Intended appointments /
Nominations prévues A-109
Mr Luc Guindon
Ms Carole Joy Kerbel
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
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 John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les
îles L)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 1004
in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr James J.
Bradley): I'm going to take the liberty of calling the
meeting to order.
The first item is the report of
the subcommittee on committee business, dated May 11, 2000.
Mr Bob Wood (London
West): I move it's adoption.
The Chair:
All in favour? Opposed? That is carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS / NOMINATIONS PRÉVUES
LUC GUINDON
Review of intended
appointment, selected by third party: Luc Guindon, intended
appointee as member, Assessment Review Board.
The Chair:
We now move to the appointments review. We're starting a
half-hour review of intended appointments as follows: From the
certificate received on April 28, 2000-I will explain for our
guests who may be here today that you come forward and we allow
people to have an initial statement and then questions by the
parties-I'll ask Mr Luc Guindon, intended appointee as member,
Assessment Review Board, to come forward, please. Welcome to the
committee. You are most welcome to make an initial statement, if
you wish, sir.
M. Luc
Guindon: Bonjour, monsieur le Président, madame et
messieurs. Je vous remercie de m'avoir donné l'occasion de
me présenter devant vous aujourd'hui pour discuter ma
candidature au poste de la Commission de révision de
l'évaluation foncière.
I believe I have what it
takes to fill one of the positions on the Assessment Review
Board. Being fluently bilingual and having acquired a wealth of
diversified experience in the private and public sectors, I
believe it will be very helpful in my role as an adjudicator. My
eight years' experience as a realtor have given me great insight
with property evaluation and the assessment process. As a real
estate professional, I acquired a wealth of experience in
property exchange and realty law.
Having been a member of the
Ontario Legislature, although for a short time, has given me
valuable experience. As a critic for francophone affairs, among
others, I was successful in passing Bill 8 through the House.
I'll just take a moment to explain that Bill 8 was the French
language services law which was unanimously approved by all
parties. As MPP for Cornwall, I served on many government
committees, including the standing committee on social
development which covered the province considering separate
school funding.
My 25 years' business
experience includes owning a successful business, effective
management, marketing and quality assurance, among others. The
last five years, being employed with an independent gasoline
retailer, permitted me once again to travel Ontario, from
Espanola to Belle River to Hawkesbury.
If I should be selected for
the position with the Assessment Review Board, you can look
forward to a team approach, where respect of individuals will be
a priority.
In closing, I would like to
thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear and I look
forward to any questions you may have with regard to my proposed
appointment.
The Chair:
This is a third party selection. Let me start with the third
party, Mr Martin.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault
Ste Marie): In your view of the role of the Assessment
Review Board in Ontario today, what would be the priorities in
your opinion?
Mr Guindon:
I believe the priority that exists right now is to eliminate the
backlog as much as possible and get caught up with the revisions
so that everything can be brought back to where it should be. It
is my understanding that what should be done, if I'm given the
chance, would be to get out there and get the job done.
Mr Martin:
What in your view is the reason we're stuck in the place that we
are at this point, where that's concerned?
Mr Guindon:
We've changed the assessment system to make it fairer across
Ontario so that all, from municipality to municipality, would be
relatively the same or at least very comparable, is my
understanding.
Mr Martin:
You think the biggest reason right now that we're stuck with the
backlog that's there is because we've changed the system?
Mr Guindon:
Part of it is that. When there's change, there is always concern,
and the biggest concern for the individuals or the property
owners is that they don't understand the future and they would
like to know what it will cost them down the road.
1010
Mr Martin:
You understand, I'm sure, from having watched what's unfolded
over the last few years in Ontario, that there's been a tremendous shift in
responsibility re who pays for what, which in my view has had
quite a significant impact on the load that now is going to be
placed on the shoulders of the property taxpayer in Ontario. We
call it the download. Has that had any impact on the number of
appeals people are coming forward with, because of some of that?
In your own view, has that had any impact on the fact that
there's this backlog in the system at this point?
Mr Guindon:
I couldn't answer that question. I'm not on the board and I'm not
aware of the whole situation you are bringing forth here. I
wouldn't want to take a chance and make comments I wouldn't be
sure of.
Mr Martin: I
guess what I'm trying to get at here is that when a tax appeal
gets to the appeal board or an assessment appeal gets to the
appeal board, we want to be sure there's somebody there who is
fair and balanced in their approach and is willing to take into
consideration all of the factors. You mentioned in your opening
that you were a team player. I look at the list of people who are
on that board. They tend to be, for the most part, business
people, which in itself doesn't cast any shadow, but in my
experience over the last 10 years most business people tend to
support the agenda of this government.
The fact that you were a
Conservative member of this Legislature at one point in time
might lend me to think that perhaps-where it came to an issue of
some individual landowner or property owner wanting a fair
assessment on his property, would your political connections or
past political affiliation affect in any way your ability to rule
in cases that come before the Assessment Review Board?
Mr Guindon:
Absolutely not. The role of adjudicator is to be fair, to
understand both sides, to make sure he gets all the explanation
that is needed and to render his decision with what he has. There
is no way that political affiliation, in my view, would make any
difference whatsoever. It's the facts that count in that process.
If the facts are there, the complainant will be satisfied, and if
the facts aren't there, the complainant won't be satisfied.
Mr Martin:
Are you still a member of the Conservative Party in Ontario?
Mr Guindon:
Mr Martin, my family name is similar to Nixon in southern
Ontario, Martel in northern Ontario and Grossman in Toronto. In
Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry, Prescott-Russell, yes, I'm guilty.
I'm still a member. I forgot Caplan.
Mr Martin: I
didn't use the word "guilty," Mr Chair; the person in front of us
did, but that's fine.
The Chair:
Mr Wood almost fell off his chair when that was said.
Mr Martin: I
wouldn't cast that aspersion, as the members across would know.
OK, that's all I needed to know.
The Chair:
I'll move to the governing party now.
M. Marcel Beaubien
(Lambton-Kent-Middlesex) : Bienvenue, monsieur Guindon.
Puisque vous avez été un député de 1985
jusqu'à 1987, j'espère que le parti
néo-démocrate vous laisseront votre vie comme
député, parce que les choses ont vraiment beaucoup
changé depuis 1987. Alors, essayer d'y rattacher que vous
avez peut-être un conflit avec les choses qui se passent
aujourd'hui parce que vous avez été député en
1987, je crois que ce n'est pas très responsable.
Personally, I have no
difficulties with the individual we have in front of us. I look
at his qualifications. Mr Martin, what I said to Mr Guindon was
that just because he was a member in 1985 to 1987, trying to
imply that the individual may have some difficulties in looking
at property assessments today, hopefully you will not hold that
against any individual for the rest of their lives. I think an
individual can still make some contribution, especially when you
look at the particular background. I am sure the same questions
were probably asked of candidates with political affiliations
when you were in government. I think that sometimes plays a role,
but we also have to look at the qualifications. I don't have any
further questions except the statements I've made because I feel
this individual is certainly qualified.
Mr Bob Wood (London
West): We'll waive the balance of our time.
The Chair:
I'll move to the official opposition, Mr Gerretsen.
Mr John Gerretsen
(Kingston and the Islands): Thank you very much, and
bienvenue, Mr Guindon.
I certainly don't hold it
against you that you've got a Conservative Party card. Some of my
best friends carry cards of other parties. More people should be
involved in the political process, hopefully carrying our cards,
but whatever card they carry. I think there aren't enough people
involved politically.
Having said that, let me just
ask you a few questions, and I'm not going to ask you whether you
are a true Conservative, a backer of Mr Clark, or whether you're
a Tom Long Reform Conservative. We have certainly found out with
this government what the vast majority of its members who are
elected in this Legislature are. Something that I've been saying
for years is that we don't have a Conservative Party à la Mr
Davis, for whom I have an awful lot of respect, or Mr Robarts,
and all the people who were here then. We've got a Reform
government here in Ontario, so if you carry a Conservative card,
you may be in trouble with this crowd because they all carry
Reform cards.
Having said that, however,
sir, and undoubtedly you will be selected, I wish you well in
your endeavours because there are, I believe, something like
600,000 appeals out there currently. Although you're only
applying for a part-time position, or are being appointed to
that, if you get approved, undoubtedly you will be busy for many
years to come.
I just have a couple of
questions. You were a member from 1985 to 1987?
Mr Guindon:
Yes, I was.
Mr
Gerretsen: If memory serves me correct, Mr Miller was in
power for probably about a month or so before the famous
Liberal-NDP accord was signed and the government was turned over
to Mr Peterson. You claimed credit for being instrumental in passing
Bill 8. Are you telling me that Bill 8 was passed during that
one-month time period when Miller was actually the Premier of
this province?
Mr Guindon:
I'm sorry if you misunderstood. I was the critic for my party and
it was Mr Peterson's government.
Mr
Gerretsen: That's right, because I'm very familiar with
Mr. Grandmaître and I always thought he was person who led
the charge to get Bill 8 approved. I want to give you full credit
for being the critic in your party, for supporting it, but I
believe he was instrumental in getting it through.
1020
I have some very serious
questions, though, about the fact that you are a realtor. You
were in the real estate business for eight years. There's a very
close link between realtors and the assessment values of
properties and things like that. What I'm concerned about-I'll
lay it right on the line and it's got absolutely nothing to do
with you personally-is this idea that if you're going to be
involved in assessment reviews within your own area of influence
in eastern Ontario, having been involved in the real estate
business or maybe still being involved in it, and also being an
assessor which in effect greatly influences what the taxation on
a property is going to be, do you feel there is a potential
conflict of interest there in your opinion?
Mr Guindon:
No. As an adjudicator there would be no conflict of interest.
It's a straightforward thing. If there were a conflict of
interest, I'd make sure I covered it with the chair of the board.
I'd let him know and I wouldn't accept it if there was, if it was
family or something like that. If it's just to adjudicate a
problem between an appellant and the assessment office, I don't
see any conflict of interest there. It's the facts that speak for
themselves.
Mr
Gerretsen: I'm not thinking so much of that. You
wouldn't, obviously, be involved in the reassessment of a
property owned by yourself, a family member, a close friend or
other relative etc. But let's assume that you were involved
either in an ownership capacity or as a listing agent or a broker
with a particular kind of commercial property, and at the same
time you were asked to deal with an interpretation on another
commercial property that somehow could be-they're not connected
but in the same general classification-would you not think there
may possibly be a conflict? If you gave a decision which may
lower the value or lower the taxes on a particular property-I
know we're only talking about market value and then you take the
assessment rate to get the taxes-ultimately, if you were involved
in setting the tax rate for a particular property and you were
involved with like properties in the same general area of eastern
Ontario, that may very well affect the value of properties that
you yourself either have a personal or a business interest in,
would you not think there's a possibility of a conflict
there?
Mr Guindon:
First all, the impression I left: I was a realtor and I left. I
don't belong to the real estate board and I don't have a valid
licence at this time.
Mr
Gerretsen: When did you leave that profession, sir?
Mr Guindon:
In 1994.
Mr
Gerretsen: What do you do now, if you don't mind my
asking?
Mr Guindon:
I am self-employed and doing mostly volunteer work.
Mr
Gerretsen: I see
Mr Guindon:
I do some volunteer work for the city of Cornwall and for my
community. It gives me a chance here to plug the city of
Cornwall. There's a new avenue or venture that's being
established in revitalizing an older part the city and we're
doing it with contributions, and also with contributions from the
city. If there are older, dilapidated properties in the community
that have been neglected, we will look after making sure that
they are bought, rebuilt or renovated, resold or whatever. It's
quite a project.
Mr
Gerretsen: Let me ask you one other question and it's a
general question. In your discussions you may have had with
people at the board, to orient you to this thing if you were
appointed etc, is it your understanding that you will be sitting
on assessment review applications in Cornwall, as well, or has
the department, as far as you know, basically made a decision
that people are not expected to sit as assessment review officers
in their own community? Do you know anything about that at
all?
Mr Guindon:
No, I don't. I had one phone call from the chair and his only
concern was how much time I could give him, and he was satisfied
with the answer I gave him. I'm also ready to travel the
province. If there's any way, I would even prefer if it wouldn't
be in my own community, just for perception.
Mr
Gerretsen: How much time do you think will be taken up
with this duty in the first year or couple of years? Is it your
understanding that it will be quite extensive, from talking to
him?
Mr Guindon:
No, we didn't talk about that.
Mr
Gerretsen: You just gave an answer to a question that he
asked you about how much time you were prepared to put-
Mr Guindon:
Yes.
Mr
Gerretsen: How much time do you think you will be
putting into it?
Mr Guindon:
He asked me if I was prepared to give him a two-week block per
month and I said yes.
Mr
Gerretsen: Two weeks, OK. Thank you very much and good
luck. You'll have a big job ahead of you.
Mr Bruce Crozier
(Essex): Do I have any time?
The Chair:
Yes, Mr Crozier, you have two minutes.
Mr Crozier:
Welcome. Just to continue with some of the questioning of my
colleague, how much would you be paid per day as a per diem?
Mr Guindon:
I'm not sure. I have read papers and in one case I've seen $34 an
hour, but I have not asked. The information I was given was about
$200 a day.
Mr Crozier: So $200 a day; that's
great. The reason I asked is that at the current time I have some
people in my riding, 40 deckhands and dockhands who are on strike
and the government won't help them out. They make $14 an hour and
they're asking for 42 cents an hour. So I may take that back and
say, well, we appoint people with no experience in the particular
board you're going on and you get a couple of hundred bucks a
day. That's pretty good. I'll take that back.
Mr Guindon:
You'll have to check that. I'm sure you know the answer better
than I do.
Mr Crozier:
No, quite frankly, I don't.
Mr
Gerretsen: They don't tell us very much, sir.
Mr Guindon:
It must be public information.
Mr Crozier:
It probably is.
The Chair:
Thank you for your questions. Your time is finished, members of
the official opposition. We have now completed the three parties'
questioning. Thank you, Monsieur Guindon, for being with us
today.
CAROLE JOY KERBEL
Review of intended
appointment, selected by third party: Carole Joy Kerbel, intended
appointee as member, Toronto District Health Council.
The Chair:
Our next intended appointee is Carole Joy Kerbel. She'll correct
my pronunciation, if necessary. She's an intended appointee to
the Toronto District Health Council. As you know, we have the
opportunity for intended appointees to make an initial statement.
I should welcome you to the committee to begin with.
Ms Carole Joy
Kerbel: Thank you for inviting me here. I would like to
make an opening statement. I understand that some of you may have
seen my CV, but I'm sure that with all the paper you have in
front of you, there might be some parts of it you may not
remember. Allow me to say the following:
I have been involved in the
health care field for close to 20 years and began at a very early
age to have an interest in health care issues as a result of
working with emotionally disturbed and autistic children after
finishing school.
I began my career in public
relations by working in the community. I went back to school as a
mature student and as a mother and wife at the same time, and
shortly thereafter opened up my own agency. Within a few years I
began to focus on health care and went on to form Kerbel
Communications and became a specialist in health care public
relations. I concentrated on creating national public education
programs about disease management; continuing health education
programs for health professionals and providers, doctors, nurses
and pharmacists; consumer awareness and education programs on
disease prevention and health promotion.
Being a member and an active
volunteer in the Toronto community and a skilled manager and
senior executive, as well as a professional public relations and
communications consultant, I was asked to sit on various boards
and commissions: the Toronto Transit Commission, the Toronto
General Hospital, the Toronto Zoo, the Toronto Licensing
Commission and Exhibition Place. My skills were put to good use
in each instance. I became involved in the operations of each
organization and initiated a number of changes in policy and
direction. I would hope that my leadership skills were reflected
in the fact that I was asked to submit my name for reappointment
in all of those boards and commissions, save the TTC, which
eliminated citizen appointments.
As a consultant, I've had the
privilege of working on a variety of assignments in the health
care field. I've assisted hospitals in change management
activities. I've provided advice in crisis management to health
care organizations across the province. I've provided strategic
advice to companies and organizations and associations so as to
better deal with the health care initiatives in this province. I
have facilitated consultations with stakeholders on a number of
issues and worked with community groups, providers, home care
groups, employee groups, management and patient advocates, to
name a few.
I'm still active as a
consultant and have recently expanded my interest to include the
area of e-health. I believe I am qualified to serve as a member
of the Toronto District Health Council.
1030
The Chair:
Thanks, kindly. I'm going to start with the government
caucus.
Mr Wood: We
will reserve our time, Mr Chair.
The Chair:
We'll go to the official opposition.
Mr
Gerretsen: Good morning. I noticed from your resumé
that you were involved with the Hotel Dieu Hospital in Kingston,
which is my hometown. What kind of work did you do for them, if
you don't mind my asking?
Ms Kerbel:
After the hospital services restructuring commission mandated
that the Hotel Dieu change the way it must operate and in fact
close down and become an ambulatory care centre, we were asked by
the sisters and the management to assist them in explaining those
issues to the community, and to assist them in developing a
communications plan as they went through the ensuing months to
try to convince the HSRC that perhaps it might not have been the
right decision, but to make sure the community understood that
Hotel Dieu was going to be there for them.
Mr
Gerretsen: Did you agree with the decision of the Health
Services Restructuring Commission to close the Hotel Dieu
Hospital, which been operating in Kingston for 150 years,
providing good care to the people of southeastern Ontario?
Ms Kerbel:
It wasn't my place to agree or disagree, sir. I was a consultant
to that particular assignment and I became involved with the
issue as a result of being retained by Hotel Dieu and its
management.
Mr
Gerretsen: Did you find it kind of odd that for two
years the government stonewalled the situation and, as you know,
the Hotel Dieu sisters had to take their case all the way up to
the Supreme Court of Canada. The Minister of Health never gave an
inch, not even allowing the sisters to, in effect, run their hospital
until the new facility was built, and then all of a sudden the
Premier comes to town and at a fundraiser and in an offhand
remark to one of the reporters he said, "Oh, yes, the sisters can
continue to run their hospital," and the next day the Minister of
Health sent them a letter saying, "I guess you can run the
hospital until the new one gets built." Did you find that odd, as
a consultant, that all of a sudden government policy could just
change overnight?
Ms Kerbel:
I've been a consultant for a number of years in this province and
I really don't find anything odd any more. There are a number of
issues surrounding health care, and I think that to be ahead of
them you have to understand that things are very complicated and
there are no quick answers.
Mr
Gerretsen: Do you agree, then, with the Premier's
position now that the sisters should continue to run their
hospital?
Ms Kerbel:
I'm not a consultant to them at this time any more and I
haven't-
Mr
Gerretsen: I'm just asking you, being so knowledgeable
in the health care field, do you agree that maybe they should?
You agree with the Premier on this, surely.
Ms Kerbel:
I agree with the decision that hopefully will be the right
decision for the community. I think there are a lot of issues and
a lot of aspects to the decision. Having been part of the
community communications program, whatever is going to continue
to provide that health care service to the community would be the
right decision.
Mr
Gerretsen: You know that petitions were taken up and
signed by 70,000 people in the Kingston area wanting the Hotel
Dieu to stay open.
Ms Kerbel:
Yes, I'm aware of that.
Mr
Gerretsen: I see that you were involved with the Toronto
Zoo. Do you think that is sort of a special qualification you
need in order to deal with this current government, since you're
going to be part of the district health council in Toronto?
Ms Kerbel:
I would hope there's not a hidden question somewhere in that.
Mr
Gerretsen: No, of course not.
Ms Kerbel:
I listed my various appointments to boards and commissions to
demonstrate that I have very deep roots in the Toronto community.
In fact, the appointment to the Toronto Zoo was one of the first
appointments I had many years ago, but it does at least explain
that I know all aspects of what happens in the Toronto community
from cultural to social to community service.
Mr
Gerretsen: By the way, I'm a great supporter of the zoo.
I took my children there when they were younger many times. It
could be very beneficial, having worked with animals, to help you
in this new job. I'm not making any kind of aspersions there at
all. It might just happen.
Let me ask you quite
seriously, where do you feel the private health care system, the
privatization of certain aspects of our health care system, fits
into the public health care, medicare system we have in Canada?
This is a great concern, as you well know, not only here but in
other countries as well. Undoubtedly, the district health
council-I was on the one in Frontenac county for a number of
years, some 15, 20 years ago. There's a great concern that a lot
of different services will be privatized. People are concerned
about it. Where do you think private health care plays a role in
our health care system?
Ms Kerbel:
With regard to the district health council, I'm not sure whether
that is an issue that they are looking at right now. Not having
been a member of that board, I wouldn't know whether that's an
issue.
With respect to your
question on private health care, I think that's a debate that
will go on for some time. I don't believe there is an easy answer
that I can give you. I'm just one person in the health care
industry. I watch the debate, I listen very closely, and I look
for opportunities to find ways to better serve the citizens of
Ontario with the delivery of health care.
I'm not sure at this point
what that would take, but I do believe that the process of
delivering health care and the process of changing the way health
care is delivered is the result of a number of factors that you
obviously know about. We have to look at what is going to make
the consumer, the patient, the citizen, properly cared for so
that they have the access they need to the service when they need
it and where they need it and what they need.
Mr
Gerretsen: I'm very encouraged by that answer because I
think that in much of the debate that has taken place, the
patient or the consumer or the citizen is hardly ever mentioned.
We always seem to be talking about governance and structure more
than what it's really all about, and that is, are people going to
be better off with a certain kind of health care delivery than
with another kind? Would it be fair to say then that you are
approaching this position without any inherent biases either
towards the totally publicly run system or a private system?
Ms Kerbel:
I think it would be fair to say that I'm approaching this
position with a very open mind, with a focus on the needs of the
community.
The Chair:
Mr Crozier, you have two minutes.
Mr
Crozier: Welcome. I wish you well in your appointment,
which I have little doubt will be affirmed this morning. I'm
always curious though-you're a very busy person; did you seek
this appointment?
Ms Kerbel:
I was asked some time ago to submit my curriculum vitae to the
minister's office. I've been very involved in health care in this
province. As the result of people knowing my involvement, they
asked to see that and I was asked if I would be interested.
Mr
Crozier: Are you aware whether anyone else was asked to
submit a-
Ms Kerbel:
No, sir.
Mr
Crozier: Just simply not aware.
Ms Kerbel:
I'm not aware.
Mr
Crozier: Yes. OK. Well, I wish you well.
The Chair:
Mr Martin.
Mr Martin: Thanks for coming this
morning. It's certainly an impressive resumé, a lot of good
work on your part in some very important sectors of our
community. As you know, there's a very important and current
debate out there right now about the health care system and where
it should go, whether it should be private or public or some
combination of the two. The debate that happened in Alberta
around Bill 11 raises some red flags for a whole lot of us.
What's your view? Should health care in Canada continue to be
publicly funded, publicly delivered?
Ms Kerbel:
As I mentioned before to the previous question, I am closely
watching the debate on whether it should continue to be fully,
100% a public health care system. The system has served us well
in the last number of years.
I come to this position,
should I be given the privilege of serving on the council, with
an open mind, as I said, to try to determine what it's going to
take to continue to deliver the system that we all expect to have
when we want it. There really isn't a yes or no answer to that
question as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe in throwing out
the baby with the bathwater. I believe in looking at what we have
and seeing how we can improve upon it if possible.
1040
Mr Martin:
I hope that you do come with an open mind. However, I have to be
impressed with the connection that you have with some very
important private sector corporations, the work that you've done
in crisis consulting, issues management and public relations. It
worries me that under the pressure of having to make decisions in
a system that's crying out for attention, that's in some high
degree of crisis at the moment, your fallback position may be not
so much open as to-you know, "This is what I've done in the past
and this is my experience and this is my view because of where I
come from." You don't think that's going to happen?
Ms Kerbel:
I don't believe it will happen. I think I have the right sense of
balance, if you call it that, to understand what is going to be
necessary to make the right decisions about certain issues. I
have worked throughout my career for both the public sector and
the private sector on various assignments, and I have always
brought that sense of understanding and balance and clear
thinking to any of the issues that I have been involved with.
That's what I hope to bring to this position as well, depending
on what the issues are. I don't necessarily represent one aspect
or another. I tend to look at all parts of an issue, all sides of
an issue and try to work in order to help people make the right
decision for the right reasons.
Mr Martin:
The concern I have as well is in terms of some possible conflict
of interest, given some of the organizations that you worked for
in your professional life and some of your history advising
operations like Corrections Corp of America, for example, that
have moved into Ontario and are interested in the privatization
of our jails and the work that you did with the Ontario Gaming
Operators Association in terms of some of the casinos that we
have in the province and the fact that your company, and perhaps
yourself, is registered as a lobbyist with the government. Do you
not see any potential there for conflict of interest or-
Ms Kerbel:
I personally am not a lobbyist. I have been a consultant in the
communications field for well over 20 years. I take on
assignments as my clients ask me to. However, at this time I am
not involved in the hands-on operations of the company that I
work with. I have been appointed chairman, which is an honorary
position. It allows me to take a look at the quality control of
the company, the way in which the company deals with the various
issues. I personally am not involved at this time in those
projects nor am I a lobbyist.
Mr Martin:
The health care system at the moment is in quite a state. That's
putting it mildly. No matter where you look in Ontario today and
no matter what newspaper you pick up, it seems there's another
story about some difficulty somewhere. You're being asked to
consider appointment to this organization. You don't think if you
were brought in to maybe bring your public relations, crisis
management skills, to a circumstance to help the government sort
that out-would that be-
Ms Kerbel:
Those are just some of my skills. I believe that my knowledge of
health care and my commitment to community interests in health
care are probably more the priority reasons as to why I would
have been asked to serve on this council. I have a history of
being in the consulting business. That's my profession. But I
would think that what I have done in health care and how I have
been able to represent all facets, from the patient to the
consumer to the provider, and to understand all of the issues
surrounding the delivery of health care, is what would have
attracted me to those who asked me to serve on this council.
The Chair:
All questions are now completed and we thank you very much for
being with the committee today. You're allowed to step down.
We now go to what's called
other business, and that is, dealing with the-
Mr Wood:
We're not going to deal with concurrences? Are we going to concur
on these people?
The Chair:
Yes. We're going to deal with other business, which is
concurrences.
Mr Wood:
OK. I thought the concurrences were included. Carry on.
The Chair:
Thank you. I'll accept the normal motions that would follow our
interviews with the particular intended appointees.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Guindon.
The Chair:
Concurrence in the appointment of Mr Guindon has been moved by Mr
Wood. Any discussion, first of all? I have Mr Martin and I have
Mr Spina.
Mr Martin:
I just want to say that I'm fairly comfortable with this
appointment. I hope that nobody read into my question of whether
the appointee was a Conservative that I feel that should be held
against him. The fact that he served as a member of this august assembly
for some period of time is something that I think we should all
hold in some esteem around this table, given that we'll be there
one day ourselves, and we hope that others will look on us as
having-
The Chair:
Speak for yourself.
Mr Martin:
Well, at some point, unless we die in office-and that our
expertise and experience would be worth something and that we
would be considered. The only point I was trying to make there
was that we see a lot of appointments coming through here these
days that have some very direct political connections to the
governing party, and I guess that's fair. I suppose all parties
did that when they were government, although not to the degree
that we're seeing these days. It seems anybody with a blue
card-although there's some question right now as to just how blue
that card is and whether in fact you might get an appointment or
not. I think that was the comment by my colleague from
Kingston.
Mr
Crozier: Blue light or-
Mr Martin:
Whether it's blue light or dark blue or whatever is the question
at this point in time.
Having said all of that, I
will be supporting the appointment of Mr Guindon to this board,
hoping that he will do a fair and equitable job and consider all
factors and help us sort out the mess that we find ourselves in
right now where this business is concerned.
The Chair:
Any other comments? Mr Spina, you wanted to comment.
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): I was just going to ask for a
recorded vote. But I'll make a comment that, frankly, what
happens in Ottawa is a pox on all our houses. We in Ontario are
what we are, period, and that is the Ontario PC Party. I would
ask for a recorded vote, if I may.
The Chair:
That's fine. Very good, Mr Spina.
Mr
Gerretsen: I wasn't going to say anything, but I believe
that Mr Spina has provoked me sufficiently to call on a response.
I would like him to declare publicly here whether or not he's a
true Conservative or whether he supports Mr Long as a
card-carrying Reform member.
The Chair:
I'm declaring that question out of order. Mr Spina will indicate
whatever Mr Spina wishes to and we cannot question Mr Spina, only
the applicants.
Mr
Gerretsen: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I think it's
an excellent ruling.
I support Mr Guindon. I
think that he will make an excellent member. But I would just
caution-particularly with people who are involved in the real
estate business and may have some real estate holdings
themselves-that I don't know where he's going to do most of his
hearings, but if there are hearings to be held in the Cornwall
area and if he still has real estate interests there, a ruling on
a particular kind of property about which he or his family is not
involved at all, or what have you, could affect the value of his
family's as well.
I would just make a request
to the government lead person on this, the eminent Mr Wood, that
perhaps a discussion should be held with the chairman of the
board to ensure that members-and I'm not just pointing out this
particular applicant-of the Assessment Review Board in general
should not be involved in hearings in their own community. I
think it will give much greater credence to the general public
that there isn't anything untoward going on. I mean that not in a
partisan sort of way, but I think the system itself would be the
better for it.
1050
The Chair:
A recorded vote has been requested. All in favour?
The Chair:
That has been carried unanimously. And our second
appointment?
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence in the intended appointment of Ms Kerbel.
The Chair:
Any comments? First of all, Mr Martin-you had your hand up
first-and then Mr Gerretsen.
Mr Martin:
On this one, I'm afraid I'm just too uneasy and uncomfortable,
and I think I speak very competently on behalf of my caucus when
I say that even though this person has tremendous credentials and
background for connection with the private sector, her openness
to the possibility of moving down the road of private-public
partnerships, of that kind in any way, in the health care system
in this province, which will lead eventually to the whole
country, worries me deeply and greatly.
In my view, this
appointment is just too convenient. The intended appointee comes
to this with a wealth of experience in working with the private
sector in lobbying government and working with government in the
better interests of the corporate entity that she is contracted
to, and is obviously quite successful in that work, and that
worries me as well in that I cannot say more seriously and more
profoundly that I and my caucus and the NDP in general across
this country oppose unequivocally any move to privatize or
partner private-public our health care system that we've all
spent so long building up, that we've all contributed to and that
has positioned us in many significant and serious ways, whether
it's from an economic advantage perspective, whether it's from a
social perspective or a moral and ethically perspective, as
leader in the world where the delivery of health care is
concerned.
Yes, there are some
difficulties and I think those difficulties have been identified:
a shortage in funding from both the federal and provincial
governments where health care is concerned. I believe that if
that money were there, if the federal government and the
provincial government were as cognizant of the real need that's
there as I think the majority of Canadians are, they would do the
right thing and we wouldn't be in the mess that we're in and we
wouldn't need the services of people such as the intended appointee here this
morning to fix this crisis, to put together a public relations
plan to sell the new privatized, semi-privatized,
public-sector/private-sector arrangement that I believe is being
cooked up in the backrooms of this government and that we will be
seeing in the not-too-distant future rolled out and become the
order of the day if some of us don't stand up and say no as often
and as loudly and as effectively as we can at every
opportunity.
With certainly no personal
criticism of the intended appointee's abilities here this
morning, from that philosophic stance and from my sense of where
this might be going, I will not be lending the support of my
caucus to this appointment.
The Chair:
Monsieur Beaubien.
Mr
Beaubien: I will definitely be lending my support to
this particular individual. Unlike Mr Martin-I don't know which
backrooms he's talking about-I was quite impressed, and I think
Mr Martin was quite impressed when the applicant stated that one
of the criteria in assessing the private-public sector with
regard to medical needs was that the patient would play a major
role and I think, if you remember, we would take that into
consideration. If we kept our eyes on the patient as opposed to
political ideology and other issues and turf protection, maybe
the public would be better served, not only in Toronto, not only
in Ontario but probably in Canada.
I find it difficult to
believe that anyone would hold a wealth of experience as an
impediment to appointing somebody to a committee. The CV of this
individual, whom I do not know personally, gives us a picture of
a person who's very well qualified, who has been involved in
their community for a number of years, who is dedicated and who
has the experience and the knowledge to deal with the appointment
that she has been asked to apply for.
I find it difficult to
believe that you would withhold your support for a person because
the person has been involved with the private sector. The private
sector has played a major role in where we are today in our
society in Ontario. Without the private sector, where would we
be? You talk about the private sector being involved. You should
look at the social housing programs you had during your stay in
government and you should be ashamed that you probably spent more
money on consultants prior to erecting the facility than you
spent on building the facility.
Consequently, with these
comments I'll definitely support this individual.
The Chair:
Any other comments?
Mr
Beaubien: I would ask for a recorded vote also.
Mr
Gerretsen: We did not ask this applicant her political
affiliation and, as I indicated before, not that it matters much,
but certainly in her approach to the issue she seemed to me to be
very liberally minded.
Having said that, I'm
always encouraged when I see that somebody has been appointed by
a municipal council to various boards and commissions. I always
feel that at the municipal level we don't have the partisan
politics that we do at this or the federal level. Yes, obviously
politics are played as well because it is a political body, but
people aren't necessarily appointed because of their political
stripe one way or the other.
When I look at her
application, she was the city of Toronto's representative on the
Toronto General Hospital board for eight years. She was a Toronto
council representative at the Toronto Transit Commission as a
commissioner. She was also appointed by the Toronto council to
the Toronto Licensing Commission. I can only assume from that-and
I hope that my assumption is correct, and I've got no reason to
disbelieve it-that this person is extremely competent when she
sits on these boards and commissions or else she wouldn't have
been appointed to all of these.
Even if something is a
purely political appointment, and it does happen from time to
time even at the local level, normally with those kinds of
appointments, if they bomb, the person just simply doesn't get
reappointed to anything else. This individual has an extremely
good resumé when it comes to her commitment to her
community. That's why we will be supporting it.
There's just one other
comment I want to make. We tend to forget that the private sector
is already largely involved in the health care system. I don't
know what it is from a dollars-and-cents viewpoint, but when you
look at the number of private companies that are out there, when
you look at the different drug benefit plans etc, I think-what is
it?-up to 40% of the total money that's being expended on health
care in the province goes in effect to private companies.
I certainly agree with Mr
Martin. One thing I've committed myself to is to fight tooth and
nail to make sure that the five principles of the Canada Health
Act are going to be preserved, regardless of who pays the bills,
and that we continue with our publicly funded health care system
and not allow the intrusion of private health care to come into
the system any more than it already has.
I agree with Mr Spina. I
think the fact that she talked about the potential patients, the
consumers, as being the most important individual or group to
worry about-everything should start there. Rather than from the
top down, it should start from the bottom up. I will be
supporting this nomination and wish her well.
1100
The Chair:
If no one else wishes to speak, we've had a request from M.
Beaubien for a recorded vote.
Any further business to
come before the committee?
Mr Gerretsen: I would like to
raise one issue. I realize I'm not a regular member of this
committee, but I believe it is really in the public interest-it
almost demands it, particularly when one looks at everything
that's gone on over the last six months, and since it is the
standing committee on government agencies-that this body
immediately look into the whole operation of the Ontario Realty
Corp. I would move that as a motion, and I hope to get unanimous
support on that from everyone here to look at the structure of
the organization. I think the public demands it.
The mood of the House by
the majority party does not seem to indicate that currently, but
I would hope that with the four prominent Conservative members we
have here-we have the Deputy Speaker here. He's certainly a very
prominent individual in the House. We have M. Beaubien here from
Lambton county, a well-known individual. Need I say anything
about Mr Spina at all? He certainly comes well equipped to look
into this. And of course I shouldn't forget Mr Wood, who is the
absolute epitome of what it takes to make sure the government
gets its appointments through this committee. He has been very
effective in doing that over the last number of years.
I'm sure these gentlemen
will agree with me, as will, I hope, Mr Martin, that an immediate
review of the Ontario Realty Corp be conducted by this committee,
and I would move that as a motion.
Mr
Crozier: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Chair:
First of all, I should say to you that the committee rules say
that any motion that is brought forward must be in writing for
members of the committee to consider. I'm informed that the
motion is in order, but it can only be dealt with if we have a
written-
Mr
Gerretsen: I'm putting it in writing right now, Mr
Chair.
The Chair:
It must be in writing for members of the committee to be able to
see because they don't want to vote on something they just heard.
Are there any comments, by the way, about challenging it or
anything like that?
Mr Wood: I
have a comment. We're opposed to this motion. The proper
procedure is to submit this to the subcommittee, which already
has a list of agencies they wish to review. I have no objection
to it going on that list, but I would encourage Mr Gerretsen to
submit it to the subcommittee, which can then place it on the
list and deal with it in accordance with the direction of the
committee.
The Chair:
Thank you for the advice, Mr Wood.
Mr Martin:
I'd be supportive of this motion. It's very current and topical.
It could be considered, I think, an emergency situation. If there
are other agencies on that list-and I'm not sure which ones they
are; I may have put a couple on myself-I would be willing to
stand those down in the interests of having this particular
corporation come before us and doing it as quickly as possible. I
would certainly be supportive of that motion.
Mr
Crozier: It may be that the standard procedure is to
take a motion like this before the subcommittee, but the members
of the subcommittee will recall, and I suspect that the other
members of the government caucus were aware, that prior to the
intersession, near the end of December, we in the committee
collectively-other than participation by Mr Wood-suggested some
boards and agencies that should be reviewed at that time. We
discussed it at some length and then the answer from Mr Wood was,
"My members don't want to review any of these during the
intersession."
Mr
Gerretsen: Oh, no.
Mr
Crozier: I was extremely disappointed in that.
Therefore, if we can't deal with that sort of thing at the
subcommittee and get our points across, I think it's appropriate
that a motion like this be brought before the whole
committee.
Mr Wood:
I'd like to add to what Mr Crozier has said. The authorization to
deal with that in the intersession had to come from the House and
it was not forthcoming.
Mr
Crozier: We didn't ask them, for God's sake.
Mr Wood:
We certainly didn't ask them.
Mr
Crozier: You just put your foot on it and said: "We're
not going to talk about those kinds of things. We don't want to
go"-
The Chair:
Order. Mr Wood has the floor.
Mr Wood:
We did not indeed see it appropriate to deal with that in the
intersession. As far as I know, neither of the other two House
leaders put it forward either.
The Chair:
Mr Gerretsen.
Mr
Gerretsen: Just a comment to that. Normally the House
leaders will only put it forward if they're requested by a
committee to do it for a certain period of time. I wasn't trying
to subvert the subcommittee at all. This is a general statement
that this is an agency that ought to be looked at. Undoubtedly,
if this motion passes, the subcommittee would have to work out
the details of it.
I think the public cries
out for this kind of review. This is a government that believes
in putting taxpayers' dollars back into their pockets. Surely
they will agree that from all of the stuff we've heard in the
House, and the millions and millions of dollars that have been
lost from the public purse as a result of some of these land
deals, it is high time we review not those particular situations,
but that we review the effectiveness and the whole workings of
this agency as soon as possible. That's the intent of the motion.
If it passes, the subcommittee can then immediately work out the
details as to how it can be done.
The Chair:
Do any of the government members wish to speak? First of all, I
better go to Mr Johnson. He hasn't had a chance yet.
Mr Bert Johnson
(Perth-Middlesex): Just a couple of comments, Mr Chair.
I have, over the last number of years, been a little bit involved
in two of the properties that were owned by the Ontario Realty
Corp. From my point of view, I wouldn't like to see anything this
committee does delay or usurp the criminal investigations
that are going on at the
present time. That's why I will not be supporting this particular
motion.
Mr
Gerretsen: Are you saying you're under criminal
investigation?
The Chair:
No, he did not say that. Mr Martin.
Mr Martin:
I just want to correct the record or to at least put on the
record my view of what happened before we rose at
Christmastime.
I brought it to my House
leader that we wanted to review at least two public agencies
during the intersession. We were of the hope that you were
bringing it to your House leader so that it could in fact be
discussed there, but from what our House leader tells us, there
was no appetite on your side to do that kind of thing, to review
those agencies. I raised it here-it's on the record; it's in
Hansard-and spoke to it very passionately, laying out my thoughts
on why I thought we needed to do that. I brought it to my House
leader and we just were not able to push that forward. We were
not able to make it happen. I think if you check the record, Mr
Wood, you'll see it's very clear from your side that you folks
just weren't interested, so to hang it on some technicality is
incorrect, in my view.
Mr Wood:
Mr Martin is quite right in saying that we didn't think the
agency should be reviewed during the intersession. As far as I
know, it was not brought up by any of the House leaders at the
House leaders' meeting, though I wasn't there so I could stand
corrected on that.
The Chair:
Any other comments that are relevant to this?
Mr
Crozier: Just to add to the record here-of course at
subcommittee there is no Hansard-I can recall very well that we
were sitting in the west members' lobby and that Mr Wood, as he
has just said, expressed that there was no appetite for doing
that during the intersession. I just wanted to emphasize that I
was disappointed at that time. That's why I support Mr
Gerretsen's motion being brought to the full committee
meeting.
The Chair:
Any other comments?
Mr
Crozier: We will have a recorded vote.
The Chair:
Mr Spina has a comment.
Mr Spina:
I actually have a question here. In order for this motion to come
forward, does it not require unanimous consent?
The Chair:
No. The motion is in order. Items of business of this kind can be
brought forward to the committee at any time.
Mr Spina:
It's also my understanding that all of the committee members are
to see the motion in writing. Or does it just have to be
submitted to the Chair?
The Chair:
I think it is submitted to the Chair and it is read by the Chair
or the clerk. If you'd like it read it again, I'll be happy to
have it read again because it's important we know exactly what it
says.
Mr Spina:
I would ask that that be done.
Clerk of the
Committee (Mr Doug Arnott): Mr Gerretsen has moved that
the standing committee on government agencies conduct an
immediate review of the Ontario Realty Corp.
Mr Spina:
In view of the specificity of the request of the motion, I would
be opposed to it. I was under the impression that this was a
discussion on the general context or review of agencies. I agree
with my colleague that, considering that the investigations are
being undertaken now within ORC and a restructuring process has
resulted or will be resulting from the conclusion of that
investigation, perhaps this might be something to be considered
when that is entirely done. At this point, I would oppose the
motion.
The Chair:
Any other comments by any other member of the committee relevant
to this motion?
Mr
Gerretsen: Is it possible, Mr Chair, for me to take back
from the record all the positive comments that I made about the
government members?
The Chair:
No. I think that once it is on Hansard, it is there forever.
We've had a request for a
recorded vote. I'll call the motion now.
AYES
Crozier, Gerretsen,
Martin.
NAYS
Beaubien, Johnson, Spina,
Wood.
The Chair:
The motion is defeated. Any other business for the committee?
I'll entertain a motion to adjourn then. Mr Wood moves that we
adjourn. All in favour? Carried.
