INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
DONALD H. GORDON
CONTENTS
Wednesday 9 October 1996
Subcommittee report
Appointments review process
Intended appointments
Donald H. Gordon
Paul Beaudry
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président: Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
*Mr RickBartolucci (Sudbury L)
*Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
*Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
*Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
*Mr GaryFox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings /
Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)
*Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)
*Mr BertJohnson (Perth PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Mr FloydLaughren (Nickel Belt ND)
*Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
*Mr DanNewman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
*Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
*Mr TonySilipo (Dovercourt ND)
*Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)
*In attendance /présents
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Mr SergioMarchese (Fort York ND)
Mr BudWildman (Algoma ND)
Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1002 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): We have first of all the report of the subcommittee on business dated October 1. You have that report before you on the beige paper.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): Mr Chair, I'd like to move its adoption.
The Chair: There's a motion before the committee. Can we deal with that? You've heard the motion. Are you ready for the question on whether or not to accept the subcommittee report? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
The second item of business is beginning the review of intended appointments.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW PROCESS
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'm visiting the committee, I'm not a member of the committee, but I came because of my role as education and training critic for our caucus. I understood that the committee was going to be considering an appointment to the Education Quality and Accountability Office this morning. As you know, this is an office that has had the support of all three political parties and has been worked on for some time.
Over the last year and a half the chair, Mr Johnston, was working as a volunteer to assist in gearing up this office and getting it going for the Minister of Education and Training, Mr Snobelen, and I understood that Mr Johnston was to appear this morning for the committee to consider his appointment. I wanted to participate in the discussion of Mr Johnston's qualifications and his role in the setting up of the Education Quality and Accountability Office, and I understand that the agenda has been changed. I'd like to know why and when we will be considering Mr Johnston's appointment.
The Chair: Just so all members are aware, there was a letter sent October 8, yesterday, to the Clerk of the Assembly from the general manager of the public appointments secretariat, Marilyn Sharma. It reads, "This is to inform you that one item included in the September 12, 1996, memorandum has been withdrawn, and, therefore, should not be considered," and that's the appointment of Richard Johnston to the Education Quality and Accountability Office. That's why he is not appearing before the committee, because his intended appointment has been withdrawn.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm very troubled by this. I have a number of questions that I'd like to get some answers to and I'm not sure whether anyone here can answer them. I see the letter that you're referring to that we've received. This whole thing strikes me as somewhat odd. We have a process that we follow, not just as a committee but as a Legislative Assembly, that involves the cabinet making decisions about who its intended appointees are for various bodies. Then that list comes to this committee. It goes to the subcommittee. Through the subcommittee we then decide which, if any, of those intended appointees we wish to review. We made a decision following that process to ask -- it was the government caucus, I believe, that made the decision -- that Mr Johnston come before the committee, as is their right to do. The day before I gather something happened, and then the day before the committee is to meet we are notified that something has changed here.
I'd just like to get some answers. Perhaps Mr Wood, as the caucus whip, can shed some light on this. I think there are some substantive issues of process, let alone the question of Mr Johnston in terms of his appointment or not to this body, or reappointment in this case. I have some significant questions around how this whole issue developed and I'd like some answers.
The Chair: Obviously the Chair cannot provide the answers to you. I know what I saw in the letter. I don't know whether one of the government members wishes to address this issue or not.
Mr Bob Wood: The procedure is fairly simple. An order in council is passed, and before that can be submitted to the Lieutenant Governor for signature it has to be submitted to this committee. If it's withdrawn from the committee, it cannot be submitted to the Lieutenant Governor for signature. That's obviously what has happened here.
Mr Wildman: That may be what happened, but the question is why.
Mr Bob Wood: That's certainly a question you're entitled to ask and I think that should be addressed to the public appointments secretariat.
Mr Wildman: Surely, as someone who is not a part of this committee but who has been around this place for some time, it seems to me that it is not the place of the public appointments secretariat to determine what this committee does or does not do and who they should or should not bring before the committee. If the government caucus wished to bring Mr Johnston or anyone else before the committee, or if an opposition caucus wished to do that, on the understanding that the person is to be appointed to a government office, then what happened here? That's what I want to know. You say obviously his order-in-council appointment was not proceeded with. When was this decision made?
Mr Bob Wood: What happened was that the rules and standing orders of the House were followed. We have no jurisdiction to review an appointment that's not submitted to us. This appointment was withdrawn and we have no jurisdiction to review it. That's what the standing orders say.
1010
Mr Silipo: On the same point, Mr Chair: I beg to differ and I want to just point out to Mr Wood and members of the committee what we have in front of us. These order-in-council appointments come to us, under the normal process, under a covering letter signed by the Premier of the province which says to us, "Attached are the intended order-in-council appointments which received cabinet approval on" whatever the date is. I don't know what the date was here with respect to Mr Johnston, but I'm sure the clerk could give us that information.
The only other thing we have on the record is a letter from Marilyn Sharma, the general manager of the public appointments secretariat. It's interesting that this letter does not indicate that cabinet has reversed that order in council, just that it has been withdrawn. So I beg to differ very strongly with Mr Wood in his assertion that the process has been followed. I have no indication in front of me that the order in council has been revoked, which I suggest is what would have had to happen for us not to be able to proceed to deal with this matter. Otherwise, as a committee we made a decision, and I think it's incumbent upon us to proceed in respecting the process that we have established as a committee and that the rules of the House provide that we follow.
Mr Bob Wood: The standing orders are quite clear. The cabinet has no obligation to submit anything to the committee. If they don't submit it to the committee, they can't submit it to the Lieutenant Governor for signature. That's how the system works.
Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, maybe you need to rule on this. The process, as I understand it, is that it's not up to cabinet to decide what they submit to the committee; all intended appointees have to be submitted to the committee. The committee then decides which, if any, of those intended appointees it chooses to review.
The Chair: Perhaps I can be, I hope, somewhat helpful here. When they talk about the September 12 memorandum, I can only assume they mean the certificate that came from the cabinet, signed by the Premier, dated September 12. What this is indicating is that the certificate has been withdrawn. That's how I would interpret the letter, that the certificate with that name has been withdrawn. Therefore, under the rules it would be, it seems to me, whether we like it or not, inappropriate for him to appear before this committee if there is no certificate, because it's been withdrawn. I think that's what the memo means.
Mr Bob Wood: I would support what you just said, Mr Chairman, and add that this is how the system works. If they choose to withdraw it, they can't submit it to the Lieutenant Governor for signature. That's how the system works. You're certainly entitled to your opinion as to whether the standing orders of the House should be revised or they shouldn't, but the standing orders are quite clear, and that's how it works.
Mr Silipo: With all due respect, I'm not talking about revising the orders; I'm talking about following the orders.
Mr Bob Wood: In that case, the procedure followed has been correct and the Chair is quite right.
Mr Silipo: I'm not questioning the ruling of the Chair; I am simply trying to understand how it is that a simple letter from the general manager of the public appointments secretariat can replace a cabinet order in council. If that letter were to say that the cabinet has reversed its earlier decision, I wouldn't agree with the decision, but I could understand the orders and the processes having been followed. In this case, I suggest that there is certainly at least some ambiguity, if not some outright confusion, about whether this letter that we've received from Marilyn Sharma clearly indicates -- I don't think it does -- that the cabinet has reversed its decision. If that's what has happened, then I'd like to know that. I'd obviously like to know the reasons why that happened, but that's, as I say, another set of discussions. Is Mr Wood saying that cabinet reversed the decision to appoint Mr Johnston? Is that how he's interpreting this letter?
Mr Bob Wood: I'm interpreting the letter to mean exactly what it says. The cabinet has no obligation to submit these to the committee, but if they don't submit them to the committee they can't submit them to the Lieutenant Governor for signature. That's how the standing order is drawn.
Mr Silipo: With all due respect, I've sat around the cabinet table. I know that you can't undo a decision of cabinet without a further decision of cabinet. You can't just have somebody else outside of cabinet decide that a decision that's been made, especially an order in council -- I mean, there is a legal meaning to that term and you can't just have somebody else decide that they're going to withdraw something that's been a decision made by cabinet unless that goes back to cabinet and cabinet says, "Yes, upon reflection, for whatever reasons, we want to undo that decision and make another decision." That's the point I'm making.
If you're not able to tell me that cabinet reversed itself on this, then I would like to get some further clarification. I would like to ask that someone, whether it's Marilyn Sharma or somebody from Cabinet Office or the minister responsible, somebody, appear before the committee and explain to us what's going on here.
The Chair: I don't want to get into the debate myself, but I do have something further to say. But Mr Wildman was next on the list and then Mr Preston.
Mr Wildman: As I understand it, the certificate that was considered by the committee included Mr Johnston. Is that correct?
The Chair: I'm sorry, were you talking to me?
Mr Wildman: Yes. When the committee was considering which appointments would be considered, you had a certificate that said Mr Johnston was going to be appointed.
The Chair: Correct, but here's what I was going to say; maybe I'll say it now. We did not have an order in council, we had a certificate. So we need to be clear. It's my understanding that there's a difference between an order in council and a certificate.
Mr Wildman: Exactly. That's what I --
The Chair: What we had before us was a certificate for an intended appointment; then presumably the order in council would follow the certificate when it went through the committee. It seems to me that would be the logical way with which it would proceed.
Mr Wildman: The certificate is in essence an indication of an intended order in council being passed by cabinet.
The Chair: I suppose that's what --
Mr Bob Wood: I don't think that's correct.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Wildman: I have before me a memorandum from the Premier dated October 3, which says:
"Re: Order-in-council appointments
"I am attaching information on intended order-in-council appointments to agencies, boards and commissions, which received cabinet approval on October 2.
"Yours sincerely,
"Michael D. Harris, MPP"
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. Let Mr Wildman finish.
Mr Wildman: So we have before us a letter from the Premier, signed by his own hand, which says there was an intended order-in-council appointment which received approval of cabinet on October 2.
Now, we also have before us a letter or a memo signed by Marilyn Sharma, the general manager of public appointments secretariat, which says:
"This is to inform you that one item included in the September 12, 1996, memorandum" -- that's a memorandum from her, I suspect -- "has been withdrawn, and, therefore, should not be considered."
Now, what we are attempting to find out here is what happened between October 3 --
Interjection.
Mr Wildman: Oh, this is a different one. Okay.
The Chair: I don't think, Mr Wildman, that the September 12 memorandum would have been signed by her.
Mr Silipo: No. I think that would have been signed by the Premier.
Mr Wildman: Oh, it was signed by the Premier. Okay. Good. So I had the wrong date.
So the Premier signed a memo on September 12 for an intended order in council to be passed by cabinet, based on a decision of cabinet --
The Chair: And that's what leads to the certificate.
Mr Wildman: Yes, and we now have a letter from the public appointments secretariat manager saying it's been withdrawn. Now, it would seem very odd to me that anyone would suggest that Ms Sharma would overrule Mr Harris, so if she is sending such a memo it must be based on some decision of cabinet. My question then is, when was the decision of cabinet taken to overrule the previous decision? Did cabinet meet yesterday and decide to withdraw the intended order in council, the certificate? If cabinet did meet yesterday and that's what happened, then Mr Wood is quite right.
Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, that really is --
The Chair: I'm sorry. I want to stick to the speaking list. It's not fair -- are you finished?
Mr Wildman: I'll just finish off by saying if cabinet met yesterday and withdrew the decision or reversed its previous decision, Mr Wood is correct. If, however, cabinet has not yet met but we just have this memorandum from Ms Sharma, then the process has not been followed properly and we should get an explanation.
The Chair: I have Mr Preston and Mr Leadston on this.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Basically the same question: Who does have authority to withdraw the certificate?
The Chair: The certificate is signed by the Premier, so presumably he would have the authority to withdraw what he had signed. It's not the equivalent of a cabinet order in council, but it's an intended appointment by cabinet which the Premier signs. That becomes a certificate which then gets forwarded to us.
1020
Mr Preston: I would think the general manager of public appointments secretariat would not do this on her own. I would think it would be with some kind of direction. So whoever withdrew it, withdrew it with permission of the endorsee. What's the problem?
Mr Wildman: We just want to know who.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): And how and why.
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): Mr Chairman, procedurally, I think it's very -- I'm not trying to stymie the conversation or their purpose, but my sense is that out of courtesy to the gentleman who is here and the other appointee, could we not continue with the interview with the appointees, then obviously have a follow-up discussion with the points raised by the members opposite?
Mr Wildman: What about courtesy to Mr Johnston?
Mr Leadston: Well, Mr Johnston's not here.
Mr Wildman: For obvious reasons.
Mr Leadston: These individuals are here. I think it's quite a discourteous affront to the appointees who are here, anxiously awaiting to be interviewed. I'm not saying that we know -- I don't want to hear them continue this discussion, no.
Mr Wildman: With respect, Mr Chair, I believe this memorandum to be a discourtesy to this committee.
Mr Leadston: I believe we've had others.
The Chair: Are there any other speakers on this point of order that's been raised?
Mr Silipo: Yes, Mr Chair, I want to correct myself because it's obvious that when I was saying earlier that there had been an order in council, that isn't correct and so I just want to be clear. But I think the point that I was making still holds, which is that the Premier does not sign that letter and attach those intended orders in council without a cabinet decision. So the essence of the argument that I'm making and Mr Wildman is making is still there, which is that the decisions were made by cabinet to intend to appoint these individuals. I think I need to see something that tells me that cabinet has reversed that decision as it applies to Mr Johnston. I think one can assume perhaps that Miss Sharma would not write the latter unless that had happened, but I quite frankly want to see something that compares to what we get originally.
I think it's important that the committee's process be respected because this is not a case where, before the committee dealt with this issue in terms of whether to review Mr Johnston's intended appointment or not, there had been a change in cabinet decision. This happened after. This happened in fact on the eve of the committee doing its part in the process.
I think that out of respect to the committee, there should be some clarification as to what happened here. I would like at some point, when you're willing to accept it -- and this may also answer Mr Preston's concern, because I don't want to hold people up either -- but I think it's important that we get some answers and so I would be prepared to move and would like to move that we ask the appropriate officials or ministers to appear before the committee and to explain what's happened in this instance.
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I don't think it's permissible to make a motion when you're on a point of order.
The Chair: In order or out of order, may I make a suggestion to the committee? Why don't we have the clerk of the committee write a letter from the committee asking for an explanation of the events that took place that led to the withdrawal of the certificate? This letter is on the Office of the Premier's letterhead, so I think it's fairly clear where it came from. But if that would help the committee, we could write a letter, presumably to the Premier, asking for an explanation for the withdrawal of the certificate.
Mr Silipo: If that's acceptable to members of the committee, that would be fine.
Mr Bob Wood: No, that's not acceptable. The rules have been followed. It may be that some have a different interpretation of the rules and they're certainly entitled to that. It's certainly open to any member to ask whatever they want of the Premier's office, but it's quite obvious the rules have been followed. I think anyone who takes an objective look at the rules will see they have been followed. You pass the order in council. The Premier's office then decides whether or not to submit it to the committee. They don't have to submit it to the committee. But if they do not --
Mr Silipo: That's not true. They have no choice about when to submit it to the committee.
Mr Bob Wood: Yes, they do.
Mr Silipo: Go read the rules.
Mr Bob Wood: I have. That's what I'm inviting you to do. If they choose not to submit it to the committee, they can't submit the name to the Lieutenant Governor.
Mr Silipo: They have no choice but to submit it to the committee.
The Chair: Order, please. You're saying the same thing because if the name doesn't come to the committee, it doesn't go any further.
Mr Silipo: Exactly. So what's the point, then?
Mr Bob Wood: They point is, they can submit this to the committee if they wish to and they can withdraw it if they wish to and as soon as they withdraw it --
Mr Silipo: Mr Wood, the Chair has made what I think is a sensible suggestion. If you want to block that, you'll pay the price for that.
Mr Bob Wood: We will do precisely that.
Mr Silipo: I will put my motion at some point.
The Chair: Okay. Let's hear from Mr Crozier.
Mr Crozier: I've been listening to this with great interest and I just wanted to add my observations, and that is that I would feel more comfortable if, having received a memorandum signed by the Premier, then subsequently having received a letter, albeit it came on the Premier's office's letterhead -- we all know of occasions throughout just even a short history where letters are written by staff that eventually we find aren't authorized by the person on whose behalf they're being written. Therefore, I would feel much more comfortable and I can't imagine why this committee would not ask the Premier to answer over his own signature. I would feel more comfortable if, having first received it from the Premier, we get an answer from the Premier.
I suspect, and this is only a gut feeling from listening to the conversation, that the government is not forthcoming with the reasons behind this withdrawal. If they're legitimate reasons, I cannot imagine why Mr Wood on the government's behalf or the Premier wouldn't be willing to outline those reasons so that we all could feel we had been well-informed.
The Chair: Since there's no motion, I don't think, before the committee as I speak, unless there is one put, then we'll move on to the next order of business.
Mr Silipo: I want to move, then, Mr Chair, if I may, that the committee request that either the appropriate officials from Cabinet Office or ministers appear before the committee to explain the circumstances around the withdrawal of Mr Johnston's intended appointment.
The Chair: I have a little trouble putting that together in my head. This would be a request to whom?
Mr Silipo: To the Premier. I say either cabinet officials or the appropriate minister. I guess the minister would be the Minister of Education and/or the Premier, because depending on what the answer is, they could decide who the appropriate person would be. But it seems to me that there have been -- I have still some very serious questions about this. I'm very troubled by the attitude that Mr Wood has taken on this. I thought your suggestion was a useful way to deal with it but since he's chosen otherwise, I'll put the motion.
The Chair: You've heard the motion and Mr Silipo has spoken to it. Is there any further debate on Mr Silipo's motion?
Mr Wildman: I would just add that I don't see why the committee would not want to get an explanation if there's one forthcoming. To invite the principals involved to make an explanation doesn't sound unreasonable. After all, information is power. Why would members of the committee vote against receiving information and explanation?
The Chair: Any further debate?
Mr Bob Wood: I certainly have no objection to individual members requesting information. On the government side, we see a simple thing as being simple. They've withdrawn the certificate, they can't proceed to submit this to the Lieutenant Governor. If they decide later they want to, they have to submit the certificate again to the committee. It's that straightforward. We don't need more information. If others do, I would invite them to make the request directly from whomever they want.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Just maybe a question through you to Mr Wood. Does Mr Wood know the reason why it's been withdrawn?
Mr Bob Wood: I don't think it's my function to offer comment on that. That should be directed to the Cabinet Office.
Mr Bartolucci: But I'm asking you directly. Do you know the reason why?
Mr Bob Wood: I've already shared with you the fact that I'm not going to comment to the committee on that.
Mr Bartolucci: So I take that as a yes, I know why but I'm not going to share it with you. I find this very, very troubling, then. I find the whole process very troubling and I find then every appointee who comes before us to be very troubling because if you're not willing to share information which may in fact support your position by other members of the committee, then I find the process to be very wrong. I would suggest that it's very important that this motion then carry because we have to add credibility not only to the committee and to the committee members, but also to the good people like Mr Gordon here who come before us. I think their credibility is at stake. Every, every intended appointee's credibility is at stake if, in fact, this committee doesn't find out that information.
The Chair: Is the committee ready for the question? You've heard Mr Silipo's motion. All those in favour of Mr Silipo's motion, please indicate. Mr Silipo's eligible to vote, as are the two Liberal members. Those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Can we move on to the next order of business.
1030
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
DONALD H. GORDON
Review of intended appointment, selected by the official opposition: Donald H. Gordon, intended appointee as part-time member, Hospital Appeal Board.
The Chair: Mr Gordon, we welcome you to the committee. I would apologize for the delay. On the other hand, perhaps it's entertaining to see politics at work in the committee on government appointments.
We welcome you here and it's traditional that you be given an opportunity to say a few opening remarks if you wish, and then we move to the government members and the two opposition parties to ask you any questions they might want to put to you. So we welcome you here to the committee.
Mr Donald H. Gordon: Thank you, Mr Chairman, members of the committee. I understand that the committee has received a copy of my résumé, so I'm not going to -- I'll spare you the gruelling details on that one. I will try to be very short and to the point, which I must admit for someone who's been trained as a lawyer and usually is accustomed to being paid by the word is a very difficult thing to do.
I would add perhaps just one thing to the résumé you have I believe in front of you, and that is that for the past six months I have been acting as the president and chief executive officer of the Etobicoke General Hospital. That position I have held between CEOs. We were in a search for our CEO and I was on the board, so I have held that position that time.
As the committee's aware, the Hospital Appeal Board deals with issues of revocation, suspension and modification of the privileges granted to physicians by hospitals and hospital boards. If I could, I'd like to speak to my qualifications to sit on this board, my reasons for accepting the appointment and the contribution I think I can make.
First of all, I think I have three primary qualifications. I have a legal education, graduating from Queen's as the gold medalist in 1965. I did practise law for a period of eight years with the firm of Ivey and Dowler in London. So I do have that by way of legal background. I did see the light, however, and went into private business subsequent to that eight years of practice.
Additionally, I have a hospital background. I have been on hospital boards now for a period exceeding 10 years, three of those on the Victoria Hospital board in London, Ontario, and the balance on the Etobicoke General board here in Toronto. As I say, in the past six months I have in fact been the acting president and CEO of the Etobicoke General Hospital.
Thirdly, I have a very interesting background by way of my relationship with the physicians in Ontario, both personally and professionally. From a personal point of view, I seem to have been born into a family of doctors. My brother's a doctor, my sister's a doctor, my brother-in-law is a doctor, my daughter-in-law is a doctor, my daughter's a doctor and her husband's a doctor. So, aside from that, you can imagine what a normal --
The Chair: Be never lacking for a second opinion.
Mr Gordon: Exactly. You imagine dinner conversation around the table at the Gordon household.
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): Who do you go to when you're sick?
Mr Gordon: None of the above. From a professional point of view, I have a very close relationship with the Canadian Medical Association by virtue of the fact that I do sit on the board of a company called MD Management. MD Management is the for-profit subsidiary of the Canadian Medical Association that manages all of the doctors' pension funds and related financial issues. As a matter of fact, next week I will be at a three-day orientation session for the CMA board members, which is a joint orientation session for CMA and MD Management.
In terms of the reasons for accepting, I guess you can tell by my background that I have had, over a long period of time, a significant interest in the health care system. I've now been semi-retired for two years and I guess what I find is that I have time to commit now to things I find of interest and that I can do because I enjoy doing them, rather than having to do them. This is something I think I would put in that category.
In terms of contribution, just by way of summary, I think professional training would give me an opportunity to bring something to this board. There are a lot of procedural issues that this board deals with, as well as matters of law and matters of fact. I also bring, as I've noted, a very balanced, I think, understanding of the perspective and interests of all parties to issues before this board.
Those are my comments, Mr Vice-Chair, and I'd be pleased to answer any questions.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Tony Silipo): Thank you, Mr Gordon. We start with the government side. Questions?
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Mr Gordon, in your opinion, do you foresee a problem with the changes in Bill 26 and the right to appeal a decision for reason of hospital closure or specialty changes at the hospital?
Mr Gordon: I don't believe so. If we look at the Hospital Appeal Board and the whole process in the hospital act, it's dealing with questions of where physicians can practise, not whether they can practise. I think when we take the steps to reduce the number of hospitals we have, which I personally believe is something we must do, we are not at the same time saying we are going to reduce the number of patients or the number of cases. So what we're looking at there is we are looking at physicians becoming attached to different hospitals.
By way of example, at Etobicoke we are contemplating that when the restructuring commission issues its directives for Toronto, we may in fact see an increase in our obstetrical cases. We currently birth about 2,600 babies a year. That could go up to 3,500, depending on what decisions are made, because we're not going to stop the number of babies who are born. If we go to 3,500 babies, we then have to take on staff a significant number of new obstetricians, and those obstetricians will obviously come from the pool of obstetricians currently existing, so that they will just move their allegiances from hospital A to hospital B. So I don't really see any problems with the way Bill 26 is structured.
Mr Ford: You're well aware that working at these hospitals -- it's not a right of doctors to work at any hospital they want; it's a privilege.
Mr Gordon: Yes, that's what the legislation says.
The Vice-Chair: Other questions?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve the balance of our time.
The Vice-Chair: We'll move to the Liberal caucus.
Mr Bartolucci: Welcome, Mr Gordon. You touch a nerve, and it's a sensitive one, when you say hospitals have to close, but we're not here to discuss that today and I don't plan on discussing it with you. It's a fight I'll have with the government and continue to have with the government with regard to restructuring services.
There is another problem; it's a problem you're going to have to be faced with, especially on this appeals board. You have the power, as an appeals board, to revoke a physician's hospital privileges. What's your feeling with regard to physicians giving up their hospital privileges en masse? I guess I'm asking for your opinion in this instance.
Mr Gordon: That's going to be a very difficult issue, and I take it you're alluding to the potential or threatened job action. It's something I think all boards and CEOs of hospitals are going to have great difficulty with, because in effect, we do credential and grant privileges to physicians on certain understandings. Those understandings involve the fact that they will cover our emergency, they will take on-call, they will have CMPA insurance coverage. If they then advise us that they will not comply with those conditions of credentialing, the boards are going to have a very difficult time with that one, because in effect, I think the board should be withdrawing privileges, although I don't think that would be a sensible thing for the boards to do. Once privileges are withdrawn, as you know, they must be reapplied for.
1040
I would hope that particular job action would not be of such an extent that, knowing the procedures one must go through to get to the Hospital Appeal Board, in effect we would see any of those issues coming to the Hospital Appeal Board, because I may well be dead by the time they got there.
Mr Bartolucci: That's very true. Would you consider a doctor who gives up his hospital privileges or won't exercise his hospital privileges as that being a job action on the part of that doctor?
Mr Gordon: I guess it would depend on the context, really, because there are a number of physicians, paediatricians in particular, who have no hospital practices whatsoever. They practise 100% from their offices, and if a physician determines that he would prefer an office practice to a hospital practice, then I don't see how one can say he's given up his privileges.
Mr Bartolucci: I'm talking, though, about groups of physicians who have hospital privileges who decide because of whatever reason -- it may be the cap, it may be a variety of reasons -- that they're going to give up those hospital privileges. Would you consider that a job action, then?
Mr Gordon: Yes, I would. Certainly, from the hospital's perspective it is a job action. It would render our ability to provide urgent and emergent care almost impossible.
Mr Bartolucci: You're not entering an easy field at this time. Good luck.
The Vice-Chair: Are there any further questions? Government caucus, any further questions?
Mr Bob Wood: We will waive the balance of our time.
The Vice-Chair: I think the same can go obviously for the third party. I think, Mr Gordon, that concludes your appearance before the committee. Thank you very much.
PAUL BEAUDRY
Review of intended appointment, selected by the third party: Paul Beaudry, intended appointee as member, Ottawa-Carleton Regional District Health Council.
The Vice-Chair: We move next to Mr Paul Beaudry, intended appointee as a member of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional District Health Council. Mr Beaudry, welcome to the committee. As you may know, we certainly would welcome if you have any opening comments to make and give you that opportunity, if you so wish.
Mr Paul Beaudry: As an opening statement, what I would like to do is give you an executive summary of my résumé. I believe it has been forwarded to the members of this committee.
I'm a bilingual graduate from Concordia University in 1975 in political science. Until 1986, I worked for a large multinational and national corporation in the field of human resources and especially industrial relations and labour relations management. In early 1987, I started consulting to businesses in eastern Ontario in the field of human resources, industrial relations, labour relations and organizational restructuring. I am still doing this as of today. Also, last year I had the pleasure of starting a new company based in Ottawa-Carleton in the field of management information videos and management training.
I've also had the pleasure and the honour of serving my community since 1987 through the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade as its provincial affairs chair, the Family Service Centre of Ottawa-Carleton as the vice-president of the board, the Algonquin College advisory committee on management studies as the chair and am presently the president of the West Carleton District Chamber of Commerce -- this is my second term -- and I've also had the pleasure of serving on various select committees for the township on issues of economic development.
My 21 years, in summary, have been dealing with human resources issues for my clients, either in private businesses and I've had the pleasure of serving public organizations and not-for-profit organizations, so a variety of manufacturing and service organizations, looking at issues, like any other organization, of restructuring, management training, labour relations and industrial relations. That certainly is my interest with regard to the district health council, bringing in that expertise that I've gathered for the last 21 years and offering that service to my community.
Those, Mr Vice-Chair, are my comments.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Beaudry. The government side to begin the questions.
Mr Ford: Good morning and welcome. Mr Beaudry, are you familiar with the health services reconfiguration project? A second report submitted recommends the closure of some hospitals. Since 1990, more than 500 hospital beds have been closed in the Ottawa-Carleton hospital sector, yet not one hospital has closed. Wouldn't it be in the best interests of the community and efficiency to perhaps look at the second report and consider hospital closure? In other words, if you have three or four hospitals and you have a couple of floors closed in each hospital, wouldn't it be more efficient to close one of those hospitals and also project down the road that with those moneys that are saved doing that, you could buy updated equipment and keep a high efficiency there?
Mr Beaudry: That is basically, I guess, the chief reason for my interest in sitting on the district health council. When I first heard of the initial report, I was extremely disappointed. I was having a conversation with a member of this council that in fact the council had spent two years and something like $2 million and had not achieved the objective that was set for this organization.
Certainly it is my understanding that we have a great number of hospitals working at half levels of complements because of the last 10 and 15 years of hospital cutbacks, and it concerns me that we're spending money to continue to operate a facility at the detriment of supporting the professionals that we should be looking at. I guess my biggest concern is that so far the district health council has put more value on the buildings rather than on the people who are delivering the services. I guess that's the direction that I would like to do, to go in and put more emphasis on the people rather than on the buildings.
Mr Ford: That's a good observation there, because I know that when you run hospitals you have peer group pressure from other hospitals. When you have MRIs and CAT scanners and other equipment, everybody seems to want the same measure handed out. If you have several hospitals that are probably working at 60% or 70% capacity, it seems ridiculous to have them running at that when you can update the other hospitals and bring them right up to a world standard. Thank you for your answer, sir.
The Vice-Chair: Other questions?
Mr Doyle: Mr Beaudry, welcome to our committee today. You sound very well versed on the whole district health council situation in Ottawa. There was an amalgamation proposal there. I wonder if you have anything you can offer as far as the amalgamation proposal is concerned to the health council.
Mr Beaudry: At the present I'm a mere consumer of the community and I've received the information through the news media, which at most times is less than accurate. I would prefer to go in and have a look at exactly what the report entails, the report itself, to see exactly what methodology they used to arrive at the various findings, and at that point I'll have a better idea. But I am concerned that there's a great schism right now that exists at the council, and hopefully that's part of my background in labour relations, to help rebuild that unity in that council.
Mr Doyle: I appreciate it. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: Further questions from the government caucus?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve the balance of our time.
The Vice-Chair: We'll move to the Liberal caucus.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Mr Beaudry. Did you apply for the position in terms of the health council? I'm not sure about how you came about being a nominee for the position.
Mr Beaudry: What happened is that at one of the chamber meetings that I preside, Beth Sweetnam -- who is a member of council and who I understand as well is the chair of the nominating committee -- and I had a rather heated discussion with regard to the content of the report. At that point she asked me if I would be interested in sitting on council and I indicated that, yes, I would. So I guess there was an application. I basically said, "I think you need some professional help and I'm prepared to offer that professional help."
1050
Mr Gravelle: Certainly you're going to be going in at a very interesting and controversial time. I wouldn't mind having your opinion, just in a general sense, on the whole restructuring commission concept that the government put forward in Bill 26. Do you support the need for a Health Services Restructuring Commission in the province or do you feel that a lot of the solutions can be found without this rather draconian kind of commission being brought in which basically is in many ways taking it out of the hands of local people who might feel they can make better decisions? In other words, a group coming in from out of town saying, "We've got the answers." I'm just curious as to your thoughts on the restructuring commission itself.
Mr Beaudry: Mr Gravelle, I think what convinced me that the whole delivery service of medical services is really needed was when I heard the story about two or three months ago when a woman in Scarborough had to go to Kingston to be hospitalized to deliver her children.
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It wasn't Scarborough.
Mr Beaudry: It wasn't Scarborough? It was in Toronto?
Mr Newman: I can assure you it was not Scarborough.
Mr Beaudry: Well, it was around Toronto. There were a couple of other stories where ambulance drivers have had to drive around to the hospitals in order to find a bed or a place for one of the patients. To me, that is indicative that there's something wrong with the way we deliver medical services, certainly in Ottawa-Carleton.
With regard to the restructuring committee, I presume they are there to make sure that the government wishes are applied. I did say to Beth Sweetnam, however, that I was disappointed that our district health council did not seek the opportunity to develop a made-in-Ottawa-Carleton solution. I don't know if it's too late, and I would certainly continue that direction, to work with council to still develop a made-in-Ottawa-Carleton solution in that area.
Mr Gravelle: Are you saying that you think the restructuring commission therefore is a necessary thing, to have a commission of this type set up?
Mr Beaudry: Something has to be set up, Mr Gravelle, in order to have a look at the way the delivery of medical services is done. At present, I'm not in the position to say if that's the better way or not the better way. Certainly the government has come in, obviously, and decided on its mandate to restructure medical services, and they have decided on that process.
Mr Gravelle: I think probably all of us in all three parties would agree that there is a need for a restructuring of the system, a need for more efficiency. All three parties have been involved with that. I think it's been the method by which it's been brought forward and the fact that I think it's generally conceded, even though it's been denied recently by the government, that quite frankly there is a need to find $5 billion down the line for the money for the tax cut. It's being motivated by the need to find that money.
It seems to be sort of a backwards way of trying to get through a restructuring process, because obviously the restructuring commission is a far more aggressive process than going to hospitals and simply cutting back. The $1.3 billion that's coming out of hospitals we're not sure is working.
I'm just curious as to your opinions on it. I know that obviously in the Ottawa-Carleton region it's become extremely sensitive because of the difficulty with the DHC or the confusion that arose from the DHC and the six members. In essence, I'm asking you a political question and do want your opinion on it in terms of the method by which this government has decided to go forward and do this.
Mr Beaudry: I can only say that obviously from a management point of view we've been talking in the province about the delivery of medical services for a very long time. Not much, I guess, has been done. There's been a very traditional approach, and a very regrettable approach, of just cutting beds rather than having a really true opportunity of re-engineering the medical services. I presume the government has decided to ensure that there is an organism or a process to ensure that this restructuring goes on.
I firmly believe, and I've always believed, that localities are better at finding their own solutions. I'm still going to be working with this, if I'm appointed to the district health council, to find a made-in-Ottawa-Carleton solution. But ultimately because of political agendas and everything, if the organizations cannot make a decision, someone ultimately has got to make a decision. I presume that's the reason the government created this commission.
Mr Gravelle: Just for your interest, I come from a community, Thunder Bay, that just recently had a decision from the restructuring commission, and obviously we're pretty shaken by it in terms of the decision. We're going to lose half of our acute care beds. Basically, three of our five hospitals are going to be forced to close. We are absolutely convinced there was a better way to do this than what's happening and we intend to fight it.
I wish you the best of luck in your new position.
The Vice-Chair: We have no questions from the third party. Are there any further questions from the government caucus?
Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I just have one. Being that the opposition party is not here and the question is usually asked, are you a member of any political party, a card-carrying member?
Mr Beaudry: Yes, I am, Mr Fox.
Mr Fox: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: You don't want to ask him which party?
Mr Fox: No, it's not important.
The Vice-Chair: I just thought since you were interested in the first, you might be interested in the second.
Mr Gravelle: I'm sorry, Tony. I should have asked it before.
The Vice-Chair: That's fine. You still have time, actually. You can still ask it.
Mr Gravelle: I thought you wanted to switch chairs.
The Vice-Chair: The fun of that, Mr Beaudry, just so you know, is that I've been asking a bit of a standard question when I've had the chance to in terms of whether people appearing before us are members of any political party and have been finding an interesting pattern to that. But we'll leave that to be picked up in further questioning.
That concludes then, Mr Beaudry, our business with you in front of the committee. Thank you for appearing, sir.
We can move now to motions.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Gordon.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Wood has moved concurrence with the intended appointment of Mr Gordon. Any discussion on that? All those in favour? It's carried unanimously.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Beaudry.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Wood has moved concurrence with the appointment of Mr Beaudry. Any discussion? All those in favour? It's carried unanimously.
There being no further business before the committee, we stand adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1058.