INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
GEORGE BEATTY
CONTENTS
Wednesday 20 November 1996
Subcommittee reports
Intended appointments
Mr George Beatty
Mr John Krauter
Mr Reid Smith
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président: Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
*Mr RickBartolucci (Sudbury L)
*Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
*Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
*Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
*Mr GaryFox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings /
Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)
Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)
*Mr BertJohnson (Perth PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Mr FloydLaughren (Nickel Belt ND)
*Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
*Mr DanNewman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
*Mr TonySilipo (Dovercourt ND)
*Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)
*In attendance /présents
Clerk /Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1010 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The standing committee will come to order. We have a full day before us with four intended appointments to consider.
We can start by dealing with the subcommittee reports. We've had requests from a number of sources, including the Premier's office as a matter of fact, that the subcommittee report be read, perhaps even in abbreviated form, into the record by the Chair and then moved so that there's a record on the Internet and a record in Hansard of what the subcommittee report contains. I'll try to make it as brief as possible before it's moved.
The first subcommittee report, dated November 14, deals with intended appointees for, first, the Ontario Securities Commission, Mr Stephen Adams, selected by the official opposition, to be considered December 4. The second is Ms Linda Frum for the Province of Ontario Council for the Arts, to be considered on December 4. The third party also requested that Linda Frum appear before the committee.
That's the November 14 subcommittee report, and I should have read the other one first, I guess. The subcommittee report, dated November 7, deals with, first, Mr Robert Dobson for the City of Etobicoke Health Unit Board, to be considered November 27, and, second, Marie Hubbard for the Licence Suspension Appeal Board, to be considered on November 27, one week from today.
That's the business of the two subcommittee reports, which are now ready for action.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I move adoption of the reports of the subcommittee dated November 7 and November 14, 1996.
The Chair: Thank you. You've heard the motion and you know the content of the subcommittee reports. Is there any debate?
Mr Bob Wood: I'd like to speak to that briefly. I notice today we have four names on our list. It was my understanding our policy was that we would not have more than three per day. I think that's a sound policy because if we get into any discussion of any nature we run out of time. I'd like to request in the future, if the committee shares my view, that we have no more than three on any given day. I'm not necessarily putting it in the form of a motion, but if there's a consensus on that, I would hope that might be a direction to those organizing this.
The Chair: All right. Can we deal with the motion, and I'd ask the clerk to speak to that because there were certain problems with scheduling that led to four people today. It wasn't that we just willy-nilly decided to have four intended appointees today. It wasn't done for that reason. So can we deal with the motion, and then I'll ask the clerk to speak to that issue you raised, which I think is appropriate.
Is there any debate on the motion itself by Mr Wood on the subcommittee reports? Are we ready for the question?
All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Thank you for that.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): If I could just point out, Mr George Beatty and Ms Laurie Scott, who are scheduled for today, couldn't make their previous appointments. So the committee did agree to defer Mr Beatty's appointment and they did agree to defer Ms Scott's appointment. We didn't have any leeway in Ms Scott's appointment. If we didn't schedule her for today it would have run out, and Mr Beatty couldn't be scheduled for next week. That's why we put them on today.
Mr Bob Wood: Okay, but I think it would have been possible to have deferred others, and I think it's inappropriate, except in extreme circumstances, to have more than three on a day.
Clerk of the Committee: The only problem with that is if we defer others, then we get a backlog down the road at some point. But I agree with you that three is -- in fact, in the next couple of weeks I think we do stick with that.
The Chair: Maybe a way of avoiding this in the future would be if it looks as though that's going to happen the subcommittee should get together to talk about it.
Mr Bob Wood: I don't want to overkill this issue. I'm not complaining about today. I think if we find ourselves having to do that very often we should talk about it.
The Chair: Fair point. All right, are we ready to move on? Yes, Mr Johnson.
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a question about this Internet. Can it only be activated by your voice on it? Is there not a better way than us sitting around listening to you read those into the record and we adopt them? Can somebody not zap them into the Internet without your reading them?
The Chair: I can't answer that question. I do not know.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Virtual reality.
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Johnson, I don't know. We can find out.
Mr Bert Johnson: I would suggest we look at another method.
The Chair: Okay, thank you for that. Are we ready to move on?
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
GEORGE BEATTY
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party and third party: George Beatty, intended appointee as member, Council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
The Chair: Mr Beatty, welcome to the committee. If you would take a seat at the table, we have a tradition of the intended appointees making any opening remarks they might want to make, and then we rotate among the three parties with questions of you. So whenever you're ready.
Mr George Beatty: Thank you for accommodating me today. I was involved with a lengthy OMB hearing which required my presence elsewhere.
I noticed when I came in this morning there's a large sign up on the front stairway which says, "Watch Your Step," and I wasn't sure who that was referring to.
The Chair: It was put there for you.
Mr Beatty: I was raised in Fergus, Ontario, which is a small town in Wellington county north of Guelph. I obtained degrees in business and law from the University of Western Ontario and worked while I was at university at a storefront legal clinic. I articled for a Toronto law firm, Lash Johnston, which is now part of Lang Michener.
During that time, I had the good fortune to work with Phil Isbister, who recently passed away. He helped draft the Health Disciplines Act, and I assisted him with several cases representing doctors before the College of Physicians and Surgeons at that time and also as prosecutor for the College of Pharmacists.
During that time as well, I was counsel representing a widow at the coroner's court, a very interesting situation for someone who did not yet have his law degree, to handle a jury trial. As a result of that, I was representing the widow of a hardrock miner who was on a partial disability and died in a car accident. We were able to prove before the coroner's jury that his death was due to an industrial injury, and I was successful in gaining his widow a full pension, the first time in Canada that had happened.
I moved from Toronto to Gravenhurst in Muskoka in 1977 and became involved with various community organizations, resulting in finally being awarded the Canada 125 medal for community service in 1993. I served six years as a director of the Algonquin Forestry Authority, two years as president of the chamber of commerce, two years as president of the Muskoka District Law Association and three years as chair of the South Muskoka Memorial Hospital. In that capacity, I was co-chair of the three-hospital restructuring committee which has been reviewing the delivery of hospital and emergency services in consultation with the district health council.
I worked with three governments on an upgrading project to modernize facilities and health care systems and introduced CQI, a new management team and new bylaws at our hospital. We have secured and maintained three-year accreditation for our hospital, an outstanding model for other hospitals of our size. I've also assisted with the founding of a women's shelter in Bracebridge and was a founding director of the Muskoka Legal Clinic.
My family has always been interested in health care since my father died -- I recognized this morning that he was five years younger than I am today when he passed away from leukaemia. My sister trained as a nurse at Toronto General Hospital and is currently the dean of nursing at a university in Melbourne, Australia, and, I suspect, the only female dean in Australia. My mother served for many years as a director of Bellwoods nursing home here in Toronto. My brother started off in his first job as an EA for health minister Bert Lawrence and subsequently became a federal Minister of Health. My son Geordie was born at Mount Sinai Hospital very prematurely and survived due to the excellent care there and at the NICU at Soldiers' Memorial Hospital in Orillia.
Section 3 of the Regulated Health Professions Act provides that the health professions are regulated and coordinated in the public interest and appropriate standards of practice are maintained. We are to ensure that individuals have access to services provided by the health professionals of their choice and that the public is treated with sensitivity and respect in their dealings with health professionals, the colleges and the board. I tendered my application in the belief that my background, experiences and abilities were appropriate to serve the public interest as a director of the college.
Those are my submissions.
1020
The Chair: Thank you very much for that. Any questions from the government members?
Mr Bob Wood: We will reserve our time, Mr Chair.
The Chair: From the official opposition?
Mr Bartolucci: Good morning, Mr Beatty. Thank you for appearing before us. I noted that your application was forwarded to the Ministry of Health and was reviewed by staff. Did you see the ad in the paper? Did someone encourage you to apply for the job?
Mr Beatty: No, sir. What happened was after the government changed last year, I wrote a letter to the Premier's office offering my services particularly in the health care area. When the Health Services Restructuring Commission was established, I wrote to that one saying that with my modest experience in small towns, I had had some experience in restructuring of hospitals and looking at services and would be delighted if there were a position available on that committee.
I had given that a great deal of thought for several months, and by the time I had written, I guess the decisions had already been made. A letter came back thanking me for my application and suggesting that there were other places that I might be able to serve health care professionals. It was my choice to apply for the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Mr Bartolucci: So they gave you a list of available opportunities and you chose one?
Mr Beatty: The suggestion was that there were a number of boards, commissions and agencies in Ontario and I should go to my local library, see if there was one I was interested in and make an application.
Mr Bartolucci: Having just undergone restructuring in Sudbury, I wish you had been on the panel, as opposed to the ones who were, but that's a personal observation that you shouldn't have to comment on.
What do you consider your role to be as a member of this particular board?
Mr Beatty: I think it's quite clear that the position of non-professional members is to protect the public interest, and that's certainly my interest. I'm very concerned about the condition of emergency services, for example, in small hospitals, the plight of northern practitioners, a situation such as Minden hospital right now, which is having difficulty keeping its emergency department open, some practice problems that some of the physicians are experiencing in obstetrics, for example, and those who are internists seem to be having problems with practice as well. My concern is that the public continue to have access to appropriate medical services.
Mr Bartolucci: You're obviously familiar with the job action the obstetricians undertook over the course of the last little while.
Mr Beatty: It caused me a great deal of concern because of the problems with service to the public. I know from my own small community that the doctors who have been doing obstetrics are now aging -- I say that advisedly, because they're my age -- and they no longer want to stay up all night to deliver babies and then run a clinical practice during the day. It's a serious problem that they're facing. They're getting tired.
Mr Bartolucci: You realize that they withdrew services. Would your position, either support or non-support of that particular job action, change if and when you assume your role on this board?
Mr Beatty: No, I think the job of the public members, as I stated earlier, is to represent the public in these matters and ensure that services are available.
Mr Bartolucci: How would you have represented the public in a demonstrative way with regard to this job action?
Mr Beatty: First of all, I'm not a member of provincial Parliament, so the position of being able to affect the will of government is not the same as you yourself would have, sir. I think it's to negotiate, to find common ground if possible, to ensure that the sort of confrontation doesn't arise where job action is required. That would be my concern.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good morning, sir. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is a self-regulatory body, and we know that during this current crisis we have, the Minister of Health has written to the regulatory bodies to suggest that they institute certain penalties. The OMA in particular, which is made up of members of the college and others, has looked upon it as being a bit out of line for the Minister of Health to intervene in the disciplinary area of practitioners. How do you feel about that?
Mr Beatty: The college is a creature of statute and as such has only those powers which are granted to it under its legislation. The college cannot exceed those powers. I don't know how the college could act more effectively without exceeding the bounds of its jurisdiction. It can make recommendations, but I don't see how it could do anything other than consider and perhaps respond the way it did under the circumstances unless there's some change in the legislation. I'm not privy to what the discussions were, obviously, but I gather the college was acting under legal advice. That being the case, they would have been advised as to the appropriateness of their response.
Mr Crozier: But is the council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons able to enact policies that involve the area of discipline?
Mr Beatty: Yes, for appropriate purposes, I think.
Mr Crozier: So there is some scope to it, but you're saying that perhaps it would have been beyond that scope to follow the suggestions of the Minister of Health.
Mr Beatty: Without being privy to legal advice, I don't know, but I suspect that's the case.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Mr Beatty, you mentioned in your opening comments your brother's political involvement. Could you tell us please about any partisan political involvement you've had?
Mr Beatty: Yes. I've been involved in student politics, to start off with, at the University of Western Ontario, where I served on the senate appeals committees -- the admissions and appeals. I served on that committee with David Peterson, as a matter of fact. I was involved as speaker of the university's student council. I became involved with the Young Tories at that time, have kept up a membership with that party for some period of time. I ran as candidate back in 1987, at the time the Liberals did so well here in the province of Ontario. I stood again as a potential candidate the last time around but obviously don't represent my riding.
Mr Silipo: I want to come back to this point about the role of the college as you see it, as a potential member of that college, in this ongoing dispute. I took from your replies earlier that clearly the role of the college is somewhat limited, but you thought there might have been a role in terms of suggesting ways in which the dispute could be resolved. Specifically on this question of disciplinary action, are you comfortable with the position taken by the college in rejecting the request of the minister to discipline physicians who were protesting by way of withdrawing their services?
Mr Beatty: Mr Silipo, I'm not sure I can answer that with any sort of confidence. I think there may be a difference between concerted job action and individual choices being made by professionals. Again, I'm not sure what legal advice they had on that issue. I note there certainly have been problems with that sort of interpretation in the past. That's the best I can offer.
Mr Silipo: I want to probe a little bit further. While the council clearly gave an answer, it's not necessarily the end of the matter, because the dispute is still there, the issue is still before us, and, whatever we feel about this issue in terms of who's right or who's wrong, we still have an issue that's out there that needs to be resolved. It would not surprise me to see the minister again try to call upon the council to do something which, as I see it, particularly right now, would not be appropriate. I want to ask you what your sense would be. I appreciate that you don't have at this point all the information in front of you, but I want to probe a little further in terms of, what's the approach you would take as a member of the council faced with a request from the minister, or indeed an issue brought to you by any other individual who is able to, requesting disciplinary action against a doctor or doctors who have withdrawn services by way of protest?
Mr Beatty: I guess it depends on whether the withdrawal of services meets the requirements of professional practice under the act. If a doctor has abandoned a patient in extremis, has created a health crisis for a patient by not offering services, I think perhaps it would be a matter for discipline. I couldn't anticipate further than that.
1030
Mr Silipo: I want to go back to another area that you had some clear experience in. You mentioned your membership on South Muskoka Memorial Hospital. Your résumé here points that out. You were a director from 1989 and then a chair of the board from 1992 to 1995. Could you tell us, from that experience, using perhaps the South Muskoka Memorial Hospital as an example, what you see happening as a result of the cuts that hospitals across the province, particularly this hospital, are having to deal with as a result of the cuts imposed by the Minister of Health?
Mr Beatty: Hospitals in a certain way, because they are bricks and mortar, have the problem that they're bound by their walls. Some interesting experiments were being done by the last government on hospitals without walls, and I suspect that will continue on. The hospitals themselves are very powerful members of the health care community because they have the organization and the building to go with it.
We are taking every reasonable effort, first of all, to look at streamlining and economizing within our own facility, which we think we've pushed just about to the limit at this stage, and now we're reaching out beyond, with the three hospitals committee, to see whether, by regionalizing services and regionalizing our human assets, we can create further savings so that patient care is not affected. That's our major concern: patient care and trying to keep that maintained to the highest level possible.
Mr Silipo: Do you know the extent of the cuts that will affect the South Muskoka hospital over the next couple of years?
Mr Beatty: Yes. I think we're looking at 5%-type cuts; between 4% and 5% a year.
Mr Silipo: Is your sense that that level of cuts can be absorbed in the restructuring without affecting the level of care provided?
Mr Beatty: What we're doing right now is looking at our core services and saying we may not be able to offer all the services we have in the past, and is it appropriate for us to regionalize those services and offer them elsewhere?
Mr Silipo: So clearly there will be not only a change in services but some services may no longer be offered.
Mr Beatty: That's correct.
Mr Silipo: I want to ask you about another area which would come back more specifically to your role as a member of the council, and that is around the issue of foreign-trained doctors. I raise that both in the context of a sense of justice for people who come from other countries with credentials as doctors and, after they go through the appropriate tests they have to go through to prove that they are qualified at a certain level, then find themselves somewhat blocked because they're not able to get the internship that's required for them to eventually be able to set up practice. An article just the other day pointed out that only about 24 of up to 500 foreign-trained doctors are granted those kinds of internships.
Do you see the college needing to play a more active role? What would be your particular approach to this, in terms of there being a pool of people who clearly are qualified or believe they are qualified -- in many cases people who are prepared to relocate, again addressing the other part of the point that I wanted to bring out, which is that we know that there continues to be a problem in terms of service in some parts of the province -- yet this continuing resistance to looking at people who are trained in other countries in the same way that we look at people who are trained here? What would be your approach and your role as a member of the council to this problem?
Mr Beatty: I'm glad you brought that to my attention. That's something I certainly would like to know more about. I understand what you're saying, and I think if the qualifications are appropriate the opportunity should be given to someone to enter into practice. We have even more restrictive measures so far as lawyers are concerned. We can't transfer our skills from province to province, let alone country to country. Yes, it's something I'd certainly feel quite strongly about.
The Chair: Are there other questions from any of the members? If not, Mr Beatty, thank you very much for coming before the committee and sharing your views with us. We appreciate your presence here.
Mr Beatty: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
JOHN KRAUTER
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: John Krauter, intended appointee as member, Halton Housing Authority.
The Chair: Mr Krauter, I don't think you were here for the beginning of Mr Beatty's presentation, but we have a tradition of the intended appointee making any opening remarks they might care to make and then having the members ask questions of you. Whenever you're ready, we're ready for you.
Mr John Krauter: Thank you, Mr Chairman, gentlemen. It's a privilege to meet with such an élite group of the assembly. I don't have any opening statements. With your permission, I've been through an experience that, since we have the whole Legislative Assembly represented here, might be of interest to you when you talk about deregulation and cutting red tape.
I happen to be involved in an operation with a laboratory. There were only three of them in Canada, and it's certified. I have a partner on that one, and since I'm getting out of farming we have to move a flock. We use them for bleeding purposes and we ship blood to the United States, to Canada and to the UK, blood plasma and things. It's quite a good business. The laboratory employs about 30 or 40 full-time people.
Making the changes, we decided we had to build some new facilities down at Mount Nemo. Since June 15 we've been trying to get permits to build facilities down there to house the animals, and we had to go through 11 organizations. We thought we had everything cleared through the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the chair of the regional; they gave us the go-ahead sign. We let the contracts for bulldozing, we put in the foundations, the water lines, the roads, and now all that needs to be put up is the building, and it's under way now.
Then Monday, lo and behold, I was down there. Some dissident or bureaucrat -- I don't know -- from Burlington comes out and says we have to have another permit, a building permit, and it has to be cleared through him, after we've had the go-ahead sign on the thing and we've been five months in the making.
I just tossed that out for some food for thought for you people who make these regulations and laws that we have to abide by and fight out here.
Those are my opening remarks, Mr Chairman, and I'd be glad to take any questions that any of you have.
The Chair: I'm glad we were able to allow a forum for you to get that off your chest. It's not often that people equate bureaucrats with dissidents. I think that's most appropriate. Are there any questions or comments from the government members?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve our time, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you for that. From the Liberals, Mr Bartolucci.
Mr Bartolucci: Very few questions, maybe a bit of advice: It looks like it's going to be an OMB ruling, so why don't you send one of these people out to get George Beatty before he gets too far away? He seems to have experience in front of the OMB.
The candidate search process indicates that there are a number of ways you could become a member of the housing authority. I'd just like to explore, how did you become interested? Who suggested? Why did you decide? Those types of questions.
Mr Krauter: Except for my brief stint with the Ministry of Agriculture, if you have my résumé you saw the capacities in which I served there. It goes back. I've been in the farming business. I came from a family of eight kids and I was in the middle, so I had to learn to do things. I was the only one who was privileged enough to go to university, and stayed in agriculture. The rest of them all got out of it. I don't know whether there's a lesson there to be learned. But I've been busy on the farm and in our riding. We've lived in Halton North for 22 years. I own the farm out there and I've been in the sheep and lamb business. We happen to be located in the best lamb market in North America, right here around Toronto.
So when the election was held last fall -- I've known the Chudleighs for a long, long time and been involved in agricultural organizations. I had known Ted Chudleigh when he was in the marketing branch at the Ministry of Agriculture and thought very highly of him. I said to him when he got elected, "If there's any way I can help you out in any capacity, feel free to call on me." I didn't know, until someone called me and asked me for a résumé, that I had even been considered. That's the history of how I'm in here. Evidently Ted must have submitted my name.
1040
Mr Bartolucci: So you don't have this passionate desire to serve on the Halton Housing Authority. You're just doing your buddy Ted a favour.
Mr Krauter: I'll tell you, every year I get the annual report. I noticed in this year's annual report -- I just got it a few days ago and looked it over. But every day I marvel at how we can throw so much money around and get such few results. That was one reason it created my interest in this. I haven't been raised that way. I've always been kind of old-fashioned. I've been taught that you pay your way as you go along and you pay your bills.
I look out there and I see there are nine members on the board presently. Only three have been on there longer than a year. There have been six new members put on last year in February, and I'm at a loss to understand why we had such a big turnover. That's another thing that's created a little interest on my part. We've sold the farm and we're getting out of the farming business, so I have a little more time. I hope to spend a little time in Arizona when the snow gets deep.
Mr Bartolucci: Given that background and having those strong beliefs -- this is a serious question because I think it's a crucial one -- what ideas do you have with regard to local housing authorities? Which direction would you like to see them go? What are your views with regard to public housing etc?
Mr Krauter: You want me to tell you my thinking on that. Is that what you're asking for?
Mr Bartolucci: I want your opinion, as honestly as you can.
Mr Krauter: As I look over the last two years of reports, and I just looked over the last one and counted the money that's going into that, it's about $1,200 per unit in Halton region. I think there's a better way we can help needy people than by building bricks and mortar out there to put them in, and that's one of my beliefs. I think there are other people who can do that job better. In my experience, even some in government, I've never seen private enterprise that can't do a better job of running certain aspects than we can in government.
That was one of my aspirations, to cut out some of this unnecessary waste and spending, inefficiency. For 743 units in that size it looks to me like a drop in the bucket compared to what it should be with nearly 400,000 in population. That's part of my thinking.
Mr Bartolucci: So you'd sell off the bricks and mortar. Is that what you're saying?
Mr Krauter: I'd want to look at it. I don't know. Like I said, I'm not a housing expert but I would like to be closer to it and find out more about it. I think if there are better ways to do it, then we should look at better ways to do it.
Mr Bartolucci: Are there any particular ideas or initiatives you'd like to explore at the housing authority, any particular initiatives you strongly believe in that you'd like to see implemented?
Mr Krauter: A $1,200-a-month supplement to live on our own property, in our own bricks and mortar, looks to me like an awfully expensive way to deal with needy people. All I'm saying is that I think there's got to be a better way to do it.
Mr Bartolucci: But you haven't got any tangible ideas that you want to share with the committee this morning?
Mr Krauter: No, not right now. I'd want to look at it before I make any hard statements.
Mr Bartolucci: All right.
Mr Crozier: Good morning, sir. I was interested as well in your opening remarks. I want to get to know you a little better. You had some strong opinions about bureaucrats, but you were a bureaucrat for 18 years. Did your opinion change after that?
Mr Krauter: A lot of people told me I wasn't a very good bureaucrat. I had the president of the Heinz soup company come in and see the minister. The president of Campbell soup came up there and had lunch with Mr Stewart one day and he wanted to know how he got me to be a bureaucrat. He said I didn't fit the mould. I don't know whether that answers your question.
Mr Crozier: I appreciate that. You've had a very successful career in farming and working with the government, so now you want to take some time off and devote some time, and I appreciate that. Do you have any sense of what kind of time it will require to be in the housing authority for its meetings and certain other committee meetings that will be required?
Mr Krauter: I have no idea at this point in time, but whatever it takes, if I take on the job, I'll do it.
Mr Crozier: I'm sure you will. But you said that after this career, you've earned this rest, you were going to go to Arizona. Is it your plan to spend the winter in Arizona?
Mr Krauter: I go back and forth now maybe a month at a time but I don't stay too long. If I get bored I come back home and get my feet on the ground here.
Mr Crozier: Do you think that will interfere with the requirements of your time for the housing authority?
Mr Krauter: Oh, it could, I suppose, but I don't intend to let it interfere. Like I said, if I take on a job, if I can't, I won't be at the job too long.
Mr Crozier: So you're saying to us that if you can't attend the monthly meeting and the tenant meetings and workshops, you then will resign from the authority. Is that the case?
Mr Krauter: No, that isn't exactly what I said. If I can't do some good on there -- in other words, I don't believe you should be sitting around spinning your wheels and occupying chairs if you can't accomplish something. But if I take on the job I'll meet the requirements of the job.
Mr Crozier: Okay. I guess it can't be any clearer than that. There is a lot of money spent in this area, and I know the government has made it relatively clear in that they even have a statement, "Doing better for less," in which they generally wrap up by saying: "This government recognizes that the role of the private sector is the development, delivery and management of housing for Ontarians. The ministry believes that government should assist needy individuals in affording decent shelter by providing shelter subsidies to individuals rather than bricks and mortar." I think you've more or less said that.
It's also been suggested that the government would like to sell the bricks and mortar it owns now. Do you believe there's a market in the private area where they will buy existing government housing, spend the considerable amounts of money we are told will be needed to bring it up to some standard?
Mr Krauter: Well, land, they aren't making any more of it, so the land under some of these units, and I know them pretty well -- we don't have any around Milton particularly but I guess we've got some good councillors and some pretty good politicians locally who look at things realistically -- yes, I think you can get value. In other words, I think we've created a few ghettos out there, in my honest opinion in this thing. Maybe some of those buildings will be worth more if you just bulldoze them over and sell the land. Let somebody start over again on them.
The Chair: Can we get your wrapup question, Mr Crozier, please?
Mr Crozier: Thank you, Mr Chair. That's it.
Mr Silipo: Mr Krauter, you mentioned earlier your relationship with Mr Chudleigh. Could you tell us if you are a member of a political party?
Mr Krauter: Yes. I have been for 40 years.
Mr Silipo: A member of the Conservative Party?
Mr Krauter: The same party for 40 years.
Mr Silipo: All right. You said earlier that you were wondering about the turnover in the members of the board. I'm assuming that you were referring to those. Is that right?
Mr Krauter: Yes. All in one month, sir, and that raises a big question in my mind.
Mr Silipo: You're part of that turnover, I would say to you, because the present government is simply replacing all the previous members on the board. That's what's going on.
Mr Krauter: Who replaced those last February 1995? Did you people do that?
Mr Silipo: In February 1995?
Mr Krauter: Yes, six new members came on the board in February 1995.
Mr Silipo: Probably that's what's happened.
Mr Krauter: Okay.
Mr Silipo: I want to go a little bit beyond in terms of some comments you were making around your notion that you pay your way and cutting some of the inefficiencies. One of the points that's been made, interestingly enough by tenants as well as landlords, in this whole question of the government getting out of the housing business is that it will reduce if not eliminate significantly affordable housing. That is, when you look at the range of affordable housing, and I realize that the cost of housing has gone down over the last little while relative to what it was, if you look at it over the long term in terms of the price, the reality is that if the government were out of building affordable housing, I don't think the case could be made that the private sector has had a good track record of building affordable housing.
1050
As a prospective member of a housing authority, if you were going to support a government that was going to get out of the housing business, the bricks and mortar, as you called it, how would you go about ensuring that there will continue to be affordable housing provided for people in the province?
Mr Krauter: There's probably more than one reason. I'll give you a little example. I have a property out there that's exactly like the house I live in. It's quite a nice home. I get $800 a month, and when I see the housing authority's financial report, we're subsidizing the needy with $1,200 a month. I'd like to get one of those in my house, I don't mind telling you, but I'm getting what the market will pay out there for rent. I have to wonder why we are spending that kind of money when they can rent properties like mine out there for $800 a month. It must be going on. Maybe, to be perfectly blunt, the government has been in the way of developers. I don't know. I know a few developers. I'll ask them that question, why they aren't.
Mr Silipo: I think that's a relevant question, because we can get caught in the situation of the moment and say, "Well, now housing is more affordable, rent is more affordable than it was before," generally speaking. But if we look back over the last 20 or 30 years I don't think we can make that claim, so it would seem logical to suggest that you can't just leave it to chance. That's why I'd be interested in what you see as your role. If the government were going to get out of the role of building housing, as clearly they have indicated they intend to do, if they were going to the next step and start to sell off the existing stock of public housing, how do we ensure there is housing that people can afford?
Mr Krauter: I think the marketplace will take care of that. If people can make money at building housing and get rid of some of these rent controls -- I may be touching some sore fingers here when I say that -- hell, the marketplace will adjust and take care of it and builders will build if they can make some money at it. Maybe you can explain to me what affordable housing is. What do you call affordable housing?
Mr Silipo: I think affordable housing is housing that families of middle and low income particularly can afford to sustain.
Mr Krauter: What income do you consider low and middle?
Mr Silipo: We can get into a long discussion on that. I think the reality is -- you tend to rely on the private sector doing that -- the private sector, I would say to you, hasn't done it. The track record shows it hasn't done it. Rent controls were brought in by a Conservative government, a Conservative Premier, in part on that understanding, that the private sector in and of itself wasn't going to do the job and wasn't doing the job. We disagree fundamentally on that point.
Mr Krauter: I've always been a free-enterpriser. I pride myself, as long as I've been in the farming business, and I brag about it, in that I've never taken one penny of government subsidies or grants, crop insurance; I never have in my lifetime and I was raised that way. My dad only went to fifth grade in school but he learned that one. He said the biggest favour government can do to agriculture is to stay out of the business and let them go. Every day, the longer I live, the more I believe that.
Mr Silipo: I assume, though, having said that, Mr Krauter, that you've never turned back the land tax rebate that you get.
Mr Krauter: I don't consider that as a land tax rebate. That tax shouldn't ever have been there to begin with.
Mr Silipo: I agree with you there too.
Mr Krauter: Right now we pay 75 cents out of every dollar out there for school taxes and it's outrageous.
Mr Silipo: I agree with you on that point. I don't disagree with you. I agree with you on your basic notion that people should be encouraged to pay their way. You talked about that as the way you were brought up. That's certainly the way I was brought up. But the point we can't forget is that that isn't possible for everyone in the province all the time, so it seems to me that we have a role, as a society, through our government to also look at the best way we can assist people.
Mr Krauter: I don't deny that. I believe we are our brother's keeper and that there are some people, through no fortune or misfortune of their own, get into trouble and they've got to be looked after. But I know with the thoughts of regardless of what political party you are, there are never going to be people going hungry in this country whether they have any money or whether they don't have money --
Mr Silipo: Unfortunately we have more and more going hungry.
Mr Krauter: -- and we're always going to have a cheap food policy. You politicians are never going to let anything other than a cheap food policy because otherwise you don't get elected.
Mr Silipo: Thank you, Mr Krauter.
The Chair: Are there any further questions from the government?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll waive our time.
The Chair: Just before you leave, Mr Krauter, I would be interested in seeing, and I will try and get it, the annual report from the Halton Housing Authority to which you refer. The appointments which go through this committee, and this is the report, A Guide to Agencies, Boards and Commissions, show that in 1995 there was only one appointment to the Halton Housing Authority, and that was in March 1995, so I want to get a copy of that.
Mr Krauter: I just got the copy last Friday and I looked in there very carefully. The chairman has been there since 1987 and another member has been there since 1987. He is also a councilman from Burlington; he's also chairman of the police services board out there and he sits on the housing board. He's a good man. I don't object to that one and he's been there. Other than that, there are six members who are all appointed in February and it's right in the report in bold, hard print.
The Chair: I will get a copy of it because that's not --
Mr Krauter: I'll give one to Ted Chudleigh and he can see that it gets transferred over to you, Mr Laughren.
The Chair: Thank you for appearing before the committee this morning, Mr Krauter.
Mr Krauter: Thank you. Just keep those tax rebates coming back until you change the tax system. Thank you, gentlemen. It's been a pleasure again. We used to spend a few hours in this room over the years, at estimates. I'm sorry Peter isn't there because I always thought quite highly of his predecessor.
1100
REID SMITH
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Reid Smith, intended appointee as a full-time member, Kent and Chatham Housing Authority.
The Chair: Welcome to the committee. We would be pleased to hear any opening comments you might have before the members begin asking you some questions.
Mr Reid Smith: Certainly. It's a hard act to follow here, but I'd first like to introduce myself as Reid Smith. That's my first name.
I was born and raised in Oxford county, in a little village called Norwich, and got transferred with my job to Chatham in 1980 with Big V Pharmacies, which has recently been bought out by Shoppers Drug Mart. My status there has been a front-shop manager for 18 years. I also pride myself in that I am a member of the Chatham Jaycees and just recently received a senatorship for the work I was involved in with the community through the Chatham Jaycees. I'm also an active member, through my business, of the Chatham and District Chamber of Commerce and a volunteer in some fund-raising activities with the United Way of Chatham-Kent. I officiated for 14 years in hockey with the OHL and the International Hockey League and the Ontario Hockey Association, so I take that, and some people may disagree with that, as fairness in the rights.
Mr Bartolucci: See you in Sudbury.
Mr Smith: I'm married to Kim and have two young children, Craig, six, and Kelly, two, who has Down syndrome. That is another big eye opener I had in the last couple of years, bringing up a Down syndrome child, but we love her very much and she is a joy. That's all I have to say, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Smith. Any questions or comments from the government members?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve our time, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you for that. Mr Crozier.
Mr Crozier: I want to note, Chair, that the government is awfully quiet this morning. It certainly helps us to move along in these meetings.
The Chair: Don't tease the bears, Mr Crozier.
Mr Crozier: It certainly makes it more interesting when they aren't.
You have listened to the previous witness. Our questioning very well might be relatively the same because it is the housing authority we're speaking about. I can start off by saying you're a very busy person. Have you considered the time it takes to volunteer for this housing authority position? Will you be available?
Mr Smith: Mr Crozier, may I just add that I'm not officiating any more. Since we've had our youngest daughter I've had to give up officiating because it takes some time, and with work, and now that I'm a past Jaycee, as a senator the regular business meetings are out of hand. That's why I want to get back to being involved in the community as I have been as a Jaycee and working with the hockey and so on and so forth.
Mr Crozier: Let me say you don't look old enough to be a senator. Did you wear glasses when you officiated?
Mr Smith: I didn't like to wear them.
Mr Bartolucci: Well, when you get to Sudbury --
Mr Smith: I didn't like to wear them, but you've heard of the three blind mice.
Mr Crozier: There is quite a lot being said about public housing. The government has a number of units they are currently responsible for, so there's that question of, what do we do? Do we continue the way it has been in the past? But it's been indicated that the government would like to sell them off to private enterprise and do things a different way. Do you have any comment or feeling about that?
Mr Smith: Honestly, I don't have a comment. I would like to get on the board first and sit and listen to both sides of the story. As I stated earlier, as an official I like to take both sides of the story and feel what my gut feeling is on the choice when I sit on the board and make the decision at that time.
Mr Crozier: Do you have any opinion, prior to going on the board, as to how you feel philosophically about the need for some sort of subsidized or geared-to-income housing as opposed to whether it should be made available at all?
Mr Smith: I feel there is a need for the housing out there. With its 100,000 people and 600-strong units I feel that especially in Chatham-Kent there is some need for subsidies or for housing itself. Yes, I agree with that.
Mr Crozier: Have you visited the units in Chatham?
Mr Smith: As a matter of fact, I have a friend who lives in one and I have been in it personally.
Mr Crozier: Do you have any opinion as to the condition?
Mr Smith: It was a very strong building in very nice condition, well maintained, very nice facility.
Mr Crozier: Okay. Do you have any questions?
Mr Bartolucci: Just a few brief questions. The candidate search process has a variety of ways that you can be informed about an opening on a local housing authority. Could I ask how you were informed?
Mr Smith: By a personal friend who is a retired Hydro employee. I had shown him my interest in getting involved in the community and he had understood, through the MPP, that there was a job available and asked me if I'd be interested in submitting my name. At that point I put in my résumé to Jack Carroll's office, which was forwarded here to Toronto.
Mr Bartolucci: Through Jack's office. Have you ever been involved in any landlord-tenant issues in the past?
Mr Smith: Not myself. I was a tenant for several years as a younger fellow, leaving home and moving to Chatham. As an 18-year-old I lived in a few apartments through my time.
Mr Bartolucci: You never got involved in tenants' associations or anything like that?
Mr Smith: Not at all, sir.
Mr Bartolucci: You know, it is not a tough act for you to follow because, and I will be very sincere when I say this, you understand the need of individuals because you have a young daughter who is going to require individual assistance. I suggest that your sensitivity to the issues is already there and it's quite profound and that you'll be an excellent appointee.
Mr Smith: Thank you very much, sir.
Mr Silipo: Mr Smith, I think my line of questioning will be quite similar. Can you tell us if you are now, or have ever been, a member of a political party?
Mr Smith: Yes, I am a card-carrying member.
Mr Silipo: Of?
Mr Smith: Of the Conservative Party, sir.
Mr Silipo: Thank you. There are other parties. That's why we ask from time to time.
I wanted to ask also about this question of your role, as you see it, as a member of the housing authority because you will be dealing with this question of how to run the housing that is there. There will be, through the restructuring, greater autonomy given to the local housing authorities. I would like to hear a little bit more from you about how you see your role. Where is the role of government in terms of providing affordable housing as you see it? Are you supportive of what the government wants to do in getting out of the bricks and mortar, as they call it, and what will that do, as I was asking Mr Krauter earlier, to the question of affordable housing in the province?
Mr Smith: I really can't give you a direct answer to your question but I will state, as I stated earlier, that I cannot see anybody living cold out in the streets because that's not the way I operate. As I sat with Jaycees and listened and looked at both sides of the story, when I sit on a committee I will be very active in the committee to make sure I am making the best decision, that I feel right no matter which way it goes. But I would like to get some more information from sitting on the committee, the board of authority, get some more facts before I can answer that question.
Mr Silipo: The difficulty that puts me in -- I can't speak for the others and I appreciate that you may not be as familiar with this issue as you likely will be if you become a member of the authority -- is that I also have to determine, as do other members of the committee, whether you are the kind of person who should be appointed to this body. I look for at least some understanding of the issue.
What would your reaction be if in the not-too-distant future you are faced with a decision from the government that says whatever the number of units now under the Kent and Chatham Housing Authority, those are gone, what you will be administering is no longer the housing that is there but simply the distribution of a number of subsidies that are given to individuals who live in your community? Is that a good thing? Is that a bad thing from your perspective? How would you react to that?
Mr Smith: Seeing the housing that is available in Chatham in Kent county, the bricks and mortar seem to be in fine shape. I'd like to see that continue on and I'd also like to see, as things get run down and rugged and used, that we get out of that business and subsidize people who cannot afford housing and in that way try and open it up to the private sector and get the buildings and bricks and blocks built by our private sector and get out of it as a government-funded --
Mr Silipo: How would you go about ensuring, or having the government ensure, that if you were to get out of that business, there continued to be affordable housing for people in the province and in Chatham-Kent?
Mr Smith: I would sit on the board of directors and make sure, the best way I could, that there is enough money out there that nobody is left without shelter.
Mr Silipo: And you think that would still be possible if the only funds you were then administering were simply subsidies, not capital dollars for the building and maintenance of buildings?
Mr Smith: I would make sure on my side that there would be enough money available -- I would hope there would be enough money available to subsidize these people.
Mr Silipo: That's what I'm asking you: Do you think there would be enough money if what the government does is simply reduce its role to providing just rental subsidies, forget about the capital, forget about building any more, forget about keeping up the existing housing stock --
Mr Smith: Yes, I think there will be enough money.
Mr Silipo: -- and simply rely on the private sector to build affordable housing?
Mr Smith: I think there will be enough money out there.
Mr Silipo: Well, I hope you're right. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Silipo. Are there any further questions?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll waive our time.
The Chair: Okay. Mr Smith, thank you for coming before the committee and providing the answers you did.
The Chair: We are running a little ahead of time. I don't know whether Laurie Scott is here or not. No?
Mr Bob Wood: Could we perhaps deal with concurrences, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: I think that is a good suggestion. Can we deal with the concurrences now, while we wait for Ms Scott, for the three people who have already appeared? All right.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Beatty.
The Chair: Do you wish to speak to it?
Mr Bob Wood: I do not, no.
The Chair: Any debate on Mr Wood's motion? Ready for the question? All in favour? Opposed? Unanimous.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Krauter.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Any debate?
Mr Silipo: I'll say briefly, just for the record, I won't be supporting this or the next appointment. I think both Mr Krauter and Mr Reid are fine citizens but I just fundamentally disagree with their approach to this and can't support their appointment.
Mr Bartolucci: Mr Chair, I won't be supporting this appointment either. I would have hoped there was a greater reason for wanting to serve other than, "My buddy put my name in."
The Chair: Any further debate? Ready for the question? All those in favour of Mr Krauter's appointment, please indicate. All those opposed? It is carried.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence, Mr Chairman, in the intended appointment of Mr Smith.
The Chair: Any debate on this motion by Mr Wood? Ready for the question? All those in favour of Mr Wood's motion? All those opposed? It is carried.
We still have to deal with Ms Laurie Scott of the Haliburton, Kawartha and Pine Ridge District Health Council. She is not here yet. Can we take a five- or 10-minute break and keep an eye on it if you can?
Mr Bob Wood: I'll stay around. We're ready when others are ready.
The Chair: Okay. We are adjourned temporarily.
The committee recessed from 1112 to 1141.
The Chair: The standing committee will reconvene. It would appear that Ms Scott is not going to appear. The committee should understand that this person has already had -- I'm not saying it's her fault -- an extension of 14 days. So at this point, if she's not here today, we can't automatically say, "Well, then, she appears next week." We would throw the ball back into the court of the appointments secretariat to determine what happens from here if that's appropriate, if the committee wishes.
Mr Bob Wood: I'm wondering, Mr Chairman, if the clerk might explain, for the purpose of the record, the arrangement that she is aware of for Ms Scott's appearance today.
Clerk of the Committee: I talked to her on the phone personally and informed her that today was the day. That was fine with her on the phone. We sent her a confirming letter stating the time, the place, the date. We sent her another confirming letter just to change her time from 10 to 11:30, so she's had two letters and a phone call.
At this point, as Mr Laughren said, the 30 days plus the 14-day extension that the committee has control over has expired. At this point if the committee still wishes to hear from her, we would send a request to the secretariat asking for a further deferral, at which point, if it was approved, we would just try to schedule her again. So it's up to the committee at this point what they want to do.
The Chair: In other words, you could presumably move a motion to have the secretariat respond to the dilemma, if they wish to ask for a deferral, to do so.
Mr Silipo: I want to be very fair about this, but I think that given what's happened, it would seem to me that if we were to simply note that she wasn't here, then presumably the course that would follow is that she would no longer be able to be considered for this appointment. If there was a good explanation that came up, I presume it would be possible for the secretariat to reappoint and for the process to start again. But I feel hard-pressed to say we should ask for a further extension, given the explanation we've just heard from the clerk. I think we should just follow the process, but what I'm saying to government members is, if it turns out there is a valid reason why the individual wasn't able to be here --
The Chair: It's up to the secretariat to respond.
Mr Bob Wood: I think it's a question that once it goes through, it goes through, so if there are those who might wish to hear her, they have to act now.
Clerk of the Committee: Yes. If the committee doesn't have the opportunity to interview her within the time frame set out, the appointment will automatically go through.
Mr Silipo: It goes through.
Clerk of the Committee: That's correct. So if the committee wants to interview her before it goes through, there should be a motion that we request the secretariat to defer the appointment until the committee has had an opportunity to interview her.
Mr Silipo: Yes, sorry. I stand corrected. I thought I remembered the process as being that if we had requested that she be interviewed and she wasn't here, the process stopped.
Clerk of the Committee: Within the time frames, at some point, once the times have elapsed, the appointment can go through. That's why, if the committee wants, they need to pass a motion requesting the secretariat to allow this committee to interview her before the appointment goes through.
The Chair: Otherwise it's automatic.
Mr Silipo: I would so move.
The Chair: Okay. We have a motion before the committee, then -- I'll interpret it that way -- that the committee asks the secretariat to defer the appointment until there has been an opportunity to appear before the committee.
Mr Bob Wood: I would personally be prepared to recommend this to the committee as long as there is a time limit on it, which I would think -- what is today? The 20th. It would seem to me that if we gave 22 days for this to happen, either it's going to happen or it isn't going to. I'd be quite happy to support that.
The Chair: What if you said by December 11, which is the last scheduled day for this committee to meet?
Mr Bob Wood: I'd be satisfied with that.
The Chair: Okay. Satisfied with that?
Mr Silipo: Sure.
The Chair: That's the last Wednesday that the committee is scheduled to meet. We may meet later, but that is the last scheduled meeting. Is that okay?
Mr Bob Wood: I'm satisfied.
The Chair: We'll assume that's a motion. Any further debate on it? All those in favour? It's carried. Thank you very much for that. We'll try and sort this out.
Thank you for your patience this morning and we'll see you next week. We're adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 11:46.