Legislative Assembly of Ontario

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
DAVID BROWN

DAVID BRALEY

GARY LEADSTON

JAMES W. ASHCROFT

CONTENTS

Tuesday 29 August 2000

Subcommittee report

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.

The committee adjourned at 1140.