Intended
appointments
Mr David Brown
Mr David Braley
Mr Gary Leadston
Mr James W. Ashcroft
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair /
Président
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington
L)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex PC)
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Clerk /
Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 1002
in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr James
J. Bradley): For the purposes of Hansard I'll call the
meeting to order and welcome all of you here. As you know, our
rearrangement compensates for certain other meetings. Thanks to
the very helpful committee that we have, which is a subcommittee,
we were able to arrange this in such a manner as to deal with
these items more expeditiously.
Our first item is the report
of the subcommittee on business dated Thursday, July 27, 2000. Is
there a mover?
Mr Bob Wood (London
West): I move its adoption.
The Chair:
Mr Wood moves its adoption. Is there any discussion?
All in favour? The motion is
carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
DAVID BROWN
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: David Brown,
intended appointee as member, Cancer Care Ontario.
The Chair:
We will now begin the appointments review: a half-hour review of
intended appointments.
I should tell you that the
agenda you have at the present time is not complete and that a
new agenda will be provided for you. There is an 11:30 selection,
and at 12 o'clock motions of concurrence. It's not quite right
yet and it will be. What you have is one side of the page; I have
both sides of the page. That will be corrected for you.
We begin this morning with
the selection of the official opposition party, Mr David A.
Brown, the intended appointee as member, Cancer Care Ontario.
Welcome to the committee, Mr
Brown. The procedure that we follow is that you have an
opportunity to make an initial statement, should you choose to do
so, and then you are questioned 10 minutes by each of the
political parties. They have an opportunity of up to 10
minutes.
Mr David
Brown: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thought I might spend a
few minutes perhaps just explaining to the committee why I'm
here, and a bit of the background that led me to being
recommended for this appointment.
The story really starts about
six years ago when I was a lawyer in private practice. I was
approached by the chairs of both Princess Margaret Hospital and
what was then the Toronto Hospital to see if I could assist in
arranging the merger of Princess Margaret, which was entirely a
cancer research and cancer treatment facility, with the oncology
program at Toronto Hospital.
I think Princess Margaret was
well known at the time with a strong international reputation for
cancer care. What was less well known was that there was a cancer
program at Toronto Hospital that, in terms of dollar volume, was
almost as large as that of Princess Margaret. I think the vision
of the two chairs was to try to put the two together. In the
course of that, although at least a year later, I was asked to
join the board of Princess Margaret Hospital and ultimately
became vice-chair of Princess Margaret.
Our first two attempts to
merge the two programs weren't successful. Our vision was to try
to create an integrated, comprehensive cancer facility combining
world-class research with high-quality care at all levels for
patients with cancer. I'm pleased that on the third attempt we
did get a formula right and that the constituents for both the
Princess Margaret side and the Toronto Hospital side agreed that
we had properly developed a vision for putting the two together.
As a result, we created what is the largest comprehensive cancer
facility in Canada and indeed, I think, one of the largest in the
world.
After the merger, I was asked
to become a trustee of the Toronto Hospital and ultimately a
vice-chair of that organization, and as the committee will know,
it has since been renamed the University Health Network following
the amalgamation with Doctors Hospital as well. The cancer
program for the merged institutions, which is now centred at
Princess Margaret Hospital, is directed by a permanent standing
committee of the board, which really functions as a mini-board of
directors for the cancer program. Under the amalgamating statute,
the cancer program is called Princess Margaret Hospital, and
although technically there's only one hospital, which is the
University Health Network, we still refer to Princess Margaret
Hospital as being the cancer program, the combined cancer program
and the research program of all of the institutions that have
come together for University Health Network.
This board of directors, or mini-board of directors,
really directs the operations both of the research side of
Princess Margaret and also the cancer care side of it and advises
the board of University Health Network on budget items and other
items critical to the whole cancer care program. I was asked to
be chair of this standing committee of oncology, as it's been
called since its inception, and it's been up and running for
almost two years now. The standing committee is comprised of
people who have a deep commitment to cancer treatment and
research, and it includes volunteers as well as cancer
professionals and academics from the University of Toronto.
In our view, Princess
Margaret Hospital, the entire cancer program at the University
Health Network, is a very important and essential component of
the entire cancer treatment network for the province of Ontario.
One of our principal tasks is to coordinate the delivery of the
cancer care services and the research that's done at Princess
Margaret with what's happening around Ontario under the direction
of Cancer Care Ontario. It's especially important for us to
coordinate the delivery of these services in the central-east
region which comprises Metropolitan Toronto and some of the
surrounding areas because both Princess Margaret and the
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, the cancer centre there, are
combining to provide services to that same treatment area. And so
it's very important for us to coordinate our activities and
ensure that we're getting the most effective use of the combined
resources that are available to the two institutions.
With that in mind, when we
formed the standing committee on oncology at Princess Margaret, I
invited four representatives of Cancer Care Ontario to sit on
that committee, and that includes Dr Ken Shumak, who's the CEO of
Cancer Care Ontario. Just recently, Cancer Care Ontario asked me
to join their board. There are already I think one or two
representatives of the University Health Network on that board,
but I've been asked to join it as well, again to help provide the
continuity and coordination of the delivery of care between
Princess Margaret and Cancer Care Ontario.
1010
As the committee knows, this
is a critical time for all health care professionals,
particularly those who have devoted their careers to cancer.
They're involved in a race against the clock, as we all know, a
race to try to identify better means of prevention of cancer, to
develop better means for the early detection of cancers, finding
new cures for the treatment of cancers and, ultimately, when all
else fails, controlling the pain and suffering.
For those of us who are only
volunteers in this process, our mission is to help create the
best environment so these professionals can do their job. Part of
that means applying modern business techniques to the research
and delivery of cancer care services but, most importantly, to
really make the most effective use of available resources.
I think it's hoped by Cancer
Care Ontario that by inviting me on to the board and with the
representatives of Cancer Care Ontario on our board, by
coordinating the efforts between the two organizations,
achievement of these goals of prevention, detection and cure of
cancer will be moved much closer to the present. That's a brief
explanation as to why I'm here.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Brown. We begin our questioning with the
official opposition.
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky
(Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Certainly I'm
very impressed with the background you bring to the role that you
would have with Cancer Care Ontario.
I'm sure you are aware that
the committee on standards of the Canadian Association of
Radiation Oncologists recommends that the time between patient
referral and the initiation of radiation treatment not exceed
four weeks. From your experience with the University Health
Network, are you aware if the network facilities with which you
have been associated were meeting that?
Mr Brown:
I'm very aware of the standards to which you refer. In fact, that
probably occupies the largest part of our activities, both on the
standing committee of oncology and on the University Health
Network board. On an average basis we're not meeting those
deadlines, but it's a little more complicated than that.
We have 16 radiation machines
at Princess Margaret Hospital. Because the set-up of those
machines is quite complex and time-consuming, various machines
are configured to deliver various types of radiation treatment.
For some types of treatment, particularly those where medical
science knows it's imperative to treat quickly, some machines are
set up to treat cancers and to do it quickly, and the turnaround
time is a matter of hours or a matter of days. Other types of
machines are set up for different types of cancers. For some of
them, particularly breast and prostate cancer, the waiting times
are much longer. If you average out the waiting times across all
of the types of cancers and all 16 machines, we do not meet an
acceptable standard. I would say that at Princess Margaret
Hospital we're probably only treating about 50% of the patients
within the four-week period you refer to.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I find it interesting that in your
explanation you would make reference to the machinery and the
process when in fact it has been presented, I believe by the
auditor, that much of the problem might be more accurately
related to the lack of qualified radiation technologists in the
province and also the lack of qualified medical oncologists to
deal with this. I was wondering, what role do you think Cancer
Care Ontario has to improve this situation? As you would know,
this is a very pressing situation across Ontario and certainly in
the part of Ontario that I represent. These sorts of waits are
absolutely unacceptable. When families experience the trauma of
cancer, it's just not good enough to say, "Well, we don't have
the people in place to provide this treatment." So I would like
to know, in your role as a member of Cancer Care Ontario, the kinds of
recommendations you will bring to this government to alleviate
this problem.
Mr Brown:
You're quite right: the machinery is not the limiting factor. I
have to talk in terms of averages because some people indeed are
being treated within hours rather than within the four weeks. The
limiting factor is clearly the personnel to run the machines. We
have, both at Princess Margaret and at Cancer Care Ontario, a
worldwide search on to find qualified technicians to run the
machines. As you may know, the training facility was closed for a
period of time. We are not expecting new graduates from that
facility until next year. So for us to meet this demand, we need
to first of all make sure we retain those qualified radiation
therapists we have and, second, to try to recruit elsewhere in
the country, and indeed around the world, to fill that void.
We at Princess Margaret have
increased salaries for these people, both as a retention strategy
and as a strategy to recruit them around the world. We're finding
that this is not a problem unique to Ontario or Canada; it's a
problem that other countries are having, and they are working
just as diligently to jealously keep their radiation therapists
at home as we are to try to attract them to Canada. So it's a
problem that is being faced around the world. The only really
permanent fix for us here is to have the training facility up and
running and graduating good, quality graduates, which will not
start until 2001.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: With regard to the controversy on
re-referral, I have a couple of colleagues who refer to this as
health care apartheid, in that residents in northern Ontario with
health problems related to cancer do not receive the same type of
compensation because of the wording of policies. Whether you're a
referral or a re-referral makes all the difference. I would like
to hear your comment on that and what you think should be done
and when you think it should be done, because again people are in
very traumatic situations where they are out of pocket
significant dollars. We understand that the ministry is looking
at this, but that doesn't do anything for the people who continue
to experience what I too believe is discrimination in Ontario.
I'd like to hear your comments on that, please.
Mr Brown:
You're referring to a very difficult public policy issue, and I
quite agree. I've actually taken the time to read the Hansard
reports of this committee's deliberations on the last three or
four recommended appointees to Cancer Care Ontario, so I
understand the debate that has been going on. I also spoke to Dr
Ken Shumak, who's the CEO of Cancer Care Ontario, to see what
measures Cancer Care Ontario has taken. He advised me that they
did indeed alert the government to this problem some time ago and
that the government has appointed a professor at Laurentian
University, who I think is about ready to deliver a report on his
recommendations as to how the problem might be solved.
I should say, though, that I
believe it is a public policy issue. I think to try to impose on
the cancer care professionals or even on the volunteers who are
assisting those professionals the job of finding a solution to
this problem runs the risk of diverting their attention away from
their primary goals of finding cures for cancer. I think that
it's an issue that has to be solved by the elected
representatives and I don't envy them the job. It's a tough
issue.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Do I still have some time?
The Chair:
You have till 10:21.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I guess the only comment I would have on
that is, you know of course that the former chair of Cancer Care
Ontario did dare to venture into that policy forum and very
clearly, on behalf of the people of Ontario, make some statements
that I believe he thought were in their better interests. So I
think it's important, the role you have actually delivering the
service-certainly as policy-makers it's important that we
understand what the challenges are and where things are not
equitable. So I suggest to you that there is a responsibility for
people at Cancer Care Ontario to bring forward when policy is not
meeting the needs of the people. Otherwise, as policy-makers how
would we know if the policies were working well or not?
1020
Mr Brown: I
understand your need to inform yourself and be informed, and the
professionals at Cancer Care Ontario should be a very important
source of information there. I agree with that.
As far as attempting to find
a solution to the public policy issue, I'm not at this point able
to be of much assistance to you.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
The Chair:
Thank you, and it will be Mr Marchese for the third party. We're
beginning at 10:20.
Mr Rosario Marchese
(Trinity-Spadina): We don't have to look at the clock,
really.
Welcome, Mr Brown. You're
doing a lot of volunteer activity with many organizations.
Mr Brown:
Actually, no. As you may know, I am now the chair of the Ontario
Securities Commission. When I took this job, I really had to get
rid of virtually all my other commitments, mainly because of the
time commitment. So my only volunteer activity right now is the
University Health Network at Princess Margaret.
Mr Marchese:
So you were a governor of the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing
Foundation, but no longer.
Mr Brown:
It's really part of my job. I'm there because I'm the chair of
the securities commission.
Mr Marchese:
And member of the Circle of Chairs of the Society of Ontario
Adjudicators and Regulators.
Mr Brown:
It's the same.
Mr Marchese:
I just wondered how you juggle all those things, but obviously
you've cut down on the number of those.
Mr Brown:
Yes.
Mr Marchese:
Your experience as the chair of the Ontario Securities
Commission-is there one important lesson you learned in that experience that you
want to share with us very briefly, of course, because I know
it's a big job?
Mr Brown:
One lesson is that it's energizing to switch careers late in
life, and I'm not sorry that I did it at all. The lesson I've
learned is that people who are involved in the policy-setting of
the government service are a unique breed of people who are
dedicated and, I think, are doing an absolutely wonderful job. I
must say, as a practitioner sitting on the outside, that I wasn't
aware of the enormity of the job being done inside. So it was a
very good revelation for me.
Mr Marchese:
I'm sure it was. I wish we had time to talk about white-collar
crime, because it's an issue that I want to bring up in the
Legislature. But we don't have time now, you see.
Mr Brown: At
some other time I'd be pleased.
Mr Marchese:
Time is always a problem.
I'm assuming you're either a
Conservative Party member, supporter or contributor.
Mr Brown: I
don't think I've ever had any affiliation with any party, not
that I can recall.
Mr Marchese:
That's good to know. It's one of the few questions that Tories
and Liberals used to ask all the time when we were in government.
They used to weed out the New Democrats. But at that time there
used to be media here. Now nobody comes any more; it's just us
and a few staff people. It's really quite-it's lonely.
The Chair: I
should correct you, Mr Marchese, if I may take a moment of your
time. There is a columnist who appears from time to time, who
sits on this committee. So there is a media person here.
Mr Marchese:
That's good. That's a big help.
You were talking about
northern travel. That's a big concern of ours. Shelley Martel has
been raising this for quite some time for our caucus.
I agree with your point about
the fact that members of Cancer Care should not be the ones
finding solutions. But do you agree with me that they should be
the ones to obviously speak about the problem? Whether government
solves it or how it solves it may not be your responsibility, but
it would be your responsibility to say, "There's a problem here."
Would you not agree with that?
Mr Brown: I
think their primary focus, as Ms Dombrowsky has alluded to, is to
get the waiting times for the available cancer resources down to
within acceptable levels. I know there's a huge effort going on
in both Cancer Care Ontario and Princess Margaret Hospital to try
to do that.
To my knowledge, there is no
definition of the service areas or the catchment areas in Cancer
Care Ontario, and whether that's right or wrong I can't comment.
But I know that at Princess Margaret Hospital we accept referrals
from anywhere. There's nothing to prevent somebody from Thunder
Bay or Hamilton or Ottawa or wherever referring a patient to
Princess Margaret Hospital.
Mr Marchese:
I understand.
Mr Brown: So
we don't even have statistics as to where people come from. I
assume that a large percentage come from downtown Toronto because
we're located in downtown Toronto. So we don't get into that part
of the travel-
Mr Marchese:
Mr Brown, Gerry Lougheed was the previous chair.
Mr Brown: I
don't know Mr Lougheed.
Mr Marchese:
He was the person who actually used the term "health care
apartheid," and for that we believe he got punished; that's why
he got kicked out. He spoke out against the fact that there are
two policies in place, one for southerners and one for
northerners. Southerners can go to the US and get all their costs
covered, and northerners can't. It seems to me very obvious and
clear that there's a discriminatory policy. The solution seems to
be very clear too: just fund it equally. That's what I would say
if I were a member, or I might recommend to the government that
that's what I think the solution might be, and if you don't want
to offer that as a solution you might say it's at least
discriminatory, which Mr Lougheed did. For that he got punished.
I think it's wrong for the government to have done that.
That's why we have difficulty
in terms of other appointments now, because of what happened to
Mr Lougheed. Because of this political interference in this area,
I have a problem, Shelley Martel has a problem and many
northerners have a problem. I think there is a clear case here.
Do you think that northerners should have all their expenses
covered, if they have to go south or into the US, as southerners
do when they go to the US for treatment of cancer?
Mr Brown:
The reason I say it's such a difficult issue is that the waiting
times in northern Ontario aren't as long as they are in southern
Ontario. Indeed, we at Princess Margaret send patients up to
northern Ontario because the waiting lists are quite a bit
shorter. I just don't know how you balance these seemingly
unrelated issues to try to determine what's fair.
Mr Marchese:
Except, Mr Brown-I'm sorry to interrupt-what has waiting time to
do with the fact that the costs are different, in terms of a
northerner having to assume greater costs? The waiting times
might be different, but to me it's irrelevant if I have to pay
more than somebody else. What has waiting time to do with the
fact of a cost differential?
Mr Brown:
All I am saying is that I think there's an attempt here to find a
fairness balance.
Mr Marchese:
Attempt by whom?
Mr Brown: I
assume by you as the policy-makers to find a balance, and I think
there are positives and negatives on both sides. As I say, people
in northern Ontario have a greater access to the resources and
they don't have as long waiting times. There are trade-offs, and
I don't know which is more appropriate.
Mr Marchese:
So once you're there and you find, like Mr Lougheed, that there
is health care apartheid, because you might-
Mr Brown: I'm sorry, I really have
difficulty with the "health care apartheid." I understand some of
the horrors of apartheid in South Africa, and I have a little
difficulty applying that to this situation.
Mr Marchese:
I understand. People often use such terminology as a way of
showing how serious the problem is. We might disagree, in the
same way that we might refer to some politicians as fascists.
You're quite right. I think the terminology at times is
inappropriate, but the point they're making is that this is
serious. It's a serious problem for northerners. I understand
that we shouldn't detract ourselves away from the word. But if we
believe the problem is serious enough, we've got to find a way to
deal with it. So my question to you is: how do you situate
yourself in that regard, in terms of an attempt to convince
governments, as the policy-makers, that perhaps they should deal
with this issue of discriminatory policies?
1030
Mr Brown: As
I said earlier, I don't have a position on this issue at this
point.
Mr Marchese:
I was afraid of that. With respect to the shortage of radiation
therapists, this government in 1995 cancelled the training
program for radiation therapists in Ontario. Would you agree with
me that was short-sighted?
Mr Brown:
With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, it was a mistake. I must
say, though, that I think all of us in the cancer care area have
to share some of the blame. I don't think the health care
professionals in the cancer area understood the severity of that.
I'm not sure they spoke out, and I think they may even have
tacitly agreed with the solution.
I agree it was a big mistake,
in retrospect. We're paying for it now. It's a very tough
decision, after the fact, to rectify and rectify satisfactorily.
You're absolutely right.
Mr Marchese:
Thank you, Mr Brown.
The Chair:
The government caucus?
Mr Wood:
We'll waive our time.
The Chair:
The government caucus has waived its time. We thank you very
much, Mr Brown, for appearing before the committee.
DAVID BRALEY
Review of intended
appointment, selected by the third party: David Braley, intended
appointee as member and chair, the McMichael Canadian Art
Collection Board of Trustees.
The Chair:
I will ask Mr David Braley to come forward please.
As you have probably
observed, you are certainly welcome to make an initial statement,
Mr Braley, and take any portion of time you require to do so.
Mr David
Braley: I don't really think that anyone here knows me,
so I might as well discuss my background a little bit. I was born
in Montreal and we moved to Hamilton when I was three years of
age. I was educated in Hamilton and went into business for myself
when I was 27. I started with seven people and through the growth
of the company we are about 800 in Hamilton and 1,600 in
total.
I am very involved in the
community, whether it be training of skilled trades or whether it
has to do with the convention centre or the theatre, the art
gallery, the CAD/CAM centre and the robotic centre in Ontario 15
years ago.
It's always very difficult
to speak about oneself because I've never had to do it before. Is
there anything in particular that you'd like to know about me?
Just ask me the questions and I'll answer, but I'm not used to-I
had to prepare a resumé for this particular appointment. I
assume you all have that in front of you.
I guess the greatest
honours are being recognized by my city, being entered in the
Gallery of Distinction-that's making a commitment to the building
of Hamilton-and then my university giving me an honorary
doctorate this past year for the work I've done in the community
and at the university.
If you have any questions
about my background I am prepared to answer them, but I don't
think you really need know to know that. It's on the resumé
sheet.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, sir. I will commence our questioning with
the third party. Mr Marchese.
Mr
Marchese: Welcome, Mr Braley.
Mr Braley:
Thank you.
Mr
Marchese: First of all, just to tell you, David
Christopherson speaks very well of you.
Mr Braley:
He's a nice man, and we've worked together on many things.
Mr
Marchese: He did say that. Mr Braley, you obviously are
aware of the history of problems between the McMichael gallery
trustees and Mr McMichael and spouse. It's a long historical
problem. Do you have any comments on that?
Mr Braley:
I was not aware of them at the time that I was asked to serve. I
have since taken the opportunity to read some of the information.
I've taken the opportunity to meet the staff at the McMichael and
I've taken the opportunity to sit down with Bob and Signe
McMichael for a two- or three-hour period. I have also tried to
meet directors one by one, so I could get a feel of what that
particular problem was. I'm starting to, but I wouldn't say that
I have it in total yet.
Mr
Marchese: That's good that you're doing that, because
it's one of the few ways of surviving some of these problems that
I think you're likely to continue to face once you're there. But
it's good that you've done that. It's a way to survive, I
think.
Mr Braley:
Most people I've talked to really want the gallery to succeed and
they all have a common purpose in mind. Sometimes egos get in the
way a little bit or a little bit of power or some of the
background as to certain things that happened in the past and
they have what we call in football a nick. They're injured a
little bit, so be sensitive to the various things and try to find
a compromise that satisfies the majority.
Mr
Marchese: Of course. That's what we all try to do in
every job that we have.
Mr Braley, a question: Are
you familiar with the legislation that was just passed in June by
this government re the McMichael?
Mr Braley:
I have skimmed it as of last Saturday. I haven't read all parts
in conjunction with the legislation that has been passed
previously and the current, but I've just skimmed the
legislation.
Mr
Marchese: I think that too is important to understand,
because in terms of its long history, you've had McMichael
complaining almost from the very beginning that the board
obviously wasn't respecting its original mandate. It went to
court because they were unhappy with the direction in which
McMichael was going. The lower court ruled in his favour and then
the Minister of Culture took it to the Supreme Court and the
Supreme Court ruled against McMichael, because that was the right
thing to do, I thought personally. Then Monsieur Harris decided,
in his finer wisdom, that he was going to change the law once
again anyway, and so we now have the legislation of June that you
were perusing.
What is your sense of what
politicians should do around these issues? To be personal, I
don't think politicians should interfere very much with the
curators of a board. That's always very divisive and there's a
lot of conflict in this regard. My sense is that the legislation
of June was a bit of an interference. That's my opinion. Do you
have an opinion in that regard?
Mr Braley:
I haven't formulated a final opinion. There are some minor
changes that have occurred, but from my skimming of it, the
legislation is not a great deal different, quite frankly, than
the previous three legislations. I've gone as far as laying it
out in the computer and putting them side by side and dealing
with the various words that are different, but I haven't come to
any conclusions as to how the emphasis makes a significant
change. I don't think I'm in a position to do that yet.
A person who is put in the
chair of a public facility turns to the legislation that he or
she is given and enforces and carries out the mandate that one is
asked to do; one doesn't formulate the legislation.
Mr
Marchese: I understand that.
Mr Braley:
He who has the gold, so to speak, tells you what they want done
and then you go from there.
Mr
Marchese: I appreciate that. We're going to have an
opportunity to debate this bill, obviously, because it hasn't
been passed.
Mr Braley:
That's not in my hands.
Mr
Marchese: No, you're absolutely right. It's in their
hands, and I'm sure they'll support the bill. We'll just have an
opportunity to raise it.
But we are concerned about
one of the measures contained in the bill which says, "The Board
shall ensure that the collection reflects the cultural heritage
of Canada and is comprised of art works and objects and related
documentary material created by or about...."
This language suggests, of
course, that the original works are fine. Inuit work is part of
it because it was part of McMichael's efforts to include. But
much of the contemporary art, or all of it, I suspect, is
excluded by this language, so we are concerned that there might
be a sell-off of these works. If that is so, it creates in my
mind some problems, and I wanted to ask your opinion about
that.
Mr Braley:
Which paragraph did you read the portion of?
Mr
Marchese: It's section 8: "The Board shall ensure that
the collection reflects the cultural heritage of Canada and is
comprised of...." So the word "comprised" clearly says, "This is
what it includes," and obviously some stuff is going to be
excluded.
Mr Braley:
Yes, but if you read the rest of the paragraph it refers to "and
related documentary material created by or about" and then "(a)
Tom Thomson ... (b) other artists who have been designated,"
etc.
Mr
Marchese: I understand that, which clearly reflects the
original works of the 10 or 12 members there might be, including
McMichael's interest in Inuit art, but obviously contemporary art
is not part of it.
1040
Mr Braley:
I couldn't make that observation or comment-
Mr
Marchese: I appreciate it, but if you could just-
Mr Braley:
-at this point, but I don't think it really says that because it
refers to "contemporary" and it refers to Canadian art.
Mr
Marchese: No, sorry, it doesn't refer to "contemporary."
It says "is comprised of." Mr McMichael's fight over the years
obviously has been in terms of the additional contemporary art
that's been acquired. That's obviously in part why he's taken the
issue to court. So my point to you is: if it is true that it
excludes some contemporary art and it might therefore have to be
dealt with, either sent to the Ontario Heritage Foundation or
sold, if it were to be sold, is that a concern for you in terms
of what might happen?
Mr Braley:
I guess it depends. I can't make a comment at this point because
I haven't addressed the problem. I guess things are bought and
sold all the time.
Mr
Marchese: That is true too, except that there has been
another experience at the national level where, if you throw a
lot of art into the market all at once, it creates a glut in the
market where prices of whatever is being sold at the time might
depreciate as a result. That's one concern. The other concern is
that if a work of art has not been held by a gallery for 10
years, then the original tax receipt you got might be rescinded
or might not apply any more, which might present some problems,
obviously, in that regard.
Mr Braley:
To answer the first part of the question, one would be foolish to
sell off a lot of art at one time in the marketplace and devalue
it. The second part of the question-I'm sorry, it's escaped me
for a second.
Mr Marchese: The second part is
that when you make a donation-
Mr Braley:
Right. You'd certainly have to abide by all tax receipts and
government regulations and income tax laws and what have you.
Normally, when a person donates something, they get a tax
receipt. The tax receipt is a final piece of paper indicating
that the piece is passed. If there is a condition attached to a
particular piece of art, for example a contract on the donation,
that the donation is only to be used for a certain purpose,
that's a contractual arrangement which is separate, again, from
income tax receipts and things of that nature. I've heard that
argument in the past-
Mr
Marchese: And you would respect that, obviously.
Mr Braley:
-and I respect that. But the tax receipt is a thing that
is entirely separate from contractual arrangement for each
piece.
Mr
Marchese: So the gallery would have to hold them for 10
years in order for that tax receipt to apply, otherwise it's
rescinded.
Mr Braley:
I didn't say that, because at one point-
Mr
Marchese: No, I said that. I'm saying that. That's what
we understand.
Mr Braley:
I don't know if that's even true. If somebody donates something,
let's say I gave that donation to somebody for a tax receipt of
50 cents, that may not have a contractual arrangement around it
but an income tax receipt.
Mr
Marchese: I think one of the conditions is that, by the
way.
Mr Braley:
But if you have a separate contractual arrangement around
something, then that has to be dealt with much differently. They
are two different functions.
Mr
Marchese: Yes. But if I'm right, Mr Braley, and I
suspect I am, the organization has to hold that piece of work for
10 years, and you would honour that, obviously, in your opinion.
After the 10 years, if it's got to be sold, then it's got to be
sold, and you would deal with that. Is that what you might
say?
Mr Braley:
That might happen; it might get loaned someplace else. I can't
make those judgments in advance of actually dealing with a
particular piece of art or what have you. I don't think I'm
personally qualified to make those decisions. I can guide it from
an administrative point of view, I can guide from a business
point of view, I can make sure that everything is dealt with
fairly in line with whatever legislation I'm given, but I don't
think I can make a qualified judgment that this piece of art is
better than that piece of art. I'm not an expert. I have a huge
personal art collection. I started when I couldn't afford much by
buying Herman Pils and Eleanor Johnson. I elevated myself as I
made more money to people like Chris Bacon and I've since
elevated myself again. If I gave that collection someplace,
that's what I like and what I buy. If somebody else likes what
somebody else buys, I can't make those judgment calls. I can tell
you whether there's detail in the art or I can tell you whether
it's an Impressionist or a different type of work, but I'm not an
expert on art; I'm only an expert on what I like.
Mr
Marchese: Mr Braley, I appreciate it. It's not a matter
of judgment in terms of which-
Mr Braley:
I would follow whatever contractual arrangements are made because
that has to be done, then deal with it and the various things
appropriately as per the board's wishes and as per the art
advisory committee's wishes. It has to be done in that kind of
a-
Mr
Marchese: I appreciate it. Thank you.
The Chair:
Just when things are getting interesting I have to cut you off
because your time has expired. I go to the government caucus.
Mr Wood:
We will waive our time.
The Chair:
The government has waived its time. On behalf of the official
opposition, Ms Dombrowsky.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Good morning, Mr Braley. It's very nice to
see you here today. I have to say that I was most impressed with
your resumé. Also, I was impressed this morning when you
shared with us the kind of background digging you're doing in
terms of preparing for your possible role on the board of
trustees at the McMichael Canadian Art Collection.
I believe we are very
blessed to have this type of collection in Ontario, so when I was
reading the background material, I was very sad to understand of
the problems around the management of the collection. I'd like to
understand from you this morning your sense of the problems with
the board of trustees and the McMichael family. Do you think they
are insurmountable? Do you think there is some hope that the
future of this board could move ahead positively?
Mr Braley:
I think so. Everybody has the best interests of the gallery at
heart and, when that occurs, there are usually compromises
reached. There are all kinds of rumours that so-and-so, Bob
McMichael, wants to run the gallery. When I actually asked
him-he's 78 years of age and his wife is going to have major
surgery for a hip replacement in the next month; there's no
way-he said, "There's nothing I can do, but I'd like them to
listen to me." That's the type of encouragement I'm getting at
the present time by talking to the various directors, the
McMichaels themselves and the staff.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Would you not say that's a reasonable
expectation in that Mr McMichael established this gallery with a
very clear purpose in mind? If, over time, he would see that
perhaps it's not unfolding as he had initially thought it might,
should or could, would you not see that his role or his opinion
would be a most valuable one and certainly one that perhaps the
board of trustees might do all they can to try and address and
accommodate?
Mr Braley:
On the big picture the answer is yes, but sometimes people have
nitpicking little things which can cause itches or aches or
nicks, and in those cases you can't follow what they want to do
exactly.
I can only relate to the
personal side of owning a collection myself and how sensitive I
would be to how it was handled at least as long as I was alive.
He expanded the mandate
substantially by adding many painters and many works of art way
beyond the original Group of Seven and the other painters who
were initially in the collection that went there. He had a vision
himself, and I think his concern is about works of art which in
his mind don't measure up at the same standard or the same level.
That's something that has to be debated and argued, because this
person's opinion is different than this person's opinion on what
a great work of art is.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I think that's a very good perspective to
have.
Mr Braley:
I'm trying hard, but it's not always going to be easy.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: We have your resumé here before us, but
would you have had any other experiences where you would have had
a role as a mediator or where there would have been controversial
situations you've participated in and achieved a successful
resolution?
Mr Braley:
Yes. I was convention centre chairman in Hamilton for I think 12
to 14 years. We're one of the few convention centres that has
always made money. We built Copps Coliseum and I was chairman of
building the coliseum in the community. They wanted to put
Hamilton Place, the convention centre and the arena together. The
arts community was very upset about that being under the same
board of management or the same governance. The issues were dealt
with loudly and clearly in the newspapers and otherwise. I think
we reached a nice compromise and we had all three facilities
operating together. We had a $2.4-million budget to start with.
It was a $14-million operation and it gave the city back a profit
of $2.5 million. It's never been done since I left as chairman.
It costs them $2.8 million today to run those three facilities,
and they all compromised to get what had to be done.
1050
The biggest argument was
that the cultural facilities wanted to run their events on the
weekends and not pay any rent, where the paying customer, whether
it be an entertainer or what have you, would then be stuck with
Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. I had to move them to the middle
of the week, when it wasn't as critical for the dollar revenue
generation, and put the paying customers and the artists who came
to visit our theatre on the weekend. Everybody was bruised for a
little while, but in the final analysis they looked back and said
it was the right to think to do.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Congratulations.
Mr Braley:
It's not easy.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: It obviously demonstrates foresight too. I
thank you very much, Mr Braley, for answering my questions.
Mr Braley:
It's an embarrassing thing because I've never been in front of a
committee before, or applied for a job or anything, in my entire
life.
Mr
Marchese: It was a good experience.
Mr Braley:
Yes, sure. I'm more used to running my company than anything
else.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Braley, for being with us this morning.
You are excused now.
GARY LEADSTON
Review of intended
appointment, selected by third party: Gary Leadston, intended
appointee as member, Board of Parole.
The Chair:
We'll call upon our next individual, even though it's not 11 am.
I see that he's here to appear.
The committee, just for the
interest of those who are under consideration, has its motions of
concurrence scheduled for 12 noon or before, so you'll know
whether you've been accepted.
Welcome, Mr Leadston. Gary
Leadston, of course, members of the Legislature who were here in
the last Parliament would recognize as a former member of
Parliament for Kitchener-Wilmot, if my memory is correct.
Mr Gary
Leadston: That's correct.
The Chair:
Mr Leadston is an intended appointee as a member of the Board of
Parole. I'll officially welcome you, Gary, to the committee this
morning. If you wish to make an opening statement, you're welcome
to do so.
Mr
Leadston: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, and former
colleagues. Mrs Dombrowsky, welcome. We haven't had the pleasure
of meeting, but I know the other honourable members here and
served with them I believe with distinction, as they did.
I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before the committee. I'm not sure if you
had a copy of my resumé, but for the benefit of Hansard I'd
like to just highlight a few features of my background that I
believe lend to the appointment as a member of the parole
board.
For those of you who are
not familiar, I was a former police officer with the Kitchener
city police department. From there I went into education, into
counselling. During that period of time I became involved in
municipal politics and served with the city of Kitchener, the
municipality, for 16 years, and then was elected also to the
regional council of Waterloo and served on regional council for
14 years. During that tenure in municipal politics I sat either
as chair, vice-chair or member of countless boards and
commissions. The one on which I was somewhat proud to have served
both as chair and vice-chair was the Waterloo Regional Police
Services Board. It was rather unusual at the time for a former
police officer to have been elected as a commissioner and then
eventually become chairman of the board. I guess if there was a
highlight in my life, that was one of the pleasures and one of
the enjoyments in public service. And, as you know, I served as a
member of provincial Parliament, representing Kitchener-Wilmot
from 1995 to 1999.
I believe my background is
quite varied and quite broad, which would lend to my appointment
to the parole board. I'd be more than pleased to respond to any
questions that the committee may direct my way.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We'll start with the government caucus.
Mr Wood:
We'll waive our time.
The Chair:
Mr Wood has indicated the government caucus will waive its time
so we go next in rotation to the official opposition, which is
Mrs Dombrowsky.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: It's indeed a pleasure to meet you this
morning, Mr Leadston. I certainly read with great interest the
resumé that you provided with many impressive
qualifications.
I'm sure you are aware that
in the province of Ontario in recent months there have been a
number of very disturbing incidences where individuals, usually
women, sometimes children, have been murdered-they've lost their
lives-at the hands of violent family members. In some cases these
are people who have been, or were at the time of the crime, on
parole. I guess I'd like to have you share with this committee
your reaction to that.
I don't know that it would
be the role of someone on the Board of Parole to assess any
blame, but what do we need to do, and in your role as a member of
the Board of Parole what would you do, to ensure that that kind
of occurrence does not repeat itself in the province of
Ontario?
Mr
Leadston: I think that's perhaps a very difficult
question for anyone to respond to. Bear in mind that you
mentioned the offence of murder, which is a criminal offence, and
if one is convicted of that offence they're incarcerated in a
federal institution and not a provincial institution. Having said
that, having been part of investigating teams in such scenarios,
there's a personal feeling about that and then there's a public
feeling. Obviously there's a tremendous hue and cry in the public
about the incidents of spousal abuse, elder abuse and abuse that
culminates in the death of an individual. As a society that does
not condone such action, obviously the offenders and the victims
need treatment and need counselling, and that has to occur at the
grassroots in the community. I'm sure you have programs like
victim-offender programs and the John Howard Society that work
with inmates within the institution and upon their release.
I think we, as a community,
and perhaps you as a government member, can do more in the
community in terms of education within our school system about
these types of offences, and why they occur and how they occur.
Perhaps premarital counselling should be a prerequisite before
one receives a marriage licence. There are all types of
initiatives that are currently underway which are very effective,
but there are many cases, as you and I are well aware, that fall
between the cracks and it's most, most unfortunate. But I think
the prerogative of the Ontario parole board is not within the
realm of an inmate who's committed such an offence.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Yes, I agree that murder is a federal crime.
Are you aware if spousal abuse is a federal or provincial
matter?
Mr
Leadston: If spousal abuse is a common assault or an
assault with intent, then they may or may not be incarcerated in
a provincial facility.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I guess the point that I'm trying to make
and have you understand is that these are individuals who've come
from the provincial system, who would have possibly appeared
before the Board of Parole and obviously had a history of this
kind of abuse, who have been placed on parole only to go out in
the community and create this heinous crime. There appears to be
a pattern in society that this definitely can happen. We also
hear in the media reports that in some cases there were a number
of cries for help, pleas for help, that were not heeded. I guess
what I would hope to hear from you is your understanding of how
vigilant you would need to be as a member of the parole board to
those specific sorts of issues.
1100
Mr
Leadston: I think we have an obligation to ourselves
personally, to the parole board and to society to protect
society. Obviously if an inmate is at risk of being released, I,
in good conscience, could not support the release of such an
individual if there's a history of spousal abuse, whether it's
male or female, because it occurs equally-not necessarily
statistically equally-from both parties. But I'd have great
difficulty putting someone who has historically committed those
types of offences perhaps since they were a youth back into
society without some type of prearranged program and support
systems for that individual upon their release to deal with their
aggression. There are programs within the facilities, within the
institutions, within the community that deal with that. But I
would have great difficulty, as I said earlier, supporting
someone's release unless all those safeguards were in place.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Do you think it's the responsibility of
members of the Board of Parole to know what services are
available within the community to which an individual is being
released?
Mr
Leadston: I think it's very important for the board
member to be aware of what facilities, what programs and what
support services are available within the community and within
the province of Ontario, and to perhaps have a general knowledge
across Canada. An inmate may have served whatever period of a
sentence and is being released, and I think it's important to be
aware in order to advise the inmate that there's such a program
in his or her community, and working with the authorities within
the institution and the authorities external to the institution
relative to programs that will support them and enhance what has
occurred for them within the institution, and support groups for
their families to deal with whatever deviant behaviour they've
committed that brought them into that situation.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: As a former MPP-you indicated earlier the
need for treatment and counselling in communities and you
mentioned some agencies within your community-you would be aware
that they are not consistent across the province of Ontario and
in fact that there are individuals who enter communities where
those sorts of services are not available.
Mr Leadston: Quite correctly. Yes,
I'm fully aware, and not within the realm of the criminal justice
system, but in the realm of many of the social services that are
delivered by both government and community. There has to be a
closer network between the various bodies in health care and
criminal justice-in all disciplines-in terms of sharing of
information and avoiding duplication, and becoming more efficient
and more cost-effective. That involves networking, instead of
having two or three agencies that are essentially dealing with
the same problem. It's like turf wars. I've worked in the field.
I'm quite familiar with your question and really the basis behind
the question. I understand that completely. It's a very complex
system.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: My constituency office is in a community
where there is a provincial detention centre, and I have to tell
you that we have not experienced anything like a turf war. In
fact, the problem that we hear in our office so very regularly is
the total lack of any kind of service for individuals upon their
release. When we talk about cost-efficiency, I don't know how you
can be any more cost-efficient than not providing programs at
all.
From my perspective, there
certainly needs to be more resources invested in that particular
area. Obviously, you can sense from my line of questioning and
the tenor of my voice that it's an issue that's very important to
me. I think that there needs to be particular attention paid to
individuals who have a violent past before they are released into
communities, and that individuals such as yourself would see some
role in advocating for better community programs.
Mr
Leadston: I would suggest, as I did in the community of
Waterloo region-we created a justice committee and I and my staff
served on that committee. The representation was very broad,
including the chief of police, Larry Gravill, and representatives
from family and children's services, because they deal with
families in a very broad range. I'm sure you have family and
children's services within your riding. You have a health unit.
All these groups, although they're not specifically dealing with
an offender, whether it's a young offender or an adult, are
involved in some minute way with the family or the children or
with a spouse or a relative. Formulating a committee is an
initiative that, as a member, would lend a lot of strength by
setting up a forum and bringing all the groups in within your
community to address that specific problem and how they currently
are dealing with it in some fashion. It worked, and it's
continuing to work, quite effectively in our community, in the
region of Waterloo. I'm sure I can provide you with the contact
name of the executive director or the chief of police.
The Acting Chair
(Mr Morley Kells): You might do that after.
Mr
Leadston: Certainly.
The Acting
Chair: The honourable member's time is up; it's a little
over. The third party's time, please.
Mr
Marchese: Gary, it's good to see you.
Mr
Leadston: My pleasure, Rosario. It's good to see
you.
Mr
Marchese: Gary, one of the things that I've observed
is-and some of us, at least, have known this for some time-if you
look at the statistics on parole applications granted and denied,
you can draw the conclusion the board is getting tougher and
granting fewer paroles.
In 1992-93, 47% of
applications were denied, and by 1999-2000, 72% of applications
were denied. That's pretty tough. Do you get the impression a
whole lot of people out there are saying, "We're not being tough
enough. We've got to get tougher"? Do you get the sense that
people are saying we're not tough enough?
Mr
Leadston: In response to your question, the honourable
member Mrs Dombrowsky just alluded to that fact, representing a
community which is gravely concerned about the types of offences.
That can be redirected into, "We're concerned about inmates being
released."
Mr
Marchese: Oh, yes. I am too.
Mr
Leadston: And we all are.
Mr
Marchese: I didn't ask that.
Mr
Leadston: I'm not sure what document you are referring
to in terms of statistics, but I'm not denying that fact. I think
society as a whole is concerned about inmates being released
prematurely-
Mr
Marchese: So am I. I'm not disagreeing with that.
Mr
Leadston: -without the necessary supports in the
community to deal with them when they are released.
Mr
Marchese: Right, that's another question I want to ask
in a second. The point I'm making is that in terms of parole
applications granted or denied, more and more are being denied.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. In most cases it's a good
thing. I'm agreeing with that; I'm not questioning that. I'm
saying there are a whole lot of politicians out there across the
land saying, "We're just not tough enough. We've got to be
tougher." My point is, based on the statistical information, we
are denying a lot of applications so we are being tough. Are some
politicians exploiting this perhaps? Given the statistical
information that a lot of applications are denied, are some
politicians using this for their own ends, do you think?
Mr
Leadston: Most of the situations I'm familiar with and
read about through the media or hear and see on television deal
with the severity of the offence, as you alluded to, Mrs
Dombrowsky, regarding capital offences, murder. Any crime is
important and obviously the loss of life. Most of the situations
I believe you are referring to occur at the federal level, when
you refer to politicians, and not necessarily at the provincial
level. But whether a politician is using his or her statements to
advance their political aspirations, that's beyond my realm of
ability.
Mr
Marchese: Of comprehension. You wouldn't know anything
about that obviously.
Mr
Leadston: I've had some familiarity with it. Personally
I've never used those tactics.
Mr
Marchese: Are you now or have you ever been a member of
the Communist Party?
Mr Leadston: Senator McCarthy,
I've heard that question before. No, I have not.
Mr
Marchese: I wanted to get that out of the way.
The Acting
Chair: Why are you going on and on?
1110
Mr
Marchese: You pointed out that you've worked with a lot
of students with behavioural problems. It can be tough work.
Social workers deal with that. I couldn't do it. It would be so
emotionally traumatizing for me to deal with such problems. It's
good that you have that experience. Are you aware of or familiar
with new programs that anyone is offering that are either
innovative or interesting or good as a way of convincing young
people that this is the way to do it, to fresh start, rather than
offering very little and they end up repeating offences? Or do
you have any suggestions yourself as to what we should do?
Mr
Leadston: I was fortunate enough to have met a business
couple who, for a variety of reasons, were assisted in their
youth for educational purposes and they became very successful. I
will not reveal their name because when we started this bursary
they did not want any publicity. They did not want their name
mentioned. I was fortunate enough to have been asked by them to
chair a bursary board. They put substantial monies aside
specifically to assist young people to stay in school. The monies
provided for such things as to repair a carburetor on a car,
because someone in a rural setting had to drive; dental work; for
children with disabilities who needed various visual aids, they
paid for them; computers.
Mr
Marchese: So this idea is a bursary. How many young
people did it serve?
Mr
Leadston: Perhaps 50 or 60 annually, including high-need
situations.
Mr
Marchese: That continues, Gary, this bursary?
Mr
Leadston: Yes, it continues to this day.
Mr
Marchese: Is that something you would recommend
province-wide? Is that what you're going to work on and the
government should work on? What do you think?
Mr
Leadston: I don't think it needs government intervention
or involvement. It needs people like yourself and the members in
their respective communities to network with people in the
business community, to say, "You started a business from scratch
and you worked very diligently and very hard and you're very
successful." I know and you know many employers like that.
"Perhaps you could do something more beneficial for a specific
group within the community."
Mr
Marchese: I understand, Gary. I'm not sure that I agree
necessarily, because that leaves the effort to individuals to
come up with solutions as opposed to what governments ought to be
doing as a way of providing resources. Like my Liberal colleague,
I'm worried that there aren't enough resources out there. We hear
that from everybody. I'm not sure whether you hear that or the
members hear that, but whenever we ask questions, everything is
OK. My view and the view of our caucus is that the resources are
not there, which leads us to suspect that possibly one of the
reasons many applications are denied is because we have so very
little to give them by way of reintegration that we hold them
back. It leads me to suspect that's possibly one of the reasons
why we're getting tougher, because we've got nothing to offer
them. Do you think there is some legitimacy to that?
Mr
Leadston: To a degree, but I think you and I are partly
responsible for that. When I met with this couple with the
concept they were very receptive. You could do the same, each
member of this committee, of the Legislature, any individual in
the community. All it takes is some initiative to call a group
together and say, "Listen, we have some difficulty here." Whether
it's inmates who are being released, whether it's young people,
whatever the difficulty is, I think it has to be at the
grassroots of the community. It's worked before. In most of my
career I had very little involvement or intervention with
government because when we saw a difficulty and we needed
solutions, we called a group together and said, "We have a
problem. How are we going to solve it?" That worked.
Mr
Marchese: I understand what you're saying. It is good to
see you, but we do disagree profoundly, obviously.
Mr
Leadston: We have in the past and I'm sure we will in
the future.
Mr
Marchese: And we continue. Your point, which I'm
assuming is theirs-
Mr
Leadston: No, that's my position.
Mr
Marchese: There are some striking similarities. Maybe
not Morley, but I don't know.
Your point about it being
your responsibility and mine is profoundly wrong, in terms of
direction. Yes, there are millions of people who devote a lot of
their hours contributing as volunteers in a whole host of places.
That is already happening. I don't know how many more people we
could engage, or whether we could engage the same volunteers to
do more. My point is that you can't have governments deliver
themselves from their obligations. When you say it's up to you
and me, it says to the government, "Don't worry, government, you
don't have do anything because the communities out there are
going to solve it." I disagree with that direction. I profoundly
disagree.
I've got another question
for you. With the superjails this government working on, which
displace regional facilities, it's important for the parole board
to consider the effectiveness of rehabilitation. If people are
moved long distances from their communities to serve their
sentences, isolated from family, community, church, support
groups like AA, we're worried about that. You create these
superjails, you remove them from their families, their support
systems and, in my view, it creates a problem in terms of our
ability to reintegrate them very close to where they have lived
most of their lives. Do you think that's a concern?
Mr
Leadston: I'm sure it's a concern to the inmates, the
families and the communities, and I believe it would be a concern
to the parole board and the administration, which I'm sure is
looking at and examining those concerns and will deal with them at an appropriate
time. I don't think it's within my realm today to deal with the
specifics of what you raise. Perhaps in time I could respond to
that somewhat more informed, but I think that particular issue is
under consideration and being examined very carefully.
Mr
Marchese: Thanks, Gary. Nice to see you.
Mr
Leadston: My pleasure.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Leadston.
Mr
Leadston: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman and members
of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
JAMES W. ASHCROFT
Review of intended
appointment, selected by third party: James W. Ashcroft, intended
appointee as member, Cancer Care Ontario.
The Chair:
Our next intended appointee is James W. Ashcroft, who is an
intended appointee as member of Cancer Care Ontario.
Mr Ashcroft, if you wish to
make an initial statement, you may do so.
Mr James W.
Ashcroft: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. By way of an
opening statement-I presume you have my curriculum vitae in front
of you-you'll see that I have always had a consistent involvement
in community affairs in conjunction with my employment, and a
very important factor in my family life. I would like to give a
brief summary of who I am.
I was born in Lancashire in
England in a small mining village, the son of a fourth-generation
coal miner. I myself entered the industry in 1956 as a coal miner
and joined the National Unions of Mineworkers. I took advantage
of educational opportunities and obtained a degree in mining
engineering at the local community college. This is a program
that Ontario has now started to introduce, and I think it's one
heck of a good one. The industry was in decline, so I came to
Canada in 1968 to work for Inco at Levack Mine in Sudbury. I
progressed through the organization with a period in Thompson,
Manitoba, to become the president of the Ontario division, and I
retired in 1997 after 30 years' service.
I met my wife, who's also
from England, in 1968. She was in Canada on the Commonwealth
exchange program. She's just been appointed a school principal in
Sudbury, so I'm going to be around, you know. We have three boys,
who were all born in Sudbury. The first two graduated from
Laurentian University, the first in mining engineering, and he's
in London, England, with Barclay's Capital; the second with a
bachelor's in economics, and he's with the Bank of Montreal in
North Bay; and the third has just graduated from Western
university as a mechanical engineer, and he's going to Cambridge
University in England to do post-graduate studies.
My wife and I were born in
northern England, and we are proud that our family is from
northern Ontario. As you will note, over the years I've been
involved in the theatre centre, Science North, the general
hospitals in Sudbury and Thompson, and Laurentian University,
where I am just completing a nine-year term, five of which were
as chairman of the executive committee.
1120
My main focus at this time
is palliative care. I have been a volunteer for two years and am
presently working with my fifth client and his family. I can
assure you, gentlemen, that it sure makes you focus on the
important things in life when you do that.
I'm also committed to
heading up the mine contracting, consulting and supplies
portfolio for the heart and stroke campaign at the new regional
hospital. As a community, we have to raise $17 million. That's
the highest amount we've ever challenged, but I'm sure we can do
it.
I was appointed to the
transition board for the city of greater Sudbury, and that will
end in January 2001.
I believe that as a
northerner with a strong family commitment, my experience in
industry, my past volunteer work and my association with
palliative care and the fundraising for the new regional
hospital, this will enable me to fulfill the commitments of the
Cancer Care Ontario board, enable me to work as a strong advocate
for my fellow northerners and help address their cancer
needs.
Thank you, Mr Chair.
Questions?
The Chair:
Thank you very much. We will begin in this case with the official
opposition, Ms Dombrowsky.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Good morning, Mr Ashcroft.
When I was looking at your
curriculum vitae, I was looking for some previous connection in a
health forum, as a member of a district health council or a
hospital board of directors. Could you just state again your most
recent experiences in the health field?
Mr
Ashcroft: In 1988, I was a member of the board of the
Sisters of St Joseph general hospital in Sudbury. Then I went to
Manitoba and was on the board of the general hospital in
Thompson, Manitoba, for two and a half years. So I have a total
of three and a half years' direct involvement with hospital
boards.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: That's very good, and good information for
me to have, as well.
With regard to this
particular role, is this a role you inquired about and inquired
how one might become a part of Cancer Care Ontario, or were you
approached by an individual? How did you get here?
Mr
Ashcroft: I didn't inquire, and I didn't ask. I've now
been retired for three years, and I've been doing volunteer work.
This, of course, is well known. I got a call from the Premier's
office on this issue, asking me if I was interested, and it fits
with the direction I'm going, with the fundraising and the
palliative care, and now to get involved in this where you can
really make a difference. I think that's important.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I'm just curious: How might the Premier's
office have known you were retired and available for this kind of
role?
Mr
Ashcroft: I've been retired three years.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Do you know the Premier?
Mr
Ashcroft: Pardon?
Mrs Dombrowsky: Do you know the
Premier?
Mr
Ashcroft: I've met the Premier, but I don't know the
Premier. You know.
Mr
Marchese: He's a nice guy.
Mr
Ashcroft: I agree with that.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I'm sure you are not surprised when I
indicate to you that I have a question with regard to what my
colleagues refer to as health care apartheid, as it relates to
Cancer Care Ontario and the fact that patients with cancer in
northern Ontario are not able to access the same resources for
compensation for treatment-related expenses as cancer patients in
southern Ontario. This relates directly to policy wording. I
guess I'd like to understand from you if you think this is
equitable. Do you have a comment? Is it an issue that you believe
needs to be addressed, as a representative from Sudbury?
Mr
Ashcroft: It's an issue in Sudbury. It gets a lot of
press attention. I've taken the trouble to attempt to understand
the issue. The northern Ontario travel grant, as I understand it,
has been in practice since 1987. It seems to have worked well
through three administrations, the Liberals, the NDP and now the
Conservatives. The issue has become an issue because of grants
that are being given for re-referral in southern Ontario. There
is a difference. I understand that the re-referral issue is
available to the people of northern Ontario, too. But talking to
the officials in Sudbury, they're not aware of anybody actually
qualifying to take advantage of it. So in essence, because of the
zoning-the way the zones are made-it does not become an item in
Sudbury.
I think it's an issue that
I will be looking at, but I'm not prepared at this time to make a
statement to say it will be the most important thing I look at
when I look at some of the other issues.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Can you name one other issue that you think
would be more important?
Mr
Ashcroft: They've done a needs assessment of
northeastern Ontario regional cancer care and there are a number
of issues on nurse practitioners, people they call voyagers whom
they want to be in communities to help people find their way
around the process to get help and how to handle it. When you
look at that then you realize, of course, that is money. You have
to decide where the priorities are. I am not saying that this
travel grant is not an important issue, but before I-I'm not even
on the board-would make a definitive statement on where I would
stand on it, I would need to understand the greater issues more,
I think.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Maybe I'm just not clear on the issue that
I've asked you about, one that you would consider would be more
important than the travel grant issue.
Mr
Ashcroft: And my answer is that at this time I am not
prepared to say one or the other is the most important. I was
always taught that until I fully understood the issues, don't
jump, and I don't want to yet.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Have you spoken with your local member about
the travel grant issue?
Mr
Ashcroft: No, I haven't spoken to Shelley Martel.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: You are aware as well that the auditor's
report very clearly demonstrated that patients with cancer in
Ontario are not accessing treatment in the recommended time
frame. It was at 32%; it's improved somewhat. What kind of
priority would you give that?
Mr
Ashcroft: I would think it would be an important
priority, but you've given me numbers that I frankly don't know
at this time.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Have you any sense why this is in fact the
case in Ontario, why patients with cancer in Ontario are not
getting treatment in what is the recommended treatment time?
Mr
Ashcroft: I don't know what's happening in the other
provinces and I don't know how we compare, but I would
imagine-and again you've got the advantage of me-that attracting
qualified personnel into Canada with the tax regime that we have
is one of the factors that's a problem. It's an issue in industry
and it's one in health care, I know. It may be training. There's
lots of things, but I can't give you a definitive answer on
that.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: That would conclude my questions.
The Chair:
On behalf of the third party, Mr Marchese.
Mr
Marchese: Mr Ashcroft, welcome. Have you now or ever
been a member of the Communist Party?
Mr
Ashcroft: No.
Mr
Marchese: Have you ever attended any meetings with other
miners who might have been connected to the Communist Party?
Mr
Ashcroft: You know, I had the good fortune when I left
school to go to a mine that was next to a refugee camp from
Europe. Everybody was a refugee, a displaced person. If there's
one thing they hated, it was Communism. So I got cleaned up
straight away.
Mr
Marchese: You see, it's good to know that background. We
get a better sense then of who we are.
I'm concerned about this
last point that was raised by my Liberal colleague because
Shelley Martel has been talking about the discrimination of the
grant system as it relates to northerners versus southerners.
Northerners get a travel grant: 30 cents a kilometre. That's all
they get. Whether they go in the north or south or anywhere else,
all they get is 30 cents a kilometre. In my humble view, I don't
need to know very much. If I were a northerner, all I would need
to know is all I get is 30 cents a kilometre. Somebody else from
down here gets everything paid but up there we only get 30 cents
a kilometre. I would be angry. I wouldn't need to know anything.
I would say this has to be repaired and quickly. I don't need to
go in there and say, "I'm going to talk to Mike Harris, find out
why he's not doing it," and he's saying, "We've got to fix it, I
know, but not now; we're under heat at the moment but we're going
to look at this very closely to see when and how." I wouldn't
need to know anything, except that it's discriminatory, don't you
think?
Mr
Ashcroft: Different from you, I do need to know
something before I pass opinions, and I can assure you that if I
decide that this is an issue that has to have number one priority and is one
that we drive for, I won't hesitate to do it. I've tried to do as
much reading as I can, and there's a lot of things, a lot of
issues that are evident for the north. It's something that I'm
pleased I'll get an opportunity to do deal with.
1130
Mr
Marchese: And I'm sure you will. We're dealing with life
and death. Cancer is life close to death. Many people die when
they get cancer and some people survive. To have the extra burden
on me, as an individual, and the family in terms of worrying
about whether we have enough money to deal with this problem is
of the utmost importance.
You said you've read about
this, you've heard about this, you've talked about this, but
you're going to read some more once you get there. I understand
that. I appreciate that. But when we're dealing with an issue of
life and death, I shouldn't have to worry, as a northerner, about
whether I have enough money to be able to go the extra mile.
There are a lot of miles up there in the north in terms of travel
between one distance and the other-just up there, let alone
talking about going somewhere south. I would want to be relieved
of that extra financial worry. I would think that would be an
issue for you too.
Mr
Ashcroft: I didn't say it wasn't an issue. I said it's
one of many issues that need to be considered. As far as
understanding that people are facing death, when you face a
client in palliative care, like I do, these issues are there. I
think it's an important one that we'll be looking at.
Mr
Marchese: We know there's a shortage of radiation
therapists. You know about that.
Mr
Ashcroft: Yes. I read something about the change from
three to four years and no graduates in the year 2000.
Mr
Marchese: Right.
Mr
Ashcroft: I think the Michener institute of health was
involved.
Mr
Marchese: We will obviously have more therapists coming
in in the year 2001. But in 1995, in the wisdom of the
Conservative Party, they cancelled the training program for
radiation therapists in Ontario, which we think was dumb. Would
you agree that it was short-sighted for them to have done
that?
Mr
Ashcroft: In hindsight it looks a mistake.
Mr
Marchese: We should correct that as soon as we can,
shouldn't we?
Mr
Ashcroft: I understand there was a major recruiting
program undertaken in Ontario.
Mr
Marchese: Sure. We're into a crisis; what are you going
to do?
Mr
Ashcroft: I can't believe it, but I understand they got
into trouble getting them into the country because of federal
regulations. I think there's an attempt being made. I don't know
how successful it's been.
Mr
Marchese: Thank you, James.
The Chair:
Representatives of the government caucus.
Mr Bert Johnson
(Perth-Middlesex): I have one question. The payment of
expenses for cancer treatment in southern Ontario and northern
Ontario has come up a couple of times. I happen to live in a
place called Listowel, Ontario. It's about 100 kilometres north
of London. I would guess on any one day you could count several
cars that leave Listowel and go to London for cancer treatment at
the large tertiary hospital there.
In spite of the comments
that were made, I don't think any of those people know or care
that they don't get 30 cents a kilometre for treatment. They
don't get anything. I know the legion contributes. I know there
are volunteers who help. Usually it's an all-day event. Driving
on the way home after the treatment might eliminate people being
able to get home that night if they had to drive themselves. So I
think there's a little bit more to the expense and the payment
and that sort of thing than what you're hearing today.
I just wanted to say that I
like your attitude that you'll find out more about it before you
make up your mind, because to me that demonstrates the type of
person we would want on such an important board as Cancer Care
Ontario.
Mr Wood:
We'll waive the balance.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Wood, for indicating that. Thank you very
much, Mr Ashcroft, for appearing before the committee.
At 12 noon we are scheduled
to deal with motions of concurrence. I see representatives of the
three political parties here today, the government, the official
opposition and the third party, so with your permission I will
proceed with the concurrences at this time and I will receive
motions.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence on the intended appointment of Mr Brown.
The Chair:
Mr Wood has moved concurrence on the intended appointment of Mr
David A. Brown as a member of Cancer Care Ontario.
Any discussion? If not, all
in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.
Next we will be dealing
with Mr David Braley, intended appointee as member and chair,
McMichael Canadian Art Collection board of trustees.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence.
The Chair:
Mr Wood has moved concurrence in the appointment of David Braley.
Any discussion?
Mr
Marchese: Just a concern, Mr Chair. I think Mr Braley is
a very decent, sincere man in terms of his interest in his work.
I was a bit concerned, though, about his comment around the
selection process of the disposition of the art. I mean, he's
going to be a member of a committee that has to decide what to do
with the art and he gave the impression that he wasn't in a
position to be able to judge that, "What is of good quality to me
or of interest to me might not be of interest to somebody else."
He's going to be a member of that committee; he's going to deal
with the disposition of the art. I was a bit concerned about the
appointment. I know he's a well-intentioned, hard-working
individual, but in terms of what he's being asked to do here and his answers to
that responsibility and role, I am worried.
The Chair:
Any other discussion?
Mrs Julia Munro
(York North): Yes, I just want to comment that I think
he made very clear in his comments the understanding he has of
his role as a potential chair. In response to the concerns raised
by the member, he did make reference not only to the
responsibility he has to listen to the various people who would
be providing input, but also demonstrated, I believe in response
to a question from Ms Dombrowsky, his ability, his track record
if you like, in bringing together disparate opinions and working
on those. I just want to suggest that he did in fact give us some
evidence that would demonstrate his ability to bring those
disparate groups together.
The Chair:
Any other discussion? If not, I'll call the vote.
All in favour? Opposed? The
motion is carried.
We now deal with the
intended appointee as a member of the Board of Parole, Mr Gary
Leadston.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence.
The Chair:
Concurrence is moved by Mr Wood. Any discussion?
All in favour? Opposed? The
motion is carried.
We will now deal with Mr
James W. Ashcroft, intended appointee as member, Cancer Care
Ontario.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence.
The Chair:
Mr Wood has moved concurrence in the appointment. Any
comment?
Mr
Marchese: I am concerned both with Mr Brown and Mr
Ashcroft in terms of their answers to this question of
discrimination to northerners re the travel grant. In my view,
their answers are very inadequate. I'm not quite sure what they
would think or what Mr Ashcroft thinks is important, if this one
isn't. We're dealing with an issue of life and death. There's an
unfair practice here of giving dollars to southerners that
northerners do not get, for travel within their own northern
boundaries and beyond. We as the New Democratic Party find this
discriminatory. I'm surprised that the members couldn't come up
with a clearer answer to the questions we have asked. So we're
opposed to these appointments, and particularly opposed
philosophically to what the Premier has done by firing Gerry
Lougheed with his language about that being health care
apartheid. I think that's what ousted him from his position,
because I think he wants little toadies on the board. I suspect
that Mr Ashcroft and Mr Brown are not going to rock any boat,
from the kinds of answers they've given to our questions.
Philosophically,
principally, we're against what the government has done to Mr
Lougheed. I think he spoke out in a way that is fair to
northerners. I think that's what I would have done if I were
there. I expect any member to say the same, and I don't get the
impression Mr Ashcroft or Mr Brown are going to rock any boat if
they discover there's some discrepancy or some discrimination
going on. For that reason, I'll be voting against Mr Ashcroft as
well.
The Chair:
Any other discussion?
If not, I'll call the
vote.
All in favour? Opposed? The
motion is carried.
We have now concluded our
business. Is there anyone who has any other business they wish to
raise with the committee?
Mr
Marchese: It was nice to see you, Mr Chair.
The Chair:
It was very pleasant to be here.
If not, I will ask for a
motion of adjournment.
Mr Wood:
So moved.
The Chair:
Mr Wood has moved adjournment. All in favour? The motion is
carried.
