Intended
appointments
Mr Al Leach
Ms Catherine Keleher
Mr Doug Holyday
Mr Gerald Nori
Mr Michael Rohrer
Mr Allan Laakkonen
Mr Charles Sandiford
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair /
Président
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington
L)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex PC)
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale /
Toronto-Centre-Rosedale L)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 1004 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Chair (Mr James
Bradley): I'm going to call the meeting to order, since
people have endeavoured to be here at an appropriate time. I'm
sure all other committee members will be coming in as soon as
they can; I know the traffic is bad.
The first item on the agenda
is the report of the subcommittee on committee business dated
Thursday, May 18, 2000.
Mr Bob Wood (London
West): Mr Chair, I'd like to move adoption of the
reports of the subcommittee of May 18, May 25, June 15, June 22
and June 29, 2000.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Wood. That's very helpful. Any
discussion?
All in favour? Opposed?
Carried.
Mr Wood: I
would also like to move a motion with respect to extending until
tomorrow-and I'm asking for unanimous consent for this motion-the
time for consideration of Mr Leach, Ms Keleher, Mr Holyday, Mr
Nori, Mr Rohrer, Mr Laakkonen and Mr Sandiford.
The Chair:
Thank you for that motion. That motion enables us to legally deal
with the people we're dealing with today. So I thank Mr Wood for
that motion. Any discussion?
All in favour? The motion is
carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
AL LEACH
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party and third
party: Al Leach, intended appointee as member, Toronto Police
Services Board.
The Chair:
The first individual to come before the committee this morning is
no stranger to the committee. It's Mr Allan Leach, who is an
intended appointee as a member of the Toronto Police Services
Board. Good morning.
Mr Al Leach:
Good morning, Mr Chair. It's very nice to see you again.
The Chair:
It's always nice to see former members of the Legislature and
familiar faces before the committee. Believe it or not, we see a
lot of familiar faces before the committee. That's always nice to
see.
Mr Leach:
And always have.
The Chair:
As you know, Mr Leach, the procedure we follow is that the
appointee has an opportunity to make an initial statement and
then we proceed in rotation. Welcome to the committee.
Mr Leach:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name, for the record, is
Al Leach. I'm interested in becoming a member of the Toronto
Police Services Board.
I believe that most of the
members of the committee know me and also have a copy of my
resumé, so I will keep my opening statement quite brief.
Should I be appointed, I
believe my overall background and experience would enable me to
be a good member of the police services board and make a positive
contribution. As you know, I was the chief general manager of the
Toronto Transit Commission for approximately eight years, from
1987 to 1995, and there are many similarities between the Toronto
Police Services Board and the Toronto Transit Commission; for
example, the number of personnel and the size of the budget.
They're both very public organizations. By that I mean they come
under continuous public scrutiny with respect to the quality of
services they provide. Both are overseen by a board or a
commission that is responsible to city council, but both have
some degree of independence from council. Both monitor the
performance of senior staff and both are responsible for
collective bargaining and, in consultation with the staff,
develop a budget for presentation to Toronto council.
I believe my TTC experience,
certainly when dealing with administrative matters, would be of
considerable benefit should I be appointed as a member of the
police services board.
As you also know, I was the
member of provincial Parliament for the former riding of St
George-St David from 1995 to 1999. As all members of this
committee are certainly aware, one of the responsibilities of an
MPP is to be active in the community, and my riding was probably
one of the most diverse in the province of Ontario. This
diversity gave me the opportunity to deal with a multitude of
issues that covered a broad segment of the population. This
experience gave me the opportunity to understand many of the
complex problems facing the residents of the city of Toronto. I
worked closely with the police, particularly 51 division, to deal
with many of the issues. I also had the opportunity to work with
local residents' groups and community organizations, as well as numerous social agencies in
the city. I believe this experience would also be of considerable
benefit in dealing with issues facing the Toronto Police Services
Board.
I should also point out that
prior to coming to the TTC, when I was the managing director of
GO Transit, I was a member of the city of Toronto Crime Stoppers
committee-again, experience that would be of benefit should I be
appointed as a member of the Police Services Board.
In closing these very brief
remarks, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say that I am 64
years old. I have lived in the city all of my life. The community
has been very good to me; this community has been very good to my
family. I see serving on the Toronto Police Services Board as an
opportunity to give something back to this community.
Thank you, ladies and
gentlemen of the committee. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
1010
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Leach. We'll start with the official
opposition.
Mr Rick Bartolucci
(Sudbury): Welcome, Al. Only a very few questions from
me and then I'll turn it over to George.
Have you spoken to Steve
Tracey or Ron Smallbone of the juvenile task force in 52?
Mr Leach:
No, I haven't.
Mr
Bartolucci: Are you aware that there is a very severe
problem with regard to children being sexually exploited and
abused through prostitution in Toronto? Are you aware of this
problem?
Mr Leach: I
am aware of the problem to the extent of what I've seen of it in
the media. I know it's a serious problem. It's certainly a
serious problem in the downtown core, the area I represented, and
something that I know the police are actively working on. But it
needs a lot more work.
Mr
Bartolucci: Exactly. They're hampered because there's no
legislation in place in Ontario to deal specifically with the
problem. There are, though, two bills on the order paper, Bill 6
and Bill 32, both private members' bills introduced by myself
that have a broad range of support. Certainly Chief Fantino is in
support and the police association is in support of both of
those. Are you prepared to support legislation similar to
Alberta's legislation which will give the police the tools to
deal with this problem?
Mr Leach: I
would support any measure that would give the police the tools to
deal with that type of problem. Of course I would want to see the
legislation, be aware of the legislation, before I passed any
specific comments on it, but in principle I certainly would
support that.
Mr
Bartolucci: Yesterday I mailed to you a copy of both
pieces of legislation in anticipation that your answer would be
positive. You will be receiving them very shortly. I would ask
you to peruse them. I would ask you to consult with the chief and
certainly the task force members, Steve Tracey and Ron Smallbone,
and Craig Bromell of the police association. I look forward to
you actively lobbying the government to get off their duffs and
do something about the problem we have across the province of
Ontario. Thanks, Mr Leach.
Mr George Smitherman
(Toronto Centre-Rosedale): It's always good to see
constituents of mine before a legislative committee. Mr Leach, a
preliminary question: do you intend to be a candidate for
chairman of the police services board after the municipal
elections this fall?
Mr Leach: I
can honestly say I really haven't put my mind to that. I
indicated an interest in becoming a board member. I don't know
whether I could make the time available to be chair. But I
haven't thought about it. We have a chair at present. To the best
of my knowledge, his term has a considerable time to run.
Mr
Smitherman: Would you like to take an opportunity to
take yourself out of running for that position?
Mr Leach:
No, I would never close my options.
Mr
Smitherman: As Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
in the government, you facilitated the largest downloading on
municipalities. The city of Toronto believes that it has been
subjected to a quarter of a billion dollars' worth of costs on an
annual basis. At the same time, there has been a fairly
precipitous decline in the number of uniformed officers on the
streets of the city of Toronto, and many people have drawn a link
between these things. Could you offer some comment on the extent
to which downloading may have contributed to the decline in the
number of uniformed officers, but more particularly focus on the
issue of the number of uniformed officers and offer some comment
as to how much of a concern that causes you.
Mr Leach: I
find that a bit puzzling because I know that since 1995, when the
Solicitor General announced a program to add 1,000 net new
officers to the streets of Ontario, the number of police officers
on the streets in the city of Toronto has increased. I'm quite
confident of that. I know that was an issue that was debated in
this House when I was here, to add more police officers to the
entire province, and that was net new officers, by the way. I
don't know the specific numbers for the city of Toronto, but it
strikes me that it was about 300-
Mr Steve Gilchrist
(Scarborough East): It was 250.
Mr
Leach:-250 additional officers for the city of Toronto,
net new officers.
Mr
Smitherman: I would urge you to take a look at those
stats because the word "net" is misplaced, I believe, in your
answer. The reality is that other officers that have been before
committee in my time here have confirmed these numbers. You would
well know that pension circumstance for officers means lots and
lots of retirements as well. The net number is not an additional
number.
Let me ask another question.
There are some rumours out there, rumblings in response to the
situation which I've raised in the Legislature, of there being
fewer numbers, which quite frankly the Solicitor General has not
disputed. There seem to be some rumblings around the issue of the province offering
more resources to the city of Toronto for policing in particular,
that that will occur. What would your priority be?
You spoke about 51 division;
that's an area that I know rather well as well. There seems to be
a debate emerging about whether those police resources would be
used for things like traffic control, or whether those would be
dedicated to more street-level activities such as fighting the
crack cocaine trade which is prevalent in the area that you
represented. Between those two things, traffic control and
enhanced drug enforcement, which would be your priority?
Mr Leach:
They're both very important issues. I think, before I commented
on that, I would like to find out what the state of the situation
is currently. Where is the major shortage in the city of Toronto?
If there's a major shortage of traffic control officers, you
would have to look at that. If there's a shortage of crime
control, then you would have look at that. It's very difficult to
give a specific response to that without having the opportunity
to talk with the chief and talk with other board members to find
out where the largest need is.
Mr
Smitherman: Let me ask you a question about something
that has occurred rather than something that requires you to take
a further look at it. That's something that happened last year
which some people have called police association activism and
that others know as the True Blue campaign. This was an
unprecedented campaign which led to the mayor or the police
services board chair and Tory appointee Jeff Lyons criticizing,
condemning. in fact, Craig Bromell and the True Blue initiative.
Would you like a chance to offer your comments on that?
Mr Leach:
Again, the only thing I know about that is what I've read in the
media, but my understanding is that the campaign that was
undertaken by the police association has been withdrawn and they
are no longer pursuing the True Blue campaign. As far as I was
aware, it's a dead issue.
Mr
Smitherman: Do you see that campaign having been
withdrawn as a healthy development?
Mr Leach: I
could see where it would cause conflict. I think it was probably
in the best interests of all concerned for the association to
withdraw that.
Mr
Smitherman: As a former elected politician, were you
offended by that campaign?
Mr Leach:
"Offended" I think is a little strong, but I didn't think it was
a wise campaign to undertake, but I could also see where the
association was coming from.
Mr
Smitherman: You mentioned in your statement and
highlighted the diversity that was in your former riding of St
George-St David. I want to ask you about a couple of things that
are on your record.
One of those is that during
your time at the TTC, you prevented the lesbian and gay community
from promoting on the back of transfer stubs a public awareness
campaign that was designed to give gays and lesbians challenged
by their sexual orientation an opportunity to seek and receive
counselling. That's the first; I'd like you to comment on
that.
Secondly, you inherited in
the Regent Park community an initiative of your predecessor, Tim
Murphy, called the community witness program, which was designed
to give community impact statements in court. That was an
initiative of the MPP and was supported by his office. You
dismantled that or caused it to be dismantled by failing to
provide it necessary resources. Could you comment on those
things?
Mr Leach:
Referring to your last question first, that's not correct. We
supported the community witness program heavily. My constituency
staff were in court on a weekly basis supporting that program.
It's a great program, and I would never even consider dismantling
that. Where that information came from is a mystery to me, but
just to correct your records, it's entirely false.
With respect to the issue of
the transfers, we had offered to the gay-lesbian community the
opportunity to advertise on the bus and advertise in other areas.
We didn't want to advertise on transfers. It was the transfer
issue that became a matter of whether the medium was appropriate
to carry a message. We didn't want to carry advertising of any
sort on transfers, and that's why that decision was made.
1020
Mr
Smitherman: The civilian investigation, the SIU, is an
issue that the police chief has been fairly vocal about seeking
to-some people would use the word "dismantle" and others would
use the words "water down." Could you offer some comments about
your personal view on this and whether you would, as a member of
the police services board, take an active role in supporting the
chief's desire to see the powers of that investigations unit
watered down.
Mr Leach:
Again, I'm not familiar enough, other than with what I read in
the media, with the role of the SIU. I know that it has been
controversial. I know that the chief has recommended some changes
be made in the SIU. It's a body that's responsible to the
Attorney General and not to the police services board. I'd like
to get a whole lot more information on the SIU before I form an
opinion. I know that it's been controversial. From what I've
read, I think there probably is a need to review the role and the
makeup of the SIU. But I wouldn't want to comment beyond saying
that I would like to, along with the chief, review the function
of it and then make some recommendations.
The Chair:
Thank you to the official opposition. Now to the third party.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault
Ste Marie): I want to follow up on the last question of
Mr Smitherman on the role of the SIU. Nice to see you again this
morning, Al.
Mr Leach:
Hi, Tony.
Mr Martin: I
just want to query you further on your view. It's certainly an
important issue, one of some debate at the moment, and one that
has been out there for quite some time as an issue of contention.
I think it's one that we have to bring some closure to at some
point so that we can get on with dealing with the real issues of
policing that need to be looked after out there.
Certainly the independence of the SIU is one of real
concern to us, as are some of the comments that have been made
most recently by the present chief in Toronto, Mr Fantino, with
respect to the critical role of the SIU and his arguing for
amendments to the act to weaken its powers. As a matter of fact,
the chief argues that the statutory language in subsection 113(5)
of the act, which directs the SIU to conduct investigations into
incidents where serious injuries or deaths were caused by what
might be criminal offences committed by police officers,
"automatically assumes an officer under investigation is a
criminal, even if he or she followed proper procedure." This is
taken from an article in the Toronto Sun on May 30.
A change in wording is
supported by the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police as well,
of which Chief Fantino is a member. The association suggests that
subsection 113(5) be changed to provide that the SIU will
investigate the facts of circumstances surrounding deaths or
serious injuries resulting from police involvement. However, this
proposed amendment is opposed by Julian Falconer, a Toronto
lawyer who has acted for families of people killed by police
officers, as well as other critics. They point out that all
deaths in the province are routinely investigated by the police
as potential homicides. Thus, the wording change sought by the
association would not create, in their view, a level playing
field but would, rather, elevate police officers above the law to
which all other citizens are subject.
I'm wondering if you're aware
of this difference of perspective and view and what your position
would be. If in the discussion that I'm sure will ensue as some
of this moves forward under your tenure, if you're appointed to
the commission, there is action of this sort and it looks like
the Harris government, of which you were a part, moves in this
direction, what would your position be and would you seek, I
suppose in this way, to undermine the independence of the
SIU?
Mr Leach:
Again, I know that issue was raised at the conference of chiefs
of police. That's what I read in the media. I didn't read all the
data that you've just referred to there.
We know that police officers
are under a considerable amount of stress in carrying out their
duties in many instances and you don't want them treated any
differently, either more severely or less fairly, than the
general population.
I can probably refer back to
my experience at the TTC. When one of our operators or a member
of the commission would run into some difficulty, they always had
an opportunity to have their side of the story told to an
independent body, but always had the opportunity to be
represented by a member of their union or a lawyer if they so
chose. I don't think police officers should be any different than
that.
I would like to get more
specific detail from other members of the board and from the
chief himself rather than relying on newspaper or media reports
in making a decision on that.
I know the SIU has been
controversial, there isn't any doubt about that, and whenever
something is that controversial, it usually is time to step back
and take a sober second look to see whether changes are
necessary. They may be or they may not be. We won't know that
until that review takes place.
Mr Martin:
The other subject that I want some comment from you on has also
been touched upon by the official opposition, the issue of the
True Blue campaign that created so much controversy a short while
ago and the fact that, even though there was an agreement reached
by the two main parties involved, there's still some anxiety out
there, as you can imagine, about what's still going on, what
could be possible and whether this thing could take fire
again.
Given the very sensitive
nature of policing and the very responsible role that the police
have in our community and the need for everybody concerned to
have ultimate and utmost confidence in their ability and their
intent when they do their job, that piece of business which
presented and was perceived by many as a bullying type of
thing-as a matter of fact, you'll remember that the vice-chair of
the board at the time, Jeff Lyons, feared that his office was
bugged and also felt quite intimidated by the whole thing-is not,
as I'm sure you will agree, a good place to be, not a good
situation to have out there.
My concern is that in the
agreement that was arrived at between the two main parties, there
was still a piece left out there which many of us have some
concern about, which is the ability of the police association to,
at some later date, use money raised to be involved politically,
to affect political decisions in ways that they feel are
supportive of their position, to be involved in the political
system. I know, for example, in the last provincial election
certainly the police association was quite active in support of,
and opposing, members who were running for Parliament who were
perceived by them to not support or to support their position on
policing issues.
Given the sensitive nature of
policing and the crucial role they play in the community, often
between warring parties in some instances, do you think the
potential should be there for them to be involved in that
way?
1030
Mr Leach:
First of all, to deal with the True Blue campaign, to the best of
my knowledge that's a dead issue. It's cancelled and they're not
dealing with that any more.
With respect to the police
association being involved in supporting candidates through their
association at any level of government, whether it be municipal,
provincial or federal, I don't think the police association
should be dealt with any differently than any other association.
I know that the firemen, for example, get very active; teachers
have been very, very active; Ontario public service unions are
very active in campaigns. I don't see why one association should
be treated much differently than any of the others.
Mr Martin:
So you don't see the police as a particularly sensitive area that
would preclude their involvement politically in campaigns? For example, if the
police association decides to get involved in the coming November
municipal elections, that would be OK by you?
Mr Leach: I
don't think they should be treated differently than the teachers'
association, for example, which has the ability to affect the
minds of our schoolchildren. They've been very active in
political campaigns. I know personally that the fire association
gets very involved in political activities, to try to get
candidates to support positions they feel are in the best
interests of the community. I think all of these associations are
working with the same goal: to try to get their message through
on issues they feel are important to the community and that
represent their views. I don't see why they should be treated any
differently than the others.
Mr Martin:
What would your position be on any limits that should be put on
police activism in politics if, for no other reason, than to
maintain the trust and respect of the communities that they're
hired to serve?
Mr Leach:
There's a major difference between the police force and the
police association. It's very much like the Toronto Transit
Commission and the ATU. The union has the ability to spend their
dues where it sees fit, on issues that they think will put a
positive message across on views they feel strongly about.
There's a difference between talking about the effect of the
police force being involved in political campaigns and the union
being involved in campaigns. I see them as two separate entities
and I don't differentiate between the police union, the teacher's
union, the ATU or OPSEU. They all have roles to play and, in a
democratic society, have the right to do that.
The Chair:
That's the time completed. The government caucus.
Mr
Gilchrist: I'd like to make the observation that I asked
staff to check, just to ensure that Mr Smitherman left this
meeting with the most up-to-date facts. Since 1995, there has
been a net increase of 306 officers in the city of Toronto, 250
of whom were paid for by the province as part of our commitment
to improving law and order in this province. Those are my only
comments.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for the information, Mr Gilchrist.
Mr
Gilchrist: You're always welcome, Mr Chair.
Mr
Smitherman: You should speak with Deputy Chief Boyd.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Smitherman.
Thank you very much, Mr
Leach, for appearing before the committee.
Mr Leach:
Thank you, Mr Chair. It's nice to see everybody again.
CATHERINE KELEHER
Review of intended
appointment, selected by third party: Catherine Anne Keleher,
intended appointee as member, Ontario Rental Housing
Tribunal.
The Chair:
The next intended appointee is Catherine Anne Keleher, intended
appointee as member, Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.
Welcome. As you have
probably heard earlier if you were in here, and I think you
probably were, the procedure we follow is that the individual who
is the intended appointee has an opportunity to make a statement
should he or she wish to do so. Then there is questioning, 10
minutes from each party.
Ms Catherine
Keleher: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'd like first to thank
you and the committee for the opportunity of appearing here this
morning.
I know that you've all
received copies of my resumé. I have only a faint idea of
how much paper crosses all of your desks, and so, for your
convenience, I'd like to repeat some of my qualifications for
you.
I have 17 years of service
as an elected representative, including 13 years as reeve of the
town of Palmerston and member of Wellington county council. I had
the very distinct honour of being the warden of Wellington county
in 1994.
During the 17 years, I've
chaired the town of Palmerston's public works committee;
administration, finance and recreation committee; and the
planning and development committee. As well, I've chaired the
Wellington county administration, finance and personnel
committee; and the joint social services committee. I have
co-chaired the Wellington-Guelph waste management master plan
steering committee.
I have also spent 10 years
as a member of the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority; 10
years as a board member of the Family and Children's Services of
Guelph and Wellington County; 13 years as a member of the
Palmerston and District Hospital board of governors, including
four years as vice-chair; 12 years as a member of the Wellington
county library board; three years as a member of the
Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph board of health; a little over a year
as a member of the Wellington County Police Services Board; and
one year as a member of the Wellington and Guelph Housing
Authority.
I'd like to point out to
the committee now that, recognizing that membership on the
housing authority was inappropriate in view of this appointment,
slightly over a month ago I did resign from that position.
Some of the skills that I
believe I've developed during this time that would be of
assistance in the position of adjudicator: I've developed
interpersonal skills in dealing with colleagues, the public,
staff, representatives and officials of other levels of
government, and the media. I have learned to interpret
legislation and regulations and to apply policy. I have learned
to weigh conflicting perspectives, requests or demands, and to
make appropriate decisions. I've learned the importance of
established process and procedure, in order that one might
deliberate as completely and appropriately as possible. I've
learned that people cannot be stereotyped, and in this context,
either tenants or landlords. Finally, I've learned to listen not
just to what people appear to be saying but for what they really
mean.
On a personal level, I've never been a landlord but
I've been a tenant for a number of years, having moved four
times. I am currently a tenant in a unit that is specifically
exempted from the provisions of the legislation, and so there is
no conflict. I've had a landlord who has to be one of the world's
best, and I've had a landlord who was less so. I have seen at
first hand tenants who were excellent and tenants who were less
so. I think this allows me to bring a balanced perspective to the
position.
In conclusion, I would
welcome the opportunity to continue to serve the people of
Ontario.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. We'll start with the third party this
time.
Mr Martin:
Good morning. You're being appointed to a tribunal that I suggest
will be very busy-has been, continues to be and, if the situation
stays as it is, presents as an area of some real concern to all
of us here. Certainly, in my view and my caucus's view, that
whole situation has been exacerbated in many significant ways by
this government; for example, the elimination of rent control and
other landlord regulations in 1997. I'm sure you're aware that
under the changes rent can be raised to any level the landlord
wishes when an apartment becomes vacant. Then rent controls are
re-established when the new tenant moves in. Rent can also be
raised over the ceiling to cover capital repairs. What's your
view on that? Do you share my concern that that has created a
huge problem in this province where affordable housing is
concerned for folks?
1040
Ms
Keleher: As an adjudicator, my position would be to
enforce the legislation, the regulations and the policies of the
government, whoever the government of the day might be. I would
not be a policy-maker. I would not expect to develop policy but
only to apply those policies that already exist. I think it's up
to the government to address whatever concerns they may be aware
of.
Mr Martin:
I was just trying to get some sense of where you might be coming
from in terms of some of the decisions you will be asked to make
that will be very important to some individuals in this
province.
You may not be aware that
statistics show that the tribunal's speed in dealing with tenant
issues versus landlord issues is a bit skewed. Do you believe
that the tribunal is tilted against tenants, and if it is, if you
find that's the circumstance, what will you do about this?
Ms
Keleher: During my interview with the chair of the
tribunal and two vice-chairs, the particular subject of
efficiency was addressed. It was a very rigorous screening
process involving an interview as well as a written test. The
chair indicated at that time that his goal for all applications
is a 72-hour turnaround from hearing to decision. I know as far
as scheduling of the hearings that there are over 60,000
applications on file, and there are approximately 40
adjudicators, and I think they're doing the best they can.
Mr Martin:
You're obviously not going to get into sharing with us some of
your own views and perspectives on some of these things. Maybe I
could ask you, just to get my head around where you're coming
from and to be comfortable in terms of the decision I make here
later today, have you ever been a member of the Conservative
Party or given a donation of any kind to any of its
candidates?
Ms
Keleher: Yes.
Mr Martin:
You have. OK. I have just one other question, then. It seems from
looking at your resumé that your work has been mostly in
small-town Ontario communities. What is your understanding of
some of the issues presenting in some of the larger communities,
and in particular the Metro Toronto area, where housing is
concerned, where tight rental markets exist and where most of the
very troubling circumstances are presenting at this particular
point in time?
Ms
Keleher: I was specifically interviewed for a position
that would be outside Metro Toronto, just to clarify that. I
think a lot of issues, though, are universal: the issue of
maintenance, the issue of harassment, the issue of non-payment,
the issue of persistent late payment. There are more people in
Toronto and there are obviously therefore more incidences of
these kinds of behaviour, but I'm not sure it's fair to say that
Toronto is different; it's just more. I think the issues occur
all over southwestern Ontario. I think rental markets are tight
in other communities as well. I think Toronto is special but not
in that respect.
Mr Martin:
Would you agree with me, though, when I say that if a lot of the
problems that initially present in small-town Ontario-Sault Ste
Marie is sort of quasi; at 80,000 people, it's not one of the
biggest and it's not one of the smallest, but it's certainly not
as big as Toronto-are not dealt with in those communities, they
move down to Toronto and become Toronto's problem? Even though
you say the circumstance isn't different in Toronto, it's just
more, in my view it is, in that you don't see people sleeping on
the streets of Sault Ste Marie but you do see people sleeping on
the streets of Toronto. I would suggest probably that some of
them are from Sault Ste Marie, who end up down here thinking that
there is something here for them and when they get here they find
out that, for example, in Toronto there are 55,000 people on
waiting lists for some form of social or public housing, and the
government's rent supplement plan calls for 5,000 units. It's not
going to do the job. If you can't deal with the Toronto issue,
then you exacerbate the small-town Ontario issue. Any comment on
that?
Ms
Keleher: I guess the only comment I would have to that
is that the indigent rates are part of a very complex, large,
interrelated series of factors such as economic development,
transportation, provision of subsidized housing, provision of
market-rent housing, and you can't adequately address any one of
those components in isolation. It might be safe to say that if
Sault Ste Marie had a higher level of economic development people
would stay there and people would have wages to pay for
market-rent housing. I'm hypothesizing here; I'm not presenting
this as a statement of fact. But I don't think you can take the
fact that people end up in Toronto in isolation and say, "How do you solve that?"
without at least looking at the other components.
The Chair:
We now go to the government.
Mr Wood:
We'll waive our time.
The Chair:
Mr Wood has waived the time on behalf of the government members,
so we go to the official opposition.
Mrs Leona
Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):
Good morning, Ms Keleher. If I may, I would like to return to a
comment you made in response to a question by Mr Martin. This is
with regard to the imbalance there is in dealing with the issues,
those of tenants and those of landlords. You made the comment
that you think they are doing the best they can. I'm sure you are
familiar with the statistics. For example, between September 30,
1998, and December 31, 1999, the backlog for tenant applications
increased by 140%, for lockouts and harassment applications it
increased by 101%, and for repair applications it increased by
105%. That's the backlog. At the same time, though, the backlog
for arrears and evictions applications has decreased by 4%, even
though the number of applications for evictions has increased.
Can you understand why I am very concerned by those numbers? I
suggest it would be fair to say that I think the tribunal has
become quite focused on evicting and less focused on dealing with
the other issues, the tenant issues. I suggest that these figures
support that. I have a couple of questions here. Have you heard
these statistics before?
Ms
Keleher: I have heard some of them. CBC Radio advised me
of some of them, I would guess about a month ago.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: OK. So as a member of the tribunal, would
you see it as part of your responsibility to act immediately to
bring forward measures that would address this imbalance? I'm
going to call it more than an imbalance, but would you see that
as one of the roles or certainly an important focus for the
tribunal to address?
1050
Ms
Keleher: I have not until now been privy to the
tribunal's daily activities and how they select the order of
hearings. I would hope on a personal level that there would not
be discrimination or favouritism. I cannot say I'm personally
aware that there is. I would hope that did not exist. I would do
what I could to ensure that did not exist, because that is
certainly contrary to the spirit of the legislation, which is
designed to assist both tenants and landlords.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I agree with you. If I could just impress
one more point upon you: the fact that married couples with
children are the worst off, in that 74% of married tenants with
children pay over 50% of their income as rent. So one would
expect that of those outstanding cases, a significant number are
married people with children. So we have families who are in
danger of losing their homes. To me, when children are at risk of
losing their home, that is a very serious issue. Would that be an
issue for you? Is that an area of great concern for you? Would
that be incentive for you to work to improve these percentages?
I'm not so worried about landlords. Landlords usually have a
place to live. What about those kids? You talk about balances;
clearly there's an imbalance here. Can you tell me the kind of
priority you would expect to give these sorts of situations,
given that children and accommodation for children are some of
the issues here?
Ms
Keleher: Again, though, an adjudicator can only apply
the legislation as it's written, follow the regulations and the
rules that have been established by this Legislature. Of course,
since I had my initial interview, I have been extremely mindful
of the responsibility of the position. Indeed it is a very
sobering thought to have the authority to deprive an individual
of the roof over his or her head, over his or her children's
heads. Of course that is sobering. It is sobering as well to have
the ability to take the livelihood out of an individual's pocket.
One must be mindful of that at all times, but one still must
apply the law as it is written, and I am at heart a believer in
the rule of law; if the law is wrong, the legislators change
it.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Just one final point: I would never suggest
that you would not abide by the law and the direction that is
given. The point I am trying to make is that when you consider
your workload and where the backlog is, the backlog is affecting
children. Where improvements have been made, it's not the same.
The landlords have actually had a decrease in the backlog of
eviction applications, but on the other side there has been a
significant and overwhelming increase. What I was hoping to hear
was that you thought that was a serious issue that needed to be
addressed.
The Chair:
Mr Bartolucci.
Mr
Bartolucci: How many minutes do I have?
The Chair:
You have two minutes.
Mr
Bartolucci: Then I'll leave the political stuff. Have
you ever been a candidate for the PCs?
Ms
Keleher: No.
Mr
Bartolucci: Did you ever manage a campaign?
Ms
Keleher: No.
Mr
Bartolucci: Are you a member of the Cornerstone
Club?
Ms
Keleher: I'm sorry, I don't even know what that is.
Mr
Bartolucci: Oh, really. You haven't made the elite
payment crew yet. You will.
Now I think we'll go into
the legislation. You're certainly a very knowledgeable lady.
Where are the weaknesses in this legislation, as you see
them?
Ms
Keleher: I have read the legislation. I must admit I
have not studied the legislation, so I can't really comment on
the strengths and weaknesses of it. I can, however, say that with
any legislation, one looks at the intent of the legislation when
it is passed, which in this case is to streamline and simplify
the process and so on.
The legislation isn't going
to be much good, any legislation, if it's not periodically
reviewed. Situations change and circumstances change, and there
has to be a periodic
review to see if the legislation still meets its intent. I can't
comment on this specific piece.
Mr
Bartolucci: You would be prepared, then, to write a
letter to the minister outlining the weaknesses you find in the
legislation as you apply this appointment over the next several
years?
Ms
Keleher: I think the process would be to express my
concerns to the chair, who would communicate with the
minister.
Mr
Bartolucci: That's great. Thanks.
The Chair:
Thank you kindly. That completes the questioning, and we hope you
have enjoyed your experience here today.
Ms
Keleher: I have indeed.
DOUG HOLYDAY
Review of intended
appointment, selected by third party: Doug Holyday, intended
appointee as member, Ontario Housing Corp board of directors.
The Chair:
Our next appointment is Mr Doug Holyday. If you have a statement
that you wish to begin with, you may have that, sir, or we can go
right to questions.
Mr Doug
Holyday: I might make a brief statement just to explain
a bit about myself, for people who are not familiar with me. I
was the former mayor of the city of Etobicoke, actually the last
mayor of the city of Etobicoke prior to amalgamation. I've been
on the Etobicoke council and the city of Toronto council now for
15 years. I served four years in Etobicoke as chair of the board
of health. I have, I guess, chaired every standing committee we
had in Etobicoke. I have been involved in most aspects of life
out there, including tenants and tenant situations, and I'm
pleased to be asked to be considered for this position.
The Chair:
We'll begin with the government as we go around the rotation.
Mr Wood:
We'll waive our time.
The Chair:
Mr Wood has waived the time on behalf of the government, so we'll
go to the official opposition.
Mr
Bartolucci: I'd just ask a few very general questions
with regard to downloading. Are you satisfied that the
downloading exercise for the city you used to be the mayor of has
been successful?
Mr
Holyday: You always hear about downloading and you never
hear about uploading. There is a significant cost removed from
municipalities as a result of amalgamation, and I guess there
were large savings to be derived from it. Reports put forward by
myself and the other mayors of the day, Metro council, David
Crombie, Anne Golden-and the province itself did a consultant's
report-all showed that there was in the neighbourhood of $300
million to $400 million worth of savings in amalgamation.
The city of Toronto to this
point has achieved $136 million, which I guess is significant,
but it's not in the range of what was expected. I think part of
the reason for that is that we've incurred a lot of expenditures
that weren't there prior to amalgamation, some as a result of
amalgamation but a lot that are just new expenditures that this
new group has taken on themselves. I'm not totally sure, if
you've done that and incurred all these expenditures, that you
then should be blaming others for not having enough money to pay
all your bills.
I suggested that perhaps a
meeting of some councillors and some government and opposition
people might solve this problem without dragging it out through
the media, but the mayor hasn't taken my suggestion at this
time.
Mr
Bartolucci: Have you seen in your own community-the
reason I ask is that Sudbury is undergoing, albeit on a smaller
scale, amalgamation, and everyone in the municipality is
optimistic that there will be substantial savings. History is
telling us that it was nice rhetoric but it's not reality. But
I'm always interested in services, because I believe politicians
serve people, not institutions or philosophies. Has the level of
services increased in Etobicoke? Your personal opinion only.
Mr
Holyday: I think in some ways it has. In most ways,
though, it has remained exactly the same, and I'm quite confident
that if we were allowed to continue as Etobicoke, our tax
increase would have been zero. As a matter of fact, because we
were going down the road to efficiencies, I think we even might
have been able to reduce taxes. But amalgamation is something
that has been going on since day one, like, hundreds of years
ago.
1100
I grew up in Long Branch in
south Etobicoke, and it was its own little community, along with
New Toronto and Mimico. We all had our own mayors and reeves and
so on. In 1967, the province amalgamated us with the city of
Etobicoke. At that time, my parents and others who had lived
there all our lives looked down on that as negative. But in
retrospect, when you look back on it, those little cities
couldn't have existed in the situation that has occurred here,
and it would have been terribly difficult to govern, with all
these little mayors and things in Leaside and Swansea and all
over the place, including our three on the lakeshore, trying to
run this area. So I think amalgamation is just a fact of life and
it has been happening in other areas throughout the world, and it
will continue to happen here. I would suggest in your area that
people would try to look on it positively and make the most of
it.
Mr
Bartolucci: OK. Thanks very much, Doug.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Mr Holyday, good morning. The Ontario
Housing Corp is in the process of selling off a good deal of its
housing stock. Do you think this is a good idea, given the fact
that in Ontario there is a serious shortage of affordable
housing?
Mr
Holyday: I think it's not affordable housing you're
talking about; you're talking about subsidized housing, I
believe.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: To make it affordable for low-income
people.
Mr
Holyday: Well, the term "affordable housing" has its own
definition. I think the Ontario housing stock is a subsidized
form of affordable housing, if you like, for people who are of
low income. I think there is always going to be a shortage of that because there are
always going to be people who would like to have help in paying
their living costs.
One of the situations that
occurs is that the more of it that you have and the easier it is
to get, the more people will come here from Sudbury and other
places where maybe they don't have the finances to be able to
create the stock that we might be able to create here. So we have
to be careful that we're balancing this in the right way. I don't
think we want to be the housing solution for the entire country
or the continent or the world.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: They're selling it all over Ontario, though,
not just in Toronto.
Mr
Holyday: Yes. Well, perhaps some of that is warranted. I
really don't know enough about the workings of the Ontario
Housing Corp to know exactly where the breaking line is
there.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: You are aware as well that the province is
in the process of downloading the responsibility of managing
Ontario housing to the municipalities. I represent a part of
rural eastern Ontario, and the concern I'm hearing from
municipalities in my riding, and I know it's a concern within the
more urban centres, is that the Ontario Housing Corp is unloading
its more valuable stock. That's a perception that has come to me.
Municipalities are perceiving that some of the better stock is
being liquidated and what's going to come to them is of less
value. That's a concern to them. Do you think that's a valid
issue?
Mr
Holyday: If that's their perception, I think we should
try to deal with perception and what is reality.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Do you think there should be some
conversation with the municipalities in terms of determining
which housing units would be sold and which would be
downloaded?
Mr
Holyday: I'm sure the government is always open to
input, though I don't speak for the government.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: But as a member of the corporation, do you
think that would be reasonable?
Mr
Holyday: I think Who Does What is one of the reports
that suggested this type of handling of Ontario housing. I think
one of the difficulties with municipalities wanting things that
are paid for by other levels of government is that there is no
end to what they want, as long as they're not paying.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I don't think they want them. They're being
told they're getting them.
Mr
Holyday: No, but they want new buildings and they want
more housing in their area. But it's not they who are paying;
it's the other levels of government that are paying. So when
something happens that way, it's the same with us individually:
if someone else is looking after your expenditures, it seems that
you're wanting more than maybe you would if you were paying
yourself.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: With regard to the units that are being
sold, should those revenues go into the general revenue of the
province or should those revenues be returned to the municipality
where the unit is being sold? Because the municipality will now
have the responsibility of maintaining and accepting the debt
load of those other units that they will be receiving from the
province.
Mr
Holyday: I'm afraid I don't know enough about that issue
to really give you a fair comment. I'd have to have more
information than just a couple of sentences at this time to be
able to say what's fair and what's not fair.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: And what is the role of the Ontario Housing
Corp once this housing stock has been downloaded? What will it
be?
Mr
Holyday: That won't be up to me to decide, I don't
think. It will probably be a government decision, and I'm not
sure how they'll make it or what the decision will be.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: That will be all my questions, Mr Chair.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. We will now move to Mr Martin.
Mr Martin:
Right off the top, I find disturbing, given the appointment that
we're considering here today for you at the Ontario Housing Corp,
your lack of understanding of the issue of affordability and the
fact that there's a whole whack of people out there who, no
matter how you cut it or describe it, are having a difficult time
affording decent housing for themselves.
I also find disturbing your
comment re Toronto providing housing for the rest of the
province. Anybody who's come from places like Sault Ste Marie and
Sudbury to Toronto looking for affordable housing is sleeping on
grates and in bus shelters. It seems to me that a government
taking its responsibility seriously and an Ontario Housing Corp
taking its responsibility seriously would be coming up with
answers other than the selling off of some of the only units that
are still out there available at an affordable rate for
people.
Are you, or have you ever
been, a member of the Conservative Party?
Mr
Holyday: Oh yes, I am.
Mr Martin:
And you've donated to candidates who've-
Mr
Holyday: Many times.
Mr Martin:
Have you been following the government's plan to sell off
scattered units of housing across this province? Other than what
you've already shared with us, what's your understanding of that
program, why that's happening and what the thought behind it
is?
Mr
Holyday: I would like to comment on your opening
question, which really was in the form of a statement. A large
part of the problem that we have here with finances in this
province is due, as you know, to your government. You remember,
your government decided they were going to try to spend their way
out of the recession, and you remember what a horrible mistake
that was and what a debt we've incurred in this province as a
result of it. I guess it's taken this government since 1995 now
to try and get government running as a business and try to remove
that debt so that we're not paying a third of our tax dollars in
just maintaining payments to a bank somewhere.
Those problems are
troublesome. Every government has a philosophy and they have a
way of doing things, and
when they're not in power then they're entitled to be critical,
as you are. I think we shouldn't be allowing people to sleep on
our grates here in the city of Toronto, for one thing. That's not
done in a lot of areas and a lot of people only come here because
we do allow it. The squeegee situation is a perfect example. We
allowed squeegeeing to go on here for far too long and we
attracted them. I've been out in the streets with the Salvation
Army and other groups dealing with these people, and what I found
was that most of them, well over half of them anyway, aren't even
from Toronto. They come here because they'll accept a certain
standard of living. It's not a very high standard of living, but
they can gather enough money by doing squeegeeing and so on to
buy what they need to have fun and maybe feed themselves and so
on. But because we allow this thing to exist, they just come
here. I think it's not right and it's really unfortunate that
we've got ourselves in this situation.
1110
Mr Martin:
To follow up on some of your comments, I suggest to you that some
of the spending we did between 1990 and 1995 was because we were
in the worst recession that this province has dealt with since
probably the Great Depression. We chose, as a government, to have
a heart and to not just throw people out on the street and cut
programs and do away with health care and education, the kinds of
things that all Ontarians and Canadians came to accept as part of
the civil society they built together.
We have a government now
that is living in some of the more lucrative times, with wealth
being generated at a level that's historically unprecedented, and
yet at this time we have 55,000 people waiting for affordable
housing. We have a program that the government has announced that
will deal with perhaps 5,000 of those folks. You don't see that
the government has a responsibility, that the corporation you
will be part of has a responsibility to perhaps challenge some of
the thinking, as I suggested before and maybe you can comment on
it, that we not sell off some of the housing we have now that we
can provide at an affordable level and try to take care of some
people in these very lucrative and good times?
Mr
Holyday: I didn't mean to indicate that your government
didn't have a heart. I think your government had a heart all
right; it's the mind, I guess, that I take a look at. What
happened, even though it was with the best of intentions, was
that trying to spend your way out of the recession simply made
matters worse by then taking millions of dollars out of the
system simply to pay interest on a debt. So that's money that
can't go toward helping the very problem you were trying to solve
by spending the money in the first place. I think that was very
wrong and that has put this government in the position of then
trying to rectify the problem. I guess sometimes when you have to
rectify a problem you might have to do things that seem harsh,
particularly to the people who don't think the way you think.
Unfortunately, we can't be all things to all people. We would
very much like to be in a position to pay the bills for the less
fortunate in every way, shape and form, but that isn't possible
and so we have to manage our affairs in an efficient,
cost-effective way.
Mr Martin:
We can't be all things to all people, but we can be all things to
some people, where it seems to be OK by this government to take
some of the money that is now being generated by way of some of
the taxation policy that's in place and turn it over to the very
rich in our community and leave some 55,000 people on waiting
lists for some form of social or public housing. That's OK with
you. It's OK with you that we should, as well as that, sell off
some of the stock that the government now has at its disposal to
provide to some of these folks. Heart, head, it doesn't matter:
the reality at the end of the day is that you have people
sleeping on the grates of Toronto, you have 55,000 people out
there waiting for some form of social or public housing, and this
government isn't willing to do anything about that. As a matter
of fact, they're putting in place some programs by way of the
sell-off of these scattered units that are going to exacerbate
that situation. Is that OK by you?
Mr
Holyday: Mr Martin, for some reason you seem to think
that I'm here to defend the government and-
Mr Martin:
That's what you're doing.
Mr
Holyday: -that's my position here today. It isn't my
position here to defend the government. These gentlemen over here
can defend themselves, I'm sure.
Mr Martin:
That's my job.
Mr
Holyday: But you did open up with your opening
statements-and I would suggest to you that you did that in a way
right off the bat-to put me in a position of trying to defend the
government. I gave you what I thought was my honest answer to
what you had stated and what caused the problem in the first
place and the position that the government finds itself in today
to try to deal with the problem. You and I could probably
disagree about that for a long time, but I don't think that's
very helpful in you determining whether or not I am qualified or
should be a member of this committee that I'm here for today.
Mr Martin:
Actually, this has been one of the more helpful discussions that
I've had with some of the folks who are proposed for appointment
in that we've certainly wasted no time in getting to where you're
coming from and what your philosophic stance is going to be in
terms of this corporation and your willingness or ability to
challenge some of the initiatives of this government. So I have
no further questions, Mr Chair.
The Chair:
That completes the questions from members of the committee. Thank
you very much, Mr Holyday, for appearing before the
committee.
Mr
Holyday: My pleasure.
GERALD NORI
Review of intended
appointment, selected by third party: Gerald Nori, intended
appointee as member, Cancer Care Ontario.
The Chair: The next scheduled
individual to appear before the committee was the selection of
the third party: Mr Gerald Nori, intended appointee as member,
Cancer Care Ontario. As I'm moving in rotation around this way, I
will be starting with the official opposition. But first of all
I'll ask Mr Nori to come forward. Mr Nori, you are permitted to
make an opening statement to the committee, should you see
fit-that is the procedure we follow-and then there are 10 minutes
of questions available from each of the parties, except the
government party, which has perhaps fewer minutes because of
opening statements.
Mr Gerald
Nori: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. By way of
opening statement, I presume you have my curriculum vitae in
front of you. You'll probably see that I've had a very heavy
commitment to community activity over the years. I won't bore you
by going into everything I have been involved in, in the city of
Sault Ste Marie and elsewhere, but there are some things I'm a
little proud of that I might mention, such as my involvement with
Algoma University College. For eight years I was chairman of the
university, and recently have been serving on the foundation of
that university. We're pretty proud of it and we're working very
hard to establish that institution as a meaningful and important
segment of the economy of the city of Sault Ste Marie.
Tantamount to that-it
doesn't appear on here-I was very proud of the fact that I was
awarded the designation of "friend of Algoma University" by the
senate of that institution at the convocation which was held in
June of this year, along with my co-designee at that time, the
former Minister of Colleges and Universities in the Peterson
government, the Honourable Greg Sorbara, and it gave me a little
bit of a chance to meet with Greg, whom I hadn't seen for some
time. I actually hadn't seen him since the days when there had
been some activity at the university level by the Peterson
government in connection with funding for Algoma University
College, which was an extremely important factor in the survival
of the institution.
I also, as you probably
have seen, was awarded the city of Sault Marie Medal of Merit in
1991, and I guess that was in recognition of some of the things I
had done in the past in the city and elsewhere.
The other thing I'm rather
proud of is the fact that I was the chairman of the first
community futures committee in the city of Sault Ste Marie. That
was back in the 80s when the city went through a very trying
time, when Algoma Steel laid off some 3,000 people and the city
was undergoing an extremely difficult unemployment factor and
there was great concern about diversification of the economy. It
was at that point, as chairman of that community futures
committee, that I came to the conclusion that not only is health
care an important element within the community for the purpose of
being available to the people within that community for
treatment, but it is also an extremely important matter from the
point of view of being an industry, and an important piece of
infrastructure in the community for the purpose of attracting
diversified industry.
I've had an ongoing
interest in both education and health care, bot from the point of
view of the providing of services in what is a remote
community-you know, I think people lose sight of the fact that
this is a very large province. The city of Sault Ste Marie is
situated some 500 miles northwest of the city of Toronto. It
takes eight hours to drive here; it takes an hour and a half to
fly here. It's a very expensive proposition. The airfare now
between Sault Ste Marie and the city of Toronto is $765 a round
trip. If a trip to Toronto means travelling from the airport to
downtown and maybe an overnight stay, it will eat up the better
part of $1,200.
Industrial diversification
and treatment, and availability of infrastructure in northern
Ontario, and particularly in the Sault Ste Marie area, is a
matter I'm extremely concerned with, and I'm certainly not alone
in that. I know that Tony Martin, as the member, has shared that
view with me over the years and is extremely concerned and I
think would share and agree with the objective I've just
outlined.
Having said that, I'm not
very eloquent but, nevertheless, I think it gives you an idea of
what I'm all about.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Nori. We'll begin with the official
opposition.
Mr
Bartolucci: Mr Nori, I hope you had a good flight
down.
Mr Nori:
It was a very peaceful flight.
1120
Mr
Bartolucci: Good. You were able to relax, then.
Mr Nori:
Expensive but peaceful.
Mr
Bartolucci: We'll talk about the expense of being a
volunteer a little later on in our 10-minute discussion
together.
There are just a few
housekeeping matters to get out of the way. Have you ever been a
candidate for the federal or provincial PCs?
Mr Nori:
Yes, I was.
Mr
Bartolucci: Were you a past president of PC Ontario?
Mr Nori:
Yes, I was, of the PC Party of Ontario during the Davis
years.
Mr
Bartolucci: And you are a member of the Cornerstone
Club?
Mr Nori:
Yes, I am.
Mr
Bartolucci: How much does that cost you a year?
Mr Nori:
Five hundred dollars.
Mr
Bartolucci: That's all out of the way now. Let's talk
about cancer issues. I see in one of the pieces of paper I have
about you that you were a member of the Northeastern Ontario
Regional Cancer Centre board.
Mr Nori: I
was for a while. I didn't really attend very many meetings.
Mr
Bartolucci: How many meetings did you attend?
Mr Nori: I
don't think I attended any.
Mr
Bartolucci: How many did you miss? All of them?
Mr Nori: I
have no idea.
Mr
Bartolucci: Who asked you to be on the board?
Mr Nori:
It was Gerry Lougheed.
Mr Bartolucci: Gerry Loughheed
Jr?
Mr Nori:
That's right.
Mr
Bartolucci: The former chair of Northeastern?
Mr Nori:
That's right.
Mr
Bartolucci: What's your relationship with Dr Wahl in the
Soo?
Mr Nori:
Only to the extent that I've met him a couple of times and I know
him to talk to, being that he is an oncologist. I can't say I
know him on a personal level.
Mr
Bartolucci: You haven't discussed cancer issues with him
at all?
Mr Nori:
Not with him personally, but I have with Manu Malkani, who is the
president of the hospital.
Mr
Bartolucci: There's been lots of talk about health care
apartheid with regard to cancer patients. You're familiar with
the issue?
Mr Nori:
I'm familiar with the issue; not totally immersed in it, but
certainly what I've read in the papers, and I've talked to the
odd-in fact, I talked to Gerry Lougheed about it.
Mr
Bartolucci: Quite extensively, I'm sure, because Gerry
is very vocal and very passionate about this.
Mr Nori:
There's no question.
Mr
Bartolucci: Do you agree with him?
Mr Nori: I
certainly agree from the point of view that if there's an
inequity in the manner in which people in northern Ontario are
treated relative to cancer care from those in southern Ontario,
that inequity has to be corrected.
Mr
Bartolucci: You've heard both sides of the argument, Mr
Nori. You've heard it from the government. You heard what their
explanation for this health care apartheid is re referral. You've
heard Gerry Lougheed's side, the side of the people of northern
Ontario. In fact, an Oracle poll would tell you it's the side of
the people of Ontario. I want from you your opinion: is this
government practising health care apartheid in the province of
Ontario when it comes to dealing with cancer patients?
Mr Nori:
Mr Bartolucci, you're asking me for an opinion that I can't give
at this point by virtue of the fact that I'm not totally familiar
with the program. It's an opinion I would rather reserve and give
after I immerse myself in the affairs of Cancer Care Ontario. If,
as I've said, there is an inequity-I've always been a northerner.
I've lived in the north all my life. I have a great affection and
concern for northern matters and infrastructure. I can assure you
that if there is any inequity in that program, I will work
diligently to see that that inequity is corrected. But to give an
opinion based upon what little I do know at this point would not
be the appropriate thing to do.
Mr
Bartolucci: I think you know a lot more than you're
letting on you know, but I'll respect your right not to form an
opinion.
Let me give you an example,
please. I'm going to give you an example I've raised in the House
of a person in Sudbury, that the minister knows about, that is
public. I have the Sault Ste Marie article-and I'm sure you read
it in the papers you said you read. Janice Skinner has to travel
400 kilometres from a little place outside of Sudbury, Capreol,
to Toronto. She gets 30.4 cents a kilometre one way. Mary, from
Toronto, has to travel north the 400 kilometres, the same
distance. She gets return airfare-and you talked about that-she
gets full accommodation at a hotel and she gets full meals
covered. Janice Skinner gets one-way treatment, one-way
transportation costs only; Mary from Toronto gets full expenses
covered. Is that right?
Mr Nori:
On the surface, it would appear to be inequitable. Again, Mr
Bartolucci, I'd like to know all of the factors involved in that
circumstance before I ever pass an opinion. Certainly on the
surface there would appear to be an inequity.
I believe that there's an
inequity generally on the basis that I happen to believe very
fervently that one of the mandates of Cancer Care Ontario is
accessibility, and it's going to be, in my opinion, a lot cheaper
to move patients to the facilities than try to duplicate
facilities throughout the whole of northern Ontario, having
regard to the vast distances involved. So the whole issue of
travel and availability of facilities is something that I'm going
to have a keen interest in.
Mr
Bartolucci: The only difference between Janice and Mary
is that Janice can't get treated in Sudbury for her cancer, so
she was referred to Toronto. Mary from Toronto, because of the
massive waiting lists, was re-referred to Sudbury. That's the
only difference. Knowing that's the only difference, do you
believe that policy is correct?
Mr Nori:
Again, I must repeat myself: I don't think that I would like to
pass opinion without knowing a lot more about the travel programs
relative to cancer care in Ontario than I do at this point. I
have great respect for the media, but on the other hand, I'd like
to know the facts from the source. One of the things I would like
to do is to study the travel program if I do become a member.
Mr
Bartolucci: You didn't study it before coming here?
Mr Nori:
No, I have not. I have had very little discussion with anybody
concerning the position, other than I did speak very briefly to
Dr Shumak, who is, I believe, the president of Cancer Care
Ontario, who did call me to give me an idea of what the time
commitment might be.
Mr
Bartolucci: And he explained the referral and
re-referral program to you at that time?
Mr Nori:
Yes, he did.
Mr
Bartolucci: Then you know the only difference is one was
referred and the other is re-referred. Do you think that the
treatment of cancer should be dependent on a word, a prefix,
"re," when we talk about referral for cancer treatment?
Mr Nori:
Mr Bartolucci, I'm repeating myself when I say that based upon
the example that you've given me, there would appear to be an
inequity, but I would reserve my opinion in that regard until I
know a lot more than I do now.
Mr
Bartolucci: Are you prepared then, once you've studied
the issue-and as a northerner you will clearly see very, very
soon into your appointment that there is an inequity and an imbalance and in fact
discrimination-to stand up and say that publicly?
Mr Nori:
Let me put it this way: I have always been very sensitive to
inequities that exist in northern Ontario, whether they're in
health care, education or whatever field they might be in. I can
assure you that if there is an inequity, I will do everything
within my power to see that it's corrected, because I am a native
northern Ontarian. I was born there, lived there all my life. I
would like to have taken my law there, but unfortunately that
wasn't possible. So you can be assured that my loyalties lie
north of Steeles Avenue, if that's northern Ontario; I'm not
sure. There are a lot of people in southern Ontario who-
Mr
Bartolucci: It's moving south all the time because there
happens to be a pot that southerners want to tap into.
Mr Nori: I
don't know what it is, but I'm given to understand that Muskoka
now is in northern Ontario.
Mr
Bartolucci: I'd like to just go back again. You're
taking Gerry Lougheed Jr's spot. Correct?
Mr Nori:
Yes, I am.
Mr
Bartolucci: So you will assume the chair of the
northeastern region?
Mr Nori:
I'm given to understand that is what it's to be.
Mr
Bartolucci: So you will be the chair?
Mr Nori:
Well, I'm not sure, to be honest with you, Mr Bartolucci. Nobody
has said to me that I will be the chair. The appointment, as I
understand it, is to Cancer Care Ontario, to the board. Now
whether I become automatically the chair for northeastern
Ontario, I really don't know.
Mr
Bartolucci: Well, past history, as you know, has been
that in order to be a chair of a particular region you have to be
a member of the board of Cancer Care Ontario.
Mr Nori:
You're telling me something I didn't know.
Mr
Bartolucci: Now, you see, they're replacing Gerry
Lougheed with two people. The first one to come before the
committee is Gerry Nori. The second person who will be coming
before the committee at some time is Jim Ashcroft from Sudbury. I
want to know which one is going to be the chair.
Mr Nori: I
really don't know. I don't think that's something I can answer.
Nobody has said to me that I will automatically be the chair.
Mr
Bartolucci: Will you accept the chair if it's offered to
you?
1130
Mr Nori:
If it were offered to me, I would accept it, yes.
Let me say this to you:
I've known Gerry Lougheed for many years. I have worked with him
on projects. I admire Gerry Lougheed. He's a good fellow and I
know that he's worked very, very hard in the interests of
Sudbury. As a matter of fact, when I was asked to go on Cancer
Care Ontario, I called Gerry to tell him that. I don't want to
get involved in a fight at this point over this issue until I
know a lot more about it. But I can assure you, if there are any
inequities, I'll be there.
Mr
Bartolucci: Good.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your questions. We're out of time. We'll
now go to the third party.
Mr Martin:
I'm not going to go over ground that's already been covered. Just
suffice it to say that we were the party to ask for you to come
forward today, to appear before us, not that I have any doubt
that you will do a good job and bring the same integrity to this
position that you've brought to so many of the other positions
that you've taken in our community and across Algoma over the
time that I've been in this job. We've worked together on issues,
to some, I think, resolution that spoke to the benefit of our
area. I am, until shown otherwise, convinced that you will
continue to act in that way, that you will continue to have the
kind of passion for our area and this issue that you've had in
other instances.
The reason, though, that we
brought you before the committee was to put on the table again,
as we have over a number of months now, our very real concern
about health care where northern Ontario is concerned: the cost
to families and individuals because of the travel that has to
occur; the lack of resources to make sure that we have the
specialists we need and that they're as close to home as
possible; and in the instance of cancer care, the now obvious
discrimination that's going on, which I share with Mr Bartolucci
is actually a circumstance of discrimination, where the north is
not being treated similarly to the south where accessing cancer
care is concerned. I'm sure that once you're into it and you get
to see it and understand it, you will come to some of the same
positions as Mr Lougheed, whom you've indicated you know. Mr
Lougheed took a certain tack. Ultimately, I believe that Mr
Lougheed worked as hard as he could, pushed the envelope to its
limits within the system to try and make changes and have
improvements happen and bring resources to the table. You
obviously will have an opportunity to decide yourself what tack
you will take.
Given Mr Lougheed's
experience and where he has ended up-in fact, Mr Lougheed is not
the only one who has ended up out of a position. The chair of the
district health council in Sudbury when this government was first
elected challenged the government-I forget his name-
Mr
Bartolucci: Bob Knight.
Mr Martin:
-and he lost his job because he came to an understanding that was
different from the government's, pushed too hard and was replaced
by somebody else.
I guess my question to you,
Gerry, in light of the very challenging circumstance that you now
move into, is, what thought have you given to what your approach
will be and how you might deal with this very difficult
circumstance in the interests of not only northern Ontario but in
particular, being parochial, Sault Ste Marie? I think Sault Ste
Marie presents as one of the communities in the north that has
particular challenges because of the distance. It's three hours
from Sudbury and many of our major health possibilities are
there. We're as far from Thunder Bay as we are from Toronto. So it
presents some unique challenges to the Sault as well.
Mr Nori:
Tony, let me say this to you: This is an issue-I don't know if I
can. See, I'm a cancer survivor myself and I had to face the
difficult choice of either taking radiation in Sudbury for six
weeks for five minutes a day, because the Sault is so far away,
as you've said, from Sudbury that you can't do it on a commute
basis, or to be operated on. So the availability of cancer care
in northeastern Ontario is something that has struck me very,
very close. You can be assured, if there are any inequities, be
it in travel or in the availability of facilities, that I'm going
to be there. I will do whatever I can to see that those
inequities are corrected.
Mr Martin:
Just to follow up on some comment you made a little earlier,
Gerry-I appreciate how difficult this can be when it's so
personal-you know that Dr Wahl in Sault Ste Marie has been, in
some people's experience, right up there with Mother Teresa.
Mr Nori:
And well he should be.
Mr Martin:
Just recently, for the very first time, he has raised the
prospect of not being able to service the people he wants to
serve in the Soo because of the lack of resources. The time it's
taking to put in place the bunker that has been promised for
Sault Ste Marie-you mentioned earlier that your preference would
be to put all the resources in one place and have people travel
as opposed to trying to-
Mr Nori:
Only where it's economical to do that. At this point in time
we're fortunate in the Soo because we have an oncology unit and
we have the infrastructure to support a bunker. But that's not
something we're going to put in every community, I would think,
within reason. But the bunker in Sault Ste Marie is going to make
it a lot easier for people in Wawa to access treatment than going
to Sudbury. Travel is still going to be inevitable because you
can't put a bunker in Wawa, you can't put a bunker in Chapleau,
but where facilities are warranted and can be supported by the
infrastructure that's there, then that's where they should go.
But that's not going to be possible on a practical or financial
level, I would think, to the extent that we'd like to see it
happen.
Mr Martin:
If it makes sense that that bunker go in Sault Ste Marie and that
other resources are absolutely required and necessary in order
for the people of northern Ontario to have the same access as the
people in southern Ontario, and it turns out that it's a question
of resources and this government isn't willing to put forward the
resources that are required-perhaps this is a redundant
question-are you going to be willing to stand up and say, "We
need these resources, we have to have these resources, and unless
we get those resources, I guess at the end of the day"-
Mr Nori:
Again, Tony, my primary loyalty is to northern Ontario, and if it
means being confrontational with the government I support, then
I'm prepared to be that. That doesn't worry me.
Mr Martin:
OK. Thank you very much.
The Chair:
Members of the government.
Mr Wood:
We'll waive our time.
The Chair:
Mr Wood has indicated that he'll waive the government time. That
you very much, Mr Nori, for appearing before the committee.
What I'm going to ask now,
before we adjourn for lunch, because there are three more people
who are to be intended appointees, beginning at 1:30 pm, is that
we have a meeting of the steering committee. Mr Wood, you wanted
to speak to that.
Mr Wood:
I'm wondering, Mr Chair, if we might deal with the concurrences
from this morning right now.
The Chair:
If you wish. Would the committee wish to deal with concurrences
from this morning? That's fine. The suggestion is accepted by the
committee.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Leach.
The Chair:
It is moved by Mr Wood that the intended appointee, Mr Leach, be
approved by the committee. First of all, any comments from
members of the committee?
1140
Mr Martin:
I have to put on the record that I was quite concerned re Mr
Leach's response to the question of the positioning of the police
association and his lack of understanding that the police role,
the job they carry out, is a very sensitive one and quite
different, in my view, from that of a teacher or a public servant
of another nature. That he doesn't seem to understand that
worries me to the point where I won't be able, on behalf of my
caucus, to support that appointment this morning, Mr Chair.
The Chair:
Thank you. Any other comments from anyone else on the committee?
If there are no further comments, I'll put the motion forward at
the present time.
All in favour? Opposed? The
motion is carried.
Mr Wood:
Mr Chair, I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Ms
Keleher.
The Chair:
Any discussion of that appointment of Ms Keleher from any member
of the committee?
If there is not, all in
favour? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Wood:
Mr Chair, I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr
Holyday.
The Chair:
Any comments about Mr Holyday's appointment? Mr Martin.
Mr Martin:
I can't understand why the government would be moving so
obviously in this instance to appoint somebody to a board who
lacks any understanding of or empathy for the question of
affordable housing and what that means.
We've seen over the last
few years a move away from the provision of housing to those who
can't afford the extraordinary increase we've seen in the cost of
housing across this province, but particularly in Toronto, where
the larger number of people live. To be further exacerbating that
whole issue by appointing somebody who obviously doesn't
understand what that means, nor supports in any significant way
the need for any level of government-and I was surprised as well
to hear him, particularly because of his political
affiliation, not understand that whether it's federal, provincial
or municipal, it's the same taxpayer. We're told that over and
over again in the Legislature, as you know. We are reminded that
it's the same taxpayer. To suggest that one level of government's
trying to get money out of another level of government to pay for
programs they can't afford isn't really in effect simply taking
money that is in the first place coming from that same geographic
jurisdiction anyway leaves me somewhat bewildered.
To suggest that calling for
a senior level of government that obviously has more money in its
pot to help out with some challenges faced by a more junior, less
wealthy level of government is less than responsible is another
concern I have. Some of the inferences to municipal governments
perhaps not being as accountable or responsible or as well-heeled
as perhaps a provincial level of government, particularly if it's
Conservative, seem to me to be not in keeping with the sort of
hands-off, third-party-distance role of an authority such as the
one he is being considered for appointment to here this
morning.
It's with all that in mind
that I will not be lending the support of our caucus to this
appointment here this morning.
The Chair:
Any other discussion? If not, all in favour? Opposed? The motion
is carried.
Mr Wood:
Mr Chair, I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr
Nori.
The Chair:
It is moved by Mr Wood that the committee approve Gerald Nori,
the intended appointee as member, Cancer Care Ontario. Any
discussion?
Mr
Bartolucci: I won't be supporting the motion. The reason
I won't be supporting the motion is because I believe anyone from
northern Ontario who has any type of passion when it comes to
cancer would be aware of the health care apartheid that is taking
place in this province, would be up to speed on it, would have
certainly without question been informed if in fact that
commitment to cancer care was there. I also suggest to you that
he has a past history of being on a board dealing with cancer
issues in northern Ontario and failed to make one of the
meetings. There's absolutely no question that if it's a puppet
you want, you're getting half a puppet in Mr Nori, and we will
probably be dealing with the other half when he comes before this
committee. I cannot support Mr Nori.
Mr Martin:
I'll be supporting the appointment of Mr Nori for a couple of
reasons, initially putting on the record that I share the same
very serious concern about the delivery of cancer care in
northern Ontario that Mr Bartolucci does and that has been put on
the record by some of my own colleagues, Ms Martel in particular.
It is a very grave circumstance that we face up there. It gets
more grave with each day that goes by. It was unfortunate that a
champion of the integrity and stature of Mr Lougheed would be let
go simply because he challenged the direction of the present
government and minister.
However, if we're going to
go down a road of trying to bring somebody to the table who
perhaps has a few more connections, who may have a bit more
influence and in fact combines that with an integrity that I have
experienced in Mr Nori over not just 10 years-I did things with
Mr Nori before I got the position of MPP for Sault Ste Marie, in
my role as trustee with separate school board, and know of his
work ethic and his love for and commitment to Sault Ste Marie and
northern Ontario. I don't think you can separate those in him.
You can in others, and we've seen it over the last few years with
this government, but I don't think that's going to happen in this
instance.
If we're going to take a
different tack, which is to perhaps work in a different way with
this government to get the resources that we need to do away with
the discrimination that's there now, the two levels of service,
and we're going to be effective in that, I suggest that you
probably couldn't have chosen somebody who will be-if he brings
the same level of commitment and compassion and dedication to
this that he has in some of the instances that I've seen him
operate and work with, he will in fact do that job.
With that very real concern
put on the table that something needs to be done, that this
government needs to move aggressively and immediately to resolve
some of the issues that are obviously on the table where cancer
care apartheid is concerned, where the north is concerned, that
we need to get somebody at the table who has-I suppose, because
Mr Lougheed obviously wasn't able to change the circumstance of
the situation-some connections and who perhaps can use those
connections to the best and the good end of health care and
cancer care in northern Ontario, then Mr Nori will do that. If he
doesn't, certainly there are many of us who interact with him on
a regular basis who will be challenging him, reminding him and
making it public if that's not the case. However, I anticipate
that we won't have to do that and that Mr Nori will work with
this government to make sure that circumstance is corrected and
that we get the resources we need in northern Ontario to take
care of those people we know and love and who are our family
members and neighbours. I will be supporting this
appointment.
The Chair:
We have the motion before the committee. All in favour? Opposed?
The motion is carried.
After lunch, we will
reconvene at 1:30. I'm going to ask Mrs Dombrowsky to take the
chair at that time because I-
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I can't take the chair.
The Chair:
You will not? We will resolve who is going to take the chair
after 1:30 today.
Anyway, I will adjourn this
portion of the meeting and ask that a representative of each
party be present for a meeting of the steering committee.
The committee recessed
from 1150 to 1334.
The Acting Chair
(Mr Bob Wood): Ladies and gentlemen, I call the
committee to order. As a result of a meeting the subcommittee had
earlier today, the meeting which was originally scheduled for
mid-August has now been postponed by agreement to August 29. So,
unless there are
unexpected developments, the next meeting of the committee will
be on Tuesday, August 29.
MICHAEL ROHRER
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Michael
Rohrer, intended appointee as member, Assessment Review
Board.
The Acting
Chair: The next intended appointee to be reviewed is Mr
Michael Rohrer, who I believe is with us. Mr Rohrer, if you would
like to come forward. If you wish, you may make a presentation to
the committee. If you do not wish to do so, we'll proceed
immediately to questions. Did you wish to make a
presentation?
Mr Michael
Rohrer: Yes, please.
The Acting
Chair: Please go ahead.
Mr Rohrer:
Good afternoon. I'm pleased to be here today to answer questions
you may have regarding my pending appointment to the Assessment
Review Board. Currently, I am a real estate appraiser with Gorski
and Associates in the city of Windsor. I've been practising real
estate for a total of three years and have been a member of the
Appraisal Institute of Canada since 1994. During my appraisal
career, I have completed real estate valuations on various real
properties such as residential, agricultural, commercial and
industrial, and more unique properties such as island properties,
conservation properties, and recently an Indian reserve.
I have completed the
educational component and practical component for the CRA
designation, or certified residential appraiser. Currently, I'm
enrolled in a distance degree program called real property
appraisal and assessment from St Francis Xavier University in
Antigonish, Nova Scotia. This program is the only degree program
offered in Canada that focuses in on property assessment. In
fact, many people enrolled in the program are employees of
assessment offices across Canada. Upon completion of this
program, from which I am four credits away, I will have finished
the educational component to an AACI designation, or accredited
appraiser, Canadian Institute, which is the highest real estate
appraisal designation in Canada.
I obtained my bachelor of
arts degree from the University of Windsor, with focus on
political science and commerce. I have owned and operated several
small businesses and have been active in several church and
community organizations.
My wife, Diane, and I
reside outside the city of Windsor in the town of Tecumseh and
have been there for the past two and a half years.
I look forward to your
questions and I thank you for this opportunity.
The Acting Chair (
Mr Steve Gilchrist): Thank you, Mr Rohrer. That does
afford us an opportunity for questions from each caucus. We'll
start with the official opposition. I beg your pardon. I was just
corrected by the clerk where we left off last time. Mr Martin
will start the rotation.
Mr Martin:
Mr Rohrer, I'm aware of your connections with the Conservative
Party and your support of Mr Long in the Alliance leadership. You
must be somewhat disappointed that he didn't go further than he
did, or perhaps you're happy with Mr Day, seemingly a little more
right-wing than even Tom Long, if that can be imagined. I was
just wondering, are you still a card-carrying member-
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): He's in the same league as you,
Tony.
Mr Martin:
You mean a little more left than normal?
Are you still a
card-carrying member of the Progressive Conservative Party of
Ontario?
Mr Rohrer:
Yes.
Mr Martin:
What about of Canada?
Mr Rohrer:
No.
Mr Martin:
Are you a member of the new Alliance?
Mr Rohrer:
Yes.
Mr Martin:
I see that you ran in 1995 and 1999?
Mr Rohrer:
Correct.
Mr Martin:
I'm not saying that in any negative or critical way. I've done it
a few times myself and succeeded at one point-
Mr Rohrer:
Some more successful than others.
Mr
Martin:-and haven't looked back.
In light of that, do you
think you can separate your political background from the work
you would be doing at the assessment board, if appointed, and
what can you tell us here today that will assure us that that
will be in fact the case?
Mr Rohrer:
I appreciate the question. I don't think there should be any
concern about my abilities as a potential assessor. For example,
as a real estate appraiser, major banks and lenders rely on my
opinion of value to lend money on mortgages. My political beliefs
or religious beliefs, or whatever, don't impact my ability to
value properties from a market approach.
Mr Martin:
Have you worked in non-partisan settings before? I guess you just
shared one with me. That hasn't been a problem?
Mr Rohrer:
Certainly not.
Mr Martin:
Are you aware of the increase in costs for appealing to the board
that came about in 1999, and do you believe the fee increases
discriminate against small business owners who believe their
assessment is unfair?
Mr Rohrer:
I'm not familiar with the fees you're suggesting, but I do think
the process is important, that people have the ability to appeal
if they feel their property is valued too high, or in some cases
potentially lower than market value.
Mr Martin:
Just let me fill you in: The fees for residential went up 150%,
from $20 to $50; the multi-residential went up 525%, from $20 to
$125; and the commercial-industrial went up 150%, from $50 to
$125. Do you think that would be an impediment?
Mr Rohrer:
An impediment to making an appeal?
Mr Martin:
Yes, for a small business person.
Mr Rohrer:
No, I don't believe so.
1340
Mr Martin:
The 1999 property value assessments show that property value has
increased more in the city centre of Toronto as opposed to the
suburbs since 1996. This suggests that the property tax load could
be shifted to the inner city but that it does not need to be
because the increase in value assessments could be offset by
lower tax rates with the city earning the same amount of revenue.
What do you think should occur?
Mr Rohrer:
With respect, I don't understand the question.
Mr Martin:
With the assessment showing that property value has increased
more in the city centre of Toronto as opposed to the suburbs,
that means that there may be a shift in who pays the freight in
terms of services in the GTA. At this point in time, I believe
Mel Lastman is complaining that they're carrying the freight for
a lot of the services that are offered for the whole of the GTA.
What do you think should happen there?
Mr Rohrer:
With respect to the Assessment Review Board, I think that would
probably be outside its realm because you're speaking of
municipal policies and mill rates etc and how they're applied to
the assessed value. So I don't see how that is related to the
Assessment Review Board.
Mr Martin:
OK. As you're aware, I'm assuming the provincial government's
capping legislation will end at the end of 2000. The Association
of Municipalities of Ontario has come out in support of
continuing the caps, while the Toronto board of trade is opposed.
The board is worried that commercial property owners will flee
the downtown core because they pay higher property taxes in
Toronto than they would in the surrounding GTA because of the
caps on tax increases on small businesses in Toronto. What would
your position be on whether we should remove the caps or leave
them on?
Mr Rohrer:
With an appointment pending, and certainly there would be some
related training if I am in fact appointed, I think it would be
premature to comment on that.
Mr Martin:
It will certainly, I would think, impact and affect your
decision-making should you get appointed to this board. I think
it would be significant information for you to consider and I
would think as well that there would be some people out there who
would be rather anxious to know how a new appointee to that board
would respond to appeals they would make, particularly after the
cap is taken off. As you are probably aware, the small business
community protests over tax changes is what led the government to
pass the Small Business and Charities Protection Act for Toronto
and a similar bill, Bill 79, for the rest of the province. That
bill capped increases in taxes to those folks to no more than
2.5% of 1997 taxes for 1998, 1999 and 2000. That will be a big
jump for a whole lot of small businesses come the year 2001 and
onwards if the cap is taken off. You have no opinion or view on
where that should go?
Mr Rohrer:
I'm not certain of your question again, with respect. But once
again, not yet being appointed to the board and not yet receiving
the appropriate training, I don't know that it would be prudent
to comment on things that are hypothetical etc. I don't have a
comment to that right now.
Mr Martin:
So you have no opinion on that. It's argued that when the cap was
put on the tax burden was being redistributed so that homeowners
picked up a big chunk of the cost of delivering services, and of
course that battle will ensue if and when that cap is taken off.
It's just an issue that I think you need to be concerned about as
you-I suppose, looking at the makeup of the committee today-look
forward to an appointment. It's one that I think you should be
thinking about and it's one that I think people should know your
position on before you're appointed, so that they know what your
tack will be when that happens.
Mr Rohrer:
If the underlying theme of your question, if I'm getting it
correctly, is one of whether or not I believe the system's fair,
as a homeowner, as an income property owner and as a small
business person, I would argue that the system as I see it, if
you're asking my opinion, is fair.
Mr Martin:
It is fair now as it stands. With the cap on?
Mr Rohrer:
Once again, with respect to that question, I'm not certain where
you're going with your question and I will say again that until
I'm appointed-I'm not yet appointed and I have not yet received
the appropriate training-I don't know that it would be prudent to
answer those types of questions.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you, Mr Martin. Government members.
Mr Wood:
We'll waive our time.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you, Mr Wood. The official opposition.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Good afternoon, Mr Rohrer. Just with regard
to the capping issue, it is a result of government Bill 16 and
Bill 79, and certainly the Association of Municipalities of
Ontario, the Municipal Finance Officers Association, the
Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of
Ontario, and the Association of Municipal Tax Collectors of
Ontario have all collectively indicated that they believe that
the cap, period, should be extended. You've indicated that you're
going to get some appropriate in-service should an appointment be
made, and I expect that would come from representatives of the
government, so you're going to be in-serviced from a particular
perspective. Would you be inclined to contact any of these
associations to perhaps better understand their issues with
regard to capping?
Mr Rohrer:
In a general view, if I am in fact appointed, if the question is
if I am a member of the Assessment Review Board, if I see that
there are areas of efficiencies, etc, once again in the
hypothetical, I would suggest to you that I probably would make
recommendations at the appropriate time. But with respect to your
specific questions, I don't have an opinion on that at this
particular point.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: You don't have an opinion on whether or not
you'd be inclined to get the other side of the story? That's
really my question.
Mr Rohrer:
No, maybe you're-
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I'm sorry; I guess I was not clear. I'm
telling you today it is a fact, it's a matter of public record that these associations
believe that the cap should be extended. Would you be inclined,
in your role as a member of the Assessment Review Board, to
engage any or all of these associations to understand better
their position?
Mr Rohrer:
I would be inclined, if I am appointed, and related to my
expertise related to market valuation, to make recommendations to
the appropriate body.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Well, I guess you've left me quite unclear.
Does that mean you would be inclined to contact-
Mr Rohrer:
I'm sorry?
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Just answer me straight: would you contact
them or wouldn't you?
Mr Rohrer:
Well, I think I've answered it. I've indicated to you, and I'll
say it again, that based on my experience with market valuation,
and if in fact I am appointed, if there are areas that concern me
or I feel I can shed some insight on, I would do so.
Mr
Bartolucci: Of the three acts you're going to be dealing
with, which one causes you the most trouble, Michael: the
Assessment Act, the Education Act or the Municipal Act?
Mr Rohrer:
As I understand it, they were all amended under the one bill,
which I won't profess to be an expert on. Certainly, with that
appropriate training, as I indicated, I would probably be in a
position to comment on that thereafter.
Mr
Bartolucci: You know there have been quite a few
amendments to the act to try to get it right. Are there any
concerns that you have with it, the way the legislation is
now?
Mr Rohrer:
I don't know that I'm in a position to have enough knowledge
about the act to comment.
1350
Mr
Bartolucci: OK. How do you envision your workload? How
do you see it? How many days are you going to be doing this? How
many hours? Any idea? Have they told you?
MrRohrer: As I understand it, it's a part-time
appointment, which by my math is a few weeks a month and they are
full-day meetings.
Mr
Bartolucci: So you envision a full day for only a couple
of weeks?
MrRohrer: Yes. Full-day meetings, as I understand
it, two weeks a month, plus or minus.
Mr
Bartolucci: What's the pay?
MrRohrer: I believe it's $200 a day.
Mr
Bartolucci: Let's go back to your political
aspirations-because there's nothing wrong with that, by the way.
Are you going to run in 2003? Are you going to seek the
nomination then? Are you still interested, is what I'm asking, to
be a candidate?
MrRohrer: Well, I guess I'll cross that bridge if
I get to it, but at this point-
Mr
Bartolucci: You haven't made up your mind, then?
MrRohrer: At this particular point, no, I don't
believe I have any further political aspirations.
Mr
Bartolucci: One final question: At a debate with
students at St Joseph's Secondary School on the environment, you
chose to speak about a hockey game, as opposed to spending time
on the environment, and the students were critical of you in the
paper for that. In light of what has happened, next time if you
are asked the question, "Do you think this government should be
spending more time in dealing with the problems of the
environment?" what would you say?
MrRohrer: I'm curious as to where you got your
information. I was at the debate and I don't remember seeing you
there. I had actually asked a friend about the score from the
previous playoff game that the Maple Leafs were involved in and
we did have a very open and honest debate about environmental
issues for about an hour. So I'm not sure where you're going with
that.
Mr
Bartolucci: I guess I get my information from
18-year-old Kevin Bankovic, who decided that he wouldn't be
supporting you when he said, "When they were each supposed to
talk for 10 minutes, he"-referring to you-"only talked for two
minutes and said something about a hockey game."
MrRohrer: I think that's the same individual who
chaired the youth party for one of my opponents.
Mr
Bartolucci: You did make a lasting impression on
him.
MrRohrer: I understand he was the youth chair for
one of my opponents' campaigns, but all I would add to that is,
consider the source.
Mr
Bartolucci: There were a few other people who commented
in the same article, students who were in fact turned off by your
approach to not speak on environment issues.
MrRohrer: Once again, with respect, Mr Bartolucci,
I was there and-
Mr
Bartolucci: So were these people.
MrRohrer: But you, sir, were not and I can tell
you that you should consider the source. It was a very good
debate. It was an hour-long debate about very important issues.
Yes, I'll admit I was curious about the previous evening's hockey
game score. You can appreciate that in campaigns you spend a lot
of time and you don't have a chance to check-
Mr
Bartolucci: I usually deal with the issues. Thanks.
The Acting
Chair: That being your final question, I take it, Mr
Bartolucci, Mr Rohrer, thank you very much for making the trek
down to Toronto. We'll see you again. My regards to your
family.
ALLAN LAAKKONEN
Review of intended
appointment, selected by third party: Allan Laakkonen, intended
appointee as member, Cancer Care Ontario.
The Acting
Chair: Our next consideration will be Mr Allan W.
Laakkonen. Good afternoon, sir.
Mr Allan
Laakkonen: Good afternoon.
The Acting
Chair: We have 30 minutes of consideration. If you wish
to make an opening statement, you are certainly free to do so, after which we'll
afford time for questions to each of the caucuses.
Mr
Laakkonen: Thank you very much, Mr Chair and members of
committee.
I've been a lifelong
resident of Thunder Bay except for the three years I attended
Ryerson and the three years I taught at the Dar es Salaam
Technical College in Tanzania. My resumé gives you details
of my involvements in Thunder Bay over the years. The opportunity
I was given to serve on the city council of Thunder Bay was
exceptionally rewarding, through interaction with the community
and becoming familiar with what their feelings were. It was
certainly a rewarding experience.
What is not mentioned in
the resumé is my past association with the Northern Cancer
Research Foundation. While serving on that board, I had the
opportunity of meeting and working with the Northwestern Ontario
Regional Cancer Centre to get an understanding of the challenges
they had to meet and the work they had to do.
For the past year I have
been a public member of the College of Medical Radiation
Technologists of Ontario and I've learned a great deal about
their profession, particularly regarding radiography, radiation
therapy and nuclear medicine.
Since I was advised of my
name being proposed as a member of the CCO board, I've done some
research on the organization, namely, to determine its mandate
and organizational structure. Thank God for the Web. It's just a
tremendous tool.
For Cancer Care Ontario,
the responsibilities are to conduct programs of research,
diagnosis and treatment of cancer, and specifically the
objectives under the cancer care act, being to transport
patients, to carry out laboratory and clinical investigations of
psychiatric disorders, to establish and operate hostels in
connection with its treatment centres or the Ontario Cancer
Institute or the Princess Margaret Hospital, to coordinate
facilities for treatment, to report cases, to record and compile
data, to educate the public, to provide facilities for
undergraduate and post-graduate study and to provide technical
training and award research fellowships.
Further, I thought I'd find
out what the vision statement would be for Cancer Care Ontario.
If you'll bear with me on this, I've got the bottom line, so to
speak: To lessen the growing burden of cancer in Ontario by
ensuring that all Ontario residents have timely, equitable access
to an integrated system of excellent, coordinated and efficient
programs in prevention, early detection, care, education and
research.
In looking at the mandate,
it's certainly overwhelming, but in the requirements for an
appointment to the board, there are no prerequisite requirements
in the sense of being a medical practitioner. I feel with the
experience I've had with numerous boards and associations over
the years, I can contribute to helping CCO meet their
responsibilities and objectives and meet the vision statement of
Cancer Care Ontario.
It certainly would be an
honour and a privilege to serve as a member of the board of
directors of Cancer Care Ontario.
Just as a footnote I
thought of to add to my notes as I was coming over, to me, cancer
knows no boundaries. It has no colour limitations, no age
limitations. It can touch any one of us and all of us at any
given time. I've had some recent experiences where that has been
the case.
I'm very fortunate. We're
celebrating our 40th anniversary this year. My wife was an
operating room nurse, so subliminally I became associated with
medical terminology, and I'm thankful to her for that. Through
that association as well I got to meet the medical community, and
I feel I would have access to their expertise. As a matter of
fact, in my resumé I say I play in a Dixieland jazz band,
and the piano player is a coroner and the fellow who started the
band is a retired coroner, so it's just associations like that
and being sensitive to the public and what the public feels, and
in terms of responding to it.
There are different ways of
thinking about things and approaching things. I've always done my
homework, and before I'd answer a question, I'd be sure I had all
the facts and had determined the veracity of any statements that
were made. Thank you.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you, Mr Laakkonen. I guess inviting your
band would liven any occasion. The questioning this time will
start with the government.
Mr Wood:
We'll waive our time.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you. Mr Bartolucci.
Mr
Bartolucci: Welcome to the committee. You're obviously
familiar with the petition that has been circulating around
Thunder Bay with regard to the northern health travel grant.
Mr
Laakkonen: I've heard of it. I haven't seen it.
Mr
Bartolucci: You haven't signed it? You're not one of the
10,000 who have signed it?
Mr
Laakkonen: No one has approached me about it, so I
haven't seen or signed the document.
Mr
Bartolucci: What do you think of the present
government's policy with regard to paying expenses? We call it
health care apartheid. I'm sure you've heard this
terminology.
Mr
Laakkonen: Excuse me, I didn't hear you, sir.
Mr
Bartolucci: You'd have to be living in a cocoon not to
hear the controversy surrounding the treatment of cancer patients
from the north and the treatment given to the south. Are you
familiar with that issue?
Mr
Laakkonen: Yes, I am.
Mr
Bartolucci: Give us your take on it.
Mr
Laakkonen: My take on it would be just to look at the
direction of Cancer Care Ontario, which is to provide equitable
service to everyone. I certainly am not apprised of the mechanics
of the travel grants, and I wouldn't want to give a specific
answer, but certainly if there are any inequities, then I would
raise that point and say, "If they exist, then how do we correct
that?" It's a big province and there are lots of people in the
province.
1400
Mr
Bartolucci: You said that cancer knows no boundaries and
you are absolutely correct on that. It doesn't know lists either.
The government, as you know, pays all costs associated with travel
accommodation and meals for those cancer patients who are
re-referred from Toronto to other points: Thunder Bay, Sudbury or
the States. You know that northern cancer patients only get 30.4
cents a kilometre one way. In your estimation, is that
equitable?
Mr
Laakkonen: A specific answer would be difficult without
knowing the mechanics of how the travel grant works, but with the
re-referrals, I understand that program applies to prostrate
cancer and breast cancer only. Quite honestly, I don't have
enough knowledge to answer your question specifically, but if
inequities did occur, I've always been one to state my position,
be it popular or unpopular.
Mr
Bartolucci: Give us your opinion then. I'll ask you for
your opinion. Mary from Thunder Bay, who can't be treated in
Thunder Bay, has to travel to Toronto for treatment. She gets
30.4 cents a kilometre one way. That's the policy. That's the
northern health travel grant in a nutshell. Somebody from Toronto
who has been re-referred to Thunder Bay gets full transportation
costs-air, if they choose-all meal costs, plus all accommodation
costs at a hotel. Is that fair, in your estimation?
Mr
Laakkonen: On the face of it, it wouldn't be fair. But
again, to answer specifically, if that inequity did exist then I
would certainly make sure, as best I could, to correct that.
That's all I could say at this point.
Mr
Bartolucci: So you would challenge the government that's
going to appoint you that you do not believe this discrimination
is right?
Mr
Laakkonen: If I felt that some rethinking was required I
would do that.
Mr Martin:
Given that there seems to be a bit of a lack of information at
your disposal or in your experience re this whole issue which Mr
Bartolucci has just raised, which all of us who represent the
north and many of us who live in the north have had to deal with
personally in many significant ways, let me just give you an
example.
Donna Graham lives in
Pickle Lake, which is 525 kilometres one way from Thunder Bay.
She has made 14 round trips to Thunder Bay for treatment since
May 1999. She has flown twice to Thunder Bay, was driven once to
Ignace and then took the bus to Thunder Bay, 235 kilometres, and
was driven 11 times to Thunder Bay and back. Travel costs alone
are $6,077 but she will only receive $2,271 in total compensation
from the government. She has paid $3,806 out of her own pocket to
access cancer care.
Donna Graham travels
farther by car in the north to access care in Thunder Bay than
any southern Ontario patient who is referred from Toronto, London
and Hamilton to Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit or Kingston. Yet
those folks will get everything paid and Donna Graham will get a
reimbursement of some $2,271 out of an overall cost of some
$10,000. In your view, is that fair?
Mr
Laakkonen: On the face of it again, it doesn't appear to
be fair, and obviously I don't have access to the file. But if
presentations have been made to whatever the governing agency is
relative to dispensing those costs, I would think it would be the
opportunity for the board-I'm not sure what the mechanics are of
relations with people who are having problems. But I'd certainly
be willing to listen to anybody and everybody who is having a
problem to determine if those inequities can be solved or
not.
Mr Martin:
Have you yourself had to travel for health care or has anybody in
your family had to travel for health care?
Mr
Laakkonen: No, we haven't. My brother-in-law passed away
last night from cancer. He had all the care he needed in Thunder
Bay and didn't have to travel. But no, we've been fortunate in
the sense that we haven't had to travel.
Mr Martin:
In Sault Ste Marie, where we don't have a cancer centre such as
they have in Sudbury or Thunder Bay, my constituents are
travelling all the time. As a matter of fact, there's an
organization in the Soo-the Elks-that has spent its own money to
buy a van that they put at the disposal of cancer patients to
travel back and forth to Sudbury to get the care they need, which
is an attempt by our community to take the edge off the load.
Health care is not only expensive from a taxpayer's perspective
in Sault Ste Marie re the cost of the facilities and doctors etc,
but it becomes a personal cost to people and families as they try
to access cancer care. Sudbury on a good day is three hours away;
Thunder Bay is as far away as Toronto and less accessible by air
than Toronto. We pay a big price for our health care, not to
speak of the costs for cancer care.
Gerry Lougheed-that name is
probably familiar to you-a man, from some of our perspectives
anyway, of tremendous integrity, worked with an organization over
a number of years to try to put in place the best that was
possible for the folks in the north. It finally got to a point
where he was totally frustrated, and in an attempt to effect
change became very public and critical in his assessment of the
circumstances and is now no longer serving in his capacity with
Cancer Care Ontario and northeastern cancer care.
If it came to a point where
you thought what was happening was not in the best interests of
the people you represent in northern Ontario, what was happening
under your purview in your role on the board, how far would you
be willing to go to make that point?
Mr
Laakkonen: I think I'd follow every avenue that was
available to me to make that point, and then, as with any
decision, it's going to fall one side or the other depending on
what the issue is. Some people are going to support it and some
aren't. I've never backed away from making a point, even being
right or wrong from a point of view, but if it came to the point
of having to present it, then I would have no difficulty at all
in presenting a different point of view.
Mr Martin:
If it came down to supporting the present government's direction
and perhaps unwillingness to put more resources into the pot so
that we're not facing the kind of challenge that we are now in
Ontario, which some people have referred to as cancer care
apartheid, you would
be willing to stand up for the people of the north in that
instance?
Mr
Laakkonen: I certainly would, but I don't think I would
agree with the term "apartheid" in terms of health care delivery
in this province.
Mr Martin:
Having said that then, let me share with you another example just
so you understand why some of us are calling it that. Lorraine
Newton lives in Kenora but cannot access cancer care in Thunder
Bay. She has a rare eye cancer which is being treated in Toronto.
She must drive to Winnipeg, 207 kilometres, and then fly to
Toronto for care. She has made four trips to Toronto and will go
again in September. The best discounted airfare was $287.23.
Usually she pays $400. She pays $23 to come from the airport to
the city, $59 for one night in a hotel used by Princess Margaret,
and food costs are added on. She receives $146.40 in total
compensation from the government for each trip. Lorraine Newton
travels farther by car just to get to Winnipeg than a southern
Ontario patient who is referred from Toronto to Buffalo or from
London to Buffalo or from Hamilton to Detroit. Those people will
get full compensation; Lorraine Newton, just as I suggested with
Donna Graham, will not. You don't see that as two separate
systems operating side by side in the same province?
Mr
Laakkonen: Again, just on what you've stated, there
appears to be that inequity, but certainly I think apartheid is
too strong a word to apply to it. If there are any anomalies in
the process-I don't think there's anything in this world that's
perfect, whoever does it or whoever creates it. You go through a
matter of evolving and trying to come up with a policy that
indeed does meet the mandate that's been presented to Cancer Care
Ontario and, for that matter, to the government of Ontario.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Laakkonen, for coming all
this way down to the hearings from Thunder Bay. I hope you had an
enjoyable trip and we appreciate your making your
presentation.
Mr
Laakkonen: Thank you very much and thank you for the
questions. I hope I answered them.
1410
CHARLES SANDIFORD
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Charles
Sandiford, intended appointee as member, Cancer Care Ontario.
The Acting
Chair: Our next consideration will be Mr Charles
Sandiford. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. We have
30 minutes at our disposal. You can make an introductory
statement if you prefer, or not, and the remaining time will be
split among the three caucuses.
Mr Charles
Sandiford: I haven't been this nervous since I got
married. I'm going to tell you about my own experience with
cancer in order to explain my interest in this appointment. It
says here I'm now to read that history and I'll try to do
that.
In June 1997 I was
diagnosed with cancer after failing to recover from what I
thought was laryngitis. Initially, I was thought to have
esophageal cancer and was told by three different doctors that I
would not last to see Christmas. They suggested that I get my
affairs in order, which I did. It didn't take very long. This
disease progressed to the point where my throat was closed so
often I could not breathe. I was taken to the Toronto Hospital
emergency section where I was immediately admitted and prepared
for a tracheotomy, which was completed the next day. After some
weeks of tests and a series of biopsies, it was determined that I
had non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cancer in the thyroid area.
The good news in this
diagnosis was that I could be treated and my chances of recovery
were 50-50. The tube in my throat was to stay for the next four
months, a very unpleasant experience but by far better than the
alternative. Not being able to talk for that period was a
difficult situation, especially for me, as I know Mr Gilchrist
will testify. In September I had my first chemotherapy treatment
followed by 10 days of Nuprogen injections. After the second
treatment there was a dramatic reduction in the swelling in my
neck but the tube stayed in until after my third and final
treatment.
In early January, the tube
came out and I was scheduled to take 20 radiation treatments
which were administered at Princess Margaret Hospital. I suffered
no side effects during chemo or radiation. The tube was another
matter. My normally large neck, coupled with the swelling, caused
the tube to frequently come out, with very dire consequences.
Actually, you suffocate when that happens.
A longer tube was ordered
from California which finally corrected the problem. Doctors
Irish, Sturgeon and Tsang are outstanding professionals with a
compassion and ability that I have rarely witnessed in my long
battle with my health. I continue to see Sturgeon and Tsang, the
latter in April when I was again considered in remission.
I never experienced any
delay in admission or treatment, nor was I ever redirected in
four emergency trips. Media reports of the difficulties of others
puzzle me no end. While the treatment was not perfect, it worked
for me. Improvements in strategy in respect to training and
significantly more backup from manufacturers in the provision of
trained operators for their very sophisticated equipment would
ensure that machines were not left idle nor only employed seven
hours a day.
I go on now to tell you
about my own experience, that is, business experience. The media
reports of the deterioration of treatment disturbs me no end. As
a board member, I will be able to find out why and, more
importantly, work to correct whatever problem might exist. The
extensive material I requested from Cancer Care Ontario is very
impressive and reveals their very worthy purpose. It has also
provoked many questions in respect to what reporting mechanisms
that may or may not be in place.
My business experience was
with two major consumer finance corporations. Operational areas
were required to submit frequent statistical reports from which
we were able to identify problems and quickly take corrective
action to ensure our overall objectives were met, and of course
monitor our progress. This is not the time to elaborate on the
scope of these reports but the process might be useful to Cancer
Care Ontario's management.
You will notice from my
resumé that I never earned any formal degree. However, my
business experience was a learning process which had no end. We
were continuously on in-company training programs authored by
very prominent American business schools. Negotiations with
people like the late A.J. Billes, His Worship Mayor Mel Lastman
and brother Allan and others were a lesson never delivered in a
classroom. The counsel of the Honourable Willard Z. Estey was
always a source of comfort and command. He was our corporate
lawyer.
In closing, I would like to
tell you about my family. My wife and I will soon be married for
50 years. Son Jim is a chartered accountant and partner. Bob is a
school principal with a master's in education. David has his
honours in English, a BA in history and a bachelor of education.
He is a teacher in the York board. If that isn't enough, we now
have five grandchildren and counting. We just got one on June 16,
by the way.
Thank you for your time and
indulgence, and now it's your turn.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Sandiford. This time the
questioning will commence with the official opposition.
Mr
Bartolucci: First of all, Mr Sandiford, I'm happy that
you're a cancer survivor. I wish you many years of good health,
and I say that most sincerely.
Mr
Sandiford: Thank you for that.
Mr
Bartolucci: I also congratulate you on your anniversary
coming up and on a very successful family. I'd like to talk to
your son Bob sometime and we could discuss education issues. I'm
sure it would be a lively discussion.
Mr
Sandiford: It's a very lively family discussion almost
every week.
Mr
Bartolucci: I am sure it is.
You mentioned the excellent
care you received in Princess Margaret Hospital. Having had a
father who fought and lost a battle with cancer, I can attest to
Princess Margaret's excellent service and dedication. There's no
question about that.
I'd like to quickly present
a scenario to you. If you, Charles Sandiford, had to be treated
for your cancer in an area outside of Princess Margaret, so that
you were re-referred to Sudbury or Thunder Bay or to one of the
areas in the States that would treat your cancer, you know that
you would receive full travel costs, full meal costs, full hotel
accommodations.
Mr
Sandiford: No, I didn't know that.
Mr
Bartolucci: You would receive that, and I think that's
important information for you to know. If you, Charles, were from
Sudbury and you couldn't be treated for your cancer in Sudbury
and you had to come to Princess Margaret, you would only get
one-way transportation costs at 30.4 cents a kilometre. You would
have to pay for your taxis, you would have to pay for your hotel,
you would have to pay for your meals. Do you believe that's
fair?
Mr
Sandiford: I heard the question delivered by Mr Martin
regarding that issue as I came in here, and truly it doesn't seem
fair, but I really don't know enough about the circumstances
which caused that discrepancy to offer any real opinion on it.
But these are some of the items I'd like to pursue as a board
member.
Mr
Bartolucci: This is a compliment and I want you to take
it as that. You have a passion for this, it's obvious, and you've
done your homework. That's obvious as well. I want to tell you
that this in fact is the case. After you study it, you will find
out that the government uses terminology very skilfully, but the
reality is, Charles Sandiford in Toronto would get full costs.
Charles Sandiford in Sudbury going to Toronto or another place
would not. If, when you study it, you find out that is exactly
what happens, will you stand up to the government and fight to
ensure that there is equal treatment of cancer patients in this
province?
1420
Mr
Sandiford: I would like to answer that question in this
fashion, and that is, having experienced cancer-and I know you're
speaking from some experiences; not very happy ones-I would like
to see the treatment of cancer equal for everyone in the province
of Ontario, even in Canada. To that end, that would be my
motivation and the reason why I would be interested, and am
interested, in this appointment.
Mr
Bartolucci: I wish you much success in your appointment
and I wish you the best of health and much happiness.
Mr
Sandiford: Thank you very much.
Mr Martin:
Thanks for coming today and sharing your personal story. I know
how difficult that can be and I appreciate your doing that. Mr
Bartolucci has painted a picture for you re the issue that we
both bring from northern Ontario. Some will differ on how you
describe it, as cancer apartheid or discrimination, but certainly
there are two different approaches where funding is concerned,
and the cost to individuals and families to access the care they
need and the pain and anguish that can cause. You have referenced
that you heard a couple of the scenarios I painted, which are
very real-
Mr
Sandiford: Exactly.
Mr Martin:
-and I have more. They are not isolated or single. There's a
whole whack of them that any one of us who represents
constituencies in northern Ontario could tell, because they come
to our office and they ask for help from us to try to access a
bit more in support and ask us to help them understand why the
system is as it is. I won't say any more on that. I think you
heard it and you'll probably bring it to the table when you get
your appointment, as I'm sure you will this afternoon. Hopefully,
on our behalf, you will be successful in convincing somebody that
it should be dealt with, because it indeed isn't fair.
I'm going to put another issue on the table for
you just to get your comment and your view. Say a government knew
in 1995 that there was going to be a shortage of radiation
therapists, not just in Canada but internationally, and knowing
this chose to save a few dollars by cancelling the training
program for radiation therapists in Ontario, so that this year,
while cancer patients are being shipped to the United States to
get treatment that they can't get here in Ontario, there are no
new radiation therapists graduating in Ontario. Would you agree
that the short-sightedness of that government has contributed to
the crisis we are facing? In the intended appointment position,
what would you be prepared to do to hold this government
accountable on that and perhaps other such scenarios that you
might discover as you begin to do this work?
Mr
Sandiford: The way you speak about the government's
abandonment of responsibility I don't think is entirely accurate.
In my last paragraph, when I talked about my own situation, I
said specifically about radiation operators-I don't know whether
you're familiar with what that takes, but that's a very long
process where the template has to be designed for you personally
and what have you-that companies that provide these
multi-million-dollar machines should also share some
responsibility in training operators. I'm sure, knowing the
private sector as I do, that if you made that a condition of a
purchase, they would provide you with operators.
Having said that, I notice
too that the government attempted to get operators of radiation
equipment from outside the country, and they were denied entry. I
don't understand that either. But there are many areas in the
health care system which need to be addressed. Where to begin,
and to think that everybody is going to be perfect in their final
decisions is more than we can really expect. We can only work at
it. That's one of the reasons I'm here, because I think I can
make a contribution to help settle some of those issues and bring
everybody into the same treatment level that I had. I never
waited for anything, yet I witnessed three machines at Princess
Margaret that weren't being used because of what you're talking
about, the lack of operators. So it would appear on the surface
that it was a mistake, but I don't think it was something that
was designed to hinder the care of cancer patients. I think they
just made a mistake. I didn't even know what you're talking about
before I got here today.
Mr Martin:
They actually cancelled the training program for radiation
therapists.
Mr
Sandiford: I heard you about that.
Mr Martin:
I would consider that a mistake.
Mr
Sandiford: Training, as I've already pointed out here,
is a big issue with me and it's the answer to a lot of
operational problems. If you have a good training program and
develop a surplus of operators or a surplus of treatment centres,
whatever, you obviate the need for any of these other issues that
you've brought up. They just won't exist.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Sandiford. Did I forget
the formality of turning to Mr Wood?
Mr Wood:
We'll waive our time.
Mr
Sandiford: I was hoping I'd hear from member Morley
Kells. I haven't seen him for a long time.
The Acting
Chair: ESP is a prerequisite of being a committee Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr Sandiford. We appreciate your coming down
and making yourself available to the committee for these
hearings. I wish you a safe trip back.
Mr
Sandiford: Thank you very much.
The Acting
Chair: That takes us now to motions for concurrence.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Rohrer.
The Acting
Chair: Is there any further discussion? Seeing none,
I'll put the question. All those in favour? Opposed? The motion
is carried.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Laakkonen.
The Acting
Chair: Any further discussion on that appointment?
Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour? Opposed?
That appointment carries.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Sandiford.
The Acting
Chair: Any further discussion?
Mr
Bartolucci: I'll be supporting Mr Sandiford because I
think he's what an appointee should be. He has some passion, he
certainly has first-hand knowledge and experience, and he came to
this committee extremely well prepared. The people I didn't
support today would do well to take a lesson from this gentleman.
This is the way you appear before a committee, with some passion,
with wanting to do something. I know Cancer Care Ontario will be
better because Mr Sandiford is being appointed. There is
absolutely no question in my mind.
I came down here with the
preconceived notion that they were all Tory appointees and I was
going to have difficulty supporting any of them. I must tell you
again, Mr Sandiford, your passion is what Cancer Care Ontario
needs and your very straightforward approach is what they need.
Finally, you will have to get their attention every once in a
while, and don't be afraid to do that in whatever way works best
for you.
The Acting
Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the
question. All those in favour? It's unanimous.
