CONTENTS
Wednesday 27 October 1993
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
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Mr Mammoliti
Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L) for Mr Bradley
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC) for Mrs Witmer
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Yeager, Lewis, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1004 in room 228.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): I would like to call this meeting of the standing committee on government agencies to order. All the committee members received due notice of this meeting, hand-delivered to their offices last Friday afternoon.
As your agenda advises you, with attachments from the Clerk's office, we are here to discuss the response from Mr Erik Peters, the Provincial Auditor, to a letter which I had written on behalf of the committee on October 6. For the recollection of committee members, you will recall that we had received a letter from Mr Peters dated September 29, which is also attached to your agenda, where he had identified some concerns he had with testimony given by Mr King before this committee when we were reviewing the WCB's new headquarters and other matters. The committee directed me to write to Mr Peters and ask him to identify what references in Hansard he was referring to, and you have a copy of my letter asking him to do that. The third letter you have this morning is his response identifying those passages.
I have just been delivered two more letters, as I was talking, that were faxed to my office, I guess, in the last five minutes.
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Hot off the press.
The Chair: Yes, one from Mr Peters and one from Mr King. Perhaps I can have the clerk make copies of those and we can add those to this morning's agenda as well.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): If I might, I think those two letters are very relevant to what we're going to be talking about, so I would suggest that we have a five-minute recess while we get those letters and have a minute to read them over. I believe they're very short.
The Chair: Have you seen them?
Mr Waters: I have not seen them, but I just saw the clerk walk by, and it appeared there was, like, a paragraph.
Mr Mahoney: How do you know they're relevant if you haven't seen them?
Mr Waters: How do I know they're relevant?
Mr Mahoney: You haven't seen them.
Mr Waters: Because I'm aware, through some discussions and phone calls I've made, that they're from Mr King and Mr Peters.
The Chair: Yes, I just said they were.
Mr Waters: Therefore, I believe they are relevant, so I'm asking for a five-minute recess.
Mr Mahoney: What's going on? Are there more attempts to stonewall things around here?
Mr Waters: No.
Mr Mahoney: You guys are up to playing your games?
Mr Waters: I don't have to put up with that.
Mr Mahoney: You can put up with any damn thing you want. You're playing games.
The Chair: Excuse me. Could we have the meeting in order?
Mr Waters: And I request a five-minute recess.
The Chair: Is there consensus to have a five-minute recess? No.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): You don't need a consensus, Madam Chair.
The Chair: There's no consensus for a five-minute recess.
Mr Marchese: Could I ask the clerk: The Chair's asked whether there's unanimous consent for recess. My understanding is that we don't require unanimous consent for that. Is that your understanding as well? Mr Waters has asked for a five-minute recess and the Chair said, "Do we have unanimous consent for that?" We don't need unanimous consent for that.
The Chair: If there isn't unanimous consent, then we have to deal with it by a motion.
Mr Waters: Then so moved.
The Chair: Mr Waters has moved a five-minute recess.
Mr Mahoney: Is that debatable?
The Chair: Yes, it is debatable. Any motion is debatable.
Mr Mahoney: I don't know what's going on, but the games that continue to get played by the backbenchers in this government every time there is an issue of concern or criticism or an issue that relates to a public confidence -- obviously there's been some attempt to muzzle Peters or to do something, I don't know, but this whole thing really does stink.
Letters coming on to an agenda: Madam Chair, you'll recall in a former life how it used to be so upsetting when we worked in municipal government, how we'd always get items added to our agenda at the last minute, without any time to research or prepare or talk to staff or find out where they'd come from. It's always a matter of great concern. One of the things that I think we all have to be concerned about is the fact that the government has apparently been burning the midnight oil, as a result of questions in the Legislature surrounding the letter to you from Mr Peters, in an attempt to do something that is just almost undemocratic.
I recall the decision by this committee to shut down the auditor's report in relationship to the WCB building. I recall the fear that was there. I sat, myself, on the committee in the intersession when we had Mr Di Santo and Mr King before the committee, and the defensive attitude of the government members in an attempt to try to protect, for some reason, their political appointees, Mr King and Mr Di Santo, and the concerns and the way they would act in a very upset manner when opposition members were simply doing their job and questioning both the policies of Mr Di Santo -- all of us knowing full well that he's a former NDP MPP, an appointee of Bob Rae -- questioning the management skills of Mr King, which even Mr King wouldn't object to. He knows, as a public servant, that he's subject to questions by opposition parties and should be subject to questions by government parties. But this government just wants to play cosy any time it appoints one of its members.
1010
All you've got to do in Ontario is carry an NDP membership card and everything is just rosy and nobody will ever question anything you do. It's just more examples of skulduggery and silly games that these people play.
I came here this morning as a sub on this committee, Madam Chair, with the full intention of asking questions about Mr Peters's letter and hopefully getting some answers. I would think the government members would want answers, because he's raised extremely serious concerns.
So whenever we recess, five minutes turns into 20 minutes. We're all busy, we've all got schedules, I've got a plane to catch, and we've all got things on our agenda. We now have the letters, copies of the two letters that have been handed here, and I suggest we just take two minutes to read them, not recessed.
Mr Waters: That's all I ask for, Mr Mahoney.
Mr Mahoney: Well, then, withdraw your motion to recess the committee.
Mr Waters: Well, then, so done. I'll withdraw the motion because I've now read them.
Mr Mahoney: Thank you very much. Read the letters. Do you want me to read it for you?
Mr Marchese: Steve, calm down.
Mr Mahoney: Don't play games like this. You guys are always manipulating in the back room.
Mr Waters: Steve, if anybody's playing games in here it's you, for the sake of the press.
The Chair: While you are reading the letters, I would like to identify the letter by date for the sake of Hansard so we know what we're discussing.
The two letters we have just received this morning, in addition to the three letters that were attached to your agenda -- the three that are attached to your agenda, to clarify it again, are the original letter from Mr Peters to myself as Chair dated September 29, 1993; the second letter is my letter written as Chair of this committee, on your direction, on behalf of the committee dated October 6; the third letter is Mr Erik Peters, dated October 21, back in response to the questions the committee asked him to clarify about his concern with the Hansard from the meeting in September, the testimony of Mr King.
The two letters we received this morning are -- I now have been hand-delivered the original by the staff from the auditor's office. This is a letter, today's date, October 27, over the signature of Mr Peters, and the other letter -- I don't have the original; it was faxed to my office a few minutes ago, apparently -- is a letter over Mr King's signature addressed to Mr Peters, also dated today's date, October 27. It is cc'd to me as Chair, so it's just a matter that I haven't received the original. Those are the two letters that have been added this morning.
Mr Waters: Madam Chair, I think both letters are very important with discussions this morning. They're very short, so maybe we could get you to read them into Hansard for us so that we all understand them.
The Chair: All right. Which letter would you like me to read first?
Mr Waters: Probably it would be appropriate to start with Mr King and then finish up with Mr Peters.
The Chair: Mr King's letter dated October 27, to Mr Erik Peters, the Provincial Auditor, over the signature of Brian King, vice-chair of administration, the Workers' Compensation Board.
"Dear Mr Peters:
"I have read your letter to the Chair of the standing committee on government agencies dated October 21, 1993. I apologize for any misunderstandings about the objectivity and factual content of your report and actions which have arisen as a consequence of my presentation to the committee. I believe that your letter to the Chair of the committee has clarified the situation.
"We are currently implementing the recommendations from your special report on the new headquarters for the Workers' Compensation Board. I would like to meet with you as soon as possible to bring you up to date on our progress and to obtain your assistance in making further improvements to the accountability framework within which the WCB operates.
"Yours sincerely,
"Brian King."
The second letter is on the letterhead of the Office of the Provincial Auditor over the signature of Erik Peters, Provincial Auditor, dated October 27, 1993, to myself as Chair of the standing committee on government agencies:
"Dear Mrs Marland:
"I have received the letter of apology from Mr King of October 27, 1993, in which he states that my letter of October 21 has clarified the situation for your committee.
"In my opinion this would put this matter to rest and would enable all of us to carry on the important work of improving the accountability framework in which the Workers' Compensation Board operates.
"Sincerely,
"Erik Peters."
That letter is cc'd to Brian King, vice-chair of administration, the Workers' Compensation Board.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Madam Chair, after we've read these two letters and seen where they've come from, I would think it would be appropriate that we ask Mr King to come before this committee to explain. He says he apologizes, but I would like to hear from him the details of the apology. Due to the letter that we got from the auditor that was addressed to you on October 21, I would like Mr King to come before this committee so we could ask him some questions.
Mr Mahoney: I certainly concur with that. It's obvious to me that there was some last-minute scrambling to get King to back off and apologize because of the embarrassment that occurred as a result of question period yesterday. I'd like Mr King to clarify what he's saying. He says, "I apologize for any misunderstanding." When we have to change something that we've done in our profession, we must withdraw the remarks. Is Mr King withdrawing these remarks? Is he saying he was totally out of order?
I was in the committee when we questioned Mr King about his statements. As a matter of fact, the statement in his letter on page A-234 of the September 15 Hansard wherein Mr King says, "Do I consider the report of the Provincial Auditor rhetoric?" I believe was in response to a question I asked him, because he had earlier used the word "rhetoric" in referring to Mr Peters's report.
I don't know how you sit in a public committee and make comments that literally castigate someone of the significance of the Provincial Auditor. One of the problems here is that we have a Provincial Auditor who is functioning more along the line of what we've seen in Ottawa with the auditors, where they are extremely critical on an ongoing basis and not just once in a while. I think that's healthy. Regardless of who is in power in the province of Ontario, the Provincial Auditor, as I see it, is a watchdog the public should have some confidence in, and a civil servant, a political appointee, is just totally out of line in making these kinds of comments. I don't know how he just wants to wipe the slate clean: "Forget it, it didn't happen. Gosh, golly, well, I'm really sorry." He doesn't even say that. "I apologize." He's apologizing for the misunderstandings about the objectivity.
What he should be saying is, "I totally apologize for what I said. It was wrong, I withdraw it and I seek your indulgence and the indulgence of the government and the indulgence of the opposition and the indulgence of the people of the province of Ontario," not, "I apologize for any misunderstandings." You don't misunderstand what Brian King said. What he said is that the Provincial Auditor gave subjective opinions, when we all know that it's the responsibility of the Provincial Auditor to be objective. There's no misunderstanding; it's right there in black and white in print.
In essence, by not answering the questions, by rhetorically saying, "Do I consider the report of the Provincial Auditor rhetoric?" he doesn't answer that. He asks himself a rhetorical question and then he goes on with his experience, 20 years with auditors, the relationship between managers and auditors, giving everybody his somewhat high and mighty opinion about the role of Mr Peters, so he doesn't even answer the question about whether or not he considers it rhetoric.
I don't think this supposed letter of apology is, frankly, either acceptable or strong enough. It doesn't go into all the details. We have from Mr Peters a three-page letter outlining all the concerns, being very detailed, going through the statements in Hansard. There are no misunderstandings. Mr King has clearly called into question the credibility of the Provincial Auditor in his report.
1020
This government shut the Provincial Auditor down with the report he did on the new building that's under construction at Simcoe Place. The auditor got a legal opinion -- you know, there's another thing that isn't even addressed in here. Mr King said he asked the auditor on two separate occasions to provide him with a copy of the legal opinion that the auditor got and used to arrive at his decision, wherein he stated that the board was in violation of the section in its act that requires it to go to cabinet to get approval for real estate acquisition or construction or anything of that nature. He made it very clear in the committee hearings that he asked to get a copy of that legal opinion. Mr Peters has told me that that's not true, that Mr King did not ask, that Mr King had a member of his staff contact the auditor, at which time the auditor said that under his act, under which I assume he must operate, he is not allowed to share working papers with anybody, with members of the Legislature, with Mr King, with Mr Di Santo. He is not allowed to share those working papers.
The legal opinion he received in arriving at his decision, which he put in the report, was part of his working papers. He made it very clear. Mr King knew that and, in my opinion, he misled the committee when he said he had personally asked Mr Peters for a copy of the legal opinion. He had been told that that was unavailable, that due to legislation the auditor is not allowed to share the working papers he uses to arrive at his reports.
The auditor is supposed to be independent of government influence, independent of agency influence, independent of any influence. It's his job to analyse what's going on in the government, regardless, as I said, of who is in office. I think that for a politically appointed civil servant to come out and say the things Mr King said in that legislative hearing that I was on during the summer and that a number of the members opposite were on just cannot be whitewashed by saying he apologizes for the misunderstandings.
He doesn't apologize for what he said. He doesn't apologize for what amounted to a virtual attack on the Provincial Auditor's integrity. He just apologizes for any misunderstandings that members of the Legislature might have arrived at or that Mr Peters might have arrived at.
I can see it's quite clear that there have been some phone lines burning up between Bob Rae's office and Mr King, telling him that he'd better get his act in order and he'd better back off. Well, he hasn't backed off nearly far enough, and I think Mr King not only owes Mr Peters a personal apology for his attacks on his credibility but owes this committee and the Legislature an apology for the types of things he's said about our independent auditor.
I would certainly concur that at the very least Mr King should be asked to come before this committee and we should go through these statements in some detail, not only because we want it clear that we're looking for an outright apology, but we want to understand that Mr King understands that it's totally inappropriate for him to be attacking the auditor in the way he's done.
I don't know if you need a motion of this committee, but if you do I would be more than prepared to either second or put the motion to ask Mr King to come before this committee at the earliest possible date. Frankly, I think Mr Di Santo should be with him. Mr Di Santo's supposed to be his boss, and ultimately he is the one who is responsible for the things that are done and said at the Workers' Compensation Board. Some of us have already suggested that Mr Di Santo should resign over a number of issues. I still hold that feeling, but in this case he's the one ultimately we hold accountable, in the same way that when a member of the government messes up it is the Premier who is ultimately held accountable for that member, whether it's a member of cabinet or whether it's a member of the back benches.
I know you want me to speed up because you'd like to bury this thing. You'd like to just shove it in a drawer and pretend it didn't happen. But let me tell you, the public is not going to be bamboozled by you guys trying to get phony apologies out of somebody like Mr King, so I certainly believe it's appropriate. The government members need not even attend the committee meeting, as far as I'm concerned, because they're just going to come in and roll up some little fluff balls to throw to Mr King. He'd better be here and he'd better be ready to answer the questions and to apologize outright for his remarks; not for misunderstandings, Madam Chair, but for the remarks he made.
The Chair: Mr McLean, did your motion include Mr Di Santo, as Mr Mahoney has suggested?
Mr Waters: It didn't.
The Chair: No, it didn't. I'm asking him if he wants --
Mr McLean: Madam Chair, I think it's important enough that Mr King be here, and I would think Mr King would certainly bring the chairman with him.
The Chair: I just wanted you to clarify that. Do you want to withdraw your original motion?
Mr McLean: I would just add that to it. I'd be pleased to add that both be requested to attend.
The Chair: All right. The speaking order is Mr Turnbull, Mr Waters and Mr Marchese.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The fundamental question that is raised here is the fact that a committee of the Legislature has been misled by a senior appointee of the Premier. This is somebody who was appointed by the Premier in full knowledge that he had a long history in these types of situations and, to the best of my knowledge, was dismissed from the Workers' Compensation Board of Manitoba.
There can be no excuse for somebody who, coming to a committee with his length of experience in this field, would not know what the key questions were. That being the case, he came forward and made absolutely misleading statements. This is somebody who is non-elected, and we must hold the government responsible for this. The only acceptable solution is the dismissal of somebody who comes before committee and misleads it.
For example, he made statements to the effect that the Provincial Auditor was aware that numbered company 799 would be the owner of Simcoe Place. The Provincial Auditor very, very clearly lays out in his letter of October 21 that it is absolutely clear that was not the case and could not have been the case, in view of when the final decisions were made.
There are so many factual errors where it wasn't a slip of the tongue; it was quite clearly an effort to mislead the committee. We have seen that, in previous efforts by other committees in the Legislature to get to the bottom of this mess at WCB, the government has no stomach for this. They don't want these problems aired. We asked for a complete review of the circumstances leading to the signing of the agreements to build Simcoe Place, this $180-million palace to the WCB, and in fact the government managed to change in that committee the motion so it is only to be reviewed in three years' time, conveniently after this government's time has expired.
It's not acceptable. We have the chief spokesman for the WCB coming before a committee of the Legislature and flagrantly misleading a committee. When we get a letter such as this this morning, where he says he apologizes for any misunderstanding -- this is not a misunderstanding; this is misleading a committee as to factual evidence which we should use in assessing the conduct of the WCB.
1030
Further, Mr King has made allegations that the Provincial Auditor was using subjective judgement. The Provincial Auditor has categorically said that is not the case. Mr King has called into question the validity of the Provincial Auditor's comments. The Provincial Auditor's function is a very important function in terms of protecting the taxpayer. Ultimately, we are all charged with that responsibility. We are here on the front line to protect the taxpayer, but ultimately, we have to have some completely neutral source who is not bound up in party politics in any way, who will make some objective decisions on what is being done no matter which party is in power.
This Provincial Auditor has in rafts come forward with instances of where Mr King misled a committee on information that either he should have known or he did know. If he should have known and he didn't know it, you have to question his ability to discharge the job that he has. If he did know it and he came forward and simply misled this committee, then there's a serious problem too. Either way, he should be forced out of his job. We note that he was removed from his job in Manitoba, and we have to have a more thorough review of this.
We have an agency of government that is spinning out of control. There is a potential liability in excess of $12 billion that may be added to the province's debt, which will have the most dire implications in so far as international lenders are concerned, because we are living in a sea of debt. By the provincial Finance minister's own words in this year's budget, Ontario is now the largest debtor in the world after sovereign nations. We saw a newspaper article some two weeks ago which put Ontario as one of the largest borrowers in the world, ahead of the Canadian federal government. The implications for the cost of borrowing and the ability to borrow to maintain the debt level we have, without any further debt, is called seriously into question when you consider the out-of-control situation at the WCB, where the debt is at least $12 billion, which must be added to the provincial debt to truly arrive at the situation we have in this province.
We have one of the most senior officials of that agency coming before a committee -- I notice that Mr Waters is smiling about this.
Mr Waters: Was it a smile?
Mr Turnbull: Before you were smiling, Mr Waters.
One of the most serious allegations that could be made against a non-elected official, a senior appointee of Bob Rae, is that he has come before a committee and misled that committee. We cannot slough it off with simply a letter saying that he apologizes for any misunderstanding. This is not a misunderstanding; this is flagrantly misleading a committee of the Legislature. Unless we can get to the truth, you may as well close down all the committees that we have, because they become useless and an unnecessary cost.
I would certainly second the motion from my colleague that Mr King be required to attend before this committee for as much time as it takes to investigate this circumstance so that we can make a recommendation to the Premier. Additionally, I believe it would be appropriate that Mr Di Santo attend, and it may be necessary to recall the Provincial Auditor before this committee, because these are very, very serious allegations.
The Chair: Mr Waters, Mr Marchese and then Mr Curling.
Mr Waters: First off, the smile, sir, was enjoying you playing to the audience that we have today.
Mr Turnbull: What do you mean "playing"? This is the province's money that you're squandering.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Waters has the floor.
Interjections.
Mr Waters: Secondly, I would like to refer back to the October 21 letter to the Chair from the auditor.
The Chair: Excuse me. I think we're all adults, and if you wish to speak, just indicate, and I will put you down on the list. Ms Carter, did you wish to speak, because you were interjecting. Do you want to speak? All right. Mr Waters.
Mr Waters: I refer back to the October 21 letter to the Chair. The third paragraph on the first page says, "Rather than spending time to set the record straight, we would have preferred to assist Mr King, the WCB and the Ministry of Labour to improve the accountability framework within which the WCB operates." -- and I think this is very important -- "We recommended those improvements and note that action is being taken...."
Then I go to today's letter from the auditor, and I read his last paragraph over again, "In my opinion this would put this matter to rest and would enable all of us to carry on the important work of improving the accountability framework in which the Workers' Compensation Board operates."
The two go together, I think. They continue a frame of mind and a statement. But on the topic, I would support having Mr King come back to discuss what was in the October 21 letter. I don't want him to come back and do another week of hearings on the whole thing. We have a problem that I think is very valid. The auditor has raised some points. I think that Mr King should answer for those. Even with the auditor's letter of today, I would support my colleagues across on having Mr King in. In fact, I would even suggest, if at all possible, that we bump -- I think November 17 is when we were to start the Ontario Food Terminal -- that we bump that back a week so we can hear from Mr King would be my suggestion.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Waters. Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: I disagree with that statement, and I have to say quite frankly that I am incensed with the opposition members' arguments, strongly incensed by their arguments, and I will be unequivocally opposing the motion that is before us. I have to congratulate Mr Mahoney for his continued rare ability to mythologize issues, as he does so well. He needs to be congratulated for that.
But in my view, we don't need to hear Mr King again. What we have here is a letter written by Mr Peters where he outlines the different problems that are stated having to do with opinions. Mr Turnbull qualifies this or characterizes this as they're not misunderstandings but they're deliberately misleading the members. That's his characterization of this issue. I understand that, because he has a good ability to hyperbolize the issues as well.
But Mr Peters says: "Rather than spending time to set the record straight, we would have preferred to assist Mr King, the WCB and the Ministry of Labour to improve the accountability framework within which the WCB operates. We recommended those improvements and note that action is being taken on them. We would like to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the statements made by Mr King to your committee and cited below do not impair the current work...."
So Mr Peters outlines them, and I think he does a fine job of that. As an example of what we're talking about, on the next page, which is not numbered, on the issue of a legal opinion:
"Mr King's allegation that he tried to get me (the Provincial Auditor) to show him my legal opinion, but I wouldn't, is not factually correct. If he had contacted me directly, which he did not, I would have advised him that under the Audit Act, according to legal advice, I am precluded from providing the legal opinion because it forms part of the audit working papers. I did so advise Mr Sam Van Clieaf of the WCB, who contacted me with the request to send him a copy of the legal opinion we had received. This message was not properly related to the committee by Mr King."
1040
This is the kind of thing we're talking about. Mr Mahoney, however, says again, as he does so well to exaggerate the issue -- he speaks to this in his own way. But what we have here is a letter which Mr Mahoney, of course, doesn't like very much, where Mr King gives an apology of what has happened.
Mr Mahoney: You don't see that in the report.
Mr Marchese: You can say whatever you like after, Mr Mahoney.
"We are currently implementing the recommendations from your Special Report on the New Headquarters for the Workers' Compensation Board. I would like to meet with you as soon as possible to bring you up to date on our progress and to obtain your assistance in making further improvements to the accountability framework." And he says, "I apologize for any misunderstandings about the objectivity and factual content of your report."
What more does this man need to do? Well, what Mr Mahoney wants him to do. What he's saying is: "Your apology is not good enough. What in fact we want you to do, if not grovel, and if not to flagellate you, is that we want real penance from you. We want to have you admit that this is not just a misunderstanding, that you've been misleading the public, the MPPs and everybody else."
I think what we have here is sufficient. By way of what Mr Peters has outlined as a problem, we have then a letter by Mr King, who says, "We apologize for misunderstandings," and says they're prepared -- in fact, they are working on the recommendations that he was making. In my view, I don't want to satisfy the killer instincts of both Mr Mahoney and Mr Turnbull and others with an issue that I believe has been properly dealt with, so I will be opposing that motion.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): We in this committee have a job to do. We hope we can do it effectively and efficiently. It seems to me the government side has more shovels on its side to cover up whatever it would like to cover up, and in the meantime --
Mr Waters: You didn't hear me.
Mr Curling: I hear you. Your shovel's a little bit smaller than Mr Marchese's shovel.
Mr Mahoney: He's got a backhoe.
Mr Curling: Yes. As my colleague said, he has a backhoe to shovel, to cover up all this.
You must understand that regardless of your kind of demonstration and acting, we will continue to do the job that must be done by this committee. Actually, as we walked through the WCB, it wasn't an exercise for our physique; it was an exercise to understand the WCB in its complete form itself. We want the place to be accountable. The place where it comes more to be accountable to is in this committee. If you want to think that after making these accusations and actually misleading the committee, misleading the House, because that's where the Hansard and the accountability will come about, and then say, "I'm sorry" -- that's not good enough.
In our job, many people have said, "I'm sorry," just like your Premier at times saying "I'm sorry" about things doesn't make things right. I think what we should be doing is having the WCB here to go through in detail. We have an auditor, maybe for the first time, who decided they will not be shovelled and covered up by the government side, and what we want to do is to bring them here to be accountable, to explain these things. I think not only we but the public have a right to know why Mr King -- to go through it all those details to talk about where the auditor was wrong.
As a matter of fact, to say a situation like, "I called him, I tried to contact him and he did not even respond" -- outright to say that it was a misunderstanding is easy. As a matter of fact, it goes beyond that. The auditor stated that, "If I was called and asked even that same question, my response would be, by the auditor's act, that I could not respond in the way that he would have liked me to respond."
But I say, then, I endorse fully and I agree fully with Mr Mahoney in his statement to say that we must follow this through to the ultimate end. Mr Marchese really doesn't surprise me. He's consistent in the way, usually, to play this partisan role, to not realize to get to the issue and to say that my dear colleague --
Mr Marchese: Alvin, you're not serious.
Mr Curling: No, because the fact is -- let me say you're not playing partisan. Let me say that you're playing this government protective role. We have the WCB, which somehow is one of the most questionable institutions that we have today; the people are wondering what is happening to it. Then we are finding at the core of it, with some of the mismanagement and the kinds of things that are happening there, that we must bring it to be accountable.
I endorse of course my colleague Mr McLean and the motion, seconded by my colleague Mr Mahoney, that Mr King be brought here, and not what Mr Waters says, to limit him to speak on certain issues. We have to get to the root of this, what is causing this problem.
Ever since the NDP lost in Manitoba, we have a whole swarm of Manitobans here who are not understanding Ontario, that we are fully accountable in Ontario regardless of what party is in power. We know that. We feel that when they come here, they must be accountable. Of course Mr King may be quite capable of doing his job, but in this time here, we have somehow to be more accountable to the people of Ontario; not to Bob Rae and not to Mr Marchese or Mr Waters, but to the people of Ontario.
The Chair: There is no need to second motions in committee.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I really feel that I have to say something about the rhetoric we've been listening to this morning. I hope Mr Mahoney would now admit that the letters we were waiting for were material and not just games-playing. Of course, he did take up that five minutes, which solved the problem.
I don't understand Mr Turnbull's tirade on the question of debt either. When you have an institution which is taking in large amounts of revenue, paying money out, needing to invest money and needing a large building, I think it's perfectly normal for an institution like that to see it as sensible to own its own building rather than paying rent for years and years.
Certainly, most people in their private lives would make that decision. I don't see that we're looking at a situation here that's very different from that. I don't see this adding to the public debt. I think when some of us went around the existing WCB building, we did see that there were problems with it.
It seems to me that the two letters we've got here are an excellent match, as has been pointed out. They do give a basis on which these two men can solve their differences. I'm not quite sure why this committee would want to prolong this and spend more public time and money on having extra hearings.
I'm quite sure that Mr King could defend himself if he does come before the committee. I must say the allegations are not what I had been led to expect. Now we see them in black and white, maybe there were grounds for an apology on what you might call personal grounds, but I don't see anything that materially affects the public interest. If you really feel very strongly that we should have Mr King in front of this committee, I would not go against that, but I don't see the necessity for it.
Mr Mahoney: It's interesting. Mr King is not a stupid man. I've talked with him one on one on several occasions. In fact we met at the airport in Windsor, had some time together and talked about some of the concerns. I consider him to have control of his wits and know what he's doing and know what he's saying. That's what causes the concern. To Mr Marchese and others, I don't think that I or anyone else over here is exaggerating the problem.
Let me just back up. When the fraud first came out, members will recall there was an outcry and there was some concern that there was somewhere between $150 million and $500 million in fraud, whatever. At the time, I expressed a lot of concerns about the competency of Mr Di Santo, and I've done that as well on other occasions. I did not do that about Mr King; in fact quite the contrary. I said in a press interview that it appeared to me that Mr King was doing his job and was clearly attempting to get at the fraud situation, and I applauded his efforts in that regard. So this is not some kind of witchhunt to nail Mr King down. If this is exaggerating the situation, then I don't know what the members would like.
The letter that Mr King has written to Eric Peters says, "I apologize for any misunderstandings." It doesn't say, "I apologize for what I said." It doesn't say, "I apologize for accusing you of misinformation or accusing you of subjective opinions."
1050
If it was an outright apology, then I think members in the opposition would be required to accept that, particularly if it was accepted by Mr Peters and the government. But that's not what this is. I don't know how -- it's not exaggerating -- you could interpret that in any other way. He's simply apologizing for misunderstandings that he says were misunderstandings. I don't misunderstand this document at all. He has accused the auditor of subjective opinions. He has gone on and accused him, made accusations that the auditor did certain things that he just absolutely did not do.
The legal opinion that Mr King referred to in committee -- now, it's very important here. I don't think the members opposite understand the significance of a witness appearing in front of a legislative committee when everything the witness and the members say is recorded in Hansard.
This is not just a conversation in the hall. This is not, Mrs Carter, a misunderstanding between two men, as you put it, who can sort out their differences. This is a strong challenge by the administrative head, appointed by the Premier, of a government agency; a strong challenge to the Provincial Auditor. This is not just some misunderstanding that Mr King would wish to have go away.
If we cannot protect the integrity of the legislative committee process -- it's one thing to have a member of the public come in and make an accusation or do something of that nature. They're not on the public payroll. They're not appointed at the pleasure of the Premier. It's one thing for that to happen, but it's totally another thing -- and I know Mr King to be an intelligent man. I think he has probably got his head under his desk right now hoping this thing would go away and trying to figure out a way to get out of it.
He wasn't prodded into some antagonistic position to make comments about the auditor. Is it the government members' position that opposition members don't have a right to ask questions about a $180-million expenditure? You keep referring back to that building. That building's history. It's going up. I don't think the actual construction of the building is even the issue any more. The issue is how the Workers' Compensation Board handled it.
Mr King has admitted he came in at the end of the process. He even says here he went out and got a third legal opinion to satisfy the board members. The auditor points out that he got it verbally in January 1993 and in writing in May 1993. The board of directors made their decision in April 1991.
Two years after the decision is made, Mr King goes in to seek a third legal opinion on his own, because why? Maybe he suspects there's a problem. Why else would he seek a third legal opinion? There were two legal opinions on the record that the board had to make their decision. Mr King comes in two years after that decision and goes out and seeks a third legal opinion to try to cover someone's behind on this whole thing.
This thing stinks from beginning to end. If Mr King had come in to our committee and, under pressure of questions by committee members, simply said he understood the auditor's position, he respected his position, he knew the auditor was an honourable man and provided objective opinions; however, the board has acted in the following way. If he had said, "We believe we acted appropriately and we want to meet with the auditor," as he's now saying, "We want to obtain your assistance in making further improvements to the accountability framework within which the WCB operates."
All of us have said things in our lives that we'd like to go away, but when you're in this job, what you say is being recorded right over there and you'd better know what you're saying and you'd better be responsible for what you're saying because just wiping a tear away and saying, "Sorry, you misunderstood," is not acceptable.
I again reiterate, nobody misunderstands. In fact I think Mr King's supposed letter of apology is worded very carefully wherein he apologizes for misunderstandings as opposed to apologizing for his actions. That's what we say, and I say to Mr Marchese, that's not exaggerating anything. We want Mr King to apologize for his actions and his words. My colleague in the Conservative Party is calling for his resignation. At this stage I'm not doing that.
It's not a matter of grovelling. You're accountable. If you say something and it's proven to be factually incorrect -- you see, it's proven that what Mr King said is factually incorrect. I don't understand why the government doesn't haul this guy up and say: "You were factually incorrect. You misled the committee."
If he did it out of earnestness or if he simply made a mistake, I'm willing to look at that as a reasonable position, but that isn't what he's saying. He says: "I'm sorry you misunderstood what I said. Let's get on and try to work together." Well, I don't know how they can work together. How can we believe Mr King if he's not willing to (a) apologize for his actions and his words and (b) retract them and put a correction on the record? How can we believe Mr King when he comes before us, supposedly as a professional witness, in the future?
I say, with due respect to the members of the government, that you cannot say this is an exaggeration when the auditor says in the final aspects of his letter, in the closing of his letter, referring to a passage, A-231, Hansard, September 15, of Mr King, "This passage contains a number of statements which are not factually correct."
That is a very, very serious allegation for a Provincial Auditor to make about a public servant in this province, and I for one will not tolerate this thing being swept under the rug, a little pat on the back to Mr King, you know: "Have a nice day. You and Mr Peters can meet and have a beer somewhere and solve your problems and your differences." This is not a difference between Erik Peters and Mr King. This is a difference between those of us who are responsible to guard the public's confidence and a public servant. It's absolutely inappropriate.
The very least the government members could do would be to support a motion that's on the floor to have Mr King and Mr Di Santo appear. It's not up to you to protect them. They're big boys, they can take the heat, and Mr King knows that.
If he's prepared to sit here and answer our questions and provide a full withdrawal of any factually incorrect statements that he made and an apology to the committee, as well as an apology to Mr Peters, then I would be willing to accept that. Failing that, I would join in the call for his resignation that my colleague has put forward.
Mr Turnbull: The answers we got from my colleagues on the other side, from the NDP -- I think I understand why they're doing this, but I want to separate out. There are two issues at stake here. One of the issues is the question of the problems at the WCB, but let's set that aside for the moment. The other question we're debating is the fact that the senior official of the WCB, Mr King, came before this committee and misled the committee.
As I said before, you can only conclude, with somebody of this man's experience in this field, that he either was totally unaware of facts that he absolutely should have been aware of, in which case there's absolutely no excuse that he, in his position as the vice-president of administration of WCB, didn't know what he was saying, or he deliberately misled this committee.
1100
This issue of misleading a committee and countering what the Provincial Auditor had said -- we're not talking about shades of opinion where we say, "Well, I don't quite agree with that," and there's some nuance. This is not a nuance. When you're talking about some of the facts that the Provincial Auditor raised here where Mr King absolutely misled the committee, you have to seriously question the following: Why do we have Hansard of committees? I think you all know that the reason we have Hansard of the committees is because that becomes a permanent record of what an official tells us as to the activities that he or she has observed. That permanent record can only be expunged by a clear statement from the person who issued them in the first place that they were absolutely wrong.
You also have to ask yourself why he would make the statements that he did which either demonstrated his complete ignorance of issues that he should have been aware of, or that he did know and he gave us the wrong information. It became abundantly clear from the auditor's correspondence and the responses of Mr King that Mr King, in fact, knew that the decision of WCB to go ahead with Simcoe Place and the third legal opinion, the dates just don't jell. And if the dates don't jell, we have to know the reason why.
The construction of this facility stinks, but as I said before, that is a separate issue. The issue that we're debating now is the circumstances as to why a senior appointee of Bob Rae came before committee and misled us.
The letter which has been sent today, both letters -- reading from Mr King's letter, he says, "I apologize for any misunderstanding about the objectivity and factual content of your report and actions which have arisen as a consequence of my presentation to the committee." He doesn't expunge the factual information that he said he was putting forward and how the Provincial Auditor refutes that.
I would remind the members of the government that just a few years ago on the east coast of Canada we had the spectre of one party winning all of the seats in the provincial Legislature. When that happens, you don't have any opposition members to do what we're doing here, and that is bring forward these issues for scrutiny. It is a very, very dangerous precedent and I think that when you look at the volatility of the electorate today, they are somewhat disenchanted with the stories that they get fed by politicians and they hold the position of the Provincial Auditor to be of some importance, and the importance is that the Provincial Auditor has the right to look at a lot of documents that most other people can't.
I would put on the record that when MPPs of opposition parties want to get certain documents, often we have to go the route of freedom of information, and when we make the freedom of information requests we are charged for that cost that we incur. That has seriously impeded the ability of opposition parties to get the information that, I will remind you, the NDP always said was so important when it was in opposition. What has happened to your government? What has happened that you would sooner bury these issues and try and narrow it to the fact of saying, "Well, why did he say it?" and pat him on the head and say, "Okay, you're fine"?
We must expect that anybody who is on the public payroll is honest when they come before committees. They're not having casual conversation in the halls; they are putting on record factual information.
We have concrete evidence of the fact that Mr King misled us. I point again to the fact that he spoke about the fact that the 799 Ontario numbered company was known to be the company that would hold the investment in Simcoe Place. The Provincial Auditor is saying that's absolutely incorrect. I'll just read that passage of his letter.
"This passage contains a number of statements which are not factually correct:
"(1) The establishment of numbered companies had not been specifically audited by the OPA. The audit covered, among all investments, those held by numbered companies. However, at the time of the audit, the numbered company had no investments in Simcoe Place."
That flies absolutely in the face of what Mr King gave us in this committee. That isn't some subjective judgement; that isn't a difference of opinion; it's the fact that we're being told the wrong information. Anybody who goes through this letter in detail will recognize that there is factually wrong information that the committee is being given. If a committee is not going to expect that it gets absolute truth from provincially employed appointees of the government, we really have to seriously question why we will have committees. Also, you have to question the role of the Provincial Auditor.
The auditor is neutral; he doesn't belong to any party. That's the way it should be, so that any party, no matter who it is, will be brought to account for anything they are doing which, in the estimation of somebody who has the proper training, does not follow a reasonable procedure. That is the issue.
We have two issues: (1) We have the question of the conduct of the WCB, but that has been closed down to a great extent by the government in other committees, where you don't want to review the construction of that building until way after the fact. Here we're talking about the truthfulness of evidence brought by the senior official of the WCB. We were misled. That's why we need him, not just to answer a few narrow questions about the letter which was written by the Provincial Auditor, but to open up the whole field and find out exactly what is going on in the WCB.
Mr Waters: I think what I would like to say at this point is that we've had a lot of discussion and, before I change my mind, because I'm rapidly joining Mr Marchese, I think we'd better, I would suggest to the Chair, put the question while indeed the opposition still has an opportunity to win this vote.
The Chair: Okay. The question is being put and I'll ask the clerk to read the motion.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): Mr McLean moved that Mr King and Mr Di Santo be asked to appear before the committee.
Mr McLean: I just want to clarify that would be on November 17, because it has been discussed with regard to the date and I would like to have that date included.
The Chair: There are a couple of complications. I think if we could vote on the motion and then discuss the date, it might be more appropriate.
Mr McLean: That'll be fine.
The Chair: Okay. All in favour of that motion?
Mr Waters: Another clarification on this motion, Madam Chair, because --
The Chair: You put the question, Mr Waters.
Interjection.
The Chair: Okay, if it's for clarification on the motion.
Mr Waters: All of a sudden we're into Mr Di Santo as well?
Mr Curling: That was the motion.
Mr Waters: I thought the original motion was that --
The Chair: Mr McLean, on the record, withdrew the motion and added Mr Di Santo.
Mr Waters: Because the issue is Mr King's testimony, not Odoardo's.
Mr McLean: But I had anticipated that Mr Di Santo would certainly want to be here to back up his --
The Chair: The motion that's on the floor does include both names. All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any? That motion is carried.
I'll tell you what the schedule is. Next week, of course, the House isn't sitting, and the following week --
Mr McLean: Yes, it is.
The Chair: I'm sorry. Next Wednesday we have scheduled three appointments for review before the committee. We did select four. One of those is not available next week; that's why we're down to three for next week. This person who's not available, by the way, is Rosemarie Landry, the intended appointee as a member of the Province of Ontario Council for the Arts, and she was selected by the official opposition. She is available on the 17th. If we don't have her on the 17th, the time expires for the opportunity to review her.
Also on the 17th we did have scheduled the beginning of the review of the Ontario Food Terminal. Mr Waters, that was your selection, the Ontario Food Terminal.
Mr Waters: And I've already stated today that I have no problem with delaying that so we can deal with the issue at hand.
The Chair: All right. Then --
Mr Curling: Also, on my motion, I was the one who put forward Ms Landry. I have no compulsion to see her on the 17th, if we could set that down and then use it.
The Chair: You see, we can't set it down because the time for reviewing her appointment would then expire, if we don't see her on the 17th.
Mr Curling: I could withdraw it, I said. I could withdraw it.
The Chair: Is there a concurrence of the committee that the review of Ms Landry be withdrawn? Agreed? That's unanimous. I think we should have a motion to withdraw reviewing Ms Rosemarie Landry.
Mr Curling: I so move.
The Chair: Thank you. That is moved by Mr Curling. All in favour of that motion? That's carried. We'd need a motion to set the date for the motion we've already passed for the WCB chair and vice-chair to come before the committee on the 17th.
Mr Waters: Madam Chair, I move the motion that we indeed do the WCB on the 17th and step down the food terminal till the next week.
The Chair: Any discussion on that motion? All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any? That motion is carried.
That's everything. Thank you for your attendance at the committee this morning. This committee is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1114.