INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
MARNIE RICHARDS
CONTENTS
Wednesday 23 October 1996
Intended appointments
Ms Marnie Richards
Ms Marie Askin
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 TimHudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC) for Mr Bert Johnson
Mr TonyMartin (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Silipo
Clerk /Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1003 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The standing committee will come to order. The first item of business is the report of the subcommittee, dated October 17.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Mr Chair, before we deal with that, or I guess as part of that, one of the people we had selected, Laurie Scott, to appear October 30, 1996, I gather isn't able to do so. What we need to do, I understand, is to ask that consideration of that review be extended by -- I don't know if we need to put a time frame -- two weeks.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): Fourteen days.
The Chair: Fourteen days. Do you want to put that in a motion?
Mr Silipo: I so move.
The Chair: Do people understand the motion? On the subcommittee report, you'll notice the name, "Selection of the third party, Laurie Scott, for the health council." She cannot be there. She works on a ship, I gather, and her ship came in, so to speak, or went out, whatever. She's still prepared to come, of course, so the motion has been put to extend that for 14 days.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): Mr Chair, my understanding is that Mr Silipo simply has to require it. I don't think he needs to make a motion, does he? I think he simply requires extension by two weeks.
The Chair: He's requested it. All right, is that agreed? Thank you for that.
Mr Bob Wood: Perhaps I might move adoption of the report of the subcommittee, dated October 17, 1996.
The Chair: You've heard the motion from Mr Wood. Any debate? All in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
One other item: A couple of weeks ago, the name George Beatty was brought forward. He was to appear today. He's a lawyer who has to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board. If you know that system, you don't lose the opportunity, so he cannot come today. I think it's legitimate. We need to sort that out.
Mr Silipo: I then move, if that's what's necessary, that we deal with the review of Mr George Beatty two weeks hence.
The Chair: That's fine too, yes. The clerk, I guess, should write to the appointments secretariat urging them not to make the appointment official until the committee has had a chance to interview Mr Beatty.
Mr Silipo: I'll make that part of the motion as well.
The Chair: Apparently he can't come until the November 20 meeting. We'll schedule him for November 20. Is that okay? Everybody's approval? Good, that's done.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
MARNIE RICHARDS
Review of intended appointment, selected by the official opposition: Marnie Richards, intended appointee as member, Province of Ontario Council for the Arts.
The Chair: Welcome to the committee, Ms Richards. The process is simply that you have an opportunity to make any opening remarks you might want to make -- you don't have to, but you may -- and then members from the three political parties will have an opportunity to ask you questions. We're in your hands.
Ms Marnie Richards: As you know, my name is Marnie Richards. I am from Brampton. I am also the executive director of the Brampton Arts Council in that city.
I believe you have my résumé and I just want to point out, not belabour but certainly to show you, that in the past I have held responsible positions in the management field. To do that, one must acquire, and certainly at my age must have acquired, some very sound business policies and management skills.
I also have sat for over 20 years on community boards -- volunteer, but certainly community boards -- within the city. Presently I am chair of Chinguacousy Health Services Board. I have been a past governor of Peel Memorial Hospital. I have been treasurer of St Leonard's House. In fact, in one way or another I think I've touched, not all certainly but many of the organizations within our city.
Those positions have permitted me the fortunate opportunity to be on executives, certainly to understand their culture and understand their problems but also to come up with a business plan for them to exist in this world.
You will also notice that I am very sensitive to the arts not only because of my job, but because I am, on one side, a performing actress. I have been on stage since I was three years old. Also I have sat on many of the executive committees and drives, and I understand certainly that side of the -- I call it a business.
Also, I could build you a flat in 15 minutes. I can get out the drills and the saws and I have done many of the production duties. In fact, I can't think of a production duty that I have not done, so I have a lot of knowledge in the arts field.
If you look at the summary of qualifications, I have some very strong skills. One of the things that is down there is that I work well in autonomy but I work extremely well in a team environment, both when I had a staff in the past and on any board. I am here to show you that I can demonstrate the ability to make sound decisions and try to make an impact on that particular sector of the community.
I will accept questions. Perhaps that would be easier, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Yes, that would be fine. Any comments?
1010
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): If I want to go and listen to Die Fledermaus, I'm subsidized; if I want to hear Garth Brooks, I'm not. How do you feel about that?
Ms Richards: I think there has to be, in this day and age, a real look at the economic trend. If you are subsidized, I think you are blessed in this day and age. If a professional comes in and certainly the professional goes back into his pocket, then I can quite understand where the fee would be. If you are asking me if funding -- and I'm not sure if you are, sir -- should be going to the artist, I think it's a whole issue that has to be addressed today. It's a long-reaching --
Mr Preston: That was my second question: Do you favour the continued government funding of individual artists? You're saying that has to be looked into.
Ms Richards: Absolutely.
Mr Preston: All right. If you are looking into that, how do you go about setting priorities in distribution of the limited funds we have?
Ms Richards: Since I have not been involved with the Ontario Arts Council, I think I would have to go in and review what their procedures are and what standards they put on their criteria. But today I think, generally speaking and not speaking of the Ontario Arts Council, since I have not been there, you must look in any organization not only at the artistic side of it but also at its programs on the economic benefits. You have to be sure, internally, that you get the best use of every dime that you are allocated and have as a resource and externally that, in a company's case, a product, and in this case a program, has quality, is effective and certainly runs efficiently and addresses the economic bottom line.
Mr Preston: My next question may be premature too. How would you suggest the Ontario Arts Council go about encouraging arts organizations to become more self-sufficient?
Ms Richards: There is, at the moment, an examination of the arts organizations that belong to or certainly obtain potential grants from the Ontario Arts Council. We are looking forward to the results of that examination.
May I share with you what we do at the Brampton Arts Council? Three and a half years ago we did a major overhaul. We realized that the economy was dropping, that we needed to become self-reliant. Indeed, we look forward to the core funding from the city, but also the city of Brampton has been out of the grants business for many, many years. Although we manage a budget of about $100,000, it is not a rich arts council as compared to our sister in the south, whose city, Mississauga, is still in a grant position. Coupled with that and also with the realization of the board that we must try to find other means of funding, I think we were, if not the only one, certainly one of a very small number of arts councils that moved in that direction and saw it coming. I'm quite proud of the board for that, because it's making it far easier to operate today.
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Good morning, Marnie, and welcome. I've got a couple of questions here. We'll see if we can get through them. Are you familiar with Bill 71, the Crown Foundations Act, 1996, which permits a tax credit of up to 100% of net income for donations to an organization like the Ontario Arts Council? Do you feel that this is a positive step in arts funding by the government?
Ms Richards: Absolutely. You can't take away from one side of it and not make it client- or patron-friendly. On the other side, you have to encourage and motivate if you're going to go to other sources of funding in the community.
Mr Ford: I've got one other question here. According to a study by Informetrica, for every $1 spent on the arts by council, $1.23 was generated in economic activity. Could some of that money that was originally given out in the form of a grant by council conceivably be generated by tax-deductible donations to replace handouts by the government?
Ms Richards: I'm sorry, could you repeat the last part?
Mr Ford: I'll say it slowly. According to a study by Informetrica, for every $1 spent on arts by council, $1.23 was generated in economic activity. Could some of that money that was originally given out in the form of a grant by council conceivably be generated by tax-deductible donations to replace handouts by the government? In other words, what we're looking at is, the government doesn't want to be handing out money helter-skelter all over the place.
Ms Richards: Yes, absolutely. I would say, because I'm not involved in it, yes, absolutely.
Mr Ford: Fine, thank you.
The Chair: There's about a minute left.
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve the balance of our time.
The Chair: Any questions over here?
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Ms Richards. Certainly you would seem to be well-qualified in a number of ways for this position. Your involvement with the Brampton Arts Council obviously in a personal sense has given you a great deal of experience with fighting some of the fights that we've been fighting in the arts world in the last three or four years.
I know that in terms of Thunder Bay where I come from, the Magnus Theatre North-West -- we have a professional theatre in Thunder Bay -- and the Thunder Bay Symphony, which is a wonderful addition to our community, are battling very hard. One of the points that I think needs to be made, and I'm sure you'll back it up because of your involvement with the Brampton Arts Council, is the extraordinary amount of work that's coming from volunteers in the fund-raising area, the subscription series -- the community does get behind it in a remarkable way.
Ms Richards: Absolutely.
Mr Gravelle: But I do think it's extremely clear that in terms of economic value of the arts -- Mr Ford just used the example and it's quite true; for every dollar that's spent much more is returned. Do you mind commenting on the fact that government support is declining? The arguments would be that that declining support obviously is going to make it very difficult for some organizations to keep going and that in light of the fact of the economic value and the return to the government just in terms of taxes paid, which is more than what the Ontario Council for the Arts gives out, do you mind commenting on what your personal feelings are about the cutbacks the government is making and how they're affecting those people in the cultural communities?
Ms Richards: If we lived a few years ago and we lived in a perfect society, personally -- and I think I speak on behalf of some of the artists -- it would be wonderful to not worry where the next cent is coming from. In reality, we cannot expect that today. What we have done with our groups -- we have over 40 member groups and we have 50 individual artists who are members of the Brampton Arts Council -- and when we look at it, it represents anywhere from 3,000 to 3,500 people within that community.
We have done workshops to show them the opportunities -- workshops on how to set up a corporate sponsor program, such as we have. It is indeed, sir, unfortunate that we don't receive maximum funding, but in reality, we cannot do that.
Mr Gravelle: Certainly there are many arts organizations whose survival is really threatened, the Thunder Bay Symphony as an example. A number of things bother me about it. One certainly would never think that any money should be spent frivolously in terms of government spending. I think we all agree on that.
The argument is very, very clear that it's not spent frivolously in terms of the funding that goes to the arts. Indeed, money is returned via taxes, money is returned in terms of dollars spent by consumers, and employment is obviously an extraordinary factor. I think people don't realize the number of people who are employed in Ontario just in the arts. What concerns me is that this government is always looking at things in terms of the economic value. I would argue that indeed the value of arts organizations and arts funding should be maintained rather than reduced.
If that is seen as being just spending money in a profligate way, I don't think that's fair because indeed the return is clearly there. I know that arts organizations are battling hard to keep it and I would think that those people who are involved with them would continue to make that argument. Do you think it's an argument the Ontario Arts Council should be making publicly and should be fighting for? As a member, would you make that argument, that indeed the return is clear, and the case can be made that if the funding does remain in a strong position, the value will be there from an economic point of view?
1020
Ms Richards: I understand where you're coming from. We've had some groups ourselves who've had a problem and the public came forth and rallied and provided the funds so they can continue. I don't think there's any doubt that the arts are a worthwhile sector, if you will, of a healthy community. I don't disagree with that. I'm in the business and I know that's true. You can turn on your television and see people who say that people don't get involved or certainly don't watch the arts. Of course that's not so.
On one side of it, you're quite correct in that you're saying we need to help fund, but I question the procedure. I feel personally -- this is a personal opinion -- that art is a business and it is like any other business. You must look at cuts that are fair, that are adequate, that are equitable. You must make sure that you have the qualitative aspect of your particular program. We are trying to encourage our groups to feel that way, because it is. Even for an individual artist, it is a business. I feel that somewhere between that philosophy and certainly the help from the Ontario Arts Council, I would hope that if we sat down, we would be able to plan that out. There are two sides of the issue, I believe, sir.
Mr Gravelle: I think all arts organizations that have received any funding at all, whether it is from municipalities -- and you're right, a lot of municipalities are getting out of that -- recognize that and operate very much on that basis. My feeling in a general sense is, for example, that in a community like Thunder Bay, where we're trying to attract people to come and live in our community, to come and work there, the arts segment is an extraordinarily important part of that community.
Ms Richards: Absolutely.
Mr Gravelle: Having a symphony is a wonderful thing; having a professional theatre is a wonderful thing. I'm involved with a film society there. If you take those elements, among many other elements, away, I think you take the vitality away. You're right about the balance, but if you are pushing the organizations to a point where the community just cannot match it in terms of the contributions they're expected to make, either from a voluntary or a financial point of view, then I would argue strongly that government funding needs to be maintained in a very real way, because it does clearly have a proven return.
Ms Richards: Are you asking me a question?
Mr Gravelle: I guess it's a statement.
Ms Richards: I could go on and on, but I think you made a statement.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): He can't get one in the House so he's doing it here.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): We read at the time and we are told even in some of the research material that the arts community condemned the reduction in grants to the arts council at the time it was announced. How active were you, if at all, in condemning the government for its cuts at that time?
Ms Richards: We did not respond in letter form. I'm speaking on behalf of the Brampton Arts Council. We did not formally send in any written surveys of that type. What we did do, and we were encouraged by our MPP -- it came together; parallel, actually -- we had decided to have him join us either at a board meeting or an executive meeting and sit down so that we could tell him what we are doing and our thoughts. As I said, parallel to that, he made contact with us to come and sit and talk to us. We showed him how we were trying to be self-reliant. So I go back to the fact that we felt that, like every other sector in the community, and particularly since it's your dollar and mine that goes into an organization such as the Ontario Arts Council, it needs to be looked at. We were not criticizing the decision at all; we just wanted to show him what we had done.
Mr Crozier: Is it fair for me to interpret from that that you did not condemn the reduction in grants?
Ms Richards: No, I didn't say -- "condemn" is a very strong word.
Mr Crozier: Yes, but that's what happened.
Ms Richards: We did not condemn. We were trying to offer an alternative solution to show him what we have done within our very small organization, our philosophies.
Mr Crozier: As a representative of arts groups, which you are on a day-to-day basis, but as a member of the council, where would your energy be directed then when it comes to those who may condemn the reduction in grants?
Ms Richards: I believe it's an educational process. If you can get in there and you look at the situation -- I cannot talk about the Ontario Arts Council's makeup, how they make decisions; you can't until you're at the table. Perhaps that's why I'm rather excited to get this appointment, because I find that it's always been difficult for me personally to make an opinion unless I know two sides of every story, and I would try to encourage the arts groups, I would try to go through an education, to show them other opportunities and avenues that they could find and try to see if we could all work together.
Mr Silipo: I have a number of questions. I want to come back to some of the points that you've been discussing with my colleagues, but let me just go back first to something that's on your résumé that interests me. You were a campaign manager in a municipal election. Could you tell us a little bit about that?
Ms Richards: I was a campaign manager for my husband, actually, and therefore highly interested in the results, I might add.
Mr Silipo: Did he win?
Ms Richards: He did indeed. He had a great campaign manager.
Mr Silipo: I can tell that from your business-oriented approach, and I want to come back to that point as well. I know that my colleagues around the table would be disappointed if I didn't ask you this next question, which is, are you now or have you ever been a member of any political party?
Ms Richards: Yes, sir, I have and it has certainly not deterred my ability to function reasonably in my career.
Mr Silipo: I wouldn't presume that it did. Which political party?
Ms Richards: The PC.
Mr Silipo: You are now a member of the PC Party?
Ms Richards: I am.
Mr Silipo: I wanted to come back and talk a little bit about the whole notion of how you see the arts community and the relationship between government and the arts. But let me just start that by asking -- because I was trying to understand through the discussion that you've been having so far -- what the relationship is between the Ontario Arts Council and an organization like the Brampton Arts Council. It doesn't sound, from what you were saying, as if there is that much of a relationship in terms of funding or in terms of recommendations around how the Ontario Arts Council does its work. Could you talk to us a little bit about that?
Ms Richards: Each arts council in Ontario belongs to an organization called Community Arts Ontario, the same way that if you were an engineer you would belong to the professional group, if you were a doctor, etc. We have a lot of contact with that particular organization. As a matter of fact, this year we had a lot since Brampton was the host of this Community Arts Ontario conference which they hold. Members of course from the Ontario Arts Council staff and board attended, as they do. There is a close tie with the executive of that Community Arts Ontario, granted perhaps far more than would be on the individual arts councils themselves. Where we'd come in contact is we do put an application through for an operating grant and of course know the process and obviously are subject to the assessment process of the Ontario Arts Council. Certainly we get updates because it's the world we're in.
Mr Silipo: Is there any funding that flows from the Ontario Arts Council to the Brampton council?
Ms Richards: Yes, there is a small grant that has been given to us. We've been very, very fortunate to still remain. As I said, we don't know how long --
Mr Silipo: That's part of that $100,000 budget that you referred to earlier?
Ms Richards: That's correct -- $7,000.
1030
Mr Silipo: I wanted to ask you to talk a little bit more about your notion of government responsibility in the field of the arts. You said earlier that you see art -- I think you used the words -- "as a business." I want to ask you to elaborate on that. When you say that, do you mean that art needs to be considered primarily a business or that there is a business aspect to the arts?
Ms Richards: Business aspect to the arts.
Mr Silipo: Okay. I feel much more comfortable with that because I'm not sure I've heard any artists disagree with that. I think they all understand that there is that sense. But let's talk a little bit about what you see as the role of government. We've heard about the funding cuts and the way in which the arts community has reacted and the case that has been made for that. Do you believe that there needs to continue to be a strong involvement by the government, including funding of the arts?
Ms Richards: You mean in giving out the funds? You don't mean operating or being involved in where the money comes from?
Mr Silipo: No. In providing funding, as the government does now, albeit obviously to a much less extent than they did in previous years through the Ontario Arts Council, not in deciding who should get the money but leaving that to be determined in the arm's-length way in which it is done. But do you believe there is a continuing role for the government to play in funding the arts?
Ms Richards: If the funds are there, sir.
Mr Silipo: If the funds are there. Then how would you go about determining where you prioritize spending for the arts against spending for other areas?
Ms Richards: If I was involved with the Ontario Arts Council, and I feel they are the folks who determine that funding to these groups, I would have to be in there to decide what --
Mr Silipo: I'm not asking you who you would give the money or what kinds of groups. I appreciate that you don't feel you have enough information to give us that kind of answer. I'm talking about in a broader way.
Let me put it this way. What I get from you, from what I've heard you say so far, is that you have a sense that it would be nice if government were able to continue to provide some funding, but that you don't really see that as an essential part of a government's role. Now I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's the sense I get from what you're saying. If I'm wrong, please correct me in that.
Ms Richards: I'm speaking about the fact that we have to be self-reliant today. We are in real hard economic times, and I think we all have to become responsible, whether we're an individual artist, whether we're an arts organization, whether we're the Ontario Arts Council. I'm saying I think that issue has to be addressed first -- perhaps not first but certainly along with. Look, for instance, at the municipal government. I'm not saying that we do not appreciate the money. We get core funding from the city, and yes, it's very appreciated, but we have to become self-reliant, sir. I think we have to --
Mr Silipo: What does self-reliant mean? Relying on whom for the money?
Ms Richards: We have to rely on ourselves in order to generate funding, to look perhaps -- well, definitely -- at other funding opportunities because we don't know how long the government will be able to support the arts.
Mr Silipo: So you don't see that even though an economic case can be made that if the government gets far more than its return by investing in the arts --
Ms Richards: Absolutely. No, sir, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the ideal on that is perfect but that these are hard times. Let's look at every avenue. Let's look at the money we do receive from the government, that what we can receive from the government is well spent.
Mr Silipo: So you've accepted the notion that these are hard times and therefore government needs to cut its spending?
Ms Richards: Yes.
Mr Silipo: It doesn't trouble you that government is cutting its spending not to reinvest in other services but simply to provide those of us who happen to be earning more and more money more in the way of tax cuts?
Ms Richards: I'd like to say, sir, that I'm saddened --
Mr Silipo: Do you know enough about the extent of the cuts that have been made so far, even crossing that first threshold and finding -- I think you are saying you find acceptable within the present context the cuts that have been made. Among other things, it seems to me that the arts council and the community would argue that they certainly could not go any further without cutting now severely -- I think they would say they've already cut severely into funding for artists, but that anything they could do, any further cuts now, would really cut severely into funding for art as opposed to the administration of the council, all of those other things which, as far as we know, have been cut pretty severely already.
What would your reaction be if the government next year were to say there's going to be a further 10% or 20% cut to the funding to the Ontario Arts Council?
Ms Richards: We would have to adjust. We would have to go to the community. We would have to try to find other funding. We would look to the corporate business as we are doing now. I think we have to give some support in terms of workshops, emotional support, direction, pool our energy into management and to good business sense and to help our artists.
Mr Silipo: But you would accept the decision of the government.
Ms Richards: Of course I would, yes. My council would, yes.
The Chair: Mr Preston, you had a minute left.
Mr Preston: A fast little parallel here. I have the opportunity to invest $1 and get back $1.23 in an investment. At the end of the month I'm up to here in debt. Is it reasonable to go out and borrow more money to make this investment? I think we can all see the parallel.
Mr Crozier: Especially with income tax cuts.
Ms Richards: The way you're presenting it, sir, of course, it doesn't sound like a sound --
Mr Preston: Not a sound proposal, right?
Ms Richards: Actually it looks something like my home budget.
Mr Preston: Right.
The Chair: Ms Richards, thank you for coming before the committee and for providing the answers that you have.
Ms Richards: Thanks very much for the opportunity.
MARIE ASKIN
Review of intended appointment, selected by the third party: Marie Askin, intended appointee as member, Waterloo Region District Health Council.
The Chair: Ms Askin, welcome to the committee. I'm glad you're here. You've seen the process as it unfolds. If you wish to make any opening comments, please do so at this time.
Ms Marie Askin: I've brought a few notes with me. Thank you very much for the opportunity to attend here before you today. I am a nominee for the Waterloo Region District Health Council. My name is Marie Askin. In the short time I have with you here, I'd like to present you with a little bit of my background to assist you with your final decision.
I have been actively involved in health care since graduating from a paediatric teaching hospital in Montreal. My experiences encompass a variety of roles and responsibilities within the health care field and in different organizations. Throughout my career I have worked both on the front lines and in a variety of managerial positions in the acute care setting.
To name a few, I have been a staff nurse in neo-natal services, paediatrics and intensive care. I worked as a head nurse in an emergency department. I became an overall shift supervisor in our hospital. I was the associate director of nursing and eventually became the vice-president of patient services, which position I've held since 1981. My present responsibilities include direct patient care services as well as professional services such as rehabilitation, pharmacy, pastoral care, social services, and I manage a wellness centre as well.
The largest portion of my career has been spent working in the Kitchener-Waterloo community. During this time I have gained a broad working knowledge of the health care needs in our community. I have learned about the gaps in services that exist in our community and in our region. I have an appreciation of some of the changes that are required in the delivery of health care services. I have introduced changes in our organization that have led to decreasing our case costs and other efficiencies without compromising quality.
I believe that education is a lifelong learning experience and have continually pursued new knowledge and skills. It is my belief that I can make a significant contribution as a council member and as I represent the broad interests of our community. I believe I can achieve this by being involved in the decision-making required to face the major challenges that we have today and in the near future by also assisting in the development of the recommendations that will ensure that our region continues to enjoy the excellent health care that it has known in the past and to date. Now I would be pleased to answer any of your questions.
1040
Mr Ford: Good morning, Marie. Welcome. What are some of the local challenges with regard to health care that are unique to your community?
Ms Askin: Specifically, right now we have the restructuring that we have entered into discussions on and that is a major challenge. The whole physician issue is another challenge that we have to look at. There is a shortage, as you know, of medical specialists in our community and that's becoming a crucial issue for us to address.
Mr Ford: Question number two: Have you experienced a number of bed closures over the last four or five years in the Waterloo region?
Ms Askin: Yes.
Mr Ford: How many beds would you say have been closed in the last four or five years at any hospitals -- closed or amalgamated as a result of these closures?
Ms Askin: I can't tell you the specific number of bed closures because I'm dealing with three acute care hospitals plus one chronic care institution. However, we have experienced bed closures in the past and the reason for that had to do with some funding constraints. We have managed to date to look at our systems in a different fashion and still maintain our quality. In spite of the fact that we have closed our beds, we have increased the volume of activity within our hospital itself and certainly others as well.
Mr Ford: What kind of activity would you say in this hospital?
Ms Askin: I'm thinking --
Mr Ford: Several hospitals have a number of floors closed, the beds. Have they increased the activity through the emergency ward?
Ms Askin: Both through the emergency ward and specifically within the inpatient care area. For example, we have managed to shift a large number of procedures into a day program or an outpatient program. That came about as a result of changes in technology. So there are a variety of incentives that we have implemented in order to decrease our length of stay, therefore the bed need did not exist after a period of time. We did make some alterations.
If I think in terms of the past, where a patient might have come in for a hip surgical procedure, they might have spent 10 days within the hospital. Today we can honestly say that they only spend five days in the hospital, and that's largely due to the technology and also the systems we have implemented as we deliver the care.
We have introduced care paths, and I'm not sure if you are familiar with that, but care pathing involves looking at the whole episode of care. The patient is managed throughout the system by someone monitoring on a day-to-day basis that the patient has received the appropriate tests, that they have had all the interventions they need in preparation for discharge, and the discharge is started on day 1 in preparation for day 5. That's an example of the efficiencies we've implemented within our system.
Mr Ford: So you've shown greater efficiencies then?
Ms Askin: Yes, we have.
Mr Preston: There's a feeling that the Waterloo Region District Health Council has been dragging its feet on the proposal to the health restructuring commission and, because of that, hospital executives have made out a report. Do you really feel the health council has been dragging its feet? Is it taking too long?
Ms Askin: I think there was some frustration, in fairness; however, I think the acute care working group has worked towards being involved with the district health council and now I think everything is under way and is moving very well. I have a feeling that we'll see some success as a result of that.
Mr Bartolucci: Marie, welcome. Understand that when I ask you these questions, they're coming from a very, very sensitive heart whose provincial government has devastated the community I come from because of the Health Services Restructuring Commission's report that doesn't reflect the local needs or the local desires. My questions will be very, very general about the Health Services Restructuring Commission but pretty specific about the Waterloo situation, because the commission is about to visit you, and I hope they don't wreak the havoc they've wreaked on Sudbury.
The DHC has a nominating committee, and this nomination committee puts forth names. That's the traditional way of appointments to the DHC. The government chose not to do that in Sudbury, to circumvent the system and put their own people in place, and once they had them in place, they turned on them and wouldn't listen to them. Are you a product of the nomination committee's process?
Ms Askin: Yes, I am.
Mr Bartolucci: Great. You have a great deal of experience in the health care community, and I respect you and thank you for that. I note also your Catholic Hospital Association involvement. I also read the report, as Mr Preston did, and the hospital executives are suggesting that St Mary's Hospital goes. Are you in agreement with the hospital executives that the St Mary's site should be closed?
Ms Askin: Let me start off first of all by saying that I don't see this as a religious issue.
Mr Bartolucci: I'm not getting into it. I'm not saying Richard the Crusader.
Ms Askin: No. I'm in agreement up to a point. I'm in agreement with the closure only if we can deliver the services within one acute care facility and that's possible. I think at the moment what is going on is a study to try and determine whether the facility that the services will be delivered to will manage all of the activity that we presently have at St Mary's.
If that's not so, I think we will have to relook at our decision. I think there's a key component in this whole region itself. When you're dealing with three acute care hospitals, there are some possibilities that can be achieved, but certainly within two acute care hospitals, the possibilities are not quite as great, so I would see, with Cambridge's involvement in acute care as well, that there are major possibilities, because we all have some beds closed and we are all facing the 18% cut. I think that there's something that can be done within that region at this point.
Mr Bartolucci: That's a very honest answer, and I really, truly appreciate it, because I think what you're doing is really reflecting what the community is saying.
How long has your community been gathering the information for the DHC report? Mr Preston says, because he read one sentence in the second-last paragraph that indicates that the hospital executives thought that the DHC report was moving too slowly, but I think it's important that we get a time figure. How long has the DHC in your area been working on the report to get it right?
Ms Askin: To my knowledge, they began about 18 months ago, and there were various consultants involved in that process, and one particular group was called the Hay group. They were doing a gathering up of statistics and volumes and population projections and a variety of those stats, geographical, demographics, so they were busy doing that.
What was not done and where we're at today is whether the facilities can manage the volumes that we anticipate in 1999 and then again in the year 2004. That's the part of the puzzle that needs to be completed, and that's why we're studying that at this point.
Mr Bartolucci: And time needs to be taken. I think that's what you're saying.
Ms Askin: Definitely.
Mr Bartolucci: In order to get it right, time must be taken. You know, there are so many parallels between your situation and Sudbury's situation, it's amazing. The Health Services Restructuring Commission, as I read, is going to come into your area next fall. They're going to spend approximately three days and they're going to formulate their own conclusions. Do you believe they should disregard what the community says in their final recommendations?
Ms Askin: I think they should listen very carefully to the community. I think there are gaps in services, which I mentioned earlier. There are certain needs that are being expressed at the moment. I think the commission needs to listen to that because we are underserviced in some areas. I mentioned the specialist problem as a major issue. Cancer care has been very low within our community. We have a lot of gaps in services as it relates to cancer treatment. In cardiology, as an example, we will wait about six months in order to get into London for cardiac catheterization. Long-term care needs to be addressed in a major way in order to effect some of the changes that are required in the acute care setting. Until long-term care is addressed, I think we're going to have some struggles with that. But that appears to be coming forward and there are good suggestions being brought forward how we can do that.
1050
Mr Bartolucci: Three very short questions. Should the PDST model be used all across Ontario -- northern Ontario, your community, southwestern Ontario, central Ontario? Does it work? I guess a simple yes or no. I know it's more complicated than that, but you have years of service. You know.
Ms Askin: I think the PDST tool may be the best tool possible at this point in time in order to measure and monitor that kind of thing. The Hay group also has used its own tools, and I'm not sure what they were, but they are very closely related and they come out with similar answers. I have no discomfort around saying that the PDST tool does not work. That's the best measurement we have today.
Mr Bartolucci: Thank you for that frankness. Second, would you be disappointed if the Health Services Restructuring Commission recommendations were significantly different from the DHC's recommendations?
Ms Askin: Yes, I guess I would.
Mr Bartolucci: Probably the most important question before I cast my vote is: As a member of the DHC, will you fight for your community after the Health Services Restructuring Commission's report comes out and you're not in agreement with it?
Ms Askin: This I see as my role: to meet the needs of our community.
Mr Bartolucci: Thank you so much. Good luck.
Ms Askin: Thank you.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Having read your résumé, as the member from Sudbury says, you obviously come to this job very well-qualified, very knowledgeable and with lots of experience. However, the whole issue of health care has become a very political issue in the last while and has become quite a hot potato in probably every community across the province as the government struggles with its finances and as people in communities struggle to make sure that they have the health care they need to look after themselves and their families and their friends. What's your understanding of the role of a district health council?
Ms Askin: I see the district health council in a facilitation role. I feel that they can facilitate much of the process. Whether that always happens is beyond me. I haven't been on a district health council before so I really can't say, but I see their role as being key in terms of facilitating some of the decisions that need to be made and also to make some recommendations to the minister about what health care services are needed as well as the gaps in services.
Mr Martin: Certainly the role of the district health council is changing at this particular point in time, and some would suggest away from the original intention. The district health councils, when they were first set up by Frank Miller back in the early 1970s, were to hear from the community. It was a voice from the community. It was community representation and involvement in decisions around what services needed to be delivered and how they should be delivered, how they would best meet the need of that particular area. We have a situation now where what services need to be delivered and how they're to be delivered are being decided by this restructuring commission, mind you, with input, although, as the member for Sudbury suggested, not much input; as a matter of fact very little input, it seems.
So there's a tug and a pull here. District health councils who stand up to the government re what it wants to impose as opposed to what the community has decided is in its best interests get replaced. We had a prime example of that before this committee not so long ago where the executive director and the chair of the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council came and challenged the process of replacing people to that district health council and some of what they saw as the decision-making that was going to happen re their area. Because they stood up and spoke very eloquently and clearly on behalf of the people of the Sudbury and Manitoulin area, they lost their jobs. The executive director of that district health council is unemployed now and the chair and most if not all of that district health council are gone.
It seems that at this particular point in time, there's the agenda of the government and there's the aspirations of a community to have the best of health care service for its people. If it came down to that kind of a decision-making process for you as a member of the Waterloo Region District Health Council, what side would you come down on?
Ms Askin: I still have to speak to the side of my community. I have no qualms about that. I have worked in health care long enough that I know what is missing, I know what we need and I would argue strenuously for it.
Mr Martin: Who's your local member of provincial Parliament?
Ms Askin: Ms Witmer and also Wayne Wettlaufer and Gary Leadston, who's not here today, and whoever. I'm not that political.
Mr Preston: And Peter Preston. Everybody's got a chunk of that area.
Mr Crozier: You certainly have a burden to carry now.
Interjection: But four wonderful people.
Mr Bartolucci: Just mixed up.
Ms Askin: Obviously, I'm not a card-carrying member.
Mr Martin: Of course, the big issue in your area is the hospital restructuring at the moment and the focus at the moment seems to be on the question of St Mary's. I probably know your answer, but I'm going to ask it anyway, because Wayne Wettlaufer has spoken actually in committee and in the House on behalf of his constituents on this issue very clearly and I think very courageously to oppose the closing of St Mary's. He brought in a petition yesterday of 50,000 names to the House that he signed himself opposing the closing of St Mary's Hospital, just closing it as opposed to working out some other arrangement. I know in Sault Ste Marie we've worked through what sounds like somewhat the same process that you have so far in trying to figure out who does what and streamlining but retaining the involvement of St Mary's and all that means for your area. Wayne says he has another 40,000-person petition that he's going to bring in in the next week or two.
With that kind of popular sentiment on that issue, where do you stand and what will be your position as a member of the district health council?
Ms Askin: I think what's being lost in this whole issue is the fact that no one has indicated that St Mary's was going to close. The study is what was being done and I think that's what's being proposed. So to date, St Mary's is not closed or closing; that's not what was being proposed. I think we have to study whether we can manage these services in one institution, so once they get to negotiating who will do what -- and I think that's where it will develop after the fact. I've worked at St Mary's for a long time, so I think I have a personal investment, yes, in St Mary's Hospital, but if the needs of the community are going to be jeopardized by the 18% cuts, then I have to think in terms of how I want to see the dollars allocated within our region, as opposed to within St Mary's Hospital itself.
1100
Mr Martin: I agree that's certainly an intelligent approach to this whole question. But what if, at the end of the day, as they did in Sudbury, the government decides in its wisdom, through the restructuring commission, to downsize to a point where, in your mind and in the minds of the people that you live with out there, services are going to deteriorate and quality of service is going to diminish? What then would be the role of the district health council, and how vociferous do you think they should be in standing up to this government in front of them?
Ms Askin: I can't answer for the rest of the district health council members, but I can certainly answer for myself. I would say that we would have to stand up very strongly, and part of the reason why I would like to serve on the district health council today is because I know some of the ways we can achieve. Even if we have to close St Mary's, I know how we can achieve it. So I hope that the commission is in agreement. I'm hoping that's what would happen. I will not stand by and watch the quality affected; I will not stand by and watch accessibility being impacted upon. The efficiencies have to be there too, but we have to do this differently. This system has to operate differently today.
Mr Martin: What's your position on religious groups running hospitals?
Ms Askin: I have no feelings one way or the other. I think religious groups bring values, and that's not saying that others don't bring a certain set of values to the delivery of health care. People think of our hospital particularly as being a Catholic hospital, but we serve all ethnic groups, we serve all religions and we have an ongoing involvement with the Jewish population, with the multicultural faiths. We try to meet their needs. We have committees that address those needs so I don't think in terms of Catholic or denominational health care; I'm thinking about health care just in general.
Mr Martin: You may be aware that particularly with the closing of the Catholic hospital in Sudbury, there is a large concern beginning to rise up in the Catholic community among the hierarchy and among the people themselves. How do you propose to deal with that, and is that legitimate?
Ms Askin: I don't think it's legitimate to start saying that health care is going to be Catholic oriented or oriented through any other denomination. I think it's the health care needs that have to be addressed, and that's my personal feeling about that. I just can't cloud the issues with that. There are major issues involved here in trying to deliver health care in the first place and it doesn't encompass the other.
The Chair: Ms Askin, thank you for coming before the committee and in particular for your frank and very thoughtful responses to the questions. We appreciate it.
That completes the intended appointments review. We move now to the concurrences part of the agenda.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Marnie Richards.
The Chair: Anyone wish to speak to the motion? Oh, indeed.
Mr Bartolucci: I'm not going to support the appointment of Marnie Richards. Let me tell you why. I think we should draw a comparison between Marnie and Marie today because it's the perfect opportunity to do so. We have two intended appointees with completely different agendas. Marnie's agenda is to bow down to the government and carry through on the government's so-called commonsense agenda at any cost.
LUMAC, the Laurentian University Museum and Art Centre, is fighting for funding. It has been funded in the past by Laurentian University, but they can't afford it because of the cuts they've undergone. It has been funded by the public at large in cooperation with Laurentian, but they can't fund it entirely. If it was Marnie's decision as a member of the Ontario Council for the Arts, she would say, as she answered Mr Silipo, the bottom line is money, and our valuable centre would close.
I want somebody who's an advocate, like Marie Askin, who will fight the agenda if she doesn't agree with it. I don't see that happening with Marnie. I want an advocate like Marie, not a puppet, as I consider Marnie's appointment to be.
Mr Crozier: I'll be brief, but I too will not be supporting this appointment and I want the opportunity to explain why. I think Ms Richards is very well qualified for the position to which she's going to be appointed, but the further she went along in conversation the less I felt she was being appointed to the proper place. She should be somewhere on a committee and/or with the government that's opposed to the very council she's being appointed to. I don't think she will be an enthusiastic supporter of some of the areas with which the arts council has to deal.
She made recommendations, and I think valid ones, that many areas of the arts should be out finding new ways of funding and finding private funding. Well, they should have been doing that even before the crunch came. I think to some extent you have to be an advocate when you're on a council such as the Ontario Council for the Arts, and I don't think she would be. I agree with my colleague that she would simply think it's a fait accompli and there's no point in being an advocate for them in the sense that I think she should be. So although she's very well qualified in the field, I won't be supporting her appointment.
Mr Martin: I wasn't here for the complete interview, but Mr Silipo in leaving said that he would not, if he were here, be supporting this appointment, I think for all the reasons that my Liberal colleagues have put on the record.
The Chair: Is there any further debate on the concurrence motion? Are you ready for the question? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried. Thank you for that.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Marie Askin.
The Chair: Any debate on Marie Askin?
Mr Bartolucci: I was very, very impressed with Marie. Here's a person who has committed herself to being a health care provider, who very shortly will take all that positive energy that she has spent years helping people translate into community support, and then the Health Services Restructuring Commission is going to come in, not listen to her, make their own agenda and their own report and she's going to fight for the community and it's going to be fruitless. We're going to have this very positive person, this very dedicated person, at the end of the whole process being very sour on the government's agenda. It's my prediction, but I only wish all the intended appointees who came forward to this committee were as dedicated to their cause as Marie is. I will certainly be supporting this appointment.
Mr Martin: If Marie lives up to the presentation that she made here today, and she presented very clearly and positively, and her position coincides with the original intent of district health councils, she will, as will all her colleagues on that district health council, be challenged to the depth of her being over the next number of months and years to protect health care for the people of her area.
If she acts in the way she says she will in the interview this morning, and I have no reason to believe that she won't -- this is quite a challenging place to present -- she came here undeterred and unafraid re her position and what she thought and how she felt. I was impressed and will be supporting her appointment to the Waterloo Region District Health Council.
The Chair: If there is no further debate, are you ready for the question? All those in favour of this appointment? It is unanimous. Thank you for that.
Before we adjourn, in another week we'll be into November, and if committee members want to deal with an agency, board or commission in the winter break, January and February, you might want to think about that. We'd have to call the subcommittee together -- stop shaking your heads already -- for a meeting when that happens. If you decide you do, let me know and I'll call a meeting of the subcommittee. There needs to be time, if you do decide to call a commission or a board, for people to get ready for it as well, to be fair to them.
Mr Bartolucci: We hope it won't be an inconvenience, because we hope the House will still be sitting during January, February and part of March anyway, because we want to slow down this mean-spirited agenda of the government.
The Chair: Well, this is news to me, but that's great. Imagine being here all of January and February.
Mr Bob Wood: The only thing I would add to what you said, Mr Chair, other than to endorse it is that you might want to call the subcommittee meeting immediately after one of the committee meetings.
The Chair: Okay. Let me know in the next little while if you've got something in mind. Anything else? We are adjourned. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned at 1113.