the financial responsibility that he's charged with and the responsibility for delivering good quality service to individuals. I presume his appointment will go through. I hope he does better than I think he will but I can't support his appointment at this point.
1150
Mr Bartolucci: I'll be voting against the recommendation because clearly I believe this to be a pure and simple patronage appointment. I think we should be looking for the best qualified people. I would suggest three names that come to mind very quickly for me, from a very local level, would be Dave Campbell, Rolly Gauthier or Leo Gerard, who truly understand the problems with the WCB.
Mr Baird: I certainly appreciate Mr Crozier's comments in terms of where he's coming from. I think when the issue of patronage appointments has caused a terrific amount of concern in the public it's when someone with absolutely no qualifications for the position whatsoever receives an appointment, purely because of their political connections.
I think we have a problem in this province. I think all the parties would agree that we have a tremendous difficulty in often attracting well-qualified people, whether it's for political parties who seek nominations, whether it's for public appointments, because often people don't want to go up to what is a terrific amount of public scrutiny, not in terms of just the appointment process but in terms of the ongoing effort.
We had a terrifically difficult time filling a number of appointments. I look at the present WCB. We're very fortunate, I think, to have Mr O'Keefe agreeing to take on the position because it's a tremendous challenge which poses a tremendous amount of difficulties. It's a credit that he accepted the job. I would indicate the same about Mr Wright. I think he's got a terrific amount of very relevant experience with respect to disability, health, insurance, actuarial and benefit issues. He's someone who has got, I think, extremely relevant experience and I am quite pleased to have anyone read his credentials and let the merits of those credentials stand on their own.
Mr Silipo: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Vice-Chair: Seeing no further discussion and comment, we will now hold that recorded vote.
Ayes
Baird, Bassett, Clement, Ecker, Ford, Bert Johnson, Parker, Smith.
Nays
Bartolucci, Crozier, Silipo.
The Vice-Chair: Concurrence has been voted on and is given.
Mr Clement: Mr Chair, following up on that, I move concurrence in the appointment of Keith Norton as the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
Mr Silipo: I want to indicate for the record I will be supporting this appointment. You notice that I didn't raise during the time the question of political patronage because, although Mr Norton certainly has affiliation membership in the Conservative Party, I believe he has also very clearly proven, both within some of those positions and beyond, his ability to do the kind of very delicate work that has to be done at the commission.
I think it's a very challenging time ahead. I wish him well. I think he's going to have a difficult time finding the right balance. I hadn't met Mr Norton prior to this morning but I certainly know of him, and listening to him this morning I can certainly walk away from this table with a level of comfort that at least he understands the challenge that he's going into and the kind of balance he has to strike. I'll be supporting his appointment.
Mr Parker: I just want to take the opportunity to say that I think Mr Norton showed this morning why he is eminently qualified for this position and I'm proud to be able to put my support for this nomination clearly on the record.
The Vice-Chair: Seeing no other comment, we will then vote on concurrence re Mr Norton. All those in favour will so indicate. All those opposed? It's unanimous.
Mr Baird: I believe a motion to report this decision is required. If so, I would move such.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. All those in favour of reporting the concurrence of this morning?
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I'm voting for it.
The Vice-Chair: All those in favour will so indicate. Mr Johnson has already done so. Thank you very much.
We'll convene at 2 o'clock. There is a need for us to meet as a subcommittee. Who's subbing for Mr Wood today? I believe, because we are expecting that we may have some further nominations for appointments coming out of cabinet today, that we might want to meet at the end of the day as opposed to lunchtime -- is that okay with everybody? -- and we can deal with any business at that point.
Mr Crozier: As long as it's quick because I have an important appointment this afternoon.
The Vice-Chair: The last piece of business is at 3 o'clock, which should be done by 3:30, 4 o'clock at the latest.
Mr Baird: I have to leave at 4.
The Vice-Chair: Do you want to have the subcommittee meeting now? The only thing is the subcommittee meeting now cannot deal with the intended appointments. Anyway, we'll wait till 3:30, quarter to 4, and we'll see what happens.
The committee recessed from 1158 to 1402.
BILL FORD
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Bill Ford, intended appointee as member, Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology.
The Vice-Chair: We will commence proceedings for the afternoon. I want to welcome you all back from lunch. I would ask Mr Ford, the intended appointee to the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology to come to the front. I believe you have a short opening statement you'd like to make.
Mr Bill Ford: Mr Chair, members of the standing committee, my name is Bill Ford, a resident of St Catharines since 1958. For the past 16 years I have been associated with the community colleges through Niagara College and also ACAATO, the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario. I started originally as a member of various advisory committees at Niagara College. Then I was invited to serve on the board, becoming chair for two years: 1988 to 1990. During this period I also served on the ACAATO executive, first as the western region rep, then vice-president and finally president for two years. As president, I was invited to attend the meetings of the Council of Regents. While I did not have a vote, I was able to participate in their deliberations and, more importantly, to observe their method of operating.
When the Niagara College Foundation committee was struck, I became a charter member and then secretary. The foundation was primarily engaged in fund-raising. As an example, the family owning the Maid of the Mist gave us a donation of $250,000, so our new tourism and hospitality centre in the city of Niagara Falls is now known as the Maid of the Mist Centre. I mention this because the colleges, with the restrictions placed upon them, may have to do more actual fund-raising.
As you can see from my résumé that I submitted, I have been heavily involved in community service. At the risk of sounding corny, community service, in my opinion, is the rent you pay for the privilege of living in a great province. My appointment to the Council of Regents would in my opinion be a fitting climax to my years of involvement with the colleges. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Ford. We will have a round of questioning, 10 minutes for each caucus, starting with the New Democratic caucus and Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Mr Ford, thank you for being here. I certainly agree with your long list of involvement in various ways, and you've summarized those for us. Just for the record, could you tell us if you are a member of the Conservative Party.
Mr Bill Ford: Yes, I am.
Mr Silipo: You talked about the various roles you've played within the college sector and, as I said, I think it's noteworthy. I'm sure you know that the college sector, as well as the whole post-secondary system, is going through some significant changes and challenges. I wondered if you could talk to us a little bit about your thoughts of where you see the future of the college system, particularly in light of the review that was announced yesterday by the Minister of Education and Training and how that might particularly affect the college system, as you see it.
Mr Bill Ford: I realize that there's been an overall reduction in post-secondary of about $400 million, $120 million of which is applicable to the community colleges. As I see it, the role of the community colleges is very important in the training today of our youth. I think, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, colleges will have to engage in actual fund-raising and colleges will have to review their methods of operating and effect whatever economies they possibly can in order to live within the budget that's been allocated to them.
Mr Silipo: The cuts that you've mentioned, $400 million in the whole post-secondary sector -- my understanding is that about $120 million of that will come out of the college sector specifically, which is a pretty significant reduction proportionately. I haven't done the math, but our notes say here it brings down the college funding from the province to $689 million, so that's a pretty significant proportion. Tuition fees are going up by 15% for next year. Is this kind of shift more and more towards the student paying for a larger proportion of the system, of the cost of education, something that you think is a good direction for us to be following?
Mr Bill Ford: Within limits I think it's a good direction to be following because I feel if they have a financial stake they have more at risk, if you will, and more able to apply themselves to the task at hand.
Mr Silipo: You're not concerned about what it might do in terms of access to the system, that the more we increase tuition fees the harder it's going to be for students from low- and even middle-income families to get to college, to pay their tuition fees and all the other associated costs?
Mr Bill Ford: As I said, I qualify that within reason. There's obviously going to be a point when it would inflict some hardship on certain would-be students. But if you drive by a community college or a university today, by and large you can't get another car on their parking lots, so I don't think at the present moment there's a great deal of suffering, student-wise.
1410
Mr Silipo: I'm surprised to hear you say that because certainly what we continue to hear from various students' organizations and students is that in fact it is causing great hardship not just in the college sector but in the university sector as well. So I'm a little surprised to hear you say that in fact you don't think it's a real problem at this point.
Where would you see the breaking point, then, if you don't see it now? If you think that right now what's being asked of students is reasonable, if I can take that from what you're saying, how much more do you believe tuition fees can increase before we reach the point, in your view, that the students won't be able to afford to go to college?
Mr Bill Ford: I wouldn't want to hazard a guess on that. I don't know at which point it would be the breaking point.
Mr Silipo: One of the directions the government seems to be pursuing is the privatization of the post-secondary system, perhaps more on the university side than the college, but I want to ask this question because I think we may see and will see signs of that. Is that something that as a member of the college Council of Regents you would support or reject; that is, the greater move towards privatization of the post-secondary system?
Mr Bill Ford: As I say, over the past 16 years I've been associated with the community colleges. I guess I'm sold on the community college concept. I'll confess that I haven't given that a great deal of thought. It's only in the last couple of days I've noticed it in the Globe and Mail. I haven't given a great deal of thought to the privatization of it.
Mr Silipo: Okay. So you don't really have an opinion on that, but certainly with your years of experience you don't see the merit of maintaining -- or you think that it's something that needs to be changed, maintaining the system within the public institutions of the province as opposed to encouraging more and more privatization, more and more private colleges or universities to be established?
Mr Bill Ford: I would like to see the system maintained the way it is now. If we've been guilty of anything, we haven't sounded our own horn. I think we have an excellent setup.
Mr Silipo: In terms of your background and your interests, Mr Ford, what would be the single largest contribution that you feel you would make as a member of the council of regents?
Mr Bill Ford: I spent many, many years in business. I'm familiar with collective bargaining. I managed a plant in the peninsula with 150 employees that was unionized. I sat in on the collective bargaining for 14 years for that plant. As chair of the board of governors at Niagara College, I did a lot of interviewing with Jacquie Robarts, who was the president at that time, of would-be governors. So I have some experience along that line.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We'll then move to the government caucus. You have eight minutes for questioning.
Mr Douglas B. Ford: Thank you for coming today. I've got just a very light question for you here. Are you familiar with the current government's initiatives out of the May 1996 budget?
Mr Bill Ford: Well, I'm getting more familiar with it, Mr Ford, yes. You're speaking about the reduction in the grants to the colleges and the universities?
Mr Douglas B. Ford: That's right.
Mr Bill Ford: I'm familiar with that: $120 million and $180 million. Also, I see that a new committee has been struck to review the post-secondary education. So I'm familiar with those types of things.
Mr Douglas B. Ford: That's what I'm asking about. You're familiar with that, are you?
Mr Bill Ford: Yes.
Mr Douglas B. Ford: Thank you very much, sir.
Mr Parker: Mr Ford, welcome here today. What is the term of office that you're about to be appointed to? What's the duration?
Mr Bill Ford: It's my understanding that it's a three-year appointment.
Mr Parker: I wonder if you could just shed some light, for our benefit, as to the challenges you foresee for the council of regents over that period.
Mr Bill Ford: I think one of the things we have to stress is be very careful on the selection of governors or would-be governors for the college system. That would be of extreme importance as would sitting in on the negotiations of any contracts, particularly with restrictions on money.
Mr Bert Johnson: Mr Ford, you sat on the board of Niagara College for six years. You were appointed by the board of regents. What experience did you gain there that will help you now in your new responsibilities?
Mr Bill Ford: I think basically that sitting on the board of governors and chairing the board of governors -- moving to the Council of Regents you might say is an enlargement of the same type of thing that went on within the single college: again the selection of governors, collective bargaining.
Mr Bert Johnson: It brought out to you the importance of the leadership of the individual colleges.
Mr Bill Ford: Very definitely, yes, particularly the role of the president.
Mr Smith: Likewise, welcome to the committee, Mr Ford. You responded in part to a question that was posed by Mr Silipo by referring to the collective bargaining process and your experiences there. I know certainly the collective bargaining process is one of three major functions of this particular body. I was wondering if you could share with the committee how your experiences -- and I realize you alluded to your experiences with some 150-odd employees in the peninsula -- are providing you with the necessary experience to deal with the collective bargaining process with the council.
Mr Bill Ford: I think from what transpired in the collective bargaining at the plant I was involved with, it gives you the general flavour of collective bargaining. I would want to see the position of both parties before I could go into it, Mr Smith, in any depth.
The Vice-Chair: Any further questions from the government caucus?
Mr Parker: Maybe we could just reserve the time.
The Vice-Chair: If not, you've got about five minutes left when we come around again. We'll move to the Liberal caucus.
Mr Crozier: Good afternoon, Mr Ford. I was interested in your comment about judging the degree to which students could tolerate increases in tuition fees by relating it to the number of cars in the parking lot. Could you elaborate on that?
Mr Bill Ford: I guess what I was trying to say is that in this day and age, if you can afford to drive a car, I don't feel you're really strapped for money. By making that reference to the parking lot, I realize it's a general reference but I think it's indicative of what is happening. The students will, in my opinion, be governed considerably by whether they're able to get part-time employment during the summer holidays or the so-called vacation periods, whether they can amass sufficient funds to pay for their tuition.
Mr Crozier: Do you happen to know what percentage of students who attend community colleges are from the local area?
Mr Bill Ford: No. I must confess I can't answer that. I've heard the figure mentioned at Niagara College, but by and large, as we don't have a residence yet at Niagara College, it would be pretty safe to say that the students at Niagara College are from the peninsula 100%.
Mr Crozier: So someone like myself who also doesn't know how many come from the local area might assume that they're driving a parent's car because they simply need the transportation.
Mr Bill Ford: Correct.
Mr Crozier: You said also with regard to Mr Silipo's question on tuition fee increases as being a good thing because it applies more risk to the students and encourages them to apply themselves more.
1420
I see that you attended the University of Toronto, and even relatively recently Brock University. Were you a proponent of higher tuition fees at that time, when you benefited from it and said it would be a good thing because it would make you apply yourself more?
Mr Bill Ford: The question didn't come up, sir, when I was attending the University of Toronto. I was attending the University of Toronto because I had been overseas and was attending through a veteran's benefit. As far as attending Brock University, I did that after hours, on my own time, and whatever the tuition fee was I paid it. I didn't give any thought to whether it should go up or down, whether it was too high or too low.
Mr Crozier: So when you first attended university, your education was totally paid for?
Mr Bill Ford: Let's say yes and no.
Mr Crozier: I don't know. I'm only asking the question, sir: Was it totally paid for?
Mr Bill Ford: I feel I earned it. Can I answer that way?
Mr Crozier: You can if you'll tell me whether it was also totally paid for.
Mr Bill Ford: It was totally paid for.
Mr Crozier: The only point I'm making is that it seems to me that you, having attended university -- albeit you earned it, and perhaps students who are attending university now have earned it in one way or another -- your tuition was totally paid for and that when you attended Brock University in 1984 you didn't give any thought as to whether you should pay a greater portion of the tuition fee, but now, at your position in life, you feel it's a good thing. I'm just trying to clarify it.
Mr Bill Ford: Obviously I put my foot in it with that remark. Possibly I was influenced by what I read in the Globe and Mail last week, I think it was on the Facts and Arguments page, a well-written article by someone from Toronto by the name of Barbara Ward, who was trying to make the distinction between good students in the class and the not so good. She used the analogy that because they had nothing at stake they weren't applying themselves. I think maybe that's influenced my thinking on it.
Mr Crozier: I certainly hope those who are not applying themselves because they have nothing at stake are in the minority.
With regard to colleges, and universities for that matter, and public schools and high schools having to raise money for various activities they'd like to have, but particularly colleges in this case having to have fund-raising, are you at all concerned that may result in colleges that are haves and those colleges that are have-nots, perhaps because of their geographical location and the business support, the public support they might have? Are you concerned about that?
Mr Bill Ford: I could see that happening down the road very definitely, yes.
Mr Bartolucci: Just a follow-up to that, Mr Ford: Are you in agreement and do you support distance education?
Mr Bill Ford: How do you mean that, sir?
Mr Bartolucci: Education from establishments, from schools, from institutions which reach out to areas that are not in close proximity to the institution.
Mr Bill Ford: I would think that's quite in order. I got my first accounting degree from the University of Toronto by home study. While I was doing it I resided in places like Sudbury and North Bay and Chatham, and my courses were coming from Toronto, if that's what you mean.
Mr Bartolucci: That's distance education. As a regent for the Ontario Council of Regents, what will you do to enhance distance education?
Mr Bill Ford: I'm sorry, sir, I can't answer that one.
Mr Bartolucci: You can't answer it? Okay.
You know that there are two bodies that look after post-secondary education. There's the Ontario Council of Regents and the Ontario Council on University Affairs. Do you think they should be joined? If they were joined, how would you ensure that both bodies are protected?
Mr Bill Ford: I don't think I'm prepared to make a statement that they should be joined. I would like to see more cooperation between the community colleges and the universities. I think that is under way at the present time.
Mr Bartolucci: Do you think the courses then should be interchangeable with regard to credits?
Mr Bill Ford: Not necessarily interchangeable, but interlocked, if you will.
Mr Bartolucci: What's the difference?
Mr Bill Ford: If someone is going to a community college and may decide from their experience at community college that they would like to go on to university, then I think there should be some way they can do that, receiving credit for what they've done at community college applicable to what they're going to tackle in university, rather than starting afresh.
Mr Bartolucci: A full credit?
Mr Bill Ford: Depending on the course, yes.
Mr Bartolucci: So you agree that their courses should be interchangeable then and the credits should be interchangeable?
Mr Bill Ford: No, I'm not saying that I agree with interchangeability, I'm saying there should be some method of interlocking. Maybe we're just quibbling over semantics.
Mr Bartolucci: For somebody who's going from a university to a community college or from a community college to a university, it's not quibbling, it's dollars and cents. If a student attends two years at a community college and gets no credit, then that's two years of tuition that individual has paid towards his education that he's not receiving credit for, so I don't think it's quibbling at all.
Mr Bill Ford: No, but I said I thought there should be some way of interconnecting. That's a very good point that you're bringing out. I don't think they should be deprived of that two years, not 100%.
Mr Bartolucci: As a regent for the Ontario Council of Regents, what are your ideas with regard to councils for international and global studies? Do you think that we as a province should be actively pursuing that?
Mr Bill Ford: I think personally it's an excellent idea. I spent a month over in China when I was chair of Niagara College with Ch'ang-sha University officials in the city of Ch'ang-sha. I think bringing over students from other countries is a step in the right direction, yes, particularly with the emphasis today on global economy.
Mr Bartolucci: So you see it as a very good move?
Mr Bill Ford: Yes, I think it's an excellent move.
Mr Bartolucci: Okay. And how, as a regent for the Ontario Council of Regents, would you ensure that that happens and what type of stipulations would you build into a system so that students from Ontario's community colleges could take part in it?
Mr Bill Ford: I would have to examine closely just what the setup is at the present moment. As I indicated, I went over to China. My job over there was to speak to the government officials, stressing the training that can be obtained at community colleges.
The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Bartolucci. The New Democrat caucus has two minutes --
Mr Silipo: We have two minutes? Okay.
The Vice-Chair: -- if you'd like to ask a quick question.
Mr Silipo: I wonder if could just come back, Mr Ford, to this question of privatization. Certainly, over the next number of weeks, as the panel appointed by the minister will be holding some hearings and talking to people, we'll obviously get a broader sense of where the public is at. But I think it's fair to say that there are many people who have real concerns about privatization. I gather that today, for example -- not that this is any kind of a scientific indication, but certainly on a radio talk program most of the callers who called in clearly indicated their opposition to privatization. I suspect that we're going to continue to see that as the weeks and the months unfold.
1430
I guess what worries me is the fact that the government seems to be pretty much determined to go this route, regardless of what the public thinks. I wonder again how you see your role as a member of one of the two overarching governing bodies for the post-secondary system in terms of this issue. You earlier said that you weren't sure, if I remember correctly. What do you see as your responsibility in this area? Is it to maintain the public nature of the system to make sure there is accessibility for students from all walks of life, or is it to also begin to open up the process and begin to open up the system more and more to private businesses to become involved? I just want to have a clearer sense from you on that point.
Mr Bill Ford: I think I tried to answer it earlier by saying that I'm sold on the community college system 100%. If privatization is the method or one of the methods the government selects, I would want to make sure that the people who were administering it under the privatization had the proper credentials and were administering it correctly and so on and so forth.
Mr Parker: A number of members have touched on the concern, as in fact did you in your answer to my question, that money matters have in the matter of colleges these days. It's very important that the financial matters be managed effectively and efficiently so the students get the best education possible with the resources available.
I understand your background is in accountancy and in finance. I wonder if you can share with us some of your experience in the financial world and how that might apply to your role on the Council of Regents and how that might help assist with meeting some of the challenges that you see ahead for the council.
Mr Bill Ford: My understanding, Mr Parker, is that at the present moment the colleges in total have about 500 programs, and the day is fast approaching when the programs will have to be reviewed to see if the 500 are completely necessary. Because of the limited funds, it may be necessary to eliminate some of the programs.
Mr Parker: Do you see any scope for finding efficiencies in the system so that we don't have to sacrifice worthy programs, that we can find savings in other areas so that the programs that have value, that are serving the students well, can continue to survive?
Mr Bill Ford: I would be opposed to any worthy programs being eliminated. I made reference earlier to fund-raising and so on. This may be one of the ways the colleges have to go, raising extra funds above the government grants and the tuition fees, raising extra money to maintain the courses.
Mr Parker: And you've already noted your considerable experience in that particular area with Niagara College, haven't you?
Mr Bill Ford: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: If there are no other questions, I want to thank you, Mr Ford, for coming before us today. Your being here has been helpful, and we wish you well.
Mr Bill Ford: Thank you, sir.
MORLEY CARSCALLEN
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Morley Carscallen, intended appointee as vice-chair, Ontario Securities Commission.
The Vice-Chair: Next we have Mr Carscallen, the intended appointee to the Ontario Securities Commission. Welcome. If you have a few opening comments, please feel comfortable and start whenever.
Mr Morley Carscallen: I have a few very brief remarks, Mr Chairman, intended really to explain why I'm here and how I got here.
I have been asked, and have agreed to accept, appointment as a vice-chairman of the commission. I think in some of the material the members have seen, that's referred to as a part-time vice-chairman. It is in fact a full-time appointment.
I am presently a member of the Ontario Securities Commission. I was appointed to the commission in 1992. I'm in my second term as a commissioner, which would in the normal course expire in November 1998.
I was approached last month by the chairman of the commission, Mr Waitzer, who told me that one of the vice-chairmen of the commission, Joan Smart, had received a very attractive offer from private business and was considering it, and he asked whether, if she decided to accept it, I would be interested in being a vice-chairman in her place. I said that I would. Ms Smart has now accepted that position, left the commission on the first of this month, and that is how I have come forward here.
Before going to the commission in 1992, I was a senior partner of one of the big six accounting firms. I had general management experience with that firm. My primary role was as the senior professional partner, in which I focused on solving professional problems and establishing professional policy and the procedures to apply it. That's sort of a quick general background.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We'll start this round of questioning with the government caucus.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I guess one of the most bandied-about points of discussion that would apply to the Ontario Securities Commission these last few weeks has been the debate, in large part initiated by our government and, certainly based on what I've read so far, echoed by most of the business community, that there is a considerable disincentive for companies to initiate new floats, to try and raise new capital in this country because of the very convoluted, disjointed system of securities administration where every province basically has some role to play in the overseeing.
Would you support the move, if it were to find favour with the other provinces -- do you think there's merit in moving to one national securities commission in order to remove some of these barriers to interprovincial trade and investment?
Mr Carscallen: As has been said, if we could start from scratch with a clean slate, no one would design the system we have today. Despite a lot of cooperation among the provinces, a lot of meeting, a lot of effort, it's not the same as a single agency. There's no question that having a sort of multiple jurisdiction securities regulation regime in this country does not make it completely attractive. We've done a lot to reduce the disabilities, but you cannot eliminate them, if for no other reason than that each province has the constitutional responsibility to look after securities regulation and has to exercise that. Therefore, the regulators have to exercise their mandate in each province.
Intuitively, a national securities commission is a clearly preferable route to go. That doesn't mean that it will necessarily be ideal. It will depend on how it's done. The degree to which we improve on the present system will depend on how it's done.
Mr Douglas B. Ford: Welcome this afternoon to this committee. You have served the Ontario Securities Commission since 1992. Why have you offered to commit your time to serving another term in this position as vice-chair?
Mr Carscallen: I came to the securities commission at the time I retired from the firm I was with because I was asked by the chairman at that time, who was Robert Wright, whether I would come to the commission. I have found being on the commission very interesting; I have found new problems, new perspectives, a lot of very impressive people to deal with. It is a learning process and I expect it to go on. I have very much enjoyed being a member of the Ontario Securities Commission.
Being on the commission and being the vice-chair of the commission is I think a very worthwhile job. I believe in what the securities commission does. It isn't perfect; no human organization is. But I think it has a very important role to play in the business community and in the economy.
Another factor is that when I left the firm I had been with, I had some other interests going on, consulting businesses and so forth, which had been taking part of my time up to now. Those have been sort of naturally decreasing as I get away from my days as an active day-to-day practitioner. I actually do have more time now to do this than I would have when I joined the commission, so in some ways this timing is fortuitous for me.
1440
Mr Douglas B. Ford: Do you see a lot of changes have to be made on the securities commission?
Mr Carscallen: Yes, I believe there are changes that should be made. A lot of them are matters of detail. We are working on certain things now. There's a lot going on, and they haven't come to fruition. When I say there are changes should be made, I wouldn't want that interpreted that I see changes that nobody else has seen.
Mr Smith: Again, thanks for your presentation and your appearance before the committee today. I wanted to follow up a little bit on the line of questioning my colleague Mr Ford presented to you. You mentioned that the chair of the commission has approached you about the vice-chairmanship, and certainly your involvement with the commission since 1992 is commendable. Do you see any change in the types of skill sets that you'll need to apply on a personal level in the vice-chair's position versus simply as a member or do you see it as a logical continuation of the things you've been doing to date?
Mr Carscallen: I hope it's a logical continuation of a personal development, because I think no matter what you go into, you expect to develop personally while you're doing it.
I also assume, having been asked to do it, that the chairman at least thought I had the skill set to do the job. I have considerable relevant experience, not only with the three and a half years with the commission, but I have been involved on a number of international matters, and internationalization is one of the challenges facing the commission and facing all securities regulators, through my connections with my previous firm in which I was involved in international matters very extensively for about 15 years, and also I have represented the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants in international affairs. So I have that experience, and my previous experience in public accounting was problem-oriented and policy-oriented, which fits the function of the commission.
Mr Bert Johnson: Mr Carscallen, thanks for being here today. What do you see as being the biggest regulatory challenges facing the Ontario Securities Commission in the future?
Mr Carscallen: It could be a transition to a national securities commission. Leaving that aside: globalization, which I have mentioned. The markets are global, the transactions are instant, regulators are continually chasing the latest developments. We have seen the instance, although this wouldn't actually fall within our regulatory sphere, of an employee of an English company located in Singapore bankrupting the company by dealing in securities in Japan. For regulators, that's the sort of thing that's hard to keep up to, so that is one of the big challenges that is going to involve a lot of international coordination.
There's the integration of financial services which is developing in Canada very quickly since the demise of what we refer to as the four pillars, and we have, for example, banks acquiring ownership of securities firms, setting up or acquiring insurance companies, with the idea of offering integrated services. The difficulty there is that we have had separate regulations, and even if we had a single set of regulations, the interests of the regulators are different. The interest of the office of the superintendent of financial institutions, who looks after banks, is insolvency. The interest of securities regulators is in public dealings, protecting the public against improper practices and trying to foster fair securities markets. It's not that one is preferable to the other; they just have a different slant.
Mr Bert Johnson: So you would --
The Acting Chair (Mr Tony Silipo): Sorry, Mr Johnson, we'll have to leave it at that. We'll move to the Liberal caucus.
Mr Bartolucci: Just a few questions. I can't find the material here, otherwise I wouldn't ask it, but you're moving from a $200-a-day, once-a-week job to a full-time job. What's that full-time job going to pay?
Mr Carscallen: About $125,000 a year; that's the going rate for a vice-chair.
Mr Bartolucci: It's a nice going rate. You are retired, you said?
Mr Carscallen: I'm not retired in the sense of not doing anything. I've retired from the accounting firm I was with, which was Coopers and Lybrand. For the last three years I have been doing consulting work, primarily for them, and I have been a commissioner, which is not a one-day-a-week thing. It can be every day for five weeks, if you're sitting on a hearing, or it can be half a day every two weeks, if all you do is go to meetings, or it can be a half a day a week every couple of weeks to go and sit on what are called duty panels, which review applications for exemptions from requirements and so forth.
Mr Bartolucci: Will your new role as the vice-chair exclude you from doing consulting work in the future?
Mr Carscallen: I assumed it would, so I have excluded it.
Mr Bartolucci: So this will be your full-time job?
Mr Carscallen: This will be my full-time occupation. When Mr Waitzer spoke to me, I said I had some loose ends of consulting work in progress and, depending on when this appointment went through, if it goes through, I might have to finish those up afterwards. He said they would not be a problem. They're fee-for-service and in fact it appears they'll be finished.
Mr Bartolucci: As the vice-chair, will you sit on every panel that's convened?
Mr Carscallen: No. The panels are made up of three commissioners, ideally, though we have some problems staffing panels right now. They might be chaired by a vice-chair, they might be chaired by a lawyer, and then any two other commissioners. I would expect to sit on probably about the same number of panels I already do.
Mr Bartolucci: Just one other, final question: Your role as a vice-chair will obviously be different from your role as a member. How do you see it differing? In other words, what extra duties will you be assigned as a vice-chair?
Mr Carscallen: The structure of the commission at the management level is that there's a chair, there are two full-time vice-chairs and there is the executive director, who is the senior staff person. Those four people make up the management group of the commission which meets once a week to discuss what's doing and what should be doing and what the problems are and so forth. They agree among themselves how to divide up what has to be done at the present time.
The chairman usually has broad external responsibilities. The vice-chairs will look after a particular area of activity or ongoing project. The vice-chair who left, Joan Smart, for example, used to referred to as the "chief justice" because she was the one who shepherded and managed and kept an eye over the hearings process. The other vice-chair, John Geller, is managing a very heavy process on reformulating policies into rules, and he also looks after applications and so forth. Largely because of the time of year and people being away and so forth, we haven't sat down lately and divided it up, but I will take on that sort of responsibility.
1450
Mr Crozier: Good afternoon, sir. I just want to clarify something. You mentioned that there are two full-time vice-chairs.
Mr Carscallen: There will be if I'm appointed.
Mr Crozier: So we're going to move from a full-time vice-chair and a part-time vice-chair to two full-time?
Mr Carscallen: No. There were up until the end of June two full-time vice-chairs, a chairman and then a number of part-time commissioners -- six, I think.
Mr Crozier: That's just a little contrary to the information we have here, but it's nothing, I guess. The full-time vice-chair was Joan Smart and the part-time vice-chair was John Geller.
Mr Carscallen: I'm sorry, I didn't know you had that information. I understood you'd been told that I was going to be part-time, and I corrected that, and I would have corrected the other if I had known.
Mr Crozier: Okay. That's fine. I just wanted to make sure. You, of course, with your experience on the commission itself, are aware that the commission has in a sense been a profit centre for the government over the years in that it takes in more revenues than the expenditures.
Mr Carscallen: I think everybody at the commission is aware of that.
Mr Crozier: Would you comment on that?
Mr Carscallen: Only to a very limited extent. This arrangement was in place before I became a commissioner. My understanding, and it is nothing more than that, so it's hearsay, is that there was an agreement with the industry that the fees charged by the commission for filing prospectuses and registering this and that would be increased and the quid pro quo would be better service from the commission, more resources to work with. In fact the increase has not flowed to the commission, and that has continued ever since that arrangement went into place. I cannot say just when it went into place.
Mr Crozier: I think it's interesting that we get your comments on that, and very quickly I will point out that in the information given to us by the research officer, in recent years the commission has operated with about 200 staff, which according to Mr Waitzer is about 20% fewer than desirable. It goes on to quote from the 1995 annual report, where the staff were only reviewing about 40% of all long-form prospectuses and 25% were not reviewed at all. Only 30% of documents filed by mutual fund companies were reviewed; 22% received no review at all. None of the short-form prospectuses filed, which are submitted by companies planning to raise additional equity, were fully reviewed, and 88% were not reviewed at all.
Would you comment as to whether you think the public is being protected to the degree that the commission is responsible for, considering those statistics?
Mr Carscallen: Yes, I believe it is being protected because we do what we have to do, what has to be done. I'd also comment on those statistics. Those have only come to my attention, or let's say I only really noticed them in the last day or so, and they're the result of two things, not solely of the funding problem, although you could say the other thing may have been influenced by the funding problem. We have adopted two new approaches to this sort of reviewing. First is selective review.
Traditionally at one time the commission reviewed every last document in full. Selective review is a risk-based process. We concentrate on initial public offerings. We concentrate on what are called issue-sensitive things -- prospectuses, for example, that contain certain issues -- and we try to do the minimum with what are regarded as low risk. Those statistics reflect that progress, as well as something called expedited review, which is worked out with the other provinces.
The idea of that is, for example, if an Alberta business files with the Alberta Securities Commission a prospectus, it also has to presently file it in every jurisdiction across the country in which they want to issue the shares. By agreement among the regulators, the detailed review will be done in Calgary. It will get just a broad-brush review here, and that reduces the amount of effort we have to put in.
I cannot say for certain, but it seems quite logical that a drive to this sort of thing may have been caused by funding problems. It leads you to think about it.
Mr Crozier: I have little doubt that you'll --
The Acting Chair (Mr Rick Bartolucci): Thanks, Mr Crozier. Can we move to the third party now.
Mr Crozier: I was going to congratulate him on his appointment, but that's --
The Acting Chair: You can do that after. Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: It's nice to have an efficient Chair. Mr Carscallen, thank you for being here. A couple of questions. I'll start with what has probably become a standard question for me. It may be less relevant in your case, given that you're already a member of the commission. Are you a member of the Conservative Party?
Mr Carscallen: No.
Mr Silipo: Are you a member of any political party?
Mr Carscallen: No.
Mr Silipo: I knew we'd find one sooner or later.
Mr Baird: I think your party picked this guy.
Mr Silipo: Exactly. We still would have appointed him even if he had been a member of the Conservative Party.
Let me just pursue a couple of questions with you, sir. These are all questions that have been touched on by others of my colleagues here. This question of the potential for a Canadian securities commission, could you talk a little bit more about the constitutional issue, and in your view is that something that is a real barrier to this happening or is it just something that would have to be looked at in terms of addressing that issue? I'm just interested more in terms of, is this move towards a national securities commission a good thing?
Mr Carscallen: I will comment with some trepidation, if you bear in mind I'm not a lawyer.
Mr Silipo: Yes, that's maybe a good thing. As a lawyer I'll say that to you, sir.
Mr Carscallen: My understanding is that mechanisms can be worked out to do this constitutionally. My understanding of the mechanism is that in negotiation among the participating provinces and the federal government, they will come up with a federal securities act based upon the existing provincial acts, which is going to involve a certain amount of compromise and so on. The provinces then will either repeal their acts or enact identical acts and will delegate the administration of the act to the national securities commission or Canadian securities commission. The provinces will not give up their constitutional right to regulate securities matters.
Mr Silipo: Okay, that's helpful.
The staffing situation and what that means in terms of what work and what reviews the commission can or cannot do, just some figures which I think you said earlier you had a chance to see -- I'm assuming you're referring to those -- for example, when we're told that staff at the commission is able to review only about 40% of the prospectuses filed, which as I understand it are submitted by companies selling shares to the public for the first time, and 25% of these were not reviewed at all, and there are other examples in other areas, I think you were addressing this question earlier in terms of a different way the commission is now doing this as opposed to going through each one looking at various issues within that. Is that something that has had to come about as a result of the reduced staffing? What I'm getting at is, to what extent is it a kind of preferred way of doing business, or to what extent has it been brought about because you can't do the preferred route because of the lack of staffing?
Mr Carscallen: It's very difficult to say, if you tried to assign the reasoning, as to whether it's 80% this and 20% that and so on. We try to be as efficient as we can, so there is an incentive and we look at things, and there are other developments coming which I prefer not to talk about that will be efficiency and effectiveness developments. Moves in this direction were probably inevitable. It's part of grappling with the multi-jurisdiction problem, for example, and people saying: "Why are we reviewing yet another prospectus for great big company X, which wants to issue some more bonds? These people have all sorts of information in the marketplace. Why are we wasting time going through this?"
On the other hand, the fact that things are tight would certainly provide an incentive to do it now rather than later.
1500
Mr Silipo: Most of the other questions I had have been asked, so I'm not going to repeat them. Given that we have you here, somebody who obviously has got some high level of expertise in this area and your role on the commission for the last number of years, I wonder if we could take advantage of your presence to give the public -- because we are being televised -- a quick overview of what the commission does.
We all know it as a watchdog in terms of the securities exchange and the stock market, but if you could map out for us, in language as straightforward as possible, the role of the commission and why it's important for this role to continue to be played, whether it's going to be through the present structure or indeed through amalgamation with others across the country, I think that would be useful.
Mr Carscallen: The function of the commission -- there's two of them and they're set out in the act -- is to protect investors from fraud, from improper practices, from unfair practices; to ensure, if you like, ethical, at least legal, activity in the marketplace. That's, in a sense, a law and order issue.
The other is to -- I think the act uses the word "foster" -- foster fair and efficient capital markets, to avoid regulation that impedes the markets; on the other hand, to strike out at practices that might be regarded as monopolistic or oligopolistic or impeding a fair and efficient market. That can be very difficult, with the technology of today.
The basic ways we do that are through the filings process for public offerings of securities, through insisting on and monitoring that in the words they use in a prospectus there's full, true and plain disclosure and that's there also timely disclosure; and by setting down basic requirements for fitness of people involved in the industry, who have to register with us. This can involve having completed certain courses and having certain experience and so on and so forth. For example, we have a rule that says, "You must deal with your client honesty and fairly, " and we have a rule that says, "You must ascertain what the client's best interests are before you act for him."
I could go on for some time on this, but that's essentially the sort of thing we do.
Mr Silipo: I appreciate that. Part of the reason I asked you that question was because one of the concerns I've heard expressed with respect to the possibility of us moving towards one national commission is that somehow there would be a diluting of this overseeing role, this very important role that I believe the commission has served and needs to continue to serve. I don't know if you have any comments on that.
Mr Carscallen: I don't believe there will be. In fact, if there was such a likely result, my views of a national securities commission might change. There's certainly no such intent. Now, how well that commission functions can depend on how it's organized. But none of the securities regulators in Canada today have any reason to change from this sort of approach, and they're all similar. It would be just unfortunate, not intentional, if we got away from that sort of thing.
Mr Silipo: How would you rate -- it's perhaps part of the same question -- the stringency, if that's the right word, of the regulations and rules we have in Ontario vis-à-vis those of other provinces, particularly some of the other larger provinces?
Mr Carscallen: Substantially the same. You'd have to go into the history of securities regulations, but the acts, for example, are substantially the same.
Mr Silipo: It was not an area that when I was in law school I was particularly interested in, but I'm glad there are other people who are interested in it, because it's an important function.
The Vice-Chair: I believe we're all done the questioning of Mr Carscallen. We want to thank you for coming today. Your being here has been quite helpful, and we wish you well.
KAREN OKELL
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Karen Okell, intended appointee as member, Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.
The Vice-Chair: The next interview will be for Karen Okell, intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, called forward by the New Democratic caucus. We will start this round of questioning with the Liberal caucus.
Mr Parker: Mr Chairman, I wonder if we could invite her to make an opening comment.
The Acting Chair (Mr Tony Silipo): I was going to do that. Ms Okell, welcome to the committee. We've given others and would like to give you an opportunity, if you wish, to make some opening comments.
Ms Karen Okell: First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me here today to go through my qualifications, why I feel I would be a good representative on the commission.
Professionally, I'm a chartered accountant and a certified management accountant, and this is where I feel particularly that I can bring some expertise to the commission. Prior to joining the OPS in 1989 I worked in a public accounting practice. I received my designations midway through my -- later in life, let me say, not as a young student out of university. After working in public accounting for several years, I joined the OPS in 1989 with the then Ministry of Correctional Services in the audit branch. Prior to two weeks ago I was an audit manager in the Ministry of Correctional Services and Solicitor General. I resigned about two -- well, my last day was July 5. So I have free time on my hands and I would like to be able to give something back to my community.
I've been active on various boards. Probably the most challenging has been the board of governors of Nipissing University, which I have served for the last two years; I am vice-chair of the finance committee. I've worked on other boards: the Kiwanis Music Festival board; Canadore College, where I serve on a committee on the accounting program. So I feel that at this point I'm very interested in serving on the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and I invite your questions as to my qualifications.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. We'll start with the Liberal caucus.
Mr Bartolucci: My first question has been answered. When I was reading earlier, I thought there was a conflict of interest here, you being an employee of the Ontario government and then assuming a role as a member on a commission. But you solved that problem; you've resigned. Are you working at other things right now?
Ms Okell: Not at the current time. My husband has a retail business and I've sort of let the accounting end of that lag a little, so I expect to spend a day or so a week on that.
Mr Bartolucci: Maybe in a very general way, Karen, and we'll get specific maybe later on, can you just give us your views as to what you honestly think the latest changes to the ONTC are? Do you see them as being good? Do you see them as being proactive? Do you see them as being negative? Do you see them as enhancing the north? Do you see them as harming the north? Let's just go from a global point of view as opposed to specifics.
Ms Okell: That's a lot of questions all at once. Overall, in the big picture, I see that ONTC has to respond to changes in the 1990s. Funding is an issue. I look on it as a challenge. I think the ONTC has a lot of good business sense. Their telecommunications is certainly a very good area; rail services. There are a lot of areas where I see some valid growth. I see the potential for growth in various areas of their businesses. I think the commitment is to maintain transportation and communication throughout the north, and I see that as an important issue in today's environment. It's not easy with funding cuts and things like that, but I see a positive entrepreneurial spirit in the people I've talked to at ONTC.
Perhaps you can go back to some of your other questions, maybe repeat some of those.
1510
Mr Bartolucci: You've, I guess, painted a picture that needs some change, and I think we can all agree with that, but do you also believe at the same time that the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission must serve the needs of the north?
Ms Okell: Yes, I believe that is the purpose of it. How it does that, I think there are a lot of various ways that that can be done. I'm not probably as familiar now as I would be should I be appointed to the board. I think there's a lot to learn. My expertise is the financial part of it. Fiscal responsibility needs to be traded off against service to the community, the best service that we can give.
Mr Bartolucci: Do you think that's happening now with regard to air service?
Ms Okell: I don't think I'm really in a position to answer that question. I really don't, because I'm not -- I've done some reading. I understand that the communities, that there is service, there will be service provided. There was some service cut off temporarily, but the service will be provided. I understand that the minister has made a commitment.
Mr Bartolucci: Do you realize or are you aware that there are several communities in northern Ontario with no service, no air service?
Ms Okell: It's my understanding that there is a commitment that there will be air service, and some of it will be through subsidy and some through private service.
Mr Bartolucci: Do you feel that the cancelling of norOntair was the proper political move for this government?
Ms Okell: I don't think I'm in a position to answer that.
Mr Bartolucci: Give me your opinion, Karen; just your opinion.
Ms Okell: I'm an accountant. I'm a very conservative person.
Mr Bartolucci: That's fine. Just your opinion.
Ms Okell: I don't really know all the details to be able to make a good opinion on it. I would hope to know a little bit more about it and certainly participate in any decisions that are made in the future from a board perspective.
Mr Bartolucci: You are familiar then that some private carriers moved into some of these more isolated communities and tried for a while and found out that it wasn't fiscally viable for them to continue, so they decided to opt out of that service, leaving those communities without service. Do you think the government has a responsibility then to provide, as they had in the past, air service to those communities that effectively have no air service now?
Ms Okell: I don't really think that I can give an opinion at this point. I'd like to look into it and certainly I would like to find out all the facts. I've lived in northern communities, I've lived in Red Lake, and I know the situation where at different times there hasn't been air service provided, and I understand from the point of view of the communities.
Mr Bartolucci: Maybe let's attack it from a different point of view. What do you feel the commitment of the Ministry of Northern Development is to the people of northern Ontario?
Ms Okell: I think it's to provide efficient transportation and communications services or see that it becomes provided. I don't think it necessarily means ONTC has to provide it itself.
Mr Bartolucci: But to provide some service?
Ms Okell: I would think so.
Mr Bartolucci: In some instances then, Karen, will it mean that this government will have to subsidize those services with --
Ms Okell: I really couldn't say at this point. I'm sorry.
Mr Bartolucci: Then, as a member of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, what are your recommendations going to be to the minister and to the Premier for providing air service to communities in northern Ontario that do not have air service?
Ms Okell: Again, without knowing all of the facts, I really can't say at this point. If I serve on the board for a period of time, I would hope to be able to provide a better opinion, but at this point I don't feel I am in a position to do that.
Mr Bartolucci: You have no unique ideas? Certainly you do. I don't mean to be condescending, because that's not the purpose of the question. You obviously bring some expertise, you obviously bring a background to the commission. Give us some of your unique approaches or ideas that you're going to suggest to the transportation commission to provide services in northern Ontario, in particular isolated northern Ontario communications. I think it's a fair question.
Ms Okell: Definitely, the ONTC's purpose is to see that there is an efficient transportation and communication system. After having reviewed the situation and served on the board for a period of time and found out a little more about it, I would certainly have an opinion at that point. I've found from my own experience in the ministry I worked in that we found numerous ways of coming up with better, efficient ways of doing things. I think it's an opportunity to try to find new ways. Certainly people at ONTC seem quite positive about trying to maintain services in the north. To me the north is very important. I moved to Red Lake in the far northwestern corner in 1972 for two years and am still in the north 25 years later. I like it and I'm very committed to ensuring that there are services there. It's a unique area of the province and I will certainly do whatever I can to ensure a healthy economic situation.
Mr Bartolucci: Would doing everything you could include suggesting to the minister that they return norOntair to service for and in northern Ontario?
Ms Okell: I couldn't commit to anything like that.
Mr Bartolucci: How would you answer a person in Geraldton or Elliot Lake who says: "My air transportation to a medical centre in Sudbury or in the south is no longer present. How am I to get that type of service"? What would your answer be to those people?
Ms Okell: Today, I'm sorry, I'm not in a position to answer that type of question. Down the road, hopefully, yes.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Thank you for coming today. You're being appointed to a board that anybody who has any concern or interest or strong feeling about the north must have some interest in, because anything we do in the north, whether it's economic development or in terms of health care or recreation, whatever, is predicated almost always on having good transportation available, the best of transportation. It seems to me that in the world we live in we need to be, as people, as communities, as organizations, as government, enhancing that as opposed to tearing it apart.
That's where I want to come to with you in the line of questioning I will go at here, and I hope you can answer my questions. I noticed earlier today that there were a couple of people who came before us who didn't answer a lot of questions on the grounds that they hadn't been appointed yet and therefore didn't know anything and therefore couldn't respond. It becomes a bit frustrating at this level, trying to make decisions about whether people will be good or not if those people haven't responded in some significant way to indicate to us that they understand what it is they're being appointed to, that they understand the challenges that will face them when they are appointed and to get some idea of the approach they will take in trying to fulfil those duties.
The first question I have is, are you a member of the Progressive Conservative Party?
Ms Okell: I am not really sure if I am. I have been.
1520
Mr Martin: You have been?
Ms Okell: And I have also been a member of the Liberal Party.
Mr Martin: Are you supportive of the present agenda of the government of Ontario?
Ms Okell: Yes, I am.
Mr Martin: You are. Okay, so you're supportive of the raft of cuts that we've seen to services and communities and organizations across --
Interjections.
The Acting Chair: All right. You'll get your turn.
Mr Martin: -- northern Ontario and to communities like North Bay and Sault Ste Marie and Timmins? You're supportive of those cuts?
Ms Okell: I think government does have to do a lot of cutbacks, unfortunately. I think our situation is that we have overspent tremendously and it's unfortunate we're in this situation. I think it's like any household. We have to do it. It's not easy and certainly, as far as northern Ontario is concerned, I'm very concerned for northern Ontario. I would hope that the best decisions are made and that's precisely one of the reasons I'm interested in an appointment to this board.
Mr Martin: So if it came a choice on the board between representing what you sense and know from living and working and interacting with people who do that as well in the north, that what this government is doing is in fact detrimental to the long-term viability of that part of the province, in contrast with what the government has proposed to do, what side of the fence would you come down on?
Ms Okell: I'm just not sure -- your question is, would I --
Mr Martin: If it became obvious to you that what the government is proposing to do is in direct contrast to what you feel in yourself and the community that you live in and the people you operate with is in conflict --
Ms Okell: If it became in conflict?
Mr Martin: Yes, what side of the fence would you be on?
Ms Okell: I would have to follow my own sense of integrity, what I feel is good for the north and for the long term.
Mr Martin: Okay. You've heard mention by Mr Bartolucci that a decision was made by ONTC to privatize norOntair and the resultant consequence of that is there are a number of communities which no longer have air service. There are communities which do have air service, but it's really inconvenient and sort of a hodgepodge. In this day and age, when air service is so absolutely essential because of the time constraints that people have in doing business, or whether it's for health care as we become more and more dependent on regional centres as opposed to each community having a critical mass of service to offer -- with that in mind and that scenario that's unfolding, what will be your position? What would your position on that be if those decisions were to be made today?
Ms Okell: The decisions to --
Mr Martin: To privatize norOntair.
Ms Okell: To privatize. Well, again, I would have to understand the situation a lot more than I do today. The decision was made, I believe, back -- it is my understanding it was terminated in March and the private sector has taken over some of the runs. Again, I would have to know a lot more about it than I do today to make a value judgement.
Mr Martin: Okay. But if it turned out that's the record of this government in dealing with transportation as it impacts all of northern Ontario, how comfortable would you feel in continuing down that road, given that, as I've said -- and quoting somebody out of the minister's office in the newspaper article in my community last week, it's beginning to cost more now to subsidize the private sector than it in fact did to subsidize norOntair, to provide air service in northern Ontario. Does that indicate anything to you re the direction this government is going in?
Ms Okell : Well, I don't think people would privatize for the sake of privatizing. We've looked at that situation in our own ministry and --
Mr Martin: But the reality is -- as I said, there's a quote in our paper from one of the ministry officials that it is beginning to cost more under the new scheme, the new privatized scheme, than it did to subsidize the norOntair operation. Does that make any sense to you?
Ms Okell: If that were true, you would want to question that, definitely.
Mr Martin: The other comment was that we weren't comparing apples to apples. I'd like to know just exactly what that meant. Perhaps it should be somebody else in that chair today; it would be interesting, if they were, to have them respond to some of those questions.
But this is where we're going. There are things beginning to happen on the ONTC board that really concern us. Perhaps some response from you -- for example, there was a labour appointee to the ONTC. There no longer is. What's your position on that? Do you think it's important that somebody who works for ONTC who can bring that perspective to the board has a position and is able to participate in a meaningful way re the development of that organization?
Ms Okell: I hadn't really thought of that. I don't know the makeup of the board. I basically applied because of my financial background and my audit background and felt that was something I could bring to the board. As to the other components, I really can't say, but it's certainly something to think about.
Mr Martin: What's your position on, for example, the fact that Sharon Lenore Hacio from Thunder Bay was appointed to the board; that because of the privatizing of norOntair there are no longer any services to northwestern Ontario, yet there's still somebody from northwestern Ontario on that board? Does that create any concern for you at all?
Ms Okell: Because there is someone on the board from --
Mr Martin: Yes, the ONTC has no more --
Ms Okell: No service into Thunder Bay? But there is air service in Thunder Bay.
Mr Martin: Yes.
Ms Okell: And you're saying, would I question why she is on the board?
Mr Martin: Yes.
Ms Okell: I'm afraid, as I said before, I don't really know the makeup, the constituents, of the board at this point.
Mr Martin: Or the fact that the Mattawa appointee, Vala Monestine Belter, happens to be the sister-in-law of Cindy Boston, the manager of administration and development at ONTC in North Bay, and somebody who, according to our research, contributed money to the Nipissing PC riding association last year. Does that cause you any concern at all, run up any red flags for you?
Ms Okell: Again, I don't know Ms Monestine. I'm afraid I don't know her qualifications.
Mr Martin: It doesn't speak to you at all or give you any concern that really what we have here now, more and more, is a board that's going to do the bidding of this government, regardless of the impact on northern Ontario? We have yet to see any impact statement, any business plan at all that speaks to the long-term involvement of ONTC in northern Ontario and what they see as the eventual outcome, the diminishing of the services they were put in place to deliver in the first place.
The only light at the end of the tunnel here is that we've had a couple of people come before us, like you, who are being appointed to the ONTC, who say that at the end of the day, given a choice between acting in the best interests of the north as opposed to ramming the agenda of this government forward and the diminishing of service that means for all of us who live and work up there, you will act out of your own integrity in the best interests of the people you live among. Do you have any concern that, for example, there is no business plan, no long-term impact analysis re the privatizing of norOntair, and the fact that everything we predicted would come true three or four months ago re that whole question is now beginning to come true?
Ms Okell: I would be quite surprised if there isn't a long-term business case and that this isn't looked at again at some future point. I think it's quite important that this happens.
The Acting Chair: Mr Martin, we're going to have to leave -- sorry. You can finish, Ms Okell.
Ms Okell: I was just going to say that as a member of the commission I would certainly want that to happen.
The Acting Chair: We'll move to the government caucus.
1530
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Ms Okell, for coming before us here today. It's always a pleasure to meet prospective appointees. I don't want to dwell on norOntair, I want to talk more about financial issues, but you mentioned in one of your responses that you were somewhat hamstrung in being able to deal with the questions from both the opposition parties. Just for your edification, it was a business that was doing $6.5 million in revenue but we were spending $13 million to do it, so I think your response that ONTC should be gearing its attentions to efficient transportation and communications systems is right on the mark.
To the question what do you say to someone from Geraldton or Elliot Lake who may now have somewhat greater difficulty getting to Sudbury, well, to every one of the communities in the north of 15,000 people or fewer who might face that situation, you might ask those people why the people in Owen Sound and Trenton and Peterborough and Barrie and Muskoka, all areas of 50,000 population or more that never had subsidized air service, weren't given that same largess by the previous government.
But I said I want to deal with financial issues. Since the best interests of northern taxpayers are no different than the interests of all Ontario taxpayers -- efficient government and doing better with less -- what do you believe you have to offer to the ONTC in the way of a financial and auditing background as they move forward to deliver efficient service?
Ms Okell: I think probably in my most recent working in the audit branch as an audit manager in the Ministry of Solicitor General and Correctional Services, we've gone through a period of looking at our own audits and how we can provide better, more efficient audit service and also how different branches of our ministry are accountable and how they can use their funding more efficiently. We all know there's a lot more need out there than there is funding. That's the fact of the matter today. We have to do more with less.
I've just gone through a period of working with a particular area where we think we've gained some efficiencies and it appears to be working well and it has been a good experience for all the people concerned. I think it's doable. I'm quite optimistic. Putting more money at something is now always the answer for things. I think we're finding that out. We spend a lot of money in this province. We just have to spend it better.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Ms Okell, I agree with you and I'm sure the remaining businesses of ONTC, which by and large all have the potential to break even or make a profit, will benefit from improved financial and fiscal experience on the board.
Mr Douglas B. Ford: Ms Okell, why have you agreed to serve on the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission? And I'd like to reply to our friend across the floor that this government returned to the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund about $100 million plus interest, which was taken away by the previous government. Anyways, that is the question I have.
Mr Tony Martin: On a point of order, Mr Chair.
The Acting Chair: There's a point of order which I have to take, but perhaps it might help if we stayed on topic.
Mr Martin: Just to clarify for the member, it was $60 million.
Mr Douglas B. Ford: Well, $60 million.
Mr Martin: They've been in power now for over a year and they haven't spent a penny out of that fund, so it really --
Mr Douglas B. Ford: It's a fund that was missing.
The Acting Chair: All right, if we could deal with questions to the witness on her appointment, we may get along a little bit further here. Mr Ford, go ahead.
Interjection.
Mr Baird: You're on weak ground there.
Mr Douglas B. Ford: We're on a little political debating back and forth here, so what they give, we give, and what we take, we give. Anyways, that's the question. Why have you agreed to serve on the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission?
Ms Okell: Basically, one of my professional colleagues had suggested that there probably is a need for a person with a financial background and would I be interested in putting my name forward, so I did.
I've been working on the university board for the last two years and I found it very interesting, and to be able to contribute something back to your community is very good. North Bay has been very good to me, northern Ontario's been good to me, and I find now I have some time and I would like to do some work for my community. I think you'll find most accountants are generally approached to serve on boards because there is that expertise needed. I find most accountants are also very community-spirited and are very busy. Are you an accountant? There is a demand for it.
Mr Douglas B. Ford: With your accounting background I believe you'll keep the train on the track, so to speak, and find the deficiencies. Thank you.
Mr Parker: You responded to a few questions opposite with the answer essentially that you'll wait to consult the facts before you form an opinion, and there was some surprise expressed at that response. I personally find it a very refreshing attitude and think that's an appropriate attitude for a prospective commissioner, so I welcome that approach and urge you to continue to have that view as you approach the issues that face you.
My question to you is a simple one. Maybe it draws on the comment that there will be a great deal of homework involved in this job, that there will be a great deal of fact-finding and understanding of issues involved as you take on the role as a member of the commission. I just wonder if you have any thoughts yourself, any impression as to how much time that will take, how much time out of your day will be represented by this position. Do you have the time to commit to it?
Ms Okell: I know there are monthly meetings and there are subcommittee meetings. Everyone is on a subcommittee. Besides that, just going on my university commitment I'm finding it's probably at least a day a week, sometimes two, sometimes three, plus other times when you're in different situations -- I'm on a personnel committee as well -- they can involve long hours rather sporadically. Do I have the time to commit? I do. I'm looking forward to it. As I say, I will only be working part-time, probably a day a week, so yes, I do have the time. My children have grown and left home. When you don't have your children around you have a lot more time on your hands too. I would be looking forward to it.
Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): Just a short question: It seems that you've got great experience in accounting and auditing and you've served on the university board. How do you feel that your community involvement has put you in touch or will allow you to represent the views of the community?
Ms Okell: Basically just serving on various committees. I'm also a member of the Kiwanis Club, which is a very community-spirited organization. We do a lot of different works, fund-raising and projects around the community. I've lived in North Bay for 18 years, in the north for 25 years.
Ms Bassett: Do you feel that your views represent a large segment of the population in the north?
Ms Okell: I think they represent a large view, and I am fairly open to other opinions. I think I'm a fairly approachable, open type of person and listen to both sides.
The Acting Chair: Other questions? No? Okay. That concludes our time with you, Ms Okell. Thank you for being with us.
Ms Okell: Thank you for the time.
The Acting Chair: No doubt your participation here will help the committee members come to a decision.
We move now to the decisions on the three. Could I just suggest, in order to facilitate things between Mr Martin and myself, if we begin with the last --
Mr Baird: Could I ask for a five- or 10-minute recess so that we may caucus?
The Acting Chair: Is that agreeable to the committee? Five minutes?
Mr Baird: Five minutes should do.
The Acting Chair: We'll recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 1539 to 1545.
The Acting Chair: Could I just call the committee back to order. I was suggesting earlier, just to facilitate things between Mr Martin and myself in terms of having the same people voting as the ones who were involved in asking the questions, that we could begin with the last one first, and then I'll relinquish the chair after that. Is there a motion relating to Ms Okell?
Mr Bert Johnson: No. I wanted to start at the first and go first.
Ms Bassett: Aren't we going to do the last first?
The Acting Chair: Yes. If we could do that, I would appreciate it.
Ms Bassett: All right, Mr Chair. I move concurrence on the appointment of Karen Okell to the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.
The Acting Chair: Is there any discussion?
Mr Martin: I just have a real concern for the impact of decisions that are being made by your government, in all sincerity and honesty, that are going to have long-term ramifications for the part of this province that I live in, which contributes significantly to the overall economy of Ontario by way of the resources that are up there, that we who live up there are, and the diminishing of our ability to do that in a way that maximizes the potential for us to create a standard of living and a quality of life that equals that of the rest of the province, and also our ability to move around up there.
In this day and age I think it's not unrealistic to expect that we would have the best of roads, and we don't have that any more. There was the release of a document this week that shows a further diminishing of the road maintenance function by way of the closing of yards and centralizing them -- one of them, just out of interest, in the Premier's home riding. It's something that is becoming more and more common as the whole of northern Ontario is cannibalized in order to prop up the Premier's home riding, but all of it diminishing the effort that has been made by previous governments over a number of years to make sure that, if nothing else, we had the best of transportation opportunity available to us.
Air service: We no longer have air service like we had six months ago in the north. As a matter of fact, getting off a plane about two or three weeks ago in Sault Ste Marie, a fellow I know who travels extensively in the north says that air service in northern Ontario is now back to what it was in the 1950s and 1960s. It's just not dependable and in some instances there's some question about the safety.
I was talking about roads a few minutes ago. This past winter we saw the reduction of road maintenance. We have never in our history seen the highways in the north closed as many times by way of response to difficult weather conditions. When you close the highways down you stop us from being able, in a very fundamental and basic way, to get people to hospitals; bring home recreation teams, sports teams that are out visiting, playing sports in other areas; deliver our product to market; or get stuff back from southern Ontario that we need should a mill or a plant be shut down. It just has devastating impacts, effects. An hour, a day, a week of shutdown, of not being able to get from here to there, is as destructive to us as it is to any of the communities and operations in southern Ontario.
The diminishing of our ability in the north to get around, whether by air or by road -- and we're not sure yet what the train situation is going to be. There is no long-term plan out there. There is no business plan put out by this corporation on behalf of the government to tell us what it is they have in mind for rail service in the north, so we don't know what to expect. We don't know what morning we will wake up to another announcement that tells us that ONTC rail service has now been cut, that we can no longer subsidize it because it's part of the Common Sense Revolution to do more with less or better with less or whatever the statement of the day happens to be.
It's with that in mind that when I see somebody come before us who obviously is a qualified person, probably very caring and concerned, but who admits to being a member of the Progressive Conservative Party and supports the agenda of this government in the way that she does, and then that I would approve the appointment of her to a committee that has such fundamental importance to everything that we do in the north, I just can't find it within me to support that appointment, and so I will be in this instance voting against it.
Mr Bartolucci: I, too, will be voting against it, because as nice a person as Ms Okell probably is, she certainly didn't bring any unique ideas to the discussion today; in fact, she didn't even have one solid recommendation to make to this new commission. I'm amazed. Even the ones I haven't supported in the past have at least had some ideas that they wanted to share with the board they were being appointed to.
I guess I'm concerned that that type of appointee is exactly what my concern or what our concern is with regard to the government. Clearly, the understanding that you have concerning northern Ontario is limited, and I understand that the north didn't vote Conservative. They elected Mike Harris in North Bay and that's it. I don't consider Parry Sound northern Ontario. So there really is only one elected PC in northern Ontario and that happens to be the Premier, and he's taking care of his own bailiwick. I don't agree with it, because he's robbing Sudbury of many hundreds of jobs and moving them to North Bay, but he's protecting his own interests, and I'm sure that the electorate by and large, in not only northern Ontario but Ontario, in the next election will ensure that we see him and your government for what it really is. But you clearly, clearly don't have an understanding of northern Ontario.
It disturbs me immensely when I see a member that I respect, Mr Gilchrist, saying there is no difference between an isolated community in northern Ontario and a community such as Peterborough. Northern Ontario comprises 84% of the province's land mass. This 346,000 square miles has only 8% of the population. We do not and we cannot be considered the same as a community such as Chatham or a community such as Peterborough or a community such as Woodstock. It's clearly not rational to draw that type of comparison, and so I'm concerned when I see and hear a government member I respect speaking in those terms.
It shows me that the understanding that we in both opposition parties have harped on since September is really there. We have a minister of northern Ontario -- Minister of Northern Development and Mines, but he's the minister of and for northern Ontario -- who's outside of northern Ontario, clearly doesn't have a handle on northern Ontario issues, is willing to spend $500,000 in one year to transport staff from Sudbury to Toronto to give the deputy minister more presence of communication and policy staff in Toronto. That clearly tells me that the minister doesn't have a handle on his ministry, and that concerns me.
I only wish -- because she is sincere. She's very sincere, and at no time did I want to be condescending towards her. I think she acts with good intentions, but that originality that's necessary for northern Ontario and for northern Ontarian issues is just not there. I think the dedication is, but with that dedication we would all like to see some concrete ideas so that we can have some solutions to the problems we face in northern Ontario if in fact this government is going to continue to pursue the course it has deemed necessary or applicable to northern Ontario.
I want you to know that I, individually, and I know my caucus and I'm sure the third party, honestly believe that you are devastating the north. When we say that, those aren't just idle words; we firmly believe it, and we firmly believe that you have to change your course. We would hope you would change your course with appointees who bring some unique perspectives to the table, as opposed to, "I can't comment on that; I don't have any ideas" or "I don't feel comfortable in doing and making recommendations." It's just not what's needed for northern Ontario at this point in time. So I will be voting against it.
The Acting Chair: Any further comments on the motion?
Mr Martin: Recorded vote, Mr Chair.
The Acting Chair: A recorded vote has been requested. We'll proceed to a vote on Ms Bassett's motion to concur in the appointment of Karen Okell to the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.
Ayes
Baird, Bassett, Ford, Gilchrist, Bert Johnson, Parker, Smith.
Nays
Bartolucci, Crozier, Martin.
The Acting Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Mr Bert Johnson: I move concurrence on the appointment of Morley Carscallen to the Ontario Securities Commission. The Vice-Chair: Any comments or observations?
Mr Parker: Could I make an amendment to that motion: that we move concurrence to the appointment of Morley Carscallen to the position of vice-chair of the Ontario Securities Commission?
The Vice-Chair: Okay? Any comment?
All those in favour of that appointment will so indicate. It's unanimous.
Mr Bert Johnson: I'd like to move concurrence of Frederick William Ford as a member of the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. The Vice-Chair: Any comments or observations people would like to make before we go to a vote on this one?
Seeing none, all those in favour of that appointment will so indicate. All those opposed? The concurrence is carried.
I do believe that's the sum total of our deliberations this afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We will adjourn and will meet again on August 7. We'll have a brief subcommittee meeting at this time.
The committee adjourned at 1559.