CONTENTS
Wednesday 19 January 1994
Intended appointments
Peter McCarthy, Ontario Food Terminal Board
Gail Elizabeth Misra, Ontario Labour Relations Board
Shanthi Radcliffe, Council of the Ontario College of Pharmacists
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
*Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Abel, Donald (Wentworth North/-Nord ND) for Mr Mammoliti
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mrs Marland
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Yeager, Lewis, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1008 in the Ontario Room North, Macdonald Block, Toronto.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
The Vice-Chair (Mr Allan McLean): We will call the government agencies committee to order.
PETER MCCARTHY
Review of intended appointment, selected by the government party: Peter McCarthy, intended appointee as member, Ontario Food Terminal Board.
The Vice-Chair: This morning we're dealing with the review of Peter McCarthy, intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Food Terminal Board.
Mr Peter McCarthy: Thank you very much. I don't have much of an opening statement. I presume you have seen the information of what my background is, that I am involved at the food terminal on the farmers' market, and the agricultural background that I have. So I think it would be just as easy to answer questions.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Thank you very much for coming in this morning, Mr McCarthy. First, I'd like to ask you, in your opinion, since you've been there at the food terminal for some time, and I gather your family before you was, do you feel that at this point in time it is working well, or would you bring to your new position some ideas for maybe improvement to what's going on?
Mr McCarthy: I think generally it has worked very well. It's had the odd burp. There have been some issues at the terminal, of policy more than anything else, that I see problems with that I would hope there could be changes made. The biggest problem now -- do you wish me to identify problems?
Ms Harrington: I asked if you saw any problems, yes.
Mr McCarthy: I think the main thing that is in my mind is the issue of non-Ontario agricultural products being sold on the farmers' market. It is my feeling that that market was intended for the use of Ontario growers to sell their own product and that is what I would like to see happen there. But then we get into a whole bunch of other issues such as the food terminal board has been taken to court, I believe, on two different occasions and has not won.
Ms Harrington: On that particular issue.
Mr McCarthy: On that particular issue, because as far as the legislation is concerned it is not in place. Until the minister sees fit to change the legislation to give the right to prohibit these people from selling non-Ontario product, I don't think the food terminal board is going to be able to do anything about it. Their pockets are not deep enough to continually go to court, especially when you know, with the precedent having been set, they're not going to win.
Ms Harrington: Okay, I understand. So you're saying that there needs to be, what, regulative change or legislative change?
Mr McCarthy: The act, I believe, has to be changed in the Legislature.
Ms Harrington: Legislative change.
Mr McCarthy: Yes, and of course this has been brought up over the years to the various ministers and they have not seen fit, I guess through time constraints or whatever it be, or other legislation that they thought was more important, so nothing has been done to this. This has been identified for quite a period of time.
Ms Harrington: Do you feel that the other members of the board would agree with you?
Mr McCarthy: I have no way of saying that, because I have not met formally with the other members of the board. I know a couple of them, but this has not been brought up. I'm just identifying my personal feelings.
Ms Harrington: Do you feel that the board is representative of all the interests that should be involved?
Mr McCarthy: Yes. There are representatives from the various segments at the food terminal.
Ms Harrington: And of course the public has an interest in this as well. What do you think about the possibility of a privatization of the food terminal in the future? Have you thought about that?
Mr McCarthy: I've thought about it. I am not familiar enough with the internal workings of the food terminal to make a comment on that. I am a believer in privatization of most issues, let's put it that way, but as far as looking in depth into this, I haven't had the opportunity. I would tend to lean towards privatization, but I don't know the implications of what is involved with the food terminal board to say I think it has to go. There may be reasons that it shouldn't but I am not familiar enough with the food terminal board at this point in time, just through lack of experience at that level.
Ms Harrington: This committee is going out there, I believe, next week to see how things work first hand.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): The food terminal has been where it is for a long period of time. When we had the people from the terminal here, they were talking about the difference in hauling, that originally it was set up for rail, that rail really is not part of the system any more to any extent; it's mainly truck. Looking at that and looking at the congestion of that area trafficwise, is the food terminal, in a modern-day perspective, in the right place? At the same time they've been talking about adding to the terminal. Would it make more sense to move the terminal?
Mr McCarthy: That was attempted in the 1960s. There was land purchased in roughly the Highway 400-401 area to move the terminal.
Mr Waters: That's just about the same congestion, though.
Mr McCarthy: To a larger facility, I mean at that time. But the problem is that the leases in perpetuity at the food terminal, the wholesalers refused to renegotiate those leases, because you see, you go back in time when this food terminal was where the St Lawrence Market is right now. The government at that particular time recognized the problem that they had to move out of that area because of congestion, and the Queensway location was selected. But the wholesalers would not move from downtown Toronto, and one of the enticements was to give them these leases in perpetuity to get them to go. They are there now and they don't want those leases broken.
Going back to the privatization end of things, this is another thing that would have to be dealt with. In some of the information that has been sent to me in the last few days for me to read over, there would have to be compensation paid to these leaseholders to break the leases, which could get to be an extremely expensive project.
But then, going back to your question about where it is, I think the board has dealt very well with some of the changes that it's made to accommodate the fact that it's probably not going to be able to move and to adapt.
With the roof that was put over the farmers' market, most people think, "Okay, the roof was there for the farmers." The roof is partially there for the farmers but really it's there for parking, which they did, and it just created a second storey. I parked at the food terminal this morning, and believe me, that parking deck is just about full. You can envisage if it wasn't there, there would be no place for cars to park. So they've done that.
As I say, they've changed the road system there as late as this fall to make for a more orderly flow of traffic.
So really, things are working quite well. Who knows what the future is going to hold, but the previous boards I think have dealt quite well in meeting the problems as they've come up.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr McCarthy, one of the issues that came up at the last meeting we had with the Ontario Food Terminal Board was the issue of whether or not the terminal could make a profit. The answer I got to that was that if it were to make money, the money doesn't stay necessarily with the terminal board, with the board to decide how it deals with it by way of making improvements or other things; rather, it goes back to the leaseholders.
Mr McCarthy: No, I don't believe so. I would just like to say this morning that if some of the answers are a little bit evasive, it's through lack of knowledge with what's going on. I have some perceptions but there's some material here that I've had sent to me that I think was about as thick as the Bible, and then there were a couple of pages added after that. To try to absorb that in a couple of days has been pretty hard.
I don't think there's any money that goes back to the leaseholders. The only perception might be that rather than rents being increased and increased, if they were showing a profit the rents might stay stable. But there is a debt there to be retired, so I would think that any money that could be raised is going to be towards retiring the debt.
Mr Marchese: Now, I remember clearly -- I don't know what the other members remember about that -- but the money doesn't go back to the board. I thought it went back to the leaseholders; I could be wrong. Does anyone else remember that? I guess not.
Mr McCarthy: Do you mean that you pay your rent and if the food terminal's made a profit you get a rebate on your rent?
Mr Marchese: Not a rebate on the rent so much as it goes back to the people who are there, and I thought that was a strange, strange thing.
Mr McCarthy: That is not my impression.
Mr Waters: We can clear that up.
Mr Marchese: Okay, we'll clear that up, obviously, when we go there again. I was interested in your opinion on that.
1020
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Welcome to the committee. I'm sure that with what I see in your background, you'll enjoy your new challenge there.
I guess the first thing that I might like to start with: I see the losses have come down in the previous year and I understand they're at around $69,000 now. Are you satisfied with that or would you have a goal to get that down to zero?
Mr McCarthy: I would think, trying to be a practical businessman to make a living, zero or the other side would be much better.
Mr Cleary: That would sound good to me too. I'd like to talk a little bit about capital improvements. What would you like to see there?
Mr McCarthy: I can see possibly the extension of the roof over the farmers' market to provide for more parking as one capital improvement, and I see that it has been discussed by the board in the past. There are, I believe, plans afoot too or drawings have already been made for extending the present parking deck and roof over the farmers' market.
They did try to build different types of stalls down there for leaseholders and it did not go, but there is talk about the cut flower business possibly being located to another part of the food terminal. Whether that would entitle a capital expense, I don't know. Those are the only two that I know, without more background on it.
Mr Cleary: I'd like to talk a little bit more about what a previous member has asked about non-Ontario produce. Do you feel you have competition from other residents of Ontario who sell non-Ontario produce?
Mr McCarthy: There is non-Ontario produce being sold there right now at the farmers' market. When you go into the wholesale market on the inside, it is largely imported product and I have no problem with that. I think that's the way the market was intended to be. The wholesalers would handle imported product plus any domestic product that growers wish to sell through a commission system. But the farmers' market was meant for farmers to sell their own production and not someone to go and buy foreign product from a broker etc to make money on.
Mr Cleary: Right. What would you like to see happen there?
Mr McCarthy: I would like to see any tenant of the farmers' market only sell Ontario-produced fruit and vegetables.
Mr Cleary: Okay. In the part of Ontario that I live in, the majority of the suppliers are from Quebec. In fact, the trucks are coming in daily. What is the Ontario Food Terminal doing to encourage those companies to buy Ontario produce, or is it?
Mr McCarthy: I don't know. I think the only mandate that the food terminal board has is to provide an orderly marketplace and then it is up to the buyers to decide whether they wish to buy at that terminal. Just to make the food terminal's mandate is to provide a climate for sellers and buyers to meet and then it's just the same as yourself: If you wish to shop in one store as opposed to another, what entices you to go to store A as opposed to store B? I think their mandate is to provide that marketplace to the best of their ability and then hope that everything is suitable for buyers to come. But you get quite a few buyers from eastern Ontario; now, I don't know how far east.
Mr Cleary: I know that it's been a big issue, especially with the special licence that these companies had to get to go into the province to bring the produce back, and I understand that they're working to improve that agreement, but being a resident of Ontario, I would hope that as much of our produce is going into another province as theirs is coming into ours. It's just something that has concerned a lot of agricultural people in our area.
Another thing was that the previous speaker had talked a little bit about privatization. You said that you, in a way, would support that?
Mr McCarthy: If everything was in order. My first inclination towards most issues is that I see the private sector as being able to do a better job than the other sector. But I wish to say that I don't know all of the implications at the food terminal until I would get there and had more information. These leases are one big thing that I think would be very, very costly and might be a reason why it would not be privatized. But I mean that the thing is also the food terminal does not exist through annual grants etc or anything like that, so it is being self-sufficient as it is, so I don't think privatization there is a burning issue.
If they were taking $1 million, say, per year that the government had to put into the food terminal to keep it operating, then I would say privatization is a burning issue. But when it is self-supporting or very, very close to it -- it's self-financing -- I don't think privatization would be a priority issue. I'm not saying it shouldn't be dealt with, but I don't think it's the burning issue.
Mr Cleary: Do you have any opinions on how the social contract affected the terminal?
Mr McCarthy: I don't think the social contract should be in place at the food terminal.
Mr Cleary: Is that right?
Mr McCarthy: From the fact that it is self-sustaining. I mean, it's not as though they are government employees.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I just want to follow up on the social contract situation. As we know, it is a good idea poorly administered, but you feel that in no way the food terminal should make any contribution towards the social contract?
Mr McCarthy: Please don't quote me as saying, "No way." I don't have the full knowledge but what limited knowledge I have of it, I don't think it should be, because the food terminal is self-sustaining; it's not operating on government money. Therefore, I don't feel that it should be under the social contract. The employees are not employees of the government of Ontario.
Mr Curling: Even that being the case, you're saying that no contribution towards savings or towards the social contract -- they should not participate in any way.
Mr McCarthy: I think that issue, as I understand it, is under discussion now between the Minister of Finance and the food terminal board, but as I say, I have just come into this. I'm not on the board yet; I've never sat at a board meeting. There could be other things here that would cause me to change my mind. I'm an outsider at the moment looking in. If my appointment is approved, then I will be on the inside and will have to make a decision, but I would want more knowledge than I have right now.
Mr Curling: You're quite a seasoned farmer, I can see, and also too you have served on many, many boards.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): How can you see that? I don't know what you see there.
Mr Curling: It's all there; it's in his nails and his eyes, to say that he's a hardworking individual.
Mr McCarthy: I didn't clean them this morning or what?
Mr Curling: I can see the grip in his hand.
The present mandate, as it stands, on the food terminal, going in there as a new member, do you see any way that this mandate should change? Because as you rightly said, Ontario changes; its diversity, even its palate, its tastes, its food has changed.
Mr McCarthy: Correct.
Mr Curling: Do you think that the present mandate itself is relevant to today's demographics or today's people, today's food palates?
Mr McCarthy: I think it has been changing. I think one of the biggest problems is that the act or the legislation hasn't changed to meet some of the current problems.
1030
The Vice-Chair: Mr Jackson, do you have any questions with regard to the Ontario Food Terminal Board?
Mr Curling: Here comes a farmer now.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I do eat, though. I really don't have any questions other than perhaps that there is a side issue, which is in the hands of the federal government, in terms of the processing of food into the country and whether or not it is subjected to various treatments, one which is nuclear-based and is quite controversial. I wonder if you're familiar with that process.
Mr McCarthy: No, I'm not.
Mr Jackson: Or whether or not there would be any expense associated with the food terminal and the processing or monitoring --
Mr McCarthy: I don't know very much about what you're saying. The food terminal is a marketing thing.
Mr Jackson: But it's also distribution, is it not?
Mr McCarthy: Distribution within the terminal itself.
Mr Jackson: That's correct.
Mr McCarthy: But then it's up to the individual to bring it in and others to take it out. The food terminal has no connection with that whatsoever.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for appearing before the committee this morning, sir. There's no doubt that your appointment will be confirmed. There's never been one that hasn't, so you can feel quite comfortable in that. I wish you all the best.
GAIL ELIZABETH MISRA
Review of intended appointment, selected by the official opposition: Gail Elizabeth Misra, intended appointee as vice-chair, Ontario Labour Relations Board.
The Vice-Chair: If you have an opening statement you'd like to make, feel free to do it, or we can proceed into questions.
Ms Gail Elizabeth Misra: I don't really have an opening statement except to say that I hope I'll have the opportunity of meeting whatever your concerns are that bring me before the committee.
Mr Curling: Welcome, Ms Misra, to the committee and the challenging portfolio which they're going to put you in and you'll accept after you've been approved.
I have a concern in Ontario that the justice system itself has been in quite a mess because of the delay in people to deal with things to be just about: Ontario human rights, the courts, you name them. One of the best of them all is the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which seems to get through a little bit quicker and deals with situations much quicker than the rest, but still it's not up to par itself.
Recently, a constituent of mine was almost thrown out of work and the employer did not pay him for months. Do you see that the Ontario Labour Relations Board itself could be much more efficient in dealing with situations quicker? A letter came back from the Ontario Labour Relations Board stating, "We're not able to look at your case for another six months." I felt that if an individual who has been denied pay and has to wait six months before he can be considered -- do you consider that itself, as a board? You know you're going in as a vice-chair and you may be dealing with many situations like this.
Ms Misra: As lawyers tend to do, I would start by saying I really don't know all the facts of the case so it's difficult to actually speak to the facts of the case. It may be before the board at this point, so I wouldn't want to actually say anything about that.
Speaking about delay, I think your question is good, because in discharge situations, if that is what you're speaking about, time is of the essence. I know the labour relations board had put in place last year, in January 1993, a large number of changes to its procedures to actually expedite cases so that there would be a faster track through which cases could actually proceed. My understanding is that to a large extent that has worked -- much to the chagrin of the labour bar, I might add, because it actually puts lawyers in a tizzy. The board is just scheduling cases to come forward in an effort to force things on quickly.
I don't know about your specific case I'm afraid, but my view would be closer to yours, that in fact time is of the essence. I think the labour relations board has this edict, in a sense, that labour relations justice delayed is labour relations justice denied, so I think I'd agree with your concern.
Mr Curling: Specifically what I was speaking about, I used that as an example, but in general, I am saying quite a few cases like that have come to my constituency and I used that specific to emphasize, but there seem to be quite a lot of delays in this. The people who seem to have more delays and suffered more from this are those in the lower income brackets or those who can't afford the fancy lawyers who of course can do the great research and all that.
Mr Bradley: Small business people.
Mr Curling: Especially in St Catharines where all the small business people are. Isn't that so, Mr Bradley?
Do you feel the relations between employers and employees have improved?
Ms Misra: I think it would depend on the context in which you were speaking, in the general labour relations context. I've done a lot of work in grievance arbitration, in particular; I'm a litigator. My sense is actually that labour relations between employers and employees have improved at some level, and that is because they know what the rules are, both parties know what the rules are. They're also acting in the context of an economy where we are in a recession. Frankly, I think that actually encourages better labour relations rather than worse labour relations, because both parties recognize that they have an interest in maintaining the small business or the larger organization and actually making some attempts to reach accommodations.
Mr Curling: But you have not commented whether or not you think things have improved.
Ms Misra: Overall in time?
Mr Curling: Yes.
Ms Misra: I would say that things have improved. There are fewer strikes than there used to be. I think that having a labour relations regime assists parties generally in having better relations, but I can't speak to whether every employer and every group of employees actually have better relations. I think some do and some don't.
Mr Curling: I don't know how much time we have here. How much time do we have? I want to leave some time for my colleagues.
The Vice-Chair: We have about five minutes. Mr Bradley wanted part of that time.
Mr Curling: I like the other chairperson.
The Vice-Chair: You can use the amount of time you please.
Mr Bradley: I will ask some questions then. There is a perception in the business community that today the Labour Relations Board is slanted against them. I get calls from small business people who are beside themselves at the thought of having to go before the labour relations board. That's their perception. I'm not here to verify or not verify; that's a perception out there concerning business across this province in a deep recession, in tough competition.
My question is, with your background, which I looked through -- it seems to be a very much pro-labour background -- do you believe that you can sit impartially on this board at these hearings with your pro-labour background?
Ms Misra: I'm happy to answer this question. I actually had anticipated that this might be a concern of the committee. I should say that obviously I come from the union side of the labour bar. But the labour bar is divided completely; there is no middle ground. People either act on behalf of labour or they act on behalf of the employer.
I know that the labour relations board has attempted to make appointments from both sides. My appointment -- or my potential appointment, I should say -- has been made along with a woman from the employers' bar, because the board is very cognizant of the concern that you are raising that it must be seen to be impartial.
Speaking for myself, I would say that in my practice on a day-to-day basis I have to weigh the pros and cons of cases, and I tell my union clients when I do believe that they don't have a case. We actually act, in a sense, in an impartial capacity prior to a case starting all the time, because we do legal opinion letters which indicate to our clients whether or not they have a case.
Frankly, we're not just hired guns. We recognize that our parties, our clients, are actually acting in a milieu where they have a continuing relationship with the employer and it makes no real sense to take completely frivolous cases forward, for example, so you would actually tell your client. I believe that I would have the ability to be impartial because I have to weigh these issues constantly on a day-to-day basis.
The other thing is that when you're appointed to the labour relations board you take an oath which requires you to be impartial. This is not unlike taking oaths when you become a lawyer. You do take oaths which require you to hopefully fulfil certain duties, and I take that kind of oath very seriously.
1040
Mr Bradley: A business council of some kind, a business coalition representing 500 employers in the province, said that there should be a different way of appointing people to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Do you believe that it would be beneficial to have all members of the board endorsed by both labour and management? My understanding is that, as you have it, half the people are from the labour field and half the people are from the business field, and then when there's a chair and somebody away I guess there would be a problem. But my question is, do you think that it would be better to have all members of the labour relations board endorsed by both labour and business and then one side or the other couldn't complain?
Ms Misra: It's sort of an interesting idea. I sort of wonder how many people would actually ever get appointed to the board in that case. I actually don't know enough about what the business council is recommending so I don't know that I'm in a position to comment. I think that, as I've pointed out, there is this bifurcated bar and I wonder how it would be possible to get complete agreement from both sides. Perhaps if what you're talking about is some representative committee making some suggestions, I don't know; that might be a possibility. Right now, this is the process, I suppose, and I can only put myself into the process as it is.
Mr Bradley: They also wanted to ensure that prospective members were non-partisan. Are you non-partisan? Are you a member of any political party?
Ms Misra: I am a member of a political party. I am a member of the New Democratic Party. I haven't been active in two or three elections but I am a member.
Mr Bradley: Do you see this as a detriment or an asset or do you see it as not a factor?
Ms Misra: I don't see it as a factor at all, frankly. I don't know what other parties other people on the board may come from, but the labour relations board has certainly been seen as a very credible arbiter and has created a very good body of jurisprudence, which would suggest to me that the people who are appointed to the board and who have acted in the past, despite whatever their political party may be, clearly have taken their responsibilities very seriously, and I would take mine very seriously if I were to be appointed.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Jackson, you will be next.
Mr Bradley: Time is always so short.
The Vice-Chair: It went fast.
Mr Jackson: Do you also have jurisdiction over labour matters as they relate to employees of government ministries?
Ms Misra: There is new Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act reform, which you may be familiar with, which has brought a fair part of the public service into the jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board in some capacities, not for grievance settlement matters.
Mr Jackson: I guess I don't naïvely approach the notion that you do have an affiliation with a political party and that would not go unnoticed by those who promote and advance your appointment. However, there are matters; some of my constituents, for example, who do work for the government have legitimate concerns and so the notion of the independence of such an important and powerful tribunal becomes even more important, perhaps more important than other, for want of a better phrase, political appointments.
In the case that I'm currently working with in Comsoc, where the responsibility of the minister is to protect the children who are in a corrections institution, about an employee who was cleared of any charges of being rough with the children, we have a situation where an employee has been nine months sitting at home because the ministry can't make up its mind whether or not it's there to help the employee get back to work when the police have cleared him or whether its mandate is to protect the children, who are its wards as well.
I've never really come across a case like this, but I recommended that the matter be brought to the attention of your board. There will be some political pressures put there, I'm sure, that my constituent, whose legitimate labour grievance against the employer, Mr Silipo, should be taken seriously. But I wonder to what extent the political will of the board would be to wrestle with the government in such a direct fashion. That's of concern to me because this individual's been cleared by all of his supervisors; everybody. It's been sitting on the minister's desk for nine months; meanwhile this employee's sitting at home and his reputation is being further besmirched, and it's unfair to an employee in the province of Ontario.
Ms Misra: I think you're asking two things. I'm not quite sure, but my sense is the first thing that you're asking me is about what one should consider happening in this particular case and the other is also about the credibility of the board and whether or not people belonging to political parties before they ever get on the board is a concern for the credibility of a board.
Mr Jackson: No. I do not expect you to comment on the case since I've just simply set it out in very terse terms. No, no. What I'm suggesting to you is I have identified a serious political issue within a ministry where the victim is the employee and there seems to be no desire to resolve this. You are an opportunity to resolve these matters. That is the reason for the existence of the board in its broadly based terms of reference and it comes down to a point of pressure.
This is only one employee. It could happen that there are larger questions of any government which promotes in this area in a less-than-arm's-length fashion. I don't want to second-guess that part of the process; I'm just saying that there are occasions when it becomes -- I'm asking you the extent of your independence and your political will to meet those kinds of forces that may confront you, because these tribunals, although on paper are independent, are not necessarily always independent. They are political creatures.
Ms Misra: I'm not quite sure how to answer your question because I actually think this is not within the jurisdiction of the labour relations board. What you're looking at is a question of whether the employer is going to put an employee back to work once, I presume, the Grievance Settlement Board, actually, and not the Ontario Labour Relations Board, has ruled in the employee's favour and has said that the employee should return to work. My sense is that this is actually not something I would have any jurisdiction, if I were appointed to the board, to deal with.
I think, however, your other point may be, do I have the political will to actually make the difficult decisions? I would say yes. In fact, the labour relations board would have to; its legal jurisdiction requires it to look in an objective and neutral fashion at every question and just decide based on the merits of the case, and it will make no difference whatsoever whether the employer is the government of Ontario or whether the employer is the small business person in St Catharines.
Mr Jackson: I hope so.
Ms Harrington: I see by some of your background here that you've been involved with the health care sector. How do you feel your background will relate to some of the changes we see happening now? I think the board may possibly be dealing with more white-collar, professional-type cases. Can you maybe expand on how you view your background as related to what's ahead for the board?
Ms Misra: My sense is that since there were changes made last year to the Labour Relations Act as a result of Bill 40, a number of new groups would be able to organize and that includes lawyers, as a matter of fact, and other white-collar professional types who are going to be in a position to actually organize themselves and, I guess, once certified may have issues which come before the board.
My experience has been with doctors, with pharmacists, with people who are registered nursing assistants, health care aides, a fair variety of people in the health care field specifically, which you were speaking about, but also college faculty associations and university faculty associations. All of those people have something in common with other white-collar workers, and I believe I would just bring that background to the board. We will be seeing at the board, should I be appointed, more of those people bringing their issues.
They are different than the construction industry, for example, and they are also different than the industrial sector. I think an appreciation for their special kinds of ways of dealing will be of assistance to the board. I hope my experience will be of assistance.
1050
Ms Harrington: Certainly in the last year, since January 1993, since Bill 40 has been in effect, there have been some changes. Would you like to comment on how you see that has changed the role of the OLRB?
Ms Misra: I think I can say for a start that it's made it very busy. I gather that certification applications alone are up by 68% in the last year. So there's clearly much more activity at the board. As you probably are aware, there are many other areas which are covered by the amendments to the legislation. That included the strike-related provisions which mean replacement worker questions would be coming before the board, although clearly there haven't been that many strikes in the last year in Ontario. In fact, I don't think there's been a whole lot of activity in that area.
The area where perhaps there's been the most activity as well is in interim applications, because the amendments allowed for dealing with a concern which was raised actually by the Liberals on this panel, and that is how quickly matters get heard. Being able to make interim application so that if someone is fired in the course of organizing they can come before the board on very short notice and can be dealt with, and either they get put back to work or they don't, has meant that the work of the board has increased substantially.
I see those kinds of issues continuing into the next year, except that now we also have the sector reforms which will bring more work before the board also.
Ms Harrington: I think over all what I've heard you say in the last half an hour is that with the labour relations changes, there is a clarification which in fact is helping both the board and the employees and employers to resolve some of the issues.
Ms Misra: That is my sense. I actually think that, especially the procedural changes that were made within the board in the last year, could do nothing except assist all of the parties because it does get employees, unions and their employers to resolve their issues as quickly as is possible given that there are limited resources and the board can only hear so many cases at any time. Clearly the fast-tracking has worked, I think.
Mr Waters: I just find it's interesting. I know when I supported Bill 40 -- it was the rules before -- as a person who worked within the system, there wasn't a fairness. Because you don't have strikebreakers, or replacement workers I guess is the polite term for them, now that you don't have that, would you find that you're having more mediation and that type of thing, because I guess the businesses shut down; they don't have this opportunity. Now they would be in mediation trying to resolve it beforehand or earlier on.
Ms Misra: I'm a bit loath to actually address this. I'm not quite sure that I know the answer. I would imagine that you are correct, that in fact it leads to more mediation. Frankly I can't tell you in any statistical terms whether that is in fact what has happened. But I think you're right that once you clarify a regime and people know what they have to do and they know what the consequences are, both sides, they have to address themselves to the issue before they get to the breaking point. I would imagine that you're right.
Mr Waters: I guess one of the other things that affects the OLRB, as well as labour in general, is -- I was looking through some of the background notes -- the increase in women in the workforce. I believe I read somewhere where up to 40% of the labour force is now women. I guess there's a whole different group of principles and different needs to be dealt with out there that the board would have to deal with and evolve in some way in order to deal with that.
Ms Misra: I think that's true. I think that may be -- I'm presuming to know because I actually don't know -- a reason that the Ontario Labour Relations Board has moved in the direction of having more women vice-chairs, because clearly there are large parts of the service sector which have organized in the last while. That is where women are disproportionately represented. So I think it is important for labour relations contacts in general to recognize that having such an infusion of women into the labour force does make a difference. We do have to be cognizant of their special needs as well.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for coming and I wish you well in your endeavour.
SHANTHI RADCLIFFE
Review of intended appointment, selected by the third party: Shanthi Radcliffe, intended appointee as member, Council of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.
The Vice-Chair: Our next intended appointee is Shanthi Radcliffe, the Council of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.
Ms Shanthi Radcliffe: I would just like to say that I'm pleased to be here. Thank you for inviting me. I look forward perhaps to serving on this council.
Mr Jackson: Ms Radcliffe, could you tell us how you came to make the application, who advised you or who promoted your application?
Ms Radcliffe: Actually, I didn't apply specifically for this council. I had expressed a willingness to serve and I was approached by the ministry, I believe because of my background and involvement in the health area. Would you like me to say more about the involvement?
Mr Jackson: No, I wanted to pursue more how comfortable a fit you are in this appointment as compared to, say, others in the health field. Can you talk to us specifically about the college of pharmacy?
Ms Radcliffe: My involvement has been as the director of a community health centre. We have as one of our prime focuses health promotion and health education. We deal only with targeted populations, mostly of the disadvantaged. The community health centre in particular started as a seniors' centre. So I have a long-standing interest in issues that regard seniors.
I also served at one point for a year as a member of the complaints task force of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and that gave me some experience with how colleges work and some of the issues involved in regulated health professions.
Mr Jackson: When it comes to health services for seniors, overmedication is a serious problem, as you well know.
Ms Radcliffe: That's right.
Mr Jackson: To what extent do you believe that your participation at the college will help address this issue?
Ms Radcliffe: I think what I would bring is a consumer viewpoint. One of the things we try to do at the community health centre is look at issues dealing with seniors in the round, as a whole, looking at the various forces that impact on seniors' lives and trying to address them by other than chemical means. So I think I bring a consumer focus to issues regarding seniors and drug benefits. We know about their living conditions, the kinds of pressures that are on seniors, the kinds of deficits that they live under. I think that kind of public accountability, that kind of consumer focus, is something that I can possibly bring to the council.
Mr Jackson: When there are disciplinary matters with pharmacists, some of the complaints with pharmacists are inappropriate dispensing, but also overdispensing. Are those the kinds of areas that you're talking about bringing your consumer focus to in terms of the disciplinary actions?
Ms Radcliffe: I think so, yes. I'm not well versed enough to answer specifically. I do know from my involvement with the College of Physicians and Surgeons that some of the problems related to a cumbersome process, lack of timeliness, all these are being worked with. I would like to be able to look at some of the problems that specifically face this profession, but I think a consumer analysis is vital, yes.
Mr Jackson: What are your views on the recent concerns expressed about dispensing through the mail?
Ms Radcliffe: I wonder about the lack of patient confidentiality in the process. I feel that if drugs are dispensed, they must always be accompanied, where possible, with some measure of counselling so that people who accept these drugs are aware of alternative methods of treatment and so on; so lack of confidentiality, lack of counselling.
1100
Mr Jackson: The strength in the argument is you save money. But you have to give up some of the aspects of control, choice and confidentiality.
Ms Radcliffe: That's right.
Mr Jackson: I appreciate your response to that.
Ms Harrington: I see that the particular council that you've been appointed to has six public members and six professional members. How do you see your role as a public member of that panel?
Ms Radcliffe: Bringing the consumer focus to it; I am not a member of the profession, and to be frank I have a great deal to learn, and that's one of the challenges for me about the pharmaceutical profession and pharmacists. I think it could be an advantage to come in with a fresh mind. I've dealt with other branches of the health profession: physicians, nurses, health promoters and so on. But that's what I would see as my value.
Ms Harrington: I certainly hope that you would speak up for the public, and I do see that as your role.
Ms Radcliffe: I think often it's easier for us to see the wood than for many to see the trees, if they're really part of the profession.
Ms Harrington: The two issues that I think are probably going to be at the top of the list for pharmacists are the lack of sale of tobacco in pharmacies and the one we just talked about, the mail order prescription, which you've clearly outlined your position on. How do you feel you're going to be able to deal with the issue of tobacco sales?
Ms Radcliffe: I think it's part of an even broader problem; if you like, an issue. I'm very fresh to this whole field, you understand. But I would say that there is an issue regarding whether the pharmacists are part of a health discipline or whether they're part of a business enterprise. I believe the tobacco sales are part of it. One of the issues that I think will surface is whether in fact pharmacies can be economically viable if tobacco is removed from the shelves.
Looking at it from the broader health context, I see all kinds of changes coming with shrinking resources, with the appropriate auditing of what we have to their particular purpose. I think pharmacists are part of that wider process. Are pharmacists business people dispensing pills or are they in fact a health discipline and have other responsibilities as well to the public? So I think tobacco sales are part of that. It needs to be seen in a wider health context, both as an industry and as individuals practising in the industry.
Ms Harrington: I see. I think quite often they've been seen as both. So they'll have to decide.
Ms Radcliffe: That's right.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'd like to return to the question of mail-order as opposed to pharmacists. I understand that there is quite strong competition between pharmacists at the moment and that maybe some might get shaken out, especially if there is competition from mail order. But my pharmacists at home tell me that they have a great deal to offer. Because they do see the patient, they can assess the appropriateness of the medication. I know that they have a form that they can fill in to dispute what a prescription is saying or they can call a physician and challenge that.
You raised the question of confidentiality, but there is now an on-line computer system whereby any pharmacy can call up that person's history as to what medications they've already received. Would you find that a problem as regards confidentiality or would you say this is something that strengthens the position of the pharmacist to help the customer?
Ms Radcliffe: I would hope that kind of system, which I know is developing everywhere, would not operate without safeguards. I think the confidentiality should be a primary issue. I didn't quite understand the first part. Were you saying that the mail order pharmacies did in fact do some counselling and could in fact be responsive to patient concerns?
Ms Carter: I think they could obviously have access to the computer, but they wouldn't have the advantage --
Ms Radcliffe: That's right, of the onsite.
Ms Carter: -- of having the person in front of them. I think sometimes just to see the person can trigger alarm bells, or to be able to exchange a few words with them on the spot before the dispensing takes place.
Ms Radcliffe: I would think so. That's our experience with seniors. We've often had people come in and say that they do in fact feel they're overmedicated. They will go into a pharmacist and talk about it. We do annual drug reviews with what's there and consult with the pharmacist about what is and isn't necessary, and I think that's crucial. So it would be a real concern to me that people would be able to get mail order drugs without that kind of human contact, advice, direction.
Ms Carter: I think pharmacists themselves are taking this line that they would like to do more counselling of clients, and maybe that's something that should be encouraged.
Ms Radcliffe: I would think so, yes.
Ms Carter: There's also the problem that the public have. There seems to be a perception that dispensing fees are too high. People say, "Oh, they just wrap pills in a piece of paper and get a flat rate for it regardless of whether they have to do anything." What would your comment on that be?
Ms Radcliffe: I would need to know more about how the industry operates, but there is so much scrutiny these days about how professions are paid, the relative skills that are needed, how we assess them, where we cut down the use of professional expertise when it really isn't necessary. I think there are so many issues related to that, and I would have an interest in looking at the costs that are associated. In the community health movement, it's a primary interest at this point.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Waters, did you have any questions?
Mr Waters: No, I had nothing.
The Vice-Chair: Fine. I want to thank you for appearing before the committee.
Interjections.
Mr Waters: What about the Liberals?
The Vice-Chair: Oh, just on behalf of the government side. Now I will move to the opposition.
Mr Bradley: I have a few questions on your opinions on certain things. First of all, the present government was embarking upon a course of action which would have seen senior citizens pay for some of their drugs or have certain drugs delisted, and I think the government has now retreated from that position.
Mr Curling: Came to their senses, more or less.
Mr Bradley: The government members may help me out on that. I think they retreated from that position. Do you believe that in fact seniors should be paying for their drugs and that certain drugs that have been covered in the past should be delisted for the purposes of having the government pay for them?
Ms Radcliffe: I'm going to get to the answer to your question, but I have come some way in my thinking about a two-tier health system where some services and products are publicly financed and some are privately. I was very much, until fairly recently, on the side of, "Let's not touch our wonderful system at all."
1110
Mr Bradley: I recall that, because when we had Liberal and Conservative governments in power, any thought of it was simply totally unacceptable to everyone. But recently it's even gaining some favour with the NDP members.
Mr Jackson: It just doesn't work without violins.
Mr Bradley: It's even gained some sympathy with NDP members. Sorry, go ahead.
Ms Radcliffe: I still feel that, in principle. I don't know about the sustainability of it. I have an interest in health systems and how they operate. I think in general the European countries are finding innovative ways of managing things, if that's the word I want.
I don't know whether the system is sustainable the way it is. I think we all certainly have to look at it. I think the time is coming when we have to make some very hard choices. I think there are ethical choices there and there are financial choices. I would hope that the ethical choices are made before the financial ones.
All this is leading up to some kind of an answer. Basically the answer is, I'm sitting on the fence.
Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): That's a good answer.
Mr Jackson: You have an open mind.
We're the most overmedicated society on the face of the earth. That's our problem.
Ms Radcliffe: I think that is true.
Mr Jackson: It's not who pays for it; we're just getting too much of it.
Ms Radcliffe: I don't know if you've seen the Globe and Mail this morning, but there's something on the initiative on colds and flu which was based out of my health centre.
Mr Curling: Dr Grier made some comments, yes.
Ms Radcliffe: That came out of my health centre.
Mr Bradley: I would love to have seen the coverage of that had a previous government done it.
You see yourself as a consumer representative, which you are, on the board. With whom will you be consulting so that you can present that point of view? The Consumers' Association of Canada, or Dr Rachlis? Whom will you be consulting with before you bring those views to the board?
Ms Radcliffe: I think that would largely depend on the issue. I've been around 20 years in the field and I do have a network that I'm comfortable with; it's diverse. I would certainly look to the community health movement and our principles for some of the answers, and depending on the issue I would go from there.
Mr Bradley: Do you have any ideas about the disposal of unused drugs? For instance, when a person dies, particularly an elderly person, there's often a pharmacy sitting there at home and those drugs have to be disposed of, or when somebody gets better, I guess, and doesn't need these drugs any more. Do you have any ideas what might be done with those drugs?
Ms Radcliffe: Throw them in the garbage.
Mr Curling: They send them to Third World countries, don't they?
Ms Radcliffe: Yes, they do.
Mr Bradley: The problem is that if they went in the garbage somebody could pull them out and use them. Do you think that somebody should be developing a method of disposing of those safely?
Ms Radcliffe: I think so, yes. In our health centre we bring our seniors in annually with everything they have in a paper bag and look at things that are outdated, unnecessary, whatever. Yes, I do think we should have some guidelines on that.
Mr Bradley: It used to be in Ontario that you could not have persons identify themselves as to any personal information. The agencies, boards and commissions application for appointment now calls for a candidate profile where you must say whether you are a member of the first nations, aboriginal peoples or Metis, "Are you a member of a visible minority? Is French the first language you learned and still speak? Are you a person with a disability? Are you male or female?" Did you resent having to fill that out?
Ms Radcliffe: Yes, I did. In general, I refuse appointments that I think are offered to me because of my colour. I like to be appointed for things that I have had some control over and some input into, and though I wouldn't change my colour, I didn't ask to be the colour I am.
But I also think there's a problem, and I don't know that it's only Canadian, that we're looking at ways of dividing ourselves up. It concerns me that nobody is thinking in terms of what we have in common but rather what we have apart. Now, that's not to say that I don't think that the groups you mentioned have not had a difficult time. I believe in equity. But I think the solutions are much longer-term and much more expensive and need much more thought than the way it's being done right now.
Mr Curling: Let me just follow up on that. I think that you answered very well. I really appreciate almost all the answers that you have given, so well thought through and so honest. I think the role you can play too is important. I saw in one of the sections there that the role is to develop, establish and maintain standards of qualifications for persons to be issued certificates of registration. What they have seen in many of the professions in Ontario is that visible minorities and women, the studies have shown, have been shut out. This has been done very much so in the professional organizations which control all this. The role that you can play here is not because you're a woman and not because you're a visible minority or what the case would be but because of your sensitivity in some of the answers that you have said there. Do you think you can bring to that and vigilantly monitor the fact of who is being certified to be pharmacists and who are given certificates? Because somehow it's not being done. Do you see yourself playing a role like that?
Ms Radcliffe: Absolutely. I have been president of the Multicultural Health Coalition of Ontario. I'm vice-president of the Canadian Council on Multicultural Health. The status of newcomers to this country is of great concern to me.
Mr Jackson: Newcomers as professionals?
Ms Radcliffe: As professionals as well, but the status overall of people who come into this country. I think we're tremendously humane. I think we're getting in people with very high qualifications. I don't think we have put enough thought into making use of the talents we are bringing in. I appreciate what you're saying. I think we need to open those parts, because I think we are getting the talent, but we haven't thought through how we use the talent. What I see where I am sitting is a lot of frustration, a lot of anger, which is a great shame, combined with the fact that they know that this is a great country, but feeling a sense of betrayal. Certainly that would be of great concern to me.
Mr Curling: Well said. Regardless if we bring in legislation, calling it employment equity or whatever the case would be, on the parochial or on the local level, as you said, those who've got the merit and those who have the qualifications still don't find an opening.
Ms Radcliffe: Absolutely.
Mr Curling: I just want to be kind of local or parochial about this. The pharmacists have said, "There's an opportunity," and I'm not only addressing the pharmaceutical industry. So are the doctors, so are the engineers, so are all these other people, and that role is of great importance too.
Ms Radcliffe: To me, yes.
Mr Curling: In other words, the diversity we have of culture and the people who respond to certain drugs and all that, they've got to be quite a challenge to your group here. Whom do you accept within here and what drugs or what have you? Do you see that as one of the greater challenges we have in Ontario, because of the growth? In my constituency, at one stage just about four years ago, the English population was 66% and the Chinese was about 16%. Today, it's 39% English and 36% Chinese. So coming from the language to the medicine or so, do you see that as one of the challenges of what we accept in the pharmaceutical area?
Ms Radcliffe: Absolutely. That's about the way the proportions are changing and the challenges are coming forward. I agree with you.
Mr Curling: I have no other questions. I want to thank you very much for coming before us. Good luck.
The Vice-Chair: We want to thank you and wish you all the best.
Ms Radcliffe: Thank you. I have enjoyed it.
The Vice-Chair: Is it the wish of the committee that we deal with the appointments we've reviewed this morning? If so, we would entertain a motion.
Mr Waters: So moved, that we deal with them as one unit.
The Vice-Chair: Is there any discussion? If not, all those in favour of the motion? Opposed, if any? The motion is carried.
The committee adjourned at 1120.