Legislative Assembly of Ontario

APPOINTMENTS REVIEW

NICK MCCOMBIE

ANDREW S. BRANDT

BILL ECKERT

CONTENTS

Tuesday 29 January 1991

Appointments review

Nick McCombie

Andrew S. Brandt

Bill Eckert

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:

Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP) for Mr Waters

Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South PC) for Mr Stockwell

McClelland, Carman (Brampton North L) for Mr Bradley

Murdoch, Bill (Grey PC) for Mr McLean

Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre NDP) for Mr Frankford

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview NDP) for Mr Wiseman

Clerk: Arnott, Douglas

Staff: McNaught, Andrew, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1308 in committee room 1.

APPOINTMENTS REVIEW

Consideration of intended appointments.

NICK MCCOMBIE

The Chair: Could we come to order? Mr McCombie, would you like to come forward, please? Mr McCombie is the intended appointee as vice-chair of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal. Welcome to the standing committee on government agencies.

Mr McCombie: Thank you.

The Chair: This is a new process for us as a committee and for the Ontario Legislature and we certainly want to make you feel at ease. You have the distinct honour of being the first recommended appointee to appear before the committee. Would you like to make a few brief comments before we open it to questions from members of the committee? Do you have anything to say?

Mr McCombie: I do not really have any opening comments other than perhaps to point out that with me is Ron Ellis, chairman of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, and he has come along with me to see the process.

The Chair: All right, fine. Members have received a résumé for Mr McCombie indicating his experiences and background. As we agreed last week, we will start the questioning. We will at least provide the first opportunity for questioning to the official opposition.

Mrs Marland: I wonder if I could just help, but not in the form of a question. Mr McCombie, as the Chairman has said, we are all flying here today with this initial session of something we have not done before. As I sit and look in the committee, we have two veterans in the Chairman and Mr Grandmaître, I have only been here six years and everybody else has been here three or four months, so it is difficult for us to start off, probably all feeling that it is not a format we are familiar with. I am being quite honest, speaking for myself. I think it would be nice to hear from you, and from all the intended appointees, not in answer to direct questions but in generalities, why you were interested in serving and how you went about volunteering your services and your contribution to the board, but I do not want to count that as one of my questions.

Ms Haslam: It counts.

The Chair: There was a void and Mrs Marland volunteered to fill it. I do not think we will be too restrictive at this stage in terms of timing. Leave it to me to be as fair as I possibly can be.

Mr Silipo: You will just take that time away from the Conservative Party.

Mrs Marland: I will withdraw.

The Chair: Would you like to respond to that?

Mr McCombie: I would be happy to respond to that. I will leave it to the committee to determine whose question it is. I certainly would have prepared an opening statement. I was not asked to, and I guess as all of you, did not know what to expect. It is my first time here too, obviously.

Very briefly, I think you have the material that was provided, primarily the letter from Mr Ellis to the minister recommending my appointment, and there is a brief résumé attached. I would be more than happy to go over that but, to summarize that, I have been involved in the area of workers' compensation since 1978, when I started working at a community legal clinic in Toronto called Injured Workers' Consultants. As it turned out, right around that time or shortly thereafter there were some major changes in the workers' compensation system which resulted from the appointment of Paul Weiler to do a study of the system and a number of initiatives that happened around that time, a white paper on workers' compensation, Professor Weiler's report and ultimately a bill to propose some major changes to the compensation system. One of those changes was the institution of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, which came into existence on 1 October 1985 under the chairmanship of Mr Ellis.

I was appointed to the appeals tribunal at that time, in 1985, as a member representative of workers and have been serving in that capacity ever since. I would like to think that in the time I have been there, I certainly have gained an appreciation of the adjudication side of the workers' compensation system and have been involved both internally in the administrative running of the tribunal through various committees and so forth. Also I like to think that I have been very actively involved in the adjudication process, including helping out with the drafting of decisions, writing dissents, doing research and so forth. I guess at this point I feel that I have had an awful lot of hearings now and feel confident that I could fulfil the role of the vice-chair at the appeals tribunal.

That is a very brief summary of the background. I do not know how much you want me to go into it, but maybe I can answer questions from there.

Mr Grandmaître: You have been appointed as vice-chair?

Mr McCombie: I have not received notification that I have been appointed. I have received an indication that cabinet has approved the appointment, but I have not received an order in council indicating that I am a vice-chair. I am not acting as a vice-chair at this point.

Mr Grandmaître: At this point?

Mr McCombie: No, I am sort of in limbo at this point.

Mr Grandmaître: Exactly. That was my question, because reading from my agenda, it says "the intended appointee as vice-chair." My sources tell me that you have been appointed by an OIC. Are you still a contender or have you been appointed? If you tell me that --

Interjection.

Mr Grandmaître: You have not told me that you have received a copy of the OIC.

Mr McCombie: I can tell you that when I was appointed as a member representative of workers, I received an actual copy of the order in council that was signed by the minister and the Lieutenant Governor. I have not received such a copy with respect to the position of vice-chair.

Mr Grandmaître: Since that time you have not heard from the Premier's office or from the ministry as to when your new responsibilities were to begin?

Mr McCombie: No, I have not.

Mr Grandmaître: You have not?

Mr McCombie: I have not, no. Certainly there are people in the chairman's office at our organization who have been trying to determine what the situation is. We were told that there was this committee process, and basically everything is on hold until this committee process has been exhausted, as far as my duties go. I am not scheduled to sit on any hearings, for example, as a vice-chair and I am not fulfilling any duties of a vice-chair.

Mr Grandmaître: I find it a little strange that we would ask this gentleman to appear before this committee, and yet he feels like I feel, very unsure about his future. I know that you will remain with the commission, but as to your new responsibilities as a permanent vice-chair, I find it a little strange that the people responsible for these appointments have not advised Mr McCombie of his new responsibilities and when he should start. The OIC was dated when?

Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I was resisting very much getting into this, but it seems that at every stage of the process we are getting into a debate about the process.

I am sure Mr Grandmaître understands the process quite well and that the process is such that the appointment of Mr McCombie at this point is an intended appointment on behalf of the government and the cabinet and it is subject to the review process that we are now undergoing and subject to whatever recommendations will come out of that.

I think the issue of notifying Mr McCombie about his appointment etc really is beyond the realm of the kinds of things we ought to get into. If he wants to sort of reserve that for a point of debate, I think we can do that later on.

The Chair: Mr Silipo, I respect your view. I do not see that as a point of order. I see it as Mr Grandmaître wishing to utilize his party's time to make comments like that and place them on the record; so be it.

Mr Grandmaître: With all due respect, I would like to advise my friends on the other side that I am not trying to create problems. I am trying to really understand the system. You just pointed out that this gentleman, who is not being tortured but who has to face this committee, is an intended appointee. You just said it yourself. I am asking, has he been appointed or is he still a contender for this job? That is my question. Can you answer that?

Mr Silipo: I can answer it if you want me to answer it to the best of my knowledge.

The Chair: The intent of this hearing is to give Mr McCombie and the committee an opportunity to discuss his appointment, then subsequent to that to make a decision on the appropriateness of that appointment and to make a recommendation to the Legislature. I guess I would urge all members to try to keep that in mind and not get into this kind of debate if at all possible. We are going to have an opportunity to do that at a later time.

Mr Grandmaître: Mr McCombie, in looking at your curriculum vitae and at your past responsibilities with the compensation board, I want to wish you well.

1320

Mr McGuinty: Mr McCombie, I see that you have served with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal since 1985 as a representative of workers. It is my understanding that the members represent workers or employers. Is that how it works, essentially?

Mr McCombie: It is a tripartite adjudication model with panels of three that hear cases: one member representative of workers, one member representative of employers and a neutral vice-chair.

Mr McGuinty: Prior to holding your position with the tribunal, I understand that you worked with the Injured Workers' Consultants legal clinic.

Mr McCombie: That is correct.

Mr McGuinty: For some seven years?

Mr McCombie: That is correct.

Mr McGuinty: The background you are bringing to this is that of a representative of workers' interests?

Mr McCombie: Yes.

Mr McGuinty: I am sure you know what I am getting at. The vice-chair, as I understand it, has an obligation, as you pointed out -- you did not point out, but it is here in my briefing material -- to mediate between the other two parties, I gather. How do you feel you will be able to deal with that, given your background?

Mr McCombie: I do not know if I would altogether agree that the role of a vice-chair is to mediate between the two, the employer member and the worker member. I think it is important for the committee to understand that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal was set up as an adjudicative body that would have experience from both the worker community and the employer community, but it was made very clear right from the beginning that the goal was to have a unanimous decision.

This was not to be a unanimous decision by pushing something through, but by the three members of the panel sitting together and deciding, after hearing all the evidence and weighing it all, weighing the submissions, what the right answer was. In most of the cases we hear, there is in fact a unanimous decision.

It is not a question of the vice-chair strong-arming one side or the other to go along; it is a question of the three panel members sitting down -- and I speak from the experience of sitting on some 700 hearings -- and deciding what is right in the particular case in front of that panel based on, and it is in our legislation, the real merits and justice of the case. I am happy to report that I think this process works quite well. It is not quite as adversarial as it might appear or as some other tripartite agencies are.

Mr McGuinty: Given your 12 years' experience, I guess it is, working as a representative of workers' interests, do you feel that will pose any difficulty in terms of your bringing an objective approach to the new position?

Mr McCombie: No, I do not think it holds a difficulty. I think that, representing workers' interests, it has not been my view all along to uphold workers' interests right or wrong. I have certainly gone along with any number of decisions that have gone against the worker. I think I am still upholding workers' interests in doing that because I think the intent of the legislation is to provide compensation to workers who meet various guidelines. I think it is important to do that, and I think it is important to do that whether you are vice-chair or a member representative of workers or a member representative of employers.

Mr McGuinty: I have some examples here of some parts of articles that you have written in the past. One is an article I guess you co-authored with Andrew King in 1981, "Workers' Comp: Legal Right or Social Welfare?" At one point you referred to the legislation as drafted by Meredith as "actually a piece of enlightened and farsighted self-interest on the part of the ruling class."

I guess the fair question would be, since joining the tribunal of 1985, have you participated or lobbied in any way to bring about changes to the legislation?

Mr McCombie: Since joining the tribunal, no, I have not.

Mr McGuinty: Do you have any intention of doing so?

Mr McCombie: Not lobbying, no. I think some decisions of the tribunal have pointed out inherent problems in the legislation, contradictions within the legislation; but other than that, no, I certainly have no intention of lobbying either directly or indirectly for changes in the legislation other than pointing out those contradictions in the decision-making process.

Mr McGuinty: One final question: What do you feel your obligations will be in your new role? What is your obligation on the job?

Mr McCombie: I think my obligation on the job in the role of vice-chair is to run as fair a hearing as possible, to ensure that all the evidence relating to the particular case is brought out and the submissions on that evidence, and to go away with my two panel colleagues and discuss it as fully as possible and arrive at as fair a decision as possible and then issue decisions which will hopefully explain in as clear as possible terms what that decision is and why we have arrived at it. I see that as my role.

Mr McGuinty: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. You still have approximately three or four minutes, by my rough timing of this, if you wish to follow up later on. I have deducted four minutes from Mrs Marland's question earlier at the request of the other side, but I am sure they will be flexible if need be. Mrs Marland, do you have further questions?

Mrs Marland: Yes, I have further questions. That is the last time I try to help out the committee. The deadly silence was so uncomfortable. I was just trying to be accommodating but I will just-

Mr Hayes: Time rolls on, Margaret.

Mrs Marland: That is right.

Mr McCombie, if I am in receipt of the same résumé as everyone else -- I have only a single page and it is only for the last 12 years -- it is a rather limited résumé. I am interested to know what you did prior to 1978 and your educational background. I am not going to ask your age, because that would be against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but using my eyesight, I think you were working before 1978, so I am interested to know what else you have done.

Mr McCombie: Prior to 1978 or prior to just starting at Injured Workers' Consultants I was a truck driver for a company called Medigas, which delivers medical gases, and prior to that I had worked at a number of basically labouring jobs.

Mrs Marland: So when you were a community legal worker, that was something you learned as you did it?

Mr McCombie: That is right.

Mrs Marland: So you do not have any education in law in the formal sense?

Mr McCombie: Not in a formal sense, no.

Mrs Marland: But in the experience sense, which is often --

Mr B. Murdoch: Probably better.

Mrs Marland: -- probably better. Exactly. With apologies to Mr McGuinty.

Mr McCombie: Although I might point out that I did teach at the bar admission course and I have co-authored a legal text on workers' compensation.

Mrs Marland: Okay. I recognize that your perspective with the WCB work and in your contract work has all been, as was pointed out by the previous questions, from the labour side, and I notice you have done a lot of contract work with unions. I think everybody in this room would agree that workers' compensation does not work in this province. It does not work for the workers and it does not work for the employers, and there are major, major problems involved with that whole area. What can you comment, based on your experience in working with the system, on where some corrections could be made or some solutions could be found to make the system of workers' compensation work better for both parties?

1330

Mr McCombie: I do not really know that I can answer that question. While it might be open to dispute what my status is, I am still at least an adjudicator at the appeals tribunal and as such, as I have just responded, l do not feel it is my responsibility or I do not feel I am able to suggest what changes should be made or reforms should be brought to workers' compensation, given that I am charged with adjudicating the law as this committee and your colleagues pass it. I am not trying to duck the question, but I think it is very important that I keep those two roles separate.

As I indicated earlier, where there are particular contradictions in the act, I think it is important for a hearing panel to indicate that in its decision, and hopefully that will come to the attention of the legislators and changes will be made. But as far as saying what specific changes should be made to workers' compensation, I do not really feel in position to comment on that.

Having said that, I can say that I think that the system itself is a good system. Mr McGuinty quoted an article I co-authored quite some time ago, and I think it is important to recognize that it is a very old system and it has worked extremely well, for all its faults, in providing compensation to a vast number of people. Obviously there are problems, and some of those problems appear in front of us in hearings and some of them appear in front of you in your constituency offices and in the Legislature, but --

Mrs Marland: I am surprised to hear you say that. I sat on two committees in the last session, one that dealt with Bill 208 and one that dealt with Bill 162, and I am surprised that anyone with your background would say that, for all its problems, it has really worked well. The Ontario Federation of Labour and OPSEU and all the different groups that came before us gave us so much concrete evidence, as did the employers and the management, about why that system is not working and does not work. I do not want to debate it with you because you have given me your answer, but I am surprised from the perspective whence you come that this is your opinion.

I respect the fact that you say you do not want to make any comments because of your new position but if it is not the people who are involved directly with the system the way you are who tell us why the system has the problems it has, I do not know how we are ever going to remedy it, particularly for injured workers in this province, because we are never going to be in a position where we know how to get at what the problems and the shortcomings are.

On another subject, I want to ask you about an article you wrote about Nicaragua's future. Obviously when we have appointments made by governments to government agencies, boards and commissions, which is what we are talking about here, I think political affiliations and associations are very important. Would you like to comment on this article you wrote called Election Reflections? Do you have some feeling towards Ortega's history in Nicaragua and the Sandinistas' actions?

Mr McCombie: I do have feelings about it and I wrote about them. I believe that article you are referring to was in Our Times in the last few months.

Mrs Marland: Yes, it was October 1990.

Mr McCombie: I am not trying to duck anything but I am not exactly clear on what that has to do with how I am going to fulfil a role as vice-chair at the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal.

Mrs Marland: I am asking the question because I would like to know a little bit more about your political affiliations and where you are coming from philosophically.

Mr McCombie: I was in Nicaragua in 1983, as certainly a lot of Canadians have been, a lot of Ontarians have been, members of the Legislature have been. I was impressed by the work that was being done there and I have kept in touch with developments there ever since. I have been a supporter of the Nicaraguan experience ever since.

Mrs Marland: Are you a supporter of a political party in Ontario?

Mr McCombie: Am I a supporter? I vote. I am not a member of a political party.

Mrs Marland: Do you support a political party in Ontario financially?

Mr McCombie: I have made contributions in the past.

Mrs Marland: I realize you are not vice-chairman of the tribunal today, but if you had that position and that tribunal was before this committee, because I have served as a member of this committee when in fact we did review the WCB -- I cannot remember what year it was; I have a feeling it was 1986 -- would you be willing to answer very direct questions, which they would be to a vice-chairman, in terms of what the problems are, or if you do not want to acknowledge that there are problems, where improvements can be made to that organization?

Mr McCombie: First of all, I think it is important to distinguish between the Workers' Compensation Board and the problems that are directed at it and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal. Some of the problems at the board, as I understand it, are administrative problems that frankly we have no knowledge of and can do nothing about.

We would encounter problems with the legislation and having problems interpreting it and having people saying, "It doesn't mean what you say it means." We can bring that to your attention either through decisions, through the chairman's annual report or in any number of other ways.

As for appearing before the committee, I seem to remember I was on the delegation that appeared before you a few years ago and questions were asked and answered and some of them were direct answers and some of them were answers that said, "We can't deal with that, because they are issues in front of us." I would assume that I would answer the same way were I to come again. I was on that delegation as a member of the executive committee.

The Chair: Mrs Marland, if I can interject, your time is almost up and your colleague also has indicated he would like to ask a question.

Mrs Marland: Certainly.

Mr B. Murdoch: Most of us know that the Workers' Compensation Board is in a real mess and that the tribunal process has not been working that well either. All I want from you is a commitment that you are going to work to straighten this out as best you can as the chair.

Mr McCombie: I do not know if Mr Ellis would appreciate my being made chair, but as a vice-chair I would certainly do what I could.

Mr B. Murdoch: In the chair, that is what I meant.

Mr McCombie: In the chair, yes. I would certainly do what I could too. I think the major problem that the tribunal has had, certainly historically, was its startup time, delays in getting decisions out. Certainly that is something I have been concerned about as a worker member and I would be equally concerned about as a vice-chair and hopefully in a bit of a better position to do something about it.

Mr B. Murdoch: I would hope so too, because it is one of the biggest problems I have had in my riding and we need somebody there to straighten it out. With your background we will see, but I hope you can certainly do something.

Mr McCombie: I will do my best.

Mr B. Murdoch: That is really all I wanted to say.

1340

Mr Silipo: Mr McCombie, I think Mr McGuinty asked earlier about some of the potential concerns with your moving from your present position as a member of the tribunal in a capacity representing workers to the neutral position of vice-chair. Could you talk a little bit more about some of the kinds of things that you think you will or might have to do, both within the tribunal -- that is, with your colleagues on the tribunal -- and possibly out beyond that, to ensure that in fact the neutrality aspect that seems to be associated with the position of vice-chair is something that people would see as something that would become part of your work and style.

Mr McCombie: I am not sure I totally understand the question.

Mr Silipo: I guess I want to hear a little bit more from you about whether you think there is anything you will need to do, as you move from your present position to the position of vice-chair, to deal with any of the perspectives that might exist, either within other members of the tribunal or, quite frankly, out in the general public among workers and among employers.

Mr McCombie: Yes. It all sounds a little clichéd, but I think what I have to do is to run fair hearings and to write decisions that whoever wins or loses, everyone understands the reasoning of the panel. I want to make it clear that while in most instances vice-chairs write the decision, it is a decision of three people, a panel. I think the role, primarily, of the vice-chair is to make sure that both parties, the worker and the employer, understand why the decision was made the way it was. So I think I certainly would have a responsibility, even more than the average vice-chair, to make sure that the decisions I am involved in are as clear as possible and evenhanded and fair, applying the law as we have it.

Mr Silipo: You talked earlier a little bit about some of your experiences even in your present capacity in terms of that. You used the example that while you have been on the panel, obviously as a worker representative, there have been instances where you have not necessarily agreed with the position that the worker was advocating. Again, perhaps you could elaborate a little bit more on that aspect in terms of drawing on any examples or experiences like that that you might be prepared to share with the committee, obviously without getting into the details, but generally along those lines that might instil among the members of this committee or the public in general the sense of neutrality that is expected of you as vice-chair.

Mr McCombie: I guess the best way of answering that is to say, I was asked earlier about my formal legal training. I certainly have had a lot of informal legal training and there are a lot of lawyers at the appeals tribunal. In some ways I think I have probably been subverted in the sense of the idea that we apply the legislation and, if we do not like the legislation, there is not a whole lot we can do about it in that position.

Therefore, if the legislation says, in my reading of it, the worker loses, even though I think the worker should win, I have to go with what the legislation is, because I have made that commitment to apply the law as it is passed by the Legislature. If I do not like that, I have to live with it. That is one of the things I gave up when I stopped being an advocate, lobbying to get those laws changed.

Ms Haslam: To tell you the truth, I was quite impressed because of something I read from this letter of recommendation. I understand this letter of recommendation comes from Mr Ellis, who is the chairperson of the tribunal. It says that this recommendation was made originally to your predecessor, meaning the previous government, and was pending at the time of the election. Had you applied before or had they approached you to take this position?

Mr McCombie: I had indicated to Mr Ellis quite some time ago that I would be interested in the position of a vice-chair. It was my understanding that Mr Ellis indicated that to the previous government and that process was interrupted by the election and the results of the election and then a number of other things, the formation of this committee and so forth. So it has been in the works for a while.

Ms Haslam: The only thing I would also like to say is that this was a five- or six-page recommendation by the chairperson of this tribunal. To my way of thinking, that is an admirable type of recommendation to receive from a chairperson of a committee. He certainly seems to feel that you can bring a neutrality to this position and that your experience certainly will be beneficial in this capacity, and I would just like to put that on record. Thank you.

Mr McGuinty: I understand, Mr Chair, I have three or four more minutes left. Mr McCombie, have you ever been a member of a political party?

Mr McCombie: No, I have not.

Mr McGuinty: Have you ever made a financial contribution to a political party?

Mr McCombie: Yes, I have.

Mr McGuinty: Which one?

Mr McCombie: I made a financial contribution to a goodbye party for Richard Johnston. I gather that this ended up going to the Scarborough West NDP.

Mr McGuinty: That is the only financial contribution you have ever made?

Mr McCombie: That is correct.

Mr McGuinty: Have you ever worked on or provided assistance of any kind for a political campaign?

Mr McCombie: I am not trying to duck any questions, but I wonder -- and I raise this for the committee's deliberations -- whether this is the kind of questioning that is appropriate for whether or not I am qualified to sit as a vice-chair.

Ms Haslam: It has been raised before.

Mr McCombie: Okay. I am happy to answer your questions. I am not trying to duck anything. I do not think I have anything to hide. Anyway, as far as working, I did one day's canvassing for one former member of the Legislature. That was an NDP member.

Mr McGuinty: That was this last election?

Mr McCombie: No, that was in 1985, I guess.

Mr McGuinty: Have you had any contact of any kind with the newly elected government since its election?

Mr McCombie: No.

Mr McGuinty: Any official of the newly elected government?

Mr McCombie: No. I should say -- no, that is not true. I did see Frances Lankin, who is a former member of the appeal tribunal, at a goodbye party for one of our colleagues. She was invited. This was a few days after the election. I did see her at that. It was not in her capacity as a member of the new government or a cabinet minister -- at that time she was not a cabinet minister -- but as a former colleague.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, is there any time left for the Liberals?

The Chair: No, there is no time left, really. In fact, we are behind schedule because we had a late start.

Mrs Marland: I was going to ask the Liberals to give me my question time back from when I opened the meeting.

The Chair: The time is up. Mr McCombie, we thank you for appearing before the committee. We will be deliberating in respect to your particular appointment later this week. You will be informed following that.

Mr McCombie: Thank you.

1350

ANDREW S. BRANDT

The Chair: The next witness to appear before us is Andrew S. Brandt, who is the intended appointee as chair of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

Welcome, Mr Brandt -- I should say, "Welcome back," I suppose -- to Queen's Park.

Mr Brandt: Mr Chairman, thank you very much. I am delighted to be back, members of the committee, and to see a number of familiar faces. It is nice to see all of you again. I welcome the opportunity to appear before your committee, sir.

The Chair: Thank you. I do not know if you would like to make a few brief remarks, or would you simply like to open it up to questions at this point?

Mr Brandt: Perhaps other than to say that it is a new process for the committee, I understand, as well as for myself, I am at the will of the committee with respect to whatever areas of interest it wants to pursue in terms of questioning. I look forward to the process, and perhaps we might even get into some comments on how we might refine the process collectively, because there are some questions I have as well, if there is time remaining for those. I am at the will of the committee, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: We will begin the questioning with Mr Grandmaître.

Mr Grandmaître: First of all, Mr Brandt, I am glad to see you back. Now that you have been appointed to the LCBO as chair, what will be your first responsibility, or what do you intend to do the first week on the job?

Mr Brandt: The first week might be a little difficult to determine in terms of what one might establish as an objective or a target, but certainly in the early weeks of the responsibility it would be my intention to get a handle on some of the problems, some of which I am aware of now and others which I would hope to learn more about after exposure to the board and some of the administrative staff.

There are some serious problems with the LCBO that I think have to be addressed. Among those is the fact that in a time when the economy is relatively soft, there are problems with respect to the sales and the profitability of the LCBO, which translates into fewer dollars being turned over to the government of the day. For the edification of the members of this committee, the LCBO turns over a little more than $600 million a year to the government of Ontario and those profits are used for many social programs and initiatives on the part of the government.

At the same time, I would like to say that I want to get a better handle during that initial period on some of the social responsibilities of the board as they relate to items like drinking and driving and the whole question of alcohol addiction. It would be my intention in fact, depending on the outcome of this hearing before this committee, to set up meetings rather quickly with some of the interest groups on the social side of the ledger, because there are some serious concerns with respect to those particular areas of activity that involve the board as well.

I would like to take a look at some initiatives in connection with environmental matters. I think that much can be done, for example, in the area of recycling that has not been done yet to any great extent by the board. I am speaking specifically of glass containers as opposed to some of the metal ones.

There is a whole host of things that I believe have got to be addressed early on, but I would try to learn more about the job in the first week, if I can focus on that seven-day period you have given me to comment on, and then go from there.

Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chairman, I did not want to give Mr Brandt a break. I wanted him to start on the job like yesterday, because I know his background indicates not only to this committee but to the province of Ontario, l think, that Mr Brandt will do a great job and I want to wish him well. The only thing I do not believe in his résumé is that he was born in 1938.

Mr Brandt: I know I appear much younger. That is very misleading.

Mr McGuinty: It was late 1938.

Mr Grandmaître: I want to wish you well, Mr Brandt.

Mr McGuinty: Mr Brandt, I am not going to ask you about your political history; that is a matter of public record.

Mr Brandt: Oh, go ahead.

Mr McGuinty: I am just curious. Did you express an interest in the position? Were you approached? I am just wondering how that process took place.

Mr Brandt: I had an informal conversation with the Premier following his election, and I indicated to him that I had left public life not because I was particularly disinterested in serving in some further capacity and that, as a result of my having served as an interim leader of a political party, I felt it was probably not in the best interests of my party to continue to serve publicly in that fashion. I was still interested in serving the province of Ontario in some other capacity, and we began discussions at that time as to what that might be.

It was some time after this that the question of the LCBO came up. We focused on that particular appointment in some subsequent conversation, but it was after the election that this occurred.

The Chair: Mr Murdoch, I am giving you a first crack.

Mr B. Murdoch: I have not really got too much to say, other than to welcome you back. I know you will do a good job also. I do not have any questions that I really want to ask.

Mrs Marland: I have some questions. For the record, so that I will not be accused of any bias, I do not need to ask you if you belong to a political party, which is the question I did ask the person before you. But have you contributed to a political party in Ontario?

Mr Brandt: Yes, I have, far more than I could afford at times.

Mrs Marland: With your life and with blood, I suppose, as well as otherwise. Anyway, I just wanted to put that on the record. And since we are on Hansard, it is the Progressive Conservative Party?

Mr Brandt: Yes, that is correct.

Mrs Marland: Recognizing that the LCBO is a business -- and as you have mentioned, making a profit of $600 million, which I did not know, for the people of Ontario -- it is very interesting in reading your résumé, going back to when you were obviously quite young, that you were already a businessman yourself in a very serious way. You obviously were very successful with your Academy of Music Studios. In reading through, I am very interested to see how that business progressed. Particularly it is interesting, as a comparison to the LCBO, that you were importing musical instruments. You talk here in the résumé about being well acquainted with the importation of goods into Canada and all that entailed. That obviously is part of the business of the LCBO as well, so that is another strength in your background.

First of all, how many employees approximately does the LCBO have?

Mr Brandt: The LCBO at the moment has 5,800 employees, full-time, part-time and temporary.

Mrs Marland: I am comparing it to when you were Minister of the Environment. You mention here the budget then -- and of course that is the budget almost eight years ago now -- and the number of employees. What is it you are looking forward to most about the challenge in this new job?

Mr Brandt: I really think there is a sensitive balance that has to be achieved in the LCBO. On one side is the need for revenues, which are relatively static at the moment, in the range of $2 billion a year, the profits that obviously are of interest to every government because they are of importance in terms of funding the necessary programs. Then on the other side of the ledger, the question that I responded to from Mr Grandmaître, is the whole area of concern about drinking and driving, the abuse of alcohol with respect to some members of our society, that has to be very carefully monitored as well.

Over the years, I think the LCBO has done a very responsible job of finding that sensitive balance, but we have a whole host of new issues coming up now that are attacking the profit side without really enhancing or improving on the social agenda of the LCBO in any way. I am speaking now of free trade, the GATT negotiations, the spillage, if I can use that term, that is occurring in border communities that Mr Hayes may be aware of in the Windsor area. A tremendous amount of retail sales is slipping across the US border and border communities which amounts to literally multimillions of dollars a year.

I do not have a quick answer to how that might be stopped, other than I can give you one of the theories that I want to pursue in that first seven-day period we talked about earlier, and that is the issue of whether or not the government of Ontario could co-operate with the federal government to perhaps collect some of those taxes at the border. Right now, if you come across the border, there is a federal tax collected and that goes into the coffers of the federal government, but you are on an honour system with respect to the 8% provincial tax, not only on liquor products and beer products. In my area, as an example, if you bring across anything under a 12-pack of beer, they simply wave you through and they charge absolutely nothing on it whatsoever. With the price of beer over the border being approximately half the price that it is in Ontario, because of our higher taxes and the more sophisticated social programs that we have in Ontario -- I think we all agree that there is a price to be paid for that -- we are not collecting any of the revenues that I think quite properly should be going to the province of Ontario.

I would like to pursue some of those things, Mrs Marland. I think they are extremely important to the overall health of this province. I think there are some lost revenues that perhaps could be redirected to their rightful place, which is the general revenue of the province of Ontario.

1400

Mrs Marland: That sounds very significant, and obviously it is a challenge that you would really enjoy from the business perspective.

I have one final question. I know at some time when you were a lowly backbencher, you probably had the privilege of sitting on the government agencies, boards and commissions committee, which I have had some years with on and off. You know there are certain appointments to certain ABCs, as we refer to them colloquially, that are much more directly involved with government than others. The other areas where sometimes those ABCs become difficult for people who hold the appointments are those areas that come into discussion in question period in the House. How would you see those, based on your 10 years' experience in the Legislature? As an example, in my only six years, I can never remember a question in the House about the LCBO. Do you see any concern personally, as chairman, in terms of anything to do with the political reality of the political arena, your background and the current government? I think that is a question that should be out on the table.

Mr Brandt: It is an excellent question and one that obviously I have given a great deal of thought to, and I am sure the Premier and the minister, whom I will be reporting to, have given thought to it as well.

The LCBO is a business which is run on the basis of generating certain revenues and the expectation of certain profits. In addition to the administration or the management of a business, it carries with it a social responsibility. The policies as they relate to things like that social responsibility, by and large, are created by the government, and it is the responsibility of the chairman to carry out those policies.

There are certain initiatives that the chairman might be able to take in concert with his or her board in terms of recommendations back the other way to the government. I am speaking now perhaps to a recycling initiative that we may wish the government to be aware of or something along those lines, but I cannot see a conflict in terms of policy with the LCBO, primarily because I would expect that the government would place with me the responsibility of operating the LCBO as a business.

As an example, at the moment there is an upward pressure on expenditures on an annualized basis of about 10% a year. In no way are the revenues increasing by 10% annually; so what we are getting is a squeezing of the profits. l do not care whether you are a New Democrat or a Liberal or a Conservative; the fact of the matter is that you need those revenues to operate. I have heard statement after statement from this government in connection with some valid program initiatives that it would like to undertake based on its policies, which it is unable to do at the moment as a direct result of lack of revenues.

It would be my very direct and vested responsibility to show results in that particular regard, but I would have to do that -- I state this again -- in such a way as to not disrupt the sensitive balance we have in Ontario where we do not promiscuously make available liquid libations to anyone and everyone. We have a tightly controlled system which operates and has operated extremely well by whatever government of whatever stripe.

As I see it, the majority, if you will, of my responsibility would fall back not so much on my political experience but on my business experience where I was involved with foreign purchases. I was involved with inventory, warehousing and trans-shipments of products to various locations. The third company mentioned in my résumé, Midwest Musical, was a Canada-wide company stationed in Winnipeg. It shipped right across the country and had various retail customers that purchased from us. We dealt with foreign exchange. We dealt with companies and manufacturers in a dozen or so countries of the world.

The LCBO is involved in a very similar undertaking. At this point in time I have done a brief review of some of the operations of the LCBO, and I want to make it clear that I have not had a briefing from any staff yet, although it would be my intention, subject to the decision of this committee, to get a briefing as quickly as possible.

Some of the things that I would like to look at in terms of profitability do not in any way, shape or form have any impact, to the best of my knowledge -- as an outsider looking in at the moment -- on the social agenda of the board. They are things like a particular period of time that the inventory sits in the warehouse before it is shipped to the various 635 stores that are part of the LCBO network.

Perhaps we can tighten up some of those kinds of operations; in other words, perhaps we can reduce the number of days. Some of you are familiar with the term "just-in-time delivery," which is a familiar phrase in the automotive industry. If you are going to reduce the cost of the operation, then you have to have a more sophisticated delivery system and a network that gets product into the hands of your retail outlets much more quickly. That is one of the ways we can investigate with a view towards reducing costs, not necessarily increasing revenues, but increasing, by the very nature of that exercise, the profitability of the operation.

I would hope to bring that experience to play in terms of what the LCBO requires and what I might be able to add to the overall direction, focus and objectives of the operation.

Mrs Marland: I would like to say for the record, on behalf of the taxpayers for whom I am responsible, that I feel Ontario would be fortunate to have Mr Brandt, with his experience base, in that position with that particular government agency.

The Chair: A totally non-partisan view. Mr Owens and then Ms Haslam.

Mr Owens: I guess from time to time the LCBO has been accused of being inflexible to consumer demands and not particularly responsive to product demands. The sheet we have here indicates that tastes have certainly changed from the standard Ontario rye and ginger ale consumer to more of the coolers. I am just wondering, on the eighth day of your employment in this position -- do not forget, even God rested on the seventh day; so you may have to revise your schedule -- if you have any plans around making the LCBO more responsive to people's tastes and, I hesitate to use the word, needs with respect to alcoholic beverages, but I guess people have definite tastes.

The second part is with respect to balancing the need, especially in the area of wines, certainly to promote our domestic products, but again balancing the consumer demand for more imported products at reasonable prices.

1410

Mr Brandt: That is a very good question. One of the things I received a phone call on right after the public announcement associating my name with the LCBO was a complaint to the effect that some of the ethnic products that are available in some countries, although highly desired by some of the immigrants who have moved to Ontario, and to Toronto particularly, are not available to them in some of the stores.

There is a consumer review that has recently been completed by the LCBO, which I have not had an opportunity to read as yet, that goes into some of that area of concern in an attempt to meet some of those changing trends, because drinking habits are changing. I think you put it very well when you said that the traditional rye and ginger ale consumer of the past may have shifted and moved on to something entirely different today.

I think the LCBO has to reflect those changing trends and some of those changing lifestyles, whether it relates to wine products, both imported and domestic, and the need, I might add, and the very real concern that I have about supporting and assisting in the development of our own domestic producers. That is an extremely important question because they are under a great deal of stress these days from foreign imports, as you are well aware. I think the LCBO has to reflect those changing circumstances, those changing trends in lifestyles. I want to monitor that in a very sensitive way. It would be my hope to be able to visit some of the stores.

I might say that my method of operation is not simply to listen to those people who have sat around the board offices or in the higher echelons of the administrative staff. My method of operation, as some of the people who are here in this room know from my past experience, is to go to the people. I will go to the stores and to the managers, not in a way that would be upsetting to the operation but to find out what the average guy who works for the LCBO is saying about the operation and how it could be improved.

In the very limited conversations I have had to this point in time, one of the observations was the one that you are making, that the LCBO and its 600-plus outlets have to reflect more directly and in a more immediate way some of the changes in drinking styles of some people. I am certainly not talking in any way about abuse of alcohol but the use of alcohol in a responsible way.

Mr Owens: I am encouraged by your sense of social responsibility with respect to the wide-open sale of alcoholic beverages. I am not sure that I would agree with the placing of alcohol in corner stores so that it is accessible to all people. I think that is an encouragement of an abuse of lifestyle that we are seeking to limit at this point, and its subsequent effects on our health care and social systems.

I am curious about your response to the current issues around GATT and free trade, knowing there is going to be great pressure coming from these agreements and from the GATT organization overseas. I am not sure you have had the time to think about that, but how do you plan to respond in a way that we can protect our domestic industry, especially the wine industry, which as you quite accurately point out is under great pressure? How can we go about protecting that industry without incurring the wrath of our neighbours to the south or across the seas?

Mr Brandt: It is extremely difficult because of the GATT regulations. I might add that if you go back to the résumé, when I served as Minister of Industry and Trade this happened to be an item I was charged with the responsibility of handling, in a former lifetime that I was involved with in a former government. It was the question of how do we support and how do we protect, if you will, primarily the Niagara grape and wine industry against the onslaught coming from California and from some foreign sources in Europe.

I do not have a quick answer for you -- I do not believe anyone else has a satisfactory response either to the question you have raised at this point in time -- other than to say that it would be my intention to meet with those groups -- the wine and grape industry and those who are directly involved -- to see what kinds of things they would like to have put in place to protect them that are legal and defendable, if you will, from an Ontario perspective.

Obviously, because it is an international issue and we are a provincial Legislature and at the provincial level, we have to co-operate with those laws that are set down internationally under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It therefore only follows that you have to work within a certain framework and abide by the laws of the day -- obviously it would be my intention to do that -- but at the same time to try every technique possible to protect the industry that we have here, because it goes without saying that when you are protecting that industry you are also protecting the jobs that are associated with that, which are spinoff jobs from the LCBO and its retail outlets and the sales it is responsible for.

I intend to look into that. I do not have a satisfactory quick answer for you other than to say that I will try to find out what the industry wants and respond as effectively as I can, obviously in concert with Mr Kormos, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who is charged with the responsibility of looking after the LCBO in the final word of it all.

Ms Haslam: What is the salary for this job? Do you know, Mr Brandt?

Mr Brandt: The range, as I understand it, is $83,000 to $122,000, to quote Mr Rae who made some comment on this. I am in the middle somewhere. I do not know the exact salary, to be very honest with you. It is in the middle somewhere.

Ms Haslam: Did you make a contribution to a political party in the last provincial election?

Mr Brandt: Yes.

Ms Haslam: Okay.

Mr Owens: Was it the NDP?

Ms Haslam: It seems to be us. Are you a member --

Mr Brandt: Do you want to know which political party?

Ms Haslam: Certainly, Mr Brandt. What political party?

Mr Brandt: Well, why do you not ask me?

Ms Haslam: You had not given me a chance.

The Chair: I want to know.

Ms Haslam: Which political party did you make a contribution to?

Mr Brandt: I only made one contribution. Again, it was for more than I could afford, being a man of modest means, but it was to the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.

Ms Haslam: Fine.

Mr Brandt: Are you familiar with them?

Ms Haslam: There are not too many who I know yet. I am new here, and I have not met too many of them. Are you still a bona fide member of a political party in Ontario?

Mr Brandt: Yes, I am.

Ms Haslam: Okay, fine.

Mr Brandt: Of the same political party.

Ms Haslam: Thank you. Do you feel that these political questions have anything to do with your abilities to handle this job?

Mr Brandt: No. I responded to that earlier, I think, in part, and one of the other members of the committee, Mrs Marland, raised the point. I do not see a conflict.

Ms Haslam: I did not ask for conflict.

Mr Brandt: A conflict in political terms is what I meant to say. If one were to arise that would cause me or the government any discomfort, I think my relationship with the individuals is such that we would sit down and discuss it. If it was a resolvable item, then we would resolve it. If it was not resolvable, then I would probably move on to something else. I do not at the moment see that kind of problem, however.

Ms Haslam: No. What I asked is a more general question. Do you feel that the political questions have relevance to your qualifications to handle this position?

Mr Brandt: There are certain circumstances under which they might, but I cannot see them applying to me at this point in time.

Ms Haslam: Do you feel comfortable with this process of job search?

Mr Brandt: I feel comfortable with it. However, as I stated to the Chairman, there are some areas -- we probably will not have time to get into them -- where as a candidate for a particular position I did have some brief comments I wanted to make with respect to the process. But I think the process, being new, is one that can be refined, improved upon and can reflect exactly what this committee wants to do with regard to making sure that the appointments are the best possible ones in the interests of the people of Ontario. The process itself has a great deal of merit, in my view, and I think will probably be improved upon as the committee has an opportunity to work with it.

Ms Haslam: Part of the job description and responsibilities of the position is developing and maintaining harmonious working relationships with the private sector. Do you have any insights into how you would like to look at that?

Mr Brandt: One of the first things I would do is meet with those individuals in the private sector, the beer industry, obviously the wine industry, those who are concerned about the operations of the LCBO, and it obviously is of paramount concern that you have a co-operative working relationship with those individuals. In the past I have attempted to work on the basis of co-operation and consensus. I would try to bring those skills to play in terms of working with the private sector. I do not see a problem there at all.

1420

Ms Haslam: Part of it also is motivating --

The Chair: Ms Haslam, we only have about a minute left. Mr Hayes, your colleague, has a question as well.

Mr Hayes: Welcome back, Andy. Actually all I wanted to do was make some comments. I know you talked earlier about how your political experience really did not mean too much here, that it is your business experience, but I would just like to say that I think your political experience in understanding the various ministries would probably be an asset in this position. I am really glad to see that it appears all three parties are somewhat in favour of your getting this appointment.

I do have one concern, though. I got a call from a former colleague of yours and he had quite a concern about whether we should really look at appointing you or not. That was Reuben Baetz. I talked to him the other day on the phone. Anyhow, maybe you can answer to that. I do not know. That was just in fun with Reuben.

Mr Brandt: I want you to know, Mr Hayes, that I am well aware of the interests of the wine industry in your particular geographical part of Ontario as well. It is a rather new industry for your part of the province, but one that is gaining in importance. The Pelee Island area is not too far from your riding. We will pay attention to that area as well.

The Chair: Mr Perruzza, you had a quick question?

Mr Perruzza: We can move on if it is --

The Chair: We have time for a quick question.

Mr Perruzza: It relates to the growth of the middle management and the upper management of the LCBO and a decline or a decrease in the number of jobs that the LCBO has offered at the lower end; that is, in the retail stores. I guess you have a monumental task in front of you in coming to grips with a lot of those issues when you actually take on the job of chair of the board, and I just wanted to know what your feelings are in that regard, in dealing with a board or bureaucracy that in my view is top-heavy.

Mr Brandt: Coming into it new, I am not aware of that, but I will take it at face value that the comment you are making is accurate and that there has been an increase in the upper end of the employment categories and a reduction in the lower end. That would seem to me on the surface not to be in the best interests of the public generally, because the people in the stores, who are meeting the public directly, are the ones who I think really serve the LCBO in a very direct fashion and provide the service that our customers, who are the people of Ontario, require.

I would like to look at that. I understand that this committee has the authority at some point in time, unless I have misunderstood the mandate of the committee, to call me back in six months or a year or whenever. If that were to happen, I would like to give you some direct observations on that because -- let me say this -- I disagree in principle with that kind of shift happening, particularly because those jobs at the lower end are extremely important and in many instances are filled by people who cannot find jobs elsewhere.

At one time it was quite acceptable, and in fact understood, that jobs in the LCBO went to many of our veterans and people who perhaps were coming back from having served our country in another capacity. The government found employment for them in the retail stores of the LCBO. If those jobs are being lost as a result of other jobs being created at higher salaries in a more administrative and bureaucratic sense, then that is something the chairman would have to look at. I intend to look at it. I have dealt with those kinds of problems before and I would hope to be able to deal with that one in a responsible way. I cannot tell you what my answer or solution will be at this particular point in time, but I certainly will look into it very seriously.

The Chair: The Liberals have a few minutes left and Mr Grandmaître has another question.

Mr Grandmaître: One short question. Mr Brandt, when and how did you find out that you were the lucky appointee?

Mr Brandt: I am of the understanding that I am a nominee at this point in time and that I am not going to be appointed until after the deliberations of this committee have been concluded. That was my understanding with the Premier who, if I may add an editorial comment, places great significance on the decision of this committee with respect to your recommendations. So I am not appointed yet. One of the questions I had was really in response to that. I felt it was perhaps inappropriate of me to get a complete and thorough briefing as someone who was only a nominee prior to coming before this committee.

I want to make it clear that I am not appointed; I am a nominee. I await, as will others, the decision of this committee. I think it would be of some benefit to others who come before you, and again I offer this only by way of, hopefully, advice to a committee that is new at this process, as I am, that perhaps the candidates for positions should be advised as to what background they should prepare in advance of coming before you.

If, as an example, you wanted me to be thoroughly briefed on all aspects of the function of the LCBO, to read the annual report, what I have done to this point in time is to try to garner some information to be up and running, presupposing and on the assumption that I would get a favourable response from the committee, but I do not know that. So I do not know that I have been appointed until you make your decision, and I guess it is referred to the Clerk of the House from that point.

Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chairman --

The Chair: Very briefly.

Mr Grandmaître: Yes, very briefly. It looks good, Mr Brandt. Mr Rae has signed the OIC. I want to wish you well.

Mr Brandt: Thank you very much.

The Chair: One quick question. You mentioned your concerns about the loss of sales to the US side of the border. As chairman -- and I know this is not the decision you would ultimately take, but you would certainly have input into it -- would you consider Sunday openings as something that could be part of a total package to address that problem?

Mr Brandt: It is a very interesting question and one that I would not touch with a 10-foot pole.

The Chair: I figured you had to have one hot one. This has been a piece of cake for you.

Mr Silipo: I do not have a question dealing with the appointment. I know at a couple of places during the process Mr Brandt indicated that he might have some comments to offer to the committee about the process. Perhaps at some point we could take him up on that and either invite him back or ask him to send us some comments about the process. It is useful, as we review the process, to have the views of the people who have gone through it themselves.

The Chair: Good point. I think we are going to be encouraging virtually every chair in the province to provide us with input into the new process, and any suggestions or advice they can provide would be most helpful. Members and all the members of the Legislature, we wish you well.

Mr Brandt: Thank you. I am pleased to have had this opportunity. I wish all of you well in the true spirit of non-partisanship.

1430

BILL ECKERT

The Chair: Mr Eckert, would you like to come forward, please? Welcome to the committee. Bill Eckert is the intended appointee as a member of the Planning and Implementation Commission. Mr Eckert was selected by the Progressive Conservative Party. Mr Eckert, we will give you an opportunity, if you wish, to make a few comments before we begin the questioning.

Mr Eckert: Very well. I have prepared a few comments. As I reviewed the possibility of becoming a member of this particular commission, I thought it was so wide-ranging that I might try to give it a particular focus. Whether you would agree with the focus I am going to give in my opening comments, I do not know.

The Chair: Could I ask you how long these comments will last, Mr Eckert?

Mr Eckert: I would expect three to four minutes at the most.

The Chair: Fine. I do not think that is a problem. Go ahead.

Mr Eckert: As a person such as I looks about for new areas of interest and involvement, it seems invariably to lead me to the consideration of working at something where I think I can make a difference, and maybe a significant difference. I believe that as a commissioner I would have that opportunity. I also believe that my direct involvement with the commission over these past years as an educator has given me the experience that will be useful to the commission and to the government, to the school boards and teachers and ultimately the students in the schools of the province of Ontario.

I believe I have an appreciation of how difficult the work of such a commission can be at times and an appreciation of how important the work of the commission has been and will continue to be into the future, in spite of the difficulties that have arisen and no doubt will arise in times to come. I do not know if this commission has a new mandate or indeed it is as it was put together in 1984 and 1985, but I do know and appreciate the importance of ensuring that there are full and complete secondary programs offered to students by all school boards across the province, and it is important to ensure that the extension of secondary school grades is brought to completion in the Catholic school system with as little disruption as possible and in a fair and equitable manner.

I noticed in the handout I received upon arrival, and this is probably in front of you, that there is a listing of the responsibilities of the commissioner. In particular, number 6 on page 4 outlines the broad-ranging issues that the commission will deal with. I have not clarified in my own mind what ''unfinished Bill 30 business" is going to be, but it could be a number of different things yet to be defined. I think we have also come to understand that there are models for sharing between coterminous boards and that when this sharing is based on goodwill and genuine respect for the autonomy and rights of each other, that can produce opportunities for greatly enhancing not only facilities, but also programs and program offerings, personnel services and learning resources.

I believe that as those interested, involved and responsible for education continue to clarify our vision of the learner, we will come to realize to an even greater degree the important place technology and communications will hold in business, in industry, in culture and in education, and also to realize even more acutely the high costs of these components in education. These in turn will become compelling reasons to look more closely at sharing models that permit co-operation not only between coterminous school boards delivering secondary school programs, but also between community colleges and universities as well as the business communities in which these institutes of learning exist and also between all those bodies and the municipalities and indeed the various ministries of the government. One ministry of the government that comes to mind in this instance, of course, is the Ministry of Skills Development.

While I do not know if the commission will or should be directly involved with very directly encouraging the further development of models of co-operation, I do know that the commission will need to give careful consideration to the restructurings that are now taking place in very many educational institutions in Ontario. Should this commission be mandated to encourage this elemental aspect of restructuring -- I am talking about the co-operative models -- it would be legitimate, in my view, and it would also make for an interesting time as commissioner.

With those brief opening comments, I will turn it back to you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Eckert. The Progressive Conservative Party has the first opportunity on this selection. I do not know, Mrs Marland, if you would rather pass at this point and we will come back to you.

Mrs Marland: No, I am ready. I did wonder before if you were going in rotation, because you started twice with the Liberals.

The Chair: I was advised earlier that this was a selection of the Conservatives. Now I am advised it was a selection of the Liberal Party; so Mr Grandmaître or Mr McGuinty, I will give you first opportunity.

Mrs Marland: Can I just ask a point of clarification? When you are saying "selection," are you telling us who has put forward these names? Is that what you mean?

The Chair: Yes. The party selecting has the first opportunity to begin questioning.

Mrs Marland: That is interesting.

Mr Grandmaître: We had a list to choose from.

Mrs Marland: I see, okay.

Mr Grandmaître: On the transfer of schools from the public to the separate school system or vice versa -- permit me to be a little parochial at this time -- in the Ottawa-Carleton area we are faced with a lot of these problems. I would like to know your feelings. How long should your commission wait before it gets involved in the process? I know you do get involved from the start of the negotiations, but some of these negotiations have been going on for months and months with no results. I find it very strange; it seems that you people have a tendency to lie back for months and months until you step in. I would like to ask you, why is this being perceived? Maybe I am totally wrong.

Mr Eckert: Maybe I should clarify that I have not been a member of the commission and my direct involvement with the commission has been as a director of education of a Catholic school board that was involved with extending; so if I was talking about why the commission was waiting, as you ask, I would be guessing at best. I am sure that once I become a commissioner I will have a better appreciation of why they take so long to act and actually effect the transfer, the sale or the leasing of a school.

I think it is fairly clear, first of all. that everyone has an opinion about education; everyone has an opinion about transfers and leasing of schools and so on. We all appreciate, I think, that people become very attached to the schools they attended and from which they graduated. A lot of emotion surrounds the possible transfer of schools, so it does not surprise me that it takes time to give consideration to the various ways and means of solving conflicts and actually effecting transfers when clearly the solution is there.

I believe there have been about 10 transfers that have occurred across the province; with that kind of experience behind us, I think the expectation that the commission would move more quickly is a realistic one because people are accustomed, they have gotten over the initial shock of the potential transfers. l would hope that I can be a part of moving that along.

Mr Grandmaître: What do you think of provincewide pooling?

Mr Eckert: I believe it probably has some weaknesses, but in terms of equity it is probably the better way to go. The pooling that occurs within the coterminous board boundaries right now is an improvement and it accomplishes the goals to some degree, but we all know that it is not equitable across the province. The only way to get the equity would be through provincial pooling. However, we also know that many trustees and many boards feel that with the loss of their ability to tax locally, they would lose some of their autonomy and they are very reluctant to give that up. I am sure it is a topic that will get continued consideration and discussion over the years to come.

1440

Mr McGuinty: How did you come to be a candidate for this appointment?

Mr Eckert: I was contacted by the regional director of education in southwestern Ontario and asked if I would let my name stand. That is the sum total of the contact. I am just coming to some conclusions today that apparently my name was under consideration prior to that. Of course I said yes at that time, and I was rather surprised at the quickness with which action followed.

Mr Grandmaître: Did you have to submit a résumé?

Mr Eckert: I was asked to fax a résumé, yes, at the time, right after that phone call, which I did to the regional office and which I understood was transferred within a day or so to Toronto. Thus, you can correct the age. You can increase my age by one on the résumé. It was one in existence that I simply faxed at that time.

Mr Grandmaître: Trudeau did the same thing.

Mrs Marland: The Planning and Implementation Commission made up of seven or eight members?

Mr Eckert: Six, I believe.

Mrs Marland: Do you know if its present makeup is an equitable distribution between Protestant and Catholic?

Mr Eckert: I believe it is. I did not take a head count and I had invited both staff and the commission members to our board when I was director, and although in actual fact neither of those individuals were separate school supporters, I nevertheless felt comfortable and I thought at that time that it was balanced. I see from the proposal that it will be, if it is not.

Mrs Marland: Do you think it should be?

Mr Eckert: Yes, I would think it should be, given the particular nature of this commission. I will be interested in hearing reasons why it should not be, if such exist.

Mrs Marland: The commission is now six and a half years old and at the time it was established, I actually was in municipal politics, listening to the trustees of both the public and the separate school board in my municipality. I am wondering whether in fact the Planning and Implementation Commission is now redundant after six and a half years and where we are with the implementation of extended funding to the separate schools. How do you feel about that scenario?

Mr Eckert: Your thoughts are not terribly different from my own, and if you had asked me that a year ago, I would have said the Planning and Implementation Commission, for all intents and purposes, does not exist any more. It was certainly winding down its work, although that followed very closely on the heels of some very controversial transfers of schools and retransfers, I guess, of schools and so on.

I had assumed, and my opening comments reflect my pondering that question, what is the new emphasis of the commission, if there is to be one? Is it the same as it was? In looking over the original purpose for the commission, I have come to the conclusion that those purposes still exist to some degree, but that in all probability there are maybe other needs, maybe a new emphasis on co-operative modelling, where we can no longer talk about the differences between the separate and public school systems but rather about in what ways we can co-operate, what our common needs are and how we can meet these.

Of course I had that feeling because of my own experience in my own locality, of having experienced very good co-operation between our board and the public school board and having some sense of what can be done. I can only assume the current government has found a need for the commission and will help the commission further define what comes under unfinished Bill 30 business, in detail.

Mrs Marland: You are still the director of education at Huron-Perth?

Mr Eckert: No.

Mrs Marland: I am sorry.

Mr Eckert: I have been in education for 34 years. I retired as a teacher and educator, so to speak, last August.

Mrs Marland: I am sorry; I cannot recognize that from your résumé, otherwise I would not have asked the question. So you are retired now?

Mr Eckert: That is correct.

Mrs Marland: The résumé does not actually say that, does it?

Mr Eckert: No, it does not, as a matter of fact.

Ms Haslam: It is an old résumé.

Mrs Marland: Yes, that is right. Well, that answers the question I had. I remember the director of education in Peel, John Fraser, was an original commission member at the time he was still director. Although it is a part-time position, these government jobs they say are part-time always evolve into a tremendous demand on time. So it is great that you are retired and can have that flexibility.

I know there is a tremendous controversy in Ontario today on the whole subject of education. We have the concerns about maintaining a viable public secondary school educational system while we have extended the separate school funding. That war rages, as you know, through groups like Ontario Public Education Network, and right on its heels, now, we have the Association for Alternative Education; it is a formal association of people and organizations who are looking for funding for other than public and separate school systems in Ontario. How do you feel about the possibility of a Planning and Implementation Commission, if legislation was passed, trying to deal with yet a third chop at the pie?

Mr Eckert: The people who would come up with policy recommendations in that regard would probably have to have the wisdom of Solomon. However, as you say, it is not likely to go away and will receive discussion, maybe under the umbrella of this particular commission.

How it will be dealt with I am not sure, but the separate school system and the public school system, the larger public school system, are all part and parcel of the public school system of Ontario, as I understand the history, and the separate schools, the Catholic schools, that is, do operate under the authority of and the guidance of the Ministry of Education and fulfil all the requirements in that regard. I do not know whether this coalition of other schools would be prepared to do that. If they were prepared to do it, I suppose some consideration might be given to organizing it under an umbrella arrangement.

Mrs Marland: I think they operate under the Ministry of Education, because they have to be certified in order to operate as schools.

Mr Eckert: I do not know that they are all inspected, so to speak, whereas all the separate schools in the province, as I understand it, do submit to the inspection of the ministry.

I do not think we need to stop talking about the possibilities there, but if something was to be done, I would think, having heard from all parties in relation to Bill 30 and the common support for that bill and what has happened since then, that they would certainly be required to come in under the umbrella of one of the existing boards.

Mrs Marland: Ironically enough, this morning I met with the director of the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board, Tom Reilly, whom you would know, I am sure, and Patrick Meany, the chairman of that board. I met them to discuss the problems of a growth board for their region. It is a horrific story, with 62,000 students and almost a third of them in temporary accommodation.

I guess you would have to be in one of our offices to be on the receiving end of that question, about the public tax base, in particular the property tax base, which is where more and more education funding is coming from. The governments -- and this is not a partisan comment; certainly it started before 1985 -- I would suggest all three governments in the last six years have reduced and will be continuing to reduce support for education from the provincial purse and it will be put more and more on to the back of the property taxpayers. Can you see some time in the future where very tough decisions are going to have to be made about funding public education?

1450

Mr Eckert: I think those tough decisions are going to have to be made. Indeed, I think they are being made and have resulted in the transfer of further costs to the local municipalities for education. That was a response to a decision that I guess the Liberal government at the time felt was tough. There is no doubt that the cost to the local municipalities did rise; that is, the local school ratepayers. Those cost decisions will continue to be difficult.

Just as a reflection, though, the same kind of comment has been made for many years, and it is not getting any better. The costs of education are rising drastically. We complain about it and we talk about the pain and whether it is really necessary. But it seems to me that the ratepayers in the province always come through in the end. To me it says that by and large they believe education to be a very important endeavour, that not only is it important culturally but also economically and in so many other different ways, and they probably will continue in spite of the pain and the comments to support education at a very high level.

I do believe the question is going to continue to be asked, and if it is not funded at the provincial level, then the funding will have to come from the local level. I cannot see the people in Ontario tolerating, let alone requesting, any reduction in educational services, whether at the elementary, secondary or community college or university level.

Mrs Marland: That was not the point of my question. The public is not going to ask for reduced education of our young people. That is a primary priority for all of us. It is how that service is delivered and who pays for it. The fact is that it is becoming almost unbearable for the local property tax base to provide education which had originally been a responsibility of the provincial government.

I think that is the question which, as part of this commission, you are going to be dealing with as you look at expansion of any program at all, particularly the separate school boards that are -- I do not know how many, something like 20 in the province -- operating in violation of the Education Act because they are operating at a deficit, including the board I met with this morning. Even operating at a deficit, they do not have equity in education for those students.

I do not mind saying that one elementary separate school in my riding looks like something you would expect for a summer school on a reserve in northern Ontario in terms of the physical plant and the conditions. I have to question how much expansion of an educational system we can support when older schools like St James School in my community looks like the description I just gave you. It is unjust for the students in one part of Ontario to experience a different standard of physical plant and facility than in other parts. Do you see that as something the commission should be looking at if it is implementing the act? Do you see it as a responsibility of the commission to make sure that with implementation goes a minimum standard to all children in this province?

Mr Eckert: I believe so very strongly. As a matter of fact, I think the responsibility in terms of recommendations on funding and accommodation, capital expenditure, does fall under the mandate of the commission, unless it is told to keep its hands off. I would see it dealing with those matters. The question you ask is very real, and eventually the commission may have to come up with a strong recommendation that this whole taxing base be changed to more of a pooling at the provincial level.

If that happens and there is a change in that area, I visualize that there will be still some local property taxation required in order that politics at the local level survives and people feel they have a hand in and some control over what is happening. But if the funding crunch continues, more will have to come from the provincial level, where the cost is spread over all contributors and not just property taxpayers.

Mr Perruzza: I am not fully versed in the role of the Planning and Implementation Commission, but from what I read here in the outline it has considerable jurisdiction.

My question really relates to Bill 30, the legislation that completed funding to the separate school system. That has caused some difficulties in the allocation of moneys for the expansion of schools, specifically the secondary schools. The way I understand it, what has happened is that with Bill 30 the Catholic system had built high schools, but they were not built to the public secondary school standard at the time; they really were built to the elementary standard. Now that we have completed funding the secondary system, how would you redress that inherent deficiency in just the physical discrepancy in standard of the facility?

I guess the broader issue, and I understand the Metro case here, is that the separate system receives about $1,600 less per pupil in tax revenues than does the public system. That is not enough money to go around.

Mr Eckert: My own experience in this area, having started a Catholic secondary school in the city of Stratford for Perth county, is that I found the money was forthcoming for new construction once the board got up and running and showed viability of that school within the county. This in turn also led to co-operation between the two school boards. So there are instances where the commission and the government of the day have responded with capital funding for Catholic secondary schools where viability is shown.

I know that is not fast enough. It is not occurring as fast as we would like it to, on the one hand. We also know that the separate school board's right to participate in the local commercial and industrial assessment base is a phase-in over a six-year period, and a lot of people would say that also is not fast enough, because that discrepancy of $1,600 per student is not likely to be cleared up, if ever, at least until that six-year period is over.

I do not know whether we can get out of the six-year time span to improve the situation you describe. I do not know whether we can spend more money on capital expenditures than we have in the past, but I know the people of Ontario would expect equity for all students, whether they be separate, public or otherwise, and also that they would continue to ask why the province cannot fund the construction of new schools to the extent required at this time. When you look at the total cost of education and compare capital construction as a percentage of that cost, all of a sudden it is not as significant as it is when you look at an isolated figure for the capital construction of a new school or 10 new schools.

1500

Mr Perruzza: I can think of about half a dozen secondary separate schools in my riding, and I will name some of them. There is Madonna high school, Regina Pacis, James Cardinal McGuigan, St Basil college school. These schools were all built basically to elementary school standards. There is no way these schools can deliver on a secondary school program as prescribed by the Ministry of Education. There is a very serious problem in that regard and it needs to be redressed at some point. But I will leave that for a minute.

Really, I have two other questions: one, the reason why you want to be on the Planning and Implementation Commission, having been a director of education in one of the systems and, two, if you have any political party affiliation and if you have ever contributed to a political party in the past.

Mr Eckert: Yes, on both those counts. I have been and am a member of the Liberal Party of Ontario and the Liberal Party of Canada and have contributed to both over time.

Mr Perruzza: Why would you like to be on the Planning and Implementation Commission?

Mr Eckert: Well, it is not because of the pay. First of all, I was quite honoured to get the call asking, would I let my name stand? I know fairly well what the commission is about and I know that it will not always be an easy task, but rather a difficult one. I suppose I am attracted to those kinds of situations as well. I am free, I am looking for an interesting involvement related to education and this is very timely. As I said earlier, maybe, just maybe, I can make a difference.

Mr Silipo: A couple of quick questions. I think you touched on some of this earlier on. Could you comment a little bit on how you view the role of the Planning and Implementation Commission in dealing with a situation where negotiations between public and separate school boards break down on the transfer of schools and you have a situation where a separate school board might be ready to take the appropriate court action that it has the right to take? What do you see the role of the commission in that instance?

Mr Eckert: I am not absolutely certain what the role is. I was not present when those transfers took place and the consternations occurred. However, I would expect the role would be one of facilitator. I think the actual decisions on the transfer of schools would be made by the government of the day, the government and the Ministry of Education, and maybe on the recommendation of the commission. But once the decision had been made in a certain direction, then I would think that the commissioners and staff would become facilitators of the process to ensure to whatever degree possible the rights of the parties were respected and that it was done in as smooth a fashion as possible.

Usually that means a lot of communication, and if there is a need right now in terms of the work of the commission, I think it is to give people an update on where we are with this whole process. I think the last report out of the commission was probably a year ago and some positive and interesting things have taken place since then. That is what I would see as the role of the commission.

Mr Silipo: I am interested in pursuing this a little bit more. In your view, if I understand you correctly, those decisions really would be made by the government, and the role of the commission would be to facilitate the decisions after those have been made, as opposed to the commission becoming involved in trying to mediate some of those disputes that might exist between the two different boards. I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly. Please clarify that for me.

Mr Eckert: That is my understanding as you described it, but I stand to be corrected on that. I do not believe the commission has the authority, and I stand to be corrected, to mandate the transfer of a school facility.

Mr Silipo: I agree with you there, but it was my impression that the commission can play and in some cases has played a fairly crucial role as a mediator between public and separate school boards.

Mr Eckert: I used the word "facilitator."

Mr Silipo: Okay. So you do see the --

Mr Eckert: I was certainly meaning mediating, yes.

Mr Silipo: All right. The other thing I wanted to ask, really arising out of some of the questions that some of the members opposite were asking, particularly has to do with the whole question of financing. I think at one point you commented, in response to one of the questions, that there were some areas around that whole issue that you thought that maybe the commission ought to or might in fact make some recommendations on. Again, I have a question around the role of the commission in that respect. I want to be clear and fair in terms of whether you were providing those answers because you thought that the commission ought to play a proactive role in some of those kinds of decisions around possible changes in financing structures or whether you were giving your opinion in answer to those questions that were being put to you.

Mr Eckert: I was giving my opinion in response to the questions, and I would be wanting to hear discussion around the commission table before determining in my own mind whether the commission should play a proactive role in that regard. I think certainly the issue is far bigger than the commission and it might be indeed counterproductive for the commission to go off on that tangent on its own. There are other areas of finance not directly related to taxation that I think the commission may have to deal with. One is the whole thing about the purchase of service; that is, separate school boards, for instance, purchasing the education of separate school students who are in attendance at the public secondary school, purchasing education for those students and, conversely, the boards of education purchasing education for their students who are attending Catholic secondary schools. I think there are maybe some problems arising there.

I know we have a unique situation in Huron-Perth where we have established a Catholic secondary school in Perth but we have not done that in Huron. If you know Huron-Perth, to go the two jurisdictions it is 100 kilometres. When we buy services -- and we buy the bulk of the services because almost all the Catholic students in Huron are in the public secondary schools -- we are spending multimillions of dollars now to buy those services. Sometimes the charges are weighted depending on whether the child is getting special education or taking technological education and so on, so we may be paying 1.2 full-time equivalents for special education or 1.4 for tech education and so on. Yet I think that funding of those is found in the basic allocation per student to those boards. We have to make sure there is equity in the process that is set up and maybe the commission will be involved in those things.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman --

The Chair: Sorry, Mrs Marland, no supplementaries. We discussed this within the committee and I am not going to allow that flexibility.

Mrs Marland: Tony, could you ask what that means?

The Chair: No, no. You will have an opportunity later. Mr Silipo, do you want to continue, please?

Mr Silipo: No. I will pass on.

The Chair: Mr Owens, you have a couple of minutes.

Mr Owens: I have a quick question with respect to the amendments to the Education Act respecting French-language governance and French-language school boards. I am wondering if you could tell the committee, in your role as a commission person, how you can facilitate that process and chart and navigate some troubled waters in the province over that issue.

Mr Eckert: Okay. I wonder if maybe you could have another run at the question. Are you asking that in terms of capital facilities or programs or what?

Mr Owens: With respect to capital facilities, staffing, programming. Does that clarify it?

Mr Eckert: Yes. You would navigate those waters with a great deal of difficulty, I am sure; again, there would have to be a great deal of communication to all parties concerned. Certainly one would have to be a facilitator and indeed a mediator to ensure again that the capital facilities that appropriately belong with each of those sections of the school boards do arrive and do arrive in a timely fashion. It has always been a mandate that the commission had to ensure that a full range of programs was available to all secondary students in the province. That would be their mandate: to ensure that all sections -- the English section, the French section, the public school boards, the separate school boards -- did eventually get into a position where they could offer those programs in the proper facilities.

The Chair: That concludes your testimony before the committee. We will be deliberating on your appointment tomorrow and hopefully the decision of the committee will be communicated shortly thereafter. Thank you very much for appearing here today.

I will remind the committee members, as I just mentioned, that the first part of our agenda tomorrow morning at 10 am will be the 45-minute deliberation in respect to the candidates who appeared before us today. We will make decisions at that time and then move on to the candidates selected by the third party.

Ms Haslam, do you have a question?

Ms Haslam: I just did not wish to embarrass Mr Eckert. There were two names, and I had a question regarding that. For the Planning and Implementation Commission there were two names and two résumés.

Mr Silipo: The other appointee will be here Thursday.

The Chair: That is on Thursday, I am advised.

Ms Haslam: Thank you. That was a clarification I needed.

I wonder if I could go off topic for a minute, but while we are on record I would like to bring up something about the committee. Is that possible?

The Chair: Unless I hear an objection. Go ahead.

Ms Haslam: I have been looking over some of the past work of the committee and it has come to my attention that recommendations were made. In particular, the ones I was looking at were regarding the Ministry of Skills Development and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. There are something like 17 recommendations. This is totally off topic, but I felt it was important enough in this committee that we look at it.

Do we ever look back and see where those recommendations are? For instance -- maybe Mr Pond or Mr Arnott could answer that -- once the recommendations come from a committee, 17, 18, 24 recommendations for a particular ministry for a particular thing, what happens to those recommendations once they are tabled? Do they go back to the ministries? Is there ever a check on those recommendations?

The Chair: That is a good question. I know having served on, for example, the standing committee on the Ombudsman in years past, we did an annual review of the status of recommendations made by that committee and were brought up to date; indeed, we could call an agency before us again or perhaps approach the particular ministry if we were not happy with its lack of action, if you will. I am not sure about this particular committee and I will refer that to our clerk.

Ms Haslam: Perhaps that answer could come back at another time, if you would like to look into that. In particular, I was interested in some of the recommendations that I had noted in the last session and wondered where they were at this time in the ministry.

The Chair: Okay. Good point. Anything else before we adjourn?

Mrs Marland: I see. We are adjourning and doing the discussion tomorrow.

The Chair: That is right. Sleep on it.

Mrs Marland: When it is not fresh in our minds.

The Chair: It should be relatively fresh in your mind, we hope, after one night. It will give the various caucuses an opportunity to deliberate among themselves prior to making a decision. The meeting is adjourned. We will see you tomorrow morning.

The committee adjourned at 1515.