CONTENTS
Tuesday 5 February 1991
Appointments review process
John Martin
Maureen Radigan
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
Vice-Chair: McLean, 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 1014 in committee room 1.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Resuming consideration of intended appointments.
JOHN MARTIN
The Vice-Chair: I call the committee to order. If there is any discussion with regard to John Martin's intended appointment as a member of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, I would entertain that at this time.
Mr McGuinty: With respect to Mr Martin, we intend to support his appointment. He has obvious expertise and experience acquired in representing matters relating to employees. That reveals a bias, but that is exactly what the position calls for. To some extent, he is to act on behalf of and to represent employees. Furthermore, in dealing with some of the questions regarding the approach he would bring, he satisfied us that he would bring an impartial approach -- that is somewhat contradictory to what I said -- in the sense that he understands the importance of consensus and unanimity in the tribunal on which he will be sitting.
I guess my ongoing concern is with respect to the process. He advised us that he submitted an application to WCAT and the next thing he heard was from the clerk of this committee. He does not really understand how he got from that point A to this point B, and neither do we, for that matter. He was not aware of who his competitors were.
Again, subject to those reservations and us not knowing who the heck he was up against, we are supporting his appointment.
Ms Haslam: Mr McGuinty keeps bringing up process, and I keep bringing up the fact that the mandate of this committee is to look at these people. We are not a hiring committee. We are to look at the suggested appointees. We are to say, "Yes, they can handle the job. Yes, they have the qualifications. Yes, they have the experience," and do we concur that they can do the job?
Mr Mahoney: I am just a little curious about those comments. Are we to assume that if this committee indeed did object to someone being appointed, that would be ignored by the government? I presume that if the committee process is to be respected, as it has been in the past, that comments about support and/or reservation about a particular appointment would be very appropriate, whether it is in the process or whether it is with regard to the individual. I would hope that the government members are not suggesting by saying that we are not a hiring committee -- presumably, we are a committee to ratify a decision, and if we do have any reservations about that decision, the government would hopefully listen.
The Vice-Chair: If I could draw your attention, members, we are going to be dealing this afternoon with the appointments review process and the procedures.
Mr Mahoney: I noticed that.
Mr Waters: I will forgo my comments, then, until this afternoon when we discuss this formally.
Mr Perruzza: I thought this afternoon's discussion was simply going to revolve around the procedural conduct of this committee, ie, we were going to review whether we vote on particular appointments immediately after the interview or carry on to the next day as we have been doing. I did not think it involved, nor would I have supported at the time, a discussion around what the mandate of this committee is, because we had lengthy discussions on that before we began the interview process. Now to come to a grind in the middle of the process, as we are interviewing candidates and reviewing what we are all about -- I see that as a natural evolution within the committee itself. I do not see us having to defer this matter to the afternoon to discuss.
The Vice-Chair: If I could bring to your attention, please, that we are dealing strictly with the appointed member here. We will have a broad range of discussion this afternoon on the very issues you are talking about, but I would like to stick to the subject that is before us within our hour allotment. That is why we are here this morning, to deal with it. This afternoon you can start off bringing up what you have been talking about now.
Mr Perruzza: All I meant was to respond to some of the comments that have been made by Mr Mahoney and Mr McGuinty.
The Vice-Chair: I would like to ask if there are any further comments with regard to John Martin, who is our intended appointee.
Mr Grandmaître: Are we just voting on Mr Martin?
The Vice-Chair: That is right. We will vote on John Martin. All those in favour? Opposed, if any?
Agreed to.
MAUREEN RADIGAN
The Vice-Chair: We will now deal with Maureen Radigan, who is an intended appointed member to the Planning and Implementation Commission. Any discussion on this appointment?
Mr Jackson: In all the years I have been doing interviews with people, I would have to say Maureen had an awkward interview at best, but I really think the problem was in the process before she arrived at the table. I think she will make an excellent candidate, but I was concerned at the manner in which it was handled. If there is anything of interest for the committee to record to help it in its deliberations, it might be the manner in which the ministry sought her out, and even, I rather suggest, the amount of information it shared with her. Other than that, I have indicated that I have been familiar with the person, but I certainly strongly support her application.
The Vice-Chair: Yes. Those are the very issues we will be dealing with this afternoon.
Any further discussion? If there is no further discussion, all in favour of Maureen Radigan's confirmation?
Mr Perruzza: Could we have a recorded vote on that?
The Vice-Chair: All those in favour, then? The clerk will call the names. The committee divided on Ms Radigan's confirmation, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes -- 11
Coppen, Grandmaître, Haslam, Hayes, Jackson, Jordan, Mahoney, McGuinty, Perruzza, Waters, Wilson, G.
Nays -- 0
The Vice-Chair: The committee will now adjourn until 2 pm this afternoon.
Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, why do we not have the discussion now?
The Vice-Chair: The Chairman will be here this afternoon. The Chairman is ill this morning, as he also was yesterday. The Chairman will be here this afternoon. That will prolong the meeting a little, which will probably make you happier.
The committee recessed at 1022.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1408 in committee room 1.
The Vice-Chair: I will call the standing committee on government agencies back to order. When we adjourned this morning, it was anticipated that the Chair of the committee, Mr Runciman, would be here this afternoon for a discussion with regard to the review process and procedures. He is still ill and he is not going to be here this afternoon.
I was looking at the agenda for tomorrow. John Bates, the president of People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere, is going to be here tomorrow morning. It is anticipated that his appointment will probably be about half an hour. He is the only one on the agenda in the morning and we do not have anybody on the agenda tomorrow afternoon, so I would suggest to the committee that we adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock and deal with this very important issue after John Bates is done. I would like the concurrence of the committee on that, if that is feasible. If not, is there any discussion you would like to have on that?
Mr Grandmaître: I think it is a wise move. Not that I do not rely on you as a good Chairman, but I think Bob has a whole lot of experience, not only with this committee but a whole lot of experience at Queen's Park. I think we would be wise to maybe accumulate more notes and make them perfect. I think it would be wise to wait until the real Chairman is here.
The Vice-Chair: Any other comments? It has been suggested that we wait until tomorrow.
Mr Waters: I have made some commitments for tomorrow and I think you have one too, at about 5 o'clock around Barrie, so I would be concerned that it did not run terribly late. I knew it was empty and I had made -- I think Al and I are headed for the same place tomorrow at 5.
The Vice-Chair: I had indicated in my opening remarks that Mr Bates, I anticipate, would probably only be half an hour, so we would be done at 10:30 with him and then we could go right into the other item at that time. I would presume that the rest of the morning would probably do it or an hour in the afternoon at the most.
Mr Perruzza: Can we not have this discussion now, and if there are some serious reservations about changing the process, where it is felt among the committee that the Chairman needs to be part of that, then we can resume the discussion tomorrow? Because we are here now. We can resume the discussion tomorrow, somebody can move that, and we can have that this afternoon.
You brought us back here this afternoon. I can accept what you are saying, but we can launch into a discussion now and if we run into some serious glitches and serious problems, we can always resume it tomorrow when the full-time Chairman is here.
The Vice-Chair: I am free, whatever the committee wants.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chairman, I agree with you. I accept that if we start deliberating today on the process and so on and so forth, and we start repeating ourselves tomorrow for the Chairman, I think we are wasting time. I think we should wait until tomorrow, and let's have an open discussion including the Chairman, because I think the Chairman can play a vital role, with his past experience. I think he can play a very important role in our discussion -- and no there will be repetition, no duplication.
The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion on that?
Ms Haslam: I have a time constraint problem tomorrow also, in the fact that I must be out, either that or have a replacement come in for me. In all honesty, I have been here for all of the meetings, I have not missed them, and so I would hate to have to put in a sub for me when you get down to talking process, because I am the one who has been dealing with the process all this time. I do not mind if we do that tomorrow. It is just that it is a time constraint.
The Vice-Chair: Will you be here in the morning?
Ms Haslam: I am here in the morning. If we could have it in the morning and work through lunch and be out by 2 or 2:30, that would suit me fine. As long as I could get some guarantee, then I have no problem dealing with that. But I have been here continually and I would hate to miss the process decision.
Mr Grandmaître: Would starting earlier help you? If we were to start at 9:30 instead of 10?
Ms Haslam: It is a bad day, period. If you start at 10, I have no problem starting at 10, but I have also no problem missing lunch or working through. If we go from 11 until 2 there are still all of the hours in there, we are not missing a big lunch, we are still out by 2 o'clock.
Mr Jackson: I would certainly like to have the understanding that if the medical reports are not favourable for our Chairman, we still proceed tomorrow. It is sort of like a "Gulf watch" here. I would really appreciate it if we could proceed with the understanding that if Mr Runciman does not bounce back, we can bounce along.
The Vice-Chair: That is fine, if it is the will of the committee.
Ms Haslam: Is he that ill?
Mr Jackson: I have no idea. I am picking this up from --
Ms Haslam: I can see that, because you are sounding as if it is a death watch here and I was concerned.
Mr Jackson: The Chair has been giving these rather -- they lack in enlightenment but they certainly do not lack in interest -- these medical reports of the mysterious illnesses of my colleague Mr Runciman.
Mr Mahoney: I just wanted to point out that tomorrow is the luncheon with the chemical producers around the province for all MPPs and senior civil servants. It is an annual thing. It is certainly in my schedule and I would have thought it was in most MPPs' schedules.
The Vice-Chair: I never got an invite.
Mr Mahoney: You probably do not have anything in your riding that would -- do you have a chemical company in your riding? You have a Scud missile.
Mr Waters: The one thing I would like to get clear, and I would like some clarification maybe from the Chair, is the discussion tomorrow. When we are talking about process, exactly what are we talking about? The process as spelled out within the mandate that was sent down, or are we going back into this other bit of rhetoric, where we keep hashing that we want to expand the purview of this committee? Because you are not going to expand it. It was spelled out quite clearly what we are to cover: ABCs.
The Vice-Chair: What I anticipated was going to come out of this review of process and procedure -- we have already been through how it is done, but I thought what we would probably be looking at is how it has worked as we have done it now -- that is what I thought -- and is there some way we can improve on what we have done?
Mr Waters: In other words, this is not going to be a long-drawn-out thing. Unfortunately, I was away last week and I missed the first part of these hearings --
Mr Grandmaître: You did not miss a thing.
Mr Waters: -- but coming in yesterday and today, I have seen some frustrations on both sides and I have been frustrated with some of the process. I think we could deal with that process quite effectively and it is not going to take a long time.
The Vice-Chair: Shall we do it tomorrow morning?
Mr Waters: I have no problem with tomorrow morning. I understand that if we do not do it before noon, we all have varying commitments throughout the afternoon starting at 12 o'clock, so if we can do it from 10 to 12, I have no problem with that.
The Vice-Chair: I think that could be arranged. Can I have a consensus that the majority would do it tomorrow morning? Agreed. The committee is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
The committee adjourned at 1417.