INTENDED
APPOINTMENT
JOHN LACEY
REPORT, MANITOULIN-SUDBURY DISTRICT HEALTH COUNCIL
CONTENTS
Wednesday 19 June 1996
Committee business
Intended appointment
John Lacey
Subcommittee report
Report, Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président: Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)
*Bartolucci, Rick (Sudbury L)
*Crozier, Bruce (Essex South / -Sud L)
*Doyle, Ed (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
*Ford, Douglas B. (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
*Fox, Gary (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings / Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)
*Gravelle, Michael (Port Arthur L)
*Johnson, Bert (Perth PC)
Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)
*Leadston, Gary L. (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Newman, Dan (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
*Preston, Peter L. (Brant-Haldimand PC)
*Wood, Bob (London South / -Sud PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND) for Mr Kormos
Clerk / Greffière: Tannis Manikel
Staff / Personnel: David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1008 in room 228.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): Mr Martin, you've handed me something. Did you wish to speak to it before we start?
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Given that we called Mr Smith to the committee and that summer is upon us in the not-too-distant future and we can't get Mr Smith here in the next few weeks because of some commitments he has, one due to his health, I'm suggesting that we drop him as a person we want to interview and that the appointment should proceed as per usual.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): We appreciate Mr Martin's cooperation in this matter. It certainly is of assistance to Mr Smith.
The Chair: There's unanimous agreement on that then?
Mr Bob Wood: Agreement is not required. It's just a matter of whether or not somebody designated is withdrawn.
INTENDED APPOINTMENT
JOHN LACEY
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: John Lacey, intended appointee as member, Liquor Control Board of Ontario.
The Chair: We are ready to proceed with an intended appointment. The only person this morning is John Stewart Lacey. Welcome to the committee. The system works in a way in which you have a half-hour before the committee and you may make some opening remarks if you wish, and then each of the parties present has an opportunity to ask you some questions.
Mr John Lacey: Good morning. It may be useful if I give you a couple of minutes of background on myself. I'm the son of a British army officer and have been privileged to have quite an interesting international business experience that has predominantly been focused on retailing, distribution, wholesaling and hotels. I've been lucky enough to have worked in Africa, Europe and North America. I emigrated to Canada in 1979 and became a Canadian citizen in 1983.
I've had specific senior management responsibilities in hotels, in both the Holiday Inn and the Marriott groups, in South Africa, United Kingdom and Canada. At one stage in my career, I was managing director of a company called Rennies Liquor Holdings, which was a wine production, spirits production, importing and liquor retailing group owned by Jardines Matheson out of Hong Kong. I have a number of years of operating multifaceted businesses and a fairly large, diverse workforce.
My community interests have been predominantly around supporting a concept called Street Haven, which is an abuse centre for women. I'm involved with the North York Community Alliance -- we support it financially -- and that is an ethnic support group and offices to allow different communities to come together. I'm also on the executive for the Canadian Racing Drivers Association for the development of young Canadian race drivers and the funding thereof.
That's a little bit of what I do. I'm currently chief executive officer of Scott's Hospitality. I've been on the board and have been running that company since 1989.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Sir, you have a diverse background. I challenge any linguist to pick out your speech. It's a little bit of Australian, it sounds like. Have you ever been to Australia?
Mr Lacey: No. Actually, it's a little South African, a little Yorkshire and a little Canadian.
Mr Preston: When you put that all together, it sounds like somebody who's just been out of Australia for about 15 years.
As a successful businessman, will you have sufficient time to devote to the LCBO?
Mr Lacey: Yes, sir. I wouldn't have made myself available for this appointment if I couldn't make the time. I take these kinds of appointments seriously and I believe that if you can't devote the time and attention, you shouldn't be a candidate. I will make the time.
Mr Preston: There is a saying that if you want something done, ask a person who's too busy to do it and they usually get it done.
What do you have in mind for the goals of the LCBO?
Mr Lacey: I remain fairly open on the issue. I'm obviously just coming into this role. Clearly, we've got to review the mandate of the LCBO and look at that in light of the challenges, strategic issues and opportunities facing the LCBO. I would like to deal with that on a properly briefed basis, as I become aware of all the details. From my point of view, it's meeting the challenges and reviewing the strategic opportunities and the business plans of the organization.
Mr Preston: I was very happy to hear your first comment, that you're proud of your father's accomplishments. That's the first thing you said; that's fantastic.
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Welcome, Mr Lacey. Are you familiar with the mandate and the responsibilities of the LCBO?
Mr Lacey: I have read the mandate, yes.
Mr Ford: So you're familiar then; you've had a briefing on it.
Mr Lacey: I had a briefing on it.
Mr Ford: Why would you want to serve on the LCBO board of directors? Why the interest?
Mr Lacey: I believe my background gives me some grounding to make a contribution to the LCBO. I have known this industry from many quarters, from the dispensing side as well as the distribution end of it. I'm a large employer. I think I have something to contribute. Secondly, I've got to tell you that having emigrated to Canada and to Toronto, both Canada and Ontario have been very good to me and I'd like to put something back.
Mr Ford: You wouldn't have any conflict of interest?
Mr Lacey: Not at all, sir.
Mr Ford: In your opinion, should the LCBO look at generating larger profits for the province of Ontario?
Mr Lacey: It's got a huge responsibility in its contribution to the province and I think what we have to do is weigh that contribution against what opportunities are going to face this kind of organization. I think it would be premature for me to comment on whether that should be larger or smaller, but I think the level of responsibility and contribution to the province is significant, is important and should be reviewed in that light.
Mr Ford: That's a good answer.
Mr Bob Wood: We'd like to reserve the balance of our time.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good morning, Mr Lacey. Might I say at the outset that your experience, your background certainly seem to me to suit you well for this appointment. I would like to know the way you will approach it. If you've followed it at all, you will know that there is a bill before the Legislature at the present time that would essentially reduce the LCBO to its retailing function. Have you followed that and do you have any comment with respect to that?
Mr Lacey: I'm aware of the bill, but I think it would be premature for me to make a comment at this stage. As I'm just coming into this role, I would like to hear all the aspects, both of the bill and the mandate and challenge, and to listen to the senior management of the LCBO, as well as the province's desires, and look at those issues and as a director contribute to the future strategic plans of this company.
Mr Crozier: Can I interpret that, without putting words in your mouth -- but would you agree with me then if I say I think this gentleman, this appointment is open-minded?
Mr Lacey: Yes, sir.
Mr Crozier: You're willing to look at all the options and wouldn't hesitate to comment to all interested parties as to how you feel on privatization, improvements in retailing, marketing -- all those issues?
Mr Lacey: I will be open-minded.
Mr Crozier: I appreciate that and I think that's the way this issue needs to be looked at.
You've had a great deal of experience in marketing. I think LCBO profits in 1995 were somewhere in the neighbourhood of $680 million. There's some concern by many of us, if the LCBO is privatized, how that then might affect the revenues of the government; in other words, how would that $680 million be replaced? Do you have any speculation as to what might happen to prices if the LCBO were privatized?
Mr Lacey: I have no idea at this stage. From my point of view, we've got to look at the facts. I've not obviously had the opportunity to go through all the issues yet. I really can't comment, I can't speculate on that at this point in time, but the $680 million, in terms of the needs of the province, is obviously important.
Mr Crozier: From your private life and your experience, do you have any concern with alcoholic beverages being sold privately as opposed to being sold from a government-regulated retail outlet?
Mr Lacey: I don't have any issues either way. I think the issue of the dispensing part of it has to be one of responsibility. It is a substance that can be abused. It is a substance that is not allowed to be consumed by minors. The methodology of control and the process is probably a significant contributing factor here.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Certainly your qualifications are very impressive, and I congratulate you for coming forward and wanting to serve.
Just one simple question: You have an extensive business background. In any of the companies you worked with, did they ever sell a holding that was making substantial money for them?
Mr Lacey: Yes, sir.
1020
Mr Bartolucci: Would you describe why they did and what was the method of sale?
Mr Lacey: We sold Black's Photography a couple of years ago. It was a good contributor to our business, had an excellent market share across the country, but our strategic view of that company was that we were on the wrong end of the power play for margins. We saw around the world a Kodak-Fuji war emerging and as the production gross margins were substantial and the retailing margins were minimal and we saw that Kodak was in fact becoming a 50% partner of most of the processing houses of film, we felt that this company was going to face some serious strategic issues, would need a great deal of attention and more importantly would need a partnership with the kind of person who had the gross margins to carry it through. So we discussed the sale of that with both Fuji and with Kodak, and ended up selling it to Fuji Canada.
Mr Bartolucci: Just a follow-up to that, and it is a simple one. Because of your business background, what you're saying is that the board of directors weighed both sides and they chose the best one before they proceeded. They had all the facts; they gathered all the information and they weighed not only the short-term but the long-term consequences of either sale or keeping it. Are you prepared to do that as a member of the board and provide recommendations to the government?
Mr Lacey: Yes.
Mr Crozier: Just one more quick question, if I could, because this has raised something. Do you think, sir, that government can be run like a business?
Mr Lacey: Yes.
Mr Crozier: Without any equivocation? It's no different than a business?
Mr Lacey: I think it can be run along similar lines to business, yes.
Mr Crozier: So not exactly.
Mr Lacey: You have me at a slight disadvantage, sir. I've never been in government. But I think in principle it can be run similarly.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Mr Lacey. Just in terms of your experience as executive vice-president of the Molson companies from 1984 to 1988, how does the brewing industry, the beer industry, view the possibility of privatizing the LCBO? Do they have a position on it?
Mr Lacey: I have no idea, sir. I've been out of Molson since 1988.
Mr Gravelle: Right, but at that time was the operation of the LCBO ever discussed in terms of --
Mr Lacey: Not in my quarter, sir. My responsibilities were all the non-brewing, so from that point of view -- I was on the executive committee, obviously, but at the executive committee level I don't recall the LCBO being discussed on a privatization basis.
Mr Gravelle: The whole privatization issue is obviously a reasonably contentious one, for a variety of reasons, and it obviously would be helpful or useful if you had some thoughts on it from a personal point of view, but I presume what you're saying is at this stage you really don't.
Mr Lacey: No, sir.
Mr Gravelle: But you're open to looking at all sides.
Mr Lacey: Yes, sir.
Mr Gravelle: Fair enough. Thank you.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr Lacey, welcome.
It was a very curious thing to me. The government wants to get out of the LCBO and here we have an interested member who's well qualified who wants to get in. So it was a question for me as to why you might have an interest in coming in when the government is ready to get out of it. I thought you might not want to answer that in this way, but I want to ask you a question around privatization, because that's really what interests me and that's really what I'm concerned about.
To the question of, "Can government run like a business" -- I'm sure it can. The problem we have is that when it runs like a business, something is lost in the process. Who worries about the public interest and who worries about the good society and what a good society is all about? When government wants to run like a business, it says, "In order to keep our profits up, we have to lay thousands of people off," so they're off into the streets. Who worries about those people when we run government like a business? That is my concern around the question that was asked and your answer about governments being able to run like a business. Do you have a comment on that?
Mr Lacey: I thought I qualified myself on the basis of saying that I had not been in government.
Mr Marchese: You haven't been in. I realize that.
Mr Lacey: You've got to view a certain bias towards a business aspect. It's difficult for me to speculate on that.
Mr Marchese: I understand. There are two arguments that have been proposed by Norm Sterling when he speaks about privatization. In one of them he argues, "The LCBO fails to adequately ensure it does not sell products to those under the legal age of 19." According to Mr Sterling, there's some evidence from the US to suggest that private sector stores are more aggressive at challenging young customers for proof of age. He advances this particular argument, at least one of them, as to why we might want to privatize it, because running it as a government, he suggests by inference here, we're not doing a good job of weeding out those young men or women who come in who might be under the age of 19, so if we privatize it we might get better enforcement of that particular issue. Do you have a view on that?
Mr Lacey: As I said earlier, I think one of the important aspects in considering this process is to make sure that the alcohol is dispensed in an appropriate and responsible way. I think that has to come with the process.
Mr Marchese: I agree with that, and I'm assuming all of our workers do that diligently because nobody wants to sell to anybody who's under the age of 19. So I'm assuming that we do that well and that that continues, and that's a concern obviously of board members like yourself.
Mr Lacey: I have no experience in it right now.
Mr Marchese: I understand. He also uses another argument and says, "Between 1980 and 1995, the LCBO costs expressed as a percentage of sales increased from 10% to about 18%." According to Mr Sterling, this is evidence of poor management and excessive wage costs. We have been doing relatively well for the last 10 years in terms of our sales and net profits. In 1995-96 we made $680 million. I don't take pride necessarily in the fact that we have a lot more increases and that people are probably drinking more. Nevertheless, we're doing well in terms of profits, but he obviously is arguing that this is evidence of poor management and excessive wage costs. Do you have a view on that?
Mr Lacey: I've read the same document that you have. My initial reaction to the numbers was that earnings have been somewhat flat for some time. They've increased a little bit recently. Costs have gone up. If you look at that in real dollars, there has been a real downturn in the contribution to the province. I would say that the expense ratio is probably higher than that of our retail experiences over the same period of time. So there are some indications in those numbers that the LCBO has been struggling with a few issues. Without having the insight of knowing what all those numbers mean, I would guess that they need some attention.
Mr Marchese: So we could probably do better, obviously, is what you're suggesting, and you'd have to look at it and you'd have to be there to look at that very closely. I understand that.
Mr Lacey: All I'm implying is if you look at the -- the chairman will concur with me that if you look at the inflation impact of those numbers over a long period of time, there have been some opposite trends in those issues. I think they just need some attention. I don't understand them at this stage. I have not been privy to the background of those and therefore it's hard for me to speculate.
Mr Marchese: I understand that, except we all have views before we get into certain boards. It's not as if we are completely neutral in this regard. I understand you have to be in there to understand the detail, but before we enter into something we have a sense of what we like and what we don't like, and that's what we're trying to get from you. I appreciate it's difficult to state opinions on these matters, but this is of primary importance and there are a number of people who are worried about this.
We have the Wine Council of Ontario that's against privatization, the Addiction Research Foundation. Mr Brandt himself is expressing some concerns around privatization. There is the issue of privatization resulting in significant job losses and wage reductions, privatization will mean a loss to the provincial treasury of the $600 million we collect, and a host of other concerns. We think it's working well, and, yes, people like yourself can enter into the board and attempt to make that better in terms of how we manage that, but whether managing it better means that we privatize is something that we completely disagree with. That's why we wanted to understand whether you had views on the matter or not.
1030
Mr Lacey: I have an open mind on it.
Mr Marchese: Thank you very much, Mr Lacey.
The Chair: Any other questions from any of the parties? If not, Mr Lacey, thank you very much for coming before the committee. Just so you know how the process works, the committee now has the opportunity to discuss your appointment. You're welcome to stay or leave. It's entirely up to you whether you want to be here and blush as all those things are said about you.
Mr Lacey: I'll decline the honour, Chairman. I'll leave you to your deliberations. Thank you. I appreciate appearing in front of you.
The Chair: Okay. We can deal with the issue of concurrence or not of Mr Lacey.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence on the intended appointment of Mr Lacey.
The Chair: We have a motion. Do you wish to speak to that?
Mr Bob Wood: I'll defer my comments to the end.
The Chair: Okay. Any comments from the official opposition?
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, just as a brief comment, we noticed that Mr Lacey says he's got an open mind and we have to trust that that is the case, and if that is so, then we concur with the motion.
The Chair: Okay. You've heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? It's carried unanimously. Thank you very much.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: We are ready to move to the subcommittee report, which should be before you.
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chair, if it's in order, I'd like to move the adoption of the subcommittee report.
The Chair: Members will note that each of the parties selected someone for review and all would be held on June 26, a week from today. Any debate on that? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried. Thank you for that.
REPORT, MANITOULIN-SUDBURY DISTRICT HEALTH COUNCIL
The Chair: The last item of business is the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council report, which you have had before you and is now open for debate as to how we proceed with it. You'll note as well that on the report on the very back page there are two recommendations put forth by Mr Wood and his colleagues. That will stand as part of the report if it's voted on and carried, and it's up to the opposition as to whether or not they wish to have any dissenting views on that. So the report is open for debate.
Mr Bob Wood: On a point of order, Mr Chair: As I understand it, we have before the committee now the motion to adopt the report.
The Chair: Right.
Mr Marchese: That was a separate motion. Isn't this item number 3, Mr Chair, draft report on?
The Chair: On the agenda? Number 5.
Mr Marchese: Number 5, right. So it's a separate report other than "Report of the subcommittee on committee business." That was the motion we just dealt with and now we're on item number 5?
The Chair: Exactly. Mr Pond, our research officer, has written the report without recommendations and then Mr Wood moved a motion, as I recall it, to attach these two recommendations and that the report be --
Mr Bob Wood: I'm moving the report with those two recommendations, or at least I'm attempting to. If I have not done it properly, that's what I'm attempting to do.
The Chair: That's fine. That's the proper way to do it. So you have a motion before us then that this report be accepted with these two recommendations.
Mr Bob Wood: That's my motion.
The Chair: Do you wish to speak to that now?
Mr Bob Wood: Yes. Perhaps I could briefly speak to it. We think that the current system of appointments to the district health councils works well. We have recommendations from the councils themselves and a final decision's made by the minister. We think an advisory group has to be a group that the minister has confidence in and we think that system permits us to get those kinds of people on the advisory groups. We also think that they have to give advice in accordance with the decisions that are made by the minister because that's basically the only way that an advisory group can function effectively. So those in essence are the reasons for the recommendations that we have put forward.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Mr Bartolucci: If you look at the spirit of the law and then you look at the letter of the law, you're looking at two different things in this instance, because if we were to look at the spirit of the law, it has worked successfully in the past, there has been no question. What's happened in the past, in particular with the Sudbury district health council, is that the process has been carried through, the appointees have been screened, the recommendations have been made to the minister and the minister has accepted those recommendations because he felt they clearly reflected the view of the community.
This has not been the case since this government came to power. The DHC's recommendations for appointments have not been accepted by the minister, reappointments have not been accepted by the minister, and what's happened is that chaos, literally chaos, has taken place at the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council and it's hurt the community a great deal. It hurts a fragile community that has struggled with restructuring.
But the restructuring process has been an open one. The Liberal representative from Sudbury and the NDP representatives from Sudbury East and Nickel Belt disagreed, but the one thing we did agree on was that the process was open. Effectively, that ceased with the last round of appointments by the minister to the district health council in Sudbury, and it's led to what I consider to be a diminishing of trust in the government's agenda for hospital restructuring in Sudbury on the part of the community. I see that as sad, because I honestly believed and worked towards ensuring that that type of consensus-building that I thought may be a part of the restructuring in Sudbury with this government just hasn't materialized. In fact, if anything, it has caused more deterioration in the system.
It's led, sadly, to massive resignations at the district health council in Sudbury. I'm going to refer to two long-serving members, two members who are contributing members to the community at large, and their letter of resignation or speech of resignation at the last district health council.
The first one will be from Sylvia Martineau. She rose on a point of personal privilege and said:
"After careful deliberation, thoughtful consideration and much soul-searching, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot, in all conscience, continue to be a party to the actions of this council. My personal moral and ethical values do not allow it.
"Much of what council has `accomplished' since the new members have taken office has, in my view, been counterproductive. These `accomplishments' appear to have been driven by the agenda of an unseen party.
"Mr Chair, I have come to the conclusion that the only `common sense' action left for me is to resign my seat on council. Fighting this fight from within is not possible. My voice is no longer heard on the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council.
"I feel bad for the new members of DHCs who have been appointed at the prerogative of the Minister of Health. The new members on the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council have shown themselves to be hardworking and dedicated. In the normal course of council appointments, individually they would make valued members of council. As a bloc, they represent the end of the apolitical process that both the Information Guide for Appointments to District Health Councils and our own DHC bylaws attempt to ensure. As appointees through the prerogative of the Minister of Health, they are perceived as politically parachuted pawns.
"Before I relinquish my point of personal privilege, I want to acknowledge and extend my thanks to people I have worked with over the past years. From each of you, I have learned a great deal about the challenges facing our health care system and the processes and roadblocks that need to be manoeuvred and overcome in realizing solutions to these challenges...."
"To the new members of council, I urge you to reconsider your position. Consider the perceptions of the community to your appointments. Decide for yourself, on an individual basis, whether or not you can continue to look yourself in the eye each morning if you stay this path.
"To the people of this community, I urge you not to tolerate the actions of the current government in stacking the deck. The so-called `consensus' gained through this skewed process will not represent what our community needs or wants from its health care system. Show your displeasure and your concern by writing or calling your member of Parliament, the Minister of Health and the Premier. Urge your mayor, city and regional council representatives to take up the fight. Continue to write letters to the editor to local and provincial newspapers. Keep these issues alive and make your viewpoints known.
"Mr Chair, as my last and final act as vice-chair, Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council --
"I resign."
1040
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Mr Chair, on a point of order: I didn't get the name of that person.
Mr Bartolucci: I said it at the beginning, but I'll say it again: Sylvia Martineau.
The second letter I'll refer to only briefly is from Rosarii Pearce, a very, very involved individual in the community.
"I rise on a question of privilege. As a question of privilege I would like to present my resignation from council and the executive and give my rationale.
"I am extremely uncomfortable with the account I received of items discussed at the in camera meeting on Friday, May 31, 1996....
"It is with great regret and sadness that I resign as a council member of the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council. I have served on this council for approximately two years and I have enjoyed it. It held meaning for me and I felt that I was trying to make a contribution to my community. It was my way of giving something back....
"In Sudbury, we have spent the last several years reviewing our hospital system and in the process we have spent approximately half a million dollars on this review. It was supposed to be a `made in Sudbury' solution, but as we all know, that is no longer true.
"The health council has disagreed with the Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, very openly and very publicly and the minister has chosen to appoint his way out of a corner.
"Apparently, Mr Wilson felt that the decisions in Sudbury were making him look bad, but the solution to Sudbury's health care crisis is not about him looking good or bad.
"The minister's arrogance at not reappointing council members whose order in council had expired was not only a slap in the face to these council members but to the community at large. The question has been asked why these reappointments did not occur and we have yet to receive an answer. We realize it is the minister's prerogative, as he has so eloquently told us on so many occasions, but he lost sight of one thing, and that is that a health council is supposed to be reflective of the community it serves -- and not the government's agenda."
She goes on to thank the people she worked with. But she also says:
"I want to remind everyone concerned that I am not here only as a private individual, but I am also the nominee of the Sudbury and District Labour Council, to whom I intend to present a comprehensive report of what has occurred in the last several months. Organized labour considers itself the watchdog of the community, and you are now on notice that we will be monitoring this council very carefully. If you think I am disappointed and angry with what has happened, let me enlighten you. Organized labour is equally disappointed and angry!!!! I think it was best said in the Sudbury Star's Daily Quote by Lyn McLeod (Liberal leader): `What is happening across the province is the terrorism of the Common Sense Revolution having its effect on our people in our communities.'
"My parting word to this neo-conservative government in response to their treatment of volunteers and the communities they serve is `Shame'!!!!" and she resigns.
These two individuals were followed by two more resignations. You will remember that Bob Knight and Ken Ferguson presented their case to us as a committee. Bob Knight is no longer employed by the district health council. In what could only be perceived as backroom bargaining and a deal struck by the new appointees, Bob Knight was terminated. I want to tell you, this is what's wrong when we live by the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law.
Obviously, because you as government members have the majority on this committee, this motion will probably be adopted. But let me tell you, it's wrong, it doesn't serve the best needs of the community, it certainly has harmed Sudbury, it is not something the people of Sudbury will quickly forget, and it shows the disdain this government has for not only Sudbury, not only the Sudbury region, not only northern Ontario but in fact all of Ontario. The concerns, the voices of communities around this province are not important if they disagree with the minister.
Your district health council in Sudbury is useless. It cannot, will not be able to accomplish the goals set out by a district health council until we return to the process that is employed, that is recommended and that has in the past been carried out to ensure that the district health council is apolitical rather than partisan in politics.
The Chair: I wonder if I could interrupt proceedings just for a moment to introduce a delegation from Ethiopia. These are Ethiopian members of Parliament who are here looking at the committee system in particular. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. We hope your visit is fruitful.
Mr Martin: I certainly concur with the thoughts and comments of the member for Sudbury and want to put that into some context re this whole question and how it fits into the broader agenda and approach of the present government in terms of getting its business done and its approach to governing; its respect, or lack of respect, of some of the ways that have been developed over a number of years in how district health councils and other advisory bodies that have been given a mandate by various governments to work with government around questions of how services are delivered in various jurisdictions and areas of the province.
We have here a report that is one of two things. It's an example of a government that is bound and determined to make its mark, to have its agenda become the order of the day, to twist arms to that end and not concern itself at all about either the direct or indirect negative fallout or indeed, in this instance, carnage that happens. I'll speak to that in just a minute.
It's either an example of what the present government feels needs to be done to get its agenda done, to get on with business, to shape this province in its own likeness, or it is just a terrible indictment of a government that has absolutely no respect for or understanding of the way things have evolved in this province over a number of years: the very delicate balance between advisory groups that in some very important and fundamental ways speak for the people they represent and are appointed from, the area which they serve and have some immediate understanding of and connection to, and the wants and desires and agenda of a particular government. There's a delicate balance there.
Governing is a very sophisticated, difficult at best, and challenging piece of business to be involved in, and over the years governments have found ways to balance those two issues and to work with people around them over a period of time.
1050
Certainly district health councils have struggled and are still struggling because they're a relatively new organization out there. They're struggling to gain the confidence of the people they work with. I know in my own area of Sault Ste Marie, there is always this pull and tug between people who have a direct interest in the governance of hospitals and the consumers who get the services that are delivered by hospitals. In our area we have the group health centre, which is a unique and interesting approach to delivering health services, we have the various organizations that represent workers and then we have the general public. We have a very interesting and delicate balance of interests that are brought together at the district health council to discuss the concerns they have re how health care is delivered in our area. They try, with the help of the executive director and the chair and their connection to an Ontario-wide organization of district health councils, to be reasonable, balanced, unbiased, and in the end to operate in the best interests of both the province and the area they represent.
In this instance we have an example of how all that goes very wrong when one side gets more power than the other in a way that just totally throws the scale out of whack. In this instance we have a district health council that is now, for all intents and purposes, thrown to the wolves, because nobody knows any more what the role is and who they're responsible -- well, they know who they're responsible to, but do they have the confidence of the people of the Sudbury and Manitoulin area re the decisions they make?
For a government to govern -- and certainly in some instances, my experience from being in government for five years is a perfect example of that -- you need to take the time to make sure that everybody's on side with any new initiative, particularly with an initiative as important and critical in this day and age as how we deliver health services and how we restructure hospitals.
I know in my own area we had a restructuring of two hospitals, we had a coming together of two boards of directors, so that we have now, for all intents and purposes, one delivery agent in our community. That took a fair amount of time, it took a lot of discussion between folks who had different interests and approaches, but at the end of the day we arrived at something that we could all accept and agree to. Life is unfolding and we don't have the turmoil that I expect is now happening in Sudbury.
We don't have mass resignations from the district health council over this. We have generally an acceptance and approval of the plan; mind you, not without continuing difficulty as we try to come to terms with the further very difficult cuts being imposed in health care, if I might be political for a second, under a government that suggested during an election campaign that it wasn't going to cut funding to health care.
What we have here is a district health council that's in disarray. We have mass resignations happening. We had the executive director and the chair of the board, who came before us in a very brave and courageous effort to try to unveil, expose, talk to us about what they saw as some very troubling undertakings that were not in the best interests of the delivery of health care in the Sudbury-Manitoulin area, and now they're gone.
They came here knowing full well probably that by telling the truth about this situation they would be gone. I don't know what the future is for the executive director of that board, but if having the courage to tell the truth, if having the courage of your conviction is a plus -- and I'm not sure whether it will be, in the environment that's being generated in this province right now as we see so much of this type of intimidation happening. I don't know what's going to happen to this man. That's another issue, but I have some concern about him and about others who find themselves having some difficulty with the agenda of this government ending up without work, and in such an unsavoury manner as this. So we have that.
We also have on record somewhere a letter from the head of the Association of District Health Councils of Ontario expressing concern around the way appointments are made to district health councils in this province. This Manitoulin-Sudbury example is the most obvious and the one that we're looking at now, but I worry whether in fact, as the government runs into some resistance, some questioning, some difficulty with other health councils as it goes about its work, this will just be the beginning of this kind of approach.
Ultimately, the question we all have to ask -- and I'm going to be voting to accept the report, although I have some difficulty with the way the recommendations are worded, but that's all right. I can go ahead with that in that what's being recommended here is simply a reaffirmation of what was laid down by previous governments.
The difficulty we have, and I think it's spoken to in the body of the report, is that now, where over a period of years there was an evolution of participation by the district health council in recruitment and making recommendations to the minister re appointments, and the minister concurred after some discussion, normally, with those recommendations, we have now today just a complete disregard for that process and a moving to a more minister-driven appointment process.
I hope that anybody reading this report would understand that we need to get back to that very delicate balance of the government needing to have some say and play some role but, more importantly, an area having some say and some role in who represents them, who's going to give voice to their concerns and to the image and vision that they have for the way health care is delivered in their particular area.
I see this as a very fundamental challenge to the whole concept of democracy as it has evolved in this province over a period of years. This is very troubling, and has to be, I think, for any of you across the way who has any interest in democracy, in this balance of listening to people as well as getting your agenda done and trying to find a way to do that with as little trauma as possible to both the system and to the area that's being served.
What we have as part of this, unspoken, but I think in the examples and words that Mr Bartolucci has put on the table today, is an act of blatant vengeance on a group that had the courage to go out and participate in an exercise of public consultation, come back and make a recommendation and then not only have the recommendation dismissed but themselves dismissed and, because of this, a complete overhaul of the way decisions are made in Manitoulin-Sudbury around the question of delivery of health services and, in this instance particularly, the way hospitals will be governed.
1100
It is with all of that said and put on the record that I will be supporting adopting this report because in it is an indictment, as far as I'm concerned, of this government and its approach to the use of or, in this instance, the abuse of advisory councils such as the district health councils. I hope that in your wisdom, in the collective wisdom of the folks across the table here who have participated in this discussion, you encourage the minister, encourage your government to get back to a collaborative, a respectful give-and-take approach to the way we go out and get information, the way we cooperate with people around the putting together of plans and the way that ultimately, then, services are delivered.
Mr Marchese: I appreciate my colleague's interest in supporting these recommendations as a way of alerting the public as they read them that somehow they will reject what's happened here. I want to say that I will oppose these motions profoundly. I reject them the way they are written and I reject them particularly in the context of what this report says. You can't isolate the motions from the context of this report. When you read the report, as I did last night, knowing that I was subbing in this committee, I found it profoundly disturbing.
All the new members across the way don't have a clue what their former colleague said, so it's a lot easier for them to simply go along with the recommendation that I find disturbing and vile, which I'm sure they find acceptable because it seems, well, the government has to do what it has to do. But if you had listened to your members, had you been here when they were in this committee for years and berated our government in terms of our appointment process and said they were going to be different, and you look at this report and what's contained in it, it should disturb all of you. It's an embarrassment.
I want to take you through some of these things. I'm sure you read it, but just for the sake of repeating it again:
"Since January 1, the government has appointed eight new members to the Manitoulin-Sudbury DHC. These appointments are controversial....None of the eight were recommended to the minister by the DHC....The minister has declined to appoint any of the 16 prospective members recommended by the DHC, including four experienced members seeking reappointment."
I thought that you as a government were very concerned about streamlining, making agencies more effective and efficient, giving them the tools to be able to do the job right.
Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Um-hm.
Mr Marchese: You nod, saying um-hm, but here is a DHC saying, "We recommend these to you, Minister," and the minister says, "Sorry, they don't agree with me, so I'm not going to appoint them." Clearly what it says is: "If the people we appoint agree with us or the people already appointed agree with us, then we'll make them more efficient and give them the tools and power, but if they disagree with me, I will take the tools away. What do I do? I'll simply not reappoint any of the members, not appoint any that the DHC has recommended; I'm going to appoint my own so that I can do what I want."
If you follow through this, it's an embarrassment. I'm not sure how you could accept that without some critical analysis of what you're doing.
It goes on. Mr Ferguson says, "The undermining of the order-in-council recruitment process, and in particular the DHC's role in recruitment, creates a perceived conflict of interest and compromises the neutral objective role of DHCs in health planning."
Isn't that what you wanted as a government: neutral, objective roles of the DHCs in the health planning? Don't you want to listen to people, as you say you do? You say you consult. Here is a DHC that is consulting with the minister, talking to the minister, recommending to the minister, and the minister doesn't listen to that. Don't you find that profoundly disturbing? As I read it, I did.
It goes on to say, "People perceive that the accountability of DHCs to their communities has been damaged." Clearly these people are there representing communities. The minister says: "I'm sorry; that's not good enough. We're not going to listen to that because it doesn't agree with what I want."
"Experienced council members feel the DHC appointments process is being `corrupted' in order to manufacture a false consensus on the council regarding hospital restructuring issues." Clear to me.
"They also feel that the new appointments were made as a punitive measure" -- that's clear too -- "imposed by the minister to `punish' the council for submitting advice to the minister which challenges the status quo on hospital governance in Sudbury."
The government members go on to suggest -- that's some of you here who were quoted, obviously, who spoke last time around -- that it was "entirely reasonable for a Minister of Health to appoint to an advisory body such as a DHC new members who shared his views...."
Don't you find that troublesome and profoundly disturbing?
Mr Preston: A reasonable direction.
Mr Ford: They change the management on many boards of companies and corporations around the world. This happens every day.
Mr Marchese: Oh, yes, every day.
Mr Ford: Yes.
Mr Marchese: Interesting.
Mr Ford: Especially when they're going down the hill. That's what happened at Algoma Steel.
Mr Marchese: If you don't mind, I have the floor for a moment. You can have the floor afterwards.
The government members say: "That's reasonable. If they don't agree with me, that's what they do in business and that's what I'm going to do as a businessman: me, Mr Wilson, me, the rest of the government members," as has been recorded here, I hope. "Where they disagree with us, we're not interested in consulting with them. We will only consult with people who agree with us." It's a profound, stupid approach to doing business.
I know, Mr Fox, you're looking up at the ceiling, but I tell you, I think anybody following these proceedings is going to find it as disturbing as I did.
Then the committee recommends and says this: "The committee endorses the current process of appointments...." How could you be endorsing the current mode or process of appointments to the district health council when you as a committee and the minister say: "Sorry, we don't agree with that. Yes, you recommended the eight people and we rejected all the 16 recommendations you've made, but we still accept and endorse the current process of appointments"? How could you do that? Isn't it hypocritical to do that? To say you accept it and then to reject everything they endorse is -- I'm not sure. It's major, major, galloping stupidity, as I see it.
Then the last one says, "The committee encourages DHCs to give their best advice to the minister, and to do so in a manner consistent with decisions and policies set out by the minister." It's draconian, as I see it.
Mr Preston: Oh, that word, finally. You finally got it in.
Mr Marchese: Do you remember that word? Some of you popped in to the employment equity hearings. I'm not sure I remember some of you, but some of you were there, and you said, oh, employment equity, that's very draconian because it imposes its will on people. And on the Advocacy Commission you said, oh, that was very draconian, because it imposes its will on people. Here you have a draconian recommendation, a draconian measure taken by the minister and supported by you, and you see nothing wrong with that. How can you contradict yourself so easily and not feel moved by that contradiction or feel somehow that it should trouble you?
Again, as I see it, if you don't like something, it's draconian, but if you do like it, it's okay. It's all right for Minister Snobelen to send his staff or for his staff to go and tell a principal that what she had done was not appropriate; that's not draconian. It's all right for Minister Cunningham to go to a group of agencies and say to them, "You'd better do this, or else."
1110
Mr Preston: Mr Chair, could we get back on the subject?
Mr Marchese: Oh, I'm perfectly on the subject.
Mr Preston: You're not perfect on anything. Would you get back on the subject?
Mr Marchese: I am perfectly on the subject. I am making links that you don't want to hear, I suggest, but the links are very clear to me.
Mr Preston: The only links you make are sausage. Come on, let's get back to --
Mr Marchese: The only links are what?
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Marchese: Sorry, I didn't hear that comment.
Interjection: "The only link you make is sausage."
The Chair: Mr Preston, let Mr Marchese complete his remarks.
Mr Marchese: "The only link you make is sausage"?
Interjection: Yes. It's reflective of the kind of stuff these guys throw at us here.
The Chair: Don't be deterred, Mr Marchese, by interjections.
Mr Marchese: What people say sometimes interests me, so I like to follow up on what they say. Anyway --
Mr Preston: Then I won't say anything.
Mr Marchese: You should, because I enjoy that. I want to hear your views and I want to hear what Mr Wood has to say after our comments, because I'm very interested in what he has to say in defence of these recommendations that can't be supported. I find these draconian. You are imposing your will on the public. You are imposing your will on anybody who disagrees with you, and you find that acceptable. I find it disturbing. It should be an embarrassment to you, but you are not embarrassed by this.
I think the points have been made. I can't support these recommendations. They are vile. They're draconian. It's an imposition of this government's will on a DHC that's trying to do its job. It imposes its will by making sure they don't listen to their views and it puts its members to the DHC in order to be able to carry out its political will. I find that profoundly disturbing.
Mr Martin: I think Mr Marchese makes some excellent points and certainly it's flowing from his comments that I would move an amendment to the recommendations as such. It reads as follows.
"The committee recommends that:
"1. The committee endorses the current process of appointments to the district health council," and that it stop there.
"2. The committee encourages DHCs to give their best advice to the minister," and that it stop there.
Those would be the two recommendations I would move by way of amendment to what's there now.
Mr Marchese: Those are good amendments.
The Chair: It's been declared.
Mr Martin: If I might very briefly speak to them, I think the report speaks for itself and I've put my comments on the record about that. The present process of appointment has evolved over a number of years and flows from a very simple statement in the act itself, actually, which suggests that the minister makes appointments. That's all. That's all that's in there.
So there's a body of experience over time that is now looked on. In fact, most DHCs, and maybe Mr Pond can clarify this for us, have bylaws that speak to how appointments are made, which is covered in the amendment I have made here: "The committee endorses the current process of appointments to the district health council." To include the last half of that is, in my mind, after listening to Mr Bartolucci and Mr Marchese, to ignore completely some of the problems that have been pointed out in the report we have in front of us here. It's motherhood, I suppose, to support the brief statement in number 2, which I'm proposing be the amended statement: "The committee encourages DHCs to give their best advice to the minister."
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, I would like the government members to speak to some of these things.
The Chair: It's up to them.
Mr Marchese: Could you encourage them to do so?
Mr Bob Wood: We will. We don't support either amendment. We think the specific guidance given in the initial motion is what's needed.
The Chair: Is there any further debate on the amendments put by Mr Martin?
Mr Marchese: I want to hear some arguments.
The Chair: Are we ready to vote on the amendments, and then we'll go to the main motion? You're ready for that? All those in favour?
Mr Marchese: Sorry. Mr Martin's amendments?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Marchese: Yes, okay. Recorded vote.
The Chair: Shall we do them as a pair, deal with both together?
Mr Marchese: Yes.
The Chair: All those in favour of the two amendments put by Mr Martin, please indicate. There is a sub --
Mr Bob Wood: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I think we have to determine who is voting for the New Democrats.
The Chair: That's what I just started to say. There's a sub on the committee this morning.
Mr Bob Wood: They only get one vote. It may be different in two days, Peter. Put your hand down, Mr Kormos.
The Chair: All right. Are you ready?
Ayes
Bartolucci, Marchese, Martin.
Nays
Doyle, Ford, Fox, Bert Johnson, Leadston, Preston, Bob Wood.
The Chair: The two amendments are lost. Can we go back to the main motion now?
Mr Marchese: I want a recorded vote.
The Chair: Mr Wood did earlier say he might speak to the motion. Do you wish to make any comments?
Mr Bob Wood: No. I have nothing to add to what I've already said.
The Chair: Is the committee ready for the question? Could we deal with them as a pair again, the two motions?
Mr Bartolucci: Just as a final comment, I believe the government is putting its restructuring commission, its arm's-length restructuring commission, in a bind here in Sudbury because it takes away from the credibility of the commission for hospital restructuring.
Let me tell you, this motion does nothing for health services restructuring in Sudbury. In fact, the players in Sudbury, the partners in Sudbury, the health care partners in Sudbury, believe firmly the process is now tainted, and what could have been and what would have naturally evolved as excellent recommendations and implementations are now and will in the future be viewed as partisan. That will not serve the greater or better needs of the Sudbury region.
Mr Marchese: Is there a way of putting beside my disagreement "profound, profound disagreement"? Is there a way of doing that?
The Chair: There is always the opportunity for opposition to put in dissenting recommendations, but that's entirely up to you.
Mr Martin: And we'll do that.
The Chair: But no, we won't record it that way. Is the committee ready for the question, and can we deal with them as a pair once again?
Mr Bob Wood: Sure.
The Chair: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Doyle, Ford, Fox, Bert Johnson, Leadston, Preston, Bob Wood.
Nays
Bartolucci, Marchese, Martin.
The Chair: The recommendations are carried.
The next item we must deal with is the reporting of this now. On a point of something?
Mr Martin: No, on the reporting. I want it known that we will be tabling a minority report.
Interjection: I'm profoundly surprised.
The Chair: Order, please. We only have about a week left in the session, and if you want this report to be tabled this session, there is the issue of translation that must be dealt with. This is directed at you, Mr Martin, because if you want to put in dissenting opinions, that's your right, of course, but if you want the report presented to the House, it must be translated -- there's a long tradition of that -- before that's done. If you wait a week before you bring in your dissenting opinions, there's no way that can happen.
Mr Martin: I would bring that to you this morning. I have them right here.
The Chair: All right. If that's the case, then I would assume we can try and get the translation done for some time next week, or as early as possible.
That doesn't answer the question of how you want this reported to the House.
Mr Bob Wood: We're open to suggestions from the opposition members on that.
The Chair: Remember this debate we had before about how it's reported to the House?
Mr Martin: I suggest that we report it to the House with a request that there be a debate, because this is a fundamental change in the way business is done in this province. It's an example of a change in approach and attitude re the role of advisory committees.
Mr Bob Wood: I think the technical thing is we table it and recommend it to the House.
The Chair: You recommend the adoption of the report, is the way the Chair would stand up and present it to the House.
Mr Bob Wood: I'm happy to move that motion.
Mr Martin: We would want it with debate.
The Chair: Then it would have to be scheduled, and that's up to the House leaders to schedule that. Is that agreed? Do we need a motion?
Mr Bob Wood: I just move that --
The Chair: Move the motion that the report be presented, with a recommendation for adoption?
Mr Bob Wood: Yes.
The Chair: All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Anything else? We'll work on trying to get that translation done.
The clerk has just brought something to my attention too. The committee can ask for a comprehensive report from the minister within 120 days on this particular issue, if the committee wishes to do that, but it would need a motion from the committee to do that.
Mr Bartolucci: I so move.
Mr Martin: I second that motion.
Mr Bob Wood: I'd like to speak to that, Mr Chair. I think this issue has been fully aired and there's no purpose in spending any more time on it. We're opposed to that.
Mr Martin: You're afraid of that.
Mr Bartolucci: In all fairness, this is the first of what I hope won't be many but what I view to be the first of many. I suggest that we must have this report, because what we're doing is setting, I think, pioneer philosophy for future governments. I think it is worthy of as much input as possible, certainly from the minister, because he wants to so directly involve himself in this. So I would suggest that, with all due respect, Mr Wood is wrong, and I would hope you would reconsider and support it.
Mr Marchese: Recorded vote.
The Chair: Okay, there's been a motion put to have a comprehensive response from the minister on this report within 120 days. That's clear? Are you ready for the question?
Ayes
Bartolucci, Marchese, Martin.
Nays
Doyle, Ford, Fox, Bert Johnson, Leadston, Preston, Wood.
The Chair: Mr Johnson?
Mr Bartolucci: He's waving.
The Chair: I thought maybe his arm was stuck up there. Is there any other business?
Mr Bob Wood: I move that the committee adjourn.
The Chair: The committee is adjourned. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned at 1124.