INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
WILLIAM JAMES
CONTENTS
Wednesday 16 October 1996
Intended appointments
William James
Geraldine Lloyd
Michael Krisko
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président: Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
*Mr RickBartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
*Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
*Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
*Mr GaryFox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings /
Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)
*Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)
*Mr BertJohnson (Perth PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Mr FloydLaughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Mr DanNewman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
*Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr TonySilipo (Dovercourt ND)
*Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr TonyMartin (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Kormos
Mr GillesPouliot (Lake Nipigon / Lac-Nipigon ND) for Mr Silipo
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr FrankMiclash (Kenora L)
Clerk /Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1003 in committee room 1.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): We have a full agenda this morning and we should begin. The first item is the report of the subcommittee.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I move adoption of the report of the subcommittee.
The Chair: Mr Wood has moved adoption of the subcommittee report. Is there any debate on it? Are you ready for the question? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried. Thank you.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
WILLIAM JAMES
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: William James, intended appointee as chair, Ottawa-Carleton Regional District Health Council.
The Chair: The second item on the agenda is the one- half-hour review of the appointment selected by the New Democrats, Mr William James, as chair of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional District Health Council. Mr James, welcome to the committee. We are pleased that you are here. We always give an opportunity for the intended appointee to say a few words, if they wish to, and then have members from the three political parties ask questions of you. If you wish to proceed, please do so.
Dr William James: Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here this morning. I would like to say just a few words about myself. I always feel that when we say a few words about ourselves, we're supposed to sound very egotistical, but I'm not. I hope to sound quite humble, because I feel that it is a quite a privilege to have been nominated by my colleagues at the Ottawa-Carleton Regional District Health Council to be their chairperson.
As my CV would show, I've had a very wide base of activity in medical circles, non-medical circles and the community. I had the opportunity to be the chairman of the board of health in the Ottawa-Carleton region many years ago. I've also been the chairman of the board of the children's aid society. As a result, I've had a fairly broad background of activity and work in both medical and social areas, and also community work.
As an example, as it points out, I've recently been one of the co-founders and charter members of the David Smith Centre for teenagers with substance abuse problems. I'm also involved with and was one of the charter members of the Ottawa-Carleton region for Variety Club, which is a charitable organization, a fund-raiser. Also, I've been involved in the Children's Aid Foundation, Queen's University, which is my alma mater. I've always had some attachments there and was at one time president of the area there and of Ottawa-Carleton. I'm also currently the medical adviser for the Children's Wish Foundation of Canada on a national basis.
I've had an opportunity to be involved with many areas of health care, community work and also the district health council. As my CV would also show, and I believe you would have that, I was appointed to be a member of the district health council and served from 1990 to 1994, and then I was reappointed this past February. So I feel I've had the opportunity to work in many areas, locally, regionally and nationally, and would hope that I can carry forward as chairman of the district health council in Ottawa-Carleton and add something to the activities and the workings of that organization.
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Good morning. Would you tell the committee a little about the reasons for your interest in the district health council?
Dr James: I've been interested in health care and working with people in the Ottawa-Carleton region, as I said in my opening remarks, for many years. I served on it a few years ago, between 1990 and 1994, and came to appreciate the needs and maybe the wishes of the Ottawa-Carleton region in terms of health care. When I was offered the opportunity to come back on in February 1996 for another two-year term, I just felt there was a challenge there. I've always liked challenges; that's been my lifestyle. This offered me an opportunity to work with a different group, certainly a different board, and accept the challenge. I didn't expect to become nominated for chairman of this organization at the time. In light of what's happening in the Ottawa-Carleton region, it's become a greater challenge than I expected, but that's what I'm there for. I like the challenge and I feel that I have something to offer my community, which has also been very good to me over the years, I might add.
Mr Ford: Are you familiar with the plan for the hospital restructuring prepared by the district health council and submitted to the Health Services Restructuring Commission?
Dr James: I am very familiar with it, sir. I actually have the document here, just so you know I've even looked at it and made lots of notes over the years. But I came on board in February and we submitted this to the restructuring commission just recently. This is really a commitment to change, and it's not just hospital restructuring, if I may add; it is restructuring and relooking at the health care delivery system in the Ottawa-Carleton region. As a member of the council and as a member of the executive committee, I've been very familiar and worked with this in preparing this documentation as well.
1010
Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): You're familiar with what's been happening in the Ottawa region with the hospitals: the closure of the 500 beds and no hospitals closed out at any time. What's your feeling on that?
Dr James: I'm going to speak as the acting chair of the district health council, because that's the way I've had to be over the last few months. I have to support the document. This is a good document. We have addressed the issues. We've addressed the fact that we can save $125 million from the hospital budget. We've realized the 18% we were asked to realize. It's a good document and I support it as it now stands.
When it came to the meeting itself on May 29, which was very public, my voting record is public. As a chairperson, I have to support what we say, because we can achieve those goals, particularly with the reinvestment strategies that are also being added in. It is a good document. We can work within it, and if we get the common governance of the four teaching hospitals and the merger of the two major hospitals -- the Civic and the General -- further changes down the road can be achieved. That's why I support what we've been doing.
We've had a lot of beds closed. We've had over 500 beds closed since the 1988-89 year and I think there's a chance for some levelling off. We're still coming in below the provincial average with our recommendations. I have to support this.
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): You've had some extensive involvement, of course, on committees and boards. I wonder if you could tell us what you'd like to see accomplished on the health council, what your priorities are, or did you just discuss them at that moment?
Dr James: No. I expected this question, because that's a logical type of question. My own expectations are that we have to look at keeping our council together and getting some common goals. We've gone through some turbulent times -- the press has said that -- but after saying that, we've all worked quite well to achieve our goals and to achieve what we've accomplished already.
Again, I think the main thing that I personally have to do is to speak on behalf of council. I have views. I'd like to see some of the things that are going to happen. Personally, I feel the most important thing now is to get on with our reconfiguration and then the implementation. We've already put our report to the restructuring commission, and the implementation of our plan becomes goal number one after we hear back in mid-December or, officially, in mid-January.
At the moment, we're also looking at restructuring and reconfiguration, and probably amalgamations and mergers of two, three, maybe even four of the district health councils in the region. In eastern Ontario we have six district health councils and it's been very obvious that there are going to be some changes in this area. That's going to become one of our number one priority items over the next several weeks and months.
Implementation I've mentioned already.
We have a lot of other areas that have to go forward in Ottawa-Carleton, such as mental health reform. When I get back to Ottawa later this afternoon, we're going to be having a meeting just to discuss some of the areas. That's a key area of concern in the francophone community and for the seniors, and long-term care of our patients in that area as well.
Integration of services: This is maybe a new buzzword for a lot of us, but integration of services is another area that we feel we have to look at, both in the hospital sector as well as on a regional basis. It may well eventually evolve that we have to look at regional health authorities. This is something that's come up. I'm not sure just which direction we're going. There's a lot of discussion, but these are some of the priority items that, as chair, I have to steer through our committees and look at. I'm sure that over the next several months there will be many changes to my vision, but nevertheless, as a chairperson I'm really there to hear what other members have to say, help to put it together and work in this area.
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve the balance.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Good morning, Dr James. Welcome. We've just gone through a restructuring in Sudbury, and I get very emotional whenever I think of it. I'll try not to bring the Sudbury experience into play, but maybe just a few general questions. Do you support the government's agenda to close hospitals?
Dr James: I'm not sure. If I may twist your question around just a little bit, sir?
Mr Bartolucci: Go ahead, do whatever you want with it.
Dr James: I feel that health care has been delivered almost the same way for 100 years or so, maybe even longer, and the time has come to relook at how we're delivering health care. Things have changed. Technology has changed. I think everyone in this room knows that if you go in for a gall bladder -- I'm a paediatrician, and in my own area, with new medications -- we used to keep an asthmatic in for a week or 10 days. Now the average length of stay is 48 hours, if at all. With changes, beds are obviously going to be closed and have to be closed. Whether we close institutions has to be very carefully addressed.
I'm familiar on a superficial basis with what went on in Sudbury. I believe three out of your five hospitals were closed. I also understand there's been reinvestment, but I'm not sure of the details. I've just seen the preliminary report.
Ottawa-Carleton -- it may well come to the fact that hospitals have to be closed. We feel, as a council, we supported at our very open meeting on May 29, that we could achieve our goals of an 18% saving without closing them.
So, yes, I do agree with the ministry's and the government's views on restructuring health care, and we in Ottawa-Carleton don't look at closing hospitals but we look at restructuring. I think that's the issue, not just closure of beds. If it should come to pass that the commission says we've got to close beds, then we will close them, of course, and I think we can work within that framework also.
Mr Bartolucci: If I hear you correctly, you're certainly supportive of restructuring hospital services. I don't think there's anybody in the province who isn't supportive of that. But you said in response to a question from one of my colleagues across the way that you're very supportive of the document developed by the DHC which says there's going to be no closures if you don't want closures of hospitals, but now you're saying that if they close, them so be it.
Dr James: No.
Mr Bartolucci: No?
Dr James: If I may, sir, I'm saying that if they say we have to close them then we're quite prepared to work within that framework. I also said that it may well come, with our mergers and our common governances in these changes, that further cost savings have to be facilitated, that we would have to work within our framework either to close more beds or to close hospitals if necessary, but at this particular time we feel that in the Ottawa-Carleton region it's not necessary. But I also said, quite rightly so, that if they say we must close hospitals, there are empty beds that could be brought back into service in some of the closed wings of hospitals and we may well have to do what they're suggesting. If they do, then we're quite prepared to work within that framework. At the moment it's maybe a bit theoretical, but that theory may turn to practicality very shortly.
Mr Bartolucci: Very shortly. How many years has the DHC worked on their report?
Dr James: A little over two years.
Mr Bartolucci: The Sudbury experience would tell you that we worked on it for approximately two and a half years. Did you hold extensive public hearings?
Dr James: First of all, we had 13 subcommittees that were working on the restructuring commission, on the restructuring of our health care system. We had three or four open houses where several hundred people came. Our actual meeting itself was very public. We had it in the regional headquarters which was televised and it was a very open vote. The whole process was open; it was wide open. Even when the restructuring of our own health care system had their meetings before they reported to council, TV was there, it was an open meeting. I personally also subscribe to the fact that meetings and things like this should be very open, in an open process, because I think we have a responsibility to our community. So, yes, it was very public all the way through the process.
Mr Bartolucci: That's very good. That was the experience in Sudbury as well. Do you believe then that the way the Health Services Restructuring Commission's mandate is set out is the proper way, because you know theirs isn't public at all, everything is done behind closed doors? Are you in support of that?
Dr James: Well, I'm in support of the restructuring commission. My understanding is that they're really quite independent. They are, of course, a body that recommends to the Ministry of Health what should be done. I'm not sure if there's another way of doing it at this point. I've really not felt that it's my purpose to say too much further on this. I think this is the way it's been mandated and I think we have to accept this as such. Certainly at our level at the Ottawa-Carleton Regional District Health Council I think communication with the public is important. That's one of our roles, that's one of my mandates as chairperson, to make sure it's public. What the ministry does in these other areas I think is out of my hands and I just have to go along with them. So does the rest of council.
Mr Bartolucci: Yes. I guess I'm asking for a personal opinion here. If you'd rather not give it, that's fine with me as well. But would you feel betrayed if after this two years of very extensive public input and trying to come to some type of consensus -- and it looks like you've provided the commission with three scenarios that they could effectively use -- would you be disappointed --
Dr James: No. We presented one scenario. That's the scenario that's in here. There were other scenarios that we've looked at and there's other people and other organizations in just about every hospital and region with their own scenario that they've presented, but district health councils only presented one scenario.
Mr Bartolucci: Right. I was about to say that after all those scenarios you came to one, I guess, plan of attack that you believe would work best in your area. Would you feel terribly betrayed if they didn't accept that?
1020
Dr James: I don't think "betrayed" is the right word, but I think we would be disappointed to some extent, yes, because a lot of hard work has gone into it. But on the other hand, as I said earlier, whatever will be we have to work within that framework, but we think we have a good document, and we feel this is the one that should go forward.
Mr Bartolucci: I think if history is any indicator, the people in Thunder Bay felt betrayed, people in Sudbury certainly feel betrayed. I would hope you would be the exception to what's happening across the province with health services restructuring.
Another point I guess, a minor point, and maybe it's just a comment, this commission really has nothing to do with health services. It has everything to do with hospital closures. If you saw, and you will see, certainly when you get the commission's decision, how poorly they address health services restructuring. It's beyond belief, but that's only a comment and an aside.
How much money do you feel should be reinvested that's taken out of the Ottawa area?
Dr James: Again, after two years and $2 million of study, we feel that a minimum of $40 million, closer to $60 million, should be reinvested within our community. For instance, we need over 500 long-term-care beds. That costs money in capitalization. It also takes money in terms of running these organizations; right there in itself is a major area. Home care, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and AIDS hospice: These are just some of the recommendations that we've made, and we feel that about $60 million would keep our health care system, with our recommendations, very sound.
We're also talking about 2,000 jobs lost with our restructuring that we've recommended, and anything beyond that would of course take more, and at least by reinvesting some of these jobs that are lost, maybe a fair number of them, could be reinvested into the community that way so it helps our own economy this way as well.
Mr Bartolucci: How many more minutes?
The Chair: Two.
Mr Bartolucci: Are all the hospitals in Ottawa considered to be bilingual hospitals?
Dr James: No.
Mr Bartolucci: Have you addressed that in your report? I have to be perfectly honest, I haven't read your report.
Dr James: It's a key to the report. It's a very key ingredient. If you live in Ottawa-Carleton region, we all know that this is a very key ingredient to the proper maintenance of health care in our community. Over 20% of our community is francophone so it has to be addressed.
Mr Bartolucci: Would you find it peculiar for a commission to recommend that they take no stance on it at all, whether it be unilingual or bilingual and they leave it to the new board? Would you find that unusual for a commission to do that?
Dr James: I can't comment on what the commission is going to do, but certainly in our discussions with them, and I had one major one with our group from Ottawa-Carleton and another one with the eastern Ontario district health council, but I think that they will take this into consideration. But again, I can't speak for them.
Mr Bartolucci: Don't ever speak for the commission. You'll only be disappointed. I was checking your résumé and it's very extensive, and certainly you're qualified for this position and there's no question about that. I don't see anything about sports. Are you a hockey player? Have you ever been a hockey player?
Dr James: I'm an avid skier, an avid golfer and I finally got my nine-hole score below my age, not because I'm a better golfer.
Mr Bartolucci: I'm proud of you. The reason I ask if you were a hockey player --
Dr James: I'm a former sports announcer and I started my career with a gentleman by the name of Johnny Esaw way back when.
Mr Bartolucci: I know Johnny well. I would suggest, though, that you practise your hockey skills, because once the commission hands down its report, you as the chair are going to have to do some excellent stickhandling to make sure that this commission report is acceptable to the community. I wish you well, and I hope at the end of the day you are as optimistic as you are right now with regard to the commission's recommendation. I only wish the people of Thunder Bay and Sudbury could've been as optimistic as you are.
The Chair: We'll move now to someone who needs no lessons in skating.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): It's certainly a pleasure to be here. I'm subbing for someone else. Bonjour, docteur.
Dr James: Good day. Bonjour.
M. Pouliot : La vie est belle.
Dr James: My French-language skills are minimal, sir.
Mr Pouliot: Yes, but you do represent 20% of what is the bastion of francophone representation in your high-profile capacity.
Dr James: That's right, sir.
Mr Pouliot: Very well, sir.
On your golf score that you finally play sub-par your age, those things are, sir, with respect -- I respect doctors -- subject to change from time to time, but if at one time you wish to, you can resist no longer when you tabulate your score and it's a little white lie, I invite you to work with and to golf with the real professionals when it comes to a score that you wish and a score that is with its daily variance.
Doctor, you spoke openly, and it was with candour, and I for one too would wish to operate that way about the need for open meetings, that there are no skeletons, there's nothing to hide. We're talking about the public purse; we're talking about public health and we touch everyone. Sometimes we impact their lives most directly. Everyone is on a waiting list. No one escapes the system. You would not favour a fifth column. For instance, if a group of appointees to the DHC was to meet in secret, that would not be your style, that's not the way you would conduct business, Doctor, would you?
Dr James: My skills -- one is communication, and almost every board and everything I've chaired has been very open. I must say that I don't like private meetings, but I think people are entitled to this somewhere along the line as long as they bring it to the table, and most of these such groups usually do eventually have to. This would not be my preferred way of seeing business done, but certainly it's something that is done and I'd be very naïve if I didn't believe in it.
Mr Pouliot: You're not naïve at all. With respect, you're a doctor in medicine and you know what's down the pipe. It's been said, perhaps in extreme, that what you have here by virtue of Bill 26 is government by decree, that people will move -- the analogy would have some validity, the following, that what you have is a chainsaw with an attitude, government by meat cleaver, that will go right to the heart of the most cherished trust and service, that of health care.
As chair, what would your reaction be? On the one hand, you have accessibility, the need of the people that you represent, the citizens. On the other hand, systematically, deliberately -- not bed closer, no, not that kind of rationalization, but real padlock so that when Ms Jones, after visiting your office -- and you see, she has to be confined, but she's 74 years old; she cannot defend herself. It has been decreed by some order above, and it becomes a matter of conscience, someone like you would be asked to stand up to represent Ms Jones, to speak out, to influence so that the padlock does not lock her out or does not take away the chance of being like the others. Why would you in your position, no matter how positive, wish at this time to be the chair of the -- don't you feel that the toxicity level in your tenure will take on extraordinary proportions, that this is not the kind of philanthropy that one would wish if one were a doctor?
Dr James: I'm not sure if it's any different if one's a doctor or any other citizen in the community. We all have a role to play in our community in the delivery of health care. I certainly would not like to see everything come with that padlock, as you suggest, but I think members of Ottawa-Carleton or whatever region it may be have to do what they feel and we feel is best for our community. I happen to be one of the spokespeople in this area. I realize, and we all realize, what the government of the day eventually decides to do, whether it be the current one or whether it be another one somewhere down the road, we have to work because we are a planning board, we are a planning organization for our region and we are sending our recommendations to the government. They have that ultimate say and we recognize it. We can only do the very best we can, and for the moment I hope to be one of the people who can work with this government and work against the government, whatever may be, but certainly I think we have a mandate and we have to work and do the best we can. That's the very most I can say at this point.
1030
Mr Pouliot: What can I say? I don't wish to bring this subject matter, Mr Chair, with respect, to a level to which you are unaccustomed. You're not deserving of this.
Aside from your science -- I came here but I haven't been here a long time: half of what that man, the Chair, as the dean of the House, has been here, 25 years. I will not try to emulate him.
The Chair: Leave me out of this.
Mr Pouliot: I've only been here half that time. Doctor, I used to have the same enthusiasm. In the morning I would get up and say it's really positive; we have so much to be thankful for. When everything was dark, I could still see the stars. That's until recently. I got to work with the three parties. We were the third party; we're back there. We were the official opposition, then we got to form the government, and on June 8, with the help of voters, with the patronage of the Ontario electorate, we find ourselves back as the third party -- but no, no, not the third; the fourth party. You have a coalition of Progressive Conservatives, mostly old-timers or people who have had tenure for some time.
See, they had to advertise because they had the disfavour of people, so some of them came forward and they said, "Yes, I want to be the candidate." If the time was right, their number was picked -- and half of them are Reform. I don't want you to be the referee in all this. This is the reality. These people will put the bottom line way ahead of the human dimension as long as electorally they can get away with it. It's as simple as that. So if my friend Mr Bartolucci and I are resorting to desperate -- well, it's a plea and an invitation for vigilance. Patience will become a virtue, will take on extraordinary proportions in your tenure.
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Point of order, Mr Chair: Which "patient" was that? I want to know the spelling of "patient."
Mr Pouliot: It's my time.
The Chair: I think you should ignore the interjection, Mr Pouliot, since your time is almost up, and proceed.
Mr Pouliot: I can spell "patience" in three languages as soon as you can spell "parallel."
Mr Bert Johnson: P-A-R-A-L-L-E-L.
Mr Pouliot: It's two Ls, yes.
I wish to apologize on behalf of my distinguished colleague. He spells "dilemma" with one M.
In closing -- and Bert, I don't wish to lose my train of thought -- if you had to choose, Doctor, if you were vexed, appalled, shocked, if people in your community, the Ms Joneses of this world, people with no voice -- but you're not the face in the crowd, a number in the book; you're the chair. You're the main person there. If you thought the government was moving too fast, that it did not have the proper database, that it was too hasty, that the timetable, the steamroller, would jeopardize the health, that it would create a climate of anxiety that would immediately lead to fear, where rumours would take on extraordinary proportions, would you stand up as the chair and say, "What is being done here is wrong," and come up with an alternative that says that we can do it better?
Dr James: As chairman -- "chairperson" I guess is the politically correct word -- I have to speak for what our council suggests. If recommendations come forward that do not meet with the approval of our council, that is the place where we would debate it and I would certainly speak for whatever our council decides on and votes on. Again, we are an open board; the press is at our meetings. We have nothing to hide. So if we disagree as a council, I would have to speak on behalf of the council.
The Chair: Mr Pouliot, your time is up.
Mr Bob Wood: If you were starting from scratch to design a hospital system in Ottawa-Carleton, how many hospitals would you recommend?
Dr James: I find that a difficult question.
Mr Bob Wood: It's an important question too.
Dr James: It's an important question, and how I voted on the night of -- remember, I'm speaking on behalf of our council. If you want me to speak from a personal point of view --
Mr Bob Wood: Yes, I apologize. I'm asking for your personal opinion.
Dr James: If I spoke of this from a personal point of view, rather than how many I'd keep open -- and I must tell you that I did vote on May 29, when we had our open meeting, to close one of the hospitals and turn it into a long-term-care facility. I would have at that time also supported the closure of one and probably two other institutions. We have about 375 beds scattered throughout the region in other hospitals, including the big ones, the Civic and the General, and I would certainly have used those pavilions differently. That would be how I would have visualized it at that time. I think there's a lot of merit to this and we could work within that.
Again, our council voted differently, so I'm supporting the council's view, but I did vote and it's on record. I have that record right here. It was a 10 to 9 vote that the Riverside, which is the hospital I'm thinking about first, remain open with some alterations and changes in how they provide their service and not be turned into a long-term-care facility. That led to different parts of the puzzle and a domino effect. The other hospitals said, "Why should one hospital be the whipping boy or whipping girl for a $5-million saving?" That was the thinking. Had I done it, I would have done it a little differently. I would certainly have done the other mergers and the common governances that are being recommended, very definitely. I'm a very strong supporter of that approach.
Mr Bob Wood: I'm asking you purely to speculate, and to speculate on a personal basis. If you were designing from scratch, how many hospitals would you recommend for the Ottawa-Carleton area?
Dr James: Probably seven instead of the current 11. Eight, actually, instead of the 11.
The Chair: Thank you very much. The time is up. Dr James, thank you very much for coming before the committee and for your responses to the questions. Feel free to stay if you wish.
GERALDINE LLOYD
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Geraldine P. Lloyd, intended appointee as member, Lambton District Health Council.
The Chair: The next intended appointment is Geraldine Lloyd for the Lambton District Health Council. We welcome you to the committee. If you wish to make any opening remarks, please feel free to do so at this time.
Mrs Geraldine Lloyd: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, my initial interest in long-term care came about by the realization that I would personally be in the position of needing to access services for my husband at some time in the future. As his condition deteriorated, I became aware of the needs of people who are ill or disabled and the difficulty of accessing services.
Having the background I have as a volunteer for the United Way for some 10 years and with the fact that I've been employed by a social service agency, I was aware that services are available out there and that you have to be persistent to try to access them. To this end, after reading articles in the newspaper I made inquiries about becoming involved in placement coordination services and long-term-care reform.
In February 1994 I became a member of the placement coordination services advisory committee and, because of my expressed interest, was requested to forward an application to the Lambton District Health Council. As a result of this application, in March 1994 I was appointed as a consumer representative to the multiservice agency subcommittee established to advise the health council on the planning, design and coordination of long-term care offered by a multiservice agency. In January 1995 I was appointed to the long-term-care committee.
With the advent of the Progressive Conservative government in June 1995, the MSA subcommittee became unnecessary and was disbanded in February 1996. In February 1996 I applied to become a member of the health council in reply to an advertisement in the newspaper. In April 1996, again in response to an advertisement in the newspaper, I applied to be considered for the board of directors of the community care access centre which has replaced the multiservice agency. I was so appointed in June of this year.
1040
To this point my perspective has been focused on the long-term-care aspects of health care. An appointment to the health council would allow me to become more knowledgeable about the other aspects of health care, and I'd like to do what I can to contribute to the planning for health care in my community. I believe that with the reductions in funding for services, it's imperative that ordinary citizens make themselves aware of the impact and try to do what we can to ensure adequate services remain. Although my involvement has been of short duration and I have a lot to learn, I'm prepared to make this commitment.
The Chair: Any questions from government members?
Mr Doyle: Good morning. How are you today? You had mentioned your husband and that this basically is the thing that got you interested. I'm wondering about your representation on behalf of all citizens. Do you feel this will be difficult for you? Can you manage that?
Mrs Lloyd: My husband died in February 1995.
Mr Doyle: I see. No, but I'm talking about representing everybody. You don't feel you'll have a problem with this?
Mrs Lloyd: I don't think so.
Mr Doyle: I wonder if you could expand a little bit on that.
Mrs Lloyd: I have, as I said, served on citizen review panels with the United Way for the last 10 years, and as such have interviewed a number of the agencies, so I know the services that are there. I know the needs that are there through those agencies. I also worked for the Association for Community Living, which used to be the Association for the Mentally Retarded, and have seen the needs there for not only the people but their families as well, and for medically fragile children in particular.
Mr Doyle: Thanks very much. I appreciate it.
The Chair: Any further questions? If not, we can reserve the time for later if you want.
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve our time.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Mrs Lloyd. The district health council in Lambton county has of course come up with a plan which is obviously reasonably detailed, and I guess you have been part of the health council while that plan was being put forward.
Mrs Lloyd: I'm not part of the health council. I'm part of the long-term-care committee.
Mr Gravelle: But I presume you are reasonably familiar with the plan as put forward by the district health council.
Mrs Lloyd: Only from what I heard through the members and what I read in the newspapers. I was not part of the discussions or the decision-making.
Mr Gravelle: Could you give me your thoughts in terms of what you do know and what you have been able to read? Would you be able to give me your thoughts in terms of this restructuring as it's put forward by the health council, how it looks to you in terms of being a plan that would work, that will still meet the health care needs of the area? Do you have any thoughts just in general on the plan as you know it, as it's been submitted to the restructuring commission?
Mrs Lloyd: Given that I know very little about it, about the background of why decisions were made, I think it is a viable plan.
Mr Gravelle: I think one of the significant parts of the plan as put forward by the Lambton District Health Council is the need for reinvestment. If the plan is accepted by the restructuring commission and the minister, there would be a great need for almost the entire reinvestment of funds. The money that comes out would have to be put back into the system.
This has become probably a pretty strong issue all across the province. The restructuring commission does come into the community and make decisions which take out, on a yearly basis, a large amount of money from the health care community in their area. There are many who feel that indeed the reinvestment should go back into the community. I see that in the Lambton county district health council plan, in order for the plan to go forward, they need to have all the money that's taken out reinvested back into the plan. I want to know your position on that, whether you feel the dollars that are taken out as a result of restructuring should at least in the short term be put back into the community in terms of a reinvestment.
Mrs Lloyd: Yes, I agree with that.
Mr Gravelle: Has that been an issue that's been talked about much? I think probably it's fair to say that everyone in the province is pretty scared about restructuring. I think all of us recognize the need to have some form of readjustment in terms of the health care in our communities, but the minister has made it pretty clear that communities should not expect to have the full amount reinvested back into the communities. Would you argue that?
Mrs Lloyd: I really don't understand your question. Do you want to rephrase it?
Mr Gravelle: You obviously feel the money that's taken out of the community should go back into the reinvestment. Do you think it would be the role of the health councils to fight that issue if indeed all the money was not to come back? I come from Thunder Bay and the restructuring commission is recommending a fair amount of money, a net amount of about $30 million a year, being taken out, with reinvestment not matching that. Obviously we feel very strongly that there should be more money put back into our community if it's going to be taken out. Do you feel it's the health council's role to fight that? If indeed an equal amount of money wasn't put back into the community, do you feel it's the health council's role to fight that issue?
Mrs Lloyd: As I understand it, the health council's role is to plan and to advise the Minister of Health. If that was the wish of council, then I certainly would think that's what we would do.
Mr Gravelle: Your emphasis or your priority has been long-term care, and obviously that's a huge issue as we go into the future. We've been talking about the whole cost of an integrated health care system as well. Are you very familiar with the concept of the integrated health care?
Mrs Lloyd: No, not really.
Mr Gravelle: Can I ask you just one last question then? In terms of your priorities, what would be your priorities? Obviously this is a really, really difficult time in the province in terms of health care and there are some decisions being made that are affecting communities in a very dramatic way. What precise role do you want to play in terms of the health council? You're going in at a very important time. What would be the role you want to play and what direction would you want to push the council in?
Mrs Lloyd: I'd like to see that with the closing of hospital beds, which I guess is inevitable, those resources are in the community to take care of people who would previously have been taken care of in hospital, whether that is in their own homes or in some kind of transitional home setting. It also means caregiver support. Having been a caregiver, I know how important that is. If you don't support your caregivers, then you don't support your health care system either; for instance, parents of medically fragile children who are just burned right out because they can't get the kind of support they need.
Mr Gravelle: Again I'll use Thunder Bay as a reference point. They're basically going to take half the acute care beds in Thunder Bay, remove them from the system within three years in Thunder Bay, which is very, very dramatic. The number of chronic care beds will be reduced dramatically as well. The response seems to be that they will have more money to put into home care. They're recommending giving a couple of million dollars to put into home care. They're also talking about the fact that many people should be in nursing home beds rather than in chronic care. Having said that, there aren't the facilities in place for those nursing home beds and the province continues to cut money for homes for the aged. So it becomes a problem.
The concern that we have, and I'd like your thoughts on it in terms of Lambton county, is that the transition cannot be made in the time frame. In other words, by removing people out of the system and saying they can all be taken care of through home care, a lot of us don't believe that can happen in the time frame. The home care will not serve the entire needs. You can't just make the jump of removing people out of the system and then say they all must be taken care of at home. It just won't work. Do you have those same concerns, in that long-term care is one of your concerns: that there aren't enough beds, there aren't enough facilities to take care of them, and that home care will not entirely answer the question?
Mrs Lloyd: I'm very concerned about that. I think the government is doing its slash-and-burn without appropriate thought of what happens down the road. It's fine to cut them, but if you don't provide the facilities, the money, the services, people are going to go without. I'm very concerned about that.
Mr Gravelle: I'm interested to hear you say that because certainly that's our concern too, that everything is happening so quickly. If it goes forward as such and if we don't fight it, the system will basically be in place where there will be people who will not have the services, because you can't simply turf them out of long-term care and say, "We'll look after them with home care," if there's no home to go to. That is exactly what we fear is going to happen unless there is more assistance even for homes for the aged. When the money's being taken out of that and they're reducing the number of people who go in there, somewhere in the middle there's a big, black hole where it seems to me you'll find hundreds of thousands of people who just won't be able to be helped by the system that's set up.
I'm glad to hear you share those same concerns. Certainly it's one I think we all have to watch for as these transitions take place. Thank you very much.
1050
Mr Pouliot: Good morning and thank you for your time. More importantly, you've been serving since 1993. It's easier for me to say, but my understanding is and I've been informed that you're well respected and efficient at your position as well. The DHC in Lambton has worked very hard, while times are changing, to come up with a restructuring plan because they know that really nothing remains the same, but now it happens quicker.
Some legislative research notes, and we're most appreciative, indicate -- I think it's on page 4 -- that Sarnia General Hospital would take over acute care and St Joseph's Health Centre would look after long-term and rehabilitation. Is this correct?
Mrs Lloyd: Presently, Sarnia General is the acute care hospital and St Joseph's is the chronic care hospital. The thinking is to merge the two and bring them both together. They're within 10 minutes of each other, so I don't see any problem with having one hospital in Sarnia. The other one is outside, in Petrolia, which is about half an hour away.
Mr Pouliot: Sometimes we don't know for sure until they pick our ticket, until our turn comes up, but we know that the government has plans to close a hospital in Sarnia. What is the Lambton DHC's position on hospital closure? There must be a heck of a lot of speculation. When people go to the coffee machine or the water fountain, surely they must talk about it. People at the committee before the meeting starts, if it's not an actual part of each and every agenda, must fear -- you've mentioned slash-and-burn. To some, when you're under a state of siege, those words are most diplomatic indeed.
My colleague and I share the same venues, the same services. The city of Thunder Bay, right here, and Lake Nipigon and the surrounding, we gather to Thunder Bay for services. I live 400 kilometres away, and we relate to Thunder Bay because that's where we go for medical services. But now they are saying there's really no more room, that we have so much time -- it's not you saying this, Madam, it's me -- and we're left twisting in the wind. People are afraid. They really don't know where to go. They lose a sense of direction. It could have been avoided.
What is the DHC's position regarding hospital closure in your region? How do they feel about it?
Mrs Lloyd: I'm not a member of the DHC and I don't wish to speculate on that.
Mr Pouliot: You're most ethical. I appreciate that.
You're a member of the long-term-care committee. You submitted recommendations -- my notes say this -- to the ministry in March 1996. Leave or take a week, it's about eight months ago. What are some of these recommendations, and what have you heard back from the ministry since you submitted those recommendations?
Mrs Lloyd: You understand that the long-term-care committee submits its recommendations to the DHC, and then they're passed by the DHC?
Mr Pouliot: Yes.
Mrs Lloyd: Then it comes to the minister.
There were 16 of them. Nine or 10 of them I believe have been or will be addressed by the CCACs, the community care access centres, which have just been set up. I am on the board, but we don't even have a CEO yet, so we're very, very new. We haven't started to implement any of those services yet.
One item was transportation for people within the community. That's an initiative of the Lambton county municipal council. I gather they are pursuing that. Another one has to do with supportive housing. I understand that has been taken away from the DHCs by the long-term-care division of the Ministry of Health, so we won't have any input into that. This is what we understand.
There are four recommendations remaining, which have to do with caregiver support, services for physically disabled adults and children and training for mental health providers. Some of those things I know very little about and hope to learn about through this process.
Mr Pouliot: Indeed. I see you're confident about the challenge that lies ahead. You can serve -- correct me if I'm wrong -- for a maximum of six years; those are the criteria. You've done that, you've laboured since 1993, and you're looking for some more?
Mrs Lloyd: I'm always optimistic.
Mr Pouliot: Well, so am I. It's been my pleasure meeting you and I thank you for your time.
The Chair: Any further questions?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll waive the balance of our time.
The Chair: Okay, thank you for that. That completes the questioning. Mrs Lloyd, thank you very much for coming before the committee this morning. We appreciate it.
MICHAEL KRISKO
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Michael Krisko, intended appointee as member, West Kenora District Housing Authority.
The Chair: We have one further appointment to review, and that is Michael Krisko. Welcome to the committee. If you've been in the room, you're probably aware that we give you an opportunity to say a few opening remarks if you wish to and then we proceed with the questioning.
Mr Michael Krisko: I think I'd just like to briefly state my qualifications.
Some of the duties of the local housing authority are to provide safe and secure housing for the tenants; for the board members on the housing authority to look at the deployment of staff; to ensure sound financial, administrative and management practices with the authority; to consult with the tenant groups, look at their concerns and bring them forward to the authority; to make sure that policies of the authority are consistent with policies of the Ontario housing commission.
In that, I think my qualifications complement and support those types of duties. I've been a trustee with the Sudbury Board of Education for a number of years. I consulted with parents, ratepayers and community groups. I was a policy adviser with the Ministry of Labour for four years. I have a good knowledge of policy implementation, evaluation, formulation. I love policy, like the law, legislation.
From my early university days I've sat on boards, or at least appeal boards. That is also one of the functions of the local housing authority, hearing appeals from tenants who are denied housing, who want to move from one complex to another or who are being evicted. I enjoy the quasi-judicial functions of a board very much. I studied that in school; I made it a career for quite a number of years. I like that sort of thing: administrative law, procedural fairness. I hold a master's in administration, degrees in law and justice, law and security. I've taught law and security.
Some of the concerns with housing complexes are to provide a safe and secure environment. I'm aware of techniques and methods to do that. With that, those are my qualifications. I'm quite willing to serve with the housing authority. I'm looking forward to it.
1100
Mr Ford: Good morning, Mr Krisko. We've heard about the possibility of east Kenora and Fort Frances-Rainy River being merged with the West Kenora District Housing Authority. Do you feel that there may be some efficiencies realized if this merger were to take place?
Mr Krisko: Restructuring is a big issue across the province. I think that, yes, there will be efficiencies saved. Presently, we have a number of local housing authorities in northwestern Ontario and there's duplication. Inevitably, with the reduction of staff which such a restructuring would bring, I think the savings are human resource and, of course, financial.
Second, you would find administrative efficiency inasmuch as you won't need as many coordinators and a lot of cooks preparing the soup. A more consistent and uniform application of policy will be brought about through a regional centralization of the offices. Policy is more consistent when it comes from one source instead of a number of sources, as we presently have, and of course you're going to have savings, financial efficiency and effectiveness with fewer LHAs. I understand there is some talk that there will be a reduction in the number of LHAs in Ontario from 54 to 18. I think that's a good thing.
Mr Ford: Mr Krisko, in your opinion, do you believe this to be a fact?
Mr Krisko: I don't know that is for a fact. It's inevitable that when you have reductions and the elimination of duplicate services you're going to save money. The budget for public housing is quite large. I think we are going to save some money here. I think it's a much-needed strategy in Ontario to do this.
Mr Ford: Have you reviewed this area and looked it over yourself?
Mr Krisko: Yes. In the short time I've had to look at this, a week or so, I've gone to the library, gone down to the local housing authority, reviewed as much as I could with the budgets and annual reports. I've also, quite frankly, talked with the staff. They too want some administrative efficiency. They want some means whereby they can have clear lines of authority. I think that, surprisingly, some of the staff are in agreement with restructuring. They do fear loss of jobs, there's no doubt about that, but presently they're uncertain. One of the messages I've been asked to bring is that if there is restructuring, do it as quickly as possible to lend some certainty to what's going on, and from my point of view, to see the benefits accrue more quickly to Ontario.
Mr Doyle: Good day, sir. Maybe you've already answered this question. I'm interested why you specifically volunteered for the board. I wonder if perhaps you have some specific goals in mind for the board.
Mr Krisko: Presently I work as a clerk in a department store and I don't have too much to do with the law any more. I'm not a lawyer. I was studying administration, working with policy. I've always devoted some amount of time to working with something in the community, usually on a non-paying basis. Right from university days, I've worked with legal clinics, that sort of thing, and to be honest with you, I've found a great need to get back into working with some legislation, working with a committee and doing something in a community.
This LHA appointment came up. I read a pamphlet put out by the government of Ontario and looked into it, and here I am now. It fulfils a need for me.
Mr Doyle: It wasn't that you had something specific in mind for the board so much as it was that you wanted to volunteer for the community and help out.
Mr Krisko: No, I don't have anything specific in mind. I know a lot of people in public housing. They're always telling me their concerns. They want a safe and secure housing complex. I also have a lot of friends who are taxpayers. They want to see reductions in taxes. There are two sides to this coin. We have a lot of marginalized people who need safe and affordable housing, yet we also have taxpayers who want to see some reductions.
Another message I've been asked to bring to you is that there should be some terms on the length of time people are in housing. It should be a safety support as was originally intended instead of a career choice. Apparently there are a great many people there for a decade and a half, which I can understand if they're disabled, if they can't get a job, and there are a lot of marginalized people in society who need affordable housing. Yet we do have to look at some tax savings. The term of residency is one thing I've been asked to bring to you, and there it is.
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Michael, we talked a little bit about this on the plane down yesterday -- it's already been touched on -- in terms of the combining of the housing authorities. Do you think it's important that a study be done in terms of a regional breakdown on the savings, to see what it would save, before any moves are made to combine the authorities?
Mr Krisko: I'm sorry; I'm not a big believer in studies any longer. It's quite apparent that when you reduce duplication savings accrue. What I do think has to be addressed is that tenants' concerns have to be brought to any kind of new authority, and I think that they will be; some means will be found to bring their concerns, just as they are now. I have every confidence those concerns will be brought forward. Tenants are very active in public housing and elsewhere, whether it be in regard to the Landlord and Tenant Act, residential tenancies, public housing. They get together. They will make their concerns known. You'll hear the concerns. You won't need a study to find out the impact and the effectiveness of such reductions.
1110
Mr Miclash: In some aspects I think we're studied to death as well, but consolidated administration in Thunder Bay, six hours from Kenora: We're hearing a lot of that. My main concern is that if we do a cost analysis of what's happening in that area, maybe there are some jobs that can be retained in Kenora rather than everything going to Thunder Bay.
You start with the OPP. We're seeing it with the Ministry of Transportation. We're seeing it with a lot of ministries. This is going to affect small-town northwestern Ontario. I really feel strongly that if we don't take a look at the possibilities of leaving some of these jobs in these smaller communities, six hours away will be our administrative centre for everything. A lot of folks around here don't know that Thunder Bay is six hours from Kenora. That's the point I keep trying to make. So that's the reason.
I agree with you that maybe we are studied to death, but maybe there are some ways it can be looked at so that we can keep some of those Art Miors, for example, in Kenora. Don't you agree?
Mr Krisko: All good people. They know their job -- property managers -- how housing complexes are managed efficiently and effectively through people like Art Mior. I think it can be retained through representation. As long as there is representation from places like Kenora and Fort Frances, I think the concerns will be brought back to Thunder Bay if there is regional centralization, and in other places in the province, through people like yourself. All of these are means to bring the concerns to maybe a centralized structure. I don't think you need an actual office in any particular location, especially with telecommunications and newspapers. We are all able to listen to the messages and of course with public housing we want to hear the messages of the tenants and that's the concern. Jobs lost? Where they may be lost in one area, they're picked up in another.
Mr Miclash: How many more jobs can we lose from small-town northwestern Ontario to Thunder Bay before it really starts affecting such places as Zellers, for example? We have these jobs all moving to Thunder Bay, and that's the question. I'm saying here that if we do have some sort of a regional cost analysis, maybe we can find ways, as you say, through telecommunications, through whatever means, so that instead of just moving everything into Thunder Bay, which is happening, we can use Kenora, Fort Frances, Red Lake possibly, for these positions.
Mr Krisko: I love Kenora very much, I love northwestern Ontario very much, but how long can we maintain offices and costly staff when the same job can be done in other areas or in our own area?
Mr Miclash: Exactly.
Mr Krisko: When the same job can be done and we can reduce the duplication, as long as the job is done, that's the first priority in my mind, or else I believe that the taxpayers are going to be just taxed to death through this perpetual building of offices and hiring of staff and duplication of these services. Pretty soon we're going to need public housing for all the taxpayers in Ontario. I think a lot of these folks are really trying to get out of public housing and buy their own places. Taxation is just killing us.
Mr Miclash: Let me go back to my initial point of regional cost breakdown. Do you not think that would identify some of the areas that could be pursued, such as leaving a satellite office in Kenora, leaving a satellite office in Fort Frances, to service those needs? Do you not think that would be a possibility from a regional study of the breakdown of costs?
Mr Krisko: A satellite office would necessitate leaving staff in that office, and of course Fort Frances would want the same thing; a satellite office means an office with staff.
Mr Miclash: So you'd rather see those jobs go to Thunder Bay. I'm talking about the same number of jobs, but you'd rather see those jobs just all be consolidated in Thunder Bay and everything run out of Thunder Bay, no consideration at all given to Fort Frances or Kenora to run the operation?
Mr Krisko: In my mind, my first consideration is the taxpayers and seeing that tenants' concerns are addressed.
Mr Miclash: I haven't seen any proof of cost saving, though. I'm saying that a regional cost breakdown would maybe show me the proof, but I haven't seen that yet. I think there are other ways to ensure that those jobs are left in small-town northwestern Ontario. That's my point, and that it has to be proven to us that yes, there is a fantastic saving by moving everything to Thunder Bay. I haven't seen that in a lot of areas.
Mr Krisko: I'll just reiterate that when you reduce the duplication of services and staff, I think the cost savings will be achieved.
Mr Pouliot: Welcome, Michael. Mr Miclash and I can readily relate to the distance that you travel to pay us the compliment of your visit.
I'm always intrigued by seeking tenure, by people like yourself who wish to apply to serve their fellow citizens, like you've said, your fellow taxpayers. How did you hear about this position?
Mr Krisko: First off, there was a pamphlet on local housing authorities and serving on government agencies down at the Ministry of Northern Development. I phoned up one of the agencies in Toronto here, and they told me there was a housing authority appointment to be made. I sent in my application and here it is.
Mr Pouliot: I see. So you weren't approached by anyone who said, "I think you're the right person for the job; I know you and you will serve well"? Did anyone approach you?
Mr Krisko: Don Myles, who is a retired northern affairs officer, said I may be good for a position like this.
Mr Pouliot: I see. That's okay, because we meet people. We know a lot of people and that's a chance we have. Sometimes I wonder, Michael, if in urban centres you have a real chance to know as many people as we do on a personal basis up north. We're smaller.
What community groups are you involved in? By this I mean groups that would qualify you to serve in the position on this committee. Do you belong to any community groups?
Mr Krisko: I've been back in Kenora for two years. I tried to raise money for cystic fibrosis on two occasions. Back in Sudbury I was involved with the legal clinic at the university -- so far, nothing to do with established groups like the Rotary or Lions or anything like that.
Mr Pouliot: When I hear "Kenora," one of the first things that comes to mind is a strong representation of a first nation, a first Canadian contingent, and I think everyone will acquiesce to that. It's not a surprise to anyone. It's there, and we're happy that it is. What is your relationship with members of the native community, Michael?
Mr Krisko: I work with members of the native community. There's a large native population in Kenora. I have many friends who are native. I'm not involved in any native groups, that sort of thing. I know them as people.
Mr Pouliot: I'm going to ask you this. I'm a member of the New Democratic Party, Mr Miclash is Liberal and our friends opposite are members of a political party. Are you or have you ever been a member of any political party?
Mr Krisko: Yes, I think 15, 20 years ago I was a delegate to Bob Rae. I was a New Democratic Party member.
1120
Mr Pouliot: Were you a card-carrying --
Mr Krisko: I was a card-carrying member of the New Democratic Party for quite a few years. I liked the New Democratic Party and I liked labour and politics until I started looking at the legislation, until I was a vice-president of a labour group and everyone was telling me that the Conservatives, who were in power at that time, were not providing the legislation for workers' rights, for human rights. When I looked at that legislation, I found that it was there.
Mr Pouliot: I think that's about another issue.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): It's not the answer he wanted.
Mr Krisko: Well, you asked that question, Mr Pouliot, and I'll tell you how I got here. I found that there was a basic and good Human Rights Code in effect, there was an Occupational Health and Safety Act, there was a good Landlord and Tenant Act, and they were all put in under the Conservative government. I'm a member of the Conservative Party of Ontario and I have been for 10 years or so. I believe in it.
Mr Pouliot: You were a card-carrying member of the NDP and now you're a card-carrying member of the Conservatives, but you were never a card-carrying member of any other party?
Mr Krisko: No.
Mr Pouliot: Like CoR or anything? Those things would not ring a bell, would they, like the CoR party?
Mr Krisko: The CoR party?
Mr Pouliot: Yes. You were not a member of the Confederation of Regions Party?
Mr Krisko: That was in Sudbury?
Mr Pouliot: Oh, yes.
Mr Krisko: I do remember them. I've seen lots of CoR activity.
Mr Pouliot: Okay. Your presence and your candour truly attest that the New Democratic Party is indeed very democratic.
You mentioned at the beginning of your presentation -- professed some expertise, with respect -- techniques and methods related to security on housing. A person my age values security more than ever before. That sentiment, that ease should be enjoyed by all citizens. Would you give me a tip about some techniques, in a few words, and methods that you would use to make where I live more secure?
Mr Krisko: I think that the tenant groups have to have better relations with the police department. We have community services come out of our police department. They're willing to come over and do instructional seminars at housing complexes. I think they're working in the schools. A lot of housing complex students are attending the schools. The police go over there and give instructional seminars and better the working relations with police and with residents in the surrounding public housing areas. In that way a safer environment can be achieved. In these housing complexes there are a lot of youth, and I think the police are making some headway with helping them understand that it's better to just stay in school and live a life away from trouble.
Mr Pouliot: How bad do you see is the shortage of affordable housing in the province at present? Do you feel that the shortage is acute, that it's an urgency?
Mr Krisko: To an extent I think it's adequate, in some places more than adequate. I think there are a lot of areas where we have apartments that are not being rented. We have to fill up existing apartments first.
Mr Pouliot: Would you build any affordable housing at present?
Mr Krisko: I don't think that --
Mr Pouliot: If you were the government. Let's say you ran in Kenora and Mr Miclash came second, so you had the Kenora seat. Obviously you'd be in cabinet. Would you recommend to your cabinet colleagues that they build any affordable housing, given -- you stated that -- the present difficult state of finances in this province?
Mr Krisko: I think, whether or not there's a need, that has to be determined on a local basis, an area basis. Those are decisions that would be made by Ontario Housing and not the local board.
Mr Pouliot: You would fully support the privatization of public housing?
Mr Krisko: As long as it recognizes that there are people who will always need a place for affordable housing.
Mr Pouliot: I invite you, when you journey the six hours from Kenora via Thunder Bay, to take an additional four to come and visit us in friendly Manitouwadge. I want you to meet some of my good friends. I'm sure we could develop this theme in conversation and get to know one another better. That's all I have. I thank you.
The Chair: Mr Krisko, thank you for coming before the committee and for your responses to the members.
That completes the review of intended appointments. We should deal with the concurrences at this point.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Dr James.
The Chair: You've heard the motion from Mr Wood. Are there any comments? Ready for the question? All those in favour of Mr Wood's motion re Dr James? Opposed? It's unanimous.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mrs Lloyd.
The Chair: Any debate? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? It's unanimous. Thank you for that.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Krisko.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Is there any debate on Mr Krisko's appointment?
Mr Pouliot: Just on a point of order; I wish to appear fair: Belonging to one political party in our system is neither a quality nor a deterrent when it comes to public appointments. I want to indicate on the record that I was curious, but certainly not vengeful, in terms of the right to belong to a political party. But it's interesting that, given the present time, it's a happy coincidence for you, sir. That's all I wanted to do; no more but no less.
The Chair: Are you ready for the question? All those in favour of Mr Wood's motion, please indicate. Opposed? None. It's unanimous. Thank you very much for that.
Any other business before we adjourn? You have the subcommittee report on the appointment process for next week. We're ready to roll. Thank you all very much. We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1128.