SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION
WINDSOR AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
WINDSOR AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS, LOCAL 444
ESSEX REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS, LOCALS 1973 AND 195
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 636
CHATHAM AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
CONTENTS
Monday 8 January 1996
Savings and Restructuring Act, 1995, Bill 26, Mr Eves / Loi de 1995 sur les économies
et la restructuration, projet de loi 26, M. Eves
Gerard Charette
Legal Assistance of Windsor
Marion Overholt, staff lawyer
Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce
Larry Sandre, president
Windsor Public Library
Jean Dirksen, CEO
John Martel, chair, Windsor Public Library board
Windsor and District Labour Council
Gary Parent, president
Nick LaPosta, secretary-treasurer
Canadian Auto Workers, Local 444
Ken Lewenza, president
Mike Darnell, marine division representative; member, executive board of Local 444
Peter Pellerito, elected chair, political action committee; member, executive council of CAW
County of Essex
Rob Schmidt, warden
Essex Region Conservation Authority
Pat O'Neil, chair
Sheila Wisdom, vice-chair
Municipal Electric Association
Elvin Martin, chair
Tony Jennings, CEO
Jim MacKenzie, president
Kent Edwards, general manager, Windsor Utilities Commission
Canadian Auto Workers, Locals 1973 and 195
Nick Dzudz, president, Local 1973
Bob Cruise, chair, human rights committee, Local 195
Mike Thomas, chair, political education committee, Local 1973
Bert Desjardins, first vice-president, Local 1973
County of Kent; Thomas Storey
Joe Taylor, warden
Chuck Knapp, clerk-administrator
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 636
Patrick Vlanich, business representative
Howard township
David Langstaff, reeve
Chatham and District Labour Council
Buddy Kitchen, president
Public Service Alliance of Canada
Cheryl Lucier, president, Windsor area council
Helen O'Keefe, chair, regional women's committee
Albert Schumacher
Windsor Professional Fire Fighters Association
Joe Fauteux, secretary; district vice-president, Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association
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:
Cooke, David S. (Windsor-Riverside ND) for Mr Wood
Gerretsen, John (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L) for Mr Grandmaître
Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L) for Mrs Pupatello
Klees, Frank (York-Mackenzie PC) for Mr Flaherty
Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:
Crozier, Bruce (Essex South / -Sud L)
Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North / -Nord L)
Duncan, Dwight (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Silipo, Tony (Dovercourt ND)
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The subcommittee met at 0900 in the Ramada Inn, Windsor.
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.
The Chair (Mr Bart Maves): Good morning. If I could ask the room to silence side conversations. Welcome to the standing committee on general government. Welcome to Windsor, legislators. Before we begin, Mr Cooke has a motion he'd like to table.
Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Yes, Mr Chair. First of all, I might, along with my colleagues from Windsor, welcome everybody to Windsor. I don't know whether the Conservative members want to confirm that there were no hotel charges last night; they stayed the entire night at the casino.
I'd like to move the following motion:
Whereas there has been overwhelming public interest in Bill 26 and that 53 groups and individuals have requested to appear before the standing committee on general government in Windsor which far exceeds the 15 spaces available today for hearings;
I move that this committee recommends to the government House leader that when the House returns on January 29, 1996 that the order with respect to Bill 26 be amended and that the bill be returned to the standing committee on general government so that further public hearings can be arranged for the community of Windsor;
Further, that this committee recommends that the three House leaders meet as soon as possible to discuss this issue.
The Chair: Any comments?
Mr Cooke: If I might very briefly -- I know we're pressed for time for the 15 spaces that do exist -- I think it is obvious, and all of us have been in our constituencies over the Christmas holidays, that the arrangements that have been made for the public hearings on this bill are completely and totally inadequate. The public interest across this province is growing. In this particular community, as I said, we have 53 requests and we have 15 spots available; that's just on the non-health side. Thirty-eight groups or individuals have been rejected from being able to appear before this committee. This is not democracy; this is dictatorship.
As responsible legislators, this is not the proper way of making public policy, and I'm asking that the Conservative members of this committee listen to the public will, not just give the rhetoric as they did during the election about listening to the people of this province, and tell their government House leader that we've got to change this, we've got to come back to this community, we've got to listen to the rest of the people who want to be heard before this committee and then we have to respond to what people are telling us about this committee. I think it would go a long way to settling down and restoring confidence in democracy in this province and to the people who are here this morning if the Conservative members would listen to them and would approve this motion which simply recommends to the government House leader that the appropriate democratic action be taken. So I encourage members of the committee to unanimously support this motion immediately this morning.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the government, I'd like to say that the process in this bill has been quite public. There's been a lot of controversy about the process. All three party leaders agreed prior to these committee hearings that this would be the appropriate method for doing it, that in fact we would have two weeks of province-wide hearings and we would hear from the public. I believe if the opposition parties would spend more time hearing from the public and less time debating about breaking up the bill and discussing having more hearings, we may in fact have a lot more public input to the bill. In fact, the leader of the Liberal Party stated that with the two weeks of public hearings and the other week in Toronto she now has sufficient, and the public would have sufficient, time to fully discuss the bill.
I believe that we have a job to do. This committee is to hear the public across the province in the next two weeks, and we should get on with doing that. Then we should go back, as the House instructed the committee to do, with the changes that are required in the bill, with recommendations, and carry out the program that all three parties agreed to when the Legislature closed a number of weeks ago.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I'm going to support this motion. I think it's evident around the province that people want to be heard on this very complex bill, this omnibus bill, this huge bill. The manner in which it's been presented in this short period of time has hardly been adequate for people to address their concerns. It has a direct impact on their life; it has a direct impact on the financial situation of the economy of Ontario.
I'm promised by the Premier that he will have consultation. The fact is that, realizing this would have been rammed through by December 14, it would have been law already if not for the current opposition, who have insisted on having public hearings. Now we realize that a tremendous amount of people have come forward to present their concerns and they are not being heard.
I would recommend very, very strongly, before the members of the government side start telling us that we have our instructions, that extended time be given. We're going back to the House just for one day on January 29, when we know this will be rammed through. If we want a democratic country and a democratic province, I think what we should do is start hearing from the people. There are some tremendous presentations we've been hearing around the province so far, and as my colleague has just said, only 15 people will be heard today. That's a disgrace in itself. As a matter of fact, in Windsor alone we could spend a week to hear the people. We know that's not practical, but at least we would have some more time in which to go around the province for people to be heard.
I support this very strongly, that it get back to democracy, not this kind of dictatorial way in which this bill has been treated. I know the members of the Conservative side will take this message back to the House leader -- this is what the House leader of the third party is saying -- that we recommend to them that we have extended time and maybe January 29 is not an appropriate time in which to push this through. I support this very, very strongly.
Mr Cooke: Recorded vote.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Before you begin the vote, if I might, just so the people in the audience appreciate, the Liberal Party has two votes, the NDP has one vote and the Conservatives have the other votes. So when they see the vote take place they'll understand that not all of the members of the NDP or all the members of the Liberals will be able to vote on this. We only have two votes, the NDP only one vote.
The Chair: As divided by proportion in the House, the Liberals do have two, Mr Phillips and Mr Gerretsen, and the third party has Mr Cooke voting.
All those in favour of the motion?
Ayes
Cooke, Gerretsen, Phillips.
The Chair: All those against the motion?
Nays
Hardeman, Klees, Tascona, Young.
0910
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): On a point of order, Mr Chair: If I could address the Chair for clarification whether a government spokesperson is entitled to speak to the public hearings today. Someone representing the government, would that person be on the list today speaking to public hearings?
The Chair: The lists were submitted by each of the caucuses from a list of all those who reported that they wanted to speak. As the House has agreed, that's the system we've agreed to. Whoever has been chosen actually speaks, and as far as party affiliation --
Mrs Pupatello: No, it's not party affiliation. Is a government representative entitled to speak to a public hearing?
The Chair: What do you mean by "a government representative"?
Mrs Pupatello: Let me explain. The gentleman who's up first here at 9 o'clock, as of last night at 11:30 there was a program aired on CHWI, a BBS program, where an individual was introduced and in fact was organized by government to represent the government's position on Bill 26. This same individual now is sitting here at the slot of 9 o'clock.
With some 40 groups who did not have an opportunity to speak at a public hearing representing a position perhaps other than government's, the difficulty is that this individual who's on today, Mr Charette, was in fact organized by the office of our Chairman, Jack Carroll, who is travelling with the other committee on general government today in Timmins. Jack was unable to participate in this program and his office organized Mr Charette to replace him.
I think it would be up to our group, and in particular I would speak to the Conservative members, to understand that with such limited time and so many groups in Windsor wishing to speak, an individual who just 10 hours ago represented the government and was introduced as such is now here today speaking to us at 9 o'clock. I think it's inappropriate and it's beholden on all of us to ensure that it really is due process and it at least has some semblance or appearance of being a bona fide public hearing.
The Chair: I thank you, Ms Pupatello. The only people who are ineligible to present would be government members themselves. This gentleman's not a government member himself.
Mrs Pupatello: Yet this individual was organized by Jack Carroll to represent himself.
The Chair: It's irrelevant. It's not Mr Carroll.
Now we'd like to begin the proceedings.
Mr Phillips: I just want to serve notice that perhaps at noon we could debate a motion. The mayor's office in London -- I don't whether they've been in touch with all caucuses or not -- did not have an opportunity to present in London and I think perhaps it might be appropriate that we extend the hearings for half an hour tomorrow night. I'd like to move that and we'll debate that perhaps at noon when we hear from our last witness this morning, extending the hearings for half an hour and having the mayor's office in London present tomorrow in London.
The Chair: I consider that motion tabled.
Good morning, Mr Charette, and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have half an hour this morning to make your presentation. You may use that time as you wish. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions. You may begin.
GERARD CHARETTE
Mr Gerard Charette: I should say that I am not a representative of the government. That was something styled by someone at CHWI. I have my own independent beliefs and this is what it's all --
Interruption.
Mr Charette: I would appreciate it if those in the audience would please respect my constitutional right to speak freely.
Interruption.
The Chair: We have many witnesses to hear today in a limited amount of time, and in deference to those people who have taken the time to put their presentations together, I'd appreciate a semblance of order so that we could hear them. I ask that of not only the people here to watch the proceedings but members up here at the table.
Mr Charette: Thank you, Mr Chairman. This is a text I prepared last week.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Gerard Charette. I should clarify that although I am a member of the taxpayer's federation, I do not represent that organization. I am not an authorized spokesman. However, I think it is important that the members of the committee be aware of those affiliations of mine that are relevant to my submission.
I am the former chairman of Ontario's X-ray safety commission. I am a member of the district health council community care committee. I am a member of Sacred Heart parish, chairman of the social justice committee. I am a member of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I am married, I am the father of one child, I am a practising lawyer and, yes, I did vote for Mike Harris.
I do not speak on behalf of any of these organizations. I am solely responsible for the submission you are about to receive. Here's my introduction.
Fundamentally, the issue in the omnibus bill is one of management. The issue is one of management and accountability. The people of Ontario have given the Harris government a resounding mandate, certainly a mandate significantly more potent than that given to the former government, and I do respect the former government.
On June 8 of last year, the people of Ontario recognized that the government and its system of finances was in serious jeopardy. They called upon the present government to get Ontario out of its almost overwhelming fiscal problem. Although it is certainly possible for reasonable persons to disagree over the powers that the government proposes, please consider the following:
(1) This government has throughout been absolutely clear to the residents of Ontario that it would act fast and decisively in dealing with the root causes of government waste.
(2) They are prepared to hold themselves accountable to the public now and at the next election. I believe this government will remain accountable and responsible as Ontario goes forward with restructuring. Everyone agrees we must restructure.
(3) Historically, Canadian governments have taken the easy way out by pretending to go through all the motions while failing to actually do something about the problems of Canadian government.
(4) This government is saying to all the people of Ontario: "You have asked us to act as your manager in dealing with challenges facing Ontario. As managers, we need the management tools to turn this province around."
(5) If you think about it, the present government is embracing its management responsibilities and is prepared to take all the risk of criticisms that go along with it. Here we are this morning, are we not? Is that not a breath of fresh air: a government that is prepared to hold itself accountable?
(6) If there is one thing we've learned about this government, it's that it governs quickly and decisively. It will not be afraid to make quick adjustments if those adjustments are needed in the future. It will continue to be responsive.
(7) Indeed, I would argue to you this morning, ladies and gentlemen, that it would be negligent for the government, as so many governments have been negligent in the past, to fail to assume the proper role of stewardship and management for the finances of this provinces.
Historically, Ontario has suffered from a series of governments which would much rather talk about the problem than do anything about it. They have continued to tax, spend and borrow at all levels. They have failed to root out the causes of waste. In so doing, they have ignored the interests of the residents of Ontario and of their children and grandchildren.
It has been alleged that this government should be criticized for failing to consult adequately, and we've heard that this morning. Let me talk to the issue of consultation.
I sat as chairman of Ontario's X-ray safety commission for about six years. During that time, I witnessed a continuous effort on behalf of special interests to delay the implementation of needed changes. Last week, I went through my old files and I pulled out just two of many past consultations, two examples.
The first one is attached to schedule A to the submission. It's a little article from the Ontario Medical Review, and I've got a complete copy in my submission. Let me read this. This is from an 1988 article announcing the Scott task force on the provision of medical services:
"A joint Ontario Medical Association/Ministry of Health task force has been formed to analyse and make recommendations on factors influencing the use of medical services and how they are provided. OMA President" Dr So-and-so "has said that he welcomes the opportunity to continue to work constructively with the ministry.
"`We want to continue our cooperation and address the concerns about the cost of health care in Ontario.' Graham Scott, a lawyer and former Deputy Minister of Health and of Environment, is chairing the task force. Representing the OMA is" So-and-so "and representing the government are" So-and-so. It goes on to highlight all the factors that the task force is going to look at.
Turning down towards the bottom of page 6, it says, "Once these patterns and factors have been documented by the task force, the task force will develop a series of practical recommendations designed to improve the efficiency of the system and" -- get this -- "modify behaviour that has resulted in inappropriate use of health care resources in Ontario." This was eight years ago.
Chairman Scott goes on to say, "The task force will consult widely with all interested parties, including hospitals, nurses, health care and other health care professionals." My, my, haven't we heard that before? What happened to our consultation eight years ago? Very little.
If anything came out of the Scott task force in 1988 -- little came out. We were about $37 billion in debt eight years ago. Now we're almost $100 billion in debt.
Interruption.
The Chair: Could we have quiet, please. Thank you.
Mr Charette: The fact is, we have had just about all the consultations we need. Consultation has been going on for years, but nobody's been doing anything about it. Special interests have used the red herring of consultation as a method of stonewalling important changes that need to be made, and need to be made quickly.
Interruption.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Charette.
0920
Mr Charette: Thank you. I'm going to need some extra time, Mr Chairman.
You can see; this is attached to your schedule. These are my handwritten notes. I asked my secretary to open a subfile on the Task Force on the Use and Provision of Medical Services. I kept this because I thought it was important.
Interjection: It's the wrong hearing.
Mr Charette: It's not the wrong hearing. We're talking about consultation hearings.
Here's another gem from 1988, and this is a great one. It's at the top of page 8. This is a speech by Dr Martin Barkin, who was the Deputy Minister of Health in the former Liberal government under Elinor Caplan. Dr Barkin spoke to the Ontario Hospital Association's financial officers in October 1988, and I was at that meeting. I remember, I came out of that meeting so thrilled that government was finally going to do something about the waste, but it hasn't been done. Here we go. He's talking about where to look for solutions, and here's what he says:
"Wherever one looks for solutions, what is desperately needed is a return to stringent quality assurance and outcome review. If it works, we should pay for it. If it does not contribute to good health, we should not. The real question remains, is someone really getting better by what we do?"
Dr Barkin goes on to discuss numerous American studies which show that many testing procedures do not actually help people get healthier. He then looks at Ontario, and I quote from Dr Barkin's speech, "A study of tests used to measure the blood levels of the heart drug Digoxin at a hospital in Ontario found that in 200 consecutive tests" -- that's 200 times up to bat -- "ordered by physicians, (1) the reason for ordering the test could not be determined in 82% of the cases." In eight out of 10 cases, no one knew why the test was being ordered, let alone even thinking about who was going to pay for it. My God, what are we?
"(2) In addition, only 36% of the results appear to have been adequately recognized." This means someone got a test result and didn't know how to interpret it. That's a lousy test. If that weren't bad enough, the fundamental conclusion is this: "In only one result in four" -- that's 25% -- "was the reading of the test followed by an appropriate decision." That's a 75% failure rate: 200 times at the plate and we failed 75% of the time.
Interjection: It sounds like the Harris government.
Mr Charette: Here they are. They're all here now. You can hear them.
The point is this: We've been talking about consultation. I was so enthused when I walked out of that meeting with Dr Barkin, I said, "My God, the Liberal government's finally going to do something about this." We're eight years down the road and it hasn't happened, and it was their own deputy minister who was talking about these things.
Let's talk about it in simple terms. Just imagine that you've got the manager at the Chrysler minivan plant here in Windsor. He gets a call from the president of Chrysler Canada and the guy says, "How are things going?" He says: "Oh, fine. By the way, we've got a 75% failure rate on some of our engine parts." "What?" "Oh, yes. I've been meaning to tell you this for eight years; we've had the same problem for eight years." I'll tell you what. Everyone in this room could go out and watch the roof blow off that minivan plant. There would be a firestorm in that organization.
Why is there not a firestorm in government? Why are we not seriously putting aside all politics and getting down and doing the job that we all know has to be done?
Let me make my closing remarks. Members of the committee, I thank you for your patience today. Let me end my submission on a positive note. I believe we live in one of the greatest jurisdictions on the face of this planet, and what's more, we have the best people, nothing but the best. I'd like to say this. We have good people, in fact we have great people, who are caught in a bad system. If that's not enough, we only have to go back two generations, to the generation of my parents and my in-laws and to their parents. They had the can-do mentality. Furthermore, they had the following characteristics: They had a respect for hard work; they had a sense of gratitude for the benefits they received, meagre as those benefits were; and they had a recognition that hard work, no matter how humble and how low the pay, always leads to greatness and to other rewards.
There's the old story of the Emperor Nero, who played his fiddle while Rome burned. Ontario is on fire and it's time we all put away our fiddles. It's time we get down to work and solve these problems honestly and sincerely. Please support this bill. I thank you for your patience. If you have any questions --
Interruption.
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I must reiterate that each time we have interruptions, and if we're forced to have recesses because of interruptions, that's going to eat into the time of the presentations. I would appreciate it if we'd have a level of decorum.
We have 15 minutes remaining for questions, five minutes per caucus. We'll start with the opposition side.
Mrs Pupatello: Mr Charette, last night, 10 hours ago, you were introduced on a television program, CHWI, as representing the government, as the government's spokesperson. How do you have any credibility to come here today and speak from any point of view other than the government's?
Mr Charette: Mrs Pupatello, a lot of things were said at that debate last night -- because I debated you, and you know it -- that I didn't have time to react to. I'm telling you right now, Sandra, you made a comment at that debate about the level of my income. You came into that debate and you complained about the government --
Mrs Pupatello: Answer my question.
Mr Charette: You complained --
Mrs Pupatello: Answer my question.
Interruption.
The Chair: A 10-minute recess.
The subcommittee recessed from 0926 to 0935.
The Chair: Thank you. I'd like to reconvene. Mrs Pupatello, you have four minutes remaining.
Mrs Pupatello: Very quickly, with respect, Mr Charette, your presentation did not once mention the words "Bill 26," and that indeed is the purpose of the hearing today. I understand, though, given your previous remarks, that you don't have a problem with, for example, powers within the bill that allow ministers absolute and authoritarian powers to make unilateral decisions like the amalgamation of townships without the consent of or in spite of the people within that particular township. Is that true?
Mr Charette: No, we are not advocating an arbitrary power. Let me give you an example.
Failure of sound system.
Mr Charette: Okay, is it on? It's on now. Look, the issue is simple; it's one of management. Everyone's been pretending -- that's what my submission has been about this morning -- to deal with problems. Decisions have to be made; they have to be made rationally. The government will exercise any powers it has. I have confidence in this government that it will do that. I'm sorry, it's been so long -- give me your question again.
Interjections.
Mr Charette: Mr Chairman, they have to be fair with me. There have been so many interruptions. I'm sorry.
Mrs Pupatello: My question was that in all of your presentation today on public hearings regarding Bill 26, you failed to mention Bill 26 today in your presentation.
Mr Charette: Mrs Pupatello, it's clear that you have not heard or have not listened to my submission. I'm talking about the issue of consultation, which frankly is central to this debate, because the member from the New Democratic Party raised it this morning. I'm telling you, he was not out of motion, and I'm telling you -- would you please listen to me, Mrs Pupatello; I'm answering your question -- the risk here is that we are proceeding too slowly and not quickly enough. That's the risk. I know there's risk both ways.
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr Charette, you've made some submissions today, but how can you suggest there's adequate consultation when there are public sector unions whose pensions, whose livelihoods, whose very way of doing business is threatened without an opportunity to speak? I think there were some 15 groups in Windsor alone that wanted to speak, and not one of them has been given the opportunity today.
Mr Charette: Let me answer you this way. Eight years ago we were $37 billion in debt.
Interjections.
Mr Charette: May I answer the question? May I please answer the question? That's $37,000 billion; just roll that around. Today we're $100 billion in debt. Mr Duncan, we know what the problems are. The government, as I demonstrated this morning, everyone in this room, knows what the problems are.
Mr Duncan: Mr Charette, I know a little bit about getting government finance under control; my colleagues here know something about it. There are other ways of doing it than this. What we've asked is, how can you stand here and suggest there's been a fair opportunity for consultation when there are vast numbers of groups in this community alone that are not getting the opportunity to even speak before this committee for five minutes?
Mr Charette: The reason is this --
Mr Duncan: How do you suggest that's consultation?
Mr Charette: Let me answer the question.
Mr Duncan: That's not consultation.
Mr Charette: Because the special-interest --
Mr Duncan: If we did this at city hall in Windsor, we'd be run out of town, legitimately.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Duncan. The time --
Mr Charette: The answer is this, sir --
The Chair: Sir, I apologize, but we have a certain amount of time for each caucus to ask questions. We've come to the end of the --
Mr Charette: Okay, I've answered the question.
Mr Cooke: Just a couple of questions, because I note that while you're not specifically representing the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, you're part of that organization, so I'd like to focus in on some of the taxing powers that are granted municipalities in particular under this legislation.
If in fact your major focus is restructuring of government and bringing government costs under control, and if in fact a piece of legislation were brought into the Legislature that said municipalities can bring in user fees for a whole host of new things, everything from swimming pools to libraries to virtually -- I mean, there's even a suggestion by one of the mayors in Toronto, in North York, that if your car catches on fire in North York and this legislation is passed, they're going to charge $300 if you're a non-resident to call the fire department for a person who drives that car.
0940
There are also legal opinions from a number of leading lawyers working for municipalities, the lawyer for the city of Toronto, the mayor of Mississauga, all across the province, that municipalities will be able to bring in an income tax, a gas tax and a sales tax. If in fact the major restructuring of this bill is to lower the provincial deficit, grant a 30% income tax cut at the provincial level and then hike up taxes and user fees at the municipal level, as a member of the taxpayers' organization, would you still support this legislation?
Mr Charette: Oh, absolutely, and Mr Harris has not broken his promise at all.
Interjection.
Mr Charette: Let me answer my question, Mr Cooke. May I please answer the question, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: Quiet, please.
Mr Charette: What this present government is saying is this: "We will take responsibility for provincial matters in those areas we are moving forward with restructuring. We are cutting expenditures at the provincial level because that's where they should be cut. And what's more, we are suggesting that taxpayers deserve a tax cut at the provincial level." The Harris government is also saying something at the local level. What it's saying at the local level is this: "We also think expenditures should be cut at the local level, and that's why we are cutting our transfer payments to municipalities and other local organizations." But --
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Mr Chairman, you want to file that briefing note, by the way?
Mr Charette: Mr Crozier, let me please speak.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): That's Mr Gerretsen; I'm Mr Crozier.
Mr Charette: Mr Gerretsen, let me please speak.
Mr Cooke: All right. Could you, very briefly --
Mr Charette: Mr Chairman, may I please answer the question? The government is also saying that expenditures should be cut. However, they are not going to try to micro-manage the province at the local level. Decisions about local expenditures must be made at the local level, and that's why we are giving flexibility to governments at the local level and at the same time warning citizens that they must be careful and get involved in local decisions. That's the best a government can do for me. No government can offer me a foolproof system. We must make decision at the closer level.
Mr Cooke: If I might get on, I've heard Mr Harris's speeches and I don't need to have them parroted back to me.
Mr Charette: That's not Mr Harris. He hasn't seen that. That's my speech. That's my speech, Mr Cooke.
Mr Cooke: In this particular community we have gone through a process whereby the community, our local councils, our labour organizations, our business organizations, all through the district health council, have been involved in reorganizing and restructuring our health care system together -- together -- and they have done that, restructured it at the local level. Now we have a piece of legislation that would say: "To hell with the district health councils. To heck with anything that happens at the local level. The Minister of Health, for the first time in the history of this province, is going to have power unto himself, accountable to nobody, to close hospitals."
How can you, as a person who's been involved in this community, support that kind of centralized power in Toronto to dictate to people in Windsor how we organize our health care system?
Mr Charette: I'll tell you why, Mr Cooke: because I've sat through my share of useless meetings at the local level, and let's face it, they're all good people here. I'm a member of the local district council committee and I've seen the stonewalling at the local level. That's my answer, sir.
Interjection: Resign now.
Mr Cooke: Mr Chair, I don't know why he doesn't resign from every organization he's involved in at the local level because they're all such useless organizations.
The Chair: Mr Cooke, thank you. We now must move to the government side.
Interruption.
The Chair: Please, ladies and gentlemen, we must move to the government side.
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Thank you, Mr Chair. Mr Charette, in the course of this morning there were a couple of comments from the audience relating to the fact that this bill would hurt the poor. As a lawyer who's been practising in this community, you represent individuals, no doubt, as well as businesses. In your view, does this bill negatively affect the livelihood of individuals in this community or do you feel that fundamentally this bill would actually support them?
Mr Charette: I think it really does help. It's going to help to free people from the burdens of government. I think it's going to offer the taxpayers of this province a cut that they deserve.
Let me tell you this thing, Mr Klees. I tell you, every factory worker, every hotel and restaurant worker, every farmer, every mining and lumber worker, every transportation worker and every casino worker in this province deserves a tax cut; don't let anybody tell me they don't.
Interjection: But you're adding user fees.
Interruptions.
Mr Klees: Mr Chair, with your permission, I'd like to perhaps just address a couple of comments in general to the people who are attending here. We really are trying to get input. I just want to advise you that with every insertion that you make into these discussions you are impeding the consultation that we are trying to make.
Interruptions.
The Chair: Is that your question?
Mr Klees: Yes. Mr Charette, with regard to the tax cuts that you refer to, a great deal has been said over the last number of weeks about how the tax cuts themselves will be negative in the recovery of the province, and that those moneys that we would put into the tax cuts should be put towards the deficit rather than returning them to the people in the province. Could you comment on that, please?
Mr Charette: Look, I think what the Harris government or this government is saying is that every dollar we put into a taxpayer's pocket is a dollar that's spent more wisely. These people, with all respect, can spend their own money more wisely, and if they would just put it into the hands of their members, things would be a lot better, and that's why I think it's going to help the province of Ontario.
Mr Klees: I have another question, Mr Charette, with regard to the transfer of authority down to the local municipalities. The accusation has been made that by allowing municipalities more powers to charge user fees, this in fact is a broken promise by our government. Do you feel that the imposition of user fees by local municipalities can be a positive thing for the overall fiscal circumstances of our province?
Mr Charette: Yes, that's right, Mr Klees, and that's what I tried to talk to Mr Cooke about. The fact is that as local citizens we have to take responsibility for local issues. Let's put it this way. I have zero control over Ottawa as a citizen. That might as well be on the moon. Toronto is tough, but at least, when I've got local decisions about expenditures and taxes being made in Windsor, I can go down to a municipal accountant or to a municipal council meeting if it's important enough for me, and I intend to do that.
Thomas Jefferson said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and what this government, Mr Klees --
Interruptions.
Mr Charette: Mr Chairman, may I answer the question?
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Charette, but your time has come to an end. I apologize for the interruptions.
Mr Charette: Thank you. That's okay, I understand.
0950
LEGAL ASSISTANCE OF WINDSOR
The Chair: May I please have Marion Overholt come forward. I'd like to welcome you today 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 some time at the end of your presentation to take questions from the three caucuses.
Ms Marion Overholt: First of all, I would like to thank the committee members for coming to Windsor and for travelling to other regions of the province. I would particularly like to thank the opposition parties for calling the government's attention to the need for extending the time for public hearings. There are many in Windsor who have requested an opportunity to speak and have not been given the opportunity. It's clear to the people of Ontario that these hearings need to be extended yet further.
In Windsor, on January 20 and 21, at city hall chambers, there will be an opportunity for the people who have not been able to present today to make presentations, and those presentations will be forwarded to this committee for its review. These alternate hearings have been arranged because we believe that it is vitally important for the government to hear from as many people as possible because of the very serious provisions in these proposals, and we also believe that it is vitally important for as many individual citizens -- I'm sorry. Please, do I have your attention?
Interjection: Apparently not.
Ms Overholt: You were speaking to this group about paying attention during the hearings, and I would appreciate it if I have your attention.
As I was saying, these alternate hearings have been arranged because we believe it is vitally important for the government to hear from as many people as possible because of the very serious nature of these proposals, and we believe that it is vitally important for as many individual citizens to understand what is contemplated by these proposals because of the immense impact these changes will have on their daily lives.
I would also advise you that today at noon, in the park adjacent to this hotel, there is a weekly silent prayer vigil taking place, where people are coming together to pray for this government's deliverance.
I turn now to a review of the proposals contained in the omnibus legislation.
There are four fundamental rights which are substantially altered by this legislation. I will read you them in the following order: First of all is the right to know; secondly, the right of publicly appointed and elected bodies to manage their own affairs in a manner that is directly accountable to the people; thirdly, the right of the Legislative Assembly to receive, review and revise proposed legislation; and fourthly, the right of every citizen to participate in a healthy community where the rights to basic service and care are protected and safeguarded.
First of all I will speak about the right to know. The freedom of information legislation was originally enacted to allow ordinary citizens the opportunity to obtain and review government documents concerning government decisions which affected their lives. Requests for information that would violate the economic interests of Ontario, interfere with law enforcement or place a person's health or safety at risk were expressly excluded from the access. Therefore, the best interests of government and the individual citizens had already been safeguarded by this legislation.
This government's proposed amendments would allow the head of an institution from which the information was requested to dismiss that request for information on the basis of its being deemed to be "frivolous or vexatious." Neither term is defined by the amendments. There are no guidelines to determine what constitutes a "frivolous or vexatious" request. Therefore, how will this determination be made? The request-for-information form does not disclose any reason for the request, so the determination will be made on the basis of the impact of that request on the institution.
Was there any need for this revision? The Information and Privacy Commissioner had already proceeded to court in cases where the requests had proven to be without merit, so why would this function now be delegated to the head of an institution instead of being subject to the independent review of the courts of law?
Of similar concern is a provision to assess fees for the filing of an application and appeal. These proposed changes here, as in other instances, are so vague and undefined that one wonders if the real intent is to prohibit the ordinary citizen from gaining access to government documents.
These amendments effectively undermine the legislated purposes of the act which are contained in the legislation. These purposes are that information shall be available to the public; secondly, that exemptions shall be limited and specified; and thirdly, that the decision of the disclosure of government documents should be reviewed independently of government.
At a time when this administration is contemplating a massive restructuring of government services, greater access, not diminished access, to information is required. If you are acting in the public's best interests, then you have nothing to fear by recognizing the citizens' right of access to information.
Turning now to the right of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario to receive, review and revise proposed legislation: This right is as important to a democracy as the right to vote and to run in an election, which must be called at least every five years. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right of legislative assemblies to be called into session on an annual basis. To give substance and weight to this charter right, it is essential that the Legislative Assembly be permitted to make democracy work. If cabinet usurps this function, our democracy is seriously weakened.
Your proposed changes would invest cabinet, and in particular the Minister of Health, with virtually unlimited powers with respect to the funding, operation, closure and amalgamation of public hospitals. This is yet another example of this government broadening the criteria to make such decisions instead of requiring specific adherence to defining regulations. The minister's decision under this legislation must be made only in reference to the public interest, which again is not defined.
I am here to tell you that in this community the hospital boards, the unions and the community have shown the government the wisdom in leaving these decisions in the hands of the local community, as they are the only ones that are best able to know and assess the needs of that community. Why would you usurp this function and give it to the minister with only a vague reference to public interest?
Of serious concern is the clear determination of this government to shield its ministers from the legal liability that would flow from the exercise of power. This confirms our fear that this government is attempting to seize the powers but not the responsibility, nor the accountability, that would flow from the exercise of those powers.
When we examine the rights of publicly appointed and elected bodies to conduct their own affairs, we see that this legislation reveals an intention to allow the municipal government the rights to alter or eliminate local boards such as the public utilities commissions, transportation commissions, public library boards, health boards and the like. It is of utmost significance that these amendments require the municipalities to provide information to the minister regarding the efficiency and the effectiveness of the municipalities' operation. This emphasis distorts the true assessment of service, looking only at the economics and not the necessity and the quality of the service provider.
I am here to tell you that in this community, as in other communities across North America, citizens and local governments and agencies are practising cooperative coordination of service in the form of healthy communities projects. These projects aim to coordinate service delivery to the local community to avoid duplication, waste and to ensure that the essential needs of the community are recognized and met.
1000
The core element in all of these projects is the principle that citizens must be able to actively participate in the decisions that will affect their lives. Why then would this government usurp the authority of local boards and thereby deny the community the right to participate in the creation of community within their towns and cities? Your proposals do not dismantle big government. They create top-heavy government and deny the access of ordinary citizens and legislative representatives to influence decision-makers, whose critical decisions will be made without public participation, debate or review.
This brings me to the last right which I wish to discuss, which is the right to participate in a healthy community where the rights to basic service and care are safeguarded and protected. To infer that restructuring will save the taxpayers money is illusionary when the local municipalities are being targeted as the primary service delivery agents. Because they cannot run deficit budgets, property taxes, user fees and poll taxes will be assessed against the taxpayer.
What will be gained as a result? Only greater economic disparity between the regions of Ontario and between the citizens themselves. People across Ontario will not be able to access uniform services, nor be entitled to basic minimum standards of access and delivery of services of health care, child care, recreational and other municipal services.
It is not in the best interests of Ontario to further the gap in the standard of living between the rich and the poor. In Canada now, the richest one fifth of the population receives close to one half of the income. The poorest one fifth receives 3.3%. Low-income people will not be able to afford garbage collection fees, library charges, recreation facility levies and park entrance fees, the services that promote individual and community wellbeing.
User fees for prescription drugs will prohibit low-income people from receiving the medical aid when they require it. As a result of drastic reductions through welfare and mother's allowance benefits, parents already choose between paying the rent and buying food. To require them to pay prescription costs without reimbursement will only increase their suffering. Further, the depression rate among mothers whose income is less than $20,000 per annum is at 60% already. As a society, it is counterproductive and immoral to restrict medical care to the financially eligible rather than the medically needy.
Further, by amending the pay equity plans, pension plans and arbitration procedures, this government is undervaluing the contribution of these workers and diminishing the essential services we all depend on, and as a result we collectively will suffer.
I will conclude with a quote from a great Canadian, who said:
"It is through the formation of democracies that people determine standards of living, access to resources and wealth of a country and the conditions under which business will be conducted. A nation is made up of the history, customs, traditions and laws of the families and communities who live in it, and it is more than an economic unit. To surrender that history and that common heritage to economic forces is to define Canada only in terms of the bottom line -- the corporate vision."
In joining with Maude Barlow, our message to this government is simple: We will not surrender.
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, please. We'll begin the questions with Mr Silipo.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Thank you, Ms Overholt, for your presentation and I think for painting a very clear picture of some of the impacts that Bill 26 and some of the other policies of the government will have on the average citizen of the province. I want to focus in on the last area that you talked about and add another piece and ask for your comment.
One of the things that we believe is driving, very clearly, probably the thing that is driving most directly the government's agenda is this intent on shifting resources, shifting power, shifting money from the hands of those who are not as well-off to those who are in fact the most well-off. What we see in the tax cuts, which by even the government's own estimates are going to require about $4 billion -- we think it's closer to $6 billion -- in further cuts in order to find that money, because it's money that is borrowed, just like the rest of the money that is borrowed, one of the most astounding things, when we look at the distribution of those cuts, is that 13% of the people who are among the highest income, those who make $85,000 or more, will reap the benefits of over 40% of the value of those tax cuts. So that means that again, even through those tax cuts, we clearly are shifting more of the public resources and the public funds into the hands of those that one could argue need them the least.
At the same time, through the creation of a whole new host of taxes, direct and indirect, at the municipal level, through user fees, through the ability of municipalities to raise a whole variety of taxes, including a head tax, we are seeing in effect a compounding of that shift of that kind of taxation on to the hands and shoulders of those who are least able to pay.
Given the kind of clientele that you deal with at your clinic, what kind of impact is that going to have on the people of Windsor, in particular people you deal with?
Ms Overholt: It will have an immense impact, because people are having a tremendously difficult time coping with the cuts that have already been levied against them in their benefits, and what this government has failed to understand is that in paying welfare recipients adequate benefits, it means that every dollar you give to them goes back into the community. They support the local economies, they support the drug stores, the local grocery stores. They're not taking the money out of the country to have Florida vacations, such as the people who are going to receive the tax cuts will.
Now, because people are having such a tremendously hard time and struggling with the cuts that have already been levied against them, when you give the municipalities the right to levy fees that are going to hit them in the same way as any other person, that's a very regressive form of taxation, and you will see them not being able to take their children to the park, to recreational facilities, not to be able to afford basic garbage collection, because they have no spare income. It's all going to food and rent. So it will have a very severe effect.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Silipo. For the government side, Mr Young.
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): I'd like to ask you, did you know that the restructuring around Bill 26 puts 140,000 new low-income people on the Ontario drug benefit plan?
Ms Overholt: But if you look at the drug benefit plan, you are going to charge them a fee to have a prescription filled. If you have a prescription that's not covered by the Ontario drug benefit plan, then you are required to pay the difference between what the prescribed drug is and what the similar drug is under the plan. There's a continuing possibility that the drugs covered on that plan will again be cut back --
Mr Young: But do you see that's a positive thing and did you know that 140,000 brand-new people are going to be able to receive free drugs, with only a $2 charge?
Ms Overholt: Well, it's not an only $2 charge when you don't have the money, Mr Young.
1010
Mr Young: Do you see that as a positive thing in Bill 26 is what I'm trying to get at. Because I think it's wonderful. I'm really pleased that --
Ms Overholt: But I think you have to look at the total impact. If you look at the reason why people are on assistance and on disability pensions, it's usually because they have had a workplace accident that they're not being adequately compensated for. They've been injured, so their drug costs are an important issue for them.
Mr Young: Thank you. Okay.
Ms Overholt: So putting a charge in there is not going to be helpful.
Interruption
Mr Young: No, I didn't. I didn't get the answer, but it's okay, I'll ask a different question.
With regard to your participation in the community, I totally support the idea that the local government controls local boards. Let me give you an example.
Two weeks ago, and I think everyone in this room will sympathize with this, Leslie Mahaffy's father was on the TV and he was begging the local library board to take a ghoulish book about his daughter's rape and murder out of the library. He was in tears and they turned him down. Now he has no recourse whatsoever. If that library board were controlled by the local council, he could go to his local councillor and mayor and say: "Help me with this situation. Come on. Get this library board in control and get them to respond to the community."
That's response to the community. Doesn't that make sense to you?
Ms Overholt: Mr Young, you know what I'm afraid of? I'm afraid of giving more power to cabinet ministers like Mr Tsubouchi --
Mr Young: Please answer my question, because I'm really interested in your answer to my question.
Ms Overholt: I'm answering it. I listened to you. Could you please listen to me?
Interruption.
Ms Overholt: We're talking about the exercise of power and who should have it.
Mr Young: Of local boards, yes.
Ms Overholt: Your position is that if local boards had more autonomy, they would make better decisions.
Mr Young: No, that they'd be responsible to a local government, which is making them more democratic.
Ms Overholt: They are. They are responsible. Those boards are all appointed or elected locally.
My point is that I am really concerned about the exercise of power when we have people in cabinet like Mr Tsubouchi, who signs regulations without reading them. If you expand that role and allow greater opportunity, that is a real problem for this province, Mr Young.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Young. Ms Pupatello.
Mrs Pupatello: We understand that this government is laying out the plan so that it will be every man for himself. You were mentioning library fees, for example. Let me tell you about comments that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has made -- and he understands that indeed local municipalities will maybe not be encouraged outright by him, but he understands that they may charge user fees for such things as libraries, library fees, user fees etc. He said that he was encouraged that one town, one city, was planning to seek corporate donors to sponsor such activities as library use, ice skating, swimming pools and public pools for underprivileged children. This is a minister speaking in terms of what he sees communities doing after the implementation of the bill. How do you feel about that?
Ms Overholt: I think if the corporations were paying their fair share of tax, we wouldn't be needing them to make charitable donations such as that.
Mrs Pupatello: Just as a quick supplement to that, I think we all saw this book that came out during the campaign, where, I quote, "Under this plan, there will be no new user fees." How do you feel about that today?
Ms Overholt: It's clear the legislation contemplates user fees and I don't know how this government thinks otherwise. User fees are going to be a prohibitive cost to people accessing basic services, especially low-income people.
Mr Duncan: Marion, quickly, you have made reference -- it's a point I haven't heard yet in the hearings -- about the disparities between municipalities and how the assessments in different municipalities are going to be affected. It would be my submission that the amendments contained in the bill are such that a city like Windsor, where you have an urban core with a high level of poverty, is going to be disproportionately affected. Would you agree with that in terms of its impact, and what comments would you offer with respect to the whole notion of breaking down the system of how we equally share provincial funding across the province?
Ms Overholt: Yes, I'm very concerned about that, because I think the different communities in Ontario are in very different states of provision of services and ability to provide those services as a result of losing provincial dollars. So if you put more authority in the hands of municipalities without setting out some basic standards, you are going to find some areas of Ontario that are not going to be able to look after the needy in their communities. Living in Windsor, we are ever aware of what happens when you do not provide an adequate social safety net. We only need to look across the river and see the devastation and waste in human potential that is in the state of Michigan because their government has failed to provide basic services to low-income people. That is exactly where this government is heading.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Overholt, for taking the time to appear before the committee today.
WINDSOR AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: Can I please have a representative from the Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce come forward? Good morning, sir, and welcome to the standing committee on general government. This morning you'll have 30 minutes to make a presentation. You may use that time as you wish. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation to field responses and questions from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it, for the benefit of the members and Hansard, if you'd read your name and organization into the record. You can begin any time.
Mr Larry Sandre: Thank you. I'm just getting my voice back from a bout of the flu and some pneumonia, so bear with me.
Good morning. My name is Larry Sandre. I am the president of the Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce. I am pleased to make this presentation before the committee today on behalf of the chamber on Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act. My intention is to give you a brief overview of the position of the chamber regarding the government's omnibus legislation.
The Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce is an association representing over 1,000 business and professional members. As part of our mandate, we represent the interests of our business community with respect to changing government legislation and policies. Our goal is to establish effective communications between business, labour and government in fostering a better economic climate throughout our community.
Our members are drawn from all areas of our district and cover a wide cross-section of business. They include small, medium and large employers who provide thousands of jobs and one of the highest standards of living in the world. Our expansive and diverse membership and our grass-roots, democratic model of government solidify the position of the Windsor and district chamber as the voice of business for our community.
The Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce supports the general purpose of Bill 26, which is "to achieve fiscal savings and promote economic prosperity through public-sector restructuring, streamlining and efficiency." It is clear that government restructuring is long overdue. With deficits averaging near $10 billion annually over the past four years and an accumulated debt of more than $90 billion, it is imperative that the Ontario government take strong measures to reduce spending and get its finances under control.
The Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce believes that the role of government in today's economy is to create a climate that will encourage people to go into business, to help businesses grow and to attract new investment and jobs. In the past, government has been all things to all people. Today, we have realized that government just cannot afford this any more.
Restructuring government and restoring confidence in the financial strength of the province is essential to the future of our economy. As you may know, many of our members have had to restructure their operations over the past decade to stay competitive in this increasingly difficult marketplace. The ones who have adjusted have successfully emerged from the recession of the early 1990s. The ones who did not adjust are unfortunately no longer with us.
1020
The Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce believes that the provincial government must also adjust to the changing times and demands which are being placed upon it by today's modern society. The government must realize that we cannot afford to continue running up $10-billion deficits without seriously jeopardizing the economic future of our children and our grandchildren.
We support the purpose of Bill 26 because it provides the mechanism for the provincial government and municipalities to commence this restructuring effort, improve the financial strength of the province and to send a strong message that Ontario wants to work with the private sector to create jobs and foster economic growth.
We realize that this is not the first instance of omnibus legislation. The previous government introduced at least five such bills. The largest was Bill 175, the Statute Law Amendment Act, government management and services, 1994, which amended 139 different statutes and involved 14 different ministries. By comparison, Bill 26 affects only 47 statutes and involves 10 ministries. We also realize that prior omnibus bills were passed quickly in the House, some in as few as three days.
We understand that about four weeks of hearings on this Bill 26 are planned and under way. However, we feel that this period of time to allow fully informed stakeholder input is still too short. As an example, we have separately suggested to Minister Witmer that a period of six months be considered for public consultation on the proposed changes to workers' compensation.
Bill 26 is very broad and proposes amendments to many pieces of legislation affecting our members. I would like at this point to focus on the proposed changes to the various acts that will have the most impact on our members.
Proposed changes to the Municipal Act: Schedule M of Bill 26 contains amendments to the Ontario Municipal Act and various other statutes related to municipalities, conservation authorities and transportation. I would like to focus on two specific amendments proposed in the legislation, namely, the proposal to give municipalities and local boards broadened powers to impose fees or charges for any services or activities they provide and the addition of a new part in the Municipal Act that establishes new general licensing powers to municipalities.
While we support the goal of restructuring and the introduction of fee-for-service, the Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce is concerned about the broad powers in Bill 26 that are given to municipalities to impose fees or charges for any services or activities provided by them.
While the bill gives the Minister of Municipal Affairs the power to make regulations limiting or imposing conditions on the imposition of fees or charges levied by municipalities, we believe that greater definition should be given to the types of fees or charges that may be permitted under this section.
The chamber of commerce is concerned that this proposed amendment will lead to municipalities imposing fees that do not correspond to the value of the service being provided. Furthermore, we are concerned that the fees may be imposed on businesses for the sole purpose of raising municipal revenues and not specifically related to any activity or service provided by the municipal government. This may have a serious impact on the ability of businesses to create jobs and grow. We believe that this proposed amendment should be improved to limit municipalities to charging fees on a value-for-money basis and not for the sole purpose of raising revenue.
We are also concerned about an amendment which denies people the opportunity to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board the imposed fees or charges levied by a municipality or local board under the act on the grounds that the fees or charges are unfair or unjust. We believe that the government should provide some flexibility in the legislation for people who may have extenuating circumstances and permit, at the very least, the opportunity for an appeal.
The chamber of commerce is concerned about a new part added to the Municipal Act giving municipalities general licensing powers. The new part gives municipalities the ability to license and regulate any business carried out in the municipality. The chamber is concerned that, as currently worded, trade and competition may be restricted by municipalities through this new section of the act. We do not oppose giving municipalities the power to pass bylaws providing for the licensing and regulation of businesses; however, we believe that the proposed amendment needs to be defined and clarified to ensure that municipalities do not unfairly restrict business from operating or impose additional regulatory requirements that will threaten the ability of the private sector to create jobs and grow.
Proposed amendments to the Corporations Tax Act: The chamber of commerce supports the proposed changes contained in schedule B of Bill 26 to the Corporations Tax Act concerning the Ontario innovation tax credit for small and medium-sized Canadian-controlled private corporations having permanent establishments in Ontario in respect of scientific research and experimental development in Ontario. We believe that providing tax incentives for business is a positive role that government can play to encourage the private sector to invest in the province. The proposed amendments to the Corporations Tax Act will assist these sectors to create jobs and contribute to the overall provincial economy.
Bill 26 contains amendments to the Independent Health Facilities Act concerning the use of personal medical information. The proposed amendment provides the Minister of Health with new powers to collect, use and disclose personal information for specified purposes and to enter into agreements for the exchange of personal information for specified purposes. While the Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce understands the goal of the provincial government to reduce fraud in the health care system, we believe that the government's powers should be better defined due to the highly sensitive nature of this information.
Bill 26 is a very broad and comprehensive bill that contains amendments to various pieces of legislation necessary to restructure the public sector to achieve fiscal savings and improve the operating efficiency of government. The chamber of commerce understands the broad direction being charted by the government through this legislation. We do suggest that the government improve the clarity of some sections and consider allowing for an increase in the period of time for fully informed public input. We appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to offer to you the position of the Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce on Bill 26. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. Just about four minutes per caucus; we begin with the government caucus.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much for the presentation this morning. I have just a couple of questions on the user fee and the licensing powers that are contained in the bill in the M section. There have been a lot of presentations made that the local municipalities are more accountable for these types of charges to the people they represent; that in fact licensing and user fees as they relate to businesses would create a competitive atmosphere. You suggested that you do not want municipalities to tax their businesses out of business, but I think most would agree that local municipalities want to increase their tax base, not decrease it. Do you not see that this would keep the lid, shall we say, on the taxing or the licensing fees to be competitive with their neighbouring municipalities?
Mr Sandre: I think each municipality will have to look very intimately inward into how it operates and what services and what levels of services it provides. I don't necessarily believe that user fees will have to be implemented in all cases. However, what we are suggesting is that we would rather have more clarity and understanding in the legislation that any user fees that ultimately end up being legislated at the municipal level are on a value-for-money basis, a cost-recovery basis, that it's not just for the simple purpose of passing on a poll tax to the people.
1030
Mr Hardeman: On the other issue, the appeal to the OMB on the user fees, you do recognize that presently the user pays the municipality's charge, and the property taxes it assesses to pay for the services it provides are not appealable to the OMB, that this is not a change, from the municipal perspective. You were aware of that?
Mr Sandre: No, I was not aware of that. However, it's mentioned in some other cases in this legislation where certain rights of appeal to the taxpayer are denied. Again, I'm not intimate with Bill 26, but I believe one of those instances was uncollectible tolls for certain highways. We feel that the right to an appeal is a right that should be maintained, especially if there are any extenuating circumstances that could be brought up before the appeal board.
Mr Duncan: I was most interested in two parts of your presentation. I want to come back to the issue of municipal taxes, the provisions in schedule M that will allow a broad new range of user fees. Can you define for us how your members would be concerned about a municipality's ability to levy a sales tax, a user fee for garbage collection, and what your chamber's view is with respect to the impact that will have on investment and, most important, job creation in a community such as ours?
Mr Sandre: Is your question regarding how businesses feel about user fees? Is that the gist of it?
Mr Duncan: Yes, and how it will affect investment decisions and job creation in this community.
Mr Sandre: I think businesses understand that the goal of a user fee is that if a service is consumed or utilized, there will be a fee charged for the utilization of that service. What it does is force an operation to look inward to determine -- as a common example that seems to be cited, now that there is a fee for garbage collection, the operation not only of business but also individuals would look to better ensure that the least amount of garbage is put out. I think there are ways of ensuring competitiveness within that user fee structure.
With regard to not causing investment, or what impact it may have on investment, businesses these days deal in so many varying types of environments that this environment would be another example of a change that businesses would have to contend with, and successfully contend with, and still go on to create jobs.
Mr Duncan: On page 5 of your brief, "The chamber suggests that the government improve the clarity and consider allowance for increasing the period of time for fully informed public input." Is it then the position of the Windsor chamber of commerce that this government ought to have more public hearings and allow greater opportunity for input from the people in this community and right across Ontario?
Mr Sandre: Yes, it is, and we have certainly gone public with that, as you're well aware, in the past.
Mrs Pupatello: I'd like to go back to the availability in the bill for the addition of taxes. The mayor of Toronto, the mayor of Mississauga, all of them, are gleeful in discovering that they'll be able to apply new gas taxes, sales taxes. It's the position of the CFIB, for example, and I believe the Ontario chamber, that any new tax is anti-business. Do you feel the same way?
Mr Sandre: That sounds somewhat related to what Mr Duncan was asking in terms of how user fees affect the competitiveness --
Mrs Pupatello: But these are taxes specifically.
Mr Sandre: User fees, or any taxes, we want to be considered in a value-for-money concept, not just as a revenue grab. That's where businesses are coming from. Any increase in tax to anybody can be considered regressive. However, with the number of changes going on in our province, in Canada and worldwide, businesses would be able to adapt to those particular types of changes.
Mr Cooke: Thank you, Larry, for appearing before us this morning. You're one of the chosen few.
One of the things that has struck me so far is that in our one week of public hearings in Toronto, we've had the board of trade and chambers from a couple of communities before us, and they basically say, "We agree with the title of the act, `restructuring,'" but when you start getting into specifics, there's a lot of concern both about process and some of the specifics in the bill.
We've had some experience in this community with restructuring our health care system, experience every time I've met with the chamber, that there has been a lot of support for that process at the local level for restructuring our hospital system.
Do you have any concerns at all that what this bill does is centralize power to an extent where the process we've experienced in Windsor, where the community has worked towards restructuring the health care system, would be out the window and that would be done by a new commission? Talk about bureaucracy. If you look through this bill, it sets a whole series of new bureaucracies at Toronto to decide for Windsor what will be done. Would you have concern if in fact the process we have used in Windsor were thrown out the window and it was decided basically by a restructuring commission in Toronto about our hospital system?
Mr Sandre: There are a lot of questions in there, but yes, certainly I would have a concern if the proposal we have currently in our hospital restructuring phase is thrown out the window. That to me just would not make sense. It would not be in the public interest, I believe.
In regard to the centralization of power, we have a concern that there seems to be a lot of areas that need further clarification, further definition, to understand exactly what powers are involved here.
I would like to mention that this is very much akin to a company that's going through a restructuring mode where a restructuring committee is set up, and it just centralizes and becomes the in-and-out point of for decisions to be made, for information to be exchanged. It's not uncommon to have some sort of centralized authority. However, it's just unclear from my reading of what I've been able to get my hands on in Bill 26 exactly how much power is centralized within this authority, under the different ministries.
Mr Cooke: I suggest you take a very close look at it. I know there are some parallels the business community wants to use about restructuring government versus restructuring the private sector. I would argue that the private sector doesn't need to worry about democracy, since they either have some shareholders they report to or in some cases a very limited number of owners to report to. In a democracy, there are 11 million people in this province that a government is responsible to, not just a very small group of people in Toronto to dictate to the rest of the province.
Perhaps you can give us some input in the future on this also: You focused on licensing and user fees, and I'd ask you to specifically look at the taxing powers being granted to municipalities and whether you would support a municipality being given the power to introduce an income tax, a sales tax and a gas tax at the local level, which this bill does. If the bill does do that, does that change your view on this legislation?
Mr Sandre: I think the comments I made along the user fee line apply to the imposition of any new taxes as well, that municipalities not look at this as purely a revenue-grab mechanism but to charge for services, either through a user fee or tax on a value-for-money basis only. I also believe that municipalities will be looking inward. We've heard a number of them already go public with regard to the fact that they will be assessing their operations internally first before doing anything with regard to a user fee or tax increase.
We're saying that if it comes to that point, the value-for-money concept should be set out in the legislation for the municipalities to follow, not to allow just a windfall revenue grab.
The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward today and making your presentation. We appreciate it.
1040
WINDSOR PUBLIC LIBRARY
The Chair: Would a representative from the Windsor Public Library please come forward? Good morning and welcome to the committee. You have 30 minutes this morning to use as you see fit; you may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions. I'd appreciate it if you'd read your names into the record for the benefit of committee members and Hansard.
Ms Jean Dirksen: First of all, thank you very much for the ability to come forward. My name is Jean Dirksen, the chief executive officer of the Windsor Public Library system. With me is John Martel, the chair of the Windsor Public Library board. I've given you a brief handout which summarizes the two points I want to make.
Point number one: Given the inevitability of reduced tax support for our public library systems, I'm requesting that this government remove any legislative restriction which presently exists on our ability to generate revenue, thereby allowing us to protect our existing services and to develop new services. What we need to do in public libraries to keep ourselves moving forward in a healthy fashion is to diversify our funding sources, just as corporations have to. In our case, our sources of funding are predominantly municipal; 92% of our money comes from the local taxpayer. For additional funding sources, we have to rely on our fund-raising. What I'm asking you to is remove section 23 of the Public Libraries Act, which presently restricts our ability to charge user fees, and I am talking of modest user fees.
What I'm suggesting we should be allowed to do is make our decisions at the municipal level. Let the municipality work out what level of support it can give its public library system through the tax base, and then allow us, beyond that, to diversify into the other areas. One of the legislative things you're already working on is the establishment of the crown foundation.
With respect to user fees, I can give you examples of other jurisdictions in Canada where modest user fees have been allowed. Tax support has remained healthy, but also, in the midst of rising costs -- our costs are going up phenomenally to provide library service -- municipalities that have been allowed to establish a modest fee have also been able to use that to protect existing services and keep abreast of what is needed in a technological environment to build good technological service, on the ergonomic level as well as on the technological level.
Edmonton Public Library, for example, charges a fee of $1 a month -- that's what it works out to; it's $12 a year -- for a library card. There are other packages they offer in their funding, the details of which I don't know exactly, but you can get a family card and I believe they exempt children. But the average charge to a single adult is $12 a year. From a modest user fee of that kind, they've brought in $800,000 a year, which has helped them maintain their existing services and of course continue to develop new ones. What I'm asking for is that type of flexibility at our level as well.
I'll give you an example of some of the needs we have in Windsor which are very typical of what I'm sure you'll hear other library systems tell you they need. We definitely need to upgrade our computer system. We are not providing a state-of-the-art service presently to our community, which means we're not giving them the democratic access they need to the information highway -- to use a cliché, but I can't think of a better term for it. We also, as well as developing a good computer system for technological access, absolutely have to keep up the ergonomic components that go with that, which means we have to revamp our workforce so that our workers can provide these services without any negative impact to their health. This costs money.
We have aging buildings which need to be upgraded for, again, the safety of public and workers, as well as just to protect the investment of the tax dollars in these buildings to begin with. We have underserved areas of the city. The most pressing need we have at the moment is in the Sandwich area, where there is a very strong need for library service and where we have to start a fund-raising initiative to get it going. These are the kinds of things you're going to get told in any public library system, but these are the reasons we need to have whatever flexibility we can to maintain democratic access to information and still keep the funding level healthy.
The second point I'd like to make is on the library foundation. We're very happy that you have taken the initiative to establish a crown foundation for public libraries, and we're requesting further that this initiative be undertaken in such a way that would enable the establishment of these charitable foundations at the local level.
I think we have to recognize that public libraries are local institutions; they're not provincial institutions, so please remove whatever roadblocks there are to the municipal support of these systems as well as allowing us the local flexibility. And in the case of the crown foundations, obviously any donations we can get through a crown foundation offer a better tax incentive for significant donations, so that's why we want this. To have it at the local level I think is going to stimulate, frankly, more volunteer interest in fund-raising, but also I think it will be easier to administer. If you set up the crown foundation at the provincial level, you're going to have to set up a body to administer it. You already have those bodies existing, at the local level, through the public library system you already have in place.
My only conclusion is just, and I'm taking these words out of the AMO document that you've probably already received, that public libraries need the tools to manage their major funding reductions in ways that minimize service disruption, allow us to maintain priority services and enable us to move purposely forward in the establishment of new services, all without a major impact on property taxpayers.
Also, I just want to say a thank you to our existing MPPs here. Dave Cooke, Dwight Duncan and Sandra Pupatello have all been extremely helpful in any of the work we've had to do dealing with Queen's Park. I thank you, and now I introduce John Martel.
Mr John Martel: I guess my comments are a little bit broader. They're more on a provincial basis. I'm also a member of the southern Ontario library services committee, and basically we have responsibility, therefore, for interlibrary services throughout southern Ontario.
I urge the government, in its restructuring, to keep in mind that the future is a future of information. The information age is coming upon us very quickly, and to be able to keep up, I believe that we need some provincial assistance in so far as ensuring that provincially we continue with the idea that libraries need to become, and should become, one place to look for information.
I was very dismayed at the last round of provincial cutbacks, for example, in which the Ontario library system services, both northern and southern, were cut 37%, and yet Metro library services, which perform exactly the same services, were cut 5%. That disturbs me. I don't think that's equitable. I think you need to go back and look at that again.
If you have Ontario library services, whether they're divided into two or three portions -- southern, northern and also Metro -- I don't particularly care about that, but if you are giving the Ontario library services the mandate to consolidate and to be a central diffusion point for all services, you should try to do it on an equitable basis. I do believe that the library concept of one place to look is a very good concept and should be followed.
1050
On a local basis, for your information, just to expand on what Jean has talked about, we have just embarked here on I guess a consolidation of our services and we have also embarked upon consultation with our ratepayers. We have just received back from our local ratepayers 743 surveys, which went out during the summer months, and that was a good month and we know that; we therefore missed a lot of people, and I think it's tremendous that we received that number of surveys back. From those surveys, which are utilization and service surveys, it became very evident that for many people the local library is a second home; a place where they go to research information; a place where they go to enhance their educational capabilities; a place where they go for research on finding jobs. We very much need to be able to expand on that. I don't think we can do that just locally; I think we have to do that in concert with all other libraries in the province.
I guess I'm therefore urging you, during the restructuring, to take a look at the services that you want libraries to provide, not just locally, but also on a provincial basis. I think we need to take a look at that and ensure that you continue what has occurred so far.
In so far as the potential for, I suppose, councils to get rid of special service groups such as library boards, I guess I see both sides of that. I have sat on the county council library board, which of course, if you know, is three council members and two people from the public. It worked very well. I think what's more important, rather than who controls the board, is the composition of the board. Again, I have to tell you that you should look at some people from the province who can give some guidelines as to how boards should be chosen. Currently we have a new library board made up of 11 members; previously it was 15 members. Our city council, I have to tell you, has been very good in ensuring that the selection process was quite good in terms of forming a valid library.
In terms of fees for service, I firmly believe that as they pertain to libraries, they should be very minimal. There's no way that we could have fees for service in the library system that would recover all the costs. I therefore urge you to continue giving provincial support to libraries. I feel badly that I guess on a city-wide basis, on a large basis such as we are, we have greater access to funding because of the larger tax base. The smaller municipalities -- I'm not here representing them -- will require more help. You will have to continue that on a provincial basis, otherwise it will be the haves and the have-nots. I don't believe that is fair.
I thank you for your time in listening to us. Again, good luck with your deliberations. I believe that the province needs to restructure and needs to take some services out of the central and give them back to municipalities. The one thing that bothers me throughout Bill 26, and it's bothered me for a long time, and people such as Dwight Duncan will know what I'm talking about -- Dwight and I sat on the solid waste authority, and valid public consultation will make or break everything that you do.
The Chair: Thank you. We have five minutes per caucus for questions. We'll start with the opposition.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the presentation. I'm a little confused by it in the sense that what Ms Dirksen said is a little bit different from what Mr Martel said, I think, if I heard you right, in that the thrust of Ms Dirksen's comments was, and not only the thrust, but the words, "remove any legislative restriction...on our ability to generate revenue, thereby allowing us to protect" -- essentially, remove any restrictions on revenue generation and be very flexible on the setting up of the crown foundations and the charitable foundations.
My concern with the written brief is, do we inevitably, therefore, head to a better library system in well-to-do communities than in less well-to-do communities? This has happened where hospital foundations have access to a very good base and where other hospitals don't, that you get two tiers of hospitals. My colleague Sandra Pupatello mentioned earlier that one of the mayors supported by the minister said, "I'm very happy with the library fees going up, and there'll be library fees for all people who use books, but we'll find corporate donors for underprivileged children."
As I read this brief I thought the Windsor board is totally in support of essentially removing any restrictions on fees and user fees and any restrictions on raising funds through crown corporations. It's kind of like a total free-enterprise library system. I frankly wonder, is that what we want? As I listen to you, Mr Martel, I think you were cautioning us, "Be very careful of heading down that road." But that's certainly where the government's going; make no mistake about that. But I thought the brief was supporting that direction.
My concern is, as I say, that we end up with really a two-tier system. If you've got enough money to use the library, you'll have free access. If you don't, you've got to go out and find a corporate sponsor, which I find, frankly, totally objectionable, personally.
I just wonder what we should take from the brief. What is your message to us? Is it that it's wide open, and the library system is now kind of a free-enterprise system, or should we be very cautious of that direction?
Mr Martel: I think first of all, if you look at the purpose, basically, for Jean's comments, she said given the inevitability of reduced tax support, when that occurs, then you're going to have to free it up. I'm going further than that and I'm saying to you that when tax support is reduced, then there is a provincial interest that must be maintained as well, and that provincial interest is in terms of the information age. I guess I'm approaching it from that perspective.
From the second hat that I'm wearing, being a member of the southern Ontario library system and not just the Windsor Public Library, I think we both agree very much, though, that the types of fees to be imposed cannot be a total recovery service. You heard Jean give the example of $1 a month, and as far as I'm concerned, I'm one who really believes that in certain cases you have rules but you can, if necessary, make some exceptions, and I think we know what we're talking about.
Ms Dirksen: I said in my comments that I see libraries being funded through three sources, the municipal being the core source. What I'm talking about is that that is our core funding. What you can do, once you know what your core funding support is, is you can establish what the core services are, and I think you'll probably be getting some other feedback on what I suggest are core services.
The community library association has done considerable work in defining what are core services. "Core services" means that you don't pay additionally, beyond your tax support, for those particular services.
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt. It's Mr Cooke's time.
Mr Cooke: Thank you for the presentation. I never get confused. If there's a perceived difference between the chair of the board and chief executive officer, I always know that the chair of the board is right. That's how the system works, right?
Mr Martel: Not really. We work together.
Mr Cooke: I just have a question that I'm not entirely clear on. I understand the need to maintain an adequate number of dollars to maintain your services, but I also am very concerned about access to programs and to books as a former Minister of Education.
When we began getting into grade 9 reading and writing tests, the testing we did showed very clearly that kids who had access to reading material at a very young age, and were read to at a very young age, did far superior to kids who did not have that access at a very young age. We're not just talking, as some people might think, of libraries as a frill in our society. We're talking about access to programs and materials that can define their success in the educational system and therefore success in society in the future.
1100
I guess I want to, number one, get an understanding of how you would deal with equal access if user fees are put in place, especially for low-income families. Secondly, I'd like you to give a very brief description of some of the programs, because I think there are some people who would believe that libraries are there, that there's staff who will help you find the book you want to look for, and that's all that happens at a library. You and I know that's a portion of what happens at a library, but there are a lot of programs directed at kids that help them learn to read at a very young age.
Ms Dirksen: Yes, definitely our core programs are our children's programs and those are the ones we give priority to. Actually, it's because of cuts we've had over the years that we're really not doing any adult programming other than what volunteers come in and do. We still have adult programs going on, but those people you see doing those programs are volunteers. They are coming in and providing the program as a supporter in the community.
Mr Cooke: Somebody has to pull the volunteers together and organize the volunteers. That all takes some staff.
Ms Dirksen: That's right. It does take some staff, and you can talk to Mr Eady, whom you would know very well, about what that takes because you've dealt with him at Riverside Library. But our children's programs are definitely our core programs.
Other programs that we provide, we do a significant amount of work in just helping people find information, and it's not simply phoning the library and getting a fact right out of a book to you. There's also the process when you come into the library of being taught how to use that massive amount of information. So what the staff provides -- they are like go-betweens, gateways to the information. They provide an enabling function and they help people learn how to use that material and develop information literacy. I think that's our most important function, providing the information literacy. I'd like it to be as free as possible, but if we're going to get cut so badly that we have to start cutting libraries, then I want to be able to establish or pull in some additional money to keep the services going. Also, I want to see us do that in underserved areas, you know, areas which don't presently have a library.
Mr Cooke: How do you deal with low-income families?
Ms Dirksen: One of the things I've talked to social services about is I'm concerned about people who are social service recipients who would need a library card, but I also don't want them to have to come in and do a means test at the library. I don't want to have to do that either. So the commissioner and I have agreed, if we get to charging user fees -- if -- that the social services staff will issue the library cards. They have to know who their clients are to serve them; we don't have to know. So they will issue the cards, which will help.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Hardeman.
Mr Hardeman: First of all, going along with Mr Cooke's comment about there being a somewhat difference of opinion between the elected official and the staff person who's actually in the process of providing the service, I guess it tells me that from the ideology it's nice to have everything provided by the taxpayer and to keep providing the same service as we are presently providing if that was a possibility.
Realizing the financial situation the province is in, I recognize that the person delivering the service would feel it appropriate that they were able to charge for that service rather than to not provide the service at all. So I'd just like to ask you: On the issue of charging for service, there have been many comments made on user fees that if they're going to be allowed for municipalities or boards, there should be some type of mechanism from Toronto, from Queen's Park, to limit, to deal with that, because I guess there's a fear that the local representatives, the local people, will not be able to deal with the reality, that they charge so much that it prevents the low-income people from using the service or prevents seniors from using the service. I gather from your comments that you're convinced there should be no restrictions, that you think your local board would be able to make that decision more --
Ms Dirksen: We get 92% of our funding from council. Frankly, that's who I have access to when I have to make an argument, you know. I don't get in the car and drive to Toronto. When I need to make an argument for a critically needed service at the local level, I go to council -- not I; my board chair and I go. So what we have here is a community network of people who are living with the challenges on a day-to-day basis. It's a question of access, partially, but it's also accountability. It's the local community that funds us, for the most part.
Mr Hardeman: One other comment was on the makeup of the local boards. The president of the Ontario library association boards -- I can't remember the exact title, but they made a presentation at one of the meetings in Toronto and there was a great concern that the board remain autonomous as opposed to a committee of the local council.
The local council appoints the majority of members, which could be all elected officials from that council. Is it your position that it's critical that they be an autonomous body?
Mr Martel: No, it's not. I've sat on both sides of that issue, being a member of county council and having sat on the county library board. That system worked very well. And the system that we have now here currently in the city also works very well, but it's because of the people who want to make it work. We have a good CEO, we've got good city council members and good library board members, and we do work hand in hand as much as possible.
I think where provincial interest needs to come in, however, is there are going to be some communities where that's not going to occur, and there are going to be some communities that are going to want to basically delete the library service completely.
From my perspective, on the provincial basis, again from the southern Ontario library system perspective, you need to be very conscious of that; otherwise exactly what Dave was talking about in terms of not being able to provide access, or service to youngsters will stop in certain areas. Then you'll really have an underprivileged population. I think it's very important that you keep tabs of that.
Mr Klees: Just very quickly, I want to thank you for a very factual and helpful presentation. I'd like to follow up on a question from Mr Cooke on the issue of accessibility for people under a system where there is a user fee in place. You must have some information. Is there any evidence that accessibility is restricted when you have a nominal user fee in place? And if so, could you elaborate on that?
Ms Dirksen: The jurisdictions I know of that have nominal fees in place are Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton. I don't have any specific information on whether their library usage decreased when they established the fee or not. I know approximately how much money they're bringing in. I talk to the other CEOs there and they've established the fees relatively recently, so I guess the pattern is perhaps still fairly new. But from what they're telling me, they didn't observe a significant drop in usage as a result of having established those, again, I still say, fairly modest fees. I don't even think those jurisdictions had special dispensation for social service recipients etc. I don't even think they went to that length and I think they still kept at fairly steady levels.
If you're going to get into expensive fees, then yes, of course you're going to restrict usage, and you still have an obligation to fund from the municipal tax base for basic core service, but perhaps it should go a little further.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Dirksen. I apologize for interrupting. You've come to the end of your half-hour. I'd like to thank you and Mr Martel for coming forward today to make your presentation.
WINDSOR AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: Representatives from the Windsor and District Labour Council, please come forward. Good morning, gentlemen, and thank you for coming to appear before the standing committee on general government today. You have half an hour to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may decide to leave some time and the end of your presentation for a response and questions from the caucuses. I'd appreciate if you'd both introduce yourselves for the benefit of committee members and Hansard.
Mr Gary Parent: My name is Gary Parent. I'm president of the Windsor and District Labour Council, representing over 42,000 affiliated members in Windsor-Essex. To my right is Nick LaPosta, secretary-treasurer of the Windsor and District Labour Council.
I want to preface if I may, Mr Chairman and panel, my remarks this morning in my written text by saying how appalled I am when I look, first of all, at the list of presenters that are before us here today. I see no public sector workers represented for the province of Ontario and also for the municipal people in Windsor-Essex. I also understand that's the same stay of execution that's before the public sector workers in the city of London tomorrow. I think it's absolutely appalling that this committee is so hell-bent, and I appreciated the opposition party's motion this morning on extending the hearings. I hope this committee would entertain extending on absolute, fundamental changes to the way the province of Ontario and every municipality across this province is going to be governed in the future. It's contained in the changes that are recommended in this bill.
We just believe it's appalling to have this happen today, and to start our hearings off in the city of Windsor with no public union input I think is absolutely atrocious.
I think also I'd be remiss if I didn't make a couple of comments, and I think Mr Martel is not aware that he's probably done himself out of a job today as the chair of a public library board, because this bill does do exactly that. It gives the minister the absolute responsibility of eliminating library boards. I don't know if he listened to the same interview program that was on last night that Sandra Pupatello mentioned earlier on, but I heard one of our city councillors say that if they didn't toe the party line, they'd be out. In other words, if you don't toe the party line as far as the city of Windsor is concerned on this particular board, then the board will be disbanded, or at least the request will go in to the minister and the minister obviously would have that power to do that.
It's interesting also to note that Mr Charette, the first speaker this morning, indicates that this bill reflects good management. I think downloading responsibility from one level of government to the next is not good management. Also, when he makes comments about more input at the community level, I don't believe the man has actually read the bill. There's no community input and a lot of the decision-making powers are being shifted to the province of Ontario and to individual ministers, not only cabinet but individual ministers being able to make specific changes that affect the broad sector in this particular community I'm speaking of of over 300,000 people. One minister can make decisions to change the whole outlook of Windsor-Essex county. I think it's absolutely appalling that we're sitting here today discussing such draconian pieces of legislation.
The other thing: I listened very intently to the chamber representation, and I hope you did too, because there was some unanimity between the labour movement in this community and also the business community. One thing we did agree on and have come to an agreement on is that more consultation is needed on specific pieces of legislation that are going to affect each and every one of us. In particular, this is an insult to the people of Ontario to put forward Bill 26 with the amount of amendments that are in there and give it two weeks of hearings. I think it's absolutely atrocious.
We wish to begin our presentation today by stating our profound opposition to the total content in this omnibus bill and to the undemocratic process with which it is being foisted upon the citizens of Windsor, surrounding counties and the province as a whole. This bill confirms our opinion that this government is authoritarian, autocratic and profoundly undemocratic. The content of Bill 26 shows it is nothing short of a naked power grab by an extremist government. Given the number of acts created, repealed or amended, and given the significance of the issues involved, the process must allow for the democratic input of all concerned, and that includes public sector workers, which you're denying.
As you may or may not be aware, the Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce joined, as I said a few minutes ago, with the Windsor labour community in asking the government of the day to provide a minimum of six months -- six months -- of meaningful consultation to take place regarding all proposed legislative changes. It has been estimated that if someone were to sit down and read Bill 26 for eight hours every day, it would require over nine days to complete. So we feel the time for public input across this province is not adequate and should be expanded, as has been tabled here before this committee this morning, so that there can be meaningful consultation as advised by both business and labour in this community.
There are a number of specific concerns we have as workers and citizens in our region, and we will take this opportunity to express them. I would ask Nick to read through them.
Mr Nick LaPosta: According to the Municipal Act and related amendments, schedule M, when one looks at the makeup of Windsor and Essex county, these changes will have a tremendous impact on the way our region is today and what it will look like in the future.
These changes give the Minister of Municipal Affairs unlimited powers to restructure existing municipalities, including amalgamation of municipalities, annexing part of a municipality to another municipality or totally incorporating the inhabitants of a locality into a municipality and joining a local municipality to a county for municipal purposes. All this can take place through a commission and there is no provision for public involvement for appeal procedure under this model, which we feel shows how anti-democratic this current government really is.
It also makes it easier for the minister to privatize municipal utilities under section 33, which takes away the requirement to hold a municipal referendum.
Also included in this section are broadened powers granted to municipalities to pass bylaws imposing user fees or charges on any class of persons. These fees and charges may be levied for any services or activities provided by the municipality, for any costs payable by it for services and activities and for the use of any of its property. The bill also gives every municipality the power to levy a head tax on every municipal resident, which certainly sounds to us like the dreaded poll tax initiated by Margaret Thatcher in Britain. We would also like to point out that section 9 ensures that user fees cannot be appealed to the OMB on the grounds that they are unfair or unjust. These are but a few of the concerns under this one section, and there are many, many more under this same section that will have drastic consequences on the people of Windsor and Essex county.
Freedom of information, schedule K: The essence of these amendments are to make it harder to gain access to documents and, conversely, easier to deny access. Institutions will be able to deny access on the grounds that a request is frivolous or vexatious. It will, in our opinion, be easier to dismiss appeals when access is denied. When more accountability from all levels should be the mandate of the day, it seems this government is bent on keeping the people of Ontario in the dark and denying access to information that leads to accountability.
Equality for women, schedule J: For an estimated 100,000 low-paid women in such areas as day care, children's aid, nursing homes and the like, employers with no male-dominated job classes, this means their right to fair pay has been abolished. When this proxy method was added to the pay equity law in 1993 there were extensive hearings on the bill. So we are asking this government to allow for full, meaningful public consultation so that amendments to this very important section can be made.
Pension and privatization, schedule L: We feel the changes being proposed under this schedule are being advanced to facilitate privatization and the downsizing of the public sector. We also believe that this section is being put in place to deny full pension benefits to those 13,000 to 20,000 government workers who would be affected if the government goes through with its layoff election promises.
Restrictions on arbitration, schedule Q: The proposed changes in this schedule constitute a significant interference with the independence and integrity of the arbitration process. Traditionally, boards of arbitration have been extremely resistant to looking at the criteria of ability to pay, as it could require public sector workers to subsidize the provision of public services and also since it usually equates more readily to the willingness of an employer to pay. The government could determine wages and benefits by simply allocating a fixed or reduced amount for employee compensation in its transfer payments or budgets.
1120
We would like to remind the government members of this panel that when similar legislation was established in the early 1980s the Tory government of the day listened to concerns similar to those that are being raised today and did not renew the legislation after expiry a year later. We are saying to this government that we in the Windsor-Essex area wish to continue being protected by good-quality police and fire departments, and we wish to maintain our access to good-quality health care at our hospitals as well as quality education, which we feel is threatened by those proposed changes.
Mr Parent: In regard to what Nick has just alluded to, I heard a news clip this morning on the hearings that were before the members yesterday, for those members who could not get standing here today, by the firefighters. I think the panel members should well listen to what the firefighter was talking about, because he was talking about user fees being put on and people trying to put out their own fires rather than call the fire department because of user fees or the possibility of user fees being put on in the example of someone calling.
Because a municipality said it cannot afford fire protection any more because of the downloading of that responsibility on to totally the municipality, now people will try and put out their own fire, which is going to be devastating; and worse, non-working fire alarms in apartment buildings and the like, because probably if they're called to a false alarm or whatever, then they're going to again administer a user fee, a possibility of a user fee. These are some of the things that are very frightening.
I don't have to say that talking to some of the police officers -- and yes, they are there to protect all people, but they also know quite well what could happen under some of the possibilities under this act. They are being denied accessibility to make their views known before this panel. These are just a couple of the most primary.
The health care issues are all going to be dealt with next week at hearings, down to 15 presentations again when there are probably many, many more.
I just want to expand on something that Dave Cooke said earlier, and that's on the whole question of health care restructuring that happened in this community. I happened to spend almost four years of my life devoted to that, as a labour representative sitting on that, only to have this government pull the rug out from the feet of every one of the over 4,000 volunteers who had spent hours and hours of their own personal time trying to help restructure the health care system because yes, there is waste in the health care system. We found a mechanism and a plan to put that forward under the previous government, and it was in the process of being instituted, only to have it now being stopped. Now Windsor-Essex county is being held hostage at this particular time on the whole question of the savings that will be generated on compacting four hospitals into two, and those savings are not being made available to the community groups that we need to survive and to put forward an enhanced health care system.
But those are some of the things that this government is doing, and I believe there's a vacuum of not knowing what's out there. That's why these hearings are so important. But they're not important enough to be combined into two weeks; they have to be expanded into greater time, to let more people expound.
We in the Windsor labour community feel Bill 26 represents the most authoritarian power grab in Ontario's modern history. Not since the famous police state bill of Tory Attorney General Fred Cass has there been such a blatant attempt to gather arbitrary and centralized powers into the hands of ministers of the crown. When we examine a bill giving authority to cabinet or ministers to extinguish existing contracts or rights and obligations and prevent enforcement in the courts, or to make regulations or to override provisions of any contractual arrangements, then we say that this is an affront to democracy and a disgrace to the people of Ontario.
We also wish to express to this committee that municipal restructuring which involves enforced amalgamation or annexation without community input is totally unacceptable and further shows a total disregard for the citizens of the communities that will be affected.
This bill goes far beyond merely enacting the provisions of the Treasurer's economic statement of November 29, 1995. When we see cabinet or individual ministers given the powers referred to above without traditional procedural safeguards and, in many cases, without a hearing or right of appeal to the courts, we say enough is enough.
We say to this committee that a non-democratic province is not what the people of Ontario want. Our history dictates that such changes have only occurred after full and meaningful consultations with all of the people of Ontario, not a selected few, and all the citizens of Ontario deserve the same now. Thank you very much.
The Chair: We'll begin the questions from members of the third party. We have four minutes per caucus.
Mr Cooke: Thank you, Gary and Nick. Two points that I want to ask you about: You say you represent members, of course, across the entire county, including the city. I think this speaks to the speed with which this bill is being passed. Do you think that members of your organization, of the labour movement across the county, understand that if this bill is passed, the government centrally could impose regional government on Windsor-Essex without ever having to bring legislation into the House, without ever having to have public hearings in our community? How do you think the members of labour unions in this community or members generally of our community would respond to a piece of legislation that would allow the imposition of regional government in our area without any consultation? How do you think they'd respond to that?
Mr Parent: I think they would respond very angrily. I think some of the frustration that you saw here this morning is only a small bit of the anger and the type of vindictiveness that they would feel against this government as it relates to such draconian changes without community input. This is why these hearings are so important: so that more pieces of this bill can be put out to the public through the media and for the various members we represent, for them to fully understand.
This is not being given the opportunity or the chance to be done. It was rushed in. It was only because of what happened in the Legislature that it even got the two weeks of hearings we now have going around the province. I think that is commendable. I only wish he had a bigger bladder so that we could have been there a lot longer. Maybe we would have got more hearing time.
Mr Cooke: I think our community's been used as a model to restructure the health care system. If this legislation passes, can you see any community in the province where labour would cooperate in restructuring our health care system with these powers given to the Minister of Health?
Mr Parent: Why would we be sitting down to make input when it's not going to be listened to and the decision has already been made? That's exactly how we felt and that's why, in fact, since this government has been elected, we in the labour community have pulled away from the existing process: because of the way that this community is being treated by this government and being held, as I said earlier, in the state of mind as it is, as hostage under the current legislative changes.
The Chair: Mr Silipo, you have about 45 seconds.
Mr Silipo: Great. One of the things that you mentioned was in fact the elimination of pay equity, particularly proxy pay equity, which means that some 100,000 women who are among the least paid will no longer benefit from that and get the right to fair pay. Can you just see any logic in what the government is doing in terms of why, within the area of pay equity, it would be eliminating pay equity for the lowest-paid women in the province?
Mr Parent: To go back 40 years in legislation, to bring us back 40 years in history; to keep the business people that I guess support them, to try to satisfy them; and also to pay the 30% personal income tax that they promised the people of Ontario during the last election campaign. They're using them as the scapegoat under it.
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): Thank you for your presentation. I just have a couple of questions or comments also on schedule J. Proxy comparison was brought in in 1993. It applies only to public sector employees, not private sector employees. It's not in any other province in this country. I understand, Mr Parent, that you said that your council doesn't represent public sector employees. Is that correct?
Mr Parent: No, we do.
Mr Tascona: You do? Okay. So dealing with schedule Q, I'd like to know this: Ability to pay obviously is a factor in the private sector, okay? If the employer can't pay the wages, the employees aren't going to get it. We have mandatory criteria in schedule Q -- other provinces have -- and I can assure you that there's no power of the arbitrator to order service reductions. In a situation where we have the public interest, where we have a financial crunch -- it's obvious -- why would we not want arbitrators to consider the ability to pay and have the parties focus on freely negotiating the deal, also looking at productivity bargaining where they can make the services better, rather than having the focus on, "How much are you going to pay me?"
1130
Mr Parent: The problem we have, and maybe I didn't make myself perfectly clear in the written text, is that government at the provincial level can almost dictate at that time, on ability to pay, through a non-forced arbitration system, that they would reduce the transfer payments to that particular element, whether it be to a municipality, to a library board, to a transit property or whatever. They could limit both the transfer payment to that particular piece of municipal bargaining going on and its budgeting, have effects on its budgeting, so as to predetermine what the actual amount and outcome is going to be, therefore causing the true process of free collective bargaining to be curtailed in that particular piece of a municipality that is doing the negotiating.
Mr Tascona: You know as well as I do that transfer payments have been going down over the last couple of years, anyway. The only other solution is that you're looking at increasing taxes to deal with this situation. Why can't we look at saying, "Let's try to see how we can do this service better, reduce the cost, save people employment" and not just focus on -- we know what the reality is: Transfer payments are going to be down, and we also know that people don't want to pay any more taxes. We've got to look at this constructively. We're not taking away the arbitrator's powers. We're saying, "You've got to live within this legislation, like any judge would have to do in a court."
Mr Parent: I would feel much more comfortable if there was a fair taxation system in place. Unfortunately, there's not a fair taxation system in place. Those things you mentioned are very important, and yes, the members we represent happen to feel they are very much overtaxed. All we're saying to governments, both federally and provincially, is that they have to take a fairer approach to the whole question of taxation and there has to be a fairer approach to how people are being taxed. We can't allow, to this day in 1996, banks to make over $1 billion worth of profit and at the same time have people on welfare have their benefits cut 21.6%. There's just no justification for that, as far as we in the labour community are concerned.
Mr Tascona: What about property taxes? What do you think about those?
Mr Parent: I think what you've done here in this piece of legislation is definitely going to have the effect of raising municipal taxes for every citizen in the province of Ontario, and you can sit back and say: "It's not us. It's the municipality." It's a shift of your responsibility as the government of the day on to municipalities, on to us as taxpayers, and we're not taking it.
Mr Tascona: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how you do the property tax, not about how much.
The Chair: Mr Tascona, I'm sorry, but we've come to the end of your four minutes.
Mr Phillips: I just have a quick comment. The member just said that "ability to pay" exists in two other provinces. We've been briefed and told it did not exist.
Mr Tascona: I said other jurisdictions. I've got proof I'd like to show you, if you want to look at it.
Mr Phillips: Table that; that's fine. The other one is restricting the arbitrators on their ability to dictate services. I'd also like that to be tabled.
Mr Duncan: Gary, you alluded to organized labour's contribution to health care reconfiguration in this community. You didn't expound on a whole variety of other areas the labour movement in this community has contributed to, not only to the lives of working people but to the health and wellbeing of this community in its entirety.
It's our view that the way the government is handling this piece of legislation, the way it handled Bill 7, the way it handled Bill 15, is to deliberately provoke confrontation with organized labour. We saw it expressed very clearly in London; we're going to see it expressed again.
Can you tell us a little bit about the contribution organized labour has made to this city in terms of the recent economic growth we've experienced and the consultation processes it involved, both private and public sector unions, and how some of those investments would not have happened in this community without the kind of positive, proactive climate we've had in this city for the last decade, so that these guys can learn to understand that there's a role for working people in the public life of this province?
Mr Parent: The first example I want to raise, obviously, to boast a little bit, is on the whole question of our participation in our United Way fund drive. For the 26th year in a row, we are the leading per-capita community in North America as it pertains to the United Way, and that's only done because of the joint relationship between business and labour getting together and putting our differences aside at that particular time for the betterment of the community.
On top of that, when you look at the Chrysler investment, the GM investment, the Ford investment that's gone into this community, contrary to what your government was indicating about why you had to make all these changes on the elimination of Bill 40, it was the highest time of investment for Windsor-Essex county when we had Bill 40 in existence.
If we look at other things such as the casino -- it's something your government was questioning during the election and prior -- it has been a great diversification of our economic base in this community, in Windsor-Essex county. We're only glad that you saw fit now to leave Windsor alone and to create another economic boom, hopefully, through that of the Niagara Falls area, which desperately needs the help.
But we cannot lose sight of what we're doing in this piece of legislation. Contrary to my friend in the chamber, Larry Sandre, I believe this is going to have devastating effects as far as investments are concerned. You're going to have municipalities going at each other if this bill is passed in its entirety the way it sits today. You're going to have people assessed garbage pickup they cannot have. Businesses are going to be assessed garbage pickup in one municipality and not in another, and you're going to have small businesses then going from one municipality into another municipality, thus eroding the first municipality's tax base.
You are causing havoc in the province of Ontario through this whole question of Bill 26. I ask you, I plead with you, look seriously, have more consultation. You can't let this bill go in its entirety. If you do, you'll be letting the people of Ontario down. You'd be letting yourself down eventually, because sooner or later you're going back to the private sector -- we hope sooner than later -- there's going to be a time when you have to go back and bear the brunt of what you're putting into play right now, as individual citizens.
The Chair: Thanks very much for your presentation.
CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS, LOCAL 444
The Vice-Chair (Mr Joseph N. Tascona): Our next presenter is the Canadian Auto Workers, Local 444. Ken Lewenza is the president, and perhaps the other two chaps can identify themselves for the record.
Mr Ken Lewenza: Thank you very much. My name is Ken Lewenza. I'm the president of CAW Local 444, representing 11,000 members consisting of Chrysler Canada workers, casino workers and marine division workers out in the county. With me are Mike Darnell, who represents the marine division sector of our union and also sits on the executive board of our local; and Peter Pellerito, who's an elected political action chairperson of our local union and also sits on the executive council for our union. So we're well represented.
I'd like to start our remarks by saying if you listen intensely to the debate and discussion going on today, it scares the hell out of me, as a father of two and recently a proud grandfather, that there's going to be a point in life where we're going to charge people for having the initiative to read, to go to a library and read and educate themselves and become more knowledgeable about the future we have. It scares the hell out of me when we talk about the possibility -- it's not a possibility any more; I guess I'm talking to the government -- of the strong potential of user fees, excluding people from society on basic needs of health care, education, those types of issues.
It also concerns the hell out of me, and I'm going to take a point of privilege here, about this word "restructuring." I hear the government and business say: "We had to restructure. We've had to do things under some tough economic times to make our business viable." I agree with those statements. I come from an employer, Chrysler Canada, that has restructured in the last 10 or 12 years to make its business more competitive. But they did not restructure without participation from our union. If they had restructured under the decision-making process this government's making today, relative to our private sector union relationship, we'd be on strike until hell freezes over. I have to be careful, because I've been criticized for some of my language. I'm trying to be more professional.
1140
The reality is that there have been some very good examples. From Chrysler Canada's point of view, the number one employer in the city of Windsor and a major contributor to the economy of the province of Ontario, they've sat across the table from me and said, "For us to continue to make progress, consultation's important not only at the government level, but to continue to consult with each other on the needs both of us have to get through to the next decade is important."
They've also said to me, and it's a very interesting point, that the key to government in the province of Ontario -- if you take a look at 10 years ago, the Conservatives were in power after a 40-year reign and then the Liberals got elected for five years and then the New Democratic Party took over for five years. They've said to me, "The uncertainty of the electorate in the province changing governments, which results in significant changes in legislation and significant changes in philosophical ideas, has a negative impact on our business decisions for the future."
When you talk about business decisions, you can't make radical change. You can make change based on your agenda, but to make radical change has a dramatic negative effect on every Ontarian and every business, contrary to what the chamber said. I just wanted to throw that out, because I believe, looking at you folks, you have to have a fear for your future, your children, your grandchildren. That's what it's all about.
We can talk about debt and deficit. There's nobody, even in the labour community, who's not talking about the debt problem. But we have to recognize that the last five years, as part of that equation, was the worst recession since the Dirty Thirties. We survived it as an economy, and yes, we built up a debt, but I understand in the last year that the New Democratic Party -- you can probably straighten this out for me or challenge me on this -- actually ran a surplus but it was the accumulated debt of the deficit that created some problems. We have to find ways, responsibly, to deal with the debt without putting it on the shoulders of ordinary people who need government. Frank Stronach doesn't need government. Yves Landry doesn't need government. Ordinary people need government. They rely on you to give them services that the private sector obviously isn't going to give them. I just wanted to throw that out, because I sat there and I genuinely am concerned.
I want to say before I start on my brief that if you ask me today -- fortunately, through my membership they pay me well, and I appreciate it; I'm accountable every three years -- if you're going to give me a tax rebate to put more money into my pocket, but then charge my sons and daughters and myself to go to a hospital or charge a user fee if I have a fire in my house, keep my money and keep my services.
I'll go on with the report. You get a little emotional. In the presentations, whether you're against or for, people are talking from their hearts and genuinely. If you see the reaction -- and Gary alluded to it -- I'm really concerned about it. In Windsor and Essex county we've had a wonderful relationship over a period of time, regardless of who was in political office. We've always tried to find some common ground. We've always dealt with the regional government anyway, really, until the last couple of years when the New Democrats blessed us with our share of the wealth from the province of Ontario. I'm concerned, because that mood out there is changing. I don't want a society of violence, and I don't want a society of the haves and the have-nots. That's just not the way it should operate.
I'll go on to my presentation. For the benefit of the committee, we've tried intensely -- I got this last Thursday from a municipal politician who asked me to read it. He screwed me up all weekend because I prefer to watch football, but I did read a few of the remarks, so I'm going to give you some of the ideas we have, and my colleagues Peter and Mike might supplement it at the end relative to again spending some time on the weekend.
I can assure you today that I have not digested this document in its entirety. It would take months and months and months. In fact, if I was to sign this agreement without my membership knowing about it, if this was related to a collective agreement with Chrysler, casino or the marine division, I'm sure they'd oust me real quickly, so I do have a tendency to read everything very carefully that affects our membership.
The introduction of the Savings and Restructuring Act, known more readily as Bill 26, introduces a more than frightening element to parliamentary democracy as we have come to know the term. The very fact that extraparliamentary action by elected members of the provincial Parliament was required to initiate this public forum gives us little confidence that meaningful changes will result from this cosmetic exercise.
In our view, it would be irresponsible to comment on specific elements of the bill without first challenging the premises on which it is based. The management of any economy, irrespective of geographical origin, will have the immediate and profound effect on the stability of society as a whole. At this time in our nation's history, Canadians, including Ontarians, are demanding less centralization of power and greater inclusion of more active participation in the daily management of our political affairs. Literally, our lives are too important to be left to the politicians alone. This is consistent with greater literacy, technical skills and a more mature political understanding among Canada's workers.
It is ironic that, in a period when it is clear that voters are demanding less arbitrary administration, the provincial government has chosen this time to bring to the people of Ontario a bill which objectively results in greater intrusion into our personal lives. The transference of power from elected bodies to ministries, the removal of a requirement for public reference, the organization of regional governments without public input: It is clear to any casual observer that these intended changes are designed to lessen public input and participation on behalf of private, non-elected, vested interests.
The bill, as it stands, replaces a vast array of procedures and mechanisms, not to mention 44 specific acts. This in itself would legitimately justify breaking the bill into component parts: municipal, environmental, medical and administrative, as an example, and striking several committees to spend several months on public consultation.
We object strenuously to an exercise which insults both the public and the parliamentary traditions on which democratic governments rest. We cannot accept that the winning of a majority of seats in the provincial Legislature gives licence to dispense with adherence to democratic principles. It is not implicit that the victorious party wins an unfettered mandate to unilaterally overturn accepted structural mechanisms or that success at the polls negates the need for comprehensive and meaningful consultation.
This is an understanding which can only be driven by cynicism and by an agenda which fears the clear light of public scrutiny. It is tragically comic that this government ran on the underlying theme of less government. Bill 26 makes a mockery of these announced intentions. It dispenses with Big Brother and gives us Big Daddy. Its passage would repudiate both the concept and the Premier's sanctimonious ranting about honesty in government.
The provincial Conservatives did win a mandate to govern. They did not win the right to choose who shall participate. The bill intrudes on this ground. This is a government by stealth and by deflection, not consultation. Under the cover of restructuring, Mr Harris seeks unparalleled control. If approved, it's patently dishonest. Surely he doesn't advance the argument that if Ontarians had been asked by referendum to agree to turn over public records to facilitate the creation of a two-tiered medical system, such authority would have been given. This government knows without hesitation that had they announced a seizure of powers from the municipal government, no such mandate would have been granted.
Similarly, it is highly unlikely that voters would, if consulted, agree to alterations to drug listing and pricing rules against their own interests. There is only one way to achieve such a massive restructuring without going to the people and that is to bury the relevant changes in the bill before us and then hope that the profound nature of the entire package escapes public scrutiny.
The time allotted to millions of affected Ontarians is not sufficient to afford the public adequate opportunity to properly assess the bill and its long-term implications to our citizens. We cannot stress this point strongly enough. This is not an acceptable length of consultation on a matter that attempts to alter for all time structures which have evolved, step by step, through massive consultations and decades of debate.
1150
This is not an attempt to balance the fiscal question. It is a flagrant attempt to shift political power to the capital segment of our economy. This government shames the process and should not be trusted to act on behalf of the best interests of the province and its people. Specifically, we vigorously oppose schedule G, which would amend the existing Ontario Drug Benefit Act. The contention of the Premier that this does not involve user fees is, in stark terms, a lie.
Schedule J of the bill attacks the concept of equity and states clearly that democracy, through equity, is merely a fiscal issue and not a matter of concern for society as a whole.
Schedule L is a particularly cynical attempt to override by legislation any obligation which may arise from the government's current responsibility to participate in the sponsorship agreement or in the event of an adverse court decision.
Schedule K makes an absolute mockery of public scrutiny by the heads of public institutions, the power to assess which requests for access to be frivolous or vexatious. This revision illustrates with great clarity the present government's fear of the electorate and their ability to scrutinize actions being taken on their behalf.
Schedule M is an equally insidious example of the government's cavalier attitude in relationship to agreed-upon democratic institutions. The Premier's attempt to whip the municipal governments in line totally destroys the concept of local autonomy as it relates to municipal affairs.
We highlight the above under the provision that this in no way lists all our objections or, for that matter, indicates the true level of disgust which arises from this government's hypocrisy. If the government seeks to eliminate all obstacles to the market, then clearly the legal, civil and societal rights of Ontario workers and their families are under assault. This elevates the debate out of the conventional political arena and into the realm of the overt class war. We do not find this prospect surprising or frightening. In objective terms, it may be the most honest and forthright element in the government's agenda.
Again in closing, before I let my colleagues say a word or two, it's interesting that the mayor of the city is on record as supporting some of the positions in the bill. That is of concern to me, because when the mayor can say, "Well, as a result of transfer payment cuts, we're going to stop some capital spending on sewers, some infrastructure work," that's not what the taxpayers want. They don't want their basements flooded. I can tell you, if we continue to improve our infrastructure that started under the NDP government with some money allocated to highways, it's going to entice investment into our community. If we just say, "To hell with the roads," tomorrow, believe me, it's going to have a negative effect on bringing business to this community. So I think we have to again be careful. I thank the committee and the government for giving me the opportunity to speak.
Mr Mike Darnell: One of the great ideological differences we have with Mr Harris's government is the question of universal approaches versus the market. By the way, I shouldn't indict Mr Harris and the government simply for that; it's quite a universal question. But the trade union movement embraces universal approaches because we believe that is the quickest way to reach consensus on issues.
If you put forward policies that divide and cause disparate conditions between municipalities, for instance -- and having been an alderman in a fairly large section, I can appreciate that question. In other words, when you factionalize within a society, it's difficult, if not impossible, to reach consensus on a whole number of issues. This inevitably always benefits a minority in the population but does a poor job of facilitating the aims and aspirations of the majority of people in Ontario.
One of you mentioned the question of a $2 user fee. Is a $2 user fee acceptable? Two dollars is not a lot of money, relative to who you are, obviously, and it's a relative world. The reason I personally reject a user fee is because it removes a program or a service from what I consider to be a universal application to a commercial transaction. Quite frankly, I believe that every citizen in Canada is entitled to security of their biological wellbeing through medicare. I believe that deeply and I believe that firmly, and the minute you start to raise the question of user fees and say, "Now I'm going to sell you the service," what you're really talking about here is taking away the public process and turning everything over arbitrarily to the private sector so that I have to come to you and buy my government from you. I don't want to buy government; I want to participate in government, and that's what you're trying to do in the bill.
I'm prepared to answer any questions that have emanated from the bill. I'll allow Peter to go ahead then.
Mr Peter Pellerito: Basically, I'd just like to make one comment, and I think it's important that the people of Ontario understand this. When the previous government got elected, they said something that sometimes I wonder whether it's feasible or not. But Premier Rae at the time said, "I'm here for all the people of Ontario." Yet Mr Harris, once elected, and there happened to be a demonstration in front of the Legislature, said, "Those people didn't vote for me; I don't represent those people." I guess that's the sad --
Mr Young: He didn't say that.
Mr Pellerito: He did say that in his oval office, if I can use that term, because I think he's pretty well taken into consideration that he's got all the power and he can pretty well do and say anything he wants. That's basically what he said. I wouldn't say verbatim, I don't know exactly what he said, but I know that's what he said.
He said, "I am here; those people out there didn't vote for me and I don't represent those people." That's basically what he said. I guess one of the most detestable parts of this whole government is that they're there for a certain segment of the people of Ontario, and it's very detestable and appalling that I live in a province now where we have a government in power that does not represent the interests of all the people of Ontario.
The Chair: Four minutes per caucus, starting with the government caucus.
Mr Young: I'd like to ask Ken a question. I share your fears for the future to a limited degree. I'm an optimist at heart but I have very real concerns. What they're related to is, $100 billion worth of debt that we have, $9 billion a year we spend on interest on that, $1 million an hour in interest, and what frightens me is that it's growing. My concern is, if we don't restructure, if we don't make the tough decisions, where will we be?
Mr Lewenza: That's a legitimate concern, and if there's one thing that we can all agree with in this room, it's that we have a debt. And if there's one thing that we can all agree to, all of us collectively, democratically, it is the way to tackle that debt. I'm suggesting to you clearly that a very easy way of doing it, from a point of view that everybody can understand, is tackling the debt with a fair taxation policy in the province of Ontario where everybody pays their fair share.
Mr Young: Can I talk to you about the tax cut?
Mr Lewenza: Okay, but let me just add to that. To deal with the debt, when you cut $6 billion out of the finances of the government in terms of using it for tax reduction, then give us a $6-billion tax rebate, maybe you can answer me, how does that handle the debt?
Mr Young: I would like to comment on that because we keep hearing that only 13% of the people are really going to benefit from the tax cut. Some 87% of the people in Ontario make under $50,000 a year, and they will all receive the tax cut. Okay?
Some people will pay off debt, but the rest of them will go out and spend the money, and those people will buy automobiles. Won't that build your industry and your job? I view this as the largest job creation program in the history of Ontario. I know it will work. I can't understand why you don't support a tax cut for your members, who need it.
Mr Lewenza: First of all, let's be clear about where we want to go. Our members want a tax cut, as Gary Parent alluded to, but if that tax cut's going to mean that if you put $100 more into my pocket a week, or $50, depending on what your income is, and then you charge me to go to the hospital and you charge me to go to the library, you charge me to pick up my garbage, then you charge me for education -- and municipal costs will eventually have to go up. Our mayor can say, "Well, we're under pretty good times; we're ready for this decision," but in reality, the roads have to be fixed, sewers have to be fixed. So you can't give it to me in one hand and take it from the other.
I'm not going to be buying automobiles. I'm going to be paying more money for my kid's education. I'm going to be paying more money for health care. I'm going to be paying more money to go into a library. My kids are going to be paying to go into a park if the city of Windsor again has to deal with its fiscal responsibilities.
Mr Young: There was a library board here this morning and they indicated they have no intentions to charge for core services. There's never been any discussion about charging people for emergency fire service, except once they indicated it and they were at a meeting where it was a resolution. In addition, there's even no discussion about charging people for emergency fir service except one comment by one mayor in Toronto that somebody from outside town, their car caught fire, they charged them $300. So there's a lot of fear in this which is totally unfounded.
1200
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Young.
Interjections.
The Chair: I'm sorry, I'm going to have to interrupt you. You've come to the end of your time. I apologize. Ms Pupatello.
Mrs Pupatello: I have a quick comment that actually the tax rebate at $50,000 is $934. I don't know where you can buy an automobile for that amount, and we don't know how much the health fair share tax is going to be of that $900.
I know, Ken, that you and your union are all aware that in fact of the $1.3 billion that is being taken out of municipalities, that is going towards the $5 billion this government is requiring to offer the tax cut. So in fact this is not about balancing the budget or the deficit; this is about the tax cut. All of this talk about user fees today, the licensing etc, that's a tax grab municipalities will need because the provincial government is going to implement a tax cut. This is not about balancing the budget.
Can I ask you to comment on schedule Q, which talks about interest arbitration? Specifically, what was added to that schedule, the extent to which services may be reduced, those are the kinds of powers that are being given to the arbitrator. When we heard from the fire department yesterday, for example, the representatives, all of our great concern is that arbitrators now are being left to select services in police, in fire -- let's see; it goes on -- in public service, in hospitals. We're talking about the very services that a hospital board, for example, will determine what services that hospital would provide. If something should go to arbitration, the arbitrator now selects, not those people who are paid to be in charge or a public who is put to be in charge. That kind of skill required to make that kind of determination is being handed out to an arbitrator. Can you comment?
Mr Lewenza: Well, absolutely. I would say to the government members, and the opposition members, those are unfair powers to give an arbitrator. There's no way that an arbitrator should be mandated to deal with the economics of the community, of the province, of the country. He's there to make a decision based on arguments from both points that have come to a stalemate. I think it's an interesting point, relative to Mr Young, from the questions you directed at me, that we're going to put in an arbitration process that's going to make workers go down to the lowest criteria in terms of wages in the province of Ontario, based on economics. Therefore, they're going to be spending less money to generate movement in the economy, which we're trying to absolutely do with a tax break.
If you take a look at, again, arbitration, what is arbitration for? It's to avoid confrontation. It's to avoid some serious consequences to the community with the police, with the teachers, with the medical profession, and this process is going to lead to more, more and more confrontation. Unfortunately, some will be legal action; unfortunately, a lot of it will be illegal action, as I see it, until those groups of people can get their message heard in the province of Ontario.
So I think it's unfair, and, again, I think it takes the whole intent of arbitration out of the process. As the negotiator representing a hell of a lot of workers and having been involved in a lot of negotiations, I'm not going to go to an arbitrator who's going to talk to me about debt crisis in the city of Windsor and the province of Ontario. I want to go there talking about the issues.
The Chair: Unfortunately, we've exhausted the time for the opposition.
Mr Cooke: Thank you, Kenny. There's been a bit of talk in these questions about the tremendous tax breaks your members are going to get and how happy they should be. I'd just like to know if you think your members understand that they will get an income tax break, most of which will go to the upper-income people. They will then, especially the many workers who are working six days a week, have to pay the new health tax, which is seldom talked about by the Conservatives. So they will save some money.
Mr Young: Not unless they make $50,000.
Mr Cooke: Well, the minivan workers will. They will not have to pay as much income tax. They will have to pay more on a new health tax. But then the big winner in this is going to be the Chrysler corporation, which will no longer have to pay the employer health tax. So this is really a mechanism to shift taxation away from the corporations and on to individuals through the new health tax, through the new user fees, through a poll tax at the local level, through an income tax at the local level. Do you think that, because of the short time we had on this bill, your members are fully aware of that shift that's going to happen over the next few years?
Mr Lewenza: No. You're absolutely right, David. Today they are not in tune with the consequences of a tax cut. That's my responsibility as the president of that local union, to ensure that they understand what comes out in one hand could be taken out of the other hand and that potential of a different society is there. I can assure you again, if you say to workers over the $50,000 tax bracket, "We're going to give you a tax break, but at the same time we're going to charge you a health tax or user fees," the vote will be a resounding, "Keep the tax money and let's have the society that we want for our families and our children for the future."
Mr Cooke: We need to have a debate in this province about what kind of government and what kind of society we want, but I've had lots of calls from my constituency in the last short period of time, and I hear, and maybe you can tell me -- you're more in tune with your members than I am -- do you think your members want any kind of a tax break if they know that the impact is not only going to be user fees but that there's also this impact, this horrific impact, on the lowest-income people in the province, namely, those on social assistance? I've heard it described as blood money and that they don't want the blood money if that's the impact for our community and our society.
Mr Lewenza: Again, that's a good question, and I can only say, on behalf of the membership I represent, we have a membership that has compassion, a genuine concern for the people who don't have the same benefits and the same wages that they do, and we've proved that over and over and over. Gary talked about the United Way campaign where Chrysler workers gave $1.6 billion. Somebody asked earlier about the infrastructure. We negotiated a fourth shift, and again compromised some of our hours of work, reduced our hours of work in a number of areas, to create employment. Our workers are used to being compassionate to the unemployed, they're used to being compassionate to the people who don't have what we have today, and we do that through our charitable organizations. I can say clearly without question here that our membership, again, supports the fact that government is in power to take care of those people who can't take care of themselves, and that is the reality.
I guess my other point is, it depends again how you word it, but our membership, this community, is full of compassion -- full of compassion -- and we do so much to rub shoulders with each other. I say to the Conservative members, there's a saying out there today, "Charities are going to have to pick up their socks. Churches are going to have to pick up" -- you know, we're maxed out. We're maxed out. Sooner or later, the well breaks. Sooner or later, our members say, "Hey, I need something to survive."
Again, Dave, if you asked our members, if we have a referendum in the plant and say, "Well, this is the idea of the tax break, and this is what potentially could happen" -- because we really, again, don't know the whole scope of Bill 26 or any of the legislative changes that are drawn by the Conservatives -- the reality is, our workers -- you know what our workers are saying? "We have a debt crisis. Let's tackle the debt. Don't give me $6 billion. Let's tackle the debt." I swear to God. I have workers say to me: "Ken, keep my $100. Tackle the debt. Let's maintain our social programs, because that's important for the future of the province of Ontario."
The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming forward today and making your presentation to the committee.
Mr Lewenza: Thank you. We appreciate it.
The Chair: We have a couple of quick housekeeping matters before we break. The first one is that anyone travelling on the bus should bring their luggage. We have a room down the hall for luggage and Lynn has the key for that, so you may want to check with her and move your luggage into that room. All members should settle their accounts, if you stayed at the hotel last night, by noon, any phone calls and so on and so forth.
We'll deal with Mr Phillips's motion at this point.
Mr Phillips: Right now? Dave, do you want to try and deal with this motion on London right away?
Mr Cooke: Sure.
Mr Phillips: Okay. I'm trying to avoid a problem that's a little bit of embarrassment. I don't know whether the government members have been phoned by the mayor of London's office. She understandably has some concern that she, on behalf of the city, didn't have an opportunity to present. My motion is simply to extend the hearings to 12:30 tomorrow and invite the city of London to present.
The Chair: Any comment from the third party?
Mr Cooke: I, on behalf of our caucus, totally support the motion and think that we should be looking at this and, obviously, other examples. Where the short period for these hearings is not allowing individuals to appear before the committee, we should be looking at more individuals as well.
The Chair: Any comments from the government caucus?
Mr Hardeman: I have no problem with the motion to allow the mayor of the city of London, being one of the largest municipalities in southwestern Ontario and in fact the mayor of the municipality where we will be meeting, but I do have some concerns with the expression from Mr Cooke to suggest that we should be looking at this for a lot of others. If that's the case, I wouldn't be able to support such a motion.
The Chair: The motion is for a 12 to 12:30 extension tomorrow to hear the mayor and I believe the CAO from the city of London.
Mr Phillips: Let's assume, since it's the mayor's office, it's the mayor's presentation.
The Chair: Okay, I'll put the motion. All those in favour of the motion? Motion carried.
We will recess until 1 pm this afternoon.
The subcommittee recessed from 1212 to 1304.
COUNTY OF ESSEX
The Chair: Could I have Mr Schmidt from the county of Essex come forward, please? Good afternoon, sir, and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You'll have 30 minutes to make your presentation, which you may use as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time to field questions from any of the caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you would introduce yourselves for the benefit of the committee and Hansard.
Mr Rob Schmidt: Thank you, Mr Chairman, members of the committee, for this opportunity to be here today. My name's Rob Schmidt; I'm the warden of Essex county. With me today are Vic McMurren, the mayor of Essex and the deputy warden; Pat O'Neil, the mayor of the town of Kingsville and the past warden of the county; Bill Varga, the deputy mayor of the town of LaSalle and also a past warden.
The process that Essex county has followed in reviewing Bill 26 and in coming to some position in response to its content has been threefold. First, Bill 26, more particularly schedule M, pertaining to the Municipal Act and other related acts and amendments, and schedule Q, pertaining to the interest arbitration statute amendments, have been reviewed at the senior administration level; second, Bill 26, along with the administrative comments, was reviewed by the executive committee of Essex county council; and third, that same document, with the input from administration and the executive committee, was reviewed by the full county council at a special meeting for that purpose held on January 3. This is the result of those meetings.
We have, in Essex county, two areas of concern. One is the process and the other is the content of the bill. Regarding process, with all due respect, our concern is the speed with which the omnibus bill is being put through the Legislature. The time line does not allow for full or proper input. It was only last Thursday that we were advised that Essex county would even be allowed an opportunity to be here today as a delegation. The feeling, too, is that we were one of the lucky ones afforded the "privilege," and that word kind of sticks in the throat. Input into a democratic decision-making process should be felt to be a right, not a privilege.
So here we are today, having survived a period of uncertainty about whether we would be heard, and at best only able to prepare and speak to two sections of a bill which contains 17 sections, and, I hasten to add, in an atmosphere which raises the question of whether our opinion will have any impact at all.
The government has already demonstrated that the consultation process is only grudgingly being granted -- tolerated might be more accurate -- and that Bill 26 will be enacted shortly. It has always been the local contention that good ideas, good legislation, can be defended and sustained on merit. With a majority government very early in its term of office, the rationale for rushing Bill 26 through is difficult to fully understand.
Let me begin my comments on content by saying that Essex county is supportive of many of the changes being addressed in schedule M of the bill. We do not interpret our purpose here today to dwell on areas of agreement; we see this as an opportunity to identify come areas of concern and, hopefully, by doing so to effect revisions to address our concerns.
My comments will now be more specific to the bill.
Under schedule M, section 1: This is a sweeping and far-reaching amendment which places powers of amalgamation squarely in the hands of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Our concern lies not so much in the concept but in the method, which to a large degree will only be addressed in the regulations and not in the legislation. We have a number of questions, and we don't anticipate getting answers to those questions today; they're rhetorical questions. We would like to have answers eventually to those questions.
Question 1: Will the minister ensure that regulations developed to support the legislative amendment will reflect the sensitivity of the issue being addressed and will call for as much local input as possible?
In the pursuit of efficiency inherent in placing powers of amalgamation more firmly in the hands of the minister, certain process benefits to affected municipalities are lost. The most notable of these is any right of appeal. Instead, the minister or a commission or commissioner appointed by the minister is empowered to arrive at a decision which will be imposed upon municipalities involved. Such a decision will be binding and final. Our preference would be to see the process left as a judicial process which, while binding, does allow for an element of appeal.
Question 2: Will the minister consider amending the role of the commission or commissioner to one that is more positively regarded, such as a mediator or facilitator who reports to a final decision-maker rather than being that final decision-maker?
Question 3: Will the minister consider including a right of appeal into the proposed amalgamation process?
In subsection 25.2(13), entitled "Contravention," it is stated that a personal liability against individual council members will exist under certain circumstances. This amendment reflects an attitude that some members of council would opt to deliberately act improperly in the face of contrary legislation or regulation. In fact, in order for an act of the members to prevail, it would need to have been approved by a majority of a quorum of the councillors. The premise upon which the amendment is based is not only inaccurate but offensive. Any action even remotely falling into this category would surely at best be inadvertent.
Personal liability in this instance is somewhat onerous. How would the question of personal liability be determined if such an inadvertent action of council was decided on a non-recorded vote?
Question 4: Will the minister remove subsection 25.2(13) from the proposed amendments to schedule M of Bill 26?
Section 2, dealing with section 83.1 of the Municipal Act: The minister will be empowered to require information from the municipality which "relates to the efficiency and effectiveness of the municipality's operations." It is presumed that in determining the efficiency and effectiveness the information provided would be measured against some standard or benchmark established for municipalities of various sizes.
1310
Question 5: Will the minister provide each municipality with an outline of the criteria against which municipal information will be judged to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of the municipality?
Section 6: This amendment deals with sections 209.2, 209.3, 209.4, 209.5 and 209.6, which will allow upper-tier municipalities "to assume a local power to provide a prescribed service or facility for all of its local municipalities." The amendment goes on to also allow a local municipality "to assume an upper-tier power to provide a prescribed service or facility for all of the local municipalities forming part of the upper-tier municipality."
One of Essex county's identified priority issues for 1996 is to promote the sharing of services and facilities at the local level and with the county. In that context, this amendment was seen to help. The amendment, however, refers specifically to prescribed services and facilities.
Question 6: Will the minister consult with local and upper-tier municipalities in its determination of which services and facilities are to be prescribed?
Section 8: This amendment deals with section 210.4 of the Municipal Act, which would allow for the dissolution by a municipality of any local board, as defined in the Municipal Affairs Act, and sets out definitions, process and restrictions. A "local board," as described in the Municipal Affairs Act, includes the school board, public utilities commission, public library board, board of arts management, board of health, police services board, planning board etc. While Essex supports the creation of a mechanism whereby non-elected local boards may be dissolved, it is concerned with the scope of this amendment as set out. This leads to two questions.
Question 7: Will the minister provide in the legislation a list of those local boards as defined under the Municipal Affairs Act which would be excluded from this amendment? Right now there's a lot of confusion about which boards will be excluded. Also, will the minister provide criteria or conditions under which the dissolution of a local board will be deemed to be appropriate? We would like some guidance in that regard.
Section 10 allows municipalities and local boards to generate revenue by imposing fees or charges that cover (a) services or activities provided, (b) costs incurred in the provision of services or activities, and (c) the use of property. Clause 220.1(3)(a) refers to these charges as "fees and charges that are in the nature of a direct tax."
Question 9: Will the minister provide clarification of what is meant by a direct tax, perhaps more clearly setting out the scope of this new revenue-generating power being given to municipalities? There has also been a lot of confusion in that regard.
Subsection 220.1(8) disallows any application to the OMB on the grounds that fees or charges are unjust or unfair.
Question 10: Acknowledging that a bylaw created under this section could in individual circumstances be unfair or unjust, and with clause 220.1(3)(f) allowing exemptions only to classes of persons, will the minister consider allowing applications to the OMB to address these, albeit rare, occurrences?
Section 15: This amendment would allow local municipalities to exercise powers, through paragraph 123 of section 210 of the Municipal Act, on to county roads situated in the local municipality. The result of a county road, designated as such because of usage, location, arterial needs etc, to be chopped up with varying speed limits, weight restrictions and parking restrictions would be chaotic. This amendment is counterproductive and ill-conceived.
Question 11: Will the minister withdraw this amendment?
Section 22: Under this newly created part XVII.1 entitled General Licensing Powers, the municipality regains this right to license businesses lost earlier in the repealing of section 109, amendment 3. While this more general, more enabling licensing power is welcome, clause 257.3(b) seems to go beyond the norm. In fact, as this section is being understood locally, it permits discrimination based upon the expectation of lawlessness, dishonesty or lack of integrity. Our contention is that this power is dangerous and unnecessary.
Question 12: Will the minister withdraw this section from the amendment?
Section 48: Referring to the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, this amendment and others that follow eliminate the responsibility of the province to share in the cost of county or local construction and/or maintenance. While Essex supports this movement away from a conditional grant arrangement for roads, the province is the recipient of gasoline, automobile and automobile parts sales taxes which by definition are designed for roadway construction and maintenance purposes. With the removal of any legislated fiscal responsibility in this area, the tendency over time may be to continually decrease the new municipal support grant to extinction in spite of receiving revenues specific to the expenditures which are made locally under this grant, namely roads.
Question 13: Will the minister consider establishing some minimum level of municipal support grant below which the province will not go, to reflect the need for a standard, province-wide, minimum level of infrastructure quality in order to attract industrial development, tourism and other potential revenue sources which are of a direct benefit to the province?
Question 14: Will the province acknowledge a responsibility to provide specific funding for connecting links between parts of the King's Highway or as an extension of the King's Highway to reflect the corresponding demand for enhanced maintenance or construction which normally accompanies this type of roadway?
Section 53: Particulary sections 53 and 56 will begin to pit municipality against municipality. This is neither productive nor desirable. In the long run, no one will win. Areas of the province will begin to show signs of wear and tear, to the detriment of any economic development or tourism trade. Everyone will lose. An example of this detrimental impact is evident in the repeal of section 53, whereby 80% grants by the province to counties for the repair and maintenance of county bridges on local roads are gone. These bridges were assumed by the county because of the high cost to a local municipality in maintaining a longer than normal bridge, of necessity -- in excess of 80 feet -- which experiences relatively low traffic.
Question 15: The response to this problem at the county level may be to transfer the ownership and responsibility for the maintenance of these bridges back to the local municipality in which they are situated. Will the province take this into account when setting the Ontario municipal support grant level for local municipalities which host these bridges?
Section 54 eliminates suburban roads. The rationale for the existence of suburban roads has been discussed time and time again. The rationale, however, remains that roadways adjacent to or leading into a major urban centre but located outside of its boundaries are of an undeniable benefit to the major urban centre. The transport of raw materials, heavy manufactured goods, farm produce, shoppers, skilled tradespeople etc into major urban centres creates high and heavy traffic, which puts an inordinate need for maintenance on these designated roadways. It's only fair that the major urban municipality which benefits from this situation should assume some level of the cost incurred.
Question 16: Will the province consider a continuance of suburban roads or, in the alternative, create some legislation whereby major urban municipalities are required to share in the cost of maintenance and upkeep of these roads?
Section 55 eliminates urban rebates. Urban rebates from the upper tier to towns and villages within its boundaries have a specific purpose. The burden placed upon towns and villages to carry the costs for higher-than-usual-traffic roadways, to the benefit of surrounding townships as well as themselves, and then to contribute fully to the county road system without some adjustment for this disparity is unfair. Urban rebates as they currently exist compensate at least partially for this inequity.
1320
Question number 17 then is, will the province consider a continuance of the urban rebates?
Section 64: This amendment repeals section 100, which gave authority to the road superintendent to initiate and carry out proceedings under the Drainage Act and the authority to file or receive notices ordering the procedures prescribed under that act.
Question 18: Why is this efficiency which eliminates unnecessary costs and delay in the commissioning of a drainage report being discontinued where a municipality exercises its option to engage a road superintendent on staff? Our local municipality has needed to do this for the preservation of infrastructure as well as for public safety reasons. Just in the past year alone we required ministerial approval on an emergency basis to do so. Without this portion in the act, there might be some problems.
One general comment on schedule M: In several instances throughout the proposed document, amendments were put forth the effect of which would eliminate any need for public consultation by a municipality, provided an action was performed by bylaw. It was emphasized in our discussions that a strength of municipal government is its capacity for public consultation and that any tampering with that characteristic should be resisted.
Finally, the ability to respond meaningfully to proposed legislation in the absence of any corresponding proposed regulations brings the whole effort into question. Too often the real concerns lie in the how rather than in the what. The difficulty in your addressing this dilemma is appreciated. However, this consultation process would have been much more meaningful if some idea of the direction of proposed regulations had been shared.
We have some comments and questions on schedule Q. While the new expectations being placed on arbitrators are welcome, it is suggested that some additional amendments be offered for consideration. They are as follows.
In making a decision or award, the board of arbitration shall consider the following criteria:
(1) The employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation and without any increase in taxation.
The rationale: Arbitrators in the public sector have historically found that the ability-to-pay arguments would not be applicable nor acceptable on the basis that municipalities could offset the awards through the tax levy. Thus, if the act does not specifically define the ability to pay precluding increases in taxation, the arbitrators will be tempted to award increases on the assumption that they can be paid for by an increase in taxation.
(2) The extent to which services may have to be reduced by a municipality if the current funding and taxation levels are not increased.
The rationale: Further to the rationale set out in number one above, the criteria proposed in the bill need to be amended as per this proposal, ensuring that the power to set municipal service levels can only rest with the local political body of the municipality.
(3) Number three is acceptable as proposed.
(4) A comparison as between the employees and other comparable employees in the broader public and private sector geographically akin to the municipality.
The rationale: Comparisons geographically will not be disproportionate for the general community akin to the municipality, including the private sector.
(5) Number five is acceptable.
(6) A board of arbitration will not make an award or decision that exceeds a freely negotiated agreement by any other bargaining unit of the employer municipality in a similar or substantially similar time period.
This is new. The rationale is that it's been determined by any number of arbitrators that the role of an interest arbitrator is to arrive at an award or decision that would replicate what the parties would have otherwise reached in a freely negotiated settlement or agreement.
The county of Essex has chosen not to comment on all parts of Bill 26, only those parts most directly concerning the county and its member municipalities. We have not commented on the portion affecting conservation authorities but wish to clarify that we certainly do not endorse the harsh treatment CAs have received in their transfer cuts or Bill 26. Municipalities aren't qualified or prepared to fill in the void if CAs are destroyed. We believe the long-term environmental impacts of your actions concerning CAs have not been fully considered.
Finally, some personal general comments. This Bill 26 is touted as giving municipalities the power and flexibility they need to deal with the provincial transfer cuts, but for every power given to municipalities in this bill, a far greater overriding power has been given to provincial ministers, and that's scary. The very future of local municipalities will be decided by regulations designed by provincial bureaucrats who do not know our area, our people or our circumstances. The municipalities did not cause our provincial financial problems; they were caused, in some cases, by the very bureaucrats who would now tell municipalities how to restructure.
We, as municipalities, are and have always been willing to deal with our fair share of the financial pain. We can and will put our own houses in order. We can even restructure. But the end result must make sense. We only ask for the assurance that we be given some respect, that we be treated as the true partners the province keeps telling us we are. Unfortunately, neither the content of Bill 26 nor the process of its hurried passage gives us those assurances.
On behalf of Essex county, I would like to thank you for hearing us today. I apologize for the length of our submission. I don't see how it could have been shortened much. Our intent was to respond to Bill 26 as it refers to schedules M and Q in a constructive way. Your attention and interest is appreciated. If we have some time, we'll try to answer some questions.
The Chair: We have about two minutes per caucus.
Mr Crozier: Warden Schmidt, gentlemen, I don't think you have to apologize for anything. It's one of the most comprehensive and thoughtful presentations that's been made to us last week and the beginning of this second week that I've been sitting on this committee.
As is the custom, generally there is a government member here to answer questions on behalf of the bill and carry the bill. I don't think we have that today, although we have the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing here. I would hope he would grant the request that these very thoughtful questions are answered. I would like your reply to that on the record, if I could.
If you could very briefly, warden, roads are a big part of the expense of the county. I know you've pointed out in question 16 the concerns regarding suburban roads. I just wonder if you might want to make a brief comment with respect to those.
Mr Schmidt: Suburban roads commissions have been built over a long period of history. There was a reason for that; there was a need for that. The benefits are both for the county and for the urban municipality that pay into it. The problem without that structure is, how do we set those priorities? How do we work with the city on deciding future transportation routes in and out of the city? How do we account for the increased spending required by those roads, which doesn't always initiate within the county but quite often within the city? It is a serious problem and it is going to be a serious budgeting problem as well for the county.
Mr Cooke: I would like to begin by asking, as wouldn't be out of the usual, that this brief not only be tabled, but we ask that the questions that have been contained in the brief be submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and that the committee ask for a written reply to the specific questions that have been asked on behalf of the committee and that they be tabled with the committee before our deliberations are completed, if I might.
In the minute and 30 seconds that I have left, I think, and you can tell me whether I'm wrong, you've listed some concerns about potential taxes, which boards might be included in boards that can be eliminated; there's a whole series of questions that you've asked that cannot be answered by the committee, because they'll only be answered by the regulations, which we haven't seen. It's my strong feeling that after the public hearings on this bill, the draft regulations should be sent out for public hearings, because that's the real guts of the legislation.
I guess what I'd like to ask you is, do you have any understanding through AMO about what role you're going to play in the development of those regulations? More importantly, do you really believe your long-term interests as municipalities are going to be protected by having certain protections built into regulations which can be changed without notice by cabinet and no public hearings and no public input?
1330
Mr Schmidt: One of our main concerns with the legislation is the requirement that the regulations pretty well determine the full impact of it. It's a very real concern that our municipalities and the county have, yes.
Mr Cooke: So I suspect then that you would like to see more of that in the legislation as opposed to the regulations. You understand on a long-term basis what the rules of the game are.
Mr Schmidt: The legislation is so general that without the regulations we really don't know where we're heading. We have to have some of those criteria and some of those guidelines put into it.
The Chair: To the government caucus, Mr Hardeman and then Mr Tascona.
Mr Hardeman: Good afternoon, warden. Thank you for coming in. Going back to the question of Mr Cooke about the regulations and the minister naming the boards which could or could not be resolved by the municipality, AMO's position in the past has always been that all boards, special purpose bodies, should be under the authority of local governments.
Mr Cooke: School boards?
Mr Gerretsen: Police commissions?
Mr Cooke: I don't think so.
Mr Hardeman: That's been their position. Now, there are some exemptions. As was mentioned by Mr Cooke, they have not in the past wanted to take over school boards. They've wanted to completely dissociate themselves from school boards. The question is, do you feel that the legislation to meet the needs of the county should be changed to allow total dissolution or total discretion to the municipality, or do you think the legislation should become restrictive and tell municipalities which ones could and could not be dissolved?
Mr Schmidt: We referred only to non-elected boards, so that kind of leaves out the school boards. We would like some guidance and some direction from the province. We understand that there have been a number of exemptions being promised and being discussed at the provincial level. We would like to know which boards are off limits and which ones aren't. That's all we want to know. But we follow the AMO --
Mr Hardeman: -- you are with AMO, that you would like as many as possible under the local jurisdiction.
Mr Schmidt: Municipalities have always felt that they're responsible for the taxation; they should be responsible for the implementation as well.
The Chair: Unfortunately, Mr Tascona, we've exhausted the time. I'd like to thank you gentlemen for coming forward today to make your presentation.
Mr Phillips: It is agreeable to the government that we will get to respond to those questions?
The Chair: We can make that request.
Mr Phillips: Is that all right with you, that you'll actually respond to these questions?
Mr Hardeman: I don't know. I didn't listen to the individual questions. Whether I can answer them today, I'm not sure.
The Chair: I think the request has been that it be submitted to the ministry.
Mr Hardeman: It will be submitted to the ministry.
The Chair: To have some questions back --
Mr Hardeman: I cannot speak to his response; I can speak to submitting it to the minister.
Mr Cooke: It would not be an unusual request. We've asked several questions as committee members and then the information has been tabled with committee. I'm just suggesting that these questions be tabled like the other questions and that the answers be tabled with the committee.
Mr Hardeman: I might say that we will forward the request to the minister, and the presentation, and we will hopefully have the answers back to the committee. I cannot speak to what the answers will --
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Crozier: That's not quite good enough.
Mr Phillips: Just on the same point, on December 20 I asked for some information to be tabled. I think the government indicated that on interest arbitration the ability to pay has been a relevant factor to consider and it's codified in other jurisdictions of the country. I asked for that to be tabled, and I think the same thing was mentioned again earlier today, that the ability to pay is codified in other sections of the country. We were told in our briefing that this was not the case, so I'd just like the government to clarify it. Is it the case or is it not? That was requested on December 20 to be tabled.
Mr Tascona: If I may respond to that, the mandated criterion is in other jurisdictions, and in particular with respect to ability to pay, it's a relevant consideration. You'd have to look at the legislation, but certainly a mandated criterion for arbitrators is in other jurisdictions.
Mr Phillips: Mr Chair, all I'm asking is for that to be tabled. I asked for that on December 20; we haven't seen that yet.
Mr Tascona: I have copies of the legislation if you want to look at them.
Mr Phillips: Table them. That's what we're asking.
Mr Tascona: You said you had copies yourself.
Mr Phillips: The government has indicated that these things exist. I just simply want them tabled. If they don't exist, then don't table them. If they do exist, table them. But we are owed that.
Mr Tascona: I'll table them. You have the same access that I do. It's basic legislation in every other province. You can get it yourself.
Mr Phillips: This is crazy.
Mr Cooke: What an arrogant -- you're the government. You're supposed to provide that information to the committee for the record.
Mr Tascona: It's legislation from other provinces, Mr Cooke.
Mr Phillips: I think the public has some idea of what we're dealing with here. I asked for that to be tabled two weeks ago, December 20.
The Chair: We'll attempt to get something tabled for the committee to that effect.
ESSEX REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
The Chair: May I please have a member from the Essex Region Conservation Authority come forward? Thank you for being here today. You'll have half an hour today to make your presentation. You may use your time as you see fit. You may decide to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions. I'd appreciate it, for the benefit of committee members and Hansard, if you'd read your names into the record before you begin.
Mr Pat O'Neil: My name is Pat O'Neil. I'm the chair of the Essex Region Conservation Authority. With me is Sheila Wisdom, who is the vice-chair of the conservation authority, and Ken Schmidt, who is the general manager of the authority.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity of being allowed to make a presentation today. I share the view of the last delegation, the county of Essex, regarding the process, concerns regarding the haste of the passage of the bill; the fact that these hearings are being held but it's thought that they're being held somewhat begrudgingly.
I'd like to point out somewhat my background as it affects my views and my comments. I'm here speaking today as the chairman of the Essex Region Conservation Authority. I've served on the authority as a municipal representative for 10 years. I'm also the mayor of the town of Kingsville. I've been on municipal council for 14 years. In 1991, I was elected and had the privilege of serving as warden of the county of Essex. Mr Hardeman knows 1991 was a good year for wardens. Last but not least, I'm a lawyer in private practice in Kingsville.
We realize that the committee has already heard representation from the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario on behalf of all 38 conservation authorities in the province. We will try not to overlap in our presentation. We would point out that that presentation was made early on in the process, when I do not believe all the full implications of the bill that we're dealing with today were available.
We fully recognize the need to eliminate the provincial deficit in order to ensure that the economy of Ontario is strengthened. We support and are anxious to work with the government to achieve that. Given our working relationship with municipalities, we strongly endorse a clear shift to increased local decision-making, as intended by Bill 26.
Conservation authorities' records of cost-effective and efficient delivery of environmental service give us unmatched credibility. We know that we can make a real contribution because we embrace the businesslike approach that this government is advocating.
Our frustration is that we have been shut out of the process and our fear is that, as a result, some very basic concepts regarding the environment and its role in strengthening the economy are being ignored. We're here to go on the public record to say that the serious impact of Bill 26 related to environmental issues demands that we speak out. To remain silent would be a betrayal of the public trust and the work of those who have gone before us.
To put this concern in context, we must bear in mind that restrictions to conservation authorities in Bill 26 are in addition to a 70% cut from the province of Ontario as outlined in the economic statement. These two factors will make it extremely difficult for conservation authorities to maintain their capacity to assist municipalities in watershed-based resource management. Again, you heard the prior presentation. The county has made it clear that local municipalities are not in a position to take over these obligations.
It's ironic that when the George Drew government of 1946 established conservation authorities, they did so because there was a clear recognition that the economic viability of the province was dependent on fixing serious environmental problems. Deforestation had led to massive soil erosion, polluted waterways and more frequent and more serious and more costly flooding province-wide. We need to remember and learn from that era. As Winston Churchill said, "Those who fail to learn from their history are doomed to repeat it."
For 50 years conservation authorities have been doing an excellent job in resource management, in large part because of three important founding principles: local decision-making, managing natural resources on a watershed basis and a partnership between the province and municipalities. Those principles have helped authorities develop a delivery system which has proven to be more efficient and more economical than any other alternative. In fact, it wasn't until the 1970s and the establishment of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources that there had been a problem with overlap and duplication, which appears to be a focus of this legislation.
1340
Managing the environment is a long-term job that transcends political boundaries and parties. The government must ask itself some tough questions about environmental management. The public of the 1990s here in the Essex region, and we believe across the province of Ontario, demands it.
If conservation authorities do not remain strong and viable, what is the government putting forward as a mechanism to address Ontario's environmental needs and, by extension, our province's long-term economic health? Our overriding concern about Bill 26 is that it has the capacity to completely destroy in one or two years what has taken 50 years to build, and it appears that there's no viable alternative environmental plan being put forward.
By way of some background in the Essex region and how it fits into the big picture, we should point out that every region is unique. As a result, every conservation authority is unique and every authority deals locally with environmental issues which are part of a much broader environmental and economic picture.
The Essex region is surrounded by water on three sides. Every watershed in the region flows into and affects the Great Lakes watershed directly. In fact, all conservation authorities in the province and their watersheds directly affect the Great Lakes ecosystem, the world's largest single supply of fresh water.
It is vital that while dealing with details of Bill 26, municipal and provincial responsibilities, conservation authorities' mandate etc, that we keep that bigger picture in mind: that action or inaction within any watershed affects much more than any one political jurisdiction. In fact, Ontario's environmental obligations go well beyond the boundaries of the province.
As David Crombie recently said, "Everything is connected to everything else." Within a watershed, everything is connected to everything else through water courses and their tributaries. Do something good for the environment upstream and it will have a good effect downstream. Degrade the environment upstream and there will be consequences downstream. Using this natural watershed approach has earned conservation authorities international recognition.
The Essex region did not establish the conservation authority till 1973. The region has truly unique natural resources, some even on a national and international scale, such as Carolinian forests, tall grass prairie, Alvars wetlands and very extensive shorelines. In 1973, the quantity of these resources was very limited and the resources which remain were threatened. Many still are today.
For instance, the region has less than 4% tree cover, the lowest amount in the province. Less than 2% of the landscape was made up of publicly owned and protected natural areas. The UN's Brundtland commission has stated that at least 12% of the landscape must be conserved in a natural state if sustainable development is to be achieved.
The point is that we had vital and unique resources which were gravely threatened in 1973. The process we have begun to make is good but far from complete. In 1973, there was a clear need for restoration efforts, a clear need not just for specific projects, such as flood control, but a diverse conservation program throughout the region. These challenges could not be addressed through provincial programs. At the same time, they just transcended municipal boundaries and could not be effectively dealt with individually by separate towns, townships and cities.
The Essex Region Conservation Authority was formed because there was a distinct need for a body which could bridge the gap between municipal and provincial capabilities to provide stewardship of natural resources from a watershed perspective. In our 20-plus years, we have made remarkable progress, but there's still much that remains to be done. These success stories that are fully enumerated, and they're on page 6 there for the record but I won't read them to you because of the desire to have an opportunity to answer questions, those success stories and many more have been made possible through a municipal levy of less than $2.50 per capita. Nowhere is there more important environmental work completed at less cost.
These successes have come about because the Essex Region Conservation Authority has existed and has had the capacity to serve its 23 municipalities individually for projects important to them and collectively on many initiatives which have involved environmental issues which are intermunicipal in scope.
The worst assumption you could make about this region or the province is that our environmental work is complete. Bear in mind that the Essex Region Conservation Authority has just existed for over 20 years, after a period of some 200 years in which there was virtually no stewardship of the region's environment. A great deal, in fact, remains to be done. For instance, the new policy statement under the Planning Act will require a considerable involvement by conservation authorities in assisting municipalities with their new approval process.
The public has expressed strong concern over perceived threats to the environment due to the increase in local control over planning issues. However, our track record supports local decision-making, and we have credibility with naturalists, development interests and municipalities. Our role will be crucial in the years to come if this new approach to planning is to be successful and environmentally sound. To quote a Windsor Star editorial of Friday, January 5: "One safeguard would be a clear and strong role for conservation authorities to monitor development and provide the kind of expert advice and technical input that would lead to responsible decisions and avoid irreversible mistakes."
For the next section I'll call on Sheila Wisdom, vice-chair of the Essex Region Conservation Authority. Sheila also is a long-standing member of the Windsor city council and has been a member of the ERCA board since 1989.
Ms Sheila Wisdom: Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, it's my pleasure to speak to you today. I should also tell you that I have been on city council since 1989, and during that time assisted in the development of the city of Windsor's fiscal fitness policy, and Mr Duncan can tell you that the city of Windsor has had the lowest mill rate increase, cumulatively, in 1992 of any municipality with a population of over 150,000, so I appreciate the need for restructuring and the need for reorganization.
With that in mind, though, I make the following comments about concerns that we have regarding Bill 26, some of which are broad in scope and some very specific.
First of all, the conservation authorities provide a forum for municipalities to pool financial and technical resources, and more importantly, to mutually agree on the priorities of which problems to solve first and the best solutions to employ. This mechanism is not adequately addressed in Bill 26 regarding the Conservation Authorities Act.
Limitations are far too extreme regarding programs and projects eligible for provincial grants and municipal levy. Being limited to maintaining flood control structures and paying taxes on provincially significant conservation lands virtually eliminates the very strength of a watershed approach to resource management. There is no mechanism to ensure that the will of the watershed majority can be enforced. The decisions of one municipality can thwart the will of the majority.
Conservation authorities will no longer be able to assist municipalities to safeguard residents and their property from flood and erosion hazards due the lack of provincial support for comprehensive watershed management. As stated in recent correspondence from the city of Windsor, municipalities have expressed concern that they rely on conservation authorities to address this issue through their expertise, and without authorities the municipalities will be facing serious liability issues.
The initial focus on facilitating the dissolution of conservation authorities is irresponsible in that it ignores the conservation authorities' proven 50-year track record while providing no environmental management alternative. We are very concerned that the mechanism identified could result in an authority being dissolved by as few as a third of the representatives of a conservation authority. There is need for a decision-making framework which will permit majority rule.
1350
The conservation authority program has always been based on provincial-conservation authority partnership. We were disappointed that we were not consulted in advance regarding Bill 26. In fact, the Ministry of Natural Resources' program review and the review of conservation authorities led by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources have not been shared with conservation authorities. I will add here anecdotally, though, that I did attend a meeting of ACAO, and Mr Klees at that time did offer to share that information, so I assume that has been done or will be done shortly. We still think that there is need for meaningful consultation and we are committed to work with the province towards that end.
Bill 26 contains no environmental vision for Ontario, and in its current form will result in a patchwork quilt marked by inconsistent watershed management province-wide. There must be a level playing field among municipalities and regions in the form of consistent environmental policies. We need to ensure that these policies are not simply based on the lowest common denominator and that shortsighted, short-term enticements don't sacrifice our environmental legacy for future generations.
It is worth noting that Ontario has been held in high esteem, worldwide, for the watershed approach in resource management employed by conservation authorities. Saskatchewan, Michigan, British Columbia, Austria and New Zealand are just some of the other jurisdictions which have consulted conservation authorities because of that approach.
Bill 26 and the provincial economic statement make no provision for implementation of any of the recommendations contained in the series of three blueprint documents submitted by ACAO. Our concern over this omission has been magnified by extensive local support for these recommendations expressed by developers, lawyers and consultants to the development industry, and you have copies of that correspondence. This community-based watershed conservation outlined in the blueprint document will create an efficient system that helps individuals, communities and municipalities manage their own natural resources.
Conservation authorities would support community management with watershed information, advice and technical services, coordinated regulatory services and coordinated management of lands held in the public.
Bill 26 is clearly downloading on to municipalities which are ill equipped to address environmental responsibilities previously handled by the province and conservation authorities. Continued funding of conservation authorities will reduce not only downloading but concerns over liability. We have a major concern that what may be viewed as cost saving for the province now will, in the long term, cost far more. By investing $34 million in conservation authorities, the province can achieve far more for the environment and the economy than through any other alternative.
We believe conservation authorities and the province can sit down and work together. It is not too late to bring about positive change which meets the need provincially for fiscal constraint while at the same time continuing to meet our provincial and watershed environmental needs. The Essex Region Conservation Authority fully endorses the widespread support for lessening provincial administrative approvals and intervention as one means of streamlining resource management.
The following are our additional recommendations regarding Bill 26:
Recommendation 1, as noted by ACAO in its submission to this committee dated December 19, 1995: that the proposed amendments to section 27 of the Conservation Authorities Act be amended to provide a mechanism to allow member municipalities to agree on a majority basis to services and levies other than flood control. This formula for levying should be in legislation, not left to regulation.
Recommendation 2: that bill 26 be amended to reflect the concepts put forward in the ACAO's Restructuring Resource Management in Ontario: A Blueprint for Success document and to facilitate the one-window and other streamlining initiatives confirmed therein.
Recommendation 3: that the section 21 amendments be revised to reflect the process of dissolution of a conservation authority requires the support of a majority of the representatives of the municipalities constituting the authority.
Recommendation 4: We support the recommendations previously submitted by the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario. If those recommendations and those listed above cannot be accommodated within the time frame set for passing Bill 26, we recommend that matters pertaining to amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act be deferred pending further public review.
In addition to the recommendations offered specific to Bill 26, we strongly recommend that the province of Ontario renew a commitment to meaningful grant funding of a watershed-based resource management through conservation authorities.
Mr O'Neil: By way of conclusion, the people of this region and the province are passionate about the need for a healthy environment. We heard that loud and clear during our own strategic planning process. Residents want clean air, clean water and protection of their natural heritage. The public will not simply go away on this issue. Worldwide, there is now the knowledge that the environment and the economy are linked. Some environmental policies are very compatible with strong economic policy. Neglecting the environment for what are perceived as short-term economic fixes is in fact long-term economic folly. We need only look to health care where there is clear recognition that in order to have a proactive, cost-effective health system, we must have a healthy environment.
Bill 26 substantially weakens conservation authorities' ability to assist municipalities in meeting community needs for healthy, safe environments in all the watersheds of Ontario. Conservation authorities are the best vehicle for the government to achieve many of its objectives: greater local control, accountability, cost-effectiveness and long-term economic and environmental health at a cost which is the most reasonable and through a system which has proven itself for 50 years.
Our recommendations offer the province an opportunity to continue to work with conservation authorities to address economic and environmental concerns through a proven program which supplies three to four dollars locally for every dollar provided by the province.
Please consider our recommendations seriously and look at them closely as you re-evaluate Bill 26. The quality of life of Ontario residents depends on what you do. A sustainable environment and a sustainable economy, which we all want to pass on to future generations, depend on it too.
I'd just like to repeat the portion of the county of Essex brief where they said they do not endorse the harsh treatment of conservation authorities that they've received in their transfer cuts, or Bill 26; and where they state that municipalities aren't qualified or prepared to fill the void if conservation authorities are destroyed; and that they believe that the long-term environmental impacts of the government's actions concerning conservation authorities have not been fully considered.
Thank you for the opportunity for the presentation.
The Chair: We have about two and a half minutes per caucus, starting with Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much for the presentation. I guess it's really that last point that I wanted to address, where you refer back to the previous presentation as well. There's something that continues to come at us in these hearings. Of course, one of the things that the government claims is that they're trying to provide more freedom for decisions to be made at the local level, and yet on the taxation side we see how that is, in our view at least, inconsistent. But it's this sense that when it comes to conservation authorities, that work could be just subsumed or easily done by a municipality. Your brief I think makes that point very clear, but if you want to add any more comments, please feel free to.
I guess the essential question I have for you is, is there anything in Bill 26, as it relates to conservation authorities, that in your view there is a great urgency about, in terms of needing to get it passed within the next couple of weeks, as the government is wanting to do?
Mr O'Neil: Not so at all, unless it's their desire to reduce the funding by 70%. It's clear that local municipalities do not have the expertise. Our particular authority employs, or did employ, some 30 people and as a result of the cuts that employment is being substantially reduced already.
The expertise is there -- expertise on water quality, specific engineering concerns that are not at a local level -- so they're going to have to engage those professional services outside of conservation authorities. The problem is that what the conservation authorities do is to deal with the environment, and you're not able to say that the harm to this watercourse ends at this local municipality boundary. It transcends several municipalities, so it requires a concerted effort that can't be done by individual municipalities acting on their own.
The Chair: Mr Klees, for the government side.
Mr Klees: Thank you for your presentation. I was just disappointed that you left out the last sentence of article 7 on page 9 in which your brief states, "It is also very noteworthy that Mr Klees has expressed support for the concepts contained in the blueprint document."
1400
Ms Wisdom: My apologies, Mr Klees. I was reading quickly.
Mr Klees: It's been a tough day and every once in a while, we would like to get some reassurance of some positive things that we're saying.
Mr Duncan: Withdraw the bill.
Mr Gerretsen: Which Mr Klees is that?
Mr Klees: If I might, for the record, assure you that we do support the work of conservation authorities, and we consider that conservation authorities are critical to this province. You clearly pointed out that you endorse a clear shift for increased local decision-making. We, as a government, believe that along with that increased local decision-making should also come the increased fiscal responsibility.
What we're simply saying, and we've communicated this to the conservation authorities across the province, is that the responsibility for funding should come at the local level, and we encourage municipalities to work with the conservation authorities over the next number of years to continue to do the kind of work that you've done in this province.
We have sent that signal clearly and we look forward to working with you to achieve that, and I think there are some details that have to be worked out. As you know, we've formed an interministerial committee to work with the conservation authorities. You've been invited to participate on that, and many of the issues that you've raised are legitimate and we look forward to working with you on that.
Mr O'Neil: Mr Klees, while you're indicating support for the documentation and for the conservation authorities, the financial response by way of the severe cuts, some 70%, indicates a different view.
Mr Klees: Let me respond to that. I think that what we have indicated is that it's time for the province to fund those critical provincial interest issues which we've identified as flood control. If there are other aspects that the conservation authority wants to enter into along with the municipalities, those things should be funded by the municipalities.
Your particular authority, if I'm not mistaken, spent some $500,000 on acquiring an abandoned railroad track to provide a walking trail. We don't believe the provincial government should be funding that. If the local municipality feels that in conjunction with the conservation authority that's where the money should be spent, then you should be free to allocate those funds, but the province will not --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klees. Sorry, you've come to the end of your time. The opposition caucus.
Mr Crozier: Mr O'Neil, you didn't get the opportunity to respond, and since we have such limited time, I'd like to give you that opportunity to respond to Mr Klees in that respect.
Mr O'Neil: Again, my response is that, yes, you've indicated support and, yes, you've said you're in favour of the Blueprint for Success, those are your verbal positions, but the dollars determine what we can do to protect the environment, and you've advocated block funding for municipalities and you've taken away block funding for conservation authorities. You've indicated that conservation authorities only can spend the small amount of money that we received, and it should be kept in mind it was a very small amount of money province-wide that authorities received versus the benefit that the province has received.
Mr Crozier: Mr O'Neil, the disbanding of conservation authorities seems to be the theme or the concern of the submission that was made to us by the association. You have shown less concern and a more optimistic view, if I can use the word "optimism," but can you give me an example or give us an example of what would happen with some facilities in Essex county if a local conservation authority was disbanded and what might happen if it's left up to municipalities?
Mr O'Neil: Many of the facilities that we have in the county do not fit in the so-called core mandate of flood control. We've got Hillman Marsh, Holiday Beach, numerous conservation authorities that aren't flood control, and yet they're very important to the residents of this county but also important to the environmental health of the county.
Sheila just wanted to make a response too.
Ms Wisdom: If I might, to respond to Mr Klees, we ask that you look at the limits that you have put on the funding and the uses that you have limited that funding for, and I don't suffer any illusions that all of a sudden, having come here, you're going to turn around and have a change of heart and we'll have bags of money. But I do ask that you look at the areas that you have limited the funding for. I think that severely hampers the conservation authority. In your comments about A Blueprint for Success and your emphasis on the importance of conservation authorities -- we also, in our submission, make reference to a patchwork quilt. I think if individual authorities have to negotiate with their own municipalities and with various ministries for various kinds of work and taking over various areas of service, we will have a patchwork quilt and I don't think we will be getting the best bang for our buck. I don't think that there will be consistency across the province and I think that over the long haul we'll be revisiting that.
What I am asking your government to do is to work with ACAO to ensure that at the provincial level there is an opportunity for all conservation authorities to actually make A Blueprint for Success a reality. That will require provincial intervention. It cannot work if it is done at the local level. It's that simple.
The Chair: Thank you very much, all of you, for coming forward today and giving your presentation to the committee.
MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Could I please have representatives from the Municipal Electric Association come forward? Good afternoon, gentlemen, and welcome to the committee. You have half an hour today to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions. I would appreciate it, for the benefit of Hansard and for the committee members, that you read your names into the record before you begin.
Mr Elvin Martin: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Elvin Martin. I am the chair of the Municipal Electric Association and also the chair of Waterloo North Hydro and, I might add, an elected commissioner. On my left is Mr Jim MacKenzie, president of our association and the general manager of Guelph Hydro; on my right is Mr Tony Jennings, our association's CEO; and on my far right is Mr Kent Edwards, the general manager of the Windsor Utilities Commission. Since we are in Windsor, we thought it would be appropriate to ask Kent to join us. He will be submitting a brief as well and this will be done separately.
Thank you very much for this opportunity. The Municipal Electric Association represents Ontario's 307 municipal electric utilities, which deliver electricity as a local service on a full-cost recovery basis with no recourse to taxes. These hydro-electric commissions operate on a not-for-profit business basis, responding to the needs of local residential and business customers. The MEA's role is simple. We exist to help our members provide quality, cost-effective service to their customers. We help utilities speak for those customers.
Despite the magnitude of the proposed legislation, we do not plan to take much of your time. We will focus only on matters of direct interest to our members and our customers. I expect to take about 15 minutes to focus on three specific areas. First, we want to express our support for some key direction of the government. Second, we want to publicly thank the government for correspondence from the ministers of Environment and Energy and of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and for agreeing to involve the MEA in the separate review of the Municipal Act. Third, we want to share some longer-term concerns about schedule M of this bill.
Let me begin with number one: fiscal management, local decision-making and accountability. On my first point, the government favours effective fiscal management, local decision-making and improved accountability. Electricity is one public service which has, virtually from its inception, been delivered on a full-cost recovery basis with no demand on taxes. The municipal level of government already normally functions without operating deficits. We support the government's efforts to make the provincial level of government live within its means as soon as possible. The government should support and promote approaches which have been shown to work.
We believe the government should promote consideration of extending the public utility concept to encompass other municipal services which can function on a full-cost recovery basis. Time does not allow us to go into all of the advantages from organizational, accounting, legal or public relations perspectives, but we believe the public utility customers are well served and this government should support broader use of this concept.
1410
Windsor Utilities Commission is also responsible for water services and Mr Edwards's brief addresses this idea in more detail. But before I move on, let me make one point. Our experience suggests that members of the public accept the user-pay, full-cost recovery approach of the distinct public utilities commission. Public utilities commissions are accepted as non-profit businesses. During the last municipal election, there were referenda on abandoning the public utility approach. These were strongly defeated by the electorate.
We recognize that the government's fiscal restraint is going to create more pressure on local services. We also understand that many municipal councils have concerns about those special-purpose bodies they are required to fund but over which they have less than adequate influence.
However, the municipal electric utilities are unique. Unlike most local special-purpose bodies, current legislation requires us to run solely on our own revenue. We run as non-profit businesses, largely debt-free, and collectively our unencumbered assets approach $9 billion. Our local costs represent, on average, only 15% of the cost of electricity and yet, through local efforts in the last few years, many of our members have been able to reduce that 15% in order to provide rate reductions.
We believe, and many of the public believe, that public utility commissions serve and reinforce the financial goals of the government. I don't need to emphasize local control in decision-making. The government has often spoken on this topic. Aspects of schedule M reflect this focus and we understand that amendments will be made to it which will put the initiation of a restructuring commission into local hands.
Municipal electric commissions effectively serve and represent their customers based on local needs, attitudes and priorities. We also favour direct and clear accountability. There can be no more direct accountability than for those of us who stand for election every three years.
Although a small number of municipal electric utility commissions are governed by appointed commissioners, the majority of us are elected, a point I will come back to. Regardless of whether we are elected or appointed, we have a clear role to serve and we represent our customers. We know that they expect that, particularly in small-town Ontario. We hear and we respond when our customers call. Because our responsibilities are focused and because our customers support our businesslike approach, we can serve them well.
Municipal electric utility commissioners are all part-time politicians. We are the traditional Ontario public service volunteers. Even in the largest utilities, commissioners are paid very little.
In summary on my first point, let me say again that the Municipal Electric Association and its members already reflect the government aim of improving fiscal responsibility, local control and accountability. In our efforts to provide a reliable supply of electricity at the lowest cost, we are one example of how this can be done.
Point 2, recognition of municipal electric utilities: My second focus today is to thank the government, first for recognizing our current circumstances in some important correspondence, a copy of which is attached to our presentation. It acknowledges that our members are subject to a separate review and the government has committed to exempt our members from the provisions of Bill 26 relating to municipal control.
Second, the Minister of Municipal Affairs has a separate project under way to rewrite the Municipal Act and related legislation. The ministry has agreed to our involvement in several subprojects which affect our members. While we are not yet sure how that consultation will work, we are pleased to be involved. As I have said, the letter from the two ministers is welcome, but it does not say how that commitment will be put into effect. However, we understand that the government may plan to handle this by what the minister includes or excludes in various regulations or orders. Although the letter does not expressly say so, the context also implies that the exemption may be temporary.
We recommend that the commitment to exempt municipal electric utilities be implemented by an appropriate amendment to Bill 26.
Item 3, issues in schedule M: If we knew that this permanent solution was going to be adopted, I could stop here, but we don't, and thus my third item must be pursued. We have several longer-term concerns. They are not new concerns, and we have pursued them before. We believe they are both reasonable and important. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is given surprisingly far-reaching powers, powers that can override other statutes in broad ways. In addition, with regard to restructuring, the cabinet may, by order in council, give the minister or a commission additional powers. Such broad powers are a concern. Even if one accepts assurances that the current minister will exercise these powers cautiously, there is no assurance possible about future ministers.
Some of you will recall that the original Bill 118, amendments to the Power Corporation Act, would have allowed future governments to give very broad direction to Ontario Hydro. No one knew what the government might decide to impose, and assurances were seen by us all as insufficient. Who could know what the next minister or the next government might decide, or the one after that? With the support of both the Conservative and Liberal caucuses and ultimately the NDP government, the MEA successfully argued that government power to provide binding direction to Ontario Hydro should be limited.
Schedule M of this bill would give any Minister of Municipal Affairs extremely wide powers. While we understand that the government believes speed and flexibility are important, we recommend that more specific information be put in the statute, thus limiting such discretionary powers either in extent or duration. I must apologize that we have not had time to prepare specific suggestions.
One of the safeguards provided in current legislation is the requirement for a referendum before dissolving or selling a utility franchise. I have noted above that the public utilities concept has generally been supported in referenda. To say it again, our customers like our straightforward, standalone, businesslike approach. Payments for electricity are not mixed up with tax dollars. People understand that they get what they pay for.
Let us be clear: Schedule M of Bill 26 does not directly do away with referenda, but it does give the authority directly to municipal councils to waive the requirement under both the Public Utilities Act and the Municipal Franchises Act. We find it interesting that this government plans to require municipalities to hold a referendum on such things as a casino, but is prepared to remove that requirement when it comes to something as important as electricity. Particularly upsetting is the fact that the requirements for referenda are maintained for gas franchises, the other monopoly energy supplier. Let me say, as one who was elected to look after electricity interests, I find my exclusion from such a decision quite offensive, and so would my colleagues. Hopefully, this was an oversight.
For the MEA, this is not a new concern. Over the years we have believed that the people should be allowed to express their opinions on these matters. Some of you will recall that during the debate on Bill 75, the legislation to restructure the city of London, we argued this point. We said that the public should be allowed a voice in the structure of their PUC and in whether their commissioners were elected or appointed. So did most who presented briefs on this matter, and several thousand petitioners. We were supported by both the Conservatives and the Liberals.
We recommend that the exemption for gas utilities be extended to our members. At the very least, we must be involved in the decision to waive the rights of our citizens on matters they elected us to oversee.
1420
Likewise, we are concerned that utility commissions are given no voice in the decisions to transfer powers from local municipalities to upper-tier municipalities and vice versa. Careful three-point tests are set out in schedule M to ensure that appropriate interests are recognized. However, once again, the interests I was elected to look after are not recognized.
We recommend that utility commissions be given a voice in these decisions when the interests of their customers are affected.
Some have suggested that this legislation will allow the municipal electric utilities to be privatized in order to give municipal councils a temporary financial gain. Privatization of municipal electric utilities would not be in the interests of the customers. The customers' interests in low-cost, reliable service must remain our primary concern.
Ownership does make a difference for the customer. In the US there are some 2,000 municipal electric utilities, and the number is climbing. The average residential customer served by them receives their electricity at rates 30% below those from investor-owned or private utilities. Commercial businesses are not quite as well-advantaged, but on average their rates for municipal electric utilities are still about 15% below those of the investor-owned utilities. To make the record complete, I should note that average electricity rates for large industrial customers are about the same from either public or private utilities.
If you think we are being self-serving, we are not. Recent experience from the United Kingdom has indicated that the compensation significantly increases with a move to the private sector, whether it be for the management ranks or boards of directors. I might add that municipal electric utilities here and in the US pay significant property taxes to their municipalities.
As current legislation has been applied to date, dissolution of a municipal electric utility automatically results in Ontario Hydro assuming responsibility for serving the affected customer. We have found nothing specific in this bill to change that practice.
To ensure that customers continue to enjoy reliable electricity at the lowest price, we recommend that municipal electric utilities not be privatized.
In closing, let me repeat that the MEA supports the government's goals of fiscal soundness, local decision-making and direct accountability. We welcome the government's commitment to exempt the municipal electric utilities and to involve us in its future considerations. We believe some important changes to schedule M are required.
The use of agencies, boards and commissions in Canadian local government is not a well-studied area. It has been brought to my attention that the Institute of Public Administration of Canada created a research team of academics and municipal administrators from across the country to examine this area. Their 1994 publication of assembled papers, edited by Dale Richmond, then CAO of Metropolitan Toronto and now president of OMERS, and David Siegel, a professor at Brock University, includes in its preface the following quote:
"Most members of the team began with what might be described as the conventional wisdom among municipal people that ABCs serve no useful purpose as separate entities and should be folded into municipal government. Gradually, most members of the study team came to the realization that the ABC form of organization did serve a useful purpose when it was used in suitable circumstances and when it had an appropriate organizational structure and accountability regime."
We would agree with the findings of the team. We believe that the municipal electric utilities meet those criteria and serve their customers well.
Thank you very much. We have included with our presentation a list of recommendations, and we are prepared to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We have four minutes per caucus for questions, and we'll start with the government caucus.
Mr Hardeman: Good afternoon, Mr Martin. Just a couple of quick questions: As to the issue of the minister's discretionary powers, you suggest in recommendation 3 to either limit those powers or to sunset the powers. Is it your submission that the powers are required? Are you suggesting that there is merit in the power, but beyond that, they should be limited in some way after the job is finished?
Mr Tony Jennings: Our discussions on that, to be honest, are that the bill says the minister can set out principles, but until you see what kind of principles we're talking about -- elsewhere it talks about the minister setting out criteria. We're not clear, even after some discussion with ministry staff, about what's going to be in the criteria and what's going to be in the principles, so it's really difficult to answer the question.
Mr Hardeman: The other issue is the issue of the migration of authority or responsibility between the upper and the lower tier, and your suggestion that a vote on that should require the vote of some representation from the public utility. Have you got any suggestions on how we would include that where the utilities are not in all the municipalities? In a lot of our counties presently they have some municipalities with the authorities and some without. If you were looking at the transfer, have you got any suggestions of how we could put it in there to accommodate the voice of the electric commission?
Mr Jennings: If you turn to page 140, section 209.2, one way we thought of -- it may not be the only way -- is that you require a fairly extensive three-point test, where the upper-tier municipality has to vote, a majority of the council; you could add (d), a fourth test which would say that for matters affecting public utilities, a majority of the affected public utilities would have to endorse the change as well. It would be a fairly simple change there and in section 33. There may be other ways of achieving the same end.
Mr Hardeman: The issue of the letter that was in part of your presentation, that it is going into regulations as opposed to legislation, there is a study presently going on on the delivery of electrical services in Ontario and there may be changes required. I guess the proposal is to put it in regulation so whatever delivery model would come out of such recommendations after much study could be accommodated without changing the legislation. Do you have great concern with that or would that make a reasonable assumption, that it would be in regulation?
Mr Jennings: It would be better if it were permanent and clearer, in our view. Perhaps any changes could be accommodated in the upcoming changes to the Municipal Act.
Mr Phillips: Maybe I can follow up on that. When the Association of Municipalities of Ontario was in, they were quite pleased with the bill because they believe it will give them the right to eliminate organizations like yours. It's very clear that their support is because this bill gives them the right to eliminate local boards. It could eliminate school boards, boards like yours, and the only thing that will protect them is something called regulations. The problem with regulations is that the minister writes the regulations, so the Legislature does not get a chance to debate it. Once a regulation is passed, it's over.
I was very interested in the letter you got back, because it was sort of like, "Well, just keep quiet, and we'll protect you through regulation -- until we determine we won't protect you through regulation."
The only way you can be protected, in my opinion, is that the bill has to spell out that your organizations continue. If we do what the government wants to do, that is, put it in regulation, it will temporarily protect you, until this bill is passed, until the heat goes off and then the government changes the regulation, because the municipalities' support of the bill I think is contingent upon getting the opportunity to take over the local utility operation. Then the bill permits them to sell off the utility without a referendum, just through a bylaw.
If the bill passes as it is currently proposed and the only defence your organizations have is regulation, I will just say to you that is no defence. I guess your advice to us is to amend the bill, to put a provision in that protects you, if that's what the government wants to do, because the government in the end will determine it. Have I interpreted properly what you are requesting this committee to do?
Mr Martin: Yes, I think you have. We certainly want to see the bill amended, and we think the issue of the referenda is very crucial, very important, as far as we're concerned.
Mr Phillips: Let me just say that we've had no intention from the government to amend it. The government will not tell us what amendments it's proposing, even though, interestingly, in your letter you've got some indication of some amendment. They said we will not see the amendments, we, the committee, until the day we begin debating what we call clause-by-clause.
So I guess I'm making a statement to your organization, and that is that the way I believe the government plans to proceed -- we've seen nothing from them that would indicate they have any intention of making any changes -- is that you will be temporarily protected by regulation until this review is complete and then, by regulation, the government can change that. You then can be taken over by municipalities by I think a simple majority vote, if I'm not mistaken, and then, if a municipality chooses to, it can sell off the utility with a simple bylaw.
I'm going through all of this because you know your section of the bill better, frankly, than we do, but have I interpreted the bill properly as your organization would see it?
Mr Martin: Yes, you have.
Mr Silipo: I wanted to start by picking up on that same point, because I'm beginning to find these letters and memos that are coming out from ministers quite interesting. This is I think the second or third one that we've seen now. There was one related to school boards and I think another one, certainly related to police services boards -- they're both referred to in the letter that you got -- and now there's one about municipal electric utilities.
What we're seeing from the government, it seems to me, is just attempt after attempt to sort of say to various groups, "Don't worry. We want to give municipalities these far-reaching powers, but it's okay, it's not going to affect your particular area," and the big protection that they're offering, it seems, is regulation, because they haven't indicated to us that they're going to come forward and put in legislative changes, so it will be interesting to see what happens on that score.
I didn't want to pursue that much more, unless you have some response to that, but I was also struck by the points in your brief around the relative costs of privatization. I think it would certainly be useful for this committee to receive any more information you might have on that. Perhaps that could be arranged, Mr Chair, I don't know, through our research folks. I for one would certainly be interested in seeing some more of that, because I think one of the myths we have seen -- and I'm not going to blame the government for this particular one, because I don't think I've heard any one of them say this, but there seems to be an assumption that by privatizing these types of services, in fact the consumer would get a cheaper, ie, less costly product, and what you're clearly saying to us is that's not the case, as experience has shown.
Mr MacKenzie: If I can respond to that, in the data that we have, we compare ourselves sometimes to utilities in the United States. Clearly, as the brief spelled out this afternoon, the data we have show that publicly owned electric utilities in the US, and there are over 2,000 of them, serve their customers at lower rates than those investor-owned utilities in the United States. There have been a number of studies that have been conducted to compare the reasons for the difference in rates, and clearly it comes down on the side of municipal ownership as being a significant component for lower rates. There are a number of cities in the United States currently trying to municipalize their services. They're trying to buy back their utility from a private, investor-owned utility, and the reason for the buyback and the municipalization is lower rates.
Mr Martin: I think Mr Edwards may have a comment as well in regard to the water side of utilities.
Mr Edwards: Yes, perhaps, if I may. The letter you referred to of course refers to municipal electric commissions. I would note that most utilities in the province are in fact public utilities commissions with several utilities under their control, water in the case of Windsor. I've also worked with transit and even a zoo. We find that there's no protection for those utilities. There is a simple solution, I think, that the MEA has put forward, which is to exempt public utilities from the amendments under Bill 26.
We've also looked at some of the factual comparison of water rates versus various management structures, and you'll see that in the brief I've mailed in to you. I'll also circulate a few copies here at the end of the presentation. But there it shows that the water services supplied through public utilities commissions do in fact provide the lowest rates in Ontario, followed by regions and then lastly by municipal departments. So there is definitely a strong business ethic in a customer-run public utility. I think this bill needs to do a little more research in order to support that.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. You may want to leave that with the clerk and she could give it out to members of the committee.
Mr Martin: Can I just add one point --
The Chair: Unfortunately, your 30 minutes are up. I'd like to thank you for coming forward today, though, and making your presentation.
CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS, LOCALS 1973 AND 195
The Chair: May I please have representatives of Canadian Auto Workers, Local 1973, come forward. Good afternoon, gentlemen, and thank you for coming forward today to appear before the committee on general government. You have half an hour today to make your presentation. You may use that half-hour as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions and response. I'd appreciate it if you'd take some time at the beginning of your presentation to read your names into the record for the benefit of committee members and Hansard.
Mr Nick Dzudz: First of all, with these hearings going on, I think the whole government should be sitting here instead of having one or two people sitting here so they can hear this. It doesn't seem to make too much sense having these hearings when the whole government's not here. So if you can kind of corral them and bring them back, we'd really appreciate that.
First of all, let me, on behalf of CAW Local 1973, which represents General Motors workers in this community, thank the panel for allowing us time to present our submission here today. I'm Nick Dzudz, the president of Local 1973, CAW. With me on my right I have Bert Desjardins, our first vice-president. Mike Thomas is next to him. He's the chairperson of our local's political education committee. Also joining us is Bob Cruise, who's the chairperson of the human rights committee from CAW Local 195. We will be splitting our time with Local 195 because we feel that since they represent approximately 70 plants in our community and they were not granted standing, it is important that they also have a voice here today. I will be reading our brief. Bert and Mike will answer any questions for you. Bob will also make a presentation on behalf of his local union and will also answer any of your questions.
Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act, prepared by CAW Local 1973, Windsor, Ontario, introduction: I'm here to put forth our views on Bill 26. I find it ironic that we are here to give input on a piece of legislation designed to take the public out of the decision-making process. The right to public consultation is a sacred one. This government has to realize this, and the importance of accountability.
In most cases, the public, the voters, do leave this decision-making to their elected representatives. That's due to accountability. The voters included in decisions that affect their communities, the public, have grown accustomed to being awarded the same right to input on the issues affecting them as those with extreme lobbying strength. This bill is not from a mandate to govern freely, but a total disdain for people most affected by the final decisions.
To be prepared as much as possible with limited resources, I read the newspaper, watched debates and gathered as much background information as I could acquire, especially since most of this transpired just before the Christmas holidays.
We have concluded this: How are we to realistically give our opinion on a 211-page bill that introduces three new acts, amends 44 acts and repeals two acts when top politicians and political critics are confused about the content, purpose and ramifications of all aspects of the legislation? Although it's now at least being broken into two sections for public hearings, it has been suggested by some that this bill could be broken into 20 parts in order to address all aspects of this bill thoroughly.
1440
How are we to ask questions and expect reasonable explanations when it seems that this bill has been worded so vaguely and written so confusingly that it is left to the interpretation of whoever you are talking to at the time? Most questions are answered that the past government did this or did that. This is not the issue any more. What is happening now is all that matters.
Freedom of information: Is it true, the restriction of public access to information in regard to the government's activities, giving provincial and municipal governments the right to refuse any request deemed mischievous? Are you trying to tell us the government will run more efficiently by reducing public input and restricting their access to information on government activities? This is not fair government.
Municipality mergers: At this time, I understand there may be amendments forthcoming. The Municipal Affairs minister will be empowered to amalgamate or annex municipalities and create new regional governments without consultation of local councils or taxpayers. In this area, the dispute between Windsor and Tecumseh is legendary. Threat of annexation appears in the media once or twice each year. Are you trying to tell us that Windsor can annex Tecumseh or surrounding townships without the public being allowed one iota of input into what happens to their community services or taxation? This is not fair government.
Direct taxes, municipalities: Municipalities are currently limited to property taxes and licence fees to generate revenue. Is it true this bill opens the door to municipal income taxes, for example, sales tax, gas taxes, head taxes? Municipal Affairs minister Al Leach has stated that this stretches the legislation to the ridiculous and that no municipalities would ever be stupid enough to levy such a tax. But with municipal transfers cut by approximately 50%, which is already ridiculous, this may lead municipalities to stretch their interpretation of this legislation to pay the bills. Al Leach does concur that municipalities may have to charge for services provided, for example, arenas, other recreational facilities, police and fire services, even street lights. Are we to become a service-charge-oriented society to maintain our level of service? And when that's not enough, what happens? The most ridiculous ideas come out of desperation.
We firmly believe that this bill has been purposely written vaguely to allow individual interpretation so that each municipality with its back against the wall will stretch its interpretation of this legislation from the sublime to the ridiculous just to stay afloat. This also allows the present government the fail-safe of saying that was not the intent of this legislation. We won't be paying more taxes for the content of this legislation. We'll be paying more taxes for the reality of the interpretation. I guess if the provincial government does not actually impose the tax, then their campaign promise rings true: no new taxes. Save 30% provincially; pay 50% municipally. Municipalities have to get more money somehow to offset a 50% reduction in funding. This is not fair government, nor does it make common sense -- or any sense, for that matter.
Please explain this to us: When the citizens from the US are clamouring for change and model their ideas from Canada, especially Ontario, why is the current government legislating Ontario closer and closer to the American style, which is healthy, wealthy and the rest, those who can't and soon won't be able to afford basic services?
Conclusion: the current government does not want to truly govern. This government wants all-encompassing power to dictate, and what it finds a nuisance it wants no responsibility for, morally or financially. At this time we need stability in our system, not chaos. People need protections and assistance from their government in their communities, not abandonment.
There are two ways to truly govern: You can listen to a few, dictate to the rest, or govern. In a comprehensive bill of this magnitude, consultation from all affected is the purest direction to follow, to receive the necessary input and then make the decisions based on what's best for the province. In case this government has forgotten, the province of Ontario is made up of people: people in mining towns, people in regional municipalities, people who need services and protection. Some need more than others. We deserve input into the enactment, amendment or repealing of laws that affect our everyday lives. The government, no matter what the mandate, no matter how large the majority, is there to represent all constituents, to listen to all constituents. Now, that's fair government; that makes common sense.
On behalf of CAW Local 1973, we thank you once more and hope our presentation and others from the labour community will shed some light on this bill before it becomes law in this province.
I'd like to turn it over now to Bob Cruise from CAW Local 195.
Mr Bob Cruise: I'd like to thank Local 1973, as I'm unable to thank the committee for the opportunity to address you, as we weren't permitted that opportunity. In sharing time with Local 1973, our president, Ken Maheux, was unable to come today. He had an appointment which he couldn't get out of and asked that I present our views from our union on omnibus Bill 26.
At the outset, I'd like to say I'm going to present a brief summary of these views, given time limitations, as we are a split delegation here.
I have five points. The first point is that workers in our plant are asking, what kind of representative democracy do we have in Ontario when, first, it rammed this anti-labour Bill 7 through on the basis that it was going to restore labour-management relations by striking down the NDP's Bill 40 and then, without any public debate on Bill 7, arbitrarily added a number of other anti-working-class and hostile proposals to that legislation?
Workers are also asking, what kind of representative democracy do we have in Ontario that has brought down a 200-page omnibus bill which in effect restructures the state, gravely affecting citizens in a negative way and has over 40 acts of profound implications and has only agreed to a cosmetic hearing after a big fight inside and outside the provincial Legislature?
Third, workers in our local are asking, and we try and keep them informed with weekly newsletters and other methods, just what kind of representative democracy do we have which systematically ignores delegations, has chopped the majority of organizations off these hearings and less than a fraction of them have been permitted to make formal presentation before this body?
I can say that the response to these developments from the rank and file is one of increasing indignation, hostility, anger and, in many cases, contempt for this process.
The second point I'd like to make: It is clear that Bill 26 is part of an anti-social offensive in which Premier Harris and the provincial PC government of Ontario is not the only element or factor. It has been inspired mainly at the federal level and the government of Jean Chrétien. The previous government of Brian Mulroney began the anti-social offensive, which has various features and history to it, but what Premier Harris has added, you could say the icing on the cake, is that he's taking a page from the history of dictators and actually passing an omnibus bill, Bill 26, which seeks permission from his own Legislature to rule by decree. This is somewhat unprecedented in recent history in Ontario.
Knowing full well that in the light of the current economic crisis, in which even during periods of recovery the unemployment in the province and across the country and elsewhere in the world does not improve, knowing full well that we're on the eve of another slowdown in the economy in various sectors, it appears that the financial oligarchy is seeking ways to rule by a new means.
Historically in Ontario, big business, the government and big labour worked out deals. From our rank-and-file position of looking at it, often we were not very pleased with some of these deals. They were often done behind closed doors and we often wondered whose interests were being bartered. But in this period we see that even this arrangement has broken down. The large labour unions have not been consulted in labour Bill 7, anti-worker Bill 7, or in the omnibus legislation or in other measures which have come in less than a year from Queen's Park after the election of the Progressive Conservative government.
This changed arrangement finds many within our own union wondering what will be the new arrangement. We are aware that there are divided opinions within our own ranks on just how these things are going to proceed. In fact, when you speak the word "division," we might look to the government, which in failing to get rid of those things which are causing division in Ontario, is actually getting large sections of the population at loggerheads. The illustration is the refusal to take a principled stand against block financing, which in effect puts everyone on a divided basis as they scramble for limited resources from their municipal, provincial or federal jurisdictions.
1450
If you wish to take a message back from the rank and file of the Canadian Auto Workers union, Local 195, which represents over 70 plants and 5,200 workers in the Windsor and Essex area, we are not at all in a mood to accept hugs, kisses, hypocritical statements or reassertions of that which we know to be false. Quite the contrary. We are in a fighting mood and the spirit we best feel with was illustrated in London on December 11. If it's the intention of Mike Harris or those who pull his strings to create this kind of atmosphere in Ontario, Local 195 is ready for such a situation.
Third point: Windsor will not tolerate the arbitrary destruction of our health care, access to post-secondary education as well as to the schools, or our basic abilities to provide for the disadvantaged, the poor and the things the community needs to function in a civil and democratic fashion. The other key feature of Bill 26, besides the demand for the right to arbitrarily rule, or you could say rule by decree, which is actually a medieval concept being reintroduced in the 1990s because of the profound crisis in the country, is the move towards privatization of the services, resources and things that government is normally expected to provide on a broad and universal democratic basis.
This, loosely speaking, has been the Yankee solution to social problems: the privatization of care for the aged, day care, kindergarten, even basic levels of education -- all turned over to the private sector. The privatization even of prisons. What are you going have? Some company coming in, Murder Inc, and they'll offer to take care of our prisons and the inmates etc. This direction is retrogressive; it is not the interests of the citizens in this area; it's profoundly hostile to a modern and democratic polity and their aspirations for collective solutions to problems.
The fourth point I'd like to make: In less than a year, the Harris government has proposed to take over $5 billion of public moneys out of the areas most needed for the citizenry, particularly in the area of social programs. This expropriation of the Ontario material blessings, or wealth in the form of taxation which they've accrued from the provincial production here, represents a brutal assault on the citizenry. If you want to know why workers are dissatisfied, it's because they do not like these attacks and they can well see various things. So here in point four is the second question which comes from the rank and file within our own union, from the many shops where I've visited and talked to workers. They are asking, in whose interest is it to let a tiny financial grouping, an oligarchy, carry out in Ontario the dictate which has clearly been enunciated through the Canadian taxpayers association as being the dictate of the International Monetary Fund and the Royal Bank, bond holders and others?
In the Windsor Star they reported that there are some whiz kids in the Ontario government who help advise the Premier as to how these economic policies should be carried out. Our workers are asking in whose interest it is that the Ontario wealth, which continues to increase through more efficiency and the productive activity of its citizens, is siphoned off to this tiny oligarchy while people are getting taxed, losing services and being blamed for this dismal state of affairs.
Our union members, for one, do not accept this burden and do not buy this moralizing on the public debt. The amount that the treasury has been fleeced over the last several decades in Ontario is mind-boggling. The debts that were run up to fleece that treasury did not accrue to the ordinary citizens and it's not the citizens who have been living high off the hog that explains this momentous debt. In fact, whether it's UIC moneys collected, although not to this jurisdiction, or the moneys for workers' compensation, moneys for road maintenance or moneys for basic social programs, they are in essence self-sustaining and our union regards them as investments, not a burden, on the public treasury.
The final point I'd like to make: What are our members -- in a collective sense; we all have our individual views and I'm sure you'd love to hear mine. But speaking here in a collective sense, what are we seeking? We are seeking a real democracy, not a fraudulent one, not a truncated one, not one that has sham hearings every so often. You can have your input this way, that way, but when the legislation comes out, it's almost identical to that which was drafted before it even appeared when the mini-budget was present last November, in the case of the omnibus bill.
In seeking this real democracy, many of us would not like to see a re-establishment of the old arrangement by which big business, labour etc work behind closed doors. A real democracy has to involve our rank and file, and the economic crisis, the complexities of a jobless recovery, the questions of balancing budgets etc require such a new democracy. Otherwise, in place of any support for the dictatorial measures which omnibus Bill 26 is trying to facilitate, you'll meet the broadest imaginable resistance from Ontario workers and Ontario citizens. You can bank on that.
The final point I'd like to make is that, just speaking personally, I remember a poem from high school -- and in just a blink we're threatened now with three grades of school being done away with. Grade 13 is gone as of next year; junior K and senior K are threatened. These things alone deserve major debates, not to speak of all the measures of the omnibus bill.
In Shelley's poem called The Weavers, in which the thousands of garment workers in that period in English history looked at the handful of owners and those who did their bidding in the governmental level -- and I can paraphrase one line of that poem and I think get this message across: "We are many, you are few."
The Chair: We have about two and a half minutes per caucus, starting with the opposition caucus. Mrs Pupatello.
Mrs Pupatello: Very quickly, our Premier, while he was campaigning prior to June, told Ontario that he was in favour of collective bargaining. He introduced Bill 26, and in it are several changes he's proposing to the arbitration process. Can you comment on that?
Mr Mike Thomas: I did my very best to make myself well informed on all those issues. From what I've heard today, I guess it's not really an arbitration process. What it is is just a final decision-making on, for example, police and fire services, where there really is no arbitration, there is no discussion, and to base it on the economics of the province in that final decision is just not right. Again, as most people have said today and we all have heard, the people are not the ones who are involved in the decision-making to bring us to the distress in the finances where we have to end up resulting in the punishment for it.
Mr Gerretsen: I would just like to pick up on a comment that you made, sir. I've had the opportunity to work with governments of various stripes over the last 20 years in my municipal career and I totally concur with your comment about the fact that all governments in the past in Ontario, and I think Ontario is well known for that, have been basically built on consensus, whether we're talking about the old Rae government, the Peterson government and, yes, even the Davis and Robarts governments before that.
It's been my impression as a new member of the Legislature over the last six months that those kinds of rules and that consensus type of building that we have traditionally had in Ontario to make changes etc is totally out the window. We have heard over and over in the Legislature that as far as the Conservative members are concerned, they got elected on June 8 and that was their consultation with the general public. If we've heard it once, we've heard it a hundred times. It may have been said in jest sometimes, but usually it was said in dead seriousness, that that was their consultation. If they regard that as consultation, then I think that is totally haywire and absurd. Do you have any comments on that?
Interruption.
Mr Cruise: Your question may be partially rhetorical. I think it answers itself, but the --
Mr Gerretsen: Oh, was it now?
1500
Mr Cruise: If I can trace back because the history on this is very important. There is confusion within our own ranks on some of these issues.
The first is that when you speak of either Sandra's point about bargaining rights and arbitrated settlements, what do they mean after the social contract of Bob Rae? What does an agreement mean when you can arbitrarily announce that the public interest overrides the agreement?
As with the federal government on the issue of native land claims, signed agreements exist; they were overridden by government power. In seeking the right under Bill 26 to rule by decree, everything appears up for grabs. When the financial capability to pay becomes the determining factor for whether teachers can be paid a certain salary, whether there'll be layoffs, classroom ratios etc, then the entire public school system is under dangerous assault.
And when the bulk of the nation's wealth is arbitrarily expropriated and the remaining crumbs are left and we're supposed to fight over them, we need a new direction in the way we do government, as well as a new direction in the economy, and this is entirely lacking. Bill 26 I think indicates desperation on the part of the government in power -- and the debate going on in Windsor, by the way, is not exactly on this level. What's being debated in Windsor among many workers --
The Chair: I apologize for having to interrupt but we're now getting into Mr Silipo's time and we have to have a certain amount of time for each caucus.
Mr Silipo: Please finish. Sorry, Mr Chair, I'm happy if he did this during my time.
The Chair: That's fine then. He can do it on Mr Silipo's time.
Mr Cruise: I just want to tell you that the debate is going on how to shorten your mandate -- you might be interested, members of committee, going to shorten your mandate -- because we'll be damned if we're going to wait three years while you destroy the economy, the social life, the school system, the health care and everything else in our province that we've fought for and we care about.
Mr Silipo: Mine is somewhat a rhetorical comment, but I was just struck a little bit by one of the threats in both presentations which will not surprise you to know we've heard throughout the presentations is this attack that we're seeing by the government here through Bill 26, prior to this by various other measures that they've taken, on the basic fabric of the society of the Ontario that we've built up over the last number of decades, over governments of all stripes.
I think one can say, at best, a misunderstanding or lack of understanding and at worst, something much more negative than that, if it's being done on purpose, that is, there seems to be this moving away from the sense that the wider the gap between those who are rich and those who are poor, the poorer the society as a whole is and the less healthy the society is.
One of the things that we keep hearing very much from the Tory members on this committee and from the government as a whole is that we have this crisis that has to be dealt with, this economic crisis, and so that somehow gives them the right to change the mandate that they won on June 8 into a mandate to just run roughshod over not just the democratic processes that we've developed over years and years in this province, but to basically undermine some of the basic structures and services that all of our citizens, whether they are an auto worker or a farmer or anybody else in this province, have built up and have been able to rely on through the health care system and many of our other services.
I don't really have a question for you, but I just wanted to make that observation. If you have any comments on it, please do.
The Chair: The government side, Mr Tascona.
Mr Tascona: Just for Mr Desjardins, I think it was Local 1973, there was a question in your brief with respect to freedom of information. I'd answer your question, the answer is, it's not true; the public right to know is still intact. All that's been changed is the procedure. In other words, the local level of decision-makers will be making the decision. Currently, the privacy commissioner can decide whether a claim is frivolous or vexatious, but you have to go through the whole process and the expense is paid by the municipality or the police commission, which for some of them have gone into the thousands of dollars to find out that it's a frivolous or vexatious claim. What we've done is we've expedited the process and if a local head decides that it's frivolous or vexatious, there's an automatic right of appeal and that can be handled by the privacy commissioner. So what we've done is we changed it to the local level.
With respect to the arbitration process, I really find it interesting, because I dealt in my previous experience with the CAW and always had found them a very strong and intelligent union. I'd just like to put this with respect to the arbitration process. You don't have the arbitration process; what you have is the fiscal reality of whether your employer's going to give you a fair deal or whether you're going to have to go out on strike to get it, but you get a freely negotiated agreement. All we're trying to do is bring into the reality of the arbitration process for the public sector fiscal reality and a freely negotiated process that wouldn't be any better than what you would have, and that's the bottom line with respect to the arbitration. That's what I'd like you to look at, because there is mandated criterion in other jurisdictions and it's been followed. The reason why we're doing it is because of the fiscal crunch we're in. So read it.
Mr Desjardins: Yes. We definitely feel, though, that this financial crunch we're in has not been caused by the workers and the general people of the province of Ontario, and we don't feel that you can solve the financial problems on the backs of the working people and the people in general of the province of Ontario. We feel there are more responsible areas to get the money from for this debt and deficit we have in the province of Ontario other than the workers and other than the public. That's how we feel.
You're going to, because of arbitration, say, "You have a financial crisis"? Yes, we agree you have a financial crisis, but I'll tell you something. We didn't cause it and our people, the working people in the province of Ontario, should not be made to pay this bill which you have caused by ignoring the rich and giving tax breaks to the rich.
The Chair: We've come to the end of the half-hour time allotted for the presentation. I'd like to thank the gentlemen for coming forward.
COUNTY OF KENT THOMAS STOREY
The Chair: Can I please have representatives from the county of Kent come forward, please. Good afternoon and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for coming forward today to make your presentation to the committee. You, as you've probably heard me say already, have a half-hour to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions. I would appreciate it for the benefit of members and for Hansard if you'd read your names into the record before beginning your presentation. Thank you.
Mr Joe Taylor: Mr Chairman and members of the standing committee on general government in the province of Ontario, re Bill 26. Firstly, I'd like to introduce the delegation from the county of Kent. On my extreme left is my executive chairman from the county of Kent, Ms Barb Jacobs. On my extreme right is Betty Kuchta, human resources director for the county. Next to Betty is the clerk-administrator for the county of Kent. This is our delegation from the county of Kent today at this hearing.
Re Bill 26: The council and the corporation of the county of Kent welcome this opportunity for a submission on Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1995. The county submission will be limited to comments on schedule M, which details amendments to the Municipal Act and various other statutes relating to municipalities, conservation authorities and transportation.
The county review of the proposed legislation was undertaken with a view to measuring and evaluating how well the proposed legislation scheme is consistent with four criteria: (1) the Progressive Conservative Common Sense Revolution document; (2) the dialogue with elected municipal officials since June 1995; (3) your government's recent economic statement; and (4) the stated purpose of the legislation.
The county firmly believes that the municipalities' interest and the provincial interest are one and the same: to reduce costs and promote efficiency for the benefit of one taxpayer whom we all serve. Our concerns presented today have only one aim, and that is to ensure the legislation as proposed meets the government's stated objectives for this particular bill.
With this in mind, any comments with respect to areas we feel the legislation scheme or specified provisions do not meet any or all the stated criteria should be taken as either constructive ideas for amendment or general issues which need to be addressed by your legislative drafters.
Changes recommended are an attempt to remedy the perceived deficiency and ensure that the legislation is consistent with our mutual aims at heart. This, with respect, is submitted by the county of Kent.
1510
Now, the detailed submission of this particular brief concerning Bill 26 will be presented by our clerk-administrator, Mr Chuck Knapp, and our human resources director, Ms Betty Kuchta.
Mr Chuck Knapp: Your government's intentions with respect to the future of municipal government have been publicly stated in four forms: (1) the Conservative government's document entitled the Common Sense Revolution; (2) ongoing dialogue with municipally elected officials since June 1995; (3) your government's recent economic statement; and (4) the stated purposes of Bill 26.
The purpose clause of Bill 26 is well stated. This, combined with the other public statements made in the forms mentioned, preserves a significant role for municipal government in Ontario. Admittedly, though, the face of municipal government will change, and it will change quickly. The changing profile of municipal government includes principles which can be enunciated as follows: (1) continuation of a significant role for municipal government in Ontario; (2) reductions in transfer payments; (3) improved efficiencies; (4) facilitation of municipal restructuring; (5) streamlining and elimination of duplication; (6) increased accountability to the taxpayer; (7) increased autonomy for municipal government; (8) availability of additional tools to municipal government for increased self-sufficiency; (9) less government; and (10) facilitation of economic prosperity.
It is in the interests of all parties -- your government, municipal government and the taxpayer -- that Bill 26 is consistent with these stated principles and that, in particular, schedule M not only be an effective vehicle to assist in achieving these purposes, but that it not inadvertently fly in the face of the stated principles. You as a committee must ask yourselves whether the proposed legislative scheme is consistent with your stated intentions. In particular, does it achieve fiscal savings, efficiency, elimination of duplication and increased accountability? If not, you must give serious consideration to changing Bill 26 accordingly.
Other municipalities, such as our neighbour Essex county, have well enunciated a list of concerns similar to ours, and we concur with their submissions. However, we will avoid being repetitive and highlight the aspects of the act which we believe are inconsistent with this government's intentions.
Ministerial discretion, lack of dispute mechanism: The legislative scheme includes a high level of ministerial discretion and override and lack of appeal or dispute mechanisms. The ministerial override, or in other words the sweeping power given to the minister, is found either in operative provisions of the act which provide for ministerial discretion or the power for the minister to make regulations which in fact are more properly the substance of legislation. Such provisions contravene a number of stated principles, specifically: (1) municipal autonomy; (2) accountability to the taxpayer; (3) promotion of efficiencies and streamlining; and (4) cost savings. Specifically, municipalities will no doubt spend a lot of time, energy and resources developing well-intentioned plans, only to find that the minister may reject the same on the basis of criteria which either have not been clearly stated in a timely manner or may never be stated.
All references to ministerial discretion and the passing of regulations which do not clearly set out as a subject for discussion limits upon the minister's exercise of authority should either be deleted or amended to include limits upon the minister's exercise of authority.
Restructuring of municipalities, section 25.2: All matters relating to the restructuring set out in the proposed section 25.2 will be set by regulation. These include matters of great importance, such as the degree of support required for a successful restructuring proposal, the manner in which the support is determined and the criteria which the proposal must meet. The section goes on to say that if these provisions are met, the minister shall implement the restructuring proposal. This raises several concerns, as follows:
(1) The rules of the game for restructuring are not sufficiently clear. The matter is of such great importance that the items left to regulation should indeed be part of the act, to allow for debate on the reasonableness and effectiveness of the rules set.
(2) There is no appeal or dispute mechanism, and no opportunity for dissenting municipalities to present their case or challenge information presented by other municipalities.
(3) Given that the minister shall implement proposals which meet the criteria, how will he or she determine which proposal to implement in the case of two competing proposals that meet the criteria?
Under section 25.3, the minister may establish a commission to develop a restructuring proposal. The concerns are: (1) In what circumstances will a commission be established? (2) Will there be a right of appeal from the commissioner's decision?
The intent of these provisions is to facilitate and expedite restructuring by changing the existing situation, which requires a complex process involving the introduction of specific legislation. Although this certainly will expedite the process, the high level of ministerial discretion removes the aspect of municipal autonomy, and in particular puts those municipalities with a dissenting opinion or those without the resources to engage in preparation of a sophisticated proposal at a distinct disadvantage to those municipalities or groups of municipalities with sufficient resources to submit such a proposal.
It has the effect of changing the rules, midstream, to those taxpayers who may reside in a less prosperous or perhaps smaller municipality yet also wish an opportunity to be heard, particularly if these same taxpayers enjoy a low tax rate due to having run their municipality sufficiently for many years and who, as a result of implementation of a restructuring proposal, may now see tax levels rise.
The preparation of proposals will represent a significant expenditure of time and resources, perhaps all wasted time and money, particularly if the taxpayer communities, having submitted unsuccessful proposals, cannot further state their case or object to erroneous information in the proposal apparently meeting the criteria, through an appeal or dispute mechanism. Improvements, without destroying the scheme, would be derived by including the rules of the game in the legislation, not regulation, and including a right of appeal or dispute mechanism.
Regarding subsection 25.2(13), the issue of personal liability for those councillors who contravene any regulation by voting in favour of an act can hardly be measured or evaluated, given the complexity of the issues and the imprecise science of amalgamation issues. This is potentially an onerous provision that is difficult to understand which might place councillors in a position where they would be reluctant, even with legitimate reasons, to vote against any restructuring proposal in any event.
The expense associated with bringing any court action under this provision cannot be justified, given the high cost for the both the province and the municipality affected. This is virtually throwing taxpayers' money away, with no direct benefit to any party. The ultimate test for the result of poor decision-making by elected officials is the ballot box at election time, not the courts.
This approach is particularly unconscionable in an area which is an imprecise science and would require endless days of testimony and evidence by each party, all at taxpayers' expense. The provision should be removed from the bill.
Efficiency/effectiveness reporting, section 83.1: This provision proposes that a municipality shall provide information to the minister which "relates to the efficiency and effectiveness of the municipality's operations." Once again, the criteria to be established to meet these principles and the timeliness and information to be contained in such reports will be set by regulation. Such information may include audits of information.
Presently, there is a requirement to have all of the financial books of the municipalities audited and published annually. It is unclear as to what this further requirement will accomplish, other than to create an additional unnecessary expense: unnecessary use of time and resources. Surely the financial statements of each municipality are the best way for the public and others to evaluate municipal effectiveness. This provision creates unnecessary duplication and expense, and the provision should be eliminated.
Assumption of power at local or upper-tier level, sections 209.2, 209.3, 209.4, 209.5 and 209.6: The county of Kent recognizes that it is important that municipalities be able to determine which level of municipal government is best suited to provide a particular service. However, it questions whether municipalities have been granted real authority to determine the level of municipal government best suited to deliver service when the minister has absolute authority, under section 209.6, to limit the ability to do so by regulation. This violates the principle of municipal autonomy, accountability to the taxpayer and inadvertently may lead to gross inefficiencies if municipalities are not properly consulted and given the opportunity to evaluate whether any limitations imposed will simply not work and therefore will not be in the best interests of the taxpayer. Again, the services and facilities prescribed should not be left to regulation but should be set out within the act to allow for public debate on these issues.
1520
Dissolution of local boards, section 210.4: This section allows for the dissolution of a local board as defined in the Municipal Affairs Act and any other body performing any public function prescribed by the regulation. Once again, it is unclear why the act does not set out in legislation the list of local boards which may be excluded from the amendment and those which will be included by regulation.
Ontario Municipal Support Grants Act: This particular section of the bill represents cornerstone legislation for the future funding relationship between the province and municipalities. It is intended to give municipalities autonomy and decision-making responsibility for the expenditure of funds transferred from the province. It is recognized that this responsibility for management goes hand in hand with the responsibility to be mindful of defined provincial priorities.
On the other hand, it is our submission that this portion of the legislation should more clearly outline the fact that municipalities have the authority to manage the funds they receive under the Ontario municipal support grant in order to meet local needs and priorities. Again, we are concerned with the authority granted to the minister to establish standards for activities of municipalities.
Also, this type of regulation will cost the taxpayer tremendous amounts of money as it creates the need for even more documentation detailing standards which will need to be updated and communicated to municipalities on a regular basis, with all the resources associated with interpretation and application part and parcel of the package. Surely there is already enough paper and a simple reference to being mindful of provincial policy as it exists from time to time will avoid wasting funds and duplicating resources and efforts.
It is our submission that sections 29 to 32 of schedule M be amended to clarify that even though municipalities must be mindful of clearly defined provincial interests, they are empowered to determine the best use for grants paid under the Ontario Municipal Support Grants Act in order to meet the needs and priorities of the municipality. Further, it is recommended that the clauses of this section granting the minister authority by regulation to establish standards for activities of municipalities be removed.
This concludes our presentation, and we thank you for your time and attention. However, we learned that a delegation of municipalities from south Kent was unable to receive a time slot today, and we'd like to share our time with them if we're permitted to do so. Mr Tom Storey is here on behalf of Harwich and Raleigh townships, the town of Blenheim and the village of Erieau.
Mr Thomas Storey: Thanks, Chuck, and thanks to the county of Kent on behalf of the south Kent municipalities for giving me this time to make this brief presentation. The townships of Harwich and Raleigh, the town of Blenheim and the village of Erieau are a continuous group of municipalities located in south-central Kent county, with a total population of approximately 17,000.
In December, these municipalities began a review of the need for local government reform after they committed to a sizeable budget for consulting assistance, adopted a work plan and organized a steering committee to oversee the process. The schedule calls for a reform proposal to be submitted to the minister during the week of April 8. As revisions found in schedule M of Bill 26 will impact directly on the restructuring process, the steering committee considered it prudent to make a presentation to this committee.
Generally, the steering committee agrees that the province must be able to act quickly and authoritatively to ensure that municipal government restructuring can occur with a maximum of local involvement and a minimum of delay. Also, the committee agrees with and supports the comments found in the presentation to this standing committee made by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, particularly regarding schedule M. However, there are a number of specific issues which we wish to address. These are issues that I want to emphasize come out of us actually being involved in a restructuring process.
(1) While we recognize powers assumed by the minister as proposed in the amendments to part I of the Municipal Act necessary to accomplish provincial goals of municipal reform, in the short term we do not see the need for these powers to remain once this round of reform is completed. Particularly, we are concerned about another government using these powers to achieve another agenda. Therefore, we strongly recommend that this part of Bill 26, that is, section 1 of schedule M, include an expiry date to follow from the term of this present government.
(2) That the government, either by regulation, or preferably in the act itself, provide incentives to municipalities to undertake a restructuring review process. The steering committee has a genuine fear that that regulation proposed in section 1 may render an otherwise serious, appropriate locally driven process such as the one being utilized by the south Kent municipalities meaningless due to a technicality. Also, the steering committee is concerned that challenges made by municipalities which have decided to not be proactive to a restructuring decision made by these south Kent municipalities will receive undue weight in an arbitration process such as that proposed utilizing a commissioner.
Two recommendations flow from this issue: first, that the act or the regulations provide a clear incentive to municipalities to undertake a proactive restructuring review; and second, that the regulations contain sufficient flexibility or exemption provisions, recognizing the legitimacy of locally devised restructuring processes which may otherwise be in technical violation.
(3) Should the various schedules of Bill 26 be divided into separate acts as a result of these hearings, the steering committee recommends that schedule M move ahead as soon as possible.
(4) The steering committee recommends that the conditions under which the minister will request the commission to make a restructuring proposal be added to the act. Thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: We have about three minutes per caucus for questions. We'll start off with the third party.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much for the presentation. I'll just note that you've made a number of suggestions here essentially, as I see them, to at the very least clarify through amendments what the government's intent is and in some cases, as you say, to remove some sections.
What I wanted to ask you about was something that you didn't comment a lot about here, and that was the increasing powers to municipalities to tax in a variety of ways. Have you considered those issues? Do you have any thoughts on those that you could offer us?
Mr Knapp: I guess there are a number of municipalities that certainly, for a lot of years, have looked for specific types of licensing provisions, in some respects more than to generate revenue: to effect some control and regulations on particular operations that may or may not occur in their municipalities.
From a county standpoint, I would say that we haven't generally sought new means to tax. User fees are a new area that certainly we're looking at. They've been foreign to some of our operations, in fact prohibited in areas such as libraries. It now opens a new realm that certainly we're looking at, but we also have concerns, and I use the library example again. If we in some way prohibit certain facets of the community or certain regular users of a facility from using it by assessing a user fee, then in essence we're defeating our purpose.
So certainly there are areas where user fees can be helpful, but I wouldn't say that municipalities, at least the county of Kent, are actively pursuing new means to tax.
Mr Silipo: Would you support amendments to the legislation that clarified or that actually prohibited certain types of taxes being levied by municipalities, such as a sales tax, income taxes, gas taxes, things of that nature?
Mr Knapp: I understand some of the concerns that have been raised. If the legislation is as broad as it's proposed, and I don't know that I'm in a legal position to interpret that, if the opportunity is there for a head tax and some of the other things that have been expressed, then certainly clarification would help that.
Mr Hardeman: I'd like you to go on for a moment on the issue of the type of taxation. I want, for the record and for the presenters this afternoon, to point out that the only legal opinion that has been presented so far to this committee is that those type of taxes that are being referred to are not allowed in the legislation.
1530
Mr Cooke: That's not true.
Mr Hardeman: There have been some others come before us that have suggested that may be a possibility, but none have tabled, so far at least, a legal opinion that it could be done.
Mrs Pupatello: Your minister had to renege on that.
Mr Hardeman: So I'd just point that out.
I also find -- and thank you for making the joint presentation -- it points out a concern expressed, first of all, with the minister's powers as they relate to the restructuring process and how the minister gets to make the final decision in order to facilitate something happening.
The presentation of the separate municipalities in Kent county recognized through their study that that type of process is required, and they're suggesting that a sunset clause may be put in to remove those powers at such time as the restructuring process is completed. Kent county seems to suggest that maybe those powers, the minister's powers, should not be as great.
I wondered if you could clarify that for me, as to where you would see the changes that would be required in order to accommodate the need for action to be taken and yet not have it perceived as or have it being the minister making it a top-down approach. I wonder if you could give us some guidance in that area.
Mr Knapp: I'm not sure whether you're referring to a portion that was in the county's presentation or a portion that was in Tom's presentation with respect to the sunset clause.
Mr Hardeman: The actual sunset suggestion or a phasing out of those powers was in Tom's presentation.
Mr Storey: Correct. I think the steering committee, speaking strictly as to the question of restructuring, sees the existing legislation as being very cumbersome and difficult, and we accept the legislation that has been proposed with the recommendations that are attached plus supporting recommendations found in AMO. I've only received the county's today so I can't speak for the committee, but speaking personally, I can say I support what the county's position is as well. I think that is that certain things, particularly some of the concerns we have which may be found in regulation, should in fact be found and made more clear in the act itself.
Some performance standard has to be set for the province to make some decision-making with regard to restructuring so that we all know where we sit. We're halfway through our process now. We expect the regs, I understand, some time in February, and we're very concerned that we may find the regulations knock us back a couple of steps in a process that's been entirely democratic up until now.
Mr Hardeman: But --
The Chair: Sorry, Mr Hardeman, your time is exhausted.
Mr Crozier: Outside of Essex county, I suppose some of my favourite townships are in Kent county, not the least of which are Raleigh township and the village of Erieau, and one or two people may understand why I say that.
But a lot is discussed about restructuring, and presumably, if restructuring goes ahead, whether it's voluntary amalgamation or whether it's involuntary, we're going to have larger municipalities, which then makes me think a bit about regional government and some of the experience we've had with regional government that bigger is not necessarily better.
In your discussions on amalgamation, the restructuring committee, to this point, has that been a concern or has that been part of the discussion? I don't need a lot of detail, just kind of a brief, where do you think you're going?
Mr Storey: The answer is yes, we have considered it. We've identified a number of different options for government reform. Some are two-tier and some are single-tier, and we've established a number of evaluation criteria which we plan to use to determine which would be the best restructuring form. I think we're headed towards a single tier, but we have not made that definite decision yet.
Mrs Pupatello: Very quickly, we did seem to note in your report, Mr Storey, about your comments of the additional accounting. While on the one hand municipalities and AMO seem to be happy that they're being given all of these powers etc, they seem to forget that the minister is going to require various types and forms of information and it's going to be as it relates to the efficiency and effectiveness of the municipality's operations.
I won't read you the detail, but in fact the minister now will have you publish, in a form that the minister sees fit, the way you do business, and you will do it in the form he requires. He'd like to do it so that he can look at just how effective you are, which to me flies in the face of you being allowed to be autonomous. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. We can only surmise that he wants to see how effective you are to determine that you will do business a different way, and he has the power to ensure that happens.
In addition, on the amalgamation issue, restructuring commissions can come down to us in our area, including Kent, and say, "You will look at this," and if at the end of the day it's determined that it's not appropriate for a structure to be changed here, the commission can apportion the costs among the municipalities and local bodies in the locality for which the commission was established. So while they want to come down and look at your area, you'll pay for it as well. Do you have any comments about that, either of you?
Mr Storey: First of all, I thought AMO was opposed to the first part of your criticism, and I would agree with your position. I thought that was AMO's position as well.
Mrs Pupatello: We wish they would have been that forthright on the local Essex county report that was made this morning, actually.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. We've come to the end of your half-hour. I'd like to thank you all for coming forward to make your presentation today.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 636
The Chair: I call on a representative from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 636, to come forward, please. Welcome to the standing committee on general government. As you may have heard me say a few times today, you have half an hour to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions. I'd appreciate it if you'd read your name and organization into the record for the benefit of committee members and Hansard.
Mr Patrick Vlanich: Thank you, Mr Chair. To you, your fellow committee members and all those in attendance here today, I bid good afternoon. Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Patrick Vlanich, and I am very pleased to have been granted an opportunity to appear here before you on behalf of the local union 636 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Appreciating the onerous task facing this committee, we will try to be as concise as possible in our presentation and we welcome any questions which may arise.
For more than half a century, local union 636 of the IBEW has proudly served the working men and women of Ontario. From our modest roots in the utility industry, we have diversified and grown into an organization which now represents more than 3,500 members in both the public and private sectors from Windsor to Ottawa. Over the years we have shared many dreams and more than a few disappointments. Despite the countless challenges faced by organized labour in the past, ours has not been a union which felt it was traditionally necessary to take our concerns into the political arena. However, the unprecedented changes introduced in Bill 26, also known as the omnibus bill, have prompted us to re-examine our role and responsibilities to those we serve.
It has been written that the punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government is to live under the government of worse men. It is our contention that Ontarians have suffered enough and the time has come for the voice of our people to be heard. The fears and concerns raised with respect to this legislation would be the same regardless of the government of the day. In its present form, this act takes aim at the very heart of what our province stands for. Local union 636 has always accepted its duty and obligation to improve the quality of life for our members, both in and out of the workplace. Today we come before you to say enough is enough.
It would be easy to dismiss the insights and opinions presented herein as those of yet another disgruntled union representative. However, the proposed amendments contained in this bill transcend the traditional lines between labour and business. At issue is much more than the corporate agenda so boldly tattooed in this legislation. What we see is a patently undemocratic bill which purports to promote economic prosperity in Ontario. Realistically, this bill is a reflection of autocratic ideals which, if implemented, will constitute a subversion of the democratic rights and freedoms of the citizens of this province.
1540
Without question, in Ontario today, "business as usual" has taken on a whole new meaning. Inevitably, the complexion of our province must change. Regrettably, as we all are well aware, change is never made without inconvenience, even from worse to better.
There can be no denial that the staggering provincial deficit and the escalating interest charges associated with such debt must be brought under control. We must then ask ourselves how such a goal may be achieved. Not surprisingly, there are dramatically different opinions as to how such an issue may be most effectively addressed.
Setting politics aside, it is imperative that we recognize that we have inherited the past from our forefathers, and the decisions made in the present will shape the future for our own children. Our vision of tomorrow and the legacy we wish to pass on is certainly not possible under the terms of Bill 26. If approved in its present form, this act would not only significantly impact the personal and professional lives of our members; it would also tear at the very fabric of our Ontario.
It is our understanding that broad, unilateral and arbitrary authority would be vested upon cabinet ministers or other appointed government agencies without the normal statutory limitations or safeguards which are intended to provide a degree of political accountability and allow for public scrutiny. As a trade union, we find this disturbing. As citizens, we should all find this very frightening. Empowering any individual or agency with such unencumbered and totalitarian decision-making abilities undermines the most fundamental precepts of a democratic society.
The government must remain responsible to the people who have elected it. To coin a phrase by a man much wiser than I, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Evidently, the Conservatives, through this bill, wish to stand as testimony to the validity of such a notion.
In reviewing the bill as introduced at first reading, it is quite difficult to grasp the full implications of this epic draft. However, it is somewhat curious to note that any regulations as to how the act would be administered are noticeably absent. We wonder if perhaps the government plans to release such guidelines together with those relating to the social contract, since it was also enacted but never accompanied by any regulations. With some 17 schedules amending or enacting over 40 individual pieces of legislation, the ultimate scope of this bill is hard to envision.
Apparently, we are not alone with such uncertainty and confusion as to the real intent of this act. Even members of the Tory government have been unable to agree when challenged to offer an interpretation of the ambiguous terms of this rather nebulous package. Admittedly, we could be regarded as political neophytes. None the less, it is apparent to us that such an all-encompassing piece of legislation will prove too intimidating even for the most learned Queen's Park veterans. Given the fact that even those who are the architects of this bill are unclear as to what it has been designed to accomplish, common sense would seem to suggest that the most prudent decision which could be made in this regard would be to set it aside in its entirety. Obviously, there will be no directive to that effect handed down today. Therefore, we will endeavour to the best of our ability to clarify our positions and bring forward our concerns based upon our interpretations of the intentions of the act.
Let us begin with a comment on the proposed amendments to the Municipal Act as prescribed under schedule M. Under the terms proposed by this bill, the Municipal Act would be amended to empower the government with the ability to restructure existing municipalities. Unfortunately, it would appear that any such action could be introduced and effectively directed even without any degree of local support or stakeholder input. While it cannot be argued that there may be cost savings associated which result from such measures, it hardly seems right that the taxpaying residents of a community would not be afforded an opportunity to craft their own destiny. Although we can recognize and respect the desire of local governments to have greater control over municipal affairs, this cannot and will not be made possible at the expense of individual rights.
From the perspective of our union, government intervention may also result in job losses which could otherwise have been avoided. Obviously, this would create additional and very unnecessary demands on an already overburdened social safety net. Surely you all must agree that this defeats the purpose and intent of the bill itself.
To this end we offer the following recommendations for your consideration:
First, meet with the municipal leaders to discuss effective means of restructuring local governments with a focus on eliminating the many levels which currently exist in order to facilitate the timely addressing of this issue and establish guidelines which clearly outline the object, intent and accomplishments which this government hopes to be satisfied.
Second, ensure that any proposed restructuring is supported by a majority of those in the communities affected.
Third, encourage full and active participation by the public in drafting any action plans.
Fourth, establish the viability of any model from a municipality based upon local needs and not merely logistics.
Finally, we must ensure that we recognize and respect the rights and freedoms of organized labour by maintaining the integrity of existing statutory entitlements, such as successor status provisions in collective bargaining legislation, despite any order to the contrary which may be made by a minister, commission or other such government body.
Next, we will examine the Public Utilities Act. Among the other related amendments to the bill is a provision which gives municipalities new authority and control over special-purpose bodies, including public utility commissions. As stated in this draft, such empowerment would once again strip away the democratic rights of the electorate. Irrespective of any existing limitations to such authority, the municipality could arbitrarily dissolve or alter any board simply by passing a resolution to this effect.
Whether or not a municipality would elect to exercise such privileges remains to be seen. However, should such measures be introduced, it could result in significant contracting-out, reduction or elimination of municipal services, the privatization of public utilities and decreasing efficiencies in that sector.
In addition, should the bill exonerate the municipality of its obligations to comply with other legislative requirements, the sanctity of collective agreements may well be attacked. On the heels of changes introduced under Bill 7, and still reeling from the impacts of the social contract, we question the legitimacy of a decision to impose further anguish upon those who have not contributed to provincial debt.
As you are no doubt well aware, there is no direct government funding allocated to public utilities, and no funding of any kind directed to municipal electrical utilities. Their revenues are generated by the ratepayer, not the taxpayer, and used to maintain and develop their system, as well as covering all payroll costs. Although this industry has been deemed a part of the broader public sector, it's very difficult to understand the basis for such a designation. It is our contention that all public utilities and/or municipal electrical utilities should be granted exemption from those portions of Bill 26 which relate directly to the control of local boards.
It would appear that it is the intention of the government to offer such exemption. This is evidenced in the letter to all chairs of municipal electrical utilities under the co-signatures of ministers Brenda Elliot and Al Leach. However, we urge that such status be granted by legislation and not by regulation. To this end, we offer the following recommendations:
Withdraw any proposed amendments to the Public Utilities Act; encourage and support the efforts of the MEA, the IBEW and the Macdonald commission to examine effective ways to restructure Ontario's municipal utilities. In the event that it's necessary to alter or dissolve a board, let the voice of the community be heard and, if applicable, let the people decide its fate, and not the municipality. Again, we must guarantee that the rights and freedoms of working men and women, as defined by existing legislation, are maintained, ensuring the obligations and responsibilities outlined therein are not overridden.
I will now proceed to address the Pay Equity Act amendments under schedule J. The enactment of pay equity legislation in 1987 trumpeted in a new era for women in the workplace. After years of working tirelessly for substandard wages, there would finally be equal pay for work of equal value. Unfortunately, not all females would enjoy the benefits of the act at this time. Then, in 1993, the act was amended to extend the privileges defined therein to those who had previously been denied access to pay equity. Regrettably, in less than a year from now, Bill 26 will close the door to some women which was opened for others a decade before.
The elimination of proxy comparison is a direct assault on some of the most conscientious and hardworking employees in this province. Once again, unscrupulous employers will be allowed to prey upon the vulnerabilities of their female employees, many of whom will be single parents or lack the necessary skills to seek alternative employment opportunities. Although their talents will again be exploited, the contributions of those women working in establishments without male job comparators will not be fairly compensated. To the Tories and Mr Harris, all we can say is, "Shame on all of you."
The transitional provisions for minimum payments under this bill launch yet another attack on this target group. In this case, the human cost must be weighed against the savings which are generated. In an economy under siege, these tolls are higher than ever before. Despite promises that recovery is imminent, unemployment remains at unacceptable levels, and further layoffs will be forthcoming. This could result in an increased reliance on women to provide financial security for the family during these transitional periods. They will now be forced to do so with even more limited resources.
Perhaps those who have been so enlightened as to propose this amendment would regard it in a somewhat different view if they realized that this will adversely impact the lives not only of working women, such as our wives or mothers or daughters or sisters, but also their families. I must ask, would any one among you be satisfied to work for less than another in jobs of equal value? I think the answer is quite clear.
The repeal of employment equity took away many opportunities for women. The repeal of proxy comparison will pose even further constraints, both financially and with respect to employment, upon these individuals, not only today but in generations to come.
1550
It would appear to be somewhat futile to offer a difficult and thankless job at substandard wages which requires you to work long, erratic hours, including weekends and holidays, as an incentive to those currently receiving or seeking social assistance. Would you not agree?
To this end, we offer the following recommendation: The proxy value provision of the Pay Equity Act must remain intact to ensure that dignity and respect for the contributions of women in the workplace are protected.
We'll touch briefly on schedule Q, which has to do with interest arbitration, although we won't speak to it that long. Under the bill the integrity of the arbitration process and perhaps collective bargaining itself could be undermined by the amendments contained therein. In directing an arbitrator to consider the employer's ability to pay, this bill circumvents the principles upon which the arbitration process is founded by transferring the balance of power away from an independent decision-maker and directly into the hands of the party in dispute.
Effectively, this will provide a mechanism for the government, municipality or other public sector employers to unilaterally and arbitrarily set the wages of their employees. Employers will be encouraged not to bargain in good faith, with the full knowledge that any compulsory award must be granted in their favour. As a result, there will be little or no incentive for any employer to reach an agreement, and as such, the process of collective bargaining will be lost forever.
In a free and democratic society, all workers are guaranteed fundamental rights which are not subject to compromise. It was Abraham Lincoln who said, "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master." This is my idea of democracy. Naturally, this begs the question, does the omnibus bill define the Conservatives' view of our democracy?
We would thereby recommend that they amend the criteria to be considered by arbitrators to exclude the ability to pay and extend to which services may have to be reduced.
Under other amendments to this legislation, with respect to health care, although that's not on today's agenda, given the fact that the amendments proposed under schedules F, G and H will ultimately impact to a varying degree the lives of everybody in Ontario, we wish to go on record in support of any recommendation to abolish in their entirety these portions of the act.
With respect to public sector pension plans, Bill 26 would empower this government with the authority to suspend pension benefit rights of public sector employees, which all other employers in the province are obliged to respect. Initially this power will be wielded directly against Ontario's civil service. Without question, if this endeavour goes unchallenged, the Tories will soon set their sights on the broader public sector and relinquish the rights of others, such as utility employees and municipal workers, ultimately into the private sector.
Rest assured that should such action ever be contemplated, labour in Ontario will not stand idly by as our retirement security is threatened. If the intent of this bill is truly to promote economic prosperity, then once again schedule L must be abandoned in its entirety.
In summary, Canada as we know it was not even a country when a government which was not responsible to its people last ruled over this land. Had it not been for the courageous efforts of one man, we may in a political sense have already been thrust back to that age. In his simple act of remaining seated, Alvin Curling sent a signal across Ontario that the time had come to stand up and be counted. Thanks to his efforts the Conservative government has granted a stay of execution to democracy in Ontario, and this is evidenced by these public hearings today.
The omnibus bill with the stroke of a pen will bring down a province which it has taken generations to build. Ontario has long been revered for its commitment to education, dedication to universal health care and benevolence in caring for children, seniors and those in need.
Today we stand at the crossroads of our future. The path we choose will either perpetuate the principles which have set our province apart or polarize our Ontario and its people. In following the map set out by Bill 26, it leads us towards a society in which profits are more important than people, democratic rights are taken away from the masses and vested in the ruling élite, freedom of choice is supplanted by compliance to command, health care as well as education is reserved for the privileged few and our social conscience is treated more like a social disease. Now, that certainly sounds like a place that I want to live, work and raise a family; how about you?
In drafting Bill 26, the Conservative government, which I think is more appropriately called -- well, I won't say what they should be called -- has reneged on much of the rhetoric promised by the Common Sense Revolution. Even more frightening is their breach of the public trust which gave them the care and control of this province.
It is appalling to think that any government would have the audacity to introduce such broad and sweeping changes in a singular act. The Conservatives were awarded a mandate to govern, not to dictate. Accordingly, we urge the government to withdraw this legislation in its entirety.
Notwithstanding such a position, should this government elect to proceed with any of these amendments as outlined in this bill, there must be further public hearings scheduled to examine, discuss and debate the merits of any and all such recommendations on an individual basis.
On behalf of Local 636 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, please accept my thanks and that of my members for the opportunity to participate in these proceedings. It is our sincere hope that our voice has been heard and the rights of all Ontarians, including working men and women, children, seniors and the oppressed, will be preserved. In the final analysis, it must never be forgotten that at the heart and soul of this province is its citizens and not its government.
In closing, let us leave you with one final view which we would ask Mr Harris's government to contemplate. I hope that our wisdom will grow with us and our power and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be.
The Chair: Thank you. That leaves us with a little bit more than three minutes per caucus for questioning. We'll start off with the government caucus; Mr Klees.
Mr Klees: Thank you for your presentation. Clearly, when I listen to you, as well as many other presentations today, I think that we all agree on the same thing and that is that we want a secure future for our children. We obviously also disagree fundamentally in perhaps how we should get there. I would just ask you this: Do you feel that the status quo that we have today is appropriate, that the kind of government that brought us to the doorstep today of a $100-billion debt, a $10-billion-a-year interest payment in this province, is acceptable?
Mr Vlanich: Certainly it's not acceptable and I must comment that part of the reason that we are in the situation rests not solely with the past government but the governments of the past. As a reminder, the Tories ruled this province for a long time and $100 billion doesn't amass overnight.
Mr Young: Fifty billion amassed in five years. In the last five years, $50 billion.
Mr Vlanich: So specifically with reference to your question, the status quo definitely is not acceptable, but there are other alternatives which we feel have to be examined which are equally as acceptable as those which are being presented from your perspective as the alternative to our current situation.
Mr Klees: Would you agree that it's going to take a fundamental restructuring of how we do government in this province, as one of the other presenters said today?
Mr Vlanich: There is a significant difference between restructuring and dismantling. Obviously --
Interruption.
Mr Klees: I'd like to follow up on that because, you know, the unions --
Mr Cooke: Cut your losses, Frank.
Interjections.
Mr Klees: If I could have the additional time that Mr Cooke took of mine, Mr Chairman. When we talk about restructuring, and that's the intent of this bill --
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Duncan, please.
Mr Klees: -- clearly the previous government saw the unions in this province avoid them like a plague when they brought in their form of reform for this province. Why did you at that point in time leave the support of the NDP? Why today is it that you're not accepting our proposal for restructuring? You didn't like what they were doing. You don't like what we're doing. In fact, is it not true that when someone takes leadership and there's going to be some pain for those who are going to be affected, they don't like it?
Mr Cooke: Time's up.
Mr Vlanich: Am I supposed to comment on that or was that just a political speech?
Mr Klees: I think if the Liberals will give you the time, I'd like to hear it.
The Chair: There's still some government time. You have about 30 seconds to respond to that.
Mr Crozier: Frank, responding to your lectures isn't something that we want to waste our time on.
Mr Vlanich: Thank you, Bruce. I concur.
The Chair: Now to the opposition; Mr Duncan.
Mr Duncan: I'd just like you to go into more detail about the alternatives, that there are different ways of cutting instead of an arrogant, jam-it-down-your-throat, no-public-hearings, no-opportunity-to-talk attitude. You've put together, I thought, a very thoughtful presentation outlining a number of recommendations to a large number of the sections of the law that we're dealing with today. I'd like you to talk more in a general sense for us about the proper approach to governing and how the IBEW sees that unfolding, and what role you see for working people in that process.
Mr Vlanich: Obviously, as a democratic organization ourselves, we feel that the proper way to govern is through democracy; and obviously, this particular legislation transgresses the lines of all the democratic rights we've seen. Democracy is based on compromise, consultation and recognition of public ideas. It doesn't mean we can dictate to the public what's being done. We present different ideas, and certainly there may be merit to some and not to others in the views of all. That's why we're a diversified and well-rounded society.
1600
We're not here today to challenge the philosophical differences which separate us all. We're here today to say that as Ontarians, regardless of your political stripe, this is wrong. If you're going to govern, do it the democratic way. Let's not revert to 1848 when the Family Compact ruled. I heard this spoken on the other day very eloquently. Power can't rest in the hands of the élite, it's got to be with the people.
Mr Phillips: I'd like to get your impression and your members' impression of how this Harris government plans to manage the finances. Frankly, we find it unacceptable. These aren't my numbers, these are their numbers. What they're planning to do, as I think you know, because we have this huge deficit problem, they're going to cut $6 billion worth of spending. They've found out it's worse now, so they're going to cut $8 billion because we've got this huge deficit problem. But $5 billion of that money isn't going to reduce the deficit; it's going in the form of a tax break. The more you make, the bigger the tax break. So while they talk about fighting the deficit -- this is our big problem, "We've got to cut spending by $8 billion." That, by the way, is 25% of all the spending in this province. That's going to be cut. Why? To fund a $5-billion tax break. It isn't to tackle the deficit, it's for that tax break. I wonder what your membership feels about that approach to managing the province's finances. Have you had a chance to talk to your members?
Mr Vlanich: Quite candidly, we haven't discussed that at length with our membership, but there has been a sense from our members that the tax break is simply a façade. It was a popular political move that appealed to the masses on a large scale. Certainly everybody would like to have their taxes cut. I'd like to have an increase in my wages and everything else, but it doesn't work that way. A tax cut in and of itself doesn't solve the problem any more than trying to spend our way out of it under another government.
Mr Silipo: I don't know if what you were saying on that last point was that you think the tax cut may not come about. If you have any further thoughts on that, I welcome them. I happen to think the government is going to be crazy enough to pursue the tax cut, and one of the things we know will happen through the tax cut is that it will perpetuate the kind of pulling back in time that you were talking about in terms of democratic process, but also in terms of what it does to working men and women. What we see is that the large benefit that comes from the tax cut will go not to the average Ontarian, but will go to that small proportion of Ontarians who are earning over $80,000 a year. That's something the government would like to ignore, but that's also part of the reality and that is what is very much driving its agenda. Have you had any chance to discuss that issue at all within your membership?
Mr Vlanich: With respect to your first question as to whether or not the tax cut will come, frankly, I don't think it will. If it does, it's not ultimately going to benefit the electorate or the general population anyway because it will be more than offset by user fees, the deprivation of services and the decimation of those most in need, who are there for all of us.
We are a social culture, we're not a society of individuals. We work for everybody. As a union, one of the fundamental concepts we advocate is collective best interests. Obviously that's not here, it's directed at the élite few. Ultimately our children will suffer, our women will suffer, those in need will suffer. The tax break will never come, it will be just like the GST and every other implemented measure. What happens to all that money? What has happened to the money generated from lotteries, from the GST, etc?
On a personal note, if someone gave me an additional $10,000 a month, my debt load would probably drop significantly because I could put it directly on the debt. Why aren't governments doing that?
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Vlanich, for coming forward.
HOWARD TOWNSHIP
The Chair: I understand the next presenters, CAW Local 89, are delayed, but the Howard Township presenters are here.
Good afternoon, gentlemen. Thank you for agreeing to appear a little earlier than you were scheduled for. You have half an hour to make a presentation today. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions. I'd appreciate it if you'd read your names into the record for the benefit of the committee members and Hansard.
Mr David Langstaff: I'm David Langstaff, reeve of Howard township, and I have with me Walter Spence, councillor of Howard township, and Jamey Campbell, our administrator.
I'm pleased to have this opportunity to provide input to the government from the township of Howard on the ominous omnibus bill, Bill 26, known as the Savings and Restructuring Act. It is evident across the country and around the world that citizens want more affordable and responsible governance. Bill 26 is one of the major steps in which the present provincial government is proposing to address this issue. While we applaud the efforts of the cabinet to reduce costs, we believe there must be a more balanced view taken of the manner in which changes are initiated.
Howard township, like many rural municipalities, has provided services for our residents since 1850, responding to their needs and wishes, and fostering a rural lifestyle that is the envy of many larger urban municipalities. In cooperation with Ridgetown and other neighbours, we have been able to also respond to the recreational need of our young people. This has been achieved while maintaining a balanced budget, moderate reserves and a low mill rate. The keys have been good fiscal management, gradual improvement of services and, most importantly, the high calibre of our volunteers.
While a number of municipalities in Ontario may be too small to undertake the new responsibilities which will be assigned to local councils, we do not believe that lumping several existing municipalities into a large conglomerate will reduce costs or provide better service to our constituents. It is important for the provincial government to recognize that any restructured municipality should represent a community of interest from among its citizens. Large entities tend to lose personal touch with the individuals they represent. Certainly there is a loss of accountability as public bodies grow larger.
For this reason, we believe it is important to keep local municipalities small enough to be truly accessible to all of their ratepayers. To this end, criteria such as distance and service areas must be used, as well as population limits. Present municipal boundaries may not be the best criteria for judging communities of interest. Any restructuring should not be limited by existing boundaries. Instead, a fresh approach should be taken using some of the criteria we have mentioned to shape any new municipality.
Because we believe so strongly in local accountability, we cannot support the prevailing provincial view of a single-tier county style of government. We advocate the continuance of the existing two-tier government with newly defined areas of jurisdiction. Duplication does exist. However, it is more practical to eliminate the duplication under the existing system than throw the entire system into chaos through a highly centralized one-tier system.
The Kent county study completed two years ago indicated which functions may be best suited for the two levels of government. Recreation, protection matters and utilities are natural basic responsibilities of community councils. Planning matters, such as zoning, minor variances, even official plans, are best developed through a neighbourhood jurisdiction. Community development -- making our community a better place to live -- is another function best placed with local government. No one can involve its local people more effectively than the local council, nor be closer and more responsive to its citizens' needs. Accountability is enhanced by having councillors living within easy access of their constituents.
We believe that waste management, with the exception of landfill sites, is handled most effectively locally. In Kent county, landfill sites are a matter of private enterprise and therefore exist outside this discussion. We are also of the opinion that roads can be most efficiently maintained by local authorities. If two or three existing garages operated by different levels of government must be amalgamated into one operation to avoid present duplication and inefficiencies, we think that the local units can best administer the road system.
1610
Other responsibilities such as health, social services and education are best administered at a restructured county level. We know, however, that in New Zealand education responsibilities reverted to local boards for each school, and I'm sure you're familiar with the changes that have happened there.
By now you've realized Howard township is a strong supporter of a two-tier county system of local government, as well as the most cost-effective way of delivering services and promoting community. As well, a two-tier system of government in Kent county would avoid the overwhelming dominance that the city of Chatham would have in a single-tier system. The province can attain the goals which it is trying to achieve with a two-tier system in Kent county, while leaving the citizens with a service-oriented administration within their own communities.
Currently, our council is unable to effectively deal with the changes that are coming because of the confusing messages being sent by provincial representatives. An example seems to be the issue of so-called voluntary restructuring. That issue should be clarified immediately in the legislation so that the process can be addressed. Is it county council or local councils that make the call? What triggers mandatory restructuring by the ministry? Could it be finances? What is the role of separated cities, if any, in restructuring, or can that be determined locally? What are the minimum criteria which the minister is establishing as restructuring principles which must be met locally?
Until such issues are resolved, positive local action will remain ineffective, with the various players galloping off in different directions. In other words, until we know the rules, we cannot play the game.
One important area of local concern has not been addressed either in Bill 26 or any other proposed legislation which we are aware of. Society in Ontario and across North America is moving towards less accountability for individuals and more liability to corporations, especially public bodies. The so-called deep-pocket theory has been embraced by the legal system in Ontario following the lead of courts in the United States. The province must make a fundamental change in the judicial system under its jurisdiction to redirect claim limits to a more reasonable level. Society is in need of a more balanced view of individuals' responsibilities versus the responsibility of society at large. This change will require legislation capping limits on liability to municipalities and other public bodies. The new Ontario must not be restricted by a judicial system which threatens to undermine the changes which are proposed within the public sector.
We also wish to address certain areas of the changes which the province is advocating. One of the ongoing problems which has affected local bodies for many years is the different year-end date for municipal governments as compared to the provincial government. As you are aware, municipalities have a legislated year-end of December 31, while the provincial year-end is March 31. As a result, financial information is always late in arriving from the province on which the municipalities must base their budgets. This problem could be easily solved by changing the legislation to accommodate a common year-end date.
As well, we have concerns about the proposal of the province to have restructuring and a new Municipal Act in place by January 1, 1998. As you may be aware, municipal elections take place in November 1997, with the new councils taking office on December 1. There would appear to be a one-month variance in the proposed legislation. We suggest that further consideration should be taken of the municipal year-end date, the election date and the date on which any restructured municipality would come into existence.
Finally, the fiscal and economic statement presented in November 1995 made massive cuts to individuals and groups throughout our society, with the exception of the highest wage earners. Certain individuals, including MPPs, provincial and regional and local employees and the staff of such groups as school boards, library boards and children's aid societies receive vastly greater income than the average citizen. We suggest putting a maximum annual cap of $70,000 on wages and $50,000 in pensions for all publicly funded persons in Ontario to save millions of tax dollars, without creating a hardship to any individual.
In summary, (1) consider a restructured two-tiered system of local government, (2) give us all the rules for the process, (3) protect local public bodies from unlimited liability, (4) address some of the current problems in the existing and proposed process, and (5) consider putting a wage and pension freeze on the high-income public staff.
Howard township takes the view that we represent all of our residents living in the community, where the person next door may be a successful businessperson, a farmer, or a person who has less good fortune. This of course makes for a diverse community and a council very much in touch with the reality, a council that takes the pragmatic approach to finances but does not disregard the human factor. Those are the people we were elected to serve, every one of them.
I thank you for your attention to this presentation. We hope we have given you additional food for thought. If you have any questions on any of the matters I have raised, I'd be pleased to elaborate at this time.
The Vice-Chair: Thanks very much. Each party has about six and a half minutes, beginning with the members of the opposition.
Mrs Pupatello: With all the cuts that have gone across the board to municipalities in Ontario, $1.3 billion, do you think it's going to be as necessary to implement restructuring processes from a provincial level down to the municipal, that the threat of less money obviously makes people consider restructuring where they may not have done so before?
Mr Langstaff: The reduced finances we're receiving and the threat and implication that there will be more certainly puts pressure on our municipalities to cope with that. We're certainly not suggesting that there shouldn't be changes or that there can't be changes. We're only suggesting that their scope can be handled in relatively local areas.
Mrs Pupatello: A number of mayors are already on record as looking forward to the ability to slap user fees on just about everything that moves in their municipalities. Some are saying they're looking forward to the head tax and the sales tax, the gas tax. What kinds of taxes and/or user fees would you implement, and if you don't implement the user fees to make up for the loss of revenue, what service would you consider doing without in your township?
Mr Langstaff: We already have service fees in our township. We're using it on garbage disposal. We use it on planning issues. Building inspection is virtually self-supporting in our municipality. I don't see where we could do a lot in that area. Someone did suggest, tongue in cheek, that if we put a toll booth at the entrance to the township office and we used one of the new $2 coins, we could charge everyone including council and staff when they come in the building, and that might assist us.
Mrs Pupatello: Would you do without a service, then? Have you decided what you're not going to do?
Mr Langstaff: When our services are basic, when we are providing core services, the only realistic place we can make cuts is in our transportation budget, and that's to lower services.
Mrs Pupatello: Is that maintenance of your transportation?
Mr Langstaff: Maintenance and capital, and when you're doing that, you're buying from the future to pay for the present. I think it's very clear that that's what we are doing.
Say we eliminated recreation. We use a lot of volunteers, and our total recreation budget is somewhere under $40,000 a year. A lot of that goes into joint projects with the town of Ridgetown. It's a sizeable amount of money, yes, but if we cut it in half we save $20,000, and that's not a lot in terms of the money we are talking about having to save, so that's not realistic to go to.
Administration is pretty core when you have a basic number of very well-qualified staff performing the work we're doing.
We come back to the fact that if you want to save the big dollars, you've got to go where the big dollars are, and that means transportation, which makes up well over half of our budget.
Mr Crozier: You've got some very interesting proposals in your submission. One is limiting the liability on municipalities. We all know, with some of the settlements recently, what the increases in insurance premiums alone have been to the municipalities.
But I think you're a little late, because it may interest you to know -- maybe you've seen it already -- that the Attorney General is suggesting a change to the system in the near future that would allow contingency fees. If we think we've seen a lot of lawsuits in the past, I suspect we can't imagine how many lawsuits there will be once contingency fees are allowed. Essentially, that says: "Come on in. We'll sue the township. If we collect, we'll want 50% of what we get for you," or 25% or 10% or whatever, "and if we don't get anything, you don't pay anything," or you may pay a minimal fee for disbursement.
If those changes come about, municipalities are headed into a whole new realm of increases in the cost of insurance.
1620
I was interested as well in your comments about a maximum annual cap of $70,000 on wages. Do you realize the cut in pay that the political-whiz-kid staff of Premier Harris will have to take if you did something like that?
Mr Langstaff: We didn't put any names on it, sir.
Mr Crozier: Talk about a 21% reduction in welfare. These guys would have to take a tremendous cut in pay. When you thought about this, did you mean it for the broader public service? For example, there are medical people who are under the employ of --
Mr Langstaff: May I just explain where I got that from before we get in too deep?
Mr Crozier: I know you guys, so I knew you got it from somewhere.
Mr Langstaff: First we assumed that the financial situation the province has -- and "financial situation" is what my banker tells me I have at times -- is as serious as the province tells us it is. We took the average wage in Kent county and multiplied it by two, and that came to about $70,000 a year. Then we took what the province expects the average person on welfare to live on, which I understand is around $600 a month and multiplied that by 10, and that came to $70,000. I don't think anyone could argue that wouldn't be a reasonable amount of money to live on.
Mr Crozier: I knew you would have a solution to that.
Mr Cooke: Actually, if MPPs' pay was brought up to $70,000, we'd be in for a big raise. I suspect you were putting forward that proposal not in a serious way but just as a tongue-in-cheek idea, and the figures were a bit arbitrary, so I won't spend any time on it. I'll talk to you about it after.
I have two areas I want to talk to you about. I gather, from the presentation you've made and from a presentation we heard earlier, that we're hearing played out here a little the debate that's taking place in south Kent county with respect to restructuring. I think that's healthy. I remember hearing a few of these when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs. I'd like to make one point and see if you agree: that restructuring in our municipal system in Ontario has not happened quickly enough; that there's been a lot of talk for the last 20 years about restructuring our municipal governments and not a lot of it has happened.
The concern some of us have about the proposal in Bill 26 is that if you're going to restructure local governments it's got to be done in a democratic way, and by and large it has to be driven at the local level. There may be a necessary step that at some point the end comes and somebody has to make a decision, and if there can't be a decision made at the local level then somebody makes that decision through appeal to the OMB or some process. The concern a lot of us have about the proposal in this bill is that it basically removes it from the local people and it can be imposed by a minister in Toronto who is not familiar, whether it's Essex county, whether it's Kent county. It really goes from one extreme of not enough happening to another extreme where the democratic process is completely removed.
Mr Langstaff: I think you're basically right. I think an arbitrator or commissioner should be appointed as the very last resort. Yes, we do need some guidelines to work with, we do need some deadlines to work with, and beyond that I think we can handle it at the local level. I'm using "local" as a larger term there than perhaps the county; even, as we suggest in our presentation, the ability to look across county lines if it's necessary, or across what are local municipal lines now. Those changes should all happen at this time.
Mr Cooke: Does it concern you, as it does me, that the sections with regard to restructuring -- here we're talking about amalgations, annexations, boundaries and all of that -- only apply to county governments in the province and that regional governments have been left out; that this seems to be targeting certain areas of the province and one has to be pretty suspicious about what's up the sleeve of this government?
Mr Langstaff: I've taken more the view that, give me the rules and I'll play the game in the best interests of the local people in my township. I've read the legislation. Frankly, I'm not a legal expert, but I've just thought it maybe moves too far, too fast.
Mr Cooke: When you read through the legislation again, let me reinforce that all the regional governments are exempt from that part of the legislation and it's targeted at the county governments. I think that's unfair.
Mr Hardeman: Good afternoon. In your presentation, you say that the provincial view is to go to single-tier county government. I would just ask if we could get a clarification of why you presume that to be the case.
Mr Cooke: How do they know what you've got up your sleeve?
Mr Hardeman: The question could be what Mr Cooke indicates. Do you see that it's something up the government's sleeve, or have you somewhere got direction that the intent is to go to single-tier county government?
Mr Langstaff: I'm going by memory now. When I look at the basic principles of the restructuring in Bill 26, it seems to me that the first one at the top of the page is, should we eliminate a level of government? That's one of the principles of restructuring. That implies that if the decision has not been made -- and I assume it has not -- certainly someone is thinking about it. If you look at this logically, it's not going to be the federal government that's eliminated; it's not likely to be the province, though I could make some good arguments that it should be; so that only leaves you the county and the local municipalities. When you eliminate one of those, whichever one, you've become a single-tier government, whether you call it a region or something else.
I would be very pleased for you to tell us today very clearly that that is not the goal of your government. That would certainly allay some of the fears that some of the local municipalities have in our area of Kent county.
Mr Hardeman: The reason I brought it up is to point out that it's for the same reason you suggest, that we should put in criteria telling the local municipalities what it is you want them to do and then they will go out and do it. I think the restructuring part of the act is to let the local municipalities decide their community of interest and the type of government that best serves that area.
The first item in the act, as you suggest, may ask whether we should look at eliminating a tier of government. It doesn't suggest which level that should be, but I would think that if you're looking at your community, it would be appropriate to look at that. The decision may well very well be already made in your instance that eliminating a tier of government is not it, but it would seem to me that everyone should at least look at that. That would seem an appropriate approach, that as you go through the process of restructuring, you look at that alternative. Would you not agree with that?
Mr Langstaff: Yes, I always believe in looking at all the facts, sir. I'm not criticizing any other group in Kent; it would be great to see them put their views on the table. But how do we deal with the situation, if 17,000 people pull out of Kent county, of what that does to the county structure? What does it do to our ability, as a smaller unit, to become a single-tier government? It becomes much more difficult to deliver the services we all know we're going to have to deliver into the year 2000.
Mr Hardeman: That's very true, and that's why the act does require the support of a certain number of the municipalities and the county structure before restructuring would be implemented on the local initiative.
I just want to point out a small, technical part of your presentation dealing with the government's intent to have the new Municipal Act in place by January 1, 1998. The minister's comments were to have it in place by January 1, 1997, so the implementation could take place during that election year as opposed to a month following the election.
1630
Mr Langstaff: I believe that was probably a typo, sir. A lot of this was just put together today.
Mr Hardeman: I appreciate that. I just wanted, for the record, to point that out.
The Chair: Mr Klees, you have just over a minute.
Mr Klees: Are you aware that the minister has on a number of occasions made the statement that the province will not impose amalgamation, that he expects those recommendations would come from the local municipalities?
Mr Langstaff: Sir, I've heard him say that.
Mr Klees: And you don't believe him?
Mr Langstaff: I wouldn't want to put it quite that I don't believe him. I just take a look at the act and see the direction that's going and all the other input and information that's coming around Ontario and what we've been told for probably a year before the present government was elected. Mr Harris said at a convention in Toronto, you know: "We're going to eliminate half of you and we're going to eliminate half of the municipalities in Ontario. We're going to get on with it." Frankly, I took Mr Harris at his word.
Mr Klees: I think, for the record, it's very important that the message is understood that amalgamation will be initiated by the local level of government. The process, as a matter of fact, that Mr Cooke described, if you go back and take a look at his words, is precisely what we intend through this legislation: that the initiative come from the local level, that in the final analysis, if a commission has to be appointed to make some final decisions, that is the intent of this legislation.
Mr Gerretsen: The legislation is already in place. You don't need new legislation for that.
Mr Klees: Obviously, it hasn't worked. If it would have worked, you would have done it. These people have been at it for how long?
Interjections.
The Chair: Gentlemen, please.
Mr Silipo: The problem is not the legislation.
Mr Klees: That's right. It's not the legislation; it's the government, isn't it, Mr Silipo?
Mr Silipo: Why are you changing the legislation?
The Chair: Gentlemen.
Mr Klees: Because we want to get on with it.
Interjections.
Mr Young: You are talking too fast for Hansard. Slow down.
The Chair: Mr Klees, your time has unfortunately expired. Gentlemen, I'd like to thank you for coming forward today to make your presentation.
Mr Langstaff: Thank you again for hearing us.
The Chair: Is there a member from CAW Local 89 with us yet?
In that case, I'd like to move forward to the Chatham and District Labour Council: Mr Kitchen.
Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: It's not your intention, if that delegation is not here at 5 o'clock, to stop the hearing at 5 o'clock; that half-hour would be freed up for either those on the waiting list or others?
The Chair: At that point, after Mr Kitchen's presentation, if a member from CAW Local 89 isn't here, I'll ask for a motion to move to the waiting list.
CHATHAM AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: Mr Kitchen, welcome. As you may have heard, you have half an hour to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. I would ask that you might consider leaving some time at the end of your presentation for questions. I'd appreciate it if you'd read your name and organization into the record for the benefit of committee members and Hansard.
Mr Buddy Kitchen: My name is Buddy Kitchen. I represent the Chatham and District Labour Council from Chatham, Ontario.
As a background, the Chatham and District Labour Council consists of 25 affiliated unions representing approximately 12,000 members. Our members come from both private and public sector workplaces. We were chartered by the Canadian Labour Congress in 1958 and have been representing the views and interests of working people in this area since. The elected officers of this labour council are not full-time positions. Although we are not confined to geographic boundaries, our organization considers the boundaries of the county of Kent to be the same. Politically, we are represented by the MPPs of Chatham-Kent and Essex-Kent.
Bill 26 is so encompassing in its contents that two sets of hearings are being held. Because this labour council represents workers in the health care industry, we have also made application to appear before the subcommittee dealing with health issues. It should be noted that the labour council applied by phone to the clerk of the committee requesting an appointment to appear before the subcommittee in either Windsor or London, the closest geographical locations to us. This request was made December 19, 1995. We were notified January 4, 1996, that we were accepted to make this presentation.
As an introduction, the Chatham and District Labour Council is pleased to participate in the hearings on Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1995. However, we must make it absolutely certain we oppose much of the content of this omnibus bill. Most importantly, we object to the undemocratic process with which it is being forced on the citizens of Ontario. Bill 26 reaffirms our position that this government is autocratic and undemocratic. These hearings are not being conducted as part of the democratic process. We are of the opinion these hearings are a result of relentless pressure by the public to be consulted and unprecedented parliamentary disobedience by the opposition party which embarrassed the government.
We question the government's integrity to implement any of the recommendations brought forward not only to this committee but the other committees as well. My proof of this statement comes from viewing the December 22, 1995, health hearings on the parliamentary TV channel. Frances Lankin, MPP, tried unsuccessfully to introduce a motion to extend the length of the hearings outside of the Toronto area. It was already acknowledged before leaving Toronto that there were more applicants for submission than there were time slots. A very generic amendment requesting the government House leader be advised of this information was then voted down. This confirmed to me that government members are here to pay lip-service to the people of Ontario in conducting public hearings, but at the same time will toe the party line regardless of the information brought forward.
This act is very far-reaching in terms of content and scope. The fact it creates three new acts, totally repeals two acts and amends a total of 44 other acts verifies this. Bill 26 is over 22 pages long. I am told the compendium provided with the bill is at least a foot thick.
Given the number of acts created, repealed or amended, and given the significance of all other issues involved, the process should allow for democratic input of all concerned. At the very least, given the number of people or organizations who applied for presentations and were not selected, serious consideration should be given to extending the amount of public hearings to be held.
As we are finding out from the hearings to date, interpretation of certain sections of this bill is causing quite an uproar. This finds some groups or organizations now having concerns with the bill they didn't originally have.
The Savings and Restructuring Act includes substantial changes on many issues. I would like to touch on some which are pertinent to our organization as they would affect our members as individual citizens or as a member of an affected group.
Before dealing with specifics of the legislation, I feel it is important to make reference to the individuals whose job it is to draft, promote, debate and vote on this very important piece of legislation, which calls for the MPPs' ability to understand the legislation.
There are presently 130 MPPs in the Legislature. These are individuals who were duly elected by the people they represent, and ideally answerable to them. Of the people elected in the last election, 71 MPPs are sitting in the House for the very first time. The Tory government has 59 members new to the Legislature and provincial politics. My MPP from Chatham-Kent, Jack Carroll, is one of them.
Would it be wrong to assume an individual such as Jack Carroll, who had no previous political experience, hasn't the ability to accept the following changes in his life and do merit to a job he is still getting used to, events such as opening constituency offices in Chatham and Toronto, hiring staff for each, familiarizing himself with his constituency because he doesn't even live in it, familiarizing himself with Toronto because he is going to live and work there part-time, learning the rules and regulations of being an MPP, meeting with his own caucus and being assigned duties within, seeing to the day-to-day responsibilities of his constituents, attending civic functions on behalf of the government, attending the opening of the Legislature in September, meeting with and listening to the concerns of protesters at his office on a weekly basis, starting to dodge the protesters at his office on a weekly basis, being in the Legislature to debate and vote on new far-reaching legislation such as Bill 7, meeting and trying to rationalize to Chatham city council all the provincial funding cuts, appearing on radio debates with local detractors of the Common Sense Revolution, giving his maiden speech in the Legislature, trying to maintain some semblance of family life, chairing the general government committee hearings on Bill 26 etc?
1640
It is probably safe to say Jack Carroll and the other 70 new MPPs are still feeling their way along in their new job and are apt to make the usual mistakes rookie MPPs make until they become familiar with and experienced in the ways of government. In a December 18, 1995, Chatham Daily News editorial regarding him chairing the hearings on the controversial bully bill, Carroll says he expects to hear from regular opponents of Conservative policies, such as union leaders and social activists. Which category did ministers Wilson and Leach fit into when they made their presentations?
I have written letters to my MPP, the Minister of Labour and the Premier concerning various issues. Some letters have gone unanswered, some letters have been responded to four months after the fact, and some letters have been referred to the minister involved, only never responded to. This again shows how extremely busy all members of this Legislature are. I have made phone calls directly to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism's office when funding cuts to the proposed ethanol plant in Chatham were announced, only to receive no response from that ministry.
It is conceivable to understand that government rookie MPPs and backbenchers could be ill-informed as to the content of this bill, but one would assume government ministers would have working knowledge of this bill, particularly if your ministry was one of the ones so adversely affected.
After the bill was introduced in the House, Municipal Affairs Minister Al Leach was hard pressed to explain direct taxes at the municipal level. He offered his resignation if he was wrong in his interpretation. According to some experts, he was dead wrong. The charade goes on.
During the first day of public hearings on Bill 26, Minister Leach again denied a suggestion that the ability to impose direct taxes at the municipal level means a new class of sales tax. He said the language was just legalese. According to a Windsor Star article of December 19, 1995, here is what happened next: When pressed by NDP leader Bob Rae, Leach asked for help from ministerial staff. The seat beside Leach became a musical chair as one bureaucrat after another attempted to assist Leach as he struggled to explain the bill.
The Ministry of Health is another ministry which would receive new far-reaching powers. One can raise issue with the fact that the Minister of Health will be able to control a health care delivery system which is the envy of the world, dictate in certain aspects of it, yet holds no medical degree nor comes from a medical background.
To conclude this session, we feel the elected officials who will vote on this ominous piece of legislation are inexperienced and lack the knowledge and expertise to evaluate this bill at this time. They don't even know their job yet and they are still making mistakes in the day-to-day workings of the basic MPP job. Having only sat in the Legislature approximately three months since being elected, their time has been quite busy dealing with the legislation before them. The MPPs, including the ministers who should know, are ill-informed about the content and intent of this bill. If the large staff an entire ministry has cannot explain the pertinent sections to that minister, as was the case with Minister Leach, is it conceivable the average MPP without the expertise from the ministry staff will be able to comprehend the entire bill?
The Chatham and District Labour Council recommends to this committee at the very least that this act should be broken down into its various components and debated as such.
One also must question who is in control of the direction this government is going and who is really calling the shots. I have been told by my MPP on a radio phone-in show, I might add, that he would not vote against government legislation even if it was bad for our riding.
This scares me when I read a London Free Press article of December 16, 1995, entitled "Whiz Kids with Inside Track to Harris Raising Resentment." This article talks about the unelected insiders, highly influential, who advise the government on policy and how to implement it. I wonder how much of this pertains to Bill 26. It scares me to think they could impact a bill of this magnitude when I read the following quotes: "Politics is strictly just one big game to them." I'm speaking of Alastair Campbell, Mitch Patten, Tom Long and Leslie Noble. "It is this outside group who are saying, `Ram this stuff. Do it.'" "`There are too many people with too much input who have never even been elected dogcatcher in their life. They have no constituency to answer to,'" said a Tory backbencher. "`They don't understand the democratic process,'" a Tory MPP said.
Reference has been made to this committee that this bill is a power grab which would put the power in the hands of the ministries and thus the hands of the unelected bureaucrats. If this is the attitude of the unelected power brokers of this government, something has to be done to stop them.
Freedom of information: Bill 26 amends two separate acts concerning freedom of information and the protection of privacy. In essence, these amendments will make it harder to gain access to documents and easier to deny access. One should offset the other, not reinforce it.
Schedule K is the section which gives the Minister of Health new powers to obtain confidential health information and give it to whomever he chooses. Allow me to share this information with you: I am a recovering alcoholic. I received treatment at Westover Treatment Centre in Thamesville, Ontario. I have been sober since receiving treatment in April 1993. You now know this information about me because I told you, not because some Minister of Health obtained it from my file without my permission. As a recovering alcoholic, I must tell you, to some, anonymity is an important part of their recovery. Anonymity, much like protection of privacy, once it is breached, can never be recovered.
Pensions: The amendment to the Public Service Pension Act and the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union Pension Act facilitates the privatization and downsizing of government employees. If the government lays off the thousands of employees it says it is going to, it will have the authority to deny full pension benefits to those people. Employees should be entitled to all money owing them, particularly if that money comes from pension sources.
Municipalities: Section 33 of the bill makes privatization of public services such as hydro, water, sewer and, in some municipalities, transportation services much easier. Disregard the fact that it was the taxpayers who paid to install and maintain these utilities over the years and disregard the fact that a proper market value can probably never be found, but you cannot disregard the fact the amendment takes away the requirement to hold a municipal referendum. What could be more anti-democratic?
Conservation authorities have had their funding slashed by 70%. This bill will now limit the levies they can charge to the municipalities. This means their source of income will primarily be the decreased provincial funds, whatever voluntary municipal funds are available and increased user fees. This can only lead to the shutdown of many of these authorities. It would be sad to see these areas, which were developed by local residents for local residents, shut down. But the question must be asked, what becomes of the assets?
Restrictions on arbitration: Despite the fact this labour council represents only hospital workers of those affected by the amendments to the five different acts, we must oppose the significant interference with the independence and integrity of the arbitration process. This legislation could force arbitrators to cut wages of these workers or, worse yet, consider whether police, fire, school and hospital services should be reduced. This places the decision-making power in the wrong hands.
Health care: We will make light references to the changes to health care, as we hope to make a presentation to the health hearings.
We oppose the changes to the Ministry of Health Act which would create a Health Services Restructuring Commission. One could assume this is designed to provide a cover for the government on unpopular decisions, such as closing hospitals.
We oppose changes in the Independent Health Facilities Act, which we would argue set the tone for American for-profit companies to take over more of Ontario health care.
Drug prices will become deregulated. This could cause the price of prescription drugs to rise, making it more expensive to provide a negotiated drug plan.
The Physician Services Delivery Management Act treats the doctors like the Leamington mushroom farmers who were decertified with the repeal of the Agricultural Labour Relations Act. It voids the Ontario Medical Association's agreement, strips the OMA of negotiating rights and says any judge's ruling, decision, award or order to the contrary shall be of no force or effect.
In conclusion, Bill 26 represents a large power grab and redistribution of power for Ontario politicians. There is an attempt to centralize power in the hands of the ministers of the crown. When that happens, the power really lies in the hands of the unelected bureaucrats, not the duly elected officials. As pointed out, the unelected power brokers of this government can't be trusted by their own people. In this case, what happens to the principles of democracy? They become sacrificed by a few for the benefit of a few. The government holds no constituency, they answer to themselves, and democracy stopped when the ballots were cast.
1650
It is because of these actions that the Chatham and District Labour Council holds the government of Ontario in disgust as a government that cannot be trusted and a government that refuses to consider all the residents of this province when setting policy.
Also included in this are many of the newspaper articles that I referred to from the London Free Press, the Windsor Star, the Chatham Daily News. The second-to-last one just happened to be one that I came across from the Chatham Daily News on December 18, "User Fees Could Cost Lives," and they're talking about the possibility of fire calls being answered by user fees. I just thought that it was appropriate. The third was a newspaper ad that appeared in the Toronto Star this Sunday past and I just put it in there for your viewing pleasure, I guess.
The Chair: Thank you. We have three minutes and 20 seconds, starting with the third party, Mr Cooke.
Mr Cooke: First of all, I want to congratulate you on not only your presentation but congratulate you on the work that was done in the Chatham-Kent area to get the government to reverse its position on the ethanol plant. Some of us will remember that this government came to power saying that never will there ever be a grant to the private sector because business doesn't need any money in order to get industry started and jobs created. That's not the job of government; that's the job of the private sector. I notice that they backpedalled on this one pretty quickly and I think it's in large part the people of Chatham-Kent and the labour organizations that lobbied hard to have that money restored.
I notice they did it the day after the Legislature adjourned, but at least it now looks more hopeful that this plant will proceed and I want to publicly congratulate you while you're listening, but I'll tell you, it certainly shows what a phoney, inaccurate platform the Conservatives ran on in the first place because it just doesn't work, and you're beginning to realize that pretty quickly, if only you could realize it with Bill 26.
I want to just build a little bit on what you've said here at the beginning about the fact that it's difficult, and I would say it's not just difficult for the newly elected MPPs to understand this very complex legislation; it's difficult for those of us who have had many years' experience. But would you not agree that, more importantly, if democracy is going to work in this province, information and understanding of the democratic process of what's before the Legislature of all the people of the province is equally important to that of the MPPs, and if MPPs can't understand the legislation because of the tight time, and you know this would already be law if it wasn't for the fact that these public hearings were forced on the government, how can the democratic process work effectively when very, very few people in this province can even get access to the information about this bill? Have you been able to access not only the bill but all of the compendium of information that goes with the bill?
Mr Kitchen: I'm of the understanding the compendium is $600. I'm not in Toronto on a regular basis; I'm there probably two or three times a year. You said you could pick up a copy at the government bookstore. I don't know whether it's closings or maybe we just don't have it in Chatham, but we don't have a government bookstore to be able to access it. Some organizations seemed to have it, but if they did, they were hoarding it.
What you're saying, Dave, is absolutely true. When I toyed with the idea of trying to bring forward whether the MPPs who are actually going to vote on this bill have the ability to understand it and interpret it and vote on it properly, I had mentioned it to three or four other people, and I was saying the idea of the rookie MPP, and each and every one of them said, "To hell with the rookie MPPs; it's all MPPs," because it is so large.
I asked Sheila Copps, on a federal basis, when the NAFTA was going through, and NAFTA was an extremely large, voluminous type of bill too, and I asked her when we were in Hamilton one time if she had read the entire bill and fully comprehended it when she voted on it, and she said no. And I asked her why and she didn't have an answer. That answer can only be "to toe the party line." If you're only toeing the party line, where the hell is democracy in there? Particularly in Chatham -- Kent -- and I make this point public and I don't say this to personally pick on my MPP -- but my MPP doesn't even live in the riding; he lives outside the riding. He tried to run to be the mayor of Chatham and it was an issue there. It was a lesser issue during the provincial election, but the fact of the matter remains that I've got an MPP who's going to sit in Toronto and pass a piece of legislation that is going to impact me in my house, the possibility of my taxes going up, and he's not even living in that riding to read the horror stories of what's going to happen. I don't think there's democracy there, that he can sit 200 miles away and pass legislation that he doesn't even know what the hell is all about.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Kitchen; we have to move to the government side.
Mr Tascona: Thank you very much, Mr Kitchen, for your presentation. I just want to question you and maybe comment more particularly on arbitration, the schedule Q, on the substantive proposals that you've made.
With respect to the independence and the integrity, certainly these are legislative, mandated criteria. Like any judge, an arbitrator would be required to interpret the legislation and do it properly. It's not dissimilar to what happens in the courts. So we don't believe that it takes away the independence.
But I would like to comment, though, on the statement on cutting wages and also reducing services. That's not the authority that's being given to arbitrators. I totally subscribe to your thoughts in terms of who are the decision-makers in the process. It should be the municipality, it should be the police services, it should be the hospitals and the workers to make the decisions on what's going to happen with respect to how they provide the services, and that's the intent. So I can subscribe to what you're saying.
With respect to the freedom of information, the impact is not on the access. What's been changed is it's been given to the elected officials to decide how to deal with the access, rather than an unelected bureaucrat being down at the privacy commission making a decision on whether it's a frivolous or vexatious claim. It's going to be the local authorities that are going to make those decisions, not the privacy commissioner who has taken over that jurisdiction. We've switched it around. But there will be a right of appeal in that matter.
I'd like to ask you, in terms of dealing with this process, how do we deal with a process where certainly the public interest has to be taken into account? We have different ideologies, we have a different approach. Obviously some agree, some don't agree. But we're dealing with approach. Do we just take an approach or do we just tax unlimited? Is there no limit to how much we tax? Is there not a balance where we can come forth with a fiscal, responsible approach? Because we are facing a fiscal problem. Is it a revenue problem or is it an expenditure problem?
Mr Kitchen: You sit there and you always tell us how much we owe, but you never tell us how much we own. The other thing too is that if you're sitting there and saying -- and I really believe some of the talk going around and saying that you want to cut, cut, cut. But if the end result is the tax break, it's absolutely wrong.
I would think a more logical approach would be to -- you always talked about the interest that we're paying. Why don't we do something? We as a union have been approaching the federal government to do something about the interest rates. Why isn't this government going after the federal government? It has been mentioned at times that if you can reduce the interest rates 1% and reduce the unemployment rate 1%, we could probably afford anything we want in this country, because when people are working, they're contributing to the tax coffers and they're not drawing on the social safety net. So you'd have the double hit there. But I don't see anything being done about job creation. I don't --
The Chair: I apologize. Maybe members would like to shorten their preambles in order to let Mr Kitchen get a full answer in.
Mr Gerretsen: I'd just like to follow up on something, and that's basically the intellectual dishonesty in which this whole process was started. First of all, this bill was brought forward in the House and we were given about a total of two weeks initially. Then, later on, some hearings were allegedly given in the House. There were about 300 hours in Toronto for three committees sitting at one time, about 20 hours a day, I guess. That's one thing.
1700
The other thing I'd just like your comment on is this. It's really meant for the municipal people, but I'd just like your comment. Basically, the government said to the municipalities, "We're only going to give you half your grants," and the municipalities said -- I used to be a mayor at one time: "Okay, but then give us what we want. We want more power." The minister has said in the House on numerous occasions, whenever I and other people have asked him questions, "Yes, the municipalities want more power; they want more autonomy." So they're giving it to them in the bill by giving them the direct taxation power and now they come back and say: "We really didn't mean it. No, we don't mean sales tax, we don't mean income tax, we don't mean a gas tax etc," and yet that's exactly why it was put in there. If they don't want it, why did you take it out? Do you have any comments on that at all as to the honesty of the whole approach? If you're going to give them more powers, at least be honest about it and say, "Here are more powers," but they're not really giving them more.
Mr Kitchen: One of the things I have found is that despite the fact that they say there's not partisan politics at the municipal level, I think it does exist. Many's the time you'll find that when a new government is elected, they're going to go up there and suck up to them for anything they can get.
Mr Gerretsen: Local politicians? Absolutely.
Mr Kitchen: If it happens to be agreeing with them here or agreeing with them there -- "They're new in the mandate, let's suck up to them." It's no different than your kids. If your kids want the pop and you're not going to give it to them, they're going to suck up to you, and I think some of it's going to come down.
The other thing I'm starting to see in the city of Chatham, and I'm really disgusted to see this, is the Common Sense Revolution in a very small majority of our local councillors; they're trying to implement it at the local level, and I'll tell you it just doesn't fly. I don't think it flies at the provincial level and it would have an even worse impact at the municipal level.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Kitchen, for coming forward today.
Would CAW, Local 89, please come forward. Still not available? Then I'd like a member to make a motion that we take the first person on the waiting list and hear them for the remaining half-hour.
Mr Gerretsen: Who is it? Mike Harris's brother-in-law?
The Chair: I don't think that should matter. Do you want to fill that last half-hour?
Mr Cooke: I just wondered whether, because there had been some discussion going on that there was a possibility, the top three were willing to look at having three 10-minute presentations. We've got a couple of public sector -- the firefighters are in the top three as well. If we could get Cheryl, the firefighters and one other, they'd each have 10 minutes. If that was acceptable to them, we'd have something on the record from three.
The Chair: The only problem with that is that there'd be no time for questions. But if you'd like to make that motion, you may.
Mr Cooke: At least they'd get something on the public record.
The Chair: Mr Cooke is moving a motion that the three people on the waiting list be allowed 10-minute presentations.
Do we have any debate? All in favour of the motion? Motion carried.
PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
The Chair: Would Ms Cheryl Lucier please come forward. Welcome to the committee. I realize you've been here for some time. As you just heard, you'll have 10 minutes to make your presentation. If there is any time left over, we'll divide it equally among the caucuses to ask questions.
Ms Cheryl Lucier: I have been waiting here since 8 o'clock this morning. I'd just like to introduce us. My name is Cheryl Lucier. I'm president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Windsor area council. With me is Helen O'Keefe, chairperson of the PSAC regional women's committee. Because of the time constraints, I'm going to let Helen make a few brief comments and then I'll make my presentation.
Ms Helen O'Keefe: The regional women's committee of the Public Service Alliance of Canada speaks out against Bill 26 in its entirety. The bill is too broad and diverse to comment on section by section, but there are several items we feel will be especially detrimental to women and children, who constitute the majority of the poor in this province.
Layoffs of provincial and municipal workers will necessarily follow the implementation of Bill 26, and as layoffs usually take place at the service level, they will affect women the hardest. A cap on pay equity adjustments will increase the difference between the pay rate of men and women to an even greater extent than it is today. Unfortunately, even with pay equity legislation, that gap has been widened.
Mandatory arbitration based on the employer's ability to pay will affect all government workers, but will especially affect women again because they are at the low end of the pay scale, and layoffs or wage cuts will reduce their standard of living. User fees for prescription drugs will be especially difficult for single parents. User fees for municipal services such as parks, libraries and arenas will have a detrimental effect on all children, especially those on social assistance, or single-parent families. As a hockey mom I truly appreciate the fact that we pay very much now for our children to play in the arena.
We also point out that our federal and provincial governments are making cuts that affect those who are least able to care for themselves. It is time that the wealthy were made to pay their fair share. We are a caring society and we'll fight to maintain that proud title.
We'd also like to say to our fellow public servants at the provincial and municipal levels that legislation such as Bill 26 is an attack on your collective bargaining rights, as the federal government employees certainly know. Please help your union when it's asking you to join it and in your own fight-back campaign and we will be there beside you. It is only by uniting that the workers of Ontario will win this fight.
Ms Lucier: I'm glad to be here today. My first suggestion to this committee is to set up a proper and consistent procedure for choosing and notifying applicants to any standing committee. As representatives of our provincial government, if you are chosen to sit on a standing committee, you should insist that there are at least some standards upheld. Because of the time constraints, I will not tell you what I went through to get standing, but it's in my brief and I hope you'll take a look at it.
The provincial government does not believe in the consultation process. These hearings are only taking place because of the pressure from the opposition. While I admire the opposition for its show of strength against Bill 26 being passed without public hearings, I must remind those Liberal MPPs that it is their very own federal government which has allowed Mike Harris to pursue his Common Sense Revolution. Federal transfer cuts and changes to the Canada assistance program gave the provinces power and encouraged them to implement even more drastic measures such as this omnibus bill. The Harris agenda is simply the red book agenda being implemented quicker and more ruthlessly. It is an anti-worker, pro-corporate agenda that places the importance of profits over that of human beings.
We are here today because this omnibus bill is contrary to the democratic process and we will not sit idly by while all levels of government decimate the social programs and public services we have fought for and won.
We participate in these hearings as a part of PSAC's fight-back campaign. As federal workers, PSAC members have already felt the impact of federal cuts with layoffs and wage freezes. Our members are faced with cuts to health care, education, child care and our social safety net, and now we will be asked to pay more for municipal services, many of which will be reduced and/or eliminated.
We are here today to say enough is enough. Bill 26 is unacceptable, and we implore the provincial government to throw this document out of the Legislature as an abomination of our rights as citizens of Ontario.
Bill 26 includes sweeping changes in several diverse areas of legislation concerning provincial and municipal workers, the provincial pension plan, municipal restructuring and health care. It should at least be broken up into separate bills and each bill dealt with individually and with lengthy public consultation. The length of this document and the diverse topics which are being included in this document imply to me that our government simply wants to destroy our social fabric as quickly and painlessly as possible.
1710
It is a declaration of war against the working men and women of Ontario and places weapons of destruction in the hands of provincial and municipal politicians. It will give them unlimited, absolute authority to eliminate services, boards, hospitals, pensions and even townships and municipalities. These entities were put in place to serve the public good and they must not be haphazardly eliminated.
Such important changes to the political power structure of this province must not be made so hastily and with so little thought of what those powers entail.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada has spoken against cuts to public services and social programs, not only because we opposed massive across-the-board cuts which undermine our standard of living, but because today there is more wealth in our province than ever before, and if wealthy individuals and businesses simply paid their fair share, we could eliminate the deficit without giving up our services and social programs.
Huge profits in Ontario are being made tax-free while the poor are having their benefits cut and workers are paying the biggest chunk of our ever-increasing tax burden. What we are creating is a class structure that has only two classes, the rich and the working poor. This is not acceptable to the union that I represent and it is not acceptable to the citizens of Ontario.
Bill 26 is another case of one government downloading its responsibilities while cutting funding. It is a political move made to ensure that cuts are made but that the ones making the cuts are not blamed for them.
Bill 26 gives the municipalities broad new powers, but with this power come huge reductions to the moneys coming from the province. City mayors and councils will be vilified when they use these new powers to eliminate services and implement user fees, and the citizens may forget that it is actually Mike Harris who is responsible. We will expose this downloading and point the finger where it belongs.
This downloading is a familiar thing to the people of Ontario. In the last federal budget there were not only huge reductions to the amount of transfer payments to Ontario, but it also gave the province more authority on how to spend this money. Programs and organizations that had previously been guaranteed funding now saw their moneys lumped into block payments and redistributed.
In Ontario there is a huge outcry against Mike Harris and the provincial Conservatives because of the massive cuts, and rightly so. But at the same time, Jean Chrétien and the federal Liberals are gaining in popularity, even though it is their budget that is ultimately responsible for the cuts we face in Ontario today.
Jean Chrétien and the federal government have successfully transferred the blame to Mike Harris for betraying us, and now Mike Harris is playing the same game with Bill 26 by letting the municipalities take the blame. We do not support Bill 26 and we will continue to put the blame where it belongs: on Mike Harris and Jean Chrétien and on any politician who puts profits over people.
The Chair: Thank you both for coming forward.
ALBERT SCHUMACHER
The Chair: Mr Schumacher, please come forward. Good afternoon, sir. You have 10 minutes today to make a quick presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end for questions. I know that might be tight.
Dr Albert Schumacher: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to present. My name is Albert Schumacher. I was born, live and practise medicine in Windsor. I'm a general practitioner here, I'm a member of the Essex County Medical Society and I happen to be a member of the board of directors of the Ontario Medical Association.
My colleagues across the province and I have been reviewing the proposed legislation for the last six weeks now. Daily we seem to uncover new implications, which only increase our level of concern.
I'll initially address schedule A of the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, 1995. The purpose of this act is to assure public disclosure of salary and benefits paid in respect of employment in the public sector to employees who are paid a salary of $100,000 or more a year. It also applies to the broader public sector and to the not-for-profit private sector that is significantly funded by government.
I should mention at this point that physicians' OHIP payments are not included in this disclosure, so I'm not speaking out of self-interest. Rather, I bring to you four years of experience as chair of a staffing committee which reviews and is accountable for hundreds of employees, a number of whom fall into these remuneration ranges.
Performance review is a complex process at any level of management, let alone the most senior. Those of you who have served as ministers in the government are more familiar with these burdens. Public disclosure of a dollar sum a without full job description, including unpaid hours, expectations, numbers of employees and size of departments, is an injustice. Further, it gives no recognition for the level of training or years of experience. To see one's supervisor, boss or leader treated in such a manner is a humiliation both to the individual and those who work for and with him or her.
Those civil servants and public sector workers at lower remuneration are by no means immune. There is regulation-making authority, among other things, to add or remove employers from the application of this act and to prescribe an amount of salary other than $100,000 for the purposes of the act.
The civil service in this country, and especially in this province, has been under attack for the last number of years. These are the people who are expected to be impartial, to serve and to have the public good at heart. For most, there is no overtime pay, there are no bonuses, no stock options and no patronage appointments. Certainly, in 1996 there are few children who would list public employment as being anywhere but at the bottom of their aspirations. As such, we are only going to attract the bottom of the talent pool to these positions in the future.
It is simply not acceptable for individual ministers in cabinet to shirk the supervisory role by simple public income disclosure. Certainly, after one's medical record, one's income and financial records are the most confidential. To all individuals, this is and must be a sensitive area. If the government or cabinet finds bureaucrats who are not worth their pay, it is their job to move, fire or replace those individuals. Unless the government gives me and the rest of the public considerable further information and power, I am unable to do this for them.
Should this act pass, then one would be left with significant inequalities. Provincial employees, and by transfer, municipal employees, would be affected, but their federal counterparts would not. If we are to make do with a smaller civil service, it must be one of superior quality. The people of Ontario expect no less.
Turning to another area of concern is schedule M, the Municipal Act and related amendments. The power of the municipalities to license various business activities has been expanded to give municipalities what the government explains in the explanatory material accompanying the legislation is a general licensing power. This general licensing power could apply to any trade, calling, business or occupation except for certain manufacturing activities. This would allow municipalities to bolster their revenues through newly added licences to professionals, tradespeople and others, without any value added. There would be no restriction on the amounts charged and no restriction on the number of licences required. As such, one might require a mechanic to have one licence for trucks, another for cars, another for gasoline engines and another for diesel.
Under the current provisions of the Municipal Act, the failure to grant a licence and the suspension or revocation of a licence is subject to appeal to the Divisional Court. However, the proposed amendments appear to grant the municipality final say as to whether or not a particular licence is granted or refused, revoked or suspended, without any right to appeal. Thus, some municipalities could close their doors to further licences without those being refused having the chance to appeal.
I can conceive of no benefit to my dentist, barber or auto mechanic having a municipal licence; neither can I see it a benefit to myself as their patient or customer. They certainly pay their share of business and property taxes already. There would be a continued degradation of provincially appointed inspectors, the quality of whom would not be maintained at the municipal level.
In closing, I find the entire bill to be a hasty, secretive document prepared without the benefit of the usual thought and consultation allowed to the drafters. The absence of any regulations accompanying the act is even more ominous. I would urge the government to give further time to study and debate the implications of this bill.
Finally, I'd like to thank Mr Alvin Curling and the members of the opposition for making these hearings possible, and I look forward next week to being able to address the significant aspects that affect health in this province. Thank you.
1720
The Chair: Thank you. We have a little time for questions. We'll start with the government side for about a minute and a half.
Mr Hardeman: Going to public disclosure and whether it's good, bad or indifferent, there seems to be genuine support, if not for all the bill, at least for that section. I believe you may be the first presenter who has expressed concern about the public disclosure.
Dr Schumacher: I don't think the deputy ministers in your government nor the people in the very senior civil service are allowed to speak out against this bill because of the nature of their job. I believe we require these civil servants. With the time constraints of the legislation and the rapidity with which it was brought forward, I think they were handcuffed and put on too rapid a timetable to do the usual good job they do.
Mrs Pupatello: The point you mentioned on that topic was that once you start down this road, you don't know where that might end. Could you fill the committee in on that aspect regarding this issue?
Dr Schumacher: My concern is that as soon as you pick an arbitrary number of $100,000, there will be a further outcry for further amounts of money. I heard $70,000 here earlier today. Finally, the entire public sector may have to have their salaries disclosed. I believe that would cause significant problems to the individual. People look at individuals, unfortunately, not on the basis of their qualities but often what kind of car they drive and how much money they make. That's a social injustice but something that happens, and I believe this would further fuel that type of social injustice.
Mr Cooke: With 30 seconds for a question, I'll just make one point and ask for your comment. I personally, and I think my caucus, support the disclosure of public sector wages over $100,000, as we did when we were in government for publicly traded corporations in the private sector. The concern which I think underlies your objection to that section is more that the motivation of the current government is one of a complete lack of respect for the public sector, instead of accountability. That's my concern about the section, and I would agree with your concern if that's the motivation, and I do believe that is the motivation of this government.
Dr Schumacher: I think we're going to have difficulty attracting people of quality into the senior public service knowing that this is the way they'll be treated, that their incomes will be flagged and this is how they'll be viewed, at least by the elected part of the government.
The Chair: Thank you for coming forward.
WINDSOR PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Sorry. Good evening and welcome. As you've heard, you have 10 minutes to make a presentation to the committee. You may use that time as you see fit. Please introduce yourself to the committee before you start.
Mr Joe Fauteux: My name is Joe Fauteux and I'm a full-time firefighter in the city of Windsor. I also serve in a number of other capacities. I am a district vice-president for the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association. I am the secretary of my local association here in Windsor. I sit on the negotiating committee in Windsor and I also serve as an advocate for firefighters' boards of arbitration throughout the province of Ontario.
Let me begin by saying that if passed, this bill will cause nothing but havoc and grief to tens of thousands of workers in this province. It will not, in my view, as the government thinks it will, significantly reduce the deficit of this province. It will do nothing to be positive in creating jobs; in fact, just the opposite will occur.
As a firefighter in this province, I see the elimination of many fire department jobs and the resultant fact of a decreased level of service provided to Ontario citizens. What is even worse is the reality that lives will be lost because of the passage of this piece of legislation.
The two greatest areas of concern that firefighters have in this omnibus bill include schedules M and Q. Schedule M would amend the Municipal Act to provide the government with wide powers to restructure existing municipalities and localities. It also provides the municipalities the power to assign user fees in the delivery of their services.
The powers to be exercised by the minister or a commission in implementing a restructuring proposal are left entirely to be established by regulation or by the commission itself. The minister is given virtually unlimited powers to determine, by regulation, the composition and functioning of a restructuring commission, including authorizing the commission to apportion its costs among the municipalities or local bodies affected by the commission's report.
Apart from the power to restructure municipalities, the bill would give the minister, together with municipalities, broad powers to alter or eliminate local boards under the control of one or more municipalities, and that would include a fire department. Under the bill, the council of a municipality would have the power to dissolve or to make other changes to any local board simply by passing a resolution. Furthermore, the bill also gives the minister the power to make regulations exempting a municipality which has taken over other operations of a local board from the application of any other legislation.
While the full impact of these proposed changes on the operation of municipal services will only be understood when the regulations are enacted, the bill would provide the authority for municipalities to eliminate or fundamentally alter the structure and delivery of municipal fire services. Furthermore, it may be that the power to make changes to a local board such as a fire department could result in significant contracting out or the elimination of our service.
What effectively can happen is that a municipality can, without even the necessity of public debate, eliminate a fire department by amalgamation or restructuring with another, and therefore eliminate the current collective agreements of the firefighters left behind to make up the new department. Firefighters have no successor rights under any legislation, so obviously their collective agreements, which took years to develop, would be worthless. To me, this is the ultimate disaster. I ask what moral person of the Legislature could ever endorse such wide, sweeping powers to anyone. Any upper-tier government can virtually eliminate any present fire department by joining forces with another department and thereby eliminate both previously existing collective agreements.
In a conversation with Mr David Burnside, who is the legal counsel for the Solicitor General, this exact scenario was put before him and he was asked what the protection would be for the firefighters if an upper-tier municipality assumed the function of fire protection. He informed our association that those employees affected would have no collective agreement and no protection whatsoever. They could all be dismissed at that point in time with no recourse whatsoever. To me, this is archaic.
The other area of schedule M that causes me a great deal of concern surrounds the municipalities' right to start charging user fees for the delivery of services. Municipalities and local boards will be given broad new powers to pass bylaws imposing fees or charges on any class of persons. These fees and charges may be levied for any services or activities provided by the municipality, for any cost payable by it for services and activities, and for the use of any of its property.
I fully understand the intent of allowing municipalities the ability to charge for their services in order to regain some cash flow for their municipalities because of the tremendous reductions of the transfer payments that have taken place over the past and will most likely continue to take place in the future. On the surface, this may seem appropriate. However, when user fees are attached to the delivery of an emergency lifesaving service such as ours, such as firefighting and fire rescue, ultimately the lives of Ontarians will be put in jeopardy.
You have already heard the horror story of how Mel Lastman, the mayor of the city of North York, looks upon specific user fees in the fire service as a gold mine for that city. He has already got in place a plan to charge $300 should you be unfortunate enough to be driving through his city and have a vehicle fire. If Mel Lastman is thinking about this tax revenue for the city of North York, how long before this will be adopted by other municipal officials throughout this province? The municipal bureaucrat or politician who may only look at revenues will, like Mel Lastman, view this opportunity as a new-found gold mine.
The Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association feels that imposing user fees for firefighting and for fire rescue is definitely a recipe for disaster.
1730
The second area of Bill 26 that needs to be addressed from a firefighter's perspective revolves around schedule Q. Under this schedule, the government is legislatively imposing criteria on the interest arbitration process for firefighters, thereby striking at the very independence and integrity of the only method available to essential service workers for settling the terms and conditions of their collective agreements if negotiations should fail.
There's a list of the five criteria being suggested to be imposed upon the arbitrators. Those five provisions constitute a significant interference with the independence and integrity of the arbitration process. Arbitrators themselves have stated that basing an award on ability to pay could render the interest arbitration process largely irrelevant, since the use of ability to pay could allow the government and employers to unilaterally determine wages and benefits simply by allocating a fixed or reduced amount for employee compensation in their transfer payments or budgets.
If an employer can unilaterally fix or reduce the budget for employee salaries and benefits and then argue that arbitrators are bound by the employer's budgetary decisions, this could also undermine the process of collective bargaining itself, since there would be little, if any, incentive for the employer to reach an agreement when it is clear that the arbitrators will have no choice, at the end of the day, other than towards the employer's position.
By imposing this criterion on arbitrators, the government may be able to effectively implement wage controls without doing so directly, thereby using arbitrators as a buffer to escape its responsibility. I would suggest to you that using arbitrators as your scapegoat to achieve wage restrictions and controls is not the sign of a meaningful and committed government. The ability-to-pay criterion deprives employees of a fair and impartial mechanism for determining their terms and conditions of employment.
If arbitrators are directly appointed by the government which lays down in legislation certain criteria the arbitrators are bound to follow in the determination of their awards, it is inevitable that confidence in the system will diminish.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario would lead you to believe that the vast majority of firefighter wage settlements are determined by boards of arbitration. This simply is not true. In actual fact, the reverse is true. Nearly 89% of all collective agreements have been successfully and freely negotiated by the respective parties, without resorting to interest arbitration, over the last 14 years.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has insinuated for years that because of certain arbitration awards, the firefighters had the arbitrators in their so-called back pocket. As an advocate for firefighters' boards of arbitration, I find that type of attitude totally unacceptable and insulting to the present list of arbitrators in this province.
I would put to you the following issues for your consideration.
If the firefighters in Ontario did have a distinct advantage in the arbitration arena, why would we not be running there with greater frequency?
Why would the Windsor firefighters and their negotiators not simply go through the motions and then, after a period of time, proceed to a board? In fact, the Windsor firefighters have not been to a board since 1984.
If the arbitration process did indeed favour us, why would we work so diligently at reaching an agreement with our corporation through the negotiation process?
If the arbitration process favours firefighters, why is it that the firefighters of Mississauga are not miles ahead of every comparable fire department in the province? The Mississauga firefighters have been to a board of arbitration for seven consecutive years. If the arbitrators were unscrupulous and did not regard the municipality's concern, as is suggested by AMO, the Mississauga firefighters would be miles ahead of everyone else. Obviously, this is not the case.
The reason it is not the case is that in either of the above situations, the current list of arbitrators do as their mandate directs them to do and replicate the free collective bargaining processes when handing down their awards.
The Chair: Regrettably, I'm going to have to interrupt you. You've exhausted your time. I have to maintain the limits as I have done. I've done that since the beginning and we have to continue that.
Interjections.
Mrs Pupatello: On a point of order, Mr Chair: If we could have consensus that he finish his brief, I think that would be appropriate.
Mr Gerretsen: He's got two pages to go. Come on.
The Chair: Committee, I've maintained strict standards throughout, and I think I can continue to do that. Thank you, Mr Fauteux, for coming.
Mr Gerretsen: I'll move a motion. Mr Chairman, I'd like to move that the firefighter be allowed to finish his presentation.
The Chair: I'll entertain the motion. Are members all in favour? Okay, Mr Fauteux.
Mr Fauteux: Thank you. As I said, remember that less than 15% of all settlements for firefighters over the last 14 years have been settled through the arbitration process. In excess of 85% of the settlements have been settled by the parties themselves through free collective bargaining.
Bill 26 is supposed to carry with it a method of reducing the deficit in Ontario. The current independent arbitration process for settling disputes does not increase nor in any way affect the deficit of the province. Putting criteria on arbitrators for what they must consider will devastate the free collective bargaining processes for those people who serve in the emergency services and go without the right to strike because of the fair and impartial system that exists at the current time.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not comment on how, in my opinion, the men and women who make up the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association feel that we have been deceived by the government. Prior to the provincial elections in 1995, our members undertook a campaign to question virtually all candidates of all parties about matters concerning firefighters and the delivery of our service to our taxpayers and citizens. Specifically, we asked if free collective bargaining would be restored, and second, we asked if we would be consulted about any possible changes to the Fire Departments Act.
You should know that this act, the Fire Departments Act, is a piece of labour legislation that sets out certain rights and obligations on how we conduct our labour relations and bargaining processes. We received written responses from a great number of potential MPPs seeking election on behalf of the Conservative Party. In most written responses, we received letters from the now Premier of the province, Mr Mike Harris, the now Solicitor General, Bob Runciman, the now Minister of Labour, Elizabeth Witmer, and the now Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, all stating the following: "No changes will be made under a Harris government until such time as your members have been thoroughly consulted, and we will insist that all changes be fully costed, both from the point of view of the workers and from management."
I've also included a quote from Mr Joe Tascona regarding his statement on the same issue that was made to the members of the Barrie Professional Fire Fighters Association. He stated: "I truly believe in the free collective bargaining process and would work to support this concept. My council position has given me the opportunity to fully understand your fire department, but I must admit I did not have the opportunity to review the Fire Departments Act, but I do support the current arbitration process."
I have included these letters in the back of my brief for your perusal.
Under Bill 26, the Fire Departments Act is about to be drastically altered, with virtually no consultation or input by the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association. Our arbitration process, which has worked for so many years, will be destroyed. Our collective agreements may become worthless pieces of paper in many instances, and the safety of not only firefighters, but the citizens of Ontario, will be placed in great jeopardy.
In a conversation on December 14, 1995, the Solicitor General, Mr Runciman, agreed with me that we had not been thoroughly consulted, as was promised by the Premier and other members of the current government. Could it be possible that the individuals who made these statements prior to the election did so just to procure our support? If this is true, can the firefighters of Ontario not perceive this to be deceit on behalf of the new MPPs and the Premier himself? Was this just a political ploy to get oneself elected?
On behalf of all firefighters in the province of Ontario, I ask the current government to live up to its pre-election promise to us. If things are needed to be changed with regard to the Fire Departments Act, then let the firefighters have a proper consultation process. Further, let us have an equal part in effecting any necessary changes. Let us see your honesty and your credibility come forward.
I thank you for your time, and I thank you for the extension, and I also thank the people before me who allowed me to speak.
The Chair: The meeting's adjourned until tomorrow at 9 o'clock.
The subcommittee adjourned at 1740.