SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION
RICHMOND HILL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS
MISSISSAUGA PROFESSIONAL NETWORKING
METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
CONTENTS
Friday 22 December 1995
Savings and Restructuring Act, 1995, Bill 26, Mr Eves / Loi de 1995 sur les économies
et la restructuration, projet de loi 26, M. Eves
Wildlands League
Tim Gray, executive director
Richmond Hill Chamber of Commerce
Jim Chwartacky, president
Barbara Scollick, general manager
Canadian Association of Retired Persons
Lillian Morgenthau, president
Ontario Library Association
Larry Moore, executive director
Dr Maureen Rudzik, incoming president, Ontario Library Trustees' Association
Mississauga Professional Networking
Norma Telfer-Campbell, founding member
Town of Huntsville
Christopher Williams, solicitor
Robert Small, CAO
Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board
Maureen Prinsloo, chair
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
Alan Tonks, chairman
Bob Richards, CAO
Ozzie Doyle, solicitor
Shirley Farlinger; Derek Paul
City of York
Frances Nunziata, mayor
Mike McDonald, councillor, ward 6
Toronto Christian Resource Centre
Julie Haubrich, community worker
Betty Hubbard, volunteer community worker
Communist Party of Ontario
Wilfred Szczesny, representative
Toronto Real Estate Board
Bill Jones, member, board of directors; chair, political affairs committee
Fareed Khan, policy adviser, government and legislative affairs
Von Palmer, policy analyst, government and legislative affairs
Paul Holliday
Deborah Kent
EVIDENCE SUBCOMMITTEE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président: Maves, Bart (Niagara Falls PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Tascona, Joseph N. (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Flaherty, Jim (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East / -Est L)
*Hardeman, Ernie (Oxford PC)
*Maves, Bart (Niagara Falls PC)
Pupatello, Sandra (Windsor-Sandwich L)
*Tascona, Joseph N. (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Wood, Len (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
*Young, Terence H. (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Silipo, Tony (Dovercourt ND) for Mr Wood
Colle, Mike (Oakwood L) for Mrs Pupatello
Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L) for Mr Grandmaître
Sampson, Rob (Mississauga West / -Ouest PC) for Mr Flaherty
Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:
Gilchrist, Steve (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Hastings, John (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel:
Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The subcommittee met at 0904 in committee room 1.
SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION
Consideration of Bill 26, An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings and to promote Economic Prosperity through Public Sector Restructuring, Streamlining and Efficiency and to implement other aspects of the Government's Economic Agenda / Projet de loi 26, Loi visant à réaliser des économies budgétaires et à favoriser la prospérité économique par la restructuration, la rationalisation et l'efficience du secteur public et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme économique du gouvernement.
WILDLANDS LEAGUE
The Chair (Mr Bart Maves): Good morning. Could Mr Tim Gray from the Wildlands League please come forward. Welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have 30 minutes today to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may want to leave some time at the end of your presentation for a response and questions from the three caucuses. I would appreciate it if you'd read your name and your organization into the record for the benefit of both the committee members and Hansard.
Mr Tim Gray: Good morning. My name is Tim Gray. I'm the executive director of the Wildlands League, which is an Ontario chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. Our organization is a private, charitable conservation organization. We were established in 1968 and have worked to complete a network of protected areas across the province as well as having had a long-term involvement and concern over our sustainable resource use and land use planning both in southern and northern Ontario.
Our comments today on the Savings and Restructuring Act are restricted to what we see as some of the potential environmental implications in areas of which we have some experience. It's not meant to be an exhaustive review of the environmental implications of this bill but, rather, focuses on the areas in which we have considerable experience.
I'd just like to note as well to the committee that preparation of a review of this bill was made more difficult by the short time period in which the public was provided with notice that preparation of briefs would be received and by the fact that many of the regulatory changes that are considered through the legislative changes to these bills are unavailable for public review and therefore make our comments more difficult to determine.
I'd also like to refer the committee to a more thorough analysis of some of the legal and environmental implications of this bill through reference to a brief that will be submitted by the Canadian Environmental Law Association.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation, I will restrict my comments to the changes proposed to the Conservation Authorities Act, the Public Lands Act and the Game and Fish Act, and start with the Conservation Authorities Act.
In southern Ontario, conservation authorities, because they are based on a watershed basis, are involved with local community organizations and municipalities. Because they are one of the largest holders of public land and land with high natural values, such as wetlands, river floodplain, forests, provincial forests of significance, these authorities are one of the most important vehicles for conserving natural heritage and quality of life and quality of ecosystem function in southern and central Ontario.
We're very concerned that the changes proposed to the makeup, administration and continued operation of conservation authorities will threaten their ability to continue to operate and threaten the existence and continued function of a lot of the lands that they hold.
The change to the conservation authority boards that will remove provincial appointees I think is unfortunate. I'm sure most of you have some familiarity with the structure of conservation authority boards and how they're appointed. Municipal government appoints people to these boards from the local community. The provincial appointees are also people who live in the local community but are selected by the Ministry of Natural Resources in consultation with others. These provincial appointees help to broaden the representation of opinions about how conservation authorities should carry out their mandate in the local area.
If cost is a consideration and the per diems that are paid for people to attend board meetings are the principal concern about why the province can no longer afford to have provincial appointees, it would be a relatively simple task to change the board appointments to the conservation authority to being on a volunteer basis, reducing the cost implication to zero for the province but still having the ability to appoint people from the provincial level who would be able to add a perspective that may not be achieved through appointments made only by municipal governments. So I think it's very important that these provincial appointees remain on these committees.
We're also concerned that dissolution of CAs, the conservation authorities, if that does occur, as has been proposed by changes that would allow municipalities to vote to dissolve the CAs, would then leave open the question of what happens to the lands which they own. As I pointed out earlier, a large amount of the publicly owned land in southern Ontario that has high conservation value is owned by conservation authorities. I'd just like to walk you through an example that I think makes it more realistic instead of talking in generalities.
0910
On the north shore of Lake Erie is the Long Point Region Conservation Authority. We've had a project of restoring native prairie grasslands and woodland to that area on the north shore of Lake Erie for the last five years. We've done that in partnership with local community groups, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the Long Point Region Conservation Authority. That area contains the Carolinian forest area of Canada. It has the most endangered species of any habitat in Canada; 40% of Canada's endangered species live in the forests and wetlands along the north shore of Lake Erie.
In the Long Point Region Conservation Authority watershed they own 11,000 acres of land, of which approximately 9,000 are forested. This comprises fully 10% of the remaining forested areas within that watershed. Not only is it 10% of all remaining forested lands; the areas owned by the conservation authority tend to be of the highest quality of the remaining forests that are left. So their value from a conservation perspective is greatly enhanced beyond the 10% of the land cover that they make up. This is because the forest tracts that are owned by the conservation authority are larger, more intact, less riddled by roads and have a history of more proper management than some of the smaller, fragmented woodland remnants that are privately owned.
If these areas were sold off or turned into some other land use, such as agriculture or real estate development, we could expect to see an increasing loss of species, an increasing listing of species on to the endangered list, decreasing quality of surface waters as the forest areas were no longer able to protect the headwaters of streams flowing into Lake Erie and a reduced quality of life through to lack of recreation opportunities in southern Ontario.
In our brief, we've listed some of the 68 species which are considered extremely rare to uncommon in southern Ontario, and all of them occur in Long Point Region Conservation Authority forest. I won't test your Latin by running through the entire list of common names and expect you to know what they are, but there's an incredible diversity of plant and animal species that have nowhere else in Canada to live except in some of the forests that are in publicly owned lands in southern Ontario. Any move to have these lands sold off would be of great ecological harm to this province.
I would also like to point out that a large percentage of the lands owned by conservation authorities, like the Long Point Region Conservation Authority or any others, were acquired at great private and public expense. Organizations such as Wildlife Habitat Canada, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, the Ministry of Natural Resources, small community groups, all of these people have worked very hard to raise money on a local level to purchase lands which were then turned over to the conservation authorities for long-term management.
When people donate land to the conservation authorities or when community groups buy land and turn it over for management to them, they have done that with the understanding that these lands are to be protected in perpetuity, not that they are to be at a later date sold off to generate revenue. I think that would both be a violation of a moral obligation for these lands to be protected as well as something that would send a very, very negative message to community groups and organizations that are working very diligently at the private level to ensure that significant lands in southern Ontario are protected.
I also think that the awareness of people across Ontario and across Canada for the value of our disappearing natural heritage and for the value of these areas enhancing quality of life is increasing yearly. You only need to look to what's happening in the schools, in the education programs, what's in the media. People are very aware that these are significant issues.
I think moves to allow these areas to be destroyed after years and years of hard work to protect them will be received very negatively by the public in most communities across southern Ontario. That is only going to serve to increase local conflict and local tension in an era where over the last several years we have moved to have a new vision of what proper use of natural areas and wetlands in southern Ontario should be. We are moving in the right direction. Anything that moves us in the opposite direction is both ecologically dangerous and, I feel, irresponsible at the community level.
My next comments are in regard to the Public Lands Act. The Public Lands Act, as it now stands, includes a statutory list of activities for which permits must be obtained from the Ministry of Natural Resources before undertaking activities on public lands. The modifications to the act suggest that that statutory list should be removed and instead individual activities will be listed by regulation that will come underneath a requirement for a work permit to be obtained.
The list of regulations that would apply to particular activities is not available at this time, but because the intent of this act is to move from a statutory list to a regulatory list, I can only assume that the intention is to have fewer activities required to have a work permitting process. The Minister of Natural Resources, in his address introducing this act, estimated that the number of work permits for operations on crown land would drop from 55,000 per year to 5,000, which is a fairly significant decrease in the number of work permits. I'm assuming that the regulations are going to be more permissive than the statutory list that exists now.
I'd like to give you a couple of examples of how that would play out in two areas of the province: one in central Ontario and one in northern Ontario. Central Ontario, as you know, is a mix of private and crown land, the area around Muskoka-Haliburton being sort of equally divided between publicly held lands and private lands, so there's a careful balance that needs to be maintained between protecting the interests of the public and the public ownership and allowing private developers and private individuals to carry out activities on their land which they want to do, for whatever reason.
The work permitting process, contrary to being something onerous, is I think a positive way to resolve difficulties between individuals and the public interest. Requiring that a work permit be obtained, for example, for a developer that wants to build a road across a piece of crown land to access an area where they want to build a subdivision, that permitting process requires that the individual has to go and talk to the biologist at the Ministry of Natural Resources, and they have to talk to the planner and they have to talk to the people in charge of aggregate production so there can be some assessment of what the values are at stake if that road is built. Nine times out of 10, the process in that discussion is resolved, and any necessary mitigation measures are written into the work permitting process and the permit is issued, but the values that are important are protected and the operation goes ahead.
Similarly, on shoreline development, all through Muskoka, all through the Huntsville area, Haliburton, there are increased levels of cottage development along lakes, and it is very important that fish habitat and shoreline values be protected. The work permitting process that goes on when docks or marinas are built allows that discussion to occur between the developer or the individual and the ministry to ensure that any docks or other developments that are built are done in such a way as to minimize or avoid negative impact on the natural values in the area.
If it's no longer required that docks, shoreline development, roads over crown land require a work permit and therefore no negotiation with the Ministry of Natural Resources staff, the ability to have that back-and-forth discussion leading to a reasonable solution so that both the development can go ahead and the environment can be protected, we'll be left in a situation where the people wanting to undertake a project won't seek a work permit but will go ahead with their activities, the damage will be done to the environment if it's done improperly, and the Ministry of Natural Resources staff and the public will be left in a situation where they have negative environmental harm and then have to take either corrective measures or private prosecutions or public prosecutions under the federal Fisheries Act or under other pieces of legislation to bring damages to the people who have caused the harm. That is not a cooperative or useful way to proceed both in terms of relations between the private sector and the public, and it's also not an efficient way to protect the environment because you're trying to reverse damage that's already been done.
Moving a bit farther north where the majority of land is crown land, north of the French River, and where the Ministry of Natural Resources is largely the agency responsible for resource management planning and land use planning, it's very important when mineral staking activities, prospecting activities, logging road development are going to occur, that there also be this negotiation between the people who want to carry out the activity and the agency responsible for ensuring the perpetuation of a broader set of values than may be of interest to the individual or company.
0920
I'll give you a good example that's occurring right now in Temagami. There's development of a land use plan there, a draft of which just came out yesterday, and there is concern that there is an area of relatively high mineral potential in the headwaters of Lady Evelyn River, which flows into Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater Wilderness Park. There's been a long-standing concern that northeastern Ontario's only wilderness park does not even contain one complete watershed that is protected, and Ministry of Natural Resources staff as well as the public have endeavoured to try and have this area added into the park. The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines has stated that it's concerned that it doesn't want to lose an area that is a potential site for a mine, but that the ministries of Natural Resources and Northern Development and Mines would enter into negotiations to determine what sort of work permits would be allowed in this very sensitive area to ensure that values were not damaged.
If this act goes through the way it is now and does not require work permitting for prospecting or for mining activities but instead allows only the protections provided by the Mining Act, the ministry will have no opportunity to enter into those negotiations with the prospectors or with the miners. That will only lead to increased environmental damage and increased conflict with the public.
My confidence that those activities can be undertaken in that area on a sensitive and responsible basis will be weakened, and the public will be left in a more polarized position with the mining industry in any area where they want to see values protected. We will have no mechanism to ensure that that negotiation will occur and that the values will be protected. That will force a change in attitude and a change in the relationship between the public and individuals who want to undertake activity on crown land.
I also think that changes to the Public Lands Act could really be a disservice to developers, to individuals and to mining and prospecting companies over time. I realize that everybody's looking for the least amount of bother when they're carrying out their activities and they want things to be clean and simple, but there is a relationship between private undertaking and public responsibility that has to be recognized and respected.
If there is a change to the way these procedures are allowed and there is open season on crown land outside of our few protected areas in this province, I can guarantee you that over time the public will find that very unacceptable. In the future, for the very industries seeking massive deregulation and simplification of the way they are allowed to access crown land, the reaction to that may be, as we've seen in other provinces and other jurisdictions across Canada and across North America, a move to incredible overregulation as a response to both perceived and real environmental harm.
There are some good examples of that in British Columbia recently with what's happened with the Forestry Act out there. Their new Forestry Act is as thick as the bill that's before us today, and every single activity in that province is regulated and legislated: how many metres you can be from the river, how many trees you can cut down, how you have to do this and how you have to do that. The reason for that is incredible public outrage over the mismanagement of forests in British Columbia, and the government's response to that has been to develop an incredibly detailed, prescriptive piece of legislation.
I don't think people should underestimate the ability or the desire of the public to have a healthy and clean and well-managed natural environment, and any attacks on that will come back to haunt the very industries that may wish absolute freedom to operate in any manner they want. For every change, sometimes there's a counterchange. If things are basically working fairly well now, it's very, very important to consider what the future implications are of making a drastic change to exclude the public from discussions about what should happen with public lands.
Last, I'd like to make a couple of brief comments on the Game and Fish Act. We definitely welcome the creation of a separate account under the consolidated revenue fund for the management of wildlife. We also welcome those changes that were brought in by the previous government to create consolidated funds for forestry activities to allow for more effective spending of money on regeneration activities in the province. We are concerned, however, that the total amount of money available for wildlife management will drop, and we'd just like to point that out. The $42 million that would be in this fund is somewhat less than the current $68 million a year spent by the Ministry of Natural Resources on wildlife management, so it is important to note that the actual funds available may be substantially less.
We would also like to indicate that we are concerned that the moneys be used for management of wildlife beyond merely fish and game to a broader base that includes other wildlife values. I think the way to do that is to ensure that the advisory committee established to oversee the disbursement of funds from this is inclusive of people beyond those -- and I'll quote the minister in his comments -- "with an interest in commercial and recreational use of fish and wildlife resources."
You are probably aware that the revenue generated from non-recreational and commercial use of fish and wildlife in this province is much greater than that generated by actual use, and that includes birdwatching and nature viewing, hiking, people coming to this province to experience something you can experience very few other places in the world any more. Those values need to be considered when decisions are being made, so there needs to be something very strongly worded that requires the inclusion of people who are not interested in wildlife purely for a recreational-commercial purpose.
Last, we do support the changes to the Ministry of Government Services Act to allow the provision of significant conservation lands. We would also like to see that section amended to require that those lands be acquired to be protected and not acquired for their values.
With that, I would conclude, and I'd like to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Gray, a very thorough presentation. You've left five minutes for questioning, so a little less than two minutes per caucus, starting with Mr Colle.
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Thank you, Mr Gray, for coming here today. Briefly, in the time allotted, what do you think is the main rationale or the main objective of these changes to the Conservation Authorities Act? What is the government trying to achieve?
Mr Gray: I'm not sure.
Mr Colle: You have no idea why they would make these changes? Don't you think that one of the objectives is basically to make it easier to sell off protected lands that are now under conservation authority protection?
Mr Gray: I'm hoping that wouldn't be an objective, because that doesn't seem to me to be a very worthwhile objective. I'm at a loss about why this is happening, because that to me seems such a ridiculous objective to have, I can't imagine why someone would want to have that.
Mr Colle: Why else would they make it easier to dissolve an authority? Why else would they give this minister the power essentially to sell off the assets?
Mr Gray: That's a good question. I don't know.
Mr Colle: Another group here last week, the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, said that these amendments to the crown public lands "could mean open season on Ontario's public lands and waterways in exchange for a marginal saving to the Ontario taxpayer. Anne Mitchell, the institute's executive director, told the legislative committee holding public hearings on the bill the proposed changes have been estimated by the Ministry of Natural Resources to be likely to produce savings of $1.5 million a year." Are they imposing those changes on the use and the permits allowed and the process allowed on crown lands and public lands to save money?
Mr Gray: I don't know what the actual cost of having ministry staff discuss development proposals or work permits would be across the province, because that does require people to sit down and discuss what's going to happen. I think the issue here is not whether $1 million is spent on staff time to do this, but what is the overall public benefit to this. I do not think it is in the government's best interests or in industry's best interests or the public's best interests to have a wholesale dismantlement of a process that essentially works to regulate activities on crown land.
0930
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I just want to go back to a couple of comments you made at the beginning of your presentation, one comment in particular, when you said that people donated money or made contributions towards the purchase of lands that are now under the authority of the conservation authorities with the clear understanding that these lands would be maintained in the public trust and the public interest and not sold off.
That, and the question of time that you addressed as well, in terms of there not being adequate time for these issues to be discussed, is certainly one of the issues we've heard a lot about in this committee.
Would you support a delay of this legislation going forward so that those kinds of issues could be discussed further and a better understanding reached among the public about the implications of some of these changes in this bill?
Mr Gray: Yes, I think I would. As I mentioned in our brief, I think the act would be more effective if it were divided up into sections so it could be discussed more thoroughly.
Mr Silipo: Is there anything in this bill, even including the things you said you do approve of, that in your view needs to be approved in a very short period of time, that could not be held off for another couple of months for further discussion?
Mr Gray: No.
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): Thank you very much for expressing your opinions and your support for the Game and Fish Act. I agree with you that it's a very positive move.
With regard to the dedicated account for wildlife management, you say that you want people who are engaged in hiking, birdwatching and nature viewing as part of the committee or as part of the process, but my definition of "recreational" would include those activities, and I believe it does. I just wanted to reassure you that I support the idea. Those things will be rolling out and I think it will support that.
Also, your comment on the wildlife fund, the amount at $42 million -- that fund could grow and likely will grow as more people become involved and more people are buying licences etc. I wanted to reassure you about that also.
With regard to your concern about provincial appointees to the conservation authorities, we've had some people giving presentations here expressing the fact, and I share their belief, that the level of government that's closest to the people, and in this case closest to the land, is the easiest to influence. So if people had concerns about conservation lands in different parts of the province, with this new law, they won't have to come down to Queen's Park to express their concerns and they don't have to do all these long-distance phone calls. They'll be able to go to their local level of government, people who are their neighbours and people they vote directly for in municipal government, and express their concerns. Doesn't that make sense to you that they'll be able to exert influence a little more easily?
Mr Gray: I think that's not the case, because the municipal governments appoint people to conservation authorities from the local area, as does the provincial government. People from the local area and people concerned about conservation authorities in their area go to that board, they don't come to Queen's Park. It's a question of the balance, of who's doing the appointing on that board, not where people go to have input on their local area. I definitely agree that people are concerned mostly about their own area, for sure.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Young. That's exhausted the time. I'd like to thank you for coming forward to make your presentation to the committee today.
RICHMOND HILL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: Could I please have representatives from the Richmond Hill Chamber of Commerce come forward. Good morning and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have 30 minutes today to make your presentation. You can use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave 10 minutes or so at the end of your presentation to entertain response and questions. I would appreciate it if for the benefit of Hansard and the committee members you could read your names into the record.
Mr Jim Chwartacky: Everybody should have our handout material. With that, I would just like to go through it. Good morning. My name is Jim Chwartacky. I'm the president of the Richmond Hill Chamber of Commerce. With me is Barb Scollick, our general manager. We are pleased to appear before the committee today on behalf of our members on Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act.
Our submission is concerned primarily with those sections dealing with municipal government, section M.
By way of background, the Richmond Hill chamber has a membership of just over 500 members. Our members are small, medium and larger-sized businesses. They come from almost every sector of the economy. We are the voice of business in our community. As such, part of our mandate is to speak out on our members' behalf to all levels of government.
We would like to commend this government for taking the initiative through Bill 26 to restructure its operations through reducing spending, amalgamating ministries, downsizing the civil service and changing the rules so that municipalities too may respond to the need to revamp their structure. The restructuring should improve the financial strength of the province. Also, it sends a strong message that Ontario is willing to work with the private sector to foster growth and create jobs.
On schedule M, amendments to the Municipal Act etc: First of all, municipalities are given very broad powers to impose fees or charges for any services or activities provided by them via subsection 220.1(3). We support the idea of modest user fees charged by libraries, parks and recreation programs, pools, arenas and other public services. However, user fees should not apply in emergencies where fire, police or ambulances are required, either by a resident or a non-resident of that particular community.
Further, although the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has the power to make regulations limiting or imposing conditions on the impositions of fees or charges, we would request that there be greater definition given to the types of fees and charges permitted under this section.
It is our concern that a municipality could impose fees that (a) do not correspond to the value of service being provided, and (b) could be used for the sole purpose of raising municipal revenues, not specifically related to any activity or service provided. This section could be improved by requiring that municipalities be limited to charging fees on a value-for-money basis.
In 220.1(3), provision is made for municipalities to pass bylaws to impose "fees and charges that are in the nature of a direct tax for the purpose of raising revenue." This is in addition to property taxes, business occupancy taxes, user charges, licensing and development fees. This raises questions and some concerns.
First of all, with access to additional revenue sources, will the municipalities, over time, increase their spending? Second, does this open the door to wrangling over taxes between the province and the municipalities, not unlike what we see between the general and provincial governments? And third, should the municipalities expect a further downloading of programs from the province as we have already seen the federal government do to the provinces? These are some of our concerns.
We would express reservations about 220.1(9), which denies the right to appeal fees or charges levied by a municipality or local board to the Ontario Municipal Board on the grounds that they are unjust or unfair. Since this is a situation of dealing with, in effect, a monopoly, there needs to be the opportunity for people who may have extenuating circumstances to have the right of appeal.
I want to bring out the fact that certainly privatization, contracting and franchising have been used successfully to reduce costs in many areas. We support the competitive environment where both municipal departments and private sector providers bid on providing the public service to a standard set by the municipal council.
Although municipal politicians have called for the curtailment of the decision-making autonomy of special-purpose boards and agencies, the proposed legislation has opened a way for direct influence on these boards by elected officials. We feel that the decision-making autonomy of the local boards should remain intact and beyond the direct influence of the politicians. They will be dependent on the municipal councils more and more as provincial grants are withdrawn, thus giving the politicians enough control through the normal budgetary process.
0940
Some commentary on GTA governance: We applaud the legislation which makes possible the reconfiguration of the GTA, either by the local jurisdictions or the minister.
If left up to the 30 municipalities and five regions, there is little possibility of a consensus and, consequently, any change. However, the legislation provides an opportunity for the municipalities themselves to submit their own plan for restructuring which the minister can implement by regulation. Should this process fail, the minister can appoint a commission to develop a new plan which can be implemented by the minister.
We do have some comments on a few other schedules. Although our main focus is on schedule M dealing with municipal government, we would like to comment on several others.
First of all, on schedule B, the amendments to the Corporations Tax Act, section 7: We commend the government for carrying forward the 1994 Ontario budget proposal to provide an Ontario innovation tax credit for research and development carried on in this province. This is important to the Richmond Hill business community which has a high concentration of high-tech companies.
On schedule F, health services restructuring, part IV: This section gives "the minister power to collect, use and disclose personal information for specified purposes and to enter into agreements for the exchange of personal information for specified purposes." We can appreciate the government's goal to reduce the amount of fraud in the health care system. However, we believe that a better definition of "to collect, use and disclose personal information" is absolutely necessary to protect the privacy of patients.
In conclusion, we applaud the government's determination to get matters resolved in a quick and effective manner. However, we would caution that there are some sections in Bill 26 that are too vague and left to misinterpretation. There could be some costly impacts on the business community which would offset the government's agenda of clearing up the red tape and letting businesses create jobs.
Thank you. That is our submission.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have about six minutes per caucus. We'll start with Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much for the presentation. I just wanted to start by noting that I'm glad we've had the opportunity to hear from you and to have these hearings, which wouldn't have been otherwise possible if we hadn't insisted as an opposition. One of the things that strikes me the most about your presentation is that you seem to be -- and please correct me if I haven't categorized this correctly -- in support of the general direction, but none the less you have a number of concerns that you're suggesting need to be addressed by specific amendments to the legislation, in some cases.
I want to start from the back and work backwards to address some of the points. On the GTA governance, we've had this position, the position you take here and taken by a couple of other groups; specifically, the one I remember is the board of trade here in Metropolitan Toronto. It's the government's position, you should know, that the provisions of Bill 26 do not affect the reconfiguration of the GTA; that isn't covered by this bill. I don't know if that changes your view at all, but I just wanted to point that out. Presumably there will be further changes that would come from the legislation, following the report on the GTA.
I wanted to address a couple of other issues you have in your presentation. Beyond the question of fees that I want to get to as well, if we have time, would you be concerned, if it were possible under this legislation, as we believe it is possible and as in fact even the minister has admitted is possible and certainly various municipal politicians have said is possible, for direct taxes to mean gas taxes, sales taxes, possibly even income taxes to be applied directly by municipalities? Is that something you would support or oppose?
Mr Chwartacky: Subject to, if you will, the bold print we have in our point 2. There has to be a balancing-off effect. It has to go hand in hand, I would suggest, with the existing level of taxation provincially and federally. Therefore, there's only so much tax room for taxpayers to pay and we'd be concerned about increasing direct taxes.
Mr Silipo: One of the concerns we're flagging is that if part of what the government is doing or a great part of what their direction is based upon is the concept that there's only one taxpayer and that in their view we need to reduce the level of spending by all levels of government, it seems somewhat contradictory to us that they would be putting so much emphasis on the one hand on reducing provincial taxes through their promise to cut taxes by 30% while at the same time simply shifting to the municipality the right to tax, which now exists largely at the provincial level. Doesn't that seem to you to be a bit of a contradiction?
Mr Chwartacky: I think they're trying to put it, as I would interpret it, to some extent to the municipalities. Yes, you wouldn't want an increase in overall taxes. We would not favour that. There would have to be some balancing effect between the provinces and the municipalities, so that the overall impact to the taxpayer is truly kept minimized as this government is suggesting it wants to do.
Mr Silipo: What logic do you see, given its fiscal position, in the government's actions of allowing municipalities to charge not only a variety of user fees -- and I appreciate your comments about the need for those to be limited to a value-for-money basis that is to correspond to the value of the service being provided -- but beyond that, what logic do you see in the government's actions in allowing municipalities to levy direct taxes that would just simply fill the void that is created by provincial tax cuts to municipalities?
Mr Chwartacky: In principle, if there are services that the municipalities will be providing that in effect are downloaded to them, I think there's room to raise revenue via direct tax because they're providing extra services, if welfare or something like that is downloaded to them.
But there should be a quid pro quo, we would suggest, whereby the overall tax burden is combined, let's say federal and provincial are not increased. Hopefully, this would be garnered through greater efficiencies through the mechanisms provided by this bill, so that the services to the end user can still be effective, not wasteful, and good, and the balancing between whether it's provincial or municipal is still kept at a minimum.
The Chair: Excuse me. Sorry to interrupt, but I'll move to the government caucus.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Good morning. I'd just like to go to the issue again of the user fees and the direct taxation. From your presentation I take it that the chamber supports the principle of user fees to pay for services that are required, but not as a way of raising extra revenues to pay for new services beyond what they're being charged for.
Mr Chwartacky: We're okay with user fees being charged on a value basis. In effect, the municipalities have a monopoly over provision of certain services and they have to be fair and just and not a sneaky way, so to speak, to charge high fees or fees that are not related to the nature of the service being provided as a way of raising extra tax revenues.
0950
Mr Hardeman: Agreeing with that principle, you suggest that the user fee should be value for money on whatever service the fee is being charged for. That would tell me that your position would be that you would not be wholeheartedly supporting those taxes that were being referred to. Incidentally, the minister has said that in his opinion these gasoline taxes and income taxes and so forth are not allowed under the act.
Assuming that was not the case, you would be suggesting that because you could not attach actual value for the service to that type of taxation -- what would you suggest that we could put in the bill that would prohibit that from happening? Or do you believe that this needs to be done? Are you of the opinion that the local municipality could be given the authority to do it but would not do it because it's not accepted by the people? In fact they have to be held accountable every three years.
Ms Barbara Scollick: I'd like to answer this because I was working around with this in my mind this morning. We have to have parameters on the taxes so they're not going to do what you're saying. They're going to respond to the will of the people. But let me put it to you this way. It could cost business a lot of money in a couple of years. A council has a three-year term. If they chose, in the first term, to put in a series of taxes, people will be used to them and they'll elect them again and in the meantime it's going to cost a lot of money. I think there has to be some safeguard in case you get a council that's irresponsible about it.
Mr Hardeman: So your suggestion would be that we should be putting something in the bill to clearly define that those taxes, if they're not intended, should not be allowed.
Ms Scollick: Absolutely. Yes, exactly.
Mr Hardeman: The other issue I think you brought up was the restructuring in the Metro area and, as was pointed out, that the restructuring portion of section M does exclude the Metro area and the regions and the county of Oxford. I would gather from your presentation that you would be supportive of that same type of process for the Metro area.
Mr Chwartacky: That's a fair comment, yes.
Mr Hardeman: I think we could then take it that the chamber would be supportive of that type of process as it's being directed to the rest of the province. Do you not have any concerns with the power of the minister to make the final recommendation?
Mr Chwartacky: There always are concerns. At least in our understanding of what is happening, the municipalities have, in effect, the first right to try to make it on their own, so to speak, and that's the right process. If that doesn't work, there's got to be some other process. There should be safeguards, I agree.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'll just comment on that last point. The board of trade were in here and their major support of the bill was because it permitted the restructuring of Metro, and they were quite surprised to find out that in fact it didn't permit the restructuring of Metro. I think it made two statements to us: One is that an organization like that, which I have a lot of regard for, has not had time to study the true implications of the bill; and two is that we're finding groups coming and saying, "We support the bill but -- " and then they raise a whole bunch of major issues.
Just as an aside, not to you but to the parliamentary assistant, I gather what he just said was that it's the government's intention to have these same rules apply to Metro. If that's the case, we'll want to know that because I'm sure Metro will want to comment.
Here's our understanding of what the government's trying to do with the user fees and taxes, just so you know what I think the municipalities are being told. This is what they have said about the intent:
"This legislative amendment will generally provide unlimited flexibility, thereby overriding all existing limitations on user fees. The proposed amendments confer significant discretionary power to council regarding activities to which a fee may apply, a structure fee, an incidence fee."
When the law passes, and it will pass because it will pass, municipalities are being told that from now on they have unlimited flexibility. That's the basis on which they're supporting the bill. So even though you may have reservations about the kinds of fees, they essentially have carte blanche on fees in the future. Anybody who objects to that, they will pull this out and say: "No, no. When you were passing that law, this is what you said we could do and we're doing it." So either we amend the bill or this is how municipalities work.
I would go further to say we've only had two legal opinions, and one legal opinion we're going to get this morning. The two legal opinions we had, from Mississauga and the city of Toronto, both say that this act would permit a gas tax the way it's written right now, and frankly, the municipalities are supporting the bill on the basis that it permits a gas tax.
Knowing that's the way the law is written right now, what would your comment be about supporting the bill as it's currently written?
Ms Scollick: Mr Phillips, I'd like to answer that question. I think we've already established the fact that we're concerned about those parameters not being there on the user fees. Support the bill, yes, but with amendment and that being one of the amendments that we would ask the government to consider.
Mr Phillips: I think we then have a problem with the municipalities, because they've supported the bill on the basis that it gives them this unlimited flexibility. Certainly I think a cornerstone of this section of the bill is that the association of municipalities has said, "We really like this because it gives us this," so I would just ask you to stay tuned. We understand your amendments, but I have a feeling that you may not see those amendments, so you may find that you have some difficulty with the bill when it's finally passed.
Ms Scollick: It looks like the business community is going to have to actively work against their municipalities then. Is that what you're telling us?
Mr Phillips: I'm saying that it's very clear in the government's documents the intent of it. They use the term "provide unlimited flexibility": unlimited, overriding all existing limitations. In fact there's another part of the bill that says if this conflicts with any other act, the one that favours the municipality is the one that prevails -- "is less restrictive," I think my colleague said.
We've had great difficulty in getting clarification on what this section means. The one thing we do know is that on user fees it is unlimited flexibility. That's what it means. There's a dispute about whether it includes taxes or not. The government feels it doesn't, the municipalities feel it does, so I would urge their chamber to watch what we call clause-by-clause, which occurs, I might add, the week of January 22.
The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr Phillips, but we've come to the end of your time and the end of the half-hour for the group presenting.
Mr Phillips: That clock speeds up.
The Chair: I'd like to thank you for taking the time to come and present to the committee today.
1000
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS
The Chair: Could I please have members of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons come forward. Welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have half an hour to make your presentation. You can be seated if you'd like.
Mrs Lillian Morgenthau: I am. It'll take me a couple of minutes to organize my case, so if you'd like to stand up for the next few seconds, or whatever you want to do, that would be fine.
The Chair: I'll let you know, as you're getting ready, that you have 30 minutes to make your presentation. You can use that time as you see fit. You may want to leave some time at the end for questions. Before you begin your presentation, I'd appreciate it if you'd read your name and your organization into the record for the benefit of Hansard.
Mrs Morgenthau: My name is Lillian Morgenthau. I'm president of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. CARP is a national association for Canadians over 50 years of age, retired or not. CARP is a non-profit association that takes no funding from any government and therefore is neutral. Our membership is over 225,000 people over the age of 50, with about 140,000 members in Ontario.
The aim of the organization is to improve and maintain the quality of life for Canadians over 50 years of age. We therefore maintain a deep interest in government affairs relating to this age group.
This government was put into power by the voters of Ontario to reduce the deficit, get rid of the bureaucratic albatross and find workable solutions to complex problems. Mr Harris rode in on a wave of these promises, but also explicit promises of maintaining our health care system and the protection of seniors' programs, with no user fees.
Bill 26 is a bill created in secrecy and delivered to the Legislature when members and stakeholders, myself included, were in a lockup awaiting the Finance minister's mini-budget. No information was released that this important bill was to be presented, let alone passed. How could any responsible government expect to pass a bill of 211 pages without time to study and assess it? We cannot but presume that the absence of members was a deliberate ploy by the government to ram through an obnoxious bill. Perhaps we should remind the majority members that the "d" in democracy does not mean the "d" in dictatorship.
Slash and burn first and think later is not the Canadian way. Omnibus bills aren't new, but were designed to take care of loose ends and for clarification, not to grab new powers that allow ministers to play God. Democracy is very fragile and must be protected. This bill allows a minister to change or take over local boards and have no House debate on municipal restructuring, which the minister can do by an order in council. Why then do we need politicians if this can be done without them?
When asked about the changing of school boards without public debate or consultation, Al Leach, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, is reported to have said, "Quite frankly, I don't know." Neither did anyone affected by this legislation know. Education Minister John Snobelen was equally at sea, saying, "Candidly, I don't know at this point." We feel that there should be time to find out what is in that 211-page document called Bill 26.
While CARP is concerned about several aspects of this bill, we will concentrate on the part of the bill that will hit seniors and all Ontarians hardest: health care in its many aspects.
In this session, we want to concentrate on these areas first: There are parts of the law which affect education, municipalities and highways. We cannot do the whole bill, but we will concentrate on these three things.
You may ask why seniors are interested in education. First, economically seniors are finding they must augment their income and often must learn new skills. Adult classes are full, both in high school and in university. Second, seniors are either having unemployed children and grandchildren returning home or having to support more education for those children. Third, all seniors pay property taxes. One half goes to education and one half goes to the municipality. Of course we're interested in education.
The school system is a major concern to CARP members, particularly those of us who have children and grandchildren. We recognize that the nature of available jobs has changed drastically over the last few years. The technological revolution has made enormous demands on the system, requiring training for this new world. Actually, I just learned how to use a computer myself; I resisted for a long, long time. But I still don't go to the bank and use that machine.
Not only are the actual tools needed, but students must be taught how to think and be encouraged to be flexible and to turn their talents in new and diverse directions. We find that adults and students who left high school are returning in droves to upgrade and learn new skills. This is to be encouraged.
Delivering the kind of education young people need is being made increasingly difficult with continuing cuts to education budgets, including the $400-million reduction expected during the period April 1, 1996, to March 31, 1997.
It is important that our children become familiar with computers at an early age, but a machine cannot take the place of a human being. A teacher is trained to transmit information and ideas and to encourage students to explore and express themselves in a variety of ways. Even larger classes than we have now and computer-assisted instruction are no substitute for a dedicated teacher. It's much too easy now for less-skilled children or for those who have trouble at home, for example, to slip through the cracks and wind up on the streets in their teen years with no skills and no chance for a job which requires even a minimum amount of training.
Obviously, it is important that students master the core subjects. They must be able to read, write, do their math etc. But what are the activities which make school and learning enjoyable? Often these are the opportunity to witness and take part in the arts, the extracurricular activities such as sports, playing in the band, working on the school newspaper, taking part in the school play and other programs which help young people develop their potential, solve problems and introduce them to the world around. Some children need special help in developing life skills, coping with problems not of their making, mastering subjects which they find particularly difficult. We cannot strip our schools of these programs if we want to graduate well-rounded, optimistic students who will fill the next generation of jobs and professions.
What will happen to library services? What will happen to other needed educational support? What of our guidance program? Will there be user fees for every program or service beyond the core subjects? How will this encourage students who are already feeling pressured and discouraged by thoughts of a difficult future?
Actually, I woke up this morning and I thought to myself, what about this library? I realized that if you go to the library, who do you find there? You find young students. You find older students. You find seniors. But you know, I haven't been to a library since I got out of university because I haven't had time. I wonder how many of you actually have gone to a library in the last few years.
1010
Mr Young: I go every week.
Mrs Morgenthau: Isn't that wonderful. But how would you like it if you had to go and pay for every book you had to take out and had to pay for every service that you had there? I think that our libraries are important. I think user fees are used against the poor and the vulnerable. That's what I woke up thinking this morning. This committee has really been terrible for me. I've been waking up every night with new ideas, and it's really disgusting.
Property taxes, half of which go to pay for education, are also the concern of seniors. We know the deficit must be brought under control. But short-term gain for long-term pain is not a solution we would advise. In our view, our education system is top-heavy with boards of education, duplication and administration costs which are out of line. We would favour the amalgamation of Ontario boards into as few as feasible. We believe that public and separate school boards that service the same area and that are serviced by public funds can be combined and provisions made which will respect the constitutional privileges of different groups, such as Catholic or francophone communities.
Reducing the number of paid trustees, bulk buying by all the schools, better use of personnel and equipment etc would save significant amounts of money. We believe that confederated school boards are needed and that the money saved should be diverted directly into the classrooms so that we stop shortchanging our young people and better equip them for the challenges of the next century.
The proposed College of Teachers we feel will create another unneeded level of bureaucracy which will be extremely costly and actually redundant. Teachers have been functioning in this province under the guidance of boards of education and the provincial department of education. Existing systems set standards of education and have the power to improve them.
The college will require that teachers are members in order to teach or administer. Total cost of the college to start is an estimated $13.5 million annually, and we all know that's just a start. I don't think any of us realize the budget that might be and must be attained to get this college going. We know that costs turn out to be higher than original estimates. This is supposed to be paid by the teachers, and they will also pay user fees for services such as applications for documents pertaining to recertification, letters of standing etc. So this huge amount will be paid by the teachers. Who pays the teachers? We, the taxpayers of Ontario.
What are we going to get for our $13.5 million? Keep more bureaucrats and supervisors busy? If we only had $13.5 million extra to put right into the classroom, what a difference that would make. But we don't have it. Now, in order to set up a system we don't need, we're going to ask our teachers to cough up that money. They're really going to be happy about that. Perhaps the bureaucrats who thought that one up should actually spend some time in a school room and rethink the proposal.
The other area I would like to discuss has to do with municipalities. This bill allows the minister to merge municipalities without their permission. And, I quote from the book, he can also "facilitate municipal restructuring over large geographic areas involving counties...local municipalities in counties" and territories. This could eliminate levels of local government and change representation. The description of this is on pages 133 and 134 of Bill 26. The extent of this provision is mammoth.
He has also given the municipalities the right to impose new taxes and user fees for garbage pickup; libraries, which children, students and seniors use all the time; public swimming pools, which in our hot weather are the mainstay of children and adults, usually of lower income; and anything else you can find to tax.
Mississauga's mayor and other mayors apparently love this bill, which allows municipalities to tax everything and anything. Why are we already paying huge taxes? Property taxes are supposedly for service such as clearing snow, cleaning streets, garbage removal etc. We pay extra to light our homes, heat our houses, bring water to our taps. These are all extras, not in our taxes. What are we paying for? If municipalities and governments are overspending, I suggest they bring in a homemaker who knows how to keep a budget.
Municipalities are also going to be allowed to levy head taxes, so much per person, whether rich or poor. We'd like to remind any mayor who is considering this that not even Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, could make that one stick.
Last, we wish to comment on that part of Bill 26 which allows toll highways. When minimum taxes on gasoline were instituted, it was with the definite commitment that these taxes would be used for the building, improvement and maintenance of highways and roads. The taxes on a gallon of gasoline are equal to the cost of the gas. This is not what we bargained for or agreed to.
With due respect, might we remind the government that changes in the cabinet are a normal exercise. Today the Minister of Transportation, tomorrow the Minister of Health. I'm sorry if that hurt, but it's true. Mr Snobelen, with his monumental changes to the way education is delivered in this province, has barely had time to learn the intricacies of his job, and tomorrow he may find himself in a different portfolio.
This bill encompasses 47 different issues. It should be split and discussed on the merit of each issue. As a matter of fact, I understand there are approximately 100 amendments being thought about. You know, a good general knows when to retreat. It may be time for us to throw this bill out and start all over again. There may be some worthwhile things in this bill -- perhaps there are -- but they should be brought in on their own. This bill is an affront to every Ontarian. Before attempting to draw up and pass a huge piece of legislation such as Bill 26, we suggest that the ministers involved be given time to really learn in depth the responsibilities they've taken on. The dictatorial powers they have appropriated are not only dangerous to democracy, but in their slashing attack on the deficit they may well throw this province into a recession.
Alienate the public and pit one segment of society against another: This is not my vision of Ontario, nor is it of our thousands of senior Ontarians. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We have about three minutes per caucus for questions, starting with the government caucus.
Mr Young: Thank you very much for coming and for your excellent presentation. In your comments, you said the bill allows the minister to merge municipalities without their permission.
Mrs Morgenthau: Yes. It's in here.
Mr Young: But it has to be locally inspired. The local municipalities have to come to the minister and say, "We've had debate" -- you said there'd be no House debate. There will be lots of debate that takes place at the local level, and if they can't work out their solution, someone's going to have to say, "We have to make a solution happen, if they can't agree," and that's how the process will work.
I share your concern with seniors. I worked as a volunteer in a non-profit seniors' residence for six years, on the board of directors, and what I've seen is two major classes of seniors: seniors who have not, and seniors who have. There are seniors who, with their old age supplement and pension, have no money left at the end of the month. Those are the ones I think we have to focus our help with. There's another class of seniors who are wealthy; there are lots of wealthy seniors out there.
Mrs Morgenthau: A very small amount, about 2%.
Mr Young: There are lots of seniors --
Mrs Morgenthau: And I brought that paper --
Mr Young: Could I continue, please?
Mrs Morgenthau: Sorry, but it does tell you the statistics.
Mr Young: My mother is not wealthy, but she's comfortable, and she's one of the seniors who've said to me and to members of our caucus: "We're willing to pay $2 towards our drugs. We want to be part of the solution for Ontario." I want to concentrate on how we can help seniors in need.
1020
There are some really great things in Bill 26 for seniors, and I'd like to make sure you know about that. One of them is that the legislation allows municipalities to exempt groups of persons from user fees, and that was designed for seniors. I want to make sure you understand that too. Did you know we're extending the drug benefit plan to 140,000 individuals who are on low income? That's part of Bill 26 also.
Mrs Morgenthau: Am I allowed rebuttal or do you want us to --
Mr Young: I would like to ask you one more question. Does it make sense for working people who have children in school and mortgages and who are trying to make ends meet to be subsidizing drugs for the class of seniors who are on the higher economic end? Does that make sense?
Mrs Morgenthau: Let's look at the higher, so to speak. First of all, we're not all seniors. We're over 50. That's the sandwich generation that's taking care of kids and taking care of parents. We speak in decades, actually. There's the junior senior, those from 50 to 60 years old; the middle senior, those from, say, 60 to 75; and then the senior senior, who goes over that.
When you're talking the wealthy -- that's why I brought that paper which says "Destroying the Myth." A very small percentage, about 2% of seniors, could cope with user fees. You're talking about the poor. We want to be sure that those seniors who are coping stay able to cope. They have no paycheque coming in. They only have their pensions and the interest that comes through. If they have capital and all these user fees and everything goes up, the inflation is phenomenal for them. Their taxes go up every year, their heating bills go up every year, their lighting goes up every year. Everything they cannot do without goes up every year, and they have to pay it.
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, Mrs Morgenthau, but we have to move into the time for the opposition questions.
Mr Phillips: I very much appreciate you being here and speaking on behalf of the seniors. What this bill permits is the introduction of user fees on drugs for seniors. It is clear that every senior will be required to pay at least $2 per prescription. If their income is $16,000, they pay $100 a year plus the full dispensing fee. During the election, in my area I know the seniors were told by the Conservative Party, "We will not introduce any copayment" --
Mrs Morgenthau: I've said that.
Mr Phillips: "No copayment, no new user fee." It was absolutely clear-cut in big, bold type. It wasn't just user fee, it was copayment.
Mr Young: I'd like to see that. I'd like to see where it says that.
Mr Phillips: Where does it say it? Right here. "In the last decade...copayments have kept rising.... We looked" at it and rejected it. For anyone who couldn't hear that, the Conservative member doesn't realize he ran on a platform of promising you wouldn't introduce copayments, and the entire --
Mr Young: No user fees. He didn't mention copayments.
Mr Phillips: No, no. No copayments.
Mr Silipo: Your Premier said copayments were user fees.
Mr Phillips: I think our delegation now sees that the Conservatives don't realize the promise they made.
The seniors of this province were promised in writing that there would be no new user fees, no new copayments. It is clear Bill 26 provides for brand-new copayments, user fees, on seniors. Do the seniors of this province feel betrayed by that promise that is now being broken?
Mrs Morgenthau: You want me to take a stand on the government. We have a majority government, and no matter what we do, our faith is in a government that has 82 seats. All we're saying to this government is that this bill is a bad bill, and when you've got a bad deal, you should get out of it.
What this gentleman said about seniors -- we get lots of letters. I have piles of letters from over 200,000 people saying to me, "We want to help," but you're not doing it right. There are ways of doing it without slashing and burning. On this bill and any other bill for the restructuring of the hospitals and the medical, no seniors' associations, such as ours, which is very large, probably the largest in its particular area, were invited to sit on that committee. That tells you something. That tells you that they think every senior sits in a wheelchair and has lost his brains, and we object to that.
Mr Silipo: Thank you, Mrs Morgenthau, for your presentation. I appreciate very much your latter comment, that you don't want to get caught saying you support or don't support the government. I'm not interested in pursuing that issue at all.
But I do want to emphasize and ask you to comment further on the essential point you made time and time again in your presentation, which is that this bill should be withdrawn and split up and that more time should be given to address the issues in this bill because it addresses so many fundamental issues that should not be done in this way.
Mrs Morgenthau: No person can be all things to all people and no minister can be all omnipotent over everyone. A little bit of power is a dangerous thing and a lot of power corrupts. This bill gives power, and we don't feel that's the democratic or the Canadian way.
The Chair: Thank you very much for coming today to make your presentation. I understand you may have another presentation to make today.
Mrs Morgenthau: No problem.
The Chair: Good luck and happy holidays.
Mrs Morgenthau: I thank you for your time, gentlemen, and I hope this isn't window dressing.
ONTARIO LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Could I please have representatives from the Ontario Library Association come forward. Good morning, folks, and welcome. You have 30 minutes to make your presentation, which you may use as you see fit, but you may want to leave some time for response and questions from the three caucuses. Please read your names and your organization into the record for the benefit of Hansard and committee members.
Mr Larry Moore: Thank you very much. I'm Larry Moore, the executive director of the Ontario Library Association. With me are Jane Horrocks, president of the Ontario Library Association; and Maureen Rudzik, who is incoming president of the Ontario Library Trustees' Association, which is a constituent group of the Ontario Library Association.
I will go through the presentation, which I believe is in front of you. It's maybe slightly different in how we approach this, but we obviously have concerns about the bill that we would like to put before you.
Thank you on behalf of the Ontario Library Association and the Ontario Library Trustees' Association for the opportunity to present the concerns of librarians and library trustees working in hundreds of municipalities across Ontario. We are here today to discuss clauses in Bill 26 dealing with the provision of municipal power to dissolve currently constituted library boards and the provision of municipal power to impose user fees.
As background to this, our libraries are no strangers to financial cutbacks, just as most parts of the economy are not. In the last three to four years in particular, municipal financial support for libraries has been dwindling, and in some instances, support has already been seriously curtailed.
The provincial Treasurer's cuts to municipalities, advanced in tandem with Bill 26, will be passed on to municipal agencies, among which libraries are prominent. The Treasurer made a 40% cut in provincial support provided directly to public libraries over the next two years. Provincial support through the per-household grant has remained steady, if flat, over the past four years, so this 40% cut is a major reversal of that situation for us.
Bill 26 challenges specific tenets of the Public Libraries Act, 1984, and its regulation including the two provisions that have already been cited.
1030
In the current context, each of these events is drastic but not entirely incomprehensible or unexpected. Together, however, these events are a dangerous confluence for a resource whose importance to the province and the people of Ontario remains pivotal.
The issues affecting libraries brought forward in Bill 26 are not new to us. They have been a source of research and discussion for the library community for many years. In the light of what we have found, our organization has remained confidently vocal in defence of libraries and the need for government leadership in the information economy in which we now find ourselves. People need and must have information, not just for our society to be democratic but for our society to survive and thrive.
The two provisions being put forth in Bill 26 that we wish to discuss do not provide major financial relief to municipalities. In that light, we feel it is more important than ever that the limitations of these two provisions receive study and careful attention.
Special-purpose bodies: In Ontario, some 3,500 people from all walks of life sit on library boards. They are certainly cost-effective. They volunteer their time, energy and in some cases money to the development of an increasingly complex service to which they are entirely dedicated. Library boards set policy and, in the main, direct efficient, businesslike operations which are sensitive to their communities' needs.
Over the years, the Ontario Library Trustees' Association has contested different attempts by municipalities to dissolve library boards through special legislation. We fully believe that citizen participation and responsibility have led to libraries of growing excellence.
For close to four years, the OLTA, supported by the Ontario Library Association, struggled with its most tenacious of opponents, the city of Mississauga and its long-standing mayor. It was an exhausting and unnecessarily long-drawn-out debate. The city of Mississauga, in its presentations, could never explain what would be better if the library board were dissolved and made into a committee of council. Last year, when the Mississauga legislation came to committee in this very room, members from all parties of the Legislature, including our current government, voted against that legislation and, in comment unsolicited from us, I'd say at least half the members of the committee agreed that if the legislation had been passed, libraries across the province would be in definite jeopardy.
In response to a request from the Honourable Marilyn Mushinski, the Ontario Library Association, at its annual policy forum last month, did however put the question of governance back on the table. We had a serious representation of CEOs from public libraries across Ontario and an unexpectedly large number of trustees to discuss the issue again. The minister was looking for fallback positions and there was agreement at the policy forum that her request was not inappropriate.
Examples of library governance from countries all over the world provided no evidence that any other form of governance created libraries more responsive or more accountable to their communities than those run by autonomous boards, as we have in Ontario. If anything, the research seemed to prove the opposite.
A Canadian researcher at McGill University discussed the pitfalls of alternatives. The only more preferable form of governance that she identified appeared to be if a public library were to be made a full department of a municipality, in which case she said they would be far better off. However, the worst form of library governance she identified was also related, and it was seen to be when a library was subsumed by a municipal department, in which case they were entirely lost in the results. We feel from the indications so far that it's more likely that municipalities would go that route, of having a library become part of a department rather than a full department in its own right.
So the policy forum ended up passing a resolution reaffirming boards as the most favoured form of public library governance. It was not necessarily the result that was expected, quite frankly. We thought really we could talk about alternatives, but it just wasn't there in the research we had. Other types of regulatory bodies we could maybe see being possible would need to have such similar characteristics that the cost of putting them in place instead of library boards did not seem to be anything that would be justified, so the resolution that was passed supported library boards still as the best form of governance for the libraries of Ontario.
It is less than a year since the Mississauga legislation was turned back as too damaging by the committee that met in this room and by the parties that were involved. So why in December are we faced with legislation that all parties agreed was not in the best interests of the province in May? There's an enormous reversal here.
Our understanding and our reading of the situation is that the government -- and it's no secret -- has been considering the recommendations in last year's AMO-Pilkey report, particularly in the light of funding cuts to municipalities predicted by the Premier at AMO's conference in August. The Pilkey report has asked for dissolution of library boards, and AMO has also asked for this. However, the rush to put into place what probably are dozens of possibly excellent recommendations we feel cannot be allowed to lead to other changes that are damaging and are just brought along as part of the process.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has run a concerted campaign against special-purpose boards for years, citing library boards as a key example time and time again, and it came out forcefully in its brief yesterday. Why library boards?
AMO claims that special-purpose boards keep the municipality from having real authority over how it spends its own resources. This may be true for other special-purpose boards, but the fact is that the Public Libraries Act, 1984, which was introduced by the previous Conservative government and passed by it, gives full control to a municipal council to not only appoint the members of a library board, to put councillors from the municipality on that library board -- they're obligated to do so -- but also to give them line-by-line full control of the budget. So the Public Libraries Act has in essence introduced the powers that we see they are requesting, and municipalities are using them. We had major limitations and cutbacks in budgets quite prominently in the press, last year already. It works. They're able to do it.
Then what authority is missing? Is it the authority that would allow municipal council to make a library remove a book from its shelves? As it turns out, since last night it's sort of shifted a bit, but such pressure is coming right now from the cities of St Catharines and Burlington to remove Lethal Marriage from those two public libraries. The fact is that there was considerable pressure on the part of elected officials. I mean, this was an unpopular decision on the part of the libraries, and this politically is a very big bomb, if you will, as to how do Canadians at this point, who are extremely personally associated with the Bernardo and Mahaffy/Kristen French situation, not respond in favour of the families? But the fact is the library is there to ensure that intellectual freedom is addressed, and these are the libraries that kept material out of their libraries all through the development of the court case to ensure that the court case would be fairly heard.
I will stop that digression, but there is a whole thing there, and surely municipal councillors don't want that whole right. In this case, though, the pressure was there. One city councillor was heard to say that voting for keeping Lethal Marriage in the library would probably ruin her political career. But as a board member, she knew it was the only correct thing she could do. Last night the board, as it turns out, reinforced that decision, and I think that stage, although it's still not happy for everyone, is maybe past.
Politics and libraries have been separated by boards for good reasons, because the whole question of information and what is available to our citizens in a democratic society is basic to what libraries are all about.
AMO says trying to get rid of the boards is really a question of accountability. We agree that if accountability means being liable to political punishment, then of course municipal councillors are more accountable. But trustees are not appointed to defend special-purpose groups or institutions or services or political trends. Their accountability rests in being responsive and responsible to community needs and input, protecting intellectual freedom, protecting community heritage. An autonomous board is more accountable to the entire community in many ways. It does not respond to political pressure in reaching what, as far as we can see, are the most suitable decisions.
1040
Now, the situation does keep changing, but not in the way AMO or the municipalities think. The need today is for a public lane on the information highway, and it is an escalating need. Such entry to the information highway can be provided to Ontario's people through the thousand points of light that our libraries represent across the province. The public library is a local gateway that is critical to the future economic, educational and cultural development of Ontario. Connected in partnerships to libraries in colleges, universities and schools, public libraries demand more provincial leadership, not less. Yesterday I think AMO said the opposite. At any rate, libraries do advance Ontario and the municipalities in which they reside. The focus and will to make such things happen reside in bodies like boards, not in municipal departments attempting to administer a variety of disparate and conflicting activities.
Although the AMO presentation made a strong statement yesterday against the continuation of library boards, no reason was given. It was fascinating to hear him punch out the line that library boards being an exception was unacceptable, but there was no reason. They just did not give a reason, and this has been our experience with it.
This is probably not something we should have brought into our brief, but outside the room, after the presentation -- we of course are still interested in hearing what the representatives from AMO have to say -- we listened to the press interview and we talked with them. Michael Power, who was one of the two people giving the presentation yesterday, told us that it was probably true that 90% of library boards do an excellent job but that it was important to AMO that there was consistency in the legislation.
That is alarming to us, because that's not what should drive the legislation, but we can see how in this grand package of things, moving very quickly, that could be missed, that it is just consistency that is being considered here. Neatness is not a satisfactory reason for destroying a palpably effective and critically useful support to a necessary provincial resource.
There's lots we have on this. This is an enormous issue. It's been an issue for years. The confidence that we have with it we are willing to share with you in whatever way we can, and we've always worked with the governments along the way to ensure that if there are other alternatives, they get addressed in light of what is being lost or gained.
On user fees, the OLA policy conference that was referred to earlier also addressed this. We think there is considerable confusion over what libraries can now charge in the way of user fees and what they cannot. We do not think municipalities entirely understand what the act allows or does not, even at this point.
The Public Libraries Act and its regulation clearly prohibit fees being charged for admission and the use of library materials, for reserving and borrowing materials and for reference and information services. Even under the act right now, charges may be and are being made for use of audiovisual and copying equipment, for use of meeting rooms, for provision of programs.
At the Ontario Library Association's policy forum in November, a policy paper was discussed to determine what should realistically be defined as core services that might be exempted from this particular piece of the legislation: in essence, those library services that should still remain free in spite of the provision for fees for service. There was unanimous agreement for the resolution that we've attached in appendix B, and it defines what should be or should not be allowable within our current framework.
As you can see, user fees for the circulation of individual library items is still not supported. Information should be available free of charge to people who need it. In discussion, though, annual membership fees for residents, although seen to be undesirable, were perhaps necessary in this economic climate. Each fee is, regardless, an encroachment on the average person's right to know, but multiple fees even more so. So there may be some things that can be discussed and considered there, but it still is not desirable. A fee remains a tax that will limit use and discourage people who may have a serious right to know. If user fees are to be charged, they must be able to create significant revenue before being adopted. What worries us is that we may end up with user fees that, in essence, do not raise very much money and the damage will be there regardless. We think those tradeoffs need to be very carefully measured.
We looked at the experience in other jurisdictions, naturally. The majority of Canadian provinces have legislated free library services, as have most states in the United States. Legislation in those places is consistent with Ontario's current legislation.
Overseas, England and Wales, under legislation, do levy charges on the circulation of some materials and generate 2% to 3% of their total library revenues that way. However, a speech, where we were getting much of the information for their practice, from a representative of the British Audit Commission noted in relation to user fees that "income generation schemes should be approached with caution; that there are onerous financial, legal and management questions to be addressed and that, even after all that, the amount of money involved is small and there is no guarantee that you will get" the benefit you want from it.
Annual membership fees as an approach are at the present time allowed by legislation in Alberta, so we made inquiries there and we found that the fees they are collecting tend to generate 3% to 4% of library revenue. We're not putting a value on that, we're not sure what it means, but that is the result that is being achieved there.
Our concerns we think are being addressed by the government in some ways, inasmuch as the Honourable Marilyn Mushinski has indicated that we will have the opportunity to filter out these questions in the next two to three months, where this is being defined more completely, and we are encouraged by that. Such exceptions that are determined will be significant to how services are provided to Ontario residents. Of course, we think they need careful consideration.
Many libraries around Ontario have, since the policy forum, initiated surveys of their own of current users to determine what people think about this: Will they pay? What would they pay? What is their attitude towards this? Although the results are not available in time for this presentation, they obviously will be used in discussions with the minister and with the agencies that she puts in place to allow discussion to take place.
Jane Horrocks, whose library is at Richmond Hill -- she is CEO there -- has just gone through this process and may be able to comment if you would like to hear what one library is finding on these issues.
In the long run, we think it is important that whatever user fees are agreed to, and the direction of user fees, there needs to be uniformity in the application of user fees across the entire province. You can't have one library in one municipality charging for certain things that are not possible in another municipality, because the whole thrust of libraries in the information age -- and I apologize for the corniness of some of the phraseology, but the fact is we are in an information age. The information industry is driving this province and libraries are the public access to that. There needs to be a way for libraries to connect across the province. It is not just a municipal issue; it is a major provincial issue. The uniformity is necessary for any kind of development along those lines.
Our conclusion is that there is an assumption in most municipal and provincial rhetoric that indicates that libraries are somewhat taken for granted, rather than seen as critical entry points to the swiftly growing information environment that is driving the Ontario economy, all education and indeed world events. There appears to be very little understanding of how information has become the driving force in our society and how the needs of Ontario employment-seekers, businesses, students, writers, homemakers, even politicians, are changing.
Ontario is looking dangerously through Marshall McLuhan's rearview mirror and the results could set the province back in ways that can be as devastating to the economy as the deficit that we are now trying to control. To ensure this, we are saying that library boards should be an exception to provisions for dissolution of special-purpose boards and that user fees need to be carefully determined before final agreements are made. We welcome your comments and questions.
1050
The Chair: Thank you very much for your very thorough presentation. We have about two minutes and 20 seconds per caucus for questions. We'll start with the opposition caucus.
Mr Colle: Thank you for the very comprehensive presentation. In terms of uniformity and exceptions to the unilateral power to dissolve boards, it's interesting to note that there have already been a couple of exceptions given in writing from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minister of Transportation to the police chiefs, saying that in essence the police services boards will be exempt. It looks like they're going to exempt also the school boards. So with regard to Mr Power's assertion that it's being done for uniformity, there's already inconsistency there.
I would also like to say that what is very clear is that this is part of what I call Hazel's revenge. As you know, Mayor McCallion and Mayor Lastman and a number of other mayors find that this is going to be a user fee bonanza; you know, gas taxes, income taxes, taxes on firefighting services, police services. I guess the resistance that's come from the library boards in terms of restricting access to information by the imposition of user fees is one of the reasons there's been this confrontation between the local feudal lords and the library boards.
The question I have for you is, how can you expect to get any kind of hearing when this whole Bill 26 in the municipal area has been basically engineered to please the likes of Mayor McCallion in Mississauga and you're on the other side of the issue?
Mr Moore: I've just been told to answer that. It has crossed our minds that obviously our struggle with the municipalities on these issues has certainly lent itself to the kinds of attitudes that are there. We still, in the long run, believe that governments govern and that this government will govern.
Yesterday, AMO made what to me I guess was just a personal kind of statement that truly shocks me when they said that the government, in reducing its money, therefore should not have the say in how municipalities respond to this. I don't believe that for a minute. I think that the province and this country have to be governed, whether you give the money or not. If it's in the interests of the public that certain provisions and certain legislation be in place, then that should happen. We think this is true in this issue as well. We do not have any reason to believe that the government is insensitive to that. I think we are worried about the sweep of Bill 26 to include the Pilkey report, which was written by AMO members and government members at that time.
The Chair: Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I have to move on to Mr Silipo's time.
Mr Silipo: Thank you again for pointing out to us another important example in what I call the sledgehammer approach that's being taken by this government, where in order to deal with what seems to be, when you analyse it, a very limited problem, it is bringing in far-sweeping legislation that changes the rules for the whole world. You've pointed out in here the admission even by AMO that 90% of public library boards seem to be doing just fine, thank you very much. We've had lots of other examples: from firefighters, with respect to arbitration, only 15% of cases go to arbitration; the seniors' group that was just here before, saying only 2% of seniors can really afford the user fees that are being suggested.
I just hope that your well-reasoned presentation here strikes some chord with the government. But can you tell us any more about whether your discussions with Minister Mushinski have led you to believe that the government will be prepared -- as Mr Colle said, other ministers have indicated through letters, for whatever they're worth, that certain exceptions will be made. Have you had any sense from the government that it's prepared to make an exception in this case?
Mr Moore: No. I was really surprised and pleased to see that AMO said yes. I don't think AMO would have said what they said yesterday if they didn't believe it was being considered. But we have not been made privy to that. We have been dealing largely through third- and fourth-tier people to get the feedback we have. So far we've not had direct access to the minister's office.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you for the very thorough report. I too have sat on a local library board. I was one of those elected appointed officials on the board. From your presentation, you point out that the library boards presently are appointed by the municipality. They can appoint whom they wish. They control the budget. What would bring them the concern, if they already control it, that in fact it does have to remain an autonomous board?
Mr Moore: Well, it's all in the direction and issues that are driving libraries. Libraries are in a great period of change, the whole information revolution -- I keep using these terms that just sound corny to me as I say them but aren't -- and the board is really there attempting to create and respond to a demand or need for consistent approaches to services across the entire province. The provincial input and need are able to be addressed by a group who have nothing else but to address that. If you're trying to run a city and you have several departments here, it seems to me you are looking more at the financial and managerial side of this, which is already being given to you by the act. But for you to have time and the ability to create what is needed for the library and its ability to serve your community we think is only really possible through having such a group.
Mr Hardeman: In the act, the minister has the power, by regulation, to exempt boards and commissions from this dissolution. Would it solve the concerns of the library boards if in fact they were included in such regulation?
Dr Maureen Rudzik: I think that we would like to continue as autonomous library boards. I'm not quite sure how the legislation ought to be phrased in order to do that, but to conserve boards and to conserve the operation of boards is our primary thrust at the OLTA.
The Chair: Thank you very much. It's come to the end of your time, Mr Hardeman.
Dr Rudzik: May I? I just have one thing to say. As the president of the OLTA and as the chairman of the reference library here in Toronto, I would like to invite you all to come on January 17 to the opening of the new reference library. Today will be the last day of the operation under the old Metro reference library as it was structured. When it closes its doors today, it will be closed until January 17 and it will restructure. There are 17,000 boxes in the library, and the library will be disassembled by the staff, all six floors of it, and will be reassembled. The doors will open again with a new look and a new reference library and a very much leaner staff. We have lost nearly a quarter of our staff through the cuts this year alone. So we invite you to come and to see what the new information technology is like.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that invitation and for your presentation today.
1100
MISSISSAUGA PROFESSIONAL NETWORKING
The Chair: Could I please have a representative from Mississauga Professional Networking come forward. Welcome this morning to the standing committee on general government. You have half an hour to make a presentation today. You can use that half-hour as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate if you'd read your name and organization into the record for the benefit of the committee and for Hansard. Thank you.
Ms Norma Telfer-Campbell: Chair, members of the committee, good morning. I am Norma Telfer-Campbell, founding member of the professional networking group in Mississauga. I'm here this morning on behalf of the professional networking group and I'm sure on behalf of many Ontarians who would have liked to have the opportunity to come and make a presentation; unfortunately, they have not.
I will address specifically the proposed amendment to the Municipal Act and other statutes relating to the municipalities, user fees and proposed taxation.
Allowing municipalities to charge user fees on services -- I assume libraries, arenas, parks and even garbage collection -- has several far-reaching implications. It will be reactive and discriminatory against the lower socioeconomic level of people.
Let's look a moment at a single mother who has four or five kids, or even two, who pays the bills, like buying food, day care, providing rent, housing. Say her weekly income is $500. That mother will have to pay a user fee for the kids using the libraries, the arenas, the parks in the summer, and that mother will have already paid her taxes. User fees affect these mothers who least can afford it.
I think it will also deteriorate our cities. How, you may ask? These institutions, I'm sure, will depend on these user fees, since the provincial government is now reducing transfer payments to the municipalities, and I'm sure the municipalities, in return, will allow these institutions to use these user fees to cover the costs they would have otherwise obtained through subsidies.
If that is so, and these people -- the big users are students and children -- can't afford these costs, what will happen? They will stay away. Let's look at the TTC example in Toronto. Many people are not riding the TTC because they don't have any jobs to afford the cost. So what's happening? The service is deteriorating right now. I assume the same thing will happen to these institutions, because the people who use these institutions most are the poorer people. These are the people who can afford to go to the libraries, say students, to do their homework, their research, and even to get the opportunity to use reference books that their parents otherwise cannot afford.
Many kids, I'm sure, may turn to other sources to get this income out of desperation, even drugs to get quick cash. If they need to use these institutions -- the peer pressure at school -- if these kids have to do their homework but can't afford it, then behind closed doors they will be doing these sorts of things. Parents are not aware of it, teachers are not aware of it. Eventually, what will happen to them?
These are some of the things I am terribly afraid will happen to our kids: the peer pressure from groups and turning to this sort of lifestyle, that they normally would not do, out of desperation.
I also think we will witness an increase in crime because of the inability to access these services, services like the libraries, the arenas, the recreation centres, where these kids normally go to meet their friends and to get other outlets. I'm sure you'll see these kids soon turn to the streets, to shopping malls. As the old saying goes, the devil always finds work for idle hands.
We see that right now in our cities. We see that with the lower socioeconomic levels where you find these kids. Parents can't afford to put them in tennis, racketball or all these other facilities. Most of them go to these arenas to play basketball etc. If they have to pay user fees on these facilities, I'm sure they will stay away, and the ultimate will be what?
What we will see in the parents is frustration, frustration because they can't afford to raise the money to pay these fees. They will be frustrated. We know what happens when parents are frustrated. What happens? Child abuse, which they normally would not have done, but because of frustration, ultimately this is what will happen.
When I look at my family, the combined incomes of my husband and me puts us in the middle class. We're paying taxes right now, very, very high taxes. Although we're in the middle class, we can hardly afford some of the things. With the high taxes we're paying, for the government to allow the municipalities to impose user fees and additional taxes, what will happen? Are we going to be seeing a division of wealth here, where you have the richer getting richer and the poorer getting poorer? Is that what's going to happen?
The other thing I'm also afraid of is that our cities will soon look like the American inner cities -- deterioration. For example, let's look at the garbage. If user fees are charged on garbage, you're going to see people overnight bagging their garbage to other gates. You're going to be seeing dumping. What will happen? How will we clean up this dumping all over the city? Are we going to encourage the American cities, the dumping areas?
These are some of the things I'm afraid excessive user fees and taxation will cause.
I heard the minister some time ago saying that some provisions of the legislation may not be used by the municipalities. I've also heard mentioned that there are some areas where the taxes applied could be poll taxes. That scares me. That's troubling, having read about and watched the experience in England, where Margaret Thatcher tried to impose a poll tax. I know from listening to various mayors like Hazel and Mel Lastman and other municipal representatives that they're happy that this amendment is going to be made to the Municipal Act and they can't wait to apply these fees.
It was also said that the minister has indicated that corporations may aid the poorer class in paying some of these fees. I wonder if that will ever happen. When will the corporations start coming in and paying fees for people, especially the poorer class of people?
Having looked at schedule M, clauses 220.1(3)(a), (b) and (c), I notice that interest will be charged on some of these fees, and I also notice it indicates that it will be collected in the same manner as taxes. That scares me, especially if the municipalities apply user fees to garbage collections. As I mentioned before, how are we going to monitor this? How are we going to ensure that when the garbage collector comes to my gate, I only have one bag and not four or five or six or seven bags that people who do not want to pay that cost dumped at my gate? How can we ensure that? If I refuse to pay that cost because I just put out one bag, where do I go?
If I'm reading this right, and from memory, I think there is a section that says this cannot be appealed. Where do I go? That cost will be applied to my property taxes. Is the government telling me that because they're going to be applying this user fee, they're going to be reducing my property taxes? My taxes are already high and I pay these taxes for the essential services to be provided, services like the library, arenas, garbage pickup. This is why I pay my taxes, and my taxes in Mississauga are extremely high. Are they going to be reducing taxes?
I have also heard from commentators and read in the newspaper that it will be beneficial in the long run. How do we know that? The government has indicated that it is not going to be increasing taxes, and that if user fees are applied, municipalities will not have to increase their property taxes. I beg to differ. I think applying user fees is another form of taxation, an exorbitant form of taxation. Can you imagine, when you calculate the user fees charged on all these services like the libraries, garbage pickup, the arenas, what the costs will be? How can I afford it? How can Ontarians afford that?
I do realize we are in a financially strapped province. I do realize that we have to get money from somewhere to pay our costs, but there are creative means that municipalities can come up with to reduce costs other than doing it through user fees.
1110
Chair, members of the committee, I know that once this amendment goes through, these fees will be imposed. They may not be all the fees I've mentioned that I foresee, but they will be imposed. How are we going to be able to pay for all these? Our salaries are not increasing. The economy is each day taking a downturn in various areas.
The citizens of Ontario are crying out. They're saying, "We can't afford any more taxes." I'm asking you today to not allow the municipalities to charge or levy these user fees or taxation on probably gasoline, and probably a poll tax and other taxes that may not be mentioned.
What troubles me is that recently on the news I heard that a reporter asked the minister about what was in the legislation, and it seems to me that many ministers are not fully aware of the extent of this legislation. It is troubling.
It is also troubling to me to know that this bill is a draconian bill and it will affect our lives severely, yet the government did not want to have consultation. I think that before this legislation is passed, we should have wider consultation with the citizens of Ontario. Many people out there are very concerned. I've spoken to many people over the period of time, I spoke to them last night, until 1 this morning, and they're saying the same thing. They're talking about what I'm saying here today. I'm asking you to reconsider that section.
The Chair: We have a little more than four minutes per caucus for questions. We'll start with Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much for your presentation. You've made a number of points which we've heard from previous speakers, but I appreciate very much the fact that you focus so much on the human element, how these changes around the taxation powers that have been given to the municipalities for both user fees and direct taxes are going to affect people and affect all of us.
I want to focus particularly on one point you made, which is that this is a government that is committed to reducing taxes. Yet there seems to be a contradiction in what it is doing, because on the one hand it is committed to reducing provincial income taxes in a way that we see will largely benefit those who are the most well-off, not the average Ontarian. They're perpetuating that inequity and that contradiction by virtue of giving the municipalities the power to levy direct taxes, such as gasoline, sales tax, possibly even an income tax -- we're getting some clarification on that -- and certainly the whole array of user fees. I guess what I see coming out of that is a point that you have also posed as a bit of a question, which is, are we getting to a point where in effect the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer? It seems to me that's what's happening.
Ms Telfer-Campbell: That's correct. This is what I can see happening from the charging of user fees. For example, the people who will be paying a large amount of the user fees, the heavy users of these services, are the poorer people. Take the libraries: Who uses the libraries? The students who can't afford to buy reference books and have them in their homes. They're the ones who go to the libraries. Who goes to the arenas?
Mr Silipo: I was struck very much also by your point about what these user fees may do for young people. I think we all share your concerns about what is happening to our young people today and the fact that even a small user fee for them to be able to use a local community centre, or whatever the facility may be, in fact may increase the tendency to be involved in any number of illegal activities in order to get that money, or indeed may turn them away from using those activities and put them out on the street. I think that's a useful reminder to us and I appreciated your saying that.
Mr Young: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm interested in your comments on the fact that user fees might, as Mr Silipo was saying, encourage youth to not use public facilities or encourage them to commit crime to get the money etc. I just want to tell you what's happened in my community. It's a middle-class community and there aren't a lot of money problems. We have a beautiful rec centre, the library is free. We had a drop-in centre we set up for the youth, which they didn't use, and there are other things that they have available to them free.
But we've come to the conclusion, after years of dealing with this problem, which is vandalism and breaking into homes etc, that it's alienation of youth and it's lack of parental involvement and it's lack of accountability in the justice system that are problems with our youth, not the cost of the services, because they're free now and they don't want to use them. They'd rather hang around a shopping mall etc. So we're trying to deal with that, and it's a much greater issue.
But I did want to ask you with regard to accountability, in Bill 26 there are a lot of really positive things that are going to help us create the change to bring Ontario back economically. There is a section on publishing the salaries of public sector employees who make $100,000 a year or more. I want to ask you what your view is on that.
Also, in Bill 26, what we're trying to do is stop health card fraud, which is people who are cheating the health system. I'm no authority on this, but I've heard in the United States and Buffalo etc, you can buy an Ontario health card for $400 or $500, come up here and use it to get an operation worth $2,500 and then head back.
So we're trying to address those problems, and I wonder what your views are on those two sections.
Ms Telfer-Campbell: With publishing the public sector salaries of $100,000 and over, I don't see how that will benefit us, for us to have that information.
Mr Colle: Take that to the bank.
Ms Telfer-Campbell: I would want to see the benefit that we will get as Ontarians from that, because just merely publishing the salary does not reduce it. So to me there is no benefit.
When it comes to the health card fraud, yes, I'm aware of it and I'm aware that because of that our cost of health is higher. I should just mention something too. With the user fees, I can see the health and environmental implications and the cost. For example, I'm talking about the garbage sitting around.
But getting back to your question on the health cards, I know it has been a problem. I did not come here this morning prepared to talk on that so I am afraid I really do not have any suggestions at this point. I will have to consider that issue further to speak knowledgeably about it.
Mr Young: Did you know that user fees for garbage are already allowed in Ontario and that most municipalities have chosen not to use them?
Ms Telfer-Campbell: I have seen in the legislation where fees can be charged, but I was not fully aware that in -- we're talking about urban areas like Toronto, Mississauga, where it has not been applied in the past.
1120
Mr Young: Mayor Hazel McCallion has said she will not charge user fees for garbage, for the exact reason that you gave.
Ms Telfer-Campbell: I appreciate what you're saying, but just like many other politicians, they tell us they will not do that, but eventually they end up doing that. Once the provision is there and they are strapped for money, they will turn to that.
Mr Young: You mean, just like income tax.
Ms Telfer-Campbell: Just like income tax and any other tax.
Mr Young: Which has been done to us over and over again.
Ms Telfer-Campbell: That is correct. What I am saying is, if you are giving that sweeping power, then it is there to be used. I can come to you today and say I will not use it, but somewhere down the road it will be used. Politicians have told us all the time they're not going to be charging taxes. The government has said that they will give us 30% tax back, but having seen the economic situation that exists, that may not be possible. That's all I'm saying.
Mr Young: Would you like to have that tax cut?
Ms Telfer-Campbell: I'd rather not. If we could use it to reduce the deficit, I'd rather not have it back, but not charging user fees either.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the presentation, Ms Campbell. As Mr Silipo said, you bring a human touch to it. What is really driving this bill is what the previous member talked about, and that's the 30% tax cut. What the Conservative government wants to do is to give a $14-million-a-day tax break. That's what's driving this.
Mr Young: Job creation program.
Mr Phillips: I realize the Conservative members don't like to hear this, for people at home who don't realize it was a Conservative member barking about that.
This is what it's all about: a $14-million-a-day tax break. Rightly or wrongly, that's what they want to do. So when it's positioned that we have this desperate fight to fix the deficit, the majority of the cuts do not go to the deficit. The majority of the money we're going to cut out of library uses and things like that is going to fund the $14-million-a-day tax break.
I guess my question is not unlike the question that they just asked, and that is, is this the kind of Ontario that your organization supports, where we are cutting community services dramatically to fund a $14-million-a-day tax break where the more you make, the bigger the break?
Ms Telfer-Campbell: My group would like to see a safer Ontario, an Ontario that is free from crime. My group is against the boot camp proposed by the government. What I'm seeing here is, if that user fee is imposed, what will happen is that eventually the boot camp will be needed. My group would rather the 30% tax break not be given back, but be used to reduce the deficit and to improve the services in the province.
Mr Phillips: You touched on it briefly in your comment, and actually I must say one of the most discouraging parts of these hearings was to hear Minister Leach say he wasn't too worried about user fees on young people for using the library -- which is strange to me -- because he had heard that there would be corporate donors that would sponsor such activities as library use for underprivileged children. The discouraging part for me was the thought of, if you don't have money in this province and you want to use the library, you will be dependent on some corporate sponsor providing you with access to the library. I personally found that very discouraging. The minister said, "Statements like this convince me our trust is not misplaced," saying this is going to be great, corporate sponsors to use the library.
I might also add -- I hadn't planned to do this -- that I coach hockey with a Metropolitan Toronto policeman. He's Toronto's, if not Canada's, expert on youth gangs. One of the strong things he believes is that you do need to provide activities for these young people. He strongly believes that user fees discourage the use of them. And that's not me speaking, that's somebody who is an expert on youth gangs.
I wonder if you could just comment on the direction that I think the government thinks is fine, and that is, user fees on things like use of libraries and then go out and find corporate donors to make sure that people who don't have the opportunity to use the library can be sponsored by some corporation.
Ms Telfer-Campbell: It's troubling to me and insulting to the lower socioeconomic level of people when a minister can say they should depend on corporate sponsors. Why are we here as a government? Are we going out to tell citizens of Ontario, "Look, Molson is going to pay your bills"? When I need my bills to be paid by Molson, what do I do, knock on Molson's door? How will that be organized? How will that be monitored?
For the simple reason you have mentioned, Mr Phillips, or the question, rather, that you have asked me, those are the things I'm talking about: what user fees will do. It will discourage the use of services. I know that. I have worked for several years in the community, in various diverse communities here in Ontario, and I have seen where kids cannot afford services. They want to go skating; they can't afford to pay that skating fee. So what do they do? They hang around with their friends. Where have we heard that corporations start sponsoring, and how is that going to be done? Are they going to be going to corporations and saying, "Okay, give the library $100 million to pay for these fees," and "It's X, Y, Z and C"? How are they going to know that?
I'm sorry, I can't support that. If I may say without being rude, it's very insulting. For the minister to have thought that, I wonder if he's really living in Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am, for coming forward today to make your presentation to the committee. Unfortunately, your half-hour has been exhausted, but we do appreciate you coming forward today to make your presentation.
Ms Telfer-Campbell: Thank you.
TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the town of Huntsville come forward. Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome to the standing committee on general government. You'll have 30 minutes to make your presentation. You can use that time as you see fit. You may decide to leave some time at the end of your presentation for response and questions. I'd appreciate if you'd introduce yourselves for the benefit of the committee and for Hansard.
Mr Christopher Williams: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. I don't think that we're going to take your entire half-hour. I think we'll be fairly brief and to the point here. My name is Christopher Williams and I'm accompanied by Robert Small. I'm a solicitor and I'm appearing on behalf of the corporation of the town of Huntsville. Mr Small is the town of Huntsville's chief administrative officer.
The members of the committee should have a small booklet that we prepared for their assistance. Tab 1 outlines the gist of my presentation, which is set out in letter form. Tab 2 contains a resolution of the town of Huntsville and tab 3 contains excerpts from government Bill 26 dealing with the area of concern and interest to the town of Huntsville. Tabs 4, 5 and 6 represent an attempt that I've made at some legislative amendment which is put forward in the form of several options, if I can be so presumptuous as to do that.
Specifically, our concern is with schedule M, section 1 of government Bill 26, and that's set out at tab 3.
The town of Huntsville generally supports the changes envisioned in total by schedule M of government Bill 26. Our concern, in a nutshell, is that part of it doesn't seem to go quite far enough and so we're requesting an amendment to take care of what we perceive to be a problem.
1130
Firstly, the town of Huntsville is a local municipality located about 140 miles north of Toronto. It has a population of a little less than 15,000 and covers an area of about 69,000 hectares. It's part of the district municipality of Muskoka and, by virtue of the District Municipality of Muskoka Act, it functions to all intents and purposes like a regional municipality, like the region of York or the region of Peel.
The town of Huntsville has carefully followed the municipal reform project, also known as the Hardeman committee or the Hardeman project, the Treasurer's financial statement of a month ago and various press releases coming from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and his parliamentary assistant, Mr Hardeman, regarding changes to the municipal, jurisdictional and financial environment and the suggestions for restructuring.
The town's position is to respond to these changes in its environment in a positive and progressive form and is generally supportive of some of the things that the government seems to think needs to be done.
One area of responding to the changes in the financial and jurisdictional environment is through substantive restructuring, and that may include amalgamation with several municipalities, with adjacent municipalities in the district of Muskoka, amalgamation or partnership with municipalities outside the district of Muskoka. Huntsville is bounded by the county of Haliburton and the district of Parry Sound as well as the other municipalities within the district of Muskoka.
Restructuring may also involve transfers of jurisdictions between municipalities within the district going up or down or from other municipalities, partnerships and so forth, in an effort to most effectively provide the municipal services which the citizens of that area expect to be provided in the most economical way. It could also include separation from the district of Muskoka if that were appropriate.
The current legislation, which is the Regional Municipalities Act, the District Municipality of Muskoka Act and the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, precludes any of these projects or any of these initiatives except through substantive legislative amendment of the existing legislation.
This is somewhat unlike the situation with county municipalities, where there is jurisdiction to effect annexations, to separate from a county and so forth, without the necessity of legislative amendment. If you're in a regional municipality system, as is Huntsville, you're really straitjacketed except through a substantive legislative amendment.
It's our submission that requiring substantive legislative amendments such as to the District Municipality of Muskoka Act or the Regional Municipalities Act may thwart or preclude or at least make more difficult the engineering of local restructuring solutions, which seems to be the intent and thrust of the government and something which the town of Huntsville intends to respond to. So it seems as if, under the current legislation, some of these objectives will be difficult to attain.
It was anticipated that government Bill 26 would make the situation regarding restructuring much easier for municipalities like Huntsville. It was to our surprise and regret that it does not, as the substantive restructuring provisions found in section 25, and that's at tab 3 of your book, were specifically defined not to include regional municipalities, Metro Toronto, the county of Oxford or the district municipality of Muskoka.
If I can read to you, Mr Chairman, members of the committee, the purposes of the restructuring provisions envisioned by section 1, proposed section 25.1, of schedule M, it says the purposes are:
"(a) to provide for a process which allows municipal restructuring to proceed in a timely and efficient manner;
"(b) to facilitate municipal restructuring over large geographic areas involving counties or groups of counties, local municipalities in counties and in territorial districts and unorganized territory; and
"(c) to facilitate municipal restructuring of a significant nature which may include elimination of a level of municipal government, transfer of municipal powers and responsibilities and changes to municipal representation systems."
That was great and that was what was hoped for by the town of Huntsville and possibly other municipalities within regional systems, but regrettably, if you read down the page, you read "locality" and "municipality" specifically do not include a regional, metropolitan or district municipality or the county of Oxford. So regrettably, what we thought we were getting to give us the tools to properly respond to the changes which are coming along was not included. It seems a little ironic that county systems, which are not as straitjacketed as municipalities and regional systems, seem to get all the flexibility and the tools, whereas we in a regional system don't.
I understand that the representative from AMO who spoke to you yesterday also expressed some concern that regional government systems were not included in the substantive restructuring provisions, although I note from having reviewed AMO's brief that there were no specific recommendations.
I point out that Muskoka is surrounded by either counties or district municipalities; it's not surrounded by any other regional government systems. To the south of it is the county of Simcoe, to the east the county of Haliburton and to the north the district of Parry Sound. These are all municipalities which will have the benefit of the new restructuring provisions, and it seems that there is no good reason to exclude Muskoka. It may even thwart some of those other municipalities from some projects they may have which could include the district.
I've suggested four ways in which the legislation could be amended. If you could turn to tab 4 of the booklet, I've suggested changes to 25.1 and 25.2 to include, within the substantive restructuring provisions, all municipalities in Ontario. That would be all regional municipalities, Metro Toronto, the county of Oxford and the district of Muskoka.
If, as a result of the anticipated release of the GTA task force, also known as the Golden committee report, there is some hesitation to include GTA municipalities within this new power, they may be dealt with in a slightly different way. Tab 2 contemplates the power extending to all municipalities except for those ones in the GTA being dealt with by the Golden commission.
Tab 6 simply contemplates adding the district municipality of Muskoka and continuing to exclude all other regional metropolitan municipalities and the county of Oxford. As I say, it's my submission that the district municipality of Muskoka is somewhat different from the other regional municipalities in that it's a little farther removed and it's surrounded by county municipalities or municipalities operating under a county structure which will have the benefit of the restructuring jurisdiction.
It's possible that the legislation intended to have included the district municipality of Muskoka within this power and it simply wasn't spelled out as clearly as it might have been. It wasn't the way I read the legislation or my colleagues did, and if that's the case, then possibly the version that I've proffered at tab 6 would make that issue crystal clear.
Finally, it appears that the AMO submission is generally in concurrence with this thrust. As noted, they had expressed some concern and surprise that regional municipalities were not included within the substantive restructuring provisions in sections 25.1 to 25.6.
That's the extent of my submission. I haven't taken too long. I'm not sure, Mr Small, if you have anything you'd like to add.
Mr Robert Small: No, I think you've covered it.
Mr Williams: I'd be happy to answer any questions.
The Chair: We have about six minutes per caucus for questions and we'll start off with the government caucus.
1140
Mr Hardeman: I appreciate the comments that in fact the general thrust of the M section of the act is in line with what you feel is appropriate for municipalities in granting more local autonomy and the right to governance and to provide the services that the people require and pay for them in the appropriate manner.
The issue that you bring up as far as the restructuring portion of the act is concerned: The reason, of course, for the difference between the regions and the metropolitan area and the county of Oxford is that they have been restructured in the past where amalgamations have taken place and they have found what we thought and what those areas thought was the appropriate way of governing, which had not been done in the other areas of the province. As I'm sure you're aware, presently there is an act that covers the district of Muskoka and the county of Oxford and Metropolitan Toronto, and there is no individual act that covers other counties and areas where they have not yet completed their restructuring.
The intent was that the restructuring portion would cover those areas of the province that needed that type of situation, recognizing that the approach -- other than the minister's authority at the end of the approach -- could still be followed in any one of those regions to come up with a local solution. It would then require change in the legislation through the legislative process. I appreciate your comment that it may be further drawn out than what should be required; if it is a local option, that maybe there should be a quicker way of implementing it.
My question would be, would you presently have the support or have you garnered the support that would be required under the restructuring section of the act presently with the local municipalities in the region? If the district was included in that section, would the support be there to make a change?
Mr Williams: Following the promulgation of Bill 26, the town of Huntsville looked at the legislation and did pass a resolution not only authorizing this submission but also requesting that other area municipalities support it in that. Because of the timing, obviously this has been rather quick, as everybody is aware. The letters went out, I understand, Mr Small, about a week ago and we haven't gotten responses back yet.
I would note that there have been informal discussions with the municipality immediately to the north of Huntsville, which is the township of Lake of Bays, regarding restructuring. I'm not sure if they have been at a political level --
Mr Small: Yes.
Mr Williams: Yes, they have been at a political level. So there are discussions going on which could not come to fruition under the existing legislation unless we were included within here.
Mr Small: One other comment. We have had initial conversations with the township of Perry, which is in the district of Parry Sound, which is just north of our municipality, about the possibility of restructuring, but we could not do that under the proposed legislation.
Mr Hardeman: In other regions I mentioned that are exempted from that section, a number of regional reviews have been conducted since their inception. Have there been any such regional reviews done in the district of Muskoka?
Mr Williams: I'm not aware if there have been or not. The district of Muskoka came along -- what? -- about 15 years ago?
Mr Small: In 1971.
Mr Williams: In 1971. Simply to pick up on a remark that you made earlier, I think that while it's quite true that the regional municipalities were reformatted in a way that counties and district municipalities were not, that was done quite some time ago, in many cases 20 or 25 years ago, when the economic and jurisdictional environment was very, very different from today. So it would be my submission that, notwithstanding the fact that the whole issue was looked at 25 years ago, it's appropriate to give those sorts of municipalities the tools to start doing things again and coming up with some things on their own.
Of course, this is all subject to ministerial approval. We can't just charge off and rewrite the map. We've got to come up with a project which is ultimately approved by the minister. But it avoids the necessity of going through a long-drawn-out legislative process, which in some ways may even lead to confrontation which may not otherwise be there.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much. Does the town of Huntsville support the legislation as it's written for the restructuring of the other municipalities, those that are not exempt?
Mr Williams: Yes, very much so. We would simply like to be included within it and we can simply see no good reason why we're not.
Mr Colle: Now that we have the solicitor here, along with Mr Small, I'm just wondering whether you looked at -- you say you generally support the act -- the direct taxation section of the act, section 22, which gives these new sweeping powers for taxation to municipalities, and in your examination of that part of the act, whether you agree with the interpretation of the solicitors from Mississauga that it gives municipalities the power to impose things like gasoline taxes. I'm just wondering what your advice was to the municipality of Huntsville on that.
Mr Williams: I feel we're straying a bit beyond my brief here, sir, but that was not something that we had discussed specifically with the town of Huntsville. I understand that generally the town of Huntsville is supportive of the position made by AMO, which was generally supportive of some of the new powers which would flow to municipalities regarding licensing fees and user fees.
My personal observation is that perhaps the interpretation given by the city of Mississauga and some of the other municipalities goes a little further than what I had read into the act, but that's purely a personal observation, not part of my retainer by the town of Huntsville.
Mr Colle: If I could ask Mr Small, in terms of the cutbacks in subsidies to municipalities, do you foresee making up these cutbacks by going to increased or new user fees, as prescribed in the act, that you'll have that tool kit, so to speak?
Mr Small: I think the municipality, through its budget process, will be looking at all avenues as far as both saving revenue and doing things more efficiently. We've asked all our department heads to reduce their operating expenses by 20% to start with. Certainly the municipality would be looking for all avenues to raise revenue, both on the operating side and through doing things more efficiently.
One comment on the licensing aspect: I think the Municipal Act goes back something like 100 years as far as licensing provisions, and certainly those provisions should be rewritten to give the municipality a little fairer opportunity. I also feel that the licensing provisions that exist in the Municipal Act are very unfair to existing businesses.
Mr Colle: Yes, like the nominal $1 fee for some licences.
Mr Small: Yes.
Mr Colle: Just in terms of the taxation avenues, as you know, the mayor of North York has said that he's going to be looking at imposing a new user fee on firefighting services. God help you if your car catches fire in North York. You'll have to pay $300. Also, they're looking at certain fees for even police services. What do you think of that approach?
Mr Williams: Perhaps to assist, Mr Colle, as I say, it goes a bit beyond what we were appearing here to discuss with you, but I'm on a committee of the Canadian Bar Association of Ontario that deals with municipal matters, and I understand that we will be making a presentation to this committee in London on January 9. Those interpretative matters are certainly matters that we're going to address and they're certainly matters of a lot of interest and a lot of concern, but we're getting a bit beyond --
Mr Colle: Yes, that would be helpful.
Mr Phillips: I really look forward to that. That'll be very useful.
I'm just trying to get an idea of exactly what you're asking for here. My understanding is that if you weren't excluded -- and I'll just try to describe what I think Huntsville could do if you are included in the bill. If you decide that you want to expand your geographic territory, which I think is what this is all about, as long as a majority of the residents in the total area vote in favour of it -- in other words, Huntsville may vote 90% in favour of it and whoever you want to annex votes 100% against it. But as long as there is a majority of the people and a majority of the municipalities involved -- in other words, if there are three municipalities, Huntsville and two others -- as long as there's a majority of those two, you then can propose to the ministry that this is what you want to happen. I have a different interpretation of what then happens.
What it says in the act is, "If a restructuring proposal and report under subsection (2) meet the requirements of this section," -- in other words, you've met the requirements -- "the minister shall, by order," -- not "may" -- "shall, by order, implement the restructuring proposal...." In other words, if you comply with it, it's over, it's done and whoever the bodies you are annexing have no appeal to the Legislature or to the minister. Have I interpreted correctly the act?
Mr Williams: My understanding on reviewing the District Municipality of Muskoka Act, the Regional Municipalities Act and the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act is that the only way, even with the concurrence of everybody in the regional municipality system, to effect those types of changes would be through an amendment to the regional act. So even if we had the unanimous consent of --
Mr Phillips: No, I'm sorry, if we give you what you're asking for, that's what I think would then happen. Have I interpreted that correctly?
Mr Williams: I think that's probably generally the way I would interpret this. In other words, some things are going to be done through regulation. I think there are going to be some more of the ground rules which we will see come out.
Mr Phillips: So the neighbouring municipality you want to annex, even though they may be 100% against it, once you've decided that you want to do that and you've got a majority vote, then there's no appeal. Have I got that right?
Mr Williams: I think it would still be up to the minister to decide if he wanted to go ahead with restructuring in that form or not. There may be certain criteria that will come out through regulation or otherwise --
Mr Phillips: But if you meet the regulation, it says he shall approve it.
Mr Williams: Yes.
Mr Phillips: That's helpful.
Mr Silipo: That was actually the point I wanted to pursue, which is that I wanted to get your further comments on the portion in your brief where you talk about the cumbersome and time-consuming and uncertain process involved in legislative changes, and you may even agree in terms of all those descriptions of it. But why would a process such as the one Mr Phillips just described lead to a better way of deciding what form of local governments we should have, as opposed to, obviously, discussion and decisions being made locally to the extent possible, but then those decisions being translated by the government of the day into legislation that is then debated and approved through the normal process of parliamentary democracy that we have in this province?
Why is just leaving it at the whim of the minister more democratic and more appropriate than following the system that we have in this province and have had for many, many years?
Mr Williams: That's a good question. First of all, it appears to me that the thrust of section 25 is to try to promote local solutions. So there seems to be some obligation on the minister to respond to a solution which has been arrived at from some local municipalities which have come up with a restructuring proposal, whereas under the current situation as it applies to regional governments it's purely the Legislature, really, that can decide on a fairly innocuous change of boundary or amalgamation. It's something that comes down from the top. This I see as promoting both in substance and visually the idea of a local solution to a problem or a partnership.
Now, with municipalities not in a regional system but in a county system or in an unorganized district system, you don't need legislative amendment under the boundary negotiations act -- I'm not even sure if the minister approves that or if it's some designate of the minister -- to be erected into a separated town or city. Again, the final body there, I believe, is the Ontario Municipal Board. For annexations outside of organized territory, again it's an application to the OMB, so much of this is already done without the involvement of the Legislature.
Mr Silipo: But we're talking there about situations where they would be relatively minor changes, aren't we?
Mr Williams: We're talking about very major changes. For instance, we had done some work for the town of Lindsay regarding a proposal by them to separate from the county of Victoria and to become a city. That was not a process that involved the Legislature in any way. It may have involved the OMB, depending on how far it got. But that structure is already in place and that's why it struck me as a bit ironic when the structure's in place already for counties but you didn't extend it to regions or at least some regions, maybe those regions outside of the GTA.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming today to make your submission to the committee.
Mr Colle: We look forward to that London submission.
The Chair: Committee members, before we break, there's one housekeeping matter. That is that the speech that the Labour minister made which we were trying to get a transcript of was not a speech written by the Minister of Labour; it was something she did off the cuff and there are no transcripts of that speech, so we'll be unable to get those.
We will recess until 1 o'clock.
The subcommittee recessed from 1155 to 1300.
METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD
The Chair: Good afternoon. May I please have a representative from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee on general government.
Ms Maureen Prinsloo: Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to make a presentation. My name is Maureen Prinsloo and I'm the chair of the police services board.
The Chair: Maureen, just quickly, you have a half-hour to present today. You may want to leave some time for questions afterwards.
Ms Prinsloo: I'm going to be very brief. My comments only relate to schedule Q, which is that portion that deals with arbitration. I understand that you have heard this a few times before, but while we support the intent of the legislation, it is something that municipalities and police service boards have been asking for for some time as it relates to arbitrators.
Our main concern is in that ability-to-pay section, because we are worried that arbitrators will be tempted to award wage increases on the assumption that they can be paid for by an increase in taxation.
Secondly, where it says that arbitrators should consider the criteria, we would like to see that changed to:
"The arbitration board shall consider and apply the following criteria:
"1. The employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation and without any increase in taxes.
"2. The extent to which services may have to be to reduced, if the current funding levels and taxation levels are not increased."
That is really our main problem with the wording in the legislation.
The other recommendations that follow, on the ability-to-pay criterion and whether arbitrators would be allowed to go into very detailed questioning on the finances of the organization, are something that may give us some concern.
So the recommendation is that in the application of paragraph 1 of subsection 3(5), the board of arbitration shall accept as final and conclusive any statement by the employer as to the financial record or condition as verified by the employer's auditor or senior financial official responsible for the preparation of the employer's financial statement. The board of arbitration shall have no authority to determine the nature or level of services provided or to be provided by the employer.
On the public sector comparisons, we would like criterion number 4 to be deleted, as it does have the potential to cost employers money by forcing wages up. Under criterion 5, the need for qualified employees, you can see our recommendation is, "The employer's abilities to attract qualified employees based on the number of qualified applications for positions recently available, and the employer's ability to retain qualified employees."
Under local factors, we have some problem with this as it is only included in the Police Services Act, but you know, the whole essence of municipal politics is that it's always local issues and those factors are always taken into account.
Of course, we would very much like to see some ceiling on wage awards, because wage increases awarded by arbitrators over the last 20 years have consistently exceeded the wage increases freely negotiated within the municipalities under other municipal bargaining units. So you get a whipsaw effect that the following year the municipal bargaining units go up that much more.
I have found that it tends -- and I really do have to say that I find it both on management and association and/or union sides -- when you do automatically have to go to arbitration, sometimes the whole feeling of negotiating in good faith does not take place, simply because you just leave everything up to the arbitrator. I think that one of the points in the change in this legislation is that it's going to force both groups, the employees and the employer, into more good-faith bargaining.
My last point is that under the Police Services Act we have to have the consent of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services to terminate the employment of a member of the police service for purposes of reducing the service's size. Schedule Q does not speak to the issue of when and how arbitrators are to consider the need for such consent when they consider the extent to which services may have to be reduced if current funding levels are not increased.
All that we're asking under this is that there should be increased legislative clarity to confirm that an arbitrator need not be concerned with the consent process in assessing the impact upon services if funding levels are not increased.
That is my presentation.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have about six minutes per caucus for questions. We'll start off with Mr Phillips from the opposition caucus.
Mr Phillips: Thank you, Ms Prinsloo. I appreciate your presentation. This actually was the first section I looked at in the bill, because I always assume that the one that's the most important is probably the one that got at the end, and this is the last section of the bill. When we were briefed by the Ministry of Labour officials, they told us that this concept of ability to pay is common, and in fact they said it existed in many jurisdictions. So we said, "Great, just where does it exist?" They said, "Well, we don't have that material with us now, but we'll send it to you." They sent the material to us and then I said, "I can't find it anywhere in here." They said, "Oh, you're right. It doesn't exist anywhere else" -- according to the ministry officials. Apparently at one time it did exist in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, but it has been taken out for whatever reason.
We're interested in improving collective bargaining; I think that's the purpose of this legislation. Are you aware of where the language around ability to pay exists and how well it works in jurisdictions where it does exist?
Ms Prinsloo: No, Mr Phillips. I only know that when I was a municipal councillor it was something that we had always asked for, and certainly now within the police services board, where salaries make up 92% of our overall budget, it's something that we would like arbitrators to take into account.
Mr Phillips: Right. Did you or any of the organizations explore why it was taken out in other jurisdictions? Was it because it wasn't working? There must be a reason why it was taken out.
Ms Prinsloo: They had a better lobby group than us?
Mr Phillips: I don't know. You are not aware of why it went out?
Ms Prinsloo: No.
Mr Phillips: Have you had a chance to review your proposals with your own police association, of saying: "Here's what we're proposing to the legislative committee. Do you have any comments on it?"
Ms Prinsloo: No.
Mr Phillips: Have they taken any opportunity to let you know what they think of these?
Ms Prinsloo: No. I read their newsletter.
Mr Phillips: I haven't, actually. But they didn't comment to you?
Ms Prinsloo: Well, obviously, Mr Phillips, I did read their newsletter and they are very concerned about this particular section in the bill. I would presume that that's a normal reaction if we are very pleased by it.
1310
Mr Phillips: Genuinely, I think we're trying to find a way to improve collective bargaining among these groups, because they're quite important -- our fire organizations, our police, our hospitals, our teachers. Would you characterize this as a significant shift in the collective bargaining process for working with the police organizations or a minor shift?
Ms Prinsloo: I would think that it is a significant shift, but I'm not sure, when you use the term "collective bargaining," how much collective bargaining ever takes place under an arbitration process.
Mr Phillips: Would you think this would be likely to improve collective bargaining?
Ms Prinsloo: Yes.
Mr Phillips: Is it possible that if this substantially strengthens the employers' side -- and I think we all would agree this is a substantial strengthening of the employers' side, because as you say this is a major change and one that you like very much; the police association likes it very little, so it shifts it -- there's at least a possibility that it's in your best interests, this improves your likelihood of getting a decision out of an arbitrator that is favourable to the employer?
Ms Prinsloo: Actually, Mr Phillips, I see it as we're going to have improved collective bargaining, that both sides may be a little bit more willing to discuss the real, substantive issues that are before us, rather than just shrugging and say, "We'll go to arbitration."
Mr Phillips: There has been a difference of opinion around the wording, "The extent to which services may have to be reduced, if the current funding levels are not increased." As people always say, I am not a lawyer, but I interpreted that to mean that the arbitrator has to consider the extent, the fact that the line above it says, "In making a decision or award, the arbitration board shall consider the following criteria," and then 1 and then, "2. The extent to which services may have to be reduced, if the current funding levels are not increased."
I interpret that to mean the arbitrator shall consider the possibility of having to reduce, in the case of the police organization, the number of officers if funding isn't increased. Does the services board have a view on that, of how the arbitrator must consider level of service as a result of this amendment?
Ms Prinsloo: In the wording before numbers 1 and 2, it says, the board of arbitration "shall consider"; in number 2 it just says, "The extent to which services may have to be reduced...." As I had said earlier, in the whole business of doing more particularly -- and I can only speak for Metro Toronto Police Services, that as 92% of our budget is salary, any reduction has to come in the level of service.
The Chair: Thank you. Sorry about that. We have to move into Mr Silipo's time now.
Mr Silipo: Ms Prinsloo, could you tell us what the history of bargaining has been like in, say, the last 10 years between the board and the association in terms of how many times you've reached agreement through bargaining versus going to arbitration?
Ms Prinsloo: Three out of seven.
Mr Silipo: Which is which?
Ms Prinsloo: We've negotiated three times out of seven.
Mr Silipo: I've been struck as I've watched the discussion on this -- and we haven't heard from the police services association. I don't know if we will; this is the last day that we're sitting in Toronto apparently. But we did hear from the firefighters' associations and they had some interesting statistics, which I think were verified last night when we had representatives from the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards, whereby it seems that overall only a small proportion of negotiations end up in front of arbitrators, although there are clearly large disparities within municipalities. I've been struck through this, in looking at some of the statistics, to find that the employer groups, if I can put it that way, who have been most strongly arguing for these increased powers to be put in the hands of arbitrators, the powers you're asking for, are, as in your case and the city of Mississauga, those where there has been a larger incidence of recourse to arbitration.
Following up on your exchange with Mr Phillips, my question is, if these powers are approved, in terms of the financial settlement, what would be the difference between the position you would take before an arbitrator about what you deem you could afford to pay and what an arbitrator would be able to award? What would be the difference? Would there be any? If you said, "We could afford a 1% increase, and that's it," the arbitrator, it seems to me, would basically be tied to that as being the award.
Ms Prinsloo: I don't believe so, Mr Silipo. This doesn't say that the arbitrator naturally has to take what the police service board recommends.
Mr Silipo: If you were to say, "All we could afford to pay without any increase in taxes would be a 1% increase," for the sake of argument, and if the arbitrator is forced, under your suggested amendment, not only to consider but also apply to that criterion, what discretion would he or she have to come up with an award different from that?
Ms Prinsloo: The position we're in now is that we want to be able to negotiate on a lot of the productivity gains within our present Police Services Act. I am not going to blame the police association for the state of our collective agreement, because that's what it is, a collective agreement. While we generally lost most things in arbitration, we did many years ago agree to the compressed workweek schedule, which we will most probably now try and get some changes to. In the whole process of arbitration, I think it's those things that may create better productivity gains that would allow us to use that in any form of wage increase.
Mr Silipo: I don't understand what flexibility an arbitrator is left with at the end of the day, particularly if your amendments were to become law. It seems to me it would basically say it would be up to the employer to determine what the level of wage increase, if any, there would be.
Ms Prinsloo: I don't believe the arbitrator's hands would be tied to whatever the employer put forward.
Mr Silipo: What flexibility would he or she have? To move that 1% around in any number of ways? Is that the flexibility they would have?
Ms Prinsloo: To allow some of the productivity gains that we would like to see happen that we can't gain under our collective agreements now. We've never been successful in getting these matters to arbitration. I really do believe, and I said this to Mr Phillips, that the main part of this is going to be that we will actually bargain collectively in a much better spirit than currently happens.
Mr Silipo: Maybe we don't have all the information on this that we probably should have, but the only parallel I can draw is the information we've been given in terms of the firefighter situation. Both associations made it quite clear and said to us that 15% of cases end up in front of arbitrators, so the vast majority of cases across the province -- and I suspect it's the same with the police services, but correct me if I'm wrong -- do end up being now settled through collective bargaining and through an agreement being reached by the parties, not by arbitration. I guess I don't appreciate the need for these kinds of draconian powers to be given to arbitrators.
Ms Prinsloo: When I was on Scarborough council we dealt with the firefighters there. It's the basis, possibly, of how some of the larger cities have more difficulty in achieving this. In most instances the municipalities and the police have been very generous over the previous years in the awards and benefits that have been given. We find that to provide front-line service now we have to look at all those things. At the moment, the association has not really been willing to discuss any of those but has just left it up to arbitration.
1320
The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt, but that's the end of Mr Silipo's time. Before we go to the government caucus, I wonder if you could introduce the gentleman who's joined you.
Ms Prinsloo: This is Michael McGuire, who is our director of labour relations.
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): Madam Chair, we've heard from the school boards and trustees, the municipalities and businesses and the police boards, and they share your view that the criteria should be strengthened. What we're hearing, the reasoning, is that the purpose is to control the costs and it should be in the public interest, not the interest of the employer versus the employee.
We heard last night a little about productivity bargaining from the provincial association. What was suggested, and I wonder if this is your experience, is pattern bargaining conducted by associations of firefighters and the police and even in the hospital sector. There's a standard set by the arbitrator, and what would result would be that other employers would follow and wouldn't bother to go to arbitration because that standard has been set and there would be little incentive to negotiate and use the arbitration process as a step because it had that standard set. Has that been your experience?
Ms Prinsloo: Once there is one award, the other awards tend to follow in the same line, so you do feel you're caught up in whatever the first arbitration award is going to be. It's not likely to be less than the first, and it could be more.
If you're going to say that the different organizations get together to decide what they're going to negotiate on, that might sound fine in theory, but it doesn't really work in practice because each community has a different set of standards. While you might like to achieve something and it would be nice to think we could all agree collectively on something, it just doesn't happen.
Mr Tascona: But do you find that the process is that one of the larger municipalities will have an arbitration, set the standard for that larger group, then you'll have another group, based on the size of the municipality, and so on, and that would reduce the need to go to arbitration, that the result would be greater numbers being freely settled but the arbitration process being used as the whip?
Ms Prinsloo: I find that doesn't necessarily happen within the police sector. They go to arbitration because it's their own particular case; they may do worse, but they may be able to get other items on the table.
Mr Tascona: I think you've indicated that you feel the mandatory approach will lead to an incentive to freely negotiate rather than go to arbitration. We've heard about productivity bargaining, which is coming to the fore, which is sort of like a restructuring compensation package. Do you think that will apply here?
Ms Prinsloo: I believe so. I believe it's going to be beneficial to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board.
Mr Tascona: Do you think this approach to productivity bargaining restricts the arbitrator's independence?
Ms Prinsloo: No, I don't believe so.
Mr Tascona: I just want to ask you one more question. In the mandatory criteria, I just want to call on what Mr Phillips has said. I've looked at the legislation, and certainly in the mandatory jurisdictions relevant factors can be considered. It doesn't specifically say "ability to pay," but certainly that would be a factor that could be considered. It's out there in other jurisdictions.
But I'd like to ask you about one other area, freedom of information. We've been given the analogy that the public owns the material and the public has a right to that material. I would use the example of the government bookstore. They have materials there that are produced, and there's administration and a fee charged. The same thing could be applied to freedom of information. They ask for material and there's a price for production and also administration. Do you find that what the government is proposing satisfies the needs of the police force?
Ms Prinsloo: I'd love to give my comments on freedom of information. I found as a municipal councillor that once the freedom of information act came in, we were allowed to give less to people than we previously gave.
The denial of the request for access if it's frivolous and vexatious -- anyone who's dealing with freedom of information and the number of requests you get would be pleased to be able to do that. But I still think there has to be some way that if an organization decides to treat everything as vexatious, there should be some recourse.
On the ability to pay, the mandatory application form, the fee --
The Chair: I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be able to let you get an answer in on that. We're sticking quite closely to a half-hour limit for each presenter. I apologize for having to interrupt you, but I do thank you for coming forward today and making a presentation to the committee.
Ms Prinsloo: Thank you.
The Chair: Is Laura Jones available? While we're waiting to see if Ms Jones is going to be here, I'll call a recess.
The subcommittee recessed from 1327 to 1401.
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
The Chair: Good afternoon and welcome, gentlemen, to the standing committee on general government. Today you'll have half an hour to make your presentation. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for response and questions from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you'd start off by reading your names and associations out for the benefit of the members and for Hansard.
Mr Alan Tonks: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, we'll proceed as expeditiously as we can. My name's Alan Tonks. I'm the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto. With me are Bob Richards, our chief administrative officer, and Ozzie Doyle, our solicitor. You know the old saying, "Never travel without two good torpedoes." I've got two, one of which is a lawyer, so that's not too bad either.
Thank you for the opportunity of being before the committee. Our presentation hopefully will take about 10 to 15 minutes, and we'll be open for questions.
We have a number of concerns regarding the proposed legislation, some of which focus on the substance side and some on the process. I'd like to state right up front that we support in principle the initiatives that are encompassed through the bill and our comments reflect some of the concerns and recommendations of the council of Metropolitan Toronto that debated this issue just yesterday. We've had to scramble pretty fast over Wednesday and Thursday to put our presentation together.
These concerns, observations and recommendations fall into three categories: some general remarks on the legislation and the development of the review process, which I will make; then concerns with respect to the specific sections of the bill; and then a summary of the legislative changes which we have previously requested of the government which are not included in the bill.
As I indicated in my introduction, the majority of comments from members of council relate to the process which the legislation is being reviewed within, and I must point out in as strong terms as possible that the schedule that has been approved with respect to the process doesn't provide municipalities or citizens with the time to adequately reflect on the proposed legislation and then to comment on it in a full, open and democratic manner.
This ability is hampered further by the various components of the legislation which have been brought together in a single omnibus bill. That further complicates both citizens' and the municipalities' ability to respond.
Metropolitan council has recommended that the bill be divided into its various component parts and that each part of the omnibus bill be considered through an open process and then as separate items of legislation. Many of the members of council felt that in this way, people could understand where that particular part of the bill with respect to its intent, and what it was expected to accomplish and why, would be better understood by the public and by the various municipalities.
Many of the key requests for legislative changes made to the provincial government by Metro and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario have been incorporated, at least in part, in Bill 26. As I indicated, because we agree with them in principle, we laud and we support those initiatives. We believe those initiatives have been made in the spirit of partnership and the intent of the government to pursue good government for Ontario.
We'd like to put before you some ideas which we believe will help Metropolitan Toronto do its part, as part of the partnership, that will bring good government to not only Metropolitan Toronto, but by virtue of Metropolitan Toronto's size and its role within this country, will bring good government to the country. I hope you will be open and receptive to some of these suggestions and I'd ask Bob Richards to give you some of those kinds of initiatives that we feel would be and should be part of the bill.
Mr Bob Richards: I'll be brief so you can have time for some questions. As Chairman Tonks said, we welcome the ability this act gives us to improve the municipal autonomy. We think that's critical in these times, if we're going to try to manage our way out of the fiscal situation that we have.
At the same time, we're somewhat concerned that the act gives power to the Minister of Municipal Affairs to then limit this autonomy granted to municipalities in the bill. In the absence of actual regulations, it's impossible for us to determine definitively what scope of powers we actually do have. That makes it difficult for us to manage, and I think it's increased ability to manage that you want to give us as the tradeoff, if you will, for the lessened financial resources.
We see two possible solutions to this problem: number one, that regulations be developed concurrent with implementation of the bill so that our scope of authority is known; or that the statute be amended to clearly set out the limitations on municipal powers rather than reserving such authority for ministers of the day. We feel this would avoid the uncertainty and ensure that the intent of the bill, which is to expand municipal authority, is not undermined in the future.
In the event that the government pursues its proposed approach to the regulation-making, we strongly recommend that a process be established for obtaining broad municipal public input into the content of draft regulations.
With respect to block funding, we support again the principle of block funding. While we may not like the absolute amount that was funded, we do support the principle. While on the surface of the legislation it allows municipalities to establish their own spending priorities, the reality again could be questioned. Again, regulations can be introduced to set standards with which municipalities must comply. In effect, this turns an unconditional grant back into a conditional grant, in other words, undoing the bargain that was to be struck.
Our council's concern in this area is augmented by the province's reducing municipal funding while increasing municipal responsibilities, particularly when such responsibilities can be defined by a minister by way of regulation with little consideration for our ability to accommodate the increased responsibility.
In the area of user fees, there is, I think, some concern by our council again that a poll tax is possible. We would simply recommend that this be explicitly precluded from the legislation. Generally, in the area of user fees, more information is needed on the types of fees available to municipalities and how these fees and charges are to be reconciled with the existing provisions in our Metropolitan Toronto act.
1410
With respect to arbitration, again we support the establishing of criteria for arbitration, given that police is $500 million of our $1.1-billion tax bill. It must be clearly stated that arbitrators, when considering an employer's ability to pay, should not be able to question taxation decisions or existing service levels. These business decisions are clearly the responsibility of individual councils to whom you want to grant more autonomy. In addition, it must be clearly stated that arbitration criteria cannot be used to launch extensive hearings on a municipality's finances. It is vital that the legislation require the arbitrator to accept the employer's approved budget as proof of financial capabilities.
One criterion in this section directs arbitrators to consider the earnings of comparable employees in the broader public sector. To avoid the perpetual leapfrogging that can occur, we recommend that this be deleted. It invites arbitrators to ignore the budgetary realities of the employer and contradicts the other criteria, the focus of which is ability to pay. Our written brief, which I think you have, contains specific recommendations on how to reword this section of the bill.
As you know, and as the chairman mentioned, there are aspects of the bill that we would like to see amplified to again help us carry out your agenda, which is to balance our budget with no increase in taxes. We have, for example, over the years asked for reduced accounting requirements. I was pleased to receive something on my desk today where you have eliminated this complicated loan/grant arrangement, so we compliment the government of the day on that and look forward to more similar streamlinings.
We also need the opportunity to have Metro, for example, be able to rename the O'Keefe Centre. It is not a local board under your act and therefore we may not, for example, do something as simple as sell the name of the O'Keefe Centre without going back to the province for a change. Those kinds of things we need removed.
We are also repeating our request for something which we believe would go a long way towards helping us balance our police and transit budgets, for example, which is an additional revenue source of Metro, a Metro or municipal lottery. We think it would hit a new target market, if you will, of lottery ticket buyers and we think we could virtually guarantee no tax increase if we had that kind of tool at Metro Toronto with no offsetting loss of revenue to the province of Ontario.
We also would like to reintroduce asset testing of potential residents in our homes for the aged when determining eligibility for space and fees. This would help us balance our homes-for-the-aged budget.
Again, and finally, we would like to have introduced road user fees to generate revenues to help us balance our roads budget.
In summary, from our point of view there are many good aspects to the bill. We've suggested some modifications to wordings and we're asking you for the tools that we've been asking for now for some years to help us in this area of reduced funding to help us balance our budgets.
Mr Tonks: In conclusion, as I indicated, we support the principles of the bill and we support it in principle. We believe, as a major level of government in partnership with the province, that the deconditionalizing and the loosening of strings gives not only the responsibilities but the opportunities for government to act creatively in the interests of bringing good government to Metropolitan Toronto. We have our concerns that the CAO has outlined. We also have some suggestions that are in keeping with the spirit of the bill. We wish you well as you embark on taking the bill through its processes.
Our final caveat is that we think parts of the bill would benefit from further examination and further debate, but we look forward to the years ahead in terms of striking our priorities and being able to have the legislative tools to implement those priorities in the interests of people of Metro. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your presentation. We have about five minutes per caucus. We'll start with Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Chair Tonks, just quickly a couple of things, because there isn't unfortunately as much time as one would like to clear up all of these issues, but just on the process, first of all, can I take from what you said and what's in the resolution passed by council that in fact if there was a way to take a bit of a pause, reflect upon the changes that are here, while you're in general agreement with the thrust, that would be a useful way for many of the concerns that you have to be addressed? If the government were willing to sort of delay, in whatever way, this bill, perhaps look at how we could split it up over a number of different sections and look at some of the amendments that have been suggested by you and others, that would be something you would support?
Mr Tonks: I think that generally speaking that's the position of the members of council, the majority, and just to reinforce that, on the note that the CAO had indicated, what we are concerned about to a certain extent is that the thrust of deconditionalizing is in fact more arbitrarily posed into the minister's hands and then we're back almost to an unfettered kind of conditionalizing once again, and that's really contrary to the spirit of the bill.
Mr Silipo: In fact, in some ways that would make the situation even worse than it is now, wouldn't it, because now we'd be taking powers that at least at this point one could argue have to be debated somewhere in the Legislature and putting them into the hands of the minister to pass by regulation.
Mr Tonks: One of the advantages of having a little more time is that you can think those things through and you can be a little more specific on the legislation so that once the apron strings are actually cut, the spirit of the bill is understood and implementable by the local municipalities.
Mr Silipo: You're suggesting at the very least then, if the government isn't willing to have more time, that there should be hearings held on the regulations that flow from this legislation, given the importance that they have.
Mr Tonks: Recognizing what I've said, that generally speaking the principle of more autonomy for municipalities and the ability to set their priorities is accepted and welcomed by the municipalities, and in particular by Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr Silipo: As you know, we've talked a lot about the taxation powers that are being or not being passed on to municipalities under this, beyond the user fees. We've talked also a lot about the user fees. I wondered if you or your solicitor could just talk to us a little bit about that, because just as I've quickly gone through, I picked up a couple of points that you've made. Listening to you, one of the points you make is that you're not clear, or your solicitor, I presume, is not clear, about whether there is in fact clear authority in here to impose gasoline taxes. You seem to think that there is authority to impose a poll tax and you're taking the position of saying that should be clarified so as not to allow a poll tax.
Mr Tonks: That's right. But --
Mr Silipo: The other discussions we've had have been around just a straight income tax, whether that is possible. There's some argument that that may be possible under some of the provisions, and indeed any other form of taxation. Could you just talk to us a little bit about that?
Mr Tonks: Specifically, the council is opposed to a poll tax. It's regressive. But in terms of designated taxes for designated purposes, we're in favour of those. Perhaps the solicitor can advance the answer to the question with respect to the looseness, if you will, of taxation abilities.
Mr Ozzie Doyle: The question came up at the council meeting yesterday. It's about, to start off, talking about a gasoline tax, and the trouble I have with the legislation -- and people talk about income taxes or sales taxes or gasoline taxes -- I don't see those words in it. Similarly, I don't see the words with respect to a poll tax.
What I do see is an attempt to broaden the powers of municipal councils to charge fees in respect of their services and activities. I see a linkage. It's more a connection between what the municipal councils already have power to do, or new powers given from time to time, and the cost of them and setting up a relationship really between the citizen who's using the service and the cost of the service. I see it more as a user-fee-driven piece of legislation.
But what I also see, and where the problem comes in, is that the language they use is very, very general, and it has permitted, or allowed, a lot of confusion and it has allowed people to start talking about gasoline taxes, income taxes, sales taxes and poll taxes.
My own personal opinion is that they aren't there. There are 34 members on the Metropolitan council, and a significant number of them do feel that the language, particularly with respect to a poll tax, is brought up to support that kind of tax and they've raised that concern. They raised it during the debate and during the motions and it's reflected in the material that's in front of you today.
What they're not saying --
The Chair: Excuse me. I apologize, but we have a certain amount of time for each caucus and we've just come a little bit beyond the time. Perhaps the government caucus will donate some of their time to let you continue that question, if they choose, but I have to move to Mr Hastings now.
1420
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Gentlemen, I'd like to ask you, in terms of the privatization proposal where you would like to have the authority to incorporate a number of Metro crown corporations or non-shared capitals, could you be specific as to types of activities you would see these sorts of new vehicles fitting into? Would they include homes for the aged, possibly a Metro garbage corporation, waste water treatment or the Metropolitan Licensing Commission, all those or more, and would they be exclusively Metro responsibilities?
Mr Tonks: Let me talk to the general legislative framework and then the solicitor can obviously talk to the specifics. Generally speaking, we support the principle of allowing and encouraging municipalities to enter into public-private partnerships. Some of the areas that you've mentioned, Mr Hastings, are those areas we'd look at, but they are encumbered to some extent, or fettered, by some of the provisions that are in either Metro-specific legislation or general legislation.
For example, with respect to the O'Keefe Centre, it is a statutory body that has its own letters incorporate. To be able to use the name and market that, if you will, will have to have some enabling legislation.
When you talk about the homes for the aged, certainly successor rights with respect to labour contracts have to be reinvestigated.
In terms of the homes, again, on a geared-to-income basis, for looking at the charges for those who are going to the homes, we'll need special legislation. We don't have that legislative authority.
In terms of the ambulance services, we are relegated under provincial regulation and statute with respect to who and how charges can be levied, and in fact we're even relegated by the initial agreements in terms of the service shed. We presently serve parts of York region that should be renegotiated, should be re-established through legislation.
Perhaps the solicitor can talk to the actual legislation that enables us to do these things.
Mr Doyle: The reason this has been incorporated: Municipalities are by laws significantly circumscribed in the kinds of powers they have and the ways they use them. What this means today is that the Legislature is being asked to provide the Metropolitan corporation with a vehicle that gives it, in respect of certain economic development type or social development type of initiatives, a little more freedom if you could use a statutory corporation. That's what it's there for now.
I understand that there's now developing a discussion among municipal law people and municipal politicians to create a new Municipal Act, and if what was done in Alberta is done, then this isn't so important any more, but the idea is to empower a municipality as a natural person or like a business corporation. If it had that kind of powers, instead of the circumscribed kind of powers it has today, then it could have more flexibility to do things. That's what this privatization initiative is and what this new discussion I referred to is all about, just an empowerment.
Mr Hardeman: I just want to go back to the issue of the taxation. We had a lawyer in this morning, one of the very few who has so far addressed the committee, and he suggested in his comments that those who were interpreting the allowing of a poll tax were going further than he would go. He was not expressing a legal opinion, but that was his position. I kind of got from the comments just made by the solicitor that in fact that's what you were implying, that some would see it that way, that there were some members of council who felt that that was the way it was, but you were not saying that it does allow --
Mr Doyle: It depends on what you're calling a poll tax. To me, a poll tax is a general tax against, for example, the adults. It says "class of persons" in here, but against, let's say, all the adults in the community. It's unconnected to the delivery of a specific service. The language here will permit, I think -- or certainly there's a very good argument it will -- for example, a general tax in respect to policing charged off on a prorated basis against all the adults.
I don't think that's what your section -- it's on page 15 of the draft of the schedule M that I have, the new section 220.1 of the Municipal Act. Subsection (2) has language that broad, but I personally don't think it's really meant to do that. I think it's more, "If you want to come to our park, it costs 50 cents because that's what we average out as a fair cost for use of the park." It's that kind of thing.
What you have is a subsection (3) that has what I call language of description as opposed to language of prescription. I think your subsection (2) is prescriptive and your subsection (3) is descriptive, but the language allows quite a free-wheeling debate about all kinds of taxations. It says:
"A bylaw under this section may provide for,
"(a)" -- for example -- "fees and charges in the nature of a direct tax for the purpose of raising revenue."
It's very general language. I think that is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Doyle and Mr Hardeman. I apologize; you've gone beyond your time. We have to move finally to the opposition.
Mr Colle: Obviously, we've been going through. We had Hazel McCallion coming in here one day and say you could have a gasoline tax, direct tax. We had the minister in the House change his mind inside the House, outside the House. But obviously we need more time to try and pin this down, exactly what powers were given. That's what I think your council is asking for.
But my question's a bit different. Have you looked at the part about restructuring that excludes Metropolitan Toronto because it's a region? I know the parliamentary assistant, Mr Hardeman, has asked the question of other municipalities. I think Haliburton was in here earlier. He said, "How would you like if this type of restructuring approach was brought down to include the future restructuring of regional governments like Metro?" To be very clear, in that, as you know, in the restructuring that takes place under Bill 26, the minister will have arbitrary power to decide who gets restructured, who gets amalgamated, with no debate in the House, just restructuring through regulation, I ask you the question, Chairman Tonks: Do you think that approach is a rational, plausible approach in terms of the future restructuring of the GTA, which Metro is the heart of?
Mr Tonks: I think that under the annexation provisions of the existing legislation, the province, after a process, obviously, has the authority to recommend annexations and has done so in the past. These present regulations preclude the kinds of annexations, amalgamations, that have taken place outside of Metropolitan Toronto and don't include Metro.
When you talk about the implications, quite frankly, I think the implications even go beyond the capabilities of the Golden commission to be final in the sense that we all feel comfortable with that degree of finality, and I wouldn't recommend, obviously, that those provisions that are in this bill be applied to Metropolitan Toronto. And I don't think the government, in separating them out, has not been cognizant of how difficult it will be, in fact, to recommend the changes to Metropolitan government.
I have to tell you that I believe annexations and amalgamations, in the fullness of time, will lead towards better government, but in terms of Metropolitan Toronto, I can tell you right now that our position will be, when the Golden commission report comes out, that there should be a period of time for consultation to the various interests: not just the municipal governments, but the various interests that make up municipal governments in Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr Phillips: I want to return to the tax one, because if this goes through the way it's written, it'll be the biggest make-work project in Ontario's history for lawyers -- and in fairness to all of us, I think everybody has a different interpretation.
Here's the conclusion I've reached, though: One is that -- and you're one of the municipalities -- many municipalities would like the opportunity to impose a gas tax. I think Mayor McCallion has indicated that; I gather you've been asking for it many times; we've had other municipalities requesting it. They would like that opportunity. Some municipalities feel with the existing language they can do it. Others feel they can't do it with the existing language.
My point is this: I think the only solution is for the government to declare its intention clearly, that is, what does it want this section to do? What things do they want permitted? The municipalities can then say to us, "That's what we were asking for." AMO was in here yesterday, and they seem to think it's quite all-inclusive. I think they think it would satisfy Metro and Mayor McCallion.
1430
I guess I'm looking for your legal advice, or yours, Chairman Tonks. Our belief is that the government must say, "Here are the things we think this says and here are the things we think it doesn't say." And I believe the section your councillor suggested has to be clarified, that is, the one on "the nature of a direct tax" should be very much clarified. I'm just looking for advice from you about whether our solution, which is to have the government declare its clear intention and then to amend this section so that its clear intention would be carried out, meets your needs.
Mr Tonks: Let me be very clear that we support a dedicated tax from, for example, gasoline and motor vehicle licensing and regulating to the maintenance of both capital and capital out of current for the roads and the transit systems. We support that very specifically, because it's obvious that we do not have the capital capability of keeping up with the maintenance. We are being constricted on transfers, we're getting further and further behind in our capital maintenance for our roads and transit systems, and ridership is falling and the fares are going up. It's a very vicious cycle.
How you do it is the key, how you do that in a progressive way as opposed to a regressive way; how you account for the anomalies of gas stations that will be north of Steeles Avenue as opposed to south of Steeles Avenue; how you gross up those taxes from gasoline and motor vehicle registration so that they are attributable on a user basis, with some degree of integrity and credibility, to the people who actually use those roads. It's a difficult thing to do. The principle is sound, but it's how you do it in a progressive way that's difficult.
The Chair: Thank you, Chairman Tonks. I often have the unhappy task of telling people when their time is up, and your half-hour has come to an end. I'd like to thank you for coming forward today to make a presentation to the committee.
Mr Tonks: Thank you very much. Compliments of the season to the members of the committee. Thank you for giving us the opportunity.
SHIRLEY FARLINGER
DEREK PAUL
The Chair: Could Shirley Farlinger please come forward.
Welcome to our committee. You have half an hour to make a presentation, which you can use as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions. Please read your name into the record for the benefit of Hansard and the committee.
Ms Shirley Farlinger: My name is Shirley Farlinger, and I've also invited Derek Paul to make a short presentation as part of the half-hour we have together.
First of all, I'd like to thank you all very much for your patience, especially during the holiday season.
I think you have a copy of my presentation in front of you. My work is usually on violence against children and on peace issues. I've been an intervenor, though, in government hearings many times, usually on defence and international policy. As a journalist, I have been to the United Nations many times. I'm especially thinking today of my attendance at the children's summit, where Canada, as you might remember, was co-chair and one of the movers and shakers at that summit. This is where we as a country promised to give first call to children. I don't know if you've had children make a presentation here.
Mr Young: No.
Ms Farlinger: All right. Then I'll try and speak for children, as a grandmother.
I laud the government for its efforts to reduce the deficit and promote economic prosperity. In fact, nothing would be better for the children of this province than economic prosperity. To me, this means good jobs for parents, good job prospects for children and government assistance when needed.
I want to remind the panel that Canada signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child and it is now international law. One part of that states, "Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development." That's really what we're aiming for and working on here.
However, I believe the writers of this bill have fallen into a trap which is unfortunately all too common in the world. I refer to the trap of thinking that reducing public expenditures and cutting taxes is the best or only way of obtaining economic prosperity. Money spent on social programs I do not believe was the cause of the debt, and cutting social programs will not ultimately reduce the debt. Under no circumstances can we turn our backs on the welfare of our children. They did not incur this debt, they didn't get us into this situation, and they should not now have to pay the price.
I notice there's a great willingness on the part of citizens of Ontario to do their part to restore our financial health. However, sensibly, the only people who can contribute are those people who have money. If people believe that the more affluent citizens are not doing their share in proportion to their ability to do so, people will be rather unwilling to continue to support any of the government's policies. I would ask the government to list the ways in which the more affluent of Ontario's citizens and its corporations are contributing to reducing the deficit. We now see the terrible phenomenon of companies making increased profits and at the same time downsizing staff. More and more people, even very qualified people, are on the streets of this city.
I am pleased that hundreds of people and institutions are making the effort to present their views on short notice and with no intervenor funding. It shows that the people of Ontario are truly concerned about their government and are eager to offer help and are capable of making many excellent suggestions. However, it has been my experience that extensive public consultation does not necessarily result in any policy changes that resemble the advice they've been given.
Premier Harris has even said that this government will not put the brakes on its budget belt-tightening. This was in yesterday's Globe and Mail and I included that article in my report. He says that the bill may be altered in response to our presentations, but it will still be passed at a special session on January 29. I do not believe it is possible that it is not the intention -- I should maybe not say it's not the intention of this government. Strike that out. I do not believe it is possible, though, to address the concerns raised by the hundreds of submissions by that date.
Premier Harris says the main problem is that people did not understand the government's proposed actions. Actually, people need some kind of guarantee that they are being listened to and that they will have an influence on the economic future of Ontario. Consultation is an important lesson for children in citizenship. At this time, our children are learning about conflict resolution and democracy, and we ought to be practising it ourselves.
Poverty is itself a form of violence against children. We have many shelters and support services for battered women and children in Toronto. Not every battered child comes from a poor family, but poverty and unemployment add to the strain on any family. There are over one million children living in poverty in Canada. It would be so helpful if the government made a real effort to examine the root causes of violence and thereby perhaps reduce the need for the number of shelters.
I would like to quote from a document which Canada supported. Although there are perhaps some ways that this is the concern of the federal government, I think it's important for Ontario too, especially now that some of the powers are being switched from Ottawa to Toronto.
Canada committed to "formulating national poverty eradication plans by 1996 with the participation of people living in poverty." I think that was an important part of that. Are we really consulting with people who experience this poverty?
"Setting time-bound goals and targets for reducing overall poverty and eradicating extreme poverty and reducing unemployment, and also to regularly assess its progress and make reports within the framework of a consolidated reporting system." This is what Canada promised in the Copenhagen Declaration and the program of action at the UN Summit for Social Development.
1440
In September 1995, 30,000 women gathered at the fourth UN World Conference on Women, and the non-governmental organizations that represented a huge number of groups around the world agreed on a Beijing Declaration which said, "We call for development and sustained use of affirmative action by both the private and public sectors of society to ensure the equality of women."
The head of UNIFEM, a UN organization, said: "Policies coming out of a system of good governance would be responsive to the livelihood needs and realities of women and communities instead of appropriating development resources to serve powerful private interests at the expense of the economically and politically weak. Good governance would recognize that since women commonly assume special responsibility for the family and community interest, they must have a central role in both setting and implementing policies aimed at creating more just and sustainable societies."
The government of Ontario seems to be unresponsive to the needs of women. This is very short-sighted, because most jobs are created in the small business sector and most small businesses are started by women. It is also true that most volunteer work is carried out by women. If we are to cut costs, the volunteer sector will have to increase and the jobs carried out by volunteer coordinators will have to be safeguarded. Will women volunteer in social agencies if they're privatized? Each extra charge for medical assistance will add to the number of people in need of this volunteer help.
I have listed 12 recommendations arising from some of these background notes.
(1) This process of consultation must be regularized for all important legislation coming before the House. That's a pretty big thing to ask, I know, but I think this consultation has been the healthiest thing we've seen in provincial politics in a while. This consultation on Bill 26 must continue until groups have had a chance to respond to the government's standard question. I notice that the government at these hearings comes up with one question for everybody, and that is, "What would you do about the deficit and the debt?"
There are many alternatives. The solutions do not lie in a single strategy but in strategies which will link local, regional and national efforts. We ought to redesign our economy and the government to meet our needs, not redesign ourselves to meet the needs of the present financial system. At the very least, the practice of debating legislation with all members of Parliament must be maintained. Cabinet authority is not enough to ensure a democratic process.
(2) There should be no changes to the freedom of information act. I also work as a journalist and I know how important it is for the media to have access to information. If it becomes more difficult and more expensive for the public and the media to keep informed, government will not be able to respond to the people.
(3) Measures taken to reduce the deficit must be evaluated to see if they really have that effect. I know that many of these policies have been tried in other countries and they're not working very well. If workers are laid off and they're unable in a reasonable time to get another job, the tax base is reduced, dependency on welfare is increased and the policy is proven to be a mistake.
Statistics gathered, then, when you're evaluating Bill 26 must focus on the poorest people in society and the children, not on the average or not on how well the well-to-do are doing.
(4) There should be a time frame for Bill 26. In other words, I think everyone is willing to undergo some financial pain, but we have to know how much progress we're making and we have to have the promise that the deficit will go down and that the pain will some day end and that Bill 26 will some day be changed. This will give everyone an incentive to reduce the deficit as quickly as possible.
(5) User fees for facilities which assist the poor should not be imposed. Libraries, parks and recreation centres should be low or no cost. Perhaps companies could sponsor skating rinks. Skating is one of the few free activities for children in this city and one that I can still do with my grandchildren.
(6) A major cause of the debt has been the high interest rates on government borrowing. There are alternatives. Banks must be more accountable to the best interests of Canada, and legislation must be brought in to supply low interest rates for provincial government borrowing as well as for small businesses. There is a group called the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform which is looking at changes that could be made to the Bank Act and to the way in which banks operate in this country. I'm not personally qualified to go into all of that.
(7) The frequent phrase that I noticed in the omnibus bill is "where the minister considers it in the public interest to do so." I suggest this needs to be spelled out. How is the public interest to be measured? Who will the minister consult? I did not attach the submission from the Toronto Conference of the United Church of Canada -- I sort of ran out of money when I was duplicating -- but I did attach the summary of the moderator's letter to all the churches, which was read last Sunday in United churches. It was in the Toronto Star today, and I have included that in my presentation.
(8) The ending of pay equity is an affront to women, especially in view of the fact that many recommendations will make life more difficult for women in this province.
(9) Health care should not be altered; it is one of the most efficient in the world. I've just had a grandchild and the mother only spent one day in hospital, got excellent care, was happy to come home after one day. There are many ways in which our hospitals have changed over the years to become more efficient. We don't want to make changes in privatizing health care which are going to damage the children of Ontario.
(10) Amendments to acts should be examined for their effects on the environment. This is a concern of most people, especially our young people. Companies must be accountable for their activities and cleanup should not be at the taxpayer's expense. In addition, environmental activities such as insulating of homes provides jobs while reducing homeowners' costs of energy. I'm pleased that Premier Harris says that the big lack in his first year in power has been the lack of job creation.
(11) A source of revenue would be to end the grants and tax breaks to military companies. Military production is a poor supplier of jobs in relation to the capital invested, as well as being a source of continued militarization of our world.
(12) Last, the bill must not undermine the legal system by putting the government above the law. Some of these changes will be retroactive and an affront to the whole legal system which we have enjoyed in this province. There is a small article attached on that.
My 13th recommendation would be to have a merry Christmas and a happy Hanukkah.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I understand Mr Paul, who is with you, would like to also speak.
Mr Derek Paul: I would prefer to defer until all the questions that the committee has of Mrs Farlinger have been dealt with.
The Chair: Normally we take submissions and divide the remaining time up.
Mr Paul: Well, it's as you like. Then I'll be very brief.
The most important part of my presentation is the introduction, which, however, I'm not going to read because it doesn't bear directly on Bill 26. But it does say that there is a strategy for improving the fiscal health of the province of Ontario in addition to, not instead of, the things the present government is already doing. I claim that the three things I've written down as the three elements of that strategy are essential. I don't think that we can get out of the debt situation without those things, and the first of them is one which I know Mr Paul Martin is opposed to.
Let me get down to the question of Bill 26. I would much rather discuss the introduction than that, but let's discuss it anyway. It seems to have positive aspects that would lead to some increased efficiency in government, but it attempts in places to do so at the expense of the democratic process. I won't use the term "dictatorship," but I think autocracy is what is called for in various parts of the bill.
1450
As a preliminary, I'm going to discuss only schedule F, which is health services restructuring. My personal impressions of health care are that what is needed is more emphasis on disease prevention and a reduction of reliance on medical drugs. I also suspect that hospitals have had unnecessarily, and increasingly unnecessarily, high expenses in the administration. It seems to me that one of the alternatives to melding hospitals, putting two hospitals under one administration, would be simply to limit the percentage of a hospital budget that can be spent on administration.
Now I want to direct my next remark, which is near the bottom of my second page, to the thing that I found the least attractive in schedule F. On page 50 of the act, section 9 is quite unsatisfactory in the power it gives to the Lieutenant Governor, and presumably this is ministerial power through the Lieutenant Governor, to set up a hospital supervisor, in direct conflict with the board of the hospital and with its chief administrator. Those words "direct conflict" don't of course appear in the act, but the conflict is built in because the powers of the hospital supervisor are defined to be the same as the board's, and I submit that this is a recipe for an absolutely untenable situation. Either the board members will resign or there will be constant hubbub and protest.
Subsections 9(1) and 9(3), combined with 9(8) and 9(9), make it clear that the minister could directly run a hospital through the hospital supervisor. Thus, in principle, the minister could run every hospital in Ontario through a company of supervisors of his own choosing, whose sole role would be to carry out his wishes. I do not want to be a patient in an Ontario hospital when that happens. The proposal, however, might have the dubious merit that it would drive the sick out of Ontario into other provinces, but I don't think this is the intention of the bill.
There is great danger opened up by that kind of simplicity of the envisaged chain of command. If the minister is truly familiar with hospital administration, it could lead to a uniform model of hospital services, not necessarily the best, throughout Ontario, simply reflecting the minister's own personal biases. If, however, the minister knows little of hospital administration, it could lead to drastically poor service.
In general, the danger of running a hospital -- and I used the wrong word; "autocratically" is the word that should be there at the top of page 3 -- autocratically through a supervisor will have the disadvantage of impeding the board from innovating and exploring creative new avenues in health care. The absence of the use of such words as "creativity" in schedule F reveals, better than anything else that I can mention, the deficiency of thought in the proposed restructuring of health services.
In the interest of time, I'll stop there.
The Chair: Thank you very much. For the record, you're Derek Paul. I'll read that into the record for the benefit of Hansard and the committee. We have about two minutes a side for questions, and we'll start with the government side.
Mr Young: To Mr Paul, I just want to comment. I appreciate your comment that the positive aspect of the bill is that it may lead to increased efficiency, which is exactly what the bill is designed to do. But with regard to the minister appointing an administrator in a hospital, that's not to make the board quit. That was put into the bill in case the board quits.
The Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council has recommended closing some hospitals and current boards of governors don't have that in their mandate, so it's going to be difficult for them to say, "Okay, we'll close down." So if a board does quit, this is for that situation. That's what it was designed for.
Mr Paul: This is not clear from the wording of the bill. It's very unclear.
Mr Young: Okay. Your point's well taken. Thanks.
I'd like to ask Mrs Farlinger with regard to the deficit again. We're struggling with great difficulty with this. We're making a lot of tough decisions. Frankly, it's tough to be on the government side, but we're doing it for our children and our children's children. We're doing what we have to do. You said here that "We ought to redesign our economy and the government to meet our needs...." That's exactly what Bill 26 is designed to do. I just wonder if you'd care to comment on that.
Ms Farlinger: I think we have to be very careful that we don't continue to have children living below the poverty line and expect that they will then be in a position to take your place in the government. They have to be healthy, they have to be educated. We have to do more than one thing at a time. I just want you to safeguard the wellbeing of children.
Mr Phillips: Thank you both for being here. I appreciate the article you provided us, "Harris won't put brakes on cuts," and the 30% tax cut is still on, because that's what the bill is all about. The government is determined to implement its 30% tax cut.
Ms Farlinger: I really 100% oppose the idea of a tax cut when you're trying to reduce the deficit.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate that comment. What they're doing is they've got to cut, cut, cut; cut $8 billion and $5 billion of it will go to the tax cut. It will be $14 million a day for the tax cut.
Ms Farlinger: They say the tax cut will create jobs, but they don't really say how that will happen.
Mr Phillips: That's true. As a matter of fact, this is amazing, but the number of people out of work in the province actually goes up next year and then goes up the following year. Two and a half years into their mandate there are more people out of work in this province than when they came into office. It is bizarre to me, but they think this is common sense, I gather.
My question to you, and you perhaps have answered it, is, do you and your organization feel the 30% tax cut is not appropriate, or how would you describe it?
Ms Farlinger: What I'm saying is, if this is really such a recipe for success, we ought to at least have some kind of evaluation of it. I think it's a recipe for disaster, but there has to be an evaluation. You can evaluate the same kind of policies that have been undertaken in other countries and you'll see. We don't actually have to go through this exercise. We don't have to experience it to understand that it's not going to work.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much to both of you for the presentation. Again, I also found it interesting that you addressed head-on one of the comments that Premier Harris makes, which is that he believes that many of the opponents of the kind of changes that his government has made are really arguing that the pre-election status quo ought to prevail. I didn't hear you say that. I heard you say very clearly people are prepared to make changes, we're prepared to recognize that the deficit has to be addressed in a reasonable way, but that it's wrong to assume that money that we spend on social programs is the cause of that debt and that deficit.
Ms Farlinger: Yes.
Mr Silipo: If we are not careful about protecting and providing support to the poorest among our citizens, then we really are missing the boat in terms of dealing with the economic issue, let alone on the social level of what we need to do. I just found that point very clear throughout your presentation and the point that you're making that there needs to be more discussion on these points exactly to answer the question that the government has been posing, which is, what will we do to reduce the deficit? So I appreciate very much your comments. I don't really have a question but just wanted to make that observation.
Ms Farlinger: There are alternatives and we need to work on those.
The Chair: Thank you both very much for coming forward and presenting to our committee today.
Mr Young: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Mr Phillips said "you and your organization." Mrs Farlinger, are you representing an organization or just speaking for yourself?
Ms Farlinger: I did not make a presentation representing an organization but I did explain that, as a journalist, I've had a lot of contact with the United Nations and with the agreements that Canada has signed at the United Nations. I do belong to many, many organizations. I could go through them all, but I'm not speaking for them.
Mr Phillips: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The member the other night accused the churches of having a conflict of interest because they ran day care centres. I assume you don't run a day care centre or anything like that.
Ms Farlinger: Well, I have a number of grandchildren.
The Chair: Thank you for coming forward today.
1500
CITY OF YORK
The Chair: Can I have Mayor Nunziata please come forward. Welcome to our committee. You'll have half an hour to make your presentation today, and you may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions. I'd appreciate it if you and the gentlemen who have joined you would read your names into the record for the benefit of Hansard and the committee members.
Ms Frances Nunziata: Frances Nunziata, mayor, city of York. I have with me Councillor Mike McDonald, councillor for ward 6 in the city of York; Ed Sajecki, our planning commissioner; and Brian Haley, our solicitor.
Good afternoon. I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon. As mayor of the city of York, I share the concerns of many who have previously appeared before this committee to address the issue of lack of consultation with respect to Bill 26, a bill which proposes significant changes and will drastically affect legislation.
To begin, I would like to point out that as mayor, I did not officially receive a copy of the bill. In fact, I received it from another Metro mayor. Given the manner in which this bill was presented, there has not been sufficient time for municipalities to fully analyse the impact.
Secondly, when my staff called to obtain information on the process, we were advised that we would be placed on a list and we would be contacted as to the process prior to appearing before the committee. I would like to point out that it was only through perseverance that we are here today. On Wednesday, my staff was advised that it was not known when or if we would be called. On Thursday morning, we were asked whether we would like to appear at 3 pm Thursday afternoon. Needless to say, we did not accept the offer.
An article in this morning's Toronto Star states that the legislative committee is having trouble finding people to testify even though more than 200 people were originally told they could not appear at the hearings because all the spots were booked. This scrambling at the last minute to find people to testify is a clear indication that this process was rushed and that the hearings should be extended to provide ample time for the public to put together a precise and well-documented deputation. While I understand the desire to move ahead on the passage of this bill, would it not have been more democratic to hold these hearings after the holiday season when the interested parties did not feel pressured to respond?
With the number of proposed amendments, it is vital that a thorough analysis is undertaken to determine the extent of the impact to the municipalities and various organizations. It would appear that the actual impact of a number of amendments is dependent on the content of the regulations. A law can be changed by regulation, and to my knowledge these regulations have not yet been made public. Would it not make more sense to have a public hearing after the public has had an opportunity to review these regulations?
While we have concerns about the consultation process, I'm also deeply concerned that Bill 26 is not an equitable bill for all municipalities across Ontario. Increasing the ability for municipalities to impose user fees may be fine for municipalities with a high population; however, there are many smaller municipalities which do not have the resources to draw on for user fees. The implication of this on those least able to afford any increase could be devastating. This is yet another example of provincial downloading.
Throughout the five points of the Common Sense Revolution document, the importance of listening to the public was stressed. On page 19 the Premier himself states that there will be discussions with all Ontarians in reference to how they will achieve their 20% goal in cuts. Today we are discussing a bill of significance that affects all Ontarians, and yet all Ontarians have not had the opportunity to be heard or at the very least be fully informed on how to be heard.
While there's still the opportunity to send in a submission, and I'm sure many will take that opportunity, we are here today because we feel it's important that you hear these concerns in person and we sincerely hope you will take into consideration some of the points that are being made. A bill of such magnitude, with such far-reaching implications, should be given the appropriate time frame in which to analyse and respond and should be separated into sections for public hearings. Today we are appealing to this government to stand behind your commitment to a partnership with all Ontarians.
I'd like to ask Councillor Mike McDonald to make a few comments.
Mr Mike McDonald: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, just by way of a preface, I think the words of a learned sage perhaps are appropriate. I apologize for writing this long letter. I didn't have time to prepare a short one, so if I ramble a bit here and do not get to the point as quickly, perhaps that's one of the reasons.
I'm obviously going to wear my councillor's hat, but in the points that I'm making I have to admit I'm also wearing a lawyer's hat and a legal author hat as well, because although I'll be referring to substantive sections of the bill, I'll be referring to them primarily to highlight what I think are concerns with regard to legal and democratic rights that we enjoy in a democracy.
Within the time constraints I think it's only natural and advisable to deal with concepts, but I would like to indicate and undertake to the members of the committee that those concepts will be followed up before the public consultation process is concluded with draft amendments to the bill itself, because sometimes I think it's unfair to damn in generalities but not to be responsible and follow up with amendments which address those concerns. So the city of York will be drafting amendments to follow up and will be submitting those amendments in writing for the consideration of the members of the committee.
Just before I get into the bill itself, the mayor has indicated her concern with the public consultation process. I'm sure you've heard that record many, many times since the beginning of the proceedings.
Just as, I suppose, a curious footnote, a historical footnote, if you look in the Charter of Rights you won't find, I don't think, any specific thing that says the public has to have a genuine opportunity to engage in public debate with regard to any important legislative initiative. But in the funny-money case going back to the early 1930s with the Social Credit government, the Supreme Court of Canada, before any of this charter business, enunciated that principle very, very clearly, and so, by reference to the charter where it says nothing abrogates previous law and previous democratic principles, I think this government and this committee have to have a concern in terms of the genuine opportunity for public debate with regard to this important legislative initiative.
I was going to comment briefly on the usage of the omnibus bill, but in actual fact I think Robert Sheppard in the Globe and Mail, in an article dated December 18, very succinctly and very well, I would suggest, expresses his concerns and the public concerns generally with regard to omnibus bills. I won't repeat his comment but I certainly concur with it and I would refer the members of the committee to pick that out of their clippings. I think it's very well written and the substance of his remarks are well taken.
The first principle I'd like to talk about is with specific reference to the bill itself, and I'd entitle this the OMB syndrome. By that, I mean simply that various governments have kind of looked at the OMB and said, "Well, doesn't it really indicate a distrust in local governments? Yes, we trust you but we're going to put this other body in place," as many of us sitting around this table, including committee members, have experienced, that somebody will come to a local council and inevitably it gets appealed to the OMB.
The government, as I understand it, in their public announcements are saying: "We're empowering local governments. We're making local governments partners with us." I think, by and large, including AMO, that there's widespread public support for that initiative. But the actual bill doesn't demonstrate that. For example, in the swapping of services section, there's this whole business about swapping services between regional governments and area governments, but then in clauses 209.6(1)(a) to (h), the minister has a whole category, a whole litany of powers whereby he can roll back, he can regulate, he can do anything he wants. Naturally, local governments are not going to go through this heart-rending exercise of meeting after meeting and perhaps holding public meetings to boot and then have the minister say, "It's not a go" or "You can only do it this way."
1510
So I think there's a rhetoric there that is not matched in the bill itself, and I think members of the committee might be concerned about that. You say, "Somebody's got to break the logjam." Well, in a certain sense, maybe the logjam has to be left. If it's not a go, then maybe it shouldn't be a go. In any event, there's the ultimate logjam breaker, and that's an election. If the elected people, in that exercise of their initiative, haven't met the expectations of the public, the public can express itself in a democratic way by voting.
The next principle or concept that I'd like to talk about is the legislative concept and the broader picture. I'm sure we're all familiar with this in some sense, but the broad legislative principle is that acts are to be debated. Acts set out the broad direction, the policy direction, and regulations are to implement acts and they set out the specifics of how that act is to be carried out.
How does this bill match that kind of, I think, accepted democratic principle of the legislative process? I'd have to, with great respect, say rather badly, because the act is so broad, just referring to the user fees section, that in the paper at least, the minister himself doesn't seem to know what powers for user fees are actually being given in this legislation. So you have an act that is so broad that it's undebatable because nobody knows what it means.
Secondly, you have regulations that are so broad that they contradict the usual sense of regulations as being specific implementation of the broad intent of the bill. If you compare that to the Planning Act, where you say the broad concept is to have public meetings, and the regulations set out, as we all know, the radius and all that sort of stuff, this doesn't meet that standard. So I would suggest that's a source of concern as well.
Previous speakers have referred to -- and quite frankly I'm on thin ice on this one, but it's there in terms of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Maybe members of the committee know -- I don't know specifically; maybe the legislative counsel knows. But I don't know: What actually does it mean? Because what you draw out of it is that the normal publishing in the Gazette of the regulations etc which allows the public to say, "Oh, that's what it is. I want to write the minister. I want to write my member," etc, where the minister can appeal to the Lieutenant Governor in Council seems to indicate to me, and I don't know, that this is a legislative shortcut by going directly to the executive, and that the public won't get the same sort of public notice and the same ability to make submissions.
In conclusion, there are obviously very positive aspects of this bill. The autonomy that apparently is being given -- and I'm obviously referring only to schedule M -- to municipalities is good, user fees are good if they go far enough to make any difference, facing billion-dollar cuts, and other parts of the bill are positive. But almost invariably it seems that the power is given but then it's regulated in an undefined way by the minister. So it's those democratic and legal rights that the city of York, I think, is very, very much concerned with.
In summary, in conclusion, if I may -- this may be unpalatable, and members of the committee and especially government members of the committee may find it totally unpalatable -- we've all been in this place before, and sometimes, with all the good intentions in the world, you stumble into what turns out to be a mistake. What I'm suggesting is that I don't think -- and I think it would earn kudos, quite frankly -- it's beyond the time where the government couldn't withdraw this bill and introduce separate bills.
If the government can't do that, then I think a further extension -- Friday afternoon before Christmas is not an optimal time to make submissions. I think it would show tremendous goodwill on the part of this government to extend the public hearing times.
Lastly, if none of that's palatable as a further alternative, then as a very minimum the government could signal in advance that when the regulations are published, there will be a further public consultation process. Those are our submissions, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have a little less than five minutes per caucus for questions. We'll start off with Mr Colle.
Mr Colle: I guess you wonder about how many other municipalities and stakeholders in this province had the same difficulty in terms of getting a copy of the bill and all the background documentation and then putting some kind of response together. You're fortunate enough to at least be here, but I certainly realized a lot have been short-circuited because of the mad rush to push this bill through. I guess in retrospect it would have been law by now anyway, so the fact there's been a bit of time to have stakeholders like yourselves come forward is certainly important.
The question I have is in terms of the user fee and how it affects the city of York. I know in the House the Premier said he was astonished that in Toronto -- I don't think he realized it was in North York -- but he said everything was free and that there should be user fees. I guess what he doesn't realize is that in the city of York user fees have been part of financing the city for a long time. Now you have it for parking on the street with the permit parking, you have front yard parking, you have paying for swimming, paying for skating. If you want a liquor licence, you have payment in lieu of parking, $5,000 a spot.
This bill is saying, "We're going to give the autonomy or the right to impose more user fees." Where else could you impose user fees when it seems that the city of York -- certainly some of those fees have caused almost a revolution, like the front yard parking fee. Where else are you going to raise revenues with this new-found autonomy? Councillor McDonald?
Mr McDonald: Yes, I'll take a bite at that. We discussed this in terms of our own budget preparations and for the city of York at least there's not huge room. For example, the building commissioner suggested -- and I've got a conflict on this, but I'll say it anyway. They'll say, "We'll just increase lawyer's fees for getting that zoned properly," da-da, da-da, da-da. There are no work orders. He said, "We'll just increase that from $45 to $80."
There's a wall that people bump up against and I think the lawyers, the law society, would scream bloody murder on that, and rightfully so, because it's starting to bump up against the area that's just too expensive. Then they short-circuit and ultimately the public gets shortchanged, and not only shortchanged but a kind of dangerous situation because they run into a potential lawsuit.
Ms Nunziata: If I can comment on the user fees, Mr Colle, you're correct. For years the city of York has charged for swimming and public skating and we've always been criticized because most of our residents would go to North York or Toronto because it's free. Unfortunately, the revenue we're generating from the user fees is just minimal. It's not enough to offset the cost --
Mr Colle: What if you increased them?
Ms Nunziata: Then we wouldn't have any of the kids skating or swimming because it would be very difficult. Even with the front yard parking, we find residents are refusing to pay it because they just can't afford it. We're just double taxing, so it would be very difficult. People would not use the facilities. I don't know where else we could use user fees other than through our planning or building, but to increase user fees for children for swimming or skating is just impossible to do.
Mr Colle: If you impose more fees in your building department, they're going to use that as an excuse to build in North York or a neighbouring municipality.
Ms Nunziata: What they'll do is build without the permit. We'll get people doing everything illegally. If we start doing that, then I think what we'll have to do is reduce their property tax and charge a resident for the services we're actually providing, because the amount of taxes the residents are paying, we're not providing that level of service, and if we're going to be charging them user fees for every service we do provide for them, we have to compensate them by giving them a reduction in taxes.
1520
Mr Silipo: Thank you, Mayor Nunziata, and the rest of your delegation. I just wanted to pursue a couple of points, because I understood your points very clearly and they, quite frankly, have been ones we've been making on this side of the committee table, as well as many other presenters who have been before the committee, in terms of the process and the time necessary.
I think you've spelled out a couple of different options that are there for the government to follow, and hopefully they'll listen. If they're not going to listen to us, maybe they'll listen to you and to others who have been saying very much the same kind of thing in terms of either withdrawing the bill and reintroducing it in various parts or at least extending the hearings or, at the very minimum, as you said, making sure we have hearings on the regulations. I think even that is problematic in terms of how to deal with this, but at least it would give us something more than what we have now in terms of an ability to understand the implications of what is going on.
The point I wanted to pursue with you was this: We seem to have clarified that, in terms of restructuring municipalities, this bill doesn't affect that as far as Metropolitan Toronto is concerned, and we know that presumably there will be something coming as a result of the Golden task force. But there remain in this legislation some pieces that would affect, as we understand it, Metropolitan Toronto, which have to do with a possible shift in powers between the different tiers. I don't know if you had a chance to turn your mind to that issue and have any comments on that.
Mr McDonald: I think the swapping of powers could be a positive thing. For example, the most common one even now is where municipalities swap a road that's on a border. Likewise, there are a lot of Metro roads that the area municipalities could swap. I think that's a positive element of the bill.
The not-so-positive element is if the area and the regional municipality get together and -- all these things take time, they invest the time, they work out an arrangement but then some member of the public gets to the minister and the minister says, "No, that's not a go." That's a very counterproductive thing.
What we're saying is, stick with the public pronouncements. If municipalities are going to be true partners, make them true partners. Give them the authority, give them the fiscal resources to run their municipalities in an autonomous and responsible way, and let them bear the consequences of their decisions. If you're going to have the minister involved, spell it out, and spell it out in a very prescribed sort of way that the minister can only intervene in very limited sorts of situations. That's my reaction.
The Chair: You still have a minute.
Mr Silipo: Sure. I'll just pursue one other point. Chair Tonks was here earlier this afternoon, and one of the points he made was his hope that whatever recommendations come out of the Golden task force and whatever pronouncements the government makes on what it's going to do about those recommendations, there be, at the very least, some opportunity for public discussion around those recommendations. I assume that would be the position the city of York would take as well.
Ms Nunziata: Yes.
Mr Hastings: I've got a question to either the mayor or your solicitor or to Councillor McDonald regarding the lack of imagination or -- you haven't had a lot of time to think about the application of user fees vis-à-vis garbage collection.
From the Metro Toronto submission about an hour ago, it indicated to me that Mr Richards may be looking at non-shared corporations or business corporations where Metro may be looking at that specific area, although it wasn't clearly referenced. I'd like to know what your thinking is about the use of some kind of a user fee for garbage collection in your own municipality and how that would impact adversely or positively regarding the Metro Toronto council's position and the chairman's position on that.
Ms Nunziata: I can give you my opinion on user fees. We have discussed it in York, user fees for garbage. Unfortunately, the problem I have with it is that most residents would not be able to afford user fees for garbage. What will happen in the city of York, and I'm sure throughout Metro, is that we'll have people just dumping garbage in areas where there are no user fees, or if you're richer, you can afford your garbage. I really have a problem with user fees for garbage. I feel that is the responsibility of the municipality through its property tax and I don't feel residents should be charged.
Mr Hastings: Have you looked at the experience in other municipalities that are already doing it? I believe, if not Waterloo, the city of Peterborough is doing it now. If it is such a dreadful application, how come it would appear to be in some of these other municipalities where people are of all socioeconomic incomes and profiles and they seem to have managed it capably?
Ms Nunziata: What would we do if Mississauga had user fees and the city of York did not? We would have people from Mississauga coming to York and dumping their garbage.
Mr Hastings: Not necessarily. I think it depends on how you implement. You think through how you would do such a proposal, and look at what the experience has been in other municipalities before negatively concluding about it. That's all I wanted to know.
The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward and presenting today. I appreciate it.
TORONTO CHRISTIAN RESOURCE CENTRE
The Chair: Could I please have representatives from the Toronto Christian Resource Centre come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You'll have 30 minutes today to do your presentation. You can use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation to entertain response and questions from the three caucuses. I would appreciate it if you'd both read your names and your organization into the record for the benefit of the committee members and Hansard.
Ms Julie Haubrich: My name is Julie Haubrich and I work at the Toronto Christian Resource Centre as a community worker. The Toronto Christian Resource Centre is located in the Cabbagetown area and is nestled, actually, right in Regent Park.
Ms Betty Hubbard: I'm Betty Hubbard. I'm a resident of Regent Park, a community volunteer worker and a community activist and also a welfare recipient.
Ms Haubrich: We're here today basically to speak from the heart. I'll sort of apologize beforehand: I'm not well versed on all the details in this bill, but I think it's important for you to hear what some people that I've been talking with feel about this bill and some of the implications that they feel are coming down because of it, from what they've heard. We probably won't be as technical as some of the presentations have been to date, but I'm hoping you'll still hear -- and there will be a further written presentation from the Christian Resource Centre that I think will spend more time in the technical details.
The first comment I want to talk about is basically the process and the size and the magnitude of this bill. I find it quite appalling and also sort of insulting as a citizen that we're expected to digest this bill and come to do public hearings with just a day's notice. I'm thankful that we actually have the opportunity to do this week here in Toronto public hearings, but it's really not adequate time.
My experience in this sort of forum is new. I was involved with the Bill 120 process. I think one of my main learnings from that is that changing laws is really hard work, but what's essential in the process is dialogue. I thank you for this week, but I don't think a week is enough to address 44 acts that are being changed, the creating of three new acts and the deletion of two. The magnitude boggles my mind, and I actually find it insulting that the people of Ontario expected this.
In essence, for me, good governance is not a result of sort of ramming through but a result of dialogues that have checks and balances. With the Bill 120 process, which was around landlord and tenant issues, our organization wasn't perfectly happy but we felt there was some truth that was found in the end result.
1530
What I would recommend in this process is that you break up the bill and allow due process. To me, due process is allowing time, appropriate time, for the public to process its information and have time to respond. I personally have not had adequate time to prepare. The community that I represent with low-income people don't have time; they don't even have money to afford a newspaper to find out what's going on. They're busy lining up in banks, 10 miles long this day because the cheques are out and they're trying to find ways that they can enjoy the holidays that are coming up. A number of them are finding out where the free meals are. I'm spending my time directing people so that they can at least have some joy this Christmas, at best. I'm not sure it's going to be a happy holiday at all.
But my sense around adequate due process is that there needs to be adequate time to understand the material. I've got the document itself; it's $18.50. People in our community don't have $18.50 to read it. Different agencies are picking it up, but to combine the other material, I was told today it's about $325 to get all the acts so that you can actually understand what's in here. My organization doesn't have $325 to spend so we can actually come here and be adequately informed. Not that all the parts would affect our organization, but at least we'd be able to afford some of them if the bill was broken apart.
Another part of due process to me, from my point of view, is actually I need to dissect this work and share it with the people I work with, share it with people who are literate because they have an understanding of what's going on. They need to know. Then I need to work with them around finding a common response and come and share. I see my role as being able to either encourage them to come here and share what their feelings are and their views are or find groups of us who would come here. We haven't had time to respond to this kind of fast-paced thrusting of change.
Maybe it's unfortunate in the timing, that the bill's here in Toronto, that we're picked one week before Christmas. It's a time that people are preparing to take a break from the workplace, not to gear up and come here. It's almost as if there's an attempt to hide what's in this bill by putting it through with the glaring lights of Christmas. I'd recommend, again, that you divide the bill and add more weeks of public hearings. I would even push it to February.
Around the public hearings, I know you're accepting written submissions, and I think that's great, but I think there's something missing with only just reading the written word. I think you need to hear people face to face around how this bill impacts them.
I was talking to a woman this morning. She's actually a woman who lives on $275 a month. She voted for the Tory party, but she's appalled about this bill. I wish she were sitting here, because she says it so much better than I do. She said she voted for this government, but her understanding of a Conservative government isn't that you give the government more power, and that's what she and I see Bill 26 doing, giving more powers to the municipalities to charge and tax people. That's not how she understands what a Conservative government's about.
She also wanted me to share her words that she's really scared of this bill. She lived a number of years, her middle years, in the States and experienced at first hand the mass poverty that existed there. She's scared that this bill will build another two-tier system where we have masses of poor people who have no access to the services that we take for granted now. I have those same fears that this kind of bill is pushing us right to that.
There are a number of points. The stuff around the freedom of information: My sense there is that by putting on user fees you're denying access to low-income people to find out information, and I think that's wrong. It's public information; it should be accessible. Putting user fees when people have no money to exist I think is fundamentally flawed.
We've had a few city councillors and mayors speak what I've heard this afternoon, and they're actually sort of okay with the flexibility they're being given to impose taxes and user fees. Again, I'm not in favour of that; I find that quite scary. It's a downloading of the problem that the federal government is giving the province less money. I think there needs to be some accountability along the way.
As a person who grew up in Saskatchewan and moved to Ontario, I think there's some value in some standards that exist and not that one neighbourhood will be dumping garbage and people have to pay for it, and in another it's free. I think there need to be some cross-standards and I think provinces can hold on to that authority. It might cost money, but I think there's some value in that. I'll pass it on to Betty.
Ms Hubbard: I live in the community of Regent Park, which is in the inner city. I'm also a welfare recipient. To tell you a bit about my community, there are 10,000 to 12,000 people living in my community, most of them being children and youth.
What I want to talk about is, we've had money taken off our cheques which go to help feed out children. Next we might be losing our housing. Now you want to give more power to the municipalities so that, if they have to, they can impose user fees on us.
In our community, we don't have very many things, but the things that we do have are free. You're now going to be talking about taking away the luxuries that our children have, my child has. Some of these things are libraries.
Our parents have two to three children; some, four or five. They can't afford to go out and buy books like probably some of you people can. So the kids have to use the libraries to research for projects that they have to do for their classrooms. Also, they have to use the libraries probably to use a computer; even my own child, who has won a scholarship to the U of T. I cannot afford a computer for her, so she has to go to the library to use this computer, or to the recreation centre, which has a community computer. But putting on user fees means that she won't be able to go and none of the other children will be able to go.
Our ice rinks: We have two ice rinks in the community of Regent Park. Today, probably after school, they will be filled, because these kids cannot afford to use the transportation to go down to city hall or to Ryerson, which is free as of right now. Their parents can't afford to put them into any kind of hockey teams because they can't afford the equipment. So this is all they have, these two ice rinks. If you put user fees on them, they're not going to be able to go.
Our swimming pool: We have one swimming pool and about four wading pools, which are free right now. Most of our kids in Regent Park, I'd say about 60% or 65% -- we did a survey on this -- never leave the community until they get to high school age. They never get out of the city. They never get to go to Canada's Wonderland. They never get to go to this water park or to the island or to Ontario Place, because they cannot afford the transportation. So all they have there is the swimming pool. Those swimming pools are filled from the time they open until the time they close at night, and the same with the wading pools. Putting a user fee on them would mean that these kids would not be able to go.
Our community centre: All programs are free and are both recreational and educational. We have a high-risk-youth worker there who works with the youth. For the last, I'd say, five or six months, he's been working with about 16 of them; 11 of them have gone back to school or gone to work. Put user fees on there and they will not be able to go.
To put user fees on anything in our community would be more devastation to our community. Just to show this, at Christmastime the community centre puts on a Christmas dinner every year for our community. Up to this year, we had maybe 100 to 200 people. If they had to pay to go into this community centre for this Christmas dinner, they would go hungry. This year, we had between 800 to 1,000 people lined up to get dinner because of the cuts.
1540
All I'm saying is that to put any kind of user fees on anything in this city -- Riverdale farm; our kids never see a farm animal unless they can go there. They can't join the programs there that would teach them about farm animals. I can't see how you can give more power to the municipalities to impose user fees. I'm asking for people all over the city, not just my community but other low-income communities, working families, everybody, just to have free things to go to. That's all I have to say.
The Chair: Thank you both. We have a little bit more than five minutes for questions for each caucus. We'll start with Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think that like a few others who have been before us today and throughout the week, you've focused in very much on what all this means for people, rather than just the technicalities of powers and shifts as well as the process that you've discussed. We've heard those comments also from many people in terms of the usefulness of allowing more time for these discussions to take place so that all of us, and certainly the government members, can better understand the implications of what they're doing.
One of the other things that I would just point out -- I'm not sure I really have a question for you, but I just want to make a point and welcome any observations that you have to make on it -- is that what we really are seeing through the actions of this government is a clear shift in power and resources from the average Ontarian, indeed from the poorest of Ontarians, to the most well-off.
You talked about the cuts in welfare, which obviously affect you and many others in your community. It's not an accident that the largest part of the reason why this government is cutting the way it is cutting is in order to fund the 30% tax cut that it wants to bring about on the provincial income tax level at the same time that it is cutting funding to municipalities and all other levels of government and all other agencies, and affecting services, reducing services, allowing for the increase in user fees.
Most of the people in your community, I would suspect, aren't going to get anything from the tax cut, and if they're going to get anything it's going to be a very minimal amount, yet as you pointed out, what may likely happen is that you can end up paying more through a variety of user fees that may be applied while those who are in the higher-income brackets may be walking away with a tax cut.
One of the interesting things that we've heard, from at least some people who have appeared here before and certainly I've heard in my own community and throughout the province, is from people who would be benefiting from some of those tax cuts saying, "If I'm going to benefit at the expense of other people who are poorer than I am, then I don't want that tax cut, thank you very much." I thought I would just at least note that for you, that that is there and that's something we're trying to make the government understand as well.
Ms Haubrich: I have a comment around that. Watching the people who are struggling with a lot less these last couple of months because of the welfare cuts, it's made me more aware of the basic reality of the presumption that's there that when I get my tax break -- and as a working person, I'm assuming I might get this 30% -- why is there the assumption that my spending of that 30% will make the economy boom better than Betty spending it feeding her kids? She doesn't go to the States to shop; she goes up the street in the Cabbagetown area and buys her groceries. My understanding in the Cabbagetown community is that the stores are hurting, the revenues and the intake in that whole neighbourhood. Both the merchants and I think also even the landlords in that neighbourhood are hurting. I challenge the government to consider, why is the way Betty spends the money not better than the way I, who live across the river in Riverdale, would spend the money? Which would be better for the economy?
Mr Young: With regard to your comments on the freedom of information, I don't know if you know what we're trying to address is frivolous requests. Just to give you an example -- it's an extreme case, but it's one that points it out very well -- a 27-year-old man made 770 requests to different Ontario police forces for information, requesting information like how much officers eat and drink while on duty and reported sightings of UFOs and how often police washrooms are cleaned, that sort of stuff. The estimated cost is $75,000 to those organizations, and by the way, all he's paid so far is $17 when ordered by a judge. When he was asked why he wanted all that information, he said he likes to see who he can embarrass. We have to address situations like that to help these agencies.
One of the mayors who was here from one of the municipalities said they have to take people actually off the job, what they're doing, to spend the whole day searching for information for something that may be like this. They also said that if there was a $5 charge attached, if that ends up being the charge, they would probably use good judgement and not charge it when someone was financially in a position they couldn't pay it. I'd just like your comments on that.
Ms Haubrich: A response would be, that it is outrageous, the behaviour of that particular individual, but another solution might be that you could only put in five requests a year, or even one request a year, so a person would really have to know how well they're going to use that. If it's a really serious issue, that access of information won't be stopped because they could talk to someone like me and I'd go get it. But I wouldn't be asking for the kind of information that this person was, so a simpler solution would be to limit the access for one individual.
I have no idea how often people use it, so I wouldn't know what a reasonable thing is, but maybe people in that field would. But charging it blocks low-income people from even thinking that they could. They have trouble even getting the phone, to phone to find out how much the charge is. If they've heard there's a charge, it's like: "I'm sorry, I'm gone, it's not an issue. I'm not going to fight for my rights, because it's not going to get me anywhere anyway." It just sort of feeds on that attitude. Whereas if they know it's free and I can encourage people to take that step, they're much more willing to say, "What do I have to lose?" Five bucks is a meal. It's a meal in a restaurant, it's the food for probably two, three days.
Mr Young: All I'm saying is that some said that they would waive it, that they would show good judgement.
Ms Haubrich: Yes, but who wants to rely on charity all their life? I work in a church but I don't believe in charity. I believe that we have a bountiful country, that we should be able to share the wealth that we have.
Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): One of the concerns that could be raised, and I would expect one of the deputants that we had either yesterday or a day ago would have with the one or two requests a year, is that he had probably made about six or seven requests in the year and had uncovered some rather interesting information about how a certain school board was using some money, and that was valuable information. In fact it did expose a situation that was not perhaps the best use of public funds. You say one or two requests, but it might not work the way we're hoping to use freedom of information, which is to help people understand a little bit more how their money is spent.
You mentioned in your presentation that you might have a chance to get a written submission to us. Is that correct?
Ms Haubrich: Yes.
Mr Sampson: You realize that we have until the last week of the roadshow, so to speak, to do that. That's three or four weeks from now.
The Chair: Until January 22.
Mr Sampson: You did say that you'd not comment on all of the parts of the act, and I suspect that's probably the case. Would you be commenting on, for instance, the mining amendments? Is that something that would be relevant to your group?
Ms Haubrich: I won't be actually working on the submission, but personally I'm concerned around the mining. My understanding of how it reads is that it allows mines to lessen some of the pollution controls, and as a citizen who's concerned about the air I breathe, I would be concerned. As to the technicalities, I hope people in the mining industry and people who are involved in environmental issues would be addressing this strongly and loudly.
Mr Sampson: I just wanted to make sure that you're aware of the deadline.
Ms Haubrich: Yes, January 22. I wanted to respond to your --
The Chair: Pardon me, I'm sorry. We should move on to Mr Colle.
Ms Haubrich: I'll throw it in later.
Mr Colle: The thing is, there's a double standard here. I don't know if you're aware of it, but this government is giving the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Health and the minister extended powers to access personal and confidential medical records. In other words, they're going to get more power to go into your information, but then if you want information from a municipality to try and find out what the councillors are spending on trips and that, they're going to charge you a fee not only to make the application but also on how much time they spend. They're also going to make it more difficult for you to find out what your government is doing provincially, because there will be a fee there and you'll be paying for the research.
1550
Sure, there are abuses, but what they're going to do in order to take care of a few abuses that occur across this province that are probably less than 5% of all the applications for freedom is that they're going to come down and say, "We're going to make it very difficult for you, because we're going to charge you a fee and then we're going to give the power to the bureaucrats to deny whether you get that information or not."
My question is more in terms of the user fee and the impacts. As you know, right now in Regent Park with the decline in incomes, which has been quite dramatic, 20% or more, you've got continual unemployment, you've got more layoffs, you look at what's happening in the retail sector, in the small shops I'm sure on Parliament and on Gerrard, they're laying people off because things like shoe sales -- people stop buying shoes because they don't have the money.
If the government's now going to allow municipalities to come around and charge for skating, for swimming, to go to the Riverdale petting zoo, and user fees charged by the schools perhaps, libraries, where will people go who at this point don't have the money to take a streetcar to go to the island, where are they going to get the money to go skating, swimming or maybe pay for that computer, as you said, your daughter would have to pay for to go to the library to use?
Ms Hubbard: That's a good question. This is what I'm afraid of with all the user fees. We do have problems down in Regent Park with drug dealing and whatever. Most of it comes from the outside, and what I'm afraid of is all these kids are going to have no places to go, they're going to be out on the street and they're going to fall to these drug dealers. They're going to go into the elements of crime.
What they're doing now, they're off the streets, they're doing something useful. I'm afraid to think of what's going to happen, I really am, because they try and pull in our kids to do drug dealing and to do break-and-enters and to do everything else, and I'm really scared. I don't know what they'll do. I have no idea what they'll do.
There's such a misconception about people who live in Regent Park or any low-income people or any welfare recipients. The misconception is that we don't want to work. We want to work, but there are no jobs out there, and workfare is not work, not to us. We want to work with dignity. Even if it's a minimum-wage job, it's a job.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate your comments. One of the things that amazes me most about the government's fiscal statement is the fact that they're predicting the number of unemployed will go up next year and then go up again the following year. So with the great Common Sense Revolution that's supposed to mean less unemployment, they themselves, the government, are predicting unemployment's going to rise.
My question really is this: This is one of the few opportunities we've had to talk to someone who knows at first hand about the implications of a 21% cut in social assistance, because in your community I suspect that you know quite a few people who may have been impacted by it. Can you give us any indication what that means to you and any of your neighbours who may be affected by it?
Ms Hubbard: After my rent is paid, I have $471 a month to live on. My daughter goes to high school. I'm lucky, she gets a bursary for now, unless that is cut too. So she has car fare to go to school.
My cable is gone. Okay, fine, I had cable. A lot of people think that's a luxury, but I don't go out anywhere at night so that to me was entertainment for me so I don't have to sit there and be more depressed than what I am already.
My phone will probably be the next thing that goes. I'm a community volunteer. I sit on the board of directors of the Regent Park health centre. I'm on another board. I'm on all kinds of committees, and I work hard in my community helping the members of my community. My phone will be gone so I'll definitely be cut off.
I don't get paid for the work I do but I love doing it. I really love doing it. I love helping my community. But I sit home at night because I know kids are going hungry. I know they're going hungry, and it just shows in that dinner at the community centre for Christmas, where 800 to 1,000 people were lined up at the door to get in. Thank God the food was donated or we wouldn't have been able to feed them all. But this is just a sign of times to come.
I don't see how the poor people, women and minorities, how did we create all this deficit? I don't see how we did it ourselves. We want to work. They say we should go out and look for work. How in the heck can we afford transportation money, streetcar fare, to go out and look for work? The transportation costs have gone up. I can't even afford to go out and work. I have to clothe my child and everything else.
The Chair: Thank you, ladies. Unfortunately, we've come to the end of your half-hour. I appreciate your coming forward today to make your presentation.
COMMUNIST PARTY OF ONTARIO
The Chair: Do we have a member from the Communist Party of Ontario here? Good afternoon, sir, and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have one half-hour to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may, as other presenters have chosen to do, leave 10 or 15 minutes at the end of your presentation to entertain response and questions. I'd appreciate it if you'd read your name and your organization into the record for the benefit of Hansard and the committee members.
Mr Wilfred Szczesny: My name is Wilfred Szczesny. I'm representing the Communist Party of Ontario. The Communist Party of Ontario joins its voice to those of others who have appeared before you and those who hope to make a presentation but are unable to do so, in protesting the conditions imposed on these hearings.
The government of Ontario intended, when it was introducing Bill 26, to use the power of its parliamentary majority to pass this legislation without public hearings and with a minimum of discussion in provincial Parliament. Its efforts to do so brought it into such contempt and the provincial Parliament into such disgrace that the government felt compelled to allow public hearings.
However, the government has imposed time constraints on these hearings which allow only the largest institutions, those with the greatest resources, to prepare adequately their presentations. Consequently, this committee faces the preposterous situation that groups which want to comment on Bill 26 and finally are given an opportunity to do so have to relinquish this chance because the government has made it impossible for them to prepare a presentation. These conditions are an insult not only to the people of the province but to this committee inasmuch as it prevents the committee from fully doing its job.
The high-handedness of the government in its management of this bill is of concern not only with respect to the passage of this act itself but also, and even more importantly, because of its implications for government action into the future. In section after section, the government and its ministers are given power to act unilaterally and arbitrarily, with no avenues of appeal by persons or institutions affected by those actions.
The government would have us believe, have us accept on faith, that it will act reasonably and with adequate consultation. However, our experience in the case of Bill 26, as well as in the case of other measures taken by this government, can lead us to conclude only that the government will use its arbitrary powers arbitrarily, will impose the tyranny of its parliamentary majority over the parliamentary minority to the extent that it can and will impose the tyranny of the minority whose interests it represents on the majority of the people of this province.
Bill 26 is an act to permit the government to implement measures announced in its budget of November 29 and to restructure certain aspects of the economic and political life of this province, to change society in the province to the government's view of the ideal. Consideration of Bill 26 must include consideration of the effects of the budgetary measures which are being enabled as well as the consideration of the political changes being made. In this presentation, we would like to focus on the attack on labour rights and economic rights of the people of this province and on the economic effects of this bill and the budget.
Bill 26 goes a long way towards abolishing democratic rights in this province. In some instances, such as restructuring municipalities, altering the structure of the health care delivery system, allocation of road and transit grants and others, public processes or established formulas are being replaced by the discretion of the minister -- government by fiat. In other cases, municipalities are being given the power, subject to ministerial approval, to make sweeping changes within their jurisdictions without the public processes which are now required. In the greatest number of cases, powers to rule on behalf of the government are being given to administrative officials. In almost all cases, the decisions are final, except that the government or one of its ministers may arbitrarily overturn them "in the public interest," a public interest determined, of course, by that same government or minister.
1600
In some instances, the attacks on democracy represented by the power to make arbitrary decisions is compounded by the imposition of new or increased user fees. A case in point is the proposed amendment to the freedom of information act. It is conceivable under these provisions that the Toronto Sun and the Globe and Mail would be able to access whatever information they wanted without paying any fees at all, while the Toronto Star would find itself paying full fees for whatever information it got and paying high appeal costs when its requests for information are turned down as vexatious. For a publication like the People's Voice, the publication of the Communist Party, the proposed changes in this area probably mean no access at all under this act.
The attack on labour rights in this bill is not surprising in the light of measures the government has already enacted. Having given the private sector the right to attack working people and their trade unions with strikebreakers, and having made trade union organization much more difficult in this province, and having at the same time increased the need for an effective voice for working people by undermining health and safety and other controls in the workplace, the government is taking upon itself the right to rip up negotiated agreements and is proposing to replace collective bargaining in the public sector by employer-condition decisions by arbitrators acting on behalf of the government.
In effect, these arbitrators will have the power to determine the level of services which will be provided by public sector employers, and in case the arbitrators should be too generous in their awards, the province, the government, retains the right to change the decisions.
This attack on the labour and democratic rights of the people of Ontario is part and parcel of the attack on living standards and economic conditions we face. The present government was elected to reduce the annual deficit and to cut taxes. That is what it told the people of Ontario it would do and that is what is expected of it. The government has interpreted this as a mandate to reform the system of taxation in this province without public discussion and to redistribute the wealth of this province. The essence of the tax reform is to shift the main taxation from the graduated income tax, which takes into account ability to pay, to forms of taxation such as user fees, which tax lower incomes at higher rates and higher incomes at lower rates.
For example, the $4 increase effective at the beginning of 1996 in the price of the weekly greater Toronto area transit pass takes 2% out of the income of someone with a $200 weekly income but only 0.5% from an $800 weekly income. Someone with an annual income of $100,000 of course will probably not be affected at all, preferring to travel by car rather than public transit. User fees are in fact a steeply graduated form of taxation, the rate rising as income falls, in total opposition to any concept of fairness except that of the government of Ontario and other neo-conservatives around the world.
Such neo-conservatives are to be found even in institutions which will be damaged by the changes being made by the provincial government. High-profile Tories, like the mayors of Mississauga and North York and others, profess to be pleased with cuts in allocations to municipalities and other institutions because these are supposedly being accompanied by increased municipal powers.
They are rather in the position of the convicted felon being told: "Though this jurisdiction has no death penalty, you are sentenced to be hanged. As compensation, you'll be allowed to design the scaffold on which you will be hanged. On the other hand, if you should manage to design a scaffold on which your death will be prevented, that design will be disallowed."
Or can it be that these mayors and others like them are well aware that someone else will do the hanging? Who actually is designing this scaffold for the province of Ontario? Businesses, particularly medium-sized and large businesses, businesses which benefit from an impoverished workforce which will work for whatever is offered, businesses which want control on their operations removed so that they can pollute the environment or adulterate food with carcinogenic agents or do with impunity whatever else they want to do, businesses which will benefit by privatization of public services, businesses which have sold many people the trickle-down theory.
The trickle-down theory, although the government has not called it that in its documents, is the idea imported from the United States that takes from the poor and gives to the rich, thereby stimulating the economy and increasing everyone's welfare. It hasn't worked anywhere and it is nothing more than an illogical excuse by the haves to rob the have-nots.
Why would anybody think that giving to the rich, who will use the money to bid up the price of securities in existing capital stock, would be a greater stimulus to the economy than giving it to the poor, who will rush out with the money to buy the products of farms and factories and create a demand for more products produced by more workers in more jobs?
The government's plans for this province will mean more hardship for the people, not less, and it will only resolve the deficit problem at the provincial level by shifting the burden to the municipalities. Is there an alternative solution to the economic crisis of this province and the chronic deficit? There is such a solution, and variations of it have been proposed by a variety of organizations for some time now.
One element of such a solution is job creation, not through the cockamamy economics of the trickle-down theory but by putting money into the hands of people who will use it to buy goods and services. One aspect of this is direct government investment in jobs through a public works program, which will have the added benefit of creating useful infrastructure by restoration of public services to earlier levels.
Another aspect is the elimination of newly implemented user fees and the rollback of such user fees as transit fares to levels which obtained before governments began their cutting programs. The government should also build, not destroy, child care and early childhood education programs to enable women and particularly single mothers to participate more easily in the workforce. Not compulsion, but opportunity, is the solution to swollen welfare rolls and budgets.
Another element of such a solution is the immediate restructuring of taxation levels so that businesses and higher-income Canadians pay at least the same share of the tax burden as they did 10 or 15 years ago. Governments created the deficit crisis in several ways, but one of those ways was by giving generous tax breaks to the wealthy. This reduced government income but did not stimulate the economy to compensate, which is what it was supposed to do by the trickle-down theory. The government should also move towards implementation of the proposals of the most recent commission on taxation.
The third element of the restoration of a healthy economy to Ontario would be to restore, maintain and enhance programs extending workplace democracy, encouraging unionization of industry, and establishing the highest standards of health and safety on the job and protection for the environment as well. This should go together with strong compensation programs and other provisions for workers injured on the job or who contract illnesses on the job. Unionized workplaces with high standards are productive workplaces. A well-trained, well-paid, secure workforce is a productive workforce.
The long-term competitiveness of Ontario in the international marketplace will not be determined by driving us into the ground to the level playing field of the Canada-US free trade agreement or the North American free trade agreement; not by reducing us to the levels of the most backward constituencies; not by giving companies free rein in a privatized economy; nor by encouraging foreign corporations to invest more and add to our difficulties by extracting more in the form of profits and dividends which are then exported out of the country and create their own problems.
The long-term competitiveness of Ontario will be determined by training and education, high and proud workplace standards, a decent and hopeful life for citizens, with a stake in the province's institutions. That is the lesson of the most recent developments in the automobile industry, but it stands in direct contrast to the thrust of Bill 26 and of the government's economic program.
I submit this respectfully for your consideration.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Joseph N. Tascona): Thanks very much. Now it's time for the members of the different parties to comment or have questions for you. Each party has five minutes and 20 seconds. We'll start with the government party.
Mr Sampson: Would you say that the current situation with respect to the province's debt and annual deficit is a financial situation that needs to be addressed?
Mr Szczesny: It definitely is, but there are several ways in which it may be addressed. One of them is to do what the government is proposing to do and has already undertaken, and that is to cut spending, cut programs, and it hopes to give tax breaks to the rich and thereby stimulate the economy. That's one approach. It may or may not work, but if it does work it'll only work at the very great hardship of the working people in this province.
There is another way of doing it which is what was proposed in my submission, that is, to put money into the hands of people by creating jobs, by cutting taxes not to the rich but to the poor.
1610
Mr Sampson: How did we get to the position of having $100 billion in debt and a $10-billion annual deficit, do you think?
Mr Szczesny: It's a rather complex process that we arrived at that. A significant factor, as I understand it, was the permission, if not the compliance and actual activity, of the Tory government in Ottawa some years ago in permitting, encouraging, allowing, creating -- whatever the case may have been -- very high interest rates. That created a tremendous amount of the deficit.
Mr Sampson: But have you seen any government behaviour in the past, as you said in one of your three points, for job creation through significant infrastructure programs, higher taxation -- have you seen any previous governments behave that way to solve the economic problem?
Mr Szczesny: Well, yes. Following the Great Depression it was government expenditures on social programs, on manufacturing. As it happened, it was manufacturing of military equipment to a large extent, but also other manufacturing. In the United States entire programs, like the Tennessee Valley Authority, were established at that time as public works programs to prime the pump, so to speak, and these were effective by putting money into people's hands and creating a healthier economy than existed in the 1930s.
Mr Sampson: So it's your view that our direction should be to draw a significant amount of money into public work programs, let's say building a road somewhere between X and Y. What happens when the road is finished?
Mr Szczesny: That's part of the program; it's not the entirety of the program. The other aspects of it include the question of, whom do you tax for these things? The governments have in the recent past, in the last 10 years, tried to do it by easing the tax burden on the wealthy and on the corporations. The result is that they've lost revenue but they haven't gotten the economic stimulus.
When the road is built, hopefully it was built in a place where it'll be useful, but in the process of building it, people were employed, companies made profits, taxes were paid both by the companies and by the people, the workers had to buy food, buy consumer goods, which they did, and the factories were stimulated to create more things.
Mr Sampson: When the last layer of asphalt is laid, the white line's down the middle of the road, what happens to the workers who built the road?
Mr Szczesny: Hopefully, the government and the public sector, the private sector as well, with this fine road will have that much more stimulus to create a factory that'll employ these workers.
Mr Sampson: Or you've got to find another road somewhere to build.
Mr Szczesny: Or you find another road somewhere to build. In any event, you don't accomplish a hell of a lot for anybody by saying to these workers: "No, we won't build that road, so you won't have that income. Too bad, because we're not going to build you the next road either." Furthermore, you're not going to do anything for them by cutting expenditures to colleges and universities, which is leading already to engineering courses being cut from some Toronto community colleges. You're creating a worse circumstance in the province rather than a better one by that approach.
Mr Sampson: Right, but wouldn't it have been better to --
The Vice-Chair: That's all the time we have for the government. It's the opposition's turn.
Mr Phillips: Mr Szczesny, are you now or have you ever been a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party?
Mr Szczesny: Never.
Interjection: Are these the McCarthy years?
Mr Phillips: I'm just kidding. I've always wanted to ask that.
Mr Sampson: Are you going to ask him if he's a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party?
Mr Phillips: I'm glad you came.
Interjections.
Mr Phillips: Forgive me. I know it's the end of the day.
What this is all about, as I think you know, is that the government's on a mission. That's the mission. It's the revolution, and the cornerstone of it is a 30% cut in personal income tax. That's what this bill's all about, finding the money to do that, because when they make that cut, they've got to find $14 million a day to fund it. It's all spelled out in the document. They say, "We've got to cut $8 billion in spending so we can find $5 billion for the tax break." I wonder if you'd like to comment on that as an economic policy for Ontario.
We have a huge deficit problem, as the government says, but the solution is kind of an unusual one, and that is, to solve this huge deficit problem we're going to cut spending by $8 billion, but then we're going to pay out $5 billion in the form of a tax break.
Mr Szczesny: I don't believe that the government's main concern is or ever was reducing the deficit. I think its main concern is to redistribute income in this province, and the tax break and the structure of that tax break shows that very clearly.
Whatever benefit I might, for example, derive from that tax break will be eliminated just by the transit fees that I spoke about earlier. The thousands of dollars that people in the higher-income brackets are going to get out of these tax breaks -- if in fact the government ever actually accomplishes them, because it seems to be backing away from them -- will barely be touched by any user fees or whatever else might be imposed. So the question is not reducing the deficit at all, but making sure that the government and its cronies who operate car dealerships and what not will have more money than they have now, and more power.
Mr Phillips: The Conservative Party kind of likes to position itself, I think, as the great money manager. The strange thing to me has always been that the last time a Conservative government balanced a budget in the province of Ontario was 1969. That was the last time they balanced a budget. As a matter of fact, I think they're going to go probably what is a record, and that will be 20 years of Conservative rule in the province never balancing the budget, although the public would never think that. The public believes they know how to manage the finances. The fact is, the last time a Conservative government balanced a budget was 1969.
Does it surprise you at all that the supposed money managers, the Conservatives, have not balanced a budget since 1969?
Mr Szczesny: Not at all. We have the same picture from this fine money manager in Ottawa, Mulroney, who also had deficits every year.
Mr Phillips: Ah, yes.
Mr Szczesny: Large ones. And the neo-conservatives in the United States, for all their efforts, have not been very successful in balancing budgets either. You don't balance your budget by impoverishing people.
Mr Phillips: We had the other day -- yes, here it is right here -- one of the cabinet ministers in, giving us a briefing on the bill. Among other things, what he said was how pleased -- no, he actually used the word "encouraged" -- and this is around user fees. He was very pleased to hear that there are going to be corporate donors found to sponsor activities such as library use for underprivileged children. He went on to say that statements like this, that there will be corporate sponsors found for sponsoring library use for underprivileged children, really encouraged him and convinced him that his trust was not misplaced.
To me, I find it frankly objectionable that what he calls "underprivileged children" have got to find a corporate sponsor in order to use a library. I wonder whether you have any response to that or not.
1620
Mr Szczesny: There are two aspects of what the government's been saying that I find quite interesting. The first is that it does seem to want to reduce us all to a province of beggars going from one door to the next asking for things which we've always had before, and the second is that it seems determined to reduce us to mediocrity by constantly referring to how it is still above the national average in its expenditure on this or that. If its target is the national average, the province, from being the proud flagship of this country, is going to become the mediocrity that is typical of this government and perhaps the people in it.
The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Szczesny. It's the third party's time.
Mr Silipo: I don't think I'm saying anything that will surprise you when I say that your point of view has been expressed by many people in front of us already. Although the government members may not take very much from what you're saying or may not agree very much with what you're saying, I suspect more because of your political affiliation than because of what you've actually said, it might interest you to know that we had a couple of other presenters -- one was here a couple of days ago, someone who described himself as a typical Conservative supporter: a businessperson; in his own words, well off. His basic message to the government members was, "You're putting poor people's money in my pocket and I don't think you should do that."
We had, I think the last presentation before you, two people, one of whom was a woman on welfare who was describing her situation and that of her community in Regent Park and who talked about very much the kinds of things that you were talking about, although in different words, but I think saying essentially the same thing, which is that the actions of this government are going to cause great hardship for people who are poor, for people who are earning very little amounts of money. That's going to happen to the benefit of some of the richer people and some of the most well-off people in this province, because as has been pointed out, the tax cut is going to benefit, certainly by and large, people who are at the higher-income end of the scale.
The shift from that form of taxation that is reducing the income tax load for those individuals, while at the same time shifting the tax load through property taxes and through user fees, means in effect we're going to end up, as you've pointed out, with a more regressive form of taxation, which is only going to hurt those who are least able to pay.
I don't have a question for you, but I thought it would be interesting to just make some of those connections because, as I say, and I don't think this would surprise you, the government members may not be ready to rewrite this piece of legislation on the basis of what you've said. But they might want to ponder for a second the fact that what you've been saying and what many others have been saying is really not that different.
Mr Szczesny: I think it should also ponder a lesson of history. The Conservative government in Ottawa got elected with a rather large majority at one time. By the time it was finished, you couldn't find anybody who actually would admit to voting for it. Hopefully it will meet that fate sooner rather than later and before too much of the damage is done by its program.
The Chair: Thank you, sir, for coming forward and making your presentation today.
Mr Szczesny: Thank you for your kind attention.
The Chair: Would members from the Toronto Real Estate Board please come forward. I believe they're in the hall with the clerk.
Maybe I'll take this opportunity just before we get going. Because of the cooperation of all the members of the committee, I'm going to be able to take off a little early and get the last train to Niagara Falls. I appreciate that.
I just want to take the opportunity to thank all the members of the committee for a week of what has been a model for all parliamentary committees. There was a great deal of cooperation and decorum. I think most Ontario citizens would be proud of their Legislature if they watched a committee behave and perform so well as this one has done. I will take the opportunity to wish you all a happy holiday season and a happy new year, and I will see you on January 8 to pick up where we leave off today.
TORONTO REAL ESTATE BOARD
The Chair: Welcome to the gentlemen from the Toronto Real Estate Board. You have a half-hour today to give your presentation. You may use that half-hour as you see fit. You may want to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions and responses from the three caucuses. I would appreciate it if you would read your names and your institution into the record for the benefit of both Hansard and the committee members.
Mr Bill Jones: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Bill Jones. I am a member of the board of directors of the Toronto Real Estate Board, TREB, and chair of its political affairs committee. With me today are Fareed Khan, the board's policy adviser for government and legislative affairs, and Von Palmer, the board's policy analyst in the same area.
I would like to thank the committee for allowing us the opportunity to appear before you today to express TREB's views on Bill 26. Since our time is limited, my remarks will be relatively short.
The Toronto Real Estate Board is one of the largest real estate boards in the world, representing more than 22,000 realtors in the greater Toronto area, which we refer to as the GTA. In the first 11 months of this year, TREB's members accounted for the sale of 44,277 properties of all types, valued at more than $9.3 billion. During the 75 years since its founding, TREB has been a key source of in-depth information on all aspects of the real estate industry -- residential, industrial, commercial and investment -- in the greater Toronto area.
For most of the past decade, TREB, along with other partners in the real estate industry, has been urging governments at all levels to live within their means. In numerous submissions to government over the past several years we have urged political leaders to reduce government spending and lessen the ever-increasing tax burden faced by the province's residents, particularly those living in the greater Toronto area.
We have always been forthright in discussions with the elected members of this Legislature about the need for the province to work towards the following objectives: lower provincial spending and implement policies which will eliminate the provincial deficit and boost consumer confidence to generate jobs and growth in the economy. The economic health of our industry is dependent on the last point, consumer confidence, as is the success of the government's long-term financial objectives.
While we understand the government is trying to achieve some of its fiscal goals through Bill 26, we believe there are parts of the bill which need to be amended if the government wants to increase consumer confidence, maintain as well the high quality of life for the citizens of this province and maintain its objective of eliminating Ontario's deficit.
First, a general comment before we address some of the specifics of the bill.
By any measure, Bill 26 is broad in scope and extremely complex, considering that it will affect 47 different provincial statutes. In order to avoid any unforeseen consequences which could result from trying to implement such a complex piece of legislation, we strongly urge the government to divide Bill 26 into several pieces. By doing this, each piece of legislation will have a narrower focus and a more thorough examination of the proposed amendments contained in the bill will be possible. Furthermore, it will allow the government to safeguard against any unexpected results arising out of the changes made to so many pieces of legislation at one time.
1630
As you're aware, a large majority of TREB's membership is in the business of selling homes. However, when a home is sold, we feel the realtor has also successfully sold the community where the house is located and a quality of life. We believe that several areas of Bill 26, specifically in schedule M, would negatively impact the sale of residential real estate in some communities, thus affecting the quality of life and consumer confidence.
Specifically, we are concerned about the extent to which municipalities will be allowed to impose additional direct taxes and to charge user fees for municipal services which are now covered by property tax revenues. While there may be justification for allowing user fees in some limited cases, we all know that certain user fees would just be taxes under another name, and the last thing we need now is more taxes.
Furthermore, we believe that the prospect of additional taxes and new user fees would have a dampening effect on consumer confidence. With the possibility of individuals having to spend more after-tax dollars to pay for government services, they will reduce their consumer spending to make up the difference. The downward pressure this will have on consumer confidence will mean bad news for the housing market, bad news for the economy and bad news for the government's revenue projections.
One area where municipal user fees would negatively impact the quality of life as well as personal safety is fees for outcalls by municipal emergency services such as fire departments. It is entirely conceivable that in communities where these are imposed, people would, for example, try to handle emergencies by themselves rather than pay a fee to have the fire department come and perform the task. In light of this type of potential danger, we do not support extending user fees to emergency services and we recommend that such fees be specifically excluded from the bill.
Some municipal politicians have voiced strong support for Bill 26 because they see it as an easy way out of dealing with reduced provincial transfer payments by imposing fees on "anything that moves," as one local politician put it. Additionally, some municipal leaders have interpreted these new taxation powers to mean that they will have the authority to levy sales and gasoline taxes. We find this very disturbing and recommend that provisions be put into Bill 26 which would specifically prohibit municipalities from levying taxes in areas which are in the province's jurisdiction.
While the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs that he will block any municipal attempt to impose gas, income or head taxes provides some assurance, the Toronto Real Estate Board feels that it would be better to avoid any potential provincial-municipal conflict in this area by ensuring that municipalities cannot impose these taxes. If the government is hesitant about accepting this recommendation, then one should ask whether there are any taxation powers that governments have previously been given which were not used. It would be a fallacy to assume that once additional taxing powers are given to municipalities, they will not be used.
There are two other areas of Bill 26 on which we would like to comment.
The first is where Bill 26 allows regions and local municipalities to pass bylaws to assume each others' powers in prescribed areas, where a majority of councils and voters forming the regions give their consent. We feel that this will provide regional and municipal governments with the tools to clearly delineate regional and local powers and thus eliminate overlap and duplication of services. It would also lessen confusion among the public as to which level of government is responsible for which service, thereby enhancing political accountability to voters.
The second area which we would like to address is the section giving the Minister of Municipal Affairs the power to restructure municipalities. We see this ministerial power being used in those circumstances where local governments are deadlocked and cannot come to an agreement on restructuring municipal governance.
The Toronto Real Estate Board feels that by conferring such authority on the minister, local and regional governments will clearly be motivated to come to an agreement among themselves rather than have the minister force an agreement upon them. We believe that allowing the Minister of Municipal Affairs the authority to amalgamate or annex municipalities would go a long way to speeding up the process of governance reform in the greater Toronto area and simplifying government for its citizens.
In conclusion, we would like to summarize our key points:
(1) The Toronto Real Estate Board reiterates its support for policies which will lower provincial spending, eliminate the deficit and boost consumer confidence and economic growth.
(2) We strongly recommend that due to its extreme complexity, and its impact on 47 different provincial statutes, Bill 26 be divided into several pieces to allow a more thorough examination of the bill.
(3) We recommend that the levying of user fees for emergency services such as police, fire or ambulance services be specifically excluded from Bill 26.
(4) We recommend that Bill 26 prohibit municipalities from levying taxes in certain areas which are under provincial jurisdiction; for example, gas taxes, sales taxes, municipal income taxes, as well as any type of head tax.
(5) We support provisions in Bill 26 which would grant regions and local municipalities the power to eliminate overlap and duplication of service.
(6) We support conferring powers to the Minister of Municipal Affairs which would allow him to take action on local governance reform where regions and municipalities cannot come to an agreement.
We would be happy to answer any questions which you may have.
The Chair: Thank you. We have about six minutes per caucus for questions. We'll start with the opposition caucus, Mr Colle.
Mr Colle: Thank you very much for the incisive and very clear delineation of some of the problems we've had with this bill in that it is basically going into uncharted waters. I think it's important that people like yourselves come forward representing such an important and vital part of our economy here.
In terms of the background, it's interesting to note that the government says that the intention of this bill is to provide unlimited flexibility, thereby overriding all existing limitations on user fees. This is why they've included this reference to direct taxation. The dilemma the government is in is that it's made this arrangement with the cities. They've told them: "We're going to cut you back 47%. But if you don't complain, we will give you these taxing powers. So you could have your pet projects or you could have this flexibility to tax what you think should have been taxed."
As you know, the mayor of Mississauga came forward and said she wants a gasoline tax. We had the mayor of North York say he's going to tax everything that moves -- from skating, swimming, an annual membership fee to the library, a false alarm fee of $300. You can imagine what's going to happen.
The firefighters were in here echoing the same concerns you had. They said the first thing that's going to happen is some landlords are going to unhook the alarm system in order to avoid the $300 fee; or if the car catches fire in North York, you're going to try and put that fire out by yourself, because you know that if you happen to be a poor outsider from Mississauga, you may have to pay to put that fire out.
Mr Phillips: Or drive real quick.
Mr Colle: Or drive as fast as you can as you're on fire. This is what the problem is. The mayors feel this is like tax heaven for them, because they'll have the powers of taxation. As they go ahead in this, they think they're getting autonomy. The problem is that they haven't consulted with the people who are going to have to pay these user fees.
They've also taken the right of appeal to these user fees out of the legislation. In other words, the citizens or the business community have no right to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board if one of these taxes is unjust and unfair. That municipality, by a simple vote, can impose a new tax, it seems on everything, because the interpretation is so unwieldy we don't know what it can include, and it seems to include everything.
1640
The problem I think you're going to find, though, is that the government may decide to amend the legislation, but what they'll do is they'll do it by regulation. But that gives the minister immense power to decide whether he wants to give Hazel McCallion a tax on her gasoline, and if she cooperates, she may get that taxing power. Then if someone in Nepean wants a certain tax, they may get it.
So there's going to be a whole series, a variety of different taxes because of these promises they've made. I guess the question I have for you is: If the municipalities undertake these new flexible taxing powers, how is it going to affect, let's say, this selling of houses in one community versus another community? What impact is that going to have in your direct interest of enterprise?
Mr Jones: My answer to that is I referred several times to the confidence that people have. Sales are definitely down. I looked today at new-home sales. They're down 15% over October last month; they're down 24% over November of last year. Condominiums have 11% of the market share right now in November, down from a normal 30% last year. We're looking at an overall drop in housing of 11% this year over last year.
We're living with a very fragile confidence out there. Over 60% of all of our sales are first-time home buyers. The move-up market isn't happening because of confidence. Until we get the confidence back to the people, we're never going to move ahead in the economy because a home becomes the centre of a family's life. So much goes into a home that it's the engine that will drive the economy.
My answer to your question is, we don't need more taxes. I believe this will raise taxes. I believe it will instil even more lack of confidence. If it's down 24% in new-home sales over November 1994, look for much larger figures.
Mr Colle: The other thing that I'd like to comment on, and you have commented on, is that my next-door neighbour is in the retail clothing business, and he's been saying to me for the last two months that something dramatic is happening on the street; that things have been slow over the last four or five years but in the last couple of months people who would normally buy simple, affordable things have stopped completely; that you can go for six hours in the store without anybody coming in. He said he's never seen anything like it.
Here we have a government, whether you agree or disagree with the social welfare cuts, whether they had to be done, whatever, that did it all before Christmas. Then, on top of that, they're announcing all these potential layoffs, that there are going to be so many thousands of civil servants out there. On top of that, you hear the bad news of Bill 26, where they've got everybody from doctors -- and we had doctors come in here yesterday saying: "We've voted Conservative all our lives, but you're doing the wrong thing. You're making us look over our shoulders, never mind the little person who's about to buy clothing or, hope to God, buy shoes." If everybody's looking over their shoulders, who is going to buy a house, never mind clothing?
The Chair: Actually, I apologize. If I let you answer that one, we'd be into Mr Silipo's time. I'll have to go to Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: I'm sure you'll get a chance to answer it, because my questions are not going to be really that different, because I think that the question of consumer confidence which you addressed is certainly something that I, and I'm sure every other member around here, continue to hear a lot about from the people we represent. If we look just in terms of the issue that affects you and your members most directly, which is the purchase of houses or condominiums, prices are reasonably good, interest rates could be lower but they're not extraordinarily high, yet many people are hesitating, because either they don't have a job or those who have a job aren't sure that they're going to have that job tomorrow.
Mr Jones: Precisely.
Mr Silipo: It's that sense that I think, as Mr Colle was saying, is just being compounded by the attitude that this government is talking of cutting where we believe cuts aren't necessary. Then, while they came in with a position that said that they were going to cut taxes and cut the deficit, they are now engaged in, I think, the biggest hoax possible, which is to say that they're trying to now shift to the municipalities not just the power of taxation, which results in the problem that you've outlined, but in effect they're trying to have the municipalities do what they're not prepared to do, which is to raise taxes and all of that within the context of their own position, which is there's only one taxpayer at the end of the day.
I'm not sure I really have a question in all of that except to say that the point you've made -- and I think it's useful that we hear it from groups like yours, because we know that the government tends to listen to different groups in different ways and I think an institution like the Toronto Real Estate Board comes to this table with some level of credibility that hopefully the government will pay some attention to. So I just wanted to make that observation, if you have any comments on that, please.
Mr Jones: My point that I was going to make a few minutes ago is that with 22,000 members, each of us speaks to a minimum of 10 people a day, so every day a quarter of a million people are in front of us. We have the ability to sense at the grass-roots level the feelings of the community. There are 55,000 in Ontario and almost 80,000 across the country in real estate. We have an excellent opportunity to sense what is going on in this town, in this province and in this country. So I would beg you to examine this carefully, because it's a very flimsy kind of confidence that we have out there. We applaud, as I said at the beginning of my few remarks, that we must reduce deficits and debt and we certainly are in favour of that, but be very careful of how we do it and who we transfer those powers to.
Mr Silipo: One of the points, and I think one of the points that you've made as well again and many others have made, is that something as elaborate as this piece of legislation really does need more time for discussion than we've been given and you've been given. That's something I just wanted to note as well that others have said.
I wanted to also just try to clarify one other point. Again, I think you have been quite clear in saying that you support provisions that would allow for the elimination of overlap and duplication of services at the municipal level. Certainly, I support that as well and I haven't heard anybody around this table speak against that.
One of the points I wanted to make, though, was that in terms of how some of those provisions apply to the GTA, it's been clarified that in terms of restructuring of muncipalities, the provisions of Bill 26, as complex as they are and as much as they apply to everything else, don't apply to the GTA, which I happen to think is a good thing, because I think it's important that we get something from the government that is much clearer in terms of what they want to do with respect to governance in the GTA, although I think we're all expecting and would be supportive of the need for changes to be made and simplification to be the objective.
I just wanted to make that point because one of the conclusions I could draw from your comments was that you were assuming that it was possible for restructuring of municipalities within the GTA to take place as a result of this bill, and that's not our understanding.
Mr Jones: I understand.
The Vice-Chair: The governing party, Mr Hardeman.
Mr Hardeman: First, on the issue of the taxation and the fact whether poll tax and gasoline tax and income tax were allowed in the bill, the minister assured us when the hearings started that in fact the legal opinion was that it did not include those types of taxes. Since that time, we have had a number of people, as was mentioned by the member across the aisle there, in fact the mayor of Mississauga said she was looking forward to the opportunity of being able to implement gas taxes.
Mr Jones: That's what worries us.
Mr Hardeman: We've had two solicitors in who both said in their opinion it may not be really clear, but neither one thought that was the case, that they could charge those taxes.
1650
Dealing with the issue of user fees, I guess a couple of quick questions. One is, given the alternative of the reduced funding for municipalities, would it be your suggestion that they look at the user fee issue as opposed to increasing property taxes, or would you suggest that property tax increases are a more appropriate way of dealing with the need to provide the vital services within the community?
Mr Jones: That's a tough question.
Mr Fareed Khan: We have stated on numerous occasions over the last number of years at the regional and local level, as we said in our submission, that taxes are too high, and that includes property taxes. We applaud the efforts of municipalities to try and bring their own costs under control and try and keep property taxes down, but none the less we've seen property taxes go up. Every time a property tax goes up, it is a tax that hurts the business and it hurts the individual homeowner as well. So clearly we're not in favour of raising taxes. I think we've said clearly that taxes are too high already and what we don't need are new taxes.
On the area of user fees, as we said, there are some limited areas where we think user fees might be appropriate. However, those have to be considered very carefully as to where they're going to apply because, for example, if you do have the situation of emergency services or snowplowing streets during the winter, are there going to be user fees if your street is plowed, things like that? They have to be looked at very carefully before that sort of authority is passed over, because once municipalities have that power, we don't know where they're going to take it.
Mr Hardeman: I would concur with that. I think it's also important to recognize that the bill's intention is to provide the opportunity, as was mentioned in your presentation, to give the municipality opportunity to restructure and redo their way of doing business in order to keep the taxes as low as possible.
The other issue that I'd just like to comment on or question on was the local autonomy issue, that in fact the people at the local level are the ones closest to the issue to know what is an acceptable user fee and what is not. You suggested that nowhere is there any indication of where user fees were allowed that were not being used. In fact, Hazel McCallion, again, was in and said, yes, they had thought of putting user fees in certain places. The public said no, so they decided not to do it.
We've had numerous presentations in the committee that suggested that municipalities had a real problem with a user fee for garbage collection, as though that was a new power that was now being granted. In fact, municipalities have been able to charge a user fee for garbage collection for some time. Most have decided not to do it because they thought it was not acceptable to the people.
I was just questioning whether you didn't feel that maybe putting this type of decision at the local level was the most appropriate place for that decision to be made, what was an appropriate user fee and what was not, recognizing the minister does have the power by regulation to stop something that was not acceptable to the people of the province.
Mr Jones: They clearly have to get their revenue from somewhere. I've a home in Huntsville and we do have user fees on garbage, so I'm aware that it's possible. What we find is that garbage is often dumped at the side of a road to avoid the $1 a bag that you have to pay for the garbage, but it does make you more environmentally conscious.
I just wanted to mention one thing about, will taxes increase instead of user fees? How taxes are assessed has to be looked at. We have recommended in a submission to the Golden commission that we look at new ways of taxing. We were quite valiant, I think, in our suggestion that we look at alternative ways to market value assessment. Every time I talk to a mayor, they suggest that there are 14 or 15 different ways, market value assessment, and we have recommended unit value assessment with certain caveats. All we're saying is, don't just say that taxes have to be increased to increase user fees; have a good look at how taxes are now assessed. I think we need to balance out properly how taxes are assessed, and you may very well be able to get by without raising, overall, the taxes.
Mr Khan: One point that I'd like to make is that, as was mentioned, taxation, whether it's being talked about or whether it's in place, does have an effect on economic growth, and economic growth is a key factor in the government's plan to try and have growth in the economy.
Mr Young: That was my next question. Can I ask you that question? Because you're almost answering it right now.
Bill 26 is a tool that allows us and will allow the municipalities to restructure and streamline and contract out and do whatever they have to do to make government more efficient. On the other side, you talked about the confidence in the economy, and our planned tax cut is going to be, in my view, the biggest job creation plan in the history of the province. What would happen, do you think, to that confidence in the economy if every Ontarian who is working had the equivalent of an 11% to 13% pay raise?
Mr Jones: I think that's admirable.
Mr Von Palmer: That's an interesting question. I think it's a little too early to give an answer to that. One thing that we have to look at are the debt levels that people have. You and I know that debt levels are high. It's a question of, if you get $1,000 back in a tax cut, or $2,000, what will you do with that tax? Some people have said they will pay off credit card debt, or they may pay down the mortgage, or you may have people who could very well go out and spend that money. We don't know what those numbers are. So to answer your question of what that will do for economic growth or whether that will boost consumer confidence, that really depends on what people actually do with that tax cut, if they do get that tax cut.
The Vice-Chair: We're out of time. Thank you for the presentation.
Mr Phillips: Mr Chair, why don't we have the clerk distribute the legal opinion from the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the tax issue?
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): I don't have a copy of it.
Mr Hardeman: I do have a copy of the legal opinion here. I was going to present it at the end of meeting today.
Mr Phillips: We were kind of expecting it this morning, but I would like to see it now.
The Vice-Chair: We have another presenter to come in here.
Mr Hardeman: If there's no objection from the committee, I'd be more than happy to send a copy around.
Mr Phillips: Great. Thank you very much.
PAUL HOLLIDAY
The Vice-Chair: Is Mr Holliday here? Mr Holliday, you've got 30 minutes for your presentation.
Mr Paul Holliday: My name is Paul Holliday, and I'm a proud resident of the city of Etobicoke. I'm certainly not a typical Conservative supporter, to pick up on something Mr Silipo was saying a couple of presenters ago. Professionally and personally, I've spent the last 15 years of my life involved in leadership and professional pursuits, in helping to pursue and create community housing in both the non-profit and cooperative sectors.
This summer I lost a project. It hurt. It took us five years to get that project together. Services that would have accrued from that project were lost to that particular community, and of course, as a businessman, I lost a considerable number of dollars. It took five years of work to get to the place where one was supposed to get paid, and one didn't. So I know personally and professionally about the nitty-gritty of the term "cuts."
Ladies and gentlemen, it must be done. In case you didn't hear me, I want to say it again: It must be done. As a matter of fact, I'll just claim this as my perception so we don't argue about who said what to who, but in the last provincial campaign before the one that we've just gone through in June, it was well known in the circuit, in the business, that the Peterson government was fully intending to cancel public housing programs or extremely curtail them so that in effect they'd be cancelled, and everybody was admitting to the fact that the public trough is dry. That's not 1995; that's 1989 or 1990, whenever the NDP government took over.
Therefore, frankly, we all knew that the days of the NDP programs were in effect printing money that wasn't there. I knew it. I still did it. I admit it. In effect, I was part of the problem. But knowing that the writing was on the wall and knowing that communities would sooner or later have to bootstrap themselves and be in new partnerships with the private sector, I was also working throughout the NDP years towards that new paradigm. And it is a new paradigm. It's not simply a shift. It can't be a shift. It couldn't be a shift. We were living with rose-coloured glasses and a new paradigm was coming whether you liked it or not.
1700
Fortunately, as I found out at a recent conference sponsored by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp, the NDP government in BC recognized that fact of life four years ago, went a different route and said, "Communities are going to have to get what? More creative, new partnerships with the private sector," and they, according to what the conference was told, did precisely that. That was the NDP talking at that conference.
So I've lost and I am ready to lose. I'm also ready to win. I'm working now, and I have been working in recent years, with communities that are forming the alliances necessary to bootstrap themselves to this new paradigm. Working with the federal government and now with the provincial government, I am taking a specific cooperative housing project out of public sector funding and into private sector funding. It is happening. Government will be invited to a sod-turning and to a ribbon-cutting, but it won't be to celebrate spending of taxpayers' money. It won't be to give me gifts or give my client a gift; it will be to glorify the remitting to the taxpayer of moneys that would have been paid if nothing was done except the same old same old.
What I'm saying is that all of us in this room -- politicians, bureaucrats, advisers etc -- have been part of the problem, the problem of feeding at the taxpayers' trough. Whether for good reason or for bad, whether for smart reasons or for stupid, the fact is that we have not been looking to the health of future taxpayers. That's what the dollars and cents tell us and the red ink tells us. So I say to you, the government -- I will claim on behalf of the majority of taxpayers -- "Do it, do it all and do it now."
I want to break that down for you. Looking at the bill -- and I've gone through it all, and I want to thank the committee for the opportunity of speaking today. It took a little bit of wrangling to get through the bureaucratic process, but it's nothing new to me. It certainly took me a lot less to get through this process than it has to get through any number of municipal zoning or approval processes, I can assure you of that.
Let's look at the word "omnibus." Break it down? I'm sorry, Toronto Real Estate Board, I do not agree. Absolutely, absolutely not. It has to be an omnibus bill. Don't you guys dare break this bill down to its component 47,000 or 49,003 parts, whatever. Don't you dare take 10 years, or even 10 months for that matter, to study it. If anything, taxpayers are telling you to add to it. And if you want some suggestions on adding to it, just give me a call. I have a few.
In terms of the municipal stuff that I have to work with day in and day out around the province, and specifically in terms of restructuring municipal government, look, we don't want restructuring by imposition, by the Orwellian Big Brother or Big Sister approach. We've had enough of that. Been there, done it. No more.
But taxpayers have said time and time again, in elections, in referendums and by sundry other means: "We want less government. We absolutely want you to take government by its hair and certain complete levels of government by the hair and yank it out by its roots and make it disappear." Do it. Don't pancake it; don't patty-cake it; don't promise it and then gutlessly abandon us, as did the previous government over market value assessment in Metro Toronto. Do it; do it all and do it now.
When it comes time in the next election, allow me to vote on what you've done -- not what you've talked about, not what you've promised and postponed because you didn't want to upset X and Y special-interest groups till the next election, and then you're going to tell me after the election's over how many hospitals you're going to close down or how many Thistletown regional children's centres you're going to close down. Do it up front and let us make a fair judgement.
Whether we're talking about school boards, local government, regional government or these strange quasi-regional government-like structures that seem to have octopus-like tentacles into all aspects of our lives and grow almost like the epitome of the 1950s Steve McQueen sci-fi movie The Blob. You don't know where it's going to crop up and supposedly it saves us from a 1954 catastrophe and the next thing you know you turn around, it's operating a water park and building roads on the sacred grounds, but of course nobody else can do that.
Please, please, please, government of Ontario, work with us. I'm saying work with us at the community level. Work to get out of our way. Let the grass roots of both community and private enterprise recapture the central ground of Ontario life that it used to have. Let us breathe and grow. Please provide the leadership that is so desperately needed to end rule by suffocation.
How do you do it? Simply do exactly what you have promised. The book was raised earlier. Do what the book said. Then if it's wrong, we'll know about it, because there will be three years of what the book has said. Don't wait for three years; do it now. Don't wait for 10 months; do it now.
The Vice-Chair: Thanks very much, Mr Holliday. We'll have some discussion about your presentation with the three parties, starting off with Mr Silipo. I believe we have about six minutes and 20 seconds each.
Mr Silipo: I just want to pursue a couple of points. I think your message, as I hear it, is quite clear except that you keep referring to "it." I don't want to assume that by "it" you are talking about necessarily everything that's in Bill 26 or everything that's in the Common Sense Revolution, although the last comment that you made seemed to me to indicate that when you were referring to the book, that's what you were talking about, what the Tories promised.
Mr Holliday: No, sorry, I was referring to the book that Mr Phillips held up earlier.
Mr Silipo: The Common Sense Revolution.
Mr Holliday: In terms of the promises.
Mr Silipo: Right. I guess part of the problem that we have is that we don't think the government is doing what the book said. I'll give you a couple of examples. The government was pretty clear in saying -- which is a way of my trying to get to the basic point that I want to make, which is really to ask you at the end of this, do you not have any concerns, as the government proceeds to implement the general thrust of its agenda, about what's going to happen to the average Ontarian out there?
Just to use the health example -- there are many others we can use -- the government was quite clear in saying there would be no user fee for health care, and there are now user fees for health care. The government was pretty clear in saying that there would be no cuts to health care, and there are cuts to health care. It's not so much the fact that the government has changed its mind, which I think is one issue we could be debating and attacking, but it's more the question that the government is continuing to pretend that it hasn't changed its mind, which I find really bothersome.
Mr Holliday: With great respect, sir, I don't agree with you. I find it amusing that the latest musings of the press -- and I guess they're using what you're feeding them -- say that somehow there's maybe going to be a rollback of the promises on tax cuts because there's a reference to, I think, something called the fair health tax for middle- and upper-middle income earners. It's in there. I guess the press is just catching up on reading it.
Mr Silipo: I'm not talking about the health levy.
1710
Mr Holliday: I think when you talk about health cuts, I guess it's what you all define as a health cut. I'm not an expert at health cuts. I work in the municipal field, but I believe they have taken definitions stated by the government of Canada as to what is considered part of universal health care in Canada.
Mr Silipo: But do you think that the average voter out there --
Mr Holliday: It's not what you've said, not what I've said, but what the government of Canada said is part of the health care system.
Mr Silipo: But the point I'm making is, that's not what Mike Harris said during the campaign.
Mr Holliday: That's exactly what he said.
Mr Silipo: No. He didn't explain the nuances of the Canada Health Act to people. He didn't say --
Mr Holliday: Did you explain the nuances of closing down the Thistletown regional children's centre?
Mr Silipo: We put out that proposal.
Mr Holliday: No, you didn't.
Mr Silipo: It was clearly out there. People understood why, but we can debate that.
The point that I wanted to ask your comments further on, because obviously, fine, if you agree with what the government is doing, you agree with what the government is doing and that's your opinion. But you don't have any concern that in their eagerness to do what they're doing, we are going to be seeing in effect a tremendous shift of resources from those who are least able to pay now to those who are most able to pay and in fact that's clear through the tax cuts in terms of who benefits the most? That's clear when you apply any form of user fees on a proportional basis to income. They're going to hit inevitably at a higher percentage of income of those who have a lower income. You're not concerned about what that does to the kind of society we live in?
I think this is one of the assumptions that I guess I don't agree with in what you're saying. You didn't say it, but there was almost an assumption in what you were saying that those of us who are in disagreement with what the government is doing want the status quo to be maintained, and that's not the case. I think you'll have to acknowledge that there have been the beginnings of some fundamental changes with the previous government.
We can argue about whether they went far enough and how they were done, and I think there's lots of discussion that can take place on that point, but the essential point is, no one is in favour of the status quo. Everyone understands that we need to bring government spending down, but the essential point is how we do that in a way that doesn't destroy the social fabric that we have in this province.
Mr Holliday: That's a very important question. I want to answer it two ways. One I've already covered in my submission and that is, if your government had copied your colleagues in British Columbia on the area that I have a professional interest in when they did, as I hope that this government does in terms of some issues around rental apartments and what not, if you had done that and your government had done that, you might still be in government.
The second point I want to make -- and this is a fearless prediction on my part. I guess I can make it because I'm just a citizen. I don't have to get elected to anything -- if this government does what it has promised to do, and if the types of things, the initiatives that I've been involved in now for the past four years and that are starting to come out of the pipe, in spite of frankly the opposition I got behind the scenes, behind the back doors through the last four years, this government will be responsible by getting in a lot of the way -- my definition of the word "responsible" admittedly -- for more community housing than was ever done in the last four years.
Mr Sampson: Thank you very much for your presentation. You've told us when you started off you were a businessman and, I think, advising business. Is that what you do?
Mr Holliday: That's part of what I do.
Mr Sampson: What would be your advice to a business that was spending on a regular basis and an increasing basis well in excess of what it was earning?
Mr Holliday: You're spending money that isn't there. You're printing it.
Mr Sampson: Do you think that the average voter has got a good sense of the fact that when this government came into power, the previous government had left us with a province that was spending well in excess of what it was currently earning?
Mr Holliday: Absolutely.
Mr Sampson: There has been some comment over the last couple of days about how we're offering -- and one of the steps to do that is through this piece of legislation -- a completely different perspective on how the province should be governed on a lot of levels: at the provincial level and at the municipal level. I gather you have read our Common Sense Revolution. Is it your view that that is indeed something we told the people of Ontario that we were going to deliver?
Mr Holliday: Yes. You can argue interpretations till the cows come home on every word in the English language, but so far, in my opinion, you've done exactly what it said to do. To me, any right-thinking person is going to say, yes, we need to do something different in municipal government, and different in health care, for that matter. But for too long "something different" has meant spending more money while we keep on spending the same money on the same old, same old.
First, stop spending money on the same old, same old. Close down the municipalities that don't make sense any more, the levels of regional government that don't make sense any more, the facilities that don't make sense any more, because they're half empty but they've still got the CEOs and all the perks and everything else going on. Rationalize the thing and then with the money you have on the table, not with the money that's coming out of my pocket -- my brother said to me last night, "What do you think about the government taking money out of poor people's pockets to put into rich people's pockets?" I asked him, "How much money do you and your wife make a year?" They make a modest amount of money, somewhere over $50,000, $20,000 to $30,000 apiece. I said: "You're the people whose pockets the government over the last 10 years has been taking the money out of in ever-increasing amounts. You're the `rich people' the critics are talking about. It's your money that people want to give back to you now." That's what has to happen, and of course that's what the fair health tax is all about, so the rich rich people are still going to have to pay.
Mr Young: Mr Holliday, I'd like to thank you for coming. I really appreciate it. I want to congratulate you too, because I know there are millions of people out there in Ontario who feel exactly the same as you do. I hear them. They call me on the telephone in the evening, I talk to them on the weekend in my riding, and they say: "Don't blink. You have to do it for Ontario. You have to do it for our children." You've been there. It's cost you money and you're still saying to us, "You have to do it." We've had a large number of people in here this week who have said, "We know you have to do it, but don't do it to us." This is a whole different message, so I want to congratulate and thank you.
I wanted to ask you your opinion, as someone who has helped create jobs and someone who understand business, what would happen if we don't do it, if we don't act to make these changes?
Mr Holliday: Then I hope we elect the NDP government of British Columbia to take a trip over here, because it's better than what we've had in the last few years.
Mr Young: What would happen to our economy?
Mr Holliday: We'd be in a disaster. We are in a disaster. You're not going to get out of the disaster in three months of bold and courageous statements. There's got to be bold and courageous action over three years, and not talking about it over three years and maybe doing it at the end of three years. Do it now. The problems will be worked out. The problems will be there; work out those problems. Don't hum and haw and hum and haw and hum and haw. Do it.
Mr Young: What would happen to our economy? What will happen when everybody in Ontario who pays taxes gets the equivalent of an 11% to 13% pay raise?
Mr Holliday: I'll tell you what is happening, and it happened by accident. I'm working on a project that's going to produce thousands of everything, jobs and what not, but that's not what I want to talk about. I ran into a European producer of wall systems that has just been recently convinced, instead of locating in the United States, to locate in Canada, in Ontario. Why? One is because we fortunately squeaked through on the referendum, and the other is what we're doing here today. That is going to produce, in and of itself, 500 jobs.
The big problem for these people was that they approached the ministry three months ago and didn't get anywhere in terms of even talking. In the last three weeks, as I was phoning this committee -- and it was really the impetus to say, "I'm going to get in touch with this committee" -- I phoned the minister's office and carried on. A week later we had a meeting, and those people are on the road. They are coming to Ontario.
Mr Young: Could I get the name of that company before you leave? I'd appreciate it, because I'm keeping a scorecard. We've got 200 jobs from Disney Studios coming to Toronto. We've got 800 to 1,000 jobs, plus the spinoff, coming to Alliston, announced last week. I'm going to keep a list so that I can show the people who voted for me in four or five years how much farther we've come.
Mr Holliday: I'd be glad to.
1720
Mr Phillips: I appreciated the presentation. Frankly, I agree with you on the tax thing, in the sense of what the government's going to do. It will do the tax thing. It will implement the 30% tax cut. The reason I say that is I think people like Mr Young and yourself and Mr Gilchrist will insist that it happen, because if it doesn't happen, you'll quit. I have no doubt that the government will implement it. You ran on that and you're totally committed to it. I don't think Mr Harris would be permitted by his caucus to back off it. I think it's lunacy, personally, but they'll do it.
I have two or three questions. One is that they're planning to implement this, but in their fiscal outlook document they show that next year the number of people unemployed actually goes up; in 1996 there are more people unemployed than in 1995. Then in 1997 there are more people unemployed, according to their document, than in 1996. Why, if this plan is so good, would the number of people out of work be going up rather than down?
Mr Holliday: First of all, may I talk about the premise of your question. My personal opinion is that the economic forecasts that document was based upon are needlessly conservative, if you'll forgive the use of the term. I don't agree with them. I think the results in 1996 are going to be very much more optimistic than is predicted in that document, and I suspect that if they were to run the numbers today they would say that. I applaud them for giving a gloomier picture than they could have given, and in actual terms in 1996 -- we'll see if I'm right or wrong -- it's not going to happen the way they said it's going to happen in terms of the results to unemployment.
Having said that, the bottom line is that people, of whichever party, seemed to have the belief for the last 30 years that the more civil servants we had, the more things were going to be accomplished. I'm here to tell you that if you get rid of half the civil servants things will happen twice as quick, not twice as slow. I've had more people in the various bureaucracies telling me they're understaffed and underpaid and I can't do the yelling and screaming. Then I say to them, "Why don't we sit down and work something out?" which they would never have done a few years ago. They would have stuck to their guns in caucus and hummed and hawed. Now they're actually working stuff out because they have to, which -- hello -- business has had to do for the last 10 years.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate that. All I can go on is what they say is going to happen. I don't have any unique crystal ball, and they're telling me there are going to be more people out of work next year than there are this year.
Mr Holliday: Do you believe that next year there's going to be more unemployment than this year, Mr Phillips?
Mr Phillips: I just go on the numbers they give us.
Mr Holliday: I told you what I believe. What do you believe?
Mr Phillips: I take the government at its word. If they believe there are going to be more people out of work next year than this year, I assume that's the best estimate they can provide us with.
Mr Holliday: That was in the beginning. When was that version written?
Mr Phillips: November 29.
Mr Holliday: I thought you were talking about the CSR.
Mr Phillips: No, no. This is what they said on November 29.
Mr Holliday: Okay. Now we're talking a different question, I guess, because before you said the CSR indicated an unemployment increase.
Mr Phillips: No, I'm sorry. Hansard may show that I said the government is predicting that next year there will be -- in this document, November 29 -- more people out of work next year than this year. Then they're saying that in 1997 there will be more people out of work than in 1996. It's a very curious thing to me that the more this thing is implemented, the more people there are out of work.
Mr Holliday: I believe there will be less unemployment next year, and many of the private economists are saying the same thing, frankly.
Mr Phillips: I don't know why the government would try and mislead us on that.
Mr Holliday: They're being conservative.
Mr Phillips: I guess you're anxious to see restructuring in Metro.
Mr Holliday: Oh, you'd better believe that.
Mr Phillips: You feel that municipalities need to be restructured, and that's one of the reasons you're anxious that they get on with this bill?
Mr Holliday: I would have been happier to see this bill expanded to include the GTA, but I guess we've got to wait for the commission set up by the government that wanted to study things.
Mr Phillips: So they're not getting on with that part of your --
Mr Holliday: I would have been happier if they just did that at the same time -- before Christmas.
Mr Phillips: But that's not part of the plan here.
Mr Holliday: It's not in this bill. No, it isn't.
The Vice-Chair: We're out of time. Thanks very much, Mr Holliday.
DEBORAH KENT
The Vice-Chair: Will Deborah Kent come forward. Deborah, you have 30 minutes for your presentation.
Ms Deborah Kent: I'll start by introducing myself. I do have a letter which I will be reading and I'll hand it out to you. My name is Deborah Kent. I'm a resident of Toronto and Ontario, but I was originally born in Winnipeg. I'm just an ordinary taxpayer. I have a family here, a happy family, I'm a productive member of our community and I have a happy professional life. I'm here today, missing my daughter's Christmas concert, as I'm sure all of you here are doing, because I am very concerned about this bill.
My presentation is not a sophisticated, technical address to various parts of this bill. In fact, last night I phoned a very good friend of ours who is a senior civil servant and I told him I was doing this. He wanted to know what I was going to say and I gave him a summary. He said to me: "Do not get emotional. Do not talk about anything except specifics. Get technical and don't bring the emotion in." Well, that's not what I'm going to do. I'm going to read you a letter that has come from my head but also my heart, and I'm going to ask all members here to listen carefully.
"Contained in this letter is my view of Bill 26 and the government's manoeuvring of this bill through the Legislative Assembly. Please add this submission to those documents discussing Bill 26 in general during the various committee hearings.
"As an Ontario resident, taxpayer and a Canadian nationalist, I felt compelled to register my strong disapproval of the current government's Bill 26. My disapproval and disappointment is a result of the bill's unnecessary scope and all-encompassing nature; the government's handling of the bill, the government's initial unwillingness to allow public debate on the bill; the government's disregard for public interest by not revealing information about the hearings and for its arbitrary deadline imposed without any announcement.
"Canada is, in my opinion, the most wonderful country in the world, and Ontario a rich and prosperous province in which to live. As a result of a number of factors, our current debt load, both nationally and provincially, is at an unacceptable level. Few citizens, who understand the mechanics of balancing the family budget, would argue with that statement.
"Reduction of our public debt is unpleasant but necessary. However, the current government's agenda to drastically slash public debt while reserving a tax cut for an élite layer of Ontario's population, with the belief that with the deficit reduction the economy will prosper with little or no negative effect on our society as a whole, is ill-conceived, mean-spirited, strategically flawed, and in the end will fail. Reduction of public debt can be achieved with less dramatic slash-and-burn techniques, less human fallout and suffering and far fewer long-term problems, if the examples of deficit reduction of other provinces are followed (for example, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick).
"The all-encompassing nature of Bill 26, its sweeping, arbitrary powers given to government ministers and their appointees, and its complete disregard for the general public interest cannot be justified by stating that this type of bill is required in order to `fight the deficit and get this problem under control.'
"Never in the history of this province or, for that matter, in this country, has a government attempted such a draconian `grab for power' with a bill such as this. The bill would affect every single component of our lives as Ontario citizens, with little or no recourse to future changes or amendments. Never has such arrogance been so obvious in a government as evidenced in Bill 26. The bill's sweeping and arbitrary nature would change forever the very nature of society in this province, a change that I am sure would not be positive in any sense of the word.
"It has been difficult for me to decide which has been the worst of two evils: the sweeping and arbitrary nature of the bill, or the undemocratic and completely disrespectful method of railroading through Bill 26.
1730
"Given the sweeping nature of the bill and its all-encompassing effect, common sense would dictate that public debate and input about the consequences of this bill is required. It is evident by the manner in which the bill was introduced and the attempt to manoeuvre it through the House that the government has complete contempt for honest debate and discussion. The attempt to hide behind the argument that, `We were elected to govern and carry out our agenda,' is fraudulent and dishonest at best.
"I watched in disbelief as Mr Curling and his colleagues refused to leave the House in an attempt to restore some sense of sanity to the processing of this bill through the House. As a strong believer of the democratic process, I was appalled that such techniques were required. But required they were, and desperately.
"The current government's complete lack of regard and respect for the citizens of Ontario with reference to their right to speak to this bill and its impact is truly frightening. In addition to not allowing any initial debate or discussion on the bill and its all-encompassing powers, the government's arrogance was once again evident in how the current committee hearings were structured and announced.
"The ordinary citizens of this province never had a hope of truly understanding this bill, never mind an opportunity to debate or comment on it. Little or no information was made available to citizens about the nature of the committee hearings, how to apply to make an appearance or a submission, or, for that matter, were they given a decent time frame in which to find this information out and prepare their concerns.
"Hearings with less than a week's notice to be held the week of Christmas is a blatant slap in the face to the ordinary citizen of this province. Special-interest groups had more notice, but just. The timing of the railroading of this bill is appalling. But what is worse is that, once caught railroading the bill, the government's arbitrary setting of a date for the completion of the hearings almost guarantees that little or no real debate will be forthcoming from many ordinary citizens.
"I believe that few, if any, of the people who voted for this government would agree with the granting of this bill's arbitrary powers and frightening dictatorial nature. Once the true effects of this bill and other sweeping changes which the Tories are making become evident and start to negatively impact on every family in this province, acceptance of this government will falter. Combining this lack of support with voters who did not support the Tories in the election will result in a reduction in the government's popularity, and then hopefully some common sense will become evident in this current government's approach. In my opinion, that day cannot come soon enough."
Before you allow me to answer your questions, yes, you can see that there are some strong words here and, yes, I am angry. Quite frankly, while I was reading this, I felt as if I was speaking to my seven-year-old child for something he had done with a friend in the playground. I don't mean to lecture you, gentlemen, and I apologize if I sounded like that, but my family says I do sound like I lecture a lot.
I think the point I'm making here is that there are a lot of people -- and I disagree with Mr Young -- today, if asked if they had the time to read through this bill, if they had it explained, if they had the time, the understanding, would agree with the hundreds and hundreds of people who in the short span of three days have faxed and phoned; columnists like this woman in the Star and many other places. People are appalled with the points that I have raised here.
All I would ask you people to do is the same thing that I ask my seven- and my four-year-old to do. I want you to look at the people who have come here. I want you to listen to them, because they are telling you that this is not acceptable behaviour. You have to admit that a mistake has been made. Mr Harris, I hope, has the fortitude to admit he has made a mistake, he has made a very large political mistake.
And you know what we tell our kids and our family, we tell them, "It's okay, you can make mistakes." But then it takes more of a person to be able to say: "I made a mistake. Let's sit down, let's talk about it, let's listen, let's work it out." A mistake has been made in the way you have approached this whole bill. This is not what people voted you in for. Yes, there probably are people who do agree with this, but if they understood, they would see that consultation is required.
And yes, I understand, many people understand, our finances are in a mess. There's no question about it. But any of you politicians who have been here for many years -- and I've worked for all three parties as a volunteer, I understand the political process -- any of you who have been here share the blame. We all share the blame, because we were spending money we didn't have. And yes, we all know, we're bankrupt and yes, we all know we have to do something about it, but I don't think we need to destroy our society while we're doing it so that we can become more American and there will be less haves and more have-nots.
I'm a Canadian, I love being a Canadian and I think that we have an ability to consult, to compromise, to be inclusive and to help other people. And yes, I sat in just down the hall there and listened to one of the MPPs talk about how she's worried about the debt and her children and everything. Don't lecture me about that. I understand, so do a lot of people. Sure we have to cut the deficit, but there are ways of going about it and people who are going to be affected, we need to be consulted about this and no, we don't need to take five years to have another royal commission on how we're going to approach the deficit, but we don't need a bill like this. It is railroaded through and an insult to our civil liberties. And yes, I apologize, I've lectured you and I'll stop right there.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mrs Kent. The government party -- each party has about six minutes.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Thank you, Mrs Kent, and allow me to thank you particularly as an individual who's come in. As you say, the special-interest groups who are usually far better prepared for these things because they write their drafts well before bills are even written and take the same dogmatic position no matter what the words in the bill say have an easier time getting the ear of the opposition parties and being stacked on to the list.
But I'd like to ask you a couple of things, and I'm operating on the premise that you've read the bill. Some of the words you used were quite inflammatory and I wonder if you're aware that the previous government had five omnibus bills, two of them larger than this one, and I'm curious to know whether you came down and made any kind of representations during those proceedings, although I suspect you couldn't have because they allowed respectively 50 and 22 minutes of debate in the House for the last two.
You're probably aware, we had 19 1/2 hours of debate on Bill 26 in the House and I wonder perhaps if you can also explain to me -- and I'm not lecturing but I'm somewhat confused. As someone who prefaced her comments by saying that you were a nationalist and you believe passionately in our democratic process, how, if in fact the people in this province chose certain representatives on June 8 to make these tough decisions, to draft the legislation, to deal with the problems that you yourself have admitted, face all of us if we're going to get serious about the future for our children -- we were given that responsibility; we don't govern in this province by referenda; we do not govern by going out and having votes every week. We make the tough decisions and then we're judged come the next election, and we did make the tough decisions here.
But I ask you one other final point and then I'll let you respond. We hear a lot of rhetoric about perhaps four sections of this bill and it's certainly, for all of us, a big bill to digest in one reading. But I wonder if you're aware of the fact that it exists as an omnibus bill because of the procedural nonsense that wasted the first two weeks of sitting of this House at a cost of about $1,000 a minute to the taxpayer, while certain other parties, not the government, held motion after motion to adjourn and other frivolous matters. Had we had those two weeks to do what you are paying us to do, we could have had four or five bills. Instead, to meet our mandate, to give you the maximum return for your dollars, we are still marching ahead, having made the decisions to change certain pieces of legislation.
So answering sort of on a democratic process, why should the rhetoric be out there?
Mr Phillips: Stop lecturing.
Ms Kent: I lectured him. If he wants to lecture me, it's all right.
Mr Gilchrist: Mr Phillips, --
Ms Kent: I'm going to answer him very shortly.
Mr Gilchrist: -- you played fun with numbers. I'd like to play fun with democracy.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Gilchrist, just ask your question.
Mr Gilchrist: Okay. Please explain why the process, as it's supposed to work in the chamber, is not sufficient?
Ms Kent: Sir, I'm going to answer the one portion of your question that I believe I can answer. I believe that if your government had outlined many of the things you're proposing with this bill in your platform and asked people to sit down and think about these things and then vote for you, I don't think you would have won the majority, because I think you are misreading, right at this moment, what is happening politically. People are not happy with the scope, with a number of these issues. I think I understand your need to continue to use this refrain, "We were elected to govern; we're losing $1 million a minute" or whatever it is.
1740
But let's get beyond the political rhetoric and just address if you had lined up all of these things in a list and said: "Specifically, this is the kind of thing we're talking about. For example, we could go to the library and have a $20 fee in order to be a member of the library. Would you agree with this in order to provide a tax cut to an élite group of Ontario taxpayers?" I'm not sure you would have been elected. So that's my point.
Mr Young: But those things are speculation right now. There's no definitive answer on those things right now. I would like to ask you something, because I'm really concerned when I keep hearing this, that the tax cut is for an élite layer of society. "Élite," by definition, implies a small group. In 1993 StatsCan figures, 87% of the population filed tax returns that they made $50,000 or less. Those people, all of them, will get a tax cut. So how is it that you're saying only the élite will get the tax cut?
Ms Kent: Well, I'll tell you, to be honest with you, and I'll make the prediction right now, I don't think you're going to be able to make a tax cut, because I believe these spending cuts are going to drive this economy into recession. I also believe that the bond rating agencies will probably tell you that you need to put that money over to reduce debt and not provide a tax cut. So we could talk about tax cuts all night, but I don't agree with you.
Mr Young: But I don't understand how you came up with the term "élite." Can you please explain it to me, because I've heard it before; I hear it from the opposition all the time. It's not an élite; it's everybody who pays taxes.
Ms Kent: Right, but I don't think there's going to be a tax cut. I don't think you people are going to be able to afford to do it. I don't know. You have conversations with the bond rating agencies, I don't.
Mr Young: You also said that you agree there's need for change, and everybody who has been here says that to us. I was going to ask you if you think that governments have been working well, and you indicated that you don't. I want to ask you, how else can change happen? How else can we make change happen? We have to take strong, definitive action.
Ms Kent: Sure, of course, we have to take strong action, but not this kind of action that totally railroads the functioning of this province, for heaven's sake.
Mr Young: Can you give me an example of that railroading?
Ms Kent: I'll give you an example. I'm not sure how many people have presented to you over the last four or five days, but I think there's a high percentage of people who are saying, "You didn't talk to us."
Mr Young: But those people are all here. They're all here talking. You are part of the process, right now.
Ms Kent: People wanted to be consulted. Now, that's a very good point that I'd also like to raise. I want to reverse, if I can, and ask --
The Vice-Chair: Ms Kent, we're out of time. It's the opposition party's time right now.
Ms Kent: I'd like to ask one question of the government.
The Vice-Chair: Well, unfortunately, you can't. It's the opposition party's time.
Ms Kent: Maybe one of these guys will --
Mr Colle: No, go ahead. We believe in allowing people like you to come and speak. Go ahead.
Mr Young: So do we, Mike.
Mr Colle: That's why you didn't want the hearings. Don't give us that baloney. That's why you didn't want the hearings.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Colle, do you want to allow Ms Kent to speak? Ms Kent, can you proceed.
Ms Kent: I would like to know whether the people who have been sitting here listening in these committee hearings are actually listening. Have you heard things? Are you going to make some amendments? Are you going to actually change some of the things? Has this been a productive exercise? Are we glad that it's taking place and that we have two more weeks? That's what I want to go home and tell my kids, because we've had a great discussion this week about this. Are we actually going to have something done about this bill? Have you been listening to people?
Mr Young: You can tell your children that with confidence.
Ms Kent: Well, I'm glad, and thank you very much. That's all I wanted to know.
Mr Colle: I want to thank you for your courage and for your commitment and for being here, because I think this goes beyond what's in this bill. It goes on to talk about the kind of government that we thought we had in this province and what kind of government we're getting. As you know, we have a government here with an 82-seat majority that felt they wanted more power, and this is why they introduced the bill in the way they did. They basically snuck it into the Legislature. The opposition, for the most part, was locked up, as were the media. They snuck back in, the ministers all with a smile on their faces.
This bill, according to really almost every objective observer, is not just an omnibus bill. It's not the fact that it has a label. As you've said, it touches almost every aspect of governance in Ontario. To pretend that that bill would have been law by now and that people should accept that kind of ordained, authoritarian view without question -- and that is what this government has said, "We know what's good for you. There's a crisis. There's an emergency. We have to pass this" -- where have you heard that before?
This is what, as opposition members, we felt we had to get across to the people of Ontario: that it wasn't so much that there were parts of this bill that we thought were abhorrent but the fact that a government with a majority had to go to seek more power, more unilateral power. If you look through this bill, you'll see that there are numerous areas where public participation is removed, that they are giving ministers powers they've never had before. The right to referendum in certain aspects of municipal areas is taken way. The right to appeal is taken away. The right to freedom of information is taken away. This is a party that used to pride itself on individual rights and principles of taking government out of people's lives.
We've had doctors in here in the last few days who are lifelong Conservatives; they're just appalled. We had a candidate who ran against Bob Rae. Dr Larry Edwards said, "This is not what I ran for."
I think what the opposition is trying to say to the people of Ontario, and I think what you're saying, if I'm correct, is, there is more at stake than just politics if this bill is passed or not. What's at stake is, what kind of government are we going to have if these powers are given to this government that feels they have all the answers and they don't want anyone basically, let alone the opposition, to have a say?
I guess the most abhorrent thing about it all was, they would have passed this thing before Christmas and all these powers would have been bestowed upon these ministers without any checks or balances and would have been a fait accompli. They would have been partying today all across the Tory caucuses in Ontario, because they thought they'd pulled one over on everybody. But thank God there are people like you, as I said, who had the commitment to democracy really, and it's not a hokey word but it's a word that I think we've come to understand is more important than deficits and more important than political parties.
So again, on behalf of a lot of people of Ontario, I think you're expressing a concern that a lot of people have had. As I said, it goes across party lines. Thank you for coming.
Ms Kent: Thank you very much for those words.
The Vice-Chair: The member of the third party, Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Ms Kent, thank you for being here. I think one of the points that I just want to just get on the record is that when you got an answer to the question that you put to the government members about whether in fact these hearings have been useful and whether there will be amendments, I saw about four noddings of heads, and because noddings of heads don't make it into Hansard, I want to just get that recorded, which is, in effect, they did indicate that in fact the hearings have been useful, and they hopefully will have heard and will be prepared to make amendments.
But I think the point that we need to make is that these hearings wouldn't have happened, and the kinds of amendments that hopefully the government will bring forward wouldn't have been here, if we didn't have these hearings, because what the government initially wanted to do was to pass this legislation without referring any of it to committee. That was the initial proposal, and only after pressure from the opposition was the offer --
Interjections.
Mr Sampson: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: It's been stated on the record many times, and if I had Hansard here I'd read it back, that in fact there was a commitment for committee time in the negotiation process.
Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, that's not a point of order.
Mr Sampson: We absolutely had commitment to committee time.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, Mr Silipo, proceed.
Mr Silipo: If the members had allowed me to continue, I was about to make the point that only after pressure from the opposition did they agree to hearings. And initially the offer that they made of hearings was to have had us hold hearings last week and then the bill finalized this week. That was the second proposal. Then only after we took further action, which you described earlier, were these hearings in fact started this week and carried into January. That's the sequence of events.
When Mr Gilchrist was talking earlier about the earlier part of the session being a reason why they were not in fact able to bring this legislation in various pieces, which is the first time I've heard that explanation -- it's interesting that no minister has used that explanation -- the point that he didn't make was that in fact the reason that those procedures were used was because the government insisted on another massive piece of legislation affecting the rights of thousands of workers across the province being passed without any discussions in committee.
Mr Gilchrist: Yet there were 61 amendments from our side.
Mr Silipo: Yes, again, 61 amendments which were presented to us literally minutes before they were passed by the House. If that's democracy as the Tory government sees it, then I think we're in pretty bad shape.
I guess the only other comment is, it's true that 87% of people, as Mr Young said, earn under $50,000 and therefore will benefit from the tax cut. Absolutely, no denying that, but the point he doesn't also make is that the other 13% of Ontarians who make over that amount, particularly those who make over $85,000, will benefit to the tune of 60% of the value of that tax cut.
Ms Kent, thank you for being here. If you have any comments that you want to make --
Ms Kent: That's the point I'm making. May I respond, though there haven't really been questions?
The Vice-Chair: Mr Silipo, do you want Ms Kent to respond?
Interjections.
Mr Silipo: Yes, I do.
Mr Phillips: Let her speak.
Ms Kent: Okay, boys.
Interjections.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Phillips, Mr Silipo has the floor and he wants Ms Kent to speak.
Mr Silipo: I made a comment. I'd like Ms Kent to comment if she wishes to.
Ms Kent: Again, I don't want to get childish here, but honestly, this is like what I see in the playground at my kids' school.
The bottom line on this is that you people brought in a bill. Thank God, for whatever reason, we've had an opportunity to talk. There are going to be two more weeks of people talking, and all I want to know, as a Canadian, as a resident of this province -- this is a very important, all-encompassing bill. My words were strong. I believe many people think this way. Please listen and understand that, whether you made a mistake or not, whether the proceedings were this or that, just take away from what people are saying here and please make some amendments and listen to what people are saying.
Please don't just think because you have a majority everybody from day one since you were elected agrees with absolutely everything you do, because they don't. When you start to talk about whether you're going to be able to take a library book out or whether you can't because you can't afford it, people are going to think differently than they did when they elected you.
All I'm asking is that we think about these things. Yes, we cut the deficit, but we have to go about it in a way that doesn't destroy our society. If it's emotional and you want to totally dismiss what I'm saying, at least I can go home and look at myself in the mirror and say I did my best. I tried to tell you what I think. I think I speak for many people and I just tell you that in many ways this is very immoral what you're doing here. Please change some of these things and don't just stand there saying, "Nyah, nyah, nyah, I'm right and I've got the biggest bat and you can't do anything about it." That is not Canada; that is a banana republic.
I travel on business to the United States. There isn't a time that I don't land at that airport that I don't say, "Thank God I live in this country." Because in the United States, it's a great country, it's wonderful they've produced great wealth, but very much there is a society of the haves and the have-nots.
I deal with people who are very, very fortunate and very élite, and their attitude is, "I'm okay, they're not, and it's got to be their fault." Well, I don't think we want to see that in this province. We want to have compassion. It's two days before Christmas. Let's try to remember that as Canadians we try to include people, we try to get along, we try compromise. Let's try to sit down and think of ways that we can improve this bill.
I don't want to sit here and think that my time is wasted. I want you people to listen to what I'm saying. I think you people are reasonable. You're not horrible; none of us is. Just listen to what people are saying.
The Vice-Chair: Ms Kent, we're out of time.
Ms Kent: Thank you. I made my speech.
The Vice-Chair: This subcommittee stands adjourned until 9 am, January 8, 1996, in Windsor, Ontario.
The subcommittee adjourned at 1755.