INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
DALE LAPHAM
CONTENTS
Wednesday 11 December 1996
Subcommittee reports
Intended appointments
Mr Dale Lapham
Mr Christopher Hacio
Dr Raymond Johnson
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président: Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
*Mr RickBartolucci (Sudbury L)
*Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
*Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
*Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
*Mr GaryFox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings /
Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)
*Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)
*Mr BertJohnson (Perth PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Mr FloydLaughren (Nickel Belt ND)
*Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
*Mr DanNewman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
*Mr TonySilipo (Dovercourt ND)
*Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mrs BrendaElliott (Guelph PC) for Mr Fox (after 11)
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr DominicAgostino (Hamilton East / -Est L)
Clerk /Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1003 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): If the standing committee will come to order, the first order of business is to deal with the subcommittee reports. The first one is dated December 5. From that subcommittee meeting the third party selected one intended appointee, Mr Ken Koprowski, to the Licence Suspension Appeal Board.
On that matter, if the Legislature sits next week, which it probably will, we could, if you wish, deal with that one intended appointment next Wednesday, or we could put it off to the new year. It would be sort of nice, it seems to me, to tidy that up. Then we'd have nothing until further cabinet appointments are made for the meeting in January, but I suspect there will be appointments between now and then. Would the committee be in agreement with that, that we do this one next week, assuming the House sits?
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I'd certainly support that suggestion.
The Chair: Okay, so let's schedule Mr Koprowski. That will be the only one. Okay, we'll do that.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): Did we get a mover for that?
The Chair: Can we move that?
Mr Bob Wood: I move the adoption of the report.
The Chair: All those in favour? It's carried.
For the second one, the subcommittee meeting of December 10, I appreciate the fact that the three parties dealt with that. There were no selections made, so we don't have to deal with that.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Just one point on that, if I may. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this was the report that had about 24 pages of recommended appointees. I have to tell you, that was for us a real problem and it was certainly one of the reasons -- that, plus the time. I'm not sure why, but it was moved up to Tuesday, to yesterday. I can tell you that I still have some major concerns about that in terms of us being given a list as long as that and not having, at the same time, adequate time to go through it properly.
I don't know if we can do anything about that, and I don't know if Mr Wood has any explanation as to why the government would land us with such a long list at this point.
Mr Bob Wood: Yes. As I outlined at the last meeting, and the other parties were kind enough to assist us, there are a whole bunch of appointments to crown agencies which had to be done before the end of the year so they can accept charitable donations for this tax year. They have to have a board to receive the money. That's why they all went in as a bunch at the end of the year. As you may recall, the opposition parties were kind enough, for those appointments only, to agree to a two-day earlier deadline. That's for those appointments only. The deadline is 5 o'clock Thursday, unless otherwise changed. As you may recall, the other two parties were kind enough to agree for the crown appointments only.
Mr Silipo: So there's time until Thursday, you're saying.
Mr Bob Wood: No. What I'm saying is -- I don't think you were here at the meeting.
Mr Silipo: I wasn't.
Mr Bob Wood: I explained what I just explained to the other two parties, and they agreed, for the crown foundation appointments only and that batch of them, that the deadline would be Tuesday rather than Thursday.
Mr Silipo: Just those.
Mr Bob Wood: Yes.
Mr Silipo: So there will be an occasion to have additional names from the rest of the list submitted if we so choose then.
Mr Bob Wood: Yes.
Mr Silipo: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Wood is correct. It was agreed among the three parties. Thank you for that. Are you moving this one too, Mr Wood?
Mr Bob Wood: I move adoption of the subcommittee report.
The Chair: Okay. All in favour? Carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
DALE LAPHAM
Review of intended appointment, selection by the third party: Dale Lapham, intended appointee as member, Council of the College of Medical Laboratory Technologists of Ontario.
The Chair: All right. Let us proceed with the business of today. We have three intended appointments for today, and the first one is Mr Dale Lapham to the College of Medical Laboratory Technologists of Ontario. Mr Lapham, we have a tradition of allowing you to make any opening remarks you'd care to make and then have members ask questions. Welcome, Mr Lapham.
Mr Dale Lapham: Good morning. My name is Dale Lapham. I'm from the small community in northern Ontario called Hawk Junction. With a population of 150 people, that includes men, women and children, dogs and cats.
I bring a number of life experiences to this position, as a life insurance salesman to an entrepreneur for the last 20 years, running three different businesses at this time. I also serve as a director on four different service clubs. If I am elected to the board, I will bring a fresh openmindedness and common sense from the rural and northern perspective.
I firmly believe in fair and equal treatment of all Ontarians. If you want to make a difference, you must get involved, so that's why I'm here today. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lapham. Are there any questions from members of the government party?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve our time, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: From the official opposition?
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Just one brief question. Welcome, Mr Lapham. Did you find the video that they sent you instructive at all? Were you able to garner anything out of it?
Mr Lapham: Actually, I found that it made me a little bit on the nervous side. I didn't get to watch too much of it, basically because my video machine went nuts.
Mr Bartolucci: Sometimes it's like this government. Anyway, listen, good luck in your new appointment.
Mr Lapham: Thank you.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good morning, sir. No, your video machine didn't go nuts; you were seeing what actually happens from time to time.
I'm interested, did you apply specifically for this position or did you apply generally for an appointment on a board, agency or commission?
Mr Lapham: I applied generally.
1010
Mr Crozier: Once you were notified this was the pending appointment, do you have some interest in this area in particular?
Mr Lapham: Yes, I do. Basically the interest is, during school I was always interested in the sciences and stuff. Over the years, though, I have got more into the entrepreneur part of business, so I figured that would be a very welcome difference.
Mr Crozier: You no doubt are aware from information you received that the intent is not to have all experts in the particular field, that they like to have laypeople who may have no experience to add I guess what you're saying is lifetime experience to the board and its decisions.
Mr Lapham: Yes. As far as having any formal experience in it, it was basically through school and being interested in the sciences. Outside of that, I have quite an open mind.
Mr Crozier: Thank you, sir.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, sir. Have you had an opportunity to do any research in terms of the duties of being a member of the council? Have you had any chance to do that yet?
Mr Lapham: No, I haven't. I just had very brief stuff that was sent to me in the mail concerning the college.
Mr Gravelle: What do you anticipate your responsibilities will be? You're right, I think the professional members outnumber the public numbers, but it's very specific about why they want members who aren't experts in the field. What do you anticipate the responsibilities will be and the kinds of issues you'll be getting into?
Mr Lapham: I'm not 100% sure. Orientation, as far as talking to the chairperson is concerned, starts January 9, it said. At that time, I would be much more knowledgeable in what my actual duties will be. In talking to the lady, she expressed that I was basically to support the public interest.
Mr Gravelle: Best of luck.
Mr Silipo: Good morning. I had a similar question to the ones that have been asked, so I'll just pursue that a little bit in terms of, why this particular body? I understand your interest in being involved as a citizen, and I think that's great, but I still can't quite understand why this particular body. Other than your interest in the sciences from your days in school, what do you bring to this body or what is it about it that particularly interests you, as opposed to being a member of any other body?
Mr Lapham: That's a very excellent question. I think a lot of it, why I went for something that was more science-oriented, is the logic and conciseness that would be required. I feel that would fit more with my personality.
Mr Silipo: How did you express your interest to the government in somehow becoming a member of one of the agencies, boards or commissions? I think you said earlier that when you applied or made your interest known, it wasn't necessarily to any one particular body, this one or any other, if I understood you correctly, so how did that happen? Was it through your local MPP or through other people you know in the government?
Mr Lapham: No. Actually, when I applied and received a reply from the government, they also sent me a list of the colleges and stuff, and I based my decision on that list.
Mr Silipo: This question I ask, as people around the committee know, Mr Lapham, of everybody who comes in front of us. Are you a member of any political party?
Mr Lapham: Yes, I am, sir.
Mr Silipo: Which party would that be?
Mr Lapham: The Conservative Party.
The Chair: Any further questions over here? Well, Mr Lapham, that's the beginning and the end of your appearance before the committee. It wasn't so bad, was it?
Mr Lapham: No, no. It was actually very nice.
The Chair: Thank you for coming here this morning.
The second intended appointment is Mr Hacio. Is he here? We're a little early, so I'm not surprised that he's not. That's not Mr Johnson, is it? Do we wish to proceed with Mr Johnson now?
Mr Bob Wood: Why not?
The Chair: I agree. Mr Johnson, thank you for being here so early. Mr Johnson is an intended appointee to the Hamilton-Wentworth District Health Council.
Mr Crozier: Mr Chair, I have a bit of a problem with this, in that we have a member who was coming in at 11.
The Chair: That's a fair point.
Mr Crozier: I can make a call.
Mr Bob Wood: Why don't we deal with the concurrence, and Mr Crozier can see if the member is available.
The Chair: We'll do that.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Lapham.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Is there any debate on it? No debate, so you're ready for the question. All those in favour? It's carried.
We'll wait a moment until Mr Crozier has made his phone call, and we'll see where we go from there.
Mr Crozier: Actually, I'd prefer to wait until the scheduled time, if we could. I'm sorry, I'm not being obstructive, it's just that we didn't think it would move this quickly.
The Chair: I think it's appropriate that we wait.
The committee recessed from 1019 to 1023.
CHRISTOPHER HACIO
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Christopher Hacio, intended appointee as member, Licence Suspension Appeal Board.
The Chair: Mr Hacio has arrived. We welcome you to the committee. It's traditional that you have an opportunity to make any opening remarks you'd like before the members ask you the questions.
Mr Christopher Hacio: Yes, I will. First, I'd like to thank the committee for considering my appointment. By way of background, I was born and raised in Thunder Bay. I obtained my business degree from the University of Western Ontario. I attended Lakehead University for a portion of my education; I obtained several courses there. I've taken the Canadian securities course. I obtained my law degree in 1988 at the University of Ottawa. I articled in Toronto at a firm not far from here, McCarthy Tetrault, where I worked for about two years.
I'm presently a partner in the law firm of Erickson Larson in Thunder Bay. My practice is restricted to civil litigation, and the areas of concentration in which I practice are employment law, construction law, personal injury and some family law.
I've appeared in front of many administrative tribunals over the years and continue to do that, not dissimilar to the panel I'm seeking appointment to.
In terms of community involvement, I think you all have my résumé. I've been involved in several charitable, non-profit organizations. I'm presently on the Thunder Bay ventures board on several committees; they are a non-profit organization that attempts to develop economic opportunities in northwestern Ontario. I'm on the board of directors of St Joseph's General Hospital right now, which occupies, given the health restructuring, a substantial amount of my time at this time.
I'm married and I have two young children.
Those are my submissions and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve our time.
Mr Bartolucci: Welcome, Mr Hacio. How was the flight down?
Mr Hacio: There was a little bit of turbulence. My stomach's still settling.
Mr Bartolucci: My questions probably have nothing to do with your appointment to the board. Under "other interests" on your résumé, I see skiing and "gold" and camping.
Mr Gravelle: It must mean golf.
Mr Bartolucci: Is it "golf" or "gold"?
Mr Hacio: The way I play, it's hard to say, but it's supposed to be golf.
Mr Bartolucci: I wondered. Gold's my interest; I'd like any tips you could give me.
You received a package of information in preparation for the meeting. Did you find the video instructive at all?
Mr Hacio: I had heard I might be asked about the video. I had seen some of the people who presented information asked questions before this committee in the past on television, so it didn't do much for me. I had seen that type of information before.
Mr Bartolucci: You said you may be asked about the video. Who told you you might be asked about the video?
Mr Hacio: I'm not sure what the relevance is, but if you really want me to answer that, I will. Again, I don't see any significance to my appointment.
Mr Bartolucci: Sure, answer it. It may not be relevant to you, it may not be relevant to any of us, but --
Mr Hacio: In terms of who recommended the video to me?
Mr Bartolucci: No. Who told you you might be asked about the video? Was it Mike?
Mr Hacio: A member of the committee suggested that I might be asked something about the video.
Mr Bartolucci: That was probably a good answer. Do you think the video is a necessary part of preparation for this?
Mr Hacio: I think it's helpful for anyone to know what they're going to experience.
Mr Bartolucci: You didn't find it particularly interesting or informative.
Mr Hacio: I think I found it both of those things.
Mr Bartolucci: Did you find it instructive at all? I ask that very seriously.
Mr Hacio: Yes. It was something that assisted me in preparing to appear before this committee.
Mr Bartolucci: How did it prepare you to appear before the committee?
Mr Hacio: It gave me an idea of what to expect in terms of questioning. I'm not so concerned about that as I was the rules, the procedure.
Mr Gravelle: In terms of this particular appointment to this board, it strikes me, from your opening remarks, that you may have had some experience in your legal work, as you mentioned personal injuries and stuff like that. Have you ever had any legal work that involved the Licence Suspension Appeal Board in terms of people appealing their licences?
Mr Hacio: No, I have not.
Mr Gravelle: Did you request this particular board? I'm curious how it came about that you are being put forward for the appointment. Was this a specific agency you said you'd be interested in?
Mr Hacio: I'd spoken to a gentleman in Thunder Bay who seemed to be aware of when appointments came up. They don't get posted as often as I'd like to see them. I was interested in looking for an interesting appointment, something I think I can add something to. A gentleman called me, from my recollection, several months ago and said he had heard about this appointment. He thought I'd be a good candidate and he asked if he could submit my name. He then sent me some preliminary information, which I reviewed, and I said I'd be interested in having my name submitted. I don't know what involvement he had in that other than submitting my name. I submitted no application myself, no.
Mr Gravelle: There's been a number of changes in the Highway Traffic Act in some of the rulings, the 90-day immediate suspension, I guess, and also in how drivers 80 years or older are being dealt with. What is your view of those particular changes and the effect they'll have?
Mr Hacio: Hopefully, a positive effect. Some of the material I've had the benefit of reading has some studies that have been done in other jurisdictions. Other provinces in Canada have implemented the same type of policy and they've found it has cut back on the number of impaired drivers. I hope that's the effect this policy is going to have. That's what I understand they seek to achieve, and if other provinces are any indication, then it should be successful.
1030
Mr Gravelle: I understand you can appeal the 90-day suspension, though.
Mr Hacio: Yes.
Mr Gravelle: Have you had an opportunity to do any research of the kinds of cases -- this is a very interesting and delicate board, I think, because it is a balancing act between the rights of individuals and obviously the protection of the public in terms of people being able to drive. Even in my constituency, I've had a number of interesting cases of people who, for example, will say to their doctor, "I've had dizzy spells," and the next they know a call has been made to MTO and their licence has been suspended. I'm not in any way saying that's right or wrong. I just know that is a delicate process in terms of protecting the public. Have you had a chance to look at any of the cases reported, given any thought to how you're going to approach it?
Mr Hacio: Unfortunately there are no cases to review yet. From what I understand, as of yesterday there have been no appeals filed that I'm aware of. In Toronto there have been about 800 or 900 suspensions since the new law was implemented. In Thunder Bay there have been 30 or 40. My understanding is that only three or four people have requested the appeal documents and no appeals have yet been submitted.
Mr Gravelle: I didn't mean just specifically in terms of the 90-day one; any other cases, in terms of some of the matters that the board deals with.
Mr Hacio: In terms of my appointment, though, at this point the panel I would sit on in Thunder Bay would only deal with these licence suspensions.
Mr Gravelle: I didn't realize that.
Mr Hacio: Yes. I've had some clients who have come down to Toronto, and the committee that handles the other portion of the appeal board out of Toronto comes to Thunder Bay, but they have a standing committee in Toronto that I understand is somewhat flexible about locating in various points in Ontario. They're talking about expanding this board to include other licence suspensions like too many demerit points, dangerous driving, careless driving, but I won't be dealing with those issues initially.
Mr Gravelle: You'll be dealing specifically, then, just with the 90-day suspension issue?
Mr Hacio: Correct.
Mr Gravelle: That wasn't entirely clear. That will be interesting too. You need to see the cases, obviously, but what do you anticipate in terms of a situation where somebody has received a suspension and feels it's unfair? Obviously a legal mind too, presumably, would be useful to you. Have you given any thought to the kinds of scenarios whereby you could see a situation overturned and vice versa? Maybe that's not fair; I'm just curious as to how you might view it.
Mr Hacio: The amendments to the Highway Traffic Act are very clear. There are only two grounds to seek an appeal: One is that they've got the wrong person, so they've charged the wrong person with impaired driving or refusal to blow; number two is that you couldn't blow because of medical reasons. The grounds are very limited. I think the Highway Traffic Act is abundantly clear that those are the two exceptions; you come into either one or the other, and if you're not successful on one or two then your licence will be not reinstated.
Mr Gravelle: I'm sure you'll be a fine appointment to the board.
Mr Hacio: Thank you.
Mr Crozier: Just to pursue that a little further, I want to preface it by saying I think we all want to do whatever we can to limit or eliminate drunk drivers on our highways. I don't want to be mistaken in any way in my support of that, but we may have a case where having their licence taken away may have been a mistake. We go on the premise, of course, that you are innocent until proven guilty. How you do feel, as a lawyer, about suspensions such as this?
Mr Hacio: Like most laws, it's always that tradeoff between infringing personal rights of the individual versus protecting the public. I think impaired driving is intolerable. I don't tolerate it and I don't want to tolerate it. The way I try to assess a law and whether it's reasonable is, would I live with it if it were me? If I was caught and charged with impaired driving, I am presumed innocent until proven guilty, number one. Number two, I would accept that it's worthwhile to take my licence away for 90 days because studies indicate as well that people who are charged with impaired driving or refusal to blow, prior to having the trial date on that particular charge, often violate the law a second time if they're a frequent offender. These are the kinds of people they want to get off the roads for the 90 days, and during that time hopefully they'll have their trial and the suspension will continue.
I think it's worthwhile and in the public interest, to protect the public, to infringe this personal right, and I'm satisfied that it's an appropriate law. I'm not going to judge the government on whether I would have done the exact, same thing. It appears to me that they've looked at other studies across Canada, found something that appears to be working and implemented something very similar.
Mr Crozier: It's my understanding as well that if they're later found to be guilty under the Criminal Code and their licence is taken away for a year, the 90 days is not part of the suspension period. Is that a point that you as a lawyer might argue is unfair, or do you find that fair?
Mr Hacio: You're correct; the 90 days would not reduce the usual one-year suspension you'd get. Would I have done it differently? I may have if it were up to me, which it's not; it's up to the individuals sitting at this committee. If the person were given a further suspension I likely would have reduced it by the amount of time served under this 90-day suspension. That's not the law I'm dealing with and I don't have any problem enforcing this law. I don't think I feel prejudiced or biased in any way that I would have done it differently. As a lawyer I enforce. I try to defend my clients. I use the law as it sits before me, and if I have complaints, which I occasionally do, I make the appropriate complaints to the appropriate people and hope for a change.
Mr Crozier: What area of law do you practise in?
Mr Hacio: Civil litigation, which is court work. The majority of my work would be employment law related. As part of that I do a lot of work before administrative tribunals through the Ministry of Labour, under the Canada labour code, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, which are tribunals very similar to this type of committee.
Mr Silipo: Mr Hacio, do you accept or do you have any problems with what I gather the case law has established, that in hearings before the board the onus has to be on the registrar of motor vehicles to "show cause why the licence should be suspended" and that this onus should be on a balance of probabilities? Does that make sense to you?
Mr Hacio: I don't know if my opinion is particularly important to my appointment to this committee. I've read several cases dealing with licence suspensions and I've read the one in some of the material I've gotten. I don't know. I couldn't really express an opinion on that. I don't do enough work in this particular area, nor do I think many lawyers could or would, to express an opinion either way. I can tell you that generally in criminal law the test is "beyond a reasonable doubt." In that case one of the justices, and I'm not going to question his decision, suggested that it should be on the balance of probabilities when it comes to licence suspensions.
Mr Silipo: As I understand it, this is what the law says needs to be the test and therefore the way you as a member of the board would apply your jurisdiction to either uphold or reject a suspension. I'm very interested in your approach to this because you're going to be making decisions about whether somebody's suspension of a licence should be maintained. Obviously nobody would pretend you can make those decisions other than on each individual case, but I think it isn't that unfair of us to ask you what your approach to making those decisions would be based upon.
Mr Hacio: Given no case law on this particular issue, I begin assessing them pursuant to that case, which appears to be the most often reported case referred to on the balance of probabilities, which is a lesser standard than the criminal standard.
Mr Silipo: The onus being on the registrar?
Mr Hacio: I believe that's correct.
Mr Silipo: If your appointment is approved you are going to be the 27th member appointed by the present government to this board -- this is a board that under the previous government had fewer than 10 members -- and this is also happening at a time in which the current government is going about reducing the number of tribunals and the number of people on many of those tribunals. Does it give you any thoughts or concerns that this is the one area where there seems to be a real growth, in the number of people appointed to tribunals?
Mr Hacio: I didn't know the number of people who have been appointed. I think it's a good law and I think it's going to be an effective law, and if it takes more people to enforce it, then I think that's appropriate.
Mr Silipo: Are you a member or supporter of any political party?
Mr Hacio: I'm not a card-carrying member of any political party. Do I support a particular party? I would say no. I tend to support issues and people. I've been involved, I think, with all three levels of government before this legislative committee and I've supported them on various issues, attended various functions.
The Chair: Any further questions of Mr Hacio?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll waive our time.
The Chair: Mr Hacio, thank you very much for coming before the committee and responding to questions. We appreciate it.
Mr Hacio: Thanks for your time.
Mr Bob Wood: Would it be appropriate, Mr Chairman, to move concurrence?
The Chair: It's fine by me. Is it okay with other members? Okay.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence on the intended appointment of Mr Hacio.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Any debate? Are you ready for the question? All those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you for that. It's concurred.
Mr Gravelle: You made it, Chris.
The Chair: We'll wait for a report from Mr Crozier.
Mr Silipo: Why don't we take a look at the video while we're waiting?
The Chair: It's two hours.
The committee recessed from 1041 to 1048.
RAYMOND JOHNSON
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Raymond Johnson, intended appointee as member, Hamilton-Wentworth District Health Council.
The Chair: The committee will come to order. We're now prepared to deal with the intended appointment of Mr Johnson to the Hamilton-Wentworth District Health Council. Mr Johnson, thank you for being so patient this morning. If you would take a seat and make any opening remarks you'd care to make, we can proceed.
Dr Raymond Johnson: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. I thought since you have my résumé in front of you I wouldn't bother to give you a synopsis of it, but I would like to present two reasons why I think I have something to contribute to the district health council.
First of all is my record in community service, which is quite extensive although it's not mentioned that much in my résumé. I've been a member of Lions Clubs International for 36 years and served as president of my local club a number of times -- actually two, I guess. I've been through the district offices and now serve on the national board of Lions Clubs International. So I've had extensive experience from a service perspective. I might add, as well, I've received four international president medals as a result of my work for Lions Clubs International.
In the area of sport in the community, I was on the initial steering committee which formed the model for Sport Ontario and served on that board after that a few years ago. I was the first athletic director who was president of the Ontario Universities Athletic Association and also secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Interuniversity Athletic Union.
Locally, which is the most important aspect of what I bring to the council, is the fact that I've chaired a number of boards within the Hamilton-Wentworth area. I chair the board of Bold-Park Lodge Inc, which runs three recovery homes for drug and alcohol-addicted people in the Hamilton area. I was the founding chairman of the Hamilton-Wentworth Drug and Alcohol Awareness Week committee; also the founding chairman of the Hamilton-Wentworth Community Action Group on Substance Abuse. I was a founding member of Crime Stoppers Inc, which was the first one in Ontario. I switched from that and at the present time I'm on the board of an organization called The Bridge, which helps prisoners coming out of prison rehabilitate themselves into the community. Finally, I'm on the board as treasurer and chairman of a group of people called the Black Youth Achievements centre, which is running a unique pilot program for the community to allow young black youth to get some training in entrepreneurship so they can establish their own businesses. So I bring that kind of experience to the board, a sense of involvement in the community.
The second point I would like to make of what I bring to the board is my qualifications with respect to health. First of all, my doctorate degree is in the health science area. While studying for that degree we had lots of opportunity to formulate a vision of what health is and what it should be and perhaps modifications and various models that could be used to improve health. One of my areas that I had to concentrate on was the Canadian health system, although I took my degree in the States.
The other thing I bring, of course, is the work I did which got me interested in the health council. I was appointed chair of the health action task force in Hamilton. It was a group of 11 people who were responsible for developing a comprehensive health plan which would help Hamilton develop its health care services into the 21st century. Our motto for that was "Delivering the right service in the right place at the right time." I think it was because of my work there that the district health council, although we didn't totally agree in our final submission, still asked me if I would be interested in becoming a member of the council. So I went through their interviewing process and I guess they saw fit to bring my name forward here. That's why I'm here this morning. So thank you for that opportunity.
The Chair: Any questions from the members of the government?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve our time, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: The official opposition?
Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): First of all I want to welcome Mr Johnson. I certainly know of Ray's commitment to the community and the great work he has done. I've been involved in a number of committees with him over the years. There's no doubt in my mind as to the role Ray has played in the Hamilton-Wentworth community and his contribution particularly to young people through his coaching at McMaster and other community involvement. I want to commend you for that at the outset.
The area I want to talk about is more one of your philosophy going into the district health council, particularly in view of the Hamilton health care task force that you chaired, the action task force, which recommended initially the closure of St Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton. That led to probably the greatest backlash to any political recommendation that I think we have seen in the city in a long, long time; a mobilization of the community that many people had not seen in years as a result of the recommendation that St Joseph's Hospital close.
Then it proceeded that the task force went back and said: "We still believe a Hamilton hospital should close but we're not going to recommend which one at this point. We're not sure which one it should be. It may be St Joseph's, it may be another one." I guess the first question is, do you still believe there must be a closure of at least one Hamilton hospital?
Dr Johnson: Yes, I still do, Mr Agostino, and I say that based upon the information we collected in the study. It was a very onerous task. We spent a lot of time and effort going over all of the data that were presented to us, and I still haven't changed my mind. I would like to correct one error, though. We didn't suggest closing St Joseph's Hospital, we suggested moving it. Unfortunately the information leaked to the press before we were able to present it to the chairs of the boards, and they only told half the truth, so people got up in arms because I don't think anyone wanted to see St Joseph's Hospital close.
Our recommendation for moving it was the fact that we felt it was one of the most efficiently run hospitals in the city and we felt it had an excellent record. In my mind, the building itself is not what makes the hospital, it's the people who serve the needs of the community. So I felt those needs could be transferred to another site and we could do a better job of serving the Hamilton community, because as you know, the Mountain area is the fastest growing area in Hamilton and there isn't really adequate service on the Mountain.
Mr Agostino: What I meant would have been basically the elimination of one of the major hospitals in the downtown core in the city of Hamilton. The Sisters of St Joseph had served the community for over 100 years, and that was part of the reason. But beyond that, the recommendation further was that Hamilton simply have one less hospital, and that was the follow-up to that.
The district health council will play a role in the decisions that are made in the future. Do you not see that that bias -- obviously the community has spoken very clearly in Hamilton-Wentworth. You'll find very few people in the city of Hamilton and the region who believe there should be a closure of any one hospital. We also have a report and a recommendation, which was put together by all of the CEOs and agreed to by the boards of all the Hamilton hospitals, that said, "We can work within the government cuts, we can work within the 18% cut to the hospitals and still be able to provide and deliver the services without closing any of the Hamilton hospitals."
Do you not see the fact that what I see as a bias towards the closure of a Hamilton hospital, as a member of the district health council, will cause some concern in the community? I believe that will help lead the district health council in a way that the city of Hamilton and the region, most of the citizens -- and I agree. It's that bias that I see towards a closure of a hospital that I think is a difficulty here.
Dr Johnson: I don't see a difficulty for the simple reason that the majority of people in Hamilton didn't actually go against the closing of a hospital. We got a big response -- as you say, 140,000 people responded -- and I answered every one of those. I can assure you that all of them were not opposed to the closing of a hospital. They were opposed to something that was given to them that was not quite accurate, and that was that we were closing St Joseph's Hospital, which we were not doing; we were moving it. So almost half of the responses we got -- and they were in the form of petitions. The wording at the top of the petition was incorrect, so people were answering an incorrect petition by saying we were closing the hospital. That wasn't the case.
From the medical profession, we got a lot of support. I would say, if I were to go through the letters I have, that the majority of the medical profession supported me. I think what you had from the CEOs -- and I met with them many times to try to resolve this issue -- is a self-interest involvement here. Nobody wants to close and put themselves out of a job. They don't want to lay off people, and we certainly didn't want to do that. In our proposal, we weren't laying off people, we were amalgamating or merging two hospitals and shifting services around to all three so the community would be adequately served.
Unfortunately, people only read one eightieth of the recommendations. There were 85 recommendations there, only one of which dealt with the hospitals. The rest dealt with the rest of the community. We were dealing with the entire health care system, not just the hospital services. My firm belief is that if the study is carried out by the restructuring committee -- that is, where they come in and they recognize that we're short of chronic care beds in Hamilton; we have a lot of needs there -- if those needs are taken care of, we don't need the number of hospital beds we presently have.
I think the other thing as well is we've closed close to 1,000 beds in Hamilton-Wentworth and we haven't closed one building. That doesn't make sense to me when you have 1,000 beds gone -- that's a hospital -- yet you haven't closed the building. The bricks and mortar cost a lot of money. Some of the examples of some of the reasons that people gave for not closing it were erroneous. In other words, they said that we were moving services, and we said very clearly in our recommendation that we would leave that up to the experts. That was all pushed aside because of the emotion that got involved in the closing of St Joseph's Hospital.
1100
As to my feeling any conflict coming on the council, the council that appointed me were the people I had the conflict with. They know me well enough to know that I'm an open-minded person. If you can convince me otherwise, with data and not with emotion, then I'm prepared to change my mind. Some of those people have come to me and said, "I think your report is pretty good," after they've had a chance to look at the entire thing. That's quite often what happens when people respond emotionally and not rationally.
Mr Agostino: Just to follow up briefly, the concern I have is, first of all, that the district health council in Hamilton, as with district health councils across this province, is getting intimidated by this government, as hospital administrators are getting intimidated by this government. Hospital administrators are being told, "If you oppose us, we're going to go after you." We're working within that climate. That is a problem. That's not a climate that, obviously, you're participating in, but that's a climate that I believe this government has, that we have seen time after time.
An example of that would be when I raised a question in the House when Dr Rowand, the new CEO at Chedoke-McMaster, suggested, "Because of cuts we may have to close a hospital, because of what the government has done." The minister's response was, "I'm sure he regrets saying that." Mr Rowand repeated the same thing two weeks ago and said clearly to the minister: "I don't regret saying that. I stand by what I said." But there was a clear attempt to intimidate the CEO of a hospital because he gave an opinion that in view of the cuts they might have to close a hospital.
I'm not surprised the district health council would buy into what the government is pitching. They're scared, they're afraid and they've been intimidated and bullied by this government. When we have that scenario already and then we have another appointment, of an individual who I believe has a great deal of integrity but who goes in with the idea that we have to close one Hamilton hospital, it sets up a very difficult climate, in my view, for any opportunity. People get very emotional about their community hospitals. Damn right, they should get very emotional about their community hospitals. I would hope that people fight tooth and nail across this province to keep every damn hospital and every community hospital open because most people want to know that if they need it, it's there; that if they have a heart attack, it's somewhere close and will not have to go 20 minutes across the city. That's what it's all about and that's why people get emotional. We had 100,000 names on petitions on St Joseph's Hospital -- that is one third of the population of the city of Hamilton -- to keep that hospital open.
That is the concern and that is the reason I have some difficulties with the appointment. It is not a reflection of Mr Johnson's ability or his commitment or his work for the community, but it is a view that will not help the community in our challenge to keep every hospital in the city of Hamilton open, as I believe they should be.
Mr Silipo: I want to pursue the same question. Mr Johnson, I appreciate very much your explanation about why you've taken the positions you've taken and I respect your right to have those positions. I am concerned, however, about the message that your going on to the district health council would give to the community, because it seems to me that there has been here in Hamilton a fairly extensive discussion about the restructuring, obviously focusing on the role the hospitals would play in the delivery of health care services for the community. With the establishment of the network, with the work that you did through the task force, the district health council then chose to take a course of action which you, at least in one significant part, disagreed with.
My concern would be that in appointing you to the district health council, that would be read as a message that the issue somehow now is open for discussion again. I just would be interested in your comment on that because that's a significant issue. Others have commented on your credentials as somebody who's been committed and involved in the community, and I don't know that anybody would question that in the least. But your appointment would send a fairly clear message which gives me some concerns -- I know it would give my colleague Dave Christopherson equal concern -- in terms of the message that would go out to the community, given all the discussion and given that the district health council has recommended something that you would not have supported.
Dr Johnson: I would say this: I appeared before the executive of the council. I appeared before the entire council. It would seem to me that if that council is not concerned about my coming on, then I don't see why this committee should be. I think the reason that council's not concerned is because it knows that I made the decision I made based upon data presented to me. They also know that, politically, we listen to the people. The people said, "We don't want to close that particular hospital," so we backed off. If I weren't a sincere, conscientious man, I wouldn't have done that. I would have said: "This is what the data tell me. This is the way it's got to be." However, I'm not a politician in the sense that I have to listen, and I have some difficulty with politicians who only listen to the people. They're appointed in a position of trust. Also, they're appointed in a position of leadership. If you have more data than the people you're serving, you should at least share those data with them and tell them why you've made a decision.
In this case I can honestly say that a lot of the data weren't shown. If you look at the report our CEOs presented, 80% of it was our report. The only change was in not closing one hospital. They simply agreed to keep that open. They couldn't agree among themselves because they agreed to downsize one hospital and the doctors in that hospital objected, so they turned around and changed their mind. There was a constant battle between the city fathers and the doctors in the community about closing that one particular hospital. They fought and said we should keep them. They didn't say that. When they came to the compromise, they compromised and said, "We agree to three and a half hospitals." Then they had some static on that and they went to four. The inference for me was that perhaps they were making their decisions strictly on financial matters.
What I should have prefaced all my remarks with is that I don't believe you make decisions in health care strictly on dollars. We did not do that. We developed our plan first and said, "If it saves money, so be it." As it turned out, it saved money and they were happy. We didn't say that these people in the city of Hamilton had to cut 18%. The government said that. That was not our concern at all, and that was made very clear to the government when we presented our report, when we were working on it, and that was acceptable.
Mr Silipo: Mr Johnson, I'm not in the least questioning your motivations in arriving at the conclusions you did. Obviously, as you say, you looked at all the information that was there. I would just say, equally, that I'm not sure that it's fair to question other people's motivations in terms of what they arrived at. Clearly there was, from what little I know about the whole process, lots of discussion in the Hamilton community about this. As a result of that discussion, the district health council arrived at certain recommendations which it has now sent to the hospital restructuring commission and the minister. I just continue to have a concern about the message your appointment would send. As I say, it's not in the least questioning your motivations, but that still remains a concern.
Just to pick up on one little point from that, do you expect anything further to come in terms of discussions at the community level, other than waiting now for the report and the recommendations from the Health Services Restructuring Commission?
Dr Johnson: Yes, I think there will be something further coming. It was my understanding that there's still concern. Further data are being collected to explain why we need four instead of three. I've seen some of that data and I don't see any reason that we should have changed our report, but there have been additional data come forward that may necessitate a slight change.
Mr Silipo: I have one last question which I ask of all people who appear before here, whenever I have the time to, and that is, are you now or have you ever been a member or supporter of any political party?
Dr Johnson: I'm a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party.
The Acting Chair (Mr Michael Gravelle): Would the government members wish to use their time?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll waive our time.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Johnson.
We moved concurrence earlier on the first two appointees. Is there any motion for concurrence for Mr Johnson?
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Johnson. I'd like to point out to the committee that he taught me high school, which in itself was a challenge. I can recommend him very highly to the committee.
1110
The Acting Chair: Is there any debate on the motion for concurrence?
Mr Bartolucci: I'm not going to be supporting the nomination of the gentleman, and let me tell you why. I think he operates with blind trust. I don't know if he's prepared to respond in a very proactive way to a Health Services Restructuring Commission that may not listen to the community. Dr Johnson, that happened in Sudbury. The Health Services Restructuring Commission decided to slap the community in the face, to shut the door on the DHC, to effectively disregard two and a half years of toil, of sweat, of community involvement. They weren't prepared to listen to them at all. They gave no time to the report and ended up closing two of our acute care hospitals and not following any of the recommendations of the local DHC. I don't know if you're prepared to fight that. You have to be prepared to fight the commission, whether you believe in the agenda of the government or not.
The Acting Chair: Can you address the Chair with your remarks?
Mr Bartolucci: Absolutely. Mr Chair, you have to be prepared to fight the commission based on data, because it won't listen to anything else. But they won't listen to local data; that's the problem. So you have to ensure that the appointments you make to the DHC, whether or not they go through the nomination process -- and it's interesting to note, at least, that he went through the nomination process. In Sudbury, when the DHC wouldn't listen to the minister, the minister got rid of almost half the board and decided to make his own appointees without going through the nomination process.
These are just some of the things that you're going to have to fight, and I only wish that you would have presented -- your dedication I don't challenge, your commitment I don't challenge, but what I do challenge is your ability to want to fight the commission if it rules against the DHC. We're living it in Sudbury now -- the final report's going to be coming down next week -- and we see the frustration, but we also see the importance and the necessity of having every member of the DHC committed to fighting the Health Services Restructuring Commission on the grounds that it's wrong and the local option is right.
Mr Silipo: More often than I would have liked to see it, we've had people appear before this committee with little knowledge about the issues they would be dealing with in the body or board they were being recommended for appointment to, and on some of those occasions I've not supported the appointments for that reason. Here we have a situation in which we have a gentleman who clearly understands the issues, is well versed with those, has been a participant in discussions that are going to continue to affect the Hamilton community as far as the future of health care delivery is concerned. I want to be very clear that in not supporting his appointment I'm doing it on the very strict grounds that I believe that his appointment to the Hamilton-Wentworth District Health Council at this point in time would give the complete opposite message than needs to be given. It would seem to set up another debate that the community, as far as I can tell, has had and has concluded through the recommendation of the district health council that while there should be restructuring there should not be any closings of hospitals. That's a position that I, not being from Hamilton, have certainly watched and seen. I know that's the position that my colleague Dave Christopherson supports.
For that reason it would be inappropriate to appoint Mr Johnson to the district health council at this point in time, so I can't support his appointment. I do that with some regret because I find him to be, as I said, not just somebody who understands the issues, has been involved, but obviously, from what other people have said, also somebody who has been very active in the community, and so normally the kind of person who you would want to see appointed to a body like this. But in this case the message that would go out to the community is absolutely the wrong one. It could be seen as an attempt by the government to revisit the issue and that would be unfair to the community.
Mr Agostino: Just on the same point, Mr Chairman: My colleague Mr Bartolucci pointed out the fact that the restructuring commission will be paying its visit and creating havoc and bulldozing its way through Hamilton some time in the new year. There's no doubt in my mind that this commission will come in and do what it has done to other communities, that is, order hospital closings. There's no doubt in my mind that the minister will blindly buy into that commission's recommendation, as he has in other communities. We're looking for the district health council to be an ally with the community to fight and protect Hamilton hospitals. That's the role we're hoping the health council will play.
I want to remind the committee and Mr Johnson that all six area MPPs, from all three sides of the House, spoke out very clearly over that one hospital closure. All six opposed the hospital closure, and I expect that that will happen with any hospital closure, that all six MPPs will show the same courage if there is any hospital recommended to be closed, as we did with St Joseph's. It was one of those rare occasions where all three political parties and all six members came together with the region and with the mayor, and made it very clear that we oppose any hospital closures. That cut across political lines, but that was in the best interests of the community.
This is why I think the district health council has to play that same role, and that is the concern. I know Mr Johnson's appointment will go through today. I certainly hope that the district health council will see that as its role, that it's there to protect Hamilton hospitals. They're not there to automatically and blindly buy into the government's agenda of simply shutting hospitals down. I hope that when this appointed, handpicked commission that the minister has created to do the dirty work for him steamrolls through Hamilton Mr Johnson will show leadership on that district health council and fight those recommendations and hopefully join all six MPPs in the Hamilton area, as we did in the one case, to oppose any hospital closures.
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): Chair, I'd like a recorded vote. The record should reflect the fact that our learned colleagues over there are opposing someone of the highest integrity. His educational background blends perfectly with the district health council. His very strong community background in their community stands well for this individual.
There are 19 members on the district health council, if I'm correct, in Hamilton-Wentworth. He's one vote of 19. There are elected officials on the DHC.
His community background: The awards that he's won through Lions Clubs International -- and I'm sure many in this room are familiar with Lions Clubs International -- are not given lightly. This is a man of integrity, a man of honesty, straightforwardness. In his responses this morning he was quite candid, and I'm sure that if there's going to be disagreement he'll stand by his principles, as he has throughout his community and his professional life.
I'd like the record to reflect the members opposite who are going to vote against an excellent candidate to serve the citizens of their community, Hamilton-Wentworth, on the DHC.
The Acting Chair: Further debate? We have a motion for concurrence and a request for a recorded vote.
Ayes
Doyle, Elliott, Ford, Bert Johnson, Leadston, Newman, Bob Wood.
Nays
Bartolucci, Silipo.
The Acting Chair: The motion is carried.
The government agencies committee is adjourned until next Wednesday; that is, if the House is sitting.
The committee adjourned at 1119.