CONTENTS
Wednesday 27 May 1992
Subcommittee report
Appointments review
Gerry A. Burnie
Mary Anne McKellar
Wesley Romulus
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Président: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
**Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Mr Marchese
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffier: Arnott, Douglas
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1008 in room 151.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Robert W. Runciman): Come to order, please. I welcome our researcher, David Pond, back from his journeys afar.
In any event, we'll move on to the first order of business, the report of the subcommittee, which is attached. I hope everyone has had a chance to take a look at it. Any questions, comments? Seeing none, we'll move on to the next order of business.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Resuming consideration of intended appointments.
GERRY A. BURNIE
The Chair: This is a half-hour review of the intended appointment of Gerry Burnie as a member of the Assessment Review Board. Welcome to the committee, Mr Burnie. This is a half-hour review. Your appearance was requested by the government party. I'm going to look to Mr Wiseman and then Mr Frankford.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I'd like to begin by asking how it is that you've come to us today. How did you find out about this position, and what process did you have to follow to get here?
Mr Gerry A. Burnie: The position was advertised publicly about two years ago. I first applied at that time and subsequently received my first interview with the board members in August of last year. This is the second interview.
Mr Wiseman: Do you know how many other people applied or how many other people were interviewed, or any of that information at all?
Mr Burnie: Only what I've been told and that's only very briefly. I believe 140.
Mr Wiseman: It's good to hear that so many people are interested.
My next question has to do with assessment. It's the way people are asked to figure out what their property taxes are. How property taxes are determined is almost a mysterious fog that descends on them in January when their tax assessment arrives and so on. Some houses are valued at market value assessment, as in my town of Pickering. In others you get assessment; your house is assessed and it says it's $27,000 and so you pay this much tax. Can you shed some light on how that is determined and then from that maybe discuss what your role might be in determining the fairness of tax assessment?
Mr Burnie: In my days as an assessor, directly after market value had come in, the ratepayers whose property I visited were interested in the same question. Market value, as it's presently set out in the act, attempts to arrive at a value of the property equal to what it would sell for on the open market, ie, willing buyer-willing seller concept.
There are still areas such as the city of Toronto, etc, that are still working on what was known as actual value, which was a value placed upon the property for the purposes of taxation. Actual value has very little relevance to market value. That's why a property in the city of Toronto might have an assessment of, let's say, $20,000, which is, of course, absolutely no place near the market value of those properties, as we all know.
It all seems to even itself out when it comes down to the setting of the mill rate. The relation of the assessment to the mill rate is that it's based upon the value of the overall assessment for the community divided into the budget; in other words, the budget over the overall assessment. That comes out with the mill rate. With market value the overall assessed value of a community for tax purposes is going to be relatively high; therefore the mill rate will be correspondingly low and the tax bill will be -- let's call it fair. With actual value the overall assessed value of the community will be low and the mill rate correspondingly high. We'll arrive at something like, once again, a fair tax bill at the end of it.
Mr Wiseman: I understood that. That leads into the next question: If your house was assessed in 1988 at market value assessment -- and that's when they set your mill rate, relatively speaking. That's when they determined what the market value of your house was. You look at 1992 and I know that on my street alone where I live there've been huge drops in the market value of a house, yet there has been no reassessment.
Just to back up one step, what would be the process a home owner could use to apply for reassessment? The second question is: Given the circumstances of the market today, do you foresee this leading to a huge number of people asking for reassessment?
Mr Burnie: Fluctuations in the real estate market take place on quite a regular basis, as I understand it anyway. In 1988, the time you were talking about, the market was a seller's market in that they could ask almost anything they wished for the property. That's correspondingly changed. The likelihood is that it will go back up to something approaching 1988 values, but not likely. In the overall, it will probably balance itself out. Now, I'm talking in an area for which I have actually little knowledge about the real estate market.
As far as the assessment is concerned, every ratepayer -- and every person, as a matter of fact -- has a right to appeal the assessment upon notice. So the direct answer to your question would be that, yes, the ratepayer has the right to appeal, but very few ratepayers do. Unfortunately, very few ratepayers have a knowledge of either how the assessment is arrived at or indeed that they have the right to appeal, and the only time they ever consider appealing is at the time when they actually receive their tax notice. I don't foresee that this will mean a lot of appeals, but that's only speculation on my part and I'm afraid based upon just my personal opinion.
Mr Wiseman: Okay, thank you. I'm going to let my colleague Mr Frankford ask some questions.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Do you have familiarity with the board right now?
Mr Burnie: I have familiarity with the board as it's made up. I do not have familiarity with the members on it or anything of that nature.
Mr Frankford: But the procedure -- have you attended hearings or --
Mr Burnie: Yes, as an assessor I attended hearings, and I've appealed my own assessment.
Mr Frankford: If I understand, the applicants represent themselves?
Mr Burnie: Yes.
Mr Frankford: They can have counsel?
Mr Burnie: Oh yes, they can have counsel.
Mr Frankford: But the average home owner would usually not --
Mr Burnie: No. The hearings themselves are governed by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, because it is a right of hearing given by provincial statute, and that's the test. The Statutory Powers Procedure Act provides that the parties to the hearing, which would be the appellant and, if necessary, of course, the assessor, may be represented by counsel at all times. I think very few ordinary ratepayers, however, would go to that extent. It would just be the corporations and people of that nature that would have a real and major vested interest in it.
Mr Frankford: The case for reassessment is generally made in terms of comparing the assessed value of that property with other ones.
Mr Burnie: The precedence on this is that if there is nothing improper, if the assessor has not proceeded improperly, then the assessment is assumed to be correct and it is the responsibility of the appellant, or the onus lies upon the appellant, to show the assessment is wrong. Generally speaking, if some impropriety has not been used in the mechanics of the assessment the general determination of fairness is if the property is assessed equal to other properties in the area. If the appellant can show the assessment is not equal to similar properties in the immediate area, then the appellant has a pretty good case.
Mr Frankford: That sounds as though it puts a big responsibility on the appellant to find out comparable values, which sounds like quite a major task.
Mr Burnie: The appellant has access to the rolls and can select certain properties which are similar in nature to his or her own and compare them, but as I said, the precedents as they currently stand hold that if there has not been any impropriety or illegality as far as the actual assessment is concerned, then the onus is on the appellant to show the assessment is wrong.
Mr Frankford: And there is no assistance by the board if I were an appellant making my case or finding out what the comparable values would be?
The Chair: A brief response, please; we're over the time.
1020
Mr Burnie: The appellant can avail himself or herself of taxations and so on and so forth. As far as I know, that is about the extent of it.
Mr Frankford: And there's no transcript of the hearings?
The Chair: Mr Grandmaître, please.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): As a former assessor, I'm sure you're familiar with section 63 and section 70.
Mr Burnie: Not as familiar as I used to be.
Mr Grandmaître: You are familiar with them.
Mr Burnie: Yes.
Mr Grandmaître: I am told that close to 75% of our municipalities in the province have been reassessed under one or the other, section 63 or 70. Also, it's up to the individual municipalities; for instance, Toronto has been a thorn in the side of the Ministry of Revenue since 1953 or even going back to 1946, if I'm not mistaken. Do you think the Ministry of Revenue should impose a form of market value or reassessment of our municipalities in the province?
Mr Burnie: I can only give you my own personal opinion on that.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes.
Mr Burnie: I would say that reassessment probably is advisable; that is, to try to get the whole of the province under reassessment. As I recall, this was the aspiration of the former minister, Mr McKeough. He expected the province to be totally reassessed by 1974. In 1974 that was extended and it has been extended ever since.
I think it makes it very difficult for all concerned, individuals as well as governments, to be working on different values. Uniformity would, I think, probably be highly advisable, although I don't think I would go so far as to say the Ministry of Revenue should impose market value. I think that has to be worked out individually and on a more local basis, but on the whole I would say reassessment is highly advisable.
Mr Grandmaître: I agree with you. Personally, I think back in 1984 it should have been imposed. I remember those days. I remember when Mr McKeough clearly indicated to AMO and the rest of the municipalities in this province that they had 10 years to --
Mr Burnie: The date was 1974.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, it was 1974 to 1984.
Mr Burnie: Then it was extended and extended and extended and so on and so forth.
Mr Grandmaître: That's right. As I said before, close to 75% of our municipalities have been reassessed. Now the government has instituted a Fair Tax Commission, and to my surprise it is not looking at reassessment of our municipalities in the province. I'm very surprised because, as you know, municipalities are very limited when it comes to revenues. This is one way of receiving their fair share of the costs for services and so on and so forth. I was very surprised that the Treasurer didn't ask the Fair Tax Commission to look at reassessment. I think most municipalities right now are suffering because of our present reassessment program, which is not equitable.
Mr Burnie: I don't think reassessment is going to solve the financial problems of the municipalities.
Mr Grandmaître: No.
Mr Burnie: The only thing that reassessment is going to do, basically, is to make the system more uniform, more understandable as far as the individual ratepayer is concerned.
Mr Grandmaître: Fair taxation.
Mr Burnie: That's about as far as it can go. If you want to call that fair taxation, because it's an aspect of it, I guess you can, but I don't think reassessment is going to solve the problem. I think it's just going to make the whole system more understandable.
Mr Grandmaître: Understandable and equitable, because I don't think it's fair that my home and your home might be on the same street at the same value -- let's take $200,000, for instance -- and you might pay 50% or 60% more or less taxes than I do. I think it's unfair, very unfair.
Mr Burnie: It wouldn't happen on the same street.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, it's happening on the same street in the city of Toronto, sir.
Mr Burnie: Oh, I see what you're getting at.
Mr Grandmaître: In the city of Toronto, side by side.
Mr Burnie: Because the system is difficult to understand.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes. That's why I say it's very unfair and I think it should be more equitable. Personally, I think it should be imposed, but I'm not the minister any longer, so here's my next question --
Mr Burnie: Well, a market value system certainly would make the whole thing more understandable.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, absolutely, because it's difficult for people. I was listening to your explanation, a very good one, on mill rate and so on and so forth. You're right on, but I think 99% of our people don't really understand what fair market value or assessment is all about. Very few people know what a mill is or how this mill rate is established.
My other question is, do you think the Ontario Municipal Board should be involved? Once people have appeared before your board, if they are still not satisfied they can appeal to the OMB, right?
Mr Burnie: To the judge of a county or district court in between, but ultimately to the OMB. I'm generally in favour of an appeal system. That is to say, I think that the system of appeals in the courts generally is a good one. I don't think I would want to see a variation from the right to take the appeals to the OMB. As I said, I know one of the other members who happens to be a colleague of mine. He really knows his stuff and I would trust his judgement, but the problem with that is that one decision obviously would not be sufficient. Factors are given different weights. I would not want to vary from the appeal system as it currently stands.
Mr Grandmaître: Also, there is the number of appeals. I realize that the number of appeals has gone down in the last three or four years, but there is still a great number of appeals before the OMB, and the OMB is asking us, or did ask us recently, for more people to be on the OMB. One of the main reasons was because of the number of assessment appeals.
I think that you people are experts in your field, whereas members of the OMB are not experts. They can't be experts in every field. They can't be. I think that again, and this is my personal feeling, you people are the experts and there should be another way. I think the Ministry of Revenue or the minister should introduce some kind of amendment, another process, to improve the process so that it would be more understandable to people, because people are very scared to appear before you. Imagine how they feel when they have to appear before the OMB.
1030
The Chair: Thirty seconds.
Mr Grandmaître: So you still feel the OMB has a role to play and you'd like to see it --
Mr Burnie: When I first got the list of the members who would be attending this morning, I was somewhat intimidated. I said to a colleague of mine, "You don't ordinarily get to meet 14 members of the Legislature in a lifetime, let alone in one sitting." So, agreed, the OMB is perhaps an intimidating process, but it is a process of judgement of fact and I think in that respect the OMB is as capable as any other body to judge the facts of the situation. If it's a matter of law, let it go off to the courts, as it's required to do.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Burnie, feel relaxed, because none of us are experts here.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I just have two or three quick questions. I won't be long. The freedom of information legislation: Will that have any bearing on the job you'll have to fulfil as the Assessment Review Board to allow the public access to the assessment offices and to their records?
Mr Burnie: The individual records that are held by the assessment office have always been protected. It has always been an offence for the assessor to release information respecting any other person's assessment but the assessed. I can't see freedom of information changing that. I can't quote you chapter and verse of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but I know there are certain exceptions, and I would think one of the exceptions would have to be anything which is statutorily protected. I could be wrong, but I would think that's the case.
Mr McLean: Another question I have has to do with assessment and equalized assessment. The fact is that in this province there are a lot of condominiums and homes with the same square footage. Condominiums are assessed on a lot less dollar per square footage, so to speak; they pay less assessment in the condominium than they do in a home with the same assessment. That's right across the province. Do you feel that should be balanced out?
Mr Burnie: This is where market value really comes into it. That is, if all assessments, regardless of whether they're on single-family residences or condominiums or condominium apartments, as the case may be, are based upon some approximation of market value, that is something one can put one's finger on. The ratepayer can say: "Okay, condominiums are currently selling for $250,000. Mine is assessed for $290,000. There's something wrong. But if they're selling for $250,000 and mine is assessed at $250,000, then I guess that's just about right on." So they can compare them with other condominiums.
If assessments are placed upon some approximation of market value, then condominiums will be compared with condominiums, single-family dwellings will be compared with single-family dwellings, and the justice of the whole situation is that that's a fair share, based upon the market.
Mr McLean: I want to give you this. I can buy a condominium in Toronto. It costs more than the home, the square footage is the same as the home, yet my taxes on the condominium are less than they are on the home. Why is that, when the condominium costs more than the home does?
Mr Burnie: I don't know, because I haven't seen the specific case, or indeed any other cases in the city of Toronto, but the actual value, the old concept of the 1940 actual value which is still in place in the city of Toronto, as I understand it, does create anomalies of this nature. For the most part, it's very difficult for a ratepayer in the city of Toronto to appeal an assessment, because he would have to be very well acquainted with the mechanics of the assessment to be able to tell whether the thing was assessed properly or not.
Mr McLean: If everybody was on fair market value assessment, then would that not rectify that problem?
Mr Burnie: I believe so. I would, in my opinion, say so in that case.
Mr McLean: You, in your personal opinion, probably strongly support market value assessment, right? Everybody should have it now.
Mr Burnie: Theoretically it works, and in practical terms I think it works.
Mr McLean: You have an excellent résumé and I wish you a good term.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Burnie. That completes the ordeal. We wish you well.
Mr Burnie: It's been, surprisingly, a pleasure. I shouldn't say, "surprisingly, a pleasure" -- it has been a pleasure.
The Chair: Our next scheduled witness, Mark Ferrier, is an intended appointee to the boards of management, district of Manitoulin. There's a memo attached from Nancy Pearson indicating this has been withdrawn, so I gather Mr Ferrier's nomination has been withdrawn.
Mr Grandmaître: Withdrawn?
The Chair: Mr Ferrier's nomination has been withdrawn, so we are not dealing with that this morning, but the next scheduled witness, Mary Anne McKellar, is in attendance, I believe.
MARY ANNE MCKELLAR
The Chair: Ms McKellar, would you like to come forward, please, and take a seat. Welcome to the committee.
Ms McKellar is an intended appointee as a full-time deputy presiding officer with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal. Ms McKellar, you are here today at the request of the government party, so I'm going to ask its member to begin the questioning. Mr Wiseman.
Mr Wiseman: Thank you. It's nice to have you here this morning. How did you come to this appointment?
Ms McKellar: I knew there was a vacancy as a result of working at the tribunal. I've been the solicitor there for the past two and a half years, and when I was aware of the vacancy, the chair asked me to apply for the position.
Mr Wiseman: Thank you. Now I'm going to ask some questions that I don't know the answers to, but I hope you do, because I have a couple of constituents who might be really happy if I could find them out. Under the act as it exists today, can an employer achieve pay equity by laying off the males in his company, thus eliminating that as a category of classification?
Ms McKellar: There are certain prohibitions on what an employer can do contained in sections 8 and 9 of the act. There would have to be an assessment by a panel of the tribunal as to whether that kind of activity fell within one of those prohibitions.
Mr Wiseman: Okay. The next question has to do with what is an unfortunate product of the hard times we're living in, and that is that you have a company that starts out with more than 10 employees and then, before it has done its assessment, has dropped to, say, four employees. Are they still required to do a pay equity plan?
Ms McKellar: At the effective date of the act, they have more than 10 employees. That's the significant date, the effective date of the act. All employers with 10 or more employees at the effective date of the act are to implement pay equity. It's not a case that has come before the tribunal; we don't have a decision on it. That's the best answer I can give you.
Mr Wiseman: What is the mechanism available to appeal, given that circumstance?
Ms McKellar: I'm sorry. I don't understand.
Mr Wiseman: To appeal to be exempt. There are four employees left and they've had to lay off all the rest.
Ms McKellar: So if the employees are upset about this, what should they do? Is that what you're saying to me?
Mr Wiseman: No. It's the employer, it's the owner, who is saying: "I've got three people left. Why do I have to post a pay equity plan? I don't have anybody here who would even come under the categories any more, and it's under the 10-person limit."
1040
Ms McKellar: Generally speaking, then, the mechanism for resolution of pay equity disputes is that whoever wishes assistance can apply for the assistance of a review officer. Review officers are part of the pay equity office which is separate and distinct from the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.
The review officers are mandated under the act to investigate the matter and endeavour to settle it. Failing a resolution of the dispute in that manner, in some cases they are empowered to make orders resolving a dispute.
Assuming they've made an order, then the next step is for a party who's unhappy with that order to object to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal. The tribunal holds a hearing in accordance with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, very much like a courtroom hearing, resolves the dispute, issues a decision and at that point anyone who's still unhappy would have to take the tribunal's decision on judicial review. That's the mechanism.
Mr Wiseman: So a judicial review would be to a court?
Ms McKellar: Yes, that's right.
Mr Wiseman: In a unionized workplace, if they cannot agree on pay equity, then the employer notifies the commission and the commission sends in a person to review it?
Ms McKellar: I assume so. I don't have knowledge of how the commission or the office works because it is a separate independent agency, but it has application forms, I'm aware, and officers are sent in.
Mr Wiseman: Do you now have any idea how many companies of all the companies in Ontario come under pay equity?
Ms McKellar: No, I have no idea.
Mr Wiseman: Because those with 10 or fewer do not come under the pay equity legislation.
Ms McKellar: That's correct; under 10.
Mr Wiseman: There are roughly 290,000 companies in Ontario. Roughly 170,000 of them have four or fewer employees and another 30,000 have fewer than 10, so you're looking at maybe two thirds of the workforce not coming under pay equity.
Do you think -- and this is calling on you to give me an opinion -- when two thirds of the companies in Ontario do not qualify for pay equity review, this legislation or the commission can do an adequate job of protecting and making sure that pay equity is introduced in Ontario?
Ms McKellar: With respect, there are certainly critics who have said that. If that's the criticism, I guess, with all respect, I would say to you --
Mr Wiseman: "Do something about it."
Ms McKellar: Do something about it, yes. It's not appropriate, I don't think, for me to comment on it.
Mr Wiseman: In your experience, in a small company with four or five employees, is it even possible to do a kind of pay equity review? What I'm trying to get is, through your experience and through whatever abuses and whatever examples you've got, just exactly where you can draw the line and what circumstances it can work in. I think there are a lot of considerations that have to be put in that.
Ms McKellar: Neither I nor the tribunal as a whole has any experience with employers of that size because they are not covered by the legislation. As you know, the legislation has staggered implementation dates, so larger employers are required to implement pay equity before smaller employers. We are still dealing with the very large employers. It's possible the pay equity office may have some knowledge of that, but I don't.
Mr Wiseman: Anybody else?
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Ms McKellar, it seems to me you have a lot of very relevant experience for this position. I was wondering if you could tell us something about what you did when you worked with Koskie and Minsky that might be relevant.
Ms McKellar: At the time I was with Koskie and Minsky there were approximately 15 lawyers. Its practice was divided essentially into three areas: pensions and employee benefits, labour relations, and then civil litigation and general litigation practice.
While I was there I was the director of research, which meant that I supervised the articling students and provided educational seminars for them from time to time. It also meant that I drafted any opinions for a client that would deal with a fairly complex issue. I would draft and prepare the factum for appeals or for judicial reviews, as well as participating in any significant legal applications. I was co-counsel on a charter challenge to the union security provisions in the Labour Relations Act. I drafted the factum in some pension surplus litigation applications and participated in any number of more run-of-the-mill judicial reviews as co-counsel and as preparer of at least the draft factum.
Ms Carter: Of course you have actually been solicitor to the tribunal so you've been in pretty close touch with what's been going on there. I wonder if you could tell us something about what you have seen happening at the tribunal.
Ms McKellar: I think we've seen a change over the time I have been there. I guess the tribunal began actually hearing cases approximately a year -- not quite a year -- before I got there so I have seen most of the cases. At first there were very large issues and they were sort of front-end issues like who is the employer and what is a gender-neutral comparison system. Of course the litigation of some of those has continued until very nearly the present.
Those all involved the public sector. There were no private sector cases in the beginning. More and more we have seen the private sector getting involved and I think we've seen the issues narrow to the point where several cases recently are sort of the tail end of the process -- in other words, once we have determined what comparison system to use, once we determine which are comparable jobs, once we have figured out how much of an adjustment should be made to the various female job classes and how we do it. Those are some of the cases we're getting now.
The Chair: I'm going to jump in there, Ms McKellar. We're over the time allocation. We'll move on to Mr Grandmaître.
M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Madame McKellar, pourriez-vous m'expliquer très brièvement la façon dont vous faites l'évaluation d'une personne qui est censé occuper un poste bilingue et qui doit être qualifiée pour un tel niveau ? De quelle façon est-ce que vous vous y prenez pour faire l'évaluation de cette personne ?
Mme McKellar : Selon les exigences de la Loi de 1986 sur les services en français, le tribunal a désigné cinq postes comme bilingues et on a décidé, selon les mesures des French Training and Evaluation Services, que le niveau requis pour ces postes est avancé. Alors, les personnes les ont soumis aux évaluateurs des FTES pour vérifier le niveau requis.
M. Grandmaître : Plusieurs personnes qui ont passé par ce processus et qui ont été candidats ou candidates m'ont souvent dit que les exigences étaient trop élevées. Est-ce que vous êtes d'accord que les exigences sont beaucoup trop élevées ?
Mme McKellar : De la Loi sur les services en français ?
M. Grandmaître : Oui, en ce qui concerne l'équité salariale et la qualification de ces gens.
Mme McKellar : Nous avons reçu une requête pour une audience en français, alors il faut que nous ayons la capacité d'établir un comité bilingue pour l'entendre, et nous avons un comité qui en est capable.
Mais, jusqu'à ce point, nous n'avions jamais reçu une telle requête, alors peut-être qu'il faut maintenant que nous écoutions. Un critique a pu voir les demandes du tribunal pour les services en français avant cela et dire : «Ce n'est pas nécessaire. Les exigences de la loi sont trop élevées.»
M. Grandmaître : Mais personnellement, d'après votre expérience, vous ne pensez pas que les exigences soient si élevées que ça ?
Mme McKellar : Non. Nous n'avons jamais eu de difficultés en accédant aux demandes du public.
M. Grandmaître : Bonne chance.
The Chair: In the absence of Mr McLean, that concludes the questioning, Ms McKellar. We thank you for your appearance here today and wish you well.
The next intended appointee is Wesley Romulus and as our agenda indicates, he's not scheduled to appear here until 11:30. Because of the removal of Mr Ferrier from our agenda we have a gap. I'm going to suggest we have an adjournment until about 11:25 and then members can return.
I want to make one comment while the clerk is present. I was at a conference yesterday in Ottawa, at an administrative tribunal. The head of the psychiatric review board in Metro Toronto was at the microphone and he made reference to our committee and to the chair, I think it was, of a psychiatric review board in Thunder Bay who appeared before us a couple of weeks ago. You may recall a native lady who appeared before us. He complained about the fact that she had to come all the way down from Thunder Bay to appear before our committee and she had to pay her own expenses.
I was concerned about that. I talked to the chap afterwards and he said, "Don't worry about it." It was all paid by the law society, I think, which picked up her tab because the Ministry of Health refused to pay it. So we simply can't cover those costs.
I think that, through our clerk, I'm not sure, and perhaps through Marilyn Roycroft we should be making sure that this sort of situation doesn't arise in the future. Even if it has to come out of this committee's budget I think that, if we are asking someone to come from a great distance like that, she shouldn't have to incur the cost. I just wanted to bring that to your attention and ask the clerk to talk to Marilyn so that we don't run into that sort of situation in the future.
Mr Wiseman: I would hasten to add that perhaps we could also ask the clerk to do a review of this and look into some kind of reimbursement, and to see if other people have experienced the same thing. I agree with you, they shouldn't have to. If they have, then I think maybe if we can't get it rectified through that department, we should discuss it here and come up with some kind of recommendation or policy.
The Chair: That's fine. We'll do that too. Okay, we'll have a brief adjournment and try to be back here by 11:25. Thanks very much.
The committee adjourned at 1054.
1130
WESLEY ROMULUS
The Chair: We will reconvene the meeting, I see a quorum, and ask our for next witness, Wesley Romulus. Please take a seat, Mr Romulus. Welcome to the committee, sir.
Mr Romulus is an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. Again, this review is a selection of the government party.
Mr Wiseman: I'd like to welcome you to the committee. I would like to begin by asking you a question. How is it that you came to know about this position?
Mr Wesley Romulus: I assume during the search process I received a phone call from the office of Mr Johnston asking me if I knew of any francophones who would fit the criteria the committee is looking for. In describing the requirements, I came to the conclusion that this is a challenge for me, this is something I can do. I have, I perceive, experience in dealing with committees, I have been involved in teaching, I have been in many different things that resemble what he's looking for, so I submitted my own name. That's how I knew about it.
Mr Wiseman: You haven't had any experience with the Council of Regents before?
Mr Romulus: No, none whatsoever.
Mr Wiseman: I see that you've worked with Katimavik.
Mr Romulus: Yes.
Mr Wiseman: Could you describe that for us, please?
Mr Romulus: Katimavik was a federal youth program for young Canadians from 17 to 21 years of age. They were chosen on a volunteer basis and sent to different communities throughout Canada to do physical work and social work, as they could, with the communities and different social agencies sponsoring the work projects. I was involved supervising projects in the Hearst-Kapuskasing area for a while and then moved to the national office where I was in charge of selecting new participants and sending them to the different communities for the nine months' duration of their stay. After that experience they would receive $1,000 and go back home to studies etc.
Mr Wiseman: Do you have any familiarity with the college system as it exists now and any of the changes that are taking place?
Mr Romulus: I am aware briefly, very preliminarily, of different initiatives that are being considered for the colleges, but I don't have any in-depth knowledge of those initiatives. I'm aware of the outcome standards initiative that is being considered, the harassment task force. So I mention those initiatives but I don't know at what stage they are of their development or discussion or implementation. I don't know yet.
Mr Wiseman: Do you have any notion of what you think would be the major challenges facing the colleges today?
Mr Romulus: Given my limited knowledge as of today, I would assume that it's the increasing demand for skills in Ontario, in general, in a broad sense, and reduced funding or the scarcity of funds to meet that challenge. It's like any other industry, the supply and demand; the demand is there but the financial means may not all be there to make them happen. That's my perception as of today.
Mr Wiseman: Thank you. I'm going to turn it over to my colleague Dr Frankford.
Mr Frankford: You're working now in the community health sector, and I also notice you are on a committee on educating future physicians. I also note that in the college system one component is around health care, and I'm thinking particularly of nursing. I wonder if you have any thoughts about manpower needs, or person power needs, in the community health sector in the future and what you would like to see the college sector doing there.
Mr Romulus: One of the reasons I am on the Educating Future Physicians for Ontario committee is that I represent the community working with the committee on a day-to-day basis. I was considered one of the advocates of what the committee's expectations are, and one of the sectors where we are looking at expectations is the human resources. The way the physicians have been trained so far, have been educated, the way nurses and other allied professionals have been trained so far, does not necessarily meet the expectations of today's community.
I would see the future direction of educating health professionals in the sense of more open communication, to be concerned with a team approach rather than the pyramid system with the physician at the top and everybody else at the bottom and the community has to gladly receive the services without asking any questions. We are looking at developing curriculum and guidelines and directions for the med schools and the nursing schools so the communication, the dialogue, the people skills are well entrenched into the new curriculum.
Mr Frankford: Is your centre right now acting in any sort of training role, or do you foresee that happening in the future?
Mr Romulus: I think it has to happen, so wherever it's happening, we will definitely seek to encourage it. Where it's not happening, we will try to find ways to motivate the change, because it's needed.
The Chair: Any other member of the government party? We've got about three minutes.
Ms Carter: Maybe I could come in then. I was just wondering if you had any feelings about what colleges could do for women. I know in Peterborough, where I come from, the Sir Sandford Fleming College has an employee who is trained to encourage women to train for some of the trades they haven't traditionally been involved with. Do you have any feelings about that?
Mr Romulus: Definitely. The best examples I can use are my own examples. My wife, after we had our first child, decided to stay home and not work outside of the home. This was her decision, her choice, which I supported. After the third one was in the school system, she decided to go back to Sheridan College, which I fully supported. My daughter currently is involved with the Ontario Bible College. I have three girls, by the way, and I fully intend that those who want to go through the college system, fine, those who want to go to university, that's equally fine with me. So I speak with my own hard experience. Yes, I do support that. Whatever venues were traditionally male-dominated, if the skills are there, there is no reason to put systemic barriers to them.
Ms Carter: So if your daughter wanted to become a plumber or something like that, you'd feel that was fine and other girls should have the possibility of doing that?
Mr Romulus: Definitely. As far as my daughters are concerned, as far as anyone in society is concerned, if they have the skills, the desire and they have the will to do it, yes.
Ms Carter: Okay. Thank you.
1140
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): One of the concerns I have -- I came from an industrial background, and I noticed it here -- is that the employers complained about the quality of education that college graduates receive. In other words, a machinist, let's say, is taught in a college to run the most advanced piece of technology. The reality is that the technology is not in any of the factories. Is there any move, or do you feel that there should be a move, to actually look at the types of courses and how they're being taught in college so there is a definite link with what is needed?
Mr Romulus: Yes, there has to be a partnership based on the reality of the Toronto or Ontario market. You cannot train someone with space technology who has to work in a warehouse using manual tools. There has to be dialogue between the colleges, about the high-tech machines and tools they use in the curriculum and what exactly is happening in Ontario.
However, as a former educator myself, I believe the emphasis should not be placed solely on the tools that are used to equip someone, a learner; the emphasis should be on the skills we want, the facility to think, the capacity to develop options. Those are the things I favour as an educator and as a member of such a committee. These are the things I will necessarily look for, that we do not put the emphasis solely on the tools and the mechanics. The capacity to think, the capacity to develop alternatives, yes.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr McLean.
Mr McLean: The 23 colleges in Ontario: What, in your estimation, was the purpose of setting them up?
Mr Romulus: As the name indicates, applied arts and technology, there is a need to equip Ontario workers, Ontario citizens, with skills that are definitely needed in our society and in our communities, skills that do not take three, four, five, 10 years to develop. The colleges have a role to play in adequately equipping people to perform certain tasks that do not necessarily require higher learning or higher education.
Mr McLean: That was my understanding also. Do you feel they have served the purpose for which they were intended?
Mr Romulus: I haven't done an evaluation of the colleges and I would be presumptuous to give you an evaluative answer at this moment, but from an ignorant point of view I would say yes, because we do hire nurses who have been through the system, we hire secretaries, we hire social workers who have been through the system. Based on that, as a current employer, I would say yes.
Mr McLean: Then why are we short of the skilled workers? There are tool and die makers, there are plumbers, all these types of specialized fields. My understanding was that was what these colleges were for, to train these types of people. When you are short of skilled workers, there appears to me to be a problem. What do you have to say when we look at the dropout rate in our colleges of up to approximately 50%? That is the information I have. Are you aware of the workings of the colleges?
Mr Romulus: Yes. I have been following the workings of colleges more closely since my daughter wanted to enter that system, but I'm not familiar with the statistics that you are presenting. Definitely if there is a need, then that means there is a problem. If there is a shortage, there is a problem, so the problem should be tackled, evaluated, analysed and options should be developed. At this point, I don't know what the options are because I haven't been through the system, but as far as I'm concerned, this is the approach to take. Analyse the problem and find the options and have the courage to implement the best option.
Mr McLean: I had thought that perhaps you had a little insight into the workings of the colleges and that was why you had applied to be on the Council of Regents: to have some input, to try to put your views across, to try to make them better for the people of Ontario.
Mr Romulus: If you refer to my previous answer, I believe that if one has the desire to make a difference in any field, one doesn't have to be an expert in that field before entering the field. There has to be some kind of preparation, obviously, some kind of familiarity, but there are certain basic skills and experiences one can gather elsewhere that are transferable. I think the ability to take a problem and analyse and devise plans and alternatives is transferable. Whether you're talking about a council of regents or a board of governors, for any entity, I think the skills that are needed to make a difference, to solve problems, to come up with solutions are transferable.
Mr McLean: Is your present employer aware that you've applied for this?
Mr Romulus: Yes, the chairman of the board is aware.
Mr McLean: Do you have any idea how many times the Ontario Council of Regents would meet in a year?
Mr Romulus: I was told it is about a day or a day and a half a month, yes.
Mr McLean: Do they meet in the daytime or in the evening?
Mr Romulus: I was informed that for the time being, the format is an evening prior to a full day.
Mr McLean: There's been a report with regard to the problems in the college system, with regard to a lack of system-wide standards, quality and planning and inadequate links with schools and universities. There have been some identification problems there. There have also been some recommendations that have been brought in. There has been some discussion with regard to the certificate you get at a community college. That would be recognized by a university. What is your feeling on that?
Mr Romulus: I am heartily in favour of such a prior learning assessment and recognition, accreditation, yes. Also, the college movement or system has been in place for only the past 25 years, as I understand. With any system in place there has been, I presume, some growing pains, some adjustment, some finding their niches etc. So if the time is right now to make some adjustment, to develop some linkages and establish some standards, then definitely, yes, the time would be ripe for that.
Mr McLean: There was an announcement not too long ago with regard to skills development and industrial training. The ministry is looking at ways of setting that up. It has not been finalized yet. Do you believe the colleges would have a part to play in the system the government's planning on initiating?
Mr Romulus: I'm not familiar with the issue, but if there are any linkages with the colleges, definitely it has to be explored; if there is any collaboration or cooperation, yes. But I'm not familiar with the issue you are raising.
Mr McLean: The figure I gave you a while ago with regard to the 50% dropout rate in some cases, does that alarm you to a great extent? That 50% is a large dropout rate, when you've got a program lined up, you've got an instructor there, you have so many in the class, then all of a sudden there are only 20 instead of 30.
Mr Romulus: If I can bring your question closer to home, my daughter will be 20. I never pressured her to choose a field where she wanted to work, but I found it was increasingly difficult for her to make a decision, to make up her mind where exactly she would fit. The diversity of options in front of her was overwhelming. The same figures apply to first-year university as well. I'm not surprised that people venture into a first-year college program and discover that, no, this is not their turf, this is not their field. So it is alarming, but I'm not surprised because of the diversity, because of the specialization of society.
We have specialists for almost every aspect of any work or of any trade possible. So for a younger person -- 17, 18, 19, 20 sometimes -- to make up his or her mind and keep plowing ahead is difficult. Mind you, the other side of the same coin is that there has to be some accountability. There has to be better information prior to enrolling, prior to making decisions, prior to investing sums of money and human resources. Maybe there are aspects to be considered in the way we inform people prior to their making a decision.
Mr McLean: The college system has a great number of part-time students who attend, some in evening courses, and are varied because of the computer courses or whatever they offer them. Do you feel that should be expanded? I know the universities don't have a lot of part-time, to a great extent, as the college system has. Would you look favourably upon more part-time courses for people in the workforce who need upgrading and training?
Mr Romulus: I am in favour of more creativity and flexibility. In the course of my limited experience in life I have always been known to not follow the status quo. I am in favour of creativity because the way we have done things in the past is not necessarily the best way to do them. Community colleges are called to respond to community needs. If the community need is to open at an odd hour, then yes, if the human and financial resources are there to do it, we should respond. The flexibility that the colleges have is a plus when you consider the university system. It should not be diminished.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Romulus. We appreciate it. That concludes the questioning. I hope you still don't feel like a victim.
Mr Romulus: How did you hear that?
The Chair: Good ears, good ears.
Mr Romulus: The Chair knows everything, right?
The Chair: We wish you well.
The final matter on the agenda is the determination of whether we concur with the appointments of the witnesses who appeared before us. We can do them, as you know, by one motion or three motions.
Mr Wiseman: One motion. I'll move them all.
The Chair: It's moved by Mr Wiseman that the committee concur with the intended appointments reviewed today. Any discussion? All in favour? Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: That wraps it up. Meeting adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1153.