INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
RAYMOND KEMP
CONTENTS
Wednesday 8 May 1996
Intended appointments
Raymond Kemp
John Hollingsworth
Subcommittee report
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)
*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)
*Ross, Lillian (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
*Wood, Bob (London South / -Sud PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming K) for Mr Gravelle
Martiniuk, Gerry (Cambridge PC) for Mr Newman
Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC) for Mr Preston
Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:
Brown, Michael A.
Clerk / Greffière: Tannis Manikel
Staff / Personnel: David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1005 in room 228.
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The committee on government agencies will come to order. You have your agenda in front of you. The New Democrats are not here yet, but I think we should go ahead, because if we don't, we won't get through our business.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
RAYMOND KEMP
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Raymond Kemp, intended appointee as member, Deseronto Police Services Board.
The Chair: The first intended appointment is Mr Raymond Kemp. It's customary, Mr Kemp, to invite you if you wish to say a few words in opening. You're not required to, but you're welcome to, and then we split the conversations with you evenly among the three parties for 10 minutes each. Welcome to the committee. We're glad you're here.
Mr Raymond Kemp: I'd like to thank you for this interview and a chance to come. I've been a resident of Deseronto for 25 years with my wife, Patty, and two daughters. I've been involved in the Deseronto Pentecostal Church. I sat as deputy reeve in the town of Deseronto for six years and also was the chairman of the PUC board for 10 years. While on town council, I was chairman of the finance committee and streets committee and also sat and worked with the police committee.
Also, as a church, we run a local coffee shop. We try to get kids off the street; we have, on Thursday and Friday nights, between 40 and 50 kids that we bring in off the street and we play Crokinole and try to keep them hanging out. We play certain games with them and everything like that, and bring them in.
I also coach minor hockey and raise money for minor hockey. I'm a small business operator. I have owned a furniture store for the last 13 years. You can see from my community involvement that I am concerned and interested in what happens in the town of Deseronto.
The Chair: Can we begin the conversation with members of the government party.
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): Mr Kemp, you were on the police committee in Deseronto and almost a lifelong resident there, 25 years, a lot of community involvement. What innovations would you see that the police services or the police force there could introduce into the community? For example, do they work with you in the teen drop-in centre? Are there initiatives like that in which they could perhaps be more involved in the community along with your expertise?
Mr Kemp: My wife also is involved in the parent-teachers at the school. I would just like to see more involvement. We could have a bicycle rodeo. I think the police need to be in touch with these kids, because today I find that young people are a generation going where the parents aren't really concerned about the kids and the kids are on the streets. We need to have a little more involvement with the police so they can relate to the police and are not afraid to talk to them in the community, and that's what I feel.
Mr Leadston: You'd look at areas like a bicycle rodeo.
Mr Kemp: Yes, and I try and get them involved in the drug programs at the school and different things like that so they can be involved more in the community.
Mr Leadston: Is there a local Lions Club there?
Mr Kemp: Yes, sir.
Mr Leadston: The Lions Club have a program called Lions Quest, and they will actually train individuals who then become trainers in the community in the areas of drug prevention and drug use. They will pick up the cost of that through Lions Quest -- the headquarters is in Waterloo. I'd be more than happy to share that information with you later on to assist your community.
Mr Kemp: The mayor sits on the police services board with me and is a Lions Club member. He is the president.
Mr Leadston: He's probably more familiar with it than I am.
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I'd like to ask some questions about your involvement with youth and the program you talked about where you have kids coming. Is it a drop-in centre?
Mr Kemp: Yes.
Mrs Ross: You stated that there's about 50 or 60 kids that come to that?
Mr Kemp: It varies different nights. What we've tried to do this time is that we had so many young kids coming that we broke the age group up, and from nine to 11 years old they come in about 6 to 7:30, and we have the older ones come in from 8:30 till 11 o'clock.
Mrs Ross: What age groups are you talking about?
Mr Kemp: The young ones are young. We're talking seven, eight years old coming in off the street. They're just wandering the streets, little kids. It's unbelievable.
Mrs Ross: Do you find it's the same kids that keep coming week after week or does it grow, or what's happening?
Mr Kemp: The young ones -- it varies. I find that sometimes we have different but pretty well the same. As a matter of fact, the lady who runs it has a coffee shop in the front. She teaches them how to read and reads Bible stories to them and helps them out to read at school, because some of them at home don't have much home life so she encourages that to help them in that area.
Mrs Ross: Well, I commend you for that work, because an area we really have to focus some energy on is our youth and trying to promote different goals for them so they don't get involved in crime on the streets. I think that's a very worthwhile project.
I don't know anything about Deseronto. What sort of things are the challenges that face a town like that?
Mr Kemp: There's quite a few cultures live there. We have the Tyendinaga native reserve right on the edge of town there. They come into town quite a bit. I'm a real believer in the community. It's not a big community. It's 1,800 people and everybody knows everybody, I guess. Today, there's so much negative that when people need to think positive -- we need to believe in what we live in, and things are going to change, you know. Like right now, we're on the police issue, but I think it's important that people get jobs and are working. We have a couple of factories that are closed, and I've kind of motivated that to see that we get that going. I think it's good that the people have a good relationship with police. Children need to know they can go talk to a policeman and there's not going to be, like, scarefully, that he can help them out if they're alone because of the way society is today.
Mrs Ross: Yes, sure. Great. I agree with you. As a matter of fact, I just came from somewhere where my talk was about negativity and changing the attitude of people to be more hopeful about the future.
That's all the questions I have. Thanks very much.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): We'll reserve the balance of time.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wood. You have about four minutes left. The official opposition; Mr Bartolucci.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): A couple of questions. Being a former police commissioner, I ask these questions all the time, because I think they're important. You were a deputy reeve so you have a good working relationship with your town council?
Mr Kemp: Yes, very much. I probably see the mayor every three or four days. He comes to visit me to ask me questions.
Mr Bartolucci: The mayor supports your nomination here?
Mr Kemp: Yes.
Mr Bartolucci: Okay, let's deal with budgeting. Do you know what the budget is for the police force?
Mr Kemp: How much it is? I really don't know now because I'm not in that position on the police service board. That was when I was on council, which was two years ago. No, I really wouldn't want to --
Mr Bartolucci: You've obviously spent a considerable amount of time with police officers etc. How do the police officers view the complaint process that's in operation right now with regard to the public filing complaints against them?
Mr Kemp: First of all, from my little bit of encounter with the police service board, they have the right to come there with us and make known at the police service board their complaint. I feel that's a good idea, because what happens is, there are always people being open with one another, with the police department, like exactly where they stand. The constable has a right to stand up for what he thinks, and the person there -- of course you get pettiness, but it's one on one, and the person gets the chance to speak. That gives the public a chance, if they have a concern about a policeman or the police department, to hear their beef.
Mr Bartolucci: Do you know that that's not the process that's in place now for lodging complaints?
Mr Kemp: I'm not quite sure what it is now, because I haven't been on council for a couple of years. I'd rather not --
Mr Bartolucci: Okay. What will be the makeup of the board? Are you familiar with the makeup of the board?
Mr Kemp: The mayor sits on there for council, they have one representative, and there are two appointees. Right now, the lady who's chairman is Cathy Vick.
Mr Bartolucci: And it's obviously funded through municipal council, through town council. They approve your budget.
Mr Kemp: Yes.
Mr Bartolucci: This was a problem in Sudbury and that's why I ask the question to everyone. Will there be a problem establishing a budget that is satisfactory to town council when you people, as appointees, have the majority on the police services board?
Mr Kemp: I don't think so. I figure with my council experience I know there's not a lot of money, and it can work both ways, okay? That's the way.
Mr Bartolucci: I always worry about this, and I'll ask the question: You've never been charged under the Criminal Code or anything like that?
Mr Kemp: No, I have no criminal record.
Mr Bartolucci: Would you like to expand on that?
Mr Kemp: Not really. I was just acquitted on an incident there a few years ago. I was a councillor and I was acquitted on --
Mr Bartolucci: I'll pass to Mr Crozier.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Sir, your answer seems rather tentative, so I want to be very to the point and I want to clear up what may be a misunderstanding. We have information that you were charged for carrying an illegal firearm in your car and that you were found guilty. Is that incorrect?
Mr Kemp: I'll clarify that. You haven't got the story quite correct. I'll tell you the story, now that you're into that.
I was down at a Ducks Unlimited banquet when I was a councillor, because it was recommended to me as a businessman I should make an appearance at these. I'm not a hunter or nothing. So I go down to the banquet in Napanee. They have a bunch of tickets. A friend of mine buys some tickets. He said, "I'll buy you some tickets." My name came up as a winner and I won a gun, a shotgun.
At the end of the banquet we headed for home with the shotgun in the back of the car. I didn't know. I get home and I went up and told the wife, "Gee, I can't win a 6/49, but at the Ducks Unlimited banquet tonight I won a gun." My wife said to me, "I hope you're not going to keep that in the house." I said, "Oh, no, no, I'll take it up tomorrow morning and give it to Dad so he can hang it on the wall," because my dad has guns on his wall.
What happened was, the next morning I was on my way up to Dad's and I was so excited to see a couple of friends of mine alongside the street, because in a little community everybody knows everybody. I said, "Jeez, I was at this meeting last night and won a gun." So the boys looked at the gun.
What happened was when I got up to court the judge said to me, "How many times have you been at a Ducks Unlimited banquet, Mr Kemp?" I said, "Once in my life." He said: "This sounds like a political thing. Mr Kemp, I'm going to tell you something. I've been there 10 times and never won nothing in my life. You go one night and you win a gun. So I'm going to give you a conditional discharge from that and you can't own a firearm for 12 months."
So it wasn't that I was charged with it in the back of my car; I was charged with no FAC.
Mr Crozier: But you were found guilty?
Mr Kemp: No, I was not. I got a conditional discharge, sir.
Mr Crozier: Okay. Well, it would have been helpful if you would have told us the whole story.
Would it surprise you to know, or do you know, that your appointment received cabinet approval on March 20, but was withdrawn on March 29 and then resubmitted? Were you aware of that?
Mr Kemp: No.
Mr Crozier: So you can't tell me whether that's correct or not?
Mr Kemp: I don't know.
Mr Crozier: You said that the mayor supported your appointment.
Mr Kemp: Yes.
Mr Crozier: Would it surprise you to know that we have information that the mayor did not support your appointment?
Mr Kemp: I think at first he didn't because of me being an ex-councillor, but after he came over to visit me last Saturday, he did after that, sir.
Mr Crozier: Why would he have had reservations at the outset?
Mr Kemp: It's just that we were on council and I did budgeting and things for policing. At that point he just felt that it wouldn't be good if an ex-councillor was on the police commission.
Mr Crozier: Do you have a very successful shotgun sale at your furniture store each year?
Mr Kemp: I sure did.
Mr Crozier: So how do you feel about gun control?
Mr Kemp: The whole thing was, to be honest with you, if Ducks Unlimited would have ever told me that you had to have an FAC -- I don't like gun control. It made me feel bad and I felt very guilty about it, but if somebody at Ducks Unlimited would have told me that you had to have an FAC to take a gun out, if they would have even asked me, I would have said, "I'll leave the gun here," and got my brother-in-law or somebody to take it home. I had no knowledge that you had to have an FAC --
Mr Crozier: You have this shotgun sale at your store each year, but you don't own any guns?
Mr Kemp: No.
Mr Crozier: So what's your interest there? Purely economic?
1020
Mr Kemp: I'm going to tell you a little story; I'll make it quick. You're asking questions. After my time there, when I went to get the lawyer, to pay the lawyer, the lawyer said: "Mr Kemp, this is going to cost you a $500 retainer fee today for this little incident. If you want to recover your money, I'd go home and have a shotgun sale. Buy yourself a yellow sign, rent a yellow sign, put on there, `We aim to please you,' `No FAC required' and `Come on in.'" I did exactly as he said to retain my $500. End of subject.
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): Good lawyer.
Mr Crozier: You should be an interesting addition to the police services board in Deseronto.
Mr Bartolucci: Coming armed has a new meaning.
Mr Crozier: I guess I've got the wrong people here to question. I really should be questioning the Premier as to why in the world he would ever appoint you. You've got a rather unique outlook and background on all this.
Mr Bartolucci: Have you talked to your member of provincial Parliament, and does he support your getting the appointment? No, you haven't talked to the member?
Mr Kemp: No. I'm acquainted with the member.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Certainly the issue of policing and crime is of tremendous concern to the people of Ontario. The government we have in place expressed some interest in it to get elected and have said some things since then to indicate that they have a high regard, although in yesterday's budget, by way of the dollars being flowed to policing, we may begin to pick up another message in the not-too-distant future.
First of all, how did you go about getting appointed to this position?
Mr Kemp: There was an ad in the paper and I applied. It was in the weekly guide.
Mr Martin: You didn't talk to anybody about it?
Mr Kemp: No.
Mr Martin: Why were you interested in the police commission?
Mr Kemp: I've just been involved in my community and council and that, and I was interested in keeping involved with some committee. I had a little experience while sitting on the police committee on council, so I applied for the job.
Mr Martin: You just applied for the job?
Mr Kemp: Yes.
Mr Martin: Did you have any other involvement in policing of any sort to that point, any connections with organizations that had an interest, Crime Stoppers, Neighbourhood Watch or anything like that?
Mr Kemp: No. We don't have a Crime Stoppers where I live, sir.
Mr Martin: And you didn't start one.
Interjection.
Mr Martin: Your interest in being on the police commission wasn't in any way piqued by this run-in you had with the law over the charge on the gun?
Mr Kemp: No.
Mr Martin: You mentioned in your answer to my colleagues in the Liberal caucus that this may have been a political thing. What did you mean by that?
Mr Kemp: Well, we were doing budget. I don't really know. See, you never really knew what happened, how it got out or how I got charged, because when I got to court, there was never anybody there to testify against us.
Mr Martin: Do you harbour any resentment with regard to --
Mr Kemp: No, no. I can't harbour. I don't know who even pressed the charges. I have no idea to this day.
Mr Martin: Can you assure us that this little incident will not in any way colour decisions you might make re policing in your community?
Mr Kemp: I am not that kind of fellow, sir. I am not that kind of fellow to think that way.
Mr Martin: What is your position on gun control?
Mr Kemp: What do you mean, "gun control"?
Mr Martin: The legislation that was passed by the federal government that now we as a province are asked to administer. What's your position on that?
Mr Kemp: I'm in favour of gun control. I don't think people -- I'm in favour of gun control.
Mr Martin: And yet you hold a sale of guns out of your furniture store once a year.
Mr Kemp: No, I don't hold it once a year. That was a one-time deal after the court case. I don't want to get rude or anything to you, but Leon's have a Santa Claus sale at Christmastime. They have a ho, ho, ho sale, and that's business, it's trying to create traffic.
Mr Bartolucci: It doesn't have 12-gauge shotguns.
Mr Martin: You'll accept that selling toys to children is a little different than selling guns.
Mr Kemp: You can buy play machine guns too. That was suggested to me by the lawyer and that's what I just went home and did. It was not done intentionally.
Mr Martin: Yet your father has this collection of guns, you say, and that doesn't in any way taint your position re the whole question of gun control.
Mr Kemp: No. My dad has them on the wall. He doesn't even hunt now. He's 70 years old. He just has them.
Mr Martin: What's your position re the question of, for example, women in the police force?
Mr Kemp: We have a lady on the police force who is just coming back to work who lost her leg in a motorcycle accident. I have no problem with women on the police force, none whatsoever.
Mr Martin: What's your understanding and position on the whole question of community policing?
Mr Kemp: The most important thing is having a relationship with the police department, that people in the community have a relationship with the police department, that they can feel comfortable and communicate with them and talk to them and things like that. I feel that needs to be dealt with more in a small community where 1,800 people know everybody.
Mr Martin: What's your position on law and order? Where do you stand re that question?
Mr Kemp: What do you mean "law and order"? They should abide by the law of the country, yes. Is that what you mean?
Mr Martin: Yes, and how would you, as a member of the police commission, maintain that in your community? What would be the principles that you would --
Mr Kemp: First thing, they do now really support and try to get the message out about impaired driving and drug-related incidents. I feel we need to get more out, maybe a few more things out like that. The community needs to know more and more. We do that now through Daniel's Coffee Den down the street. We try to get kids in there and relate to them that you're able to talk to a policeman if you want to communicate with them. You don't have to be afraid of them, different things like that.
Mr Martin: What's your political affiliation?
Mr Kemp: I don't think that has anything to do with this appointment.
Mr Martin: You're not going to share it with us?
Mr Kemp: That's my own personal business. I don't feel I have to share that.
Mr Martin: Your political affiliation is something you're embarrassed about?
Mr Kemp: No, I'm not embarrassed.
Mr Martin: Then why wouldn't you want to share it with us here today?
Mr Kemp: Can I ask you a question?
Mr Martin: Sure. What's my political affiliation? I'm a New Democrat.
Mr Kemp: If I were a New Democrat today, would you want me to answer if Gary Fox or Gary Leadston here spoke to me and asked me what party I was with?
Mr Martin: Absolutely. There's nothing wrong with belonging to a political party in Ontario today, and sometimes it's just helpful to know.
Mr Kemp: I'll tell you my beliefs, as you asked me.
Mr Martin: Actually, Mr Chair, the question was what was his political affiliation.
The Chair: I think he's about to answer you.
Mr Martin: Is he?
The Chair: By the way, just to put your mind a bit at ease, it's not an unusual question for witnesses before this committee.
1030
Mr Kemp: How be I say I vote for the man I feel is best qualified to do the job.
Mr Bartolucci: And you voted for Gary. There's nothing wrong with that. Why don't you say it? Just say, "I'm a Tory." That's all you have to say.
Mr Kemp: But I'm not saying I'm a Tory. I said to you I vote for the best man that's qualified to do the job. That could be the Reform, that could be the NDP. That could even be your party.
Mr Martin: Are you a card-carrying member of any political party?
Mr Kemp: Yes, I'm a card member with the Liberal Party, I'm a card member with the Conservatives. I am a card member of both parties, yes.
Mr Martin: According to the constitution of our party, you can't be --
Mr Bartolucci: According to the constitution of our party, as well.
Mr Martin: -- you can't be a member of another party. if you're being cute here, this is --
Mr Kemp: I'm not being cute.
Mr Martin: Well, you are. Are you having a problem with somebody admitting to the fact that he belongs to the Tory party, that he's a card-carrying member of the Tory party? Is that your problem?
Mr Kemp: Again, sir, I explained it to you. I'm a card -- when my member --
Mr Martin: You're a card-carrying member of the Tory party.
Mr Kemp: With the Liberal Party too. In the federal election, I helped the member down there run for the federal election. So again I'm saying to you, I vote for the man I feel is best qualified to do the job.
Mr Martin: It's often simpler if you just tell us what we want to hear, because if you don't, we can assume all kinds of things. From your answer here, you're obviously embarrassed about your political affiliation. That leads one to ask the question, did your political affiliation have anything to do with your being appointed to this position?
Mr Kemp: No, it wasn't, but I felt -- okay, I'll answer the question. I thought Mr Fox was the best-qualified man at the position, so I helped Mr Fox run for the position.
Mr Martin: There's obviously nothing to be gained with any more questioning.
Mr Bob Wood: I have a few questions.
The Chair: Yes, the government party has four minutes left.
Mr Bob Wood: We wish to use at least part of that. I want to get entirely clear on this shotgun sale, Mr Kemp. Were you selling furniture at this shotgun sale or were you selling firearms?
Mr Kemp: I was selling furniture, sir.
Mr Bob Wood: There were no firearms sold at this shotgun sale?
Mr Kemp: No, no, no.
Mr Bob Wood: Okay. Did you fully disclose the matter of the criminal charge that you faced to the Solicitor General's office when you applied for this?
Mr Kemp: Yes, sir, I did.
Mr Bob Wood: So they understood all of this up front?
Mr Kemp: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, I did.
Mr Bob Wood: As I understand it, when this matter came before the court, the court did not convict you.
Mr Kemp: No.
Mr Bob Wood: They did not feel this offence was worthy of a criminal record being ascribed to you.
Mr Kemp: No. I got a conditional discharge, sir, and I couldn't own a firearm for 12 months.
Mr Bob Wood: So you were never convicted of any criminal offence?
Mr Kemp: No, sir.
Mr Bob Wood: You never had any criminal record?
Mr Kemp: No, sir.
Mr Bob Wood: Did you fully comply with the conditions imposed upon you by the court?
Mr Kemp: Yes, sir.
Mr Bob Wood: Have you had any problems with the law since that time?
Mr Kemp: No, sir.
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I just wanted to go back to an earlier question, challenges that the police services board in Deseronto might be facing. It's a real small town. How big is the police force? I just wonder, how can the town afford it and what kind of problems may there be down the road, given that money could be tight in the future?
Mr Kemp: Since we're on the question, we have a four-constable and one-chief police department. Every other community around us has gone OPP -- Napanee, Picton areas. It is a tight budget we have. When I was on council it was a very tight budget because it took about one third of our income we had there, but hopefully -- I was impressed yesterday by the Solicitor General's comment that we see more areas start paying for policing, where it's more equalized out. If we see that taking place, it'll take the burden off the small town.
The Chair: Mr Kemp, thank you for coming before the committee.
JOHN HOLLINGSWORTH
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: John Hollingsworth, intended appointee as member, Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee.
The Chair: The second intended appointment is a Sudbury physician, Dr John Hollingsworth. Dr Hollingsworth, welcome. If you wish to say anything to kick it off, go ahead.
Dr John Hollingsworth: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I do have a brief few words to say before questions begin. I hope my ride is a little less bumpy than the last participant's. That's the first thing. And I hope there's a seatbelt on this seat.
It is indeed an honour to be invited down for a review in front of such a senior group of politicians. Many of you may know me, and for those who don't, my name is Dr Jack Hollingsworth. I'm a specialist in internal medicine, and I'm also qualified in gastroenterology. My special interest over the last decade has been related to pharmacology and issues related to drug therapy.
I recently finished a study concerning Heparin therapy in Sudbury that was published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, which is a prestigious American journal. As you may see from my curriculum vitae, which I hope has been forwarded to you, one of my major interests has been the effective use of medications, both in the hospital and at home for patients. In cooperation with local pharmacists and nursing services and hospitals, we in Sudbury have organized a very effective home intravenous program for antibiotics and steroids and saved a lot of money on inpatient hospital stays.
I have sat on the pharmacy and therapeutics committee of the three local hospitals in Sudbury over the last eight years. I've been chairman several times of these committees and I've been on two of the committees much of the time.
I'm also a member of the drugs and pharmacotherapy committee of the Ontario Medical Association, and I'm heavily involved, in my commitment to that committee, in trying to improve the usage of drugs and at the same time reduce drug expenditures as much as possible while preserving excellent patient care.
My major interest in sitting on the DQTC stems from my general interest in drug usage in Ontario and concern that there is no northern physician membership on the DQTC, and also that gastroenterology has not been well represented on the DQTC recently.
I'm concerned that the majority of new chemical entities, or novel drugs, made by the brand-name pharmaceutical companies don't make it on to the benefit formulary, despite passing the rigorous testing of the health protection branch federally. Some of these drugs might be useful to the citizens of Ontario, and I would wish to further assist in maximizing the citizens' access to new breakthrough medications.
My most recent submission concerning drugs was to the Bill 26 hearings of the standing committee in Sudbury, and I've brought a copy of my comments to that committee for your perusal. I'm sure these can be made available to the clerk of the committee.
I'll be happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability, and I thank you very much for inviting me down to this review process.
The Chair: Do the government members have any questions or comments?
Mr Leadston: Dr Hollingsworth, is your residence in Ottawa or is it in Sudbury?
Dr Hollingsworth: Sudbury.
Mr Leadston: I certainly commend you, particularly for your spirit of public interest, to have a willingness to serve in this capacity. I have a very strong comfort level reading your résumé and knowing your background and your professional expertise. The residents of this province are going to be the beneficiaries of that knowledge and expertise. You have quite an interest in the area of research. Do you plan to continue in that area, and if so, in what specific field of endeavour?
Dr Hollingsworth: My main interest is in pharmacology and the efficient use of drugs. We have several things we're looking at at the moment. One thing we're interested in is drug interactions in the elderly. It's been a hot topic in the last few years in Canada and in Ontario and Quebec. The concern is that patients may be on a lot of drugs, and we can perhaps trim the drugs, trim the interactions and trim the drug budget, and then bring in new chemical entities, novel drugs that might be better. My main interest is cost-benefit.
1040
Mr Leadston: When you're into that type of research and prove there's an interaction of this drug and that drug in the aging population, how do you get that information to the other physicians and other institutions in the world, to say, "Don't mix A with B, because this will result"? Do you use the new age of technology, the Internet and the Web and systems like that?
Dr Hollingsworth: First of all, you try to get published in a peer review journal; people know then that it's a reputable paper, it's been well researched, it's accurate, it's honest. You hope to reach a certain audience that way. The other way we use is giving talks and updates to family doctors and hospital pharmacists etc. We don't have a Web site at the moment, but that's something we probably will look at in the future.
We also want, hopefully, to expand our pharmacy services so people can call in and get advice, kind of a drug hotline. That's another thing we're looking at.
Mr Leadston: I see. Maybe that's an area where the committee may want to have a Web site or a 1-800 drug line.
Dr Hollingsworth: For example, the cost of publishing the formulary -- and the formulary is just a list of drugs covered by this plan at the moment -- is quite expensive, and a lot of physicians chuck it when they get it. They have so many other things, this much mail each day. Being available on a Web site is a cheaper alternative.
Mr Leadston: And the printing cost for the guide, when the information will change almost daily or weekly -- what is in there today is outdated tomorrow.
Dr Hollingsworth: That's right.
Mr Leadston: I really commend you for your interest and willingness to serve our citizens and our province. Thank you very much for coming this morning.
Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): How does your professional experience provide you with the expertise to review drug manufacturers' submissions to the committee?
Dr Hollingsworth: There are two parts to your question, really. If you divide up the manufacturing side and the drug itself, the manufacturing side is largely going to be taken care of by HPB, which is a federal regulating agency. We know by the time it gets to DQTC that this is a clean drug, it's gone through rigorous testing and should be available to the public; on the basis of toxicity it's okay.
Then we look at the other issues related to drugs, for example, cost-benefit. That's where I've spent a lot of my last 10 years, looking at things like that and trying to figure out the best drug, the cheapest use of the widest selection of drugs. I think I have something to offer the committee in that regard. And there is no person who's specializing in gastroenterology on that committee -- it's largely unrepresented -- so again I may offer something unique to the committee. Some of the papers I've published in the past, you can see from my CV, are related to the use of drugs and would be the kind of papers these companies would submit to the DQTC, trying to say their drug is good and supporting their product. Having published some of these papers, I think I can critique them accurately with some experience.
Mr Fox: Is this also done on a federal basis?
Dr Hollingsworth: This is the whole problem: duplication and tiers of government, trying to trim costs. The powers that be behind the DQTC know this, and I think there will be a lot more cooperation between this committee that I'm applying for and the health protection branch. The manufacturing side should be really a federal issue: Is this a safe manufacturing process? Is it a pure chemical? Is it not toxic? That will be really federal. The issue for us is, can Ontario afford this new compound for its citizens, and under what constraints? That's the issue the DQTC will look at. There is some duplication, but it is going to be minimized.
Mrs Ross: Thanks for coming. I see by your curriculum vitae that you've spent a lot of time in Hamilton, which is where I'm from.
One of the complaints I hear a lot is that it takes so long to get a drug approved. Would you agree with that comment?
Dr Hollingsworth: Yes. The PMAC is the proprietary drug representative organization, the big brand-name drug companies. They have their own body called PMAC, and they have written to the DQTC and to the Ministry of Health complaining about the process. This is part of the streamlining that I think is going to occur. In other words, they go through developing a drug, spend about $250 million proving it's effective and not toxic, then they present all their studies to HPB, which is federal, then they have to go through the whole process again with the provincial formularies. I think the plan in Ontario will be to take some of that burden off the companies and to cooperate more with HPB. HPB does an excellent job of making sure the drugs we're using in Canada are safe. We're really concerned about the best value for the dollar for the citizens.
Mrs Ross: So you think that would be an area you'd be interested in working at?
Dr Hollingsworth: Yes. That would be some contribution I could make, probably.
The Chair: We move to the official opposition.
Mr Bartolucci: Jack, I won't ask you what your party affiliation is because we discussed that on the plane, and we're not supposed to ask those types of questions around here. But let me tell you that a red sign would look nicer than a blue sign on your graphs.
I don't know why Dr Hollingsworth is here. He is a very respected, a very hardworking and a very component individual, one who contributes in large measure to ensuring that the community is a much better place because of his presence in the region and in the city of Sudbury. You know how I'll be voting on your appointment.
But let me ask one question. You know how vitally concerned we are with the north and for the north, and I know how vitally concerned you are for the north as well. How will your presence on the board enhance health care in the north?
Dr Hollingsworth: That's a very good question. The person who was on from the north before me was a pharmacist called Ken Burns from the Sudbury area. I spoke to him about this very issue, because that was one of the reasons I want to get on this committee.
I think the north is a separate entity in many ways. We have a different population mix. We have a lot of people over 65. We have a lot of smokers, a lot of heart disease. We have 80% of the geography of Ontario and only 9% of the population, so the scatter is huge and the physician distribution is about 50% of what it is down south. We have unique problems that really are -- not misunderstood, but sometimes poorly portrayed, and their importance isn't heightened enough on some of these government agencies. I think I can bring that perspective, just as my previous colleague did, from the north.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I share the comments of the member for Sudbury. Jack, we've known each other for quite a while and I've been in Sudbury on numerous occasions when you were advocating for various improvements in the health care system there.
I was in Sudbury for the Bill 26 hearings. One of the things I didn't understand -- probably should have, but did not -- is that certain drugs on the formulary you can prescribe for certain ailments but not for others. Could you help me with that? You were quite candid in your assessment of how you got around that particular problem, but could you tell the committee a little about that?
Dr Hollingsworth: There are two ways of going around what the formulary says you can prescribe. The easiest one is a special authorization form; in other words, if you come into my office and you have, for example, severe hiatus hernia problems -- reflux, terrible heartburn, ulcerations, strictures, you can't swallow -- I can prescribe a medication called Losec or Omeprazole, and I can fill in a form. It's a fairly easy process for the physician, and that is a fairly routine thing that's happening.
Then there's a section 8. Section 8 is more rigorous. It involves the physician making a submission to the DQTC. That submission is then reviewed. Some of the committee members usually will review it and they'll take off so many things to review. It might involve a physician saying that Yohimbine is a drug that's used for impotence and applying for that, or something that's unusual, that's not run of the mill.
There are two ways around the constraints of the formulary, and that's one of the important things, is to have a safety valve, because prior to Omeprazole or Losec, we had patients who developed strictures, who couldn't swallow, who were hospitalized for bleeding regularly, who cost the system a lot of money. We now can get around that.
1050
Mr Michael Brown: I guess the question, though, is from the perspective of the governing body. Do you wish to encourage physicians to find, other than section 8s, ways around the formulary, around your guidelines, or should you not have guidelines that are appropriate in the first place?
Dr Hollingsworth: Every guideline is made with the intention of maximizing the benefit for the population. The problem comes in the exceptions to the rule -- people who have unusual conditions or unusual severity. These two ways I outlined of going around the formulary appear to be appropriate. When I talked about Bill 26, I recommended they continue this process and not make it a very difficult one.
One of the fears I had was that the special authorization forms, the SA forms, would become like section 8. Section 8 is a major procedure for a physician to go through. It's a lot of time. It's time you can't see patients and you can't work. You have to spend the time making the submission. There's no compensation for that. Clearly, there's a disincentive. The SA is a form you fill in in two minutes, and it's fairly routine, but it does involve filling in a form.
Mr Michael Brown: I know most constituency politicians would be aware of the difficulty sometimes with section 8s, where we have sometimes both physicians and patients calling our offices saying: "Can you speed them up? Can you get them to deal with that particular form?"
I think it's a fine appointment and certainly I concur.
Mr Martin: I can't help but concur with my colleagues that your résumé is quite impressive and that there's no question as to your qualifications, but I just wanted to follow another line of questioning rather than waiting till the end, as I did with the last one. Mr Bartolucci inferred around your political affiliation. Are you a card-carrying member of the Progressive Conservative Party?
Dr Hollingsworth: I was hoping I wouldn't have to put on my seatbelt. Let me give you some history: When I was in Ireland, my dad was a labour organizer and he had a lot of ties with the Labour Party in Ireland, the equivalent of your party, the NDP. My politics at that time were of the same ilk. When I came here, I really wasn't committed to any political party.
It's only in the last probably year and a half, two years, that I have decided to become involved in politics and see that as a means to -- at this particular time, I believe we need a Conservative government because of the economic problems the province has. We're spending more on interest payments than we are on many of the important issues we should be spending money on -- education and health and those things. I became concerned about politics in the last few years and I have become involved in politics.
But I think to castigate me as a card-carrying member and Tory for life, and a hack, is really inaccurate and doesn't relate to my appointment to the committee. I don't want to get into a dialogue about this, but I make no secret of my politics. They're not relevant to the current hearing. I'm not out to make the DQTC some kind of Conservative Senate or something; I'm there to make a contribution.
Mr Martin: But you are at this point in time a Conservative?
Dr Hollingsworth: Yes.
Mr Martin: When I dropped the news on my father, who comes from Ireland as well -- as a matter of fact, I do too; I was 12 when I came to this country -- that I was seeking the nomination for the New Democratic Party, his immediate response was, "Jesus, Mary and Joseph, son, you're always backing a loser." But the important thing is that I'm very proudly a social democrat and a member of the New Democratic Party in Ontario and act accordingly.
It's with your affiliation in mind that I ask you the next question, and maybe you've already answered it. Do you support the direction this government is going in re health care and what it is proposing as a way of solving some of the challenges we face as a province, particularly in northern Ontario?
Dr Hollingsworth: That's a very good question. You have to ask how it relates to the issue of pharmacy and pharmacology to the citizens of Ontario. I'll try to answer as best I can. The government, no matter which government -- I've had many conversations with Floyd Laughren, and we haven't always agreed on everything, I can tell you that. Sometimes I've felt he hasn't listened and he's felt that I haven't listened, but we have been very frank, and I respect Floyd and all the politicians here as leaders of the community and people who have a unique vantage point.
The problem with health care -- and everybody would agree on this -- is the budgetary constraints; the money is not there to give the service we want to give to the public. How do you divide up what's left and how do you pay for the kind of care we believe Ontarians need? These are huge questions. Each successive health minister inherits tremendous expectations, declining budgets and a very difficult situation. I don't agree with everything that's been proposed, but I certainly think we have to trim our budgets to meet what we have in terms of revenues. I agree with that philosophy.
Mr Martin: You would probably agree with me that if somebody is sick, he should get what's required to make him better.
Dr Hollingsworth: Absolutely.
Mr Martin: I've had a significant number of meetings with the president of the academy of medicine in my area, Janice Willett, who suggests to me that the direction this government is going in, whether it's in providing medicine, which comes directly under the jurisdiction of the body you're being appointed to here, or whether it's access to hospitals or whatever, we're coming very close to a rationing of that. How do you feel about that? How do you feel about the possibility that you as doctors, and perhaps you as a member of this organization, may become the so-called gatekeeper?
Dr Hollingsworth: To paraphrase your question, what you're asking me really is, how do I feel about giving the health care the government can afford? It's a very difficult situation to be in. But I still believe our primary duty is to the public of Ontario and our patients, and we have to do our best in a difficult situation. Clearly there will be some light at the end of the tunnel. It may take till 2001, I'm told by the media, but things have to get better eventually. If we live within our budget, and the debt, as a percentage of the amount of money we're paying, goes down with inflation and with growth in the GDP, eventually the amount of money we're paying in interest will not nearly equal that which we're spending on education or half of what we spend on health. That's the time things will improve. But we can't spend more than we have, and we have to do our best.
Mr Martin: It seems to me that when we were government, and certainly the Chair will understand this, we were trying to do some things. We initiated a number of initiatives and certainly had some very interesting discussion with the OMA, and I believe the Chair with you, about some of our initiatives. At the end of the day, I guess it comes down to a question of whether we can afford not to make sure that people are getting what they need, whether it's by way of drugs or service.
Right now we're looking at the question of copayment for drugs, particularly for seniors and people the provincial government assists with that kind of thing, and the impact that might have on some people. If it came to a discussion at this level around the question of further rationing the availability of the best of medical care re drugs out there, what would your position be? Would it be to support fighting the deficit, which has now been put off until into the next century, or would it be in support of making sure we had the best that was possible for the people of Ontario?
1100
Dr Hollingsworth: You ask me to be Solomon. This is a very difficult question. I come back to the fact that if we borrow $10 billion this year, we have to pay $500 million to $1 billion next year in interest on it.
Mr Martin: Is there anything, though, that's sacred, that you have to get the money to provide because people are sick, for example?
Dr Hollingsworth: You know the difficulties Ruth Grier had when she was health minister, and the Liberals here know the difficulty Elinor Caplan had, and the Conservatives can certainly tell you that Jim Wilson is very concerned about health care and rationing. All those ministers did their best. None of them set out to damage the patients or the economy. There's a balance, and always in life you come back to the balance.
From your particular vantage point, I understand you're concerned primarily about the patient, but if you don't have a healthy economy, then you cannot provide the care that you want to provide. Ultimately, if we borrow now to provide extra care, we have to pay the interest and the debt back in the future. I don't see that as a solution.
I do think we're doing our best. We're spending a lot of money on drugs for AIDS; we're looking at women's issues as carefully as we can; we're doing our best to be responsive to the needs of the people of Ontario under the fiscal constraints we have.
Mr Martin: You said in your answer that if we don't have a healthy economy, we can't -- I suggest to you that if we don't have healthy people, getting a healthy economy is going to be much more difficult. It's a sort of chicken-and-egg scenario we have here, but if it came down to it in terms of your appointment to this body and supporting the government in rationing versus making sure we had the very best that was available for the people of Sudbury and Sault Ste Marie and Ontario, what would be your position?
Dr Hollingsworth: The same position that your administration and every administration before this has had is that formularies are a form of rationing, no matter how you cut it. The majority of new drugs don't get on to the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary, and didn't when the NDP was in power. We have to live within the constraints of the money available. I'm happy to provide the best care I can. When the government tells me how much money's available, I'm happy to work as hard as I can to set up reasonable guidelines and include as many new drugs as I can. I'm not talking about "me too" drugs, drugs that are just copies of ones on the market; I'm talking about drugs that have something new to bring to the market. I want to see those drugs on the formulary, more of them, and I want to see us use the money as efficiently as we can. It's a matter of striking a balance.
The Chair: I'm sorry, we're out of time. Dr Hollingsworth, I'm sure I speak for the committee when I say we appreciate your attendance here. I don't want to be presumptuous, but I'm sure the majority of the committee welcomes your appointment.
Dr Hollingsworth: Thank you for a very smooth ride.
Mr Bartolucci: It's good to note that he's a Sudbury appointee who wasn't hindered by an electronic device that was in the left ear. He could hear all the questions from all three parties.
Mr Bob Wood: It is obvious proof that health care is improving in Sudbury.
The Chair: The next item of business before the committee is the debate for concurrence of the two intended appointments we've had this morning. I would entertain a motion for concurrence.
Mr Martin: I move deferral on concurrence on the first person we dealt with, Mr Kemp, for a week.
The Chair: That's deferred. This is a seven-day deferral you're talking about? The one that's deferred, that's a given, right, for seven days? Okay.
Mr Bob Wood: I would like to move concurrence in the appointment of Dr Hollingsworth. I would echo the comments that have been made by others. He's obviously a highly qualified appointment. I think he'll do a lot of good work on the drug quality committee.
Mr Martin: I'm going to vote concurrence too in that he's obviously a very qualified person, but I want to put on the record my concern that this government is continually appointing more and more people who support their program of cuts and rationing. It worries me that at the end of the day, when these bodies which are supposed to be at arm's length begin to make decisions asked of them by this government around the question of whether we can afford to continue to provide the best of care as opposed to limiting that care because we have budgetary constraints, more and more they will not come down on the side of some of what I consider to be sacred entitlements to the people of this province that we have all worked very hard for and to make sure are in place. I become increasingly more concerned around this table as more and more appointees are placed on boards to make sure the agenda of this government is carried out as opposed to making sure the best of service and care is being provided to the people of this province.
Mr Bartolucci: I concur with the nomination. He certainly is very well qualified, and I think in his answers he outlines the importance of balance, the importance of fairness and the importance of justice. Those are excellent Liberal models we live by. I think he may be a closet Liberal. We'll work on that over the course of the next couple of years. This man brings all kinds of expertise, knowledge and justice to this appointment.
The Chair: Don't hold your breath on the former comment.
I think the Chair detects unanimous concurrence and support for Mr Woods's motion of concurrence. That's done.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: The next item of business is the report of the subcommittee dated two days ago, Monday 6 May.
Mr Bob Wood: I move adoption.
The Chair: You've heard the motion to accept this. Just so you know, the request was for an extension of 14 days for Mr Lowry because he couldn't attend on other days. Is there any comment or question or debate on this? It's carried. Thank you.
The next item has to do with the final report on the Social Assistance Review Board. I think all members have had this. This is a closed session because we're dealing with a report which may or may not be accepted in its present form.
The committee continued in closed session at 1108.