INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
TONY SALERNO
CONTENTS
Wednesday 8 July 1998
Subcommittee reports
Intended appointments
Mr Tony Salerno
Mr Peter Hume
Mr Bruce Goulet
Ms Beth Sweetnam
Mr Michael C. Feldman
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
CHAIR / PRÉSIDENT
MS FRANCES LANKIN (BEACHES-WOODBINE ND)
VICE-CHAIR / VICE-PRÉSIDENT
MR ROSARIO MARCHESE (FORT YORK ND)
MR ALEX CULLEN (OTTAWA WEST / -OUEST L)
MR MICHAEL GRAVELLE (PORT ARTHUR L)
MR BILL GRIMMETT (MUSKOKA-GEORGIAN BAY / MUSKOKA-BAIE-GEORGIENNE PC)
MR BERT JOHNSON (PERTH PC)
MS FRANCES LANKIN (BEACHES-WOODBINE ND)
MR ROSARIO MARCHESE (FORT YORK ND)
MR DAN NEWMAN (SCARBOROUGH CENTRE / -CENTRE PC)
MR JOSEPH SPINA (BRAMPTON NORTH / -NORD PC)
MR R. GARY STEWART (PETERBOROUGH PC)
SUBSTITUTIONS / MEMBRES REMPLAÇANTS
MR JIM BROWN (SCARBOROUGH WEST / -OUEST PC)
CLERK / GREFFIER
MR DOUGLAS ARNOTT
STAFF / PERSONNEL
MR DAVID POND, RESEARCH OFFICER, LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH SERVICE
The committee met at 1005 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Ms Frances Lankin): I call the
meeting to order. The first item of business is to have motions to adopt reports of the committee. You have received copies of two reports of subcommittees, one dated Thursday, June 25, and the other dated Tuesday, June 30. These set out intended appointments that the subcommittee wishes to call. Those in fact are the appointments that we are primarily dealing with today.
Could I have a motion to adopt those reports, please?
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I so move.
The Chair: Mr Johnson, thank you.
All those in favour, please indicate. Opposed? That's carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
TONY SALERNO
Review of intended appointment, selected by the official opposition party: Tony Salerno, intended appointee as member, investment advisory committee of the public guardian and trustee.
The Chair: We'll move directly now to the appointment reviews. The first intended appointment is Mr Tony Salerno, who is an intended appointee to the investment advisory committee of the public guardian and trustee. Welcome, Mr Salerno. It's nice to see you again. We'll give you a few minutes to make any opening comments you wish, and then we will move to the official opposition to begin questioning.
Mr Tony Salerno: Thank you very much for the opportunity to present my qualifications and to answer any questions you may have of the same for my appointment to the investment advisory committee of the office of the public guardian and trustee. I believe a brief biography has been circulated around, so I'll just highlight some of the key qualifications I feel I have for this position.
First of all, in terms of my educational background, I hold a master's in economics from the University of Western Ontario. I also hold a master's in business administration, specializing in finance, from York University.
I've worked for the province in various capacities for the last 26 years, mainly in the area of finance. Since November 1995 I've held the position of chief executive officer of the Ontario Financing Authority, responsible for managing all of the province's finances. Currently, that includes $108 billion in debt. Last year we raised $11.3 billion of financing for the province and the plan for this year includes $9.2 billion of long-term financing.
We also manage the province's liquid reserves, that range in size from a low of about $2 billion to a high of about $11 billion. We're trying to manage that down to as low a level as possible. In that capacity, I obviously have involvement and contacts with all the major markets, all the major investment dealers around the world. That is as well as the fact that in nominating me it's not just Tony Salerno that's being nominated to this committee, but it would be the advice and the resources of the Ontario Financing Authority as well. With that background, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about my qualifications.
The Chair: We'll begin with the official opposition.
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Welcome, Mr Salerno. It's not often that we get an assistant deputy minister of finance at this committee. We're pleased to have you here today. I think we can forgo the usual questions about how long you've been a Tory and have you contributed to the party. I don't think that's appropriate here.
I am interested, though, in the financial advice you bring to this particular position and the perspective from your agency with respect to the management of debt, because that's the flipside of investment. I have to note from your remarks, you mentioned that the province's debt portfolio is about $108 billion now. Did I hear you correctly?
Mr Salerno: That's right.
Mr Cullen: The documents we have here from May 1998 speak of $105 billion, so I guess it has gone up.
Mr Salerno: We've been busy. We had a very successful Ontario savings bond campaign that raised $2 billion. We also were in the public markets during June as well, after the budget, and that also added to the total debt. This is the latest number that I just updated as of today, essentially.
Mr Cullen: I have to assume from your position that you're watching the capital markets closely, that interest rates play a very large factor in your decisions. Of course, as you know, we're enjoying a low-interest-rate regime now, which has helped governments across Canada in terms of their debt charges, and we have significant debt charges here in Ontario. Can you tell us how long, or what your expectation is in terms of how long, this recovery is expected to last? It's setting a record in the United States. There are those of us who believe that the result is going to be a business cycle. Do you agree that there is a business cycle and that we might see something happening in the near future that may cause interest rates to move up?
Mr Salerno: There are two parts. First of all, the business cycle: At some point, I don't think anybody is ruling out a downturn in the economy. Business cycles will happen. The only thing that's variable is the length of time between troughs or peaks. But clearly the business cycle certainly has happened in the past and is expected to come back in the future. Some would argue that we're in a whole new environment nowadays, given the very, very low interest rates-inflation environment that we have. Many are arguing that there is nothing on the horizon that would indicate that we're heading for a slowdown imminently.
Mr Cullen: This leads me to the question of the impact of the Asian flu, which has taken quite a pounding on the dollar and is putting pressure on interest rates to defend the dollar. If indeed the Bank of Canada were to raise interest rates, I don't know how much margin we have where that will begin to have a negative impact on the economy. What is your take on that?
Mr Salerno: Again, I want to answer the second part of your first question. If we were heading for a downturn, in fact interest rates move in a countercyclical fashion. Generally, interest rates would tend to go down during a period of economic slowdown.
Mr Cullen: Our experience in the 1980s went the other way.
Mr Salerno: Then we had the dual evils of high inflation and -- in fact interest rates, when you netted out inflation, in real terms were pretty low in the 1980s, lower than they are today in real terms.
Mr Cullen: In real terms, yes.
Mr Salerno: But in terms of interest rates, not many people are forecasting interest rates to go up dramatically or to move very much either way from where we are now, simply because, again, the environment is not there for high interest rates.
Mr Cullen: Even with respect to the Asian flu?
Mr Salerno: Well, the Asian flu is having some impact, but in terms of the impact on Canada and Ontario specifically, the effects on us are rather marginal. As you know, we export about 47% of our GNP to the US.
Mr Cullen: That's right.
Mr Salerno: To the extent that the US is affected, we undoubtedly will be affected, but again, it's a secondary effect, after it impacts the US. In the US, the estimate that I see as the maximum impact is about 1% of GNP. That would have, then, a secondary effect on us. The estimates for Ontario are anywhere from a quarter of a per cent to half a per cent.
Mr Cullen: So the benefit that Ontario is getting now in terms of economic growth can be largely ascribed to low interest rates and the strength of the American economy.
Mr Salerno: Those would be two major effects on the Ontario economy.
Mr Cullen: Here we have you, looking after the debt portfolio for the province. We are in an era of low interest rates and economic growth, yet we seem to have the same bond rating as the previous government, which I think was downgraded four times. We still maintain that. You must talk to bond raters quite a bit. What is their rationale for pegging our bond rating level at the same level as the previous government? Clearly, if the bond rating were improved, our debt servicing cost would be reduced. What are the bond raters telling you?
Mr Salerno: There are a lot of answers to your question. First let me say that in terms of our interest costs right now, our interest costs have never been lower. If you measure the differential that we pay, the premium over the government of Canada, it has never been this low. Right now it's lower than when we were rated AAA.
Mr Cullen: We're still not enjoying the benefits of AAA.
Mr Salerno: No, I'm saying the opposite. The rating agencies at times follow the market. The market, I think, is already valuing us as AAA. We have never enjoyed this narrow spread over the government of Canada. Currently we're borrowing 30-year money at about, today, 32 basis points over the government of Canada, which is an historically low level. It was a little lower a few months ago but it's been in that range of 25 to about 35 over the last year.
Mr Cullen: So why aren't our bond ratings going up?
Mr Salerno: You may have read DBRS, and I think it was Standard and Poor's that said that one of the things that's keeping the rating low right now, that's keeping them from improving our rating, is the uncertainty around Hydro. Right now, as you know, we guarantee Hydro's debt, which is currently about $31.5 billion. The uncertainty about the resolution, about the restructuring that's going on around Hydro, is a key factor in keeping our credit where it is.
Mr Cullen: Is not one of the key factors the rating agencies have mentioned the fact that this government is trying to do two things at once, whereas the federal government has done one thing at once? The federal government has reduced its deficit and then talked about tax cuts, whereas this government is both trying to reduce its deficit -- it's at a record level in terms of debt, but reducing deficit -- and cutting taxes at the same time. Is this not also one of the factors that bond rating agencies speak of?
Mr Salerno: That's not one of the factors they speak to us about. I might point out that the federal government, even though they are balanced right now, in fact in somewhat of a surplus position, their rating has still not been upgraded. They are still AA+. The key factor there also is that rating agencies want a history. In other words, they're not very quick to respond. They want a history of your progress in meeting the targets. Also, the size of the debt is a factor, both in the case of the federal government and in Ontario.
Mr Cullen: The previous government had four downgradings. This government took office three years ago, so we've had three years, and the bond rating agencies, looking for progress, haven't seen enough to justify a change in the rating. They're looking at the size of the debt, which has increased from $90 billion to $108 billion now, $3 billion over the past so many months. These are factors that are convincing the bonding agencies that there's no reason to upgrade the rating.
Mr Salerno: They're looking for continual improvement. The key factor, as I indicated, and one they stated in their releases after the budget review of a couple of months ago, was the uncertainty around Hydro.
The Chair: This is the last question, Mr Cullen.
Mr Cullen: If the bond rating had been raised to the previous level, how much money would that save taxpayers in Ontario?
Mr Salerno: It's hard to say.
Mr Cullen: We're talking millions, though.
Mr Salerno: Again, I would say it's hard to say. As I said before, we are currently enjoying the lowest interest rates ever. I could probably raise a 30-year bond today at lower than 580 -- 30 years. Unheard of.
Mr Cullen: It's amazing what the federal government has done.
Mr Salerno: In terms of the premium over the federal government, that is the real measure. It's never been lower. So it's difficult to say. For British Columbia, which is rated higher than us, at AA, their premium right now is about 34 over Canada and we're 32; we're AA- right now and they're AA+. So you can't say that automatically there's a direct link that an upgrade will mean one thing. It just doesn't work that way. Ultimately, you will pay what the market says you will pay, regardless of what the rating agencies say.
1020
The Chair: We move to the government caucus now.
Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): Good morning, Mr Salerno. The federal Liberals have to make a very important decision soon about the bank mergers. I'm wondering what your opinion might be of the bank mergers in terms of their effect on our borrowing and the province's cost of borrowing, and the decreased level of competition and its effect on the Ontario economy and, more specifically and most importantly, jobs.
Mr Salerno: There are a lot of questions in that one question of yours, and the answers are not that easy. In terms of running the OFA, the Ontario Financing Authority, clearly, the more competition we have, the more folks who are beating at our doors to sell our bonds, the better it is for us. The more competition we have -- even for our banking services, which is not a trivial matter for the flows that are involved in this province. We have banking contracts. I believe right now we are paying about $5 million a year in bank service charges. It's not just cheque writing and so on and so forth; it's accounting, all kinds of payments, flowing both in and out. For instance, two years ago we ran a competition for the banking tender to provide the banking services for the province, and through a very competitive process we were able to reduce the cost of those services to the province. From that perspective, the more competition we have available to us, the better it is, purely from running the operations of the OFA.
As you know, the banks also have investment dealers associated with them, so we're dealing with both sides of the bank. And when they're talking about merging, they're merging not only the banking operation but the investment dealers.
So the merger that is happening there surely gives me some concern, but I'm encouraged also, because there are other firms we deal with, American firms, that have a large presence in Canada that will ensure that there is competition, at least in the dealer end of things, as I described.
I don't know where the mergers are going to end up, whether, as part of the concession, the federal government is going to allow foreign banks to come in and provide that extra competition. It's hard for me to imagine that we're going to end up with two banks in Canada. I'm not sure if that is going to be allowed to happen, but I can also see, from the banks' perspective, that if they are going to be a force in the international investment banking and regular banking activity, they must merge. The scale of operations required to be successful in the international markets dictates -- and in fact, our banks are pretty small by international standards. Ideally, what I'd like to see is that they merge for external purposes and continue with the competition at home.
In terms of jobs, if we could maintain those jobs that will be created by expanding their international operations, particularly those better jobs in the head office associated with those activities, clearly we're better off to the extent that we can do that. When the Bank of Montreal bought the Harris Bank in Chicago, there were a number of jobs created in Scarborough because the back office operations that were associated with the Harris Bank were brought back to Toronto, essentially.
It's not clear where it's all going to end up. I think there are tremendous opportunities in the merger, but one has to look at the nature of the merger and how it's ultimately all going to turn out. Certainly we, particularly in Ontario and Toronto especially, with all the banks essentially headquartered in Toronto, have a lot at stake in the outcome of this merger and the proposed mergers, and I think that governments at all levels are rightly concerned with how this merger might take place.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I wonder if I could ask you a few things about the committee that we're reviewing you for, the investment advisory committee of the public guardian and trustee. I understand that these are the funds that the public guardian and trustee would be holding on behalf of other people. Is it fair to say that the public guardian and trustee has a responsibility to get these people as much return on the money as they can?
Mr Salerno: Clearly, anybody who is managing funds on behalf of somebody else --
Mr Grimmett: How much money is involved here, and what ideas would you have on how the money might be better invested than it currently is?
Mr Salerno: I'm not yet on that committee. One of the reasons I have been nominated for this is that we have in the past advised them, in terms of the OFA providing advice in their banking arrangements for one, for instance. I think we were able to save them -- I forget the exact amount right now -- in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in the banking arrangements they had with the banks.
Mr Grimmett: Do you know how much money is involved on an annual basis?
Mr Salerno: How much they manage? Between the two funds they are managing about $1 billion, so if you're able to affect the return by 1% it's $10 million. It's significant amounts of money we're talking about.
My appointment, as I'm sure you're aware, is not as a full voting member but just to provide advice and also, as one of the three government nominees for this committee, to oversee, because in the end I think the province would be on the hook if the funds were not properly invested. The folks who are relying and trusting the government to do the right thing in managing it would obviously turn to the province in the end if the funds were improperly managed.
I'm hoping that my involvement in the committee will provide the type of advice that will maximize the return, although I understand that the rate that is actually provided to the folks whose funds are being managed is set -- in other words, there's a guaranteed rate provided -- and if there is any shortfall from the investments, it would be the province that would have to meet that shortfall. As well, the province would have to make up any costs that could not be covered by the returns on these funds.
1030
Mr Jim Brown: In reviewing the debt instruments that the province has on its books, I'd just like to get a feel for what you might think in terms of maturity dates and the interest rates of some of the debt instruments.
I noticed that there was about $15 billion borrowed from the teacher pension fund back in 1992-93. The term of the instruments was 20 years and the rate was 12.5%, when current rates are 6%, 6.5%. It seems that that was the only group of instruments -- maybe I didn't go back far enough -- that have the kind of maturity that would lock the province into such high interest rates, more than double current rates. That spins off a pretty hefty return to the pension fund up until about the year 2011-12, maybe $1 billion extra in terms of interest payments.
I'm just wondering what kind of rationale you would bring to the table in terms of maturity dates -- the terms -- versus current interest rates.
Mr Salerno: It's easy for us to look back and say, "How did they make those dumb decisions and lock in those rates?"
The Chair: Did you do that?
Mr Salerno: No, I wasn't involved in those decisions. But as I said earlier, the interest rates we were locking in at that time, in real terms, netting out inflation, were extremely low, in fact lower than today. So I'm not going to be critical that we're paying -- I think some of them might be at 16% still.
Mr Jim Brown: I was trying to be conservative.
Mr Salerno: Right. That was the arrangement with those pension plans in the past, and in fact we have similar arrangements with the Canada pension plan, that we were borrowing 20-year money.
What disturbs me a bit is the misinformation that teachers have in terms of the facts. I'm sure all of us have read reports saying that the province is taking their money and giving them no interest or 1% or 2% interest. That's not the fact at all. In fact, I wish I could pay them out all their money at par.
Mr Jim Brown: Yes, cut our losses.
Mr Salerno: What they want, obviously, is to cash it in now. If I were to buy those bonds right now at market value, I'd be paying a heck of a lot more than 100 cents to the dollar. We don't have the privilege of pre-paying that debt. We're going to continue to pay it until it expires, or, if we come to an agreement with them where we buy it, it would have to be at market price right now.
Last year, for instance, we borrowed a lot of 30-year money simply because at 6% and under, it seems extremely attractive money to lock in, in the long run. Now, somebody 10 years from now, if interest rates go down to 3%, may look back and say, "What was that person running the OFA at that time thinking about, locking in money at 6%?" Obviously, we have a mix of what we invest in, or in this case what we commit to, simply to avoid making a call and somebody criticizing us precisely for that. What we do is try to smooth out the maturity profile of our debt over time so that doesn't become an issue. We try to make good calls, and we think we do, and in fact the record shows -- at the OFA, our performance is measured and audited each year. Over the last two years, ScotiaMcLeod has audited our performance and our performance is ranked high in the first quartile. What we are doing in terms of selecting the right timing of the bond issues for the province has been extremely good, the record has shown, over the last two and a half years.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That brings the time to a close. Mr Salerno, we appreciate your taking the time to be here. I'm sure the former Chair of the committee, Mr Laughren, would want to ask you questions about the success of the OFA and the accuracy of revenue forecasting these days, things like that, but he's not here to do it, so I'll just pass on his regards to you.
Mr Salerno: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you for coming. We'll be dealing with the motion of concurrence with your intended appointment at the end of today's session.
PETER HUME
Review of intended appointment, selected by the official opposition party: Peter Hume, intended appointee as member, Champlain District Health Council.
The Chair: I call Mr Peter Hume, who is an intended appointee as a member of the Champlain District Health Council, to come forward. Welcome, Mr Hume. If you have any introductory remarks, please feel free to make them and then we'll begin questioning with members of the government.
Mr Peter Hume: Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I am a directly elected regional councillor serving 41,000 people in the communities of Alta Vista, Canterbury and Riverview in the riding of Ottawa South.
I was first elected in 1991 to the city of Ottawa council and I've served with the member for Ottawa West for two terms. I was elected in 1994 to the first directly elected regional council in Ottawa-Carleton and re-elected in 1997.
My current duties with the region include the planning and environment committee and I am vice-chair of the corporate services and economic development committee. I also chair a task force established to preserve green space with a land trust, an innovative concept that is new to Ottawa-Carleton.
In addition to my duties at the region, I am chair of the regional government section of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I also serve on the board of directors and the executive of that organization. I am also the chair of the task force on social housing and a member of the Municipal Act task force.
I am here today as regional council's nominee for the Champlain District Health Council. To give you a flavour of how that comes about, after every election the region strikes a nominating committee to fill the positions that members will serve, including council's standing committees and outside agencies such as the tourism and convention bureau, the humane society and the health council. That is why I am here before you today, and I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hume. We will begin with the government.
Mr Grimmett: Good morning, Mr Hume. I just want to explore the procedure in a little more depth of how you came to be recommended by regional council. I understand that regional council put forward a number of names to sit on the health council. Do you know how many people were suggested?
Mr Hume: Three members of regional council put forward their names to serve on the district health council. When it became clear that one of them was going to become the chair of our transit authority, our version of the TTC, he withdrew the name, so only two names came forward from the nominating committee to regional council, myself and one of my colleagues, Herb Kreling. So there were only two members to fill that seat and we were approved at the December meeting of regional council.
Mr Grimmett: I see. You have considerable experience as a councillor. What skills would you bring to a district health council?
Mr Hume: For the first three years of my term, I had the pleasure of serving on the Riverside Hospital of Ottawa board of trustees, so I had a tremendous amount of experience in that setting. As you know, regional council does have the responsibility for some health matters under its mandate, so we have a broad breadth of experience from that.
I can give you a particular example. Today at 1:30 at regional council we will be dealing with a grant to the aphasia centre, which helps stroke victims recover speech and other impediments. We are going to be giving them the grant under our counselling mandate in our social services portfolio.
Part of our program will be to lobby or to move forward to the district health council a recommendation that they fund the health aspects of that program. Those types of joint issues certainly will be coming forward, and my role as a regional councillor will be to make sure that those types of issues are brought to the district health council's table and that they're made aware of the unique needs of the people in Ottawa-Carleton as I've outlined in the example.
Mr Grimmett: One of the things you do on a district health council is advise the minister on a variety of health issues in the area the council serves. I just wondered if you had any thoughts on the particular issues you might be dealing with at the district health council in Ottawa-Carleton and what advice you might take.
Mr Hume: As I outlined earlier, my job is to advise the minister, but my job is also to represent the interests of regional council on the health council. I will be bringing forward those issues that council gives me direction on. Long-term care and the assignments of beds and the recommendations of investment funds in that area are certainly going to be a very important part of the district health council's mandate as our communities age. In fact, regional council today will be dealing with a similar issue, on how to go forward to the district health council and recommend a joint venture with the Alzheimer society. You can see how the issues are very intertwined. There will be a variety of issues that will come forward that will be joint in nature, so my experience on council will lend itself well to the DHC.
1040
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Just a couple of questions. As you know, this government has reduced the number of DHCs from 33 down to 16. Any comments, your thoughts on that?
Mr Hume: I authored a report with one of my fellow councillors, Alex Munter, on the role of the DHCs. It was our recommendation at the time that the responsibilities of the district health councils be rolled into those responsibilities of regional council. We felt that it was a perfect fit in that we dealt with health protection and promotion and we could give advice to the minister, and the people of Ottawa-Carleton would then have an elected voice to move their issues forward, someone who could be accountable for those recommendations. However, when we put that forward to the minister, it did not receive a favourable hearing. We now have a structure that is 16 district health councils and we must do our best to work within that structure.
Mr Stewart: So you're supportive of restructuring the various organizations.
Mr Hume: As I said earlier, I recommended that the district health council's responsibilities be restructured. It was my personal opinion, and it still is, that those responsibilities best rest with regional council. However, we have a structure that the government has chosen to put in place and we have to work within it for the benefit of our community.
Mr Stewart: When district health councils were originated they were for the planning process, with the input of both professionals and consumers in the province, and there was a time that they were used basically to spread the bias of the particular government in power. Now it appears to me that they're coming back to the situation where they are going to be involved with planning and the direction that health care should go in the communities. Do you feel that should be the role and that will be the role?
One of the other problems you've mentioned -- you were on the board of a hospital. I don't know about your particular hospital, but there are some in the province that aren't extremely supportive of the district health council. Many hospitals suggested that if a district health council were gone and the money flowed directly to the hospitals, they could manage it much better.
Mr Hume: I would hope that the role of a district health council -- I will certainly be bringing an accountable approach to that. I don't want to spread undue influence in any direction. We want to give the best advice to the minister, to the maximum benefit to the communities of Ottawa-Carleton and the other communities that it serves. That's the role I'd be bringing to it and I would hope that the other members of the committee would do the same. It's a very important role that we play and it must not be taken in any way lightly or be unduly influenced by the government in power.
The Chair: Last question, Mr Stewart.
Mr Stewart: What is your background? It doesn't show in your résumé. Has it just been as regional councillor etc?
Mr Hume: I was first elected in 1991, but for the term 1988-91 I served as a member of Ottawa city council.
Mr Stewart: So really your background or your career has been basically a council member.
Mr Hume: Yes.
Mr Cullen: Welcome, Peter, to the committee. I understand this is your second appointment by this government to an agency. I believe you were appointed to the Assessment Review Board as well by this government.
Mr Hume: No, I was not appointed to the Assessment Review Board. I was appointed to the Ontario Property Assessment Corp. I should advise you, though, that my appointment was at the nomination of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I was chosen from a list of 12 municipal politicians.
Mr Cullen: So you'll be busy going back and forth, I'm sure.
I'm interested in some of your perspectives on the challenges as a result of downloading of public health to the region. This of course means the region will have a greater role to play or should have a greater role to play in the planning and coordination of health services in Ottawa-Carleton. Can you tell me how the impact of downloading has been handled by the region?
Mr Hume: The residents of Ottawa-Carleton have yet to feel the impact of downloading. In fact the chair, the former member for Ottawa West, has been very successful in dealing with this government in obtaining assistance to balance our budget. So the residents of Ottawa-Carleton have yet to feel any impact of downloading.
Mr Cullen: If I can measure this correctly, the downloading of public health to the region comes to I believe $44 million or thereabouts and I believe the one-time assistance the region has received this year is approximately the same figure. There's no guarantee from the government that there will be a repeat of this one-time assistance next year, so there may be an eventual cost to the property taxpayers of Ottawa-Carleton.
Mr Hume: Given the track record of our regional chair in dealing with the province, I suspect there's a very good chance that we'll receive assistance again this year. But you are correct that in the fullness of time taxpayers will feel the effect, in the range of some $50 million, of the total, full cost of downloading.
Mr Cullen: Does this mean we can expect some pressure on the kinds of services that will be delivered? I'm thinking in terms of public health. Would public health be viewed in the same basket of other services that might have to look at budget cuts?
Mr Hume: The region, in order to assess its budget problems, has established a budget subcommittee, which is new to regional council, to do just that: to review and evaluate its programs and its operations. But as you know, when you were on regional council, we undertook a substantial corporate review. At that time we shed, if you wish, most of the non-core, discretionary programs that we had before us. We do not have the flexibility to accommodate some of these things, so there will be pressure on programs across the board.
Mr Cullen: The concern I'm hearing is that the ability to deliver these services may be compromised simply because of the lack of funding.
I want to move on to the issue of hospital closures. You mentioned in your presentation that you served on the board of Riverside Hospital. That's one of the two hospitals slated for closure in Ottawa-Carleton by the Health Services Restructuring Commission. The government has said that about $120 million will reinvested in new facilities in Ottawa-Carleton. It's providing $81 million, expecting taxpayers to come up with $47 million. Is this an accurate figure? Are the true costs of dealing with the restructuring to taxpayers $47 million? Have I got it right?
Mr Hume: If you read the health restructuring report, yes, that's the cost they quote.
Mr Cullen: That's their estimate, yes.
Mr Hume: However, costs to taxpayers as a result, if you take the strict interpretation of what the health restructuring commission recommended, would probably be significantly more because there are property tax implications to a further development of the major Ottawa Hospital site on Smyth Road. However, I understand that the new board has met and is discussing an alternative arrangement that will see a fuller utilization of the existing facilities to present a more cost-effective picture. But certainly on first blush, there were significant property tax implications to further development of the Ottawa Hospital site.
Mr Cullen: When you say "property tax implications," you're talking about cost to property taxpayers to pay for access roads and services to these expanded services the government hadn't counted in that you had made an estimate of, and I believe you went to council with an estimate. Could you tell us the additional cost, or ballpark?
Mr Hume: In the neighbourhood of $35 million.
1050
Mr Cullen: On top of the $47 million, another $35 million, possibly. Even if you are half right, we're talking over $60 million more that local property taxpayers would have to pay to make this work. Where is that money going to come from?
Mr Hume: The Ottawa Hospital site sits on one regional road. The intersections that service the hospital site are near or at capacity. The addition of more operating rooms, intensive care beds and other outpatient services -- at full build-out, that road ceases to function and you cannot move through to that site, so it would be necessary, in order to have the transportation network function properly, to provide a transit link to that site. We in Ottawa-Carleton have a dedicated bus transit lane. You'd have to bring that up through a corridor that the region owns. That is a very significant cost. In addition, new water service has to be provided, and a number of upgrades to the sanitary sewer system to accommodate the increased flows that will result from the developments.
Mr Cullen: So these are all additional costs that flow out.
Mr Hume: Yes.
Mr Cullen: Just to come back to the larger picture of the closure of these hospitals, did you support the closure of the Riverside?
Mr Hume: No, I did not.
Mr Cullen: A lot of people don't support this.
I just want to move over to one of the issues that you're going to be facing on the district health council, and that's long-term care. The government has announced a $1.2-billion plan for long-term-care beds and in Ottawa they're promising some 1,313 beds over the next eight years, but the current waiting list is 1,960. An MPP you know very well, Garry Guzzo from Ottawa-Rideau, has said this is insufficient to meet need. If you have a current waiting list of 1,960 and you're going to get 1,313 over eight years, he thinks it's insufficient. What do you think?
Mr Hume: Knowing Mr Guzzo as I do, I would think he was probably correct.
Mr Cullen: In Ottawa-Carleton, with our aging population, this is an issue that the district health council is going to have to face, have to deal with. The district health council from time to time has passed motions and tried to get the government to pay attention to some of the concerns in Ottawa-Carleton. The track record hasn't been all that good. You mentioned yourself your proposals for restructuring the district health council. This government doesn't appear to be listening to that.
Mr Hume: When you take the proposal that I put forward with Councillor Munter, clearly the government was going in an opposite direction. We were responded to and there was a positive response in terms of, "Thank you for your input."
Mr Cullen: But you still think it's a good idea.
Mr Hume: I definitely think it's a good idea.
Mr Cullen: One of the other issues that we're facing in Ottawa-Carleton because of our aging population is the demand for home care. We're now a quarter of the way through the fiscal year and the government has yet to approve this year's fiscal year budget for the Ottawa-Carleton community care access centre. There are waiting lists in physiotherapy; there are waiting lists in occupational therapy. The relationship between the hospitals, home care, public health -- do you not think at the very least that where there is caseload growth in home care, where there's a need for the service, the government should be responding to this?
Mr Hume: Where there's a need for service and there are waiting lists -- any waiting lists are inappropriate -- you've got to respond. I would have some faith that the district health council would look at the facts and figures before them, make an informed and intelligent decision, and recommend the best course of action to the government. Given the good financial position that the government finds itself in, I would expect them to respond positively.
Mr Cullen: One would hope.
My last question, because I'm running out of time, is that you've been on council; you know how that process works. There's sometimes a vote, but the head of council has to take that position and present it, take the direction of council. The district health council has had to deal with some controversial issues in the past. Would you not expect, where it does take a position, that the head of the district health council would be expected to present that as vigorously as he or she can to the government, if the district health council took a decision?
Mr Hume: I would expect that once the council speaks through a motion or through a vote, it would be the position of the chairman at the time that they would go forward and represent the position of the council to the government, if that is indeed the role we expect the chairman to play. But if it's the CAO or whoever, the council would speak by vote or by motion, as you've often told us, so I would expect they would vigorously pursue the direction that the council wishes them to go.
The Chair: Mr Hume, thank you for joining us today. The committee will be dealing with the motion of concurrence for your intended appointment at the end of today's session.
BRUCE GOULET
Review of intended appointment, selected by the official opposition party: Bruce Goulet, intended appointee as member, Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
The Chair: Would Bruce Goulet come forward, please. Welcome, sir. We'll begin by asking if you have any introductory comments that you would like to make. Following that, we will move to the official opposition to begin questioning.
Mr Bruce Goulet: It's a pleasure to be here. I thank you, Ms Lankin, and members of the standing committee.
I'll begin by saying I come from a modest background. I'm a product, as it happens, of Toronto, the Toronto Beaches district, Pantry Park, Balmy Beach Canoe Club, if anybody knows that.
The Chair: The Chair is familiar with it.
Mr Goulet: I knew that, so I have to admit that. Nevertheless, I'm very proud of it. My relatives are still there.
I had a rather unremarkable life but a sporting life through Toronto. When I got married, I decided I wanted to live in a small community that would offer all of those benefits for a young, growing family. I picked North Bay and, just by coincidence, was towed into North Bay in my dilapidated car -- I'm using up time; I know that -- by the Ontario Provincial Police, who would not do that today.
I took up life in North Bay as a salesman for office furniture. I became involved, as I went along, in matters like the chamber of commerce. I gave some leadership in the chamber of commerce particularly as it related to what was then Dominion Day -- Canada Day -- and took that to the Canadian chamber and was perhaps somewhat instrumental in getting a revival of Dominion Day celebrations in those days. I became active in the sports community in North Bay as well.
I became extremely active in matters political. I was an alderman, deputy mayor and mayor. I served on the police commission. During all that time I was in business and involved in many volunteer organizations like the Red Cross, both municipally -- the regional Red Cross -- and the national Red Cross. I'm still a member of the Rotary Club, and was chairman of the crippled children's committee in past days, but not now.
I have always had, I think, through whatever I did, a passion, an interest in people. I sat at one period, 1980-84, on the Social Assistance Review Board. I like to think I served with some distinction. I found myself sometimes being the minority person on those panels, but I said what I believed.
I believe the victims of unprovoked crime are often left rather defenceless. I think the society we collectively have spawned has left a lot of people without sufficient means in such cases. Therefore, I have an abiding interest in the work of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I not only think that I can do a good job, I believe I can do a good job. I would resign from that board, take myself out, if I didn't feel I could make a substantial contribution. I hope that doesn't sound self-serving; it wasn't meant to be. I usually do a good job. I intend to do a good job if given the opportunity.
1100
The Chair: Mr Goulet, thank you very much. We begin questioning with Mr Gravelle.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Mr Goulet. You made reference to the reason why you're interested in serving on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. May I ask you how the process came about that your name came forward?
Mr Goulet: It came forward slowly. When I went from North Bay to Toronto to rejoin members of the family at that time and set up a business there, I thought, "I'm going to have a problem starting as a small business," and I did register my name with cabinet. That was in January 1996. I was told I should talk perhaps here and there to people influential within my party. I'm a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party. I heard nothing, but my busi-ness rather took off in a small way.
Then when I moved back to North Bay, having heard nothing again, and those years going by, I thought the member, the Premier of the province, probably doesn't like me any more. I'd never heard from him. I'd never had a response of any kind, and I went into the local office and said, "How come?" They said, "I don't know." So they phoned down and said whatever they said -- I'm not aware of what was said -- and I did get a call saying there might be a position open that would match my skills, particularly because of my corporate knowledge, because of my knowledge of municipal and, to some degree, provincial and federal affairs, on a board of this type.
Mr Gravelle: So you had problems communicating with the Premier as well, then.
Mr Goulet: I did.
Mr Gravelle: It's fascinating how often that seems to happen.
Mr Goulet, this is a board that obviously does require a great deal of sensitivity, and I think there are some concerns with a number of areas related to the board. One of the issues that comes up frequently, and I'm presuming you're familiar with this, is that the actual payment of awards that go to people who apply for compensation has not increased since 1986. There has been some criticism of that. I'm curious as to your thoughts on that payment scale. I take it you're familiar with the maximum lump sum payment etc.
An additional point that seems to be of some concern is that since 1995 the board has stopped reimbursing applicants for expenses such as lawyers' fees and the cost of acquiring court transcripts. It seems like a pretty nasty thing to do from the point of view of people truly being in a position where they obviously lost the opportunity for income as a result of crime committed.
Can I have your thoughts on that? It's been over 12 years since the payment scale has been increased, and then of course in 1995 they cut off the funding for legal help for the people who are making the applications. I'd be curious to see what your thoughts are on that.
Mr Goulet: I will risk my opinion. I have little knowledge, but I did read over some material I found on the board and the same thoughts came to my mind. I had the feeling, given the ever-rising costs in today's society, that that isn't a lot of money, and I wondered if someone was considering amending that legislation in a way that people had extraordinary circumstances, because $25,000 as a lump sum does not seem very much money to me.
Mr Gravelle: So you'd be prepared to recommend that? If you are appointed, would that be something you would feel was appropriate for you as a member of the board to state in a public fashion, that indeed perhaps we need to look at and encourage the government of the day to look at that reality?
Mr Goulet: Based on my thinking at this time, but I have to go through a listen-and-learn process, that would be my inclination.
Mr Gravelle: I'm glad to hear you say that because I think it's important to recognize how difficult it is. Some of the hearings have certainly come to Thunder Bay, which is my community -- I represent the riding of Port Arthur -- and I've been involved in some of the processes. It's a very painful process for people, quite literally because of what they've gone through, and sometimes the process itself is difficult and people have some difficulty understanding it. But there also is a backlog of some sort which I know they've tried to move forward on.
Do you have any ideas for how you would speed up the process for people who are applicants before the board?
Mr Goulet: It's my understanding that they have over the past 12 months taken up a lot of the backlog by using documentary hearings. I have not spoken to anybody about this, but my feeling is that normally governments get too many people involved. I don't know how many steps it goes through to process a hearing. My general understanding is that once the hearing process begins -- and this is only an understanding -- it's three to six months, maybe longer.
Frankly, in any board, commission or municipal body I've been involved in, we've always found ways to shorten the process by saying, "Who's responsible here? Who's responsible there?" and we find there are 10 or 12 people. The first think I like to say is, "Let's make one person responsible in this area, one for that, one for that," and somehow the work gets done. So I would think there is possibly -- keep in mind that I really have not discussed it with anybody -- room to cut back that process. It's hard for me to understand why people have to wait so long for government decisions.
Mr Gravelle: Particularly, too, when one thinks of the circumstances that frequently are the basis for coming forward in the first place. It's obvious that it has been a traumatic experience for the people involved. You certainly sound like a gentleman who is keen to make the process work better, and you are sensitive to the needs of the people.
Do you know of anybody who has made an application under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? Are you familiar with anyone who has made an application?
Mr Goulet: No one personally at all. I've read about people in the Maple Leaf Gardens case and others. Papers have been passed to me; I've read them. I know of no one on a personal basis.
Mr Gravelle: In terms of the time you have available, what is your situation right now? You're going to be a member, which means you will be a part-time person. I take it that the time involved is not going to be a problem.
Mr Goulet: This job will take priority for me. My business isn't doing all that well now I've gone to North Bay. I was working out of Mississauga. I sell ergonomic chairs. I'm sick and tired of carrying them across Bay and Yonge and all these places and carrying them in my car. That's perhaps a poor attempt at humour, but what I am saying is that the job will take priority, absolutely no question about that.
Mr Gravelle: Thank you very much, Mr Goulet. I'm sure you'll be a fine appointee to the board.
Mr Grimmett: Thank you very much, Mr Goulet. I certainly want to commend you for your candour, maybe one of the better explanations of how you found your way to the committee today.
Most of us know people who are victims of crime, and I guess some of us have been victims of crime ourselves, although I took the precaution of marrying a police officer to make sure it didn't happen to me. That option isn't available to everybody.
I think there are some obvious questions about compensation and how people receive compensation. One of the things that perhaps the provincial government should be looking at, either now or in the future, is how to restructure the way we deal with victims overall. Perhaps this particular committee should be looked at as well.
Do you have any thoughts on how the system could be changed so that the criminals themselves become a source for compensation moneys? One of the ways we've done that in Ontario is to add to provincial offences fines a levy that is intended to go to the victims. Do you have any thoughts on how the criminals themselves might contribute to victims?
1110
Mr Goulet: How they might contribute? I only think that if the justice system is working properly, they themselves have been penalized by incarceration or whatever other penalty is applied. No thought comes to me of how a criminal could help, other than if he on a personal basis became quite contrite and made some personal contribution in terms of time assisting the victim, much as we do in asking people to do compensatory work with others. Maybe these people could be requested to work with victims of crime, leading to a more general feeling among the inmates of the penal system or the criminals that there's a very humiliating experience about to come, which is that you have to work with the people on whom you've perpetrated these crimes. That's just a thought.
The Chair: Anything further? No?
Thank you very much, Mr Goulet. We appreciate you joining us today. The committee will be dealing with the motion on your appointment at the end of today's session.
Mr Gravelle, I would just indicate that there will be a short subcommittee meeting after this. We are moving quicker than intended and we may get to that before quarter to 12.
Mr Gravelle: I'll go and do what I have to do, and I'll be back in time. Madam Chair, if I may ask, though, we obviously don't have a member of the third party here.
The Chair: Our intent is to have an informal subcommittee meeting, which will be confirmed after a telephone conference with the third member.
BETH SWEETNAM
Review of intended appointment, selected by the official opposition party: Beth Sweetnam, intended appointee as chair, Champlain District Health Council.
The Chair: Before us we have Beth Sweetnam, intended appointee as a member and chair of the Champlain District Health Council. Ms Sweetnam, welcome. If you have any opening comments at this time, please feel free.
Ms Beth Sweetnam: Good morning, Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen.
I have spent many years to get to this point. My background is as a teacher and a school librarian. I've taught at both the high school and elementary school levels.
In 1988, I was asked by the township of Goulbourn to serve on a local community health board called the Health Network. About a year and a half later, I became chair of that board. It was looking at hopefully expanding health services in the very west end of Ottawa-Carleton; that's Kanata, Goulbourn and West Carleton. As part of being on that board and being chair, we were re-funded, in fact a total of three times, by different governments, and although it was a volunteer board, we were able to hire planners to look at possible ways of expanding health services. That was done through the DHC. The planners that we hired, one at a time, worked with the DHC and one of their planners. It was closely connected.
In 1996, the very end of February, I was appointed to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional District Health Council. That followed two years of a really very educational and interesting time. I had served over the course of many years as a community representative on quite a few boards, but I really got an education on this one as far as public relations are concerned.
Just after we came on the board, there was a committee of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional District Health Council called the restructuring committee that came to council with a recommendation that one hospital be closed in Ottawa-Carleton, the Grace hospital. That committee brought the recommendation to the council just after we joined the council. Following that, there was an intensive public program by the Grace hospital.
When it came our turn a few weeks later to accept or reject, to deal with that recommendation, in the end there were political sensitivities. We had four politicians actually serving. It was felt that was not a comfortable place to be. Our council came to the decision that we would not close any hospitals in Ottawa-Carleton.
The public reaction to that was sheer disbelief, and rightly so. We had not only been going through a process that all of Ontario had gone through where technology and better health care had meant we were using hospitals a lot less, but in Ottawa-Carleton we were also suffering from the fact that Quebec patients were no longer coming the way they did. I can give you an example. CHEO was built to be a 300-bed hospital and to serve the whole Outaouais area as well as Ottawa-Carleton. It now was reduced to 150 beds, and at most times about 70 beds are being used. There has been a tremendous rejection of hospital beds.
Some of us who looked at that thought we had really not served Ottawa-Carleton well, that it was a copout to say we shouldn't close hospitals. Everyone knew that it was not going to be a good solution. Dr Pink and some of his colleagues here at the University of Toronto have done extensive work on what is an efficient size of hospital that gives the best quality of care, and by those standards, applying their models to Ottawa-Carleton, the services required in Ottawa-Carleton can best be served in three boxes, three plants. If you get more than that, you have a problem of economies of scale not being as good. Also, in terms of quality of care in the hospitals, it's better for health providers to be doing lots of what they're doing, not just a few. So for many reasons that we all knew, that was not the solution that was best for Ottawa-Carleton.
We tried to persuade the council of the idea of going back and looking at our decision again. The politicians especially weren't comfortable with that position. So six of us sat down and wrote a report. We acknowledged that it would be better to have fewer hospitals. We had only been on the council one month, and we felt we couldn't really be, shall we say, cheeky and actually start making real recommendations, so what we did was identify hospitals that it seemed could close without there being a problem for Ottawa-Carleton, because the Riverside, the Grace and the Montfort were already very small and could be accommodated in the larger hospitals. So we identified those as ones that were there whose services people had suggested could be accommodated elsewhere.
We also recommended the amalgamation of the two large hospitals because of the fact that there were a lot of turf wars. It was infamous in our city, and so we recommended one board and one hospital for those.
We published that. We provided it to all the papers and, of course, to the DHC. We were criticized by one council member for that, a politician who felt we shouldn't have taken that route.
For the next two years I served on a couple of committees. I served on the community health services committee, which is the committee I actually worked with as part of the Health Network. I knew a lot in that area, or at least some, so that was an interesting committee for me to continue with as a member of the district health council. I also served on the emergency health services task force.
The Ottawa-Carleton DHC function ended in January 1998 and we started with a new, amalgamated DHC. At that point I was appointed to the new Champlain District Health Council, as were 15 others; there were 16 of us who came on. We mostly didn't know each other. There were only a few who were experienced and so we made a decision at that point that we would go with interim people until we sorted out our structure and got to know each other. There was an interim chair and vice-chair who started, and I started as interim vice-chair. That was just a bunch of us sitting around the table and saying "Who will do it?" to be frank. The chair had been chair of eastern Ontario DHCs. As the experienced ones, we got the job of getting going.
Now what has happened is that in June we actually had an election, because we had decided on a structure. We decided we would have a chair and three vice-chairs, one from each of the regions that make up Champlain DHC. Two people ran for chair, I and another chap, and I was elected in June as chair. I would note that what is on here is not right. It says that this OIC is about being a member and a chair. I have my OIC to be a member. I've been given two OICs on that, February 1996 and then February 1998, to be a member. This OIC is acknowledging that election where I was made chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate those comments. We'll move to the government, and you have about three minutes or so for questions.
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Welcome, Ms Sweetnam, to the committee today. In the three minutes I have, I just want to talk about long-term care and get your thoughts on what's happening in the Ottawa area.
This morning there was a reference made by an opposition member to waiting lists for long-term care facilities, and the reference conjures up all these thoughts that there are waiting lists without looking at what the waiting lists actually mean. What the waiting lists actually refer to -- there's one category of people who are requesting a move from one facility to another. That's included in the waiting list. There are people who are in a hospital or already receiving home care who are looking for a bed, and then there's also people who anticipate in the future that they're going to require long-term care facilities, perhaps someone who's 75 now but in two or three years may need a move to that.
1120
I think it's important to note that in the Ottawa area, in the first two categories of those people who want to move from one facility to another or who already are in hospital or in a home care program, that number totals 800. The bulk of the waiting list in Ottawa is already people who are receiving care. I'm sure you were aware of that.
Ms Sweetnam: Yes. I also want to make the point that as we put money into community services, hopefully for the best care of our elderly, more will be staying home. This is one thing we did as part of the Health Network; we really looked at that possibility. What we were told by many people in the community is if we did a better job in the community of providing health services, it would be less necessary to warehouse our old people.
I really think that projected number, if we do our job, will be much lower, for that reason as well as the fact that yes, there's a lot of people wanting to be in different places, you're quite right. But I think there are other ways, and that's why this number that's way out there of 1,000 and whatever it is is such a sort of ballpark number. If we do our job in Ottawa-Carleton, it will never reach that.
Mr Newman: In terms of the announcement of April 29 of this year, the $1.2-billion announcement for long-term care, the largest reinvestment by any government in Ontario's history, I guess what it means to the Ottawa area is over 1,300 new beds. The tender has gone out for about 320 beds in the Ottawa area right now. Do you feel that the government today is responsive and committed to quality care in the delivery of services for the people of Ontario?
Ms Sweetnam: Yes. This government has spent more on health care than any other government in the history of Ontario. There hasn't been this kind of investment for 10 years, so it's giving us an opportunity to look at where we are going and to make some adjustments as we go. Someone wanted the whole thousand right up front. I think we've got to look at the things I already talked about: What we are going to be doing in the community, what kinds of things we need to be doing for our old people, and not just trying to build more warehouses quickly.
It's a process and I think this government is prepared to take on that process. They have shown that they are committed to providing the dollars and to making some tough choices to be able to provide those dollars without bankrupting Ontario to do it.
Mr Cullen: Ms Sweetnam, we're pleased to have you here. I think it was just a couple of months ago we had your husband here for an appointment, and at that time he acknowledged that he had been active in the Conservative Party and a contributor as well. Can I take it that you have also been active in the Conservative Party, a member and an organizer as well?
Ms Sweetnam: No. I have worked for Elections Canada as an assistant returning officer for a number of years, so at election time I'm working. I was not allowed to carry a party card of any kind. That ended about a year and a half ago. I really haven't taken the role that my husband has.
Mr Cullen: Thank you for that. One of the issues that has been raised here is your statement that the district health council -- let me just back up a step here.
I'm looking at the whole issue of long-term care beds and I want to come back to the notion that the 1,960 waiting list that you say is much less than that -- but that's a district health council estimate. The government promise of 1,313 beds will be over the next eight years. The district health council has said this isn't adequate, the MPP for Ottawa-Rideau thinks it's inadequate, he has said so publicly, and we have an aging population. I understand your comments about warehousing, but when the district health council says this is inadequate and you're expecting to head up the district health council, what do you do?
Ms Sweetnam: The Ottawa-Carleton district health council was concerned that there be enough long-term care beds and they expressed that. We didn't know how much we were going to have in reinvestment at that point. We didn't know if we would get any in reinvestment. It's now obvious there's substantial reinvestment there. What we need to look at is how we spend those reinvestment dollars and the best way to do that.
Mr Cullen: But when we look at 1,313 over eight years and we have an immediate waiting list that the district health council has identified of 1,490 -- that's now, and the population is aging -- and the district health council is saying this is an immediate problem, one would expect that the district health council will want to be communicating to the government that indeed there's a problem here and that more resources have to be addressed.
Ms Sweetnam: Believe me, that has been communicated.
Mr Cullen: The issue is that we already have a government MPP saying it's inadequate. I just want to know how you feel about carrying that message to the government. It seems that you think everything's all right.
Ms Sweetnam: No, I didn't say that. I just say that the resources and the will are there to deal with it. I think that we in Ottawa-Carleton have to take responsibility for what we're doing there. It's so easy, any problem, to just want somebody else to throw money at it and it's just not that simple. We have a lot of issues here around how older people should be looked after, about their lifestyle. There's lots happening in terms of the fact that if people had more understanding, more knowledge, more ability to control what they were about, they don't need the facility that we're trying to claim that perhaps is going to be needed. We don't know yet. We need to work with the people of Ottawa-Carleton, and we in Ottawa-Carleton have to take responsibility to do that. To sit there and say, "We've got a problem here; let's throw some more money at it," is not the answer.
Mr Cullen: All right, so you disagree with what the district health council has said up to this point, you disagree with Garry Guzzo.
Ms Sweetnam: The district health council did not say we needed immediately 1,900 beds.
Mr Cullen: No. There's a current waiting list of 1,900 beds and obviously --
Ms Sweetnam: But as already explained, that waiting list involves a lot of transfers and that kind of thing.
Mr Cullen: This is a net number, not a gross number. So there is a difference of opinion here.
I want to come back to the business about representing. The appointment here today is to chair and represent the district health council. Already we're seeing there are going to be some differences of views between yourself and some members of the district health council.
Ms Sweetnam: No, there will not be. I will represent the council. I am the chair and whatever motions come through that council, I will represent.
Mr Cullen: I want to walk back a little bit over the history here. The Ottawa-Carleton district health council had how many positions before?
Ms Sweetnam: Nineteen.
Mr Cullen: Of which only four were politicians.
Ms Sweetnam: That's right. Three were actually politicians but we had another lady on who had a political background.
Mr Cullen: That's fine. As I understand it, they had a restructuring process. They engaged in an intensive public consultation and it was a unanimous vote to recommend that all the facilities stay open.
Ms Sweetnam: We wimped out.
Mr Cullen: I just want to understand. You voted in favour of keeping all the facilities open and yet you participated in --
Ms Sweetnam: That was the wish of the majority of council.
Mr Cullen: Hang on. If I can just get my question out, thank you. Yet at the same time that this was happening, you were writing a report otherwise that wasn't part of that public consultation process. I'm just trying to understand here. We're held accountable for our votes. Okay? You go through a public consultation process, you get a very strong message, you vote in favour and you don't bring forward this alternative viewpoint. I'm just trying to understand how you view the process. You are working on a report that recommends closing three community hospitals when the community has said otherwise and at the public meeting that decides this, while this report is being written, you're voting in favour of keeping all the hospitals open. I just don't understand how you can suck and blow at the same time.
Ms Sweetnam: The public consultation was very mixed and people knew we had too many hospitals. We knew what was happening in Ottawa-Carleton. It happened over the course of 10 or 12 years that there were beds closing. The buildings were there but there were many fewer beds and people knew what that meant in terms of being an efficient hospital system, and we heard that. We came and talked to these people in Toronto at the university, who looked at it from a very objective point of view, and learned from there. That was all part of the process.
What happened at the end was it was too politically hot to face the music, and we agreed --
Mr Cullen: So you're at the meeting and it's politically hot, and instead of presenting this viewpoint as part of the public discussion and having a vote on it and staking out your position -- I mean, who wimped out here?
1130
Ms Sweetnam: We wimped out at that meeting. We knew --
Mr Cullen: I'm looking at Beth Sweetnam here.
Ms Sweetnam: Can I just answer that? We wimped out at that meeting where we should have been closing hospitals, because we knew the majority --
Mr Cullen: Then why did you vote in favour of keeping all the hospitals open?
Ms Sweetnam: Can I answer the question?
The Chair: Mr Cullen, I appreciate you would want an answer. Could you let the witness answer, please.
Mr Cullen: Sure.
Ms Sweetnam: The majority of council wanted to go with the solution of, "Don't close hospitals." We were not comfortable with it. We realized we were going nowhere with that, so we voted with them. That was the biggest mistake I've ever made, and as a consumer who has never been on a council that had the kind of public attention that this did and usually worked from consensus, I felt that's what I should be doing. I was on council one month. I had always worked with a consensus type of board, and I made a decision that I will regret, because that was wrong. We knew that was wrong. People told us all over Ottawa-Carleton that was wrong.
With sober second thought -- it wasn't at the same time. It was after, the next day, when you wake up and think, "What did I do?" Then we went to council first and we said to council, at a meeting within a few days, "Look, this is not going to fly; this is embarrassing," and we got nowhere. At that point we said: "Okay, we've made a mistake. We should never have done this. For our own credibility and for the sake of the people of Ottawa-Carleton, we need to do something to acknowledge what really has to happen here."
Mr Cullen: So you recommended closing three community hospitals. I think it would have been very useful for the public process to have that position out in front, as opposed to --
Ms Sweetnam: We did. We published it and --
Mr Cullen: No, not during that time. But I won't get into those details.
Ms Sweetnam: We published it immediately.
Mr Cullen: No, it was after the vote.
Ms Sweetnam: Yes it was. As soon as we wrote it, we published it.
Mr Cullen: Yes, I understand that.
Ms Sweetnam: It was responded to. As a matter of fact, several people in hospitals told me that it was helpful because they no longer had a phantom to deal with, that they had something to deal with.
The Chair: I would indicate to both of you that there's just about a minute and a half left to go, so Mr Cullen, I'll ask you to put your question.
Mr Cullen: I'll just move on here. Because of the proposed closures, Ottawa-Carleton is going to end up with the lowest beds-per-population ratio in Ontario. The Queensway Carleton Hospital, among other local hospitals, is saying it needs to reopen beds. In fact, the Queensway Carleton Hospital is now looking for 12 beds; they can't cope. Will you be able to advance that cause to the province?
Ms Sweetnam: There is no time when people will be out on the streets. There are enough beds in our system sitting unopened that if they are needed they can be opened.
Mr Cullen: Will you support the funding for the Queensway Carleton Hospital to reopen beds? It says it needs them.
Ms Sweetnam: If it's needed, yes. They opened them during the ice storm and we supported that because it was needed at that time. Yes. The situation is that for Ontario to keep beds open an entire year to deal with a crisis is not efficient.
Mr Cullen: I'm just trying to marry your claim that there's enough money there --
The Chair: I'd ask you to wrap up quickly.
Mr Cullen: -- and the government has put back enough that we're doing fine, yet we're having the hospitals coming forward asking for beds to be reopened. They don't think they have enough money; they're running deficits. You're the head of the district health council. We have a conflict in your position and what the hospitals are saying. How are you going to handle that?
Ms Sweetnam: I don't see any conflict. We support good services for Ottawa-Carleton and we will continue to do so.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Sorry we ran out of time.
Ms Sweetnam, thank you for joining us today. The committee will be dealing with concurrence in your intended appointment at the end of our session.
The Chair: Is Mr Michael Feldman here? Mr Feldman, we're actually ahead of schedule. Are you ready to come forward at this time?
Mr Michael Feldman: Yes, I'm ahead of schedule too.
The Chair: Great. You just read our minds, I guess. Please have a seat. While you're getting yourself together, I'll ask the committee members, in the intended appointments we have reviewed so far, those of Mr Salerno, Mr Hume, Mr Goulet and Ms Sweetnam, are there any that people would like to deal with individually?
Mr Cullen: Yes.
The Chair: Each of them?
Mr Cullen: Yes.
The Chair: Could you indicate to me which ones you may wish to speak to?
Mr Cullen: All of them.
The Chair: Okay. I'm going to proceed at this point with Mr Feldman and we will come back and do the concurrences at the end.
MICHAEL FELDMAN
Review of intended appointment, selected by the official opposition party: Michael Feldman, intended appointee as member, Ontario Housing Corp board of directors.
The Chair: Welcome, sir. We appreciate your joining us today. If you have any opening comments you would like to make, I offer you the time at this point and then we will begin questioning with Mr Cullen.
Mr Feldman: Serving on the board of OHC, for me, is an exciting challenge and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the standing committee on government agencies to present my experience and qualifications for this appointment. I assume that each member of the committee has received my CV. You will note that I have had a broad range of involvement in community service. For today's purpose I will focus on my experience in housing, but first a brief review of my business background.
In 1953 I established a small business, Teela Data Management, that reported property sales on a national basis. We reported who bought, who sold, what they paid for it, mortgage breakdowns. We became the barometer of the real estate industry in the country. We evolved into publishing the multiple listing catalogues across Canada and parts of the United States, with plants or offices in Montreal; Toronto; Edmonton; Vancouver; Buffalo, New York; and San Francisco. I sold the business to the Moore Corp in 1982 and stayed on to run the company for six more years. I retired in 1988. I was tired of being retired and in 1992 was elected to North York city council and have served that same constituency and still serve it on the new Toronto city council.
I was involved with social housing for more than 25 years and I've been a director of the three largest housing companies in the city of Toronto. In 1973 I was appointed director of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Co Ltd for a three-year term, and 23 years later, because I was elected to North York city council, I had to resign. I was no longer eligible to be on the board as a citizen member.
During my 23-year span with MTHCL, I served as vice-chair and also as president of the newly formed Metropolitan Toronto Singles Housing Co and I was president of Metropolitan Toronto Housing Development Corp. While I was at MTHCL I was instrumental in creating a unique form of housing that was constructed without government funds, the guaranteed equity project at Malvern.
When OHC decided to establish local housing authorities to manage the OHC portfolio in 1981, I was appointed to the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority's first board of directors. Four years after my appointment, I decided to leave MTHA because the authority had no authority. My opinion is that citizen members must have a sense of accomplishment, or serving on government agencies holds no reward.
I was also a member of numerous task forces and committees between 1983 and 1988: the Metro Toronto Task Force on Housing for Low-Income Singles; the Task Force on Roomers, Boarders and Lodgers in the province of Ontario; the task force on housing physically and developmentally challenged individuals who require attendant care -- that required the establishment of a building at Bathurst and Prince Charles -- and the advisory committee for Metro Toronto Homes for the Aged.
1140
While I was president of our synagogue, we established the Reena Foundation. Reena's purpose was to create a group home environment for developmentally challenged young adults because some of our congregants were concerned with what would happen with their children once they passed on. The success of that organization over the past 25 years has proven to be the model for such programs internationally.
One of my responsibilities on Toronto city council -- back to housing -- is that I'm on Cityhome and the MTHCL board, charged with the task of marrying the two companies and working through the potential economies of scale.
I am a member of the community neighbourhood services committee, city of Toronto, which is the committee of council that deals with housing, among other social issues. In summation, I've been involved with social housing for some 25 years.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Feldman. We will move to the official opposition.
Mr Cullen: Thank you, Mr Feldman, for coming. In looking at your extensive résumé, I couldn't help but notice seeing here "president of the Downsview provincial riding association, president of the York Centre federal riding association." What party?
Mr Feldman: How long ago?
Mr Cullen: You should know that.
Mr Feldman: It was the PC party and it was many, many years ago. I am now not a card-carrying member of any party but sympathize right of centre.
Mr Cullen: We don't need to go any further than that. I look at your extensive background in housing and you're currently on city of Toronto council. What are your views about downloading the costs of social housing on to the property tax base?
Mr Feldman: I was not in favour of downloading housing, only because it's not a finite number that can be downloaded. I was on Mac Carson's committee reviewing social housing reform before the devolution down to the municipalities. The committee I was on was involved with management, administration and ownership. We met for 15 all-day meetings every Monday for months. I was the one who made the presentation for the Carson committee. I suggest that if we're stuck with it, we have to be the owners -- the municipalities, that is. That was my opinion.
I realize that when the government took the education tax it has to replace it with something. I would like to see it find something else to replace it with besides housing because the real estate tax base is not based on ability to pay.
Mr Cullen: That's right.
Mr Feldman: And income tax is. I believe housing is global. I don't think that we can stick just to the one city, and especially the city of Toronto because it has a vast portfolio, over 60,000 units: 30,000 we'll inherit, 30,000 we've got now. Each of those units costs in excess of $200 a month per month subsidized. We've got to find some better ways of doing it.
I would like to see it take a portion of the welfare and say, "Here, Toronto, you owe us $250 million," as opposed to, "Here's a portfolio." We don't know the state of the portfolio. I can't do due diligence. Any businessman says, "What's the structure etc?" I feel that OHC is going to have some major problems. I'd like to be sitting at the table when they have those problems.
Mr Cullen: Sure. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has been saying to the government that we should listen to the Crombie commission, the Who Does What commission, which said that these things should remain with the province, that they're social transfers, but that now the government insists on transferring it to the municipalities, the municipalities should have say for pay, control over costs. So municipalities are talking about the ability to set rent, to determine eligibility. First of all, is that a legitimate way to control costs?
Mr Feldman: No, I don't think so.
Mr Cullen: What does this do to the notion of universality of the program? You can't have different rents in different cities. You can't have different eligibility. Doesn't this fracture basically an important part of the social safety net?
Mr Feldman: Not necessarily. I think that the municipalities -- the province has to set a set of standards and benchmarks and guidelines. One of the things I think is sacrosanct is eligibility. RGI units have to be rented at a specific amount.
Mr Cullen: RGI is rent geared to income.
Mr Feldman: The rent-geared-to-income has to be rented at a specific amount. There have to be benchmarks on some of the other portfolios, the private non-profits, the municipal non-profits. I say that say for pay involves ownership only because in order to economize, we've only got a couple of areas to work with and the tenant has to be protected. Our client has to be protected in the long run.
One of the important areas is refinancing and restructuring the portfolio. With due respect, if the municipality has to come to the province, hat in hand, saying, "We would like to do this," then -- I said to the committee and I will quote it here, "If the province is out of housing, you're out of housing." You can't have it both ways.
Mr Cullen: Would the more acceptable notion be that municipalities have responsibility for administration but that the province retain the --
Mr Feldman: Benchmarks.
Mr Cullen: -- the obligation to provide, for example, the subsidy for rent geared to income?
Mr Feldman: No.
Mr Cullen: You think that can come from the property tax base?
Mr Feldman: It has to come from the property tax base if they're devolving.
Mr Cullen: But is it right?
Mr Feldman: If I had my druthers, as I said earlier, I would prefer that the province keep housing. I would prefer that on a personal basis. But if we have the portfolio, I want to sit at the table so we can control somewhat what is happening to that portfolio. Bill 152 specifies -- it's implied if it's not written -- that there is say for pay.
Mr Cullen: This is the area we're talking about, the principle of keeping rent geared to income affordable. If rent geared to income is going to be kept affordable, then the money has to come from someplace, and I think I heard you say earlier that it shouldn't be coming from the property tax base because it's not based on the ability to pay.
We have an affordable housing crisis in Ontario. Would you agree that in Metro Toronto there is a large number of people from the low-income strata who aren't in social housing, who require some assistance to have affordable housing? We have that in Ottawa-Carleton. I know that.
Mr Feldman: But we do have the other side of the coin. Unfortunately, social housing has become a destination as opposed to, "We provide it when you need it, and move on when you no longer need it." Because it becomes a destination, we don't get the movement, so we can't take up the waiting list that's behind it. It's twofold. It's not just monetary. It's not just throwing more money at the program. We have a waiting list in Toronto that is as large as the number of people we house.
Mr Cullen: What's that number? What number are we talking about here?
Mr Feldman: We have a waiting list in both portfolios of some 45,000 or 50,000, and we house about 60,000.
Mr Cullen: We have a waiting list in Ottawa-Carleton of over 12,000. It takes three to five years to get in.
Mr Feldman: I have people who wait 10 years and 12 years.
Mr Cullen: The Ontario Housing Corp has actually been looking at selling off housing. Do you think that's appropriate given these waiting lists?
Mr Feldman: At the last MTHCL meeting with Cityhome, the Toronto housing company, there was $11 million of property that was identified by the budget committee that could be sold off, and I was the one who made the motion saying: "Hold off. You don't sell it off before we find out if it can be used for social housing economically." You can't just have a house, isolate it, service it. Your costs are much too high. But the dollars that would come out of it if it is sold off have to go back into providing housing in another location for the same number of units.
I think one of the other benchmarks the province has to impose is that if we give you 20,000 RGI units, you must maintain 20,000. You can't sell off and have less than the 20,000.
The Chair: Last question, Mr Cullen.
Mr Cullen: So the point of these scattered units, which by the way tend to house larger families, you're saying would have to be redirected and the housing replaced. We're changing the form, but because of the waiting list, we should not reduce the stock.
Mr Feldman: That's right.
The Chair: We move to the government. Your caucus has about five minutes.
Mr Jim Brown: Good morning, Mr Feldman. You've been around social housing for a while.
Mr Feldman: Just a bit.
Mr Jim Brown: I have a fair bit of it in my riding. One of the concerns is the amount of crime that exists in some of these units. I'm wondering, from your perspective and your experience, what positive suggestions can we get from you to clean up some of the problems? We have some units that are used as houses of prostitution, some units are used as crack houses, and we have a fair degree of violence in some of the places.
1150
Mr Feldman: The answer, I believe and have believed for many years, is that the tenant population has to have more responsibility for its own housing. That's why I'm excited about the Alexandra Park experiment, where the tenants themselves will be the managers. The problem is that the tenants have not yet been taught. They have to be educated on how they can manage their own portfolio. If the tenants could control the buildings themselves, they would have these people out of there faster than a government agency that relies on what they will read in the press tomorrow about the dirty government that kicked someone out of a unit whether they deserved it or not. The tenants themselves -- that would go a long way to solving some of the problems.
The Chair: Any further questions from the members of the government? No? Mr Feldman, thank you for joining us.
Mr Feldman: That was painless. I thought --
The Chair: That's it. I know you're a busy man. It was a short time, but I think your qualifications impressed everyone to silence. It's unusual in this committee. Thank you for joining us.
Committee, if we can move to motions of concurrence, we'll deal with each of the appointments individually, beginning with Mr Salerno, intended appointee as a member of the investment advisory committee of the public guardian and trustee. May I have a motion for concurrence on his appointment?
Mr Grimmett: I move concurrence.
The Chair: Is there discussion?
Mr Cullen: Very brief, Madam Chair. We're going to support this appointment. Clearly Mr Salerno brings both his own skills and the position of his office to bear here.
I cannot resist, though -- in going through his comments, he talked about how close the premium was in terms of what Ontario paid over the federal government in terms of interest rates. We know that the author of the interest rate policy that has saved this government and the taxpayers of Ontario so much money of course has been the federal government. It's very nice to hear that from time to time, that at least a civil servant will recognize that.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments on the intended appointment. Is there any further discussion? No? Seeing none --
Mr Stewart: Madam Chair, a recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Yes, Mr Stewart, a recorded vote.
Ayes
Jim Brown, Cullen, Gravelle, Grimmett, Bert Johnson, Newman, Stewart.
The Chair: Mr Stewart, will you be requesting a recorded vote on each of them?
Mr Stewart: Yes, I will.
The Chair: Okay, we'll just do that as the standard approach then.
Next is the intended appointment of Mr Peter Hume as a member of the Champlain District Health Council. May I have the motion of concurrence, please?
Mr Grimmett: So moved.
The Chair: Any debate?
Mr Cullen: Again, Madam Chair, we'll be supporting my former colleague Peter Hume, a very fine Tory and member of regional council. But I do have to point out that he has indicated the challenges they'll be facing, that district health council. The downloading of public health to the regional municipality is in the order of some $44 million. If the government does not come through with continued assistance to protect ratepayers, he has indicated that what is being downloaded will be faced with the same budgetary pressures and reductions in services as any other service that the region may provide. Coincidentally, the assistance that the government has provided on a one-time basis to date is around some $44 million, and he has indicated that the costs the region is facing are some $50 million. So we're looking at some significant challenges here in the provision of public health.
With respect to hospital closures, Councillor Hume did indicate that he was opposed to the closure of the Riverside Hospital and he brought to the government's attention the additional costs of health care restructuring. The government is well aware that in Ottawa-Carleton $128 million has to be reinvested to make it work, and one third, or about $47 million, is going to be a local taxpayer contribution. He has indicated to this committee that that is in the ballpark of $35 million in additional costs for local taxpayers to help make the solution work. Already we're looking at anywhere between $70 million and $80 million-plus that the local property taxpayers will have to fund to make it work. He has indicated that the region cannot accommodate those kinds of additional costs.
Councillor Hume has brought to this committee's attention, and I hope to the government's attention, the difficulties being faced and the kind of rethinking that is going to have to be done in terms of this government's health care plan. It's interesting when the local representative, a member of the Conservative Party but dealing where the rubber hits the road, indicates that there are such major problems and major challenges. Quite frankly, I hope the government is listening; so far, as he has indicated with his own proposals for the restructuring of health care, it has not.
The Chair: Any further debate?
Mr Stewart: Just one comment. Certainly I would support Mr Hume, but I would also hope, because of the concern the member from Ottawa-Carleton has, that as soon as he goes back to his riding he'll go up the hill and talk to his country cousins there and suggest that they give the province back the $2.1 billion they have taken away from us in health and social benefits so that the costs for his constituents and his ratepayers would not be what he is suggesting. There was some comment he made some time ago about sucking and blowing at the same time. You cannot do that. I would suggest that you make a commitment -- and I mean this -- to go to your counterparts in Ottawa to see if you can somehow get them to give us back the money so there will not be a problem for your ratepayers.
The Chair: Any further debate? Seeing none, a recorded vote.
Ayes
Jim Brown, Cullen, Gravelle, Grimmett, Bert Johnson, Newman, Stewart.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
The next person we deal with is Mr Bruce Goulet, intended appointee as a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. May I have a motion for concurrence, please?
Mr Bert Johnson: I move concurrence.
The Chair: Is there any debate or discussion?
Mr Cullen: I just think it's wonderful that when someone is looking for an appointment -- and it was clear from Mr Goulet's comments that he was looking for an appointment -- one can actually reach through and get a patronage appointment by calling the Premier's office. I wish the rest of Ontario would have such success.
The Chair: Any further discussion or debate? Seeing none, a recorded vote.
Ayes
Jim Brown, Cullen, Gravelle, Grimmett, Bert Johnson, Newman, Stewart.
The Chair: That's carried.
Ms Beth Sweetnam, intended appointee as member and chair of Champlain -- no, I'm sorry. Let me correct that. The information we had before us was that Ms Sweetnam was an intended appointee as a member and chair. As she indicated and as has been confirmed with the appointments secretariat, the order in council will reflect the appointment as chair; she already is a member. The motion of concurrence I'm looking for is for intended appointee as chair of Champlain District Health Council. May I have a motion of concurrence, please?
Mr Grimmett: I so move.
Mr Cullen: I guess this is where the wheels fall off this wagon of concurrence. I'm from Ottawa-Carleton. I remember very well the very public process we went through with the district health council looking at hospital restructuring. There was very much a public process. Indeed, when the district health council voted unanimously to support keeping the facilities open, that was following a very intense and very public process.
It was with some amazement and, according to some members of the district health council, some controversy when all of a sudden it was discovered that there were six members of the district health council who were proposing the closure of three community hospitals all through this time and sending a report off to the Health Services Restructuring Commission. Ms Sweetnam was part of that. Quite frankly, I cannot gainsay her appointment to the district health council, but I have to wonder about her objectivity and her ability to represent that district health council in making its positions to the government. Here was a public process that the public entered in good faith and then there was a decision made, a public decision, and all that time, those members -- and Ms Sweetnam was part of it -- were conducting and proposing an alternative policy perspective that did not become part of that public process, that was not voted on by the district health council.
I'm sorry, when the district health council takes a position -- we all have our individual viewpoints. We go through a process and there is a majority and there is a minority, but then there is closure and we expect the process to continue.
1200
Here we have a situation where, quite frankly, we have an apologist for the government who says all things are well in Ottawa-Carleton. Yet we are running deficits in the hospitals. We have hospitals asking for beds to be reopened. Even the local member is saying that in terms of long-term care the government proposal is inadequate. We have a previous member, whom we just approved here, Councillor Peter Hume, saying that we have these challenges and that we need to make sure that these points are brought forward to the government.
I do not have confidence in this appointment to be able to carry forward with integrity the position of the district health council. How can you go through a public process and vote for keeping all the facilities open while at the same time privately be preparing your report recommending the closure of three major community facilities? This is simply, to put it mildly -- I'm trying to find the appropriate word. There is certainly misleading representation when we have such a situation.
I think it's reprehensible. You have to have the honesty to bring forward in the public debate the position. Fine, if it goes down on a vote, but you have to have the ability to carry forward the position of the district health council when you're chair whether you like it or not.
I can tell this committee that as far as I'm concerned and others are concerned in Ottawa-Carleton, we do not have that confidence, simply do not have that confidence. There you are, Madam Chair. We'll be voting against this appointment.
Mr Newman: I will be supporting the appointment of Ms Sweetnam as the chair of the district health council because I think she understands the issues. We've talked about the waiting lists. In my three minutes earlier, I didn't get an opportunity to mention the fact that as of March of this year, of the so-called waiting list Mr Cullen was referring to, over half of those people are already receiving care in one form or another. They're getting it from an acute care hospital, they're getting it from a chronic care hospital or they're already in a long-term care facility and are requesting a move to another site.
We had continual references here today to the waiting list. If you look at the total in March, which was 1,273 people, if you actually look at where the numbers come from, 667 people are in their homes right now and have requested a long-term care space -- that may be for in a year or two, but they've put their name on the list and I think we all have to acknowledge that; there are 120 who are in an acute care hospital facility, there are 39 who are in a chronic care hospital and there are 447 people who are already in a long-term care facility who want to be moved to another site.
Those last three make up virtually half of the list, so to continually say that there's a waiting list of 1,300 people awaiting services just isn't as accurate as it might be.
Also, in terms of the waiting list of the Ottawa-Carleton CCAC, there is no waiting list for nursing, there is no waiting list for homemaking and there's no waiting list for dietetic services. I think that's important to keep in mind. The fact that Ms Sweetnam understands this is the reason I would be supporting her appointment.
Mr Bert Johnson: I want to just put some comments on, if I could. I'm going to support this appointment. The appointee had a dilemma as a new member of the district health council. I, maybe unlike some of my colleagues, heard an explanation and I accept it, so I don't have that problem with the explanation of her actions as a member of the district health council.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion or debate? Seeing none, a recorded vote.
Ayes
Jim Brown, Grimmett, Bert Johnson, Newman, Stewart.
Nays
Cullen, Gravelle.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Dealing with Michael C. Feldman, intended appointee as member of the Ontario Housing Corp board of directors, may I have a motion of concurrence, please?
Mr Cullen: This is an appointment we are very pleased to support. I think there are some very telling points that Mr Feldman made in his presentation. The government has yet to determine benchmarks, has yet to determine the means by which the social housing will be transferred to municipalities. We continue to hear from each applicant who comes forward whom we deal with here who's a municipal representative going on to the Ontario Housing Corp -- we heard this at our last session and we heard it today -- that the municipalities still do not want social housing being downloaded. They think it's inappropriate. They agree with David Crombie.
We also heard here that there is a requirement to ensure that the transfer of social housing respects rent geared to income -- that's going to be very difficult to do from the property tax base -- and that there ought to be province-wide standards. Again, that's going to put a burden on the property taxpayer that this government is going to be responsible for.
We also heard, amazingly enough, that there are almost as many people on the waiting list for social housing in Metro Toronto as there are units. Since this government has come into power in 1995, it cancelled a large number of social housing projects that were designed to at least eat away at that waiting list, has brought in no new housing, and in fact the Ontario Housing Corp has three times come to the brink of selling off units. That just flies in the face of this tremendous demand.
Just understand. For someone who is paying more than 30% of their gross income for shelter, that means less money for their kids, less money for their health, less money for their future. This is the benchmark we have, that 30% of their gross income should go to shelter, and this government raised it from 28% to 29% to 30%.
We still have these people out there being left on their own, being forced to pay more than 30% of their income -- less money for their kids, less money for their health, less money for their future. How can these people make it? How can they put money aside? How can they invest in their kids? How can they look after themselves and therefore be less cost to the taxpayer downstream when this government refuses to address the problem, throws it over to the municipalities to a tax base that they know is inadequate and inappropriate for the task and says, "Good luck, Charlie"?
It's wrong. Mark my words, within five or 10 years' time the pendulum will swing back, because there has to be a means to address this problem or we will have more of what the member mentioned earlier in terms of the ill conditions, the social conditions we are trying to address the symptoms of instead of dealing with the roots. This is an important part of the social safety net and we should be making sure we address the roots of the problem instead of just passing it over to the municipalities.
What happened during the 1930s when municipalities had sole responsibility for all these social programs? They went bankrupt. It was the senior levels of government, with their greater access to sales tax, corporate tax and income tax, that took it over. I say to you, address the roots of the problem, but simply forcing it over to the municipalities is an inappropriate solution. You're going to have to address it.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion or debate? Seeing none, a recorded vote.
Ayes
Jim Brown, Cullen, Gravelle, Grimmett, Bert Johnson, Newman, Stewart.
The Chair: That carries.
That's the end of the business stated on the agenda. No further business from members? Seeing none, I'll ask members of the subcommittee to stay behind for an informal meeting and declare the meeting today adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1209.