CONTENTS
Wednesday 23 June 1993
Subcommittee reports
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
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr Mammoliti
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
The committee met at 1136 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): Good morning. I call this meeting of the standing committee on government agencies to order.
The first order of business is the report of the subcommittee. We actually have one written report and one oral. The written report I think you have in front of you. That was from last week's meeting of the subcommittee. We had a subcommittee meeting this morning, and we would like to give that orally so that it's on the record, with the concurrence of the committee members, and then we will forward you a printed copy of that oral report. That's just to expedite the business of the committee. Would somebody like to move the written report that you have in front of you?
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'd like to make a comment on the written report, actually, before we go into adoption. I raised this in subcommittee; I raise it again now. I would ask that the Tory caucus go back and have some more discussion on the review of the Workers' Compensation Board. That board has been studied to death, both by committees and by outside task forces.
The WCB is spending a lot of time, energy and resources responding to these various reports and is trying to implement the recommendations. Another report or inquiry would only divert attention and resources away from these efforts once again.
I know I instituted one of these way back in April 1991. I had concerns, like everyone else, about the WCB, but if there was one thing I heard from both the management and the injured workers' sides and all other interested parties in 1991, it is that there are a number of recommendations, and please leave them alone to implement the recommendations. There have been a series of things that have happened ever since that have taken up their time right up through to the present, and indeed into the future, already.
I would ask that the Tory members of this committee go back and discuss this with their caucus and that we leave to another day that particular one; otherwise, I feel I have no alternative but to make a motion of some sort that we do not move ahead with the compensation board.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I'd like to add briefly that workers' compensation is something I've been very, very concerned about for quite a while now. I have been speaking with Bob Mackenzie about it on an ongoing basis. It seems to me, and I can share this with you, that now is the time that things are actually beginning to change and happen there, and that's what I want: improvements to be made. I would concur with Mr Waters that we give them a little chance to see if they can implement the recommendations that have already been made by other committees.
The Chair: What you're saying, for clarification, is that if the Workers' Compensation Board remains one of the selections of the three agencies to be reviewed this summer, you will defeat that motion. Is that what you're saying?
Mr Waters: What we're saying is that unless Mr McLean, representing the Tory caucus, goes back and talks to his people and they discuss this, yes, that's what we're saying. If we can't come to a mutual understanding on it, then we'll end up voting against it and defeat it.
The Chair: The mutual understanding is that you won't approve the WCB for review.
Mr Waters: Yes.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): That's the first time I've heard of this happening in a committee, and I find it rather strange. As you're aware, the WCB wasn't my choice; it was taken to our caucus and the caucus made the choice to review it, albeit there was a lot of discussion, from what I've heard.
From what I gather from the government members and the issues they're raising, it certainly gives me thought to change my mind and feel that probably the WCB is something we had better be reviewing. If the government is so adamant about not wanting to review it, then it certainly gives me the thought that there's something there, that maybe we'd better try to find out what's wrong.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I don't think things are getting a lot better in the workers' compensation. I know that down our way they just opened a new facility for the injured workers and they have voluntary staff there. I was at their opening, and things are in a terrible situation. If things are getting better, I sure don't see it.
Mr Waters: If I could clarify, what I'm saying is that there have been a number of recommendations. If you look at the report that came out of the hearings I initiated in the resources development committee, if you look at the operational review report and a number of other reports, you will see that they're spending all of their time here, or answering questions for different people in different sectors of the government, and not being able to implement what indeed we're trying to mandate them to do. They can't do all things for all people at once. What I would like to see compensation do is something for the employers and the injured workers. That's what we have tried to mandate them to do in other committees. We're spending too much time dragging them in here and preparing for here.
Mr Cleary: The other side of the coin is that that was done over two years ago or about two years ago.
Mr Waters: No. Actually, we did something quite unique in our 12-hour review. What we did was that we left an hour or better with WCB and made it come back last summer. We made them work for a year and then dragged them back and said: "What have you been doing? What are your intentions?" That report is sitting in Hansard. As well, there is a report from WCB on its moves to that point.
Since then, they've had the audit; there's been a thing on occupational disease. There's a list of about seven different groups that have dragged them in here. Sooner or later, you have to allow them to do their work. That's what we're attempting to do and that's why we have the concern.
Maybe we should compile the list in detail with some briefing notes on each, or get WCB to, and then have it forwarded to the Conservative caucus and indeed the Liberal caucus so that we're all aware of what indeed has gone on to this point, and then bring it back for discussion again.
Mr McLean: Well, for the amount of staff at the WCB -- there are thousands of them. There are worker advisors; there's a problem in that area. It was an area that, when the government party was in third place, it adamantly wanted worker advisors. They were after so many things.
As far as I'm concerned, I've made up my mind now that the WCB will remain our choice and we will deal in whatever way we have to deal with it in committee. If the government members feel as strongly as they do that we shouldn't be dealing with our pick, then we will deal with that as the time comes.
The Chair: In fairness to the committee members, I'm wondering if any of the five members who are here this morning have sat on this committee when we have reviewed government agencies before. I'm just asking that for the information of the committee, that you have reviewed government agencies before.
Interjections: Yes.
The Chair: Then you will be aware of the fact that we have never had the choices of the three caucuses defeated by the government in office. The history of this committee, which is the information I'd like to place on the record with you, is that the process has always been that each caucus selected a government agency for review, and those choices have never been defeated by the balance of power on the committee, which has always been the government, obviously.
When I came down here eight years ago, I was on this committee. I've just checked with the clerk and the researcher because I did wonder whether there had been a precedent for the government saying no to an agency review, and that has never been the case. I would like the committee members to know that.
Ms Harrington: Would it be possible for us to consider what you've just said and actually make a decision on the Workers' Compensation Board at our next meeting?
The Chair: Would that give us enough time, Madam Clerk?
Mr McLean: Madam Chairman, I don't know if there's any point in this committee meeting to deal with agencies. When there are some 800 agencies and we can't pick one of them and have it dealt with in an appropriate manner, the same way any other agency is dealt with, then there's just no point in this committee sitting and dealing with it. It's a waste of my time and everybody else's time if we pick one and they say, "We're not going to deal with that." Well, then we're not going to deal with anything. That's dumb. If they want to fight over it --
Ms Harrington: We just explained to you that this particular agency has been dealt with.
Mr McLean: I don't care. That's my choice, or our party's choice, and we have that right.
Mr Waters: Could I ask for a few minutes' indulgence for us to caucus on this again? I know we're running close to the end of our time, so if we could get a few minutes' indulgence. I don't want to ask for a total of 20 minutes because I don't want to keep us here for 20 minutes if there's no need to.
Mr Cleary: Speaking for myself, I don't have 20 minutes. I've got till 12 o'clock and I'm out of here.
The Chair: Shall we have a five-minute recess? Is that all right? Okay, we're recessed for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 1147 to 1153.
The Chair: Mr Waters.
Mr Waters: We, as the government side, have caucused, we have talked this over. We still feel very strongly about what this is doing. We feel this is definitely going to impede WCB's ability to get on with the job that has been requested by the employers, the workers, the injured workers and all other people who come in contact with the WCB. At the same time, we also feel that if the third party does not want to listen to reason on this, we are not prepared to go against history; therefore, we will not be opposing its pick.
But we believe very strongly that this is going to be once again a delay and indeed inhibit even further the ability of the WCB to do the job it is intended to do. I can't stress that sentiment strongly enough. I really believe we've gone through this. Also, I feel that the employers and the workers are getting tired of coming in here to make their case, because they're frustrated. They come in and make their case, and here we are once again delaying the WCB's ability to act upon their recommendations. I feel very strongly about that and I know that this whole side does.
The Chair: Thank you for your comments, Mr Waters. Would somebody like to move --
Mr McLean: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a few comments in terms of the address we got with regard to the WCB. I don't believe that any government board or agency should feel they're being hard done by in being called before this committee. I think that's the job of this committee, to deal with it.
The member has indicated that yes, there have been some discussions and WCB has been looked in terms of financial aspects in the standing committee on public accounts; the resources development committee has met and has looked at some of the aspects. But for the government agencies committee to deal with all government boards and agencies I think is appropriate. I don't think any organization is being hard done by in being asked to do so, and if things are in order, there should be no problem for the WCB to report here, and we could look at the findings at that time.
The Chair: Would somebody like to move the subcommittee report of Wednesday, June 16. Moved by Mr Marchese.
All in favour of that report? That's unanimous. Thank you.
Now the clerk will give us the verbal report from today's committee.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): It was determined in the subcommittee earlier this morning that the earlier selections that were tentatively scheduled for today be rescheduled for July 7, and if the House is not sitting on July 7, then in the first meeting during the recess; that Mr McCaig of Ontario Hydro, Mr Bruce Davidson of the University of Waterloo board of governors and John Greenhow Kelton, Health Research Personnel Committee, be rescheduled to those dates.
In addition, it was determined that for the first meeting of the committee during the recess of the House, that the following two choices by the government party, Ms Kimberly Perrotta, Advisory Committee on Environmental Standards, and Ms Catherine Henderson, College Standards and Accreditation Council, be scheduled to appear at the first meeting during the recess.
That would take the 14-day extension; that would take us to August 6. If we were to pass August 6, then these two appointments would then go through without review of the committee.
The Chair: The only explanation I'd like to add to that is that in terms of the three we did have scheduled for today from the previous pick, two of those three were not able to be scheduled when the clerk's office contacted them. That's why they're not here today.
Would somebody like to move that report by the clerk? Are you moving, Mr Waters?
Mr Waters: If I could make a comment, I know it's back on the previous report, but for all members, there has been all-party agreement here that indeed the intended appointment to the Ontario Film Review Board, Wendy Priesnietz, is being held until she is available to come before the committee and that there is an exemption of the time limits on that particular case, if so needed.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Waters.
Mr Waters: And I so move the report.
The Chair: Thank you. All in favour of today's report? That's carried unanimously. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned at 1158.