INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
HENRY HYND
CONTENTS
Wednesday 6 April 1994
Subcommittee report, A-660
Intended appointments
Harry Hynd, Workplace Health and Safety Agency
Freda Fyles, Social Assistance Review Board
Adrienne Marie Kennedy, Muskoka District Housing Authority
John Butcher, Council of the College of Medical Laboratory Technologists of Ontario
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC) for Mrs Witmer
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND) for Mr Waters
O'Neill, Yvonne (Ottawa-Rideau L) for Mr Bradley
Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: Yeager, Lewis, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1002 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Vice-Chair (Mr Allen McLean): It's past 10 o'clock. We'll call the government agencies committee to order.
It's been brought to my attention that we should have the subcommittee report dealt with first, so we will proceed with that. Do we have a motion that the subcommittee report be accepted? Is anybody prepared to make that motion, that the subcommittee report be accepted?
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I move it, Mr Chair.
The Vice-Chair: All in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
HENRY HYND
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Harry Hynd, intended appointee as member, Workplace Health and Safety Agency.
The Vice-Chair: This morning we are dealing with the recommendations. The first review is for Harry Hynd, intended appointee as a member of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. Mr Hynd, I presume you're here.
Mr Henry Hynd: That's me.
The Vice-Chair: You have the opportunity to make an opening statement, or if you're ready to go to questions, we will proceed.
Mr Hynd: I don't have any opening statements to make. I'm here at the committee's pleasure.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Arnott, you have 10 minutes.
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My name is Ted Arnott. I represent the county of Wellington in the Legislature and I sit with the Conservative caucus. Can you explain to the committee what your qualifications are for this position?
Mr Hynd: My qualifications are that I've been involved in the labour movement since 1958. I was an employee of Stelco. I've always been an activist in the union and one of my early activities in the early 1960s was to try and achieve workplace safety and health representatives for workers who would be representatives of the United Steelworkers of America and Local 1005. We tried, on a voluntary basis, to reach that and never achieved it till it was law.
I always had a keen interest in safety. Before immigrating to Canada, I worked in the Scottish coal mines, and I was a safety and health representative of the National Union of Mineworkers. My interest in safety and health has never diminished, and the workers I'm privileged to represent today -- I'm the director of District 6 of the United Steelworkers of America, which is really Ontario. We have some of the most dangerous industries in our jurisdiction and represent miners, steelworkers and basic steel production, people in secondary manufacturing, and have a wide range of membership in all industries, but especially in the most dangerous industries.
The industry I worked in, the steel industry, was one that made me aware that the union's focus always had to be on safety and that it wasn't enough to make decent wages and decent benefits if you didn't derive the benefit from them, if you died on the job or were maimed or injured and couldn't enjoy the fact that you could have a decent working life and retire with a decent pension. I always was aware of that and conscious of the good work that the union does around safety and health issues, so it was always a focus of mine.
Mr Arnott: You've been following the work of the agency to date, I'm sure, through the newspapers and through whatever contacts you may have.
Mr Hynd: Yes.
Mr Arnott: There are a lot of problems within the agency. My office has received a number of complaints from employers as to the manner in which the agency is conducting its affairs. It's the threatening tone of the letters that they're sending out to employers, and I understand that compared to the objectives of the agency in terms of actually training workers, the agency to date has been a failure compared to the objectives it set for itself in terms of the numbers of people it has actually trained. So there are some problems there. Do you have any suggestions as to what should be done with respect to solutions?
Mr Hynd: First of all, I wouldn't describe the agency as a failure. I see the agency quite frankly as something that the Liberal government saw would be an advantage to both industry and to working people, and that vehicle, while it's a difficult process, and it always is -- bipartite isn't an easy process; it's a difficult process where compromise and bargaining have to take place between people with different viewpoints -- I still think it's the best process there is to come to a consensus. At least my following of the agency has established clearly that the consensus that has been arrived at has been vitally important for working people in Ontario.
The certification training that's been agreed to by consensus by the employer group and the union group is a major step forward, in my view. I don't know anything about those employers who might be receiving letters that they consider to be threatening. I don't know anything about that.
Mr Arnott: I wish I had one here to read to you, because they are threatening. But when I say it's a failure, I'm saying it's a failure because it has not met its objectives for actual training. The bottom line is that the agency is there, in my opinion, to train workers, to work towards safety training for workers, and it's not doing the numbers it set for itself in terms of its --
Mr Hynd: Well, I disagree with you on that as well. If you look at the facts about the percentage of workers who were trained prior to the agency coming into being, you'll find out that roughly 4% of employees were trained in any safety and health training, and quite frankly that 4% is generous when one really looks at the training that a lot of people received.
I think the agency has made, in my view, a massive leap forward to get certification training. It's true that even though the training was agreed to between the employer group and the union group at the agency, very few employers decided to leap on the opportunity to train and it then became necessary to try and move that along. I think the parties at the agency were able to do that and move the agenda along and it's now scheduled. I understand that not only is the training going ahead, but that those people, both management people and labour people who have participated in the training, have glowing comments about the training and the kind of training it is.
1010
Mr Arnott: Can you tell me how many workers have trained to date?
Mr Hynd: I understand that the numbers of people who have been trained are still low. We would like to see far more people being trained. However, considering the short period since the agreement was reached on moving that schedule up, I think it's moving ahead and that's certainly going to have some impact on industry and the frequency and severity of accidents. Unlike you, I'm quite encouraged, but like you, I would rather it had moved a lot faster.
Mr Arnott: Okay. As Tourism critic for our party, I was very supportive of a program that was paid for by employers through their workers' compensation premiums. I hope I have got the name correct: tourism and hospitality industry safety program. That program was set up to be an industry-specific training program for people in the tourism and hospitality industry and it worked very well. At the end of March this year, its funding was cancelled. There's another training program that existed for people who were employed in colleges and universities as well as in hospitals, and again a similar situation where they had industry-specific training for that sort of workplace and their funding was cut off.
Mr Hynd: Can you tell me how that training was agreed to? Was it agreed to between workers and management? Is that what you're suggesting, that they already had a program in effect that was agreed to?
Mr Arnott: Yes. I believe it was supported by pretty nearly everybody.
Mr Hynd: Supported by whom?
Mr Arnott: Everybody who was paying for it and everybody who was participating in it.
Mr Hynd: Everybody was paying for it?
Mr Arnott: Through their workers' compensation premiums.
Mr Hynd: Oh yes, I know that, but what I'm asking is, did workers have any input into the training? You're saying people were satisfied with that training. I'm not sure that's true. I know all kinds of training programs that go on. The 4% of people who were being trained were getting some kind of training. Whether it was satisfactory or not is up in the air. Nobody's really looked at that. I doubt that the training people were receiving was training that was satisfactory. I don't know where you get that information.
Mr Arnott: I've spoken to people in the tourism industry who are concerned about --
Mr Hynd: I have members who work in the tourist industry and I can tell you, in hotels there's virtually nothing happening in safety and health training, and that will happen now.
Mr Arnott: In what way was it unsatisfactory? The programs that existed and that trained, to my understanding, thousands of workers in the tourism and hospitality industry -- in what way was it unsatisfactory?
Mr Hynd: You just tell me that it was satisfactory. I said I can tell you that my information from people who work in the industry was that there was virtually no safety and health training, no emphasis on safety and health in the industry, and that's going to change and there is going to be decent training and people are going to get trained properly. The frequency and severity of accidents will reduce as a result. I'm surprised that your information is that there's already good training out there in our industry.
Mr Arnott: We have a difference of opinion because we're hearing from different people, but you haven't told me in what way -- except that there weren't enough workers being trained. Is that what the problem was? Specifically, how was the training program inadequate?
Mr Hynd: I'm telling you that the only information I have is from workers who are active in the hotel industry. They're active in the union. The hotel industry hasn't done a decent job on a voluntary basis of addressing the issues of safety and health for the workers. That's my information.
The Vice-Chair: Your time is up.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Welcome to this board. I think you have touched on this already, but could you tell us whether you think the bipartite structure of the board is working well?
Mr Hynd: I believe it's working. I know there are lots of people who would like things to move ahead faster. At least they say they would like things to move ahead faster. But bipartism in the labour movement is the way that we achieve contracts with employers all the time, in my view, and not only mine. It's a system that's been tested and tried and certainly has flaws.
Vic Pathe, a civil servant who just recently retired, at a Sefton lecture just two weeks ago said in his view, and his experience has shown him, that the best way to resolve difficulties and differences and to achieve progress in industry is free collective bargaining. In many ways, the bipartite system that exists at the agency is an extension of that. I know that is difficult. It poses problems in working towards an agreement, but when an agreement is reached, it's an agreement that nobody should be able to complain about, although lots of people do. It's an agreement that's been achieved as a result of compromise, of discussion and understanding about issues.
While it's a difficult process and a lengthy process, it's a worthwhile process to go through. I think we get a lot more buy-in as a result of that. If it was just dictated by somebody, I don't think we'd be nearly as successful in the long term, and my view isn't a short-term view for safety and health; my view is a long-term view where we have to work towards the eradication of the myriad of deaths that occur annually in industry, the serious injuries: 360,000 injuries were reported to the compensation board. That's reported; a lot more happened that didn't get reported.
We represent workers at Elliot Lake in the mines and in Inco in Sudbury and we have developed with both these areas, Rio Algom, Denison Mines and Inco, a process where workers would become highly trained and have a positive impact on safety and health issues. That took us a long time to achieve at the bargaining table, but we now have a consensus by those employers in the union that works and has reduced the frequency and severity of accidents. We consider that a very positive thing. So we're prepared to go through the agony of having to negotiate with employer groups to achieve success, because I think that's important.
Ms Carter: I think "consensus" is the important word there. I understand that the agency has only had to have a vote about once, because it is being successful in coming to agreements through consensus, and I agree with you that's a much firmer basis on which to go on.
I understand that there's been some talk about mergers of delivery agencies of health and safety. Do you know anything about that?
Mr Hynd: I know that's one of the goals of the agency and one of the goals that the parties of the agency have been given to try to achieve. I can tell you one I am familiar with. Essentially, through the Mines Accident Prevention Association of Ontario, which is the mining organization which has merged with the forestry and paper and pulp industry, the merger of these three groups, in my view, the evidence will show that we've put these groups together and that will be more cost-effective and they will deliver better training and effective training. They've moved into combined headquarters in North Bay. Everybody I talk to in the MAPAO is very satisfied with what's happening there. So I see that again as something that will certainly help our members greatly.
Prior to the coming together of this, MAPAO was an employers' organization which had one or two union representatives on the board, in my view totally unsatisfactory, and we fought for years with the companies that we deal with in mining and for MAPAO as an organization to have a bipartite board, which now has one. I believe it's working and I think the proof will be in the pudding. I think over time we're going to see real improvement in safety and health in the mining industry, and that's going to be a big benefit to workers I represent.
1020
Mr Marchese: My sense too is that this bipartite structure is an important one. I get the feeling that in the initial stages both union groups and management groups would have a problem working with each other. So the difficulties that are evidenced there could be a reflection of that kind of structure that has been put together and the difficulty in dealing with it.
Part of the research here says, "It was evident that many employers were failing to sign up their employees for the core certification program." In the future it might work where people are not necessarily fighting each other. How do you see your role in getting the employers to understand that this is a very useful thing not just for workers but for them as well?
Mr Hynd: As an example, when Inco discovered that their worker safety and health representatives had a positive impact on reducing the accident frequency and severity in the workplace, they then saw that as a reduction in their accidents and payments through compensation. Inco put a half-page ad in most of the northern papers commending the union for pushing them into this. I think that will happen with frequency as employers discover the benefits of good safety and health training, well-trained people in the workforce, a workforce that is aware of the problems of safety and health in that workplace. They will see tremendous benefits in that.
I think those employers that are reluctant and fighting this will get on board, because it will become evident even to those that don't believe workers need safety and health training. There are people who don't believe that workers need safety and health training: spokespersons from the small business community, Judith Andrew. She insulted the intelligence of workers, said we're like bumps on a log. I think that when employers become aware of the benefits for them as an employer they will get on board and will accept the agenda that quite frankly will be evident for people. It won't be difficult for them to understand.
Mr Marchese: It's quite logical to me, when you look at the facts, that employers would come on board, because they would recognize that in the end this is good for them. However, it seems to me that there is a different kind of resistance, it could be an initial resistance, and it might take longer than one would assume, but hopefully they will recover from that.
I have another question. I think we spend $50 million or $60 million for the agency. It comes through the Workers' Compensation Board. I'm not sure whether it's a fair question to you, but is this a sufficient amount of money that comes from the WCB for this agency to do its work, is it inadequate, are there other things you would suggest or are we on the right track?
Mr Hynd: I am not fully qualified to answer the question, but I'm going to take a stab at it. Regarding the money the agency will receive, I believe it will be discovered that, given the money the government was already spending on a variety of different organizations whose function was to try and deliver safety and health programs in the workplace, there are tremendous savings by the work of the agency. Whether or not the money that's currently allocated will be sufficient, I don't know. But I know this: It will require a lot less money than is currently being spent.
As an example, with the agency I talked about that has been formed in North Bay with the pulp and paper industry, forestry and mining, there's already a dramatic savings that's evident there. So I think the work of the agency will be admired by all if it gets an opportunity to function.
Mr Marchese: Thank you, Mr Hynd. Good luck.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mr Hynd, I appreciate your appearing before us so it gives me the opportunity of asking you a couple of questions. I share some of the concerns that Mr Arnott has expressed to you with the bipartite agency that was set up by the Liberal government, which I too feel has failed and has not been effective. I may discuss one or two areas which I think contributed to the failure. As a matter of fact, as you know, it was set up for equal representation for both labour and management and the concept that labour and management could work and cooperate and develop health and safety programs for the workplace. Some factors have contributed to this kind of failure.
Would you agree with me that some of the factors that contributed to that was the fact that the vice-chair Paul Forder who, as I said, actually, coupled with a kind of weakness of the management vice-chair Bob McMurdo --
Mr Hynd: I missed what you said just prior to that.
Mr Curling: I said some of the failure --
Mr Hynd: I heard about Paul Forder. You mentioned something about --
Mr Curling: I said it's a style really of the vice-chair Paul Forder. Is that how you pronounce his name properly?
Interjection: That's right.
Mr Curling: Plus vice-chair McMurdo. They say management was so displeased with the performance that a lot of confrontation and arguments happened that really broke down some of the smooth running of the agency. Is that so?
Mr Hynd: I can tell you that in my view one of the biggest difficulties at the agency is really with the management representatives in that they don't receive from management any real support. They go there essentially as individuals.
If you look at the trouble there has been at the agency, if you really analyse it as being with the management group, they've been dissatisfied with management when it has made decisions. I don't think you'll ever be able to satisfy everyone.
My view is that the decisions that have been made at the agency, the consensus that has been arrived at, has broad support in the management community, but some people in the management community, like Judith Andrew, criticize the hell out of people, and people say, "Why are we serving on this board to take all this criticism?" That's been one of the difficulties.
With respect to the makeup of the board and the vice-chairs, while the vice-chairs are there and provide information to both sides, it's the management group and the labour group that make decisions, so the vice-chairs don't have the ability to drive an agenda. The group that is representing management and the group that represents labour, those are the groups that decide on what they'll find consensus around. I don't know where you get the problem with the vice-chairs.
I haven't been on the agency. I sat as an observer at the last meeting, and while I've seen the difficulty that consensus brings, it reminded me of being in collective bargaining. Consensus was arrived at and we met all day and we finished at a quarter after 6 at night and found consensus. I think that's great.
There are very few times I've entered collective bargaining and begun in the morning and finished at night with a deal, so I think the agency's working far better than people give it credit for.
Mr Curling: You're saying it's lack of cooperation by management then.
Mr Hynd: No. I didn't say lack of cooperation. What I'm trying to point out is that I think the management team, whoever they are, will have difficulty because they don't represent the industry. They don't go there with a lot of power. They go there essentially as individuals who are prepared to work and try and arrive at decisions that will help drive a safety and health agenda. When they do and have some people dissatisfied, they receive a lot of criticism from a minority, and they wonder why they're spending their life taking criticism, but in the labour movement, we don't have a problem with it. We deal with that all the time. We know we can never satisfy all of our members, all of the employers, all of the politicians, all of the public. We try and do the best job we can and satisfy the majority of people we represent.
We come to the table with a much greater level of support, of comfort. I know it's much more difficult for the management people as individuals on that agency than it is for labour representatives. I wasn't being critical of the people who sit on the agency. What I was saying is their role is much more difficult because they don't have a structure that gives them support.
1030
Mr Curling: This new amalgamation that is happening -- as a matter of fact has happened, I gather, by March 31, which has passed. It is now law. It is now the policy. Do you see that this new amalgamation, coming into that, will be an easy thing to do? There seem to be quite a few disagreements with the other groups who were into this long ago and felt that they were being shut out and not given a fair opportunity to share some of the policy directions or to be recognized for their contribution to advance health and safety.
Mr Hynd: I can only say to you that voluntary compliance was the name of the game right until the agency was thought about by the Liberal Party and voluntary compliance never brought decent safety and health training in the province of Ontario.
Those groups that complain will complain because they see their group being amalgamated and losing their individuality. Maybe some people lose power on that. But they're going to learn as a result of amalgamation, and about the kind of training that's going to be delivered, that they're a much more effective group in their amalgamation.
Sure, there'll be resistance to that, sure, there'll be some unhappiness with that, but I'm not concerned about the groups; I'm concerned about the delivery of safety and health training to workers. I know there's no way that workers will receive less training. They'll receive much more, much better and much more effective training. The agencies created as a result of combinations will be much more effective organizations. While there'll be some personal discomfort, there'll be a lot of workers who are saved and their families will feel that much better.
Mr Curling: Could you give me a comfort zone in this respect? I get from you that you feel that workers -- I agree they should be protected in the sense of health and safety in the workplace, but give me a comfort zone to say that the employers themselves can share in this. I hear you saying things like, "They will learn later on," and I gather that you're saying, "We will tell them how." I heard my colleagues over there say, "Consensus is the thing. Once we agree, we should move ahead." Well, I'm not so sure about that anyhow. The social contract has taught us that regardless of collective bargaining, it can be changed by government anyhow. Give me a comfort zone about working together.
One of the other factors is that you said people who have lost out in this amalgamation, it's just because they have a self-interest. You didn't use those words, but I think they came forward with another plan to say: "Here are some of us. Of course we agree that if we cut it down and make it more efficient -- it needs some efficiency there, some cost saving." But I gather too when they put their proposal forward, they said: "No way. You have till March 31 to comply, to agree, but if that's not the case, you just have to adhere to what we say." Give me a comfort to say that they're working together.
Mr Hynd: Okay, I can give you a level of comfort. Let me tell you that I know there was a great deal of consultation between the three agencies that you're making reference to and the workers' safety and health agency. I know there was a great deal of consultation between these agencies and the management team that represents companies on the agency. I know that, a massive amount of consultation.
The agency, both management and labour, have agreed. Management haven't agreed because they don't want to listen to the agencies that you're referring to, they have listened to them, but they know that to deliver effective training for workers, this is the way to go. That's why they've agreed to it. That's why consensus was arrived at. The people who cry about consensus being arrived at don't want the agency bipartite system to work.
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): Thank you. You're through your time. I'm sorry, Mr Curling.
I'd like to thank you very much for your appearance before the committee this morning, Mr Hynd.
Mr Hynd: Thank you very much.
FREDA FYLES
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Freda Fyles, intended appointee as full-time member and vice-chair, Social Assistance Review Board.
The Chair: I'd like to welcome our next intended appointment, Ms Freda Fyles. Ms Fyles is the intended appointee as full-time member and vice-chair of the Social Assistance Review Board. Welcome, Ms Fyles. This was a selection by the official opposition. Do you want us to start with the government?
Mr Curling: Go ahead.
The Chair: We started with the PCs first this morning so it doesn't matter.
Mr Curling: It doesn't matter to me.
The Chair: Do you wish to start?
Ms Carter: You go ahead.
The Chair: Okay. Did you wish to make any brief opening comments? We'll wait till the door is closed. It's hard to hear in this room; maybe we could close the door. I know this room is warm this morning but it is difficult to hear. Do you wish to make a brief opening statement or comments to the committee? If not, we'll just start the rotation with questions.
Ms Freda Fyles: I am quite prepared just to answer questions, Madam Chair.
The Chair: That's great. Thank you. Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: Welcome to the committee, Ms Fyles. I'm sure you're coming into an organization or an agency that is quite active because of, if you want to call it the recession, the economic downturn of our province. Many people are coming forward for welfare and other social assistance. Also, I think all three parties are looking at whether we should look at a reform of how we do things in how we give social assistance to people. Do you agree with some of the reforms that are coming out? Do you think the system needs reform?
Ms Fyles: I am certainly not prepared to discuss policy, Mr Curling, because that is not an area in which I am experienced. I only know what I read in the papers and what I hear. I think there is very little doubt that the governments, both federal and provincial, are intending to reform. I have read Time for Action and it proposes major changes in the delivery of social assistance. I would assume that the government in its wisdom has based that on its experiences, including those from the Social Assistance Review Board. I don't think I could go any further than that.
Mr Curling: So you're saying you have no comments right now about any social reform to the system. But would you say that the system needs to be reformed?
Ms Fyles: I am told that is so by people who have studied this. SARC and the advisory group that prepared Time for Action have gone into this matter in great detail, with a lot of advice from experienced people, and I am persuaded they know what they're talking about.
Mr Curling: Your employer, the government of today, has stated that. At one stage they think there is no great abuse to the welfare system, but on the other hand they said: "We will get some welfare police officers to look at this system and investigate these social abuses." So you're going to walk into an agency -- there will be reform and you'll have to be acting upon some of those reforms. I know we have limited time and my colleague here wants to ask some questions. I don't want to get on with it too much, so I'll ask her to proceed.
1040
The Chair: Mrs O'Neill, eight minutes.
Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm sorry to be late, but I had another breakfast meeting that went on a little longer.
Ms Fyles, I see that in your background you have done some work with conflict resolution. Do you see some role for that in SARB, and if so, what?
Ms Fyles: I think conflict resolution, or alternative dispute resolution, which I think it is now called, has a place in most administrative tribunals. I know that it is increasingly being used, for instance, at the Ontario Municipal Board. Whether it is appropriate in the social assistance field, I am not prepared to say. I don't think I am sufficiently familiar with the proceedings to be able to say that. However, I think ADR is a very good alternative resolution of many problems.
Mrs O'Neill: Okay. I have examined this social assistance review annual report quite closely, and I have quite a bit of difficulty with this report. I don't know whether you've examined it.
Ms Fyles: Yes, I have.
Mrs O'Neill: My difficulty with it is that there is no place in the report for recommendations, yet there are several places where this appeal mechanism seems to stagnate or seems to develop clusters of subjects which are appealed. I wonder if you'd like to comment on a role you could see in looking at that situation.
Ms Fyles: Perhaps I am not clearly understanding your question. If you're talking about whether the board can influence the number of appeals that it receives or the type of appeals --
Mrs O'Neill: No, that's not the question. The question is that there are clusters of subject areas, or clusters of subjects under appeal, yet the board which hears these appeals offers no recommendations regarding that situation. I'm wondering what your comments are on that.
Ms Fyles: I would suggest that the decisions of the board, which are of course available to this committee and to the Legislature and to the public in general, probably are the basis upon which policy changes would be considered by the minister. I would say that the board's role is to interpret the legislation and employ it and the regulations in line with precedents that have been established and within the jurisdiction that it is allowed. Anything that affects policy would be included in those decisions and would be apparent to the minister.
Mrs O'Neill: Okay. Have you travelled in the province?
Ms Fyles: Yes, I am certainly aware of just about all except the extreme north.
Mrs O'Neill: All of your experience seems to be in Metro Toronto. Could you say a little bit about how you hope to deal with that?
Ms Fyles: The lack of experience outside of the province?
Mrs O'Neill: Outside of Toronto.
Ms Fyles: Outside of the city. I think the problems that are faced in appeals to the board are endemic. They are in large measure due to unemployment, and I believe that is pretty generally experienced across the province. I'm not too sure that the city of Toronto or the Metropolitan area, although it has the largest number obviously, has any particular issues that are not found in the rest of the province. In any case, I believe that I am able to be impartial in these hearings in regarding the special circumstances that may or may not apply in rural areas or anywhere else in the province.
Mrs O'Neill: I certainly have had some different experience as far as things that are not the same outside of Toronto, even in this last year.
I'd like to ask you one more question because your curriculum vitae seems to have -- you even use the word "advocate" yourself, that you have been an advocate. Because the role that you're seeking is definitely not that of an advocate, how do you propose to change roles?
Ms Fyles: My role as an advocate was as a lawyer in some circumstances but more recently as social housing coordinator for the city of Toronto. This involved promoting and advocating social housing within the city limits. This was an advocacy role because there was a great deal of opposition from neighbourhoods and from some members of council and other interests. Because it was a new program, it was a new position, it required advocacy.
I do not have any problem, though, in dropping that role. I realize that as a member of the Social Assistance Review Board, I would have to be impartial. I would be helping to determine appeals on an objective basis and I am able to do that, I believe.
Mr Curling: You'll be dealing with cases that are either the breakdown of the first part of the system or some reassessment has to be done when it comes to you for review. Members in my community or constituency have come to me very often with this complaint, not so much with the problems of the social review board, but the fact is that on the first contact or the continuous contact on that level, workers are not being as cooperative and not even answering phones and what have you.
Is there anything you see that you could be doing to sort of eliminate that kind of situation coming to you? Because if there is a good understanding of the system on the first level, the fact is, you don't have to do half of those reviews that come there. I'm sure many of the cases that would come before you would be cases where you'd say, "I don't know how they could not resolve it in the past." Do you see yourself playing any role in that respect?
Ms Fyles: No, Mr Curling, I wouldn't presume to tell the Community and Social Services department how it should operate. It is not, as I see it, the role of SARB to do that.
Mr Curling: May I make a quick suggestion? I think at the time you can make some suggestions because the fact is, when it's coming there and you see evidence of how it could be dealt with better, that it could save the social review -- or make a recommendation to the chair how we can improve that system, because the breakdown is -- do you have a problem with my speaking?
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): No, I just --
The Chair: You're out of time, but --
Mr Mammoliti: I just realized that you're out of time. I'm trying you help you out.
Mr Curling: You're chairing the meeting now, eh?
Mr Mammoliti: I'm just trying to help you out.
The Chair: Did you wish to respond to Mr Curling's question?
Ms Fyles: Yes. I feel there are people whose job it is to look into that question specifically and I think they're better qualified, and in fact it is not our role to do that, if I were to become a member of the board.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm wondering how familiar you are with the workload of the board. Are you familiar with --
Ms Fyles: Yes, I have read the annual report.
Mr McLean: Do you have a fairly good knowledge of the board's operation?
Ms Fyles: Yes, I believe so.
Mr McLean: Have you determined what your role will be as a board member?
Ms Fyles: I think all board members do essentially the same, of course. They interpret the legislation and its regulations and, to the extent that it is permitted by the regulations, they use their discretion in determining whether this appeal should or should not be agreed to.
Mr McLean: A lot of the people who have been in the existing system -- it's complex, it's highly bureaucratic, many applicants for welfare found it confusing and frustrating. Would you term that as being a fact? Do you believe it to be true that clients, when they go for the review, find it frustrating and complex?
Ms Fyles: I only know what I have read, Mr McLean, and I assume that people are saying that because they believe it to be so.
Mr McLean: July 8, 1993, Tony Silipo, the Minister of Community and Social Services, unveiled an ambitious program of reforming welfare. It was called Turning Point. Were you familiar with any report that was made to deal with that very issue?
Ms Fyles: In July 1993?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Ms Fyles: I have a very general knowledge of what was proposed at that time. It was income support programs, I think, and a child support program. But I understand that is no longer part of the program.
Mr McLean: At that time, he argued that the province's traditional social assistance programs no longer worked satisfactorily and he indicated historically welfare programs were introduced as an income program of last resort for those in dire economic need, to provide only temporary emergency assistance. Now the case has become a major program, regulated by hundreds of thousands of Ontarians.
1050
I was at a meeting last night. The meeting I was at was a question and answer. I had some fruit growers who were at that meeting indicating that they cannot get help. With the large unemployment we have in this province, the large amount of people we have on social assistance, he advertised and nobody would apply for his job in market gardening. I find that hard to believe when we have the amount of people we have on assistance.
How do you think we could change the system so individuals would work, perhaps top up or something? There's got to be some way and I'm curious if you have any knowledge of how you would anticipate -- I know it's not your job; you're to review applicants who don't fit. But I'm wondering if you could have some comments with regard to how we could change that system.
Ms Fyles: I really can't comment on that, Mr McLean. I can only assume that they are genuine in their complaint, but the details of it would obviously have to be known, and I have no personal knowledge.
Mr McLean: The other area that concerns me is with regard to the 500,000 children we have on the income program. There's been some recommendations made that the cheques would be sent monthly to all low-income families in Ontario, and the size of the cheque would determine the income of a family. Do you see that role from the ministry and that program as being effective? It's one of the three programs the minister was looking at as an alternative. Would you see that as effective?
Ms Fyles: I understood that was in the July 1993 report and that concept has been abandoned, if not permanently certainly temporarily, and for financial reasons. However, like most of us who are mothers and grandmothers, and grandfathers, I have concerns about the enormous number of children who are on the social assistance rolls. They are the largest single group.
Mr McLean: Two other areas of concern: One is the sponsors under the federal immigration law, which has swamped the Social Assistance Review Board with appeals. Apparently the number of appeals increased by close to 50% last year with those. How would you suggest the board go about trying to change that or the ministry maybe try to change that? As the ministry says, it's only getting 28 cents from the fed government now for dollars. It's a real burden on the province of Ontario. Do you see any way that could be changed?
Ms Fyles: Again, it's not the sort of thing that I would be getting into. I would assume that federal-provincial discussions would be the way to deal with that, if in fact it can be dealt with.
Mr McLean: About 1991 or 1992, there were about 13,000 students on assistance. Today there are over 30,000. As a review officer, do you see that as a major part of your job? We had some instances brought to the Legislature the other day about family members paying their parents rent and living in their same apartment in their residence. That's going to be a major concern, because it's going to get to be a larger and larger problem. How do you see us putting the brakes on something like that?
Ms Fyles: As far as the operations of SARB are concerned, in the situation of interim assistance, of course it's just financial need that is looked at administratively. But if this is an appeal that comes to the board, then many considerations come into it under the act and its regulations. One of those is of course financial need, providing the necessities of life, and also the question of whether, by staying in the home, there is danger or a very inappropriate living environment for a young person.
I think these are the considerations the board is concerned with. Is this a situation where it is better that a young person be out of the home for one of many reasons? I think those are spelled out in the decisions and generally are spelled out in the act and its regulations.
Mr McLean: Those are going to be pretty hard decisions to make, because you'll have the family members saying, "We don't want them here any more," yet they have not been abused or affected and they should really be still living at home. But you have both the student and the parents saying: "We just can't communicate any longer. We're going on our own." Who's going to determine the fact of whether they should be on their own or whether they still should be paid through the family?
Ms Fyles: I think it is the board's role to make that determination and I would suggest that family breakdown is one of the reasons that young people have been awarded assistance. I would assume that in these cases the board's position has been that this family environment is so detrimental to young persons as to affect their lives in a way which cannot be contemplated. So I would say that is the board's role.
Mr McLean: What would you think would be the cause of the increase in student welfare from 13,000 to 30,000 in three years?
Ms Fyles: I'm afraid I can't answer that, Mr McLean. I have no way of knowing.
Mr McLean: Will that be an area that you'll be directing a great deal of attention to? I mean, 30,000 people is a lot of students who are living off -- the taxpayers are paying the shot here and it's going to be hard to determine when you get these appeals.
I know in my community they're appealing all the time what our social assistance field workers are doing. It's frustrating for our field workers. I've never seen a group of people so frustrated as I have now. It's difficult. They can't make a visit to every place that they want to.
When that stopped happening, it exploded the amount of people who were receiving assistance. There are more and more appeals all the time. I see we've hired two or three, but do you think this will be a full-time job?
Ms Fyles: Oh yes, certainly. As far as the appeals in various categories are concerned, of course the board has no control over the appeals that come to it and so there is no way, especially as an arm's-length agency, that it can do anything to control the kinds of appeals that come to it. People are entitled to appeal.
Mr McLean: To cover the whole province of Ontario, do you think the 270 new people who are being hired to investigate all welfare is enough?
Ms Fyles: The question of fraud in the system has been estimated by a person who is probably well qualified to know, that is, Don Richmond, the Metropolitan Toronto commissioner of social services, and he says 1% to 3%, which to me means that 97% to 99% of recipients are honest. I do not regard this as a startling or even extraordinary degree of fraud. But it is also true that 1% represents $60 million, and obviously the province and all of us have to be concerned when those sorts of sums of money are involved.
Mr McLean: What we're looking at then is, perhaps these new people are going to cost more than what we're going to save.
Ms Fyles: That remains to be seen. I don't know what the new people will cost, but the potential is for $180 million a year, if it were 3%.
Mr McLean: And do you think it is?
Ms Fyles: No, I don't have any view on it because I have no way of knowing. I only know, like you, what I read.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr McLean. That was right on, within three seconds. Now we have Mr Marchese and Ms Carter.
Mr Marchese: Ms Fyles, welcome. I want to say that your experience in alternative dispute resolution, or dispute mechanisms, I think will be useful for a number of reasons. One, in a board of this size, where I think there are 33 members --
Ms Fyles: Twenty-five.
Mr Marchese: Twenty-five -- you will always have conflict there, and I suspect that kind of expertise will be very useful in mediating problems even among yourselves. But also in decision-making that kind of knowledge will be helpful, at least in making you more efficient in your ability to make decisions and therefore give faster decisions on issues as opposed to slower. So I think that's useful experience.
I wanted to pick up on what Mr McLean said and make it a statement, because I don't want to frustrate you with policy questions that you obviously cannot answer, nor might you want to answer them. It is not your job to make policy, obviously, but rather to implement the policies as set by the government.
1100
The question that had been raised about the decision by the provincial government last summer to terminate social assistance for landed immigrants: That was simply something the minister had talked about and as a result we got a big blip on the appeals, but I think that has quickly disappeared ever since the modifications have been made to it.
But it alerts the public to the problem we have, that we are getting from the federal government only 28% of the support we used to get under the Canada assistance plan. We used to get 50% in 1990; in 1991, we were getting 42%; in 1992, 32%; 28% in 1993, and it's diminishing. The problem is that we're having an increase in social assistance recipients and the federal government is diminishing its support.
When the minister talks about dealing with the particular issue of terminating social assistance for landed immigrants, he's saying to the federal government: "You have a big responsibility here. Given that you're not giving us the dollars and we are having a higher number of people wanting it or needing it, we're putting out more money than you're giving us, and it is your responsibility to be providing for this." That's part of the history and part of the statement I wanted to make in relation to this question.
But the questions that obviously affect you are the following: The average length of time from the hearing of a case to the mailing of the decision was 73 days, though in March 1993 the average was 47 days, they say. In your opinion, is that too short, too long a time? What would you do about all that?
Ms Fyles: I think it's an amazing improvement, and I would assume this is probably as good as it gets, given the current load the board is facing.
Mr Marchese: The board is empowered to decide whether a hearing panel should be composed of one, two or three members. The annual report says it is the policy to use three-member panels for only the more complex or novel cases. Is it your view -- and I'm not sure whether your experience leads you to understand this well enough -- that we're deploying people correctly or adequately in our ability to deal with individual cases?
Ms Fyles: I believe the institution of a training program for board members and a continuing process of education means that sitting individually is much more likely to be appropriate now than it was in the past when there were no such training programs. Speaking as an outsider with no personal knowledge, I would assume that this is a good way to proceed, to preserve the three-member boards for serious issues and allow two- and one-member boards in other situations. This has been very effective in dealing with backlog and making the board much more efficient, as it is today.
Mr Marchese: And you see yourself dealing with this, obviously, and also getting a sense of what "serious" means in terms of what cases lend themselves to a two- or three-board panel. Do you have a sense of that?
Ms Fyles: As a lawyer, perhaps I do have the advantage of understanding what is important, what is crucial and what may become a big issue, yes. I don't think lawyers are particularly well-endowed with that, but perhaps we have a slight advantage.
Mr Marchese: It says in our research paper, "With the consent of the parties, the board may hold a paper hearing involving written submissions or conference calls." Do you see that as an efficient or effective way to deal with an issue, where you might require people to actually be there in front of you, where you can face them, where you can get a different feel of the person or the particular problem? Do you think this is a useful way to go? Does it present problems you might want to look at?
Ms Fyles: No, I don't think it presents a problem. First of all, it's done with the consent of the person applying or appealing. There are many cases which can be dealt with in this summary fashion, I believe. If the board has found it to be efficient and there has been no problem with the appellants, I think it is perfectly reasonable to proceed this way.
Ms Carter: I understand that there is a policy of having service on this board of only two terms, of three years each, and that despite a few recent exceptions, that policy is to be maintained because of the public perception that board members might get desensitized over time. Do you agree that it is a wise policy to have a limitation of two terms?
Ms Fyles: I am not extremely knowledgeable on the subject of the board's reasons for this, but I certainly think a turnover is desirable. The six-year term of two three-year terms sounds to me quite reasonable. There may be exceptional circumstances where one would like to have a person take a third three-year term, but generally speaking, I have no problem with that.
Ms Carter: This is something that has already been touched on to some degree, but people keep telling us that there is abuse of the social assistance system. The government has recently announced that there will be a stepped-up effort to eliminate abuse. Do you think this will affect the operation of the board in any way?
Ms Fyles: I would certainly expect there to be a great increase in appeals.
Ms Carter: Right. But it won't affect the way in which the board itself comes to decisions.
Ms Fyles: Oh, no. I think the board operates in the same consistent manner, according to the act and its regulations.
Ms Carter: There has been particular concern about interim assistance to young people, 16- and 17-year-olds. On what would you base a judgement whether to give assistance to such a young person who was appealing to the board?
Ms Fyles: The question of interim assistance is dealt with administratively. It's not dealt with by the board members directly; it's dealt with before the appeal, as I'm sure you know. The sole criterion, I understand, is financial need, so that is made purely on that basis. I have noticed in the most recent annual report of the board that only 37% of applicants for interim assistance are granted that assistance.
Ms Carter: So you feel that those who do appeal have been pretty well looked at already.
Ms Fyles: The actual appeal process is quite separate, of course. It is a whole-board process, so it goes into matters other than the financial necessity, the financial needs. It goes into all these other related considerations, such as family breakdown, mental/physical/sexual abuse, but that is of course a full-board appeal process.
The Chair: There's one minute left for the government members. No questions? All right.
Thank you very much, and we appreciate your appearance before the committee, Ms Fyles.
1110
ADRIENNE MARIE KENNEDY
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Adrienne Marie Kennedy, intended appointee as member, Muskoka District Housing Authority.
The Chair: The next intended appointment is Ms Adrienne Marie Kennedy. Welcome to the committee this morning. This is a selection by the third party, so Mr McLean, would you like to start?
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee this morning. I see by your résumé that you've been involved in the Planning Together process, and you've attended the OHC Windsor conference. In what capacity did you attend that?
Ms Adrienne Kennedy: I attended that in just a tenant capacity to gain a perception of maybe the existing problems in the Muskoka District Housing Authority, or problems that don't exist, just to have a comparison.
Mr McLean: What's your occupation?
Ms Kennedy: I am a domestic engineer.
Mr McLean: Where is your employment?
Ms Kennedy: In my home.
Mr McLean: How many complexes does the housing authority in Muskoka have?
Ms Kennedy: It has 222 units.
Mr McLean: Are you familiar with the employees?
Ms Kennedy: Yes, I am.
Mr McLean: Are there certain units that have security tenants? That's interesting to me.
Ms Kennedy: There certainly are in the seniors' building. I'm in the family units myself, and we don't actually have a security tenant. Each tenant has a responsibility to look out for their neighbour and to also phone the housing authority. We have an open communication there as well.
Mr McLean: Are they on the payroll or are they volunteer?
Ms Kennedy: Oh, no. It's a job that every tenant feels they should do.
Mr McLean: The employees, though, will certainly be paid, I'm sure. There will be a manager?
Ms Kennedy: Yes, there is, of our local housing authority, a manager and two assistants.
Mr McLean: I see you have a waiting list of about 200.
Ms Kennedy: Yes, we do.
Mr McLean: Does the manager sit on that committee when you're dealing with priorities for people?
Ms Kennedy: Are you talking about the Planning Together committee?
Mr McLean: I'm talking about people who apply for the housing. I'm sure they apply to the board.
Ms Kennedy: I'm here today to discuss the Planning Together committee. I don't yet know a lot of the processes that go on at the board.
Mr McLean: I thought you were being appointed to the Muskoka District Housing Authority, and you say you're here to discuss the planning committee.
Ms Kennedy: Yes, I am, sir. I am here to apply for membership to the board. I feel my tenant perception would be a valuable tool to the board. I feel it is through my knowledge of the Planning Together process and the committee, that experience, that warrants my membership to the board.
Mr McLean: So you will be dealing with people who have applied to be residents of the housing authority, of the board.
Ms Kennedy: I believe so, and any major decisions concerning the local housing authority, certainly.
Mr McLean: You must be familiar with the operation of the housing authority.
Ms Kennedy: Oh, yes.
Mr McLean: What do you think will be the main issue you would like to deal with?
Ms Kennedy: Self-confidence in tenants, to make them much more confident in their own ideas and opinions, most definitely. That will give them the confidence and self-esteem to make other very important decisions in their lives in other areas as well, be it to further their education, which I am in the process of doing, be it work-related decisions; to give them a broader perception.
Mr McLean: I had a lady in to see me in my office not long ago who was on family benefits. She's trying to upgrade herself. She wants to work. She says, "I have no problem with people who are on assistance, but I have a problem with the people who are on assistance who are not trying to get off it." I think that would probably be the feeling of most people in those --
Ms Kennedy: Most definitely. My heart goes out to them in a certain respect, the fact that they don't feel they have the confidence to move forward. That's definitely something they need to work on.
Mr McLean: Great. I wish you well.
Ms Kennedy: Thank you.
Mr Mammoliti: Welcome, Ms Kennedy. I thought I'd start by saying that I commend you for doing this, coming forward and wanting to sit on such a committee. I wish more tenants like yourself would come out and take the leadership role you've chosen to take. I know, from looking at some of the information in front of me, that you have learned quite a bit over the last few years.
Ms Kennedy: Most definitely.
Mr Mammoliti: You may want to share some of that learning experience with us in terms of what you think you can bring to the board.
Ms Kennedy: There are a lot of issues regarding safety and security, and physical issues regarding tenants, how they feel about where they live, but the most important issue to me is a tenant's self-esteem. Once we can open those lines of communication -- and the Planning Together committee is a very powerful tool to do that. We are at the beginning of sending out our first newsletter, and we're hoping that will begin to initiate a communication between the tenants and the local housing authority. Once the tenants feel confident in communicating their ideas, hopefully they'll get a more positive aspect and outlook about where they live.
Mr Mammoliti: How come you believe in this? Why do you believe in the tenant concept? What experiences have you had otherwise?
Ms Kennedy: I am a tenant of public housing.
Mr Mammoliti: Give me some of the other experiences you may have had before this Planning Together type of approach took place.
Ms Kennedy: It's very interesting. Before I went to the Windsor conference, in the area I lived, it wasn't that I didn't want to be more a part of my housing community; I just didn't know how to do it. There's always been an open communication between the tenants and the housing authority, as of course it is on a much smaller scale than, say, the Toronto area. I think the Planning Together process takes it one step further. Not only can a tenant communicate their ideas regarding day-to-day problems, but it gives them a broader perception in life and in the community as a whole. They are a very real part of that community, and they should be able to have the chance.
Mr Mammoliti: There's been some criticism in terms of the amount of money the government spends on public housing and whether it's worth the money we spend, the bang for the buck, so to speak. Do you believe, if all this unfolds the way you would like to see it unfold, that you may be able to make a difference in terms of how the units are run and the expenditure?
Ms Kennedy: By working with our housing authority?
Mr Mammoliti: By working with the board, yes.
Ms Kennedy: Absolutely. I am a firm believer that some tenants, being a tenant of public housing, are very good at turning one dollar into two. They have the smarts in that area as well, and there is potential there to make a difference, most definitely.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Was it a difficult journey down here this morning in the snow?
Ms Kennedy: Yes, it was.
Ms Harrington: Well, thank you for coming.
I was at that conference in Windsor too, because I was with the Ministry of Housing at that time. I brought with me a couple of women from Niagara Falls who were involved as tenants with the Planning Together committee. I wondered if you might know them: June Barnes and Julia Friesen.
Ms Kennedy: No, I'm sorry, I don't.
Ms Harrington: I want to tell you that it's going to be a difficult role, but please persist. It's very important that you fully participate.
Ms Kennedy: I believe that too.
Ms Harrington: Great. The Planning Together process that's been going on for two and a half years almost has certainly been breaking new ground, trying to open up doors and take away barriers, get people involved, but it's been difficult. How would you suggest it be done differently?
Ms Kennedy: To further get tenants to participate?
Ms Harrington: Yes. Have you seen problems with it or have you suggestions for the Planning Together process?
Ms Kennedy: Actually, I haven't seen any problems with it. Anything that will give tenants the opportunity to voice their concerns and their ideas is a wonderful thing, and all we can do is keep trying. It is a slow process, but tenants have to keep hearing that there is somebody out there who is indeed listening to their ideas. Once they feel that people truly are listening, they will start to come forward.
Ms Harrington: You said "that people are listening." You did get the sense that people were listening?
Ms Kennedy: Yes.
Ms Harrington: Was it the board that was listening, the local housing?
Ms Kennedy: After the amalgamation did not happen between our local housing authority and North Bay, it made the tenants feel that the petition they signed -- they had an opinion, that they would rather their housing authority base office stay in our community for easier accessibility. Once we found out that the amalgamation did not happen, it made the tenants feel, "Yes, there is somebody out there who is listening to us." I think that was a very positive step.
Ms Harrington: We first came out with the work book which had the five different areas of suggestions, one of them being security, discrimination, those types of issues. Did you feel that was helpful, the work book?
Ms Kennedy: Most definitely. Those are of course concerns for every tenant. They're not as serious for us in Muskoka as they would be in a larger area. Our prime concern right now is how tenants feel about themselves. Most definitely that is our prime concern.
1120
Ms Harrington: What is your objective? What would you like to see happen at the board level? You were just saying your goal is to have more choices for tenants in their lives, more self-esteem.
Ms Kennedy: My basic desire is to have more tenants feel they can come forward and communicate their ideas in most of the decision-making efforts that take place regarding their own housing community.
Ms Harrington: Would this entail any changes at the board level?
Ms Kennedy: No.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Could you give us some indication of how much demand you see for housing in your area?
Ms Kennedy: There's definitely a great need for it, obviously, with 222 units and 200 people on the waiting list. We're a smaller area, but yes, there is definitely a demand for more public housing.
Mr Frankford: So you know people who are interested.
Ms Kennedy: Yes, I do.
Mr Mammoliti: That sparked another question. In view of what Dr Frankford just asked, do you believe that if government were to build new housing, it should be reflective of what you've been used to, or do you think we should build with the cooperative type of approach?
Ms Kennedy: I certainly don't think we're quite prepared for the cooperative type of approach. We are travelling down a wonderful road right now, but it's a very slow process. I think we need to get the tenants communicating far more, having a lot more confidence in their own decision-making efforts, before we really go the full extent.
The Chair: Thank you for appearing before --
Mr Curling: Give me a chance.
The Chair: Oops, I'm sorry. That's right.
Mr Curling: I want the opportunity to thank Ms Kennedy for coming forward to serve on this board.
Let me follow up on Mr Mammoliti's question. Maybe I should say first, to put it in perspective, that the government is the second-largest landlord in North America. They're large and they're one of the worst landlords in North America, regardless of what they want to say. If you look at how some of the buildings are maintained, if you look at how it is done, people have quite a few complaints about that landlord, the government.
Building more homes or building more apartments or complexes that are very expensive -- it's even more expensive than when the private sector builds it. There are vacancies within Muskoka now, but the talk is that it's not affordable. Considering that there is rent control in place, do you feel that those who need accommodation would be able to access it if they were given a rent supplement to go out and look for the kind of accommodation they need?
Ms Kennedy: I don't feel I'm knowledgeable enough to answer that question. My knowledge is completely and totally with public housing, because that is where I'm a tenant.
Mr Curling: But while you are focused on public housing, I am focused on accommodation. You said 200-odd people are waiting to get in. They are not concerned where they get into; they want a place. They don't want to wait for the government to start building public housing before they can get in. There is much cheaper access, in a sense, of giving me the supplement so I can access affordable housing somewhere else.
Ms Kennedy: That's where I also feel that tenants' confidence in themselves is a very important aspect too, because once tenants have that confidence in themselves, they can do anything they choose to do. They can get a higher-paying job, they can pick and choose the home they would like to move to. You would definitely see far more movement in the waiting list in that area as well.
Mr Curling: Do you feel that people living in these homes are in transit on the way to other accommodation, or do you see it as somewhere they could make a permanent home?
Ms Kennedy: Well, I look at my unit as my home. It's not just some place we go every day; it's our home. I also feel that if it was not for public housing, I would not have been able to take the time to sit back, to learn how to be the parent I want to be, and not only that, but be the kind of role model I know my children deserve. I had the time to sit back and really take a good look at the educational system. I know I want to further my education, and I realized that by being so concerned about my children's education. If it wasn't for public housing, I wouldn't have been able to come to this point in my life right now. I know that.
Mr Curling: It's wonderful, and I think it's compulsory that we must have some access to affordable housing. Having done that -- and you're so confident, and I want to commend you for coming before some rather intimidating people here. Now that you have reached this, do you see that housing should be able to afford you to do this and that you now move out, or do you see that public housing should be a permanent place for people to reside?
Ms Kennedy: If that's what they feel they need. All tenants will come to the point where their confidence level is raised, and yes, they will probably move on. That is a slow process. It's not a matter of a tenant moving in there and living there for two or three years and moving out and everything is okay. It's a slow process. They have to change their whole way of thinking. It takes quite a while.
Mr Curling: Let me give you a revolutionary thought, and I'm sure you have it in mind too. If the government was offering those units for sale and you got an opportunity to buy those units, would you buy one?
Ms Kennedy: If I was working at a good job and I could afford those units, yes, I probably would. I would like to own my own home, like I'm sure anybody else in Ontario would.
Mr Curling: If someone is living there for five or 10 years and, because they consider this their home, if the government said, "All those who are living there for 10 years or more, we will give you the opportunity to buy these units at a market rent or just below market rent because you're there," would that be a good process for government to move towards?
Ms Kennedy: I don't really think I know enough about it. Anything like that would be a wonderful opportunity for a tenant, like it would be for anyone else. It would depend on whether the tenant could afford it and whether they were prepared to take on the responsibility.
Mr Curling: You've been living in these units for some time --
Mr Frankford: That's what Margaret Thatcher did.
Mr Curling: Hers was all botched up anyhow.
Ms Carter: She botched it up.
The Chair: Excuse me. We don't have interjections.
Mr Curling: Let me retrieve my thought. Would you say the landlord you have is a good landlord?
Ms Kennedy: Most definitely. The housing authority office in Bracebridge is an excellent one.
Mr Curling: Do they keep the place very good? Is it maintained properly?
Ms Kennedy: Yes, wonderfully well.
Mr Curling: Do they have the tenants participating effectively?
Ms Kennedy: Most definitely. The tenants are really beginning to take pride in where they live, to look at those units like they're not just units but their homes.
Mrs O'Neill: Ms Kennedy, you keep talking about a sense of self-worth. I don't really think it's only public housing occupants who have that problem in 1994.
Ms Kennedy: Of course not. We're lucky, though; we do have the avenue because of public housing.
Mrs O'Neill: That seems to be one of your goals, and I certainly think it should be a goal of anybody who's accepting a leadership position. Could you tell us some of the things that you have either done in the last year or would do in your role of housing authority member to increase that sense of self-worth of the people who would, really, become dependent on you?
Ms Kennedy: Most definitely. I do believe that we need to promote ourselves to the community as a whole to show them that our worries and our concerns are the same as theirs, be it that we want our children to be safe when they're playing out in the community; that we would like to see the crime level as low as everyone else would. We could do that through Block Parents, through Neighbourhood Watch, through PC COPS, which is a computerized telephone service, as well. I think that's a very positive step towards doing that, and that'll be included in the Planning Together committee's tenant handbook, as well as creating that line of communication which we're hoping that our first newsletter will initiate.
1130
The Chair: Any more questions?
Mr Curling: Yes. Again, you're educating the everyday tenants themselves about what happens day to day. In your area, who are the people who need accommodation mostly there? Is it families or single people who need accommodation?
Ms Kennedy: I come from the family units. I'm a tenant in the family units, sir, so where I live, we're all family units.
Mr Curling: Is there demand on family units more?
Ms Kennedy: Pardon me? Could you repeat that, please?
Mr Curling: I know, the acoustics here are very bad. Is there a demand for family units more so than single units in Muskoka?
Ms Kennedy: I really don't know the answer to that.
Mr Curling: The reason I ask is because I think Mr Mammoliti asked about co-operative housing and I think you agree -- you said no. But I think you do agree. Dare I say that? I think, actually, the co-operative homes themselves have been in co-ops with organizations coming together with government to build the kind of non-profit housing instead of building all those little high-rises and government owning it all out. But for non-profit groups, building non-profit housing, do you believe that's a good way for the government to go?
Ms Kennedy: Eventually, yes, most definitely, sir, absolutely. But as I said before, it's a slow process; most definitely. It's not something that should happen overnight; most definitely.
Mr Curling: So you think that non-profit groups in the area are not supportive to tenants as much?
Ms Kennedy: Absolutely not, but I think the tenants need to be the ones to begin communicating their ideas, to find that confidence in themselves to move forward as well.
Mr Mammoliti: It's going to take a while for the tenants to be educated that way.
Ms Kennedy: Most definitely, yes.
Mr Curling: Thank you for coming and I wish you well. I see some of the things you are doing here. I think it's really down in the grass roots where you can identify with some of the issues.
Ms Kennedy: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Kennedy, for appearing before the committee this morning.
JOHN BUTCHER
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: John Butcher, intended appointee as member, Council of the College of Medical Laboratory Technologists of Ontario.
The Chair: I'd like to invite our next intended appointment, Mr John Butcher. Good morning, Mr Butcher. This appointment is as a member of the Council of the College of Medical Laboratory Technologists of Ontario. This was a selection by the government members. Dr Frankford, would you like to start?
Mr Frankford: Good morning. I realize this is a new college, so I guess you haven't had any direct contact with it as yet. You're a lay appointee, but presumably you've had some chance to look at the legislation and perhaps also to discuss the particular characteristics of laboratory technologists.
Mr John Butcher: Yes, just a bit though. I'm very, very new to the area.
Mr Frankford: Do you have any thoughts about the needs of laboratory technologists as a distinct profession?
Mr Butcher: I'll tackle it, I guess, from the perspective of what appear to be some of the needs of professions. I worked for a number of years for the Canada Council of Professional Engineers, which is the national association of all of the provincial licensing bodies. If I understand the situation with medical laboratory technologists, and I put it in that context, I guess what it seems that people need is some sense of the standards of the profession, the sense of ensuring that the public health and safety is protected through the standards and the competencies, that kind of thing, within the mandate of what I understand to be the college's life.
That seems to be where our concentration is, around protecting public health and safety, around ensuring the standards for entry and the maintenance of registration, any other needs that technologists have. I understand there are other organizations that also work with them to help satisfy those other needs.
Mr Frankford: I'm a member of another profession myself. I think one of the characteristics of laboratory technologists is that essentially they're all employees, which does not apply to all professions, many of which are much more self-employed. I've heard the question raised about a double jeopardy, that there is a responsibility to the employer, the possibility of being disciplined by the employer, and then the fact that there's a college as well. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr Butcher: I don't know the culture of medical laboratory technologists very well, obviously, but I do know the culture of engineering. The vast majority of professional engineers are employed in organizations. How they handle that double jeopardy is, within the tensions of day-do-day life and the decisions we make, very much their first priority is to uphold the standards of their profession. When those conflict with pressures from their employer, they clearly have a choice to make. But as a member of the engineering profession, and if the culture of the medical laboratory technologist profession is the same, their first responsibility would be to uphold the standards of the profession which has given them a protected title and all of the privileges that go with that. Engineering, facing the same situation as you describe, handles it that way.
Mr Frankford: So you would see that the professional standard in many ways becomes the predominant one.
Mr Butcher: Yes.
Mr Frankford: Presumably, this would give more clout to the technologists themselves to say, "This is what I want to do or what I can do in my professional role," which perhaps can override what their employer might be demanding of them.
Mr Butcher: Once again, sir, in the engineering field, if I can lay that template over here, part of the cost of the privilege of being a self-regulating profession is exactly what you describe. The priorities are the standards of the profession. Once again, as I said, I don't know the culture of the medical laboratory technologist profession, but my experience with another profession is that there's no ambiguity about that and that's part of the responsibility that comes with being a member of a self-regulating profession.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Mr Butcher, once you are appointed, what would be your priority in your role as an appointment to this agency and this commission? What kinds of things are you looking for?
Mr Butcher: If I understand the role of the public members properly, our role is to make sure that the legislation, the standards of the profession and the concerns for public health and safety that are hooked on to those are upheld. That's our primary priority.
Mr Malkowski: Do you have any particular area of interest that you would pursue as a member of the council?
Mr Butcher: No. At this time I don't have a particular area other than being a responsible and contributing member of the council of the college.
Ms Carter: I'd like to welcome you particularly as an alumnus of Trent, since I'm the member for Peterborough and I've had strong connections with Trent. It's always nice to see Trent people appearing in the big wide world, which they frequently do.
Obviously, you have a special role as a non-professional member of this council. Part of that may be, as you've just suggested, upholding the public interest where there might be a more narrow professional interest that some of the other members might want to uphold. What have you in your background that makes you a good candidate to fill that kind of responsibility?
1140
Mr Butcher: Again, when I was anticipating a question like that, I was thinking back, and one I've referred to with Dr Frankford's question, around just experience in watching a self-regulating profession operate; in that case, engineering.
I guess the other three things I would bring are, one, a lot of experience both as a member of and a consultant to groups, organizations or committees which are tackling similar questions in similar environments.
The second thing is, it's always, depending on your view of the previous night's hockey game -- I spent many years as a hockey referee and referee-in-chief and chairing discipline committees when players attempted to dislodge parts of other players' anatomies with their sticks and that kind of thing, so working in that environment of high emotion and potential conflict.
I guess the third thing is just, both through inclination and training, the ability to do a reasonable job at sorting through complex issues and pulling out what appear to be the cores of those issues and then addressing them rather than being distracted by all the noise around a lot of issues that people come and feel strongly about. I guess those would be the three things.
Ms Carter: There is a tendency for what you might call lay members of such bodies to be co-opted, and I think you might need quite a lot of strength and experience to adhere to your role as what you might call a public watchdog.
Mr Butcher: I always recommend hockey refereeing as good occupational training for any kind of situation like that.
The second thing, though, that as a public member we need to be conscious of is that sharing a perspective with someone else does not mean you've been co-opted by that other person. It may mean that, all things considered, you share that perspective. What I wouldn't want to see and what I do not expect would occur is that public members are somehow assessed by their contrariness to whatever anyone else within the profession is talking about. That seems to be an equally unproductive course to take. As public members, part of our responsibility is to sort through that noise, to keep in mind the mandate and the responsibility of the council and to then help to push decisions that we feel are most consistent with those two things. Who we happen to be in agreement with at any one time is less relevant than how we came to the decision or the perspective that we've come to.
Mr Curling: Thank you for coming before us, Mr Butcher. I'm trying to understand, as I read over and over again the work and the mandate of the council, the College of Medical Laboratory Technologists. Maybe you could help me. I know you've explained a couple of things here, how you perceive it to be and understand it to be in adhering to carrying out the regulations and policies of the government or whatever came down through their policy.
Would you in any way, or this council in any way, assist in academic curriculum for the technologists when they're going through making recommendations to universities or our colleges that are graduating technologists? Would that be part of the role too, to make any kind of a recommendation to them?
Mr Butcher: Right now, I wouldn't want to anticipate what the college will do or what the council of the college will recommend. But if part of the mandate of the college is not only to ensure that the people entering the profession meet certain standards and qualifications but also that over time there's some assurance to the public that they've maintained those, then the question of how to ensure that technologists maintain the standards they had when they entered the profession, and to the extent that this often rolls into questions of curriculum that educational institutions have to grapple with themselves, I see a relationship there. I wouldn't want to anticipate too tightly exactly how that will play out.
Mr Curling: I understand that. So you don't approve technologists. This thing will come through the normal process of being one who is a graduate technologist. This council itself doesn't put the stamp of approval that says, "You are now a technologist," but more or less you maintain the discipline of what a technologist would be. But you would not say -- you know, like doctors and lawyers, they go through all this internship kind of thing, and then they say, "Now you shall be." The council doesn't play any role of approval when one becomes a technologist then.
Mr Butcher: Well, if I understand correctly, the college has the responsibility to determine which people who claim to be medical laboratory technologists have access to the protected title that comes with the legislation. So while the college would not say that you or I are technologists, the college's mandate is to say that you or I, or both of us, are medical laboratory technologists in the sense of the protected title, which brings with it certain expectations about our competence and the standards of our education and that kind of thing. So the college certainly, if I understand correctly, decides who gets to wear the protected title.
Mr Curling: Yes. I know sometimes it is difficult to determine how one becomes a technologist or a professional, and I would like to identify in some committee, in some council, who can assist. The reason I say that -- and let me maybe explain myself better -- I know access to professions is sometimes impaired by some systemic discrimination. Women have a difficult time getting into some of the professions and some other minorities also have a difficult time getting into the professions.
I just wondered if this council in any way would have played a role -- maybe I'll not ask you to answer the question. The thought comes in my mind that some inference or some observation could be also placed on who gets in, who maintains and who must come out --
Mr Butcher: I see.
Mr Curling: -- if they're not adhering to or adopting the kind of discipline that is laid down. Do you see a council like that playing that kind of role -- I don't want to call it control -- but assisting in people accessing those professions?
Mr Butcher: My understanding of one of the strengths of all of the self-regulating professions from a public perspective is that they're standards-based and they're not based on some willy-nilly assessment of you or me as individuals. Those standards are clear and they're published and anyone who wishes to enter into a self-regulating profession as a practitioner has to meet those standards.
Now, I've flagged that I have experience in the engineering world and so it would be naïve in the extreme to say that, just because the standards for entry to engineering are explicit and public, women don't have a terrible time accessing that system because of the culture of engineering schools and a whole bunch of other things.
I don't have a clear sense of where the college, as a college, given its mandate of primarily public protection, would intervene to address the kind of systemic concerns that you're talking about. I wouldn't say the college has no role; I'm not in a position today to share what that role would be.
Mr Curling: Yes, I am sensitive to the fact that you are aware of these kind of systemic barriers that do exist in the access to the profession itself. One little quibble question itself, meaning that midwives -- do you think the name should be changed?
Mr Butcher: To what?
Mr Curling: This is what I --
Mr Butcher: Frankly, that's a question I've never thought of before. No, I don't have any sense of whether "midwives" is a good title for that profession or not.
Mr Curling: I know that they will be coming under your council too as a matter of how they behave and what have you. I have a difficulty seeing a man going around being a midwife. So I'm just wondering that.
I don't have any other questions. Thank you for coming forward.
1150
Mr McLean: Welcome, Mr Butcher. I just have a couple of questions that concern me. Medical laboratory technologists in Ontario: They're now licensed?
Mr Butcher: If I understand, they're now a selfregulating profession under the terms of the various acts that have been passed.
Mr McLean: My understanding now is that there are some hospitals that have clinics whereby they would take blood and have it sent away to be tested. I had the experience some time ago when I went to the MDS lab to have some tests done that the tests ended up in three different locations. Part of it was done in Orillia, part of it was done in Barrie and the rest of it was done in Toronto. Are you aware of those types of things going on within the industry?
Mr Butcher: No, I'm not. I don't have a lot of experience as a consumer of the professional services that medical laboratory technologists provide, except with the usual blood tests and that kind of thing.
One of the things that will always be important for a college like this one or any of the other ones to do is, as they used to say in the planning trade, to stick to the knitting. To the extent that there are organizational issues within the health care system that are not issues around the professional competence of technologists, then what the college will probably have is a difficult time fitting those kinds of questions into its priorities for action.
So the kind of scenario you describe, to the extent that it reflected inadequate qualifications, that would be one issue. To the extent that it reflected organizational decisions or other things, that would be another issue, and my bias would be not to tie them together.
Mr McLean: I was kind of curious, because I took the opportunity to write to OHIP, which individuals can do, to find out the costs that have been charged against your number. It ended up about $127 for those three different tests. To me, it seemed like it should have been done in one place. Each hospital maybe should have had a lab where they could do all these tests, but that's not the case, apparently. So these laboratories that are set up are doing spot ones, and then we go on and do others at a great cost to our health care system.
Mr Butcher: Yes. As an observation, I understand the experience that you had. One of the understandings as well that all the self-regulating professions have is the capacity to make clear and to allow more access to interdisciplinary work within a profession. To the extent, once again, that the situation you were in reflected difficulties in getting one person the qualifications to do all of the things that you mentioned, that would be a different question than just questions around the organization of delivery.
Mr McLean: The ministry has launched a laboratory services review to scrutinize government spending on laboratory services. Apparently the report is done, and nobody has seen it yet. I would hope that you would take the opportunity to review that, and perhaps there are some points in there where you may be able to scrutinize the cost to the government of how that's taken place.
I wish you well. Thank you.
Mr Butcher: Thank you very much.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: We have two final items to deal with this morning. The first thing I want to do is go back to the subcommittee report that was moved at the beginning of the meeting, because one of the appointees, it has been brought to our attention, Susan Copeland, who was selected by the official opposition, her appointment is as a full-time person to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal. The Premier's secretariat has brought to our attention that Ms Copeland did appear before this committee a year ago when she was appointed as a part-time appointee to that same tribunal, so I think Mr Curling is willing to move a motion to make a change.
Mr Curling: May I move the motion that Susan Copeland be replaced by Sister Richard, who is coming before us from the Collingwood and Area Housing Authority. She'd be nominated as a member and chair.
The Chair: I think, first of all, we need a motion to reconsider the subcommittee report that we approved this morning, and if there is unanimous consent to reconsider the report we've already approved -- is there unanimous consent? There is. So now we'll deal with the motion to replace Ms Copeland with --
Mr Curling: -- with Sister Richard.
The Chair: -- Sister Gisele Richard --
Mr Curling: The Collingwood and Area Housing Authority.
The Chair: -- who is actually on the list that we will be reviewing today for selections.
All in favour of that motion? That motion is carried.
Now we would like a motion for this morning's four appointees, either collectively or individually.
Mr Marchese: I move concurrence in all of the names.
The Chair: All right. Mr Marchese has moved the appointment of Mr Henry (Harry) Hynd as a member of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency; Ms Freda Fyles as a full-time member and vice-chair of the Social Assistance Review Board; Ms Adrienne Marie Kennedy as a member of the Muskoka District Housing Authority; and Mr John Butcher as a member of the Council of the College of Medical Laboratory Technologists of Ontario. All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any?
Mr Curling and Mr McLean, you haven't indicated in either of those votes. Are you in favour of that motion?
Mr Curling: Collectively, I can't vote on all of those. I'm not in favour of two of them.
The Chair: All right. You have to vote if you're staying at the table. If you're not going to vote, you have to withdraw from the table.
Mr Mammoliti: I would like to know who he's opposed to. Who are you opposed to?
Mr Curling: You're doing it collectively --
Mr Mammoliti: I want to know.
The Chair: That motion is carried. Mr Curling, you can't leave because we need you for the subcommittee meeting. I realize that you both withdrew from the table for the purposes of the vote. That motion is carried.
If someone would like to move adjournment of the meeting --
Mr Marchese: I move adjournment.
The Chair: -- the subcommittee members to remain. Thank you for your attendance today. That motion is carried.
The committee adjourned at 1159.