CONTENTS
Wednesday 23 April 1997
Intended appointments
Mr Robert Whitley
Mr Harri Jansson
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 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 FrankMiclash (Kenora L)
Mr DanNewman (Scarborough Centre PC)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr TonySilipo (Dovercourt ND)
Mr BobWood (London South PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean PC)
Also taking part /Autre participant:
Mr GerardKennedy (York South L)
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel: Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1002 in room 228.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The standing committee will come to order. We have two intended appointees to deal with. Before that, we must deal with the two reports of the subcommittee. In the first one, dated Friday, April 11, the official opposition party selected Muriel Parent, for the Health Services Restructuring Commission, and that's scheduled for April 30. That's the intended date on which we will review that appointment. For April 17, the subcommittee made no selections.
Could we have a motion to accept those two subcommittee reports.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Adopted.
The Chair: Mr Baird moved they be adopted. Carried. Thank you for that.
ROBERT WHITLEY
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party and by third party: Robert Whitley, intended appointee as member, Ontario Film Development Corp.
The Chair: All right, if we can move to the intended appointments, the first one is Mr Robert Whitley for the Ontario Film Development Corp. Welcome to the committee. It's tradition that if you wish to make any opening comments you may do so. You don't have to, of course, but if you do, this is the time to do it.
Mr Robert Whitley: Yes, I would. Mr Laughren, members of the committee, I'm a former teacher and a guidance counsellor, now retired. Prior to teaching, I worked for the Steel Company of Canada and for Southam Press. During my teaching career, I was vice-president of district 9 of OSSTF. I was the professional development chair for three years, member of the salary negotiating committee and the chair of the class size committee.
In my community, I was a member of the Aldershot Community Police Association, I've been a Boy Scouts leader and I represented Canada myself in Switzerland several years ago. I have coached many years in minor sports and I was the high school curling coach for 10 years. I also founded the Burlington Track and Field Club and was chairman of the Southwestern Ontario Track and Field Association. I have always been actively involved in my work and community life.
I was involved in politics as well from 1985 to 1994.
My résumé shows that I have had some limited exposure to the film industry and also to that of making commercials. I am aware of some of the struggles that one must go through to put an idea to film and into production.
I believe our objectives are to encourage foreign production and to increase jobs in this sector in Ontario as well as to encourage young producers and help them obtain a foothold in the industry.
If my appointment is approved, I can assure you that I will give the board the same honest, objective commitment that I have always tried to bring to any project. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Whitley. Do any of the government members have any questions or comments of Mr Whitley?
Mr Baird: I think we could defer.
The Chair: Okay. Official opposition.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Mr Whitley. Did you seek out this appointment?
Mr Whitley: Yes, I did.
Mr Gravelle: I am curious. I want to talk to you a little bit more about how you see your role on the OFDC. Obviously I believe it's very important to advocate on behalf of Ontario filmmakers. I heard you say that you think one of your main roles is to encourage the making of foreign films. At what level of importance do you put the fact that you should be encouraging Ontario filmmakers themselves to get films made?
Mr Whitley: I think it's important for both aspects. As we've seen by the charts, there has been an increase in the amount of money brought in with the production of foreign films. But I also feel that with the new mandate, which is primarily service, it's important that we continue to help the young producers to get a foothold.
I believe, from my readings, that one of the things we are doing is to try and put these young producers into a conference with the people who have had a chance to be successful in the industry and to help them in that way. I also think we sent someone to Cannes this year to get his product on the international market. I understand that's what has happened so far.
Mr Gravelle: But again of course the original mandate of the OFDC, and I hope still an important mandate, is to stimulate employment and investment in Ontario by promoting Ontario residents. As you know, the Ontario film investment program, which certainly made up the bulk of the funding of OFDC, has been cut off; about 93% has been cut off in their budget. I'd like to know your thoughts on providing film investment funds to Ontario filmmakers and some of the other things they did as well. What are your thoughts on that?
Mr Whitley: Not having sat on the board, I don't know which direction is going to produce the best results. I would be more prepared to answer that if I were on the board. After a period of time, I can see which way the results are going and answer you then. But it's always been my belief, sir, that the legislators are the ones who are elected by the people. They set the mandate and the parameters of the mandate, and it's up to the board members to follow as best they can within those parameters.
Mr Gravelle: You don't view it as your role to, in essence, advocate on behalf of the arts? You don't feel that after your appointment goes through your job is to advocate on behalf of the arts and to have an opinion that says, "I believe this works better than that." You feel that your role is to simply follow the instructions as they are laid out and not be an advocate.
Mr Whitley: No, I feel I could do both. I feel I should follow within the parameters of the mandate what is set down for us and I think there is room within that mandate to do what you are asking me to do.
1010
Mr Gravelle: If you look at the history of the OFDC, the film investment program clearly has been a great success in terms of getting filmmakers, many of whom are now on the world stage -- such as Atom Egoyan, whose film is going to Cannes, and many other filmmakers; John Greyson, of course, who won a Gemini award for the film Lilies this past year, which was the last film that actually received investment under the OFDC. The whole question of investing in Ontario filmmakers to let them go in, this is now gone. We know that investment in Ontario films dropped by over $30 million just last year.
It is important from the point of view of the Ontario Liberal caucus as to what your position is in terms of advocacy, because I think it's important if you're on a commission or a committee or whatever. We want to get a real sense of how you feel about advocacy, and specifically the Ontario film investment program, which I think by all measures has been a success and has brought many filmmakers to the world stage. It is important for us to get a real sense of how active a role you intend to play in terms of advocacy.
Mr Whitley: I think investment, as far as an equity position by the government is concerned, is now not part of the mandate, if I read my material correctly. I believe the mandate is now more one of service to the industry than it is one of equity investment.
Mr Gravelle: How do you feel about that?
Mr Whitley: Not having sat on the board yet, it's hard for me to say. I believe that there is room for us to be able to advance the film industry with young producers within the parameters the government has set down. I noticed in the Toronto Star just recently that there were a couple of young producers in Toronto who were able to show their script to a backer. They raised some of their own money, and they were able to raise this $200,000 from someone outside of the film development corporation, to sponsor them to go into production and to do post-production work. I think if there's good material around there will always be an investor somewhere, if he knows what the script is and where it's going, to maybe get involved with the young producer, rather than the government taking the equity position.
Mr Gravelle: I think if you talked to a lot of the filmmakers who have gotten their help through the OFDC, they might not agree with you. Indeed, the film investment program has been a crucial element in terms of the OFDC.
I'm going to let my colleague ask a question here too.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Mr Whitley, you said that you had some political involvement between 1985 and 1994?
Mr Whitley: Yes, sir.
Mr Bartolucci: Would you elaborate a little bit on that?
Mr Whitley: Yes. I was a member of the executive for the PCPO during those years, from 1990 to 1994. Prior to that I was involved with one of the candidates as his campaign manager and sat on his executive.
Mr Bartolucci: Who was that?
Mr Whitley: Mr Jackson.
Mr Bartolucci: Did he suggest that you apply for this position?
Mr Whitley: No, he did not. It was my suggestion.
Mr Bartolucci: Is this the only position you applied for?
Mr Whitley: Yes, sir.
Mr Bartolucci: Could you give us a little bit of background with regard to your experience in the film industry and video work, just to try to convince this committee that you are indeed qualified for the position, the only position you applied for?
Mr Whitley: Right. If I can just say a word before I go into that point, I feel there's a broad community involvement necessary on the board. Even if I have not had the experience that some people might have had in the film industry, I still feel I can help the board by bringing another perspective.
But to get back to your original question, I helped to produce two films in Hollywood when I was a little younger and spent a lot of my own personal money to try and do that. The films never reached the screen, so I know the agony that comes without having enough money behind you to get your product on the market. I can sympathize with the opinion that was just expressed a few minutes ago by your colleague, but I think we have to get outside investment interested in investing with the young producers as well as the government taking an equity position.
If the government in the future feels that the economic situation of our province is such that we can go back to this, I'm sure if they legislate that, the board would be only too happy to bring it back into being. But that's not for us to say; that's for the legislators to make that decision and for the board to carry out their wishes.
Mr Bartolucci: Do you feel, though, that a part of your mandate is to make recommendations to legislators?
Mr Whitley: Yes, to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. As a board, if we think some things should be done, I think suggestions should go forward to her. If we don't, I don't think we're doing our duty.
Mr Bartolucci: I'll turn it back over to my colleague.
Mr Gravelle: I guess what concerns me, Mr Whitley, is that even in terms of the economic argument it's been proven statistically time and time again that the film investment that's put in by the government in Ontario is returned $8.30 per dollar in terms of the employment and jobs. So the economic argument is a strange one. What it ties into is whether you believe we should be promoting the vision of Ontario filmmakers, whether you believe in the cultural sector as being important, whether you believe it's important to let that vision be shown.
In order to encourage that, the film investment program has been a grand success. I believe a member of the OFDC should be someone who feels strongly about that, and I must admit I don't feel you've been as strongly prepared for this in terms of that history of what the OFDC has done in the film investment program. That concerns me.
Mr Whitley: I have read the reports. I know how much money it brought forward. But I don't think it's my duty to get a position on the board and to start making suggestions that we go back to that policy. Until the government decides that is to be reinstated, all we can do is show what has happened, how the new mandate is working, and then it will make the decision as to which way the board should go.
The Chair: I'm sorry, that's time up for the official opposition. The third party.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Good morning, Mr Whitley. One of the questions that I usually ask I won't have to ask this morning because it's been dealt with, and that's in terms of your political affiliation.
I want, however, to delve a little bit more into this discussion that you're having with my Liberal colleagues around your role in the corporation and particularly this whole question of advocacy versus servicing, as I think you've put it. I would just like to hear from you what exactly you see your role being as a member of the Ontario Film Development Corp. What is it you see yourself doing as a member of that body?
Mr Whitley: I see myself as being one of eight or nine members, I see myself listening to what the corporation is bringing forward as its recommendations, and then as board members it would be up to us to advise and to let the people in the commission know whether or not we think that's the proper way to go with that aspect of the mandate.
Mr Silipo: We've talked a little bit already about what's happened to investment or spending in Ontario for film and TV production in the last number of years. We know that overall the amount -- at least up to 1996, because we obviously don't have 1997 figures yet -- has increased, but there is what I would call a bit of a disturbing trend when you look at the Canadian and American split between that. I presume you have this material. Obviously, all of us presumably would be happy about the fact that there is an increase in spending overall, and certainly with respect to American productions here. But it bothers me, and I wonder whether it bothers you, that when you look at the Canadian side of that equation and you look at the figures that we have in front of us, it's gone down, from 1994 to 1996, from $359 million to $277 million. Does that kind of trend bother you?
Mr Whitley: It bothers me in that I would like to see it higher, naturally. But with what the economic situation in the province has been over the last couple of years, I think there has been a slight pullback probably in the equity position of Canadians' involvement. I'm not sure, but does this reflect also the government's withdrawal of the equity situation as well, which might make the difference?
1020
Mr Silipo: That was one of the points I wanted to also pursue. Obviously at this point, we could draw some conclusions -- some people might argue that they may be premature -- to say that one potential link certainly is to the drop in government funding that's been mentioned before, because 1995-96 is when we saw the first big drop of almost -- well, not halving, but at some point during the fiscal year the government froze the funding. It's been noted already that the amount that was being spent by the government was generating between $8 and $10 in overall terms.
That's something I'd want to pursue. If over the next couple of years -- you're a member of this corporation -- you see that the trend doesn't get any better, you have information that indicates to you that it really has more than something to do with the way in which the funding is set up and with the withdrawal of government funding, what's your response to that situation as a member of the corporation?
Mr Whitley: That's a lot of speculation in the future.
Mr Silipo: Is it speculation? Let's start from step one then: Do you draw any link between the drop in government funding and the drop in investment on the Canadian side of film production?
Mr Whitley: I wish I could answer your question intelligently, sir, but without seeing the actual figures -- I haven't access to those -- all I can do is speculate that yes, that is correct, maybe the drop is due to that. But I also see an increase in the American production, which also helps to increase jobs here in the province, in our post-production crews and the people who service the industry etc. This money in film and TV location production, the one is up and the other is down, but the industry itself is still getting revenue to keep it going. Are we upset that the Canadian money is not being poured back into the corporation, that it's going down, or are we more concerned with the overall money that's coming in to the province for film production? I think we have to separate that. What is it that we're concerned with?
Mr Silipo: That's what I'm asking you: What is it that we're concerned with? Are you not concerned -- to obviously give you my position on this -- that Canadian production is going down? If that's a trend that continues, does that not bother you?
Mr Whitley: I guess we'd have to look at that as a board and see if we cannot find other means of trying to get investment with the young producers rather than the government equity. I heard Norman Jewison speaking with Peter Gzowski on Monday, and from what I can gather, his concern is that everything has to do with the wallet as far as film production is concerned and that what we need is to be able to get the banks and other institutions involved in financing productions here in Ontario and Canada as a whole. That has not happened.
Apparently, the banks are not as eager to do that as they are in other countries. Maybe there's a direction that the board has to take to try and make the financial institutions knowledgeable of the fact that money can be made by encouraging and helping Canadian film producers get off the ground. If that is so -- and if that is something that in a discussion with the board we find is a viable way to attack the government's eliminating their equity position, to go to other sources to try and find it now -- then I think that's a direction we should be taking.
The Chair: Do government members wish to ask questions?
Mr Baird: Perhaps just maybe one comment and then a question. Obviously in the past you've seen a conversion from the equity-type positions to a tax credit system that would see approximately $15 million put into the Ontario film industry, which is obviously a different public policy approach to ensuring that we attract those jobs and investment into the Ontario film industry, which is obviously a crucial part not just of the provincial economy but particularly the city of Toronto.
I wanted to raise one point with you with respect to your background. What sort of perspective do you think you could bring to the corporation? You mentioned -- and it's obvious from the materials here -- you have some background in terms of film production, where you've been involved as an independent producer, and you mentioned you certainly would share the experiences that many have shared in terms of not getting it to the screen.
What sort of perspective do you think you bring to the corporation with your work in the teaching profession, your work as a teachers' union official and your experience in the community, whether it's with children's groups or sports groups?
Mr Whitley: I think that I can bring to the board some people skills. I have been used to working with people and with problems, and I think that with the skills I have gained over the many years of working within that context I can work with other people on the committee. Whatever problems are put forward, I think that I have some organization skills and some common sense, that I can help to work out any suggestions or problems that may come forward. I feel my background is varied enough that I have those skills to offer and to bring a broader perspective of community to the board.
The Chair: Any further questions? If not, Mr Whitley, that completes the process this morning. We appreciate your attendance here. You're welcome to stay; we vote on your appointment later on. We appreciate your coming before the committee this morning.
HARRI JANSSON
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party and by third party: Harri Jansson, intended appointee as member, Health Services Restructuring Commission.
The Chair: The next intended appointment is Mr Harri Jansson, to the Health Services Restructuring Commission. Welcome to the committee this morning. There's not a member on this committee who's not aware of the work of the Health Services Restructuring Commission, so we know a little bit about what you're about to be doing. We appreciate your presence here, and if you've any opening comments, now is the time to make them.
Mr Harri Jansson: Thank you. Mr Chairman, committee members, I'm pleased to be here today to discuss with you the possibility of my appointment to the Health Services Restructuring Commission. If you'll permit me, I'd like to take a few minutes to review with you my background. I'm an immigrant to Canada, having arrived in Toronto in 1969 from Finland. My father was a senior civil servant in the United Nations and as such, much of my youth was spent living in the US, Europe and the Middle East. I was graduated from the State University of New York with a BA in 1967.
I am currently executive vice-president for the Bank of Montreal and the senior line banker in the personal and commercial financial services group. My primary responsibility is the personal and commercial business conducted in our 315 branches in Toronto and central, eastern and northern Ontario.
1030
While I don't pretend to be an expert in the health services field, I have had some experience working with hospitals. While in Winnipeg I served on the board of trustees for the St Boniface General Hospital and the St Boniface General Hospital Research Foundation. My four years with these two organizations was both interesting and enjoyable. While assigned to run the bank's BC division, I was chair of the Vancouver General Hospital Foundation and worked fairly closely with the hospital's CEO. Here in Toronto, I served for one year on the Sunnybrook hospital foundation.
I'm looking forward to working with the HSRC and I'm keenly interested in the restructuring of health services in this province. I feel that my business background could perhaps add to the work that still needs to be done.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Jansson. We'll start the questioning with the official opposition. Mr Kennedy.
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): First, Mr Jansson, I'd like to commend you on your public-spirited interest in serving on the commission. As you know, the commission has had a little bit of controversy along the way in the conduct of its prescribed duties on behalf of the government. I wonder if you could tell me a bit about what you see as the future for hospitals with respect to health care in this province. Do you have an outlook on that? How do you see them developing, or is that something that you'll be developing in your role?
Mr Jansson: Probably both, sir. I see health services delivery in the province being more focused, more fiscally responsible and changing with the needs of the population. I have had a keen interest in what's going on. I've been reading the papers and I've had copies of several of the reports that the commission has presented. I believe the work they're doing is headed in the right direction and I think this province will be a better place for health care in the future.
Mr Kennedy: Are you concerned, as the OHA and even some of your prospective colleagues have expressed, that many of the hospitals in this province have been affected already by random cuts in the order of $800 million to date, which doesn't fall directly under the rubric of restructuring but rather is just money that's been yanked out of the system? What's your feeling about how that meshes with the mandate that you're proposing to help undertake?
Mr Jansson: This is ever a complex issue, which I'm sure you're aware of. There has been some $800 million reinvested in the health care services industry in Ontario by the provincial government in the last year or so. So, in my view anyway, it hasn't just been a pull-out of $800 million; it has been reinvested in specific areas, a lot of which have been recommended by the local district health commissions. The restructuring is a painful process and people are going to lose jobs. Hopefully those jobs that have been eliminated have been eliminated with a view as to what the future is going to look like.
Mr Kennedy: Sorry to interrupt, but on the one point, you're not concerned that there have been cuts made randomly in the sense that 210 hospitals have had to come to terms with how to do the layoffs and so on without the overall restructuring? You don't see a conflict between those two processes, the cuts on the one hand and a restructuring process on the other, the premise of which is that you can rearrange things in the system? Do you see a conflict there?
Mr Jansson: I could see a potential conflict, but let me give you my view on it as a businessperson. If we were restructuring the organization I work in, I would expect, that in the normal course of business, at each location we would look at our business and make decisions on what's best for that location. The restructuring will look at the broader picture and look at our distribution.
If you look at health care, the number of beds available to the public has come down quite considerably as a result of action hospitals have taken themselves. That necessarily hasn't followed, in my preliminary view anyway, with the necessary reduction in expenses. So some of the cuts that have taken place have been necessary as those jobs are not needed any longer. That's a very broad statement. I don't have a lot of specifics on it.
Mr Kennedy: And it is, I think you might be aware, a controversial statement.
Mr Jansson: Sure.
Mr Kennedy: There has been at least some good evidence of reductions in standards that have accompanied the previous cuts, let alone the present ones. I'll leave the point because I don't think it's possible to be directly addressed.
Just to your point of reinvestment, as a business person, would you say a reinvestment occurs when the money is actually spent or when there is an indication that the money might be spent? Which would you consider a reinvestment?
Mr Jansson: Ultimately, when the money is spent, but I --
Mr Kennedy: Right. Just for your information, there certainly has been $800 million withdrawn from the system. There is documentable only about $220 million that's actually been reinvested. There are announcements that aggregate to a larger number, but we're now on, in some cases, the third time that certain moneys have been reannounced in the system. How vital do you think it is that the exercise you will embark on, should you be approved, save money and how important do you think it is that it have the ability to reinvest the money where it can do, presumably, more good in the system? How do you see the objectives of the commission in this regard?
Mr Jansson: I think one of the objectives of the commission is to eliminate waste, so if that means there is money saved, that's fine. But as I understand the mandate of the commission, that is only one of its objectives. Among the other objectives is to provide viable, decent health care for the citizens of Ontario, and in some cases that's going to mean significant reinvestment to bring the programs up to date, the modern technology and so forth. To save money, to eliminate waste is only one of the objectives.
Mr Kennedy: To your knowledge today, and I appreciate it will change as and if you get involved with this, do you see the commission mainly consolidating empty beds or do you see it making other substantive changes?
Mr Jansson: No, I don't think it's a matter of consolidating empty beds. I think it's a matter of looking at the demographics of the region and determining what is the best way to deliver to it specific health care, whether it be prenatal or orthopaedic or psychiatric, what is the best delivery vehicle in that region for that population.
Mr Kennedy: What do you think about the quicker and sicker methodology, the idea that people in general can leave hospitals quicker and sicker and that will work efficaciously? You realize that as many as two thirds of the beds that we're talking about eliminating so far by your colleagues' decisions are beds that currently have patients in them, and this is after a decade of downsizing. Do you have a view of that specific part of the efficiencies?
Mr Jansson: I have some personal experience. In 1987, I had a hip replacement and was in the hospital for 16 days. In 1992, I had that same hip replaced again and I was in the hospital six days. I can tell you that I got better quicker on the second occasion than on the first occasion.
Mr Kennedy: Coming back to the reinvestment though, did you find yourself facing any care in the community, or was it necessary in your case, and do you recognize the threshold the system is approaching now where if you're out sicker, quicker, you're not necessarily getting the support you require there? How do you feel being part of a commission that doesn't have the power to provide the corollary support, that is able to make directions on the one hand to cut hospital expenditure and on the other hand is only able to make recommendations around the community reinvestment that might actually make some of those transitions possible?
Mr Jansson: That's a bit of a dilemma. Going back to my own personal experience, instead of getting the help in the hospital, I got it outside the hospital on my time, and that was the physical therapy. So I think it depends on the kind of support that is available in the community to help the patients once they're out of the hospital. I'm sure that is something the commission needs to look at.
Mr Kennedy: One question I'd like to get a clearer answer on: Do you see the commission's mandate is to save money for the health care system? Do you see that as its mandate?
Mr Jansson: Part of its mandate is to eliminate waste. If that means saving money, I would say yes, but that clearly is not the prime mandate of the commission.
Mr Kennedy: How do you reconcile that the government is already ahead of you, having made deliberations for the remaining hospitals that you might participate in? It's already demanded an 18% cut, prejudging what you might find. Many of us on the outside are trying to make sense of that. You're heading for the inside. How do you think you can reconcile that?
Mr Jansson: I don't think you take the 18% cut and say, "We're going to get 4% out of eastern Ontario and 12% out of Toronto," so there's a global number that you work with in Toronto and say, "Once we're done, we're going to lop $500 million out of the health services industry in Toronto." The commission's approach, as I understand it, has been, "Let's have a look at where we are in providing health care in" -- let's say Toronto, for example. "What works best and how do we bring it up to the 21st century in terms of state-of-the-art delivery?"
Ultimately, some of that probably will free up some dollars as we consolidate the number of hospitals. Instead of having every hospital be everything to everybody, we're going to have specific hospitals that are going to have world-class expertise in certain areas. I think the general feeling is that this is going to eliminate some waste and perform for the population in a better way.
1040
Mr Kennedy: What's your view of small towns that have single hospitals that, when you take the slide-rule formulas, may not be as efficacious but they have other implications: They're social, they're economic, they could be the largest employer in a town, they could be isolated from other areas. That's a policy you're going to have to come to deal with fairly shortly. Do you have predetermined views on that? What is your view of that as it fits with some of what you've already told us about finding waste in the system and so on?
Mr Jansson: As I understand it, again from a pretty preliminary view, there are some hospitals in smaller towns in Ontario that operate very efficiently and provide good health care. There are other hospitals that don't, and I see it as the role of the commission to review what those hospitals do and how they perform and how efficient they are and make recommendations for those hospitals to perform better, whether it's fiscally or delivering health care.
Mr Kennedy: Could you see a situation --
The Chair: Sorry, Mr Kennedy, the allotted time has expired. Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Mr Jansson, just to continue on this discussion, obviously, given your background, you would bring to the commission a fair amount of business expertise, and in some ways that's almost what bothers me. It seems to me that if there's one overall worry that I have about the way in which the commission has functioned so far it is that it has made its decisions more on a business ledger type of approach than about what necessarily is best for the health care services of any particular community. So I guess I want to hear some more from you about that aspect of the job that the commission is charged with carrying out and how we balance out.
Certainly I wouldn't argue about the need to look at our health care system, as we have been doing in fact for some time, even prior to the existence of this government, at how we could spend the dollars that we are spending better. I don't have an argument at all, in fact I'm very supportive of that direction, but I do have a strong argument with what I've seen go on in the last year or so, particularly where we have hospitals just reeling from the kind of cuts that have come about.
I haven't seen the $800 million in investment that you've talked about. I know the commission has made various recommendations that I think total up to that effect, but the way I look at the numbers, we haven't seen the government commit to that kind of reinvestment at this point in time. That concerns me because I still am not able to reconcile the government's stated position that it doesn't want to cut the health care budget with the actions that it has taken, which seem to me to support the very opposite, that they are cutting funding to hospitals and to other aspects of the health care system. I guess I need to hear from you a little bit more about how you see, as a member of the commission, reconciling those two differences.
Mr Jansson: When I was in Vancouver, British Columbia went through a very similar exercise. There were, I believe, two hospitals in Vancouver that were shut down and amalgamated with Vancouver General Hospital, and it was a pretty emotional affair because a whole bunch of people lost their jobs and careers. Sitting down and talking to the people who deliver the health care in the city of Vancouver, I had a long conversation with my surgeon, who was the head of orthopaedics. I said, "Bob, tell me why this is good or not good." I didn't have an axe to grind one way or the other. He said: "Quite frankly, the two hospitals that were closed into ours had departments that were doing exactly the same things as us, so the dollars were being spread too thin." He said: "We are falling behind in terms of reinvesting in technology because the dollars are spread too thin. By consolidating, we can spend the dollars far more wisely."
I believe that's what's going on in Ontario. Just looking at some of the reports, pretty well what was recommended by the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council has been what been what has been agreed to and recommended by the Health Services Restructuring Commission, and that body was certainly different in makeup than the health services commission. They prepared a very in-depth report; I believe it was 1994. The health services commission has reviewed it and I'd say 85% to 90% of what they recommended has been agreed to.
Mr Silipo: There are some key differences. I can tell you of one in the west end of Metro that you may be aware of, which is the Doctors' Hospital, as one example where the commission has gone contrary to a couple of particular recommendations that were at the heart of the district health council, and that is that while they both recommended moving the hospital to the western wing of the Toronto Hospital, the district health council had supported the wish of the community to have the hospital remain intact because it was providing a particular service and the way in which it was providing it was seen to be different from the kind of expertise the Toronto Hospital has. So there is one example where the commission is doing something very different.
Again, that's obviously an issue that we'll have to wait and see what the commission -- depending, I guess, on how quickly you get on side, you will have something to say about what the commission actually decides on that. I guess I'm putting in a plug for you to take a look at that, because I think the district health council, with the flaws in its process, came closer to understanding the local community concerns than it seems to me the commission has, at least judging it from the perspective that I've seen it here in Metropolitan Toronto.
I guess that's something else that I just also want to ask you about; that is, at the end of the day, how do we make these decisions in the most sensible way? Again, the government, in setting up the commission, has wanted to establish this arm's-length body, as if it had no responsibility, or wanted to have no responsibility, for the decisions at the end of the day. Do you really see that that's the way it's happening? Is it the role of the commission or should it be the role of the commission to be making these decisions, or is that really just a front, in effect, at the end of the day and we should just all acknowledge and accept that it's the government that's making these decisions, directly or indirectly?
Mr Jansson: That's difficult for me to answer, sitting where I am today, because I have not been a part of the commission. As I understand it, their mandate is not to have to refer to the Minister of Health and the government on the decisions they have made.
I can tell you that I have been very impressed with the people I have met in the commission, ie, the hired people, in terms of their understanding of the health business. They don't take it lightly. When they are sitting down with local communities and committees and hospitals and reviewing the delivery of health services in that region, they understand what's going on from both sides of the table because they have worked running hospitals and/or are doctors or have run departments. I don't have that in-depth understanding. I have more of a business understanding.
But back to what you're getting at, I believe and I have been told that the commission is independent of the government, and I believe that's the way it should go. If I could draw a parallel in my business, I have a lending limit which I make decisions on in my area of influence. If I were to get a call one day to say that the chairman had decided to lend, on his own hook, to one of my customers and I disagreed, I guess that's where I would come apart with my employer. I take my responsibilities seriously. They have been handed down to me to carry out my mandate, and if somebody is going to overrule it, I'm going to have some difficulty.
Mr Silipo: Again, I certainly don't question the merits of individuals who are sitting on the commission. We've seen already examples where the government has intervened, as I think they should. I think at the end of the day it is the government's responsibility to take responsibility for the decisions. They can rely as much as they want on any group of advisers to do the bulk of the work, but at the end of the day these are political decisions and no one should pretend otherwise.
One last question on the whole approach, and that is, when you look at the business case for deciding whether a particular hospital should close its doors or be folded into another or whatever should happen to it, if it can be shown that the savings that come don't come so much from actually closing the building but rather from looking at how you eliminate duplication of services, so that you look at how you make changes in terms of what one hospital does versus another, and I refer back -- you may have seen a few weeks ago that the Toronto Star did a bit of an analysis that indicated, looking at the Toronto situation, that the bulk of the savings would not come from the actual closing of the hospitals, it would come from a number of the other recommended changes. And yet the closing of the actual hospital in some communities is what's causing a real heartache, a real hardship.
Is that not something the commission ought to take a look at as well, in terms of how it goes about making those decisions and giving a fair amount of weight to the kind of sense that the hospital as an institution has in various communities?
1050
Mr Jansson: I believe they do. Again, I'm sitting here now not as a part of the commission, but I have spent some time with members of the commission talking about what work they have done and what analysis they have made. What do you do when you go into a Chatham or a Kingston? How do you determine who does what? My understanding so far is that their approach, quite frankly, has not been: "We're going to go to this locale. We see there are four hospitals there. When we walk out, there's only going to be one." They go in with an open mind. Probably 50% of the time they can see automatically, at 30,000 feet, that what we had there 20 years ago isn't what we need today. Maybe it's not four, maybe it's two, and an alternative delivery system.
There are going to be hospitals closed because they don't serve the function they used to today. That's going to be hard to take, and the closer you are to that hospital, the tougher it's going to be for you, because, "It's my hospital," and there's tons of anecdotal evidence. But I don't believe the mandate of the commission is to go around and look for ways to close hospitals; I believe the mandate of the commission is to find out how to deliver the best health care for the buck today.
Mr Silipo: One last question --
The Chair: I'm sorry, time's up. Do the government members have any questions or comments? Mr Newman.
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Good morning, Mr Jansson, and welcome to the committee. I was pleased that you mentioned in your answer to one of the opposition members about your hip surgery and the fact that technology has changed even in that short time. Things like hip replacement surgery, cataract surgery and gall bladder surgery have all changed and greatly impacted on the hospital stay, the length of time people are staying in hospital, so I was pleased that you were able to note that.
You have an impressive CV, from reading through it. You're obviously a professional in the financial services industry. I was impressed that you've been on the Sunnybrook hospital foundation, the Vancouver General Hospital Foundation, and also a director of the St Boniface General Hospital. You have an obvious interest in the community and in health care. How has your professional experience assisted you in the past with these health-related organizations and, more important, how will it assist you should you be successful in your appointment to the Health Services Restructuring Commission?
Mr Jansson: A lot of the work that I have done with hospitals has been on the foundation side. That's the arm that raises the money from the public. It's kind of interesting, because in Vancouver, sitting on the board of our foundation was the president of the hospital, who came from Sunnybrook. Vancouver General Hospital is one of the largest hospitals in Canada, probably the largest now with the amalgamation. He would come to us and say: "This is where we need the money. Give us a tab at the end of the day." Then we'd have to go out to the public to raise it. It was all public funds.
To understand where he needed the money, part of the program we instituted was that every member of that foundation needed to spend a day in the hospital, touring. So we put on surgical masks and gowns and walked through surgery and operations, watched where money was being spent, and quite frankly came back to the CEO and said: "Why do you have so many people here cleaning those floors? Have you thought about contracting it out?"
That hospital goes through about $300,000 a day; a huge operation. So working with the CEO and raising the funds that hospital spent made us acutely aware, in some instances, not necessarily at that hospital, of waste that was going on and the difficult job the CEO had in balancing the priorities.
When I was in Winnipeg, I probably spent a day and a half a week at the hospital, meeting with doctors, being the head of the audit committee for the hospital, working with the accountants and looking at the fiscal structure, but also talking to the doctors about what kind of money they needed for what kind of research. I think that gives me some background that might help in serving on the commission.
Mr Newman: I appreciate that. I think the opposition have tried to draw you as the business side of things on the commission. I want to put on the record that the commission is headed by Dr Duncan Sinclair, who is the former dean of medicine at Queen's University. We had an impressive doctor from Timmins, Dr Williams, I think, appear here a few weeks ago. There are lots of people on the commission with health-related backgrounds, people like Donald Thornton from the Oshawa General Hospital; Daniel Ross from the Victoria Hospital in London, Ontario; Maureen Law, who's a former federal health bureaucrat at Health and Welfare and was with the World Health Organization; and also Shelley Jamieson from the nursing home association. I think it's important that we have a real mixture or cross-section of society on that. Having health care plus the business side I think is vitally important, so I'm very pleased to see that you have put your name forward for that.
My last question would be, will your employer -- Matthew Barrett and Tony Comper and the Bank of Montreal -- make adequate time available for you to serve on this?
Mr Jansson: When I posed that question, they said, "You decide, Harri." They are fully aware that I have been asked and I'm appearing here today. Basically they say: "You've got a job to do around here, so if you feel you've got time to serve someplace else, make sure job comes first and you're prepared to put in your own hours." When I look at this, I'd say at least 50% of the hours that I'll be spending will be my time.
Mr Newman: I appreciate you coming before the committee. I think on behalf of all government members, we will be supporting your appointment.
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): It's a pleasure to see you here this morning. I'm one of those types who believes that when you're working with large institutions like hospitals or libraries or school boards, there has to be somebody watching the financial end of it. I've been involved in hospitals for a number of years. There always has to be somebody looking at the financial aspect of it, because in the hospital situation, as you're probably very aware, the MAC will keep you informed of the needs of the hospital itself. The peripheral areas of the hospital, other than the medical service and all that type of thing, are the administration of the hospital employees not there for the health aspect of the hospital, not being in the medical profession. These are the things you have to keep an eye on. You're probably very aware of that.
I'll give you a simple analysis so you understand where I was coming from. I was in the hospital there for about 12 years and I was on the finance end of it. I looked at a simple thing like the usage of garbage bags. We were using 250,000, as an example, one year, and two years later we're using something like 750,000 but we had fewer patients. That was one aspect I looked at. Consequently, the bags must have been walking out of the hospital by themselves.
I brought that to the attention of the maintenance supervisor. There were a number of other things, so I had a long list of them. I had them in and talked to them quite nicely. They were telling me they didn't really know what happened to all these different areas, and I said, "Well, I think you'd better find out." Then we had to bring a consultant in, like you were mentioning, from the outside and they were astounded at the usage of maintenance materials, cleaning materials and all this type of thing. So we had a rearrangement there, and that's only one aspect.
I agree with my colleague across the floor saying that it's not just the financial end of the hospital, but the MAC always keeps you advised on a weekly basis of what the medical needs are in the hospital.
I have to commend you for your backgrounder. I was just going to ask you the same questions as my colleague. I thought you might have been semiretired or retired, that's all.
Mr Jansson: Not yet.
Mr Ford: Okay. One other question I had marked down here: Are you a Canadian citizen?
Mr Jansson: Yes, I am.
Mr Ford: Excellent. Okay, that's it.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ford. I'm glad that you wrapped up the government members' questions and comments.
Mr Baird: You're glad he wrapped up?
The Chair: I'm glad you got that. I appreciate that.
Mr Jansson, thank you very much for appearing before the committee this morning.
The next item of business, as a matter of fact, is voting on the concurrence or non-concurrence of these appointments. I would entertain a motion in that regard.
Mr Baird: I would move concurrence on the appointment of Robert Whitley.
The Chair: Dealing with Mr Whitley's appointment, anybody wish to speak to that?
Mr Gravelle: I will be voting against the appointment of Mr Whitley to the OFDC, in essence because I think Mr Whitley clearly does not view it as a priority that we support the making of films by Ontario filmmakers, which indeed was the original mandate of the OFDC. I think it's become clear to all of us, with the loss of government support, that it's important to have advocates on the board.
I don't think it probably is necessary for the government to continually appoint people to their boards and commissions who are simply going to say, "We will simply follow the rules that are out there and we'll see what happens." I feel that Mr Whitley made it very, very clear, even in his opening comments, that he felt the priority was more to encourage foreign filmmakers working in Ontario. As much as that is something that we think is very important as well, the mandate of the OFDC has been to encourage and promote the making of films by Ontario filmmakers.
The history of this province has been that this program and the investment fund has helped a great deal in terms of bringing some prominent filmmakers to the fore and in terms of getting our vision heard. I don't agree that the tax credit will replace that. I'm sure Mr Whitley is a fine gentleman and is keen to do so, but I was disappointed in his responses and therefore I'll be voting against it.
The Chair: Any other comments on Mr Baird's motion? Are you ready for the question? All those in favour of Mr Baird's concurrence motion? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
Next concurrence.
Mr Newman: I move concurrence in the appointment of Mr Harri Jansson.
The Chair: Anybody wish to speak to Mr Newman's motion?
Mr Gravelle: Mr Jansson is clearly intelligent, thoughtful, a man of great experience, and I think his responses were all based on his belief that he can certainly do a good job in terms of this particular position. It's important that I say that he in so many ways does appear to be a person who will take this very, very seriously, so I want to make it clear that although we will not be supporting Mr Jansson's appointment, it truly isn't for personal reasons or in terms of any of the remarks.
The fact is that with the few number of positions available on the restructuring commission, I think it's important to probably try and find room for people who've got a better sense perhaps of some of the community-based issues, some of the issues in the smaller communities. I do think that's important. One of the issues that was brought out very clearly was the question of the commission's right to make decisions in terms of closing hospitals but not their right to determine just exactly what the community reinvestment will be.
We would certainly encourage the government to look at making appointments to the commission that perhaps do not reflect so much a large urban context but also have some room there for people who have experience in the smaller communities, the more remote communities. So on the basis that we believe that with the few number of positions available there should be a change in the focus in terms of who is appointed, I will not be supporting Mr Jansson's appointment.
The Chair: Any further comments on Mr Newman's motion?
Mr Baird: I just want to get on the record that I think the people of Ontario should be tremendously well served by this individual and be very pleased that he's been willing to put forward his tremendous amount of experience and skill set to what is a very challenging file and that we should be very pleased that he would agree to accept such an appointment.
The Chair: Are you ready for the question? All those in favour? Opposed? Mr Newman's motion is carried. That confirms the appointments of both Mr Whitley and Mr Jansson.
That completes the business for the morning. I thank the members of the committee. We are adjourned until next Wednesday.
The committee adjourned at 1103.