Chair /
Président
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington
L)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex PC)
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay / -Timmins-Baie James
ND)
Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence L)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 1010 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr James J.
Bradley): The meeting is now called to order. The first
item we will deal with is the report of the subcommittee on
committee business dated Thursday, May 4, 2000. You'll see that
attached. Do we have a motion?
Mr Bob Wood (London
West): So moved.
The Chair:
Moved by Mr Wood. All in favour of approving the subcommittee
report of Thursday, May 4, 2000? Opposed, if any? None opposed.
Thank you very much.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
RONALD EMO
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party and third
party: Ronald Emo, intended appointee as member, Assessment
Review Board.
The Chair:
We will now move to the appointments review. This is a half-hour
review of intended appointments as follows from the certificate
of March 24, 2000. At 10 am we have Mr Ronald Emo, who is the
intended appointee as member, Assessment Review Board, from a
certificate received on April 14, 2000.
Mr Emo, you may come forward,
if you will, please. You may have been told that at the beginning
you may make a statement if you wish, say anything you wish, or
you may go right to the questions by the members of the
committee, whatever your choice. Welcome to the committee.
Mr Ronald
Emo: My name is Ron Emo. I'm a resident of Collingwood,
since 1963. I stand before you as a candidate for confirmation of
my cross-appointment from the Ontario Municipal Board to the
Assessment Review Board. I have been on the Ontario Municipal
Board since February 1997. Indeed, in January 1997 I appeared in
front of this committee, which confirmed my appointment. As you
will know, the chair of the Ontario Municipal Board and two of
our vice-chairs are cross-appointed to the ARB. A year ago,
during my evaluation, my chair asked if I would be interested in
a cross-appointment and I said I would. So that's why I'm here
today.
During the first two years of
my time on the OMB, we were the final appeal board on assessments
from the ARB, and during my time I did a number of assessment
hearings, so I think I have some experience. In addition, prior
to my election as mayor of Collingwood in 1980, I had taken all
the courses leading to the certified residential appraiser
ticket. I was planning to go down that road, as well as being a
land surveyor. I think I have the qualifications and some
experience in dealing with assessment matters and I would ask
that you consider my candidacy favourably.
The Chair:
We will start our questioning with members of the official
opposition.
Mr Mike Colle
(Eglinton-Lawrence): Welcome, Mr Emo. I certainly give
you a lot of credit for trying to take on one of the most
difficult jobs in this province. As you know, there have been six
pieces of legislation passed on property taxation by this
government and we're about to get a seventh one this fall, so I
wish you good luck in trying to understand what property tax
assessment and property taxation is all about in this province. I
still haven't found anybody who understands it except maybe one
or two Bay Street lawyers.
The question I have is, you
mentioned that you were a sitting member of the OMB in your
preamble but you didn't mention it in the resumé you
submitted to the committee. Why would you not mention that in
your resumé?
Mr Emo: What
resumé have you got there, sir?
Mr Colle:
I've got something here that says "Experience profile of Ronald
J. Emo." We were all given this.
Mr Emo: I
wonder if that was the resumé when I first appeared before
you as a candidate for the OMB.
Mr Colle:
This is the one I received.
Mr Emo: This
would have been the resumé I submitted at the time I was
seeking appointment to the OMB, sir.
Mr Colle:
Maybe I should direct this to staff to ensure that the
resumés are up to date, that they aren't old resumés
that are submitted to the Legislature.
The Chair:
We will pass that message along to the secretariat in the
Premier's office.
Mr Gilles Bisson
(Timmins-James Bay): I think it's the Chair's fault. I
think we should discipline the Chair.
The Chair:
No, that would be the public appointments secretariat that
provides this information. I'll ask our clerk to clarify that. Mr
Colle, continue.
Mr Colle: Mr Emo, I know you served
as the mayor of Collingwood. You also mention in your resumé
that you were a partner in Oak-Lea Holdings Ltd, a Collingwood
land development company. Could you give us background on how
extensive this work was with this land development company and
for how many years you were involved with the land development
company?
Mr Emo: It
was a small situation. My survey partner and myself and a local
lawyer in 1967 bought some property and we did different
developments over the years. Oak-Lea Holdings now is down to two
one-acre industrial sites that we're trying to get rid of to wind
the company up.
Mr Colle:
For how many years were you a partner in the land development
company?
Mr Emo:
Oak-Lea was incorporated in 1967.
Mr Colle: So
you are still involved with this land development company?
Mr Emo: Just
in winding it down, yes. Industrial land in Collingwood isn't the
best mover. We've been trying to wind it down for seven or eight
years.
Mr Colle:
Have you ever been a member, an active member of the Progressive
Conservative Party of Ontario?
Mr Emo: I've
been a member of the Conservative Party of Ontario for most of my
adult life.
Mr Colle:
There is one interesting wrinkle in the changes in the Assessment
Act that were made a couple of years ago by this government. That
refers to land designated as agriculture. There's been a change
whereby municipalities at one time were given reimbursement by
the provincial government because the farmlands are essentially
taxed at one quarter of the residential tax rate. Up until a
couple of years ago, the other 75% was usually reimbursed to the
local municipalities, making up for the difference. As you know,
with the changes that took place a couple of years ago, the
municipal governments are not reimbursed the difference between
the actual full residential rate and the 25%. Don't you think
that this difference, in terms of the way agricultural land is
treated, is an impetus for more development on agricultural land
and almost forces municipalities to encourage development of
agricultural land, because the land speculators who buy
agricultural land can basically plant some corn on the land and
then get that exemption from paying even the residential tax
rate? Do you think that is a good assessment change in the way
agricultural lands are assessed in this province that are held by
land speculators?
Mr Emo: I
don't think I should venture an opinion on that, Mr Colle. I'm in
front of you as a candidate for an adjudicator, and if I'm
successful here I will be hearing cases and I will hear the
merits of both sides. There was a recent court case that just
came out in the last two or three months in Mississauga which
dealt with a lot of this business about the zoning and
agricultural use. I will do my best to give an impartial judgment
on the matters in front of me in accordance with the legislation.
As for as my interpreting or saying whether it's good legislation
or bad, I think that's the province of you gentlemen.
Mr Colle: So
you feel in essence that, as an adjudicator and looking at
assessment appeals, you won't consider that the effect your view
of that assessment, whether it be good, bad or indifferent to a
municipality-that it has no bearing on the ultimate decision. In
other words, if you deal with an appeal over farmland that is
held by speculators, you won't take into account the impact that
might have on a municipality's ability to provide services.
1020
Mr Emo: I
would presume the municipality would be there and they would put
forth their case, the assessment people would do theirs and the
owner would do theirs. Based upon the legislation and any court
precedents that are in place, I would try to render the best
judgment I possibly can.
Mr Colle: As
you know, Mr Emo, the Ontario Municipal Board is busier than it
has ever been before, and I know you've been very busy in King
City dealing with appeals before King City, and the Assessment
Review Board that you're about to be appointed to is extremely
busy. As you know, there's a backlog of tens of thousands of
cases. How do you hope to give your full attention to these two
bodies, given the workload of the two bodies and considering the
growing workload of the two bodies?
Mr Emo: My
chair, Mr Colbourne, who is the chair of both tribunals, would
not have sought some cross-appointments from his OMB members had
he not believed there was a niche for that. At the Ontario
Municipal Board, frequently hearings do collapse or they're set
for a long period of time and they're not followed through, and
sometimes the members have time available. So that is one thing.
It could be used to fill the calendar in, as it used to be when
the OMB did assessment appeals at the same time.
In addition, the Ontario
Municipal Board members are full-time and have developed some
expertise and they've been trained very well in dealing with
appeals. I would envision, and I have no idea, that perhaps some
of the more complicated assessment matters might be referred to a
cross-appointee. But I'm available for whatever work wherever my
chair wants to put me.
Mr Colle:
Are you aware of how many cases are now pending for appeal before
the Assessment Review Board?
Mr Emo: No,
I am not.
Mr Colle: Do
you have any idea whether it's 100,000, 200,000?
Mr Emo: I do
know from my experience when the OMB was doing assessment appeals
that an awful lot of them settle before they get to a
hearing.
Mr Colle:
One of the concerns I've had from many citizens is that they
cannot get a date. I have people who have been waiting a year and
a half to get a hearing before this board.
Now, as you know, we have a new assessment coming
forth at the end of 2000 that is based on the year 1999, I guess.
Given that the people who appealed previously based on the 1996
values have not had their cases heard, how will the board, or
you, deal with the fact that people are now going to appeal twice
when they haven't even heard the first one? Have you been given
any indication on how they would ever deal with this?
Mr Emo: You
would have to deal with it on the merits of the appeal in front
of you, sir. I don't know how many of our members are being
cross-appointed-I think it's seven or eight. That's seven or
eight full-time members who will be available to help the ARB
with any backlog they have.
Mr Colle:
Then on top of this, in many municipalities there is a phase-in
that's in place, like Toronto, based on the 1996; there's
phasing-in over five years or so.
With this new assessment
that's coming up at the end of this year, there could be
phase-ins on top of phase-ins, and on top of that again many
appeals have not been heard. In some cases, people have had a
hearing and they haven't even received the reduction in their
property tax bills. This appeal was made, in some cases,
successfully.
Mr Emo: Did
they receive the decision?
Mr Colle:
They received the decision, but because of the backlog there is
no direct communication it seems between the Assessment Review
Board and the municipality in terms of getting the taxpayer that
reduction.
How do you suggest we may be
able to get faster hearings and hearings that result in positive
results getting back into the pockets of the people who make the
appeals?
Mr Emo: All
I can say is, as I said earlier, if there are eight new full-time
OMB members who are going to be doing some assessment, that has
to speed up the process. I know the Ontario Municipal Board is
very prompt in getting its decisions out. While I don't think
that wouldn't carry over into work for the ARB, as to what
happens after that, I don't think the adjudicator is responsible
for what happens from there on. We run a good hearing and give a
well-reasoned decision as promptly as possible.
The Chair:
The third party, Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson:
Welcome to our committee. Just to clarify, what board are you
presently sitting on?
Mr Emo: I'm
presently a member of the Ontario Municipal Board.
Mr Bisson:
But you are resigning your position on the Ontario Municipal
Board?
Mr Emo: No.
I will be cross-appointed. I will be a member of both
tribunals.
Mr Bisson: I
just need some clarification from research. Is it new, or was it
always the case that you were allowed to sit on the OMB and the
ARB?
Mr David
Pond: It's new for this pair of agencies, but past
governments have made cross-appointments for other agencies when
the two agencies had related jobs. Under your government, the Pay
Equity Hearings Tribunal and the Employment Equity Tribunal would
be an example. This is being done, as the witness has already
indicated, to address the backlog issue.
Mr Bisson:
But this is the first time it's been done where they are sitting
both on the OMB and the ARB?
Mr Pond: In
the last few years, yes.
Mr Bisson:
OK. That's what I wanted to know.
How long have you been on the
Ontario Municipal Board?
Mr Emo:
Since February 1997. I was reappointed in December 1999.
Mr Bisson:
It's fairly apparent from your resumé that you have a
multitude of experience in both the development field and within
municipal politics and the various other organizations you've
been involved with, and I'm sure you bring a wealth of
information and experience to what you are doing.
I just have a couple of
general questions. One of them is, as I understand it there are
two full-time board members, the chair and the vice-chair, and
there are 60 appointees to the ARB.
Mr Emo: It
fluctuates. I don't think it's that large now, but it might
be.
Mr Bisson:
What is it now? That is what I was wondering.
Mr Emo: The
Assessment Review Board?
Mr Bisson:
I'm asking research. How many people are appointed?
Mr Pond: On
the Assessment Review Board?
Mr Bisson:
Yes.
Mr Pond: I
can't tell you off the top of my head. It's a large board,
though.
Mr Emo: Our
chairman, the chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board, is also
the chairman of the Assessment Review Board, and two of our
vice-chairs are also vice-chairs of the Assessment Review
Board.
Mr Bisson:
The question I'm asking is, do you know how many of the 60 people
have already been appointed?
Mr Emo: I
think it's a substantial number.
Mr Bisson: I
guess my general question-and I don't know if there's any way
research can figure this out-is what the mix of those
appointments has been? In this case, I'm not questioning this
gentleman's ability to serve on that board; obviously he has the
experience. But my question is, what has been the mix to ensure
that the board has appointees who represent the various facets of
the industry? It's good to have people from a municipal
background and from the development background, and it's also
good to have people from various other backgrounds that are
associated with development. I don't know if there is any way we
can figure that out.
There's nothing wrong with
being a Conservative. Everybody is allowed to be a member of a
political party. I only wish there were fewer of them, because I
think they're bad for business. But that's another story.
Mr Bert Johnson
(Perth-Middlesex): For $5 your can join.
Mr Bisson: A
$5 membership? Man, you guys are cheap.
My concern, however, is that I wouldn't want to see
the board skewed with purely partisan appointments. I'm not
saying you are partisan; I guess we all are to an extent. But I
want to make sure that board has representation of the various
people within the community in order to represent the community
of Ontario when it comes to this area. Is there any way to work
that out?
Mr Pond:
I'll have to check with the board and the ministry.
Mr Bisson:
Just to see the kind of backgrounds they have. I'd be interested
in seeing-
Mr Pond:
This is just the Assessment Review Board?
Mr Bisson:
In this case, just the Assessment Review Board, if they can break
it out in any kind of way to take a look at the types of people
who have been appointed: how many represent the development,
municipal side, the financial side etc, just so we can see that
they're properly appointed.
The only other question I
have for you, and I think it's a standard question, is that you
are involved in the development field, and there's nothing wrong
with that-
Mr Emo: I
really am not. As I've said to the other member-
Mr Bisson:
There's nothing wrong with that. That's not my question. My
question is, if you were put in a position of conflict, what
mechanisms do you have to withdraw yourself?
Mr Emo: If I
perceive any conflict at all, I'll recuse myself-I think that's
the legal term-and step down.
Mr Bisson:
Have you ever been put in that position while you've been on the
Ontario Municipal Board, as a former proponent of a project or as
the mayor of the community?
Mr Emo: I
have never done a hearing in Collingwood. I've done a few
hearings in the fringe area. I was a land surveyor in private
practice for 35 years. I look in the file to make sure there is
no involvement-if I either knew the people or my former firm had
any involvement with it.
1030
Mr Bisson:
Do they try to do that? Do they try to make sure that the
hearings you get are not hearings that deal with matters from
within your old municipality?
Mr Emo:
Yes.
Mr Bisson:
There is? OK.
Mr Emo:
But it's also an onus on the member too. You want to avoid any
situation like that.
Mr Bisson:
That's fine. I'm done.
The Chair:
The government caucus. Mr Johnson.
Mr
Johnson: Mine really wasn't so much a question, although
I do want to comment on the qualifications from the
résumé Mr Emo brings to this position. So I can state
now that I will be supporting your appointment.
Mr Bisson:
Your Tory membership card told me that.
Mr
Johnson: Well, certainly that would encourage me. I do
have a comment about a member of the committee, Mr Colle. He was
using, probably not intentionally, the mechanism for the 75%
rebate to farm property. The farm owner paid the full municipal
tax to the municipality, and the refund came from the province to
the individual farm owner, not the municipality. I just want to
correct that for these purposes.
Mr Colle:
That's been changed now. It doesn't come back.
Mr
Johnson: Yes. What I wanted to correct was the procedure
that was formerly in place, not what is there now.
Mr Wood:
We'll waive the balance of our time.
The Chair:
Mr Emo, you are allowed to step down now. The members have
completed their questioning. Thank you for being with us
today.
Mr Emo:
Thank you, Mr Chair and members.
ANNE WINGFIELD
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Anne
Wingfield, intended appointee as member, Council of the College
of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario.
The Chair:
Our next intended appointee has arrived, and we will be able to
deal with the next appointment. This is the intended appointee as
member, the Council of the College of Audiologists and
Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario, Anne H. Wingfield.
Please come forward. Welcome to the committee.
Mrs Anne
Wingfield: Thank you very much.
The Chair:
You have the opportunity, first of all, to make an initial
statement, should you wish to do so.
Mrs
Wingfield: The short term for my college is CASLPO, so
if I say CASLPO you'll know what I'm referring to. It's a little
less wordy.
I'm happy to be here today.
I guess I'm here to sell myself. I have a long history of
dedication to the city of Burlington, where I have lived since
1958. I think the highlight of my work in my community is the
fact that I won four municipal elections, the third as Hydro
commissioner, and chair for nine of those 12 years for the city
of Burlington. The first time I ran I got more votes than the
mayor, and I thought that was really something special. In all
the 12 years I served on the commission, I did not miss a
meeting. Whatever I take on in my life, I give 100%. I do not
miss meetings, I do my homework and I am very dedicated to any
position where I serve, whether it's on the college, in my
community or in other organizations.
I might add, with regard to
CASLPO, that a member of my family is deaf and I have a
granddaughter who has utilized a speech pathologist. So from my
family's perspective I have first-hand knowledge of the mandate
of these two colleges. I have served on CASLPO for a little over
two years, and I enjoy it and enjoy the dialogue. I feel that I
am a good public member for the province of Ontario, and I think
you're looking for people like me who don't mind the challenge
and who are willing to give the time and effort to serve in this
capacity.
The Chair:
Thank you kindly for your initial statement. I'll start with the
New Democratic Party this time.
Mr Bisson: Welcome to our
committee. Unfortunately, for some reason I don't have your
résumé.
Mrs
Wingfield: I have an up-to-date one here if you want
one.
Mr Bisson:
Could I, please?
Mrs
Wingfield: I don't know whether anyone else would want
one.
Mr Bisson:
First of all, I just want to thank you for applying for this
position. You would know that in 1991 it was our government that
introduced the Regulated Health Professions Act which created the
college and I'm glad to see that it is continuing. It's not
something the government decided to undo, like they did in 1995
to so many other of our initiatives. I'm a firm believer that if
we're going to make sure that health care works for both the
taxpayers and the patients, we need to really pay special
attention to making sure that we do the reforms that need to
happen at the primary level of health care. What you're involved
in with regard to the regulated health professions is part of
that. I don't think we pay enough attention to the amount of work
that can be done by other professionals within the health care
field that would be far better for the patient and far better for
the taxpayers when it comes to how we utilize those
professionals. So, first of all, I want to thank you for your
application.
I just have a general
question. Taking a look at your particular background, are you a
speech pathologist yourself?
Mrs
Wingfield: No, I am not.
Mr Bisson:
That's what I was wondering. What's your background in speech
pathology other than family? You have a family member who is
deaf, you were saying?
Mrs
Wingfield: None.
Mr Bisson:
What brought you to apply for this particular-
Mrs
Wingfield: Initially when I submitted my resumé to
serve on one of the colleges, I was asked to submit my first,
second and third choices Audiology, speech path, was my third
choice. I submitted for pharmacy and nursing, and this was my
third one, because those were the ones I thought I would be most
interested in and would challenge me as far as their mandate was
concerned.
Mr Bisson:
Are you a member of any health care profession now?
Mrs
Wingfield: No. I'm married to one.
Mr Bisson:
To a profession?
Mrs
Wingfield: My husband is a chiropractor and he served on
the college for the chiropractic profession.
Mr Bisson:
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm a big believer that
you can't stack these committees with just strictly
professionals. You have to have a mix of professionals,
non-professionals, people who bring in various points of
view.
Mrs
Wingfield: Absolutely.
Mr Bisson:
I take it that's what's going to happen. I notice also on your
application you're a member of the Burlington South PC
Association.
Mrs
Wingfield: Yes, I am.
Mr Bisson:
I have a membership card. If you want to switch, you can do it
right now.
No, listen, people choose
their political parties and I'm not going to argue with you on
that one. Was your application at the insistence of anybody
within the PCs?
Mrs
Wingfield: I can't say as it was. I've been a PCer my
whole life. My father was. I can't say that, no.
Mr Bisson:
So this is something you decided to do yourself?
Mrs
Wingfield: Yes, I wanted to do this.
Mr Bisson:
This is a question to research. I don't have a good enough sense
of what's happening with appointments these days vis-à-vis
the various boards that are being appointed. Without expending a
whole bunch of energy, is there any way to figure out the ratio
of appointments we're getting these days vis-à-vis how many
Tories are being appointed to these boards versus the other
wonderful parties in the opposition?
Mr Morley Kells
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore): We should deal with 1990-95.
Mr Bisson:
We should, because I'll tell you, we didn't appoint enough New
Democrats. That's what people tell me.
The Chair:
Is that question directed to research? To the Chair? To the
world?
Mr Bisson:
Is there any way of figuring that out? There's that kind of
tracking mechanism, right, research?
Mr Pond: I
don't think it would be appropriate for me to do that.
Mr Bisson:
I think it would be perfectly appropriate. Understand where I'm
coming from, for members of the committee on the government side.
I understand, as a government and as a party, you're going to
appoint your own to committees. I would do the same thing if I
were you. The point I make is that it's just my observation last
week and this week, the only two times I've sat on this committee
lately, that we've dealt with three appointments and the last
three I've seen are all PCs. Bert, you stick your thumb up,
saying, "That's a good thing." I understand that the government
wants to have appointments on the commissions. They want to make
sure their ideological agenda is passed through and that you have
your members throughout the various parts of the civil service. I
understand that. But I also understand, as you do, that it's
important to have different points of view. The world would not
be a great place if there was nothing but a bunch of PCers making
all the decisions. In fact, it would be a pretty damn scary
place.
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): That's arguable.
Mr Bisson:
It's not arguable.
Mr Kells:
It depends on how we feel about our Premier's office.
The Chair:
Is that on Hansard?
Mr Bisson: Exactly. Mao Zedong
tried that for years, everybody thinking the same way, and it
didn't get anywhere.
Mr Kells:
When was he Premier?
Mr Bisson:
I think he still is.
The Chair:
Is there a question for the intended appointee?
1040
Mr Bisson:
I thought this was very good conversation. I just say to
Anne-sorry, I was looking for your resumé again-to Mrs
Wingfield that I'm sure you're going to try to do your very best
in the job you're going to be doing. I understand you're going
into this obviously with some political convictions, and I have
no argument with that. That's our individual right in a
democracy, and I respect that.
I just ask, as you go to
this committee, to keep in mind a couple of things. One of them
is, speech pathology in various parts of the province is at a
very severe limitation as far as access to service. In northern
Ontario and southwestern Ontario there are a whole bunch of
places where there are no speech pathologists at all. In this
particular body maybe there's some way you can take a look at
some of the policies about how we deal with making sure speech
pathologists are available in various parts of the province. I
just ask that as you go to the committee, you keep that in mind,
that the world is bigger than just the 905 or the Toronto area
and speech paths are needed in various parts of the province.
The Chair:
Ms Wingfield, do you have any response to that?
Mrs
Wingfield: I would only say in response to your
statement that it's not the mandate of the college to generate
numbers of professionals. That's for professional organizations
to do.
Mr Bisson:
I realize that.
Mrs
Wingfield: That's not our mandate. We're here to act in
the public interest.
Mr Bisson:
No, no, I understand that.
Mrs
Wingfield: I could not have any influence over
numbers.
Mr Bisson:
My point is, you will be coming in contact over the number of
years with various people from within the profession. There is a
very deep need in various parts of the province for speech
pathologists, and in order to try to sensitize you, I'm only
asking you just to keep that in mind as you're talking to others.
That's all I'm saying. That's it, Jim, all done.
The Chair:
Members of the government caucus.
Mr Wood:
We'll waive our time.
The Chair:
Mr Wood, on behalf of the caucus, is waiving the time. We go to
the official opposition, Mr Crozier.
Mr Bruce Crozier
(Essex): Welcome, Ms Wingfield, to the committee. I want
to say at the outset that I have no reason that we would not
concur with your appointment. I'm curious. When you are selected
to appear before the committee, does the staff of the ministry
point out that it really doesn't matter how we vote on your
concurrence, that you will be appointed? Do they point that out
to you?
Mrs
Wingfield: No.
Mr
Crozier: Well, let me put you at ease, because it really
doesn't matter how I vote. You're going to be appointed anyway.
OK?
Mrs
Wingfield: OK. If you say so.
Mr
Crozier: I say so. That's the way it works. In any
event, I just wondered whether you were told that or not.
Mrs
Wingfield: No.
Mr
Crozier: More recently, I have had an interest in a
particular program that certainly falls within the interest of
the council of the college, and that is the cochlear implant
program. Are you familiar with that?
Mrs
Wingfield: No, I'm not.
Mr Bisson:
That's a hot debate right there.
Mr
Crozier: Yes. It's an implant that allows someone who is
either deaf or near deaf-
Mrs
Wingfield: Oh, yes, yes. I'm sorry. I am aware of that,
yes.
Mr
Crozier: It would appear as though the funding for this
is nowhere near the need. Do you have any particular comment on
that, how you would feel and how you might, in your position on
the council, bring issues like that forward?
Mrs
Wingfield: My only comment would be through my
sister-in-law who is deaf, that some deaf people are against it.
They feel they've lived their life as somebody who doesn't hear
and all of a sudden to have their hearing restored, some of them
aren't for it. I guess they're nervous, they're concerned. To
reverse your life from being deaf to a hearing life, that
transition, in their mind's eye, is it worth doing? Is it worth
taking? That would be my only comment on a personal level.
Mr
Crozier: That's a very interesting comment in that those
of us who have not suffered deafness or blindness may be the same
way, or at least someone who's closely connected with a person
who suffers from deafness or blindness. What you're almost saying
is they don't suffer. They've learned to live and lead a full,
meaningful life and this dramatic change might be a bit too
much.
Mrs
Wingfield: If I could just respond to that, with my
brother-in-law and sister-in-law both being deaf, I think the
only ones who really suffered in their family were the children
insofar as there was no one to read to them. My brother-in-law
had rigged up a doorbell and the lights came on if someone rang
the doorbell. He was the first person in Canada to get the telex
machine. To go to a deaf person's house and to see them talking
to another deaf person by computer now, their world is not the
same as it was, say, 50 years ago. They lead very full lives, in
spite of their hearing loss.
Mr
Crozier: Certainly. So that my interest in this and
support of it might not be set aside, I can understand what
you've said, that someone who is deaf may not want to hear, but
the problem is there are more than enough out there who do want
to hear and the program doesn't support them. There aren't the
finances to support that program. Those who don't want to have
access to it, that's
their prerogative, but the line-up is too great. I would hope
that, although the council is more in a regulatory and appeal
area, there is one part of it that's patient relations. I would
think in your responsibility in patient relations you may be
faced with a request for some advocacy in that area, and I'm
taking this opportunity to ask you to consider that advocacy very
carefully.
Mrs
Wingfield: I would.
Mr
Crozier: I appreciate your coming today and I wish you
well on the council.
The Chair:
The three parties have utilized the amount of time they wish to
utilize for questions for you. We appreciate your coming today.
If you drove through the same traffic I drove through-
Mrs
Wingfield: Yes, I did, two hours, 10 minutes from
Burlington.
The Chair:
-you must be grinding your teeth, because I was three hours from
St Catharines. We particularly appreciate your congeniality in
view of the awful drive you've had today. Thank you for appearing
before the committee.
Mrs
Wingfield: Thank you very much.
The Chair:
What we will do now is deal with the appointments. I'll accept a
motion, first of all, on the intended appointee as member,
Assessment Review Board, Ronald J. Emo.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Emo.
The Chair:
Mr Wood moves concurrence. Any discussion? Mr Colle first and
then Mr Bisson.
Mr Colle:
There are very few avenues whereby citizens or MPPs can bring the
Assessment Review Board process to task. I think I'm speaking on
behalf of a lot of property taxpayers across this province who
are finding this board impossible to deal with. I noticed in the
briefing notes that this board now has a backlog of over 250,000
cases. It's impossible to get a timely hearing, and when you do
get a hearing, the hearing is not citizen-friendly. It's very
intimidating. It's very long, drawn-out and extremely expensive.
Some people are bringing in lawyers because they feel that's the
only way they're going to get a fair hearing.
I think the root of the
problem is the legislation, obviously, which created this
property tax mess in this province, where nobody understands how
the property tax system works, never mind the assessment system.
Part of that or the root of it, as you know, is the fact that
when they did the assessment in 1996, they didn't look at any
houses or properties. They did it all by computer modelling. The
mistakes that have been made are just beyond belief, and they're
going to continue to make them because, in essence, they cannot
assess house by house. It's just impossible to do on the
updating. Now we're going to have another series of appeals where
the caseload could reach maybe half a million, the way they're
going, when they get the new 1999 assessments.
1050
I can't see how the
government can respond to the 250,000-case backlog by
cross-appointing people from another very busy board, the Ontario
Municipal Board, which is again a board where it's almost
impossible to get a hearing date-you've got to wait for months
and months-again, another board that's very intimidating where
you need lawyers, and the more lawyers and consultants you have,
the more chance you have of getting a good hearing.
I would oppose this
cross-appointment. It's not so much Mr Emo's reputation or Mr
Emo's qualifications, which seem to be generally good; it's the
fact that this type of cross-appointment process doesn't deal
with the root of the problem, which is re-forming or retooling
this Assessment Review Board and the whole assessment mess in
this province to give people a fair hearing about their property
taxes, which are going up all over the province as we speak,
which are not understandable and on which you can't get a quick
and speedy hearing.
I know assessment review
officers, not so much the adjudicators, spend most of their time
trying to dissuade people from going to the board. That's what
they're paid for. They go to people who file appeals and say:
"Oh, don't go. You're going to lose." Or they say: "We'll give
you 10%. Let's make a deal on the side here. Don't go to the
board." They're trying to deny people their day in court.
There's something radically
wrong with this Assessment Review Board, the assessment system,
and I would oppose this appointment as a way of saying that
something has got to be done to fix this mess with the assessment
system in this province and the Assessment Review Board.
The Chair:
Monsieur Bisson.
Mr Bisson:
First of all, on the general comment of assessment, the
government has totally balled up the whole assessment process by
going to the system they did. We all know why they did it. In
1993, when there was the debate on whether we should introduce
the same assessment system in the city of Toronto as there was
everywhere else, the PCs, in opposition, said no. They were
against market value assessment for the city of Toronto. Our
government listened and didn't introduce it. They got elected and
tried to figure out how to do it. So they changed the entire
province of Ontario to AVA in order to put Toronto on what is an
amended MVA, which they now call AVA. We know what happened.
Mr Colle:
CVA.
Mr Bisson:
CVA, yes. It's all been screwed up anyway. So we know what this
is all about.
The second point is-I agree
with the critic from the opposition party, the Liberals-that this
whole assessment system is a bloody mess. We've had how many
pieces of legislation in the last five years?
Mr Colle:
Seven.
Mr Bisson:
Seven or eight. Are we on the eighth now? We're on at least seven
pieces of legislation to fix a bill that was hurried in the first
place to try to fix a political problem for the Tories on how to
bring MVA, AVA, CVA, into the city of Toronto. So we know what
this is all about.
Just generally to the government, I want to ring
this word of caution. I mentioned earlier that everybody, as far
as a political party when in government, is going to appoint
their people to committees and commissions. I understand that. I
won't make an argument that you should never appoint
Conservatives to your various boards and commissions. Certainly
you have the right to do so, and there are some good reasons why
you have to do that to an extent. However, I'm worried, as we
look at the practice of this government, they're appointing
basically their Tory friends to every bloody board and not taking
into account that you have to have different views on those
boards representing the people of Ontario.
My good friend Mr Kormos is
probably going to feel the same way as I do on this as he walks
into the room, that you can't be appointing just Tories to these
boards. You have to have a multitude of people from different
walks of life who go to the boards and give a different
perspective. How is the system going to work if at the Ontario
Municipal Board or at the Assessment Review Board you have
nothing but a bunch of Tories? Obviously I understand how
Conservatives work. They'll try to support each other. They will
try to do as best they can to protect the government from
decisions that will come back to bite them, so I say to the
government across the way, you're not serving the interests of
the province well if all you do is appoint Conservatives.
I understand you have to
appoint some. I understand you probably have to appoint a
majority, but you have to have others on that board from various
political parties with different political points of view who are
able to look at decisions and to make decisions that are based on
the reality of Ontario, which is that Ontario is not just one
homogeneous society in which all think and go in the same way. I
just caution the government. When you're coming before us with
these appointments, you should keep in mind to try to get people
with different points of view. That's the way democracy works,
and I don't think you're serving it well otherwise.
I want to say to the
appointee, Mr Emo, I will be supporting your appointment. I have
no argument with your qualifications. You, like other people in
our community, probably serve your municipality extremely well.
You have a good understanding of the development business and
what happens as far as the business of the Ontario Municipal
Board. I have some concern about the cross-appointment, but time
will tell. Let's see how the hell it's going to work, and if it's
a problem, it's up to the Legislature to try to undo it. I'll be
supporting the appointment.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for those comments. Any comments from the
government caucus? If not, I will call-
Mr Wood: A
recorded vote, please.
AYES
Bisson, Johnston, Kells,
Spina, Wood.
NAYS
Colle, Crozier.
The Chair:
The motion is carried.
The next intended appointee
as member of the Council of the College of Audiologists and
Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario, Anne H. Wingfield.
Mr
Crozier: Let's have a recorded vote on this.
Mr Wood:
We better have a motion first.
The Chair:
Mr Wood, are you making the motion?
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence in the intended appointment.
The Chair:
Mr Wood has moved concurrence in the intended appointment.
Mr
Crozier: Let's have a recorded vote on this one too.
Mr Bisson:
I want to have a discussion.
The Chair:
Mr Crozier, first of all, is requesting a recorded vote. Now
we'll have discussion.
Mr Bisson:
I want to take this opportunity, and not for very long, just to
say to the government, listen, this is a college that works well
under the Regulated Health Professions Act. My only caution to
you, other than the one I made in the first place on the other
appointment which I would not repeat other than to say you heard
me the first time.
You guys are really missing
the boat when it comes to reform of the health care system.
You've put all your eggs into reforming the hospital sector.
You've gone through the hospital restructuring commission. You
know that the commissioner at the end of his mandate said you
guys were wrong. You shouldn't have started restructuring
hospitals first. You should have started with primary health care
reform, and you're missing the boat entirely.
What your government should
be doing-and I think it's not only my view but also the view of
many people who know more about the health care field than all of
us put together-is taking a look at primary health care reform.
How do we use other professionals in the health care field in a
more effective way for both the patient and the taxpayer? Does it
make sense to be using, in the town of Kapuskasing, family
practitioners at all hours of the night for doing work that
various other health care professionals could be doing in
different settings if we were to allow that to happen in a more
effective way?
You introduced a budget
last week. Unfortunately, I wasn't here. There was a death in the
family and I had to be with family all of last week. But as I
look at the budget documents this week, I'm really disappointed.
There's nothing in that budget that really talks about putting in
the kind of reform we need on the primary health care side; for
example, the expansion of the community health care clinic
system. In Kapuskasing, as an example, there's an application to
construct a health care clinic for the community of Kap and the
surrounding area. Why? Because we presently have only one way to
get health care services, and that's probably the same as
it is for you, Bert.
People have to go to their doctor's office, which normally is at
the hospital. It's an additional cost to the health care system
to run health care services that way in the view of many
people.
I would have liked to have
seen this government saying, "We got the message." What we need
to be doing is putting dollars in primary health care reform so
that we allow things like the Kapuskasing health clinic to go
ahead. We could look at different ways of providing health care
services so that it's good for the citizens, the patients who
need the service; it's good for the doctors so we take off some
of the stress these docs are going through because they're
working all hours of the night; and it's good for the taxpayers
so that they can get a break at the end, knowing that their
health care dollars are going a lot further and a lot better as
far as how they're being spent and delivering proper health care
services.
I'm going to accept the
appointment that you have here today. The person who presents
before us doesn't have direct experience in the health care
field, but I think it's important to have people from different
walks of life.
But I say to the
government, you're missing the boat. You've got to do primary
health care reform, and that means putting the dollars in place
to make sure that you have a continuum of care that works for the
patients and works for the taxpayers, something you're not
doing.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Bisson. Any other comments before we have our
vote?
