CONTENTS
Monday 4 February 1991
Appointments review
John Martin
Maureen Radigan
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
Vice-Chair: McLeam Allan K. (Simcoe East PC)
Bradley, James J. (St. Catharines L)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East NDP)
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East L)
Haslam, Karen (Perth NDP)
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent NDP)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)
Silipo, Tony (Dovercourt NDP)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West NDP)
Substitutions:
Drainville, Dennis (Victoria-Haliburton NDP) for Mr Frankford
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South PC) for Mr Stockwell
Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West L) for Mr Bradley
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview NDP) for Mr Wiseman
Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC) for Mr Runciman
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands NDP) for Mr Silipo
Clerk pro tem: Freedman, Lisa
Staff: Pond, David, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1405 in committee room 1.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Resuming consideration of intended appointments.
The Vice-Chair: First on the agenda today is the 15 minutes we want to spend to determine whether the committee concurs in the intended appointment which was reviewed on 31 January, so if there is any discussion with regard to that appointment, we will have it at this time.
Is there no discussion? If not, then I would ask: Does the committee concur with the appointment of Madeline Hardy? Opposed, if any? No? Okay.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McGuinty: I have a few comments.
The Vice-Chair: I will entertain them at this time, then.
Mr McGuinty: I wanted to indicate that we will be supporting Dr Hardy's appointment. She has presented herself as articulate. She was candid. She spoke in terms of something we rarely hear today: she spoke of a vision she had with the commission and she certainly evidenced idealism. Again, I wanted regretfully to express the reservations that I have had in the past, that our opinion is limited in that Dr Hardy was only one of a select five out of an original 36 candidates. So again, we have the reservation we make that we have no perspective. We were unable to compare Dr Hardy with others. But notwithstanding that, as I say, we are supporting her appointment.
The Vice-Chair: We will concur with the wishes of the committee. The person with whom we will be dealing at 2:15 is not here so we will recess for five minutes and we will be back when the person comes.
Mr McGuinty: I thought it was this afternoon we were going to discuss some procedural matters. What has happened?
The Vice-Chair: The information I have is that that is going to be discussed tomorrow afternoon.
Mr McGuinty: Tomorrow afternoon. All right, thank you.
The Vice-Chair: We will recess until 2:30. Just do not go away. We may be able to start. The sooner we start, the sooner we will finish.
The committee recessed at 1408.
1412
JOHN MARTIN
The Vice-Chair: I call the committee back to order dealing with the intended appointee as a member of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, John Martin. Would you like to take a seat right in front of you there.
Mr Martin, do you have any opening statement you wish to make?
Mr Martin: No, Mr Chairman.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Then we will proceed with any inquiries with regard to Mr Martin's intended appointment.
Mr Mahoney: Mr Martin, I have had some discussion with my constituency staff about the appeal process and the fear, almost, or difficulty some people going to appeal have and certainly going on their own. I notice you have made numerous representations on behalf of, I presume, members of your local or of that area to WCAT on appeal. Do you feel there is anything that could be done directly at the appeal level either to relieve the pressure or make it less intimidating for people to come before a group without representation, for example?
Mr Martin: In my experience in dealing with WCAT, I am quite satisfied that at this point there is nothing in the WCAT structure that would intimidate a worker in that the workers' reps and the employers' reps, along with the chair, do an adequate job on assisting workers if they come unrepresented or in fact have poor representation.
The only thing I could suggest is that for years we have argued that there should be a less legalese approach to the WCAT and that we should have more worker representation from an advocacy level. The people who do the actual advocacy role, vis-à-vis representing workers, should actually be doing the hearings. In that way you get from the legalese and you get back to the intent of the legislation as it came into being in 1985.
Mr Mahoney: Would you agree that there seems to be a move by the workers' advocacy office now to involve more people such as yourself, local presidents or staff from MPPs' offices to represent people at hearings because of the backlog or because they are having difficulty getting approval for more staff in doing their job?
Mr Martin: Personally, I could not comment on that. I would not have access to who is being appointed and who is not, but certainly, first of all, to get proper advocacy levels at the worker representation you have to go to the source and the source is finding somebody in the advocacy field who knows workers' compensation in the province. I have not done research or a review on WCAT to say to you that it is headed that way, but certainly it is a good approach in any event.
Mr Mahoney: Would it be more appropriate, if you are going to be sitting on the tribunal with people coming before you -- I guess what I am trying to get at is that we make it more user-friendly in some way, and that may indeed fall to the responsibility of the individual members such as yourself, if your appointment is ratified, to make it user-friendly so that it is not necessary to have all these representatives.
You refer to it as legalese. One of the things that concerns me is that many times the representatives have no legalese whatsoever and yet they are there in a capacity that would seem to indicate some expertise in the area of legalese. I am just not comfortable that the representatives who are representing workers -- I am not referring to you; I am just saying in general -- that it is appropriate sometimes and wonder why we could not make the system more user-friendly and simpler, which might again cut down on what I understand is about a two-year backlog in cases. What would you do to make it user-friendly?
Mr Martin: If I were lucky enough to be appointed to a position with the WCAT, I would certainly use the expertise and knowledge from on-hand experience in the workers' compensation system of Ontario to make sure that the WCAT would not be as legalese -- as it ought to be, in that workers would be comfortable in coming before the panel and that they would be seeing, rather than three lawyers sitting in front of them, people whom they were confident in representing them as workers who have been injured.
Mr Mahoney: Those are all the questions I have for now.
Mr Tilson: I am looking at your experience, sir, and you certainly have had experience in the union area. I guess looking at that background, and you have expressed your concern for the worker, the concern of the other side of the dispute, I guess there is that impression of being fair, unbiased. One looks at one's background and asks, can one be fair and unbiased realizing what one's background is? Do you have any thoughts about that as far as your own personal application is concerned?
Mr Martin: I can only tell you of my personal circumstance. The union I represent in terms -- God forbid me saying it, but I am a manager. Through our local union I administer --
Mr Tilson: You do not need to be embarrassed about that at all.
Mr Martin: No, I am not. Four million dollars a year of administrative moneys come through my hand. I administer, in terms of people, 350 health and safety reps, 300 union stewards, a 13-person executive board. We have actually gone before the board and were successful that we did not have to go to WCAT and did management appeals. In terms of the question you raised, Mr Tilson, I believe that the local union I was president of has matured me enough that if I went to a WCAT case and I was asked as a member of a panel to make a decision on the facts and the merit, certainly under section 80 of the legislation I would be prepared and could do that.
1420
Mr Tilson: All right. With respect to just some general questions on your philosophy as to the operation of the WCB, the gist of the overall operation of it and your experience in assisting workers specifically, most of us -- perhaps I should speak only for myself, but I can certainly speak for myself -- I notice the number of workers who contact my constituency office with problems with workers' compensation. It is described to me as a mess, a bureaucratic mess. Do you have any thoughts on that as to whether you agree or disagree with that?
Mr Martin: I believe that workers' compensation in Ontario, from a bureaucratic point of view, needs dramatic changes and I can give you an example. It may not be what you want, but I will give you an example. We look at an appeals structure system in the province and you go to initial adjudication, continuing adjudication, then you have the first level of appeal which is in writing, then you have a formal appeal and then you have WCAT. My experience is that it is an excessive use of resource. There are colleagues in the labour movement, in the injured workers' groups who would argue with me because you take a level of appeal away.
There is an example where bureaucracy should be reduced and the worker can expedite his ability to get to the top appeal level a lot more quickly when you do away with the bureaucracy within the board. In my view, if you did that you would clean up the initial and continuing adjudication in that the case load of people working so high within the board cannot, from an administrative point of view, take the time or make the proper decision. Therefore, they rely on a review branch to review the mistakes they have made. You do not need that. You could get rid of that. That is my view from the experience I have had.
Mr Tilson: I have one final question and again, I am just trying to determine your philosophy, and that is with respect to disputes. Questions are raised as to whether matters should go to the board or whether they should go through the courts. Should more cases go through the courts as opposed to the board?
Mr Martin: No cases should go to the courts.
Mr Tilson: None?
Mr Martin: None. Workers gave up their right in tort to go to a compensation system in the province 75 years ago, and in my point of view, if the system is working properly there should be no cases going to litigation outside of the --
Mr Tilson: But the system is not running properly.
Mr Martin: -- as it exists today. I still believe that no worker should have to go beyond the system as it is written.
The Vice-Chair: Are there any further questions? We like to share the time, if possible. If the government members want questions we would be pleased to entertain them.
Mr McGuinty: Mr Martin, tell me please something of your understanding as to how this tripartite system works. As I understand it, there is a workers' representative, an employer's representative and the chair, a vice-chair, sitting on these. What is your understanding of how that works?
Mr Martin: My understanding of how the system works is that it is a non-adversarial, tripartite structure where workers are represented by the workers' representative, the employer groups are represented by the employer's representative and the chair is a non-biased party who ultimately makes the decision if the workers' rep and the employer's rep disagree on the facts and merits of the case. My understanding is that my job, if I am successful in being appointed, will be to do the research and fact-finding within the case that is presented to me and make arguments to the chair on things that I believe to be nebulous or grey and if the parties cannot agree on facts.
Mr McGuinty: Tell me, how can you account for the large number, the high percentage of unanimous decisions which are rendered by WCAT? Does that not give the impression, for instance, to labour or to employers that their representatives are letting their side down?
Mr Martin: No.
Mr McGuinty: What is happening there?
Mr Martin: That is indicative of the system working. The more cases you have where you have unanimous agreement, the fewer cases where you have public dissent, is indicative that the three-person panel is working effectively with the legislation and the policy of the board to find a decision on the facts and therefore not have disagreements which would lead to a dissent on the decision.
Mr Hayes: I am looking at your résumé. It is quite impressive; you have been a very busy individual, I see. If you keep working that way, you will probably be able to get through some of the red tape in the board.
What do you think one of the biggest problems is, though? I know that sometimes claims are held up, maybe due to the employer, maybe due to the doctor's report and things like that. Is there something that can be done that way? I have even seen cases where the employer, the union and the doctor have supported a worker and yet the board has actually turned him down, over the years. Is there a way of dealing with those kinds of things, or would you even be involved in that?
Mr Martin: I definitely would. With 1005, by the way, we deal with thousands and thousands of cases a year on initial claims adjudication because of the size. I believe the problem lies within the board's structure at the early stages. The point I made earlier, regarding getting rid of the decision review branch, as an example, would clean up some of the problems and may free some resources up for the board to put more people into those areas who can make proper decisions based on the legislation and the policies before turning them into an appeal. I quite agree that there have been many circumstances where employers I have had to deal with and ourselves have gone to the board together representing the workers and they still deny it. By the time you get to WCAT, the resources -- by the way, I do not know if the committee is interested or knowledgeable, but to take a case from initial adjudication through denial, through the whole step, is a horrendous cost to the system. That is where I believe the problem lies and that is where it can be cleaned up.
Mr Hayes: You just said it, that sometimes a union that represents the worker, for example, gets faced with expenses that some of them do not have in their fund. Then of course you have the other avenue, the worker who does not have a representative. It is a big hill to climb for those people. I am sure you are aware of that.
Mr McGuinty: Can you tell me something of the search process that culminated in your appearing before us? How did you end up being considered for the position, do you know?
Mr Martin: I actually applied to the tribunal myself, initially. I do not know how I got here today. All I know is that my case went forward, however it does in government, and I was requested to come here today and sit before the government agencies committee.
Mr McGuinty: You submitted an application to the tribunal directly?
Mr Martin: In December.
Mr McGuinty: Was that an application form or just a letter?
Mr Martin: I submitted a letter. I do not know if it is in your dossier. It starts off, "Confidential to Ron Ellis."
Mr McGuinty: That is okay. Do you know anybody else you may have been up against in terms of a competitor for this position?
Mr Martin: I have no knowledge of whom I would be competing with here at all.
Mr McGuinty: So you submitted the application, and the next thing you heard was --
Mr Martin: I submitted the application and then I got a phone call from Mr Arnott, from the clerk's office, asking me to appear here today. I asked why and he submitted me the legislative policy on the standing committee on government agencies, and I appeared here today for review.
Mr McGuinty: You did not hear anything else about the job in the interim, between hearing from Mr Arnott and submitting the application?
Mr Martin: No, I heard nothing from either WCAT or from the government, except for Mr Arnott.
The Vice-Chair: If there are no further questions, I want to thank you very much for taking the time to come today and appear before the committee.
1430
MAUREEN RADIGAN
The Vice-Chair: The next witness is here with regard to the intended appointment as member of the Planning and Implementation Commission. Would the committee wish to proceed at this time instead of our intended time of 3:15? If that is agreeable, we would proceed and ask Mrs Radigan, if she is prepared, to come up to the chair the gentleman just left. If you have any opening statement, we would be pleased to hear it. If you have not, I am sure some of our members will have some questions they would like to ask you. Welcome to the committee.
Mrs Radigan: Thank you. I do not think I necessarily have any opening statements, but perhaps I could reserve a comment for following?
The Vice-Chair: Sure. We have an hour set aside. We may use part or all of it.
Mrs Radigan: I do not think I will take --
The Vice-Chair: That is fine. Maybe the committee will not, either. Are there any questions from any of the committee members to Mrs Radigan?
Mr Grandmaître: I might as well start off. You are currently a real estate agent?
Mrs Radigan: Apparently.
Mr Grandmaître: I see. There is not much happening.
Mrs Radigan: Not recently.
Mr Grandmaître: How long have you been in real estate?
Mrs Radigan: Since 1967.
Mr Grandmaître: Is that right? Very interesting. I am a broker myself but I had to let go of my licence. I am glad I did, though.
What do you think of the province-wide pooling system the ministry is thinking about right now? What do you think of it?
Mrs Radigan: Is it Mr Grandmaître?
Mr Grandmaître: Call me Ben. It is a hell of a lot easier to remember.
Mrs Radigan: You are going to have to tell me what you are talking about. The province-wide pooling system?
Mr Grandmaître: I was talking about the assessment, the pooling of residential, commercial, industrial, farm assessment and so on and so forth; that you would pool all of those assessments and distribute the dollars to the public system, the separate system and so on. It is a very complicated system.
Mrs Radigan: I am glad I brought a copy of what I submitted. Maybe I had better give a preamble. I was away on vacation, and on about two hours' sleep I got a phone call asking if I would allow my name to stand for PIC.
Mr Grandmaître: Who called you?
Mrs Radigan: Betty Moseley-Williams.
Mr Grandmaître: She must be a great gal. I do not know her.
Ms Haslam: He was hoping it was the Premier.
Mr Grandmaître: No, I am sure he would not spend his time --
Mrs Radigan: After a bit of dialogue and some information and background on what she was referring to -- being very honest -- I said: "Sure. Why not?" Then I got a call from a gentleman asking for a résumé within an hour, so I put something together and got it over here. Since then I have tried to find out what this is all about.
As far as your question about the pooling of assessment is concerned, I have to dig deep. I was a trustee for 16 years but that was a long time ago. It is almost ancient history now. I went off the board in 1981, and it is since then that Bill 30 has come about. I know we were always striving to get equalization of assessment, but all the legislation I do not know. I think it is a good idea.
Mr Grandmaître: Do you know anything about the Planning and Implementation Commission?
Mrs Radigan: Only that it deals with the distribution of resources in existence now that have been affected by Bill 30, in other words, sharing and transfer of facilities. From what I have been able to gather, that is what PIC is all about. It is a commission that helps to resolve those problems, hopefully, that still exist. I gather from the news recently that there are some problems still existing.
Mr Grandmaître: How did you submit your name to be a candidate for this position? Was it through an application, through a letter, through a phone call?
Mrs Radigan: You do not have anything before you?
Mr Grandmaître: No, we do not.
Ms Haslam: Yes, you do. You have a résumé.
Mrs Radigan: I was asked by Bernie Turcotte, the executive assistant for planning services at the Mowat Block. He was the gentleman who phoned me two weeks ago and asked me if I would please submit a résumé. Not really knowing what you wanted, you have a basic employment résumé with a covering letter to Mr Turcotte. If it would be any help, I can tell you something about myself.
Mr Grandmaître: I do not have this letter to Mr Turcotte. None of us has.
Ms Haslam: It is behind the John Martin one. If you have John Martin's application, then you have this one.
Mr Grandmaître: Why do I not have a letter from John Martin?
Ms Haslam: It is there. He just is not looking in the right --
The Vice-Chair: That letter is not going to have that big a bearing on what we are discussing.
Mr Grandmaître: No more questions.
Mr Mahoney: From your résumé, I notice you were a trustee on the Hamilton-Wentworth Roman Catholic Separate School Board for some time. You were a governor on the board of governors of the Hamilton Catholic high schools. You have been actively involved in the Catholic school system for a number of years. When you put that together with the requirements of the Planning and Implementation Commission, do you feel you bring a bias that might create some difficulties for you in making decisions, particularly when we get into some of the disputes? Right now we are running into one in Essex and there have been others in other areas. I am just wondering how you would handle perhaps an accusation by somebody on the public board that you have a bias because of your background with the Catholic school system.
Mrs Radigan: First, I do not think it presents a bias. My most recent employment required that I not have any biases whatsoever -- not having to do with the school system, of course -- and I think I managed quite well to be apolitical. I think my background probably would give me a better understanding of historically what is involved here. Not having been on the board in recent years pretty well removes me from any direct biases, because people who have been involved or are involved are new. Quite honestly, even as a member of the school board back in ancient history, I feel I was able to maintain an unbiased position in handling ratepayers and other board members.
1440
Mr Mahoney: What do you say to mom and dad who come before your committee, let's say, and say: "We've had all our kids educated in Walnut Grove Public School and now you're going to turn it into Our Lady of Fatima Separate School, except for part of it. We're upset about it. We don't want that to happen"? What do you say to those folks?
When you look at Bill 30, the commission's job is to advise the minister about the specific means by which the policy of full separate school funding can best be implemented. I do not know if the day will ever come when separate school funding will finally just be accepted as reality and we probably will not need this committee. It seems to me that day should come; there should be a sunset period when we say we have arrived. I am speaking as a supporter of Bill 30; do not misunderstand me.
Mr Jackson: It does have a sunset. It has five years to go.
Mr Mahoney: Thank you. We will probably find it gets extended. In any event, what do you say to those parents and how do you deal with that issue?
Mrs Radigan: I think I would like to know what the actual issue is. I want to know all the details.
Mr Mahoney: Sharing facilities.
Mrs Radigan: I realize that we are talking about sharing facilities. You are saying "sharing facilities"; it could be transfer of facilities, it could be whatever. I think that has to be dealt with with facts. I am not going to tell you what I am going to say to these parents unless I have seen what the circumstances of that particular community are. I want to know what the feeling of the separate board is. I want to see what the feeling of the public board is. I want to know who is going to be disturbed or disrupted, not only the students but also the staff. There are a lot of questions that would have to be asked before I would give you an answer to your question right off the top of my head, because I do not know how I would handle a particular situation without the facts. I am not in the habit of talking too much off the top of my head. I think well on my feet, but I usually like to have my facts before I do.
Mr Mahoney: I guess what I am trying to get at is some kind of -- there are so many issues that revolve around the separate school funding.
Mrs Radigan: Sometimes sharing is a good idea; sometimes it is not a good idea.
Mr Mahoney: So you would not necessarily be hard and fast on a rule that --
Mrs Radigan: No, I could not. I think each case has to be individually mediated by itself.
Mr Mahoney: I am going to ask you to go with me a little on the question Mr Grandmaître was getting at, because it very much is an issue that revolves here, too. The issue of sharing assessment within a region or within a school district, sharing it equally between coterminous boards is one issue, but there is also the issue of the gate equalization mentality where the wealthier communities assessment goes into a provincial pool and is then distributed throughout the province to the communities that do not have that wealth. Of course, there are some very strong feelings, you can appreciate, in some of the higher-growth areas against that kind of provincial pooling. But this committee, it seems to me, could find itself in a position recommending one way or the other or getting caught in some -- I am hearing noises as my colleague shakes his head.
Mr Jackson: It does make a noise when I shake it.
Mr Mahoney: Yes, that is what I was hearing. But I am not interviewing the honourable member, I am interviewing the applicant and would be more interested in hearing noises coming from her and not him.
Mrs Radigan: I do not really think, Mr Mahoney, that --
Ms Haslam: It rhymes with baloney.
Mr Mahoney: I will not say what Haslam rhymes with.
The Vice-Chair: Just excuse some of these people.
Mr Mahoney: Mr Chair, I am here trying to do a job and I am being interrupted all over the place.
Mr Jackson: You are in the wrong committee.
Mr Mahoney: This is general government, is it not?
Mrs Radigan: I do not think this government has much to do with actual financing of education and I do not really think PIC would be asked at this time, without some further legislation or direction, to deal with finances.
Mr Mahoney: It is fine to say that with --
Mrs Radigan: No, I am serious. Corporate assessment is a totally different issue, I would think, than what we are talking about on the PIC.
Mr Mahoney: It is my submission to you -- this is what I am attempting and, I think, what Ben was attempting to get at -- that if it happens that a situation occurs where people try to tie in that kind of provincial-pooling assessment -- because very much they go together: you can say, "It is not my job" all day long, but people are going to ask -- I think it would be important for you, as a member of that committee, to understand the issues.
Mrs Radigan: I think I would want to find out the minister's direction on that sort of thing.
Ms Haslam: The responsibilities of the commission, one of them, is to assist both public and Roman Catholic school boards to deal with issues relating to or arising from extension. I wondered if you would elaborate on something in your background that would help you do this, in assisting both public and Roman Catholic school boards to deal with issues relating to or arising from extension.
Mrs Radigan: My experience has been a lot with negotiations. Very early, I was with the public health department. so I was doing a fair bit of negotiation as a nurse with families as it would relate to various questions. That is ancient history. On the school board. I was the chairman of finance, for Mr Mahoney's benefit. I know a little bit about it. I was on salary negotiations for teachers and maintenance staff over the years. So I have experienced the come and the go. On behalf of our board, I have presented briefs to Mr Robarts and also to Mr Davis -- that is telling my age maybe -- regarding various aspects of the need for facilities, so I have had it from the other angle. I have been the parent, I have been the seeker of goodies from the government. I think that I can sit on this committee with probably a very good working knowledge from both sides and both perspectives. Does that answer your question?
Ms Haslam: Yes, it does.
Mrs Radigan: And I have been in negotiations in real estate; not recently.
Ms Haslam: That was the other thing I had noticed. You had negotiated with municipal officials, schools, traffic safety. I just wondered if that was what you felt would be best in this particular area.
The other thing -- and this is maybe an unfair question -- it says, "ensuring that all teachers and other employees are treated fairly as enrolment shifts from the public system." I wonder if you could comment on that particular item also.
Mrs Radigan: Yes. I can see that being one of the bigger problems down the road. The initial problems that this committee experienced, I am sure, were the immediate transfers of some of, particularly, the French-language schools. How successfully or unsuccessfully that has really happened, I will be very honest. I have been somewhat removed from school business and I have suddenly become just a casual newspaper reader, so I really do not know how well some of it has worked. I know locally some of that has not worked to everybody's satisfaction, but they seem to have resolved problems. I just saw yesterday on the news that they are having a problem in Essex, as Mr Grandmaître suggested. I would have to -- you know what? I have got sidetracked.
1450
Ms Haslam: Let's look at that then. You view it -- or maybe you do not view it. Do you think that would be an asset or a detriment, that you have been away?
Mrs Radigan: I am sorry. I lost my train of thought and I apologize.
Ms Haslam: Yes, you did; about the enrolment shifts and about teachers.
Mrs Radigan: The problem is going to be in the future with, particularly, staff in the public system. As their numbers decrease in some areas, in some communities, and the separate schools' numbers increase, I can see that one of the problems this committee is going to have to resolve is that those who are not lost by attrition because of early retirements or whatever are going to have to be given positions within the school system.
Ms Haslam: You said you have been away from it a while. Do you see that as an attribute or a detriment to taking your spot on this commission?
Mrs Radigan: I think of it as an attribute really, because I am not that close to it that I have strong feelings as to what should happen. I expect to be able to deal with this committee on a non-partisan -- strictly on the merit of the individual situation.
Ms Haslam: Great. Thank you. That is all I have at this time.
Mr Jackson: I should tell the committee that I know Maureen Radigan. I have known her for quite a few years. I say that up front because I am familiar with her work as a trustee while I was a trustee in a neighbouring board and in the real estate profession when I was the chief executive officer of the Metropolitan Hamilton Real Estate Board.
Putting that aside, I do want to pursue a couple of areas. First of all, Maureen, you would be familiar with the fact that Hamilton-Wentworth and Metro Toronto are two jurisdictions in the province which have signed off their property matters as they relate to Bill 30. They are the only two communities that have signed off the 10-year window. They have signed off because of a variety of reasons, but one might speculate that, with your real estate licence, you might be called upon to draw unfair conclusions about the impact of the loss of a school in a certain area to property values. But in your own jurisdiction which you are coming from this would not be a factor, because all the property matters have been decided within your own jurisdiction, should you wish to continue selling real estate. Would you concur with that?
Mrs Radigan: I had not even thought about it.
Mr Jackson: No. If we look at the references for this job, it implies that one should be at or near retirement. One would presume that has something to do with gaining financially.
Ms Haslam: Is that in here?
Mr Jackson: Yes. If you want I will bring it. "Selection from people associated with education who are retired from their lifetime career function. This might limit the possibilities of conflict of interest."
Mrs Radigan: In other words, that would be if I was a director of education, I would assume, or an active school --
Mr Jackson: I have a lot of background with PIC and I have a lot of background with Bill 30. It was helpful in doing all the public hearings, and I have also been involved in negotiations with respect to property transfers. Invariably, the largest single argument is, "You've devalued our property values because you're closing a school or transferring a school."
It strikes me that you bring certain credentials helpful to that debate so that you can clarify that, but that it might form a possible conflict of interest by virtue of marketing in that area. We have had, for example, real estate agents move into an area and state, "You may want to sell now before they close the school." Do you understand the nature of the concern? It has been raised.
I am just simply suggesting to you that since there are three things that are substantive which PIC is called upon to do and since you are specific to the geography of the Hamilton-Wentworth area, the issue of transfer of schools will not come up during the remaining five or six years left for the commission, because they have all been settled in Hamilton. That was my only point I wanted to share with you.
Mrs Radigan: I was not aware of that and I appreciate the information.
Mr Jackson: The other two issues have to do with sharing of resources and the transfer of personnel. Those are the three basic hot issues, issues of contention on which PIC represents itself as final arbitrator so that this not at the feet of the government to deal with all the time. So could you share with us -- this is part of the point that Ms Haslam was referencing -- those skills that you have that might assist you with respect to the transfer of personnel, which is a contentious issue? The act requires the transfer and/or the issue of sharing resources which -- in some jurisdictions in this province, there is wide variance between what services are being shared between coterminous boards, in the best interests of economies and so on. Sometimes it is mandated by the PIC because there just are not sufficient resources to achieve the individual ends.
Mrs Radigan: First of all, there is the matter of the economy, practicality. I have always felt that sharing is a good idea, particularly expensive programs and particularly in a smaller community, where it would be astronomical to try to duplicate programs. It does not make economic sense. If the numbers are small, it would be detrimental actually to the students, because certain programs could not be offered if they were not shared.
Mr Jackson: My final question would be, you are not currently contemplating, nor do you envisage, offering yourself as a trustee in the coming municipal election at this point in time?
Mrs Radigan: I do not, Mr Jackson.
Mr Jackson: That is a most appropriate question to ask.
Mrs Radigan: It probably is.
Mr Jackson: Yes. So I am pleased that you shared that with us. Thank you very much. It is good to see you again, Maureen.
Mr McGuinty: Have you been involved to any extent whatsoever in the field of education since your retirement from the board, in 1982, was it?
Mrs Radigan: In 1981-82. Have I been involved in education in any way?
Mr McGuinty: Yes.
Mrs Radigan: I have been learning other things.
Mr Jackson: Wish we could say the same for us.
Mr Mahoney: You have to listen first.
Mr Jackson: You are still in the wrong committee.
Mrs Radigan: I have not been involved in schools per se, other than educating my own children, and I have been taking some courses myself.
Mr McGuinty: You referred earlier to a Ms Moseley-Williams. What is your connection with this person? Why did she come to phone you?
Mrs Radigan: Why did she come to phone me? I wondered the same thing. but she lives in North Bay and she is president of the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association. She indicated to me that my name had been recommended to her from several sources as somebody who they thought would be an asset to the PIC, somebody who could look at the questions equitably and fairly and not be too ruffled by a lot of panicked people. She twisted my arm, basically, sir.
Mr McGuinty: Do you know of any others who may have been interested in the same position?
Mrs Radigan: None whatever. I did not inquire and I honestly do not know. In fact, it was not until yesterday that I found out how many are on the committee. Is it four or six?
Mr McGuinty: Six.
Mrs Radigan: So I still did not know. Sorry about that.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you.
1500
Mr Tilson: You are a taxpayer. you are a parent. The issue of the extension of public funding to Roman Catholic schools has been controversial, to make an understatement.
Mrs Radigan: I agree.
Mr Tilson: Yes, and in my looking around the province now, one of the concerns is of course the issue of taxes and the quality of education, both in the separate school and the public school boards, that there is insufficient funding coming to both boards. The Minister of Education has made statements that the money is not there because of the recession and yet admittedly there is certainly substantial duplication of both boards. You are nodding yes?
Mrs Radigan: Yes, I would assume so.
Mr Tilson: Going on this commission, you have been asked to do it. You have been sought out, as opposed to seeking it out yourself. What have you got to offer? How can you improve the system, acknowledging this problem? I know I have read your qualifications, but I am looking at your philosophy as to how the system can be improved. You are being asked as an adviser, so what is your philosophy?
Mrs Radigan: Can I give you an example?
Mr Tilson: Sure.
Mrs Radigan: First of all, I think extension is long overdue, if I may make a statement, so I am showing a bias from that point of view. But all three parties agreed that it should go in, so I assume that we are all in agreement that it was overdue.
Mr Tilson: I am not going into past history. I guess I am looking at what we have now. We have, admittedly, a duplication. We have a problem of insufficient funding going to our education system. My question to you is, as an adviser -- and that is what you are being asked to be -- what is your philosophy? How do you propose to advise the government?
Mrs Radigan: I am going to have to look at each individual case. I would like to give you an example. It is a personal example.
Mr Tilson: Let's look at the subject of duplication.
Mrs Radigan: I was on a school board for 10 years. I was defeated. I should not have been defeated, but I was.
Mr Tilson: It happens to the best of us.
Mrs Radigan: Right, and it was at that point in time that I did get involved in real estate. The school board at that point had received approval of funding to build a high school in the city of Hamilton in a location -- this was the separate school board and I was a separate school trustee -- that in my opinion would not serve the needs adequately of the students that it was wanting to serve. In my mind, there was a principle involved. I am a taxpayer, it was taxpayers' money that was being used. The school would be built, fine. There were two public schools that were close enough that there would be no reason to build a separate school where they got approval to build it. I got back on the board to reverse the decision that had been made. I fought in the next election and fortunately was successful in being elected, and I only stayed for two terms until I saw that completed.
The government had preached sharing for a long time. They had wanted us to share a school that we did not need because it was way out of where we needed a school. I fought the government so that we could obtain a school where we needed it and not share a white elephant that had been built by the public school board. Mr Jackson would know the one I am talking about.
Mr Jackson: I know the school.
Mrs Radigan: I fought against sharing in that particular instance because it was not serving the purpose it was intended to serve. But also, because I felt very principled about the issue, I got back on the board so that we could now ask the government to share with us.
The government had a teachers college at McMaster University --
The Vice-Chair: Mrs Radigan, would you stay closer to the mike, please?
Mrs Radigan: So basically I went back on the board next time around with a purpose in mind and when that purpose was achieved I retired and went back to pursuing a career in real estate. What I am saying to you, in kind of an odd way, I suppose, is that I feel very principled about things and I like to have a reason for the decisions I make and I like them to be conscientiously made.
Mr Tilson: I understand all that and I am simply looking at the statements being made around the province that duplication is going on, whether it be in transportation, staffing, buildings. My goodness, in the riding down the table here there are two school board administrative buildings facing each other. I do not know whether it is your riding or not, but it is darned close.
Mr Mahoney: No, it is my city.
Mr Tilson: I am not saying whether that is good or bad, but there are statements of duplication that are in existence now and I would like to know what your philosophy is on that subject, as to whether the duplication should continue and, if not, what your recommendations are.
Mrs Radigan: In the present real estate market, I would not suggest dumping schools to an open market, if that is what you are looking for.
Mr Tilson: I am not asking what you will not do; I am asking what you will do.
Mrs Radigan: I think the buildings should be utilized, but if you are telling me that we are heating two plants and you have fewer pupils in each school, something has to be done. I do not know. Do you rent out half of your school for another purpose? I am not aware of a particular community, and that is why I say I have difficulty without knowing the specific instance in answering that question.
Mr Mahoney: Just to go back to the search criteria, item 8 says that, "Since Bill 30 issues cover a wide range of problems nominees should be familiar with and have had some experience in education that not only relates to program but also to governance and finance as well." I think that is the area I and Mr Grandmaître were coming from on the issue of the pooling.
Let me ask you, with regard to the whole issue of capital facilities, it is some time since you have been on the board. Are you familiar with the lot levy issue, the legislation that was brought in recently and the impact that that has?
It may not relate directly in certain circumstances, but like the pooling issue, they are all issues that relate between coterminous boards and I would suggest that you might want to get up to speed on that. It may well come up at some situation that you have to face.
Mrs Radigan: You are talking about the builders' levies?
Mr Mahoney: Yes.
Mrs Radigan: I am aware of them. I assure you that if I was appointed to this committee, I would have to do some homework very quickly.
Mr Mahoney: I think there is a tendency on a committee such as this -- when you look at the search criteria you can see what they are looking for -- to deal with a very broad range of issues, certainly the sharing issues and all of the direct related issues. Francophone issues, all of those things that relate under Bill 30 will be a primary concern, but I think the other issues that have been mentioned here by my colleague and myself could also be of serious concern. They are looking for you to give advice to the minister when disputes arise in that area.
The Vice-Chair: Are there any further questions? There being no further questions from any of the committee members, I will ask one final question. It has not been asked this round and I am curious. The person who had indicated by phone to you with regard to the position, I would presume it was not because of your political affiliation that you would get the phone call.
Mrs Radigan: I would not imagine so. I think it would be because I have been a separate school trustee in the past.
The Vice-Chair: I asked that question because I wanted that on the record for your own benefit.
Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, more than anything, Mr Chairman: I do not understand the question and the way you worded the question by suggesting that a phone call was made to an individual asking her party affiliation before she were brought forward before us. I can understand your asking the person if she had belonged to a particular political party or contributed to a particular political party, but to suggest that somebody is making phone calls and asking people on the phone what party they belong to before they come before us -- I think that is a little inappropriate in the way the question was worded to the individual. I make that comment. I think it is fair game to ask the political affiliation and the contributions in the past and that kind of thing.
1510
The Vice-Chair: Do you have any questions for the witnesses before us?
Mr Perruzza: Sure, I will ask the question. Have you ever belonged to a political party or have you ever contributed to a political party?
Mrs Radigan: I will answer that, but first, may I ask a question?
Mr Perruzza: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: It is not usually in order to ask questions of the Chair. But you could ask a question for clarification.
Mr Jackson: Pose the question in your answer to Mr Perruzza. Just answer the question with a question.
Mr Grandmaître: Do like we do.
Mrs Radigan: I am out of practice. Yes, I was a contributing member of a political party, but my most recent appointment required that I be apolitical. Because of that, I am and have maintained my apolitical status and am not a card-carrying member of any party. I find the question rather interesting, because I thought it was policy of the present government that this is one question that cannot be asked of persons.
Mr Grandmaître: You are absolutely right.
Mr Perruzza: Which party, I think, for the record?
Ms Haslam: On a point of clarification, Mr Chair: This question has been asked by a number of people from other parties. It seems to be the pet question, as Mr Perruzza was indicating. It seems to be asked all the time. Whereas he agrees they have the right to ask that question, he does not agree with the way it was asked in this particular area.
The Vice-Chair: That is right.
Mr Perruzza: I asked the question and you said that you had been a member of a party and you had contributed to a party. Which party?
The Vice-Chair: She does not have to answer that.
Mrs Radigan: Actually, I am not ashamed of it. I was a Liberal.
Mr Perruzza: Thank you.
Mr Grandmaître: You should not be ashamed of it.
Ms Haslam: Do you feel that this particular question had any bearing on your capabilities to handle the position that you have applied for?
Mrs Radigan: This last question?
Ms Haslam: Yes.
Mrs Radigan: None whatever.
Ms Haslam: Thank you very much.
Mr Mahoney: The question is irrelevant.
Ms Haslam: It has been for a week and a half.
Mrs Radigan: But no one has answered my question.
Mr Jackson: What was it?
Mrs Radigan: It is my understanding that the present government's policy is that this question is irrelevant and immaterial as it relates to appointments.
Mr Jackson: I think it is appropriate to indicate a couple of things. First of all, the applicant put it very clearly in her résumé that she has worked actively in federal, provincial and municipal elections. There is no intent to hide that. Therefore the question, with the applicant indicating an active political involvement, was framed in such a way as to assist the person to clarify that there should be no shadows. I think it was extremely well handled. If one were to read the résumé even more carefully, one would be able to link the appointments to the political parties of the day. Without knowing Maureen, you could tell that her past involvement was with the Liberal Party. It does not take a rocket scientist to have figured that out.
Mr Mahoney: It is good we have not got any of those.
Mr Jackson: Apparently not with at least one member of the committee. But anyway, having said that, I think that in this case it is certainly not an issue from my knowledge of the individual. I think it bears repeating that John Martin had no reference in his application and it did not come up. But where an applicant specifically puts it in detail, I think it is fair game to be discussed in the manner in which it was discussed by the Chair. I hope there is at least agreement from the committee on the manner in which the Chairman handled it, because I thought he handled it extremely well.
Mr Hayes: To Mrs Radigan, I think you are right that as far as this party is concerned or this new government is concerned, we are only interested in putting people on boards who have experience and are very competent people. I think that we had a confession from one of the members from the past government, which you used to support a while back, more or less confessing that they did things badly over the years. I think they were of the opinion that this government was only going to appoint New Democratic supporters and I think that we are proving that that is not the case. We certainly welcome you being here today for this interview. I just thought I would clear that up. Some members raise that question and other members feel, "Well, if they raise it, maybe we should all raise it," and it has got to be a little bit of a game, so there you go.
The Vice-Chair: The Liberal Party has 30 seconds of its time left.
Mr McGuinty: I certainly want to agree with you, Mr Chair, in terms of the propriety of your question. Second, with respect to Mr Jackson's comments and Mr Hayes's comments, I differ in that I feel that asking witnesses who appears before us questions regarding their political background is perfectly appropriate and legitimate if we keep in mind the objective here, and this is in particular response to your question.
Premier Rae, when he made his statement in the House, Mrs Radigan, indicated -- and I am reading from his statement -- "The time has come to strip away the secrecy and mystique which have always surrounded government appointments. The process must be open to everybody. It must be understood by everybody." He did not indicate some of the secrecy and some of the mystique. I would suggest that if we were to purposely set out to defeat this objective, we would list questions which we could not ask. Therein lies the danger: not in asking the question, but in not being permitted to ask certain questions.
The Vice-Chair: If there are no further questions, I want to thank you very much for taking the time to come here today. I am sure it was another educational experience that you have had. Thank you very much.
Mrs Radigan: I think I asked to reserve some comments until after. It is rather nice to have the question period over before the time of my appointment. My appointment was at 3:15.
The Vice-Chair: We wanted to get you back on the GO train before the heavy traffic.
Mrs Radigan: I think it is rather interesting that we have gone through the process before the starting time, but I would like to thank all of you. It has been a very interesting experience and, as Mr McLean has put it, definitely an educational one.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. The committee will adjourn until 10 am tomorrow when we will review the applications of the two people that we have heard today.
The committee adjourned at 1518.