STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DES
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ORGANISMES GOUVERNEMENTAUX
INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
RUTH GALLOP
CONTENTS
Wednesday 21 October1998
Subcommittee reports
Intended appointments
Dr Ruth Gallop
Dr Archie Heide
Mr Richard Makuch
Mr Nicholas Perpick
Mr John Bylhouwer
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Présidente
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West / -Ouest Ind)
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur L)
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth PC)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North / -Nord PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DES
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ORGANISMES GOUVERNEMENTAUX
Wednesday 21 October 1998 Mercredi 21 octobre 1998
The committee met at 0902 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Chair (Ms Frances Lankin): I call the meeting to order. The first item on the agenda is the report of the subcommittee on business, dated October 8, 1998. Members will have copies of that before them. This is the selection of intended appointments for committee review. In fact, most of them have been scheduled for today, so it is necessary to deal with this committee minute today so that we can proceed. Is there any discussion or debate?
Seeing none, all those in favour, please indicate. Those opposed? Carried.
We can move directly to the interviews of intended appointments. I'm sorry, there is a second subcommittee report, dated October 15, which indicates that there are essentially no selections from the certificate dated October 9. Is there any debate on that committee report? Mr Grimmett, would you move this subcommittee report?
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): So moved.
The Chair: Any debate? None? All those in favour, please indicate. Those opposed? That's carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
RUTH GALLOP
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Ruth Gallop, intended appointee as member, Health Services Restructuring Commission.
The Chair: Now we may move forward. Our first intended appointee for review is Dr Ruth Gallop. If you have any opening comments that you would like to make, please feel free to do so and then we will be moving through the parties in rotation, beginning with the government members, who might have a few questions for you.
Dr Ruth Gallop: Maybe I can make a brief statement to introduce myself. I'm currently a professor and associate dean at the faculty of nursing of the University of Toronto. I have a cross-appointment to the department of psychiatry in the faculty of medicine as a professor, and I'm a researcher in the division of society, women and health at Women's College Hospital, in the addiction and mental health centre.
My professional career has involved many years working clinically in the mental health system, and for the past 15 years I've worked as a researcher, a clinician, a consultant and educator, primarily in mental health. My focus has been on the client-clinician interface, focusing on how to improve the clinical services for clients often perceived as difficult in the system. I have also been a member of the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office advisory board since its inception and have served in the past as its chair.
I'm pleased to be considered for an appointment to the Health Services Restructuring Commission. I'm extremely interested in the task of phase 2 as I understand it at this point; that is, the development of an integrated health system. Furthermore, I am delighted that a nursing professional is being considered for appointment. Nurses are significant members of the health care system. They have been profoundly affected by changes in health care, and I believe that the nursing profession can play an important role in an integrated system.
Mr Grimmett: Welcome to the committee, Doctor. Going through your very lengthy resumé I was most impressed -- in fact, I was shocked at the number of articles you've written in your career. From reading that, a question came to me as to how much actual interaction you've had with front-line nurses in your recent career. I would hope that one of the things you would bring, if you're approved, would be the ability to represent the views of front-line nurses. Could you perhaps provide us with some information about how much interaction you have with real front-line nurses?
Dr Gallop: Let me answer that in two ways: One, the nature of the research I do requires me to be in the clinical setting all the time and be very cognizant of what's happening at the front line. I have constant interaction with front-line nurses. I serve a lot as a consultant to front-line nurses on difficult cases. I'm working with nurses at the Clarke to help look at all their health care policy on units, to see how the unit policy needs to be changed as they try to deal with changing patient populations.
Next week, for example, I'm going to Hamilton, where I'm spending a whole day, at their invitation, helping front-line nurses work with psychiatric populations in hospitals and communities who have histories of childhood abuse. I travel across the country doing that.
I am constantly aware. I supervise nurses directly working with patients. I meet with them in groups; I meet with them individually. I think I know what's happening and what's changing. I also meet with community nurses about the kinds of difficult problems they have working at the front line.
Mr Grimmett: It seems like your expertise is mostly in the psychiatric area. Have you had much recent involvement with nurses in more of an acute care setting?
Dr Gallop: Most of my involvement is with psychiatric nurses. Some of my research has involved interviewing nurses in many different settings about how their role has changed. We did that over the last couple of years, but primarily I work in mental health.
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Good morning and welcome to the committee. Mr Grimmett asked you a question dealing with the nursing profession and your contact with them. My question revolves around the point of asking you how the nursing profession itself views your appointment to the Health Services Restructuring Commission.
Dr Gallop: I think they would be pleased. I'm a member of our professional association. I've been involved with the association for many years; they often call on me, and the college calls on me, for opinion and advice. I think I'm positively regarded by the profession.
Mr Newman: You also answered Mr Grimmett's questions about working within the psychiatric field. Can you expand upon that a little more in terms of some experiences where you've done some of your work.
Dr Gallop: From my research work, I've done studies in many of the major acute care settings in Toronto in community hospitals and in public health centres where nurses work with psychiatric populations. There, I'm involved with nurses at major downtown hospitals. For the college, I've done reviews of psychiatric nursing services in hospitals outside of the Toronto area. I'm not sure what else I can tell you.
0910
Mr Newman: That's fine. Thank you.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Dr Gallop. Welcome. It certainly is a very impressive resumé. Obviously you have a great deal of experience in a number of areas.
One thing we certainly have seen in the last three and a half years is a loss of nursing jobs in this province. I think it's recognized by all that that has been a pretty bad thing. As someone who is particularly focused on the nursing field, I'm curious as to your feeling about that, because obviously the restructuring commission has played a role in the decisions that have led to that. In that you're seeking to become a part of the commission's membership, I just wanted to get your take on that, because clearly there has been a great loss in psychiatric care as well, so if I could get your thoughts on how you feel about that.
Dr Gallop: That's a very complicated question. Obviously I was deeply disturbed by the loss of the many nursing jobs. At the same time, I understood why we needed to examine and rationalize the way we delivered services. One of the reasons I'm interested in being involved in phase 2 is that I think if we look at an integrated health system we can see the way that nurses can serve a very important role in an integrated system. I think there are all sorts of opportunities for the profession to make its voice heard. I think nurses need to be out in the communities more and that there are lots of opportunities. But I would be dishonest if I said I wasn't very concerned about the loss of jobs. Then, what are the new opportunities?
Mr Gravelle: Would you view that as one of the responsibilities that you'll take on, to actually try to make the case with the commission itself that indeed they perhaps have erred in some of their decisions in that regard, in the sense of putting some directives forward that basically hurt the system? You talk about phase 2. Phase 1 is not necessarily all complete yet. You may be a part of that as well. Do you view that as part of your role, to lobby on behalf of the fact that the front-line professionals, such as nurses, need to be returned to the role they played in the health care system?
Dr Gallop: I don't know exactly where the commission is at this point, but what I like about my work, what I'm really interested in is if the client is getting the best possible service. What I will argue for is that. I don't see myself there specifically to lobby if I don't think it's in the best interests of the client. If I think it's in the best interests of the client that we rethink or look at services and service delivery, then I'll lobby for that.
Mr Gravelle: But clearly you don't think it was in the best interests of the client to take out of the system so many positions from the nursing profession. You said right at the top that concerned you. Obviously that was something you didn't agree with.
Dr Gallop: I was concerned about some of the ways it happened. Much of it happened, as I understand it, before the commission, when the hospitals were trying to manage physically.
Mr Gravelle: What's your understanding of the relationship between the Health Services Restructuring Commission and the Ministry of Health?
Dr Gallop: My understanding -- and it's a little bit naive at this point -- is that in phase 2 the responsibility is planning and recommendation. I think that's somewhat different from the mandate in phase 1, where it was more of a directive or an implementation.
Mr Gravelle: In other words, you're coming into this position with phase 1 completed in your mind, I take it. Your interests are obviously more clearly geared towards what you describe as phase 2 then.
Dr Gallop: When Dr Sinclair talked to me and invited me to consider an appointment, he described that the major task of the commission would be phase 2. Perhaps I will be involved in some of phase 1 if it has not been completed, but my understanding is that the major task is phase 2.
Mr Gravelle: One of the concerns I think probably everyone has expressed has been the fact that while the restructuring directions were being taken, the ministry was at the same time removing money from hospitals, taking almost $1 billion out of hospitals, which seemed to be a strange, counterproductive way of trying to restructure. Do you have any thoughts on that? That certainly has been one of the reasons we've had such a decline in the quality of health care we've been able to deliver. I would love to have your thoughts on that too.
Dr Gallop: I think we'd all like to see more money in the health care system. That's sort of a natural response of every Canadian. Personally, I would have liked to have seen some of the processes a little slower. From my research perspective, I always like to do a little bit of pilot work to see what works and what doesn't work. Once you've figured out what works, you go ahead full blast. From that perspective, it might have been a good idea to find out what works. Quite honestly, I'd like to see more money in the community.
Mr Gravelle: You've obviously had an extensive background in terms of mental health and psychiatric nursing. One of the great concerns we've identified is the fact that there do not appear to be adequate facilities to treat those people who need psychiatric care.
In my part of the province -- I come from Thunder Bay -- the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital is there. We had a meeting recently where it was confirmed by the Thunder Bay district jail deputy superintendent that 10% of the prisoners at the Thunder Bay district jail were people who were in need of psychiatric care, which is a shocking thing to hear in Ontario. I certainly am well aware of the situation down in Toronto.
What are your thoughts on that? We've seen, obviously, the number of beds reduced. We've seen a lack of crisis care being provided. Those may be some of the solutions to the situation, in terms of my Thunder Bay story. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that, because that to me is a true tragedy and a true shame. We should be ashamed of that, that in a province like ours we have a situation where people cannot receive the care they are supposed to receive and ultimately they end up in jail because they're not receiving that care. Again, I would think that would be something you would have given some thought to.
Dr Gallop: This is a situation where I would probably put on my nursing lobby hat, in the sense that I believe, particularly in the regions where there's a severe shortage of psychiatrists, there are other health professionals who need to be recognized and qualified to do the work. I would perhaps argue for the use of advanced-practice mental health nurses in these areas who are high-level, skilled clinicians who could provide the treatment. The reality is, at the moment most of the treatment in those psychiatric settings is being provided by nurses, often in the community. They work with family physicians very closely. That is a way one would look at how the services should be provided for the mental health population and who we should be calling upon to provide those services, because I suspect we'll never get a large pool of psychiatrists working in Thunder Bay.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Dr Gallop, I was impressed with your resumé, and I thought, "How do you find the time for all this research?" It's an important question for me.
Dr Gallop: It was a thought when I was asked to be considered for this appointment: How would I find the time? But I believed I might have an opportunity to do something important. I guess you find the time. I'm sure you're very busy. You drive yourself. That's part of being at a university. You make your own craziness, is how I sometimes think about it, and you do it. I love it, so I do it.
0920
Mr Marchese: I am impressed with your craziness, I can tell you that, because it seems to me I can never find the time to do very much although I'm always running around doing things. Anyway, it's impressive.
Mr Gravelle talked about something that is of interest to me as well, because Dr Sinclair made some comments about restructuring and in an article he said it would be advisable to first plan restructuring and then reduce government support to the hospitals. That's what he was quoted as saying, and the OHA believes the very same thing. They say, "Before laying off employees and reducing programs to hospitals and so on, wouldn't it be more advisable to talk about what that plan would look like and then make your cuts to fit the other plan?" That seems logical to me as well.
Of course you responded very reasonably by saying: "Yes, it would be nice to see more money. The process should have been a little slower; more pilot work and then you plunge ahead." It seems to me like a common sense kind of thing to do. What do you think we should do about that? This problem is still ongoing. The various restructuring suggestions haven't yet been finalized so it means the chaos continues, the cuts continue. Something needs to be done, it seems to me. What do you think needs to be done or what might you suggest to the members of this committee that we look at doing to solve some of these little problems that we're seeing -- non-politically, of course?
Dr Gallop: Of course. I'm not trying to be evasive, but I have to go back to the fact that I really do believe we need an integrated health system. Rather than doing little bits of fix, we need to really sort out a system where we put the clients at the centre, sort out what their needs are and then sort out what are the services that will best fill those needs. That's what I hope this second phase will do. As I understand it, all that's in the second phase is planning and recommendations. Whether it's implemented will not be the commission's responsibility, as I understand it.
Mr Marchese: I understand that. I think some of us would like to see a more integrated system as well, but it's nice to plan it. Once we've planned in the way that you suggest, then you can make changes. I think people could deal with those changes once we have a sense of what that integrated system looks like. But to make cuts prior to that system being in place I think is just a mistake. I agree that it should be integrated, but we've made a whole lot of cuts that are showing themselves in terms of problems we're experiencing all over the place.
The decisions of the commission are final. That is your understanding as well, right?
Dr Gallop: Yes.
Mr Marchese: Yet they don't have any power. The power rests in the ministry and the government and they decide what stays open and what closes. What do you think about that?
Dr Gallop: My sense is -- and this is with the same kind of knowledge that most of the public would have, because all I have is what I read in the media -- that most of the recommendations and the directives from the commission have been followed.
Mr Marchese: I'm not entirely sure that is always the case.
Dr Gallop: I didn't say always, I said most.
Mr Marchese: Yes, that's the problem. That's where politics enters into it.
Dr Gallop: Absolutely.
Mr Marchese: I suspect most of the time people can agree, and then the government, for political reasons, decides to make some changes, as it did, for example, in setting up the rural and northern health care framework. You would have thought that the restructuring commission is dealing with all of the hospital closures and then all of a sudden the government decides, "We're going to have a rural and northern health care framework." There's no urban framework. I guess the restructuring commission would deal with that. Then they set up another framework for the rural and northern areas. Do you have any comments about that?
Dr Gallop: I haven't been on the commission so I don't know all the intricacies of the situation, but I think once you get outside of the urban setting you have a very different situation. You have all your teaching hospitals, you have your high density of physicians and services in the GTA and a few other major urban areas. Then you leave and you have a very different picture. Geography starts to play, I would imagine, a very different role. But I don't know, because I haven't been there, the intricacies of the process in the commission.
Mr Marchese: I'm sure there are a lot of intricacies everywhere. As much as we can agree that rural and northern areas are different, I think the urban setting is different as well. Sometimes I get the impression that what drives the commission, for example, in terms of what the government would like it to do is very mathematical, dollar-oriented at times. One wonders whether or not they take into account matters of religion or matters of language or matters of inner-citiness in terms of those implications. Do you think such a scope is part of the restructuring commission's decision-making process or do you think it should be broadened somehow to concern itself with these broader social questions?
Dr Gallop: Again, I don't know whether or not those issues were taken into consideration. If I were a member of the commission, and in the future as a member of the commission, I very much would bring contextual issues in for discussion, but I can't comment on what has occurred. I don't know if they were concerned only with dollars and cents versus all these other things. I would hope they were concerned with those other things too, but I don't know.
Mr Marchese: Madam Chair, I have no further questions. I just wanted to congratulate Dr Gallop. I'm sure her appointment will be a good one for the commission and I'm impressed by her.
The Chair: May I mention to members of the committee that I've had an indication from Mr Newman that he would like to have another question. We have an agreement --
Mr Newman: Could I just make a comment?
The Chair: Perhaps you could hold it until we're debating the actual recommendation for appointment.
Mr Newman: Could I just clarify it and help --
The Chair: I don't think that's in order, Mr Newman.
I was remiss, Dr Gallop, in not mentioning, although it's been made very clear in the discussion, that your intended appointment is to the Health Services Restructuring Commission. Thank you very much for joining us today. The committee will be dealing with the recommendation for your appointment at the end of this morning's session.
0930
ARCHIE HEIDE
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Archie Heide, intended appointee as member, Niagara District Health Council.
The Chair: The next intended appointment is to the Niagara District Health Council, Dr Archie Heide. Welcome. If you have any opening comments you would like to make, please feel free to do so and then we will begin discussion with the committee members, beginning with the Liberal Party.
Dr Archie Heide: I wrote down my name on the pad here so I wouldn't forget it.
I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Archie Heide. I am a resident of the Niagara Peninsula, virtually lifelong. I've lived there 60 years. We moved there when I was six years old. I've lived in various areas of the Niagara region so I really feel that I'm a citizen-at-large in the Niagara Peninsula, not just a resident of St Catharines.
I've been married for 43 years to Loretta. I've got four children and five grandchildren.
What do I do? I'm a general and vascular surgeon, but I'm retiring. I'm getting out of it. I'm at that stage where I think the younger people need a chance. I need to get out of it. At the present time I have cut my practice down to just implanting pacemakers, which takes me about 10 or 15 hours a week. I have a regional clientele, not just from the city of St Catharines, although my address is in St Catharines.
I have always been involved, both medically and in the community. First of all, I'd like to just mention some of my medical involvements. I've been involved in numerous medical organizations at the local level -- the Lincoln County Academy of Medicine -- and at the district and provincial levels through the OMA. I've been chair of a district for OMA region. I've also been involved in a national medical organization. I was on the advisory committee to the College of Physicians and Surgeons for district 4, which is Ontario, for about eight years, following which I was on the council in Ottawa for eight years, representing the Ontario contingent of surgeons there.
I've been involved locally in the hospital structures, having had virtually every job over the period of years that you could think of, all the way from chief of departments up through president of the medical staff, chief of staff, member of the board of governors and so on at the general hospital. I've also had some similar experience at the Hotel Dieu Hospital, although maybe not quite as extensively.
In the community and in my local church I've also been very active. It might be of interest that I was on the board of directors for the Bethesda Home for the Mentally Handicapped and for Bethesda Community Services, which is under Comsoc. I was on that for two stints, about six years, back in the 1970s and then my practice got so busy I had to give that up. But from 1993 to 1995 I was back on that board and served as chair. I might say we had an excellent relationship with the ministry, Comsoc, and I enjoyed that very well. I think that was pre-Mike Harris days, if I recall.
I'm also involved in a very active Rotary Club in St Catharines.
That's all I'm going to say. Let people ask questions and see what they want to know.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Each caucus has about nine minutes. I'm sure it's Mr Gravelle who's going to be doing -- oh, Mr Bradley, sorry.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Welcome, Dr Heide, to the committee. Committee members should know that Dr Heide and I are very good friends. We had the pleasure of contesting each other in the last provincial election, so I won't ask my usual first question, Archie, which is, "Are you now or have you ever been a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party?" I used to ask that when the New Democrats were in power too.
Mr Marchese: Each and every time.
Mr Bradley: Yes, every time.
First of all, I can indicate -- and before hearing you I know your qualifications -- that the Liberal Party will be supporting your appointment to the Niagara District Health Council. I think it's a good appointment and I'm interested in some of your comments.
If I may, the first question is about the health councils. You have seen them develop when they were first appointed and you've seen them grow and mature and change. Let me ask you, first of all, what role you see for them in the future. Some people say they should be abolished; others say they should be expanded; some say they should be given more power. What would your views be on the role and future of district health councils?
Dr Heide: Quite frankly, at various periods of time I've held all of those views that you've expressed. I think that with the amount of change that's taking place at the present time they're going to become invaluable. It's important when there is major change coming down the tubes, and undoubtedly there will be, that the health council play a very active role, in an advisory capacity of course, but I think they can do a lot to make things work. There's going to be a lot of fine-tuning that's going to be necessary and I really feel that, if ever, they're going to be important now.
Mr Bradley: One of the areas of importance, and I'm certainly aware of this -- you work with many patients who are senior citizens. I know because when I went into the nursing homes or the senior citizens' homes to campaign, they would tell me that Archie Heide had operated on them and what a good guy he was. I know your knowledge, Archie, of the area. What about senior citizens? We have in the Niagara Peninsula per capita the oldest population, certainly in Ontario, perhaps in Canada, under the last census. What needs do you see having to be met in the Niagara Peninsula as a result of that?
Dr Heide: Not only do we have a lot more older people than we used to have -- and I think we're the leader in this in Canada now; I agree with you -- they are also going to be living longer. We're going to be keeping people alive longer when otherwise they might not have lived. That's just the nature of the way medicine has been going. So I think we're going to have an increasing need for long-term care and hopefully much of that can be done in the home.
We can be very innovative in keeping people at home much longer than we ever did before, with the proper support. That is extremely important, that we really develop that and maybe set entirely new boundaries and capabilities that nobody else has done in keeping people at home. But there will always come a time when we need that long-term bed and I think we're going to have to work very hard at not being caught off guard in that aspect.
Mr Bradley: Mr Wood, the Conservative member for London South, introduced in the Legislature last Thursday an appropriate resolution dealing with palliative care. Again, with the number of seniors we have, we're bound to have more people needing access to palliative care. Where do you think the palliative care is best done? Should it be done in a hospital setting, in a hospice setting, in a home, or a combination of those?
Dr Heide: It depends a little on the condition of a patient or of a client. I think that as much should be done at home or in a non-threatening clinic setting as possible and as long as possible. We need all these areas, but I can still recall as a young fellow going to a hospital to visit people and hospitals had that distinctive ether smell. It was a very institutional and a very threatening place. You know, you walked around on tiptoe and spoke in hushed voices.
We need to deinstitutionalize the whole care aspect and try and make it a natural thing and a non-threatening thing. I'd like to see as much of it done on an outpatient basis -- you know, near home or in the home, local clinics -- and this can then of course progress as the needs of the patient progress, say, to a hospice setting, which is getting a little more serious, or an in-hospital setting. But I think we need all these areas and it has to be a flexible presentation.
Mr Bradley: One of the challenges we face in the Niagara region that you are so well aware of is the fact that we are often stated to be Hamilton-Niagara and the services are not necessarily available right in Niagara. Again looking at our seniors population, the ability to travel and so on, do you see some services which now exist, for instance, in Hamilton, London or Toronto that might be transferred to the Niagara Peninsula so that people could access those services without the travel?
Dr Heide: I think the glaring one there would be mental health services.
Mr Bradley: Yes. There's a possibility that ultimately the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital might close and we're seeing some significant deinstitutionalization in terms of psychiatric care, but the major challenge is always finding another place for psychiatric patients. Unfortunately, in many cases it's the streets. As we walk around any of our communities, we see some patients in the streets. How can we deal with this problem of psychiatric patients, the challenge they present for themselves, for the families, for society in the Niagara Peninsula?
Dr Heide: I'm not a mental health expert and I would entertain a lot of information and advice on that particular matter. Again, the simplest thing is to put them all in a box, isn't it? But that's not really the answer. That's not what we want. I think it needs to be humanized as much as possible. Again, you need adequate staff, case workers, shelters and so on, because a lot of these people are on the street at the present time.
Mr Bradley: The local restructuring commission made some recommendations, and of course the provincial restructuring commission, which I unfairly, my government friends would say, call the hospital closing or destruction commission, but that's a very political comment to say that, has made some pronouncements about Niagara. One of them is the possibility of the Hotel Dieu Hospital being closed. What role do you think the Catholic hospital has? With its Catholic values, does it have a special role to play within the Niagara Peninsula or should it simply be integrated with the rest of the hospitals?
0940
Dr Heide: As you know, Jim, I'm not a Catholic.
Mr Bradley: Nor am I.
Dr Heide: I understand that there are special Catholic values, but I would like to think that they don't have an exclusive domain on values. I think there are a lot of other churches and religious organizations that probably have equally good values, and I would like to see a setting in which these values would be available not just in a Catholic hospital but in all hospitals.
The Chair: Mr Bradley, this is the last question.
Mr Bradley: I served on the board of the general hospital when I was on city council. I know you are familiar with all the hospitals but certainly with the two in St Catharines. One proposal is that there would be one hospital board for the whole Niagara region; another is that there would be one for what I'll call the urban hospitals and one for the rural hospitals. Would you comment on that?
Dr Heide: Do you want my personal views?
Mr Bradley: Yes.
Dr Heide: I think Queen's Park is probably getting a little frustrated because we're always bitching and complaining about health care in the Niagara Peninsula. One of our problems there is that it has been unusually fragmented. For a population of 500,000 people we have eight or nine hospital settings, whereas a place like Mississauga, with double the population, has less than half of that. It makes it difficult to provide world-class health care when it's so highly fragmented and when you have each part going in its own direction.
So far the track record has not been one of great co-operation. That has not been the hallmark of health care in the Niagara Peninsula. I think we have to look at some of the options to get co-operation. There has to be some type of central focus, other than an advisory health council, that will direct health care in the Niagara Peninsula. Whether that takes place as a unified board or several boards, I don't think we can go in eight or nine different directions at one time. That is no longer an option. We do have to do something to change this. I think we'll have to leave it to the wisdom of the number crunchers and the people in the ministry and our local politicians to come up with a suggestion for us, and I think the district health council will run with whatever we're given.
Mr Marchese: Dr Heide, just to come back to something you talked about earlier, with respect to care you suggest that much should be done at home or near home, and I agree with that. Deinstitutionalization is a good thing, by and large, if you have the community support in place. Part of my concern is that when we talk about much being done at home, and every government agrees, the problem is that the responsibility tends to fall on the family to take care of their problems on their own. That can be a heavy responsibility, not just in terms of financial problems but in terms of the whole mental-psychological arena that kicks in when there are problems in the home. As much as I agree with you, we've got a problem unless we put in place the supports for care in the home or near the home. What is your sense of how we deal with that?
Dr Heide: I come from an ethnic background in which family was very strong. My family would probably resent institutional interference. I think we have a strong sense that family is responsible. Maybe that's a bit of an old-fashioned value and it may be hard to achieve in an urban setting. But I think we should work in that direction as far as we can, keeping in mind that we have to have that safety net underneath it to make it work. Some families are stronger than others. Some can handle it and some can't. I think we have to allow for that in the system.
With regard to Mr Bradley's previous question on deinstitutionalization, I might just mention that I myself am a cancer patient. I've had cancer for 13 years and have had chemotherapy three times. But I think I probably carried deinstitutionalization to the maximum the last time, in January, when I had chemotherapy in Hawaii, and I greatly recommend it. As a matter of fact, I could take it myself and administer it myself. We had planned a vacation so we just took it along and I started it in Honolulu, and I thank the system for making that possible.
Mr Marchese: Good luck with that.
I come from the same type of background. My mother, of course, took care of my father who had Alzheimer's disease.
Dr Heide: That's a heavy one.
Mr Marchese: It was difficult. She's 87 and she's a tiny woman, about four feet 10. My father's a bit bigger. She took care of him during most of that period. It was difficult for all of us. We had to get up in the morning and help her get him out of bed and clean him and so on. That's a tough thing, and as much as my mother wanted to do that, she wanted relief and help as well. So I had to go to one of the local areas that deal with seniors and problems with seniors and we tried to make an arrangement with them where we'd have daycare. That wasn't so easy; it was complicated. They wanted to institutionalize him in a home. My mother said, "No, I just need some help for the day." We made some arrangements for a while. They didn't like it because they had to come and pick him up, bring him down; it was all too complicated for them and complicated for us.
The point I make is that as much as those values we have and that we carry are good, there are many stresses in society that we all now have and bring. As a result of that we need supports, and those supports need to be provided by government. That is the point I make. If they're not there, you put a lot of stress on families, financially and emotionally, and I really believe that governments have to play a role in providing structures for people if we're going to have more of that care. Otherwise, the whole system will be in shambles.
Dr Heide: If I might comment on that, I think those provisions are sometimes there, but you're so "questionnaired" and "formed" to death that you can never really get to them on time when you need them. I appreciate that aspect of it.
Mr Marchese: I wish the supports were there, but often they're not, and for people with language barriers it's even more complicated, as you would appreciate.
Dr Heide: Absolutely.
Mr Marchese: The district health councils have been reduced from 33 to 13. Some people are pro and some are agin. Do you have any views on that?
Dr Heide: It didn't affect our health council. It remained as it was, and so I really haven't given it a lot of thought. I'm not familiar enough with the settings of the other health councils to give you an intelligent answer on that.
Mr Marchese: The DHC submitted its recommendation on the future of hospitals in the region to the Health Services Restructuring Commission. Are you familiar with that?
Dr Heide: Superficially, yes. I don't know all the details of it.
Mr Marchese: Superficially, do you have any comments on that report, any strong feelings one way or the other?
Dr Heide: It was obviously a report that goes in several different directions at the same time, and in this I think it represented a great deal of frustration, a great deal of diversity. It was an attempt at compromise, and probably nobody knows better how difficult a compromise is than the people working here in this building. It was a report that maybe would answer some of the questions, but for many of us I think it wasn't specific enough. It was neither fish nor fowl. It tried to go down the middle. I'm certain that when the final decision is made by the ministry, it will either be less or more than the report suggests, but I doubt it will be the same.
0950
Mr Marchese: As you pointed out, it's always an attempt to compromise. Is your sense that sometimes we can't and we have to do what is, in your view, right or wrong?
Dr Heide: I think they enjoyed the fact that they were an advisory council and didn't have to make the final decision.
Mr Marchese: But I guess you're prepared to make the tough decisions if you have to. Is that the point?
Dr Heide: Yes, and I know how to make decisions. But I don't think health councils really make the tough decisions. They have to advise the ministry. The ministry gets stuck with the tough decisions.
Mr Marchese: But you prefer that the district health councils make tougher decisions so as to give more clarity to what they recommend.
Dr Heide: I think they would be more credible if they did.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, I have to indicate this is your last question.
Mr Marchese: Ken Johnston, an executive director of Shaver Hospital, was questioning, as one of those problems you're trying to tackle, why his institution and its neighbour, Niagara Rehab, should report to different boards when the two facilities are physically joined and work collaboratively. Do you have any feelings on that?
Dr Heide: I think it would be a very difficult situation. I would agree with him.
Mr Newman: Welcome to the committee, Dr Heide. I want to begin by saying I appreciate your frankness in the answers you've given today. I wonder if you might share with members of the committee some of the personal experience you bring to the council table.
Dr Heide: All right. I think I've mentioned some of the work I've done at the organizational level of hospitals, having been through all the various positions that it's possible to have as a medical practitioner. Because of the type of work we do, of course, we're excluded from certain things. So I bring that experience.
Having practised 34 years in the community and in this province, I think I bring a sense of history. I started under the private health care system. We're in a government health care system at the present time. I've been through that transition. If I look back on it, I would think that going from private to government health care was probably the last major change we've made in health care. We haven't really changed much since, other than to dicker with the system a little here and there. Maybe it's time to look at some major changes. I don't know what they should be, but I think we have to look at it, because nothing lasts forever and you have change to keep up with changing times.
I've had extensive experience in health care delivery. It's pretty hard for somebody to sell me a package of goods if it doesn't have reasonable credentials. I've worked both in the professional aspect of health as well as organizationally in administration. I have a lot of decision-making experience. I've had some very difficult decisions to have made professionally involving clients or patients. Sometimes you sort of hate yourself for having to make the decisions you do, but they have to be made. I don't make happy or pleasant decisions all the time, but I think I make the right decisions most of the time.
I've had a lot of experience working with others and, quite frankly, they usually weren't like-minded people. So I think I bring the capability of working with people with other ideas.
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Good morning and welcome. It's nice to see you again healthy.
Mr Bradley asked a question concerning mental health and your comment was, "It's not adequate to put the patient in a box, and we realize that many are on the street." But one thing I get from many constituents, sometimes from family members, from friends, is that they ask, "Why is that particular patient out?" From a political point of view I know that the opposition always says, "Well, these people are out on the street, there's no place for them." But the reality is that they do have personal rights. On the one hand, maybe they should be committed, but on the other, many times the patients sign themselves out.
Do you have any comment on this? How would you rationalize this dilemma we find ourselves in today?
Dr Heide: I think you're absolutely right. A person on the street is always an embarrassment to any government, be it local, provincial or federal. It's an embarrassment to our local politicians and to our local churches, because we don't believe in those types of things and we should be doing something for them. But I think that people have been trying, and that every political party has tried to deal with this problem. I think all we can do is continue to be compassionate and continue to be innovative. I agree with you: You can built shelters for these people and put them in there, and next morning they walk out.
I don't know the answer. Do we give them a tent and a backpack, or do we build a brick and stone shelter for these people? Do we have soup kitchens? Yes, we have them locally, but we still have people on the street. There were some articles in the Standard this past week. One of our local reporters went out on the street for two days and slept out with these people and had some rather interesting articles on this. I haven't got the answer for that. It's a much more complex problem than just spending money.
Mr Beaubien: In other words, Dr Heide, you're saying -- and I don't want to put words in your mouth -- that we have not a political problem but a social problem.
Dr Heide: Yes. It's all of those.
Mr Newman: Dr Heide, if your appointment is confirmed today, you would actually be a provider member of the district health council. How would you handle any potential conflict of interest?
Dr Heide: If a conflict of interest is identified, I would have no problem stepping back and letting others deal with it. I don't have to do everything myself.
The Chair: Thank you for joining us, Dr Heide. The committee will be dealing with the recommendation for your intended appointment at the end of this morning's session.
RICHARD MAKUCH
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Richard Makuch, intended appointee as member, Ontario Municipal Board.
The Chair: Mr Richard Makuch is an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Municipal Board. Welcome and thank you for joining us today. Would you like to make any opening comments?
Mr Richard Makuch: Yes, I would. Thank you very much, members of the committee and Madam Chair, for giving me the opportunity to appear this morning. I wish to make a few brief comments to highlight relevant aspects of my background for this intended position.
As you will probably have noted from my CV, I have worked with four different departments or agencies of the federal government. Part of my experience is as legal counsel with the National Transportation Agency, which is a quasi-judicial tribunal, where I provided advice and counsel on various matters dealing with the hearing process and fairness and other issues. I spent some time in the same capacity at the National Energy Board as well.
I have some experience in municipal government, having worked with the city of Gloucester in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton as city solicitor for five years and gained some experience in the area of municipal law and planning and development.
I also spent a fair bit of time in private law practice in the area of administrative and municipal law, having represented different clients -- municipalities, private individuals and large landowners -- before the Ontario Municipal Board. So I have a good perspective of the work of the board and how to present a case before the board and, more importantly sometimes, how not to present a case before the board.
Quant à mon statut linguistique, malgré un nom polonais, qui n'est pas francophone, je peux vous dire que ma langue maternelle est le français et que j'ai représenté des clients à plusieurs occasions devant la cour provinciale et aussi devant les organismes que j'ai mentionnés tantôt : l'Office national de l'énergie, l'Office national des transports, où j'ai agi comme l'avocat principal pendant des audiences publiques de ces commissions dans la langue française, dans la province de Québec et aussi en Ontario.
Do you wish me to translate that into English?
Mr Bradley: Excellent. I'll pass on how well you speak French.
1000
Mr Makuch: I have worked in both official languages of this country and, at this point, I'm prepared to answer any questions you may have concerning my background and suitability for this intended appointment.
M. Marchese: Merci, madame la présidente. Monsieur Beaubien, je pense qu'il a très bien passé l'examen de la langue française, non?
Mr Beaubien: D'accord.
Mr Marchese : Mr Makuch, with a legal background, and I hope I'm not being too unfair, but can you tell the committee the distinction between: "have regard to" and "be consistent with"?
Mr Makuch: Yes, to some extent I could.
Mr Marchese: Could you do that for us?
Mr Makuch: I think there's a more positive obligation on an individual who's dealing with the matter where you're dealing with the words, "shall be consistent with."
"Shall have regard to," in my view, means that you shall not ignore that and that you take it into consideration but you're not bound by the policy you're being asked to have regard to.
Mr Marchese: That's why, when we dealt with land use planning through our bill, the Ontario Planning and Development Act, the former government used the language "be consistent with" matters of public policy. We felt municipalities should be bound to the larger provincial interest and principles. They changed that language to "have regard to" which, in our view, weakens land use planning as it relates to environmental issues in particular. That was the worry of Sewell in the work he had done, and that was certainly our concern. I'm not sure if you have any thoughts on that. Perhaps it's a bit too political.
Mr Makuch: I think I would rather stay away from that. I really don't have any thoughts on that.
Mr Marchese: Part of what they did, of course, as part of their reforms, at least their objectives, was to reduce the time it takes to approve new development, promote economic growth, and then, they say, protect the environment.
That was our concern, once again. Of course, what Monsieur Beaubien and others want to do is speed up and promote economic development. That's fine, but the language "having regard to" and "be consistent with" worries me in terms of how the environment will be affected. Again, it connects to the same question I was directing to you before. I am worried about that. Are you worried about that?
Mr Makuch: I'm not sure that the word "worried" would -- obviously, if I were to be sitting as a member of the board hearing these appeals or applications before the board, I would have to look at that and make my decision based on that. I don't really have any comment as to --
Mr Marchese: Again, part of our worry is that municipalities sometimes, depending on where they are in the province, can be more easily influenced than higher levels of government. That may not always be the case, but in some towns they can be influenced by people with big dollars to speed up planning processes and development and so on. That was my worry. I'm sure you share it, but in your view, when you adjudicate you'll take all matters into account.
Mr Makuch: That's correct. If I'm successful in this position, I have a duty to look at all aspects of the case before me.
Mr Marchese: The OMB has put in place what's called "board current emphasis on efficient caseload management." They say, "The board member's performance evaluations now focus on achieving the expeditious production of effective, well-reasoned decisions." That sounds good on paper, but I worry in terms of how people will be evaluated on the job. It almost appears that they're going to be evaluated on how fast they make decisions even though on paper it appears to concern itself with how well reasoned they are as well. Does that worry you, or do you feel that we have nothing to worry it?
Mr Makuch: I think it's important to always have well-reasoned, well-considered decisions, so that you have an opportunity to review all sides of the matter. I think timeliness of the decision-making process is very important for all concerned. Whether you oppose a project or are the proponent of a project, I think everyone benefits if the decisions are timely. My experience in this area, whether I was representing individuals or landowners or municipalities, is that people used to say: "The 'yeses' and the 'noes' I can handle It's the 'maybes' that drive me crazy." If the decisions are timely, well-reasoned and well-considered, the interests of justice and the interests of the province as a whole and of the public are well looked after.
Mr Beaubien : Bonjour et bienvenue. Je voulais vous demander une question sur votre français, mais votre français est meilleur que le mien. Alors, on ne touchera pas ça.
Mr Makuch, I think you pretty well answered all the questions I was going to ask you. First, I was going to ask you how much experience you have with the Planning Act, the building code, development charges and all that type of thing. But as city solicitor for five years I'm sure you've probably dealt with a wide aspect of these problems that communities face. So I think I'll pass, and I'm sure you're very qualified.
The only question I have is that on many occasions when people make presentations in front of the OMB, some cannot afford lawyers, don't have the resources, may not have the knowledge and are faced with a situation where financially they can't deal with it, they cannot hire somebody to help them. Their presentation may not be the best presentation that one could make. As chairman of such a committee, how would you deal with a person who has not prepared himself or herself very well. Maybe their presentation has some merit, but they're not conveying that message or addressing the problem properly. How would you deal with a situation like that?
Mr Makuch: If my appointment is successful, I would probably be in that situation from time to time. My responsibility as the adjudicator, the chairman, in such a situation would be to make sure that all the relevant evidence pertaining to the matter is put on the record, and to give those people some comfort that I am listening and that if there are any questions I have as a result of their presentations, to delve further into the matter and help them bring that evidence out without taking sides in the matter. Making them feel they've had a fair hearing before the board is a very important consideration. There's a saying in the field of administrative law that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done; so to make them feel they've had a fair hearing before the board and that all issues have been properly canvassed and reviewed.
1010
Mr Beaubien: So you feel the element of fairness does play an important role.
Mr Makuch: Absolutely. As an adjudicator, as a decision-maker in such circumstances, it's definitely one of the tenets of our system.
Mr Beaubien: The other question I have: If you're appointed you would only be the second francophone member in the province dealing with hearings. How would you respond to extensive travel across the province? Does that create any problem for you?
Mr Makuch: I have been put on notice that there will be some requirement for travel across the province -- in northern Ontario, to some pockets of the province that have a largely francophone population. I understand there is a francophone population in the Windsor area and in the Welland area as well. Of course in eastern Ontario, where I'm from, there are a number of municipalities that do business in the French language.
Mr Grimmett: Welcome, Mr Makuch. In your experience as a lawyer you indicated that you had some experience before the municipal board. My interest in this topic, aside from the issues that have already been asked, is in the methodology the board uses. There is an issue in some communities where the Ontario Municipal Board is used as a delaying tactic in the development process. I wonder if you have any comments on processes the board might set up, in addition to some of the processes it already has, to avoid that abuse of process.
Mr Makuch: I'm aware that the board is using mediation, which apparently has been very successful. The area I'm in right now, the Department of Justice, uses it extensively. It has been rather successful in resolving disputes between the federal government and individuals without having to go through a long process. I understand that, for instance, if there is an application to have an appeal dismissed, the board will give the party who filed the appeal an opportunity to make oral submissions, set aside a morning or an afternoon to hear from that individual and find out what kind of evidence they intend to file with the board in support of their appeal. It has been my experience that it has quite often been successful in dealing with those things.
When you're dealing with something and you say something is frivolous and it's there for the purpose of delay, it depends which side of the fence you're sitting on. If you're a large developer and you're looking for the go-ahead for a project, you're going to take the view that most of the time almost any opposition to your project is strictly for the purpose of delay and there's no merit in the application.
Mr Grimmett: I've had clients come into my office and tell me that's why they want to hire me.
Mr Makuch: To delay?
Mr Grimmett: To delay. I think every lawyer has had that.
Mr Makuch: I've been in that situation as well. I've used it to advantage on behalf of my clients, and we were able to come to a very good resolution of the problem.
Mr Grimmett: Do you have any thoughts on using costs to penalize parties who abuse the process?
Mr Makuch: I think the board has the power to do so and, in my experience, it has been used on occasion.
Mr Grimmett: Do you think it's used regularly enough?
Mr Makuch: I don't think I can comment on that, because I think you have to deal with each application on its own merit. It's very difficult for me to comment on whether it's used too much or too little, or to make a general comment in that regard, without knowing the facts of each case.
Mr Bradley: In the United States, of all places, urban sprawl is beginning to emerge as a very significant issue, even in the congressional and gubernatorial elections taking place at this time. We certainly see considerable evidence of urban sprawl being permitted in a variety of places in our province. Perhaps I could ask you a general question on how you view the issue of urban sprawl and how you would be inclined to approach it as a member of the Ontario Municipal Board.
Mr Makuch: I guess my understanding of urban sprawl is that it's just unplanned, ad hoc development and expansion of areas without proper consideration. Based on my experience and my knowledge of the Planning Act, I think there are measures in place through enactment of official plan zoning bylaws and development control bylaws to deal with that.
Urban sprawl is not pretty. This summer we were in Rochester, New York, with my son for a soccer tournament, and I think that was a good example of urban sprawl and uncontrolled development, with all due respect to the people of that area. Because of that, it's not a pretty area that would draw people back. It was obvious to me that that's what took place in an area like that. It's undesirable, and I think there are mechanisms in the legislation to prevent that sort of thing.
Mr Bradley: There are a couple of ways that urban sprawl is brought about. One is through severances on agricultural land. There are always pressures out there among some people to have severances for agricultural land. If they are granted at the local level, they usually know the person who's on the committee or the person on the local council, and it's difficult when they see them, perhaps, at church or in the grocery store or they belong to the same service club or something. It makes it a little more difficult for people when it comes to making a decision on severances than when it is done by a body that is more detached.
Is it your view that strong provincial policies prohibiting widespread severances would be wise since, when you have the severances -- and the people here who represent rural areas will know what it's like -- you get city people moving out and then they start complaining about the circumstances which exist for the farmers out there, and eventually you start seeing subdivisions.
Mr Makuch: I think a lot of those things are purely matters of local interest. I am not really sure I can comment on a province-wide view on that.
1020
Mr Bradley: The other way in which land is converted from agricultural land, which is very valuable if we think of it -- and it's a personal view I'm injecting, but I'm sure it's shared by many. When you look at the province, we don't have all that much prime agricultural land in good climatic conditions. Even though we've got a large province, much of it is not very useful for agricultural purposes, in terms of prime agricultural purposes.
One method that is used to persuade local politicians to grant approval for a subdivision or development is to have good agricultural land left unfarmed. The developer buys it up, leaves it unfarmed and in not very good shape, and then comes to the local council and says: "It's not being farmed anyway. Why wouldn't you allow this to be developed?" As a member of the Ontario Municipal Board, how much would you be influenced by the fact that land that is designated as agricultural land is not being farmed and therefore should be allowed to be developed?
Mr Makuch: I think that would be one of the considerations; I would have to have all the facts of that particular case in front of me to be able to decide. Clearly, if it's prime agricultural land I think that's a resource that needs to be protected. But there are also the rights of the individual landowner who wishes to develop that land. On the balance of the evidence that would be before it, the board would have to make a decision. But whether those lands should be developed and allowed to be taken out of that agricultural inventory would certainly have to be considered.
Mr Bradley: Do you believe that the length of the appointment being three years could influence the decision of an appointee to the board? As that appointee gets to, say, two and a half years and there's a government in power, whatever it happens to be, and that government has a certain philosophy towards land use planning, do you think there's a danger that by having only a three-year appointment to the Ontario Municipal Board -- I'm not just saying you but anybody who's appointed to the board -- somehow we could reach a situation where those who are on the board are going to make decisions inclined to ensure their reappointment as opposed to decisions they truly believe to be appropriate? Is there a danger, and do you believe the appointments should be longer? It's difficult because you're being appointed, but should they be longer for anybody being appointed?
Mr Makuch: I think that's certainly a valid issue. I believe that Mr Colbourne was asked that question when he appeared before this committee for his appointment as chairman a couple of years ago, and indicated that, yes, it could potentially be a problem for a member.
Mr Bradley: I'm interested in a couple of other things. One is the Niagara Escarpment, which is a very special part of the province. The Niagara Escarpment Commission was established by the Davis administration in the 1970s, you will recall. Minister Sterling, who was provincial secretary for resources development at that time, presided over the first plan that came out for it.
There are now many proponents of some rather extensive development on the Niagara Escarpment. Do you have any views about the Niagara Escarpment?
How much time have I got?
The Chair: You have about two minutes.
Mr Bradley: I'll throw the other question in. The other is on heritage areas. I think of Niagara-on-the-Lake and how nice it is at its present size and how many developers would like to double the size of it if they could, and thereby you lose what was attractive about it in the first place, whether it's Stratford or Niagara-on-the-Lake. So those two issues: the escarpment and heritage areas.
Mr Makuch: I don't know that much about the area. I've visited it as a tourist. It's a beautiful area that I think should be preserved as much as possible. I understand that the Niagara Escarpment Commission is there to oversee the development of land and make sure that development of land in the area will preserve the natural beauty etc of the area. My knowledge is very limited in that area. But I think it's an area worth preserving because it's a treasure for this province to have.
I've visited both sides of the Niagara area. My brother lived in Buffalo and we used to visit there a lot. I can truly say that the Ontario side of the Niagara area is much nicer than the US side. I think the preservation of the natural environment is foremost there compared to the other side.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Makuch. The committee will be dealing with the recommendation for your appointment at the end of our morning session. Thank you for joining us.
The next person scheduled is Mr John Bylhouwer. I don't believe he's here, is he?
NICHOLAS PERPICK
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Nicholas Perpick, intended appointee as member, Ontario Casino Corp board of directors.
The Chair: Mr Perpick is here and is prepared to proceed at this time, with the committee's agreement. Welcome, sir, and do you have any opening comments that you would like to make to the committee?
Mr Nicholas Perpick: Yes, I do. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for allowing me to be here today so I can share with you my background and qualifications and to give you an understanding of how I feel I can make a positive contribution to the Ontario Casino Corp if put on the board of directors.
A little bit about my background: I've been involved in the hospitality and tourism industry since the age of 15. I was schooled in business and graduated from college in hotel and restaurant management and administration. My experience includes hotel, catering, night club and resort industry as well as restaurant business.
I spent the last 18 years building our company. I'm partner, chief operating officer and original founder of our company, Prime Restaurant Group. I started from one restaurant in my hometown of Sudbury, doing $1.6 million a year, going to today 114 restaurants, doing in excess of $200 million in sales.
Our restaurants go coast to coast, from St John's to Victoria, with 80% of our units in the Ontario marketplace, reaching almost every community and ADI in the province. We have approximately 8,000 employees in the province and an infrastructure in our company that allows us to be considered one of the leaders in our industry. This was reflected last year by our company winning the national pinnacle award for restaurant company of the year in Canada.
I am an entrepreneurial and creative thinker who's passionate about his business and committed to our industry and the projects I'm involved in. My business experience has not only been in Canada but in the United States and Europe as well. My working relationships include many government and regulatory agencies as well as committee participation industry-wide, both in Canada and the United States. My successes and my company's successes have been built on the ability to develop a team of good people who are knowledgeable, focused and action-oriented, who are driven to understand their customers, what their needs are, what their expectations are and to exceed their expectations and to provide customers with a memorable experience. All of this requires leadership and direction. This is what I hope to bring to the board if I do get appointed.
I am honoured to be considered for this appointment. I find the casino business to be extremely exciting and I feel it offers many opportunities to the people of Ontario and the tourism of the province. Most important, I believe my skill set and experience in the industry will be a positive influence if I am appointed to the board.
Mr Grimmett: Welcome, Mr Perpick -- again, a candidate with a most impressive résumé. We've had a number of appointees to the casino corporation come here, and there is apparently an attempt to have a wide variety of people represented on the corporation board.
Your background appears to be in the restaurant business and you have had some association with East Side Mario's. They have a very impressive marketing approach. Their commercials are I think among the best in that business. Do you consider yourself a marketing person?
Mr Perpick: Yes, I do. As a matter of fact, our marketing department reports directly to me, and for all our concepts within our portfolio I manage the marketing programs.
Mr Grimmett: Is that a skill you think the casino corporation needs, or do you have any thoughts on how you might be able to enhance the marketing of that aspect of what this job requires?
Mr Perpick: I think it's a very important component of the casino operation, to be able to market it. The industry has changed substantially. World-class venues are hitting our province and cities daily. You have to be competitive and you have to have the marketing strategy to understand who your consumers are and what you have to do to attract them and get them to become repeat customers. That is done through proper marketing programs.
1030
Mr Grimmett: One of the things people worry about with the casino corporation is the possibility that members of the board or people in a position to make decisions could run into a conflict of interest. You clearly have a lot of relationships with people in the entertainment and hospitality field. How are you going to deal with the possibility of conflict coming up when a decision has to be made at the board?
Mr Perpick: I've been living with that exposure all my life, particularly in dealing with the liquor board. I'm governed by regulatory laws. I keep my nose clean. I'm honest about things I participate in. I'm very knowledgeable about what I get involved with, and I do not have any conflicts at all.
Mr Grimmett: Those are our questions.
Mr Bradley: I have a few questions which I'm interested in. The responsibility, it seems to me, with the casino corporation is not only to promote gambling in the province, but to ensure that what takes place -- and heaven forbid, there's a lot around this country and North America -- is very well-controlled.
May I first ask the question: Have you believed in the past or do you believe today that video lottery terminals or other gambling devices should be permitted in bars and restaurants in this province?
Mr Perpick: I haven't given it much thought in the Ontario marketplace. I haven't been involved in gambling, and as far as what's been going on with the gaming issues and the policies regarding VLTs in the Ontario market, I've never really thought much about them.
Mr Bradley: The hotel and restaurant association had been lobbying rather substantially, as I recall, to have legal gambling devices in their bars and restaurants. Are you familiar? You're probably a member and know those people.
Mr Perpick: I'm a member and I'm aware, but I've never participated in any committee involving VLTs or gaming for the restaurant industry.
Mr Bradley: Keeping in mind, and I guess it'll be a personal view but one which is widely held probably, that gambling preys upon probably the most vulnerable people in our society, probably the most desperate people in our society, and most assuredly those who would be addicted to gambling, and that it has been seen to cause some considerable social problems, tears at the social fabric of the province -- in my opinion, as I say; an opinion shared by many -- how in good conscience could you be part of an organization that would promote gambling then? You mentioned, for instance, that you wanted to see repeat customers. How can you be part of that kind of organization, which would be so very much involved in the promotion of gambling, which preys upon the weaknesses of people rather than the strengths of people?
Mr Perpick: I guess the same thing could be said for liquor and drinking.
Mr Bradley: Sure.
Mr Perpick: We have an obligation in the restaurant industry and our company to give back to the communities and to educate and put programs and restrictions in place where you control it. I've been in the restaurant business almost 30 years. I've never had an infraction that I've been charged with and we are very responsible in terms of educating our employees with the types of programs we implement in our industry, and follow through on them, from extensive counselling to some employees who have had problems, to education through the subsidization of bursaries to the colleges and universities, exactly on these issues.
Mr Bradley: The government of Ontario had announced plans several months ago, and has since made a reannouncement, that it wanted to have in Ontario 44 what were called charity casinos. These are permanent casinos which could operate 24 hours a day seven days a week in various communities, which would likely not be having people fly in from England or coming from New York City but rather would be preying upon the local people for the revenues which will be gained by these casinos. Since then, with the widespread opposition, I suspect even among some of my friends on the other side of the House, the government changed that policy and appeared to be much more cautious in the approach. Do you believe that we should have 44 charity casinos in this province operating in 44 different communities?
Mr Perpick: No, not necessarily. I understood the process of what was happening with the charity casinos, the 44 going in, and I was asked to participate in some of the foodservices tenders, but that's as far as it went. I didn't get involved in it beyond that, beyond some consultation.
Mr Bradley: Proponents of gambling, and there are many in a variety of backgrounds and so on, and probably a variety of political parties, somehow try to characterize this as not being a tax. My view is that governments across this country have increased this tax tremendously while saying they're cutting out other taxes. You can go from coast to coast on this. They say, "We haven't increased taxes," and then they put a tax on very vulnerable and desperate people. Do you think it's wise for governments to become as addicted as they have across this country to gambling revenues?
Mr Perpick: I think gambling is something that's here to stay. It's been in our industry and culture for years. If it's controlled and managed properly, there are positive effects that can result from it.
Mr Bradley: Do you believe that every time you increase gambling opportunities, in other words, you escalate gambling opportunities in a jurisdiction such as Ontario or Quebec or anywhere else, you increase the chance that you're going to find more people who will be problem gamblers spending their money less productively than they might otherwise spend it?
Mr Perpick: I believe gambling is a choice, as are many other things, and I think there will always be a small percentage factor who have problems dealing with it. I will go back to what are we prepared to do, or what would the Ontario Casino Corp be prepared to do, to address that situation?
Mr Bradley: There is one way, and that is what I would characterize somewhat unfairly as "conscience money" that they pay off to organizations which deal with this problem and it helps soothe the conscience.
I go back to the fact that the casino corporation's job seems to be to get more and more people into the casinos. When they are part of a tourist component, such as Niagara Falls and Windsor, where you have a tourism component established right on the borders, you perhaps see that as international promotion. Do you believe that with the major casinos we have there should be, as part of the package being provided to the government by the proponents of casinos, a very large tourism aspect which is outside of the casino itself? That was an issue, you may recall, in Niagara Falls when there was some controversy over the choice of the company which would operate the casino. Some people said the one company that won didn't have enough of a tourism component to go with it, that really it was all about the casino and the other stuff was just kind of fringe stuff. Do you think that when these major proposals are made, the company should be compelled to have a huge tourism component as part of that package?
Mr Perpick: I believe that as a result of the casinos tourism will grow, and it's very important that the casino corporation get involved in additional what I call draw cards to attract people to the centre, to offer more to them than just, say, gambling.
Mr Bradley: Do you believe there should be credit card machines, money machines, readily available, where people can go in, stick the card in the machine, max it out and blow their money on gambling?
Mr Perpick: I just signed a deal this week to put credit card machines in our restaurants, for convenience for our customers.
Mr Bradley: It's perhaps my values, but it's different to me having one in your restaurant where people have to eat in any event and it is an accepted activity -- and there may be some people addicted to eating; heaven knows, but it may be case -- however, I ask you about how much conscience we can have. How can the casino corporation possibly justify putting machines in which allow people to max out a card, the whole amount, the maximum of that card, so they can blow money on gambling and then walk home with no money?
1040
Mr Perpick: I firmly believe that we're in the service industry and the casino corporation is in the same business. One thing about being able to service people is you make things accessible to them. These people who are going to max out on their credit cards are going to walk out the front doors, go across the street to a bank machine and do the same thing.
The Chair: Mr Bradley, last question.
Mr Bradley: My contention on that would be that the more convenient you make it the more likely it is going to happen.
I get back to the promotion. To whom do you believe that the casino corporation should promote gambling? You're not going to get me in there, but you're not really looking for me anyway. Aren't you really going to be looking for the person who is more inclined to be gambling, perhaps even has a gambling problem? When you put out your promotion, isn't that who you're really aiming at, or the person who is desperate, the person who is not well-connected and can't get the good jobs or perhaps didn't have a chance at a good education, sees this as the one chance to get ahead, "Here's your chance to win"? For instance, in these lotteries they have the 6/49 or something like that they say, "It's $16 million this week," and there's a big promotion for it. Aren't you really going after people who in fact have gambling problems?
Mr Perpick: I really can't answer that because I'm not on the board and I don't know the mandate of the corporation. I don't know what their marketing strategies are, I don't know who their target markets are, I don't know what the demographics of the areas specifically are yet -- a lot of information that I have not had made available to me yet to evaluate such a question.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Have you had an opportunity to read the bill that regulates the activities of the casino corporation?
Mr Perpick: Not yet.
Mr Lessard: Just to follow up on Mr Bradley's questions, the objects that are set out in the bill, the mandate, say that it's to enhance the economic development of certain regions, to generate revenues for the province and to ensure that those measures are undertaken in the public good. The nature of his questions is how is it that you can balance those initiatives, trying to expand the opportunities for casino gaming and also the revenue-generating aspects of it, while at the same time making sure that the public good is protected?
Mr Perpick: To answer the first question, as far as the economic development or the benefits of a casino, I'm a recipient of such opportunities. I have a restaurant in Orillia where sales have gone up dramatically. I have a restaurant in Windsor that was there much longer than the casino was there, and our sales went up 30%. Previous to the casino going into Niagara Falls, we did studies of the market and we found that we would possibly be lucky to do maybe $1.7 million per year out of that restaurant. We opened up a restaurant in Niagara Falls this year. It's tracking to do $3.2 million.
Mr Lessard: You're aware that a lot of that business, at least in the Windsor area, comes from Michigan, Ohio and a big part of the United States. I think that 80% of the customers at the Windsor casino are Americans. Are you aware that Detroit has approved three casinos to be constructed in the Detroit area?
Mr Perpick: Yes, I read that in the papers.
Mr Lessard: What do you see as the casino corporation's mandate in trying to deal with the introduction of competition in the United States to compete directly with the Windsor casino?
Mr Perpick: As far as Windsor is concerned, the casino had their foot in the door first; they are a step ahead of the competition. If proper management is in place to direct the facility and to improve it, to make it world-class and competitive, there are other opportunities that will still come on our side of the fence.
Mr Lessard: Do you think that part of taking advantage of those opportunities should be the establishment of a second casino in Windsor?
Mr Perpick: Again, I haven't seen any numbers to endorse that. Because I'm not on the board I don't understand yet what the reasoning is for the second casino. If there's an opportunity, as there is in Windsor, for me to open two more restaurants -- and I am opening up two more restaurants in Windsor, because I've done my homework on that business and it is favourable for me to add additional restaurants in that marketplace.
Mr Lessard: Are you still in the restaurant business in Windsor?
Mr Perpick: Yes, I am.
Mr Lessard: Do you consider that to be a conflict, if you know that your businesses will benefit from a second casino being established there and promoting a second casino?
Mr Perpick: No, I don't believe it's a conflict at all. I've cleared my position with my board and we see it as a positive opportunity in terms of myself and my business career etc, and I'm enjoying the opportunity.
Mr Lessard: You have no problems with the establishment of a second casino in Windsor then?
Mr Perpick: Again, I can't answer that question because I don't know what the strategy or reasoning is behind it. I don't know what the decision-making criteria were for posing that.
Mr Lessard: I can understand where my friend Mr Bradley's questions come from, because on the weekend his leader, Dalton McGuinty, said he would put a stop to the spread of gambling. He said, "No new casinos," and I would take it that would mean no new casinos in Windsor as well, I guess. For the people in Windsor and people such as yourself who still are open to the establishment of a second casino, that may be cause for some concern.
Are you familiar with the agreement Windsor has with the casino corporation?
Mr Perpick: No, I'm not.
Mr Lessard: Are you familiar with what's known as the "most favourable nations" clause in that agreement with respect to whether a casino in Niagara, for example, has additional things associated with it such as a tourism or convention centre or something of that nature? Perhaps the Windsor agreement should be reopened so they are able to get at least as favourable an agreement with the Ontario Casino Corp as any other.
Mr Perpick: No, I'm not familiar with that. Again, that's another example of details that I'm not privileged to know about, but it sounds to me like the type of information that you've got to evaluate your decision-making process with.
Mr Lessard: Are you aware as well that part of that agreement makes the casino corporation responsible for putting back into place the waterfront area in Windsor that was used as a parking lot by the casino for a number of years?
Mr Perpick: No, I'm not.
Mr Lessard: You're familiar with Windsor because of your restaurants, aren't you?
Mr Perpick: Yes, I am.
Mr Lessard: So you're aware of the importance of the waterfront and the park system along the water to the Windsor community?
Mr Perpick: Yes, I am.
Mr Lessard: Would you put a high priority on ensuring that the redevelopment of the waterfront in Windsor takes place if you were to be appointed to the board?
Mr Perpick: I'd evaluate the whole situation process and see if it creates an opportunity for the local market as well as the casino corporation.
Mr Lessard: Do you think it's important to maintain public ownership of casinos in Ontario?
Mr Perpick: Again, I'd have to get more involved and understand all aspects of it to satisfy that comment.
Mr Lessard: So you have no objection to there being privately owned casinos in Ontario?
Mr Perpick: No, I haven't given it any thought one way or the other.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, there are about three minutes left on the clock.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got no quarrel, obviously, with your resumé and the background in marketing. There's clearly a strong background in that regard. But I noticed a succession in your background from Pat and Mario's to East Side Mario's. Is there a connection between the two?
Mr Perpick: Yes. I started Pat and Mario's here in Toronto in 1984. I decided to take the concept to the United States and I opened up three Pat and Mario's in the United States. They didn't do well. I misread the market and I lost a lot of money personally in that venture. I was left with a couple of properties and contingent liabilities because of lease obligations. I had to retool the concept. That's why I developed East Side Mario's. The first East Side Mario's restaurant was opened up in Aventura Mall in North Miami.
1050
Mr Kormos: So Mario's still around; it's Pat who's gone.
Mr Perpick: Pat and Mario's is successful. I've got three left in the province: one at the airport, one in North Bay and one in Sudbury, and they're successful.
Mr Kormos: I was just curious about that.
You talked about having been invited to bid on the food concessions for the charity casinos, the 40-plus charity casinos. Am I interpreting that correctly?
Mr Perpick: Pardon me?
Mr Kormos: You were being asked to be involved in the tendering on the food supply for the charity casinos.
Mr Perpick: There were several groups tendering on charity casinos and they were all interested in what type of foodservice, because they needed a foodservice component. One or two of the groups called and asked me if I'd be interested in participating in the foodservices and I inquired as to what it would potentially involve. I did speak with one group and made some recommendations, but there was never any follow-through on it.
Mr Kormos: Again, no quarrel, because those charity casinos are obviously on hold for the moment. But is your company still interested in being involved in tendering in that area?
Mr Perpick: My company's interested in growing our business. Our company's mandate is to double our size. We have an internal strategy called Vision 2001 to double the size of our company. I'm interested in getting a foothold in other opportunities. Right now I'm involved in trying to get into the airport business as well. It's just diversifying our foodservices division within the industry and we wanted to see if there was an opportunity with the casinos.
The Chair: Last question, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: I'm wondering if you think your participation on the board would preclude your company from bidding for participation in food supply in any of the casinos or operations supervised by the board.
Mr Perpick: I had that discussion with my company. They understand that if food services were an opportunity in the casinos, we'd probably be eliminated because of my conflict.
The Chair: Mr Perpick, the committee will be dealing with the recommendation for your intended appointment at the end of this morning's session. Thank you for joining us.
JOHN BYLHOUWER
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: John Bylhouwer, intended appointee as member, Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board.
The Chair: Mr John Bylhouwer is a recommended appointment to the Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board. Welcome, sir. Do you have any opening comments you would like to make to the committee?
Mr John Bylhouwer: Yes, I do.
My name is John Bylhouwer. I'm a 36-year-old resident of Beamsville. I became a chartered accountant in 1987 and was admitted into the partnership of Deloitte and Touche in 1995. My responsibilities at Deloitte and Touche include the management of the St Catharines tax practice, the hiring, counselling and evaluation of staff in the office and the management of the technology resources within the St Catharines and Hamilton offices. During my professional career with Deloitte and Touche I've had the opportunity to consult with senior management of both not-for-profit and for-profit organizations.
Outside of my professional practice, I like to spend as much time as I can volunteering and participating in events that my children are involved with, whether they be school events or recreational activities, volunteering as a parent volunteer or as an assistant coach.
Mr Bradley: Welcome to the committee, first of all. The first question I usually ask is -- I always wonder how things are working these days -- how did you find out about this opening for this position?
Mr Bylhouwer: I was approached by Tom Froese.
Mr Bradley: Are you aware if there were any ads in the newspaper? At one time there was talk of putting ads in the newspaper when they needed people for the police commission and there were going to be appointments to it. Do you ever remember one being in there?
Mr Bylhouwer: I personally don't know.
Mr Bradley: There used to be a book. The previous NDP government established a book that used to be in all constituency offices and other places which listed all agencies, boards and commissions. I don't think that's available any more; certainly I haven't seen one in a while.
A few questions, because this is a substantial position, as I know you know it is. Recently we've had a situation where police increasingly seem to be involved in revenue-producing activities, as opposed to general policing activities. If you talk to the average police officer, he says, "I want to be able to investigate robberies, and if there are murders." We hope there aren't going to be, but that's the kind of work they like to do. Increasingly, because of some changes that have taken place, they're involved in revenue-producing activities. More and more of their time is consumed by that. Do you think that is healthy, to have police involved more in revenue-producing activities now than they used to be?
Mr Bylhouwer: I know the issue has been raised at the local level as well as the provincial level. I think you're speaking of option 4?
Mr Bradley: Yes, option 4 would be one of the activities.
Mr Bylhouwer: The Solicitor General is reviewing the use of that practice not only within Niagara but outside of Niagara.
To answer your question, if I were sitting on the police services board, I would think the issue had to be reviewed to see -- it's nice to get the money, but that's simply not enough if you're diverting resources from other important policing activities. The bottom line simply isn't about money, and the overall security of the community should be paramount.
Mr Bradley: There's another program called HEAT, the high enforcement action team. One of the critics of HEAT has been Mike Pratt, who is the administrator of the Niagara Region Police Association. He has noted that HEAT is in part financed by the business improvement associations, whose members are located in downtowns, which benefit from high levels of policing. Mr Pratt, I should note, is not opposed to the activity itself but more to the fact that it is financed in part by people from those business areas. Do you believe that policing specific neighbourhoods should be based upon who's contributing to the policing in terms of special over-and-above tax funds and not simply the need in that area?
Mr Bylhouwer: If I understand your question correctly, if the question is, should service be fee-based alone and come at the expense of policing in other areas, the answer simply is no. If, however, we are able to satisfy the requirements of the community as a whole and if a fee-based arrangement could be arranged where additional officers can be used to staff those areas, I'm not sure I would have a quarrel with that. But you have to go back again to -- and I think it's the same issue with option 4 -- are we satisfying the policing requirements of the community as a whole? If there is a call for special policing in certain jurisdictions and we can find a way to generate revenue for that service, I would not be opposed to it. But you go back to the simple issue of, are the policing needs of the community being met as a whole?
Mr Bradley: This practice reminds me of two tiers, and that practice is more known in the United States than it is here. In some states in the United States you have two-tier health care. For instance, Dr Duncan Sinclair, who is the chairman of the hospital restructuring commission, noted the other day that he could afford to go to a private clinic to obtain some services that perhaps the average person might not be able to, and he expressed some concern about that.
I would have a similar concern that we're going to establish a two-tier system, as you say, over and above, where people are still going to be able to get better policing if they have money, and those who don't have the money are just going to have to get the regular policing. Do you not see a danger in that and do you not see a danger in the fact that people might react differently to people who provide money for the policing of an area than they would to other people?
Mr Bylhouwer: If I were to sit on the police board, as long as the police services board is vigilant in maintaining a strong minimum standard and not see that minimum standard watered down, no, I wouldn't see it as an issue. The issue I think is if you allowed yourself to water down the minimum level of service. I would see that as a problem.
1100
Mr Bradley: The parallel argument is made in health care, that we should provide a minimum level which is a good level of service for everybody, and if you want better service and you've got money, you go and get the better service with the money you have. I simply express a concern that all of us should get the same level of service. It should not be based on money when it's a basic service. Not everybody can have a Cadillac or a million-dollar mansion or something like that, but everybody should have those basic services.
There was an audit recently conducted in the Niagara region that noted understaffing posed a potential problem. The force was down 77 officers from 1991, which was a 13% reduction. Inadequate staffing appeared to be evident in police units as diverse as sexual assault, child abuse, marine, training and community services. The audit team suggested that in order to address this issue the police force required increased funding from, in this case, regional council; I would suggest the provincial government as well. The team argued that adequate levels of funding could probably not be sustained in the long run with the current staffing levels. So we don't have enough police officers, apparently, according to this audit in the Niagara region.
Would it be your intention, as a member of the police services board, to recommend an increase in the funding so that you could have front-line police officers on the street doing their job and protecting the citizens of Niagara?
Mr Bylhouwer: The report highlighted a number of things; some of those that you have mentioned, but it also highlighted that the Niagara Regional Police was doing exceptionally well in other areas. If I were to sit on the board, one of the first things that I personally think needs to be done is to review the contents of the report and meet with the board to review exactly where -- I think the report said there should be a review of not only how much staff you have but how it's being used. You touched on that in some of your earlier questions. After you've made an honest assessment of not only the existing staffing levels but their allocation would you then go to the region.
I would also note that I saw in the last provincial budget that there's been an allotment for an additional 1,000 police officers. I think the Niagara Regional Police, either the chief or the board, should be putting forward a recommendation to get its share of those police officers so the understaffing issue can be resolved.
The Chair: Final question, Mr Bradley.
Mr Bradley: The last question always presents a challenge when I have so many questions that could be asked. I will go to this general question. In terms of providing police services, we know there is an additional challenge, and the figures show that crime is up in Niagara Falls. It's down in some other communities and we're delighted to see that it is down. It is said that in many cases where you have a casino, some people you don't want around the casino are around the casino and some activities you don't want are around the casino.
Do you believe the province should provide additional funding, over and above what is there at present, to ensure that any illegal activities that might be encouraged or brought about as a result of the location of a casino in Niagara Falls?
Mr Bylhouwer: I'd go back to the previous question that you just asked me. First of all, we have to go back and think of whether we are properly allocating the staff that we have and whether the additional police officers that are going to be funded by the provincial government will be sufficient to do the job. In one sense you've criticized a user-pay system, where it seems that there's a greater need for police servicing in and around the Niagara region; but whether it's the province or the organizations that benefit from the economic spinoffs of the casino, perhaps they should ante up.
Mr Bradley: The number one beneficiary from the casinos, of course, would be the province of Ontario, and the one who is responsible for the establishment of the casino is Ontario. I would not recommend that business associations in Niagara Falls pay. I would recommend that the provincial government, which has an obligation when it establishes casinos in the province, be the one that should pay for that.
Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly for being here. Trust me, I appreciate the traffic problem travelling from Niagara.
Mr Marchese is the member on the committee. I was just sitting in this morning joining him. He was called out by one of the caucus staff members. It was a stupid thing for that person to do, to take him out of a committee when he's the member.
You were the chair of the Windsor GST discussion group?
Mr Bylhouwer: Yes.
Mr Kormos: What's that? I have never heard of that.
Mr Bylhouwer: There was a similar organization for income tax but there was no liaison group between outside practitioners and members of Revenue Canada. It was something I started just so you have a chance to discuss problems that you were encountering on audits, and also to hear from Revenue Canada concerns it had.
Mr Kormos: Interesting.
I regard Tom Froese as a friend. We don't belong to the same party; I suppose you know that. You indicate you were approached by Tom. Again, there's nothing inappropriate about that, but in what context? Why did Tom come to see you about the police services board?
Mr Bylhouwer: I was a director of the PC riding association for St Catharines and I met Tom through there.
Mr Kormos: There's nothing wrong with that, either. It's an admirable thing, but it's interesting that's not on your resumé as one of your achievements. You don't regard that as an achievement, to sit on the PC riding association? I guess in St Catharines it's not much of an achievement.
Mr Bradley: Yes, it is. I'm sure it is.
Mr Kormos: To sit on the PC riding association, I don't know. Fair enough. So you know Tom through the riding association -- that's Tom's riding association, not the one that's in Bradley's old riding.
Mr Bylhouwer: I'm not sure, because of all the political boundaries changing now.
Mr Kormos: That was a real screw-up, wasn't it?
Mr Bylhouwer: Who knows?
Mr Kormos: I appreciate that you want to serve, perhaps in any number of ways, but why the police services board?
Mr Bylhouwer: I've been looking for something more, some community-focused position, and the opportunity came up. It looked like a very good opportunity. I have certain skills that I think I can bring to the forefront of any important organization in Niagara. I think I have a skill set that will be useful to the police services board. The opportunity was there and when I was approached --
Mr Kormos: So it was specifically about the police services board that Tom approached to you?
Mr Bylhouwer: Yes.
Mr Kormos: The heart and lung association, cancer society -- they all need people to volunteer.
Mr Bylhouwer: They all need people, yes. But it was an opportunity.
Mr Kormos: But nobody came to talk to you about those.
Mr Bylhouwer: No.
Mr Kormos: Have you gone to these organizations to offer your support and your skills on their boards of directors and so on?
Mr Bylhouwer: No. I've done a number of smaller things. At my children's school, Senator Gibson, I sat on an advisory board to the principal on the planning of the building. I've done a number of smaller things.
Mr Kormos: You know that the recent changes to the Police Services Act reduced the number of provincial appointments so that regional elected members form the majority of the board. Do you understand that?
Mr Bylhouwer: That's news to me.
Mr Kormos: In the past, it used to be the other way around. What's the role of a provincial appointee as compared to the role of a member of regional council who is an elected member appointed to the board by a regional council?
Mr Bylhouwer: It gives a chance for the government to have a say in who actually sits on the board. From my affiliation with Tom Froese, I think he respected my talents as an accountant. That's the province's chance to put forward people who they feel have certain skills that can be brought forward.
Mr Kormos: What about philosophies? You do support the government's agenda?
Mr Bylhouwer: Yes.
Mr Kormos: I wouldn't expect you not to, of course. But you do support the government's agenda.
Mr Bylhouwer: In what sense?
Mr Kormos: You're a member of the Conservative Party of Ontario.
Mr Bylhouwer: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Federally, I'm not going to ask you, because I know that's a mixed bag. I don't want to put you on the spot. Are you a member of the federal Conservative Party?
Mr Bylhouwer: No.
Mr Kormos: Interesting. Are you a member of any other party federally?
Mr Bylhouwer: No.
Mr Kormos: You support the government's agenda, I trust.
Mr Bylhouwer: Yes.
Mr Kormos: You're not critical of it.
Mr Bylhouwer: No.
1110
Mr Kormos: I wouldn't expect you to be. It's my job to be critical of it. Do you think it's important that you're fully supportive of the government's agenda?
Mr Bylhouwer: The policies that they've raised so far, yes. I suppose that they're changing things for the better. I support that.
Mr Kormos: But you have no criticism of any of it, do you?
Mr Bylhouwer: You mean are there problems normally?
Mr Kormos: Sure.
Mr Bylhouwer: With change, there are always going to be problems, but the bottom line is, if it needs a little pain in the short term to get long-term gain, and it'll make the province a better place, yes.
Mr Kormos: Do you know why we have 13% fewer police officers in the Niagara Regional Police Force now than we did in 1991?
Mr Bylhouwer: I'm curious.
Mr Kormos: You've read about the debates over funding from regional government, haven't you?
Mr Bylhouwer: Yes.
Mr Kormos: You're aware that the regional government's position is that they can't afford more cops?
Mr Bylhouwer: Okay.
Mr Kormos: I don't want you to just take my word for it. I wonder if you're aware of that debate and aware of that argument.
Mr Bylhouwer: I'm aware of the debate that, yes, since 1991 there are 77 fewer police officers.
Mr Kormos: You mention accessing the funding that purports to provide 1,000 new police officers. Did you know that the police services board has already accessed that fund in Niagara?
Mr Bylhouwer: Already?
Mr Kormos: Yes.
Mr Bylhouwer: No, I'm not aware.
Mr Kormos: Do you know that the funding they received resulted in but three new policing positions?
Mr Bylhouwer: No. My understanding was that there were additional funds to come.
Mr Kormos: How did you acquire that understanding?
Mr Bylhouwer: It came out just in the last budget. I did not see any formal announcement in the papers that the money had been received.
Mr Kormos: Are you doubting that the police services board has made application and that will result in but three new policing positions?
Mr Bylhouwer: No. I'm not familiar with the contents of the application and I'm not aware whether or not the application had been approved.
Mr Kormos: Do you agree with the regional chair, Debbie Zimmerman, and the staff at regional Niagara, people like Boggs etc, who indicate that regional Niagara has a new tax burden of $18 million as a result of the downloading by the provincial government?
Mr Bylhouwer: I'm not privy to that.
Mr Kormos: But you're aware that Ms Zimmerman has been declaring that, aren't you?
Mr Bylhouwer: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Do you agree with her?
Mr Bylhouwer: I'm not the insider here. If she's declaring that that's the case, then perhaps it could be true.
Mr Kormos: If there is an additional tax burden of $18 million, that would go a long way towards explaining why the region says it can't afford new cops, wouldn't it?
Mr Bylhouwer: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Do you agree with the police who indicate publicly that response times have dramatically increased? Do you understand what I mean by response times?
Mr Bylhouwer: No, I don't.
Mr Kormos: The time that it takes between the phone call to 911 and for a cop to get to your door after you've had a B and E. Do you agree with that proposition?
Mr Bylhouwer: I'm not privy to those facts, and if I was on the board, that would be something that ultimately I would have to be privy to.
Mr Kormos: Do you agree that if that were the case, that would be the result of understaffing?
Mr Bylhouwer: It could be understaffing, the misallocation of resources. It could be a number of things.
Mr Kormos: "Misallocation of resources" has been a little bit of a buzzword throughout our conversation here. What do you think of user fees imposed by the police force?
The Chair: You have about a minute and a half left.
Mr Bylhouwer: About user fees?
Mr Kormos: Yes.
Mr Bylhouwer: I think Mr Bradley has raised a similar question.
Mr Kormos: Yes.
Mr Bylhouwer: My answer to that, and I'll repeat it again for your benefit, is that I think there should be a minimum level of service. As long as you're vigilant in not watering down that minimum level of service -- and it has to be a very good level of service in the entire community -- if you are vigilant about that and then someone comes along and says, "We would like service over and above that," I'm not opposed to that.
Mr Kormos: You're not opposed to user fees in that context, is that correct?
Mr Bylhouwer: In that context. As long as you can ensure a minimum level of service and you're vigilant about maintaining that.
Mr Kormos: What about the case of a recent trial in St Catharines where a press photographer, a journalist, working for the Toronto Star was prosecuted on trumped-up charges of assault, was acquitted, and then went to the police, as is his right, to have the record of his photos and fingerprints purged? He was found not guilty, he had no prior criminal record so his fingerprints and photograph had never been obtained before, and he was told that it will be done, of course, but at a $30 fee to an innocent person. Do you agree that police should be charging innocent people to have their photographs and fingerprints purged?
Mr Bylhouwer: No, I don't think it's a reasonable thing.
Mr Kormos: Would you oppose that user fee if you were a member of the police services board of regional Niagara?
Mr Bylhouwer: In that specific instance, yes.
The Chair: Last question.
Mr Kormos: But you understand that the reason the police are doing this is not because they're malicious but that, like option 4, which has generated almost half a million bucks since it was implemented -- three, four and five cops at a time staffing a speed trap -- it's all about fundraising. Do you agree with police as fundraisers? You were asked this before and I'm asking you again.
Mr Bylhouwer: The answer is it goes back to public safety and delivering services to the community. If you're taking resources that are required for delivering police services to the entire community, if resources are being diverted from there and you're using them for revenue-generation activities, yes, as a police services board member, I would have a problem with that.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, sir. I am confident you'll be supported by the committee. I look forward to hearing your comments as a member of the board and some consistency with what you've expressed today.
Mr Beaubien: We've spent two and a half hours this morning and I heard there was not enough money for health care, there was not enough money for policing; we need more of this and we need more of that. The reality is that as Canadians, as Ontarians, our federal-provincial marginal tax rate is 53%. I would ask the members who feel that there's not enough money in the system what the marginal tax rate should be. I'm sure in our own personal lives there is never enough money, but most of us have a car, a house, take the odd holiday, smoke the odd cigarette or have the odd drink. It's a matter of priorities.
I've sat on the police services board for nine years and to be grilled like you were grilled by the opposition this morning, I commend you. For that amount -- I don't know how much the position pays but I don't think it's fair, especially when an individual wants to help serve his community. Whether you belong to a political party, whether you're involved with an organization, as long as you've got the right intention, that's what you should be here for.
My question will deal with your personal feeling on the situation that's been developing in the past month or two whereby we have competition between the OPP and the regional police services boards or municipal police services boards with regard to contracting out; and whereby the OPP invite members of boards, whether they provide a bus or not, to attend certain functions to try to lobby representatives of the community on the police services board as to the merit of having an OPP contract as opposed to having a regional or municipal police contract.
As a member, if you were appointed to this board, and if you were faced with this particular situation, how would you react personally?
1120
Mr Bylhouwer: As a board member, I would question -- I'm not familiar with exactly what the OPP's mandate is, but it would be my assumption that the Niagara Regional Police would be responsible for policing within the Niagara region. If I saw that the OPP were moving into the Niagara region, at first I'd have to ask exactly what their motives were. But in the end, I think it's all about policing. If the resources can be delivered effectively by the OPP and at the same time the resources for the Niagara Regional Police Force do not suffer as a consequence of their moving in -- if the OPP can do a good, effective job, that's one thing, but at the same time, I would not like to see the services provided to Niagara residents being diminished.
I'd also have some concerns about whether or not they could sufficiently dovetail the services that they provide to the community as a whole, because then the OPP is not simply responsible to that user, they're still responsible to the community. That would be a concern that I would say has to be addressed. Personally, I'd want to be satisfied that there wouldn't be any gaps between the services that the OPP provided and those that are provided by the regional police services board.
The Chair: Mr Bylhouwer, thank you very much. We'll be moving now to the committee dealing with the recommendations from all of this morning's intended appointments, so it will be a matter of moments.
Are there any of the individual appointments that people wish to deal with separately or do you wish to deal with them all separately?
Mr Marchese: All separately.
The Chair: Okay. If we could begin, I require a motion with respect to the intended appointment of Dr Ruth Gallop as a member of the Health Services Restructuring Commission. Mr Beaubien, would you like to place that motion?
Mr Beaubien: Sure, I will, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Is there any discussion with respect to that motion? Seeing none, all those in favour, please indicate? Those opposed? It's carried.
May I have a motion with respect to Dr Archie Heide's intended appointment as a member of the Niagara District Health Council?
Mr Grimmett: I move concurrence.
The Chair: Discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour please indicate? Those opposed? That is carried.
I require a motion with respect to Mr Richard Makuch, intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Municipal Board.
Mr Grimmett: I move concurrence.
The Chair: Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour? Those opposed? That's carried.
Mr Nicholas Perpick, intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Casino Corp board of directors.
Mr Grimmett: Madam Chair, we would ask for deferral of this matter until next week.
The Chair: Under the standing orders that can be deferred up to seven days. There's currently not a meeting scheduled but we will now schedule a meeting for next Wednesday to deal with this matter.
Mr John Bylhouwer, intended appointee as a member of the Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board.
Mr Grimmett: I'd like to move concurrence.
The Chair: Is there discussion?
Mr Kormos: Chair, as you know and as I indicated, I'm not a member of this committee but obviously I have a significant interest in what's happening with respect to the Niagara Regional Police Services Board because of the crisis that policing is in in Niagara, that is to say, the shortfall of staffing. The police service itself is shy 77 officers of what it had in 1991 and the Niagara Region Police Association indicates that 100 new officers would be needed to bring it up to an adequate complement in terms of staffing.
I should indicate that Mr Bylhouwer, as he presents himself -- quite frankly, I found him refreshingly candid as compared to the evasiveness demonstrated by some of the people who appear before this committee, and I commend Mr Bylhouwer for that. He, by and large, didn't play games when being asked some very direct questions. I do note that Mr Beaubien expressed concern about what Mr Beaubien regards as some sort of rigorous questioning by the opposition parties. I can assure Mr Beaubien that this was nothing akin to a cross-examination. He ain't seen nothing yet. He, in due course, I am confident, will experience far more thorough and aggressive and demanding and lengthy cross-examination, far more aggressive and far lengthier than the mere questions put to Mr Bylhouwer in a very courteous way. I hope it's perceived as courteous by both the Liberal members and by myself.
What's interesting is that Mr Bylhouwer, when he indicates achievements, indicates things such as chartered accountant, member of the GST discussion group -- he considers that an achievement, but doesn't indicate his political activism as an achievement. There's no reason to be ashamed of it. I have every regard for people who participate in political parties and in campaigns, be they Tories or Liberals or New Democrats. It's something to get out there and become politically active. But it's interesting that Mr Bylhouwer wouldn't indicate that as one of his accomplishments or one of his achievements.
I suppose the mere fact of being a Tory in itself isn't offensive, but the fact that Mr Bylhouwer -- and I asked him twice, because I understand that he may not have been as fully prepped or briefed as some of the other people who appear before the committee. It's no criticism of the staff of Mr Runciman, the Solicitor General, for not having adequately briefed Mr Bylhouwer in terms of how he should respond to direct questions, but it appears that Mr Bylhouwer either wasn't adequately briefed or chose to disregard the type of briefing that these nominees usually get from the respective ministry.
Mr Bylhouwer indicated twice that he was uncritical of Tory policies. That causes me great concern. I heard him answer once, and then I asked him again, just to make sure that there weren't one or two or three areas in which he was prepared to tender some criticism.
I reach the irresistible conclusion, when you look at the whole history of things here, that Mr Bylhouwer was approached by a member of the Tory caucus, rather than Mr Bylhouwer approaching that member and indicating that he wanted to serve in some way, shape or form. It appears that Mr Bylhouwer did not initiate the contact, that Mr Froese initiated the contact. That's all of the evidence that we've heard. Mr Froese sought out Mr Bylhouwer. We understand how Mr Froese knows Mr Bylhouwer: Mr Bylhouwer is a card-carrying Conservative, on Mr Froese's riding association, a member of Mr Froese's riding association in the old riding there.
Mr Bylhouwer indicates that he wanted to serve and indicates in his résumé that he does feel -- I think he mentioned sports activities as one of the things he does with his kids; I presume coaching and so on. I'm prepared to draw that inference. Mr Bylhouwer indicated that he wanted to serve. I asked about things like the Canadian Cancer Society or the heart and lung association, and he indicates that he never approached them. It wasn't restricted to those two organizations, but he leaves us with the impression that he hasn't gone out and sought out ways to serve.
I'm not suggesting that he in any way has been negligent in that regard, or has an obligation to, but I find that when you add that to Mr Bylhouwer being approached by Tom Froese -- and not in a general way, not Tom Froese saying: "John, you'd make a good member of some board, agency, commission. Here's a list of things that you might be interested in." Mr Froese specifically seeks out Mr Bylhouwer, a member of the Conservative Party, for this position, and Mr Bylhouwer is uncritical of any of the Tory policies. Mr Bylhouwer would not refute -- and again, I'm not suggesting that he should necessarily be in a position to, but nonetheless, he would not refute that the downloading, for instance, has added 18 million in new tax dollars by way of a burden to Niagara regional taxpayers. One has to draw the inference that if there's a problem with funding adequate levels of policing in Niagara, and I believe there is, it's in no small part attributable, for instance, to the downloading by the provincial government of $18 million in new taxes.
1130
Mr Bylhouwer was questioned about the option 4 program, which has received a substantial amount of publicity. Now, Mr Bylhouwer appears to be aware of that because he notes that it was raised at the municipal level regionally as well as at the provincial level. I give Mr Bylhouwer credit. Obviously he's been following that issue.
I find it disappointing that if there was any single area where Mr Bylhouwer was prepared to be less than forthright -- this isn't a new issue; it was first raised in the spring of this year -- it was when he tried to avoid a direct response to whether or not he approves of police being engaged in this sort of fundraising. The bottom line is that option 4 has raised, according to legislative research, at least half a million dollars in the course of its inception in Niagara.
Mr Bylhouwer is aware that several other regional communities or individual communities are engaging in option 4 as well. The only conclusion one can reach about option 4, in view of the high staffing component of a speed trap -- three, four, five officers at a time -- is that it's designed solely to raise revenues for the police force.
The conclusion has to entail a consideration that cops don't want to be doing this. Mind you, there's been some interest by individual police officers who have now become somewhat receptive to the prospect of the overtime they earn, because the Niagara regional police force is paying overtime for police officers on these option 4 speed traps. That's how lucrative they are. Some police officers have become, unwittingly I suspect, supporters of option 4 because it provides them with an additional element to their paycheque. The bottom line is most cops, if not all of them, certainly would rather be out there conducting criminal investigations.
That notwithstanding, the Solicitor General's own report -- the ministry's own audit, if you will, or investigation of the Niagara Regional Police Service -- found much about the Niagara Regional Police Service to be praiseworthy, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. We've got a top-notch police force in Niagara and the fact is that I know a good chunk of them. I've seen them work and have been involved in their work for a number of years. It's a seriously understaffed police force.
Understaffing means a number of things. It means that citizens are at risk because response times are significantly delayed. It means that criminal investigations aren't taking place. I can tell you that police officers have stated privately to me as well as publicly in documented arenas that CID literally lies to victims of break-and-enters. They're forced to tell victims of break-and-enters who call in about the investigation the old, "Don't worry, it's being investigated," when in fact they know there is no investigation taking place. That's a phenomenon that's occurred. What we've seen in the Solicitor General's audit, and that they're cognizant of as well, is that CID officers in investigative positions are being pulled out of their specialized investigative positions to do front-line duty because we need cops out there in uniform, on the street, in patrol cars.
That means criminal investigations aren't taking place, through no fault of the police officers, because they're being pulled off specific criminal investigative work to go out there and do front-line policing, which is critical as well. The bottom line is that if the criminals were aware of how seriously understaffed we are in various communities in Niagara and at various times during the week and even during the day, the consequences would really be frightening.
We have a huge regional area oftentimes with very little out there by way of police officers in cruisers, which really inhibits their capacity to respond to a serious -- a crime is serious to the victim regardless of whether it's a break-and-enter or an assault or what have you. The prospect of coming home and finding your house torn apart and the front door kicked open surely is as traumatic for most victims as -- I don't want to diminish either, but you don't even have a chance to confront your attacker or to respond to them. The victims of these crimes are as aggrieved as the victims of any other crime and to dismiss it as a mere property offence is entirely inappropriate.
This is resulting in serious consequences for the community; in other words, their exposure to a diminishment of the security of the community. Secondly, it's very dangerous for police officers because police officers often have to go out there and get involved, whether it's the proverbial barroom brawl or other incidents. Domestic assaults are one area which are documented as being particularly dangerous for police officers. Cops have to go out there in Niagara without the necessary backup as often as not, so you're putting police officers at risk too.
The understaffing of the Niagara Regional Police Service, which has to be attributed in no small part to this government's downloading, among other things and other policies of this government, is creating a danger for the community and danger for hard-working, skilled professional police officers who are not being given the opportunity to do the criminal investigative work they want to do because of the serious understaffing.
With all due respect to Mr Bylhouwer and his skills as an accountant, he is a purely political appointment. I don't believe there's any other conclusion that can be drawn, notwithstanding arguments that might be made by members of the government caucus here in this committee. He never sought out the police services board. He didn't seek out an appointment; he was sought out as a result of his relationship with Tom Froese, which wasn't a relationship as an accountant, wasn't a relationship as a colleague coaching kids' football, but was as a member of Tom Froese's riding association, and he indicates that he is uncritical of government policies.
I don't think the Niagara Regional Police Services Board can handle yet another member whose goal and objective on the police services board will be to defend and advance this government's policies uncritically, because this government's policies are what have created the crisis for policing in Niagara region. I urge members of the committee -- obviously I can't vote because I'm not a member of the committee but I can participate in discussion around this motion of concurrence. I suggest to you once again that Mr Bylhouwer is, no two ways about it, unabashedly a purely political appointment. His raison d'être for being here is that he is a faithful Conservative and he's prepared to support uncritically this government's right-wing policies, the Tory policies.
In view of that, I don't think these are the sort of people who should be on police services boards, if their only qualification is being prepared to be uncritical of this government. Police services boards need people who are sympathetic to police officers and understand the need for adequate levels of policing and staffing and who are prepared to be critical of the government in the event that the government disrupts adequate levels of servicing.
I think that's paramount. Mr Bylhouwer, as good a person as -- and I don't cast any ill light on Mr Bylhouwer's personality, his background, his integrity. I have no hesitation in saying that as an individual he's probably as fine a person as you're going to meet in Niagara. But as a member of the police services board --
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: Please, I've already indicated that I have respect for people who become politically active, regardless of their political persuasion. It's a minority, a small element of the community that does that, and it oftentimes requires a great deal of work in terms of interrupting your personal life. I have regard for people, regardless of their political party, who engage in those sorts of activities. It's critical that that happen if we're going to even be close to being democratic. It's critical that people are prepared to do that.
But I am opposed to crass political appointments. Unfortunately, this smacks of one of those. This is political, it's pork-barrelling, at it's finest or worst, depending upon how one views political patronage. In terms of the crisis that we're having in policing in Niagara, it's totally unsuitable at this time.
1140
Mr Beaubien: My comments are not going to be as long. First of all, I'd like to acknowledge that my colleague Mr Kormos, an individual who used to drive a red Corvette, wore cowboy boots and still wears them, can't be that bad of a guy.
However, I wonder what he's afraid of in Mr Bylhouwer when he takes 20 minutes and closes by saying Mr Bylhouwer is a fine person and it's probably difficult to find a better one in the Niagara region. I would strongly suggest that the only thing Mr Kormos finds despicable about Mr Bylhouwer is that he belongs to the Conservative political party.
If we look at his CV, it says, "Other achievements." He's a qualified chartered accountant. He says he completed three years in the CICA, whatever that is, in-depth tax course in 1988. He's chairman of the Windsor GST discussion group and he's a member of the Windsor Chamber of Commerce tax and finance committee. His interests are "hiking, gardening and reading, participating in on-campus and off-campus school events with my children." A pretty bland, responsible Ontarian, as far as I'm concerned, with sound accounting principles.
With regard to downloading and $18 million in new taxes, Mr Bylhouwer is applying for the position of -- it says, "Agency: Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board." I think in that position his responsibility is to be responsible in looking after policy, probably making sure they have the proper staffing, the proper funding, in communication with the regional municipality of Niagara. But when it comes to looking at the downloading, that's not their responsibility. His responsibility is to make sure that the community is well protected, to the best of their abilities.
With regard to Mr Bylhouwer not having mentioned that he belongs to a political party, he probably belongs to church groups, volunteer groups, service clubs. They're not mentioned over there; nobody has asked him that question. With regard to pork-barrelling, I don't know; somebody said the position pays $60 a meeting. If that is really pork-barrelling, there is not too much fat on the pork.
Mr Gravelle: I'd just like to state very quickly that the Ontario Liberals will not be supporting Mr Bylhouwer's nomination either for this particular position. Quite frankly, I cannot pretend myself to have awareness of the situation in Niagara, as Mr Kormos does or as my colleague Mr Bradley does, and unfortunately he's not here to express it. He had to go to another meeting.
I will also say that we do not take particular exception to the political party that one belongs to, but in Mr Bylhouwer's case I think what was very apparent, unfortunately, was that not only was he remarkably uncritical of some of the aspects of what this government has done in terms of policing and protection of people in this province, but he had difficulty being forthright at all -- I think it was rather apparent in his responses -- and in some ways also appeared to be surprisingly uninformed, which was startling. He had some real difficulty being as straightforward as we would have expected. Mr Kormos gives him more credit than I would in that sense. I felt that in many ways he was not forthright, he was rather vague and he had some difficulty taking a position on any of the issues that were brought forward.
We recognize that this is a very important position. These are not large boards and any one appointment can make a significant difference in terms of what decisions are made. Clearly, on the basis that we think it's extremely important that this person be very sensitive to the issues that obviously are taking place in the Niagara region, we will not be supporting his nomination.
Mr Kormos: Just very briefly, I encourage Mr Beaubien to insist that his lawyers prepare him as thoroughly as possible for cross-examination. He should let his lawyers know that he expects many hours of preparation if he's going to survive the rigours.
Mr Marchese: A few quick reactions to M. Beaubien: He should recall that trustees of various boards across Ontario only earn now, under these guys, $5,000. These people have to go through elections. In other words, they have to knock on doors, a lot of doors, because they cover a lot of ground, for $5,000. It's a big responsibility. But I guess $6,000 is OK for a non-elected position. I thought I'd draw that comparison as a way of indicating how badly we are serving our constituents through an elected position such as school trustees, and would remind them that it's a very important position and they only earn $5,000 for that.
The point I want to make is, and Mr Kormos has touched on all of these, I have no doubt that Mr Bylhouwer was rather nervous with the tough cross-examination by Mr Kormos. He was nervous, quite clearly -- I would be -- so some of the answers to those questions would indicate that kind of nervousness. That doesn't bother me. That's not the issue for me. But Mr Kormos has brought a good test to this issue in terms of asking Tory appointees -- because 99.9% are all Tories, by and large, with some exceptions, and I don't mind that. I've often said that is likely to be the case. My only concern was when these Tories were here on this side and would hammer us on our NDP appointments and we never got any praise for the 50% or 60% of the people who were non-NDPers. But that's another matter.
The concern of this test is, if you are a Tory, we expect you to be somewhat critical of some of the agenda of the government. I would assume that some of you would expect that as well. Mr Bylhouwer was not critical at all of it. He was in fact unwavering in his support most completely. That's the concern that Mr Kormos raises and that I raise and it's in that regard that I find it difficult to support Mr Bylhouwer.
Mr Marchese: Can we have a recorded vote.
The Chair: There's been a request for a recorded vote. The motion is for concurrence in the appointment of Mr John Bylhouwer, intended appointee as member of the Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board.
Ayes
Grimmett, Beaubien, Newman, Bob Wood, Preston.
Nays
Gravelle, Marchese.
The Chair: The motion carries.
On the subcommittee report we adopted this morning from Thursday, October 8, one other person who had been selected for consideration. Mr Gary Reinblatt, an intended appointee to the Ontario Casino Corp board of directors, was unable to be scheduled for today. There is unanimous consent of the three parties to extend the deadline and the clerk's office is working at trying to get a meeting scheduled for November 4. That's a question mark. It's not confirmed yet, but we will be in touch with you on that.
There will be a meeting scheduled for next week to deal with the deferred motion on Mr Perpick's appointment. Anything further? Adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1148.