CONTENTS
Wednesday 15 January 1992
Appointments review
Donald MacDonald
Agency review
Ontario Board of Parole
Appointments review
Maurice G. Dutrisac
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président(e): Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président(e): McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Elston, Murray J. (Bruce L)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND)
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)
Substitution(s)/Membre(s) remplaçant(s):
Callahan, Robert V. (Brampton South/-Sud L) for Mr Mcguinty
Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L) for Mr Elston
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND) for Mr Waters
White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Mr Marchese
Clerk / Greffier: Arnott, Douglas
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1003 in committee room 2.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Resuming consideration of intended appointments.
DONALD MACDONALD
The Chair: Come to order, please. As the agenda indicates, the morning is devoted to review of intended appointees. The first intended appointee to appear before us is selected for review by the official opposition. Mr Donald MacDonald, who is an intended appointee, is a member of the Ottawa Congress Centre. Mr MacDonald, would you like to come forward? Welcome to the committee. We have limited time to discuss matters with you, but if you wish to have a minute or two to make some opening comments, I will give you that opportunity.
Mr MacDonald: Thank you anyway, but I am prepared to --
The Chair: Fine. We will lead off the questioning with the official opposition.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr MacDonald, tell us what you know about the Ottawa Congress Centre.
Mr MacDonald: I understand it is a facility that was originated by the regional government, and some years ago the province took it over. The main goal of the congress centre was to provide a facility for conferences, conventions and trade shows in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I guess it is a revenue generator and a job creator.
Mr Grandmaître: I was a member of the construction committee back in 1982 and we thought this was God's creation, that it would be the answer to tourism in the Ottawa-Carleton area. But now people are having second thoughts about the Ottawa Congress Centre. Even the new mayor, Jackie Holzman, is now saying we should have a bigger building built on another site, maybe the LeBreton Flats, and forget about the Ottawa Congress Centre. Maybe we should sell it for a revenue generator of $40 million and invest this $40 million in a new building, a trade show building. What are your thoughts? Do you think people in Ottawa-Carleton would like to forget about the Ottawa Congress Centre?
Mr MacDonald: No, that is not my feeling at this time. As far as a new potential facility is concerned, I am not really sure because I am just getting involved in this. I am not really sure what the market would bear. I understand a feasibility study is being conducted right now and if that turns out to be a good idea I guess the other levels of government will have to get involved if there is an agreement. In any event, I anticipate that is several years down the road. In the meantime I think the Ottawa Congress Centre has to be supported and encouraged in its present facility in its present operations.
Mr Grandmaître: I agree with you that if anything new has to be done in Ottawa-Carleton as far as a trade show building is concerned the federal, provincial and regional governments have to get involved. But only two years ago, if I can go back to the study you pointed out, the Ottawa congress council, if you want to call them that, or the administrators of the congress centre, produced a very elaborate plan suggesting we should triple the size of the congress centre. Are you aware of that plan?
Mr MacDonald: No, sir, I am not. I know the city of Ottawa was looking at establishing a trade show centre at Lansdowne Park, and I understand that this most recent proposal anticipates the city of Ottawa would only contribute approximately half the dollar amount it was talking about in the original proposal. Other than that I am not privy to any details.
Mr Grandmaître: Two years ago the people responsible for the Ottawa Congress Centre introduced what I thought was a very thoughtful plan. They would extend the building right up to the former Charles Ogilvy Building. That is quite a piece away. They would triple the size of the Ottawa Congress Centre. When I read in the newspapers -- and I do not believe all the newspaper editorials -- that we should be looking at a trade show building apart from the congress centre, I am wondering if this is viable, because we have a terrible time competing right now with small or larger congress centres.
1010
Mr MacDonald: I will just give you my gut reaction without having access to the feasibility study. From what I have seen in the papers, of course, the big plus of the present location is the access to the hotels and shopping, whereas the general opinion I have read is that LeBreton Flats, although relatively close to downtown, does not have the access to transportation, shopping, hotels and what have you. It would involve a considerable walk of people going back and forth to the hotels, and that would be one of the negative aspects of moving the whole operation down there.
And of course, as you suggest, what are we going to do with the present facility? Are we just going to leave it empty? Seeing the retail climate today, I would not think there is a demand for more stores, to turn the operation now into retail space. I do not think that is realistic.
So I really think there would be a lot of soul-searching before one would make a decision to close up the present operation and move to LeBreton Flats. I think we would take a long, deep, reflective look at that before that type of thing was contemplated.
Mr Grandmaître: That is it for now, Mr Chair.
Mr McLean: Could you indicate the viability that you feel is there and any effort you would put towards increasing the tourism aspect of the Ottawa Congress Centre, to draw more tourists into the area? Do you think its intended purpose was fulfilled?
Mr MacDonald: I believe it has been. From what I have read in the annual reports, it seems to be a pretty busy facility.
One plus I think I would bring to the board would be my connections, frankly, within the labour movement. I do not know how many unions are using the congress centre now to hold their conventions and conferences, but there are no groups out there in society that like to get together more than the labour movement and it certainly has a need for convention centres and conference centres. They are holding meetings constantly, so maybe I can plug into that home market. I do not know if it has been explored yet.
Mr McLean: What is their debt at the present time? Do you know?
Mr MacDonald: I believe it is running about a $300,000-a-year deficit.
Mr McLean: In your opinion, should the province be picking up part of that deficit or should it be the city of Ottawa and the surrounding areas? Who happens to be involved in that now that they have built it?
Mr MacDonald: I understand it is a facility under schedule 2 of provincial regulations, and I think schedule 2 anticipates that it would have a balanced budget every year. The congress centre, if I understand it correctly, needs an annual approval from the province to run a deficit. From the information I have, I understand they do have a plan in place where within three years the budget will be balanced.
Mr McLean: In December 1990, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation announced in the government's capital spending program it would be giving $1.1 million, spread over two years, for refurbishing and upgrading. Is that under way now?
Mr MacDonald: I believe it is, yes. I think, as a matter of fact, there is approximately $1.5 million being spent on upgrading and refurbishing the centre.
Mr Wiseman: Could you describe for us some of the areas where you have had some experience in promotion or marketing products? I see a large role for that in terms of marketing the centre.
Mr MacDonald: My job as secretary-treasurer of the union labour department is to promote Canadian-made, union-made goods and services. I think with all the comment we hear these days about cross-border shopping, that type of thing, we are getting a more receptive audience than ever for our concern about supporting Canadian institutions and operations.
I have been involved in this for a number of years and I can certainly see the interest growing. I think people are actually now looking for a made-in-Canada symbol on things. I think we recognize that if we keep buying foreign products, we are going to lose a lot of jobs. We should be holding our conventions in Canada. We should encourage Canadians to spend their money at home.
Compared to the Americans, I think we have missed the boat a lot on this. The Americans are constantly touting, "Buy American." Canada, in the last few years, since the free trade agreement, seems to have kind of folded up its tent and packed in its promotional efforts. I really think we can do a lot more in that field than we have been doing in recent years. As I say, I think people are receptive to hearing that. I think we should be bragging about all the facilities we have here in Canada. We are second to none as far as the type of events we can hold. We should be really tooting our own horn and waving the flag a lot more than we do.
Mr Phillips: I am not sure to what groups you would look to, to build the business of the centre, but my understanding is that an awful lot of the convention-type thing is on a North American basis. Do you see that as a source of growth for the centre? Are conventions on a North American basis being held more in the area?
Mr MacDonald: I believe so. It is only limited by the floor space within the facility and the hotel rooms adjacent to it. Those are the only restrictions as far as I can understand it. I have heard that because of the GST we have lost business, that type of thing. I am not picking out the Ottawa Congress Centre, but I am not convinced Canada has done a proper job promoting what we have here. We really do have a lot to offer, particularly in Ottawa which is such a beautiful city, safe and clean compared to, as I understand it, so many American cities. People should be just about beating down our doors to hold their conventions and conferences in our area.
Mr Phillips: The reason I asked the question is because of your earlier response. If your goal is to focus a lot on "Shop Canada" for nationalistic reasons, that becomes potentially a negative. If you derive convention business on the basis of nationality, maybe we then start to encourage United States conventions to stay in the US. Is there any risk of that?
Mr MacDonald: I really and truly do not think so. Americans are promoting their own market for all it is worth, obviously. Canada has an image in the United States of a nice place to visit, of nice people to visit. I do not think we are viewed as an enemy or somebody that should be punished or somebody you would not want to share your market with. That is a real plus we have to offer and we should promote it for all it is worth.
I think most Americans look at us as a little brother type of thing and they are not adverse to giving some business to Canada. From organizations I have talked to, the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Steelworkers union which for the last few years have held huge conventions here in Toronto, they were roaring successes. They loved it here.
The Chair: Are there any further questions for Mr MacDonald? Nothing else? Thank you very much, Mr MacDonald. We will be deliberating on this later and the clerk will contact you.
AGENCY REVIEW
Consideration of the operations of certain agencies, boards and commissions.
ONTARIO BOARD OF PAROLE
The Chair: The members who were here yesterday will recall that we broke early. We were going to spend some time talking about the Ontario Board of Parole.
Mr Dutrisac is delayed; he is going to be here later. Mr Wolfe cannot make it; we are trying to reschedule him. Christine Doody-Hamilton has decided not to accept the appointment.
I was going to suggest we take an hour and do what we were going to do yesterday afternoon with respect to discussing the Ontario parole board and we will have Mr Dutrisac wait until we have finished our discussions with respect to the Ontario parole board. He is not here now in any event. How do the members feel about that?
Mr Grandmaître: That sounds good.
The Chair: All right. Do the members see any problem with having this discussion on the record? It is going to cause some upset for Hansard to leave and then come back, that is all. It does suggest on your agenda that this is a closed discussion. It is another complication. Does anyone have any problem with leaving this on the record?
1020
Mr McLean: We can talk about what we talked about yesterday on the parole board, some thoughts we have.
Mr Wiseman: The more open the system, the better.
The Chair: Okay. I will open the floor for discussion. We will aim for 11:15.
Mr McLean: I have some concerns I would like to raise and have legislative research maybe do a little more work on. They have to do with the parole board's authority to release people on parole in less than the six-month period. It appears to me there should be something over the six months and less than the two years, whereby if a person is on parole the victim, if possible, should be notified about that somehow. I do not know how we go about doing that. It appears to me that the victims in a lot of cases do not have a clue that the person who committed the offence is out in the community. I do not know. I just think it should be looked at. I have a great concern in that area.
The other area I have a concern on is that a judge or the head of a jail can let an individual out when he has been incarcerated. I did not know that before, and I would like to know if it is true.
Mr Wiseman: Are you talking about a temporary absence pass?
Mr McLean: No, I am not. I am saying that the individual could be released without the parole board having any say in it. Who determines that? It seems to me that anybody could apply for a release from prison to the head of the facility he is in.
Mr Grandmaître: But you are referring to offenders who were sentenced to --
Mr McLean: Two years less a day.
Mr Grandmaître: No. I think it is less than six months.
Mr McLean: That is right.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, less than six months. They get this automatic release without having the approval of, or being interviewed by, the parole board. I thought that was very strange. Who determines, "You can go, Jim," next weekend or this weekend? Who determines this? We did not establish yesterday who was responsible for the release of these offenders. That is a good point that Mr McLean brings up.
Mr Wiseman: We are asking the researcher to do some more work to find out about that for us.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr McLean, this is your point. I do not want to butt in, but would you want to make a recommendation?
Mr McLean: I thought that if our views were known and expressed clearly here, legislative research could bring back what we are saying to put it into one recommendation. That is really what I am looking for.
Mr Wiseman: That might call for some amendments to the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, or it could also require a recommendation to the federal government to make amendments to the federal Parole Act. I guess that is what we have to find out about, the nature of the decision-making process. If we are still on this one I will stop, because I want to discuss another topic.
The Chair: Is this relevant to this topic, Mr White?
Mr White: I tend to believe so, Mr Chair. If I could attempt to explain my past experience -- Mr Wiseman, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Correctional Services, of course would know more -- my understanding is that there are two ways in which people can be released early without reference to the parole board. One is through what is almost automatic remission of time. If one supposedly is to be serving three months, let's say, a portion of that time is automatically remitted. I think that would come to a period of, say, 10 days off that three-month period, something along those lines.
Then, of course, as was mentioned earlier, there is also the temporary absence pass. Temporary absence passes are a means by which people can go out to employment while incarcerated, or to a halfway house, so it would seem as if they had been granted parole when in fact this is something that was a Ministry of Correctional Services function.
My understanding is that the Ontario parole board very rarely would have anything to do with someone with a fairly short sentence, that is, six months or less, because the time it takes to secure parole from the Ontario Board of Parole, just to go through the bureaucratic process, is usually some eight or nine months. So people doing very short amounts of time would not even apply for parole at the Ontario level.
Mr Grandmaître: My question is, who is responsible for granting this temporary release?
Mr White: That would be the Ministry of Correctional Services.
Mr McLean: That is not happening now.
Mr Grandmaître: You will recall that we have questioned the minister about these releases on a number of occasions, and the standard answer not only from the present minister but from previous ministers was, "I'll look into it." It seems that the minister or the ministry is not totally involved. I think we should look into it.
The Chair: I think the researcher has direction.
I was wrong in my recollections yesterday about an incident in Brockville. It did involve the supervisor of the jail. I believe there is some sort of committee structure. They review the situations and have the authority. In this case, they moved an individual who had been found guilty of sexual assault out into a halfway house in the community very quickly after he had been incarcerated. That was a decision that apparently was taken by the Ministry of Correctional Services officials, and I think right at the local level by the supervisor of the jail and some others who were involved in that sort of very speedy assessment.
When I raised the question about pressure with respect to beds, which was brought to my attention at the time, the chair of the parole board indicated that overoccupancy is not a problem in the system right now, but I think maybe Mr Wiseman would have more information on that. In individual institutions I think it can be a problem, and that perhaps puts pressure on the local officials in that institution to move people out a little more quickly than perhaps they should be moved out. That is certainly something we can ask David Pond to look at.
Mr Wiseman, you had another area.
Mr Wiseman: My concern has to do with the parole situation with respect to the native population, the lack of statistics and the lack of being able to identify within that the clear parameters they are using to define what they mean by "maximum benefit from imprisonment." I would like to see perhaps some recommendations in this report that would indicate that we as a committee would like them, where possible, to start to develop strategies and develop statistical analysis of exactly what is happening with the native population with regard to parole. I think there is a gap there.
The Chair: Anything else? Mr Phillips.
1030
Mr Phillips: This may be beyond our mandate, but I think the people in the end are going to look for their governments to avoid duplication. In listening yesterday, I had a sense that the federal parole system had to have a fair bit of overlap with our system. Over the next 10 years, I think we are going to see those overlaps eliminated generally -- not in the parole system specifically, but generally. It may be beyond what we want to deal with today, but I would think at some stage in the future the disentanglement issue between levels of government has to take place both so that money is saved and that responsibility is clearly articulated.
I do not know where all that leads me in this one because we were looking just at this parole board, but at the very least I would ask that part of what this justice system committee, whatever the heck it is, is looking at be a comment on whether there is at least opportunity for more coordination between the two groups.
The Chair: Along those lines, it might be helpful -- and I mentioned this to David -- to get some information in respect to another jurisdiction that does not have a provincial parole board to see how it handles this in comparison to the Ontario environment. It may be something again that would fuel our request that this commission take a look at that whole question.
Mr Frankford: In another area, when I asked about the question of psychiatric problems among inmates, I did not think their chair handled it particularly well. There was that statement in their report, but she was not clear whether in fact jails are becoming psychiatric institutions, and I think to find some facts on that would be interesting. I do not know whether there are studies. I have been told that a fair number of inmates really are there because of psychiatric problems, but I do not have direct experience.
That being the case, I think one can well argue that a psychiatric or more medical treatment approach, if it is properly done, would be of more benefit to the inmates and, I hope, would also save costs and reduce pressures on the penal system.
The Chair: Mr Callahan just walked in the door. We are dealing with possible recommendations for our report on the Ontario Board of Parole. You may want to take this opportunity to put your concerns on the record again.
Mr McLean: While he is preparing himself to do that, I would like to indicate that the concern Mr Wiseman has raised is a very real one, the fact that not too long ago we appointed a native to the parole board. I am wondering what he was getting at when he wanted to indicate that there could be special treatment for natives. What was he getting at in his proposal?
The Chair: What was who getting at?
Mr McLean: Mr Wiseman. We have natives on the parole board.
Mr Wiseman: I was looking more for some indication of accountability. How do you measure the success or failure of programs both within the correctional system and within the parole system with respect to the native group, and whether what we are doing is achieving the goal of preventing return and continued offence?
I do not think the words "special treatment" tend to have a red flag attached to them, that you treat somebody different somehow. I do not see it in that light. I see it in the light of trying to do things that work for the benefit of all of society. If it means doing something this way for a group of people who have these identifiable problems, then you do it. You would not do it for a group that does not have those problems but a different set of problems.
Given the statistical reality that there are more natives and aboriginals in the system proportionate to their population, it would, in my mind at any rate, make some sense to see if the programs we are gearing to that group are actually fulfilling the need to help that group.
Mr McLean: I think June Rowlands got into trouble by indicating any special group was causing the problems.
Mr Wiseman: I do not think that is the same thing. We already know, we have the statistical analysis here, that in proportion to their population more aboriginals are in jail. We do not know --
The Chair: We do, but we cannot talk about it.
Mr Wiseman: It is right here in the latest legislative report.
The Chair: No, I meant about other matters.
Mr Wiseman: What I am saying is, let's make sure we are having these -- what are they called? -- sweetgrass ceremonies, these healing processes and all of these other things taking place within our institutions in an attempt to --
Mr White: Or outside.
Mr Wiseman: That is right, outside.
Mr McLean: But for our report? That was the point I wanted to make.
Mr Wiseman: For our report, I am looking to instruct the parole board to create some kind of system that will measure success or failure of this process. They could not answer that question, if you remember.
Mr White: We have the number of people applying for parole, the number of people granted parole. It should be a fairly easy statistical analysis to determine what proportion of the native population applying for parole is accepted. If there is a distinct difference between the native and non-native populations in terms of whether they are granted parole, I think that particular piece of information should be made public.
Mr Wiseman: In the same paragraph David gave us, he has a sentence: "Aboriginal offenders are less likely to be paroled early in their sentences." If I remember, the Chair raised the question about where that came from and whether that was an accurate statement, just to raise for my friend from Durham Centre. That is the kind of information I am looking at. Where did you get that from anyway?
Mr Pond: The federal Department of Justice, September 1991, in a discussion paper released by the federal Minister of Justice outlining some of the things the federal government was looking to do to reform the federal criminal justice system vis-à-vis natives.
Mr Wiseman: Not to monopolize the time, but do you have copies we could perhaps look at? Is it a lengthy document?
Mr Pond: I can certainly dig up whatever material is available.
Mr White: That is a reference to federal parole practices, then?
Mr Pond: Yes, but that quote was from a passage in which the discussion paper briefly runs down the situation across the country. The federal government collects more criminal justice statistics than does any single province. They have a centre, the Centre for Justice Statistics, that does that, sort of like a Statscan for criminal justice.
Mr White: My concern here is simply that we do not have control over the federal government's jurisdiction within its parole, and its Solicitor General and correctional minister. We do, however, have some influence, I would hope, on our own government, and if those practices which are federal are maintained here within our province, I think we should have some reason to be concerned.
1040
Mr Callahan: I would like to bring forward some of the things I was concerned about yesterday. I think everybody was here. The concern I have is that the temporary absence pass program, or allowing people to go out and maintain their jobs, particularly in this present economic environment which is probably going to last for another two and a half years -- jobs are very important, particularly with with the burden on the welfare rolls. It seems to me to be ludicrous when a judge orders that there be a temporary absence pass and it is not able to be fulfilled because of the overcrowding of our system.
I am also interested in noting that in the brochure we got from the parole people, day parole is a program which is only available federally. It seems to me that if the overcrowding of the prison system is going to continue and the orders or the recommendations of judges cannot be carried out in that regard, with the net result that the person loses his job, and the family, who are innocent victims as much as anybody else in society, has to go on welfare, then there should be some other form of perhaps day parole the parole board would have the authority to exercise if in fact the correctional authorities do not do it.
If you do not do that, I suggest what you have is that the integrity of the system of justice is compromised in that everybody in the courtroom anticipates that this man will be out working, including his family. More often than not, the decision made by the judge is influenced by that, and then it does not happen. That is exactly what is happening now. I would submit that is going to have a significant impact on the integrity of justice, and I am sure even a victim of a crime would not consider that the family -- wife and kids -- should be required to go on welfare and be deprived of what everybody had anticipated would take place.
I would like something in the report to record that problem and to address it in terms of perhaps an expansion of the parole board's authority so that if the correctional authorities are not able to carry out their mandate themselves, the parole board would in some innovative way ensure that the person's job is not lost.
There is one other thing I would like to follow up on. I am very much sympathetic and in favour of a victim's statements being used at a parole hearing, except that we all heard from the parole board that this system is a non-adversarial system -- although we did hear that in about 2% of the cases lawyers are being brought in to play. I would suggest to you that if a victim's statement is used in a parole hearing, you are going to get into a very much more adversarial system. I think that would be in a sense fair, because you are having a statement put forward that is not subject to any type of scrutiny or cross-examination. You would wind up with witnesses having to give evidence viva voce, and that does not make any sense.
All of that is already done or is starting to be done in the courts in the sentencing process. Victim impact statements are made available. If the counsel acting for the accused wishes to challenge statements that are made in that victim impact statement, then the person can be brought forward and properly examined in a courtroom.
Finally, whether you agree or disagree with what I am saying, I would suggest to you that if you bring the victim impact statements into the parole system and you do not allow for the right of the person representing the accused to question or challenge that statement, you are going to wind up with that particular provision being struck down as being contrary to the Charter of Rights. It clearly will not be providing a fair hearing for the accused.
Having said that, I go back to where I began. I think the victim should certainly be aware of the fact when someone is being released on parole. I think that is absolutely essential, particularly if it is a crime of violence. But I have some reservations about how you inject that process into the parole system. I think the proper place for it is in the trial system or at the plea of guilty or the finding of guilt that that decision is made. Those would be the two things I would like to see somehow injected into the system.
A third thing would be that I understand there is a justice review committee going on. We in the opposition would like to know a lot more about that whole process and what is going on. My colleague Mr Grandmaître, or maybe it was Mr Phillips, said we have not been able to get that information, and I think that is the type of thing that should be available to all members of the Legislature so that we can all have our input into it and perhaps offer some constructive criticism or some helpful comments.
It seems to me that we are jailing people for property offences, shoplifting of small items, and in some cases even along the lines of items that do not make it sensible or worth while to bring them before the criminal justice system. They should be dealt with in some other fashion.
I urge the parliamentary assistant -- are you parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Correctional Services?
Mr Wiseman: Yes.
Mr Callahan: I would ask you to pass on to the parliamentary assistant for the Attorney General that any review of this system should be open to all the members of the Legislature and should be participated in by all of us. We all have some good ideas that could be shared. I would hate to see a review that came back with just a limited number of ways this can be dealt with. I think we have a lot of good ideas in the Legislature, and the opposition should have full information on that. As I understand it, and I stand to be corrected, this information has not been forthcoming although the request was made by you, Gerry.
Mr Phillips: It was broader than that. Treasury board has initiated a series of reviews. It was the big thing that was announced. I have asked them to give us just a list of the reviews and they said, "No, we won't give you the list of what reviews are going on." We cannot even find out what reviews are going on, let alone what is happening in the reviews. They said, "That's for us to know."
Mr Callahan: If that does not happen, I think either this committee or the appropriate committee should require within the mandate of its power that this information be forthcoming and that one of the committees, perhaps the standing committee on the administration of justice, have full participation in that process, since it is generally concerned about the entire problem.
Those are my submissions.
Mr Grandmaître: May I add something? We have invited three, maybe four, agencies to be reviewed.
The Chair: I think it is six.
Mr Grandmaître: A total of six?
The Chair: It was two per party, in any event. I am not sure exactly what the final number was.
Mr Grandmaître: Would it not be useful if we were to invite somebody from the ministry to spend half an hour with us before we make recommendations or we decide on a report? I am sure a lot of our questions are administrative questions. Would it not be useful if we were to invite somebody from the ministry, not only on parole boards but any agency that is being reviewed, to have a chat with them before our final report?
The Chair: That is certainly an option; we could do that. If time does not permit, in terms of the constraints we have had placed upon us by reviews of appointments, for example, we could consider it. It has not been done in the past, to my recollection, but we could consider providing them even with a draft or a series of questions in writing related to our deliberations. That is another alternative, but I certainly do not see anything wrong with discussing it with the ministry prior to finalizing a report, that is for sure.
We are not going to have time during these sessions to do that, but once we come back, certainly before we finalize any element of this, we could at the request of a member request either the minister or a senior official within the ministry.
Mr Grandmaître: I am sure most of our questions are administration-related questions. It could speed up the process.
The Chair: I agree.
1050
Mr McLean: On the other hand, Mr Chairman, it may be more confusing, because once you get a senior official appearing before you, he is not going to speak on behalf of the minister. We are here making recommendations, and if it is not coming from him, then he would probably not deem it to be a good recommendation.
Mr Grandmaître: Are you saying you do not trust senior civil servants?
Mr McLean: What I am say is that they probably do not want us to make any recommendations.
Mr Grandmaître: No, I would not want that person, Mr Chair, to influence our final report, but at least he or she could answer some administrative questions.
The Chair: And provide us with information on what may be happening in the ministry that we are not aware of.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Resuming consideration of intended appointments.
MAURICE G. DUTRISAC
The Chair: Mr Dutrisac has arrived. Mr Dutrisac, welcome to the committee. Mr Dutrisac is an intended appointee to the Workers' Compensation Board. He was selected for review by the official opposition, so I will look to Mr Grandmaître to lead off the questioning.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you, Mr Chair. Monsieur Dutrisac, what do you think are the most serious present problems with the WCB system?
Mr Dutrisac: Monsieur Grandmaître, I think the major problems with the current WCB system from the employers' side are the service of our stakeholders -- being the customers, the injured workers, as well as the employers -- and the unfunded liability, which is encroaching on $10 billion. Those are basically concerns the employer groups have with regard especially to the future of manufacturing facilities in Ontario. It is something, as an appointee to the board, I would like to take a look at.
The other area is the workings of the board. It is quite a large organization. They have done a lot of technical changes, a lot of reorganization. Things have not improved dramatically, but there are ways of running an organization where you not only get 10% improvement but you could get 10-fold improvement without increasing the cost of running that organization. I think there are tremendous opportunities with a large staff such as the WCB's to bring in programs through training, through empowerment of their people, through linking technology with their people so that they can take care of the stakeholders. Not 10% increases; I am talking about 10-fold increases, doing more with basically the budgets you have or even less than what you have. Other companies have done that.
Mr Grandmaître: Do you think too many people are taking advantage of the WCB system as it is in its present state? We hear all kinds of comments that, hey, maybe 20% or 25% of the people on WCB are cheaters. Do you believe this?
Mr Dutrisac: That is a difficult question. I can only speak from my experience at the various companies I have been working at. I have not found that to be greatly the situation. The issue is prevention, not to have the injuries or occupational diseases. That seems to be the key area, but in my experience -- I have been involved with various companies for 17 years now -- I have not seen that much abuse of the system. I have not run across individual cases. You hear about it through hearsay, but personally I think most people are genuine. There is a problem with them, and the Workers' Compensation Board is the mechanism to help rehabilitate them and get them back to work.
So personally, no, I have not seen great situations. Basically, people want to work. They want to be productive to society, and especially with the economic situation we have in Ontario, I think people are realizing you cannot get a free ride any more; you have to contribute to society. I guess I believe that people innately really want to be productive and they want that chance.
Mr Grandmaître: I think we both agree that there are some cheaters. Maybe the chairman of the WCB could answer this: At present, employers are looking at the possibility of supervising, if I can use the word "supervising," these cheaters, or following these cheaters. I know some of those cheaters; they live in my own riding. One of them is the chairman of the largest Ski-doo club in Canada. This guy has been on WCB for the last 27 months; he has a sore back. He just came back from a 2,000-mile Ski-Doo trip. How can I report this guy?
Mr Wiseman: You just did.
Mr Dutrisac: There may be the odd cheaters, but my belief is that they are a very small percentage of the people. If employers do a good education job of telling all their employees that there is a cost involved with that and that we need their productivity, perhaps this would not occur. In any system there will be cheaters.
Mr Grandmaître: I realize this, but who can I phone in the Ottawa-Carleton area to report this case?
Mr Dutrisac: Basically, you can report to the Workers' Compensation Board. I do not know all the internal workings of the board. I imagine they would do an investigation on that individual.
M. Grandmaître : Je réalise que vous êtes sincère dans votre approche mais par contre, je dois vous dire que certaines lacunes existent dans le système. Je crois que tout le monde en est conscient, mais par contre, c'est frustrant. C'est très frustrant lorsqu'on voit des choses de pareille sorte et qu'on voit que ça coûte très cher aux employeurs qui paient pour ces gens-là et qu'on voit ces gens abuser du système. En plus de ça, ces gens-là aiment répandre ces faussetés ou ces vérités en disant : «Bien, moi je profite du système et il n'y a personne qui va m'empêcher de profiter du système.»
Moi, je trouve ça dégueulasse. Par contre, je reconnais que c'est un petit pourcentage qui tourne la situation à son avantage. Moi, je veux trouver un moyen pour que ces gens-là ne deviennent pas un exemple pour les gens qui ont vraiment besoin d'aide et qu'on n'en voie pas d'autres qui abusent du système. Une fois que vous ferez partie de cette commission, je voudrais que la commission s'arrête pour trouver des moyens pour empêcher ces gens-là, surtout quand ce sont des voisins ou presque des voisins. C'est dégueulasse.
1100
The Chair: Mr Callahan, you have about three minutes.
Mr Callahan: You are applying for a position with the board that has caused concern for all members of the Legislature, I think, not just one specific party. I know you will not necessarily be involved in policymaking, but you talked about safety, that that should be the key item, that employers should try to ensure that it is a safe workplace and you have minimized the amount of WCB claims. Given the opportunity to look at it from the standpoint of perhaps an insurance angle, what would be your position, that those companies that are eminently safe and claim-free should get a better break than the ones who are the recurring, slipshod type of operations?
Mr Dutrisac: Basically, I support that type of insurance program. A new experimental experience rating system that is being put in place will give the companies that do a good job -- I have always been associated with companies where we have put in all sorts of programs, like the five-star program under the international loss control using du Pont, which is one of the best companies in the world at bringing in safety management programs. It is up to the company to bring these in.
I support that the insurance should be skewed so the employers who do a very good job, who are better than average at prevention, get a better break on the insurance. In our operations in Quebec, the Quebec provincial government has come up with a new system as well where you can pick your level of risk. If you pick a level where you are supposed to come in at those numbers and you are not there, you end up paying quite a lot on your assessment. I support that. Employers listen to the costs. One of the key ways to prevent accidents in Ontario would be to have such a system.
Mr Callahan: It seems to make sense that if you are going to take the burden off this unfunded fund, you should get some benefit if you are safety conscious.
Equally, what would you say if you had the ability to perhaps influence it in terms of employers self-insuring themselves to a certain extent, if they felt they were more safety conscious than other companies, to maybe even make better provision for their employees?
Mr Dutrisac: This would be in addition or a total replacement?
Mr Callahan: Perhaps in lieu of. I get complaints, as I am sure many do, that they just seem to pay premiums. They have a safe workplace and they get no place. I am being called for time, but I would like you to think about that.
Mr Dutrisac: In my various responsibilities over the last 17 years, I have been in situations where I have been responsible for the health and safety for North American companies or operations in various states in the United States. They have such a system. It does work, but I do not know if I would want to abolish a system that was put in place in 1915 to come in with a self-insurance system.
Mr Callahan: The Income Tax Act came in in 1948. I would like to abolish that.
Mr McLean: I have a couple of questions. The WCB certainly has a lot of employees. I often wonder if it has enough sometimes when my staff phone to make inquiries. I do not know how you are going to do it. From what I can see, you are certainly getting yourself into a big job as a member of the board. I often wonder if the board itself really has the ability to look at the overall picture of the workings of the WCB. I have often wondered if we would not have been smart to have had a special commission or group of consultants come in and do an overall review of the board and its workings. Would you look at that as a favourable idea the board maybe should be looking at?
Mr Dutrisac: It is certainly a possibility. That is one solution. The other solution is that as a board member my impression would be that you would be able to put policies in; for example, this 10-times improvement. If we could convince all the board members to look at doing more with less, for example, probably there are enough people there. It is just that the structure and the technology and the organization have not really melded to provide the service to the stakeholders. That is one mechanism. There are other mechanisms for doing it. Other companies are downsizing across Ontario and on a global basis and they are doing more with less. Why can the board not do that?
Mr McLean: Maybe that is what the board has been doing, but it does not appear in my riding that this is the answer, when I have people come into my office continually who cannot get through to the board. The line is busy or they get through and get left on hold. My office gets through a little better sometimes, but not all the time. It is so big that it is impossible to satisfy everybody, but I am wondering if there should not be an overall commission to look at the workings of the board. Does the board determine the awards? Does that come from the professionals' position to say whether, if you have a hand off, you get a 30% benefit for life?
Who looks at these types of things? From the perspective I am coming from, what I see is that it is just that the WCB has a problem with handling the amount of clients it has.
Mr Dutrisac: I am a businessman, and that would be one way of fixing the problem. Certainly there is a problem, and the board will have to show leadership to find ways of fixing the problem but not increasing the cost of it by two times. We just cannot afford that in Ontario, so there has to be a solution to it.
Mr McLean: I wish you well. You have a big job.
Mr Wiseman: I would like to take a look at the financial position of the WCB. Are you aware of the unfunded liability?
Mr Dutrisac: Yes. It is encroaching on $10 billion and that is a scary situation.
Mr Wiseman: Can you give me some historical background and perhaps some analysis? First, how did this unfunded liability come about? Do you know that?
Mr Dutrisac: I do not have all that information. I guess basically, with the poor economy that has been taking place in Ontario -- we have been in a recession for the last two years -- things are getting out of hand where it is dramatically increasing. As well, there were some propositions to remove that unfunded liability in about 15 years' time. That is becoming more difficult to manoeuvre as that debt goes up, an unfunded liability.
My main concern would be that in light of the fact we are now in a North American economy, I would be concerned that if employers would have to make up that unfunded liability within a very short time span, it could make us economically not viable when we are competing with the US. Plant to plant we are part of a global operation, and basically our plants have to compete with Mexican and US plants.
But to answer your question, Mr Wiseman, I do not know all the details of how that came about. I guess basically there were not enough fees coming in and too much money going out. It is just like a snowball where it accumulated.
Mr Wiseman: This is the part where I have some difficulty in terms of when you said the fees coming in were not enough to cover it. In fact, the fees coming in I think covered sort of the day-to-day costs, but where the actuarial slipped was in projecting the future. Now we come back with actuarial statements that say it is $10 billion. Do you know what criteria they used to determine the long-term unfunded portion?
Mr Dutrisac: No, I do not know. Certainly, if my appointment goes through, I would like to find out. I am certain, being involved with actuarial situations on pension funds, that there were some growth assumptions made, and those growth assumptions have not come up. We are in a declining economy and the fees are not coming in.
Mr Wiseman: On the other side of that, though, there are also assumptions in terms of need that are used. The actuaries, being a very conservative group, always err on the side of caution, but even half a percentage point in terms of investment error turns into billions of dollars of long-term stated need and long-term stated requirement.
What I would hate to see happen is that -- as you have already pointed out, this becomes part of the profits of a small company or something -- the actuarials have erred on the side of caution to the extent that they have exaggerated the unfunded liability portion of the WCB and then turn around and move that cost on to the small businessmen, only to find out in four or five years after they have added this burden to them that they were wrong. Can you give me some comments on that?
Mr Dutrisac: That is scary. Basically, if I were a member of the board, I would want all the facts in those calculations to ensure we would not get into the situation.
1110
Mr Frankford: I am a physician, so I have dealt with the board in another way and been remunerated. It seems to me -- I am not sure of all the details of how it works -- there has been some coming together of physician payments between the WCB and OHIP, but it is not totally integrated, for sure. The WCB is also paying more for the paperwork side of it. Have you given any thought to whether there should be any further integration of the two?
Mr Dutrisac: It is not something I have really thought about. Maybe it is something I can think about.
Mr Frankford: For physicians in practice, it is on a fee-for-service basis.
Mr Dutrisac: Yes.
Mr Frankford: Fee-for-service is not the only way of paying physicians. You can have salaries, sessional fees, per capita fees.
Mr Dutrisac: Yes, and there are retainers.
Mr Frankford: Have you given any thought to it?
Mr Dutrisac: No, I am sorry. That is not an area I really looked at, but certainly it is a very important component of having the physicians provide the services to injured employees. The physicians are stakeholders in this system.
Mr Frankford: Then of course you have some physician employees and the board may require a community physician to refer to one of the board's physicians. Do you have any views on the relationship there? Should there be more board-salaried physicians, medical offices, or whatever?
Mr Dutrisac: It is something I would like to study. I really have no opinion either way, except that they are stakeholders and basically the client is the injured worker. As long as the system takes care of the injured workers and physicians are happy with the system, that is what I would be looking at, the best system of handling that.
Mr Hayes: I think, as we all know, a very high percentage of injuries are strains and sprains. Especially in the bigger auto industry, for example, it used to be they would build a variety of engines. Now what you have is an assembly line for mass production and to compete. The workers are continuously doing the same kind of job; in other words, repetitive motion. You get a lot of injuries like carpal tunnel syndrome and things of that nature. I think there are some things that can be done, like using ergonomics and actually making the job fit the person rather than trying to make the person fit the job.
There are a lot of strains and sprains as a result of that repetitive motion. Do you think the compensation board should have a role in saying to some of the corporations, "You have to start looking at improving your ergonomics and your jobs," in order to reduce the strains and sprains we are having, because I truly believe from experience it is repetitive motion. A lot of these jobs may look simple to some people, but when you are continually moving the same muscles day after day, you are bound to have these injuries. Do you think there is a role or an obligation for the Workers' Compensation Board to have some of the corporations and unions get together to put on ergonomic programs like some places do?
Mr Dutrisac: Certainly I agree with you that most of the accidents are strains and sprains, if you analyse accidents, especially in assembly line operations like we have in the appliance industry. Most companies are getting involved with ergonomics. They are bringing in ergonomics consultants, or if they are large enough, they have their own experts on staff. It certainly makes sense to look at ergonomics, and also to look at social technology programs where employees decide how long they stay on the assembly line or where they are moved about and there is job rotation so they are not doing the same assembly. Work involvement is important.
To answer your question directly, I would prefer an education system from the Workers' Compensation Board -- there are also associations like the Industrial Accident Prevention Association -- to educate employers in the importance of using ergonomic theories.
I do not know, if you legislated it, it might become another government encroachment on various business practices but I agree with you that there need to be more ergonomics. Maybe the board should take a look at that because once the accident has occurred, it may take a year to get an injured worker back, and if you can prevent accidents from occurring, it has a tremendous productive impact on the economy if you can keep people at work.
Mr White: Actually, following Mr Hayes's question, it seems the issue with WCB is very frequently an issue of claims and monetary settlements. However, it seems to me that there is also an obligation to be looking at both accident prevention, as Mr Hayes was suggesting, and effective rehabilitation, as is I believe part of the WCB's mandate at the moment. Do you have any comments on that latter end of the process, as Mr Hayes has already touched on the preceding part?
Mr Dutrisac: Yes, that is the other part of it, the actual rehabilitation. I think it has been very difficult with the slowdown in the economy. There have not been that many jobs for people who cannot return to their old jobs. It has been very difficult. I think the WCB has been accused of not having enough rehabilitation programs. It is a very difficult situation. How do you get those people to become productive again? It is sometimes very complex. Certainly it is something that needs more looking into.
The Chair: We have a little extra time and I am going to give Mr Wiseman another shot at it.
Mr Wiseman: Have you any idea how much cash is on hand at the WCB for working capital on a daily or monthly basis?
Mr Dutrisac: I have no idea. I have not looked at their cash flow statements.
Mr Wiseman: I guess I am preoccupied with this notion of the deficit and the money and where it is. I am concerned about how much cash is available, what kind of short-term instruments it is invested in and what kind of return is being given on that money, and how secure they are, given the volatility of the market. I think that has a lot to do with how successfully this unfunded portion of the WCB is going to be handled in the long run. Do you have any comments on that?
Mr Dutrisac: The only comment I would have is, as a business person, like any company, you cannot survive unless you watch your cash flow. You watch your investments. I would assume that an organization as large as the Workers' Compensation Board would be taking a very close look at those situations. I know in private life you would not survive. You would be broke or you would go bankrupt.
Mr Wiseman: Here is the kicker then. Do you think the WCB should be able to market worldwide to buy GICs or long-term instruments in other markets or should it be restricted to buying them in the Canadian market alone?
Mr Dutrisac: One of my tasks is to invest the pension plans for my companies and there are some limits there. We can only use 10% on foreign investments. I guess it is a question of how much money you want to reinvest in Ontario. If you take everything to Europe, what happens as far as further investments go? I guess there could be a little bit more but I would not want to see all our money going out to Eurobonds or in the United States. It is a complex issue.
Mr McLean: I have a short question and it follows what Mr Grandmaître was talking about earlier with regard to people he feels should not be on the system. I do not think there are many on the system who should not be, but there is the odd one. Perhaps in some of your board meetings you could look at providing a service for people who feel somebody is getting benefits who should not be. There would be a number somebody could call to report that. If it is legit, fine; if it is not, fine. As he said, "Who do I contact? Who do I report it to?" There does not appear to be anybody. I have had it brought to my attention in the riding and I have said, "It's not up to me to look after that issue," but there is no place you can contact. I think there should be accountability in that form.
1120
Mr Dutrisac: There could be. I have had situations where people have called the various companies I work for and informed us that this individual is working in a car wash while receiving workers' compensation. We had an investigator go out there, confront him, and that was the end of it. He had to refund the money and he was no longer an employee of our company. There is the odd one, but I still feel that basically people are honest and they want to be productive.
Mr McLean: I do too.
Mr Dutrisac: There are always one or two.
The Chair: I would like to ask you a quick question as well before we let you go related to the study that is now under way with respect to granting compensation benefits related to stress. As someone who has been working in the human relations field for as many years as you have, I would suspect that gives you a lot of concern. It seems to me it is like stepping into a black hole. Where does it stop and how do you define what is compensable with respect to stress? We talk about remaining a competitive province with respect to other jurisdictions in North America, let alone the world. I was wondering what your views are on that. Do you have any concerns?
Mr Dutrisac: There is a concern. If you are a global company with part of your operations in North America, you are at a competitive disadvantage if their insurance provisions do not cover stress. I have to admit there are situations of stress, especially in the last couple of years. It has been a situation where, with downsizing, people have to do more work, and there may be situations where stress can cause someone to miss work. The difficulty is identifying which are valid and which are not. As we get involved in giving people time off or giving them benefits for stress, it is a concern that most employers have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Dutrisac.
Mr Callahan: Mr Chairman, I understand the 11 o'clock and the 11:30 will not be here. I just wanted to follow up on a point that was made by Mr McLean.
The Chair: I am going to let you have one minute, because we have gone well over the half-hour that is allocated, which is our normal process. I let each party have a quick question, so I will let you have one.
Mr Callahan: I was intrigued by the situation of someone working in a job and collecting workers' compensation. If a person buys a business, he has to do a search to make certain there are not workers' compensation premiums outstanding. What is so difficult about setting up a system whereby an employee would have to produce to an employer a statement that he is not collecting workers' compensation? Is that an impossible task? Would it be something you would pursue?
Mr Dutrisac: I think it would impact on the freedom of people. It is just another regulation you have to go through.
Mr Callahan: But they impact on the freedom of people. It also impacts on the question of the integrity of the system. I think if there were more things like that in unemployment insurance, people would stop bitching about the process and we would not run the risk of losing them if we had that type of control.
Mr Dutrisac: My concern would be that to put in procedures just to go after the 1% or the one tenth of 1% who do cheat may be overkill. In the end, you do get caught if the system works. There is a system of appeals. You cannot hide all the time; for instance, Mr Grandmaître, your Ski-Doo person. I think eventually things will get caught up.
Mr Grandmaître: He will buy a four-wheeler.
Mr Dutrisac: Yes. Well, hopefully not.
The Chair: Thanks very much, Mr Dutrisac. We appreciate your appearance today and your most interesting testimony.
Since we still have a little bit of time, if there is no objection, if you take a look at your agenda, at 2 pm we were scheduled to make a determination with respect to the intended appointees who appeared before us. As one was unable to appear and the other cancelled, I am going to suggest that perhaps we can deal with the appointment of Mr Dutrisac and of Mr MacDonald right now, unless there is an objection to doing that.
Mr Wiseman: I do not.
The Chair: Do you want to move with respect to both appointments?
Mr Wiseman: Yes.
The Chair: We have a motion from Mr Wiseman that the committee concur with the appointment of Maurice Dutrisac to the Workers' Compensation Board and Donald MacDonald to the Ottawa Congress Centre. Any discussion on the motion? All in favour?
Motion agreed to.
Mr Frankford: If there are no other items, could I raise a sort of research question I asked David Pond about yesterday? It relates somewhat broadly to one of the people who did not turn up, about provincial appointments to hospital boards. I thank David for his speedy response, but it was not really the question I was asking.
What occurs to me is that many of us have hospitals in our ridings, but I think the majority do not have provincial appointees to them. The question I am really asking is, is there any rationale to when they have provincial appointees and when they do not?
Mr Pond: I believe that under the Public Hospitals Act, publicly funded hospitals, as a condition of getting the grant from the province, will have provincial appointees.
Mr Frankford: But I do not think that is the case. I think if you look at the number of hospitals that have provincial appointees, it is a small minority of all hospitals. Since it is the first time we have had a hospital board appointee, I thought it would be an interesting question to raise, and looking down the road we may be looking at revisions to the Public Hospitals Act. So I think this might be a useful piece of information to have for that.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, just for information, I recently had occasion to contact Mr Wright, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and he advised me on a technical point that there is a distinction between publicly funded hospitals, and for want of another word, non-publicly funded hospitals in that some are in and some are out of freedom of information legislation. I found that rather fascinating. I did not know it until I tripped into it, but here is another apparent wrinkle or difference in these hospitals. To the extent that we may be uncovering something, we may find there are a lot of perhaps inappropriate divisions and distinctions occurring between these hospitals, simply because they are defined as publicly funded from the province.
I just enter it for information, but I was quite fascinated by this unusual distinction. If I have one of each, I have access to my constituent files in one hospital but I do not in another. It is really quite absurd.
The Chair: I should mention that Michael Wolfe is the intended appointee to the Royal Victoria Hospital board of governors. The clerk is still trying to get in contact with Mr Wolfe to see if we can fit him in in terms of a review at some point during the week that will also conform with his schedule.
The other thing before we break is that I just want to remind you on the agenda that Carol Phillips is going to be here, so you can give some thought to that.
Mr McLean: This afternoon?
The Chair: She is going to be scheduled during week two or three, I guess. Doug does not have any specific date set up for that yet. Really, this was a suggestion of the clerk, that we at some point during our deliberations -- and perhaps do this on an annual basis. If this committee continues to review appointments, we would look at doing this on an annual basis, to review the process and get her views on how it is working and relay the views of the committee to her as well.
Mr Callahan: Not being a full-time member of this committee, I saw in here where the Premier had forwarded to us Lieutenant Governor appointments he had already made. What is really the function of this committee? Has it any turnback powers or is it just an exercise in futility?
The Chair: We have been discussing that at length for some time. There is in your folder the terms of reference for the committee. If you want to take a look at that, it may help you when Ms Phillips appears before us.
Mr Wiseman: The potential for this committee is to reject an appointment.
Mr Callahan: It is not advise and consent, I gather, as in the United States process.
Mr Wiseman: No, this is not the American --
Mr Callahan: This is, "You are advised and you will consent," I guess.
Mr Wiseman: But this government is doing such a wonderful job appointing all these wonderful appointments like --
The Chair: Meeting adjourned.
The meeting adjourned at 1132.