INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
ROB NICHOLSON
CONTENTS
Wednesday 10 June 1998
Intended appointments
Mr Rob Nicholson
Mr Larry Miller
Ms Joan Fennimore
Mr Jean-Paul Charles
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur L)
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth PC)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North / -Nord PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 0932 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Ms Frances Lankin): We will call the meeting to order.
The first item of business is to accept the report of the subcommittee on committee business dated Thursday, June 4, 1998. Could I have a motion to that effect, please? Mr Grimmett, thank you.
All those in favour, please indicate. Those opposed? Carried.
I just indicate that the timing, as it says here, for scheduling Mr Horrox is to be determined. We're currently checking his availability. It will either be a half-hour meeting next week because there are no other scheduled appointments or it will be a half-hour added on to the week following, depending on availability. We'll be in touch with you.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
ROB NICHOLSON
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Rob Nicholson, intended appointee as municipal member, Niagara Escarpment Commission.
The Chair: If we can move to review of appointments, our first guest today is Mr Rob Nicholson. Welcome. If you have a few opening comments that you would like to make, please feel free to do so, and we'll begin questioning after that with the government caucus.
Mr Rob Nicholson: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. As a member of the council of the regional municipality of Niagara, I was pleased that my name was forwarded by that body to be considered for an appointment to the Niagara Escarpment Commission. It's my understanding that this is the final step in that process, so I would certainly be pleased to have the support of this committee.
By way of background, I should indicate to you that I am a lifelong resident of Niagara Falls. Besides being a regional councillor in Niagara I work with a communications company, but spend most of my time practising law in the city of Niagara Falls. For your information, I'm a member of the planning committee in the regional municipality of Niagara, and that, with my legal work, has provided me with some familiarity with the area of land use policies and planning in general. I hope to draw upon that experience, as well as my legal experience, to assist me if my name is approved for the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
I am familiar with committee structures and the decision-making process within a board or committee. I served for nine years, between 1984 and 1993, as the Progressive Conservative member of Parliament for Niagara Falls. Within that period of time I served for approximately four years as secretary to the Minister of Justice and in that capacity I dealt with the standing committee on justice and the Attorney General on a regular basis. I worked on dozens of pieces of legislation and appeared as a witness on behalf of the minister in this particular role on many occasions. For five months in 1993 I also served as Canada's Minister for Science and Minister responsible for Small Business. Prior to that time, however, most of my responsibility in Ottawa dealt with justice-related issues. Again, the interpretation of legislation and an evenhanded approach to these things I think will be of some assistance.
I was a volunteer committee member in 1987 when changes were made to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I believe that experience, as well as my general experience over the past 19 years, gives me some insight into balancing and reconciling the competing interests that come into play in environmental issues.
The Niagara Escarpment Commission has an important part to play in balancing our long-term objective, which is to protect our environment and, in particular, to maintain the integrity of the escarpment and the legitimate interests of those who live and work in the area.
As I indicated to you, I'm a lifelong resident of Niagara Falls and I believe it's a credit to the education system within this province that those of us who grew up in the Niagara Peninsula were taught to develop an appreciation of our heritage and the custodial relationship we have to the Niagara Escarpment.
Those are my opening comments.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Nicholson.
Mr Grimmett, there are about five minutes remaining.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Welcome to the committee, Mr Nicholson. The members of the committee are generally interested, when we have a suggested appointee to the Niagara Escarpment Commission, in the views of the applicant with regard to development on the escarpment. I wonder if, in your practice as a lawyer, you've ever appeared before the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
Mr Nicholson: I have not.
Mr Grimmett: I wonder if you could give us some comment on how your involvement in local public office might have affected your views of the Niagara Escarpment Commission and what your views might be if you're given the opportunity to sit on it.
Mr Nicholson: I've indicated to you in my final comments that those of us who grew up very close to the Niagara Escarpment Commission developed a very positive attitude towards it, that it is something worth preserving and enhancing. At the same time, we have to live in the area, but nonetheless, it's there to be enjoyed. I think the message that most people would agree with is that we just have a custodial relationship to that. It's our job to make sure that the integrity of the Niagara Escarpment is preserved. That's why I believe the legislation was brought in. In 1973 they brought in legislation to try and protect that so that the urban sprawl that took place, and continues to take place, in the Golden Horseshoe doesn't completely overrun this natural work of beauty that those of us who live in the area enjoy.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Mr Nicholson. I'm curious as to how you feel about what changes, if any, should be taking place in terms of the running of the commission itself. Certainly, being a municipal representative, I know there are some who think that the commission usurped some of the powers that should be more rightly going to municipalities. Obviously, this is a very delicate issue, and I think it's important for us to be very clear as to where you fall in terms of your thinking on how the commission should be run. Can you give us any thoughts on whether there need to be any changes and as to where you fall in terms of the role of the commission, whether it is one that's absolutely appropriate and you totally support or you think there need to be some changes?
0940
Mr Nicholson: In response to one of the comments, "How is the commission run?" you probably should have me back in about six months when I have a little better idea after I see at first hand how it's run. My understanding is that the authority given under the act to the Niagara Escarpment Commission overrides municipal planning and zoning authority, and I think that's appropriate. I think it was a good idea to do that so that you have one body that looks after the whole of the Niagara Escarpment. I would imagine that there must be seven or eight regional municipalities, dozens of cities, towns and villages along it, and I think it's an appropriate way and a good way to do it, quite frankly, to have one body that has the final say with respect to this.
It's much the same as we did with the Niagara Parks Commission, which is somewhat similar. You can have the three or four municipalities along the Niagara River all competing or doing something, but when the Ontario government and Legislature instituted that, the idea was to have one body that would look after it, and I think that system works well. It works well with the Niagara Parks Commission, and I think it also works well with the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
Mr Gravelle: There certainly are some who are concerned that there may be a move towards more development of the Niagara Escarpment and, in some of the appointments that have come forward, I think we have been concerned that that's been reflected. I take it from your remarks that you don't fall on that side. Do you believe that there needs to be, if anything, tighter control in terms of development or do you think the balance is being struck now?
Mr Nicholson: We do have to strike that balance and it has to be a reasonable one, but I think we have to go in with the attitude that if you allow development, if development takes over the Niagara Escarpment Commission, it's gone for good. You can't go back on any mistakes. Once it's done, that's it. I think those who sit on the commission have to be very, very careful to understand the mandate that was given and the importance of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, because when it's gone, it's gone. It's like the land we use for the grape and wine industry. You tear it out, you put in a subdivision, and it's gone. You can't get a second chance at it.
My attitude is obviously, as you say that we have to strike a balance, but I think you have to be very aware of the fact that if you allow untrammelled, unregulated development, then it would be gobbled up. There's no question in my mind that most of it would be gone if we hadn't stepped in two and a half decades ago to try and control this. So that's the attitude I would take to it.
Mr Gravelle: What are your thoughts on its moving from the control of the Ministry of Environment and Energy to the Ministry of Natural Resources? Again some concerns were expressed about that. Perhaps because the Ministry of Natural Resources is one that can certainly be defined as being geared more towards development on occasion, as well as conservation obviously. What are your thoughts on that? There were concerns expressed. It was a fairly public matter, and I presume you were following that when that decision was made. I'm curious as to what your thinking is in that regard.
Mr Nicholson: It's hard for me say exactly where it should fit, but I will make some general comments with respect to that. I'm not sure how it would affect the day-to-day operation or my role as a member of the commission. It's the same enabling piece of legislation, and I think the same principles would apply.
As far as natural resources is concerned, I guess my greatest connection with that is when I was member of Parliament for Niagara Falls, the provincial member of Parliament was a man by the name of Vince Kerrio. He was natural resources minister and I knew he had a great love and a great desire to enhance the Ontario parks system, and I believe continues to be within the mandate of the Ministry of Natural Resources, so to that extent I think it can be a good fit on that count. As I say, I only knew one Minister of Natural Resources personally and he was it. I know from speaking with him and his role and the mandate of his ministry that it can be consistent with what I believe they were trying to do with the Niagara Escarpment Commission, which is also to preserve and protect a certain part of land.
Mr Gravelle: There have been some very serious budget cuts to the running of the commission and they've been reasonably dramatic. I guess one of the concerns one would have with that is that they are not able to do the job in the same fashion as they have before. What are your thoughts? Again, obviously being a resident and a councillor from that area, you would be aware of that. Have you had any reaction from anybody in terms of what these cuts have meant to the running of the commission itself?
Mr Nicholson: I can't say I have had any reaction from anyone to any of the cuts, but with respect to cuts or budget changes it's difficult for me to say what kind of a budget this particular commission needs or what is appropriate or whether it should be more or less, inasmuch as I wouldn't know the budget of this particular committee. If it had been cut, I suppose I can start to draw conclusions from how I've been treated as to whether the budget is appropriate, but it would be the same thing with the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I would have a look and see if it runs and runs well, if applications are handled expeditiously, if the commission is able to respond to inquiries and concerns of the public.
Again, I'm not trying to avoid the question, but I suppose in about six months I'd have a pretty good idea of whether I think it's running well, but I can't say that I've had anyone approach me, any constituent or resident of Niagara Falls or indeed anyplace else, who raised the question with me.
The Chair: Mr Gravelle, I'll just let you know that this is the last question.
Mr Gravelle: Okay. I apologize if you said it earlier, Mr Nicholson, but did you seek out the position or did someone approach you about taking this position?
Mr Nicholson: I sought it out myself. The regional municipality of Niagara has one representative who is placed on the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I was elected for the first time as a councillor in November 1997, and when I knew that was available I put my own name forward.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr Nicholson, good morning. You've answered one of my questions, which is the whole matter of the escarpment plan overriding all municipal official plans and bylaws, and you agreed with that.
Mr Nicholson: Yes.
Mr Marchese: You obviously are aware that the plan is going to be under review next year at some point. Do you foresee any argument that might be put forward that could dissuade you or convince you that that overriding power should be changed?
Mr Nicholson: I guess if it was something I learned within the next year as a member of the commission, then something could change my mind, but my view towards that is very similar to the Niagara Parks Commission. I think it is a good idea to have one body that can override the municipalities and I see no reason why I might come to a different conclusion. It works well where it exists in Ontario in the two examples that I gave you, and I think they both should continue.
Mr Marchese: That's good. That is my view; I share it. There are many foes of the power that the commission has, as you are probably aware, and some of the people who oppose it argue that the commission duplicates or usurps the role of municipalities in land use planning, unnecessarily interferes with private property rights along the escarpment, occasionally issues arbitrary or inconsistent decisions, and often takes an excessive amount of time to process development permit applications. These are a number of reasons why some oppose it. Do you have any view with respect to those points?
Mr Nicholson: Any time you have a body that can override such as your example of the municipalities, their zoning bylaws, their official plans, there are going to be those who disagree with that. I suppose if you wanted to introduce a major development and either you didn't get it as quickly as you want or you did not get it at all, you would come away and complain about the body that does that. But I don't think that kind of criticism calls into question or should call into question the overriding reason for the existence of this commission. It's important to do this.
I'll give you an example. In the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, which is in my area, when I was a member of Parliament, there was no end to the numbers of people who said to me: "I'm having a hard time in Niagara-on-the-Lake. I can't tear this building down. I can't get something up on the main street." They have in their own minds legitimate concerns. They're property owners, they're business developers, but once you tear down the main street of Niagara-on-the-Lake, once you destroy it, it's gone forever, and that's the problem.
I think there will always be a bit of a tug of war between those who are particularly affected and those who want to preserve the overall integrity, in this case of the Niagara Escarpment Commission or the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake or the Niagara Parks Commission territory. Of course. I've heard complaints about the Niagara Parks Commission. I worked for them for five years and people said: "Oh, the parks commission can do this. Why don't you just let the city do it?" That's why we have it. That's why it's beautiful. That's why people come to the Niagara Peninsula, to see the beautiful job we have done, and this is why the United Nations has given a special designation to the Niagara Escarpment Commission, not because we've got plazas running up and down the side of it. They don't do it because people have had the foresight to try and protect it.
0950
Mr Marchese: I certainly agree with that. I raised it because when you talked about your legal background as being helpful in terms of dealing with competing interests, I did want to know which side you would fall on.
Mr Nicholson: You have to be on whatever side is fair and reasonable. You can't in advance judge the merits of anybody's case or what they are requesting. We have to be fair and reasonable. We must do that. None the less, in my case I believe that as a member of this commission I either support the objectives for which this commission was created or I don't, and if I don't I wouldn't want to be a part of it. But I do. None the less I understand that the commission receives hundreds of requests for permits from people asking very reasonable requests and from other people who want to push and test the limits of what the enabling legislation allows us to do. That's our job, I would guess, to deal in a fair and reasonable manner. None the less, I come with that background of having grown up on the Niagara Peninsula. You know my views with respect to the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, the parks commission and anything like that.
Mr Marchese: I hear you. I have another question. My Liberal colleague touched on this. The commission's financial support has been reduced and part of the problem it causes is that it puts stress, obviously, on the commission itself in terms of being able to do a fair assessment of the case or a fair review of the issue or ability to monitor compliance with the escarpment plan and all that. But one of the pressures it actually puts is that the private developers and those who have a plan to put forward, if their issue is not dealt with quickly, put pressure on people like you to say: "Look, this plan is really not working. We've got a problem here. We've got to loosen it up. We need a little more control, a little more flexibility so we can deal with these issues a little more fairly and reasonably for us."
Do you foresee, as I would argue, that that kind of pressure as a result of the cuts could put pressure on you folks to reduce the kind of power the commission now has and give some more power to the municipality to deal with some of these issues?
Mr Nicholson: I would imagine there are people, regardless of the budget of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, who will put pressure on commissioners, either individually or collectively, to get whatever it is they want. But in terms of one of your comments, an individual's suggestion that, "You must loosen things up and bypass or cut through this," I would say there is a process in place. We have to consider them because we are not in a position to make mistakes, because a mistake will be passed on to our grandchildren. We've got to get it right. I guess everybody would like to have everything yesterday, but it seems to me there is a process that you must go through. I think it's a fair process and it's one that I intend to stick to.
Mr Marchese: Good luck, Mr Nicholson.
Mr Nicholson: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr Nicholson, thank you very much for joining us. The committee will be reviewing the actual motion with respect to your appointment at the end of this morning's session.
LARRY MILLER
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party and third party: Larry Miller, intended appointee as municipal member, Niagara Escarpment Commission.
The Chair: Larry Miller, welcome, come forward. Mr Miller is joining us today as an intended appointee as municipal member of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. If you have any opening comments you would like to make, we welcome those at this time, and then we will begin questioning with the Liberal Party.
Mr Larry Miller: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the review board. As you know, I'm Larry Miller. I was born and raised at the base of the Bruce Peninsula, just south of Wiarton. I still reside there, probably in one of the most beautiful parts of the whole escarpment.
I'm 41 years old. I have my current wife of almost 23 years. We have three teenage sons. We run a modest beef operation up there. We do have some farmland near the escarpment. I don't own any of it, so from that point I feel that I have basically no conflict of interest as far as that goes. I've certainly admired, and have walked parts of, the Bruce Trail and the escarpment. As I said, I believe it's one of the most beautiful parts.
I've been a member of numerous agricultural, recreational and community organizations over the last 20-some years. I feel that I am very community-oriented. In 1991, I decided to run for my local township council. I was successful. I served three years there. In 1994, I ran for deputy reeve. I was successful again and served three years. Last fall I ran for reeve, so I'm in my first term there.
As a member of Grey county council, I've always had a keen interest in planning, so subsequently I ran for the planning approval committee. I was successful; I was the only member elected to a three-year term on it.
Going from that led me out to possibly seek a position on the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I feel that with my years in business for myself -- as I said, I'm a full-time farmer -- and with my experience in community and political councils and what have you, I am qualified for this position.
That's all I have, Madam Chair. I would be open to questions here.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We begin with the Liberal Party.
Mr Gravelle: Good morning, Mr Miller. You indicated that you sought out this position as a municipal appointee. How did that process work?
Mr Miller: Basically, last fall in my first introduction to county council, I inquired about what the possibilities were. Probably about February of this year, I was approached by one of the members of our planning committee up there to ask me if I would let my name stand. At that time, I said yes, I would.
Mr Gravelle: That's fine. Are you familiar then with the running of the commission itself in terms of how the process works and what the duties and responsibilities of the commission are?
Mr Miller: I think overall I do. I am sure there are things I am going to learn, but I realize that this is a body that basically has final decision on things. That's probably a good idea, having one body. I don't know whether that answers your question or not.
Mr Gravelle: Close enough, thank you very much. Of course, you've got the advantage, Mr Miller. You heard somebody beforehand being asked the questions. They tend to be similar.
In that vein, I am curious as to probably where you stand or sit in terms of the importance and the role of the commission, in terms of that balance we're looking for. As I say, this is obviously one where there can be a great deal of controversy in terms of people who feel there need to be even tighter controls and those who feel that perhaps the controls are too tight and those who feel the role of a commission usurps the role of municipalities. Where do you put yourself in that spectrum?
Mr Miller: I think when you're dealing with anything that has to do with private land you're always going to have the nays and the yeas. That's something the commission needs to expect. There certainly have to be controls on there and what have you. The odd question has come up: Should controls be stricter? Should they be let off? Without totally reviewing the whole thing, I don't think I could probably give a fair comment on that, but I still think that in any organization, or commission in this case, there is probably always room for improvement. Maybe there are places on it where it needs to be relaxed a bit and maybe there are places where it needs to be tightened up. Until I actually get a little more familiar with it, that's about the best comment I could give you on that.
Mr Gravelle: Do you have any specific thoughts in that regard? You have slightly opened the door in thinking there may be the opportunity or there may be some areas that can obviously be loosened or tightened. That makes one think you may have something specifically in mind. Are there specific areas that you have thought about or looked at yourself?
1000
Mr Miller: I wouldn't say any specific areas. I guess one example I will use from my own area is the Indian Falls area. I would use an example like that. It's a very beautiful, pristine spot and there is a place where probably a buffer zone around it maybe should be larger than some other areas.
On the other side of the coin, I'd probably say that there could be places, and there is the odd place in my county, where the restrictions on agriculture may be a little bit too much. But I don't think it's a large-scale problem. In agriculture most farmers are pretty conscientious. I think you can carry on agriculture without -- it's not the same as putting in a quarry, I'll say.
Mr Gravelle: Have you ever had any concerns in terms of your own operation, as far as the escarpment is concerned?
Mr Miller: Concerns with my operation?
Mr Gravelle: Yes.
Mr Miller: None whatsoever.
Mr Gravelle: So you have never appeared before the commission and made any appeal or application to the commission for anything?
Mr Miller: Not to do with agriculture. I did have an application before it one time. At Rush Cove on the Bruce Peninsula we had a lot that we split into two. It was a piece of ground that was already designated as recreation. There were cottages on both sides. There was no problem with it whatsoever.
Mr Gravelle: So there was no particular controversy with the application itself?
Mr Miller: None whatsoever.
Mr Gravelle: What about the fact that the Ministry of Environment and Energy, which used to be responsible for it, is no longer responsible and that it has now moved to the Ministry of Natural Resources? As I think I indicated earlier, there was some real concern expressed about that. Do you share those concerns?
Mr Miller: I don't think so. The bottom line is that this commission still has basically the final say. I guess you can look at it, on the environment side, as, sure, the escarpment is a big part of the environment in Ontario. On the other side of it, I look at it as being a great natural resource; the scenic part of it is great for tourism. I see no reason why it should make a difference. I'd like to think that this commission is making the decision. What part of government it's being run by, at this time anyway, unless something comes up, I don't feel should make any difference.
Mr Gravelle: We spoke briefly with Mr Nicholson earlier about the budget cuts, which have obviously resulted in staff cuts, which can be a problem. I'm presuming, and maybe I shouldn't, that your response will be that you're not there yet so you don't know what the situation is. I guess the question would be, are you aware of the cuts and what impact they've had? If you are appointed today, would you be prepared to lobby for more support in the budget if that's what you discover needs to happen? Do you think that's something you'll be looking at carefully?
Mr Miller: If it was proved to me that it's something that's a detriment to the way the commission is being run. I'll use as an example that if it's slowing up the process, so to speak, that would be one thing it could hurt. On that side as well, the one thing I might be concerned about is the money available for more land purchases within the Niagara Escarpment area. At this point, I think it's fair to say that every department of this government has taken cuts, and probably this one has to absorb its share as well. At this time, I don't know enough about the budget to comment any more than that.
Mr Gravelle: Thank you, Mr Miller. You have a very interesting and varied background, and I'm sure you'll be a very fine appointee. I don't know if my colleague has any questions.
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Just very briefly. You've been on county council in your own township. The issue we're dealing with all the time -- I do appreciate your words in terms of protecting the escarpment -- is that 99% of the applications coming forward to the commission will be for some land use change that takes away from the escarpment itself. It's all nibbling at the edges. There will be very few that will go the other way. We've had representations here. This government has proposed appointments from the aggregate industry and from the development industry on to this board. There is going to be quite the pressure on that board to accommodate development proposals in some way. I just want you to understand that kind of political framework and, therefore, our interest in making sure that we retain this world-class natural feature.
Given that, and you've been on your own council and you understand the pressures when people come forward and couch it as reasonable and bring in the consultants to show, "Hey, we can make this work" -- I just lay the table for you. How do you think you would approach it?
Mr Miller: I'm quite aware of consultants and what have you, and being in the position I am, we have certainly dealt with our share of them. I strongly feel that each application has to be dealt with on its merits. Of course, you have your guidelines and goals, and you've got to go along with them. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I don't think there should be any aggregate operations -- I think that was part of your question you were leading to -- but at the same time, as a kid I came down to the Milton area to relatives, and I remember the big cut through on the Hamilton Mountain there. That's a disgrace. That kind of thing should definitely never be allowed to happen again.
Mr Marchese: Mr Miller, you covered a lot of ground, but there are one or two questions I still want to ask you. I have a big concern and I want to share that with you. When we, the New Democrats, were in government we set up this committee so that the opposition parties would have the ability to interview people, as we're doing with you today. The Tories and the Liberals always would sniff out any NDPer we would appoint, and they did that diligently every time we had a meeting. They used to scream, both of them, on either side, about political partisanship. The Tories, of course, swore that once they got in they would be different, naturally, but I've got to tell you, they're unashamed with each and every appointment they make that is, by and large, very partisan. I don't have a problem with the fact that many are Conservatives, it's not sometimes an issue for me, but I do worry from time to time in terms of the strategy that these folks have. This plan is about to be reconsidered in 1999.
Mr Miller: I realize that.
Mr Marchese: So I worry about why so many Conservative members are appointed to such a body. Do you think I have any reason to worry?
Mr Miller: I see no reason, Mr Marchese. I can't speak for anybody else, but I think it's fair to say that we have obviously all voted for a political party at one time or another. That has no bearing on a decision I make, anyway. This commission, to me, has no connections politically whatsoever. You're dealing with a plan, specific issues, and I see no reason why that should be a concern for you or myself.
Mr Marchese: I wanted that kind of reassurance from you, because I do worry about the fact that some people might want to change the official plan and that they might want to change the fact that at the moment the escarpment plan overrides all municipal official plans and bylaws. I think Mr Nicholson and you are saying that you have no reason to disagree with that, that you in fact support it. Mr Nicholson added that if these changes ever happen, they will be eternal, and that would be a problem on the existing plan and what we're trying to do by way of protections to the plan. Do you agree that any change of that sort or any big change to that plan could indeed thwart the kind of integrity we have been trying to protect for years?
Mr Miller: Yes. If you made any drastic changes, definitely they could do that at this time. As I said before, there is nothing big on there that I see needs to be changed, but going back to some of my earlier remarks, I still think there is probably always room for improvement, and whether there would be minor changes put forward I couldn't even say at this time, but I think we all have to be aware that the possibility is there.
Mr Marchese: Sure, and I don't disagree with that either. I just worry about what that means, because you use words such as, "The rules could be lax," or, "They should be tightened here and there." They're general enough that they could move in any direction.
Mr Miller: If I could add to that, I think I said "could," not "should."
Mr Marchese: Yes. I worry about "could" as well. Again, it's language that's flexible enough that it could lead anywhere, that's all. I know you talked about Indian Falls and how you could enlarge on that as a way of protecting --
Mr Miller: Yes. I used that as one example.
Mr Marchese: I understand. Then you talked about restrictions on agriculture that are problematic, and I'm not quite sure whether you want to add something to that in terms of how the restrictions are problematic and what you would do to change it.
Mr Miller: I'm not sure that there is anything I could do to change it. All I do hear is some stories to the south of us where agriculture is restricted. Basically, our part of the country is not intense cropping like it is to the south here. We don't have the climate for it. It's mostly cereal crops that are fed back to livestock in some way or other or just grazing cattle. In my area, that's largely what it is. Cattle grazing within so many feet of the escarpment, in my opinion, doesn't affect the escarpment whatsoever.
1010
Mr Marchese: I have no further questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Grimmett, you have about six minutes for your caucus for questions.
Mr Grimmett: Mr Miller answered questions so well I don't think we have any.
The Chair: Mr Miller, thank you very much for joining us. The committee will be actually reviewing the motion with respect to your appointment at the end of this morning's session.
JOAN FENNIMORE
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Joan Fennimore, intended appointee as member, Assessment Review Board.
The Chair: Would Joan Fennimore come forward, please. Ms Fennimore is joining us today as an intended appointee as a member of the Assessment Review Board. I'm sorry: Is it Ms or Mrs?
Ms Joan Fennimore: It could be either; I'm a widow, but Ms or Mrs, whichever you prefer.
The Chair: If you would like to make some opening comments, please feel free, and then we will begin questions with Mr Marchese from the New Democrats.
Ms Fennimore: Thank you very much. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm pleased to be here today to answer questions you may have regarding my appointment to the Assessment Review Board.
As a former commissioner with the Canadian Pension Commission from April 1993 to September 1995, I travelled to many cities in Canada conducting hearings to determine pension eligibility of war veterans, members of the armed forces and members of the RCMP. In that capacity, it was necessary to have a thorough knowledge of the adjudicative process as well as strong oral and written communication skills. As a result of that experience, I believe I am capable of assessing evidence in a fair and impartial manner and of rendering decisions in an equitable manner.
As a former real estate salesperson, I'm also familiar with property valuation and the assessment process. I feel that my professional experience in real estate as well as my knowledge of the adjudicative process will stand me in good stead as a part-time member of the Assessment Review board.
Thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions you may have.
Mr Marchese: Welcome, Ms Fennimore. We believe that the current plan this government has issued has caused tremendous chaos. They obviously disagree. There are about 200,000 appeals, I've read, at the moment, or at least as of a month ago. They are anticipating up to 500,000 appeals. That's a whole lot of appeals, wouldn't you say?
Ms Fennimore: It's true. I think any change probably entails extra work in many areas. I understand there have been over 3.8 million Ontario properties that have been reassessed recently. This is a very large task, but I think it's one that's long overdue. The assessment process in Ontario has been a patchwork for many years in that some assessments or reassessments haven't been done since the 1940s. We'll all agree that this has created inequities in the system, and I think it needs to be changed. Perhaps this is the beginning of that process.
Mr Marchese: I hear you. But in terms of these appeals, because I think it's an enormous number of them, how are you going to deal with that? How are you going to cope with that?
Ms Fennimore: I'm only going to be one part-time member. I will travel wherever I'm asked to travel. I know it's going to be a daunting task, but it's something that has to be done. I ran across this same thing during my time as a commissioner with the pension commission. We had backlogs. We did a lot of travelling and we just did our best.
Mr Marchese: Right. I appreciate that. But do you have any opinions about how we deal with that? I realize that you said we have a patchwork system, change is overdue, and this kind of change brings these kinds of problems, but quite clearly, in terms of the issue of appeals, it's going to create a serious problem. I know you're going to say, "We're going to cut through it," but you won't be able to deal with all of that. Do you have a sense of what you might recommend to this government as to how to deal with that?
Ms Fennimore: Until I'm a member of this commission, I really can't tell you what I might recommend. I haven't been able to receive training yet. I'm sure that after I become a member, if I do become a member, I'll have a better sense of what types of things could be done to improve the system.
Mr Marchese: You talked about the fact that we have a patchwork system, but these reassessments, in my view and in the view of many, have been done very poorly. You talked about the fact that there are 3.8 million properties of various kinds that needed to be reassessed, but clearly, because of the work that was put into it -- they say 18 months, but I think it's less than that -- it's an insufficient time to be able to do the job well. That's why I think in part we have the chaos.
Do you have a view as to how we -- or do you think the system will fix itself down the line? Is that your view?
Ms Fennimore: I think we have to be optimistic that what we are doing is going to make a difference. I don't know, in terms of the appeals, whether some of them are perhaps being appealed because they're afraid of what their overall tax position may be. Maybe they don't realize that just because they've been reassessed doesn't necessarily mean their taxes will go up. That has to be determined when the final tax and mill rate is set by the municipalities. Perhaps that's where some of these extra appeals are coming from.
Mr Marchese: Yes, perhaps some. I know that some are obviously very concerned about this whole matter. It encourages this whole notion of spying on other people, and I'll explain why.
My neighbour has an air conditioner on the outside, or I have it on the outside; someone has it at the back. They don't see that. My property is valued at a higher rate. Or someone has a unit at the back that they built and I don't have that; someone has an extra room and I don't have that. They're valued at 180; mine is at 190. Then you ask around. Of course then you naturally appeal. That's what you do, right?
That's the sense of how I've seen appeals happening, because that's what people call me about.
Ms Fennimore: I understand what you're saying, but I think in the Ontario fair assessment system, if I understand it, you look at the community; you take two properties that are of pretty well the same value and that would receive the same amount if they were sold. They should be taxed within the same reasonable realm.
Mr Marchese: I understand the philosophy. I'm just saying that --
Ms Fennimore: That's what we will have to determine. If a particular home on a particular street is assessed at a much different rate than the neighbour's, then perhaps they will have reason to come before us and perhaps we will reassess.
Mr Marchese: Of course. That's why you have the thousands of tax appeals.
Ms Fennimore: Exactly. That's maybe something we'll look at when we get to that system, but I don't think that we're going to have a lot of that type of reassessment. I don't know; I could be wrong.
Mr Marchese: I think so.
Ms Fennimore, do you think this new system -- and I want to get to it in my second question after this -- is going to cause some problems for places like the city of Toronto in terms of what it might do to some home owners who in this first year are going to see a hefty tax increase? In my area in particular, half of them, if not more, will face a tax increase. Do you think it will affect some of those people: seniors, injured workers who own homes but whose taxes are going to go up by at least $1,000, and next year and the year after that possibly more? That core, which is wonderful in terms of keeping the residential component as part of the inner city -- do you think it could lead to some problems or no?
Ms Fennimore: I understand there's a phase-in period for those increases; I'm not sure exactly how many years, but I believe at least five years. I think to counteract that, people who will have their assessments lowered will not receive their rebate, so it will balance it out.
Mr Marchese: That's an option, you realize, that municipalities have. That option is not an easy one for them to take because there are competing interests.
It was convenient for these guys just to say to municipalities, "Okay, you boys have these tools." That tool, however, is a nasty one, it's a rusty little tool, because when you apply one thing to the other, a whole lot of other people get angry, on the one hand. On the other hand, with seniors you have an option to deal with the problems they might have, phase it in for them over an eight-year period or other options that you might have. It's difficult for municipalities when they see their finances reduced to a very barebones level to give some other considerations to seniors or others that might cause a shortfall of moneys. Do you see that as a problem?
Ms Fennimore: In my capacity as a part-time member of the Assessment Review Board, those will be matters that would be dealt with at the municipal level and we will have to just apply the act where it's necessary.
1020
Mr Marchese: Yes, of course.
The province has applied a cap on businesses, a 2.5% increase. In other words, they can't increase it beyond that on the business and the property. Some people have argued that's a serious problem because as the cities have to deal with the shortfall as a result of the amalgamation, as a result of the download and the download of housing, you're going to have a financial problem. That's what they've been saying for the last year, and I believe that to be the case.
How do you see them coping with that particular problem? You'll recall that you argued that we're going to have uniformity now in the system. This cap on business causes lack of uniformity in terms of how cities are going to deal with the particular problem, so they're likely to have a shortfall. If they have a shortfall, they have to go to the homeowner. The homeowner is saying, "If you hit me with more taxes, I've got a big problem," and I think they're right. What do you think is going to happen, or how do you think they will cope, and does that really matter to you, because your job is just to do assessments?
Ms Fennimore: I think what you've just said applies -- these are policy questions, these are municipal taxation questions, and I, as a part-time member of this commission, will not be dealing with their policies. I will be dealing with the act. I will be dealing with the fair assessment commission and I will have to do my job accordingly.
Mr Marchese: Is this a job you sought out, Ms Fennimore?
Ms Fennimore: No. I saw an ad in the newspaper and I applied for that. I actually have a copy of the ad here with me.
Mr Marchese: Who's your member of provincial Parliament?
Ms Fennimore: I believe it's a Liberal member. I can't remember his name.
Mr Cullen: Bernard Grandmaître.
Ms Fennimore: Grandmaître, yes. He's been there forever.
Mr Marchese: Too long perhaps. Thank you.
Mr Grimmett: Good morning, Ms Fennimore, and welcome to the committee.
You clearly have had some experience sitting on a government agency before and you indicate in your résumé that you have excellent oral and written communication skills. That's certainly an issue that I like to review with applicants, their ability to provide reasonably timely responses to those parties that come before them. You're used to that process and getting timely responses and decisions out in a reasonably quick manner?
Ms Fennimore: Yes. As a commissioner with the Canadian Pension Commission, all of our decisions were written decisions. We heard approximately 30 cases per week when we travelled and we would split the cases between the two commissioners. As I say, all of those were written decisions, so I have a lot of experience in that regard.
Mr Grimmett: There are other colleagues of mine who have some questions, but I have sort of a pet peeve with the assessment review panel. From my past as a lawyer representing people before them, I've been very surprised and disappointed at the range of quality on the Assessment Review Board in Ontario. Sometimes you go before a person who's clearly competent and in charge. Other times you go before them and you'll know that they are completely intimidated by the presence either of solicitors or particularly of the assessors.
My concern is, if we're going to have a lot of assessment appeals, and clearly we are, most of the people who will be appearing before the board likely will be unrepresented. The cases that appear in the media and in the law reports usually are of big commercial properties or very expensive residential properties, but the fact of the matter is that most people appealing their assessment should have the opportunity to go before the board without representation. They should be confident they are going to get a fair hearing and that the assessment board person is not going to be intimidated by the assessor, who in most cases has a lot more information, a lot more familiarity with the process.
Do you have any thoughts on how you, if you were a member of this board, could make sure the person would leave the hearing thinking that they were dealt with fairly and that the point they wanted to make had got across?
Ms Fennimore: Thank you for that question. I can only go back to my experience as a commissioner. We dealt with clients who ranged from Second World War veterans through to members of the RCMP. They were all represented by an advocate who was a part of the Department of Veterans Affair but at arm's length from our commission, so I'm used to having a client appear with their solicitor in front of me.
I pride myself on making people feel comfortable, first of all, with the process that they're going through. As you can imagine, we had some fairly feeble people coming to our commission. I always felt that, first and foremost, I wanted them to feel comfortable, that they weren't sitting in front of a judge and jury sort of thing. I feel comfortable in that I make people feel I'm there to be fair and open-minded with them.
Secondly, there's quite a training process involved, I'm sure, when I become a member of this commission. Once you've gained experience by sitting with members on the road, you get the feeling of the way the process works. You know how to apply the regulations etc.
But I think for people to come before someone, they must feel confident that this person is going to listen, first and foremost, and then assess all of the evidence and render a fair and impartial decision. I think I can do that.
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Thanks very much for being here today. I'm glad to see that you have a real estate background because I wanted to ask you what criteria you'll be taking into consideration in determining the actual value of a property.
Ms Fennimore: We have to look at all of the properties that come before us in terms of the way they've been reassessed. My example that I stated before was that in a particular community, if you have two properties that are of fairly equal value and they're put on the open market at approximately the same price, then their tax should be pretty well the same, and if it's not, then there's something wrong in that particular assessment. I guess we have to look at that evidence and apply it in terms of the community and what properties are assessed for in that particular area, and govern accordingly.
Mr Bert Johnson: Would you be taking into consideration the financing on a property when determining its value?
Ms Fennimore: Financing on the property? I don't believe so.
Mr Cullen: I hope not.
Ms Fennimore: You can have two properties that are assessed for $150,000. One might have a mortgage of 75%, 85% or 95% on it and another one may be mortgage-clear. I don't think that has any bearing on it.
Mr Bert Johnson: My concern with assessment always has been that the person appearing before your committee usually wants their assessment to go down, and the next day they're in to their banker and they want the value of the property put up so they can borrow more money against it. That was the reason for my question.
Ms Fennimore: I think we're looking at apples and oranges. I don't think we can have any bearing on what that person will do if they're reassessed. We have to just go on the facts that are presented to us, whether that property is assessed at the right amount. If he goes to the bank with his reassessment afterwards, we have nothing to do with that.
Mr Bert Johnson: In a lot of cases he may not want to go with it, but anyway, thanks very much for the very frank way that you've answered my questions.
Mr Cullen: Thank you, Ms Fennimore, for coming out. I note you live on Crichton Street. I know Crichton Street quite well because I'm from Ottawa. May I ask how long you've lived in the national capital?
Ms Fennimore: Since 1985.
Mr Cullen: So you went through market value reassessment in 1992?
Ms Fennimore: Yes.
Mr Cullen: You saw what happened in your community in terms of property values, how some really went sky-high and others did not?
Ms Fennimore: I didn't really notice too much. I read what was in the paper at the time but I didn't really zero in on all the communities in Ottawa. But I know there was a lot of --
Mr Cullen: It was quite the controversy in Ottawa, as a matter of fact. MVA was very narrowly adopted by council at the time. Well, welcome to Ontario, where you have it all.
You mentioned that you saw an ad in the paper and applied. One can see, however, being a special assistant to the Minister of Public Works, that one could reasonably draw the conclusion that you are a member of the Conservative Party of Ontario.
Ms Fennimore: Yes, I am.
1030
Mr Cullen: That's fine. It's a perfectly legal operation. Not a problem there.
I also see from your résumé that you were a member of the real estate board in Nova Scotia. Do you have an active real estate licence in Ontario?
Ms Fennimore: No, I don't.
Mr Cullen: Okay, that's fine, that's great. My colleague has touched on the kinds of issues you're going to be facing on this panel. Two issues have come up: One is of course that with a province-wide reassessment to current value, yes, you are going to face a record number of appeals. Mr Grimmett raised the issue of process. I'm interested because quite frankly right now the government has underresourced a number of agencies. We have a backlog in the adoption registry. We have a backlog under the Social Assistance Review Board. With almost every board that deals with adjudication from the public there's a huge backlog. Now we're up to five pieces of legislation respecting property tax so far, and we're expecting this record to just blow right out of the water.
I have to ask if you will ensure that the powers that be are informed if resources are inadequate. You're going to be there and you're going to be seeing people come forward, and some of these cases will not be simple. I don't know if you ever did it under the pension commission, but will you have the confidence to go back and say: "Look, this is ridiculous. We need more staff here"?
Ms Fennimore: I would think that would be up to the chairman of this board that I am going to become a member of, hopefully. If at some point I see an issue or a situation that I believe should be brought to the chairman's attention, yes, I certainly will do that.
Mr Cullen: That will be important. I'm not clear on this, but when one receives a reassessment, one must pay that reassessment until the appeal is upheld. So for a lot of people, particularly seniors in the west end of Ottawa, which I represent, this will be a financial burden while they're waiting for their case to go through the system. This is why we're interested in this huge amount of appeals that this very complicated system is producing.
Ms Fennimore: I'm sorry. Was there a question there? I didn't hear any.
Mr Cullen: I'm just underlining the point about ready access to the appeal process and your interest in making sure that people's appeals are expedited. The reason why I say that is that justice delayed is justice denied. Do you support that principle?
Ms Fennimore: In principle, yes.
Mr Cullen: The issue of market value assessment: In my neck of the woods I have a lot of retired civil servants who at one point were either directors, DGs, assistant deputy ministers. They're now retired. I have more PhDs in my neck of the woods than most communities. These people come up with very, very reasoned arguments, yet they're on pensions and they don't want to hire a lawyer. Are you familiar enough with the system that when they come forward and say, "Look, two blocks away it's thus and so, and here I am paying more," is that going to be sufficient for you or are you going to take the band approach that has been traditionally used by assessment review boards?
Ms Fennimore: As I understand the way the legislation is written, people can go to the regional assessor first and it can be determined there. That's their first line of appeal. If after that the assessor decides in a negative fashion, then they come to us. At that point, all we can do is assess the situation as it's presented, with the evidence. I will learn of course a lot more about the process once I become a member. I'm afraid I'm a little bit ignorant in that sense just yet.
Mr Cullen: Let me help you out here because we've gone through this with MVA. MVA in Ottawa-Carleton produced a record amount of appeals for Ottawa-Carleton. Now you're doing this province-wide. I can tell you that within a band assessment will be so, but as soon as you cross over a line, assessment jumps up because they have to make geographical areas of people within blocks of each other having the same lot size, having the same number of rooms in the house. There of course will be small differences. We're not talking about air conditioners and stuff like that, but there will be differences in assessment. How much latitude do you think you will have?
These people will have already gone through the process. The meetings that the assessment folk had in my neck of the woods were crowded. People walked out of there frustrated and that's why we have the record amount of appeals. They've already gone through the first line of defence and this is money out of their pocket.
Ms Fennimore: I can sympathize with people who are in that position. Again, as I say, until I learn more about the actual regulations and the workings of this commission, I couldn't really comment on that, on what I would do in that situation.
Mr Cullen: Do you think that when you have two homes side by side and they show the same characteristics, property tax is simply based on the value of the home and there's no accounting for the individual financial circumstances of a retired couple on a pension versus a double-income, no-kids professional couple?
Ms Fennimore: Do I agree or disagree with that?
Mr Cullen: No. Is that --
Ms Fennimore: The assessment is based on fair market value of that property, yes, as I understand it.
Mr Cullen: What do you think in terms of market trends? You're in a trendy area; Crichton Street's a trendy area. Property values are always going up. What does that do to people on fixed incomes? It pushes them out of their homes.
Ms Fennimore: Again, Mr Cullen, I don't think that's an issue our board will be dealing with. That is a social policy issue and that's also a municipal issue, and I would really rather not comment on those particular issues at this time.
The Chair: Ms Fennimore, thank you very much for joining us. The committee will be dealing with the motion with respect to your appointment shortly. We have one more witness before we deal with that.
JEAN-PAUL CHARLES
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Jean-Paul Charles, intended appointee as member, Ontario Housing Corp board of directors.
The Chair: Mr Jean-Paul Charles is joining us today as an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Housing Corp board of directors. Welcome, sir. If you have any opening comments that you would like to make, please feel free to do so and then we'll begin questioning with the government caucus.
Mr Jean-Paul Charles: Madam Chair, members of the standing committee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honoured to have been considered to sit on the Ontario Housing Corp.
I am fully bilingual. My wife, Sandra, and I have two grown children and are the proud grandparents of two boys and one girl. I am a barber by trade. I've been in the hair business since July 1961, so to speak.
I have been in municipal politics for 24 years. I served 10 years for the township of Springer as a councillor and the past 14 years as the reeve of the same municipality. I sat on many boards and committees in West Nipissing and chaired most of them. Just to name a few:
In January 1993, I chaired the West Nipissing million-dollar fund which was the key to saving 160 jobs at MacMillan Bloedel's paper plant in Sturgeon Falls.
I served 14 years on the West Nipissing Non-Profit Housing Corp, 10 years as chairman. Under my chairmanship, we constructed two 45-unit apartment complexes for seniors.
I sat for 22 years on the West Nipissing planning board and for 24 years on the West Nipissing Municipal Association.
I am presently the vice-chairman of the West Nipissing Transitions Board and chairman of the transitions board general government subcommittee. Example: We are in the process of amalgamating five organized municipalities and 17 1/2 unorganized townships for January 1999.
I do not claim to be an expert on housing, but if appointed to this corporation, I will consult on all the facts before forming an opinion and treat each item on the agenda on its own merit. Again, if appointed, I will come to this board with a positive attitude and an open mind. I am confident that the contribution I would make to this corporation would be an asset, not only for the north but for all the province of Ontario. Thank you.
1040
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Charles. Mr Grimmett, you have about seven minutes.
Mr Grimmett: Welcome to the committee, Mr Charles. I was expecting a much older gentleman. I notice that my copy of your résumé says that you've been the reeve from 1904 to the present.
Mr Charles: From 1904?
Mr Grimmett: It must be a misprint.
Mr Charles: There's a mistake. I've been reeve since 1984. You'll replace that 0 with an 8, please.
Mr Grimmett: It must be a poor fax copy of your résumé. I assumed that you probably hadn't been on that long.
Could you perhaps comment on whether your considerable municipal and community experience will help you in terms of your judgement if you are successful in becoming a member of the Ontario Housing Corp?
Mr Charles: If my experience on council will help? Definitely it will. I've had experience with municipal housing. We at West Nipissing Non-Profit Housing Corp have had construction of two apartment complexes, as I mentioned a little while ago. Definitely this is going to help. I know how it works. I know the whole scenario on housing and housing complexes. I've done my homework. I've been on it for 14 years. As a municipal politician, I know as much as can be known about housing for a politician.
Mr Grimmett: You currently live in northern Ontario. Do you think that you can provide maybe a different viewpoint to the board if you're successful in becoming a member?
Mr Charles: Definitely. There is quite a difference in housing in northern Ontario than there would be in southern Ontario. I'll give you an example. In northern Ontario it's mostly more remote areas, not as many larger centres. Probably the salary range is lower also.
Mr Grimmett: I think those are the questions I had.
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Welcome, Mr Charles. I'm pleased to have you here. You have an interesting background. I think we met in some of the Who Does What hearings when we were up in your area.
I wondered if you had an opinion on how public housing fits into the general administration of planning for a municipality, for a regional area. Do you think it has a role to play in that area?
Mr Charles: Are you talking about the planning of the municipality itself?
Mr Spina: Yes. Should public housing have a significant role in municipal planning?
Mr Charles: Whether we like it or not, I believe that it does have a role, yes. What kind of an answer are you --
Mr Spina: That's okay.
Mr Cullen: Ask him if he likes downloading.
Mr Spina: I'll go on that. There's been the exchange of services under Who Does What and there's a greater responsibility on the part of the municipal governments now to look at public housing. Do you think that the municipalities will be able to cope with that through the transition?
Mr Charles: I will answer this question with my municipal hat, if you don't mind. I believe it's going to be hard. This downloading to our new municipality that we are about to amalgamate, with a population of 13,700, is going to cost a bit over $1 million. Unless the exchange of responsibility fills in the gap where the funds are going to be missing, it's going to be hard for the municipalities to live with this.
Mr Spina: Thank you, Jean-Paul. I wish you well.
Mr Cullen: Thank you for coming today to this committee. You've had some experience with social housing, as I see from your background. There are huge waiting lists for social housing across Ontario -- 13,000 in Ottawa-Carleton alone -- and there's been no new social housing built for the past three years. How do you see your role on the housing corporation in responding to this crisis in affordable housing?
Mr Charles: I'll give you an example. In West Nipissing Non-Profit Housing Corp we have roughly 300 names waiting. We have 130 units available under that housing complex. If you go through that list and you call those people, how many of the 300 on the list waiting for an apartment would be willing to move tomorrow? I would say there is probably one-third, maybe less than one-third.
Through my personal business, my barber shop, I talk to a lot of people. A lot of people every day come to me for different reasons, different questions, and housing is one of them. They ask me to try to shift them up on the list if I can, which is impossible. But when I talk to our administrator he shows me a list of all the people who have been called. There are not 300 in front of him; there are probably 100.
I expect it's probably the same all through the province of Ontario. I think the list is there, but if you ask those people, they just put their names down in case they ever need it, for insurance.
Mr Cullen: These are all people who qualify for social housing, which means that they're all paying more than 30% of their gross income towards shelter. They don't get on the list unless they're paying more than 30% of their gross income on shelter. Even I were to accept your views, I've been a regional councillor in Ottawa-Carleton for six years and I know what's out there in my community. But even if I accept one third, that's 4,000 people in my region who, by paying more than 30% of their income on shelter, have less money for their children, for their health, for their future, for themselves.
But the issue is that my regional municipality has said very clearly in its study that there's a crisis in affordable housing in Ontario. Other regional governments have said so as well. Ontario Housing has a mandate to provide this kind of housing. Of course, it needs the resources from this government. You're going on to this board, not only to manage what's there and to deal with the transition for downloading, but also, do you not see that there is a need here that has to be responded to?
Mr Charles: Once I'm on the board, if appointed, if I see that there is a need and it can be done without private enterprise, this is something we have to look at. I'll give you an example. I have apartment buildings myself, not too many; I'm not a landlord like the province of Ontario, mind you. But I will give you an example of one person who is on the waiting list for our non-profit housing corporation. She was way down the line. It was impossible for her to get an apartment and she saw an ad in the paper that I had an apartment for rent. She came back to see me and my rent is about the same price she would have paid at our complex, and I'm private enterprise.
Mr Cullen: Good for you. It's not so in my community. That kind of housing is very hard to find.
One of the previous members touched on the downloading. Right now the government is consulting with the municipalities about the downloading of social housing to the municipalities. You've indicated that downloading is going to cause a problem in your municipality. Municipalities want to control their costs and they have been lobbying to have the ability to set the rent-geared-to-income level. They've been lobbying to have the ability to control eligibility and accessibility to social housing units. Could I have a comment? The Ontario Housing Corp is directly involved in those consultations, talking about RGI and eligibility accessibility. What would be your views on this?
Mr Charles: I don't believe municipal taxes should be used to subsidize housing, if it is the case, and I don't believe that we should double the rent if those people cannot afford to live in those apartments. The only thing is that maybe the government can subsidize those people who need them individually.
Mr Cullen: Do you think there should be province-wide standards for rent geared to income? Right now, it's 30%. Do you think there should be province-wide standards for eligibility? If there are not these province-wide standards, if municipalities set these things, then maybe Nipissing will set it at 35, and Sturgeon Falls might set it at 42 and Ottawa may set it at 31. Then you might have migration going from municipality to municipality. Do you think there's a role for province-wide standards?
Mr Charles: If it's going to be administered by the municipality, it's going to be hard for the province to tell the municipality what kind of rent to charge. If it's downloaded to the municipality, the municipality should probably decide on its own.
1050
Mr Gravelle: Good morning, Mr Charles. In your response to Mr Cullen's question, and Mr Spina's too, you certainly suggested it's going to be difficult to have municipalities manage it. Do you feel that the downloading of social housing to municipalities is wrong, that it should not have happened?
Mr Charles: Not necessarily, no. I don't think it's wrong. The only thing is, we want to guarantee that there is going to be some money to replace the funds from the province that it's going to cost the municipality. I think the province should, and I believe they said they would, offset that cost, but we haven't had the last figure yet.
Mr Gravelle: As you know -- you would know yourself, being a municipal politician -- they've said they would, but it certainly is not revenue-neutral in terms of the downloading. Every municipality is in a difficult situation. Are you saying you'd prefer to believe the government will make sure it balances out? Would you say you prefer to believe that the government will make it revenue-neutral, that it will not cost municipalities?
Mr Charles: I would have to see it on paper.
Mr Gravelle: Right now, I know a lot of municipalities are very concerned.
Mr Charles: I am concerned myself, as a municipal politician, as I said.
Mr Gravelle: Of course.
Mr Charles: Before the transfer is done, I'm expecting the government of Ontario to come up with some dollar figures.
Mr Gravelle: What if they don't? What if it ends up being a --
Mr Charles: We'll cross the bridge when we get to it, but before I make a commitment and say that I approve it or not approve it, I would like to see a dollar figure, a dollar sign there, and see how much it would affect our municipalities.
Mr Gravelle: But you already have a sense of that, I presume, in terms of that.
Mr Charles: Yes, we do.
Mr Gravelle: Right now you could not say it's revenue-neutral; in other words, there needs to be more support from the province in order to --
Mr Charles: I think so.
Mr Gravelle: What about the fact that there's actually been no guarantee of a permanent program? The government's talked about two years of a sort of community investment program or some kind of special assistance program, but only for two years. You're familiar with that. Do you feel a permanent fund is needed?
Mr Charles: Two years is not very long, but if you do get a two-year program and then the province gets in better shape, we expect it's going to be extended or changed, or maybe improved.
Mr Marchese: Jean-Paul, is it M. Charles or --
Mr Charles: J-P. Just call me J-P.
Mr Marchese: Is it Charles?
Mr Charles: Charles, yes.
Mr Marchese: I've got it.
Mr Charles: It's a French name. My father was born in France.
Mr Marchese: I'm concerned about some of the issues you're raising. You're saying that the downloading will cost $1 million and you're concerned about that, as a municipal politician.
Mr Charles: I am.
Mr Marchese: You don't mind the downloading of housing to the municipality --
Mr Charles: As long as there's an offset.
Mr Marchese: As long as the money's there, right. But I worry -- and I'm not sure about you -- about the downloading, which includes housing, but of course other things such as more cost to the municipality for child care, social assistance, ambulances, public health, and in some areas it's going to be worse than others, as you might imagine. Here in the city of Toronto we have a lot of public housing --
Mr Charles: I understand that.
Mr Marchese: -- so we are very concerned about the effect it will have on our municipality. I'm worried about the fact that as you download these social services, you are essentially downloading it on to the property owner, the tenant and the small business. It's a serious concern in terms of how we might cope as a municipality to find the money from the property owner. Many of them are seniors. Many of them are low-income who just scrape by to own a home. Are you concerned, as I am, about that or not?
Mr Charles: Yes, I am.
Mr Marchese: Beyond the financial problem of not getting enough money, possibly, to deal with the issue of housing, you're also worried, as I am, about what it could mean for these other services down the line?
Mr Charles: We'll deal with other services as we go along.
Mr Marchese: Yes, that's what I'm worried about.
Mr Charles: We can't put the whole thing into one bag.
Interjections.
Mr Marchese: These Tories never worry. They're such a good, healthy lot of people.
They did pass it down to the municipalities and they let them worry, right?
Mr Bert Johnson: We stopped at a quarter to 11.
Mr Marchese: Yes, they stopped worrying at a quarter to 11, whereas the rest of us are concerned about the downloading now and for the future, and they're saying, "We don't worry about those things." You're saying: "We'll worry as we go along. We'll deal with it."
Mr Charles: I'm not going to make an ulcer with it. I don't make ulcers; I probably give some but I don't make them. Definitely we have a lot of downloading coming to us from the government. Once we got the dollar figure it was not as bad as we thought it was going to be. It's not hurting us as badly. But I'm not saying that housing is going to be the same or social is going to be the same. I'm not sure. We're not all the way down there.
Mr Marchese: Yes, I hear you.
I wonder if Tories get ulcers. Maybe they don't get ulcers because they pass them down to the municipalities.
You are probably aware that the corporation has been selling off standalone houses. Of course, they have gotten rid of most of the other appointments we made -- four of them, in particular, and Mr David Hulchanski in particular who was very concerned about these things -- because these people were saying, "Those homes are an important part of the housing stock." Not only that, they are integrated in communities. We have quite a few properties in my area, right on Crawford Street in downtown Toronto here. Those homes are an important part of the community. Nobody realizes they're owned by the corporation.
Mr Charles: They're scattered, the ones you're talking about.
Mr Marchese: They're scattered beautifully in the community, so they fit in and they're part of a community. When you sell them off, of course they make, they say, about $25 million, but do you think that it is right to do that?
Mr Charles: If the province of Ontario cannot afford to keep them -- I agree that we have to save a certain amount of social housing for the people because nobody should live on the street. I'm a strong supporter of this. We don't have any people living on the street up north because it's too cold, but when you come down to Toronto and you see somebody lying on one of the grills in the city, I don't like it. I feel bad about it and I don't like to see it. I'm not even proud to see that in Ontario. I think that shouldn't happen. Right now, we have a lot of housing and we still get that same problem. I'm not sure if it would hurt or if it would correct it or what would happen, but if the government sells some of that housing, as long as they guarantee the people who are eligible to live in that housing a certain amount of money to find a good place --
Mr Marchese: But you see, that's our worry, Mr Charles. One of the questions that was asked earlier was about the number of housing units that are available for people who need them, and when you sell off that stock that's there, owned by us, then you've gotten rid of something that was available to people who need it.
The lineups are there. You might say it's not 300 in your area; it's 100. There are still people lining up waiting to get in. It's a housing stock that we can afford to keep but they want to sell it off. I think it's wrong.
Mr Charles: You mean that the government can afford to keep it?
Mr Marchese: Yes. You said if they can't afford to keep those homes --
Mr Charles: Yes, right.
Mr Marchese: But why can't they? Why can't they afford to keep those homes?
Mr Charles: I'll answer that question in another way. If the government subsidizes them individually -- it was said that there is not enough government housing already that is being subsidized. If you subsidize the individual, he'll find an apartment.
One thing I want to tell you is that I think all municipalities -- maybe in Toronto you have that. We don't have as many inspections. We're not a large municipality. But in smaller areas the inspection is not made in all the apartments. Some of them are not fit to live in. I would like the government to put more emphasis on inspection and make sure that the apartments -- I'm not talking about apartments that belong to the government -- that belong to private individuals are inspected before people can move in. This is going to create more good housing.
Mr Marchese: That part I agree with. We were very concerned about the whole idea of -- what you have described -- as long as they have money, they'll go find it; a voucher kind of system. "Here is a certain sum of money, then you go and find your own housing." We're worried about that in two ways: (1) That amount of money the government might want to give in the form of a voucher may not be sufficient; and (2) if you give money to a person with a disability to go find housing, where does a person with a disability go to find adequate housing when you probably know -- I know here in Toronto -- that it's not easy to find housing that is suitable to people with disabilities?
1100
Mr Charles: You're talking about somebody with a physical disability. I agree that if we are to have housing, we should probably reserve some for those people.
Mr Marchese: I agree. The problem is that the public sector -- through these people -- is not building any more and the private sector isn't building that kind of housing and certainly not the kind of housing that would be suitable for people with disabilities.
Mr Charles: If there was a demand for this kind of housing and it was known, I believe that the private sector would get into it.
Mr Marchese: That's what they say. But there is a demand; we know there is a demand. These people, philosophically, say they shouldn't be involved.
Mr Charles: You could spend a bit of money on advertising and ask the private sector to get into this.
Mr Marchese: There are a few other questions I want to ask you. The municipalities are collecting the money already to pay for housing. The administration is going to be handed down in a year or two. We don't know whether it's going to be handed down to the municipalities or some other body. We are not quite clear on that.
Mr Charles: It's unknown yet.
Mr Marchese: Yes. Part of that worry connected to all that is the tenants themselves, who live in these buildings, who pay approximately 50% of their own housing and have virtually no say. Mon ami M. Leach has really not included tenants in an active way where they would have a say as to what would happen. He says, "Tenants are included by having municipal politicians there, as an example." But tenants say, "Since we pay 50% of the costs, we really would like to be part of these consultative committees that you set up." He said no to them. Do you have an opinion on that?
Mr Charles: Yes. I'll give you an example. West Nipissing Non-Profit Housing Corp: There are seven members sitting on that corporation; two of them are tenants. This has been recommended by the province of Ontario, to have those two. We used to have one; in the past six months or so we have a second one. They are tenants. This is not Ontario Housing, mind you; it is West Nipissing Non-Profit Housing Corp. We are at the same level as Ontario Housing Corp. We own our own land, but we manage it instead of having somebody else manage it, but we're not as big either.
Mr Marchese: Generally speaking, in terms of whether tenants should be involved in anything that will affect their lives, their future homes, what is your view of their involvement?
Mr Charles: I believe there should be a certain amount of input -- I'm not saying 50% -- because in my experience the tenants we have sitting on our West Nipissing Non-Profit Housing Corp have a lot of input and they help us more than anybody else on the board because they know what is going on there. They live right there. We question them quite a bit.
The Chair: Thank you for joining us.
Mr Charles: Is that all?
The Chair: That's all; that's it.
Mr Charles: I thought I was going to be grilled here today.
The Chair: You thought it would be tough? We try to be congenial.
If we could move to concurrence motions now, may I ask if there are any committee members who wish to deal with any of the intended appointments separately? Okay, we will deal with them all separately then.
First of all, could I have a motion for concurrence in the appointment of Mr Rob Nicholson?
Mr Grimmett: I so move.
Mr Cullen: We are going to be supporting this appointment. It was a breath of fresh air, compared to the other appointments we have interviewed here for this particular commission. The members here who participated in that know full well the approach we've been taking about the pressures on the commission in dealing with land development applications. We heard from both the presenters today -- municipal presenters, people who are there on the front lines, who deal with applications day after day -- that they understand the purpose of the commission is to protect the integrity of the escarpment, which all of us know here has a world-class designation.
Unlike the other appointees whom we have voted against because quite frankly we thought the commission was being stacked away from the public interest, here we have someone coming from the municipal sector who understands that once you develop it, it's gone. We heard that from someone who has represented the public at more than one level, who understands the value of these kinds of features. Simply to say, it is with pleasure that we're dealing with a municipal appointment that's going through here from a body who understands the purpose of the exercise and we are very pleased to support that.
The Chair: Thank you. Any further debate? Seeing none, if we can move to a vote.
All those in favour of the motion, please indicate. Those opposed? The motion is carried.
May I have a motion of concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Larry Miller?
Mr Grimmett: I so move.
The Chair: Is there any debate? Seeing none, we'll move to the vote.
All those in favour, please indicate. Those opposed? It's carried.
A motion of concurrence in the intended appointment of Ms Joan Fennimore.
Mr Grimmett: I so move.
Mr Cullen: The issues we touched on in dealing with this particular appointment: The government knows full well that we're going to have a record set of appeals. Just looking at the Ombudsman's report, it's not going to be good for this government; it's not going to be good for the public if there aren't sufficient resources to deal with these appeals because you have to pay the tax. It's not one of these things where the assessment is stayed while this is going on. No, you have to pay the tax. Then and only then, if you're successful with your appeal, does your tax bill change.
I put it to you that this government's ambitious agenda -- some of which we would support because there was a need for property tax reform in Ontario, but it has to be said that it has been botched. That's one of the reasons we have this record amount of appeals.
Mr Spina: On a point of order, Chair: I don't see the relevance to Ms Fennimore's appointment.
Mr Cullen: Perhaps if the member would let me finish, I'd be able to tell you.
Mr Spina: He's talking political philosophy here.
The Chair: I thank you for your point. It's a relevant point of order. However, we're talking about an appointment to the Assessment Review Board. As I hear the member, he's speaking about his views of what that will require. I think he's within order.
Mr Cullen: The point here is, and the government side is here, when they make these appointments to these boards they have to make sure they provide sufficient resources so those members can do their jobs in an expeditious manner. That's the point I'm trying to make here today.
The Chair: Is there any further debate? Seeing none, all those in favour, please indicate. Those opposed? The motion is carried.
May I have a motion of concurrence in the intended appointment of M. Jean-Paul Charles?
Mr Marchese: So moved.
The Chair: Is there any debate?
Mr Cullen: This is an area where I have a great deal of concern. I have a large amount of social housing in my riding. The concern of the community there is, will the devolution of social housing to the municipality threaten the viability of rent geared to income? The principle behind social housing is indeed that people pay rent based on their ability to pay.
I know that the applicant has very good qualifications and is knowledgeable in the area, but when asked about the integrity of our social housing program, when asked about the notion of ensuring that there will remain province-wide standards on rent geared to income, province-wide standards on eligibility, province-wide standards on accessibility, not surprisingly, because he is a representative from a municipality, he says, "Look, municipalities will have to have some ability to control their costs."
I'm sorry. This is a social program and if you allow individual municipalities to try to control their costs, you end up fragmenting part of the social safety net and you will end up having people move to different places. Municipalities, as the applicant made very clear to us, do not have the ability to fund a social program as part of the social safety net from their property tax base. His views about downloading reflect ours; he has a problem with it.
But here we have the Ontario Housing Corp involved in negotiations with municipalities about the form that the transition is going to take for downloading and I, for one -- I'm not alone in this. Many of us believe that the principles of a social program that should have province-wide standards have to be defended. In my view, it is against the public interest to appoint someone to the board who is going to contemplate not having those province-wide standards, allowing municipalities for reasons I can very much appreciate -- but it's a question of principle here, and this, as part of the social safety net, has to be available to all or else we end up breaking a significant portion of what we call the social safety net.
It's with regret, but these principles are important enough for us not to support this appointment.
Mr Marchese: These appointments always pass because the Tories have the numbers. What we usually communicate to the people who come before the committee is our concerns and I think they understand that. Were the downloading not to work out effectively, as they have planned and as they say, I expect Mr Charles to be able to fight each and every one of them. That's the point of our comments here on this side. We can't prevent it. I can philosophize about my disagreement with downloading. I think it's absolutely wrong. Housing should not be something that should be given to municipalities.
I can say all that. I think he understands that and knows it, but I expect that when it doesn't work and when he doesn't get his money -- I suspect many municipalities will not get the money they need to do housing -- he's going to fight back, and if he doesn't do that, there's not much we can do about it except to make individuals of that kind feel guilty about the appointments they are taking. All I can do is to urge you, Mr Charles, if you don't get the money you're looking for, to fight these boys on the other side.
Mr Bert Johnson: I'm in a quandary because I have two reasons I find it difficult to support this motion, not the calibre of the man involved, I have a great deal of respect for Mr Charles, but the motion made by the member for High Park, that scares the heck out of me. The other reason is because --
Mr Grimmett: Fort York.
Mr Bert Johnson: Oh, I'm sorry, Fort York. What did I say?
Interjections.
Mr Bert Johnson: I always think of Old Fort York. The member for Fort York. The other reason is that Mr Charles and I don't share PhDs and so on, and I hardly know what it is but it scares the heck out of me when I hear a member from the caucus across that represents a riding that has a whole lot of PhDs, has a whole lot of wealthy retired Liberal civil servants, and they have this amount of social housing. That really scares me. I'm going to have to really think in the next minute or two whether I'm going to support this motion or not.
The Chair: Not seeing any other hands, you may not have a minute or two, Mr Johnson. Is there any further debate? Seeing none, if we can move to the vote.
All those in favour please indicate?
Mr Marchese: Bert, you kill me, honest to God.
The Chair: Those opposed please indicate? The motion is carried.
When we next meet, questioning of witnesses will be begin with the Liberal caucus and the clerk will be in touch with you to let you know whether that meeting will take place on June 17 or June 24. No further business? Seeing none, meeting adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1115.