CONTENTS
Wednesday 18 June 1997
Intended appointments
Mr Mearl Obee
Mrs Arlene Wright
Ms Dianne Ballam
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président: Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean PC)
Mr RickBartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mrs BrendaElliott (Guelph PC)
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr BertJohnson (Perth PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr FloydLaughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Mr FrankMiclash (Kenora L)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr TonySilipo (Dovercourt ND)
Mr R. GaryStewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
Mr GerryMartiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mrs JuliaMunro (Durham-York PC)
Mr RichardPatten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mrs LynMcLeod (Fort William L)
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel: Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1004 in room 228.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The standing committee will come to order. The first item of business is to deal with the subcommittee reports, who receive the certificates. There are four such subcommittee reports.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I move that we adopt the minutes of the subcommittees from May 15, May 23, June 6, June 12.
The Chair: All in favour? Carried. Thank you for that. I don't think I'll bother reading all the names into the record.
Today we have three appointments: Mearl Obee and Arlene Wright to the Education Improvement Commission; and Dianne Ballam to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal. We'll deal with them in that order, if the people are here.
MEARL OBEE
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Mearl Obee, intended appointee as part-time member, Education Improvement Commission.
The Chair: Mr Obee, we welcome you to the committee. It's the tradition that you be allowed to make any opening comments you might want to make and then we'll have members of the committee ask you questions.
Mr Mearl Obee: Thank you, Mr Chairman. First of all, I'd like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to come before the committee to give you just a bit of background I bring to the commission: an understanding, I believe, of teaching, since I've been in that profession for 35 years, serving as a classroom teacher, as a principal at the elementary level and as a principal at the secondary level.
As well, I bring some knowledge of the administrative structures and the complexity of the education scene, having served as a superintendent of education, as a superintendent of human resources, an associate director in charge of all business functions, and finally as a director of education.
I also believe I bring to the commission an understanding of the provincial perspective of education, having been a member of and chair of some significant organizations: the Ontario Catholic Supervisory Officers' Association, of which I was president, and the Council of Ontario Directors of Education, that is, all directors for the province -- English, French, public, separate. I was chair of that group and have some understanding, therefore, of the issues across the province.
I would suggest that gives a brief synopsis of my background and experience. It may be of interest to the committee members.
The Chair: Thank you. Any questions or comments from government members?
Mr Baird: We would defer.
The Chair: Official opposition.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Thank you very much, Mr Obee. There's no question about your credentials in education and your background of experience as well as your commitment to education. I guess my questions will be more on the lines of the role of this commission and how you see the possibilities of using a position on the commission to contribute further to education, because I would have no question that that's your goal.
One of the challenges for the -- and, Mr Chair, as a visitor to the committee you'll have to guide me in terms of the timing. I'm sure that you will.
The Chair: Yes. Each caucus has 10 minutes.
Mrs McLeod: Right. One of the challenges obviously in the school board amalgamation is -- and I should have taken a minute to take a look at how your particular board is affected by amalgamation. I'm not sure that it is directly affected. But in a large number of boards where there is an amalgamation of several boards coming together, one of the very real challenges that's going to be faced is in the whole area of collective bargaining, the harmonization of contracts as well as the harmonization of services.
I wonder if you'd comment on your thoughts at this point as to the role of the EIC, how these issues can be handled constructively, in what ways the commission might be able to mediate the sheer chaos that I believe education is going to be facing over the course of the next few months.
1010
Mr Obee: In terms of the question, I have been around long enough to have been a participant in 1969 when there was an amalgamation of a number of boards and so I recognize the breadth and depth of your question. The commission, I believe, is put in place to address those types of questions in a very systematic way. It's my view that the job of the commission will be to identify the issues, discuss with the constituent groups processes which may accomplish exactly what you're talking about and publish guidelines that would be helpful in the amalgamation process.
Mrs McLeod: There are some initial guidelines, if I can use that term, that have already been put forward in legislation. They don't apply to teachers at this point, although we're expecting to see similar guidelines for teachers within the next little while. These are school board employees, as you may be aware.
The legislation directs the collective bargaining process, including the ability of school boards to essentially suspend the right to strike of their employees if they're not able to successfully reach a collective agreement. In fact, it's not even if they can't reach; it's at the outset of the process. If they think they might not be able to reach a collective agreement through joint negotiations, the board has to decide whether it's going to suspend the right to strike and go directly to arbitration.
Do you not think that any mediating role that the commission might have been able to play is going to be essentially destroyed by that kind of legislative background guideline?
Mr Obee: You're referring to Bill 136?
Mrs McLeod: Bill 136.
Mr Obee: It's my understanding that in that bill there is a commission created to oversee the implementation of that bill, a transition commission. I'm not familiar with it in detail, but a transition commission. Therefore, it would not come under the direction or scope or mandate of the Education Improvement Commission. However, the Education Improvement Commission is charged, as I understand it, with facilitating the process of amalgamation. I'm sure there are contributions that can still be made outside of the specific mandate that's outlined in Bill 136.
Mrs McLeod: I guess that was part of the reason for my first question, and I'm not intending to trap you. It has been our position from the very outset that it is not responsible for the ministry to simply put this amalgamation legislation in place and then turn over the responsibility to the commission to figure out how to make it work. We've had a lot of questions about whether the EIC can have very much effect at all.
One of the key areas in which there was to be a responsibility given to the EIC was in the transfer of the harmonization of contracts, the transfer of assets and liabilities, and I think, quite frankly, that the EIC, by the setting up of this other commission, as you've said, has essentially been moved out of that process.
I guess that makes me wonder whether or not the EIC can do very much on the other area in which the minister has indicated you're going to be asked for advice, and that's the funding formula, because the collective bargaining process can't be separated from the adequacy of dollars. Again I think it's going to be part of the sheer chaos. How does the EIC even begin to provide advice to the minister on the funding formula when there are so many intangibles in this?
Mr Obee: That was a question?
Mrs McLeod: That's the question.
Mr Obee: I'm not sure that I know. Obviously it would be presumptuous of me, since I'm not a commissioner at the present time, to suggest what route the commission will take, being eventually, I hope, one of seven members. But I believe there is a role for the commission in the consultation process, in the process of collecting information, identifying issues and giving advice. Then it is up to those who are elected to the higher bodies, to the government, to Parliament, to formulate the legislation to go forward to satisfy or address those issues.
Mrs McLeod: I personally wish they'd let the commission start to do that before they brought in their legislation on collective bargaining so that you could have been influential in that regard.
I was also around in 1969 -- I hate to admit how far back I go in this business -- and there were several very significant differences in that school board amalgamation from this one, one of them being that the board boundaries were seen to be fairly logical. I'm not pretending that everybody was happy about the dissolution of small boards, but they were very small boards that were being amalgamated and the boundaries reflected essentially some regional realities. That's not true in this case. The EIC has already had to make recommendations to break up one initial proposal on the sheer geographic size of the boards. There are several others where people have made clear representation that these board boundaries cannot work.
How much time is left, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: About three minutes.
Mrs McLeod: I've got time for two more questions then. One then is on your sense of whether the commission is going to be able to continue to render advice in the areas of making these boards workable. My supplementary question to that is whether, as somebody about to step into this commission, you bring a strong personal commitment to make sure that these boards remain in place and remain workable and how you see the role of the parent council in relationship to trustees in the future.
Mr Obee: The first part of it, as I understood your question, was really to ask whether I saw the commission as being able to make ongoing recommendations around board boundaries. I have an understanding that the co-chairs of the commission, acting in a consultative role, did review the boundaries and did give input to the extended boundaries. At that time there wasn't a view to go beyond the additional boards that were recommended.
I, of course, can't say; I haven't had the benefit of input around that issue. I would assume that the two people who did have a look at it did a thorough reflection on it -- I know there was broad consultation -- and provided the best advice that was available to them at the time, which I understand was acted upon.
With regard to my understanding about the continuation of structures, I assume that your question was, are boards going to continue?
Mrs McLeod: That's right. Again, I'm not trying to trap you. My belief is that the board boundaries were unworkable, that most still are. I hope you will approach the commission with a critical and questioning approach, as I trust you would, given your background in education, because there's no question that only the worst of the board boundary issues was dealt with. I continue to remain convinced that the original intent was to set up something unworkable and eventually school boards would disappear. That's why I was looking for your statement of commitment to the continued existence of boards and how you saw parent councils in relationship to that.
Mr Obee: I certainly see the continued existence of boards. I recognize that what we're going through is a shift in thinking and a new paradigm. I equate it somewhat to 1969, where very local school boards, much like school councils, were in place and there was the thought that there was a need for a broader base, for a variety of reasons, equitable access to education for all students being one of them.
I see that in regard to this there is a shift in thinking, a new paradigm, which will cause one to look at the role of the trustee. Given that activity, I think we will find trustees possibly doing different things to accommodate their electoral groups. I would foresee the continuance of school boards.
Parent councils and those parents I think are at the heart of education and need to be involved and need to have a sense of community with the school. That needs to be achieved in different ways in different communities, and I think that will be the task, to look at the variety of opportunities that are out there in getting parents involved through parent councils. That would be one of them.
The Chair: Mr Silipo?
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): We'll defer our time until after the government members.
1020
The Chair: Do the government members have any questions?
Mr Baird: I just have two short issues. Obviously you bring a perspective to the Education Improvement Commission with respect to your background specifically in the separate school system in Ontario. I just noticed, in looking over your résumé, that earlier in your career you were a principal at a high school in my board in Carleton outside of Ottawa.
What sort of perspective do you think your involvement in Catholic education would bring the commission? I look at the Carleton Roman Catholic school board in my constituency and the question of the degree of fairness and equity in terms of funding that children who just happen to be born in a Catholic household would get so much demonstrably less money in the Carleton Roman Catholic school board. They spend 40% less than the Ottawa public board.
Beyond having a very sound administrative background, the teachers in that system also bring a commitment to Catholic education. While they could simply work across the street at a public school and make demonstrably more money, they obviously bring a level of commitment to Catholic education that certainly benefits the children, that level of commitment. What sort of thoughts do you have in terms of your background in separate education that you could bring to the commission?
Mr Obee: With regard to my background in the separate school system, of course that's where the bulk of my experience has been. However, I would like to think that I would be on the commission to represent all students in Ontario. My knowledge lies in the area of education -- education for students, not just separate school students.
The concepts you mention, however, of fairness and equity I think apply across the province of Ontario. Excellence in education is what we're striving for, and we should settle for nothing less and it shouldn't be categorized. There are several systems in this province which reflect different perspectives. The public school system, the separate school system and the French-language system all have unique contributions to make to the Ontario mosaic, but all have that common purpose: to provide an excellent education. That's what I hope I would bring. If fairness and equity are a hallmark of what I bring, I would be very satisfied with that.
Mr Baird: The second issue I wanted to solicit your views on is parent councils. One of the strongest messages I've heard from constituents in my riding is that parents want a bigger role in education and want the opportunity to have a greater voice in that system. What sort of perspective would you bring in terms of parent councils to work on the EIC?
Mr Obee: I think I suggested to Ms McLeod that parents are, in my view, the first educators. Other educators, those in the school system, are given the trust of parents. There are a number of studies which indicate that the degree to which the home supports the school, there will be an enhanced and increased effectiveness of education, and the degree to which the home and school can form a sense of community, a sense of common values, of common understandings, education is enhanced. I think that speaks to a tremendously important role for parents. There's no doubt about that in my mind.
Structures such as parent councils are somewhat formal structures designed to achieve that end. I don't think it's sufficient to leave it at just that. I think there have to be initiatives which would promote involvement of parents in wide variety of ways, and that has occurred across the province. I think we need to look at best practices, collect those, enhance them and promote them.
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): Given your own experience professionally and as a trustee and so forth, and obviously wishing to become a member of the EIC, how would like to be remembered as a member of the first commission? What specific things do you see as potential areas that you'd want to be remembered for initiating?
Mr Obee: I must admit I haven't thought of it in exactly that way, but if I was remembered as a commissioner who dealt with issues on the basis of issues, of the information that was available, on fairness and equity and had the focus of keeping the students at the forefront of every decision, I guess maybe the memory that I would like that comes to mind is the conscience of the commission for the students.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Your credentials are tremendous, sir. One of the concerns that I have: Health care and interest in this province are two of the big expenditures. Next to that is education, and education has been constantly going up over the last 10 or 15 years. You've been part of the system for 10 to 15 years and my question to you is, what have you done regarding restructuring in the past and where do you see us restructuring in the future?
One thing: You made a comment that education has to constantly be around a student. I appreciate that and yes, you have. But also there are taxpayers out there who are extremely concerned and have been for a lot of years. Where do you see you getting involved with restructuring and what have you done in the past with it?
Mr Obee: My involvement in restructuring for the future of course will be through the commission, and that's one of the reasons I found the position appealing, because it can influence education and it would provide an opportunity for me to influence the influences.
What have I done in the past? I cannot say that all of the taxpayers in our area are happy with the school board that I'm now director of, but I can say that we do demonstrate, I think, superior fiscal restraint and produce excellent educational results. We are the second-lowest-spending board in the province at the present time and our test results would indicate that we are maintaining provincial standards and exceeding them.
The Chair: We will revert back now to Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Mr Obee, you talked earlier about the change in school boards, the shift that's happening now being another paradigm shift, comparing it to the event that took place in the late 1960s. I'd be interested, however, in your thoughts about whether this is a shift that you endorse, support. Do you go into the commission as someone who is supportive of what is being done here or do you go into the commission as someone who has some concerns about what's happening?
Mr Obee: In terms of my role on the commission, I would be somewhat frustrated to anticipate agreeing or not agreeing. This is legislation. At the present time, it's not for me to suggest the legislation is appropriate or inappropriate. It's legislation that's been put in place and the commission has been asked to find ways to make it work to enhance the education. I certainly believe there are many opportunities for reshaping education in the province, and I've tried to do that throughout my career. This is an opportunity to do that once again.
Mr Silipo: I guess you're not going to tell us whether you like it or don't like it. That's fine. That's for you to decide in terms of how you answer that.
Let me come at one aspect of that shift to get at this issue. Do you think the system as it has been re-established now is actually going to be able to continue to deliver the kind of quality education we all want to see? You talked earlier about the importance of parental involvement. You talked earlier about a variety of issues. What I want to get to is, can we make the changes that the present government is proposing and still maintain, let alone improve, the quality of education in the province?
1030
Mr Obee: I can assure you that I would not be involved in anything which I felt was going to fail.
Mr Silipo: All right. Let me take a look at what is happening in your area of the province, the Simcoe County Roman Catholic Separate School Board. Is it changing dramatically under the new boundary proposals?
Mr Obee: I wouldn't say dramatically.
Mr Silipo: If you were to have a school board that would take into its jurisdiction the present Simcoe County Board of Education, and let's say, the two adjoining boards, Dufferin-Peel and -- what would be the other one, Halton? All together you'd have, what, around 300,000 students, roughly?
Mr Obee: I think it would be slightly less; maybe 100,000 in separate schools.
Mr Silipo: Oh, I'm sorry. All right. I was using the other numbers, on the public school side.
What I was getting at is, is there a point at which, on the question of the school board sizes, you lose that ability by parents to have any kind of impact, and more importantly, by school trustees, to have any real say in what actually is going on in setting policy for the local school boards?
Mr Obee: It depends tremendously on the types of structures you put in place. For instance, to use an example that is somewhat similar: If you had a small community like Hornepayne in a very large area, will those parents in that area take more interest, be more involved in the school? I think they probably will, or there's the potential for that if you give them the opportunity and provide them with structures.
Whether that particular example will work or not, I'm not sure, but I do see potential for the creation of structures that will enhance parental involvement, bring parents closer to the school. When there is that kind of commitment and involvement, those who are administering on a different level -- possibly even a different level than we think of today for trustees -- will listen to those communities. I believe that's our democratic system.
Mr Silipo: What about the trustee role? Can that be effectively exercised when you have such massive school boards, such massive structures that are being set up?
Mr Obee: It depends on what the expectations are for trustees.
Mr Silipo: How do you see a trustee being able to do an effective job in a jurisdiction in which he or she will have responsibility for representing some 25 different schools in a total jurisdiction of 300,000 students, which is the case here in Metropolitan Toronto?
Mr Obee: Again, there will have to be structures which accommodate that type of input, much as our government runs. Members represent large geographic areas, very large, and do a fine job of that because there are structures that are in place to provide for the input, to provide for the collection of information and data.
Mr Silipo: Do you agree, Mr Obee, with the minister's definition of what constitutes out-of-classroom expenditures, things, as I'm sure that you know, which he in his opinion includes, such as school libraries, teachers' preparation time, custodial and maintenance services? Do you agree with that definition of out-of-classroom expenditure?
Mr Obee: It depends on what you mean by out-of-classroom expenses, if you mean that they are essential for education or non-essential for education.
Mr Silipo: Come on, Mr Obee, the assumption the minister is making when he puts out that statement is that you can cut out-of-classroom expenditures. What I'm asking you is, do you agree that school libraries and teachers' preparation time, just to cite two things, are fair items to include in the out-of-classroom definition?
Mr Obee: Again, I would come back to my former answer and your explanation of what you meant. You said the minister was assuming that you could cut out-of-classroom expenditures. I would not agree that you can cut libraries out of schools, if that's the suggestion you're making.
Mr Silipo: We've now had about, what, some $400 million, $500 million, up to $1 billion, depending on which numbers you use, cut out of the overall expenditure of the system. Do you believe that any more significant cuts can be made of that kind of magnitude -- let's say, half a billion to a billion dollars -- can be cut from the overall system without affecting the quality of education?
Mr Obee: I believe that what you have to do is take the resources that are available to you and make the best use of those resources. I think that the decision regarding whether or not the resources are available is in the hands of those who are in government.
Mr Silipo: One last question, or maybe two, Mr Obee. It's a question that I ask of everyone who appears here. Do you belong now or have you ever belonged to a political party?
Mr Obee: No.
Mr Silipo: Have you ever donated to a political party or members of a political party?
Mr Obee: I don't believe so.
The Chair: Thank you. That wraps up the time for exchanging views with Mr Obee. We thank you for coming before the committee this morning. We appreciate it.
ARLENE WRIGHT
Review of intended appointment, selected by the third party: Arlene Wright, intended appointee as part-time member of the Education Improvement Commission.
The Chair: Mrs Wright, welcome to the committee. You've seen how the process unfolds. Would you like to make any opening comments before we get into the questions?
Mrs Arlene Wright: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, and good morning. I would like to give you what I believe are the qualifications that would enable me to do a good job as a commissioner on the EIC. I have had 14 years' experience as a trustee, representing the city of Owen Sound. I was first elected in 1980. In 1981 and 1982 I chaired negotiations for all of the unions, both teaching unions and non-teaching unions. In 1983-84 I was vice-chair of the board, and as such, chair of the finance committee. From 1985 to 1989 I chaired the Grey county board and again in 1991 to 1993 I was chair of the board.
In 1987-88 I was president of the Ontario Public School Trustees' Association. I was instrumental in the amalgamation of the three trustee organizations in the province which have come to be known as the Ontario Public School Boards' Association. In 1989 I was the first president elected to the Ontario Public School Boards' Association. I was also the winner of the Dr Harry Paikin award as the outstanding trustee in 1991. During my tenure I have participated as a member of the negotiating team negotiating pay equity on behalf of the public schools with FWTAO. During the social contract I was at the public school educational sector table.
I'm very familiar with school-based decision-making. I'm very familiar with school advisory councils or parent councils. I have visited school boards in Kenora, Timmins, eastern Ontario, southwestern Ontario and central Ontario, both during my role as president of the two associations and, later on, as an independent consultant when I was putting on workshops for both trustees and administrators.
I very much believe that this qualifies me for the position. I have a very keen ongoing interest in what happens in education in the province, as I have five grandchildren that will be in the system come September and I do care what happens to them.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Wright. We'll begin with the official opposition.
1040
Mrs McLeod: There can be no question about your credibility, your credentials or the contribution you've already made to public education, which is why I'm troubled about the use the government is about to make of somebody who has a real commitment to public education.
I am absolutely convinced that the commission is going to be a front, a cover for a government that is determined to bring forth its agenda, which is fewer politicians, ie, fewer trustees; more control over education, both governance and funding, so that there can be imposed cuts on education with others being left to carry the ball for that and the responsibility for it, including to some extent the EIC; dealing with teachers and other employees' salaries through its collective bargaining legislation. None of this will be under the control of the EIC. Yet you will be there, along with Mr Obee, along with others who have outstanding credentials as people committed to public education, as sort of the government's cover for what I believe is an all-out attack on public education.
I guess then my question to you is, what is your comfort level with the powers that have been given to the EIC to override decisions of locally elected trustees, particularly in areas of current year budgets and capital plans? I'll let you answer that one, and then I'm going to ask you a little bit more about your sense of the role of the trustees under this new model.
Mrs Wright: I certainly have gone over the legislation and I hope I am very familiar with it. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the legislation, but I would hope that my role at the EIC would be as a watchdog to make sure that the students in the classroom are not going to suffer over this, that in fact we can carry on and make the changes that are going to be made without any effect in the classroom, or as little effect as possible. I just do not want to see an upheaval for any of the children we have in our system at this time and, as a commissioner, I would do my level best to promote that.
Mrs McLeod: There was absolutely no doubt in my mind that your willingness to serve on the commission, as with Mr Obee's, would be for exactly that reason: to attempt to make what is to be work more effectively for students. My frustration, and I'm afraid it will end up being yours, is that the government is really going to tie your hands so that there's not going to be very much effect.
We see that in a couple of ways. Let me ask you about those specifically. We see it already. Let me give you three ways. I raised board boundaries with Mr Obee, where the EIC nominally was able to give advice on the breaking up of one of the most outrageous of the board boundaries but has not been able to give advice on the breaking up of any of the other board boundaries. These boards are not workable. They're just too big with too few trustees for there to be any really meaningful access.
The fact is that the ministry is taking over all of the funding, which means that the trustees are going to have no local funding accountability at all. They're going to be the scapegoats. As Lynn Peterson said at another hearing, "It's going to be a question of centralized decision-making and decentralized blame." The trustees are virtually being totally disempowered, yet the EIC is being asked to make recommendations as to the new role of the trustee and role of parent councils in relationship to that.
What's to decide about the role of the trustee? The ministry has already directed that. Do you see any meaningful role that the EIC can advise the minister on?
Mrs Wright: Yes, I do. I just want to preface my comments by saying, during my 14 years as trustee and also as president I have been very frustrated with all governments that have been in place over education --
Mrs McLeod: I agree. I've spent 17 years fighting them myself.
Mrs Wright: -- yet we've managed to work through these and we've managed to work through them in a way that the children have not suffered in the province with education. I see that being my role as well.
As to the role of the trustee, I believe it's changing. I left the board in Grey county three years ago. I did not seek re-election because I felt at that time that the role was changing and that the trustee was going to become more of an Ombudsman in the education process. I believe there will be a role for a trustee, there'll be a definite role.
As well, I believe that the community councils, as I have been known to call them because we've got very active community councils where I come from, have had more input into the system through their trustee, and I see that as continuing. I see that the trustee is going to be there, is going to be necessary to act as an Ombudsman between the councils in the school and the board. I think we can ensure that. It's going to take a lot of communication. It's going to cause us all to work better together.
Mrs McLeod: I hope you will discuss that view and your hope with the trustees out there who see themselves as having absolutely no clout against a government that has already taken over $500 million out of education and clearly intends to take more. If you don't have any control at all over any of the funding, you just end up being very frustrated at the lousy decisions you get left having to make at the local level.
I want to be sure I get to a couple of the areas where I know you have some real expertise and you have done a lot of collective bargaining from the trustee side of the table. Again, it's an area where I thought the EIC might have been given some genuine advisory capacity to the ministry because, as I suggested with Mr Obee, one of the huge challenges for the new amalgamated board is to deal with the harmonization of the different contracts.
The legislation on school employees -- I know you were here when I was raising the question with Mr Obee, so you're well aware of it too -- essentially I think puts trustees in a no-win situation. You've got to decide at the beginning of the process whether you think you can have a collective agreement reached or whether you take the responsibility as a local school trustee of unilaterally suspending your employees' right to strike. I can't believe that is going to create the kind of conditions in which there can be effective local bargaining go on, and I'd like your comments on that.
Mrs Wright: The EIC, in my understanding, will not have an active role to play with the contractual issues between either the teachers or the non-teaching groups. However, we will have, I believe, a role in communication. I believe it will be up to us to ensure that there is communication between the groups. I think it will be up to us to be there to help them through the situations. I know as a member of the commission I will care very deeply about what does happen, because if there is strife in the workplace, there will be strife in the classroom. We want to do our very best to ensure that things go smoothly and that the children do not suffer.
Mrs McLeod: Good luck. I think you're in for a lot of frustration.
The Chair: Anything else from the official opposition?
Mr Silipo: Good morning, Mrs Wright. You said earlier that -- I think I'm quoting you correctly -- it's inappropriate for you to comment on the legislation. Why would you say that?
Mrs Wright: The legislation is in place so obviously there's nothing I can do about the legislation. My role will be to fulfil the obligations of that legislation.
Mr Silipo: I understand that, but I want to ask you, as I asked Mr Obee, do you go into this position as someone who is supportive of what the legislation attempts to do or someone who has concerns about it?
Mrs Wright: I'm not sure there's been a piece of legislation that any government has passed that hasn't had concerns in it for those involved in education. I believe, though, that since the legislation is in place I would see my role as fulfilling the obligations of that in the best way I can.
Mr Silipo: All right. Let me pursue this with you. The reason I pursue it more aggressively with you than with Mr Obee is because you're currently a school trustee. I think that --
Mrs Wright: No, sir, I'm not currently a school trustee.
Mr Silipo: I'm sorry. You were a school trustee, so in that sense you've played a different kind of role than Mr Obee has as a school administrator. When you decided to apply or to discuss, with whomever you did, your interest in this position, was it again with a view that here was an opportunity for you to make some contribution to improving the system, or was it with a view to saying, "Here's something where I can offer my services because there are these various issues that need to be addressed and I can provide some assistance and some input into that"?
Mrs Wright: Yes, I would take your latter and I would like to explain why. When I left the board three years ago, I did not seek re-election. I come from Grey county, and at that time we had spent a year on a proposed amalgamation between Grey county and Bruce county. With the help of the district office out of London, we had met many times with the chairs of the boards, the trustees of the boards, the administration of the boards, trying to find ways that we could work together, and we were looking at a possible amalgamation. That was three years ago.
We had combined such things as purchasing and transportation management. We did that because we knew we were not going to be receiving money for education and we needed the money for the classrooms. We were looking at ways to save money for the board other than raiding the classroom. I felt when this came up that I have had some experience in that. I do it for the right reasons, because I believe the money has to come from areas other than from the classroom. I hope that answers your question.
1050
Mr Silipo: Do you believe we can take another $500 million to $1 billion out of the funding of the system without hurting the quality of what we do in the classroom?
Mrs Wright: I would like to have the opportunity to see if there are ways to save more money. At this point, I'm not familiar with any ways that are left.
Mr Silipo: Do you agree with the minister's definition of out-of-classroom expenditures?
Mrs Wright: I did not hear the minister say that. I understand from what you're saying that he has made the assumption that these are --
Mr Silipo: He has used, on more than one public occasion -- I think I'm stating fact here; I certainly am not misquoting -- the definition used by Mr Sweeney, I believe, and then used again by the Ernst and Young study. The out-of-classroom expenditure category included such items as school libraries, teachers' preparation time, custodial and maintenance services. Do you agree that those are things that should be in that category of out-of-classroom expenditures?
Mrs Wright: Perhaps they're looking at it in a different context than a school trustee would look at it. If they're looking from outside in, they may have that view; if you're looking from inside out, you may have a different view.
Mr Silipo: If you're the current minister and you want to make the argument that you're spending too much money outside of the classroom, I suppose it would help to make that category as large as possible by including those items and then making the argument that you can cut without hurting the classroom.
As you compare the role of trustee you've had for a number of years to what you see as the role of a trustee under the new system, what benefits and drawbacks to the system and, at the end of the day, to the quality of what goes on in the classroom will come from that?
Mrs Wright: There are different views around the province. All school boards are different. There are some school boards where the trustees do very little more than attend a board meeting and look at the information and make decisions on what is put in front of them. There are other areas in the province where trustees have very much a hands-on experience, where they are actually involved in the schools and in the decisions being made in the schools.
I tend to believe that the trustee's role should be that of setting policy, not enacting policy. I believe the trustees are there to make the decisions but not to follow through on the decisions.
Mr Silipo: What do you expect to see coming out of the new funding formula we're going to get over the next number of months?
Mrs Wright: I have personal feelings about funding formulas. I'm not familiar with what the funding formula is coming from the ministry, but a number of years ago our board presented a document to the then Minister of Education, Dave Cooke. It was called the Funding of Education Foundation, Foundation Plus, in which we advocated funding the foundation basis of education and leaving the other costs that do not deal with base education up to the various areas to support.
I believe that all children in this province are entitled to the same education: There has to be equality among the students in the province.
Mr Silipo: Mrs Wright, I'll ask you, as I did Mr Obee and everyone else, are you a member of any political party?
Mrs Wright: Yes, I am.
Mr Silipo: Which party?
Mrs Wright: The Progressive Conservative Party. I have been since 1953.
Mr Silipo: Okay. One of the tasks the commission will have is to look at the whole issue of outsourcing of non-instructional services. Could you comment on that?
Mrs Wright: Yes. "Outsourcing" is sort of a buzzword that's been -- there are lots of ways to outsource. There's outsourcing of purchasing, outsourcing of purchasing materials, purchasing services. I very much believe this is something that should be left out to individual boards.
In some areas the outsourcing of purchasing material is working very well and in some areas the outsourcing of services is working very well, but that's not necessarily good for all areas. I think we need to take a look at individual areas.
The Chair: We now go to the government members.
Mr Stewart: How did you find out about this appointment?
Mrs Wright: I believe in late February I received a call from Ann Vanstone and Dave Cooke asking me if I would be interested in applying. I gave it careful consideration and called my member of Parliament and asked him to find out some information for me. I then sent my résumé down to the Ministry of Education. A few weeks later I came down for an interview, waited about six or seven weeks before I heard --
Mr Stewart: And here you are.
Mrs Wright: And here I am.
Mr Stewart: I was going to ask you the same question I asked Mr Obee. You've been involved with the system a long time. Between health care and, as I've mentioned before, the $9 billion in interest payments we make every year -- and you've been part of a progression of greater and greater expense in education. Now, all of a sudden, we are looking at new and better ways to restructure and do it. My thought was, what have you done in the past? It appears to me that you have been very much on track; you've been on stride. The unfortunate part is that past governments have not been.
One of the things I was concerned about is that, in my mind, over the years trustees have been fund-raisers, basically. They've been so concentrated on funding and budgets and everything that they've forgotten a little bit about concentrating on education and their role of setting policy.
Do you feel this is a reasonable analogy? Do you want to elaborate a little bit on your comment about the role of trustees in the future? I think that is so important. They've got to be set aside a little to make sure they are concentrating on that.
Mrs Wright: I should say, with all due respect, that I've never felt that trustees have received the respect they should have received in the past. I think trustees have worked very hard.
One of the reasons I decided not to seek re-election was that I found I was becoming more of a tax collector and I missed being in the classroom. The reason I became a trustee was because I was very interested in what went on in the classroom.
Yes, I do believe the role has changed over the years. I certainly welcome an opportunity for those people who are truly interested in education to once again be able to be involved in the classroom.
The Chair: Mr Stewart, any other questions? If not, Mrs Wright, thank you very much for appearing before the committee and responding to the queries. Good luck.
DIANNE BALLAM
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Dianne Ballam, intended appointee as full-time member and vice-chair, Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal.
The Chair: The next intended appointment is Dianne Ballam. Welcome to the committee. If you wish to make any opening comments, now is the time to do it.
Ms Dianne Ballam: Briefly, I was born and raised in Victoria county. I grew up on a family farm. I come from four or five generations of farmers, working-class people, and I live on the farm still myself.
I initially was qualified in social services; I have a social services diploma. I worked in a variety of social welfare areas, both in government and non-governmental areas, for a number of years. While doing that, I got the inclination to pick up a law degree or to go and learn law, so I applied for and was fortunate enough to be accepted at Queen's University law school, Kingston, Ontario, as a mature student. I started there in 1986. I graduated with honours. I supported myself through school, through various ventures. I participated in the work bursary program and a number of other things and supported myself.
I was called to the bar on March 22, 1991. I chose to practise as a sole practitioner, and I have from 1991 to the current date. I have always been involved in my community or any community I'm living in. I have been very active in volunteer work as well as my other work.
In my practice, I make it a point -- I feel it's an obligation and a duty of lawyers; I know not all agree -- to regularly provide pro bono legal services to a variety of people in the community in regard to a number of areas.
1100
I am personally committed to fairness, honesty and providing service to my community. I feel my training and experience in law, in dealing with people from all walks of life, and my commitment to service to the community will be valuable assets in this position if I am chosen by the committee.
I have experience, through my various work backgrounds, with rating submissions and reports, with making legal decisions, with applying facts to law in assessing evidence, with reading and applying statutes.
I have worked in government in the past, albeit not for a number of years now. I was fortunate last year; I had applied and was accepted into the master of law program at Queen's University in Belfast, Northern Ireland, to study human rights. It's a very restricted program and I was very honoured to be accepted. Unfortunately, due to last-minute personal situations that arose through family illness, I couldn't attend, but I had been accepted into the program and had passed whatever criteria they have. I'm not sure even what those are.
I look forward to the challenge and honour of serving on the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal if approved by this committee.
The Chair: The first questions are from the third party.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Thank you, Ms Ballam. I should preface any questions by indicating that your résumé is impressive, no two ways about it.
One of the criteria, though, by which appointees are chosen, is familiarity with the workers' compensation system. So I suppose we'll start there. What experience have you had with workers' comp or with WCAT?
Ms Ballam: I've had no direct experience with WCAT. Because I've chosen to live in the area I do, it is not viable to practise labour law in that area. I understand, Mr Kormos, that you have a legal background, so you can appreciate that. I do, however, regularly see people -- because of course we get injured workers there like anywhere else. I see those people on a regular basis. I have never charged one of those people for any advice or services, and I refer them to the local injured workers union; I've referred a number of people and continue to do so. I believe any of the people I've referred have been very pleased with the service they've got.
In addition, if I can assist them in any way by making phone calls or -- sometimes there are other peripheral issues that arise out of the injury. Some may wish to look into whether they have possible lawsuits against employers for other things, such as harassment or those issues. I've always assisted in that area when I can.
I don't practise labour law because I chose to live where I do. If I were living in the city, it would have been an option. It wasn't where I chose to be.
I've also had a number of clients on workers' compensation through various reasons. I've also defended people, because my practice was based primarily on criminal law, who have been charged with fraud on either the workers' compensation or social welfare as a result of problems that arose. I had to develop some familiarity with the systems and their pay structures and items like that as a result.
In terms of other aspects of it, in determining or looking at injuries, I sit on the local legal aid area committee. One of the things we are required to do, and it seems to be more frequent than it used to be, is to have appeals from persons who may have been turned down for legal aid initially. One of the things we look at are submissions from the lawyers who are going to be doing an appeal to workers' compensation, providing the evidence and factual basis upon which they are going to be basing their appeal, and we therefore make a decision on the merits of those appeals, whether to grant legal aid or not.
That's probably the bulk of what I've done.
Mr Kormos: Are you going to be shutting down your law firm if you're appointed?
Ms Ballam: What I say at this point is I'm taking leave. I won't be there, and I'm not going to be doing anything or generating any income. I've arranged for another criminal lawyer to come in to take over the practice. My main concern was that there wouldn't be anyone there to service the clients who have become dependent on and trust me. I picked a person to come in, and I'm giving it to him; I'm not charging him. It was on the condition that he has to look after the people correctly, and if he doesn't he has to leave. That's what I'm doing with my practice.
Mr Kormos: I appreciate what you told us about your first consideration, successful, was the master's program in Northern Ireland. How did you come about applying for this position?
Ms Ballam: I had actually sent my application to the public appointments office probably two years ago -- it might even have been three, but I would say it's more around two years ago -- indicating at that time I was interested in returning to doing some sort of public service or working in government again. I made it known that I was interested and willing to do that if an appropriate position came up that I felt I could contribute to. I was then contacted and told there was an opening, would I be interested? I said, "Yes, I would be interested," and that's how I ended up here today.
Mr Kormos: And there's nothing wrong with doing this. You heard the previous appointee speak about calling her local member to make further inquiries after she had been contacted. Did you utilize your local member?
Ms Ballam: No, I haven't called him. In fact, he hasn't been around. I think he was in Poland, so I couldn't have got hold of him if I wanted to. I think he was on a trade mission at the time this all arrived. Mr Hodgson is my member in Victoria-Haliburton and I don't think he was here.
Mr Kormos: In Poland? I understand Mr Hodgson has this strong affinity with Polish culture. I wasn't aware of that junket. We're going to have to follow up on that, Chair.
I'll be quite candid with you, and if I didn't ask it, Mr Silipo would, because the election finances commissioner's records show three contributions from you to either your local Tory candidate or your local Tory riding association in the election of 1995.
Ms Ballam: Actually, I think I made a total of three contributions to the party of $100 each time. That's the sum total of my contributions to that group.
Mr Kormos: You'd better check that out when you get your receipts, because the election finances commissioner has records of $200 each time.
Ms Ballam: Oh, I'd better check that out.
Mr Kormos: It's cash in the bank.
Ms Ballam: It's possible, Mr Kormos. I thought I gave them $100, but I may have been more generous than I thought on that.
Mr Kormos: Have you taken a look at Bill 99, which as you know has generated a whole lot of concern?
Ms Ballam: I have looked at it very briefly. I'll admit I haven't read the entire act. I have scanned through. I read some of the press releases. I had some material that I read from the injured workers union. There were some articles. So I have read articles and some material.
Mr Kormos: What's your view about the manner in which it destroys the independence of WCAT? You'd be familiar with those concepts very much, I'm sure.
Ms Ballam: I was just going to say that if I answered that question, Mr Kormos, I would be destroying my independence as a potential adjudicator on the WCAT, because for me to comment at this point and give a personal opinion I think would affect my impartiality or what has to be an unbiased adjudication of the matters as they come before me. So I really can't comment on that.
Mr Kormos: Do you look forward to being in a quasi-judicial position where you haven't got the independence?
Ms Ballam: I look forward to being in the position, if I'm successful. From my reading, I don't see where the independence is going to be challenged or impinged.
Mr Kormos: But you're aware of the growth of the relationship between WCAT and WCB in terms of WCAT having expanded, for instance, on areas of, let's say, chronic stress.
Ms Ballam: Yes, I'm aware that there has really been divergence between the two bodies. It is probably going to be a healthy thing at times that our government has a system where you can have divergence within a similar system and those avenues of appeal.
1110
Mr Kormos: The intention is to make WCAT bound by directives of the WCB.
Ms Ballam: My reading is not that it would be bound -- it is still the final body of appeal -- but that there would be consultation. There is to be certainly a lot of attention paid to the rulings or the decisions that are made by WCB, but the final ruling is still at WCAT and it is not bound by those decisions. It would be a similar situation where I believe in our criminal court system the courts defer to the other courts whenever possible. They certainly give serious respect to the decision and only overturn it if it's something they feel they absolutely cannot live with.
Mr Kormos: You and I will probably disagree, but one of the specific goals or purposes of Bill 99 will be to ensure that WCAT will be required to adhere to WCB policies in adjudicating appeals. That is a far cry from merely being a guide.
Was this your only choice of appointment or did you offer your services -- again, I'm not quarrelling with the fact that you did that and that you made decisions about your career and the progress of your career. Was WCAT the only tribunal you were interested in?
Ms Ballam: No, Mr Kormos. I had made myself available for public service. I was contacted with this and they asked, would I be interested? I thought about it and thought yes, although I must say that at the time I said yes I had no idea we were about to get into the hailstorm we are into, but that comes with the position. It's an interesting time and it just coincided with a time when, for whatever reason, I seem to have had an increasing number of people coming to me in dealing with these issues. I've had more involvement probably in the last year than I'd had perhaps in two years before that with compensation and injury-related issues.
The Chair: You're just about out of time.
Mr Kormos: I'm just about out of time? Well, "just about" means a minute and a half.
The Chair: Final question.
Mr Kormos: Thank you. I'm looking at the criteria. "Extensive professional experience": don't quarrel, can't quarrel with your background. "Highly developed personal skills and attributes": again, no quarrel whatsoever. The part I find bothersome -- and other people may want to address it -- and I'm being straight with you, is "familiarity with the workers' compensation system."
It seems to me that WCAT members are going to be put into some incredibly difficult positions, especially with Bill 99. I invite other members in their comments with you to address the demand for familiarity with the workers' compensation system. I appreciate you've been very straight in telling us the extent of that. I'm concerned that there are other people out there who have a more in-depth grasp and a more intimate understanding. I'm just concerned about that; I tell you that in candour. With respect to the other areas, you're exemplary. I have no hesitation. You know that; you knew you were exemplary.
Mr Baird: Thank you very much, Ms Ballam, for coming to talk to us this morning. I wanted to get some thoughts in terms of the background and perspective you bring to WCAT. I think there has been some criticism in the past that it's too Toronto-focused and isn't perhaps as representative of the province as it could otherwise be. What sort of perspective do you think you'd bring as a member of the tribunal coming from rural, small-town Ontario and coming from not just a strong background in law but as well social services and obviously a terrific amount of advocacy work through your efforts working with the John Howard Society?
Ms Ballam: Actually, it's not just the John Howard Society. I think my entire life or my career has been devoted to advocacy in some form or another, and my volunteer work on that as well. I've always enjoyed that and been able to provide assistance in that. I think those skills and just exposure to the broad range of people whom I deal with and have dealt with over the years -- and I've dealt with everything from very powerful, wealthy people to very poor and "powerless" people, or people who have been put in situations where they're made to feel powerless, and have assisted all those people and dealt with issues.
I think behind all of that is an underlying -- I suppose it addresses in some ways Mr Kormos's concern. My assessment of what is most important in a position such as the vice-chairperson of WCAT is someone who is -- first of all, I believe the legal training's very important because you have to be able to read the statutes and understand them and then apply the evidence and the facts to the statutes and vice versa. To do that, to understand facts and evidence properly, I believe it's of great assistance to have dealt with a broad variety of people.
I am certainly familiar with cities. I've been in them. I've had to live in them for various times. I was in school, writing my bar exams, studying here. I lived in Toronto while I did that. But I also have very deep roots in rural Ontario and small-town Ontario, and I've met those people from all walks of life. Workers' compensation doesn't just affect people in Toronto. It's all over the province, in all walks of life. I think I have a broad base of experience with those people and those people trust me. I have helped them and they feel comfortable with me, and I hope to be able to use my same fairness, impartiality and common sense to assist on the compensation appeals tribunal.
Mr Baird: Obviously the role of the WCB is an important one. Economically, both for workers and employers, it's a big issue, but even greater than that is the tremendous social cost it has on the people and their families and communities. Have you ever advocated on behalf of injured workers in your professional life or your social services background?
Ms Ballam: Yes, I have, Mr Baird. At one point, I referred so many injured workers to the injured workers union that they were sending messengers back to find out who was this lawyer who's sending all these people and where did she come from. I wasn't aware that they were in Lindsay for a while. When I became aware of their existence, I sent a large number of people.
Also, as I was telling Mr Kormos, I have helped people in any way I can and I have never charged them because I feel that those people mostly are at very weak times of their lives and they're being hit from every angle often, economically, physically, emotionally, all different areas, and so I've assisted them in whatever way I could at no cost.
In fairness, I'm not trying to blow my own horn. I haven't actually commenced litigation on their behalf, because I don't do an extensive labour practice, but I will make phone calls and connect them with labour lawyers; or if it's simply a matter of trying to cut through red tape, I do that for them. I'll make those phone calls or make the referrals.
Haliburton county: I go there once a week as the full-time duty counsel and I've sort of evolved that role into almost a legal clinic issue because there are very limited services in Haliburton county. People have just learned that they can contact me and I get them on a variety of sometimes strange issues and I advocate on their behalf and help them just cutting through and learning what proper channels to follow and what resources are there to tap into.
Mr Baird: You're obviously very familiar with the legal process, the rules of evidence, the formal hearing process. Just in some response to my colleagues in the third party -- they were talking about specific WCB legislation and policy -- in your experience, when you go before a formal judicial or quasi-judicial body, do you think it's appropriate that the judge, the person overseeing the trial, give their personal views before they hear any evidence?
Ms Ballam: Oh, absolutely not. That should never occur. I don't believe personal views should be given at any point by the adjudicator. If I'm chosen for this position, fortunate enough and accepted, I lose the right at that point to express personal opinions, as far as I'm concerned.
Chief Justice Antonio Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that's one of the prices you pay when you're in a position like that, that you don't make your personal opinions public. You keep them to yourself. You must be unbiased and you must listen to things openly. People coming before the tribunal, whether it be a worker or the employer, have to not think that the adjudicator has some preconceived notions or a prior agenda before they're hearing the case.
Mr Baird: You wouldn't want to compromise that independence this morning.
Ms Ballam: I wouldn't compromise that. I've never in my life and I'm not going to compromise it now.
1120
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Good morning, Ms Ballam. You have an impressive background and certainly a positive attitude. I've seen many people over the years join a commission or join a board and in the line of duty lose some of the enthusiasm and shine because they're dealing with major structures. What I would like to ask you, though, in a minute or two are things related to WCAT.
Ms Ballam: Certainly.
Mr Patten: I would suggest that prior to the appointment it's fair ball to make comment. Of course I appreciate your position that you are not going to make any radical statements one way or another, I would imagine, but in line with what my colleague from Nepean said about a judge prior to becoming a judge, that it's fair to talk about the justice system generally, not a specific case, which I don't think my colleague had suggested earlier, I see that as the context today, that you have said you have been doing some reading about the board, that it's undergoing change, even prior to the implementation of Bill 99, and that you've done some reading on Bill 99.
I ask if you have been following the hearings. There was one Monday afternoon -- it wasn't in this room; it was downstairs -- and there will be one this afternoon. Are you following those hearings?
Ms Ballam: I'll just address your first comment, that a judge, prior to becoming a judge, can comment. A potential judicial candidate cannot, and I put myself in that role. If I were strictly Dianne Ballam, barrister and solicitor, and not coming forward as a potential candidate, I could answer your questions and would probably go on ad nauseam to you, but I cannot and will not because I think it would jeopardize the position.
In terms of following the hearings, unfortunately I've been tied up in a sentencing hearing in the General Division and I haven't watched. The only thing I was able to watch, late the other night, was a news clip that showed some of the hearing that had to be adjourned early because there was a disruption. I read a little piece in the paper this morning, but unfortunately I haven't been in the real world to be able to do this for the last two days.
Mr Patten: We were able to complete the work of the committee on Monday afternoon.
Ms Ballam: Oh, good.
Mr Patten: There were a few interludes, however, during the course of the hearings.
I would like to present this to you: Again, I am sensitive to your sensitivities. It has to do with WCAT. The minister herself said on Monday afternoon that she welcomed suggestions that relate to the concerns that have been raised, both by employees and employers, related to the role of WCAT in relation to the board. There have been a number of papers and a number of consultants who have all raised these questions. Believe me, when a minister, in putting forth a bill, makes the comment that she or he is prepared to entertain amendments to a section, that means they are acknowledging there is a problem there, that there is something that needs to be rectified. Bottom line: Everyone wants to see it work. We want to see the whole system work well.
I, for one, am concerned about WCAT's role for two reasons, in that some will say this takes away what I think you would want to be able to do as a member of that tribunal, that you would want to have the necessary required elbow room to function in order to serve, to see that justice is done and that if compensation is rewarded, it's done fairly. Some people fear that may not be able to be done and that's why we're in this kind of situation today.
Let me ask you this: If you were appointed and you found that the policies of the board conflicted with your professional judgement and your humane values as a person attempting to serve her community, what would you do?
Ms Ballam: If I felt that it was in direct violation with my ethics, my personal value system, I would resign.
Mr Patten: Okay. That's a pretty straightforward, honest answer.
Ms Ballam: I've done it in the past.
Mr Patten: Good for you. Another path that has been there before is simply the function of the tribunal being able to decide and recommend to the board that a particular policy, or after a while a set of decisions that the board has made, really conflicts with either the act or the law or what's perceived to be fairness in rendered decisions. This is the area in which I think we may have some recommendations.
I personally do not have as big a worry as others related to your shortage of experience there because your history shows your enthusiasm and I think you can learn on the job. I think you'd have to do some studying beforehand and some reading, as much as you can, but I think you can make up for that with enthusiasm and hard work. That seems to be present.
Have you read about any of the changes to date that are going on right now, as we speak, at WCB?
Ms Ballam: I've read more in terms of the internal changes they are trying to implement at WCAT because when that was specifically -- I'm aware of some of the changes at the WCB, but I concentrated more on some of the internal situations at WCAT to try to reduce the burgeoning backlog. That's certainly a problem, that it's increasing faster than they're clearing it, and that's not good for anybody, and some of the steps the current chairperson has implemented to try to deal with that as soon as they can. So I'm aware of those issues.
WCB: I'm aware of some of the changes I've read about and I read some papers. I understand some things are very much in a state of flux. There's a lot of rumour and innuendo that some things may be done. It's not cast in stone and so there's a great turmoil because people aren't sure what's going on or how they're going to be assessed or who's going to be making decisions.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Let me just follow up on something that Mr Patten was talking about and I think Mr Kormos was as well. This happens frequently, actually, when we have appointees to boards or commissions in the sense of saying, "I really don't feel I can comment on this because it's inappropriate and I'll be going to a position that's quasi-judicial or that's going to have a judgement, so I can't comment on my opinion in terms of legislation."
The question I have, and I've asked it before of others too, is, would you feel it's part of your responsibilities not only to administer what you need to administer and to respond as sensitively as you can, but to also look at the process when you're in that position and potentially to make recommendations, in other words, to look and see how the process works and say, "This may be flawed"? Do you view it as being one of the responsibilities of vice-chair, even internally -- I don't mean strictly in terms of being an advocate but to look at it in those terms, or to simply follow the orders?
It's a significant point and an important point, and it's a role that I believe someone -- I think you've shown great sensitivity and great awareness for that, but I believe that's a role that could be very useful to all sides.
Ms Ballam: That's always a tricky issue. I get myself in lots of situations because of this, but my practice is that the statute is there, and I'm to take my knowledge and my skill and my ability and apply the statute to the fact as I see it. I'm going to make a judgement and ruling, and it isn't going to be myself so much who's going to have a problem with that, it will be whoever is not happy with what judgement or ruling I'm making. It will probably be that person or persons coming to me saying why did I make that ruling or that judgement, and then it will be up to me to justify and have the confidence and strength to say I made this judgement for these reasons and I'm standing with my judgement.
Mr Gravelle: You don't think it's at all your role, potentially or otherwise, to look at it and say, "These are some things that I think could be changed in terms of what the statutes are"? Because you obviously are going to be in a position of great sensitivity. I think it could certainly come to a situation where you can see how the statutes work, in essence, against what could be a legitimate case. Those kind of situations happen. I think as a lawyer you would see that all the time in terms of the legal system.
I happen to believe that people who are being appointed to positions such as yours, not just in terms of WCAT, may have a greater role to play than they tend to be able to say or are willing to say at this process here. I don't think it's irresponsible, and I don't think it's one that the government would find inappropriate either.
Ms Ballam: I was just going to say, if there was an occasion that arose, and I'm sure it will take a while for me to even get to that point, where I thought I could make some positive comment or positive suggestions, certainly I would be willing to do that. I have never hesitated.
The Chair: That completes the time for our chat with Ms Ballam. Thank you very much for appearing before the committee. We can now proceed to deal with the concurrences on the intended appointments.
1130
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I'd like to move concurrence in the appointment of Mearl Obee.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Any comment on Mr Johnson's motion?
Mr Baird: I would briefly point out on that one and acknowledge that I was pleased the member for Fort William, Mrs McLeod, separated the person's qualifications, as someone who's made a contribution to public education, from the concerns of the commission, which I found to be a fair observation, because obviously the gentleman has made a significant contribution in a whole host of posts in the public education system in the province, and in my judgement that makes him a qualified individual.
Mr Silipo: I just want to indicate I will be supporting Mr Obee's appointment. I had some concerns about his hesitation to deal with some of the questions we put to him, but I do understand his approach, particularly as a senior administrator in the system. I wish him well. I think his experience will be useful on the commission. Certainly this is a commission, as we've stated in the past, that we don't believe should exist because of the work it's about to do, but I believe Mr Obee will at least be able to bring some assistance to the group and some help as they try to sort out the incredible issues the government has put before them.
Mr Patten: I would like to say that there's no question about the qualifications of the candidate. My hesitation is with the structure, not with the qualifications of the individual. I'll be reluctantly supporting it, because I do not agree with the function, which I believe is a responsibility of the government and ministry in this particular case, and I think this will make it very awkward and very difficult for people with qualifications such as yours to play a role in a situation that will be mitigating things that I'm sure you've cared about all your life. I will reluctantly support it on that basis, not because I don't support the qualifications and honour and respect what the person brings to the table, which I do.
Mr Gravelle: Let me add a comment or two as well. Rather than speaking on Ms Wright's appointment too, which we will also support, I think Mrs McLeod expressed the concerns we have, that we believe the commission is in essence using these people who have spent their lives caring very much about education, very much about students, and clearly have made a determination themselves that there is a useful role they can play. We suspect that it won't work out and that they'll be disappointed. But we do wish them a great deal of luck. We don't think the commission should be there. We fear that there's just not a significant role they will be able to play, but on behalf of Mrs McLeod as well, and she said it, I have a great deal of respect for Mr Obee, and speaking in advance of the next appointment, for Ms Wright obviously. We hope there is some role they can play but fear that will not be the case.
The Chair: Is the committee ready to vote?
Mr Stewart: Could I request a recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Baird, Doyle, Elliott, Gravelle, Guzzo, Bert Johnson, Kormos, Patten, Silipo, Stewart.
The Chair: It's a unanimous vote in favour. Thank you for that.
Mr Bert Johnson: I'd like to move concurrence in the appointment of Arlene Wright, the intended member of the EIC.
Mr Silipo: I certainly will be supporting this appointment. I was pleased that Ms Wright was a little bit more outspoken in terms of her concerns. I think she brings some useful perspective to this body in understanding, as a former school trustee, the issues that have to be dealt with. I wish her well in what is going to be an incredibly difficult job.
The Chair: Thank you. Any other comments? Are you ready for the question on Mr Johnson's motion?
Mr Stewart: Could I also request a recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Baird, Doyle, Elliott, Gravelle, Guzzo, Bert Johnson, Kormos, Patten, Silipo, Stewart.
The Chair: It's unanimous. Thank you for that. Is there another motion?
Mr Baird: I would move concurrence in the appointment of Dianne Ballam to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal.
Mr Baird: I got Ms Ballam's résumé and initially when I heard she was not a lifelong lawyer who dealt with WCAT and workers' compensation appeals and compensation issues entirely, it was a concern to me. However, I'm extremely impressed by her extensive background in social services and the tremendous amount of advocacy work that she has done, not only working in the public social services field, but also working for the John Howard Society.
I think the perspective that she could bring from rural Ontario, from small-town Ontario, as someone who lives on a farm would be a good and different perspective. I know as a member from outside of Toronto there's always the concern among certain sections of the province that too many people from Toronto serve on these central agencies, and I'm always pleased to see representatives from outside the city of Toronto working with those in Toronto. It's a good representation of the population as a whole, and I think Ms Ballam is an impressive individual who would make a tremendous contribution to the process.
Mr Kormos: I've got to tell you, Chair, we've had some great concerns about the manner in which this government has been effectively staffing WCAT for some period of time now. You'll recall that the leader of the New Democratic Party raised in the House during question period the crass politicization of the process. That's not to say that patronage is unique to this government. This government does it better than some other governments have done it, and more thoroughly, but we understand patronage.
However, there has been a pattern of appointments to the WCAT of people who have been clearly Tory supporters, financial supporters of the Tory party, but who have no significant background in either workers' issues or specifically with WCB and WCAT. Ms Ballam was quite candid in acknowledging that, and I agree with Mr Baird when he speaks about an impressive background and an impressive résumé. However, the government's own criterion for appointment to WCAT is familiarity with the workers' compensation system. Surely that means more than simply a passing familiarity with the fact that there is a Workers' Compensation Act and that people can refer it here or there.
All of us certainly in the New Democratic Party, and others may want to join in, are extremely concerned about the future of injured workers under the regime proposed by Bill 99. I was concerned about Ms Ballam's interpretation of Bill 99 to the extent that it did not create a new structure, wherein the WCAT did not have the independence from the WCB that it had developed and demonstrated over the course of the last 15 years or so.
1140
Our view clearly is that the act is designed to rein in the WCAT, to destroy its independence, to destroy its capacity to interpret the legislation and rather to bind it by interpretative guidelines. That I say is a very dangerous course. Again, I'm sensitive to how Ms Ballam responded to her questions about her views. She was disinclined to state them.
I join with our Liberal colleagues when they point out that it's one thing to express personal views after one has an appointment and it's another thing to express personal views before one has an appointment. This committee process doesn't have a whole lot of history in this province -- I'm talking about the exercise of reviewing appointments -- but there is no doubt that it's, to some extent, based on models in other places, and if we take a look at those models, we realize that this committee is very modest in the types of personal views it elicits or seeks from appointees.
Quite frankly, I think everybody has expressed disappointment that the committee doesn't have an opportunity to spend more time with not all appointees but significant numbers of them, because I think it's important to understand that people enter even judicial and quasi-judicial positions with personal views, with an agenda, with previous history. Quite frankly, working people in this province have been victims for a long time as a result of judiciary, among others, including others in quasi-judicial positions, who argue independence in the mere role of statutory interpretation.
Horsefeathers. You know better, Chair. Any trade unionist, any working person, any injured worker who has followed the progress of litigation both in courts and before the WCAT over a number of years, and indeed decades, understands that there has been, fortunately, a growth and a development of a sensitivity to workers' rights, up until the election of this government, for the better.
I want to make it very clear, as we did in our conversation with Ms Ballam, that in every respect she shows outstanding qualities. Let's understand she's applying and she's entitled to apply for a position as a full-time vice-chair; I understand that. She's entitled to do that. However, when the government's own criteria refer to the need for a familiarity with the workers' compensation system, I suggest to you that's a familiarity that transcends merely knowing that the act exists but also means some direct contact with it. This candidate doesn't have that, and there are thousands of people across this province who have had that type of experience.
Being a lawyer surely, and I think perhaps with WCAT more so than any other tribunal I can think of, isn't necessarily a selling point. My experience, and I'm confident the experience of most people, is that it has been non-lawyers, by and large, who have demonstrated the greatest ability to advocate for injured workers. That's not to suggest that lawyers from time to time haven't risen to the occasion, but some of our greatest advocates for injured workers and some of the most effective members of WCAT have been people without traditional legal training and experience. That in itself is not a prerequisite, as it would be for, I suspect, any number of other callings.
Let me put it this way: Government has the power to make partisan appointments, and it clearly chooses to exercise that power. We in the New Democratic Party have acquiesced in a number of partisan appointments, protested a large number of them but acquiesced in a number of them, recognizing that the other qualifications are met. In that case you're dealing with both partisanship and patronage, with an element of meritocracy.
On June 4 Howie Hampton questioned the Minister of Labour. He said, "My question concerns democracy and respect for democratic processes and respect for independent quasi-tribunals and the fact that you are now packing the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal with people who know nothing about workers' compensation but who are generous contributors to the Conservative Party."
The question obviously was in relationship to the firing of Ron Ellis, chair of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal. Mr Ellis had complied, and expected the government to comply, with the practice of referrals for appointment to the board from the chair. Mr Ellis, just like chairs of district health councils across the province and a few other persons in that position, became increasingly frustrated at the fact that the government persistently ignored not just the protocol but the stated procedure and circumvented the process and appointed people of its own choosing.
As the government can engage in partisan decision-making and they clearly have a majority here today, I suspect without any hesitation Ms Ballam will receive approval for her appointment. I'm going to tell you, Chair, that we will not, in view of the great danger and the great risk that injured workers are being put to in this province by this government.
We expect to be able to know which side appointments to WCAT are on, and I don't think that's inappropriate at all. I'm not going to support any appointment to WCAT who won't come out clearly indicating that they're prepared to be, in their role as members of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, there as persons who are prepared to safeguard injured workers' rights in a regime that clearly seeks to diminish the rights of injured workers; that they are not going to be there to herald and support injured workers and working people in general, when those people are under attack by Bill 99 and the incredible fallout that Bill 99 is going to take with it.
Is that being partisan? You bet your boots it's being partisan. But when we've got a choice to make -- this government wants to be on the side of the bosses, wants to relieve them of the responsibility for considerable amounts of money and do it on the backs of injured workers. This government has picked a side. We've picked a side too. We're standing with the injured workers. That means not just in the Legislature, not just in front of Queen's Park and not just in committees, communities, workplaces and union halls across this province, but in this committee when it comes time to appoint people to WCAT as well.
Mr Patten: I appreciate the comments of my colleague from the New Democratic Party. However, there is a degree of fluidity at the moment in terms of the future of WCAT by virtue of the legislation which will guide the role it has to play.
My impression is that Ms Ballam is a gutsy lady. I think if there were things that turned out to be redundant or a sham, as she said, she would resign. Her background shows she had shown some concern for injured workers and referred injured workers either to the union or to other areas at no cost. There are not too many lawyers who do that, who have appointments and make referrals and don't charge people. She said she had not done that.
I will follow my intuition. I feel that this person has an enthusiasm that may turn out to be justifiable in the end. I hope it is and I hope my intuition is correct. Her background, which shows a tremendous amount of hard work and effort, would lead me to side with supporting her, and I'm prepared to do so.
Mr Silipo: Like Mr Kormos, I have some serious concerns about the question of familiarity with the workers' compensation system that Ms Ballam has or doesn't have, in this case. I think we're stressing that point particularly because it's such a clear criterion that the government sets out; in fact it's the first criterion.
Ms Ballam's other attributes are clear in terms of her professional experience and her personal skills, which are the other pieces of the criteria. But these are criteria the government has set. To have someone go into the position of vice-chair of a tribunal as important as this, particularly at this point in time, who doesn't have, by her own admission, any direct familiarity with the workers' compensation system would be wrong.
It's clear that if this were to be coming to a vote, those of us who have taken this position would likely be outvoted. What I would like to do, in the hope that it gives people some time to reflect, is to request, as I believe I'm allowed to under the standing orders, that the vote on this appointment be deferred for one week and that time be used for people to reflect upon this issue, because I think it's a very significant departure from the kind of situation we've faced in the past.
We have, as Mr Kormos has said, objected to some appointments. We've supported many appointments in the past, regardless of what political affiliation individuals have had, when we felt that they came well qualified. In this case, we have some serious concerns about one of the key criteria the government itself sets out, which is familiarity with the system the person is going to be adjudicating over. We think it's something that shouldn't proceed. Rather than trying to proceed with a vote today, I'd like to request that the vote be deferred and hope that in the intervening time people reflect on that and do the right thing.
The Chair: As members know, I'm sure, that is a request that is completely in order. The committee must comply with that request for a seven-day deferral. It doesn't require a vote or any such thing. That request has been made by Mr Silipo, and therefore the committee will comply with that request and vote on the concurrence of Ms Ballam next Wednesday. That's the way it works. Next Wednesday we'll deal with the concurrence vote, the deferral that has been requested. Thank you for that.
There are two items of business, very briefly. First, I believe the clerk sent a notice saying that the subcommittee should meet very briefly after this meeting. Second, next week we need to start at 9:30 because there are four people coming before the committee. That's the scheduling. Thank you very much for that.
The committee adjourned at 1153.