INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
BETTY MOSELEY-WILLIAMS
CONTENTS
Wednesday 25 June 1997
Subcommittee report
Intended appointments
Mrs Betty Moseley-Williams
Mr Peter Cameron
Mr Kenneth Dechert
Mr Ian Strachan
Committee business
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président: Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean PC)
Mr RickBartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mrs BrendaElliott (Guelph PC)
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr BertJohnson (Perth PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr FloydLaughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Mr FrankMiclash (Kenora L)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr TonySilipo (Dovercourt ND)
Mr R. GaryStewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr MarcelBeaubien (Lambton PC)
Mr GerryMartiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr RichardPatten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Ms ShelleyMartel (Sudbury East / -Est ND)
Mrs LynMcLeod (Fort William L)
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel: Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
A-667
The committee met at 0941 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The committee will come to order. We have four intended appointees this morning, but first we must deal with the subcommittee report.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I move the adoption of the subcommittee report dated June 19.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. All agreed? It's carried.
Mr Baird: Mr Chair, consideration of my motion of the last meeting with respect to Dianne Ballam is not on the agenda. Should I assume that's at the end of the agenda?
The Chair: Yes, when we do the concurrences we'll do that. It'll be up first.
Mr Baird: Terrific. Thank you.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
BETTY MOSELEY-WILLIAMS
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Betty Moseley-Williams, intended appointee as part-time member, Education Improvement Commission.
The Chair: Let's move to the intended appointments. The first is Betty Moseley-Williams to the Education Improvement Commission. Mrs Moseley-Williams, if you would take a seat at the table, we have a tradition of allowing you to make any opening comments you'd like to make and then we have questions from members of the committee. Welcome.
Mrs Betty Moseley-Williams: Thank you. Good morning, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate this opportunity to tell you a little bit about me, about my experience and knowledge and why I think this would enable me to be a good commissioner for the Education Improvement Commission.
I have been involved in education for most of my adult life, and all areas of education of course have involved big changes. I have been a trustee with the Nipissing District Roman Catholic Separate School Board for 26 years. During the terms I have been on the board, I have chaired and negotiated with all the employee groups, both the union and the non-union, for about 10 or 12 years.
I served as chair of the board and chair of the English section of our board for four terms in each position. I chaired the management and finance committee, most of the building committees. I was involved in and chaired the different partnership community groups. Some examples of those are the pay and employment equity groups, the establishment of an EAP program, the introduction of French immersion, the peaceful schools committee, child abuse protocols and community school programs for our area.
When I was first elected, the boards were still struggling with the amalgamations of 1969. For many of the northern boards, they had created some pretty severe problems. We needed an organization structure which recognized the two language groups as equal. I was the anglophone member of a two-member committee which drew up the aims and objectives the board has operated under for the past 15 years.
I've served as the president of the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association for two terms and I was the first vice-president of the Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association for the past two years.
I was one of the founding members of the Northern Ontario Catholic Curriculum Co-operative and the Northern Centre for Instructional Leadership. I have chaired both groups up until recently. The curriculum cooperative involves all the Catholic school boards from Nipissing to the Manitoba border, and the Nipissing centre for instructional leadership involves all the boards, public and separate, within the mid-north and the northeast region of Ontario.
I did the beginning organization to establish the LTAB in the districts of Nipissing and north. I think the most difficult part there was to find all the players and identify them.
While I was the president of OSSTA, I was a representative to the ministry Transition Years study group, and I was appointed to the College of Teachers implementation committee by the former government, an experience which I enjoyed very much.
I have worked with all the Catholic boards in Ontario, negotiated with them on some difficult issues they were having in their own areas, and I've worked with many of the boards of education and all the francophone sections of the province. I bring a good understanding of the school systems across the province and I think the respect of the education community.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Perhaps today we could start with the official opposition.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Surely. Thanks very much, Mr Laughren.
Betty, it's nice to see you. I can assure you that your reputation and your stature in terms of your service as a trustee override the fact that there might be any suspicions about your coming from the riding of the leader of the province. Let me put your mind at rest about that right at the outset. There's absolutely no doubt about your background and your qualifications to sit on the EIC. Because we've had a lot of concerns about Bill 104, the amalgamation, the way it's been done and the powers given to the EIC, I'll acknowledge it's been somewhat reassuring to see the stature of the people who are coming on to the commission.
The questions I'd like to ask you today are more along the lines of what you think you're going to be able to do as a commissioner. My worry is that these very strong people such as yourself are really being put in a position where there's not going to be very much you can do, and it's going to be very frustrating, given your commitment to education.
Let me start with the difference between the 1969 amalgamations -- I was around as a trustee for those too -- and what's happening right now. In 1969 we had huge numbers of very small, single-school boards, and the amalgamations that went on were regional groupings; they made a whole lot of sense to people. Even then, obviously, there was a sense of loss for those small, single-school boards. This one is different. Coming from northern Ontario you well know some of the boundary challenges that are going to be faced, but they're not exclusive to northern Ontario. For instance, one of the groups of separate school boards, the Frontenac-Lennox-Addington boards, are extremely concerned about the workability of their boards, given geographic size.
I wonder if you'd comment on what you think your role as a commissioner will be in terms of still having some opportunity to start to make those board boundaries workable, because in many areas they simply aren't workable.
Mrs Moseley-Williams: I think it was very difficult in different areas to work on the boundaries in 1969, even though they may have seemed to make sense at the time. They did not make sense in northeastern Ontario. As part of the commission, through consultation and talking with the people involved, what I would like to see is that these changes go forward -- they're legislated changes -- with as little disruption as possible to the kids in the classroom. I would see our role as being the watchdog that would look at what's going on in the classroom and how it would be affected.
Mrs McLeod: I think you just successfully avoided answering the question I asked you, which is whether, coming on to the commission, you have any sense of whether there is still some openness on the part of the minister and the government for recommendations from people like yourself, who know the kinds of challenges that are going to be faced, even geographically, by these huge boards.
Mrs Moseley-Williams: My understanding, because I'm not a member of the commission at this time, is that the recommendations have gone forward for some changes and they have happened. My understanding is that all consultation can go on but that the boundaries are probably in place.
Mrs McLeod: So the only change is going to be the one you saw on the northwest.
Mrs Moseley-Williams: I think there can be consultation and discussion and take it back.
Mrs McLeod: I appreciate that. You've made a statement that none of us would argue with, that you want to see any changes done with a minimum of disruption to students. I don't think anybody can avoid the kind of disruption to students we're going to see on a number of fronts. If there's time, I'll come back to the ways in which the commission might be able to help to mitigate some of the chaos that's going to be out there.
Because of your trustee background, I'd like to focus a little more specifically on the role of the trustee, as you see it, and your comfort level in helping to oversee this transition. The boards are large. They're large either geographically or in terms of numbers of students. There are fewer trustees. It's going to be much more difficult for there to be access to the local trustee. If we have time, I'd like to talk to you about how we ensure native or student representation that can be effective in any way. But all this is happening at the same time as the trustees are not going to have any direct funding responsibility. They are going to be given the dollars and told, "You solve the problems." Where do you see the role of trustee? How do you see that changing? Where do you see it going in the next few years?
Mrs Moseley-Williams: The trustees will be responsible for more policymaking, not to do the day-to-day in the schools but to have broad policies and to consult with the community to put the policies in place within the ministry guidelines of the programs.
0950
Mrs McLeod: Don't you see that as being a no-win situation for the trustees? I mean, you've been there. Lynn Peterson from the public board described it as being centralized decision-making and decentralized blame: The minister gives the dollars, there aren't enough dollars, and the trustees are the ones who get blamed for the decisions that have to be made.
Mrs Moseley-Williams: In some areas in Canada where it has happened, the trustees find they are spending more time concerned with education issues than they were before.
Mrs McLeod: It's interesting. I'm not sure there are areas of Canada where it's happened quite like this.
Mrs Moseley-Williams: The Alberta trustees are finding they are spending more time on educational issues, with the quality of education.
Mrs McLeod: A very different province in terms of numbers of students and size of jurisdictions for the boards: I can't remember if it's half the number of boards we will have per capita that Alberta has. We're still dealing with very different geographical and population entities.
Let me ask you about student representation. One of the things boards have worked towards is to have some student representation on school boards. We were successful in having an amendment brought to the legislation -- I think that amendment ended up staying; if not, I think there's some assurance that it will be dealt with in the future -- so there can be a student representative. How feasible do you think it is to have student representation on boards where the student might have to travel as much as 200 kilometres to get to a board meeting?
Mrs Moseley-Williams: It's going to be a lot of travelling for anybody. To have students on boards -- some boards have moved in that direction and I think it will be a good direction, but I don't think it is going to happen right now.
Mrs McLeod: I think the other difficulty is going to be where you get multiple communities. There are some boards where individual communities will not have a single elected representative, so how would you choose a student? How would you decide which board, which school gets to choose a student representative to these new amalgamated boards? I realize the questions are somewhat premature when you haven't been on the commission.
I think Nipissing, certainly the public board, is in a unique situation. I'm not sure if the separate board is in quite the same situation. Somehow the Nipissing area was blessed by not having quite as broadly based an amalgamation as most of the rest of the province.
Mrs Moseley-Williams: No, Nipissing has a very small amalgamation.
Mrs McLeod: Yes.
Mrs Moseley-Williams: I lost the question. I'm sorry.
Mrs McLeod: It is difficult. For reasons on which I will not speculate, Nipissing escaped some of what faces the rest of the province. I think of an area like the one just east of me in Thunder Bay, which you would probably know, where there are multiple communities. How do you even choose a student from all those? How do you decide which community gets to pick the student?
Mrs Moseley-Williams: I can't give you an answer for that. I think there is a place for the consultation within the EIC mandate, if I understand it, that for boards in those grand geographic areas there will be a different way of putting trustees and members on that board to recognize those smaller areas and smaller communities.
Mrs McLeod: Is there any time left, Mr Chair?
The Chair: One minute.
Mrs McLeod: Here's a question you can't answer in 60 seconds, Betty, but I'll put it on the table anyway. One of the reasons separate school trustees have been cautiously supportive of this initiative is because it came with the promise of equity funding, which a lot of us have wanted to see for a very long time. The scepticism that gets attached to this is, how do you really meet the needs of students when you have even less money than there was before and when clearly these amalgamations are not going to save dollars, by the minister's own admission, not enough dollars to make up for the cuts?
Mrs Moseley-Williams: OSSTA has been supportive and they have talked with boards and met with them. The idea of equity in funding, where the playing field is a little more level, is certainly very attractive. As to working with fewer dollars, the OSSTA, as far back as when I was president, was having meetings to discuss, how are we going to work with less money and how are we going to provide services? The two groups I talked about came as a direct result of that. I think we will work with fewer dollars. We've done it before and we will have to --
Mrs McLeod: So the whole system will work with fewer dollars and some areas will benefit by getting money out of Toronto?
Mrs Moseley-Williams: I don't know about that.
The Chair: Are there any questions from the government members?
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Good morning. I'm very concerned about restructuring, have been in a lot of areas, whether it be municipal or trustees or whatever. As I look through your résumé, you've been involved in the system for some 20-odd years. One of the biggest concerns I have is with folks who are now coming into kind of a new age, as I call it, of restructuring, which is very much different from what you've had to do in the last 20 years. How involved with restructuring have you been within the Nipissing board over the last 20 years? Certainly the perception of the public out there these days is that past boards have overspent and overadministered and all those things. My concern is where the folks who have had some background on restructuring see it going, and how well it will be accepted, the new route we are going.
Mrs Moseley-Williams: We've been fairly successful at restructuring in boards, primarily because of not having a lot of money, so you restructure pretty quickly. It has been done in a way of sharing services with both the public school boards and with all the boards within -- with us, it would be the northeast or the northern region. The board I was involved with did our restructuring over the past six to eight years to look at how we ran the board. Last year, because of that restructuring, we were able to employ 35 people we needed because we had moved around some of our supervisory and the way we did our administration. It takes a lot of work, but it happens.
Mr Stewart: You've been fairly involved or, I understand, a supporter of the parent-teacher councils. Could you comment on parental involvement? I'm also a great supporter of that, and I think it has to happen.
Mrs Moseley-Williams: I'm a very strong supporter of school councils and of the parents' right and expectation that their voice would have validity in the schools. I am like everybody else: I am trying to work through where that role is going to end up, but what I want is for them, the parents of the students, to know that theirs is the first voice we want to hear and that they have a very strong right to be part of the decision-making of that school. We are not all comfortable with that, but I think that's where we have to go. It's right for the kids and it's right for the parents.
The Chair: Comments or questions? If not, Mrs Moseley-Williams, thank you very much for coming before the committee this morning. You'll be hearing from the committee.
Mrs Moseley-Williams: Thank you very much. I probably didn't have to buy such a big bottle of Maalox.
PETER CAMERON
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Peter Cameron, intended appointee as full-time member, Education Improvement Commission.
The Chair: The second intended appointment is Peter Cameron to the same commission, the Education Improvement Commission. Mr Cameron, we welcome you this morning. If you wish to make any opening comments, now's the time to do it.
Mr Peter Cameron: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for inviting me to be here. Just to get things started, I'd like to say that from discussions with others in the government, my understanding of the reason for my being proposed as candidate for the Education Improvement Commission is that I could bring a business perspective to the affairs and deliberations of the commission.
I've been in business all my working life. In the last 20 years, I have been chief executive of two Canadian companies, operating mostly in Canada and the United States. Latterly, I have acted as chief executive and senior consultant to two other major corporations, operating in both Canada and globally, one of which was as chair of Canada Post. I have acted as consultant, adviser to international investors in a major acquisition of a Canadian company, worked with senior company personnel developing a 10-year strategic plan for a Canadian magazine publishing group, and a number of other assignments.
1000
Of the skills and experiences required by a CEO to function effectively on a daily basis, I believe those relating to restructuring, to planning, organization development, human relations, labour relations, communications and financial planning are those which I could bring to the commission, plus perhaps an overarching experience and capability to keep focused on the critical elements of the commission's mandate.
What I do not bring is a detailed knowledge or experience of the education area. I am generally aware of the government's initiative to improve education for our children and our grandchildren. As a grandfather of six myself, I would have to support any actions which can be taken to improve the education they are receiving or will receive.
Frankly, I would have to rely on personal study, my fellow commissioners and the co-chairs to help me acquire the required levels of knowledge of the education system's processes, problems and opportunities, the education area as a whole. I have been assured that that help will be forthcoming. Fortunately, I'm a quick study, and I do not anticipate spending very long to pick up the kind of background information I will need.
Perhaps I might conclude by saying that if education dollars can be saved by streamlining and restructuring the administrative and support system and be redirected to benefit the children in the classrooms of this province, I'm happy to try and bring to bear the experience I have gained over a long and satisfying business career to try and make that happen.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cameron. Because Mr Kormos has just come in, perhaps we could flip and go to the government members first.
Mr Baird: We would defer to the opposition at this time.
The Chair: All right. Mrs McLeod?
Mrs McLeod: If I defer, there's going to be a real problem. I'm happy to lead off. Once again, Mr Cameron, let me assure you that I for one do not see the purpose of these hearings as being to challenge the personal credentials of the people who are coming before us. Although you've acknowledged that you don't have a background in education, I can see from your résumé that there's no question about your background in terms of your community commitment or your involvement in organizational change, which we most certainly respect.
If the hearings serve a purpose under those circumstances, from my perspective it would be to see to what extent people who are coming on to this commission bring a critical approach to the work that's going to be done. That's the direction of my questions. I appreciate your opening comments that you are at a point where you are about to learn and won't pretend to have all the answers about educational systems.
However, I would think that coming on to the commission, accepting the responsibility -- and it is a fairly significant responsibility, because this is a very critical time for education -- you must have some sense of what you think the education system needs or some sense of comfort or discomfort with the legislation you're about to oversee. I wonder if you'd just comment on your sense of what it is you're undertaking.
Mr Cameron: I must admit, as you have observed and I have observed, my knowledge of the subject is pretty basic. I do have six grandchildren, as I mentioned. I watch and listen to the stories of the kids at school. I can't help but hear the criticisms of parents. I don't know precisely what the problem is, but I sense that we need to refocus on our kids arriving at grade 12, I guess it will be, with the kind of education that will enable them to either join the workforce successfully or proceed to university to achieve a higher level of education.
To the extent that this commission can direct more dollars by achieving efficiencies in, shall I say, the infrastructure or system, I would be in favour, so long as those dollars did end up back in the classroom and did try to achieve a better, higher standard of education for those kids than perhaps they are now getting.
Mrs McLeod: Is it fair to say, then, that your overall perception would be somewhat in line with the minister's belief that the system is broken and needs to be fixed?
Mr Cameron: I'm sorry, Mrs McLeod. I'm having a tough time hearing you. I don't know whether it's the room.
Mrs McLeod: There is a fan. I think the mike was on, so I don't know if my getting closer to it makes any difference.
Mr Cameron: Maybe it does. Could you try it again?
Mrs McLeod: The minister often speaks about the education system being broken. I'm wondering whether your overall perception of our education system tends to fit with that, that there are some major problems that need to be fixed.
Mr Cameron: I would not want to gainsay the minister. On my present lack of knowledge, I don't think "broken" perhaps is quite the right word to use. I don't know of any system, and that includes education, it includes the political system and it includes business, that can't stand a look every once in a while. Almost inevitably, when you do, you find ways to improve things, and that is the perspective I bring.
Mrs McLeod: You specifically touched on an area that, with your business background, you would understandably be concerned about, as we would be. That is, are there efficiencies that can be found in the system that could then be turned back to the classroom? That's the minister's primary defence of his legislation. Would it trouble you to find, as you will if part of the background information given to you is the studies that were done for the ministry by Ernst and Young, that the best estimates of savings based on the ministry's assumptions about the savings in the amalgamations of the boards would be about $150 million on a $14-billion budget? Of that $150 million, a relatively small amount is actually found from administrative savings. There's a significant amount found in savings in classroom supplies, a significant amount found in doubling and tripling up bus routes for students, custodial supplies; these are all part of what seems to be a very minimal estimate of savings. Does that trouble you, looking at a $14-billion budget, that that is all that is going to be achieved with this rather massive amalgamation?
Mr Cameron: I'm not sure that "trouble" would be the word I would use. My experience in these things is that you start off with an estimate of what you might be able to find, and as you proceed through the work, you often find there are greater savings to be achieved and very often not exactly in the same areas you first thought you'd find them. It does seem small, I will concede, at the outset, looking at the bald figures as you stated them this morning. As I said, my guess would be that there is probably more to be found. No doubt, through the work of the committee and all those involved with the committee, there will be other savings, and perhaps they will not be in the areas that we presently envisage them.
Mrs McLeod: I stress the fact that these aren't my figures; these are the Ernst and Young consultants' reported figures. One of the things that concerns me a great deal, which I really believe the ministry and the minister have refused to address, is the preface to that report by Ernst and Young, where the consultants felt compelled to point out the fact that in many amalgamations the costs actually go up. Their concern with this amalgamation was that the costs could indeed go up because of the harmonization of services and salaries across the various jurisdictions. This is all in written form. I urge you to have a look at the report. I for one would appreciate your critical approach being brought to that.
The ministry basically says, "Don't worry, we'll control those kinds of costs," which to me suggests that the way they are going to find the dollars is to make further cuts. By the ministry's own admission, there really are not a lot of savings left to be found after a series of cuts in the education system.
1010
Mr Cameron: Do you want me to comment on that?
Mrs McLeod: Yes.
Mr Cameron: First, having received a number of consultants' reports over a very long business career, I'm not surprised to find a caveat at the outset of the report. I think that's really quite usual. I hope there are no chartered accountants here whom I've offended by saying that.
As to the rest of your statement, I really can't comment. My experience tells me that those savings are available. They may be in the areas stated by the consultants' report and they may not be, but savings are there; that I'm sure of. Hopefully, the commission's approach to it will be to follow the premise I gave in my opening statement; that is, that the savings must be real and they must not be harmful, and what savings are found must be redirected to the kids in the classroom, which is where the need is.
Mrs McLeod: I appreciate that very much. I would take from that, then, that you would feel that part of the responsibility of the commission would be to identify what savings are real and to acknowledge publicly what is real and what is not achievable in terms of actual administrative savings through the amalgamations you're overseeing. Is that a fair statement?
Mr Cameron: Yes.
Mrs McLeod: Good. If I have a few more moments, I also want to get into the whole area of your background in organizational restructuring and organizational change.
The Chair: You have about a minute.
Mrs McLeod: Okay. Well, you won't be able to do justice to your experience of this in a minute. As I did with Betty, I table an impossibly difficult question with 60 seconds left. I have a little bit of background in organizational change myself, and one of my beliefs has always been that it's a good idea to get the people who have to implement the change to come along with you at the beginning.
I think you're going to find it very challenging, given the fact that there was really no involvement, whether of the trustees who are about to be changed, of the teachers who are going to be on the front lines or of the parents as representatives of parent councils. Every individual parent council says it's extremely concerned about what's going to happen and what its role is in all this. I think that's going to be one of the real challenges for you as somebody who's concerned about the way in which change is implemented.
Mr Cameron: I concede that will be a challenge. One can only try and make the best of the situation that exists, and that is to hope you will be able to carry along the very best people from the former system. In so far as parents are concerned, I am aware that the minister and the government generally intend to seek the active participation in a very major way, and I as a parent certainly support that.
The Chair: We move now to Mr Kormos.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): No, thank you, Chair.
The Chair: The government members had deferred -- Mr Martiniuk?
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I'm curious, and perhaps you can assist me. In the search for excellence, in my conversations especially with administrators, middle and upper, in the educational system, rather than school teachers, there seems to be an insecurity or a very defensive attitude to any possible critical examination of the organization. I'm wondering, because you've worked a lot with private enterprise, is that a human reaction or is it peculiar to the education system?
Mr Cameron: It's a very human reaction. It's in every organization that ever has to go through restructuring.
The Chair: Any other questions?
Mr Baird: Just a brief one. A good number of members of the commission have a significant background in education at various levels, whether it's through teaching, whether it's through the board or whether it's through public policy. Of the co-chairmen, one is a former school trustee and chair of a board and the other is someone who has followed public policy issues in education for more than 20 years and has served as the NDP Minister of Education. There's a terrific amount of core experience, and not just of the commissioners themselves but of the staff there. I think having some people from alternative backgrounds, with some other strengths, would add tremendously to their deliberations and business.
In terms of management skills and restructuring, what sort of perspective do you think you bring to the commission's deliberations?
Mr Cameron: I'm sorry. Could you just give me the last part again?
Mr Baird: Through your management skills, in terms of work on restructuring, whether it's at Canada Post or some of the other organizations you've worked with, what sort of skill and expertise do you think you'd bring to the commission in those regards?
Mr Cameron: I guess I could sum it up by saying that those of us who have been through it understand what needs to be done and the best ways to go about doing it. Perhaps if I gave you an example of restructuring the post, by analogy you could see what might be possible in the educational field. I stress "might," because I really don't know at this point. It certainly is being restructured. What lessons can be applied from the private sector at this point I don't know, but I suspect there probably are some.
At Canada Post, it was clear that the organization was getting somewhat monolithic. Its approach to its markets was broad rather than direct, and in today's world you cannot afford to be broad. I'm sure I don't have to tell the members here that. You need to be specific, you need to target markets and you need to devote efforts to those markets. Over a lengthy period of time, about two years, we reconstructed Canada Post into five strategic business units: letter mail, ad mail, retail and so on. Within seven months of that restructuring, the post showed a profit for the first time in I believe eight years. It hit its forecast of $21 million; in fact, it exceeded it by actually making $24 million. The following year, incrementally, the improvement continued.
The lesson to be drawn here is that the more you can establish core businesses for an organization, the more likely you are to be successful in those businesses so that the whole becomes more successful as well.
I can't, at this juncture -- I'm not even a commissioner yet; I haven't really seen the detail of the plans for the education system, but I suspect that approach can probably be used successfully to try and improve the operations of the system or infrastructure, to come back to my point, to generate dollars for the classroom.
The Chair: If there are no further comments or questions, Mr Cameron, thank you for coming before the committee this morning.
1020
KENNETH DECHERT
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Kenneth Dechert, intended appointee as full-time vice-chair, Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal.
The Chair: The next intended appointment is Mr Dechert to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, affectionately known as WCAT throughout the land. Mr Dechert, welcome to the committee. We'd like to give you the opportunity to make any opening comments you might like to make.
Mr Kenneth Dechert: Can I have a moment to pour a glass of water first? It was a rough ride in from Hamilton this morning.
The Chair: Sometimes you get a rough ride here too, but not always.
Mr Dechert: My name is Ken Dechert, and I'm here today as the intended vice-chair appointee to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal on a full-time basis.
I am a lawyer and have been practising law for 17 years, having been called to the bar of Ontario in 1980. I'm a sole practitioner in a general practice covering a wide variety of areas as both a barrister and a solicitor. These areas include criminal, family, real estate, wills and estates, administrative law, corporate, commercial and civil litigation. I have served as both defence counsel and crown prosecutor. I have experience appearing before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the Consent and Capacity Review Board on behalf of clients. I feel I am a versatile and seasoned practitioner.
My court experience is extensive and wide-ranging. I have conducted many trials before a judge, and a judge and jury, and am quite familiar with presentation of evidence, witnesses and case law before the courts. I understand the fundamental rules of justice and legal principles and can apply them to the facts of any given case.
In terms of management skills, I have a great deal of experience managing a large caseload and overseeing the files to their successful completion. I have managed my own law practice for the past 15 years, and I understand both the professional and business ends of things.
My profession is law-based but is also people-based: clients, other lawyers, court personnel, police, employees in government agencies and institutions of all kinds. They are all people-based. One must understand people in order to practice law; it is the nature of it. I believe I have a reputation in the legal community in Hamilton for honesty and integrity in my dealings with people, and I have clients who have stayed with me all this time because of it.
I have served my community well as a member of various charitable organizations such as the Rotary Club of Hamilton Mountain and the Hamilton Men Teachers Choir, as well as various minor sports organizations in my home town of Ancaster.
In conclusion, I offer you 17 years of well-rounded legal experience together with good management and people skills, all of which I feel are important attributes to bring to this position. I also give you my commitment to perform the duties of vice-chair of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal with integrity and dedication.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Dechert.
Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, sir, and I'm going to indicate right off the bat that I agree with your assessment of your broad background in the law. Had you applied for an appointment to the bench?
Mr Dechert: I have applied, sir, yes, I have.
Mr Kormos: That application is still outstanding with the AG?
Mr Dechert: No, it's not. I didn't quite make the interview process.
Mr Kormos: The sole issue here is the criteria for appointment. The criteria as stated by the public appointments secretariat are:
Extensive professional experience -- no issue in your case.
Highly developed management skills. In a single-practice law firm, if you haven't got highly developed management skills you've at least got highly developed cover-up skills in terms of resolving piles of paper on your desk -- no issue.
Personal attributes -- no issue.
How much workers' comp work have you done?
Mr Dechert: Probably a handful of workers' comp work, to be quite frank and honest. That would be in the area of advising clients, injured workers who have come in, I'd say about five cases over a period of 17 years in practice. I haven't had any experience before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal as a counsel, nor have I been involved in a hearing before the adjudicative division.
Having said that, I do have experience in personal injury cases in civil court, I have appeared and prepared cases before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, and I have dealt with mental health cases with the Consent and Capacity Review Board, and before that the Mental Health Review Board, which I would suggest to you, Mr Kormos, is very much similar to the kinds of applications that would be coming to the Workers' Compensation Board for compensation of injury and assessment of personal injury, and it might even extend to mental stress issues etc.
I might indicate that I am well versed in courtroom experience, as I indicated in my opening statement. I feel I can assess evidence, I know the rules of evidence, and I feel that is going to be of great assistance to me in performing the quasi-judicial functions of this board.
Mr Kormos: Obviously, applying for a full-time position as vice-chair, you'd be shutting down your law practice.
Mr Dechert: Yes. I'm in the process of doing that right now, perhaps in anticipation of my confirmation. If I am confirmed, I intend to have it fully wound down by the end of July. There is a colleague in my office, who is not a partner but an associate of mine, and she has agreed to assist me in taking over ongoing files, and there will be ongoing files that she will have to take over.
Mr Kormos: You show some sensitivity, I tell you, to the issues involving injured workers when you talk about stress claims. As vice-chair, and subsequent to the passage of Bill 99, what would your assessment be of stress claims, in view of Bill 99?
Mr Dechert: I feel it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the content of Bill 99, and that's for two reasons. First of all, it's a matter that's still before the House. As an intended appointee, not yet confirmed -- for that matter, even if I were confirmed -- it's inappropriate for a quasi-judicial officer who is a subordinate officer of the Legislature to give his personal views and opinions on something before the House.
Mr Kormos: Fair enough, but I'm asking you, then, you have an interest in stress claims, and I trust you feel you can deal with those fairly and appropriately as vice-chair?
Mr Dechert: I feel I can. I feel that I must come to this position with a clean slate, as any good judicial officer should, without any preconceived notions. My job is to hear the evidence, fairly assess the evidence, give the litigants before the tribunal the fair opportunity and the right to fundamental justice to present their case, without me in any way tainting my position beforehand with commentary, for me to make a fair and reasoned decision in accordance with the provisions of the current act, subsection 4(4), which talks about the real merits and justice of each case.
Mr Kormos: To its credit, WCAT has developed a process of determinations, including evaluations of stress, as compensable injuries, by virtue of its status as an independent tribunal. Do you have a commitment to that?
Mr Dechert: Once again I note that is a matter before the House in Bill 99. I'm aware that is an issue that is a matter of debate. I don't feel it appropriate for me to comment on that. I do, however, feel that any tribunal should have a degree of independence.
Mr Kormos: Your role as a federal prosecutor ended in 1994, a year after the 1993 election. I'm not overly familiar with Ancaster, but I know how it works down where I come from. Federal prosecutors tend to change with the federal government. Is that what happened in 1994?
Mr Dechert: Yes, sir.
Mr Kormos: You were drawn to the WCAT by virtue of your interest in workers' compensation?
Mr Dechert: Not specifically, sir. I felt that at this point in my life and with my extensive legal experience, I would like to try and apply that in a different way, in an adjudicative function. I thought that would be an interesting experience. It wasn't the WCAT necessarily that I had shot for, so to speak. I expressed to the public appointments secretariat that I would be interested in being a member of a quasi-judicial body of some sort so I could get that experience. I sent my résumé some nine months ago, and about two months ago, I received a phone call from the manager asking if I would be interested in this particular position.
Mr Kormos: Having been a federal prosecutor and being aware of the somewhat obvious mode of appointment of federal prosecutors, again recognizing that that's the federal government, there is a record of a $149.53 donation to the Conservative Party. I trust that was a dinner ticket or some sort of contribution to an event like that.
Mr Dechert: I think that was in 1995. In preparation for this hearing, I did have a chance to check my tax records. I believe it was a dinner ticket of some sort, yes. In fact, it may have been split with my spouse.
Mr Kormos: Right, and you've used the expertise of your member in pursuing this appointment?
Mr Dechert: No, sir.
Mr Kormos: Who is your member by the way? I have no idea.
Mr Dechert: Mr Skarica.
Mr Kormos: Toni Skarica?
Mr Dechert: Yes, sir.
Mr Kormos: Who left the crown's office voluntarily to pursue a political career here -- a similar drop in pay.
Mr Dechert: He did, sir, yes.
1030
Mr Kormos: When you say "advisory role with respect to workers' comp issues," what do you mean?
Mr Dechert: I'm sorry, could you repeat that question?
Mr Kormos: You said you played an advisory role with respect to clients vis-à-vis workers' comp issues.
Mr Dechert: Yes. I gave general advice to them as to how to pursue their claim. From my recollection, and this goes back a while -- it's been over a period of 17 years of practice -- I never did eventually take the case before an adjudicator, but I assisted in the preparation of paperwork and made some telephone calls to facilitate the client's involvement, and the client took it further. In some cases I also referred the client to the legal aid clinics in Hamilton.
Mr Kormos: What's your experience with the office of the worker adviser?
Mr Dechert: None, sir.
Mr Kormos: You've not utilized the office of the worker adviser?
Mr Dechert: No, I haven't, sir.
Mr Kormos: Why not?
Mr Dechert: I just didn't think it was necessary. For me to discharge my duty to the clients who came to me for that particular issue, I was able to discharge those duties through my own research and through telephone inquiries of the board and adjusters at the board.
Mr Kormos: Are you familiar with what the office of the worker adviser does?
Mr Dechert: I'm somewhat familiar, sir.
Mr Kormos: What is that?
Mr Dechert: It's an office that's available to injured workers to assist them in perhaps the preparation of a case and in some instances to assist them in appearing before various levels.
The Chair: Now to the government members. Any questions?
Mr Stewart: Just a couple of questions. I looked through your résumé, and certainly you have had some involvement in the community. To look at two or three, you've had involvement with the disabled, the vulnerable, the disadvantaged etc. The concentration at the moment is your lack of experience in terms of getting involved with the tribunal. Do you feel your community involvement will be of an advantage to you?
Mr Dechert: I do, sir. First of all, I feel I'm a very compassionate person. What I can indicate about my community involvement is that it's been consistent over a period of 10 or 15 years, really since I started practising law, since I took on a family and became a member of the community, outside of my school activities.
I'm a member of the Rotary Club of Hamilton Mountain. In that particular organization I've served both as community service director and secretary of that particular organization. In my capacity as community service director I chaired a committee where charitable donation requests were brought to my attention and the committee considered them for purposes of making donations to particular charities that were worthwhile. We had to assess those charities. Some of those requests came from individuals, for example, who needed to travel far afield for medical operations and that sort of thing, and we assisted those people. I'm very proud of that. I'm also a Paul Harris Fellow of the Rotary International, which is a special award -- I was awarded that one month ago; I have my pin on today, as a matter of fact -- for exceptional work in Rotary and in Rotary International events.
Additionally, I'm a member of the Hamilton Men Teachers Choir. It's a charitable organization. We sing frequently at seniors' homes. We don't, with the exception of the odd time, charge a fee, but it's just a fee to cover our expenses. We have done special fund-raising events. One in particular that comes to mind is when we raised funds for the Jamaican hurricane relief some years ago.
That is some of my community involvement that I think would assist me in having an understanding and compassion for the people who I think will appear before the board -- keeping in mind, however, that my prime duty is to the Legislature. As a sworn quasi-judicial officer, I must follow the rule of law, I must be bound by the legislation that sets it up, and I don't have the jurisdiction to legislate or create law. That's not my function.
Mr Stewart: Continuing with the supposed lack of experience, experience can be a bit of a detriment as well. If you look at what has happened over the last number of years where there's been such a tremendous backlog of cases, and cases that have just been ongoing and ongoing, it seems to me that with experience, doing the same thing for a long time, sometimes you become very complacent. I think that has a tremendous effect on the people we're trying to deal with. Maybe you'd like to comment on it.
You've had some experience. The gentleman we interviewed before you made the comment that he's a very fast learner and it takes other expertise to do it, to the tribunal in this case. You've had good experience as far in terms of chairing groups and so on and so forth. Do you feel you could be of assistance to move this backlog along, to assist the people in getting it done? It is just becoming a tremendous problem, maybe because of some of the experience of those who have served in the past. Maybe a new broom sweeps clean or a little fresh air might help to move things along.
Mr Dechert: I think so, sir; I think that's important. I feel that's something I can contribute to this particular tribunal, and that is that I don't come with any preconceived notions. I have been a sole general practitioner of law and I've dealt with little people, people on the street. I'm a storefront law office operation. I don't represent a lot of corporations. If so, they're small business corporations, little people.
I don't, however, come before this board with any preconceived notions in the particular area of workers' compensation. I feel my particular lack of experience in representing clients before the tribunal or the Workers' Compensation Board won't necessarily hinder my ability to discharge my duties, because I feel I have a good background in the legal principles. It's the general legal education that's important, and that is an education where one can read legislation, apply legislation, know rules of evidence, know what's relevant, know how to assess facts and apply them to the law. I feel confident in my ability to do that.
I might add that I also feel a deep dedication to do my best to move the cases along through the system. I understand there is a backlog. If there's one comment I might make about Bill 99, it is that I think the comment about a 120-day limitation for decisions is an admirable one, and that's because we have a duty to those litigants who come before the board to not leave them hanging for extended periods of time. We as tribunal members have an obligation to fulfil that.
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Hi, Ken, how are you? Good to see you. One of the things the appeal tribunal must do is look at each case, as you stated, on individual merit and look at both sides of the case, both from the employer point of view and the employee point of view, to bring those together and come to an understanding of that case. As a lawyer, when you're prosecuting or when you're on the defence side, you take one point of view and that's the point of view you push. I'd like to ask your opinion on how you think you can bring that experience to this tribunal, how you will apply that to this tribunal.
Mr Dechert: As my résumé shows, Mrs Ross, in the criminal area, in any event, I've seen the issues from both sides of the fence. I've been a crown prosecutor and I've been a defence counsel for about equal periods of time. When I was a crown prosecutor I was also a defence counsel in the sense that I did crown prosecution on a part-time basis. To that end, I felt that experience was important for me to understand both sides of the fence, both sides of the issue: how to prove a case from the crown's perspective and how to test the crown's case from the defence perspective.
In workers' compensation appeals matters, it's an investigatory process as opposed to an adversarial process. To that end, having seen both sides of the fence, as I have in that extended experience in courtroom activity, I feel I can ask the appropriate questions to flesh out the issues even though the litigants may not bring those issues forward. It's an important aspect of the tribunal's work, as a rehearing body, to be able to determine the issues on the real merits and justice of the case. The only way of doing that -- and it's mandated in the legislation currently -- is that there be an investigatory process, and that might mean we might have to ask further questions to find out that issue.
I don't know if I answered your question, but I think I sort of have.
1040
The Chair: Sorry, Mrs Ross; we've gone over time. We move now to the official opposition.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Mr Dechert. It's very frustrating for us, particularly on the opposition side, when people such as you come forward who are not actually willing or able to comment in terms of some pieces of legislation. I appreciate why you can't. On the other hand, I think it's important for us to get a sense of how you feel about a variety of matters.
One of the issues that I think is really important is the fact that the WCB and WCAT have had a relationship that's been somewhat controversial, based on the fact that WCAT felt it could make interpretations and have some flexibility. Do you not agree that the whole point of WCAT -- if a case is being appealed and it is going forward, shouldn't a tribunal such as that have some flexibility to not so much interpret things in a different way but to look at the facts in a different way, or there may not be particularly any real value in the tribunal being in place?
Mr Dechert: Any subordinate administrative tribunal has to follow the mandate and jurisdiction given to it by the legislation. It's not my role or function, I say respectfully to you, that I comment on how the legislation came about. If the legislation came about through the wisdom of the legislators, the tribunal must follow. That's the rule of law. Otherwise, it has no jurisdiction. I think that's the best answer I could give to you on that.
Mr Gravelle: I wouldn't argue with that. But the whole point of an appeals process is to have an opportunity to have the issue discussed at a different forum and at a different level, to be able to look at the facts perhaps not so much in a different way but in a broader-based way.
The issue to focus on is the whole issue of chronic stress. As a lawyer with criminal injuries compensation and criminal law, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about chronic stress itself, the concept of chronic stress. You would understand the concept of chronic stress in terms of clients you've had, what effect it can have on people. I would be curious to get your personal opinion on whether you believe chronic stress, combined with other factors, can put people in a position where they can be quite specifically injured, or what effect it simply has. I would think that with your experiences you might have some thoughts on that.
Mr Dechert: I understand there are certainly trains of thought. Psychologists and psychiatrists have put down that work-related stress is a legitimate concern and a legitimate injury. There are also schools of thought that tend to weaken that.
My job is not to indicate my personal opinions. They're not expert in any event, so I wouldn't think it would be of any assistance to you or the tribunal what my personal views were on chronic stress. If the expert evidence was put before me that supported the claim, I may very well feel it's meritorious, if the legislation allowed for it. If the legislation does not allow for it, obviously it's a decision that's ultra vires. I don't have the jurisdiction to make and I would be overstepping my bounds and role as a vice-chair.
I also of course understand that under the current legislation, which I like to talk about because I know it's there, it's a tripartite panel. The tribunal has tried to encourage collegial tripartism, whereby it's hoped there can be common ground found among the three panel members. I certainly support the continuation of that type of process.
Mr Gravelle: To talk in very general terms, on what basis would a decision being appealed and going to WCAT be overturned, be changed? Can you walk us through how you see that process? Obviously, you're not there yet, but under what circumstances might you see that a decision based on the legislation was wrongly administered, was simply not done correctly? Can you give me an example of how you see that transpiring, a case coming before WCAT?
Mr Dechert: I might indicate that if I am confirmed, I'll be going through an extensive training program, as I understand it, where I'll be seeing cases and will eventually write a mock decision I'll be graded on. I look forward to that process.
But in answer to your question, the appeals tribunal, as I understand it right now, and as the law has directed through practice directions, through the legislation and the cases, is not a true appeal kind of process. It's a rehearing process. It is a process whereby, as I understand it, the board will render its decision, give its decision in writing. The worker or employer, if they're the party, or both, will come forward and present their case on a hearing de novo, a new hearing. We're not looking at the record to determine whether there's been an error at the lower level, if I can put it that way, to use courtroom jargon, I guess.
This is a new allowed process, a rehearing process, a new trial process, essentially. We can rehear evidence. We can hear new evidence. We can ask questions about evidence we think should be before us. In almost any kind of case, as I understand it, where the injured worker or the employer is not happy with the decision, he or she has a right to bring the matter forward. We'll have a hearing de novo and we'll decide on the merits of the case without preconceived notions, based on the evidence we hear. I hope I've answered your question.
Mr Gravelle: You have. That's exactly how it works.
I presume you have personal opinions about Bill 99 and I presume you have thoughts about it. I think that's relevant and I think it's important. I won't ask you to tell me what they are; I don't mean to be in the least bit combative. I just find it frustrating when people come before us and are not willing to talk about it. I understand the official reason why you're not, but I think it would be useful to hear your opinion on it.
I will only ask you this: You have probably looked at Bill 99. I presume you've looked at the changes happening in terms of WCAT and WCB. Do you have, outside this room and away from this table, personal opinions related to how the compensation process has worked in this province? I won't ask you to tell me what they are, but you see, I don't think it would be a terrible thing for you to tell us what they are. I don't think that would be a bad thing. I don't think it would compromise your position.
Mr Dechert: I would respectfully disagree with you. I don't think my personal views are relevant to the job I am applying for, if you will, here today. In fact, my personal views on certain specific changes would only serve to prejudice my ability to properly decide on a case. It would taint me, especially in a public body such as this, and any good judicial or quasi-judicial officer should not engage in that discourse.
The Chair: Mr Dechert, thank you for appearing before the committee today.
1050
IAN STRACHAN
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party and official opposition party: Ian Strachan, intended appointee as full-time chair of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal.
The Chair: Let us move to the next intended appointment, Mr Ian Strachan, also to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal. Welcome to the committee, and if you have any opening comments, please proceed.
Mr Ian Strachan: Thank you, Mr Chair. Perhaps just a brief opening statement to give the members a thumbnail sketch of my background, and I can leave most of the time for the members to ask questions.
My degrees are in economics and law. I was called to the bar in Ontario in 1971. I began my career at a firm called Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt, one of the large downtown firms, in 1969. That's where I first met Ruth and Ron Ellis. Mr Ellis, as you know, is the current chair of the tribunal. He's here this morning as my big brother, to look after me.
After about five years at Osler, Hoskin, three of us moved on and formed our own firm, basically carrying on a general practice, doing everything that came in the door. Around 1979 when I became a single parent, I formed my own firm so I could maximize the amount of time I would have to raise two very young children. That practice had a small business orientation. It was mostly a general practice. It did involve some workers' compensation, acting both for injured workers and employers, although that was certainly not a big part of the practice.
I was appointed to the appeals tribunal by the Liberal-NDP coalition government in 1985 and then reappointed by the Liberal government of Premier Peterson, the NDP government of Premier Rae and now the Progressive Conservative government of Premier Harris.
I don't think there's too much else I can add. It may interest some of the members to know that I do come from a blue-collar background. I did put myself through university and law school by doing hard labour jobs during the summer -- laying sod, working on an assembly line, driving a Coca-Cola truck -- so I am familiar with the effects of hard work upon workers. I think that's about all I would say.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Strachan. If we can move to the government members, any questions?
Mr Baird: We defer to our colleagues in the opposition.
Mr Gravelle: Good morning, Mr Strachan. Obviously, you've been vice-chair of WCAT since 1985?
Mr Strachan: Yes, that's correct.
Mr Gravelle: So you've seen a lot of changes. I presume you were probably sitting in the room when I was asking my earlier questions.
Mr Strachan: I was.
Mr Gravelle: Can I ask you what your thoughts are in terms of the changes that are coming forward and how they are going to affect how WCAT works?
Mr Strachan: I don't mean to be evasive and I would like to comment on how I see the process being affected. With respect to the specific provisions such as, I think the current buzz phrase is the "policy audit function" of the tribunal, I expect that if Bill 99 goes through as is, I may well be called upon to interpret some of those provisions next year and I'd be very reluctant to have a public record of any comments on the specific provisions.
You did touch upon a concern, though, in terms of the process and the caseload at the tribunal. I'm concerned about the effect on the caseload. If I could take a moment just to go through the caseload, my recollection, and these are general figures, is that the tribunal had roughly 1,800 cases come in in 1994; that escalated to 2,400 in 1995 and to 3,600 in 1996. My understanding is that in 1996, when 3,600 cases came in, the tribunal disposed of 2,400 cases, ie, the input from the previous year basically, but there was still a shortfall of 1,200 cases. The information I've been given in the last two weeks leads me to believe that the inflow for 1997 will be roughly 400 cases a month, so say 4,800 cases at the end of 1997, which is another 1,200 increase over 1996. Even if the tribunal disposes of 3,600 in 1997, we still have that 1,200 shortfall at the end of the year.
As the board telescopes its adjudicative process, and you may be familiar with the old system where there was a claims adjudicator decision, then a decision review branch decision and a hearings officer decision before it reached the tribunal -- that's been telescoped into two levels basically -- my concern is that as that process is telescoped, unless there is a very high-quality decision at the end of the board process, we are going to see a tremendous increase in the number of appeals that flood in to the tribunal, and at the moment we're not equipped to handle that kind of flood. My concern is primarily with the process at this stage, because I'm going to be expected to deal with this flood on an expeditious basis.
Mr Gravelle: So the 120-day maximum time may not be realistic at all, based on the pure reality of the numbers?
Mr Strachan: The 120 days, as I understand it, is from the time of the hearing. I believe we can design systems to deal with that. Obviously there will be very complex cases that won't meet that deadline. I have more of a concern with cases coming in and sitting for months because we don't have the resources to look at the file, process it and get it hearing-ready. That's where I see the major delays resting at the moment.
I should tell you that I really have not had a chance to do any kind of in-depth investigation. I'm in the process of educating myself about some of the processes, but obviously it's been fairly superficial so for.
Mr Gravelle: Thank you. I'll defer the rest of my time.
Mr Kormos: In your 12 years, obviously you've had the office of the worker adviser appearing before you frequently?
Mr Strachan: Yes, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: How do you rate their advocacy on behalf of injured workers?
Mr Strachan: I found it be on a very high level.
Mr Kormos: You've similarly had lawyers appearing in front of you, acting on behalf of both employers and injured workers. Some of them are very skilled at workers' comp advocacy, aren't they?
Mr Strachan: Some of them are.
Mr Kormos: And the balance range from --
Mr Strachan: As a lawyer, you'll appreciate that I, as a lawyer, wish to be discreet.
Mr Kormos: Gotcha.
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Have you ever heard that before?
Mr Kormos: Discretion isn't one of my fortes, you understand.
Mr Strachan: I've heard that.
Mr Kormos: I know exactly what you're saying and I'll put my money with OWA any day, quite frankly.
Are you familiar with the traditional practice in terms of nominees for appointment to the board and the role of the chair in that regard?
Mr Strachan: Not in any detail. I have had some discussions with Mr Ellis over the last couple of weeks about that.
Mr Kormos: Maybe I am going to show some discretion. I don't want to push this beyond the point where you no longer feel comfortable, but are you familiar with the practice since 1985 of the chair referring to the government potential appointees to WCAT?
Mr Strachan: I'm familiar with the practice of the chair recommending appointees. My recollection, though, is that we have also had a number of appointees who -- I'm not sure how to put this delicately -- have dropped in unexpectedly, and some of those, candidly, in my opinion, have been among the best. In fact, if I were to strike a gold medal for the best all-round appointee at the tribunal in my experience, it would go to a gentleman who dropped in unexpectedly.
1100
Mr Kormos: But Mr Ellis is departing, not in the visceral, physical sense but in terms of his role as chair. Are you aware of the circumstances that led up to that?
Mr Strachan: Not entirely. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained how I became involved in this. My appointment as vice-chair expired at the end of April of this year. The reappointment had not gone through early in May. I can't remember the specific dates, but it seems to me that towards the end of May I had a call from the public appointments secretariat. Would I come up and speak with them? At that point I assumed it related to my reappointment as a vice-chair. Subsequently I was told that a decision had been made not to extend Mr Ellis's appointment, and would I let my name stand as chair of the organization?
I've spoken with Mr Ellis since. The explanation he gave to me is that he approached the government early in 1997, asked for some indication as to the government's intentions when his appointment expired October 1. When he didn't hear anything concrete by May, he went to the government and pressed the issue. It's my understanding that is what started this process.
Mr Baird: Thank you very much, sir, for coming in. Obviously you've got a terrific amount of experience at WCAT, and I think that experience has been recognized by governments of all three stripes which at various times have appointed you, so you certainly bring a good perspective to the board.
What do you think you've learned? You've been at the tribunal for a good number of years, obviously had the experience of seeing what's worked well and what hasn't. You've had the experience of working with Ron Ellis, the current chair, who I think by all accounts has been very well regarded by most in terms of the community that comes into contact with the tribunal.
Mr Strachan: Absolutely.
Mr Baird: What do you think you could bring in terms of your experience to follow what has been a capable chair?
Mr Strachan: I think if you ask my colleagues at the tribunal, and hopefully some people outside the tribunal, they would say that the decisions I've written over the years have been both fair and sensible. The overwhelming impression I have of the tribunal, and I think for the most part the impression that exists externally, is the tradition of fairness which exists at the tribunal. I believe one of the reasons I was asked to stand as chair is that I was viewed as someone who would be capable of continuing that tradition of fairness. I think that's so. Obviously I cannot be Ron Ellis, but I'll certainly do my best to fill part of his shoes.
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Good morning, Mr Strachan. I've got a brief question. In your role as a former vice-chair, what is the relationship between the vice-chair and the chairperson? How much interaction do you have as individuals or in the process at the tribunal?
Mr Strachan: As a friend and colleague, as much as you want. It was always possible to drop in to Ron's office in the morning and chat about virtually anything. In terms of cases, it was an arm's-length relationship. There was no interference in any particular case. I would characterize it as a very informal relationship. I think there are vice-chairs at the tribunal who have a closer relationship with the chair than others, but as professionals we're all treated equally.
The Chair: Any other comments or questions? If not, Mr Strachan, thank you very much for coming before the committee. We appreciate your presence here. Mr Ellis, it's good to see you again.
That completes the review of intended appointments. I suggest we move on concurrences.
Mr Baird: Chair, I was wondering if we might have a 15-minute recess.
The Chair: That's certainly appropriate in my view if that's what you wish. We'll recess until 11:30.
The committee recessed from 1106 to 1128.
The Chair: The standing committee is back in session. Normally we would deal with the concurrences and then move into a subcommittee of the committee, but given the import of what we're trying to sort out here this morning, it would seem to me we should meet as a full committee to discuss the scheduling and so forth, if that's appropriate to the committee. Let's deal with the concurrences first and then deal with the question of scheduling.
You may recall that last week we had a debate on the appointment of Dianne Ballam to WCAT as a vice-chair. Because there was a deferment requested, is the committee now ready for the vote on the motion by Mr Baird to concur in the appointment of Ms Ballam? Are we agreed on that? All right.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Baird, Beaubien, Gravelle, Bert Johnson, Martiniuk, Ross.
Nays
Kormos.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Now let us deal with the concurrences for today's appointments.
Mr Baird: I move concurrence in the appointment of Betty Moseley-Williams to the Education Improvement Commission.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Any debate? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Mr Baird: I move concurrence in the appointment of Peter Cameron to the Education Improvement Commission.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Any debate?
Mr Gravelle: I just want to go on the record, as I think we did last week as well, that I'll be supporting Mr Cameron, as we did support Mrs Moseley-Williams, but make it very clear that we very firmly believe that the Education Improvement Commission should not be in place. It's certainly an unelected body which is in essence being used by this government. We believe very strongly that they will not have the kind of flexibility or ability to make decisions that will be useful.
I appreciate that the appointees we've seen, both this week and last week, are people who have given a great deal of thought to whether or not they would sit on it. They absolutely are genuine in their priorities in terms of trying very much to be sure that the education of children will be affected in the least negative way possible, and they are very sincere in their wishes. We quite frankly believe that will not be the case and they will be disappointed, and in many cases some of them will have some difficulty staying on it.
Having said that, I will be supporting Mr Cameron as we have supported the others.
The Chair: Any further debate? Are you ready for the question? All those in favour? Opposed? It is carried.
Mr Baird: I would move the appointment of Ian Strachan as chair of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal.
The Chair: We'll do Mr Dechert first.
Mr Baird: Oh, I was going to do him because he was chair.
The Chair: Okay, fine. Any debate on Mr Baird's motion?
Mr Baird: I would just like to lead off and make some brief comments. Mr Strachan obviously brings a considerable amount of experience to the role of chair of WCAT. He has been appointed by all three parties as a vice-chair, which I think speaks volumes to the job he's done there.
I would like to also just read a small paragraph, probably one of the most classy memorandums I have ever seen from an individual serving in government, from Mr Ellis, who sent a memo to all the staff at WCAT with respect to changes in appointments, basically a message to staff. He writes: "Ian has been with the tribunal almost from its inception and our personal relationship goes beyond that. I have always admired the quality of his work at the tribunal and he will make an excellent chair."
Certainly Mr Ellis did a superb job as the chair of WCAT and I think it speaks volumes that he not only spoke highly of Mr Strachan in this memo to staff, but as well certainly appeared today to show support for Mr Strachan. I think those two things speak volumes to him.
Mr Kormos: I want to indicate, on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus here, that we are enthusiastically supportive of this gentleman's appointment as chair. He brings a great deal of experience to the position. The endorsement of Mr Ellis, as has been referred to, is incredibly persuasive. He displayed in the brief period of time that he was here before the committee a refreshing candour and straightforwardness that I certainly appreciate and I am confident other members of the committee do as well.
Obviously, subsequent governments will be relying upon the chair of WCAT, as well as other personnel within the WCB system, to provide advice as to the reformation that's going to be needed in view of the devastation of WCB being imposed by virtue of Bill 99. I look forward in a year and a half, two years' time, to utilizing the expertise of this appointment as chair of WCAT, along with other senior members of the whole Workers' Compensation Board system, when it comes time to undo the damage being done by Bill 99 and to restoring workers to their rightful role in a compensation system that was designed to serve workers' interests, to protect workers against injury and to safeguard workers who have suffered injury and/or death in workplaces.
Mr Gravelle: On behalf of the Ontario Liberal caucus, I also want to express our strong support for Mr Strachan's appointment as chair. Echoing much of what Mr Kormos just said, there's no question that in light of the changes that are being brought forward in terms of Bill 99 and the changes in terms of WCAT and its relationship with the WCB, it's crucial that somebody like Mr Strachan is there as chair and is perhaps one of the real and few bright lights in terms of a man with the experience and the concerns. We believe that he will be an excellent chair. Despite circumstances changing rather dramatically and perhaps negatively in terms of the rights and concerns of injured workers, Mr Strachan will be a strong chair, I believe. I am very pleased to support him.
The Chair: Any further debate? Are you ready for the question?
Mr Baird: A recorded vote, Mr Chair.
Ayes
Baird, Beaubien, Gravelle, Bert Johnson, Kormos, Martiniuk, Ross, Stewart.
The Chair: It's carried.
Mr Baird: I move concurrence on the appointment of Kenneth Dechert as vice-chair of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal.
The Chair: Is there any debate on Mr Dechert's appointment?
Mr Kormos: I sincerely regret not having had more opportunity to speak with Mr Dechert during the course of this committee hearing this morning. I am compelled to recall my comments about Ms Ballam, who appeared before us a week ago and whose appointment was concurred with by a majority of the committee this morning. You will recall that it was impossible to make any negative observations about Ms Ballam, about her skills, about her enthusiasm -- all positive attributes and ones that would make her suitable for public service in any number of roles.
However, I referred then to the statement of criteria which the public appointments secretariat provides for appointment to the WCAT. Among other things but first in their list of criteria is familiarity with the workers' compensation system. You will know that was the concern I had about Ms Ballam and I had no other concerns about her than that singular concern.
Mr Dechert causes me to have similar and added concerns. Clearly, Mr Dechert has no familiarity with the workers' compensation system. I am suggesting to you and to the committee that surely that means more than simply knowing that there's a Workers' Compensation Act, or that there's a Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, or that there are injured workers. Familiarity, when it's discussed by the public appointments secretariat as a criterion, I suggest means some hands-on, something more than mere passing familiarity. Otherwise, it would have said "some familiarity" or "a knowledge of the existence of the Workers' Compensation Act." I believe "familiarity" means something more than merely knowing that there is an act.
Mr Dechert comes here with a CV or a résumé that's three pages long. Fair enough. He has been a sole practitioner since his call to the bar in 1980, which means he's practised law for 17 years. Nothing in his résumé refers to experience with the Workers' Compensation Act, the Workers' Compensation Board or the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal. However, he left the clear impression during the discussions with him that he had several clients whom he had assisted in the preparation of their submissions to the Workers' Compensation Board.
He indicated that he had never utilized the office of the worker adviser, notwithstanding that Ancaster is adjacent to the city of Hamilton, where we know full well there's a fully staffed office of the worker adviser that's been providing advocacy assistance to injured workers for a number of years.
1140
You will recall that I asked Mr Strachan, in his experience as a WCAT vice-chair, about the skill and expertise of advocates appearing before him. Mr Strachan indicated that the office of the worker adviser provided qualified and competent advocacy for workers and then, in response to the role of lawyers, I believe Mr Strachan agreed that lawyers ranged from very good and, although he was disinclined to complete the statement, left the clear impression to the complete other end of the continuum.
Workers' compensation advocacy is a highly specialized field. Mere involvement with other tribunals like the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board doesn't even come close. The fact that Mr Dechert appeared to be aware of the existence of the OWA -- he said as much -- but that he wouldn't have referred any of those clients to OWA, in conjunction with what I know about OWA and with what Mr Strachan, as a 12-year member of the WCAT as vice-chair, confirmed, I tell you, a lawyer who doesn't have specific expertise in workers' comp work who wouldn't utilize OWA when it was available -- and I appreciate there may be parts of the province, specifically the north, where we're so remote that access to OWA becomes difficult where a lawyer in good faith would take on a workers' comp file. But the failure to utilize OWA speaks of either a very young lawyer who simply isn't aware of his or her limitations or a lawyer who has no regard for the welfare of those particular clients. It's as simple as that.
Quite frankly, for a lawyer without specific expertise in OWA, and I've seen a million of them -- that's hyperbole; I've seen a whole lot of them -- to try to take on these cases borders on gross disservice to a client, especially when the office of the worker adviser provides the highest quality of advocacy for no charge to the injured worker.
Mr Dechert was obviously trying to impress the committee, and I use the word "impress" in the most legitimate sense, with the fact that he knows injured workers or that he's had contact with them. By revealing that, his indication that he took it on himself without using the office of the OWA speaks of either a disregard for those same injured workers or a failure to understand the complexity, intricacy and difficulty inherent in applying the Workers' Compensation Act and appearing either before the board or before the WCAT.
I'll go a little further. Here we go once again with a person appearing before the committee who states -- and my notes indicate this is a direct quote -- that his personal views are not relevant, then goes on to say, "My personal views would taint me." So he's suggesting that yes, he has personal views and those personal views would taint him, but he points out that they're not relevant in response to a question wherein he's asked to express them. That means he has personal views, it means he's aware that personal views would taint him, but he doesn't want to tell us what they happen to be. I'm concerned about that.
I understand, all of us understand -- you don't have to be a rocket scientist -- that once you're in one of these positions you should be loath to express personal views. But he's not in that position yet, and the purpose of this committee is to inquire as to who these people are, where they come from, what they bring to the position. I think questions about personal views are entirely appropriate and should be responded to.
This came up last week, Chair, and you'll recall that I expressed a similar position. I also indicated that this process here seems in some respects to be based on the US model of screening or inquiries into potential appointees. If indeed it is, if I'm right, if I'm correct in that regard, we should note then that the US model is very much designed to elicit personal views from people, so that we understand what they're bringing in to their position, knowing full well that they understand that once they're in that position they have to do their best to temper those personal views and act in not just a non-partisan but an impartial way.
I'm left with the conclusion that this type of response is evasive and, more than evasive, is designed not just to evade the question but to actually avoid expressing those same personal views.
I've also got problems with the fact that here we have an appointment and you say: "I wish there were more time. Lord knows I wish there had been more time. I would have relished more time." He acknowledged that the crown prosecutor position that he held -- and there's nothing wrong with that -- was effectively a patronage one, terminated in 1994 after the election of the Chrétien government in 1993. However, I note he was appointed to that position in 1985. It could have been a matter of picking the wrong party at the wrong time.
He then acknowledged -- and, again, there's nothing wrong with it -- that he's on record for a donation to the Conservative Party of Ontario in 1995, the provincial election year, of some $149.53. He has a small-town law practice and indicates that he'll be abandoning that to accept this full-time position which pays something in the range of $70,000. It's an ACL-23 classification. It starts at $70,000 and goes up to -- there's nothing wrong with that; vice-chairs deserve that type of salary.
I also note that in his conversation with members of the committee he attempted to bolster his experience or, quite frankly, exaggerate it. He wanted to leave the impression -- I'm sorry, but I don't recall the exact word -- of numerous jury trials, yet in his résumé he says "conducted several jury trials." Well, several is not numerous and several doesn't constitute expertise as a jury trial lawyer.
His amateurish usage of Latinisms -- "ultra vires" and trial "de novo" -- again is typical of either a first-year law graduate or somebody who has already begun to suffer judgeitis before they've even enjoyed the appointment. After 17 years at the bar you don't use those Latinisms any more. Your first year out of law school, you use them because you want to impress people with the fact that you've picked up some of that stuff. But after 17 years and when you're communicating to real people you don't go around talking like you're from the British House of Lords writing judgments for the all-England reports or whatever the heck they are.
We're talking about a tribunal here that has working people appearing before it for whom communication and some empathy -- not sympathy, empathy -- on the part of the adjudicators is essential. To refer once again to Mr Strachan's comments and his style, he left a very clear impression of somebody who understood what communicating with people really meant. With his background, he made a point of mentioning that he's been around the block a couple of times, that as a student he did the hard work. He knows what it means to work in a factory on an assembly line, to lay sod. I appreciated that and I appreciated the manner in which he spoke to us, a very straightforward, communicative manner. Mr Dechert comes across as, as I say, a person who suffers from judgeitis prematurely.
1150
I took note of his reference to his Rotary pin. I have no quarrel with the fact that he belongs to the Rotary Club. He puts in his résumé that he's the past secretary of the Rotary Club of Hamilton Mountain and he mentioned the Harris Fellowship. I don't know anything about the Harris Fellowship in the Rotary Club -- and I'm sure it's awarded only to people who deserve it -- but to appear here and make reference to his Rotary pin, as if somehow it was an insignia that entitled him to accord, I find difficult to understand. I suppose I would have been more sympathetic had it been a Moose Lodge pin, which is a working class organization founded by workers as a mutual benefit society so that they could care for each other and the wives and children of workers who were injured or who died in the workplace. I find Moose Lodge far more sympathetic than the Rotary Club, although I have nothing against the Rotary Club.
This person who acknowledged having wanted to be on the bench -- and boy, have I seen them before. Man, oh man, he's got the mannerisms down pat. He's been working on that for a long time. I'm sorry, this person not only doesn't have any familiarity with the workers' compensation system but he displays qualities, or lack of qualities rather, characteristics that I think make him highly unsuitable for a position where injured workers are going to be appearing and depending upon an adjudicator for an empathetic and full hearing. The last thing an injured worker appearing before WCAT needs is to have some pompous legend in his own mind using Latinisms to address the issues when the injured worker is already apprehensive, nervous, may well not have English as a first language, like a whole lot of working people in this province don't.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, while you're collecting your thoughts, we've tended to be fairly casual about the length of time on concurrence debate as long as it's split evenly, but there is a motion that the committee passed about a year and a half ago which indicated that it be limited to 10 minutes. I've been quite lenient in interpreting that, I think, so I'm wondering --
Mr Kormos: Have I reached that point, Chair?
The Chair: Yes, you've reached that point.
Mr Kormos: If I have, I'll indicate that we find this candidate totally unsuitable for this position. We, the New Democratic Party caucus, have indicated that we will be supporting and endorsing qualified people and will be looking for qualified people who also express a familiarity with the plight of working people and an understanding of the need for working women and men to receive justice under a workers' compensation system. We will not be supporting Mr Dechert.
The Chair: Is there any further debate on Mr Dechert's appointment?
Mr Gravelle: I just want to indicate that we will not be supporting Mr Dechert either. I want to make it clear, and very quickly, that we did support Ms Ballam. I recognize that the major objection to Ms Ballam, certainly by Mr Kormos, was that she was not familiar enough with workers' compensation, but indeed she was a person who in every other way had the best qualifications. We felt that indeed she has an appropriate attitude and is somebody who really will work to be extremely fair.
In Mr Dechert's case -- I'm sure he's very much a fine person -- the concern I had was not just his reluctance to answer the questions that I asked him on a personal basis for his opinion, because I do recognize the sensitivity in getting into that. I probably would have been a lot happier if he had at least offered some sense of how important fairness was to him. He didn't. He retreated continually behind: "The fact is I've got to go by the rules. This is the way it's going to be done." That concerned me, coupled with his lack of experience and just a certain resistance to offer -- that kind of attitude. When we're dealing with a tribunal like WCAT, I think it's extremely important that we have people -- as I said earlier, I think Ms Ballam will do a fine job and do her very best. I just don't have that confidence in Mr Dechert and we will not be supporting him.
Mr Martiniuk: I'd just like to comment on one matter. As a former Rotarian, I would put that down on a résumé, as I would if I were a Kinsman or with any other community-minded service organization. I think it's something to be proud of and certainly not something to be hidden on a résumé. I think Mr Kormos's comments are somewhat out of line in that regard.
The Chair: Any further debate on Mr Dechert's appointment? Are you ready for the question?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Baird, Beaubien, Bert Johnson, Martiniuk, Ross, Stewart.
Nays
Gravelle, Kormos.
The Chair: The motion is carried and his appointment is concurred in.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
The Chair: That leaves one more piece of business to deal with. Perhaps we could turn to Mr Baird, who's consulted with his colleagues.
Mr Baird: The issue arose in terms of what process might be available for the committee during the legislative break, which is intended to start tomorrow night, and what opportunities would be available to consider potential appointees, particularly those of the subcommittee report of June 19. I've taken the request to my colleagues both at the appointments secretariat and at the staff level and don't have an answer at this point. I have taken the request. I can't give any guarantees as to what will come. I will certainly bring the request forward if there is an opportunity.
I would just indicate, in terms of July, that the Legislature has been sitting obviously a terrific amount, virtually uninterrupted since last September, so there certainly has been the opportunity to review far more appointments than we would have had otherwise. But the request of the Chair and of the other subcommittee members is not unreasonable and certainly one that I'm prepared to take to see if there's an accommodation that can be reached that would meet all of the opinions. Unfortunately, I don't have that at this hour, but we are looking into it at this time.
The Chair: I think if we're able to come up with a solution, obviously before we adjourn would be a better time for that than afterwards. It might have to be a motion in the House by the government House leader.
Mr Baird: Sure. I have no objection if you'd like to set a subcommittee meeting for tomorrow where we could consider this.
Mr Gravelle: I just want to indicate that I hope we can work it out too. The appointments that have come forward in the previous list are ones we want to be able to deal with, and if they cannot be deferred in some manner, our caucus is willing to sit. Obviously we all agree on our desire to try and hold it off, but I just want to indicate the level of importance. We feel these need to be dealt with and not simply just passed through. I would certainly be grateful and pleased to sit at a subcommittee meeting tomorrow, although I want to indicate that it would probably need to be in the morning, from my point of view, because I expect to be leaving in the afternoon.
The Chair: I won't ask you why.
Mr Kormos: On behalf of this caucus, I simply want to indicate that we believe it's imperative that the committee sit notwithstanding that the Legislature isn't sitting. You'll note that the Liberal caucus has selected two nominees for consideration, and they're also selected by the New Democratic Party caucus. The New Democratic Party may well be prepared to waive other potential appointees, but we believe it's imperative, and obviously there's agreement, accord, between the two opposition parties. We are prepared to come back here -- of course we are; the House isn't sitting but we're still being paid -- and sit as a committee to consider these appointments. A Wednesday, as usual, would be highly appropriate, sir.
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I'm not a regular member of the committee but I am here today to inform the committee that it is very imperative that we sit to hear the appointments that were laid out for people in the subcommittee report on June 19, 1997. I think most people recognize at least one of the names that appears on that particular list, that of Mr Norman Seabrook, the case that I raised in the House on Monday with the Minister of Natural Resources.
As people who were in the House will recall, the minister, in scrambling to answer this question -- I guess that's the best way I can describe it -- made it very clear that of course these were only nominations. He said, "They're taken under consideration, they're put forward to a committee and there's a process in this democratically elected House called the public appointments committee. At this committee level they will look to see if there are any conflicts of interest" etc.
I won't go into the issue that I raised, which was indeed that Mr Seabrook has a conflict of interest. I also have some very serious concerns about his appropriateness as a member of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, given his very public statements made in 1995 on behalf of the Grey-Bruce preservation association, I think it is, and I apologize if I don't have quite the correct name, but very clearly his very public comments that in fact he would prefer to have or would like to see the Niagara Escarpment Commission disbanded, and the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act disbanded as well. That of course would result in total chaos in the escarpment, no planning whatsoever, unless that was to revert to the municipalities, and I think quite literally the destruction of a heritage site that people in this province are very proud of and want to protect.
He is certainly one of the individuals who is here. The minister, in attempting to answer the question, made it appear that of course this committee would deal with all of those issues, and if this committee does not sit, I understand that by default Mr Seabrook will become a member of the commission. I think that would be a grave error, not only because we're very concerned about the escarpment, but frankly I don't think it will make the government look very good to have someone appointed to the commission who so obviously wants the commission disbanded, the act disbanded, and have the escarpment itself put at risk.
This side is prepared to sit and I encourage Mr Baird and other members of the government side to do whatever you can to make sure this committee sits to hear these appointments, because it is the only recourse we're going to have. It's the only recourse the minister alluded to, because he seemed quite unprepared to withdraw the nomination of Mr Seabrook even though I raised the conflict of interest.
Mr Baird: I also will take those considerations to discussions with my colleagues.
The Chair: To be fair, I think the opposition parties in particular have been very disciplined in their selection of people to come before this committee and have really restricted the numbers so that they were manageable at the committee. I think that needs to be taken into consideration as well.
Anything else? We are adjourned unless there's a meeting of the subcommittee called for tomorrow, which I think there should be one way or the other.
The committee adjourned at 1203.