CONTENTS
Wednesday 6 October 1993
Subcommittee report
Workers' Compensation Board
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Yeager, Lewis, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1136 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): Good morning. I'd like to call this meeting of the standing committee on government agencies to order. The first item of business is the report of the subcommittee. It's the one dated Wednesday, September 29, and Thursday, September 30. Since those selections were made by the subcommittee, the third item, which is Mr Robbie Goldberg with the Travel Industry Compensation Fund Board of Trustees -- we were making that selection for October 13, but we haven't been able to confirm that he's able to attend at that time. Is he at a convention?
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): No, that's the other one.
The Chair: Oh, it's the other one. Anyway, we're looking to schedule him for the 20th.
Clerk of the Committee: If he's not available.
The Chair: If it ends up he's not available on the 13th, is it agreeable that we schedule him for the 20th? That's the first question.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): We have no problem with that.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Waters: I move that we work him into the schedule as best we can, so if it means the 20th, fine.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): On a point of order, then, Madam Chair: Maybe I'm ahead of my time, but we didn't get a selection on September 30. You had a subcommittee meeting -- well, I'm ahead of my time.
The Chair: All right, should we discuss that at the end of this page? Okay.
Item 5, we have under "Licence Suspension Appeal Board" Mr Murray Waldman. He is at a convention on the 13th, so he's not available on the 13th either, but he has confirmed that he's available on October 20. So if it's agreeable, we'll have him come in on the 20th. That's agreeable? Okay. Are there any other questions on the subcommittee report?
Mr Waters: It was my understanding, I guess I should start with, that we were going to, over the period of the fall, finish off the Workers' Compensation Board and do appointment reviews. I don't remember us going ahead with the Ontario Food Terminal starting on the 17th. Maybe that was just because we were having a somewhat casual, shall we say, subcommittee meeting where there were people popping in and out and I might have overlooked that. I just wanted that reaffirmed.
The Chair: Our subcommittee meetings are very formal.
Mr Waters: But at the last one, because of time, some people had to leave early and we had subs in.
The Chair: The agreement, Mr Waters, was, as has been printed, that we would deal with the Ontario Food Terminal first and then the Ontario Human Rights Commission. We also said we wanted to wait -- it was mentioned, I think perhaps by you or Mr Curling -- for the Premier's Council report.
Mr Waters: I'm guilty. Yes.
The Chair: Right? Do you remember now?
Mr Waters: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. Are there any other questions on the subcommittee report?
Mr McLean: The other question I had, Madam Chair, was, I wasn't available the Thursday afternoon that you made the selections.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr McLean: Unfortunately, there's a new appointment to the Ontario Municipal Board. I would have loved to have had the chance to interview the individual, the mayor of Kingston, I believe. She wasn't picked by anyone else. Am I too late now to ask for unanimous consent to have that pick?
The Chair: Unfortunately, those who weren't selected from that list last week have now been notified that they could go ahead with the appointments.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): We have a question to raise on that, whether or not -- she's now presently the mayor, and we're not quite sure. Are we going to confirm this before she resigns or can she hold both positions at the same time, which we think is not likely?
The Chair: I'll have Ms Mellor answer that question, because that question was raised in our subcommittee.
Clerk of the Committee: I've spoken to the secretariat and they are going to confirm in writing, but she is going to resign. The date of the appointment isn't until November, but they're expecting her to resign before the appointment takes place.
Mr Curling: So when we appoint her, if we should appoint her --
Interjections.
Mr Curling: Is she appointed now? Is that what you said, Mr Waters?
Clerk of the Committee: They're proceeding with the appointment because you didn't select her last week. So we had to let them know that she wasn't selected so they could proceed. So they have done that, but the appointment isn't effective until, I believe it was, November. She will be resigning before the appointment is effective, but I'm waiting for their letter to confirm.
Mr Curling: It's not perfect.
Mr Waters: She will not be coming before the committee because we did not select her last time.
Mr Curling: I understand that, but you see how screwy the whole process is anyhow. She's a wonderful person. I think she may be a very effective individual, but if you examine the process, you'll see how screwy it is anyhow. You know what I mean. The fact is --
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Move concurrence, Madam Chair.
Mr Curling: No.
The Chair: Mr Curling does have the floor at the moment.
Mr Curling: We would be appointing her before she resigned, but the appointment is beyond the immediate time, so the appointment is taking effect November 1, is that it?
Clerk of the Committee: I'm not sure of the exact date. It's in November.
Mr Curling: But they're saying then, when we do appoint her, since she's appointed as you said now she is, but we're not even quite sure when she is. But the appointment will take place after she resigns, but she hasn't resigned. And we don't have an exact date for the appointment. I'm just interested to look at that procedure.
Clerk of the Committee: The authorization for the appointment is being done. The appointment doesn't take effect until the date, which I'm not sure exactly of, in November.
The Chair: If there isn't any more discussion, would someone like to --
Mr Waters: I'd like to bring up one more point. I spoke briefly to you, Madam Chair, out in the hall about it, and it isn't that I'm opposed to us looking at the Human Rights Commission in the winter recess, but do we want to tie ourselves to it at this point, or do we want to indeed leave that open until the end of November or early December and then say, "Okay, there's nothing else that's come up"? Do we move on with it at that point? Or if something else has come up, it might be tying our hands so we don't have that ability, and I wanted that question answered.
Mr Curling: Are you saying then that examining the Ontario Human Rights Commission at that time -- I'm not quite sure if I understand what you're saying.
Mr Waters: I'm not saying no to examining it, Alvin. What I'm saying is that there could be something that is politically more sensitive that we might want to prioritize in front of it by that point in time as the committee.
Mr Curling: Like what?
Mr Waters: I have no idea, but politics is not a stagnant business.
Mr Curling: So we put everything on hold then until something hot comes up.
Mr Waters: Till the end of November, and then if we decide to go ahead, then we direct the Chair and the clerk and those people on staff to go ahead with it and get it planned for January or February, whenever we could have our week.
The Chair: In fairness, when the committee decided to review the three agencies, the one that we're already in the process, of course, which is WCB and these other two, the committee approved that recommendation from the subcommittee.
It is in order for the committee as a whole to amend, when we review those agencies -- and if you wish, you may in fact add another agency and decide to do that ahead of either of these other two that are already on the list.
So what Mr Waters is asking is, can we leave it maybe another month and see what other agency may come forward that we may want for some reason to review ahead of one of the -- well, we already will have started the food terminal, but ahead of the Human Rights Commission. So it is within your power to amend that list of agencies for review.
Mr Marchese: I appreciate what you've said, but I appreciate as well what Mr Waters is saying. I have a different view of this issue. Given that we have interviewed individuals from the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the commission itself, my personal view is that we demoralize the commission and the workers of the commission each time we bring them here. I would like to understand from the subcommittee members -- obviously there were three or four of you there -- what your view was, whoever the subcommittee representative was, that you would want to have the commission here again. I would be interested in knowing that.
The Chair: Let me just clarify one point here, because I think it's important -- in fact, two things. First of all, any agency that we're going to review, we have to give it a month's notice, in fairness, in order for it to prepare, a minimum of a month in order for it to prepare, not only for the agency but for our research as well.
But the second thing is, we can amend this report now in terms of time. In other words, you can decide as a committee not to review OHRC now but later, but you can't take it off the list without unanimous consent. That means all three parties have to agree if it's going to be take off completely, but the committee can decide when.
Mr Marchese: I raised different questions. I know you were talking to Lynn as I was raising the points.
Mr Curling: Let me respond to Mr Marchese's question. First, I don't think when any group comes before us we demoralize it. You may; I don't. Because this agency itself is to see if we can improve upon the efficiency and sometimes to understand its intent better. So the Ontario Human Rights Commission comes before us not to be demoralized. That's one.
The other part, the reason why I think it's good timing is because at the moment we are going through things like employment equity, which actually has a great impact on what the commission does and there are some questions and some assistance and support of that bill that could be understood through it presenting to us. They're also, right now, going through their little internal changes, which of course we thought the minister would have announced, but we'd like to understand where the Ontario Human Rights Commission is before it's too late.
Mr Marchese: In response to that, it may not be the intent of the Liberal member to demoralize, but bringing members here and the commission here on a regular basis demoralizes them. He may not believe so and it may not be his intent, he argues. In fact, what he argues is that he wants to make them more effective by bringing them here. I don't know how he would do that. But my sense is that it does demoralize people when you bring them over, and if you don't give the commission plenty of time to do the job it needs to do so that you can properly evaluate the steps it's taking to improve, it has the effect of doing what I suggest. So it's a problem for me.
Mr McLean: I can't believe what I'm hearing here. We got the same line from the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay when we wanted to deal with the WCB: "You demoralize them, bringing them here." Do you not want to have anybody come before the committee? Do you demoralize them all? Let's have some common sense and have them in and let's see what they're doing, see if they're in line and let's check out what the Human Rights Commission is doing. Accountability is what it's all about.
Mr Curling: Exactly, accountability.
Mr Marchese: Madam Chair --
The Chair: Just a second. Mr Mammoliti, Mr Waters and then Mr Marchese.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'm glad Mr Marchese asked the question in terms of what questions you may want to bring forward when they're in front of us. Mr Curling had responded by saying that he's concerned about the employment equity package and he feels that it's relevant to their task and their mandate and would want to ask a number of questions around that. I really don't have a problem with that myself, but if we're going to ask questions that we may have asked a number of months ago and be repetitive on a number of areas that I believe would be just a total waste of time, then I would agree with my colleagues and say that it's really not necessary.
In terms of employment equity, I can see some relevance to the people who we might want in front of us and their particular mandates. If we're going to stick to that particular item, I don't particularly have a problem with it, but if we're going to become repetitive and ask the same questions we've asked them in the past, then I have a problem with that.
1150
Interjection.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Curling --
Mr Mammoliti: I don't know what you're going to ask, Alvin. If the concerns are employment equity and the questions are of that, then --
The Chair: Mr Mammoliti, maybe I could help here. Bear in mind that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has already been selected as an agency to come before the committee. It can only be changed by unanimous consent. When an agency comes before this committee, there are no limitations about what can be asked of that agency. That agency is fully accountable in any part of its operation to review by this committee.
Mr Mammoliti: I realize that, Madam Chair.
The Chair: You can't now put limitations on what could be asked or what could be dealt with. So if you were going down that road, I just didn't want you to think that there was that option. There isn't that option because of the way the committee operates. The mandate of the committee is to review agencies and there's no guideline as to how that review is done.
Mr Mammoliti: But I trust my friend's word, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Pardon?
Mr Mammoliti: I trust my friend's word. If he says that he's going to be very specific, then I trust him at that. I wouldn't think he'd go off on a tangent and ask irrelevant questions.
The Chair: Mr Mammoliti, it's entirely --
Mr Mammoliti: You've made your point, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Okay. Mr Waters, Mr Marchese and Ms Witmer.
Mr Waters: I want to deal with the statement by Mr McLean and then I'd like to make a statement, I guess, over this other -- as to Mr McLean's statement that he heard the same thing when it came to the WCB, well, he did, and when you looked at the hearings, other than something about flooring that somebody ranted and raved about for three days, the rest of it was dealt with in a report from the resources development committee in 1991 and everything has been moved on, pretty well every other comment. These people spend all their time preparing for us instead of getting on with the job and that's a concern.
On having the Human Rights Commission coming before the committee, it is a long-standing practice of this committee that the subcommittee choose one from each political party, and I respect that. Alvin and the Liberal Party chose the Human Rights Commission and therefore I respect their right to have that commission come forward.
The only thing I was trying to get at was that indeed they have the right to bring it forward and we have a tentative time and if it's just a tentative time, I don't think I have so much problem; I just didn't want to commit because we all know, from all three parties, that things change here rather rapidly at times and I didn't want us to be committed to something when something else could come up that is much more of an immediate problem that had to be dealt with. That was all I was concerned about, but you have a right, Alvin, to bring them in. I was just concerned about committing ourselves.
The Chair: I think one thing we have to clear up is that the wording in your subcommittee report to you as the committee members this morning is very specific that OHRC would be during the winter recess. If you want some latitude there, you've got to change your subcommittee report wording that's before you now. Ms Witmer, you were the next person to speak.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I just would like to see us come to some decision regarding this subcommittee meeting, Madam Chairperson. We have a letter here which I think is much more important and needs to be dealt with, because it pertains to information we discussed in the past. let's move on and resolve what's happening here, please.
The Chair: Is somebody going to move the report as it's written?
Mr Waters: Okay, and then we can make --
The Chair: Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: I just want to make some quick comments because they are of concern to me. Mr McLean talked about Mr Waters having the same opinions on the WCB. My worry about what we did with the WCB is that since 1974 they have been doing study after study of the WCB, and staff has to change its direction every time there is a different study with a new direction with a new political party in power, so there's no stability to do the work they need to do.
I was making a similar connection with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. When they come here, they have to prepare themselves, as the WCB did with all of its staff, ready to answer questions, and of course they should. But my feeling is that what Mr Curling and Mr McLean want is to be able to ask questions they could not get answered in the employment equity hearings; I am anticipating what you may want.
Mr Curling: Stop anticipating me.
Mr Marchese: If I am wrong, we will see that, but those are the questions I am raising.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Marchese: But, Madam Chair, I didn't finish the point.
The Chair: I think we're starting to repeat ourselves.
Mr Marchese: It's not repetition. To do a review of this agency just for that, in my view, would be a total waste of time.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, that's your opinion and the agency has been selected.
Mr McLean, were you moving the report?
Mr McLean: He moved it.
The Chair: Mr Waters? All right. You're moving this report with those amendments for October 20, if necessary, for those two cases we referred to.
Mr Waters: Yes, and one further amendment that I would like to table, item 2, until shall we say the first week of December so we can be certain that indeed is the one we wish to proceed with during the winter break.
The Chair: Item 2 on this report would then read, "The committee commence its review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission during the winter recess, subject to review by the end of November"?
Mr Waters: Yes.
The Chair: All right. All in favour of that report? That report is carried.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
You have been circulated two letters this morning that came to me as Chair of the committee. The first one I'm asking you to look at is the one from the Office of the Provincial Auditor.
When I received this letter, I realized that Mr Peters is saying in his last paragraph that he will advise me of the specific passages he is concerned about from the Hansard of our committee hearings on September 15. I have not heard again yet from Mr Peters which passages he is referring to, but I felt this letter was very significant and very important for the committee and that's why we added it to discuss this morning, because normally our subcommittee reports are dealt with in three minutes. I thought, still meeting at 11:30, we had ample time.
This letter obviously makes some very significant statements. Perhaps the committee is going to want to invite Mr Peters to come before the committee to discuss what his concerns are about statements by Mr King which are either misleading or factually incorrect, as he states in his letter.
I would like some direction from the committee about what you'd like to do with this concern of Mr Peters.
Mrs Witmer: Obviously, Madam Chair, this is a very, very serious issue that has been raised by the Provincial Auditor, indicating that Mr King has made misleading or factually incorrect statements regarding the new WCB headquarters. I think it's absolutely essential that the auditor does have an opportunity to set the record straight regarding the comments and to provide this committee with the important facts. I suggest that this letter be tabled and that we meet with the auditor as quickly as can be, and that be decided at the next meeting of the subcommittee.
Mr Waters: I would like to see the letter tabled. I would also suggest that we immediately get in writing from the Provincial Auditor his concerns and indeed details of his allegations. If we decide at that point that we need to have him in to verbally reinforce those or to explain that rationale, then we should do that. But I'd like to see something in writing first from him so that we can sit down as a committee or a subcommittee and at least look at this. Then we can determine whether we need to have him physically present for questions and answers or not.
1200
The Chair: Can I just say something? I don't think Mr Peters is making allegations here. He's saying that he will advise us of what the specific passages are. I think in fairness, as your Chairman, I don't want to get into writing letters back and forth between me and Mr Peters. I think it would be far more effective to have Mr Peters come and speak in person to the committee rather than get into a paper chase.
Mr Curling: I agree with Mr Waters. Here is a letter saying that he has some concerns that comments were made or statements were made in Mr King's testimony before the committee that could be considered either misleading or factually incorrect. As he said in the last paragraph, "I will advise you of the specific passages to which I am referring." I think we should await the Provincial Auditor's comment, and then at a meeting, we decide whether that comment that he made -- or as he said, maybe Hansard may correct some of the perceived misleading stuff. Before we decide to ask the auditor to come before us, let us hear what he has to say first, as written, and then we'll take the decision thereafter.
Mr McLean: I wanted to say the same thing. Let's see what he has in writing. As soon as we get it in writing, the subcommittee should meet then to determine what we're going to do with it.
Mrs Witmer: I would disagree with that, Madam Chair. I believe that the fact that the auditor has written this letter to you indicates that he has some very, very grave concerns regarding the misleading or factually incorrect testimony that was provided by Mr King. This is not the first time Mr King has provided misleading or factually incorrect information. We know this has occurred before.
I believe it's absolutely essential that we invite the auditor to our committee and that we air this. I believe this particular WCB issue of the new headquarters has caused nothing but chaos in this province and I think the public deserves to hear the truth. Obviously, what we've heard from Mr King is not the total truth. There's misleading information. I think it's absolutely essential that the auditor come in and address this committee and that we have an opportunity to ask him whatever questions we have. I would support that direction.
Mr Marchese: My sense is that Ms Witmer makes some very provocative statements when she says that this is not the first time Mr King makes misleading statements. I think it's provocative. My sense is this: The auditor makes some allegations of misleading information. We should see what that is. As two or three other members have said, once we've seen that, none of us are ruling out the need to hear the auditor, or in which case, to hear the auditor with Mr King present as well, so we could have that kind of discussion with both of them. I'm not ruling that out, but we should see the information first and then we'll decide.
Mr Mammoliti: I just want to remind Mrs Witmer that in the letter, the auditor says he would want a chance to look at the final Hansard before advising us. It's an assumption on my part, but I assume that he'll advise us in writing. He's not coming out and asking us to put him on the agenda to come in front of us. I would suggest we listen to what he has to say and read about it in a letter and then take the appropriate steps. I think it's premature to do it any other way, Mrs Witmer. If and when we do ask him to come in front of the committee, I would strongly suggest that Mr King be here as well. If these allegations are correct, then I'd like to hear what Mr King has to say about that as well. So let's not be premature on this. Let's just wait it out and find out what he has to say, and let's find out what he has to say in writing first before we make some sort of a decision as a committee. I think that's a more reasonable position at this particular time. Anything else would be premature.
Mrs Witmer: Well, I think --
The Chair: Excuse me, Ms Harrington is next.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Very briefly, it's my understanding from reading this letter that the auditor is saying, "I will advise you of the specific passages." So my understanding is that he is not saying, "I want to discuss this with you," but there is another step here, that he will advise us as to what we're actually talking about. So I would concur with, I believe, most of the committee that it is in the hands of the subcommittee to deal with this further.
The Chair: All right. So are you going to make a motion as to the direction now?
Ms Harrington: I think Mr Waters will.
Mr Waters: Okay. I'll make the motion that I think what we would like to see is, we would direct the clerk to make contact with Mr Peters to come out with specifics of what he's talking about in writing for us to review at subcommittee, and then we will make the decision as to whether we need to have Mr Peters here and Mr King back to answer those allegations.
The Chair: Would you agree, Mr Waters, that the letter should go from the Chair of the committee since he wrote to the Chair?
Mr Waters: Yes. It was an assumption, Madam Chair, that you would direct the clerk to do that for you. But definitely under your signature.
The Chair: Right.
Mr Mammoliti: Madam Chair, on a point of information, if possible: When the auditor decides to write a letter and mails it to you -- I would assume it's to you -- I would certainly like a copy of it. I'm sure that everybody on the committee would like a copy of it as soon as possible. So I would request that at least I be given a copy of it, because I'm concerned about this. I think everybody else should have one as well and not wait till the next meeting.
The Chair: Now that this has been dealt with by the committee, that would be standard procedure that everybody would receive a copy of his -- well, we will send you a copy of my letter on your behalf and any response we receive from Mr Peters.
Mr Mammoliti: Okay.
The Chair: Is there any more discussion on that motion by Mr Waters?
All in favour of that motion?
Opposed, if any?
That's carried.
The second letter for you to deal with this morning, is the letter from Robert Fleming International Research, Inc. I realize you've just received this letter. If you need any more time to read it, I'm wondering what direction you would like, how you would like this letter dealt with.
Mr McLean: Could someone interpret for me the third paragraph on the first page?
"I was particularly interested in the committee's questions, as one of my clients is ManageAbility Inc of Michigan, a leading medical review firm which provides cost containment services to workers' compensation boards, insurance companies and municipalities of Michigan and 17 other states. ManageAbility acts as a consultant to the Workers' Compensation Health Care Services Advisory Committee of Michigan."
So is this firm from Michigan supplying services to the WCB here in Ontario?
The Chair: No. In fact, apparently he did attend some of the hearing on the WCB, although I don't know him, so I didn't know him by sight if he was there. I think what he's saying is that he was particularly interested in the committee's questions on WCB as they evolved, and I think what he's saying is that he has clients who do this as part of their service. I think really what he's going on to suggest is that the committee might like to hear what kind of cost containment and other types of management this company does for their clients in the States. I think he's just offering them as a service to this committee, for this committee to hear from them if they think it's relevant to your review of WCB.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I wasn't here for the WCB hearings so I don't know all about this. It seems to me that this must presume that there is some similarity with the Michigan approach to workers' compensation and what we have here. I have no knowledge which would say that is or is not the case, but I think one should be very cautious about assuming that American consultants have the answers. I think we may be dealing with very different situations.
Let me remind you of the disaster in Manitoba recently where a high-priced American consultant was brought in to save costs and did by drastically laying off nurses, and that's another example of the frequent irrelevance of US experience.
Mr Marchese: I'm not sure the committee should spend time to listen to this group with regard to their speciality in tracking, analysing and verifying billings in medical -- if anything, we might refer this letter to the WCB, given that is what's of interest to them, and that would be the most and the least we could do, I suppose.
Mr Curling: Actually, I understand what he's trying to do. He said he'd like the legislative committee to hear of his expertise, which was wonderful. I think during the hearing it would have been nice to have heard what kind of consultative approach and professional things that he does or his company does, and that will be fine, because even right now -- and I raise it again -- we have other committees that people were actually shut out of in hearing.
The provincial firefighters came to me today and they were concerned that they didn't get an opportunity to appear before a committee, because, as I said, they were too late and whatever other excuses were given by the government. So I would not actually support the fact of opening up a legislative committee again to hear this unless we decide that we're going to make this in other instances where people who are local here can't even get before committees here because they were shut out.
The Chair: So what is the wish of the committee? This letter is addressed to your Chairman. What response? How do you want us to handle this letter?
Mr Marchese: My sense, Madam Chair, is that we've done our committee hearings on the WCB. This is something that might be of interest to people, but it isn't something our committee should be doing. But we might refer it to the WCB for their information.
The Chair: So we'll pass this letter on to the WCB to the chairman, Mr Di Santo.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Might I suggest that it be directed to the WCB.
Mr Waters: At the same time, when you're passing it on to WCB, I would be concerned if it went to WCB that it would in any way infer that we want it to hire these people. We want to keep the costs down.
The Chair: If the committee agrees, we'll just forward it on for their information. All right, is there any other business before the committee this morning?
Mr Marchese: I move an adjournment, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you. All in favour of adjourning?
Thank you.
The committee adjourned at 1214.