INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
JOHN GARDNER
CONTENTS
Wednesday 2 April 1997
Intended appointments
Mr John Gardner
Dr Robert Williams
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 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 FrankMiclash (Kenora L)
Mr DanNewman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr TonySilipo (Dovercourt ND)
Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mrs BrendaElliott (Guelph PC)
Mr TomFroese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Also taking part /Autre participant:
Mr RichardPatten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Mr GerardKennedy (York South L)
Clerk pro tem /
Greffier par intérim: Mr Doug Arnott
Staff / Personnel: Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1005 in room 228.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
JOHN GARDNER
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: John Gardner, intended appointee as member, Workers' Compensation Board.
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The standing committee will come to order. We have no subcommittee report this morning, so we can move directly to the intended appointees. The first one is Mr John Gardner for the Workers' Compensation Board. Mr Gardner, welcome to the committee. As you may know, it's the tradition that you be allowed to make any opening remarks you might have, after which members of the committee can ask you any questions.
Mr John Gardner: Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for this opportunity. I'll make just a very brief set of opening remarks. I'm not familiar with the process, so I don't know what background you have, but my experience really has been in the insurance field. I've had 35 years with a major Canadian life insurance company. The majority of that time was spent in the management of business operations, territorial operations, and in general management. For 10 years I was president and director. All that has been with one company, so I can't claim to have had experience with a variety of employers.
My professional training was as an actuary, and it was really during the front end of my career that the actuarial side came into the nature of my work. I was involved with the life insurance industry a few years back, designed its consumer protection plan. I was part of that process. I was a member of the task force that put it together, then a director and then chair for three years.
With respect to experience outside the industry, for a number of years I've been active with different organizations. I'm currently chair of the Fields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences. It's an institute which receives strong support from the province of Ontario. I'm a trustee at the Sunnybrook Health Science Centre. I served for nine years as a government appointee to the governing council of the University of Toronto. I think this experience is relevant, because first of all it has made me sensitive to the processes of governance. It has also given me the opportunity of working in an environment where you have a multiplicity of interests to deal with.
Just very briefly in terms of my preparation, I think my experience with the company is relevant. It is a major player in the disability income field and it is also a large employer, just as is the Workers' Compensation Board.
In terms of preparing myself for the issues in front of the board, I have had the opportunity to read through some of the material that has been flowing out over the last year and a half now. I'm very conscious that with respect to a nomination such as this, one should acquire a background. I think one is expected to rely on one's prior experience -- that has to relate to one's point of view -- but at the same time, as a board member I would want to be able to relate objectively to the research and the thinking that has been done, and I would not want to prejudge the issues, so I have tried to do my reading without attempting to develop too firm a stand in my own mind on things. I think perhaps that's enough in the way of an introductory comment.
The Chair: Thank you for that. Do government members have any questions at this time?
Mr Bob Wood (London South): We'll reserve our time, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: The official opposition?
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Welcome, Mr Gardner. Out of curiosity, did you spend any time in Montreal with your company?
Mr Gardner: Yes, I spent quite some time in Montreal. I went to University of Toronto. In that process my family moved to Montreal, so it was natural for me to start working there. I worked there for about 13 years. My company then transferred me down to the States for five and I went back to Montreal for two. I was advised at the border when I came back to Canada that at that point in time Sun Life had made its announcement and I was going the wrong way, but I worked there for another couple of years before coming to Toronto in 1980.
Mr Patten: Are you the present president?
Mr Gardner: No. I retired as president at the end of August of last year, so at this point in time I have no active relationship with Sun Life.
Mr Patten: So you're available?
Mr Gardner: I'm available.
Mr Patten: I'd like to ask a few questions in line with what I think will be some of the challenges you would most likely be facing. You have spent most of your life, as you said, in the private sector, in private insurance as it were, and now you would be moving to a publicly operated workers' compensation system. What do you believe are some of the differences that might place you in a position to either broaden or reconsider an organizational cultural difference?
Mr Gardner: I think there are both similarities and differences. In terms of similarities, both private and public sector institutions should have a clear idea of what their goals are so that they can work effectively at achieving them. To the extent that the institution, whichever side of the fence it's on, is an employer, there are practices that work well, there are practices that don't work so well. In terms of the differences, on the private side the objectives tend to be expressed quite frequently and clearly with respect to the ability of the private sector to meet its financial obligations, to manage its bottom line, as it were. On the public side, while ultimately I think the same responsibility exists, there's a little more flexibility often with respect to the time frame, and that flexibility is traded off for the public sector organization's desire to meet the expressed and perceived needs of the various communities it serves.
Mr Patten: I'm sure you're aware that the present chairman of the board is talking about some pretty significant organizational changes and I see in your background that you have been in a position for reorganizing and redesigning structures and this sort of thing. Based on what you know of the organization, do you have any thoughts on the direction it needs to move in in order to improve its capacity to deliver its mission?
Mr Gardner: Recognizing once again that my experience with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board is really limited to the material I've been reading, to me there's a positive flavour that comes from many of the changes that are either being implemented or being contemplated. I sense that there is an intention to tighten the focus of parts of the organization so that it is more focused on the benefits, on the clients that the board has, with less attention to what I'll call a functional bureaucracy. I think over the last decade or so many organizations have moved in that direction.
There seems to be recognition that the delivery of benefits to the clients by the board has been outstripped by the growth of the administrative apparatus in terms of size and volume. I think that's a direction many organizations around this continent in recent years have not followed. They've been able to go the other way, where they've been able to provide the same or better service with a tighter organization.
I sense that there's an emphasis on immediacy, the notion, for example, which I feel quite strongly about, that with respect to a claim in the area of disability, of injury, the earlier that the claims management process can be brought into play, and issues such as rehabilitation and vocational change, the sooner that happens the more effective it can be. That sounds quite interesting, as does in general the notion that the role of the board is to regulate the system and within the system there's a higher degree of reliance placed on the combination of the worker and the employer.
Mr Patten: Have you had an opportunity to participate in either any interviews or consultations with Cam Jackson's review or any of the discussion papers that have been distributed on occupational hazards, for example, things of that nature? Have you had a chance to participate in any of those?
Mr Gardner: I've had a chance to see Minister Jackson's paper and much of the material that came out in November with respect to Bill 99. In fact, I took an opportunity to attend a one-day seminar that was put on for employers, to explain to employers some of the things that were going on. I have seen some of the material that relates to the discussion that is opening up on the revision of the workplace safety and accident act, but I haven't really had a chance to digest that. That I've only seen most recently. As I say, it's been an opportunity to read, and not participate, I think, in the sense that you're asking.
Mr Patten: Have you had a chance to review Bill 99?
Mr Gardner: I've had a chance to review the discussion material that surrounds it but I haven't seen the bill itself.
Mr Patten: Interestingly enough, I just received a letter from my own municipality -- I'm from Ottawa -- from the Ottawa-Carleton regional council expressing concerns about Bill 99. I won't read the whole thing. There is a whole variety of "whereases" here, but one of them is the limitation or the outlaw of compensation for certain disabilities that have been heretofore covered under the current legislation.
Just to elaborate a little bit, in a nutshell, their worry is that there will not be coverage for certain work-related injuries that are considered to be of -- what's the term? -- a repetitive injury nature. They are not covered in the private sector either; they are not covered in the public. The individual worker making the assumption that these are legitimate cases, or let's say the ones that are, where does that person receive some support during a difficult time or during a rehab period?
The municipalities are saying: "This is going to add to costs for us that we will have to bear with our particular workers who won't be recognized." They're saying that's a legitimate claim. What would be your response to them on that score?
Mr Gardner: At this point I think my response would be one more -- I would be interested in hearing the debate. As I understand the situation, over recent decades there's been a broadening of the definition of what constitutes a covered injury. That has led to a situation which has put a crunch between the coverages one would like to offer and the ability to pay, but I think that's getting into the realm of the act and the Legislature to deal with. I think the board ends up having to take instruction from the legislation or regulation, from the ministry, as to what is covered or not covered.
Mr Patten: My last question: If you as a director of the board found that you were in conflict -- and imagine that it is possible that sometimes pieces of legislation are not well thought out or they turn out to be not pursuing the mission that was intended -- and you felt there were really some injustices here, that people were not being covered and were not being recognized for truly work-related accidents or injuries or illnesses or whatever, what would you tend to do?
Mr Gardner: As a member of the board, if I felt strongly on the position, I would first of all attempt to work with the other members of the board to see if I could bring their views into line with mine. At the same time I would run the risk of having my views changed in that internal debate. At the end of the debate I would have to make a decision where, in order to support the broader objectives of the board, without changing my own personal view, I might end up supporting the majority view. If I felt very strongly that it was wrong, I would think in normal governance procedures -- after all, the board is responsible to the government -- I would attempt to see that the alternative view is expressed to the government.
Mr Patten: Thank you very much, Mr Gardner.
1020
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Patten. Mr Kormos.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'll reserve my time, Chair.
The Chair: Do government members have any questions or comments?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll waive our time, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Back to you, Mr Kormos, if you wish.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. Mr Gardner, having read the criteria by which the appointee was chosen, "significant knowledge and experience in the private insurance industry at a very senior level," I certainly can't quarrel with your expertise in that regard. I am concerned about the prospect -- and I'm suspicious of this government, you've got to understand that, very, very suspicious. You're as qualified a person in terms of the expertise in the private insurance industry.
My concern is that the agenda here is one which has as its goal either the privatization or what I call quasi-privatization of WCB, which causes me great concern. But that's my concern, which is a very political one, not yours. I have no questions of this gentleman. I don't know why he's here, Chair.
The Chair: Mr Gardner, you can see that you've had a very pleasant ride this morning.
Mr Gardner: So far.
The Chair: I will simply leave you with that age-old definition of an actuary which you may or may not have heard, and that's that an actuary is an accountant without a sense of humour, but I doubt very much that's your case.
Mr Gardner: I have been around long enough that that one is already in my repertoire.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Gardner, for coming before the committee this morning.
Mr Gardner: Thank you for this opportunity.
ROBERT WILLIAMS
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Robert Williams, intended appointee as member, Health Services Restructuring Commission.
The Chair: If you would take a seat, Dr Williams, we appreciate your presence before the committee this morning. All the members of this committee are very familiar with the Health Services Restructuring Commission. It has visited many of our communities. We're pleased that you're here. Do you wish to make any opening comments?
Dr Robert Williams: Yes, I do, please. I'm honoured to be here today; I think anyways I'm honoured instead of intimidated. I would like to give you a bit of my background. I graduated from the University of Western Ontario in medicine in 1975 and I've been in private practice in Timmins, Ontario, since 1976. I still continue to provide primary care in Timmins, and my practice includes a private office practice and general practice. I do emergency shift work, I look after inpatients in the hospital in Timmins and continue to do obstetrics.
I've been chief of staff at the hospital in Timmins since 1985. I've managed the medical staff through many changes in that time, including the expansion of a hospital from a primary care hospital to a specialty care hospital, the amalgamation of two former hospitals into the present Timmins and District Hospital and the development and construction of the newest hospital in Ontario -- general hospital.
I've worked with many provincial health care organizations over the last 12 years. They include the Ministry of Health; the Ontario Hospital Association; the Ontario Medical Association; HMRI, or the Canadian Institute for Health Information; ICES; as well as the JPPC. I've specialized in projects concerning policy development and physician utilization.
I've written several articles on the physician's role in health care restructuring and have consulted on request with several individual hospitals in this province that were having organizational problems involving their medical staff.
I'm honoured to be considered for a position on the Health Services Restructuring Commission. I believe I will be the first physician on the commission who is actively practising medicine. I hope I can bring to the commission a broad-based clinical perspective to their discussions and that I will assist the commission in making quality decisions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We'll start this time with the official opposition.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Dr Williams. You've indicated to some degree why you actually want to be on the Health Services Restructuring Commission. As the Chair pointed out, we're all very familiar with the process. I'm from Thunder Bay, and Thunder Bay was the first stop of the restructuring commission.
I'm curious as to your opinion in terms of some of the decisions that have been made by the commission. I appreciate that you might be reluctant to comment in any kind of definitive way, but it would be interesting, especially in light of what you said about being the first practising physician to be on the commission, because obviously some of our concerns, probably in Thunder Bay and perhaps in other regions, have to do with the fact that there has not been a terrific sense, necessarily, of what the reality in the community is and the reality of the hospitals and the treatment is as well. If you're willing to comment on some of the decisions that have been made so far, I'd be very curious.
Dr Williams: I think the commission has made some very courageous decisions. I've been working in utilization management with physicians for many years and I believe there's a lot of room for improvement in efficiency and the way we do business and have worked very hard on the provincial level to try and educate physicians and move them along in some change processes that will improve the efficiencies in their practices while still delivering quality care.
I know a physician very well in Thunder Bay, Dr McLeod, whom I'm sure you know as well, and I've heard his concerns expressed about some of the decisions that have been made. Having read the review and read the report, I think they objectively looked at numbers and have tried to make rational sense out of a very complex situation, and I'm very curious to see how successful they can be in implementing some of the recommendations.
Mr Gravelle: Of course the thing that concerns everyone -- and it wouldn't just be Thunder Bay; I'm sure Sudbury, and if the Chair wasn't in the chair he probably would have some interesting questions for you and a few others as well. To say you'd be interested to see -- I realize you're not being the least bit frivolous about it, but obviously one of the great concerns is that if it doesn't work, the ramifications are massive. Certainly one of the concerns is the speed with which the commission insists that things happen and the fact that the transitional process, the community care, is not necessarily in place. Have you been watching that carefully as well? I think that is a legitimate concern and it's one that even the commission itself perhaps is beginning to recognize.
We've noticed as they've gone through the province that there have been some adjustments. You hit Thunder Bay first. That is a major issue. So I'm curious also about your thoughts in terms of that transition and the whole question of moving to better community care, let alone other medical needs as well.
Dr Williams: Certainly I can respond to that. I think there is a need for a shift to community care and it has to happen. It will not happen without a push and I think the stronger the push the faster it will happen. My experience with medical practices is that physicians enjoy doing what they've done in the way they've done it and are reluctant to change. I've worked with physicians and changed processes and without some third party usually pushing the process along, it moves very, very slowly.
I think medical practice can easily be switched to take advantage of a lot of opportunities that are available right now in the community. Certainly in Timmins I don't think we take anywhere near the full opportunity of using what we already have. I don't know Thunder Bay or Sudbury or the other regions that have been reviewed in great detail, but my guess would be that there are a lot of community services there and physicians just need to get used to using them and delivering care in a different way.
Mr Gravelle: What are your thoughts specifically on a government that says, "We are going to remove $1.3 billion over three years out of your operating budget," and chooses to restructure at the same time? That is without question the most difficult thing they're asking the system to handle. I would be curious: As somebody who's obviously practising as you were in Timmins and heading up the hospital there -- because that strikes many of us as being an almost impossible thing to do -- you literally say, "We're going to cut their hospital budgets by that amount and we're going to make you restructure at the same time."
1030
Dr Williams: I agree. I think the first year of budgetary cuts have been successfully absorbed by almost all the hospitals in the province. This year, though, I think we're going to see some hospitals not be able to successfully cope with the 6% or 7% reduction, whatever they received this year, and I think that next year the further budgetary cuts that are proposed for hospitals will be impossible to implement unless the restructuring dollars from years 1 and 2 are reinvested. I just don't think the hospitals can cut much more without getting into some quality care delivery problems.
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): The JPPC that you sit on has run models to show exactly that, and I'm just wondering, with respect to the models and the formulas that are going to be used by the commission, do you not find that you're going to be in a position of being involved with the committee that was providing some of the evaluative tools and now at the same time implementing them? Do you see that as an advantage or disadvantage? I wonder if you could comment on the models that you're going to be bringing in as a member of the commission.
Dr Williams: Well, I haven't been involved in all of the models that the commission is using, but certainly some of them, and I think I'll be able to offer a very practical working knowledge of the innermost details of these models, so I'll be able to reflect, I hope, as a commissioner where the strengths are and where the weaknesses are. I think a lot of people are using the models in ways that they weren't intended and shouldn't be used in decision-making, and having I think a very good working knowledge of how they were put together, I'll be in a position to identify those weaknesses and ensure that the models are used in the correct way.
Mr Kennedy: Can you give some examples of where that has been used incorrectly to date?
Dr Williams: Well, one of my major concerns is with the expected stay index referral population, the ESI referral population that each hospital is given, and that is the denominator for calculating the patient-days per thousand. Now it's benchmarked at around 550 patient- days, going down probably to 450 over the next couple of years.
I think the model works very well in determining the population for urban hospitals where there are several hospitals in a large area, but the model breaks down when you get into rural and remote geographic areas. I think the model needs to be rethought and another sort of system be applied to rural, small hospitals in the province to understand what they contribute to their community and to the health care in their area and how they should best be repositioned in the future.
Mr Kennedy: I wonder if you too could comment: There's an average length of stay -- of course, it's fairly controversial -- 75th percentiles across 550 categories is what area hospitals are being asked to shoehorn themselves into. That's clearly the standard of the commission. It's being applied. Alternative level of care of zero? I wonder if you'd comment on those two benchmarks as well, from your past experience.
Dr Williams: I think the 75th percentile length of stay is reasonable. It's a 1994-95 benchmark, 75th percentile, and already most hospitals in the province are doing better than that in 1997, so I think it is a reasonable benchmark, using that year's database. I think that if 25% of the hospitals are able to achieve it, it is likely workable for most hospitals.
A lot of education has to be given to physicians, though, on how to practise to meet those sorts of standards. It's something that in medical school and in training we were never exposed to and never educated towards, and I think there's a huge gap in knowledge for a lot of physicians on effective ways of achieving shorter lengths of stays, and a lot of work needs to be done in that dimension.
Mr Kennedy: Of course there are, across the province, a lot of stories coming in from hospitals, Peterborough, other hospitals, so when these formulas hit the real world -- you seem very convinced of their applicability, but we're experiencing at least the beginning of a crisis in public confidence in whether the system can handle these things. For many people out there, this is people being pushed out of hospitals quicker and sicker, and we're getting -- not conjuring up but getting -- real live examples of that happening.
I'm wondering, from your perspective as a commissioner, what is the commission's role going to be to maintain public confidence to make sure that these things happen in not an arbitrary, sort of cold-blooded fashion, but actually respect the real problems that exist out there? How will you bring an approach to help alleviate some of that if you agree that those are some of the problems in the current experience?
Dr Williams: I'm hoping to bring a perspective to the commission where there will be a lot more education, not only to physicians but to consumers. I think that people have developed a standard of expectation over many years, for many good reasons. That needs to be challenged and they need to be shown reasonable alternatives. Certainly I've worked with a lot of physicians in this regard, and with proper education and appropriate experiences they've been able to adapt. I'm confident as well that in my community with public education and taking the time to identify the key issues and approach the public about those issues and give them understanding about those issues, it's certainly paved the way for them to accept the changes as well.
Mr Kennedy: I'm just wondering --
The Chair: Sorry, Mr Kennedy, we really have gone over.
Mr Kormos: I come from down in Niagara region, small-city Ontario. We just went through one of these subcommittees of the district health council doing their work, led by a Tory, no two ways about it, and that's fine. They wanted to shut down hospitals and they put their proposition to the public, and people across Niagara in the thousands said, "Don't shut down Hotel Dieu," for instance, in St Catharines, which has a major dialysis unit, a major contribution to palliative care, among other things. Port Colborne. Where are the other ones, Mr Froese? Out in Lincoln, in your neck of the woods, they wanted to do in Mr Froese's hospital in a Tory riding. I went to some of those meetings. I got to speak at one. I was very soft-spoken in my comments to the subcommittee and I sensed some support for what I had to say from the people who were there. There were several thousand there.
The impression I'm getting from these restructuring subcommittees and from the government, it's like the mother of the soldier who, as the troops are marching past, she nudges the person beside her and says, "Look, they're all of step except my son." How can all these people be wrong, the members of the community? What's your sense of what's happening here when the government's got a clear agenda, notwithstanding Mike Harris -- what was that? Rob Fisher on Focus Ontario, where Mike Harris in a pre-election bid said there were going to be no hospital shutdowns. Isn't that what he said? No hospital shutdowns. How can the public be so wrong when the government's so right?
Dr Williams: I think that hospitals have over the years become all things to all people in many ways for health care and when finances were flush, hospitals could afford to do that. As well, I think that a lot of hospitals develop their service platter with little or no consultation with anyone else in their area, both other hospitals and other health care providers, and the system has grown a lot larger than it needs to be.
Hospitals have a very important role in health care services, and I think they're the best facility to offer acute care services. I think a lot of the other services besides acute care that hospitals offer need to be rethought and see if they could be as well or better serviced at less cost by other people in the community.
When I deal with hospitals that are looking at downsizing or potentially even closing, I think it's important to identify the services the hospital should be delivering to the community, as well as those that it will divest itself of, and ensure those services are still available in a timely and reasonable and quality way for the community. If it means delivering them outside of a hospital in the future, that's where public education needs to come into play and reassure people that they will have their services when they need them, in quality ways and accessible, that it just won't be by running to the hospital as they've typically done in the past.
1040
Mr Kormos: I don't have a real esoteric handle on this. I just know what I see, what the people are saying, and what the government is saying and what the Premier said before the election, which leaves me with the impression that there's no mandate from the people of Ontario to shut down hospitals.
What do you think of the prospect of publicly elected hospital governance, so it's truly democratic? You know how it works now; there's a little clique. There are 150 or 200 people who pay their -- I have no idea, but join the little hospital club. Then they elect incestuously from among their own membership, sort of the wannabe movers and shakers from a community. Sure, city council has somebody sitting there.
What do you think about publicly elected governance for hospitals so there's real accountability? It's one of the places where, heck, that's probably the biggest single expenditure of public funds of any institution, yet there are these little tightly held groups. What do you think of public governance of hospitals, before or after so-called restructuring?
Dr Williams: It's an interesting question. Certainly I heard the discussion debated extensively when I was on the Public Hospitals Act steering committee back in the early part of this decade, which was unsuccessful in moving the Public Hospitals Act in any direction. I think if I sit back and reflect on school boards and compare school boards to hospital boards, there are advantages to public accountability in electing people, but I see school boards as also having people elected who are often representing single interests and not the broader community.
On the other hand, you're correct, some hospital boards become quite incestuous, although I know other communities where their membership swells to thousands and there's a huge public interest in it. I find one advantage of a non-elected board is that boards that take their jobs seriously then have the opportunity to assess the sort of skills they need on their board to make the best possible decisions. Their nominating committees then have the ability to try and recruit the right skills set to bring to the table so all skills are represented when decisions need to be made. It can work both ways.
In the future I think boards will be consolidated. If we move into integrated delivery system models, we'll be looking at larger boards that will be governing much more than a single institution. There will probably be a lot more public interest in who sits on that and how the decisions are made by that larger board.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, doctor. I've got a feeling this committee is going to support your nomination; I have no hesitation. I suppose the next time we're going to meet will be on far less pleasant ground when you and your colleagues swoop down on Niagara. So there we go; I'll see you then. Thank you kindly. I appreciate it.
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): I'd like to make a remark here, Dr Williams. I was affiliated with a hospital for 12 to 15 years. I see that you were chief of staff of St Mary's hospital from 1985 to 1992. I realize that in the hospitals, generally about every two or three years, they have a change of so-called management, chief of staff. I have to compliment you. You were 1985 to 1992. Then you went to chief of staff of Timmins and District Hospital in 1992 to where you are at the present time.
I look at the backgrounder and I have to commend you because you're a person who's in demand. That tells me you've taken a real look at different areas of this job and the cross-section and the knowledge you have of it is very commendable. I don't have too many questions to ask you because I look at the background and I have complete confidence in your ability. I just wanted to tell you that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ford. Any other questions, comments?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll waive the balance of our time, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Dr Williams, that concludes your appearance before the committee. We thank you for coming here this morning. Good luck.
We will now be prepared to entertain any concurrences there might be.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Gardner.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Any comments? Ready for the question? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Dr Williams.
Mr Kennedy: Unfortunately, we'll be unable to support the appointment. We believe Dr Williams is an eminently qualified physician, but he comes from the same narrow mould that is in the commission currently, and we see this appointment as a perpetuation of the rationalization and the justification of what the government has been doing to the detriment of the health of Ontarians. While we wish Mr Williams well should the committee concur with the motion being put, we certainly lament the fact that the government didn't take this opportunity to widen the base of the committee to include a perspective that goes beyond obsession with the formulas we had discussed today.
Mr Kormos: I'm not going to oppose the doctor's appointment. What the hell did you expect the government to put forward by way of a proposed appointment? I understand we're not going to have diverse views represented on the restructuring committee. I understand that and I agree with the comments of Mr Ford about the doctor being outstandingly qualified.
I indicated I have no doubt that he -- I got a little bit of a sense that he and I might be coming from different directions on the issue of health care restructuring. We'll lock horns when the attack begins on Niagara, not that I wouldn't lock horns in any other part of the province; I was up in Ottawa recently and you saw what's going on there with the attack on hospitals, including Montfort, the only French-language training hospital.
No, I'm not going to oppose this, because I understand what the government has in mind. Again, this doctor is eminently qualified in his own right. The government's not going to put forward people who are going to oppose their agenda.
The Chair: Any other comments on Mr Wood's motion? Are you ready for the question? All those in favour, please indicate. All those opposed? The motion is carried.
Thank you for that. Any other business?
Mr Gravelle: We called Mr Donald Hillock from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario and apparently there has been a delay. We're requesting that the appointment be deferred until this committee has had a chance to conduct an interview, and apparently we can schedule this for April 23. I guess because of the House not sitting, we've not had as many meetings, so we would like to interview Mr Hillock and hope we can get concurrence to defer the appointment until our government agencies committee has had a chance to interview Mr Hillock.
Mr Bob Wood: Have you requested an extension of time? You're entitled to request a two-week extension of time.
The Chair: Are you asking this for April 23?
Mr Gravelle: April 23, yes. We have somebody else where we're asking for an extension of time. I think this one was deemed appointed by the full committee on February 26, so this is one that's gone beyond that. All we're really asking is that the appointment be deferred until we have an opportunity to conduct the interview.
Mr Bob Wood: I think you should request that of the public appointments secretariat.
Mr Gravelle: That's correct.
Mr Bob Wood: I would suggest you make that request and we'll see what the response is.
The Chair: Do you want to put that in the form of a motion for the committee?
Mr Gravelle: Yes, I do.
The Chair: Why don't you do that?
Mr Gravelle: I would like to request the public appointments secretariat to defer the appointment until the committee has had a chance to conduct the interview with Mr Hillock.
The Chair: Does everyone understand the motion put by Mr Gravelle?
Mr Kormos: I support the motion.
Mr Gravelle: Thank you very much. I have one other, Mr Chair, if I could. I'm sorry. We haven't finished that.
The Chair: You'd better deal with this one. I think Mr Wood is conferring with the secretariat as we speak.
Mr Wood, you understand the motion that's put by Mr Gravelle?
Mr Bob Wood: I'd like it read again, please, Mr Chairman.
Mr Gravelle: I would like to request the secretariat to defer the appointment of Mr Donald Hillock to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario until the committee has had an opportunity to conduct an interview, which we will try to schedule for April 23.
Mr Bob Wood: We're prepared to support that.
Mr Gravelle: Thank you.
The Chair: All those in favour? It's carried. We will attempt to schedule Mr Hillock for April 23.
Mr Gravelle: That will be great. One more quick one: Mr Robert Whitley, an appointment to the Ontario Film Development Corp. We would actually like to request a 14-day extension so that Mr Whitley can be here for April 23 as well.
Mr Bob Wood: That, of course, doesn't have to be a motion.
The Chair: No.
Mr Bob Wood: You're entitled to that under the rules.
Mr Gravelle: So just unanimous consent to have a 14-day extension?
Mr Bob Wood: You don't have to have any consent.
Mr Gravelle: Great. Then there's no problem at all.
The Chair: No problem at all. Any other business? If not, we're adjourned until April 23.
The committee adjourned at 1051.